Thor's plan may already have fulfilled it's narrative purpose [SPOILERS: SoD]

[The Pilgrim]

Back then when Thor gave Durkon the assignment of reaching out to Redcloak, it looked like it would play a significant role in the story, as it provided a permanent solution to the Snarl problem and gave Redcloak a reason to perform a heel-face turn and redeem himself.

However, at the time I felt there was something wrong about Thor's involvement. Having the Gods solving the problems with a literal Deus ex Machina violates one of the narrative rules that Rich has stated to follow: That solving the problems at hand is the narrative purpose of the Heroes, not of outside forces.

Since the story couldn't be wrapped up by Thor's assignment, I was wondering where Mr. Burlew was going with all this. And, by now, I see that Thor's Alternative has already fulfilled a number of narrative purposes in this story:

1) It has re-established Redcloak as a villian. All the "goblin cause" narrative had turned Redcloak into a somewhat sympathetic character for the audience. Yet he is still a despicable villiain. Having him reject violently a perfectly reasonable peace offer that not only promotes the "goblin cause" but also saves goblinoid lives and their very souls from the Snarl threat, destroys all of Redcloak's possible justifications for his actions.

2) It has created conflict between Durkon and Roy. Durkon presented his plan to speak with Redcloak to Roy, and Roy rejected it in a blunt, insulting manner. Durkon carried away his plan anyway behind Roy's back, derrailing Roy's strategy as now the element of surprise is ruined. That's not going to be easy to swallow for Roy.

Note that of all the members of the Order, Durkon was the one Roy never had any trust problems with. It's not by chance that Elan recalled, at the start of this arc, how Roy used to do all-night stands because he didn't trust the other members of the Order. As the story advanced, Roy learnt to trust the greedy thief, the looney bard, and even the little halfling psychopat. He also had to come to terms with the fact that his party wizard is the current holder of the title of History's Worst Genocidal Murderer (though history isn't over yet). But now, the reliable guy he always trusted just began to do things behind his back.

But back to Thor's Plan, is it going to play any further role? I don't think it's going to become a big thing again, up until the ending, when Redcloak will have another chance to fail and sink himself deeper when he chooses destruction of the world over collaboration. Note that in the last negotiation, Durkon never pointed out that The Dark One would likely dissapear during the interim period until the next world. That means neither Redcloak not The Dark One have any reason to change their backup plan: Get the world destroyed so that The Dark One can improve the Goblin's lot in the creation of the next one.

And a final note for consideration: For this story's conclussion, the Order doesn't necessary need to get Redcloak's collaboration. Yes, they can't seal the rifts without him, but so what? The option of sealing the Rifts was not on the table when this began. The Heroes can rebuild the Gates or find any other temporary solution to the Snarl thing, then leave for the Epilogue a comment on how PC races are changing their views on the goblinoids, as they need to earn their trust in order to seal the Rifts and bring stability to the world. (This is just an example of how this story could have a satisfactory ending without need of collaboration from Redcloak).

[KorvinStarmast]

Thor's plan might have to change anyway, once he gets what that whole "world inside the snarl" thing does to influence his path forward. I see that awakening, on the part of any number of deities, as being an element of this arc once the IFCC's objectives become clearer. They are trying to find a way to take down the good gods ...

[Ionathus]

I disagree. Thor's plan is going to continue to be a factor, even if the "world in the rift" changes the playing field somewhat. We spent a lot of time on Thor explaining to Durkon what's at stake and why The Dark One is so unique and important. To throw it all away in the first act of the final book, just to prove how eeeeeeevil Redcloak is, doesn't make any sense.


However, at the time I felt there was something wrong about Thor's involvement. Having the Gods solving the problems with a literal Deus ex Machina violates one of the narrative rules that Rich has stated to follow: That solving the problems at hand is the narrative purpose of the Heroes, not of outside forces.

Deus ex Machina is when the gods fix a problem the heroes caused...not the other way around, which is what Thor is explicitly asking Durkon to do. By the definition you're using, "Deus ex Machina" would happen literally anytime a cleric or paladin cast a spell, because the mortal is using a god's power to solve a problem.


1) It has re-established Redcloak as a villian. All the "goblin cause" narrative had turned Redcloak into a somewhat sympathetic character for the audience. Yet he is still a despicable villiain. Having him reject violently a perfectly reasonable peace offer that not only promotes the "goblin cause" but also saves goblinoid lives and their very souls from the Snarl threat, destroys all of Redcloak's possible justifications for his actions.

There's a lot of story left here. I find it perfectly reasonable that Redcloak would reject Durkon's peace offer the first time -- in fact, I expected it. He still has time to come around to it.


2) It has created conflict between Durkon and Roy. Durkon presented his plan to speak with Redcloak to Roy, and Roy rejected it in a blunt, insulting manner. Durkon carried away his plan anyway behind Roy's back, derrailing Roy's strategy as now the element of surprise is ruined. That's not going to be easy to swallow for Roy.

This is a great point, and I look forward to seeing Roy's reaction. It's a very interesting wrinkle in their group dynamic, but it's not enough for it to be the narrative purpose for Thor's plan.


then leave for the Epilogue a comment on how PC races are changing their views on the goblinoids, as they need to earn their trust in order to seal the Rifts and bring stability to the world. (This is just an example of how this story could have a satisfactory ending without need of collaboration from Redcloak).

I don't really see how a "we'll keep asking the goblins to help" would be a satisfying ending, for several reasons:

Redcloak is the most prominent goblinoid in the comic. It would be strange to leave things unresolved without making him a key feature of the resolution.
Without the fourth quiddity, the gods are more likely to get antsy and blow up the world even if the mortals patch the rifts up with more three-color gates.
From a writing standpoint, this proposed ending...just doesn't sound that good. It's weird to leave the fate of the world hanging in the balance on such a short timescale. Sure, if the next threat will resurface in 100 or 1000 years, that's a good long-term ending point. But "we didn't solve/fail the problem we set out to solve" is unsatisfying. I can't think of many stories that don't end with the central conflict resolved, one way or the other.

[BeerMug Paladin]

I also disagree with the premise that Thor's plan has already served its narrative purpose. Its narrative purpose was at least partly to raise the stakes for the next chapter and also to give more information about the final conflict. Before the exposition revealing the possibility that the threat of the Snarl could be ended forever by the actions of the heroes, we in the audience had no reason to suspect the heroes could actually address that threat directly. The Snarl was an immutable force of nature, like gravity. Stopping Xykon and Redcloak from exploiting the Snarl's existence was the thing at stake. If they accomplished that, the threat of the Snarl would still be out there but the story would be resolved.

Now the thing at stake is ending the threat of the Snarl forever. That means that it's much more important how the Order stops Xykon and Redcloak, whereas how they did so before wouldn't have mattered as much. Thor's plan is a method for how the Snarl could be stopped forever, so we know that's the ultimate thing at stake here. (Unless a fifth quiddity suddenly pops up out of nowhere, Thor's proposal is the only way we know so far that would work. But then again, Thor's plan would still be narratively important as it would serve as a basis to understand whatever resolution transpires.)

Also, we've yet to see just what the IFCC plans to do with the gates, and it seems fairly likely to me that the information revealed to us in the audience about Thor's plan will be relevant for understanding that particular agenda.

[BaronOfHell]

Yes, they can't seal the rifts without him, but so what? The option of sealing the Rifts was not on the table when this began.

I don't disagree with this idea, but I also think a story has the option to evolve upon its premise.

The way I see it, the original premise was not rift related at all, it was about the blood oath. In Azure City it evolved into a quest about saving the world, similar to what the Scribblers did.
From Thor we learned that saving the world the way the Scribblers did was at most only a temporary solution anyway. Compared to a d&d campaign I'd say the Stick now has the option to evolve upon their quest, if they so choose, and like a d&d campaign, they are in no way forced to do so.
That is to say, the quests they take, the major decisions they make, ultimately it is their call. You can bring the horse to the water, but you can't make him drink.
My impression from what Roy said to Durkon is that we can't be entirely sure he has accepted this change of premise, or to be more precise I think he even outright stated it is not his first priority, and it will only be done if possible, a very big "if", in my opinion.

[RatElemental]

I can totally foresee a couple situations where Redcloak bites it but the rifts get sealed anyway, without invalidating the Order's efforts.

A. Jirix is the next most powerful goblinoid in the world (politically, anyway) and has been left in charge of a large city to secure peacetime deals with other nations. He has also personally spoken with The Dark One before. The order can contact him, arrange political favors in return for him contacting his god to initiate negotiations with the other gods, TDO supplies purple quiddity personally, Snarl is sealed away for good.

B. The Dark One debriefs Redcloak in the afterlife. It slips that he has a strong bargaining chip in the form of his novel quiddity. TDO contacts other gods to negotiate, supplies the quiddity personally in exchange for the concessions he wanted the gate ritual for. Snarl sealed, Goblins keep gobbotopia, a happy ending for all except die hard speciesists.

[Ionathus]

I can totally foresee a couple situations where Redcloak bites it but the rifts get sealed anyway, without invalidating the Order's efforts.

A. Jirix is the next most powerful goblinoid in the world (politically, anyway) and has been left in charge of a large city to secure peacetime deals with other nations. He has also personally spoken with The Dark One before. The order can contact him, arrange political favors in return for him contacting his god to initiate negotiations with the other gods, TDO supplies purple quiddity personally, Snarl is sealed away for good.

B. The Dark One debriefs Redcloak in the afterlife. It slips that he has a strong bargaining chip in the form of his novel quiddity. TDO contacts other gods to negotiate, supplies the quiddity personally in exchange for the concessions he wanted the gate ritual for. Snarl sealed, Goblins keep gobbotopia, a happy ending for all except die hard speciesists.

No exaggeration: I'd bet a thousand dollars against this.

A. The only person who knows about Jirix is O-Chul, who has seemingly never had an actual conversation with him. O-Chul has personally interacted with Redcloak and MitD on multiple occasions: that's where the emotional & narrative energy has been invested, so that's where the dramatic resolution is going to be, not with a side character the Order never met who hasn't appeared in 400 pages.

B. Putting aside the fact that The Dark One has been demonstrated as only wanting to bargain if he's got the biggest gun in the room, and distrusts all the other gods because of what they did to his followers...this proposed ending only requires the Order to kill Redcloak, which is boring and what they were going to do anyway. The difficulty of this final book (until the IFCC and the world in the rifts become relevant) is that The Order has to defeat Xykon while still convincing Redcloak to help. Narratively, that's much more interesting and difficult...as we're seeing right now.

The fate of the Rifts, the Snarl, and the world hinges on Redcloak. He doesn't need to get a happy ending, or even redemption, but there's absolutely no way he's excluded from the climax & resolution of this story.

(Edit to add a caveat: if the Rifts and the Fourth Quiddity plotlines are made outdated by further plot developments with the IFCC/world in the rifts, this would invalidate my claim. However, I personally predict that the two will go hand-in-hand: the heroes will have to resolve the IFCC stuff AND the Fourth Quiddity stuff alongside each other, and Redcloak will still be pivotal to that entire scenario.

[The Pilgrim]

I can totally foresee a couple situations where Redcloak bites it but the rifts get sealed anyway, without invalidating the Order's efforts.

A. Jirix is the next most powerful goblinoid in the world (politically, anyway) and has been left in charge of a large city to secure peacetime deals with other nations. He has also personally spoken with The Dark One before. The order can contact him, arrange political favors in return for him contacting his god to initiate negotiations with the other gods, TDO supplies purple quiddity personally, Snarl is sealed away for good.

B. The Dark One debriefs Redcloak in the afterlife. It slips that he has a strong bargaining chip in the form of his novel quiddity. TDO contacts other gods to negotiate, supplies the quiddity personally in exchange for the concessions he wanted the gate ritual for. Snarl sealed, Goblins keep gobbotopia, a happy ending for all except die hard speciesists.

Yep, I think the story can be wrapped up without need from Redcloak, pushing the issue of sealing the gates further after the conclussion of the main plot. After all, O-Chul has some personal experience in succesfully negotiating peace agreements with hobgoblin leaders. Or, who knows, since The Plan involves basically warping a Gate to release The Snarl anywere, maybe the Heroes could do the same and release it into a pocket dimension were it can do no harm to anyone ever again.

What happens with the Snarl in the ending doesn't really matters much. The Snarl is, as the author stated, just the MacGuffin. What it's important is why people go after the MacGuffin, what they want to do with it, and what are they willing to do, and sacrifice, to get it, or to prevent others from getting it.

Thor's plan is important, narratively speaking, because it has let us see, once again, that Redcloak is willing to sacrifice everything for the MacGuffin, including his beloved Gobbotopia. He can't be reasoned with. Start of Darkness involved pretty much stablishing that, but in the main comic we lacked such strong scenes, and in fact we have been shown the contrary: Him stalling the continuation of the plan to stabilize Gobbotopia, where he would still remain if not by Xykon. After that, it was pretty much a narrative necessity to shown once again that Redcloak is commited to follow the Plan until it's ultimate consequences, even if it means getting the World destroyed and Gobbotopia among it.

[BloodSquirrel]

However, at the time I felt there was something wrong about Thor's involvement. Having the Gods solving the problems with a literal Deus ex Machina violates one of the narrative rules that Rich has stated to follow: That solving the problems at hand is the narrative purpose of the Heroes, not of outside forces.on: For this story's conclussion, the Order doesn't necessary need to get Redcloak's collaboration.

I don't think think this follows. Thor's plan is a solution, but it's a solution that was specifically tailored to require the mortals to make it happen. In order for Thor's plan to work, somebody has to make some sort of peace so that one of the Dark One's followers can donate the spell slot. And since "making peace" is the major thematic problem in OOTs anyway, this means that it's already the more important and difficult problem to solve.

The real climax of the story won't be the sealing of the rift. It'll be the moment when a follower of The Dark One decides to give up The Plan, help seal the rift, and seek peace and prosperity for goblinoids through negotiation and compromise rather than war and a divine h-bomb. At that point, it'll be okay for the gods to do the technical work of combining their powers to sew up a hole.

[BloodSquirrel]

I can totally foresee a couple situations where Redcloak bites it but the rifts get sealed anyway, without invalidating the Order's efforts.

A. Jirix is the next most powerful goblinoid in the world (politically, anyway) and has been left in charge of a large city to secure peacetime deals with other nations. He has also personally spoken with The Dark One before. The order can contact him, arrange political favors in return for him contacting his god to initiate negotiations with the other gods, TDO supplies purple quiddity personally, Snarl is sealed away for good.

B. The Dark One debriefs Redcloak in the afterlife. It slips that he has a strong bargaining chip in the form of his novel quiddity. TDO contacts other gods to negotiate, supplies the quiddity personally in exchange for the concessions he wanted the gate ritual for. Snarl sealed, Goblins keep gobbotopia, a happy ending for all except die hard speciesists.

I agree that Redcloak doesn't need to (and probably shouldn't) be the one to help seal the rifts. I think it's much more appropriate, thematically, that the strip shows that Redcloak is, ultimately, a failure, and that his dying and getting out of the way is what goblins really need in order to get a better life for themselves.

But I disagree on your ideas above- I think that said ending does require a goblinoid to step up and make a dramatic decision to be a better leader that Redcloak was, so having things handled via a phonecall to Jinx doesn't really cut it. Jinx needs to show up and be there when Redcloak dies to take the mantle off of him.

[BloodSquirrel]

(Edit to add a caveat: if the Rifts and the Fourth Quiddity plotlines are made outdated by further plot developments with the IFCC/world in the rifts, this would invalidate my claim.

Nah. Further plot developments might complicate the matter, but I don't think that they'll fundamentally change the narrative thrust at this point.

I disagree that Redcloak needs to be the one to help seal the gates- or that he needs to change his mind at all- but I do agree that he needs to be part of the resolution, even if it's in the sense of "Redcloak has to die in order for somebody better to replace him and do what he couldn't".

[understatement]

Jirix is thousands of miles away, not even in double digit levels, has the characterzation of Captain Phasma (which is to say he is unique from other hobgoblins by merit of appearance), and no one from the Order knows him enough to contact him.

No other goblin has even close to the characterization (however negative it is) that Redcloak has. It's a lot more interesting to see a character try to convince someone against impossible odds than just waltzing in and gettinng a clean negotiation. It's almost as if there's...several hundred strips left to go.

Redcloak doesn't have to be redeemed (I don't think he will), he just has to...not work against the Order if the time comes.

[BloodSquirrel]

Jirix is thousands of miles away, not even in double digit levels, has the characterzation of Captain Phasma (which is to say he is unique from other hobgoblins by merit of appearance), and no one from the Order knows him enough to contact him.

No other goblin has even close to the characterization (however negative it is) that Redcloak has. It's a lot more interesting to see a character try to convince someone against impossible odds than just waltzing in and gettinng a clean negotiation. It's almost as if there's...several hundred strips left to go.

Redcloak doesn't have to be redeemed (I don't think he will), he just has to...not work against the Order if the time comes.

Jirix being a thousand miles away is a relatively minor mechanical issue, and given how many pieces are still yet to be revealed, it isn't that difficult to see him being brought there for some reason or another. As for him not having enough characterization-

He doesn't need to. It isn't his story, it's Redcloak's. But Redcloak's story is about being committed to a doomed course of action. Jirix- or whoever else (I'm hoping on the outside chance of it being the MitD) just has to be the counterpoint. They just have to be the one that shows that a different decision *can* be made.

I could see a scenario where Jirix shows up, battered and bruised, because Gobbotopia has fallen while Redcloak was away (Perhaps the fiends engineered it in order to push Redcloak further away from any other course of action). He could be angry and disillusioned with this gates nonsense and coming to tell Redcloak that they need him helping the survivors, not trying to blow up the world.

As for Redcloak changing his mind- my big problem is that I just don't see a satisfying "why" there. He's already sacrificed everything. He's already admitted that he's willing to see the world literally destroyed as his plan B. What does he have left that he cares enough about to abandon the plan for now? He's had longer that his specie's natural lifespan to reflect on his choices, and he's just as committed as ever. In order for him changing his mind to work, there needs to be a good trigger, and I don't see one laying around.

EDIT: To put it another way, perhaps- my problem with Redcloak helping to seal the rifts is that Redcloak is, ultimately, the villain. He's an interesting, complex villain with a sympathetic backstory, but he's still the villain, competing with Xykon for being the ultimate one. For him to change his mind and be the one who saves the day takes a lot out of the story's heroes' hands. Sure, there are characters like Vadar, but that only worked because Luke was his son, and Luke's decision to refuse the Emperor served both as his great moral choice and victory, and Vadar's actions followed from that. None of the order has the kind of connection with Redcloak to pull that off, and as I said above, neither does anybody else at this point.

[understatement]

Jirix being a thousand miles away is a relatively minor mechanical issue, and given how many pieces are still yet to be revealed, it isn't that difficult to see him being brought there for some reason or another. As for him not having enough characterization-

Considering the Order had to get to the North Pole via an airship, I'd say travel is a relatively major mechanical issue.


He doesn't need to. It isn't his story, it's Redcloak's. But Redcloak's story is about being committed to a doomed course of action. Jirix- or whoever else (I'm hoping on the outside chance of it being the MitD) just has to be the counterpoint. They just have to be the one that shows that a different decision *can* be made.

I could see a scenario where Jirix shows up, battered and bruised, because Gobbotopia has fallen while Redcloak was away (Perhaps the fiends engineered it in order to push Redcloak further away from any other course of action). He could be angry and disillusioned with this gates nonsense and coming to tell Redcloak that they need him helping the survivors, not trying to blow up the world.

I don't think Jirix knows the specifics of the Plan; nor does he know where Kraagor's Gate is located. Also: travel. Jirix is probably level 7.


As for Redcloak changing his mind- my big problem is that I just don't see a satisfying "why" there. He's already sacrificed everything. He's already admitted that he's willing to see the world literally destroyed as his plan B. What does he have left that he cares enough about to abandon the plan for now? He's had longer that his specie's natural lifespan to reflect on his choices, and he's just as committed as ever. In order for him changing his mind to work, there needs to be a good trigger, and I don't see one laying around.

Maybe the information that his god might die?

We're 20 strips in, not 200. I think I can safely say that literally anything can happen -- yes, Redcloak might (and probably will) still refuse, or he might not. But having a side character show up and do everything he couldn't do feels like a cop-out, much in the vein of Banjo becoming the fourth quiddity.

[BloodSquirrel]

Considering the Order had to get to the North Pole via an airship, I'd say travel is a relatively major mechanical issue.

This is a setting where teleport exists. The fiends, for example, could offer Jirix a deal in order to teleport him to Redcloak to give him the news and talk him into coming back (knowing that it wouldn't work, just like the 'alternate' plan they offered V).




I don't think Jirix knows the specifics of the Plan; nor does he know where Kraagor's Gate is located. Also: travel. Jirix is probably level 7.

Well, that's higher level that Redcloak was when he took up the mantle. Which actually could be another way- instead of a spell slot, the use the power of the mantle itself, destroying it and freeing the goblinoids from The Dark One's plan.

That's why I say that these are minor mechanical issues- there are ways to plot around them. The major thematic and character problems with Redcloak having a sudden change of heart aren't so easy to fix.



Maybe the information that his god might die?

1) I think he'd need really, really hard proof for that to change his mind. He's too distrusting to just take a "maybe".

2) That scenario still requires the plan to fail and the world to be destroyed. Yes, Redcloak accepts that as a second-best outcome, but it's not the one he's aiming for.

2) That would also mean that "Oops, we could have avoided this whole climax if Durkon had just mentioned this one fact back then". Maybe if Durkon had mentioned it, and we saw it eating away at Redcloak for the rest of the book, but I don't think it's going to work as a last-minute revelation that changes his course.

[Roland Itiative]

The main villains of the comic are Team Evil, not the Snarl. Even if the Snarl is dealt with by the gods, Xykon is still the main threat, and will have to be dealt with by the heroes directly.

Not to mention that "being dealt with by the gods", in a situation where the main characters did all the actual legwork to have the situation conclude is not really a deus ex machina, not any more than any cleric spell is.

Thor's plan is, so far, the only way we know that the Snarl situation can end in a way that is an improvement from when the story started. It's a much more stable solution than rebuilding the Gates, which just gave the world some 50 extra years the last time around, and there's no good reason to believe the Order of the Stick would be able to make Gate defences that would be self-suficient after their lifetime either. And heck, do they even KNOW how to make new Gates? Before Thor's plan, their direction was more like "we have to deal with the immediate threat first, then we'll think about what we'll do with the Rifts".

That all being said, as Elan once said, if you reveal your plans on-screen, they'll always fail. The four quiddities will probably come at play at the endgame, but it'll definitely not be in the way that Thor laid out in his plan.

[Metastachydium]

not trying to blow up the world.

(Which, incidentally, he is not trying to do, and he never was, either.)


As for Redcloak changing his mind- my big problem is that I just don't see a satisfying "why" there. He's already sacrificed everything. He's already admitted that he's willing to see the world literally destroyed as his plan B. What does he have left that he cares enough about to abandon the plan for now? He's had longer that his specie's natural lifespan to reflect on his choices, and he's just as committed as ever. In order for him changing his mind to work, there needs to be a good trigger, and I don't see one laying around.

(Have I suggested yet on this day that he wouldn't need a why, if the problem were to be circumvented by letting him have the Gate, getting Thor to temporarily stall Armageddon Special and helping get Xykon off his back once the lich ceases to be an asset? If the idea comes from within the Order and they are the ones to destroy Xykon, most of the merit stays with them.)


EDIT: To put it another way, perhaps- my problem with Redcloak helping to seal the rifts is that Redcloak is, ultimately, the villain. He's an interesting, complex villain with a sympathetic backstory, but he's still the villain, competing with Xykon for being the ultimate one. For him to change his mind and be the one who saves the day takes a lot out of the story's heroes' hands. Sure, there are characters like Vadar, but that only worked because Luke was his son, and Luke's decision to refuse the Emperor served both as his great moral choice and victory, and Vadar's actions followed from that. None of the order has the kind of connection with Redcloak to pull that off, and as I said above, neither does anybody else at this point.

(Judging by how old and experienced Redcloak was when Team Evil assaulted Lirian's Gate, Jirix could probably do the Gate Ritual. The actual Rift-sealing, however, neccessitates 9th level slots. Redcloak is the only goblinoid cleric with those (as far as we know), and the world is really on its last leg (meaning that there isn't an indefinite amount of time left for another goblinoid cleric to rise to his level).)

[understatement]

This is a setting where teleport exists. The fiends, for example, could offer Jirix a deal in order to teleport him to Redcloak to give him the news and talk him into coming back (knowing that it wouldn't work, just like the 'alternate' plan they offered V).

...and that is more likely than, say, Redcloak having a change of character in the next 200 strips?

(Also, in #1183 the IFCC is clear that they wanted Hel to succeed -- AKA seeing the world destroyed. If they really wanted things to go their way, they'd prevent the Order from stopping Team Evil, making the gods destroy the world. Much less of a hassle than...offering a deal to Jirix to make Redcloak come back? What sort of deal? Why would the fiends care about Gobbotopia when everything's centered at Kraagor's Gate right now?)

[quote]Well, that's higher level that Redcloak was when he took up the mantle. Which actually could be another way- instead of a spell slot, the use the power of the mantle itself, destroying it and freeing the goblinoids from The Dark One's plan.

Sure, the mantle might be destroyed.


That's why I say that these are minor mechanical issues- there are ways to plot around them. The major thematic and character problems with Redcloak having a sudden change of heart aren't so easy to fix.

I said nothing about a sudden change of heart. It doesn't even need to be a change in morality or outlook at all.

Yes, Redcloak is the poster child for sunk-cost fallacy. However, he is not undead, or an outsider; he is still a person capable of, if not changing, at least considering options.



1) I think he'd need really, really hard proof for that to change his mind. He's too distrusting to just take a "maybe".

2) That scenario still requires the plan to fail and the world to be destroyed. Yes, Redcloak accepts that as a second-best outcome, but it's not the one he's aiming for.

2) That would also mean that "Oops, we could have avoided this whole climax if Durkon had just mentioned this one fact back then". Maybe if Durkon had mentioned it, and we saw it eating away at Redcloak for the rest of the book, but I don't think it's going to work as a last-minute revelation that changes his course.

1) Might be a thing that could drive the plot.

2) No, since Durkon has just said the gods are willing to destroy the world right before the Plan even succeeds.

3) "and we saw it eating away...for the rest of the book." Well, we haven't seen it yet, because we're not there. Also, Durkon didn't mention it. Nor did he say anything about the riftworld, the billions of other planets, etc.

tldr; you're right in that it is exponentially much harder to convince Redcloak of anything than just zip Jirix over and have him pop out a few spells. But having everything conveniently wrapped up with a bow on a side character makes for a frankly less interesting story.

[Fincher]

But having a side character show up and do everything he couldn't do feels like a cop-out, much in the vein of Banjo becoming the fourth quiddity.

Banjo becoming the fourth quiddity would be awesome, though.

Banjo saves the day > Jirix saves the day > Redcloak saves the day. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

[understatement]

Banjo becoming the fourth quiddity would be awesome, though.

Banjo saves the day > Jirix saves the day > Redcloak saves the day. That's my story, and I'm sticking to it.

Thankfully it's the Giant's story. That was uncalled for. Sorry.

With all due respect, Banjo is also a puppet, and Jirix's narrative purpose was to receive Redcloak's exposition.

[faustin]

I'm still convinced the salvation of the goblin race is the world currently occupied by the Snarl: help sealing the Snarl, you may keep that world and create your own civilization without interference from humans, elves or otherwise.

Sadly, none of the main characters are aware of that possibility yet. I wonder if the Dark One or Thor could figure it out.

[Metastachydium]

I'm still convinced the salvation of the goblin race is the world currently occupied by the Snarl: help sealing the Snarl, you may keep that world and create your own civilization without interference from humans, elves or otherwise.

Sadly, none of the main characters are aware of that possibility yet. I wonder if the Dark One or Thor could figure it out.

For the millionth time: it would mean ”help sealing the Snarl away from us, and you may keep the Riftworld, complete with the Snarl, locked in there with you.”

[BloodSquirrel]

...and that is more likely than, say, Redcloak having a change of character in the next 200 strips?


Yes, but more importantly, it's more dramatically appropriate. Solving a "how does this character get from point A to point B" problem is very different from throwing away a character's core tragic flaw. It's fine to solve one with magic. They've done it before. The other needs to be earned, and I don't see how that's going to happen right now.



(Also, in #1183 the IFCC is clear that they wanted Hel to succeed -- AKA seeing the world destroyed. If they really wanted things to go their way, they'd prevent the Order from stopping Team Evil, making the gods destroy the world. Much less of a hassle than...offering a deal to Jirix to make Redcloak come back? What sort of deal? Why would the fiends care about Gobbotopia when everything's centered at Kraagor's Gate right now?)


You misunderstand: The idea is not to make Redcloak go back. The idea is to eliminate Redcloak's plan C (gobbotopia) so that he doubles down on plan A, which they will make sure fails, leading to Redcloak's plan B (blow up the world).



Yes, Redcloak is the poster child for sunk-cost fallacy. However, he is not undead, or an outsider; he is still a person capable of, if not changing, at least considering options.


We just saw how that plays out. He's really not at this point, and for that to change we'd need a hell of a trigger. Which we don't have.



1) Might be a thing that could drive the plot.


The time to lay that groundwork would have been two strips ago. As of right now, it's not driving anything.



2) No, since Durkon has just said the gods are willing to destroy the world right before the Plan even succeeds.


Redcloak thinks it's a bluff, remember?



3) "and we saw it eating away...for the rest of the book." Well, we haven't seen it yet, because we're not there. Also, Durkon didn't mention it. Nor did he say anything about the riftworld, the billions of other planets, etc.

We are there. We're starting the final book. This is the time when you put the pieces in place for the climax, not 10 strips beforehand. Here's what's important: the information that was given during Redcloak and Durkon's chat was very deliberately chosen. If it was important for the story for Redcloak to know about the riftworld or the billions of other planets, it would have come up. It didn't, because the piece of information that *was* important is that Redcloak isn't open for negotiations. He isn't listening to reason, and he neither the riftworld nor the billions of other planets are relevant to the line of thinking that we saw demonstrated- neither affects The Plan as far Redcloak would see it, so they might as well not exist.



tldr; you're right in that it is exponentially much harder to convince Redcloak of anything than just zip Jirix over and have him pop out a few spells. But having everything conveniently wrapped up with a bow on a side character makes for a frankly less interesting story.

Conversely: Conveniently having Redcloak do a complete 180 in character rather than deal with themes that define him makes for a frankly less interesting story.

[BloodSquirrel]

(Which, incidentally, he is not trying to do, and he never was, either.)


Like I said, it's not plan A, but he's accepted it as an alternate outcome on the grounds that at least that way goblins might get a fairer shake in the



(Have I suggested yet on this day that he wouldn't need a why, if the problem were to be circumvented by letting him have the Gate, getting Thor to temporarily stall Armageddon Special and helping get Xykon off his back once the lich ceases to be an asset? If the idea comes from within the Order and they are the ones to destroy Xykon, most of the merit stays with them.)


I'm not sure what you're even getting at here. Letting Redcloak have the gate either means that The Plan goes forward (which requires Xykon), the gate gets sealed (requiring Redcloak to abandon The Plan, which does very much require a 'why'), that Redcloak has a useless gate, since he can't cast his ritual without an arcane spellcaster, or that Redcloak does decide to just blow up the gate and destroy the world, which isn't exactly Elan's happy ending.



(Judging by how old and experienced Redcloak was when Team Evil assaulted Lirian's Gate, Jirix could probably do the Gate Ritual. The actual Rift-sealing, however, neccessitates 9th level slots. Redcloak is the only goblinoid cleric with those (as far as we know), and the world is really on its last leg (meaning that there isn't an indefinite amount of time left for another goblinoid cleric to rise to his level).)

Like I said, a 9th level slot was Thor's first idea, but what he really needs is just TDO's color. Something like sacrificing the mantle might work as well.

[understatement]

Yes, but more importantly, it's more dramatically appropriate. Solving a "how does this character get from point A to point B" problem is very different from throwing away a character's core tragic flaw. It's fine to solve one with magic. They've done it before. The other needs to be earned, and I don't see how that's going to happen right now.

I guess that's where we have different opinions, so there's that.


You misunderstand: The idea is not to make Redcloak go back. The idea is to eliminate Redcloak's plan C (gobbotopia) so that he doubles down on plan A, which they will make sure fails, leading to Redcloak's plan B (blow up the world).

I still don't see Jirix in here. Redcloak has already thrown away Plan C.


We just saw how that plays out. He's really not at this point, and for that to change we'd need a hell of a trigger. Which we don't have.

He doesn't have to change here, or even a hundred strips down.


The time to lay that groundwork would have been two strips ago. As of right now, it's not driving anything.

Durkon and Redcloak only met five strips ago.


Redcloak thinks it's a bluff, remember?

His expression before imploding Durkon suggests otherwise.


We are there. We're starting the final book. This is the time when you put the pieces in place for the climax, not 10 strips beforehand. Here's what's important: the information that was given during Redcloak and Durkon's chat was very deliberately chosen. If it was important for the story for Redcloak to know about the riftworld or the billions of other planets, it would have come up. It didn't, because the piece of information that *was* important is that Redcloak isn't open for negotiations. He isn't listening to reason, and he neither the riftworld nor the billions of other planets are relevant to the line of thinking that we saw demonstrated- neither affects The Plan as far Redcloak would see it, so they might as well not exist.

I can't speak of anything else with any certainty, but Durkon is not going to be "oh, well, guess I tried, now the mission's screwed!" If negotations are going belly-up, Durkon will use every information he was given necessary, because as far as he knows the alternative is that the world gets nuked.


Conversely: Conveniently having Redcloak do a complete 180 in character rather than deal with themes that define him makes for a frankly less interesting story.

Again, I really don't think I said anything about a total 180. It doesn't even have to be...well, anything. Cooperation =/= going against character, especially if it's in mutual self-interest.

Also, some commentary from BRiTF:


[quote=BRiTF]
As the chapter closes, all the characters weÂ’ve followed have finally left Azure City, signalling that this era of the
story has passed. While the cityÂ’s fate will still be a concern abstractly, the days of checking in on it are over. The table has been cleared, time for the next course.



If jirix were to show up at the North Pole and say he's here to stop Redcloak because the fiends told him so (or whatever the deal entails), I believe Redcloak and the Order's expression will match ours in the vein of "Where the hell did he come from?"

[Ionathus]

...Redcloak isn't open for negotiations. He isn't listening to reason...

Conversely: Conveniently having Redcloak do a complete 180 in character rather than deal with themes that define him makes for a frankly less interesting story.

You mean he isn't listening to reason right now.

It's so strange to see somebody argue that "Redcloak got this one chance to make a truce and he rejected it, therefore he will never rethink that decision ever, ever, ever. His character's fate is permanently sealed and it's more logical to move on to the next goblinoid than keep focusing on Redcloak's much deeper backstory."


At the end of Book 2, Zuko was horribly conflicted. He'd just had a major change of heart and released Appa. He'd formed a life in Ba Sing Se. He'd had heartfelt conversations with Iroh and Katara. The whole story was set up for him to fight Azula alongside the GAang and save the Earth Kingdom and teach the Avatar firebending in Book 3. The narrative was all aligned perfectly, and fairly obvious too.

Then he rejected that option and sided with Azula, in a huge shocking season finale.

It only took him 10ish more episodes to go back on that rejection and ultimately side with the Avatar. But that extra time showed us how truly screwed-up and conflicted he was. It was one of the coolest moments in the entire series, and one of my favorite plot twists of all time. It made his ultimate Heel-Face turn really mean something, as opposed to being the obvious narrative choice.

I'm just saying -- don't count Redcloak out yet. He could still easily have a change of heart, to some degree or another. Having it now wouldn't be the right pacing...but he's clearly got that seed of doubt.

[Neponde]

The way team evil is set up, they appear to be so absurdly powerful that there is virtually no way that OOTS can defeat them the way things stand. Even if the MITD chooses to switch sides; the combination of the epic sorcerer lich plus a near-epic cleric is a force that is just beyond what the Order can handle.

So much narrative ink has been spilled on Redcloak's character, as well as the plot of the rifts, it's hard to imagine that either one will be 'set aside' before the end. He may not do a complete 180 (as others have mentioned), but its entirely feasible he realizes before the end that the Plan is not going to work; new information will come to him (likely independently of Durkon), forcing him to rethink his position. I don't think Xykon can possibly be defeated until Redcloak defects, on some level. He is just simply too powerful. And as has been shown - Xykon is the true threat here.

ETA - Even when V had two epic spellcasters spliced, Xykon was so far beyond V's capabilities. If that amount of spell-power was not even close to sufficient, the playing ground needs to be seriously leveled, and even then, it's going to be quite the battle.

[Ionathus]

ETA - Even when V had two epic spellcasters spliced, Xykon was so far beyond V's capabilities. If that amount of spell-power was not even close to sufficient, the playing ground needs to be seriously leveled, and even then, it's going to be quite the battle.

Honestly, I always read the V/Xykon fight as showing how sloppy V was being, not how capable Xykon was. A smarter spellcaster with those epic splices could well have taken the lich down.


:vaarsuvius: I squandered its true potential by wielding it like a cudgel. Only when I lost it did I stop to consider what I was doing, and only then did I become effective. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0667.html)

It feels pretty well-indicated that Xykon is going to be a horribly difficult fight, but The Order doesn't currently have a non-zero chance of succeeding. If they're fighting at full strength, that is.

[denthor]

Rich has stated that the IFCC would play a large role in things to come. This was when they were first introduced. They can take V out 2 more times.

Rich has also stated Belkar will be followed even if he leaves the order. He lamented comedy gold would be lost by not doing an afterlife adventure with him.

How many days till his next cake then he dies shortly after.

[hungrycrow]

I don't think that The Dark One's quiddity can be used without him agreeing to it.
Which would add another wrinkle to Thor's plan working out, since we'd also have to see a radical transformation of TDO's character. He hasn't even appeared directly yet, and all evidence points to him being even more irrationally opposed to negotiations than Redcloak.

[BeerMug Paladin]

I thought I'd contribute a bit more to this.


As for Redcloak changing his mind- my big problem is that I just don't see a satisfying "why" there. He's already sacrificed everything. He's already admitted that he's willing to see the world literally destroyed as his plan B. What does he have left that he cares enough about to abandon the plan for now? He's had longer that his specie's natural lifespan to reflect on his choices, and he's just as committed as ever. In order for him changing his mind to work, there needs to be a good trigger, and I don't see one laying around.

I can think of "one hell of a trigger". Maybe Redcloak's options diminish. There are many ways this could happen.

1) The ritual is completed, but it doesn't do what Redcloak expects it to. (The Dark One lied, Xykon altered his part of it in some way, the world in the rift leads to unforeseen consequences, etc...)

2) The ritual becomes impossible to complete. The gate could be destroyed. At that point there would be no ritual, but maybe sealing the Snarl would still be a last-second option before the world is destroyed.

3) New information Redcloak is actually receptive to makes him re-evaluate the plan. Such as the IFCC's agenda is directly tied to Redcloak's actions. (This seems the most likely to me.)

Alternatively, there's one other option which doesn't necessarily represent a change of heart for Redcloak, or a loss of options. This seems unlikely, but it did occur to me so I'll suggest it along with the other options I mentioned that I also consider unlikely.

4) Xykon is destroyed or betrays Redcloak. A trade is negotiated with Redcloak of a 9th level spell slot in exchange for V completing the ritual in Xykon's place. (We have no reason to suspect that The Dark One's plan and Thor's proposal are mutually exclusive. They could try both.)


I don't think that The Dark One's quiddity can be used without him agreeing to it.
Which would add another wrinkle to Thor's plan working out, since we'd also have to see a radical transformation of TDO's character. He hasn't even appeared directly yet, and all evidence points to him being even more irrationally opposed to negotiations than Redcloak.
The way it was presented, The Dark One gives the spell energy to Redcloak, which is then spent by Redcloak in whatever way he wishes. Of course, if Redcloak spends it in a way that The Dark One does not like, then Redcloak may not get new spells in the future. So yes, it seems that The Dark One's quiddity can be used without direct involvement.

[Metastachydium]

I'm not sure what you're even getting at here. Letting Redcloak have the gate either means that The Plan goes forward (which requires Xykon), the gate gets sealed (requiring Redcloak to abandon The Plan, which does very much require a 'why'), that Redcloak has a useless gate, since he can't cast his ritual without an arcane spellcaster, or that Redcloak does decide to just blow up the gate and destroy the world, which isn't exactly Elan's happy ending.

The first one, of course. The Plan is completed. Xykon's fate becomes irrelevant, as far as Redcloak is concerned, and the Order can then help him destroy the lich (since for them, Redcloak's fate is far from irrelevant), while Thor and his divine allies stall for time. Once he has the Gate, the Dark One will initiate negotiations, because hey, that's what his Plan is all about: getting a stronger bargaining position. Now, once he's by the table feeling safe and he doesn't need Redcloak on the ground, he can afford instructing Redcloak to channel his quiddity into sealing, say, the Rift over Gobbotopia City (which he needs closed anyway), because if the gods turn out to be lying, he can just tell them ”no more tricks, I'm sitting on a nuke.”
Now, convincing Redcloak to finish what he was doing anyway should be easy, that is why I said this option would solve the whole ”what could help make Redcloak help” issue.



Like I said, a 9th level slot was Thor's first idea, but what he really needs is just TDO's color. Something like sacrificing the mantle might work as well.

We have no indication that destroying the Mantle would help channel Big Purple's quiddity in any way into whatever it's needed for.

[Ruck]

Rich has also stated Belkar will be followed even if he leaves the order. He lamented comedy gold would be lost by not doing an afterlife adventure with him.

When did he say that?

[hamishspence]

When did he say that?

In No Cure for the Paladin Blues commentary:

Well, just so there's no misunderstanding, Belkar is a protagonist of OOTS, regardless of his alignment. The strip will continue to follow him even if he leaves the OOTS. Heck, if Miko had killed Belkar, we probably would have had a few strips showing Belkar in the Afterlife before he was brought back. (Aw, man, that would have been great ... sigh ... another opportunity missed.)

[The Pilgrim]

I have been thinking a bit more about my OP, and I'm more and more leaning to believe the conclussion of this tale will not involve Redcloak in any meaningful way.

Because, you see... during the recent parley, Redcloak told Durkon that the dwarf wouldn't be talking to him if he had not overrun Azure City. That the main Pantheons are only wanting to negotiate with TDO because The Plan is being successful.

WRONG

Loki realized the potential of the Purple Quiddity as soon as TDO was born as a God. That's why he stopped Thor from liquidating the newborn goblin deity.

Both Thor and Loki had been willing to talk with TDO since way, way before he came up with The Plan. But divine rules likely prevented them from doing so until TDO discovered the Snarl on his own. When that happened, TDO cut ties with Loki and came up with The Plan, isolating himself further from the Main Pantheons.

Coming now with an agreement for using the Four Quiddities to seal the Rifts would not only render The Plan pointless, but mean that The Plan has always been pointless.

And Redcloak can't accept that.

Redcloak simply can't accept Durkon's proposal. Not now. Not ever. The moment when Redcloak accepts Durkon's proposition, is the moment when Redcloak has to accept that The Plan has always been pointless, and all his sacrifices are, and have always been, unnecessary and meaningless.

I can't see Redcloak being able to accept that. He would prefer to let the World go to waste before having to accept that all his unjustificable actions are, and have always been, unjustifiable.

The more I think about it, the more I'm leaning to believe the future of StickWorld depends on future understandings between PC races and Goblinoids, involving new goblinoid leadership long after Redcloak has been removed from the table.

[Metastachydium]

Loki realized the potential of the Purple Quiddity as soon as TDO was born as a God. That's why he stopped Thor from liquidating the newborn goblin deity.

Both Thor and Loki had been willing to talk with TDO since way, way before he came up with The Plan. But divine rules likely prevented them from doing so until TDO discovered the Snarl on his own. When that happened, TDO cut ties with Loki and came up with The Plan, isolating himself further from the Main Pantheons.

Coming now with an agreement for using the Four Quiddities to seal the Rifts would not only render The Plan pointless, but mean that The Plan has always been pointless.



Wrong. Thor tried to kill him immediately upon ascension, whereas Loki (and his other ”allies”) deliberately kept him in the dark about the Snarl in order to get under his skin (probably so that they can manipulate him easier after they have explained the situation to him; there was no divine rule preventing Loki form telling Big Purple anything, Loki just decided he won't for the time being (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1143.html)). Both of them proved that the Dark One cannot trust the other gods (since some of them are openly hostile, while others just pretended to be his friends for whatever reason). And he was right: for the others, he is basically just a tool, a means to an end, someone they don't kill because he's potentially useful. They don't care about him the least bit.
The point of the Plan is that it gives Big Purple something that allows him to keep the others from cheating. With a nuke in his pocket, he doesn't need to trust them, because the others will be aware that should they try to double-cross (or manipulate or use) him, he can make them pay. The Plan is not pointless. It never was, and the main reason for that is exactly the attitude of Thor and Loki and their like.

[Ionathus]

The moment when Redcloak accepts Durkon's proposition, is the moment when Redcloak has to accept that The Plan has always been pointless, and all his sacrifices are, and have always been, unnecessary and meaningless.

Yes. That is the point of this situation. You have isolated the main conflict for Redcloak.

For whatever reason, you (and others) think that's proof he will never help Thor & co., while I (and others) see it as a dramatic and challenging potential character arc.


I can't see Redcloak being able to accept that. He would prefer to let the World go to waste before having to accept that all his unjustificable actions are, and have always been, unjustifiable.

Did you read a different page #2, panel #8 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1209.html) than I did? It's plain as day that Redcloak is conflicted about this situation, regardless of his subsequent hostile action towards Durkon.


The more I think about it, the more I'm leaning to believe the future of StickWorld depends on future understandings between PC races and Goblinoids, involving new goblinoid leadership long after Redcloak has been removed from the table.

This is the one that I'll never be able to wrap my head around.

I just don't get how people can fixate on the idea that "there are other goblinoids in the world!" as a reason for writing Redcloak out of the story. There has been no legwork to set that up for any other goblinoid. No prequel book. No frequent check-ins as some other goblinoid mistreats their subjects, kills them, squanders their lives in battle, develops empathy and remorse, sets up a goblinoid colony, interrogates the "good guy" (O-Chul), gets attacked, kills another henchperson for discovering their true motives, etc. etc.

The Plan, Redcloak's Plan, is the entire motivating force behind this entire webcomic. It is tied to Redcloak. It is Redcloak's Plan as much as it is TDO's Plan. In Start of Darkness, Right-Eye repeatedly tries to get Redcloak to give up The Plan, and he doesn't. The fact that he can't give up The Plan is a major source of conflict between them, and ultimately leads to him murdering his little brother. Redcloak is clinging tightly to this plan like his life and his worldview depends on it (which it does). He's just proven he's willing to kill and risk everything on the plan's completion.

You see that and say "welp, he's a lost cause."

I see that and say "well hot dang, now things are getting interesting!"

Redcloak isn't going anywhere.

[The Pilgrim]

For whatever reason, you (and others) think that's proof he will never help Thor & co., while I (and others) see it as a dramatic and challenging potential character arc.

Yeah, that could be... if Redcloak were in the pro side of tagonism. But he is in the an side.


Did you read a different page #2, panel #8 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1209.html) than I did? It's plain as day that Redcloak is conflicted about this situation, regardless of his subsequent hostile action towards Durkon.

Yes, he is conflicted. But he is still the tragic villiain of the story, so, still failing to overcome his conflicts. As a tragic character, he must lead himself to his own demise. Presenting a tragic character with a reasonable way out and making him reject it, willingfully, is part of the trope. And Redcloak keeps doing it again and again, and will keep doing it again and again.


I just don't get how people can fixate on the idea that "there are other goblinoids in the world!" as a reason for writing Redcloak out of the story.

The main reasn for writing Redcloak out of the story is because he is the villiain. And the role of a villiain is to be removed from the story by the heores so that peace can be restored.


The Plan, Redcloak's Plan, is the entire motivating force behind this entire webcomic.

The entire motivating force behind this entire webcomic are the six dysfunctional heroes who have been around occuping most panels since comic #1. They are the ones on the pro side of tagonism.

The more readers out there thinking that Redcloak is a sympatetic character, somewhat the true heroe of the stroy, and that his actions may have a point, the more the need for The Giant to work harder at debunking him so people don't fail to get the point of the story he's telling.

[understatement]

The main reasn for writing Redcloak out of the story is because he is the villiain. And the role of a villiain is to be removed from the story by the heores so that peace can be restored.

(Emphasis mine) Other people will have better responses to the other parts of your posts, so I'll just answer this:

What peace?

The "peace" right now is that the mortals are fodder for gods who don't give a crap about them, and the peace will continue if the rifts remain unsealed. If the "peace" - the status quo - remains the same, absolutely nothing has changed in the long run. Yeah, the Order wins, evil is destroyed...and races continue to be discriminated against, the gods continue to sanction massacres, and another villain like Redcloak will appear in the future. Frankly, the peace is terrible.

In your original post, you mentioned that "PC races are changing their views on the goblinoids, as they need to earn their trust in order to seal the Rifts and bring stability to the world." PC races have literally not changed their views on goblinoids for hundreds of years, and goblinoids - a race as free-willed and intelligent as any other - don't need another PC race to have them "earn their trust." Equality isn't something given as a gift or an act of goodwill; it should just be something that is, and shouldn't need actions to justify its existence.

The Order's job is not keeping the peace; it's to break the peace and essentially force the gods to realize how bad the peace is. And as of right now, the way to break the peace is with someone of purple quiddity, and (hint hint) it's not with Jirix.

[Worldsong]

The main reasn for writing Redcloak out of the story is because he is the villiain. And the role of a villiain is to be removed from the story by the heores so that peace can be restored.

This is, quite honestly, one of the most disturbing things I've heard on this forum. Because this sounds like what an oppressor would say when the victims rise up. To portray the victims as the bad guys who are disturbing the peace even when that peace (which we might as well call the status quo) is one of oppression, discrimination, and routinely killing people because of their appearance.

That kind of peace should not be restored. That kind of peace should irreversibly be moved away from. What needs to happen is for the heroes to change the world, to create a world where goblinkind is no longer treated as nothing more than a bunch of monsters.

Is Redcloak a villain? Yes. Is he Evil? Yes. Is his cause justified and does it need to be addressed? Yes.


The entire motivating force behind this entire webcomic are the six dysfunctional heroes who have been around occuping most panels since comic #1. They are the ones on the pro side of tagonism.

The more readers out there thinking that Redcloak is a sympatetic character, somewhat the true heroe of the stroy, and that his actions may have a point, the more the need for The Giant to work harder at debunking him so people don't fail to get the point of the story he's telling.

The Giant has bluntly stated that yes, the story is about the Order of the Stick.

He has also bluntly stated that Redcloak's story is a story about how, in The Giant's eyes, goblins (who he views as intelligent creatures with free will) are oppressed, discriminated against, and mistreated. He has explained that he considers it horrible how goblins and orcs and the like can be treated as monsters to be killed for XP just because they're listed as Usually Evil.

His actions have a point in the sense that he's fighting against oppression. His methods may be wrong but that doesn't remove the validity of his motives.

We're probably going to see Redcloak be proven wrong in the shape of his methods having been wrong. But what we're almost certainly not going to see is The Giant kicking him out of the story and going "Don't worry, he was just a villain, now everything is fine and the peace is restored."

EDIT: In fact after talking about the comic with my brother (who also reads it) I've come to the conclusion that the reason Redcloak, the representative of goblinkind, is a villain despite fighting against oppression because The Giant wants to make it absolutely clear that oppression, systematic oppression, is wrong.

You know what would happen if Redcloak was a good guy and didn't do any bad things? People would go 'oh yes his cause is definitely just and his kind shouldn't be treated that way because clearly they're good people who don't deserve that kind of treatment.'

And that would be wrong because it would paint the image that to deserve equality you need to be a good person.

Systematic oppression shouldn't happen to anybody. Having Redcloak be a villain fighting against oppression and reaching for equality makes it clear that it doesn't matter if goblinoids aren't saints: they're still people and deserving of being treated as such.

[The Pilgrim]

(Emphasis mine) Other people will have better responses to the other parts of your posts, so I'll just answer this:

What peace?

The "peace" right now is that the mortals are fodder for gods who don't give a crap about them, and the peace will continue if the rifts remain unsealed. If the "peace" - the status quo - remains the same, absolutely nothing has changed in the long run. Yeah, the Order wins, evil is destroyed...and races continue to be discriminated against, the gods continue to sanction massacres, and another villain like Redcloak will appear in the future. Frankly, the peace is terrible.

In your original post, you mentioned that "PC races are changing their views on the goblinoids, as they need to earn their trust in order to seal the Rifts and bring stability to the world." PC races have literally not changed their views on goblinoids for hundreds of years, and goblinoids - a race as free-willed and intelligent as any other - don't need another PC race to have them "earn their trust." Equality isn't something given as a gift or an act of goodwill; it should just be something that is, and shouldn't need actions to justify its existence.

The Order's job is not keeping the peace; it's to break the peace and essentially force the gods to realize how bad the peace is. And as of right now, the way to break the peace is with someone of purple quiddity, and (hint hint) it's not with Jirix.

Yeah, yeah... remember that other famous fantasy work about a gritty and grim medieval-themed world that featured a chick riding dragons who was going to fix everything and make the world go right, by burnig alive every bad guy one by one?

Prepare yourself to be disappointed again.


The Giant has bluntly stated that yes, the story is about the Order of the Stick.

He has also bluntly stated that Redcloak's story is a story about how, in The Giant's eyes, goblins (who he views as intelligent creatures with free will) are oppressed, discriminated against, and mistreated. He has explained that he considers it horrible how goblins and orcs and the like can be treated as monsters to be killed for XP just because they're listed as Usually Evil.

His actions have a point in the sense that he's fighting against oppression. His methods may be wrong but that doesn't remove the validity of his motives.

He is fighting against opression by enslaving a whole human nation. Yeah, keep fighting the good fight, bro.

However, I fail to see what "oppresion" were the Hobgoblins suffering, since they were at peace with the Azurites. Thanks to the efforts of a certain azurite captain.

It was Redcloak who stepped in, and broke the peace between Hobgoblins and Azurites.

No, Redcloak is not right on his motives. Because his motives stopped being "fighting against oppression" a long way ago, if they ever were.


We're probably going to see Redcloak be proven wrong in the shape of his methods having been wrong. But what we're almost certainly not going to see is The Giant kicking him out of the story and going "Don't worry, he was just a villain, now everything is fine and the peace is restored."

Which is why I've clearly stated that the "goblin issue" will be resolved. Without Redcloak. Like years ago the "hobgoblin issue" was resolved, until Redcloak showed up and took over.

[Worldsong]

He is fighting against opression by enslaving a whole human nation. Yeah, keep fighting the good fight, bro.

Also, I fail to see what "oppresion" were the Hobgoblins suffering, since they were at peace with the humans. Thanks to the efforts of a certain human captain.

It was Redcloak who stepped in, and broke the peace between Hobgoblins and Azurites.

No, Redcloak is not right on his motives. Because his motives stopped being "fighting against oppression" a long way ago, if they ever were.

He didn't enslave a whole human nation. He just took over a city. Through conquest. I'll admit that isn't very nice either but it's a mile away from enslaving an entire human nation.

Most likely what we'll see is that whatever agreement comes to pass between goblinkind and humankind involves releasing all the slaves in Gobbotopia (still a mile away from enslaving an entire human nation given that it's not an entire nation. Also they seem perfectly willing to enslave rebellious goblinoids as well) while letting the goblinoids keep Gobbotopia.

Once the slaves are gone Gobbotopia will just be conquered land, and the idea that conquering lands is unforgivable is a fairly recent development in real life on the grand scale of things.

Also I don't believe the claims that Redcloak stopped being about equality a while ago. It's possible for someone to juggle several motivations, and at the moment Redcloak is struggling to balance his desire to achieve equality for goblinkind and his desire to have been right in his decisions.


Which is why I've clearly stated that the "goblin issue" will be resolved. Without Redcloak. Like years ago the "hobgoblin issue" was resolved, until Redcloak showed up and took over.

Oh good, the hobgolbin issue was resolved when one group of humans decided to be so gracious as to stop attacking a single peaceful hobgoblin settlement which had done nothing to deserve it.

And the moment the leadership of that group changes suddenly we're back to square one.

The inequality Redcloak is addressing is that goblinoids by and large only survive because they live in places nobody else wants to live (because those places are ****) and because occasionally there'll be some good people who actually realize that racism is bad.

The norm should be that those hobgoblins should just be able to settle somewhere and not have to worry about some armed force almost attacking them before the few people with a functional conscience step in. The norm should be that anyone who voices the thought that goblins are fair game because they're goblins immediately gets shunned by not only goblinoids but humans and dwarves and elves as well.

The fact that there have been one or two cases of things not going wrong for the goblinoids doesn't mean the problem is over and Redcloak is worrying over nothing. He's trying to fix things on a global and divine scale, which is definitely hasty but isn't some mere fabrication.

[hamishspence]

He didn't enslave a whole human nation. He just took over a city. Through conquest. I'll admit that isn't very nice either but it's a mile away from enslaving an entire human nation.


To be fair, it's a city-state - there's lots of territory between the city walls, and the forts on the border.

[The Pilgrim]

Also I don't believe the claims that Redcloak stopped being about equality a while ago. It's possible for someone to juggle several motivations, and at the moment Redcloak is struggling to balance his desire to achieve equality for goblinkind and his desire to have been right in his decisions.

The latter desire has been winning over the former in Redcloak since at least the ending of SoD.


Oh good, the hobgolbin issue was resolved when one group of humans decided to be so gracious as to stop attacking a single peaceful hobgoblin settlement which had done nothing to deserve it.

The issue was resolved when:

1) An human worked hard and risked his life to get rid of the leader of a rogue human squadron who was attacking the Hobgoblins.

and

2) A hobgoblin decided to get rid of the hobgoblin leadership that also wanted to start a war.

That's how grown ups fix things. Which is a bit more complex than "I'm going to hold everybody hostage with an eldritch deicidal abomination".


The fact that there have been one or two cases of things not going wrong for the goblinoids doesn't mean the problem is over and Redcloak is worrying over nothing. He's trying to fix things on a global and divine scale, which is definitely hasty but isn't some mere fabrication.

Redcloak is trying to justify
murdering his brother in cold blood
"Trying to fix things on a global and divine scale" being just the excuse he uses to rationalize his own unjustifiable crimes.

[Worldsong]

To be fair, it's a city-state - there's lots of territory between the city walls, and the forts on the border.

Fair enough, although I feel that doesn't necessarily go against the idea that conquering the place is very different from enslaving the entire place. And that the resolution to that particular incident is to have whatever agreement the PC races sign with the goblinoids stipulate that Gobbotopia must ban slavery.

Actually now that I think about it, didn't The Giant at some point state that the Azurites aren't going to get Azure City back?


The issue was resolved when:
1) An human worked hard and risked his life to get rid of the leader of a rogue human squadron who was attacking the Hobgoblins, and
2) A hobgoblin decided to get rid of the hobgoblin leadership that also wanted to start a war.

That's how grown ups fix things. Which is a bit more complex than "I'm going to hold everybody hostage with an eldritch deicidal abomination".

Yes, well done, you've shown that the only reason things worked out there is because two sensible people managed to fix things. Now we need to create a world where we don't need to rely on the rare sensible person to keep things on track. Because there aren't enough of those.

Besides the moment the Sapphire Guard got some hint telling them that the Bearer was in that hobgoblin city odds are they would immediately have charged in again.


Redcloak is trying to justify
that he murdered his brother in cold blood
"Trying tho fix things on a global and divine scale" being just the excuse he uses to rationalize his own unjustifiable crimes.

As I pointed out, he can juggle multiple priorities. I flat out don't believe the reasoning that he completely dropped the desire for equality. It's too convenient for people who just want him to be a villain and don't want to consider that even with his villainous acts he's still in the right about fighting for equality.

[The Pilgrim]

Fair enough, although I feel that doesn't necessarily go against the idea that conquering the place is very different from enslaving the entire place.

Fact is, Redcloak did both. And never discouraged human slavery. For him, it's perfectly kosher that his goblinoid utopia uses a massive workforce of human slaves.


Yes, well done, you've shown that the only reason things worked out there is because two sensible people managed to fix things. Now we need to create a world where we don't need to rely on the rare sensible person to keep things on track. Because there aren't enough of those.

Yeah, well, unfortunately, things doesn't work that way. Civilization is not something that just happens, it's something that sensible people must struggle to build and mantain.


As I pointed out, he can juggle multiple priorities. I flat out don't believe the reasoning that he completely dropped the desire for equality. It's too convenient for people who just want him to be a villain and don't want to consider that even with his villainous acts he's still in the right about fighting for equality.

I don't want Redcloak to be a villain. He is the villain. That's a fact. Don't blame me, I didn't plot this comic. :smalltongue:

The fact that many readers may consider that he is a "villain who is right in his reasons but wrong in his actions" is one of the main reasons why this story needs to leave Redcloak out of the conclusion.

Because you don't fight the right fight with wrong means. The moment you resort to the wrong means, is the moment you become someone who is just fighting the wrong fight with the wrong means.

[Worldsong]

Fact is, Redcloak did both. And never discouraged human slavery. For him, it's perfectly kosher that his goblinoid utopia uses a massive workforce of human slaves.

No he didn't. Enslaving the entire nation would require the entire nation being enslaved. Last I checked a large portion of the population escaped and the hobgoblins just moved in.

Also, point of order, slavery is bad and should be abolished but it's not just random evil for the sake of 'mwuahahahaha look at my twirly moustache'. If the agreement between PC races and goblinkin stipulates that slavery has to be banned in Gobbotopia that still fixes the issue.

[Ionathus]

Yeah, that could be... if Redcloak were in the pro side of tagonism. But he is in the an side.

Not like this is going to convince you, but viewing Redcloak as more of a deuter- or tritagonist casts everything in a different light. Most modern media will follow plenty of different groups as their allegiances shift and change...the most successful ones can start to portray each character's arc as their own story, rather than "The Villain." It's not just two sides (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0548.html).



Yes, he is conflicted. But he is still the tragic villiain of the story, so, still failing to overcome his conflicts. As a tragic character, he must lead himself to his own demise. Presenting a tragic character with a reasonable way out and making him reject it, willingfully, is part of the trope. And Redcloak keeps doing it again and again, and will keep doing it again and again.

Emphasis mine.

Your view of a tragic character is flawed, IMO. This isn't Greek theatre: we aren't bound by specific unbreakable narrative roles.

TVTropes has an interesting take on the Tragic Villain (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TragicVillain) -- they define a tragic villain as one who does evil due to circumstances beyond their control. I don't fully agree with that one either, but it's an interesting lens to put on Redcloak's actions. My point is, your definition for "tragic character" is too narrow, and you're trying to cram Redcloak into a narrative role that doesn't fit him.


The main reasn for writing Redcloak out of the story is because he is the villiain. And the role of a villiain is to be removed from the story by the heores so that peace can be restored.

Others have chimed in on the disturbing connotations of this. I want to add my voice in agreement.


The entire motivating force behind this entire webcomic are the six dysfunctional heroes who have been around occuping most panels since comic #1. They are the ones on the pro side of tagonism.

Yes, from a narrative and thematic framework. They're the heroes, we're cheering for them of course. But the plot has always been driven by thwarting The Plan.


The more readers out there thinking that Redcloak is a sympatetic character, somewhat the true heroe of the stroy, and that his actions may have a point, the more the need for The Giant to work harder at debunking him so people don't fail to get the point of the story he's telling.

Emphasis mine, again -- two things I want to address here.
1. I doubt you could find more than a handful of people on this forum who see Redcloak as the hero, and I'm not one of them. Don't put words in my mouth.
2. Are the terms "sympathetic character" and "hero of the story" impossible to separate?

I see these comics coming out, this extended negotiation between RC and Durkon, the moments of internal conflict, and I see plain as day the Redcloak that's being portrayed by The Giant. Forgive me if I'm misrepresenting your viewpoint, but you seem eager to envision your villains with black-and-white morality: sadistic, totally corrupt, flawed, self-destructive, completely incorrect about their philosophy & worldview, and doomed to failure.

What if I could tell you someone could be flawed, self-destructive, sadistic, doomed to failure, but still making good arguments about the problems of the world?

[dancrilis]

The latter desire has been winning over the former in Redcloak since at least the ending of SoD.

I would say since he made the decision to recruit Xykon (at Right-Eye's suggestion), i.e when the plan started to be semi-realistic.




2) A hobgoblin decided to get rid of the hobgoblin leadership that also wanted to start a war.

That's how grown ups fix things.

Poisoning everyone after luring them into a false sense of security, does solve a lot of problems alright.



Fair enough, although I feel that doesn't necessarily go against the idea that conquering the place is very different from enslaving the entire place. And that the resolution to that particular incident is to have whatever agreement the PC races sign with the goblinoids stipulate that Gobbotopia must ban slavery.
... why can the Empire of Blood (and others) have slaves and Gobbotopia can't?

[The Pilgrim]

Not like this is going to convince you, but viewing Redcloak as more of a deuter- or tritagonist casts everything in a different light. Most modern media will follow plenty of different groups as their allegiances shift and change...the most successful ones can start to portray each character's arc as their own story, rather than "The Villain." It's not just two sides (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0548.html).

I suppose Redcloak needs to keep killing more relatives in order to convince some readers that he is just a villain. I heard he has a niece somewhere.


Your view of a tragic character is flawed, IMO. This isn't Greek theatre: we aren't bound by specific unbreakable narrative roles.

TVTropes has an interesting take on the Tragic Villain (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TragicVillain) -- they define a tragic villain as one who does evil due to circumstances beyond their control. I don't fully agree with that one either, but it's an interesting lens to put on Redcloak's actions. My point is, your definition for "tragic character" is too narrow, and you're trying to cram Redcloak into a narrative role that doesn't fit him.

All of Redcloak's actions up to date have been in full accordance to the classic trope of a tragic villain.

[Worldsong]

... why can the Empire of Blood (and others) have slaves and Gobbotopia can't?

I figured it'd be easier for the justice-driven people to swallow the hobgoblins keeping Gobbotopia if at least the slavery problem was resolved.

Also I didn't want to compare Gobbotopia to the Empire of Blood because that would just reinforce the idea that Gobbotopia is bad bad bad and should be burned to the ground.


I suppose Redcloak needs to keep killing more relatives in order to convince some readers that he is just a villain. I heard he has a niece somewhere.

And there we go. You want him to be just a villain.

[Ionathus]

You don't fight the right fight with wrong means. The moment you resort to the wrong means, is the moment you become someone who is just fighting the wrong fight with the wrong means.

By that logic, The Order of the Stick should've been written out of their own story. This is a ridiculous narrative rule, it conflicts with practically all of modern storytelling, and you should abandon it.


... why can the Empire of Blood (and others) have slaves and Gobbotopia can't?

...because they weren't sitting at this negotiating table at the North Pole?

Feels like slavery was pretty heavily opposed by the heroes in BRitF and nobody on this forum has voiced disagreement about that point. Nobody's "letting" the Empire of Blood have slaves -- the heroes just aren't in a position to free those slaves right now. Meanwhile, they ARE in a position to negotiate Gobbotopia's policy.

[The Pilgrim]

And there we go. You want him to be just a villain.

As I already said, I don't want him to be a villain. He is a villain.

I don't know how many more relatives he has to murder, how many of the people he is claiming to be freeing he needs to keep butchering, how many more epic level evil Liches he needs to associate with, how many more Evil plots from an Evil God he has to keep promoting, and how many more protagonists he needs to attempt to murder in a breaking of peace talks, for people to understand the obvious.

[Worldsong]

By that logic, The Order of the Stick should've been written out of their own story. This is a ridiculous narrative rule, it conflicts with practically all of modern storytelling, and you should abandon it.



...because they weren't sitting at this negotiating table at the North Pole?

Feels like slavery was pretty heavily opposed by the heroes in BRitF and nobody on this forum has voiced disagreement about that point. Nobody's "letting" the Empire of Blood have slaves -- the heroes just aren't in a position to free those slaves right now. Meanwhile, they ARE in a position to negotiate Gobbotopia's policy.

I like you.

Also I'll admit your explanation of why Gobbotopia is not allowed to have slaves is better than mine. Slavery is bad no matter where it goes, and the Empire of Blood shouldn't have slaves either. It's just that at the moment there's little that can be done about that (or at least nobody who is in a position to do something about it in-story seems willing).


As I already said, I don't want him to be a villain. He is a villain.

I don't know how many more relatives he has to murder, how many of the people he is claiming to be freeing he needs to keep butchering, how many more epic level lichs he needs to associate with, how many more Evil plots from an Evil God he has to keep promoting, and how many more protagonists he needs to attempt to murder in a breaking of peace talks, for people to understand the obvious.

Oh he's definitely a villain. It's just that he's not just a villain.

Also by your logic the moment someone does one thing wrong or makes a mistake one time they're damned forever and liable to repeat that same mistake over and over.

The way you explain it you'd think he killed his brother with glee and was sad he didn't have any other relatives on hand to slaughter, rather than it being a traumatic moment for him where he thought he was balancing the future of goblinkind against the life of his brother.

From my perspective you're dropping nuance and the complications of life in favour of a black-and-white perspective.

[dancrilis]

I figured it'd be easier for the justice-driven people to swallow the hobgoblins keeping Gobbotopia if at least the slavery problem was resolved.

Also I didn't want to compare Gobbotopia to the Empire of Blood because that would just reinforce the idea that Gobbotopia is bad bad bad and should be burned to the ground.

I could be missing your point but I figured it was something like:
1. A mercenary company from the Empire of Blood shows up in the northern lands to assist with a border skirmish - nobody bats an eye, judge them on their merits.
1. A mercenary company from the Gobbotopia shows up in the northern lands to assist with a border skirmish - the side that hires them is clearly evil.

Or such would be the impression of people in the world of the OOTS i.e just because Hobgoblins are goblinoids they are seen as monsters in a why that Humans are not, which is what you think needs to change.

Unless I have you wrong?



And there we go. You want him to be just a villain.
I believe that the Pilgrim's stance is that Redcloak is already a villain just that some people are not seeing it so if The Giant wants to get people on board with the message he needs to be less subtle.



...because they weren't sitting at this negotiating table at the North Pole?

Feels like slavery was pretty heavily opposed by the heroes in BRitF and nobody on this forum has voiced disagreement about that point. Nobody's "letting" the Empire of Blood have slaves -- the heroes just aren't in a position to free those slaves right now. Meanwhile, they ARE in a position to negotiate Gobbotopia's policy.

Negotiating for Gobbotopia to give up the Azurite slaves as part of a peace accord is different from demanding that Gobbotopia bans slavery as a requirement for goblins to be seen as people, a requirement other slave holding nations do not have.

Edit: or The Pilgrim can clarify from themselves before I throw my coin in.

[Ionathus]

I believe that the Pilgrim's stance is that Redcloak is already a villain just that some people are not seeing it so if The Giant wants to get people on board with the message he needs to be less subtle.

Good lord, people! Redcloak is a villain. Virtually nobody is arguing otherwise.

Some of us are arguing that there are degrees of villainy, including "well-intentioned but flawed", which is where we believe Redcloak belongs. He's not like Xykon (doing evil literally for the fun of it) or even Tarquin (doing evil in self-aware service to his own ego). He's doing evil things for what he truly believes are good reasons.

He still needs to be stopped. But the methods and the words that surround his story will by necessity be completely different.


Negotiating for Gobbotopia to give up the Azurite slaves as part of a peace accord is different from demanding that Gobbotopia bans slavery as a requirement for goblins to be seen as people, a requirement other slave holding nations do not have.

"Goblins don't count as people until they give up their slaves?" Who was making that argument? I certainly wasn't.

EDIT: grammar

[Worldsong]

I could be missing your point but I figured it was something like:
1. A mercenary company from the Empire of Blood shows up in the northern lands to assist with a border skirmish - nobody bats an eye, judge them on their merits.
1. A mercenary company from the Gobbotopia shows up in the northern lands to assist with a border skirmish - the side that hires them is clearly evil.

Or such would be the impression of people in the world of the OOTS i.e just because Hobgoblins are goblinoids they are seen as monsters in a why that Humans are not, which is what you think needs to change.

Unless I have you wrong?

I mean personally I'd be very suspicious of anyone who hires someone with strong ties to the government of the Empire of Blood. But yes part of the problem and the systematic oppression that goblinoids endure is that if they perform acts similar to humans they're always painted in the worst light and used to confirm the belief that goblinoids.

While that's definitely unfair the realistic take is that for goblinoids to be accepted they have to be a bit more careful than an Evil human empire.


I believe that the Pilgrim's stance is that Redcloak is already a villain just that somepeople are not seeing it so if The Giant wants to get people on board with the message he needs to be less subtle.

I kind of lost my temper when he suggested that Redcloak should go murder his niece to prove that he's nothing more than a villain who does Evil because he's Evil.
He killed a relative once. Because he thought the future of goblinkind was at stake. It was probably the worst day of his entire life. If it wasn't the worst day it's only because the worst day was his entire village being wiped out.

And then someone like Pilgrim barges in and acts like Redcloak kills relatives at the drop of a hat. I have three brothers and the very thought of someone dismissing the trauma that Redcloak endured killing his brother as him just being Evil makes my blood boil.


Negotiating for Gobbotopia to give up the Azurite slaves as part of a peace accord is different from demanding that Gobbotopia bans slavery as a requirement for goblins to be seen as people, a requirement other slave holding nations do not have.

Yes, ideally goblinoids would get their equality free of charge and the slavery thing would be a separate issue. However I think it's more realistic that the PC races (and possibly the gods) make some demands which Redcloak and the Dark One have to concede.

[Ionathus]

As I already said, I don't want him to be a villain. He is a villain.

I don't know how many more relatives he has to murder, how many of the people he is claiming to be freeing he needs to keep butchering, how many more epic level evil Liches he needs to associate with, how many more Evil plots from an Evil God he has to keep promoting, and how many more protagonists he needs to attempt to murder in a breaking of peace talks, for people to understand the obvious.

We've seen Rich writing characters and being surprised/bothered that people miss the harm & evil of their actions.

Thog was seen as lovable by many, no matter how many people he killed.
Tarquin was seen as a cool badass by many, even when he displayed callous, sociopathic disregard for the lives of others.
Varsuuvius's casting of Familicide was met with such lukewarm moral reception by some readers that it took *a direct post by Rich* to explicitly state his opinion that Genocide Is Bad.


Given that Rich has encountered this mischaracterization before by members of the fanbase, I understand where you're coming from. You seem to think (please tell me if I'm off-base) that we're wrong and Rich is writing a flawed irredeemable villain who is meant to show how "good cause for the wrong reasons" instantly turns you into a family-murdering fanatic. You seem to think that's the point of Redcloak's arc. If so, you're wrong (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?232652-Redcloak-s-failed-characterization-and-what-it-means-for-the-comic-as-a-whole/page4&p=12718471#post12718471).

[Worldsong]

We've seen Rich writing characters and being surprised/bothered that people miss the harm & evil of their actions.

Thog was seen as lovable by many, no matter how many people he killed.
Tarquin was seen as a cool badass by many, even when he displayed callous, sociopathic disregard for the lives of others.
Varsuuvius's casting of Familicide was met with such lukewarm moral reception by some readers that it took *a direct post by Rich* to explicitly state his opinion that Genocide Is Bad.


Given that Rich has encountered this mischaracterization before by members of the fanbase, I understand where you're coming from. You seem to think (please tell me if I'm off-base) that we're wrong and Rich is writing a flawed irredeemable villain who is meant to show how "good cause for the wrong reasons" instantly turns you into a family-murdering fanatic. You seem to think that's the point of Redcloak's arc. If so, you're wrong (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?232652-Redcloak-s-failed-characterization-and-what-it-means-for-the-comic-as-a-whole/page4&p=12718471#post12718471).

Fun fact: that link is the same as the first link in my signature because I got tired of having to pull it up.

[Ionathus]

Fun fact: that link is the same as the first link in my signature because I got tired of having to pull it up.

I know: that's where I got it :smallbiggrin:

Thanks for your comments earlier too, by the way!

[dancrilis]

Good lord, people! Redcloak is a villain. Virtually nobody is arguing otherwise.

Some of us are arguing that there are degrees of villainy, including "well-intentioned but flawed", which is where we believe Redcloak belongs. He's not like Xykon (doing evil literally for the fun of it) or even Tarquin (doing evil in self-aware service to his own ego). He's doing evil things for what he truly believes are good reasons.

He still needs to be stopped. But the methods and the words that surround his story will by necessity be completely different.

I was merely stating what I understood to be The Pilgrim's point (which I might have been wrong on).



"Goblins don't count as people until they give up their slaves?" Who was making that argument? I certainly wasn't.

Here:

And that the resolution to that particular incident is to have whatever agreement the PC races sign with the goblinoids stipulate that Gobbotopia must ban slavery.
That can be read a few ways (and I should have perhaps clarified how it was meant).
1. The incident being claiming the terrority of Azure City can be resolved with the Goblins banning slavery.
2. The agreement with the races can be achieved with the Goblins banning slavery.
3+. others.

The question become 'what if the goblins don't want to ban slavery?' if that means no agreement for recognition of Gobbotopia - likely fine (assuming that the Azurites have similiar lack of recognition for other slave holding nations) if on the other hand it is the PC races will not agree to consider goblins equal to them unless they ban slavery that would seem to not be fine as it holds goblins to a higher standard then the PC races.



While that's definitely unfair the realistic take is that for goblinoids to be accepted they have to be a bit more careful than an Evil human empire.


Ok so it was a pragmatic point rather then a moral point - i.e the goblins should do this to help cement relations rather then the goblins should have to do this.

I am not sure I agree - presumedly Tarquin's Empire setup would have a seat at the table from controlling a third of a continent, and might see more reason to accept the new people of Gobbotopia if there are more trade opportunities, but I see where you are coming from.

[The Pilgrim]

Also by your logic the moment someone does one thing wrong or makes a mistake one time they're damned forever and liable to repeat that same mistake over and over.

The moment a character has been consistinly doing wrong for one prequel and six books, and at the beggining of the seventh he is given the choice to make things right and once agains rejects to modify his ways... yes, he is kinda damned to keep sinking himself deeper and deeper until he provokes his own demise.

That's kinda how the trope works. And The Giant has been pretty good this far at playing tropes straight.


I kind of lost my temper when he suggested that Redcloak should go murder his niece to prove that he's nothing more than a villain who does Evil because he's Evil.

If a conversation in a forum board about a fantasy stick figure comic may make you lose your temper, you should work on improving it. :smallwink:


Given that Rich has encountered this mischaracterization before by members of the fanbase, I understand where you're coming from. You seem to think (please tell me if I'm off-base) that we're wrong and Rich is writing a flawed irredeemable villain who is meant to show how "good cause for the wrong reasons" instantly turns you into a family-murdering fanatic. You seem to think that's the point of Redcloak's arc. If so, you're wrong (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?232652-Redcloak-s-failed-characterization-and-what-it-means-for-the-comic-as-a-whole/page4&p=12718471#post12718471).

My point is basically that villains can't be part of the solution of a problem. I fail to see how that comment by The Giant proves me wrong, as there he is just pointing out the existence of the problem.

[Ionathus]

...The Giant has been pretty good this far at playing tropes straight.


So we HAVE been reading different comics this whole time!

[The Pilgrim]

So we HAVE been reading different comics this whole time!

Here, one of the most glorious examples of The Giant playing a trope straight in a magnificient way:
https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0723.html

[Worldsong]

Ok so it was a pragmatic point rather then a moral point - i.e the goblins should do this to help cement relations rather then the goblins should have to do this.

I am not sure I agree - presumedly Tarquin's Empire setup would have a seat at the table from controlling a third of a continent, and might see more reason to accept the new people of Gobbotopia if there are more trade opportunities, but I see where you are coming from.

Yes, basically. Pragmatism is important in stories. And yes there might be PC communities which wouldn't be opposed to Gobbotopia legalizing slavery, I just figured that given that the heroes of the story are Good something like slavery would quickly get tossed out of the window by them.


The moment a character has been consistinly doing wrong for one prequel and six books, and at the beggining of the seventh he is given the choice to make things right and once agains rejects to modify his ways... yes, he is kinda damned to keep sinking himself deeper and deeper until he provokes his own demise.

That's kinda how the trope works. And The Giant has been pretty good this far at playing tropes straight.

God forbid that someone might actually be allowed to dig themselves out of a particularly deep hole. Only shallow holes are escapable.

There's an entire book left. Lots of things can happen. Also I think we're subscribing different tropes to Redcloak or disagree with the exact nature of the tropes.


If a conversation in a forum board about a fantasy stick figure comic may make you lose your temper, you should work on improving it. :smallwink:

Or maybe a hypothetical situation can still hold some importance, words on the internet can still have weight, and saying something offensive can still legitimately piss people off.

Or to summarize: don't blame me for not being happy with you saying something horrible.


My point is basically that villains can't be part of the solution of a problem. I fail to see how that comment by The Giant proves me wrong, as there he is just pointing out the existence of the problem.

Villains can't be part of the solution? That's so limiting to storytelling that you might as well dismiss the entire notion outright.

[dancrilis]

Villains can't be part of the solution?

Just to check something,
Imagine that Xykon had succeeded in getting Elan to unlock the gate in the Redmountain Gate and then Redcloak and him had undertook the ritual and The Plan worked exactly as Redcloak thinks it does - do you think the world of The OOTS would be a better place?

If if they had gotten any of the other Gates and completed the ritual I suppose.

[understatement]

Just to check something,
Imagine that Xykon had succeeded in getting Elan to unlock the gate in the Redmountain Gate and then Redcloak and him had undertook the ritual and The Plan worked exactly as Redcloak thinks it does - do you think the world of The OOTS would be a better place?

If if they had gotten any of the other Gates and completed the ritual I suppose.

Nowhere did Worldsong (or anyone, really) say villains have to be part of the solutions -- only that they can be. I'm not sure how you managed to draw that conclusion from that particular statement.

And counterpoint: are you saying Darth Vader couldn't willingly contribute to the Emperor's death because he was a villain?

[The Pilgrim]

Or maybe a hypothetical situation can still hold some importance, words on the internet can still have weight, and saying something offensive can still legitimately piss people off.

Or to summarize: don't blame me for not being happy with you saying something horrible.

Ok, I'm going to clarify my argument for the sake of you not feeling like having read something horrible.

I've never stated that one of the main themes of this webcomic is not a critique on how roleplayers think they can farm so called "monster races" as XP without any ethical concerns. That critique was first raised by The Giant in OtOoPCs with Roy's first adventuring party. It's also the kind of mentality that led V to cast Familicide. It was also featured in O-Chul backstory, where he managed to reach a solution without need of anyone trying to tear the very fabric of Reality.

In my OP, I pointed out that the "goblin issue" needs to be adressed.

Redcloak is a whole different question. He presents himself as the Saviour, but he is kinda the opposite. He is just a factor of perpetuation of the cycle of violence, not the one that is to stop it. He is like the Hobgoblin General in O-Chul's backstory.

That is made evident through Start of Darkness, and particulary through Right-Eye's character, who has suffered the same injustice than Redcloak but comes to very differents solutions for it. Redcloak, in the end, is at this point the character responsible for most goblin grief show in the comic, either directly or by his association with Xykon.

:redcloak: "How many goblin lifes have you snuffed out, personally?"
:durkon: "Na as many as ye"

So, my whole point regarding the issue, is not denying than there is a conflict with the way goblinoids are treated (and not just the goblinoids) that needs to be adressed. It's that Redcloak isn't going to be part of the resolution. Because he is a source of conflict, not a source of solution. The heroes have already attempted parley, and will probably attempt it again towards the ending, and Redcloak will reject again.

After Redcloak has been removed from the table, then... both Roy and O-Chul have demonstrated in the prequels their willigness to resolve conflicts with words rather than killing.

[Worldsong]

Just to check something,
Imagine that Xykon had succeeded in getting Elan to unlock the gate in the Redmountain Gate and then Redcloak and him had undertook the ritual and The Plan worked exactly as Redcloak thinks it does - do you think the world of The OOTS would be a better place?

If if they had gotten any of the other Gates and completed the ritual I suppose.

Well, that highly depends.

If literally the only result of The Plan succeeding at that point was that the Dark One gets the other gods to be nicer to the goblinoids then yes that hypothetical world would be better than maintaining the status quo.

However that would be an unrealistic story since there'd be a lot of loose ends which would quickly cause things to go wrong horribly. One of the biggest threads being Xykon. I firmly believe that the only way for this story to have a happy ending is for Xykon to be permanently disposed of. The guy is simply too dangerous. Also I do think Redcloak needs to learn that his methods were wrong, which he wouldn't learn if The Plan had worked back then. In that scenario he'd probably become the villain that Pilgrim imagines him to be, where with even the slightest excuse he'll do horrible things because he's been validated in the belief that the end justifies the means, no exceptions.

Also as a story it would be very unsatisfying and have a twisted Aesop where letting the villains just do their thing sounds like a good idea.

So keeping in mind all the details my answer would be no.


Ok, I'm going to clarify my argument for the sake of you not feeling like having read something horrible.

I've never stated that one of the main themes of this webcomic is not a critique on how roleplayers think they can farm so called "monster races" as XP without any ethical concerns. That critique was first raised by The Giant in OtOoPCs with Roy's first adventuring party. It's also the kind of mentality that led V to cast Familicide. It was also featured in O-Chul backstory, in which he managed to reach a solution without need of anyone trying to tear the very fabric of Reality.

In my OP, I pointed out that the "goblin issue" needs to be adressed.

Redcloak is a whole different question. He presents himself as the Saviour, but he is kinda the opposite. He is just a factor of perpetuation of the cycle of violence, not the one that is to stop it. That is made evident through Start of Darkness, and particulary through Right-Eye's character, who has suffered the same injustice than Redcloak but comes to very differents solutions for it. Redcloak, in the end, is at this point the character responsible for most goblin grief show in the comic, either directly or by his association with Xykon.

:redcloak: "How many goblin lifes have you snuffed out, personally?"
:durkon: "Na as many as ye"

So, my whole point regarding the issue, is not denying than there is a conflict with the goblinoids that needs to be adressed. It's that Redcloak isn't going to be part of it. Because he is a source of conflict, not a source of solution. The heroes have already attempted parley, and will probably attempt it again towards the ending, and Redcloak will reject again.

After Redcloak has been removed from the table, then... both Roy and O-Chul have demonstrated in the prequels their willigness to resolve conflicts with words rather than killing.

My anger was specifically towards the suggestion that Redcloak is just going to keep killing relatives as if it's no big deal.

I'm fully aware that Redcloak as he currently is is a problem, and a problem that needs to be addressed. However I think that the approach The Giant is going to take isn't to write Redcloak out of the story but to spend this entire book slowly working up to when the Order proposes a peace treaty or something similar again this time he'll say yes.

Partially because the idea that there's another quiddity is honestly stupid, and the idea that some other goblinoid will show up capable of casting 9th level spells is horribly contrived.

Also the problem with having people like Roy and O-Chul act like the voices of reason who fix everything is that it paints the image that the oppressed goblinoids need sensible PC people to solve their problems for them.

Of course what is theoretically possible is that The Giant is going to spend this entire book building up another goblinoid to replace Redcloak but it still sounds contrived to me. The simple fact is that as it currently stands Redcloak is irreplaceable and I've yet to read a suggestion of how the problem is resolved which doesn't involve the Dark One and Redcloak which doesn't sound forced or like the one thinking it up just really doesn't want Redcloak to 'win'.

[dancrilis]

Nowhere did Worldsong (or anyone, really) say villains have to be part of the solutions -- only that they can be. I'm not sure how you managed to draw that conclusion from that particular statement.


I don't think you understood my question or why I was asking it - I wanted to know Worldsong's thinking.


Well, that highly depends.

If literally the only result of The Plan succeeding at that point was that the Dark One gets the other gods to be nicer to the goblinoids then yes that hypothetical world would be better than maintaining the status quo.

Well the ritual doesn't force anything on The Dark One about how he acts.



So keeping in mind all the details my answer would be no.
So would your answer still be no now - i.e Xykon and Redcloak get to the gate first and complete the ritual then the Order ambush Xykon and with Redcloak's help defeat him, to you think that would be good for the world.

I guess my question is do you trust the Dark One and Redcloak assuming Xykon was not an issue?

[Worldsong]

Well the ritual doesn't force anything on The Dark One about how he acts.

So would your answer still be no now - i.e Xykon and Redcloak get to the gate first and complete the ritual then the Order ambush Xykon and with Redcloak's help defeat him, to you think that would be good for the world.

I guess my question is do you trust the Dark One and Redcloak assuming Xykon was not an issue?

An important factor for me is that the characters aren't static, and I think that includes Redcloak and the Dark One.

Redcloak has been through a lot and I think that in this last book we can reach a point where he can actually help save the world. Back then that just wouldn't have happened.

The Dark One also might not be quite the same as back then. Now that the issue of the purple quiddity is in play he might approach a different perspective on the entire situation.

Also another problem would be that back then I don't think the result of the ritual being completed would be that Redcloak and the Order suddenly work together to defeat Xykon. Most likely it would just devolve into a three-way brawl and Xykon would win.

But no I don't think it'd be good if Redcloak and Xykon completed the ritual before Redcloak's character progression has advanced a bit more.

I think that this last book will partially be about pushing Redcloak to the point where he can be trusted, and for the Dark One to realize he can achieve his objectives without the Snarl and thus doesn't need to be at odds with the other gods anymore because suddenly he's not just an upstart, he's as important as any of them and can deal with them on equal footing.

Basically I think the last six books and this last seventh book are all important for the story to achieve a good ending because the characters at the end of the story are not the same as they were at the beginning of the story.

[hungrycrow]

Nowhere did Worldsong (or anyone, really) say villains have to be part of the solutions -- only that they can be. I'm not sure how you managed to draw that conclusion from that particular statement.

And counterpoint: are you saying Darth Vader couldn't willingly contribute to the Emperor's death because he was a villain?

Vader would only contribute to the Emperor's death if it meant he got to become the Emperor. The moment he considered otherwise he stopped being a villain.

An important point of BRitF was that there was no such thing as polite and reasonable Evil. Villains only offer deals that help them commit more atrocities. The same goes with Redcloak. He's not going to make any deal unless it involves the suffering and domination of his enemies.

[The Pilgrim]

My anger was specifically towards the suggestion that Redcloak is just going to keep killing relatives as if it's no big deal.

Of course it's a big deal. That precisely why I suggested it as a means of proving


I'm fully aware that Redcloak as he currently is is a problem, and a problem that needs to be addressed. However I think that the approach The Giant is going to take isn't to write Redcloak out of the story but to spend this entire book slowly working up to when the Order proposes a peace treaty or something similar again this time he'll say yes.

Partially because the idea that there's another quiddity is honestly stupid, and the idea that some other goblinoid will show up capable of casting 9th level spells is horribly contrived.

Also the problem with having people like Roy and O-Chul act like the voices of reason who fix everything is that it paints the image that the oppressed goblinoids need sensible PC people to solve their problems for them.

Of course what is theoretically possible is that The Giant is going to spend this entire book building up another goblinoid to replace Redcloak but it still sounds contrived to me. The simple fact is that as it currently stands Redcloak is irreplaceable and I've yet to read a suggestion of how the problem is resolved which doesn't involve the Dark One and Redcloak which doesn't sound forced or like the one thinking it up just really doesn't want Redcloak to 'win'.

First of all, "the opressed goblinoids" of course need sensible PC people to solve problems. When there is a conflict between two parties, you need sensible people on both sides to solve it. O-Chul found sensible people on the hobgoblin part, and they worked together. Roy found sensible people on the Orc part, and they worked together. Redcloak, however, doesn't belongs to the "sensible people" lot. He belongs to the same lot than Roy's first adventuring party pals, or Gin-Jun and the Hobgoblin General in O-Chul's backstory, or the racist elf commander.

The Hobgoblins were happy in their hills until Redcloak and Xykon came and recruited them to fight the azurites. They are now happy in Azure City because they have human slaves to work for them. Remove the human slaves, and they have more land than they can farm, as Durkon stated. Hobgoblins don't need Azure City at all, they are perfectly happy in the Hills, perhaps keeping some of the conquered land, as Durkon suggested.

The bugbears, on the other hand, care nothing about The Dark One and his self-victimization doctrine. Oona stated out as much. They work with what they have, like the former hobgoblin leader did, like Right-Eye attempted to do.

A perfectly reasonable resolution may be achieved. But not with Redcloak and his delusions of grandeur around. Because what Redcloak needs is not what the goblinoids need. Redcloak needs to make his sacrificying of goblin people justified. And if he needs to blow up the World for it, so be it.

I don't think Oona's bugbears or the Hobgoblins at Gobbtopia feel like they need to get unmade by the Snarl for the theoretically wellfare of theoretically future goblins in a theoretically perfect future world. I think they feel much better with the idea of remaining in existence in the flawed world they already have.

Yeah, I dont' want Redcloak to win. I don't want that the character who pointless sacrificed hobgoblin warriors to feed the monster guarding Xykon's Tower, the character that casually wasted the lives of the hobgoblin polymorphed spy and the hobgoblin elder artisan (he explicitly said he would have murdered them both if the Resistance and Tsukiko hadn't killed them first), and that
murdered his brother
comes out of this story with the slightlest validation for his actions.

[Worldsong]

Of course it's a big deal. That precisely why I suggested it as a means of proving

Might want to sound a tad less callous about it next time.

Also the problem there is that, well... Killing your brother because you genuinely believe it's for the future of your people doesn't strike me as Evil. It's definitely on the far side of unpleasant but more so for the person who ends up having to do that.

I'm guessing the difference here is that you believe Redcloak did it because he can't accept the idea of having been wrong whereas I believe Redcloak did it because he actually believes that letting Right Eye attempt to kill Xykon would be ruinous for goblinkind in the long run. Either he succeeds, Xykon dies and Redcloak loses the high level arcane caster he needs to complete The Plan which will bring equality to goblinkind, or he fails, Xykon survives and the lich turns on the goblins and everything goes to hell even more so.


First of all, "the opressed goblinoids" of course need sensible PC people to solve problems. When there is a conflict between two parties, you need sensible people on both sides to solve it. O-Chul found sensible people on the other part. Roy found sensible people on the other part. Redcloak, however, doesn't belongs to the "sensible people" lot. He belongs to the same pool than the Hobgoblin General in O-Chul's backstory.

The Hobgoblins were happy in their hills until Redcloak and Xykon came and recruited them to fight the azurites. They are now happy in Azure City because they have human slaves to work for them. Remove the human slaves, and they have more land than they can farm, as Durkon stated. Hobgoblins don't need Azure City at all, they are perfectly happy in the Hills, perhaps keeping some of the conquered land, as Durkon suggested.

The bugbears, on the other hand, care nothing about The Dark One and his self-victimization doctrine. Oona stated out as much. They work with what they have, like the former hobgoblin leader did, like Right-Eye attempted to do.

A perfectly reasonable resolution may be achieved. But not with Redcloak and his delusions of grandeur around. Because what Redcloak needs is not what the goblinoids need. Redcloak needs to make his sacrificying of goblin people justified. And if he needs to blow up the World for it, so be it.

I don't think Oona's bugbears or the Hobgoblins at Gobbtopia feel like they need to get unmade by the Snarl for the theoretically wellfare of theoretically future goblins in a theoretically perfect future world. I think they feel much better with the idea of remaining in existence in this flawed world.

They need sensible PC people to cooperate with them yes, but the solution to their problems shouldn't be some PC people barging in and going 'hey we're going to solve your problems, hands up if you want to join'. It delegates goblinoids to being second-rate.

We can't use real life examples but I believe historically speaking abolishing slavery might have caused some disturbance but it doesn't routinely cause total collapse of the economy. Also as others have pointed out a city of 30,000 people might sound big but compared to an actual nation it's minimal. The goblinoids need some territory with good resources so they can build up into an actual complex civilization rather than the occasional settlement here and there which manages to get by.

The bugbears live out in the frozen wastes and only survive because they're next to a cave of constantly self-replenishing monsters. Redcloak wants to create a world where goblinoids don't have to live on the fringes of habitable lands to avoid being hunted down by the PC races.

And blowing up the world is still at best a last resort plan, in case everything else fails. I've seen no indication that Redcloak is looking forward to the end of the world, he just thinks that if it's functionally impossible to create equality in this world, then and only then is attempting to create equality in the next world the fallback plan.

EDIT:


Yeah, I dont' want Redcloak to win. I don't want that the character who pointless sacrificed hobgoblin warriors to feed the monster guarding Xykon's Tower, the character that casually wasted the lives of the hobgoblin polymorphed spy and the hobgoblin elder artisan (he explicitly said he would have murdered them both if the Resistance and Tsukiko hadn't killed them first), and that
murdered his brother
comes out of this story with the slightlest validation for his actions.

I'm getting the impression you wouldn't be happy even if this last book did have him realize the many things he did wrong were actually wrong and then afterwards he wins by helping the heroes out.

Also he did actually realize that what he did to the hobgoblins was wrong. That was part of his character arc during the battle for Azure City.

[hungrycrow]

Also the problem there is that, well... Killing your brother because you genuinely believe it's for the future of your people doesn't strike me as Evil. It's definitely on the far side of unpleasant but more so for the person who ends up having to do that.

I'm guessing the difference here is that you believe Redcloak did it because he can't accept the idea of having been wrong whereas I believe Redcloak did it because he actually believes that letting Right Eye attempt to kill Xykon would be ruinous for goblinkind in the long run. Either he succeeds, Xykon dies and Redcloak loses the high level arcane caster he needs to complete The Plan which will bring equality to goblinkind, or he fails, Xykon survives and the lich turns on the goblins and everything goes to hell even more so.

"Perhaps by some cold calculus... innocents sacrificed may prove beneficial to the world. I can never know. But that would in no way lift the burden of the deed from my conscience, nor should it. The judgement was never mine to make!"

[Wannes]

Vader would only contribute to the Emperor's death if it meant he got to become the Emperor. The moment he considered otherwise he stopped being a villain.

Well, If Vader can kill a whole school of defenceless children, help terrorize a galaxy and allows a planet to be blown up, but then stops being a villain because he killed the Emperor, there's hope for Redcloak yet :smallsmile:

[Worldsong]

"Perhaps by some cold calculus... innocents sacrificed may prove beneficial to the world. I can never know. But that would in no way lift the burden of the deed from my conscience, nor should it. The judgement was never mine to make!"

This quote loses some of its impact when you realize Vaarsuvius could just have settled for killing the dragon and leaving it at that. Perhaps send a warning to their mentor that other black dragons might try to invade elven territory in the future.

The deed which everyone keeps holding over Redcloak's head as if it is the moment that he sold his soul was committed during a high stress situation where if he didn't decide quickly the decision would be made for him and the consequences could easily be disastrous. He was in a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' scenario.

But if you want a straight answer, the end cannot justify the means but it can necessitate the means.

It's unfair but nobody ever said life was going to be fair.


Well, If Vader can kill a whole school of defenceless children but stops being a villain because he killed the Emperor, there's hope for Redcloak yet :smallsmile:

Honestly one of my bigger issues with the whole Darth Vader thing is that from how I remember it (it's been a while) he saw his son being tortured and was like 'wait a minute I don't like this'.

Which so far as epiphanies about good and evil go is rather weaksauce. Evil people can also be attached to their loved ones and even sacrifice themselves for them.

[hungrycrow]

Well, If Vader can kill a whole school of defenceless children, help terrorize a galaxy and allows a planet to be blown up, but then stops being a villain because he killed the Emperor, there's hope for Redcloak yet :smallsmile:

Sure. V and Belkar were both able to turn around and start down the path of redemption. But in OotS world, character growth is a long and hard process. Redcloak hasn't even taken the first step, which is acknowledging the possibility that he could be wrong. We still have a whole book left, but i actually think that's a pretty tight timeframe for the total reversal Redcloak needs to make.

[The Pilgrim]

Might want to sound a tad less callous about it next time.

I don't know why it sounded callous at all. But whatever floats your boat. Let's move on.


They need sensible PC people to cooperate with them yes, but the solution to their problems shouldn't be some PC people barging in and going 'hey we're going to solve your problems, hands up if you want to join'. It delegates goblinoids to being second-rate.

I think that what delegates goblinoids as being second-rate, is forcing them to enlist in your army against their will. Like Xykon did in SoD with Right-Eye's village, and Redcloak ended up endorsing by murdering Right-Eye instead of helping him kill Xykon.


The goblinoids need some territory with good resources so they can build up into an actual complex civilization rather than the occasional settlement here and there which manages to get by.

"We need to expand, taking over the land of other people, because we need more vital space and raw materials for our race".

That kind of narrative sounds familiar. But we aren't allowed to discuss real life historical events.

Don't be offended. I know it's not your narrative. It's Redcloak's. I suppose you can see what's wrong with it.


The bugbears live out in the frozen wastes and only survive because they're next to a cave of constantly self-replenishing monsters. Redcloak wants to create a world where goblinoids don't have to live on the fringes of habitable lands to avoid being hunted down by the PC races.

Oona doesn't looks like wanting to migrate to Gobbotoppia. Seems happy living in the snow and ice, next to Monster Hollow were she and her people have a steady supply of valuable monster hides.

The former hobgoblin leader kinda had a vision on how much he could accomplish just on the hills, if allowed to live in peace. And did a good work at it, multiplying the hobgoblin population until Redcloak came and provoked the death of one third of it in a pointless war.

People make a lot of assumptions about what the goblinoids need, without actually having cared to ask them.


And blowing up the world is still at best a last resort plan, in case everything else fails. I've seen no indication that Redcloak is looking forward to the end of the world, he just thinks that if it's functionally impossible to create equality in this world, then and only then is attempting to create equality in the next world the fallback plan.

Do I really need to explain why that's a rather poor idea for the well being of the current goblinoid population of the world? :smallconfused:

"We are going to unmake you in order to liberate you" sounds like the preachings of a Death Cult leader. And Redcloak is just one step into it, and willing to take it.



I'm getting the impression you wouldn't be happy even if this last book did have him realize the many things he did wrong were actually wrong and then afterwards he wins by helping the heroes out.

He has refused that course of action. Why is he going to change his decission later? If he changes plans because Xykon bretrays him, or the Gate gets destroyed, or the Heroes destroy Xykon, he will do it because he doesn't feels strong enough to win, not because he has realized having done anything wrong.

I don't see his character development going there. Everything points it will keep firm course towards certain and well deserved doom.

[Worldsong]

I dunno. Maybe we should ask the goblins what they want instead of pretending that we knew it better than them?

Have you cared to ask them what they want? Not Redcloak, but the actual goblinoids.

Because the former hobgoblin leader kinda had a vision on how much he could accomplish just on the hills by living in peace. And did a good work at it, multiplying the hobgoblin population until Redcloak came and provoked the death of one third of it in a pointless war.

Oona also doesn't look like feeling like migrating to Gobbotoppia. Seems happy living in the snow and ice, next to Monster Hollow.

So we have anecdotal evidence that not every single goblinoid is unhappy with their life. I'm pretty sure if we researched real life cases of systematic oppression and discrimination we'd also find examples of people who just make the best of their situation.


Do I really need to explain why that's a rather poor idea for the well being of the current goblinoid population?

"We are going to unmake you in order to liberate you" sounds like the preachings of a Death Cult leader. And Redcloak is just one step into it, and willing to take it.

Well, apparently you missed the part where it's an absolute last resort, not something Redcloak is actively aiming for or giddy to implement.

The fact that he thinks destroying the world so there will be equality in the next world is of course not a good thing, but it's not a proper argument in favour of Redcloak being irredeemable because that's not what he's trying to achieve.


He has refused that course of action. Why is he going to change his decission later? If he changes plans because Xykon bretrays him, or the Gate gets destroyed, or the Heroes destroy Xykon, he will do it because he doesn't feels strong enough to win, not because he has realized having done anything wrong.

I don't see his character development going there. Everything points it will keep firm course towards certain and well deserved doom.

It's the beginning of the book, not a chapter. Entire stories can last one book and have a character change their mind over the course of the book.

Also, let's be realistic, this is the very first time he's been given an offer from the other side of the table. Up until now his options have boiled down to 'Go along with The Plan' or 'Accept your fate'.

You're acting like this is just one of many cases where the opposition brings him an offer and he turns it down.

Everything points towards Redcloak's character arc finally coming to a close with him realizing that there's a third option available, and together with the actual heroes, the Order of the Stick, save the world and achieve equality for goblinkind.

[understatement]

Is it not possible that Redcloak can cooperate with the order and remain unredeemed (redeemed is the definition of the way V's going)?

Belkar did it for a long time, after all. So did Hilgya. And hey, if RC gets more verbal dressings from Durkon, that's a bonus.

[Worldsong]

Is it not possible that Redcloak can cooperate with the order and remain unredeemed (redeemed is the definition of the way V's going)?

Belkar did it for a long time, after all. So did Hilgya. And hey, if RC gets more verbal dressings from Durkon, that's a bonus.

For the purpose of this conversation redeemed means that he accepts that The Plan is a bust (or just plain wrong) and accepts the plan of sealing the rifts.

EDIT: Reason being that the biggest reason why Redcloak is a villain rather than just a character with an Evil alignment is because he's married to The Plan. Once he's no longer trying to make The Plan work his role as villain is effectively over.

[The Pilgrim]

So we have anecdotal evidence that not every single goblinoid is unhappy with their life. I'm pretty sure if we researched real life cases of systematic oppression and discrimination we'd also find examples of people who just make the best of their situation.

So, basically, I'm here discussing a stick figure comic, and you are discussing real life things you are projecting into the stick figure comic.

If that's the case, I think I'm bailing out of this debate.


Well, apparently you missed the part where it's an absolute last resort, not something Redcloak is actively aiming for or giddy to implement.

The fact that he thinks destroying the world so there will be equality in the next world is of course not a good thing, but it's not a proper argument in favour of Redcloak being irredeemable because that's not what he's trying to achieve.

I dunno. If a guy breaks in my home with a shotgun and threatens to kill me and my family if I don't do what he wants, I kinda don't think "hey, what a nice guy, he's only going to kill me as a last resort".


Also, let's be realistic, this is the very first time he's been given an offer from the other side of the table. Up until now his options have boiled down to 'Go along with The Plan' or 'Accept your fate'.

Right Eye gave him an alternative. He refused.

Staying at Gobbotopia and giving up on the Plan was an alternative. He refused.

And if you are going yo justify him because "he had to keep up with The Plan or Xykon would have killed him and all the goblins if he didn't"... Yah, but now he has the opportunity to join forces with a party of heores and kill Xykon. And he burnt the bridges by attempting to murder the envoy.

So, no, I don't see him going to have a change of heart later. Because, refusing the offer, yeah, that was reasonable. But burning the bridges, shows exactly the opposite to having any predisposition to change his views.

[Worldsong]

So, basically, I'm here discussing a stick figure comic, and you are discussing real life things you are projecting into the stick figure comic.

If that's the case, I think I'm bailing out of this debate.

Well, The Giant has gone on record to state that he thinks one of the most important aspects of storytelling is commentating on real life issues, so if you think there's something wrong with that and just want to read a webcomic where the villains all die because 'Bad = Bad' then yes we might be approaching the story from such fundamentally different angles that further discussion is pointless.


I dunno. If a guy breaks in my home with a shotgun and threatens to kill me and my family if I don't do what he wants, I kinda don't think "hey, what a nice guy, he's only going to kill me as a last resort".

Yes, but you might think "This is definitely bad but at least he doesn't actually want us dead, so maybe he can be persuaded into not doing that."


Right Eye gave him an alternative. He refused.

Staying at Gobbotopia and giving up on the Plan was an alternative. He refused.

And if you are going yo justify him because "he had to keep up with The Plan or Xykon would have killed him and all the goblins if he didn't"... Yah, but now he has the opportunity to join forces with a party of heores and kill Xykon. And he burnt the bridges by attempting to murder the envoy.

So, no, I don't see him going to have a change of heart later. Because, refusing the offer, yeah, that was reasonable. But burning the bridges, shows exactly the opposite to having any predisposition to change his views.

Those weren't alternatives where he actually achieved his goal of equality on a level that the gods themselves help enforce it. The alternative Right Eye gave him was to accept his fate as a goblin.

He explained the issue with accepting Gobbotopia as the answer to Durkon.

Also this time around a new factor has joined the table that the Dark One himself might also be interested in. That's rather important.

Well, changing your mind is this thing people do. Burning bridges because you want to convince yourself you don't have to change your mind is also a thing people do. That doesn't mean you can't still change your mind later on.

[Ionathus]

So, basically, I'm here discussing a stick figure comic, and you are discussing real life things you are projecting into the stick figure comic.

You don't get to "call out" somebody else for projecting if you just made an allusion to real-world events earlier up the page yourself.


I dunno. If a guy breaks in my home with a shotgun and threatens to kill me and my family if I don't do what he wants, I kinda don't think "hey, what a nice guy, he's only going to kill me as a last resort".

Thanks for, once again, misrepresenting the point someone else is making. Redcloak isn't trying to blow up the world. He's not even using it as leverage. He sees it as an unfortunate risk of The Plan, not his explicit means to an end.

But even buying into your strawman comparison for a second...have you never seen a single hostage scenario depicted in media where the hostage-taker is desperate, thinks they're "too far gone" and "have nothing left to lose" but they're still capable of being talked-down? Or has every single hostage scene you've watched ended with the hostage-taker dead?


Staying at Gobbotopia and giving up on the Plan was an alternative. He refused.

"As long as the gods see us as second-class humanoids, Gobbotopia will be nothing but crusade bait! (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1209.html)"

Redcloak has a point here. Sure maybe investing in Gobbotopia might've led to a stable goblinoid society and, eventually, improved race relations with surrounding races. But I wouldn't blame Redcloak for not trusting that, given his experience with other races' treatment of his family.

I've run out of angles to come at this argument. You flatly refuse to accept that a villain might participate in the resolution of this story, and you cite all the evil things Redcloak's done as proof that Rich is going to write him out of the story. I've tried to explain multiple times that nobody here idolizes Redcloak as a hero, that we're just arguing he still has a part to play in this story's resolution -- because of all that same stuff we saw him do and suffer through. But we're not going to convince you otherwise, because you want to write Redcloak off completely due to his fractured worldview and character flaws -- instead of seeing those things as groundwork that The Giant has been laying for most of the comic's run, and is just now starting to deliver on.

Thanks for the discussion.

[Goblin_Priest]

Thankfully it's the Giant's story. That was uncalled for. Sorry.

With all due respect, Banjo is also a puppet, and Jirix's narrative purpose was to receive Redcloak's exposition.

Also highlight that Redcloak is not in actual communion with his god. A pretty big point to emphasize, I think, which indeed just got mentioned anew. This insistence on the fact that Redcloak is not in direct contact with TDO is obviously deliberate.

Additionally, to emphasize that Gobbotopia is self-sufficient. It has a capable leader who succeeds at diplomacy. Another point that just got reiterated, though a bit less emphatically.

[The Pilgrim]

Well, The Giant has gone on record to state that he thinks one of the most important aspects of storytelling is commentating on real life issues, so if you think there's something wrong with that and just want to read a webcomic where the villains all die because 'Bad = Bad' then yes we might be approaching the story from such fundamentally different angles that further discussion is pointless.

"Characters die because they make the wrong choices" is kinda the standard outcome for all the minimally relevant characters who have died in this webcomic.


Yes, but you might think "This is definitely bad but at least he doesn't actually want us dead, so maybe he can be persuaded into not doing that."

The fact that Redcloak attempted to murder the guy trying to persuade him on not doing that, kinda undermines your point.


Those weren't alternatives where he actually achieved his goal of equality on a level that the gods themselves help enforce it. The alternative Right Eye gave him was to accept his fate as a goblin.

The alternative given by Right-Eye was to not trust the Gods to clean up the mess for you. He had a point.


Also this time around a new factor has joined the table that the Dark One himself might also be interested in. That's rather important.

If the Dark One makes Redcloak change his mind, it's still Redcloak not acknowledging to having done anything wrong. Also, it would be a literal deus ex machina and bad storytelling. So I'm not seeing The Giant taking that avenue.


Well, changing your mind is this thing people do. Burning bridges because you want to convince yourself you don't have to change your mind is also a thing people do. That doesn't mean you can't still change your mind later on.

It does mean the story isn't going in the direction of Redcloak going to change his mind.


Thanks for, once again, misrepresenting the point someone else is making. Redcloak isn't trying to blow up the world. He's not even using it as leverage. He sees it as an unfortunate risk of The Plan, not his explicit means to an end.

Yeah, and the guy taking me hostage doesn't wants me dead, that would only be an unfortunate risk of him not getting things his way. That doesn't makes him any less responsible for his action.


But even buying into your strawman comparison for a second...have you never seen a single hostage scenario depicted in media where the hostage-taker is desperate, thinks they're "too far gone" and "have nothing left to lose" but they're still capable of being talked-down? Or has every single hostage scene you've watched ended with the hostage-taker dead?

Definitely each hostage scene I've seen were the hostage takers start to shot at the negotiators, tend to end bad for the hostake takers.


I've run out of angles to come at this argument. You flatly refuse to accept that a villain might participate in the resolution of this story, and you cite all the evil things Redcloak's done as proof that Rich is going to write him out of the story. I've tried to explain multiple times that nobody here idolizes Redcloak as a hero, that we're just arguing he still has a part to play in this story's resolution -- because of all that same stuff we saw him do and suffer through. But we're not going to convince you otherwise, because you want to write Redcloak off completely due to his fractured worldview and character flaws -- instead of seeing those things as groundwork that The Giant has been laying for most of the comic's run, and is just now starting to deliver on.

Thanks for the discussion.

Don't go yet. Please explain to me how developing a character who constantly commits vile acts while pursuing an evil agenda and who violenty rejects any proposal on changing his views, is "groundwork that has been laying" towards a resolution in which that character makes a heel-face turn and collaborates with the heroes, as opposed to a resolution were that character is taken out of the board for good by the heroes.

The root of our disagreement lies in that you apparently are buying the Evil God's narrative about the goblins needing more land and raw materials to prosper as a race, and that somewhat justifies taking over other people's land and tearing the fabric of reality risking the destruction of the World for a chance to grab a nuke and take all the Gods hostage. While I don't.

Sorry, but I don't buy the narrative that the goblinoids need more raw materials to prosper, when the Hobgoblins had enough raw materials to actually build an army big enough to military defeat one of the most powerful bastions of Good in the planet.

The narrative that PC races see goblinoids, and "monster races" in general, as XP fodder? Yes, that one I buy. That's a theme in this webcomic. The resolution will probably involve the good guys coming to terms with the goblinoids and treating them as people. Something that has already happened before without need of Redcloak being around.

The idea that the Heroes will come to terms with the goblinoids because they have been forced to do so, kinda undermines the whole point of the "Heroes shouldn't behave like murder hobbos" theme. O-Chul didn't need any reason to come to terms with the hobgoblins in his backstory, beyond the basic respect for other people's life that he, as an heroic good-aligned character, already had. Redcloak doesn't holds that basic respect, not even for the lives of his own people. That's one of the many traits in his personality that makes him Evil.

Can Redcloak make a heel-face turn? Sure. But that's not were this story has been leading his character this far. People don't change in a sudden. It has taken Belkar two books and a half of character development to change his outlook. Redcloak had a prequel book devoted to his character development, and the outcome was that he went from square 0 in the scale of Good to square -100. His development in the main comic has consisted in turning him into a more threatening villain, not in making him a less evil one.

So, I think the heroes will keep trying to reason with Redcloak, and Redcloak will keep refusing, and will die, probably as a result of the expected fall out with Xykon, and after Team Evil has been destroyed the heroes will be able to come to terms with the goblinoids. Because Redcloak is not the saviour of the goblinoid people, but one of the principal factors who are bringing them grief.

[Worldsong]

"Characters die because they make the wrong choices" is kinda the standard outcome for all the minimally relevant characters who have died in this webcomic.

Yes, and they can avoid death by learning to make the right choice.


The fact that Redcloak attempted to murder the guy trying to persuade him on not doing that, kinda undermines your point.

Actually my point was that you can burn your bridges in an attempt to convince yourself that you don't need to change your mind and still end up changing your mind later.


The alternative given by Right-Eye was to not trust the Gods to clean up the mess for you. He had a point.

Did he actually come up with a way to enact change on such a scale that the gods themselves would have to acknowledge it? Or was he trying to convince Redcloak to leave the gods out of the entire business? Because one of those is a rather hard sell if you believe that the gods are the ones enforcing the status quo.


If the Dark One makes Redcloak change his mind, it's still Redcloak not acknowledging to having done anything wrong. Also, it would be a literal deus ex machina and bad storytelling. So I'm not seeing The Giant taking that avenue.

Actually the point would be that the Dark One is no longer pushing Redcloak to keep going with The Plan, which means that one of the factors preventing Redcloak from changing his mind is removed, which could help make him change his mind.


It does mean the story isn't going in the direction of Redcloak going to change his mind.

It means that the story is heading in the direction that changing Redcloak's mind is going to be difficult. It would be incredibly anticlimactic if the very first time the heroes actually try to parley with Redcloak he immediately loses all his conviction. It's going to take a book's worth of time, with revelations that shake Redcloak's conviction and make him reconsider what he believes in.

[BeerMug Paladin]

I'm surprised the discussion has gone on about Redcloak and his villainy without anyone bringing up the IFCC. I mean, if you want to talk about how in proper narratives villains must be thwarted, consider for a moment these respective underlying motivations.

Redcloak: Equality and justice for the goblinoid people.

IFCC: Pointless, unnecessary, destructive conflict forever.

It seems pretty clear to me that just removing Redcloak from the story would serve the IFCC's goals. The goal isn't going to be to only defeat Redcloak. It's also going to also be about thwarting the IFCC (and Xykon). It seems the absolute last thing the most evil, clever and irredeemable villains want is for purple quiddity to get used to seal away the snarl. Since the story takes place "now" and the only one who can provide that purple quiddity "now" is Redcloak, then it seems pretty clear to me that Redcloak must be a factor in the resolution.

To consider removing Redcloak and leaving the ultimate resolution to be achieved by someone else in an uncertain future leaves the various circumstances which produced Redcloak more or less intact. It seems likely that another Redcloak could be produced down the line. Even if the world lasts with re-sealed gates, that translates to a win for the IFCC. Because they will have prolonged the conflict to an uncertain future. Or maybe you agree with Belkar that some other hero popping out of nowhere to solve this snarl thing at the last minute would make a better story.

I think the IFCC's defeat is going to be more narratively important than Redcloak's defeat. Because what they actually want is fundamentally at odds with the goals of the heroes. What Redcloak wants is not. What places Redcloak squarely in the villain camp is when he clearly has a choice, he chooses to do evil things. Sure, I think Redcloak will likely lose in a big way as a result of those evil choices, but villains have lost conflicts before without being just outright killed or depowered. Nobody is even considering that Tarquin is the true big-bad. He's the true loser of this thread.

Huh, I just had a random thought you could add to my unresponded-to list of ideas for why Redcloak might change his mind and go along with Thor's/Durkon's proposal.

5) Xykon has access to a certain spell from Haerta's spell list, then upon learning/suspecting Redcloak's deception, threatens Redcloak with repeated castings of it on every random goblinoid he can find. (Starting with Gobbotopia.) We never explicitly saw Haerta recaptured.

[dancrilis]

But no I don't think it'd be good if Redcloak and Xykon completed the ritual before Redcloak's character progression has advanced a bit more.

I think that this last book will partially be about pushing Redcloak to the point where he can be trusted, and for the Dark One to realize he can achieve his objectives without the Snarl and thus doesn't need to be at odds with the other gods anymore because suddenly he's not just an upstart, he's as important as any of them and can deal with them on equal footing.


Then I think we just disagree and that one (at least) of us is very wrong on Redcloak's characterisation.

As I see it Redcloak's natural progression takes him away from being trusted and instead takes him further into The Plan - part of that is that I don't think The Dark One is a reasonable authority figure for the goblins, I think he is a dictator who either is the cause of their problems or at the least takes advantage of them (goblins are oppressed firstly by him, and secondly by other races who react to what they do in his name).

As such the way to get Redcloak on side is for something to shatter his world view a) The Dark One tortures the souls of goblins in the afterlife to extract more power from them quickly, b) Redcloak's entire equality movement is built on a lie The Dark One started it as propaganda and to focus his worship c) Redcloak's lifes work The Plan backfires spectacularly when Xykon kills him god via co-opting the ritual d) something on a similiar level.

I do see Redcloak as very likely having a hand in sealing the rifts but not because the character was moving in that direction all this time.

[Worldsong]

Then I think we just disagree and that one (at least) of us is very wrong on Redcloak's characterisation.

As I see it Redcloak's natural progression takes him away from being trusted and instead takes him further into The Plan - part of that is that I don't think The Dark One is a reasonable authority figure for the goblins, I think he is a dictator who either is the cause of their problems or at the least takes advantage of them (goblins are oppressed firstly by him, and secondly by other races who react to what they do in his name).

As such the way to get Redcloak on side is for something to shatter his world view a) The Dark One tortures the souls of goblins in the afterlife to extract more power from them quickly, b) Redcloak's entire equality movement is built on a lie The Dark One started it as propaganda and to focus his worship c) Redcloak's lifes work The Plan backfires spectacularly when Xykon kills him god via co-opting the ritual d) something on a similiar level.

I do see Redcloak as very likely having a hand in sealing the rifts but not because the character was moving in that direction all this time.

That's probably the case yes. Although for the record I'm not saying that Redcloak as he is is necessarily more trustworthy than he was at the beginning of the story: I just think that the way he is right now means he's more receptible to the revelations of this book causing him to get a different perspective on things.

For example, he told Durkon that Gobbotopia isn't an answer in and of itself but the fact that a place like Gobbotopia exists can still play a vital role for him.

Another thing that occurs to me: we have stories of characters realizing their mistakes and striving to be better in Vaarsuvius and Belkar (the former more openly than the latter), but do we have any example of a villain who does so? In the main comic I mean, not side content.

I think it would be good for the story if at least one actual villain manages to break away from their self-destructive tendencies. Even Belkar, Evil though he was/is, already started out on the side of the protagonists.

EDIT: The moment after I posted this I realized that some people are going to point out the Monster In The Dark. I realize that is a possible answer but from the very beginning he wasn't really much of a villain: he was just following the actual villains around until O-Chul got him to start thinking for himself, at which point it very quickly became clear that he's got no real villainous traits whatsoever.

[The Pilgrim]

do we have any example of a villain who does so? In the main comic I mean, not side content.

Vampire Durkon, just in the last book.

So, the villain redemption trope has already been played by The Giant.

Also note that such trope almost invariably means death. So I can't see how Redcloak can repent his ways and survive to seal the rifts. If Redcliak repets it would mean he is automatically going to commit self-sacrifice.

[Worldsong]

Vampire Durkon, just in the last book.

So, the villain redemption trope has already been played by The Giant.

Also note that such trope almost invariably means death. So I can't see how Redcloak can repent his ways and survive to seal the rifts. If Redcliak repets it would mean he is automatically going to commit self-sacrifice.

Yeah... now let's go with a villain who turned away from the bad path through actual introspection, not being brainwashed by one of the protagonists and turned into a copy of the protagonist.

I really didn't think I had to specify that vampire Durkon is not a good example of a villain turning away from evil.

Also, really? You're now banking on the idea that the only way for a villain to stop being villain is for them to sacrifice themselves? Because if so you're running against The Giant's statement that he's not going to write suicide as a solution to a problem.

Granted I presume that your interpretation of that would be that because suicide is never going to be the answer Redcloak's path to non-villainy is locked. Which just like the statement 'the villain can't be part of the solution' is short-sighted and ridiculously limiting for storytelling.

[dancrilis]

Another thing that occurs to me: we have stories of characters realizing their mistakes and striving to be better in Vaarsuvius and Belkar (the former more openly than the latter), but do we have any example of a villain who does so? In the main comic I mean, not side content.

I think it would be good for the story if at least one actual villain manages to break away from their self-destructive tendencies. Even Belkar, Evil though he was/is, already started out on the side of the protagonists.

Possibly Sabine - she has done more to help the heroes then virtually any other villian, and while her reasons were somewhat selfish her assistance extended beyond merely getting them focused on Tarquin (the presumed object of her rage) and more onto how the heroes could survive.
She is further along the path of redemption then Redcloak anyway I would say.



EDIT: The moment after I posted this I realized that some people are going to point out the Monster In The Dark. I realize that is a possible answer but from the very beginning he wasn't really much of a villain: he was just following the actual villains around until O-Chul got him to start thinking for himself, at which point it very quickly became clear that he's got no real villainous traits whatsoever.

Argueable, prior to 190 where he was impressed with Redcloak intending to undertake a dangerous task when he had minions for it his characterisation was dim-Evil in my view.
Perves on some Dwarves (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0082.html).
Laughs to the idea of the heroes getting crushed (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0097.html).
Looks forward to eating the heroes (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0103.html).
Eggs the heroes on to complete the plan (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0109.html).
Want to eat one of them and is seemingly content to get eat kids (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0117.html) (we find out later that he isn't he just throws them in the trash - although whether he ever tried are not might be an unanswered question).

To me he seems a little like a teenager who is growing up and considering the world more - but still at the very beginning he was the teenager who didn't really care about things providing he got what he wanted.

[Worldsong]

Possibly Sabine - she has done more to help the heroes then virtually any other villian, and while her reasons were somewhat selfish her assistance extended beyond merely getting them focused on Tarquin (the presumed object of her rage) and more onto how the heroes could survive.
She is further along the path of redemption then Redcloak anyway I would say.

Okay, Sabine is actually a decent suggestion... although I think she's still firmly in camp Evil and isn't going to get enough screentime to leave it.

Still, worth thinking about.

EDIT: With further thought I kind of want to say that Sabrine's case is more Evil against Evil. Redcloak's orginal goal was equality for goblinkind (which is a good thing) which got muddled by a desire for validation, and you can imagine how the last book could be about him returning fully to his original goal. While Sabine has definitely helped the heroes it was also definitely a case of 'Evil isn't one big happy family' and from how I understand the development she's been part of the IFCC for a long time now, so it's not like she's like Redcloak who started out with good intentions but who got mixed up along the way.

Her apparent genuine love for Nale could end up being what causes her to flip around but that's kind of hindered by Nale having been shoved into the afterlife rather forcefully which means that even if the Snarl did destroy the world Nale's soul would be safe.


Argueable, prior to 190 where he was impressed with Redcloak intending to undertake a dangerous task when he had minions for it his characterisation was dim-Evil in my view.
Perves on some Dwarves (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0082.html).
Laughs to the idea of the heroes getting crushed (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0097.html).
Looks forward to eating the heroes (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0103.html).
Eggs the heroes on to complete the plan (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0109.html).
Want to eat one of them and is seemingly content to get eat kids (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0117.html) (we find out later that he isn't he just throws them in the trash - although whether he ever tried are not might be an unanswered question).

To me he seems a little like a teenager who is growing up and considering the world more - but still at the very beginning he was the teenager who didn't really care about things providing he got what he wanted.

...Are we considering him perving on some dwarves Evil because he watched them without their consent or...?

But yes, at the beginning he was Evil in the way that he was basically a child whose only motivation was self-gratification. However he never acted on any of those things and once he began to think for himself it became apparent to me that the only reason he thought those Evil things were fun was because his companions told him Evil things are fun. Which doesn't absolve him but I still feel like it makes his status as villain rather weak.

[The Pilgrim]

Yeah... now let's go with a villain who turned away from the bad path through actual introspection, not being brainwashed by one of the protagonists and turned into a copy of the protagonist.

I really didn't think I had to specify that vampire Durkon is not a good example of a villain turning away from evil.

Also, really? You're now banking on the idea that the only way for a villain to stop being villain is for them to sacrifice themselves? Because if so you're running against The Giant's statement that he's not going to write suicide as a solution to a problem.

Granted I presume that your interpretation of that would be that because suicide is never going to be the answer Redcloak's path to non-villainy is locked. Which just like the statement 'the villain can't be part of the solution' is short-sighted and ridiculously limiting for storytelling.

Self-Sacrifice =/= Suicide.

Kraagor commited self-sacrifice. Tenrin Thundershield comited self-sacrifice. Miko Mayazaki commited self-sacrifice. Ho Thanh commited self-sacrifice. Vampire Durkon commited self-sacrifice.

Just to point a few examples of The Giant supposedly running against his own statement, according to your opinion.

That said, "redemption equals Death" is practically an Universal Rule for evil characters who make a heel-face turn. You can read the TV Trope to understand why.

That's an additional hurdle for the idea that Redcloak can repent and get to be part of the sealing of the rifts, because that would involve him surviving. And while the idea of Redcloak repenting isn't discardable, the idea of him getting a happy ending goes against every narrative convention followed by The Giant. Belkar isn't getting a happy ending, neither probably V. And definitely not Redcloak.

That's not "limiting storytelling". That's good storytelling. Redcloak is a despicalbe villain who has commited crime after crime with no justification for his actions, and whose whole narrative is just a big load of horse hockey to fool gullible people into rooting for him. There are two endings for such a characer. Redemption Equals Death, or the classical death of a tragic villain who brings it upon himself. The last scene, together with all previous characterization of Redcloak, points to the latter, rather than the former. And The Giant is not the kind of bad writer that resorts to cheap plot twists for effect.

[Worldsong]

Self-Sacrifice =/= Suicide.

Kraagor commited self-sacrifice. Tenrin Thundershield comited self-sacrifice. Miko Mayazaki commited self-sacrifice. Ho Thanh commited self-sacrifice. Vampire Durkon commited self-sacrifice.

Just to point a few examples of The Giant supposedly running against his own statement, according to your opinion.

That said, "redemption equals Death" is practically an Universal Rule for evil characters who make a heel-face turn. You can read the TV Trope to understand why.

That's an additional hurdle to the idea that Redcloak can repent and get to be part of the sealing of the rifts, because that would involve him surviving. And while the idea of Redcloak repenting isn't discardable, the idea of him getting a happy ending goes against every convention followed by The Giant. Belkar isn't getting a happy ending, neither probably V. And definitely not Redcloak.

Okay... Where did you get the idea from that it's a Universal Rule? Because it exists? Because if you've read the Heel-Face Turn trope you'll see that it says that 'sadly, it sometimes leads to Redemption Equals Death'. Methinks you're trying to shoehorn in the idea that it's the only way for a villain to redeem themselves because you just really want Redcloak dead (which you've openly admitted to).

And fair enough self-sacrifice is not quite the same as suicide but in that case we'll need a scenario where Redcloak getting himself killed directly serves to save the world.

I also think you're adding traits to The Giant's writing which aren't set in stone. Yes there are characters in the story who aren't going to get a happy ending, but I don't think the moral of the story is 'Everyone who's messed up will die because happy endings are only for people who never did anything wrong.' Because that once again feeds the idea that you might as well not even bother with trying to recover from your mistakes because apparently you're already damned anyway.

We know for a fact that Belkar is going to die but that's it. That's the only one we've got. Everyone else is fair game for either death or survival (well, Elan is probably going to survive). Redcloak is also fair game for surviving and getting out of his self-destructive behaviour. It might be that The Giant ends up having him dying either as a villain or as part of his redemption, but you're trying too hard to act like your position of 'villains are a lost cause, off with their heads' is the only acceptable interpretation.

EDIT:

That's not "limiting storytelling". That's good storytelling. Redcloak is a despicalbe villain who has commited crime after crime with no justification for his actions, and whose whole narrative is just a big load of horse hockey to fool gullible people into rooting for him. There are two endings for such a characer. Redemption Equals Death, or the classical death of a tragic villain who brings it upon himself. The last scene, together with all previous characterization of Redcloak, points to the latter, rather than the former. And The Giant is not the kind of bad writer that resorts to cheap plot twists for effect.

No, it is limiting, you just like it that way. Redcloak is a villain who started out with good intentions and ended up digging himself deeper and who is going to have to struggle to get out of the hole. A good storyteller can make that work. Your suggestion that The Giant can only have the story work if Redcloak dies as a villain or redeems himself through death is you saying you don't trust The Giant to be able to write a good story that subverts your expectations.

Also, really? Gullible? Okay, sure. By this point it's become rather blatantly clear that you just do not like Redcloak. You just want villains to be villains. Boring. Unoriginal. Uncreative. Predictive.

[The Pilgrim]

Okay... Where did you get the idea from that it's a Universal Rule? Because it exists?

Yeah, basically.


Methinks you're trying to shoehorn in the idea that it's the only way for a villain to redeem themselves because you just really want Redcloak dead (which you've openly admitted to).

You say that like if wanting the despicable evil murdering villain dead would be a bad thing, and not the intended feeling the author expects from his audience.


Also, really? Gullible? Okay, sure. By this point it's become rather blatantly clear that you just do not like Redcloak.

Oh, yes, I don't like the characters that aren't supposed to be likeable.


You just want villains to be villains. Boring. Unoriginal. Uncreative. Predictive.

Then you should stop reading this webcomic. Because The Giant also likes his villains to be villains. Complex, sure, but still villains.


And fair enough self-sacrifice is not quite the same as suicide but in that case we'll need a scenario where Redcloak getting himself killed directly serves to save the world.

With Xykon, the last Gate, and the Snarl around, the field is pretty well sown for any character that needs to perform an heroic sacrifice. That's not even counting the IFCC and whatever they are plotting.


We know for a fact that Belkar is going to die but that's it. That's the only one we've got. Everyone else is fair game for either death or survival (well, Elan is probably going to survive). Redcloak is also fair game for surviving and getting out of his self-destructive behaviour. It might be that The Giant ends up having him dying either as a villain or as part of his redemption, but you're trying too hard to act like your position of 'villains are a lost cause, off with their heads' is the only acceptable interpretation.

You are trying too hard to act like your position of "I've identified myself with Redcloak so I want him to get a happy ending despite he being an unrepentant villain who has comited kinslaying, mass murder and mass slavery and has just provided evidence once again that he would rather let the World go to waste than quitting The Plan." is the only acceptable interpretation.

[Worldsong]

Yeah, basically.

{scrubbed} .


You say that like if wanting the despicable evil murdering villain would be a bad thing, and not the intended feeling the author expects from his audience.

I think you should be focusing on Xykon then.


Oh, yes, I don't like the characters that aren't supposed to be likeable. I don't like a character who slays his kin, is overly racist, and thinks it's reasonable to unmake the world to avenge the destruction of his village.

Now if only that was actually all there was to Redcloak... I mean obviously you're going to say that this is the case but clearly I don't agree with you.


Then you should stop reading this webcomic. Because The Giant also likes his villains to be villains. Complex, sure, but still villains.

Actually this webcomic is perfect for me, because The Giant understands nuance, context, complexity and the possibility for villains to still be people who can be brought around.

You, however, might want to prepare yourself for disappointment.


With Xykon, the last Gate, and the Snarl around, the field is pretty well sown for any character that needs to perform an heroic sacrifice. That's not even counting the IFCC and whatever they are plotting.

We'll have to see how that works out then.


You are trying too hard to act like your position of "I've identified myself with Redcloak so I want him to get a happy ending despite he being an unrepentant villain who has comited kinslaying, mass murder and mass slavery and has just provided evidence once again that he would blow up the world before quitting The Plan.".

Wrong. I just understand that a villain can be more than just a villain. Also I've never been part of an oppressed minority, so it would be rather difficult for me to identify with Redcloak.

[dancrilis]

...Are we considering him perving on some dwarves Evil because he watched them without their consent or...?


More an indication of poor behaviour taken with other poor behaviour.



With Xykon, the last Gate, and the Snarl around, the field is pretty well sown for any character that needs to perform an heroic sacrifice.


Xykon doesn't need to perform a heroic sacrifice to redeem himself, as indicated previously he is the hero.



The gods regard mortals as pawns, and few mortals take a stand against that ... but Xykon does. He sees the inequality in the system, and is working to change the system, he has put everything on the line for a change to make the world a better place including allowing himself to die for his cause.

One man - or dare I say it Hero - against a corrupt and tyrannical universe, and with the grit and determination to possible pull it off despite the odds stacked against him.

No redemption is needed - for the cause is just.


The amount of lack of understanding the Xykon receives makes me sad.

Here is a man that has been put down by people all his life, but who consistently rose above their petty insults to make something of himself.

Than he is nearing the end of his life and he finds out that the gods have been playing everyone as chumps since before the beginning of the world and he is offered a chance to even the playing field.

Here is one man who is reviled for daring to have the audacity to indicate that regular people can have control over their own lives - that ultra-powerful outsiders can be stood up to.
He should be a beacon of hope in the darkness - a shining light for the mortal races to look to and admire. But instead for his idiosyncrasies he is hated and feared.

Truly he is the tragic hero of the Order of the Stick.

[The Pilgrim]

I think you should be focusing on Xykon then.

Sure, if there were people suggesting that Xykon is a reedemable villain and that this story should conclude with him working together with the Heroes to fix the world.


Actually this webcomic is perfect for me, because The Giant understands nuance, context, complexity and the possibility for villains to still be people who can be brought around.

Care to give an example? Because BRitF heavily debunked the idea that Heroes can collaborate with Villains. A lot of people back then fantasized with the idea that Tarquin was an example of "evil you can work with" and that the Order would end up collaborating with him. As events unfolded, they were disappointed to learn the truth.


Xykon doesn't need to perform a heroic sacrifice to redeem himself, as indicated previously he is the hero.

10/10. Keep preaching it, brother.

Actually, with all those uppity pretenders to the title of BBEG around, I fully expect Xykon to perform some affirmative action to make clear who is the Top Dog here. The Dark One and the IFCC need to be put in their place.

[Worldsong]

Sure, if there were people suggesting that Xykon is a reedemable villain and that this story should conclude with him working together with the Heroes to fix the world.

Maybe people would if there was a reason for that to be the case.

That said I do hope we can agree that Redcloak and Xykon are very different in very important ways.


Care to give an example? Because BRitF heavily debunked the idea that Heroes can collaborate with Villains. A lot of people back then fantasized with the idea that Tarquin was an example of "evil you can work with" and that the Order could collaborate with him. As events unfolded, they were disappointed to learn the truth.

The point of BRitF so far as I can tell was that just because a villain is likeable doesn't mean they're not villains. In response to The Giant getting frustrated with everyone liking Thog.

Tarquin and Malack, the two examples of 'these guys are still villains despite having manners' at the end both turned out to still be entirely self-serving (well, Malack in service to his god, but he clearly had little issue with it).

Nobody has been saying that Redcloak should get to climb out of the hole just because he's likeable. In fact I imagine quite a lot of people find his personality rather grating (personally I'm not a fan of someone who refuses to get off their high horse). The point with Redcloak is that of all the big villains he's pretty much the only one who started out with genuinely good intentions (equality for goblinkind) and then progressively got further lost in making worse and worse decisions in an attempt to attain that goal.

Xykon: basically a psychopath

Nale: massive narcissist

Tarquin: Nale but more accomplished

Malack: considers mortals cattle

Vampire Durkon/Greg: just wants the dwarves to suffer as much as possible

The Snarl: barely a person (I believe The Giant has stated that the Snarl is supposed to be a plot device, not a creature with agency)

Honestly the closest thing we have to Redcloak is Miko because at least she thought that she was wiping out Evil when she lost all her marbles. And yes Miko died, but that doesn't mean that Redcloak has to die because Miko being the closest thing to Redcloak doesn't mean they're the same or that their stories have to end the same way.

Is Redcloak a villain? Yes. Has he done horrible things? Yes. Should he atone for those things? Preferably yes. Is it likely that he isn't going to get a full happy ending where everything is sunshine and rainbows? Yes.

Does that mean that it's impossible for The Giant to write a good story in which Redcloak is persuaded to help save the world (even if still for personal gain)? No. Just... no.

I can't give you an exact example of a villain who realized that they were wrong, turned their life around, and lived happily ever after. But that's in part because so far Redcloak, as far as villains go in this story, is an unusual case.

Also from what I understand you believe that once a precedent has been established it stays that way. Personally I believe that the world isn't static, the story isn't static, and the characters aren't static. Even The Giant isn't static (I'm pretty sure he changed his mind somewhat between saying that Tarquin's true personality is what he shows when he's pushed to the brink and Durkon saying that every single day of your life helps make you who you are, not just your worst day). So if you're going to follow up with saying that because I can't find precedent you're right about Redcloak's fate my response is that I don't agree with your conditions.

[dancrilis]

The point of BRitF so far as I can tell was that just because a villain is likeable doesn't mean they're not villains. In response to The Giant getting frustrated with everyone liking Thog.


Thog was meant to be likeable so him being likeable was not an issue, and I don't get the impression that the Giant was frustrated - merely found it odd that people thought he wasn't evil.


The reason it's shocking is because I never said all of that.

I did say that I kept Thog around because he was popular, but keep in mind this was around strip #70, when I had been posting OOTS for less than six months. I had no concept at all of what would or would not be popular at that point; it was my first experience writing for an audience larger than the six players at my D&D table. It wasn't that I wanted him gone and decided to keep him begrudgingly due to reader pressure, so much as I was running a lot of ideas up the flagpole and everyone saluted that one, so I changed my plan gladly. But this was so early that I had not come up with the idea of the Gates or the Snarl yet; I hadn't even decided whether or not they would ever get out of the dungeon! There was no real plan beyond the next 10-15 strips anyway, so why not change it?

Because I love writing Thog. He's a comedy goldmine and can make any scene funnier just be being involved. I won't comment on whether or not he's dead right now, but rest assured that if he doesn't show up again in the main story, it won't be because I didn't like writing him. And you should totally expect him to keep showing up in the ancillary materials (like in the recent Haleo & Julelan story).

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

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

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

[Worldsong]

Thog was meant to be likeable so him being likeable was not an issue, and I don't get the impression that the Giant was frustrated - merely found it odd that people thought he wasn't evil.

I stand corrected. I thought he genuinely found it frustrating.

Rephrasing myself then: I thought part of what made The Giant write BRitF the way he did was to drive the message home that just because a villain is likeable doesn't mean he's not evil. Not to send the message 'villains are always beyond redemption and should be put down like mad dogs.'

[The Pilgrim]

Maybe people would if there was a reason for that to be the case.

That said I do hope we can agree that Redcloak and Xykon are very different in very important ways.

Of course they are. Xykon is bonafide true Evil, while Redcloak is evil but for a good cause crap.

That's why Xykon got to be the Butch and Redcloak got to be the Bitch.

Redcloak's characterization has involved him standing up to become a grown up villain like Xykon. His foil has always been Xykon, not the Order. The resolution of his character arc is linked to Xykon, not the Order. And due to the fact that Xykon is the real big bad of this story, things point to Redcloak coming out as loser, and thus dead.


The point with Redcloak is that of all the big villains he's pretty much the only one who started out with genuinely good intentions (equality for goblinkind) and then progressively got further lost in making worse and worse decisions in an attempt to attain that goal.

Redcloak never started out with genuinely good intentions. He started with carrying on the Evil Plan of an Evil God, since the very moment he donned the Crimson Mantle. Right-Eye realized that the way of the Dark One is wrong and quit. Redcloak didn't.


Does that mean that it's impossible for The Giant to write a good story in which Redcloak is persuaded to help save the world (even if still for personal gain)? No. Just... no.

Of course he can. But that's not the story he has been writing this far.

[Worldsong]

Of course they are. Xykon is bonafide true Evil, while Redcloak is evil but for a good cause crap.

That's why Xykon got to be the Butch and Redcloak got to be the Bitch.

Redcloak's characterization has involved him standing up to become a grown up villain like Xykon. His foil has always been Xykon, not the Order. The resolution of his character arc is linked to Xykon, not the Order. And due to the fact that Xykon is the real big bad of this story, things point to Redcloak coming out as loser, and thus dead.

Or the other way for his comparison with Xykon to be resolved is for Xykon to stick to his blatantly unrepentant evil ways and die as a result and for Redcloak to climb out of the hole and survive.


Redcloak never started out with genuinely good intentions. He started with carrying on the Evil Plan of an Evil God, since the very moment he donned the Crimson Mantle. Right-Eye realized that the way of the Dark One is wrong and quit. Redcloak didn't.

Okay, hold up.

The original goal was equality for goblinkind. The Plan is the means to achieve that. That is what Redcloak started out with.

You're conflating the means with the end. Equality for goblinkind is good. If you disagree with even that then I think we've reached a final impasse.


Of course he can. But that's not the story he has been writing this far.

Yes it is. It's the story we've been reading all this time.

[The Pilgrim]

Or the other way for his comparison with Xykon to be resolved is for Xykon to stick to his blatantly unrepentant evil ways and die as a result and for Redcloak to climb out of the hole and survive.

The narrative role of destroying Xykon belongs to Roy, not Redcloak. Reddie at most can backstab Xykon and die to leave Xykon momentary vulnerable to the Heores. Emphasis on "and die".


Okay, hold up.

The original goal was equality for goblinkind. The Plan is the means to achieve that. That is what Redcloak started out with.

You're conflating the means with the end. Equality for goblinkind is good. If you disagree with even that then I think we've reached a final impasse.

The original goal has always been to tear up the fabric of reality in order to provide an Evil God with a Nuke to held all other Deities hostage. With Plan B being letting the World go to waste so the Evil God starts in a better position in the next one. I suppose exterminating all goblinkind is a form of reaching "goblin equality", but not one I consider "good".

The idea that such a Plan is necessary to improve the lot of the Goblins, contradicts the fact that The Dark One, as a mortal, was able to raise an army big enough to overrun the humans, without need of no patronage from no God. And the Hobgoblins were able to grow up an equip an army big enough to defeat the azurites, without need of no more "raw materials" or "better land".

The Gods have been *******s to everyone, not just the Goblins. The Dwarves were created as bargaining chips, yet they have prospered. The Goblins don't need the Gods to solve their problems with other mortals. The Hobgoblins were able to achieve peace with the azurites without the Dark One. In fact, it was the High Priest of the Dark One who broke that peace.


Yes it is. It's the story we've been reading all this time.

The story we have been reading all this time is Redcloak persuading himself on the necessity of tearing up the world, not saving it. And everyone who has attempted to persuade him otherwise, he murdered or attempted to murder.

The story we have been reading is Redcloak being the walking incarnation of the Sunk Cost Fallacy. And at this point he's not getting out of that sunk cost. Not alive, at least.

[Worldsong]

The narrative role of destroying Xykon belongs to Roy, not Redcloak. Reddie at most can backstab Xykon and die to leave Xykon momentary vulnerable to the Heores. Emphasis on "and die".

I never said that Redcloak would be the one to kill Xykon. I said that the comparison between Redcloak and Xykon could end up being resolved by the fundamental difference of one of them being good-intentioned while the other is blatantly sadistic, which shows itself in Redcloak escaping the death trap of being a remorseless villain whereas Xykon goes down.


The original goal has always been to tear up the fabric of reality in order to provide an Evil God with a Nuke to held all other Deities hostage. With Plan B being letting the World go to waste so the Evil God starts in a better position in the next one. I suppose exterminating all goblinkind is a form of reaching "goblin equality", but not one I consider "good".

The idea that such a Plan is necessary to improve the lot of the Goblins, contradicts the fact that The Dark One, as a mortal, was able to raise an army big enough to overrun the humans, without need of no patronage from no God. And the Hobgoblins were able to grow up an arm an army big enough to defeat the azurites, without need of no more "raw materials" or "better land".

The Gods have been *******s to everyone, not just the Goblins. The Dwarves were created as bargaining chips, yet they have prospered. The Goblins don't need the Gods to solve their problems with other mortals. The Hobgoblins were able to achieve peace with the azurites without the Dark One. In fact, it was the High Priest of the Dark One who broke that peace.

And the reason why the Dark One needed that nuke was to get the other gods to grant him concessions which would help the mortal goblins. That's the plan which Redcloak believes/believed in.

And yes I agree that Plan B is bad news and that Redcloak needs to be persuaded to drop that part, but Plan A IS to gain equality for goblinkind in THIS world.

Like said before, blowing up the world isn't Redcloak's primary plan. It's his backup plan if he believes that this world can't be salvaged (read: he can't make The Plan work to grant goblinkind equality).

And it's also true that Redcloak's position isn't as solid as he thinks it is, both in his claims and his methods. However what's important is that he believes those things to be true and is basing his actions on that belief (or at the very least started out that way before sunk cost fallacy started getting in the way big time).


The story we have been reading all this time is Redcloak persuading himself of tearing up the world, not saving it.

The story we've been reading is of the Order of the Stick trying to save the world from an evil lich and his goblin cleric henchman, with a thorough explanation of said goblin cleric's motivations and goals. And we've had the revelation that the goblin cleric may very well be the only person who can help save the world in a more permanent fashion.

The main problem I'm still having with all of this is that all the ideas for how the story ends which don't involve Redcloak or the Dark One sound less like 'Yes this is the logical course of progression' and more like 'This way Redcloak and the Dark One aren't part of the solution, let's go with this'.

[The Pilgrim]

And yes I agree that Plan B is bad news and that Redcloak needs to be persuaded to drop that part, but Plan A IS to gain equality for goblinkind in THIS world.

Plan A is to hold everyone else at gunpoint.

If you don't understand what's fundamentally wrong with it, there is not much I can add.

Redcloak has always been on for that plan. Therefore, he has never been "good-intentioned". He has always intended to execute an evil plan.

[Worldsong]

Plan A is to hold everyone else at gunpoint.

If you don't understand what's fundamentally wrong with it, there is not much I can add.

Redcloak has always been on for that plan. Therefore, he has never been "good-intentioned". He has always intended to execute an evil plan.

Putting everyone at gunpoint is not a Good thing to do, but if your goal is to get rid of injustice your intentions are Good even if your methods are Evil.

I can understand the line of reasoning that because the method is Evil it doesn't matter what the intentions are, but I don't agree with it.

[The Pilgrim]

Putting everyone at gunpoint is not a Good thing to do, but if your goal is to get rid of injustice your intentions are Good even if your methods are Evil.

I can understand the line of reasoning that because the method is Evil it doesn't matter what the intentions are, but I don't agree with it.

The methods are evil and the intentions are evil. The justification is pointless, because the justifications for evil methods and evil intentions are always crap.

Xykon is honest about himself, at least.

[Worldsong]

The methods are evil and the intentions are evil. The justification is pointless, because the justifications for evil methods and evil intentions are always crap.

Xykon is honest about himself, at least.

So... are you saying that equality for goblinkind is Evil or are you saying that you outright refuse to believe Redcloak ever believed in equality for goblinkind?

Because one of those is a really hard sell.

[understatement]

The reason to address the justification is so that someone like Redcloak doesn't ever emerge again.

[The Pilgrim]

So... are you saying that equality for goblinkind is Evil or are you saying that you outright refuse to believe Redcloak ever believed in equality for goblinkind?

Because one of those is a really hard sell.

The intention of providing an Evil God with a Nuke so that he helds everyone hostage and fix things for you, is evil. As opposed to working hard to improve your lot yourself, like Right-Eye attempted, Oona is doing, and the former Hobgoblin Supreme Leader did.

The method of associating yourself with an Evil Lich and becoming his accomplice in killing scores of people left and right, allowing him to sacrifice your own people for his amusemet, and killing your own kin to protect him, are also Evil.

You say that Redcloak and Xykon are different because the latter just kills people left and right for laughts, while the former kills people left and right for "a good reason".

No.

There is no "good reason". They are both murderers.

[Worldsong]

The intention of providing an Evil God with a Nuke so that he helds everyone hostage and fix things for you, is evil. As opposed to working hard to improve your lot yourself, like Right-Eye attempted, Oona is doing, and the former Hobgoblin Supreme Leader did.

The method of associating yourself with an Evil Lich and becoming his accomplice in killing scores of people left and right, allowing him to sacrifice your own people for his amusemet, and killing your own kin to protect him, are also Evil.

You say that Redcloak and Xykon are different because the latter just kills people left and right for laughts, while the former kills people left and right for "a good reason".

No.

There is no "good reason". They are both murderers.

That's the method, not the motive.

You're either evading or using a roundabout method to state that you don't care about intentions.

[RatElemental]

Of course what is theoretically possible is that The Giant is going to spend this entire book building up another goblinoid to replace Redcloak but it still sounds contrived to me. The simple fact is that as it currently stands Redcloak is irreplaceable and I've yet to read a suggestion of how the problem is resolved which doesn't involve the Dark One and Redcloak which doesn't sound forced or like the one thinking it up just really doesn't want Redcloak to 'win'.

I've pointed out a few alternate routes that I don't think are that forced. Redcloak is not irreplaceable, he's just one of the two beings that have access to enough purple quiddity mojo to make a sealing ritual work. The other one is the Dark One, a god who has dozens or possibly hundreds of other clerics who could contact him in the event Redcloak bites it with an offer from the emissary of another god asking for him to parley. Assuming Redcloak doesn't relay a deal Durkon gave him himself, in the afterlife.

[Worldsong]

I've pointed out a few alternate routes that I don't think are that forced. Redcloak is not irreplaceable, he's just one of the two beings that have access to enough purple quiddity mojo to make a sealing ritual work. The other one is the Dark One, a god who has dozens or possibly hundreds of other clerics who could contact him in the event Redcloak bites it with an offer from the emissary of another god asking for him to parley. Assuming Redcloak doesn't relay a deal Durkon gave him himself, in the afterlife.

The Dark One is the one with all the purple quiddity, Redcloak is so far the only one who can access enough of it to cast ninth level spells, which is the amount of essence needed for the ritual to close the gate.

Of course it is possible that in times of need the gods could decide that they can bypass the need for a cleric to interfere in the Material Plane, so if all the other gods agree the Dark One could just perform the ritual himself.

That said... One outlying possibility is that rather than one ninth level spell the solution ends up being gathering a whole boatload of lower level Dark One clerics who each participate in a grand ritual where all of them combined provide the equivalent of one ninth level spell.

Personally I'm still not on board with that because Redcloak simply is one of the most fleshed out characters and arguably the big plot twist was that the Dark One and Redcloak are actually needed to save the world so suddenly killing all the villains no longer is the answer to everything. Having another plot twist which makes Redcloak redundant sounds like a backwards movement.

[The Pilgrim]

Thor said "we only need a drop or so - one 9th level spell slot should do it". He never said that a 9th Level Spell is compulsory.

Therefore, lower-level priests can provide the quiditty by casting successive lower level spells. Specially if they do it at once.

If all the members of the hobgbolin cleric caste in Gobbtopia cast a one level spell at once, I bet that's more than enough quiddity for Thor's purposes.

I suppose the Heroes can convice Jirix to collaborate, with his own slots and those of all his clerics, if only to seal the Rift that is above his very own city. But for that, they need Redcloak out of the table. Jirix isn't going to collaborate as long as he remains under the influence of Redcloak.

[KorvinStarmast]

Actually, with all those uppity pretenders to the title of BBEG around, I fully expect Xykon to perform some affirmative action to make clear who is the Top Dog here. The Dark One and the IFCC need to be put in their place. I suspect we are about to see him step in as this encounter between two dwarves and a high level goblin cleric closes out ...

Thor said "we only need a drop or so - one 9th level spell slot should do it". He never said that a 9th Level Spell is compulsory.
Therefore, lower-level priests can provide the quiditty by casting successive lower level spells. Specially if they do it at once...If all the members of the hobgbolin cleric caste in Gobbtopia cast a one level spell at once, I bet that's more than enough quiddity for Thor's purposes. Hmm, not sure it scales like that, but I'll leave the answer to that in Giant's hands. Three castings of magic missile don't equal the effect of a lightning bolt, for example.

Jirix isn't going to collaborate as long as he remains under the influence of Redcloak. Jirix has an entire nation-state to lead into the future. I will offer up the idea that he'll view any party of adventurers with some suspicion until he gets assurances that they aren't his enemy. (Reddy made this point a couple of strips ago, during his negotiation with Durkon, in re adventurers still having carte blanche on goblins in the OoTS world as it exists today).

Self-Sacrifice =/= Suicide. Yep.

Redcloak is a despicable villain who has commited crime after crime with no justification for his actions
Besides self justification :smallwink:
and whose whole narrative is just a big load of horse hockey to fool gullible people into rooting for him. Yep.

As to cheap plot twists: sorry, for me Elan's Vin Diesel / self-destruct button at gate number 1 was a cheap plot twist and poor writing. (Yes, it was a fourth wall breaking genre crossover done for comedic effect, and that time the strip was more 'gags and giggles' than a no kidding story told in seven volumes). That whole mechanism is of equal value to the fruit pie sorcerer. (At least Rich seems to have apologized for that when Vaarsuvius went on a rant about "who would put a self destruct button on such a gate" during their interaction with Shojo.

Sure, if there were people suggesting that Xykon is a reedemable villain I am not one such. I think I mentioned that in the thread were someone is making a terrible attempt at framing Xykon as "simply misunderstood."

and that this story should conclude with him working together with the Heroes to fix the world. If fixing the world means Xykon rules the world, I think that he might be on board for it for a short while. It would help him pass the time. But, with a fixed world he eventually (once again) gets bored and stirs up trouble. That is who he is: a liche who gets easily bored, and whose cure for boredom is usually causing the death or suffering of someone else. And I seem to recall that Roy made a similar point in re why he's not going to rest until Xykon goes down hard: it's not about the blood oath, it's about removing an evil liche from the world for good and sufficient reasons.

Care to give an example? Because BRitF heavily debunked the idea that Heroes can collaborate with Villains. Uh, Durkon is working hard to collaborate with The Villain's villainous sidekick, one Redcloak.
I expect him to be ultimately successful, but, we'll get a variety of side quests between now and that ultimately happening.
Why?
(1) It is early in the book and (2) there are a lot of moving parts in play that include IFCC, Lien's and O-Chul's captors, the Scribble Order's last surviving member (I think Serini is alive somewhere, grooving with her grandchildren), Xykon, and maybe one or two of the other gods once the IFCC's gambit is revealed.
But on that last bit: I think Book VI was where the bulk of "Deity On-Screen Time" happened; I suspect Book VII will mostly be characters.

[Worldsong]

But on that last bit: I think Book VI was where the bulk of "Deity On-Screen Time" happened; I suspect Book VII will mostly be characters.

I'm going to be upset if there isn't at least one non-crayon appearance of the Dark One. In the flesh/proxy, and not just one of Thor's phantasms.

[The Pilgrim]

I suspect we are about to see him step in as this encounter between two dwarves and a high level goblin cleric closes out ...
Hmm, not sure it scales like that, but I'll leave the answer to that in Giant's hands. Three castings of magic missile don't equal the effect of a lightning bolt, for example.

Well, I don't know how the conversion ratios work, but Thor said that he needed the equivalent of a 9th level spell in quiddity, not a 9th level spell. So I think it's safe to assume that enough lower level spells will do the trick, too.

My point is, if I'm cooking something and the recipe book says I need a jar with half a liter water, I assume it's perfectly valid if I drop it with a 50ml glass, as long as I pour half a liter of water total. Of course, it could be that I have to pour the half a liter all at once, in which case, if I only have water glasses, I will need 5 people with a glass in each hand pouring them at once. (I don't know how much is that in Imperial units. I'm european so I use the metric system. Also I think pints and ounces have different values and correlations in the UK than in America).

[RatElemental]

Hmm, not sure it scales like that, but I'll leave the answer to that in Giant's hands. Three castings of magic missile don't equal the effect of a lightning bolt, for example.


You're right there. It would take 5 1st level slots to reach a roughly equivalent amount of power to one 3rd level slot, according to the ritual rules.

It would take 17 to be roughly equal to a 9th level slot, too, or you could get two 5th level slots, or 3 4th level slots, or 4 3rd level slots and actually have more relative power.

[Peelee]

Well, I don't know how the conversion ratios work, but Thor said that he needed the equivalent of a 9th level spell in quiddity, not a 9th level spell. So I think it's safe to assume that enough lower level spells will do the trick, too.

Given that the Giant specified it's a ritual, no, I do not at all think it's safe to assume lower-level anything will do the trick. It needs to be done by a powerful cleric. A cleric who is powerful enough to cast 9th level spells will be powerful enough. Lower level ones will not be. That's what I understand is the case.

To use your analogy (poorly), the water itself is irrelevant, it's the 1-liter container that's needed.

[Jasdoif]

Given that the Giant specified it's a ritual, no, I do not at all think it's safe to assume lower-level anything will do the trick. It needs to be done by a powerful cleric. A cleric who is powerful enough to cast 9th level spells will be powerful enough. Lower level ones will not be. That's what I understand is the case.

To use your analogy (poorly), the water itself is irrelevant, it's the 1-liter container that's needed.I think of it like the ritual calls for fresh grape juice, not from concentrate; and using weaker grape juice would require concentrating it first.

[Peelee]

I think of it like the ritual calls for fresh grape juice, not from concentrate; and using weaker grape juice would require concentrating it first.

Or one liter of triple distilled water. Three 1/3L cups of distilled water don't add to 1L triple-distilled. Dang, should have started with that one.

[The Pilgrim]

Would it work if they took triple distilled wine and turned it into water? They are clerics, that's like a cantrip for them.

[KorvinStarmast]

Would it work if they took triple distilled wine and turned it into water? That's seriously evil, right there. :smallfurious: Can you do a quick alignment check? :smallbiggrin:

[Peelee]

Would it work if they took triple distilled wine and turned it into water? They are clerics, that's like a cantrip for them.

They can, but they need to upcast it to a 9th level slot to fit. :smalltongue:

[The Pilgrim]

By the way, if a 9th slot is really required... who is going to cast for the other 3 quiddities? Because 17th level clerics are apparently scarce in this world (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0579.html).

I mean, TDO may very well be the sole deity with a 17th Level Cleric in his payroll.

[Jasdoif]

By the way, if a 9th slot is really required... who is going to cast for the other 3 quiddities?I imagine Thor would have an easy time channeling the Northern pantheon's yellow quiddity (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1142.html). Might be more overhead in getting someone from the Western and Southern pantheons to do the same with their own quiddities; but if they can interact enough to create a world, I don't think this is even out of line.

[Worldsong]

The world is already made out of the other three quiddities. I imagine only the purple quiddity needs to be channelled through a ninth level ritual to add it to the other three.

[The Pilgrim]

I imagine Thor would have an easy time channeling the Northern pantheon's yellow quiddity (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1142.html). Might be more overhead in getting someone from the Western and Southern pantheons to do the same with their own quiddities; but if they can interact enough to create a world, I don't think this is even out of line.

Then TDO can channel also his quiddity without needing specifically a 9th Level Slot. Meaning that Thor only mentioned it as an unit of measurement.

[Peelee]

Then TDO can channel also his quiddity without needing specifically a 9th Level Slot. Meaning that Thor only mentioned it as an unit of measurement.

Indeed. I imagine if TDO didn't melt the emissaries Thor et al have tried to send to him, Redcloak would not be needed. Alas, TDO does, and so Redcloak is.

[Jasdoif]

Then TDO can channel also his quiddity without needing specifically a 9th Level Slot. Meaning that Thor only mentioned it as an unit of measurement.Thor's inability to communicate with the Dark One is what prompted Mission Durkon-able, if I recall....And come to think of it, is probably why Thor has a ritual that needs the expenditure of a particularly potent spell slot to (presumably) channel the purple quiddity from instead.

[hungrycrow]

Now that I think of it, why is Thor trying to get Redcloak to do the ritual, instead of having Redcloak relay all this to TDO?

[Worldsong]

Indeed. I imagine if TDO didn't melt the emissaries Thor et al have tried to send to him, Redcloak would not be needed. Alas, TDO does, and so Redcloak is.


Thor's inability to communicate with the Dark One is what prompted Mission Durkon-able, if I recall....And come to think of it, is probably why Thor has a ritual that needs the expenditure of a particularly potent spell slot to (presumably) channel the purple quiddity from instead.

Another possibility is that Redcloak is required either way for the ritual in the Material Plane but under the circumstances where Thor could talk to the Dark One directly he'd explain the ritual to the Dark One and Big Purple could then tell Redcloak to perform the ritual.

[dancrilis]

Indeed. I imagine if TDO didn't melt the emissaries Thor et al have tried to send to him, Redcloak would not be needed. Alas, TDO does, and so Redcloak is.

I don't know - I think it is likely that Redcloak will be needed, but if The Giant puts him in the 'not going to help' category I don't think he has written himself into a corner of saying 'and so the world must be destroyed'.

One could make a case that 'the goblins gain equality and safety not based on the actions of one fanatic holding everyone else to ransom but instead on the actions of multiple goblins working together with others to make the world better' may be a better message (if one cares about messaging).



Now that I think of it, why is Thor trying to get Redcloak to do the ritual, instead of having Redcloak relay all this to TDO?

My assumption is that Thor is effectively bypassing The Dark One - possibly to work with him later when the crisis is averted, possibly not as he might be able to drag out the purple for multiple seals over the upcoming centuries and millennia.

[Peelee]

I don't know - I think it is likely that Redcloak will be needed, but if The Giant puts him in the 'not going to help' category I don't think he has written himself into a corner of saying 'and so the world must be destroyed'.

Quite likely. Which is a good reason to believe that Redcloak will probably end up helping. What can I say? I'm an optimist.

[Worldsong]

My assumption is that Thor is effectively bypassing The Dark One - possibly to work with him later when the crisis is averted, possibly not as he might be able to drag out the purple for multiple seals over the upcoming centuries and millennia.

I think that if the sealing of this rift ends up going behind the Dark One's back he's definitely going to need Big Purple's help for the other rifts because once he realizes he's been betrayed by his own high priest the Dark One is going to go on lockdown with his quiddity.

[Jasdoif]

Now that I think of it, why is Thor trying to get Redcloak to do the ritual, instead of having Redcloak relay all this to TDO?I would guess because communication with the Dark One is still difficult (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1142.html). Even if the Dark One agrees, there's a non-zero possibility that direct interaction could cause a mini-Snarl problem, so it's safer to use Redcloak as a buffer...and in that case, cutting out the middle man and going directly through the Dark One's high priest is a real timesaver. (I imagine Thor expects that Redcloak won't do anything the Dark One would disagree with, but I also don't think Thor is going to question how Durkon gets his cooperation regardless.)

Or if we want to be more cynical, the Dark One's in a position where he could stall on responding personally to buy time for Redcloak to find the Gate, and Thor may not be willing to wait on his compatriots' patience. Redcloak's response is bound to be far more immediate...and as it turned out, implosive.

[dancrilis]

I think that if the sealing of this rift ends up going behind the Dark One's back he's definitely going to need Big Purple's help for the other rifts because once he realizes he's been betrayed by his own high priest the Dark One is going to go on lockdown with his quiddity.

It has been a long time since I had to actually do any chemistry but a drop of something can go a long way if handled correctly - if Thor is thinking 'I get one drop I seal one rift- problem solved' then that is likely not a very good plan, but if he is thinking 'I get one drop I add it to a cup of yellow and I seal potentially hundreds of rifts' then he can close all the current ones and many future ones and in the longer term can wait for The Dark One to come around, while being able to show the other gods that he has everything under control for this world continuing for a few hundred thousand years (an eye blink to most of them).

[The Pilgrim]

That's seriously evil, right there. :smallfurious: Can you do a quick alignment check? :smallbiggrin:

I see myself as CN with CG tendencies. Which means my true alignment is probably deeply rooted in CE.


Indeed. I imagine if TDO didn't melt the emissaries Thor et al have tried to send to him, Redcloak would not be needed. Alas, TDO does, and so Redcloak is.

Yes. But I'm in on the opinion that, as others have pointed out above, Thor needs Redcloak as intermediary to get the colaboration of TDO, not as a provider of the quiddity behind TDO's back. It's unlikely he can provide the quiddity if TDO doesn't agrees to it. Therefore, in the event that Redcloak is eliminated, the next High Priest of the Dark one can play the same role, even if he cannot cast 9th level spells.

Of course, Durkon has to keep trying on Redcloak. "I'm going to eliminate your high priests one by one until you agree to colaborate" is not the way to get TDO on board. Definitely not a LG way, at least.

[Worldsong]

It has been a long time since I had to actually do any chemistry but a drop of something can go a long way if handled correctly - if Thor is thinking 'I get one drop I seal one rift- problem solved' then that is likely not a very good plan, but if he is thinking 'I get one drop I add it to a cup of yellow and I seal potentially hundreds of rifts' then he can close all the current ones and many future ones and in the longer term can wait for The Dark One to come around, while being able to show the other gods that he has everything under control for this world continuing for a few hundred thousand years (an eye blink to most of them).

I'm being reminded of homeopathy, which usually is a bad thing.

That said it is entirely possible that you're right and Thor doesn't need the entire drop for one rift, and he just told Durkon to get Redcloak to contribute a 9th spell slot's worth of power so he'd have enough purple quiddity for the other rifts as well. That would actually be quite ingenious from Thor.

EDIT: Although an important question would become how well a god can manipulate a quiddity different from their own. The ritual Redcloak has to perform probably shapes the quiddity the right way to help seal this rift but if Thor can't manipulate purple quiddity I'd also be doubtful that he could preserve the purple quiddity in the right shape to seal other rifts.

[Jasdoif]

Therefore, in the event that Redcloak is eliminated, the next High Priest of the Dark one can play the same role, even if he cannot cast 9th level spells.Unless they can't because Thor's ritual needs a 9th-level slot, anyway.

[Ruck]

Yeah, yeah... remember that other famous fantasy work about a gritty and grim medieval-themed world that featured a chick riding dragons who was going to fix everything and make the world go right, by burnig alive every bad guy one by one?

Prepare yourself to be disappointed again.

I can't think of a bigger insult to Rich as a writer than comparing him to David Benioff and D.B. Weiss.

[understatement]

I can't think of a bigger insult to Rich as a writer than comparing him to David Benioff and D.B. Weiss.

Lost?

Word count.

[Ruck]

Lost?

Word count.

What about Lost?

[understatement]

What about Lost?

Not really anything. I just thought the Pilgrim's choice in comparing OOTS to a show that ended a "bit" poorly was a strange comparison.

[KorvinStarmast]

Thor's inability to communicate with the Dark One is what prompted Mission Durkon-able,That got a RL grin out of me. Thanks.
:smallbiggrin:
Now that I think of it, why is Thor trying to get Redcloak to do the ritual, instead of having Redcloak relay all this to TDO? TDO rage quit the private chat group Loki was in. Loki, evil god. If TDO won't even talk to Loki why would anyone expect him to talk to Thor?

What about Lost? It's a J Geils Band lyric
I musta got lost ...

[Ruck]

Not really anything. I just thought the Pilgrim's choice in comparing OOTS to a show that ended a "bit" poorly was a strange comparison.

I never saw it, so I'm not sure if the comparison would be more or less insulting.

[Sebastian]

This is, quite honestly, one of the most disturbing things I've heard on this forum. Because this sounds like what an oppressor would say when the victims rise up. To portray the victims as the bad guys who are disturbing the peace even when that peace (which we might as well call the status quo) is one of oppression, discrimination, and routinely killing people because of their appearance.

That kind of peace should not be restored. That kind of peace should irreversibly be moved away from. What needs to happen is for the heroes to change the world, to create a world where goblinkind is no longer treated as nothing more than a bunch of monsters.

Is Redcloak a villain? Yes. Is he Evil? Yes. Is his cause justified and does it need to be addressed? Yes.



The Giant has bluntly stated that yes, the story is about the Order of the Stick.

He has also bluntly stated that Redcloak's story is a story about how, in The Giant's eyes, goblins (who he views as intelligent creatures with free will) are oppressed, discriminated against, and mistreated. He has explained that he considers it horrible how goblins and orcs and the like can be treated as monsters to be killed for XP just because they're listed as Usually Evil.

His actions have a point in the sense that he's fighting against oppression. His methods may be wrong but that doesn't remove the validity of his motives.

We're probably going to see Redcloak be proven wrong in the shape of his methods having been wrong. But what we're almost certainly not going to see is The Giant kicking him out of the story and going "Don't worry, he was just a villain, now everything is fine and the peace is restored."

EDIT: In fact after talking about the comic with my brother (who also reads it) I've come to the conclusion that the reason Redcloak, the representative of goblinkind, is a villain despite fighting against oppression because The Giant wants to make it absolutely clear that oppression, systematic oppression, is wrong.

You know what would happen if Redcloak was a good guy and didn't do any bad things? People would go 'oh yes his cause is definitely just and his kind shouldn't be treated that way because clearly they're good people who don't deserve that kind of treatment.'

And that would be wrong because it would paint the image that to deserve equality you need to be a good person.

Systematic oppression shouldn't happen to anybody. Having Redcloak be a villain fighting against oppression and reaching for equality makes it clear that it doesn't matter if goblinoids aren't saints: they're still people and deserving of being treated as such.

In the words of Terry Pratchett 'Just because someone's a member of an ethnic minority doesn't mean they're not a nasty small-minded little jerk.'

Redcloak is a goblin, he is a member of an oppressed race,he is a also a villain that deserve to be kicked to the curb.

"What needs to happen is for the heroes to change the world, to create a world where goblinkind is no longer treated as nothing more than a bunch of monsters."

And probably it will happen, but without Redcloak's contribution. I can't see it happening because as someone mentioned Redcloak abandoning the Plan would mean that everything he did would have been for nothing and he just can't afford it.

and if happen with Redcloak's plan then what does it say? That might make right? That the only way to get justice is to be stronger than the other parts? It is probably true, but is a kind of sh**ty message if you ask me.

Also, if the TDO get his 'nuke' it will not be long before the other gods (and maybe even someone else, like the fiends) get their own, and then the real fun will begin.

(mmh, an idea. What if the fiends plan is to hijiack the ritual with V and send the gate to the planes of the good gods?)

[The Pilgrim]

I can't think of a bigger insult to Rich as a writer than comparing him to David Benioff and D.B. Weiss.

The plot points were stablished by GRR Martin. Those two chumps just failed at execution. The ending as conceived by the author was awesome.

[Schroeswald]

I will point out that Rich is on the record having never read ASOIAF and not being interested in ever doing it because he doesn’t think he’ll like it.

[Worldsong]

In the words of Terry Pratchett 'Just because someone's a member of an ethnic minority doesn't mean they're not a nasty small-minded little jerk.'

Redcloak is a goblin, he is a member of an oppressed race,he is a also a villain that deserve to be kicked to the curb.

"What needs to happen is for the heroes to change the world, to create a world where goblinkind is no longer treated as nothing more than a bunch of monsters."

And probably it will happen, but without Redcloak's contribution. I can't see it happening because as someone mentioned Redcloak abandoning the Plan would mean that everything he did would have been for nothing and he just can't afford it.

and if happen with Redcloak's plan then what does it say? That might make right? That the only way to get justice is to be stronger than the other parts? It is probably true, but is a kind of sh**ty message if you ask me.

Also, if the TDO get his 'nuke' it will not be long before the other gods (and maybe even someone else, like the fiends) get their own, and then the real fun will begin.

(mmh, an idea. What if the fiends plan is to hijiack the ritual with V and send the gate to the planes of the good gods?)

The main disagreement here is that I think that this final book will involve Redcloak finally facing all of his mistakes and admitting that The Plan is a bust. I can understand if others think he'll never admit to his mistakes but I never claimed that I'm fine with The Plan.

Although I'm curious how you'd imagine that the other gods would get their nukes. There's only five potential nukes in the world and every god other than the Dark One is deadly afraid of messing with the rifts. It's not a universal rule that once someone has a nuke everyone gets a nuke.

That said it's possible that the fiends are in fact trying to hijack the rift. Or maybe they just want to open it all the way and let the Snarl out. They've been rather vague about their plan so far, although given that apparently they were in favour of Hel's plan destroying the world appears to be part of it.


I will point out that Rich is on the record having never read ASOIAF and not being interested in ever doing it because he doesn’t think he’ll like it.

Wouldn't blame him. Whether it's the books or the series, it's not exactly flawless.

[dancrilis]

Although I'm curious how you'd imagine that the other gods would get their nukes. There's only five potential nukes in the world and every god other than the Dark One is deadly afraid of messing with the rifts. It's not a universal rule that once someone has a nuke everyone gets a nuke.

I can't speak for the OOTS Gods - but if someone else had a snarl/nuke I would want one.

My method would be as follows - work with a like minded god of a different quiddity and create a 'snarl box' needing two individuals to open it, we would run some tests on it and then see about creating in some distant part of some infinite plane create a two colour snarl inside the box (might use some mortals channeling my power to do the actual deed), having three quiddities involved for the box and only two for the snarl would be even better.

Once this has been perfected we would be able to effectively create as many snarl boxes with mini snarls as needed - ready for them to be unleashed on any deity that myself and my collegue(s) agree is becoming a threat.

That just seems to be how people are, if someone else has a weapon (that they likely never intend to use) and they don't, they also would want a similiar weapon (that they might never intend to use) - just in case.

The Dark One having the Snarl has a risk of kicking off a deific arms race.

[Worldsong]

I can't speak for the OOTS Gods - but if someone else had a snarl/nuke I would want one.

My method would be as follows - work with a like minded god of a different quiddity and create a 'snarl box' needing two individuals to open it, we would run some tests on it and then see about creating in some distant part of some infinite plane create a two colour snarl inside the box (might use some mortals channeling my power to do the actual deed), having three quiddities involved for the box and only two for the snarl would be even better.

Once this has been perfected we would be able to effectively create as many snarl boxes with mini snarls as needed - ready for them to be unleashed on any deity that myself and my collegue(s) agree is becoming a threat.

That just seems to be how people are, if someone else has a weapon (that they likely never intend to use) and they don't, they also would want a similiar weapon (that they might never intend to use) - just in case.

The Dark One having the Snarl has a risk of kicking off a deific arms race.

It's possible but I'd rate it as unlikely. So far the entire situation has been painted as the gods being so afraid of the Snarl that they know very little about it and have built their entire rule system around minimizing the risk of another Snarl forming.

The Dark One getting hold of the Snarl might cause the gods to panic and do something incredibly stupid but I don't think the deific arms race is the most likely response.

Although I do like the sound of a Snarl box.

[The Pilgrim]

I will point out that Rich is on the record having never read ASOIAF and not being interested in ever doing it because he doesn’t think he’ll like it.

If my memory serves, Rich stated he didn't like GRR Martin's work because he likes heroes being heoric.

In GRR Martin's writings, a character being principled equals to purchasing a first class ticket for the Graveyard Express (with a quick stop at Rapefest Station if they are female). Characters who put cold pragmatism before principles are the ones who are rewarded.

Rich is much the opposite. Principled characters are the ones who prevail, thanks to being principled. Which is part of why I don't see him letting Redcloak get out alive from this story, as he is a deeply unprincipled character.

(GRR Martin would kill off Recloak too, but out of him letting his emotions get in the way of pragmatism, like happened in the last scene).

[understatement]

The plot points were stablished by GRR Martin. Those two chumps just failed at execution. The ending as conceived by the author was awesome.

Considering the ending felt more like D&D writing by the seat of their pants, I'm pretty sure the show and books diverge significantly.


If my memory serves, Rich stated he didn't like GRR Martin's work because he likes heroes being heoric.

In GRR Martin's writings, a character being principled equals to purchasing a first class ticket for the Graveyard Express (with a quick stop at Rapefest Station if they are female). Characters who put cold pragmatism before principles are the ones who are rewarded.

Tywin?


Rich is much the opposite. Principled characters are the ones who prevail, thanks to being principled. Which is part of why I don't see him letting Redcloak get out alive from this story, as he is a deeply unprincipled character.

Shojo?

(GRR Martin would kill off Recloak too, but out of him letting his emotions get in the way of pragmatism, like happened in the last scene).[/QUOTE]

Ironically, I'd think Martin would let Redcloak live, but right after thoroughly crushing his hopes and dreams.

He would also kill everyone off in the Order except for Haley, because.

[Worldsong]

Ironically, I'd think Martin would let Redcloak live, but right after thoroughly crushing his hopes and dreams.

He would also kill everyone off in the Order except for Haley, because.

Our god is a vengeful god.

[The Pilgrim]

Considering the ending felt more like D&D writing by the seat of their pants, I'm pretty sure the show and books diverge significantly.

The problem of the second part of the TV show is that it derived into rewarding characters in accordance to their likability to the audience. The ending looked shaggy because the scripwriters had to make a hasty turn back into GRR Martin's views, and that naturally caught the audience flat-footed.

For Redcloak to get out of this, a shellout writer who rewards characters to please the audience would be required. Rich is not that kind of writer, neither is GRR Martin.


Tywin?

"When you go to the barthroom, always lock the door".

Now seriously, Tywin's flaw was to allow his emotions get in the way of his treatment of Tyrion. He should have either accepted Tyrion because he was clever and loyal to the Lannister cause, or just got rid of him for being a PR nuisance. He did neither, he side-lined Tyrion because he was a midget, but at the same time kept him around because he was a Lannister. It didn't end well for him.


Shojo?

Shojo was someone who did wrong things for a good cause. Exactly what some people mistake Redcloak for. Yet, Shojo ended up with all his schemes blowing up in his face. It's not by chance Rich put someone like him and not someone like Hinjo in charge of pre-war Azure City.

[understatement]

The problem of the second part of the TV show is that it derived into rewarding characters in accordance to their likability to the audience. The ending looked shaggy because the scripwriters had to make a hasty turn back into GRR Martin's views, and that naturally caught the audience flat-footed.

Proof?

No, really, proof? So many things have changed (no Martells, no fake Aegon, no Griff , no Victarion) that this statement feels more like personal conjecture.


For Redcloak to get out of this, a shellout writer who rewards characters to please the audience would be required. Rich is not that kind of writer, neither is GRR Martin.

I think it'd be more shellout not to continue following a character that has been instrumental to the main plot of the story across all five books and a prequel.

Heck, you say one thing, I say something else, and there's a bunch of people with completely different (or similar) viewpoints altogether.


"When you go to the barthroom, always lock the door".

Now seriously, Tywin's flaw was to allow his emotions get in the way of his treatment of Tyrion. He should have either accepted Tyrion because he was clever and loyal to the Lannister cause, or just got rid of him for being a PR nuisance. He did neither, he side-lined Tyrion because he was a midget, but at the same time kept him around because he was a Lannister. It didn't end well for him.

Okay, sure, so how about...well, every character has some emotion, yes? Stannis, Roose, Walder most likely all have death sentences slapped to their heads. Pragmatism isn't some kind of immunity.


Shojo was someone who did wrong things for a good cause. Exactly what some people mistake Redcloak for. Yet, Shojo ended up with all his schemes blowing up in his face. It's not by chance Rich put someone like him and not someone like Hinjo in charge of pre-war Azure City.

The problem is that if the characters in the comic dismiss the grievance against the divine status quo (which is legitimate, fyi) it's pretty much guaranteeing that Redcloak 2.0 will happen again.

It is unrealistic and a double moral standard expecting oppression to create saints, and it doesn't solve anything.

[Worldsong]

The problem is that if the characters in the comic dismiss the grievance against the divine status quo (which is legitimate, fyi) it's pretty much guaranteeing that Redcloak 2.0 will happen again.

It is unrealistic and a double moral standard expecting oppression to create saints, and it doesn't solve anything.

Exactly. Demanding that the oppressed people behave like saints before you'll help them out just means you're demanding that they behave better than their oppressors to receive equal treatment, despite being in a worse position.

Although in all fairness Pilgrim so far has been saying that he's fine with a solution where other goblinoids are involved, he just hates Redcloak.

Also at the risk of total thread derailment, as someone who's generally CG-aligned I thought most of Shojo's mistakes were practical ones rather than ethical ones. Except maybe how he treated Miko but given how it was Miko who killed him I think that still works out as a character dying because of their own failings.

[Jasdoif]

If my memory serves, Rich stated he didn't like GRR Martin's work because he likes heroes being heoric.Among some other things.

I'm really tired of this idea that George R. R. Martin invented the concept of killing characters circa year 2000. At least the OP didn't insultingly imply that I'm only killing characters because I'm a fanboy of his, as I have seen elsewhere.

So, for the record: I've never read George R. R. Martin. I haven't watched Game of Thrones. I don't have HBO, for starters, and I haven't bought the DVDs. I am aware, second-hand, that apparently he kills off a lot of characters, sometimes all at once. I can't really say too much about that, though, because I'm not familiar with it.

I can say that I have read several reviews/articles about the work that makes me think that it's not for me, as I have no interest in "gritty realism" for its own sake, I almost exclusively want to read about actual heroes being actually heroic, and I prefer not to read extensive descriptions of meat dishes.

And I've never killed a developed character where that character's death wasn't a direct result of their own choices.

[hamishspence]

Yup - the closest to a GoT reference in the OOTS books:

was "Jim Slush" and his pet "Spook" in one bonus strip.

[The Pilgrim]

Proof?

No, really, proof? So many things have changed (no Martells, no fake Aegon, no Griff , no Victarion) that this statement feels more like personal conjecture.

Proof of what? Proof that the scripwriters followed GRR Martin's plot points? That's pretty much a known fact. I don't know how the ending of the books will be, if ever, but the plot points of the one in the TV Series were dictated by the fat man, even if the execution wasn't.


I think it'd be more shellout not to continue following a character that has been instrumental to the main plot of the story across all five books and a prequel.

So, you are saying that killing a villain at the end of the story is being a shellout? Because that's basically standard procedure, except for "villain protagonists" stories, which OOTS is not.

According to the Numer of Character Appearances (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?611203-Number-of-Character-Appearances-VII-To-Absent-Friends) thread, at the moment I'm writing this Nale has still got more screen time in the main comic than Redcloak, despite having been killed more than a book ago. Tarquin and Vampire Durkon have got almost as much screen time in the main comic as Redcloak or Xykon. Yet all three are out of the story.


The problem is that if the characters in the comic dismiss the grievance against the divine status quo (which is legitimate, fyi) it's pretty much guaranteeing that Redcloak 2.0 will happen again.

It is unrealistic and a double moral standard expecting oppression to create saints, and it doesn't solve anything.

The Dwarves arguably got a worse deal than the Goblins, and there they are, no dwarf is engineering the end of the world. The Humans did not get any raw deal yet produced Xykon.

A lot of races created by the Gods as XP Farms (according to Redcloak's narrative), like the Kobolds or the Orcs, have ended up getting the favor of the Gods. Hobgoblins were able to overrun Azure City, favor of the Gods or not.

Anyway, I've never said that the stroy will not end with some sort of understanding with the goblins, or at least a prospect of future understanding. What I've said is that Redcloak is probably not going to be part of it.

[understatement]

Proof of what? Proof that the scripwriters followed GRR Martin's plot points? That's pretty much a known fact. I don't know how the ending of the books will be, if ever, but the plot points of the one in the TV Series were dictated by the fat man, even if the execution wasn't.

I'm sure they followed some of the plot points. Judging by how disastrous the ending was, I don't think that's really a positive thing, considering the books are at almost a complete 180 from the show.


So, you are saying that killing a villain at the end of the story is being a shellout? Because that's basically standard procedure, except for "villain protagonists" stories, which OOTS is not.

I really don't think I said that.


The Dwarves arguably got a worse deal than the Goblins, and there they are, no dwarf is engineering the end of the world. The Humans did not get any raw deal yet produced Xykon.

"Group A has it bad, but Group B also had it bad and yet did something about it, so Group A has no reason to complain about it." Doesn't fly as well as you think it does.


There is no unmutable divine status quo for mortals. A lot of races created by the Gods as XP Farms (according to Redcloak's narrative), like the Kobolds or the Orcs, have ended up getting the favor of the Gods. Hobgoblins were able to overrun Azure City, favor of the Gods or not.

Giant has said the goblins hadn't worshipped anyone before the Dark One.

I am not sure who the Orcs worship (Giggles kind of doesn't count). Tyr, maybe?

In fact, the hobgoblins conquering Azure City is literally because Redcloak and Xykon led them, and I'd say RC has the favor of a god.


Anyway, I've never said that the stroy will not end with some sort of understanding with the goblins, or at least a prospect of future understanding. What I've said is that Redcloak is probably not going to be part of it.

Cool, sorry about misquoting you. I was mainly still addressing to your OP - which was that purple quiddity will not be used, and the heroes will rebuild the gates. That preserves the divine status quo, which is something undesirable.

Redcloak not being part of the solution is fairly plausible, sure.

[The Pilgrim]

Cool, sorry about misquoting you. I was mainly still addressing to your OP - which was that purple quiddity will not be used, and the heroes will rebuild the gates. That preserves the divine status quo, which is something undesirable.

Redcloak not being part of the solution is fairly plausible, sure.

Back to my OP:

And a final note for consideration: For this story's conclussion, the Order doesn't necessary need to get Redcloak's collaboration. Yes, they can't seal the rifts without him, but so what? The option of sealing the Rifts was not on the table when this began. The Heroes can rebuild the Gates or find any other temporary solution to the Snarl thing, then leave for the Epilogue a comment on how PC races are changing their views on the goblinoids, as they need to earn their trust in order to seal the Rifts and bring stability to the world. (This is just an example of how this story could have a satisfactory ending without need of collaboration from Redcloak).

That's just a suggestion to exemplify how Redcloak isn't needed for the conclussion. Another possibility is getting Jirix and the rest of goblinoids to colaborate right on (they have a pretty strong reason for it, with a growing rift right over their heads). A third possibility is that the Snarl is somewhat dealt with permanently. And then there is what Rich has in mind, that will probably surprise me.

[understatement]

Back to my OP:

And a final note for consideration: For this story's conclussion, the Order doesn't necessary need to get Redcloak's collaboration. Yes, they can't seal the rifts without him, but so what? The option of sealing the Rifts was not on the table when this began. The Heroes can rebuild the Gates or find any other temporary solution to the Snarl thing, then leave for the Epilogue a comment on how PC races are changing their views on the goblinoids, as they need to earn their trust in order to seal the Rifts and bring stability to the world. (This is just an example of how this story could have a satisfactory ending without need of collaboration from Redcloak).

"rebuild the gates" - needs an Epic-level divine and arcane caster.

Here's the problem: why would the PC race "change their views" on the goblinoids, and why do goblinoids need to "earn their trust" opposed to every other race on the world? Why does a race have to prove themselves trustworthy to be given equality?

The point of the purple quiddity is that the Dark One can get a place at the table.

[dancrilis]

Here's the problem: why would the PC race "change their views" on the goblinoids
Trade and non-hostile relations.


... and why do goblinoids need to "earn their trust" opposed to every other race on the world? Why does a race have to prove themselves trustworthy to be given equality?


The answer to both of these depends on why they don't have trust right now - it is possible that every race is where they are because of the choices that the members of that race have chosen over the years.

[The Pilgrim]

"rebuild the gates" - needs an Epic-level divine and arcane caster.

How convenient that Xykon is carying around in his pocket the souls of both the epic divine caster and the epic arcane caster who originally built the gates.

I'm sure the OOTS will end the story reaching epic level, if only with all the XP from killing Xykon and finishing the Campaign. The souls of Lirian and Dorukan can then tell Durkon and V what to do.

(Yes, I'm on the opinion that V, given that she has already realized his wrongs and expressed her will to make restitution, will get to live and spend the rest of his considerable elven lifetime making restitution for all the harm she has done. Getting him killed or unmade by the Snarl would be too much of an easy way out for her).

[hamishspence]

How convenient that Xykon is carying around in his pocket the souls of both the epic divine caster and the epic arcane caster who originally built the gates.


We don't know that. The gem could have been destroyed with the explosion back in book 1. Or , for that matter, with Xykon's body the time he was thrown into a gate.

[understatement]

Trade and non-hostile relations.

So...Gobbotopia won't be crusade bait?


The answer to both of these depends on why they don't have trust right now - it is possible that every race is where they are because of the choices that the members of that race have chosen over the years.

So...minority determines the majority who don't have anything to do with the minority's plans?


How convenient that Xykon is carying around in his pocket the souls of both the epic divine caster and the epic arcane caster who originally built the gates.

Maybe inconvenient in that

a) the order doesn't know about the gem
b) Lirian and Dorukan can't be raised by a normal Resurrection. Likely they are destroyed by Dorukan's castle exploding.
c) can't find their bodies because you can't scry on bodies, even if they were intact
d) Durkon quickly tries to level up to 17, and then realizes that a minimum four rifts are open and that there's a serious time crunch and also the Order does not possess 50k gp worth of diamonds. Also, to his woe, he meta-narratively realizes that the Giant has pretty much considered True Rez to not be usable by the heroes.
e) the Gates are not permanent

[dancrilis]

So...Gobbotopia won't be crusade bait?
Correct - subject to how the Jirix and the Hobgoblins handle it (if they handle it poorly then it could be).


So...minority determines the majority who don't have anything to do with the minority's plans?

It might be me reading it wrong, but that doesn't seem to a sentence - in that every word is a real word but they are meaningless beside one another in the order selected given what they are a reply to.

[Worldsong]

It might be me reading it wrong, but that doesn't seem to a sentence - in that every word is a real word but they are meaningless beside one another in the order selected given what they are a reply to.

I think what Understatement means by this is that the actions of a minority of the goblinoids, those being the leaders, would determine the position of the majority of the goblinoids, even though the majority of the goblinoids weren't directly involved or had a say in the actions taken by their leaders.

[understatement]

Correct - subject to how the Jirix and the Hobgoblins handle it (if they handle it poorly then it could be).

So...if the goblins fail, it's their fault for their city becoming crusade bait.


It might be me reading it wrong, but that doesn't seem to a sentence - in that every word is a real word but they are meaningless beside one another in the order selected given what they are a reply to.

It might be you. I wouldn't know.

[dancrilis]

I think what Understatement means by this is that the actions of a minority of the goblinoids, those being the leaders, would determine the position of the majority of the goblinoids, even though the majority of the goblinoids weren't directly involved or had a say in the actions taken by their leaders.

Then they should probably have said that.

Lets say People A keep attacking Peoples B, C, D and E and this has been going on for centuries, have broken trusts, used cease-fires to build up forces for the next attack etc - then if People A want peace it is kindof on them to earn it not merely on the other Peoples to accept it.

That is true regardless of who the leadership is - because the other People have ample reason not to trust any of People A.
Fair to the individual? Not really - but that is life.

Not we have no way to know if the Goblinoids would count as People A - Redcloak and The Dark One don't think so but they seem a little biased.


So...if the goblins fail, it's their fault for their city becoming crusade bait.
Yes - if they make no allies, make new enemies and bring all their enemies together against them they can't be surprised when eventually one of there enemies calls a successful crusade against them.
Fortunately for Gobbotopia it seems fairly decent at establishing relations with other nations so hopefully it shouldn't be a problem for them.



It might be you. I wouldn't know.
Apparently not - unless Worldsong picked you up correctly and even then they seemed unsure.

[Worldsong]

Apparently not - unless Worldsong picked you up correctly and even then they seemed unsure.

I am permanently stuck in a state of uncertainty.

That said I agree that if the goblinoids have a history of attacking and backstabbing everyone without provocation they kinda dug their own grave although the current generation should also have the chance to dig themselves out of that hole.

Of course given that The Giant is on record for saying this story is criticism for everyone discriminating against goblinoids in DnD campaigns I'm guessing that even if it turns out Redcloak and the Dark One have been exaggerating we're not going to learn that the goblinoids brought it all upon themselves.

[understatement]

Then they should probably have said that.

Lets say People A keep attacking Peoples B, C, D and E and this has been going on for centuries, have broken trusts, used cease-fires to build up forces for the next attack etc - then if People A want peace it is kindof on them to earn it not merely on the other Peoples to accept it.

That is true regardless of who the leadership is - because the other People have ample reason not to trust any of People A.
Fair to the individual? Not really - but that is life.

Not we have no way to know if the Goblinoids would count as People A - Redcloak and The Dark One don't think so but they seem a little biased.

This isn't really the situation?

People != race.


Yes - if they make no allies, make new enemies and bring all their enemies together against them they can't be surprised when eventually one of there enemies calls a successful crusade against them.
Fortunately for Gobbotopia it seems fairly decent at establishing relations with other nations so hopefully it shouldn't be a problem for them.

Ok.


Apparently not - unless Worldsong picked you up correctly and even then they seemed unsure.

Like I said, I wouldn't know.


I think what Understatement means by this is that the actions of a minority of the goblinoids, those being the leaders, would determine the position of the majority of the goblinoids, even though the majority of the goblinoids weren't directly involved or had a say in the actions taken by their leaders.

Yeah.

[dancrilis]

People != race.


It doesn't need to be but it can be:
The Dwarven People, The Elven People, The Halfling People etc would have People and Race as effectively interchangeable terms - but People can be much broader also i.e The Aberration People.

[Worldsong]

People != race.


It doesn't need to be but it can be:
The Dwarven People, The Elven People, The Halfling People etc would have People and Race as effectively interchangeable terms - but People can be much broader also i.e The Aberration People.

If you look at how fantasy stories are written often a non-human race is treated as one united group. It's another way that our inherent focus on humans shines through, in the same way that other races get dedicated traits (such as dwarves being sturdy) whereas humans are 'variable'.

[dancrilis]

If you look at how fantasy stories are written often a non-human race is treated as one united group. It's another way that our inherent focus on humans shines through, in the same way that other races get dedicated traits (such as dwarves being sturdy) whereas humans are 'variable'.

Depends on how you look at it - from the Dwarven prespective Dwarves are not sturdy they are normal, and humans are unstable.

[Ruck]

In No Cure for the Paladin Blues commentary:

Well, just so there's no misunderstanding, Belkar is a protagonist of OOTS, regardless of his alignment. The strip will continue to follow him even if he leaves the OOTS. Heck, if Miko had killed Belkar, we probably would have had a few strips showing Belkar in the Afterlife before he was brought back. (Aw, man, that would have been great ... sigh ... another opportunity missed.)

Ah, I see. I still don't think that will happen, mind you. (Or at least not significantly. We may get some afterlife scenes of Belkar once he dies, although I expect that to be part of the denouement, so, not many.)


The plot points were stablished by GRR Martin. Those two chumps just failed at execution. The ending as conceived by the author was awesome.

Then what was the point of your comment?


Yes it is. It's the story we've been reading all this time.

Pretty much this, yeah.

[Worldsong]

Depends on how you look at it - from the Dwarven prespective Dwarves are not sturdy they are normal, and humans are are unstable.

True, but the point I'm making is that other races get bonuses to Con or Wis or whatever and with humans it's like 'whatever have +2 in whatever stat you like because we don't want to shoehorn humans into a specific role unlike all those other races.'

And then if you look at how they're treated story-wise you get to see humans split up into many factions whereas all the elves live in one big forest and are cooperating with each other and the dwarves occupy one big mountain range. In DnD elves and dwarves get split up into three types each, but oftentimes non-human races get treated as the fantasy-variant of a human group rather than a wholly independent race.

[Sebastian]

I can't speak for the OOTS Gods - but if someone else had a snarl/nuke I would want one.

My method would be as follows - work with a like minded god of a different quiddity and create a 'snarl box' needing two individuals to open it, we would run some tests on it and then see about creating in some distant part of some infinite plane create a two colour snarl inside the box (might use some mortals channeling my power to do the actual deed), having three quiddities involved for the box and only two for the snarl would be even better.

Once this has been perfected we would be able to effectively create as many snarl boxes with mini snarls as needed - ready for them to be unleashed on any deity that myself and my collegue(s) agree is becoming a threat.

That just seems to be how people are, if someone else has a weapon (that they likely never intend to use) and they don't, they also would want a similiar weapon (that they might never intend to use) - just in case.

The Dark One having the Snarl has a risk of kicking off a deific arms race.

Interesting idea, but it is not necessary, once the other gates are rebuilt (because they need to be rebuilt) use the ritual on on of them and you have your snarl-nuke. It would be even easier for them because unlike TDO they don't lack arcane casters.

It is true the gods are scared of the snarl, but not doing so would mean leave TDO as the only one with that kind of power, and I doubt that all the gods would be ok with that.

[Peelee]

Interesting idea, but it is not necessary, once the other gates are rebuilt (because they need to be rebuilt) use the ritual on on of them and you have your snarl-nuke. It would be even easier for them because unlike TDO they don't lack arcane casters.

It is true the gods are scared of the snarl, but not doing so would mean leave TDO as the only one with that kind of power, and I doubt that all the gods would be ok with that.

The Gates don't need to be rebuilt if the gods can seal the rifts. The Gates are like a velcro patch, the gods sealing the rifts is like them having a sewing machine. For a poor analogy of how I understand it.

[JSSheridan]

How much of Thor's plan is because he doesn't want this world destroyed and then Hel to get all its dwarves' souls?

[KorvinStarmast]

Considering the ending felt more like D&D writing by the seat of their pants, I'm pretty sure the show and books diverge significantly. We'll never know, since Martin will die before he finishes book 7. Book 6 is late Yet Again. :smallyuk:

Ironically, I'd think Martin would let Redcloak live, but right after thoroughly crushing his hopes and dreams. Yeah.

He would also kill everyone off in the Order except for Haley, because. I am guessing "because Roz" but I think there are a lot of words that could end that sentence.
That said I agree that if the goblinoids have a history of attacking and backstabbing everyone without provocation they kinda dug their own grave although the current generation should also have the chance to dig themselves out of that hole.
Jirix has the opportunity thanks to the goblinoid conquest of Azure City. There's a step one of a many step process ...

The Gates don't need to be rebuilt if the gods can seal the rifts. The Gates are like a velcro patch, the gods sealing the rifts is like them having a sewing machine. For a poor analogy of how I understand it. How about "getting the proper repair parts, rather than using duck tape." :smallbiggrin:

[Peelee]

How about "getting the proper repair parts, rather than using duck tape." :smallbiggrin:

That works too.

Also, obligatory DUCT TAPE ISNT EVEN THAT GOOD TAPE! mini-rant.

[The Pilgrim]

I don't believe in many things, but I believe in duct tape.

[Ruck]

We'll never know, since Martin will die before he finishes book 7. Book 6 is late Yet Again. :smallyuk:
If it makes you feel better, he's not finishing book 6, either.

[understatement]

If it makes you feel better, he's not finishing book 6, either.

Well, he did say 2021...


We'll never know, since Martin will die before he finishes book 7. Book 6 is late Yet Again. :smallyuk:
Yeah.
I am guessing "because Roz" but I think there are a lot of words that could end that sentence.

I was thinking Haley is a) redhead b) Arya-ish.

[BeerMug Paladin]

Right now, the Snarl's prison is made of iron. The Snarl is strong enough to eventually bend the iron bars and escape.

But adding the 4th quiddity upgrades all those iron bars to steel. The Snarl can't bend steel.

That's the way I thought of the situation at least.

I don't think it was specified whether the rifts would close right after the upgrade process has happened. Just that the threat of the Snarl escaping would be over with at that point.

[Ruck]

Well, he did say 2021...

I don't see any evidence he's written a single word. (The "leaked chapters" were all supposed to be the climax of book 5, but he wrote so much the book couldn't be bound without cutting them off.) I see a lot of evidence he's traveling and doing conventions and developing other shows in his world with HBO.

[Lord Raziere]

To figure out what will happen to Redcloak, we must first figure out how the final battle, will be set.

Roy will not face Redcloak. His thematic and dramatic confrontation is with Xykon, and so is Vaarsuviuses. Roy has his blood oath, and V their redemption as well as it being the best tactically speaking: a spellcaster to fight a spellcaster. the thematic relevance of a caster wanting to use power resonsibly to face a caster who doesn't is obvious, as is the fighter seeking justice.

Belkar will face the Monster In The Darkness. a good antagonist learning to thinking outside his confines to face an evil protagonist doing the same. given MitD's strength, Belkar is likely to die. a fitting end

which leaves: Elan, Haley and Durkon to face Redcloak. Durkon's thematic relevance to Redcloak is obvious, but Elan and Haley? not so much. can we dig deeper into this?

well what most stands out to me, is that Elan is CG and Redcloak is LE, Elan always gets the Lawful Evil villains to face while Roy always get the Chaotic Evil ones.

But what does our silly bard have to do with Redcloak!?

Well lets see, Elan is the one who has the most experience with an evil counterpart that shows him: circumstances could've been different. This could've been you. Nale. Elan knows more than anyone that he could've turned out like Nale, through a variable that he had absolutely no control over. and when you get right down to it, whether Elan was born human or goblin is just as arbitrary a coinflip as whether his mother or father raised him.

but also interestingly enough... both him and Redcloak have brothers. Redcloak had right-eye, and Elan had Nale. Right-Eye died when Redcloak killed him to stop him killing Xykon, and Nale died when he tried to go against his father. except.....Elan is arguably the one who is the "Right-Eye" in this scenario, while Redcloak is the "Nale". (After all, Elan is the impulsive emotional type like Right-Eye, and Redcloak is the complex planning type like Nale)

Elan, has also demonstrated the ability to negotiate with orcs so that they can worship their religion peacefully, thats a proven ability to reach across the species divide and come up with a peaceful solution in contrast to Redcloak. as well as being okay with the half-orc therkla being in love with him even if rejected her.

He of course has his own god, Banjo. but there is also, the bigger orc god banjo that might help. after all, that god isn't apart of a pantheon, has more worshippers than one and could be grateful to Elan.

so there is actually a few parallels between the two.

now tell me Playground: what would be worse for Redcloak?
getting killed? sure you can argue that when he goes into the afterlife that ol' TDO will be your stereotypical cliche evil boss and go "you failed me in this one task and now you'll face punishment forever!". But its never that simple. Not in this comic. its possible that TDO even if Redcloak fails the ritual and the Order somehow makes sure the world isn't destroyed....that Redcloak still wins, and the TDO goes "well you aimed for the stars and missed.....but you still landed on the moon, because you made Gobbotopia and made sure its an acknowledged as a legitimate foreign power. thats a greater achievement than any goblin ever in history, even myself. you still get paradise, screw those humans who screwed you over like they did me. now we just need to devise a way to make sure Gobbotopia keeps existing."
see? its completely possible that TDO in his specieism will forgive Redcloak and reward him anyways. TDO is evil, but he is an evil that favors goblins, and disappointment is probably nothing new for him. Why would Redcloak get punished, when he mostly accomplished what he set out to do and achieved other things that the Dark One can use to further his cause? if anything he probably exceeded expectations. if he died, one could even call him a martyr for his cause, an inspiration to goblins everywhere.

Or.....Elan sparing him, letting Redcloak live, but bypassing the need for the Dark One with his Banjo or the orc version of it to seal away the Snarl and then going on to establish peace between humans and goblins without him? imagine it: Redcloak seeing that his plan was not needed at all, seeing a foolish happy human call up a bunch of dumb orcs to get their god to seal the Snarl away, that he never needed the Dark One, imagine him watching as everything he fought to achieve....was done without him while he is imprisoned or captured or something after his plan failed. or better yet....imagine him being found guilty by Gobbotopia's laws....of high treason against Gobbotopia for attempting to destroy the world and thus spending the rest of his days in prison along side human criminals.....treated equally just as he always wanted, but not in the way he envisioned. the very nation he helped to make, punishing him for all his crimes by leaving him out of any process needed to keep them equal. would that not.....be a greater hell than any of the lower planes could devise for someone so obsessed with being vital?

Redcloak dying does mean Redcloak getting his justified comeuppance, nor does Redcloak living mean him being redeemed. just a thought.

[Worldsong]

I liked your reasoning up until the point Banjo got involved.

[understatement]

About Redcloak and death...

I thought about it a little bit, and I think it might be possible Redcloak survives.

If we're talking about karma catching up to those who deserve it, then Xykon dies precisely because he's afraid of death. Redcloak, by contrast, doesn't fear dying, and is willing to sacrifice himself (and others) if it means his plans can go forward. What does he fear is realizing that he is at error, that the people who died were from him, and that he has to admit it.

Unlike Tarquin or Xykon or Malack, Redcloak does have enough moments of self-awareness to realize that he's done a terrible thing (see #451, or the end of SOD) but he then always lies to himself with self-justification or whatnot. Heck, he'd probably rather die than admit he was wrong.

Living != redemption, since redemption is a path - not some destination. If Redcloak lives, he has to face every consequence from the actions he made, humans and goblins alike, and he either dies by trial or spends the rest of his life making up for it. By contrast, if he dies it doesn't really matter to him, since he's long accepted that it was a possible risk.

[BeerMug Paladin]

In the big villainous final battle matchups, you forgot a few big factors. But it's okay, you don't have to reorganize your sorting list or adjust your reasoning. I'm here to fix the glaring oversight(s).

Blackwing fights the IFCC, single-wingedly. Since the IFCC relies on tricking people to accept bad advice, it makes sense that Blackwing's sole contribution to the final battle against them will be to give good advice, performing the narrative negation of their final conflict with the heroes. Yes, Sabine is also counted as defeated by Blackwing like this as well. Probably by giving good relationship advice to her about Nale, which causes her to quickly plane-shift away.

Mr. Scruffy versus Greyview. Normally intelligent cat versus talking dog. Clearly, having a final cat versus dog battle is going to be a thing. Plus it will show that Mr. Scruffy has undergone character development showcasing how he can do it without needing aid from a magical bird.

Bloodfeast versus Oona. Nothing epic here. Oona just likes seeing strange beasts, and what could be stranger than finding an apparently normal lizard up at the north pole? It is noted, however that Bloodfeast still has a pretty vicious bite.

[KorvinStarmast]

If it makes you feel better, he's not finishing book 6, either. Yeah, that makes me feel so much better, and I will not bet against that position.


I don't see any evidence he's written a single word. (The "leaked chapters" were all supposed to be the climax of book 5, but he wrote so much the book couldn't be bound without cutting them off.) I see a lot of evidence he's traveling and doing conventions and developing other shows in his world with HBO.Not to mention he's written a metric boat load of prequel material and short story stuff, and yet somehow has "writer's block" on book 6. Maybe he's worse than Robert Jordan in that respect.

I was thinking Haley is a) redhead
So is Roz, but never mind further Roz comparisons as Roz was not a main character and Haley is.

b) Arya-ish.
???
Not seeing it, character- wise.
Arya's personal journey and char growth is seriously dark stuff. (I liked where it was going in the books before they stopped, and I think it's one of the better things that carried over into the TV show).

Haley's? Not so much.

[The Pilgrim]

Not to mention he's written a metric boat load of prequel material and short story stuff, and yet somehow has "writer's block" on book 6. Maybe he's worse than Robert Jordan in that respect.

Yeah, it's like if he was thinking "I can work on writing two mammoth books nobody will pay me for a TV adaption because they already did, or I can work on writting the easy stuff that TV Producers want me to, and they keep paying me tons and tons of money". And for some reason chose option 2.


So is Roz, but never mind further Roz comparisons as Roz was not a main character and Haley is.

In fact, in the books Roz is not even a character at all.

[Doug Lampert]

That works too.

Also, obligatory DUCT TAPE ISNT EVEN THAT GOOD TAPE! mini-rant.

It's fine tape, for almost anything but sealing ducts (https://servicechampions.com/why-duct-tape-should-never-be-used-to-seal-air-ducts/), its really bad at that.

[Peelee]

It's fine tape, for almost anything but sealing ducts (https://servicechampions.com/why-duct-tape-should-never-be-used-to-seal-air-ducts/), its really bad at that.

It's bad tape at most other things, too. It's not terribly strong, it leaves a horrible residue behind on virtually anything it touches, it doesn't last long... nearly anything you might think "I could use duct tape for this" could use with a better tape with a better outcome. I'm almost convinced at this point that duct tape only has the notoriety it does because of a very successful low-key marketing campaign. Either that, or price. Price is about the only thing duct tape has going for it.

[Ruck]

Not to mention he's written a metric boat load of prequel material and short story stuff, and yet somehow has "writer's block" on book 6. Maybe he's worse than Robert Jordan in that respect.
I think there's a few things in play here:

1)He originally had only planned out a trilogy before expanding to 7 books.
2)He had the idea for the ending act of the series, but not the middle act. He was going to skip forward in time originally, but he decided to write through it, and eventually found he couldn't.
3)With his age and newfound fame and success, why the hell keep slaving away at it and not enjoy his remaining years?


Yeah, it's like if he was thinking "I can work on writing two mammoth books nobody will pay me for a TV adaption because they already did, or I can work on writting the easy stuff that TV Producers want me to, so that they keep paying me tons and tons of money".

Yeah, and I don't blame him. He labored as a writer for his whole life and was over 60 when he finally hit it big. I'd probably end up enjoying the fame and fortune of my last years rather than slog through a project I'm stuck on and won't finish before its own adaptation finishes anyway, too.

[Lord Raziere]

I liked your reasoning up until the point Banjo got involved.

I agree actually with you, unfortunately OOTS is a comedy? its perfectly possible for kind of joke to happen and banjo's a running gag. Honestly? I'd rather it be that Elan be the one to finally get through to Redcloak by combining his charisma with his experiences of reaching out to people like Therkla and the orcs, while also having a experience of having an evil twin that he might've been born and using that to say something along the lines of "I could been raised evil....but I also could've been born a goblin. I don't know the chances but if I was a goblin, wouldn't I be the one fighting alongside you? We don't get to choose what about life rolls for us at birth." something like that to actually make Redcloak understand, and perhaps maybe remind him a bit of Right-Eye.

in that post I was just pointing out the possibilities that Redcloak dying might be a karma houdini for him, and him living may or may not be the actual proper punishment, after all, because if this is a criticism of just slaughtering the goblin mindlessly well....if you slaughter Redcloak mindlessly, a religious fanatic fully prepared to die for his cause having never once deviated from his gods plan, and having accomplished things that could earn him a silver medal even if he doesn't get the gold....wouldn't that be the cherry on top? and thus wouldn't the right action, regardless of punishment or redemption, be to spare him so that his god cannot make him a martyr?

after all, a dead Redcloak would just convince the goblins to get even more radical. might think peace was never an option. that sort of thing. he has too much symbolic importance no matter how bad of a person he is. and of course....his god could very well reward him for doing the wrong thing. thats not karmic comeuppance for a villain.

but yeah, I think Elan is probably the one most likely to face Redcloak, and since Elan has a track record of not killing his named villains (didn't kill Nale twice, only punched Lord Kubota, didn't kill Tarquin....) Elan quite simply, won't do it, because he is Elan, Durkon has his mission from god to make this work, now Haley is another story, she doesn't have his scruples, but I still haven't figured out where she fits into all this except as someone who keeps secrets as a parallel to Redcloak also keeping secrets, but thats only one thing, I think I need to reread more to figure out where she fits into this. but she probably won't kill Redcloak knowing whats at stake, she is too sensible. she might simply be the sensible back up charismatic voice of reason to balance out Elan's....elanity.

[KorvinStarmast]

2)He had the idea for the ending act of the series, but not the middle act. He was going to skip forward in time originally, but he decided to write through it, and eventually found he couldn't.

"And eventually found that he couldn't be bothered" :smallyuk:

As above, he's the next Robert Jordan.

[The Pilgrim]

"And eventually found that he couldn't be bothered" :smallyuk:

As above, he's the next Robert Jordan.

That's unfair.

Robert Jordan wrote 12 books of the Wheel of Time saga, began with a book a year, then slowed down to a book every other year, with his longest hiatus being 3 years without a book, once. And when he was diagnosed as terminal, he wrote so many notes about how to end the series that it took three books for his successor to wrap up everything.

GRR Martin has wrote 5 books of the ASOIAF saga. Already began with a pace of a book every other year, rapidly fell into hiatuses of 5 years, 6 years, and never again. And his notes about the ending apparently were scarce enough to fit them all in six episodes.

Of course, both would perish if they had to live in the XIX Century, when writers were able to produce several works a year. Dostoyevski wrote The Gambler in a single month, for heaven's sake. Men were truly made from a different mold back then.

[Peelee]

Men were truly made from a different mold back then.

No, they really weren't. Your comparing two to three very specific people and claiming that since one is the best, that speaks for all people generally in both time frames. That's completely off. It's like comparing Usain Bolt to a caveman and saying, "yeah, men were crazy slow back then."

[dancrilis]

No, they really weren't. Your comparing two to three very specific people and claiming that since one is the best, that speaks for all people generally in both time frames. That's completely off. It's like comparing Usain Bolt to a caveman and saying, "yeah, men were crazy slow back then."

I disagree saying X is better now is different then saying Y was better then.

For example, imagine the following two hundred years from now a historian issues a comment (one of the below):
1: It used to take longer to transport goods around the planet.
2: It used to be quicker to transport goods around the planet.

If the first it true then that doesn't really say anything about the people other then that conditions have improved, however if the second is true it speaks to people in general having gotten worse at things.

To take the caveman/writer example, if the good quick writers of the 19th century were around today they would likely be able to produce books even quicker (once they got used to the conditions) - where if you put a top athlete back in time to compete with cavemen they would have a good chance of losing as they may not be able to handle the inferior conditions even with time to adapt.

[Peelee]

I disagree saying X is better now is different then saying Y was better then.

For example, imagine the following two hundred years from now a historian issues a comment (one of the below):
1: It used to take longer to transport goods around the planet.
2: It used to be quicker to transport goods around the planet.

If the first it true then that doesn't really say anything about the people other then that conditions have improved, however if the second is true it speaks to people in general having gotten worse at things.

To take the caveman/writer example, if the good quick writers of the 19th century were around today they would likely be able to produce books even quicker (once they got used to the conditions) - where if you put a top athlete back in time to compete with cavemen they would have a good chance of losing as they may not be able to handle the inferior conditions even with time to adapt.

It was a quick and dirty example. The point remains that comparing two very specific examples to one very specific example and then drawing a conclusion based on that is a bad procedure.

You want a better example? Fine. There are at least twenty-five forumites, which means that the odds that two of us share a birthday is around 50%. The odds that you, specifically, and I, specifically, share a birthday is about 0.2%. Hell, as soon as we reach 367 forumites, there is a 100% chance that two share a birthday, but still only a 0/2% chance that you and I specifically do. You can't glean any pertinent information from such a small and incredibly specific sample size.

Men were not "truly made from a different mold back then" based off comparing George R. R. Martin to Fyodor Dostoevsky.

[dancrilis]

It was a quick and dirty example. The point remains that comparing two very specific examples to one very specific example and then drawing a conclusion based on that is a bad procedure.

You want a better example? Fine. There are at least twenty-five forumites, which means that the odds that two of us share a birthday is around 50%. The odds that you, specifically, and I, specifically, share a birthday is about 0.2%. Hell, as soon as we reach 367 forumites, there is a 100% chance that two share a birthday, but still only a 0/2% chance that you and I specifically do. You can't glean any pertinent information from such a small and incredibly specific sample size.

Men were not "truly made from a different mold back then" based off comparing George R. R. Martin to Fyodor Dostoevsky.

Agreed using a sample size of 1 and applying it to everyone is generally a bad idea.

I do have to wonder about 'men were truly made from a different mold back then' might actually be true however, as those who couldn't sustain themselves might not have reached adulthood and the others around them perhaps couldn't afford to help them, so less that 'men were more capable in the good old days' and more 'life was harder and so men needed to be capable to handle it', i.e producing one book a decade was not a valid strategy if you wanted to enjoy luxuries like food, where if they were working now they would take the years for the same book because they would have the time for any revisions and corrections they needed.

Using the term 'men' in the neutral context.

But that line of thought is likely fairly off topic.

[The Pilgrim]

It was a quick and dirty example. The point remains that comparing two very specific examples to one very specific example and then drawing a conclusion based on that is a bad procedure.

I see you like strawman fallacies. I did not compare two specific examples to one very specific example. If anything, I compared two specific examples to every writer in the XIX Century.

I just picked Dostoyevsky more or less at random. Alexander Dumas, for example, completed the first two books of The Three Musketeers, plus The Count of Monte Cristo and Queen Margot within two years. Pick any XIX century writer and you'll see a workrate vastly superior to any writer in our days. Heck, go to the XVII Century, Bill Shakespeare produced an average of two plays a year, and his output was average for a playwright of the time.

So, if you want to contest my point, be my guest to come with arguments on why writers of our times seem to be much less prolific than writers in the past. But inventing faults in reasoning based in aplying a strawman fallacy on my argument will not carry you very far, neither make for an interesting debate.

[Sir_Norbert]

You're still using two specific modern writers and using that sample to draw conclusions about every modern writer. Look up the size of Isaac Asimov's output for a contrasting example, if you like.

[BeerMug Paladin]

I'm not sure it makes a whole lot of sense to compare "blah wrote three standalone novels in two years" to "some writer nowadays took two years to complete a long-running-franchise speculative-fiction book". I mean, if we're talking about making comparisons, why were so many writers of the 19th century so lazy about establishing long running fantasy or sci-fi stories? They must have all just been uncreative, lazy thinkers who didn't know how to keep a story world going.

By the way, Stephen King.

There are, by my reckoning a great deal many different types of writing, just as there are many different types and styles of music. Some styles and types are more complex and take more time to create than others. Orchestras require a lot more effort to create than say... A White Stripes cover band.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to spend the next few hours reading up on steel manufacturing just on the off chance I might be able to make a character with a background in materials science seem to be plausibly educated as such.

[deltamire]

I see you like strawman fallacies. I did not compare two specific examples to one very specific example. If anything, I compared two specific examples to every writer in the XIX Century.

I just picked Dostoyevsky more or less at random. Alexander Dumas, for example, completed the first two books of The Three Musketeers, plus The Count of Monte Cristo and Queen Margot within two years. Pick any XIX century writer and you'll see a workrate vastly superior to any writer in our days. Heck, go to the XVII Century, Bill Shakespeare produced an average of two plays a year, and his output was average for a playwright of the time.

So, if you want to contest my point, be my guest to come with arguments on why writers of our times seem to be much less prolific than writers in the past. But inventing faults in reasoning based in aplying a strawman fallacy on my argument will not carry you very far, neither make for an interesting debate.
Survivorship bias is a Thing. The Greats of the eras gone by are products of that problem; they're cherry picked unique figures who have been elevated to a form of godhood taken from a control group of literally countless other artists who didn't make the cut. It's like complaining that modern music is worse than the latter half of the twentieth century because you think there's a lot of rubbish around - we've just had the time to separate the wheat from the chaff, and the music artists that weren't so good were left in the dust. Everyone remembers the Beatles and considers them bastions of culture. The same, alas, cannot quite be said for the poor Monkees.

Regarding old Shakes . . . a huge amount of his work was both inspired by or straight up taken from mythology, older stories and even older writings. Entire plots, characters, themes, you name it. He was also a playwright, not a novelist, and one of the main problems he had was people constantly stealing his work as soon as they were put to stage to perform non-associated performances. It was paramount to his continued survival as an artist to keep churning stuff out.

I was going to mention this earlier, had a whole post written about it, but figured someone else would mention it. Since no one did, here goes: a lot of 'men of a different mold' who had some money behind them in the 18th, 19th and 20th century had help. Like, lots of it. Working with other authors or having transcribers to process and type their work in. An entire army of servants keeping them in food, clean clothes and supplies. A spouse looking over their work to check the grammar or just help it be legible. In some cases, like Colette, they got them to do it for them! The same (hopefully) doesn't fly in our modern times. Writing culture has changed, and I'd argue for the better. You can't look at someone from two centuries ago who was in a completely different social setting and compare them. You just can't. It's only going to colour your view of what is available to you now and you run the risk of missing out on some really, really good sh*t.

Also, like. As a writer (not a professional, o' course), the idea that wordcount is the somehow be-all and end-all of of what makes a good writer rankles me a fair bit. If I keep at the pace I'm currently at, I'll have churned out 200k by halfway through next month since the end of March. Doesn't mean any of that stuff I wrote was good. It just means I had an awful lot of free time and a trigger-happy typing hand. Neither of which make a master, as I'm sure you'd agree.


A disclaimer: I've never touched ASOIAF, don't plan to, and don't particularly find myself having an opinion on the drought of content regarding the series. I would hope that would mean I'm coming from a neutral position in this debate, because I straight up have no skin in the game.

[The Pilgrim]

I'm not sure it makes a whole lot of sense to compare "blah wrote three standalone novels in two years" to "some writer nowadays took two years to complete a long-running-franchise speculative-fiction book". I mean, if we're talking about making comparisons, why were so many writers of the 19th century so lazy about establishing long running fantasy or sci-fi stories? They must have all just been uncreative, lazy thinkers who didn't know how to keep a story world going.

More like they were interested in writing stories about the real world they lived in, instead of creating a fantasy world as a mean of escapism. But that has little relevance to the amount of their output.


There are, by my reckoning a great deal many different types of writing, just as there are many different types and styles of music. Some styles and types are more complex and take more time to create than others. Orchestras require a lot more effort to create than say... A White Stripes cover band.

I'm going to be generous and just say that the complexity of characters in contemporary works isn't superior to the level of complexity of characters in nineteenth century literature.


Survivorship bias is a Thing. The Greats of the eras gone by are products of that problem; they're cherry picked unique figures who have been elevated to a form of godhood taken from a control group of literally countless other artists who didn't make the cut. It's like complaining that modern music is worse than the latter half of the twentieth century because you think there's a lot of rubbish around - we've just had the time to separate the wheat from the chaff, and the music artists that weren't so good were left in the dust. Everyone remembers the Beatles and considers them bastions of culture. The same, alas, cannot quite be said for the poor Monkees.

Regarding old Shakes . . . a huge amount of his work was both inspired by or straight up taken from mythology, older stories and even older writings. Entire plots, characters, themes, you name it. He was also a playwright, not a novelist, and one of the main problems he had was people constantly stealing his work as soon as they were put to stage to perform non-associated performances. It was paramount to his continued survival as an artist to keep churning stuff out.

I was going to mention this earlier, had a whole post written about it, but figured someone else would mention it. Since no one did, here goes: a lot of 'men of a different mold' who had some money behind them in the 18th, 19th and 20th century had help. Like, lots of it. Working with other authors or having transcribers to process and type their work in. An entire army of servants keeping them in food, clean clothes and supplies. A spouse looking over their work to check the grammar or just help it be legible. In some cases, like Colette, they got them to do it for them! The same (hopefully) doesn't fly in our modern times. Writing culture has changed, and I'd argue for the better. You can't look at someone from two centuries ago who was in a completely different social setting and compare them. You just can't. It's only going to colour your view of what is available to you now and you run the risk of missing out on some really, really good sh*t.

Also, like. As a writer (not a professional, o' course), the idea that wordcount is the somehow be-all and end-all of of what makes a good writer rankles me a fair bit. If I keep at the pace I'm currently at, I'll have churned out 200k by halfway through next month since the end of March. Doesn't mean any of that stuff I wrote was good. It just means I had an awful lot of free time and a trigger-happy typing hand. Neither of which make a master, as I'm sure you'd agree.

A disclaimer: I've never touched ASOIAF, don't plan to, and don't particularly find myself having an opinion on the drought of content regarding the series. I would hope that would mean I'm coming from a neutral position in this debate, because I straight up have no skin in the game.

Those are actually very good points. I'd stress the point that the most sucessfull serial writers of the XIX usually had a staff of ghostwriters at their service. They were a lot like modern film directors with their staff of scriptwriters, except that modern scriptwriters get a lot more credit for their work than former ghostwriters (not even being mentioned at all was a very raw deal).

[Ruck]

More like they were interested in writing stories about the real world they lived in, instead of creating a fantasy world as a mean of escapism. But that has little relevance to the amount of their output.

Another absurd generalization. I can't think of anyone in a long time I've so completely disagreed with on storytelling, or history, on this forum as you in this thread. I mean, not to be rude, but you've consistently made huge extrapolations and assumptions from little to no evidence.

[deltamire]

More like they were interested in writing stories about the real world they lived in, instead of creating a fantasy world as a mean of escapism. But that has little relevance to the amount of their output.

I'm going to be generous and just say that the complexity of characters in contemporary works isn't superior to the level of complexity of characters in nineteenth century literature.

. . . You're going to have to back those up with some form of non-anecdotal, non-singular-example evidence, 'cause those are two very stark statements that aren't going to fly without it.

[The Pilgrim]

. . . You're going to have to back those up with some form of non-anecdotal, non-singular-example evidence, 'cause those are two very stark statements that aren't going to fly without it.

What do you want me to back? That the fantasy genre is about creating fantasy worlds? Or that characters in fantasy literature are bland compared to any decent XIX Century author? Is Tolkien specially regarded for the complexity of his characters? (not that there is anything wrong about that, some people are so obsessed with "character development" that sometimes they forget that entertainment is supposed to be entertaining).

It can be argued that all forms of entertainment are, to some extent, about escapism. In literature, that element is usually helped by setting the action in a distant time or exotic place. Fantasy literature goes one step further by making up it's own universe. This way you can, for example, have your heroes slaughter green-skinned people for no reason at all without worring about anyone raising ethical implications. Oh, wait, looks like something The Giant is actually criticizing about the fantasy genre.

[Sebastian]

To figure out what will happen to Redcloak, we must first figure out how the final battle, will be set.

Roy will not face Redcloak. His thematic and dramatic confrontation is with Xykon, and so is Vaarsuviuses. Roy has his blood oath, and V their redemption as well as it being the best tactically speaking: a spellcaster to fight a spellcaster. the thematic relevance of a caster wanting to use power resonsibly to face a caster who doesn't is obvious, as is the fighter seeking justice.

Belkar will face the Monster In The Darkness. a good antagonist learning to thinking outside his confines to face an evil protagonist doing the same. given MitD's strength, Belkar is likely to die. a fitting end

which leaves: Elan, Haley and Durkon to face Redcloak. Durkon's thematic relevance to Redcloak is obvious, but Elan and Haley? not so much. can we dig deeper into this?

well what most stands out to me, is that Elan is CG and Redcloak is LE, Elan always gets the Lawful Evil villains to face while Roy always get the Chaotic Evil ones.

But what does our silly bard have to do with Redcloak!?

Well lets see, Elan is the one who has the most experience with an evil counterpart that shows him: circumstances could've been different. This could've been you. Nale. Elan knows more than anyone that he could've turned out like Nale, through a variable that he had absolutely no control over. and when you get right down to it, whether Elan was born human or goblin is just as arbitrary a coinflip as whether his mother or father raised him.

but also interestingly enough... both him and Redcloak have brothers. Redcloak had right-eye, and Elan had Nale. Right-Eye died when Redcloak killed him to stop him killing Xykon, and Nale died when he tried to go against his father. except.....Elan is arguably the one who is the "Right-Eye" in this scenario, while Redcloak is the "Nale". (After all, Elan is the impulsive emotional type like Right-Eye, and Redcloak is the complex planning type like Nale)

Elan, has also demonstrated the ability to negotiate with orcs so that they can worship their religion peacefully, thats a proven ability to reach across the species divide and come up with a peaceful solution in contrast to Redcloak. as well as being okay with the half-orc therkla being in love with him even if rejected her.

He of course has his own god, Banjo. but there is also, the bigger orc god banjo that might help. after all, that god isn't apart of a pantheon, has more worshippers than one and could be grateful to Elan.

so there is actually a few parallels between the two.

now tell me Playground: what would be worse for Redcloak?
getting killed? sure you can argue that when he goes into the afterlife that ol' TDO will be your stereotypical cliche evil boss and go "you failed me in this one task and now you'll face punishment forever!". But its never that simple. Not in this comic. its possible that TDO even if Redcloak fails the ritual and the Order somehow makes sure the world isn't destroyed....that Redcloak still wins, and the TDO goes "well you aimed for the stars and missed.....but you still landed on the moon, because you made Gobbotopia and made sure its an acknowledged as a legitimate foreign power. thats a greater achievement than any goblin ever in history, even myself. you still get paradise, screw those humans who screwed you over like they did me. now we just need to devise a way to make sure Gobbotopia keeps existing."
see? its completely possible that TDO in his specieism will forgive Redcloak and reward him anyways. TDO is evil, but he is an evil that favors goblins, and disappointment is probably nothing new for him. Why would Redcloak get punished, when he mostly accomplished what he set out to do and achieved other things that the Dark One can use to further his cause? if anything he probably exceeded expectations. if he died, one could even call him a martyr for his cause, an inspiration to goblins everywhere.

Or.....Elan sparing him, letting Redcloak live, but bypassing the need for the Dark One with his Banjo or the orc version of it to seal away the Snarl and then going on to establish peace between humans and goblins without him? imagine it: Redcloak seeing that his plan was not needed at all, seeing a foolish happy human call up a bunch of dumb orcs to get their god to seal the Snarl away, that he never needed the Dark One, imagine him watching as everything he fought to achieve....was done without him while he is imprisoned or captured or something after his plan failed. or better yet....imagine him being found guilty by Gobbotopia's laws....of high treason against Gobbotopia for attempting to destroy the world and thus spending the rest of his days in prison along side human criminals.....treated equally just as he always wanted, but not in the way he envisioned. the very nation he helped to make, punishing him for all his crimes by leaving him out of any process needed to keep them equal. would that not.....be a greater hell than any of the lower planes could devise for someone so obsessed with being vital?

Redcloak dying does mean Redcloak getting his justified comeuppance, nor does Redcloak living mean him being redeemed. just a thought.

As funny as it would be Banjo and Giggles helping entrapping the Snarl I don't see it happen.

They have too little followers and are not powerful enough to have a cleric to cast a ninth level spell.

Also, they are puppets.

[dancrilis]

I see you like strawman fallacies.

I don't believe that Peelee was delibrately misrepresenting your point so not a strawman, merely (apparently) missing your point.


. . . You're going to have to back those up with some form of non-anecdotal, non-singular-example evidence, 'cause those are two very stark statements that aren't going to fly without it.
This is an impossible ask, they could in theory provide a million examples with detailed analysis on each one and that would not preclude others existing which disprove their point - in situations like that I would say the onus is on you to provide the counter example.

A counter example might be Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (debatable) and some others by Lewis Carroll who might also be an example against a multi-book per year author.

[hungrycrow]

What do you want me to back? That the fantasy genre is about creating fantasy worlds? Or that characters in fantasy literature are bland compared to any decent XIX Century author? Is Tolkien specially regarded for the complexity of his characters? (not that there is anything wrong about that, some people are so obsessed with "character development" that sometimes they forget that entertainment is supposed to be entertaining).

It can be argued that all forms of entertainment are, to some extent, about escapism. In literature, that element is usually helped by setting the action in a distant time or exotic place. Fantasy literature goes one step further by making up it's own universe. This way you can, for example, have your heroes slaughter green-skinned people for no reason at all without worring about anyone raising ethical implications. Oh, wait, looks like something The Giant is actually criticizing about the fantasy genre.

ASoIaF isn't really escapist at all. Its a miserable world where characters that try to act like traditional heroes are punished for it.

[hroþila]

I'm sure this has already been pointed out but it's not that 19th century writers could write a lot, it's that they had to due to the economics of how the publishing industry worked at the time. If they lived today, some of those very prolific authors would probably put something out every few years too, especially if they were already successful and could more or less dictate their own terms to their editors. Let's not pretend that pressure to publish didn't have an impact on the quality of their work, no matter how highly regarded they are now.

[The Pilgrim]

I'm sure this has already been pointed out but it's not that 19th century writers could write a lot, it's that they had to due to the economics of how the publishing industry worked at the time. If they lived today, some of those very prolific authors would probably put something out every few years too, especially if they were already successful and could more or less dictate their own terms to their editors. Let's not pretend that pressure to publish didn't have an impact on the quality of their work, no matter how highly regarded they are now.

I'd take a finished good work over an unfinished supposedly masterpiece any time of the year.

Publisher pressure: Gets **** done.

[Metastachydium]

I'd take a finished good work over an unfisished supposedly masterpiece any time of the year.

Publisher pressure: Gets **** done.

Best-selling author Barbara Cartland published 723 novels (romantic lemonades and such, mostly, if I'm not mistaken). A guy of some notoriety called Nemere István published 739 books since 1974 (mostly cheap sci-fi and Winnie-the-Pooh fan fiction) thus far and shows no sign of planning to stop anytime soon. If I were to choose between their nearly 1500 finished books and Kafka's unfinished The Castle, I'd take the latter any time of the year.

[Sir_Norbert]

What do you want me to back? That the fantasy genre is about creating fantasy worlds? Or that characters in fantasy literature are bland compared to any decent XIX Century author?

You could start by backing your claim that speculative fiction began in the 20th century. Good luck with that one.

[The Pilgrim]

You could start by backing your claim that speculative fiction began in the 20th century. Good luck with that one.

Is it a custom in the way you relate to other people to ask them to back claims that they have never made?

[deltamire]

Is it a custom in the way you relate to other people to ask them to back claims that they have never made?
This is what I believe Sir_Norbet is referring to, bolding mine:

More like they were interested in writing stories about the real world they lived in, instead of creating a fantasy world as a mean of escapism. But that has little relevance to the amount of their output.

Regarding the idea of escapism as a modern invention; penny dreadfuls, the spiritual ancestors of what we would consider mass-market paperbacks came into vogue in the nineteenth century, due to a wave of literacy, a population in europe hungry for stories to consume after the industrial revolution brought them into packed cities, and the invention of the steam powered printing press at the turn of the century making the mass production of texts easy as pie. They were quick 'n' dirty, trope heavy, about as sexual as media could get back then, and designed to thrill and not much else. Escapism is, and to think otherwise is a fallacy beyond words, not exactly a modern invention.

[The Pilgrim]

This is what I believe Sir_Norbet is referring to, bolding mine

What he believes is basically his problem. I do not debate against strawmen.

I mean, I already adressed the issue in the bottom half of the message that he deliberatery ommited in his quote.

[Worldsong]

I agree actually with you, unfortunately OOTS is a comedy? its perfectly possible for kind of joke to happen and banjo's a running gag. Honestly? I'd rather it be that Elan be the one to finally get through to Redcloak by combining his charisma with his experiences of reaching out to people like Therkla and the orcs, while also having a experience of having an evil twin that he might've been born and using that to say something along the lines of "I could been raised evil....but I also could've been born a goblin. I don't know the chances but if I was a goblin, wouldn't I be the one fighting alongside you? We don't get to choose what about life rolls for us at birth." something like that to actually make Redcloak understand, and perhaps maybe remind him a bit of Right-Eye.

in that post I was just pointing out the possibilities that Redcloak dying might be a karma houdini for him, and him living may or may not be the actual proper punishment, after all, because if this is a criticism of just slaughtering the goblin mindlessly well....if you slaughter Redcloak mindlessly, a religious fanatic fully prepared to die for his cause having never once deviated from his gods plan, and having accomplished things that could earn him a silver medal even if he doesn't get the gold....wouldn't that be the cherry on top? and thus wouldn't the right action, regardless of punishment or redemption, be to spare him so that his god cannot make him a martyr?

after all, a dead Redcloak would just convince the goblins to get even more radical. might think peace was never an option. that sort of thing. he has too much symbolic importance no matter how bad of a person he is. and of course....his god could very well reward him for doing the wrong thing. thats not karmic comeuppance for a villain.

but yeah, I think Elan is probably the one most likely to face Redcloak, and since Elan has a track record of not killing his named villains (didn't kill Nale twice, only punched Lord Kubota, didn't kill Tarquin....) Elan quite simply, won't do it, because he is Elan, Durkon has his mission from god to make this work, now Haley is another story, she doesn't have his scruples, but I still haven't figured out where she fits into all this except as someone who keeps secrets as a parallel to Redcloak also keeping secrets, but thats only one thing, I think I need to reread more to figure out where she fits into this. but she probably won't kill Redcloak knowing whats at stake, she is too sensible. she might simply be the sensible back up charismatic voice of reason to balance out Elan's....elanity.

It's true that this story is a comedy in certain ways, but I'd posit that over time the nature of the story has changed and The Giant has evolved as a writer. Comparing the beginning of the story with the content we get these days the difference is not only in the art, but also in the dialogue, the story structure and the way the comedy is handled. The jokes are still there but they keep the dialogue fresh and engaging, whereas the plot itself is serious and immersive.

If the story was still written the way it was in the first hundred pages I'd agree that there's a decent chance Banjo would end up saving the world, but I'd say The Giant has moved away from that kind of story where comedy trumps everything else. The way the story is currently being written having Banjo be the fourth quiddity god who seals the rift would, to me, not be very funny: it'd be a rather confusing and disappointing ending to a complex and interesting story.

On a more positive note I do agree that killing Redcloak might seem like the obvious solution but would probably cause more problems than it solves and wouldn't be as much of a punishment for him as it might be for most people. Also it'd be fun if Elan helped Redcloak turn around, although I think we're going to need more than just our Chaotic Good bard for that to happen. Some world-shattering revelations that cause Redcloak to reconsider everything he's experienced and done up until this point.

[RatElemental]

Well there is precedent for that (https://www.nuklearpower.com/2001/03/20/episode-007-kamehameha-or-something/) sort (https://www.nuklearpower.com/2010/02/20/episode-1221-longest-set-up-in-webcomic-history/) of thing in webcomics, I suppose...

But then, I doubt Rich has been playing a long con for over a decade in the running just to troll his audience in the most spectacular way ever done before.

[Worldsong]

Well there is precedent for that (https://www.nuklearpower.com/2001/03/20/episode-007-kamehameha-or-something/) sort (https://www.nuklearpower.com/2010/02/20/episode-1221-longest-set-up-in-webcomic-history/) of thing in webcomics, I suppose...

But then, I doubt Rich has been playing a long con for over a decade in the running just to troll his audience in the most spectacular way ever done before.

I was actually thinking of 8-Bit Theater as an example of a comic which ends on a brick joke. I decided that I wouldn't really consider it a precedent primarily because while they're both webcomics they approach storytelling from vastly different angles.

Rich's focus is on telling a story with the humour serving to punch up the dialogue and liven things up when the plot is threatening to become too heavy.

8-Bit Theater might have a story but it's (black) comedy all the way down.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'd take a finished good work over an unfinished supposedly masterpiece any time of the year. As will I. Back to my disappointment in Jordan: he lost focus around book four or five, and bored the living daylights out of his audience for about four more novels, filling pages with filler and sniffers. I might, maybe, some day, pick up the Sanderson completion novels. A friend of mine told me Sanderson writes well.

Jordan lost control of his muse halfway throug the series, and I just got tired of his stalling.
WoT being called "Waste of Time" by some of the fans didn't happen by accident.

[The Pilgrim]

As will I. Back to my disappointment in Jordan: he lost focus around book four or five, and bored the living daylights out of his audience for about four more novels, filling pages with filler and sniffers. I might, maybe, some day, pick up the Sanderson completion novels. A friend of mine told me Sanderson writes well.

Jordan lost control of his muse halfway throug the series, and I just got tired of his stalling.
WoT being called "Waste of Time" by some of the fans didn't happen by accident.

Oh, I though you were complaining that GRR Martin was lazy and going to die without finishing his work, when your point of comparasion was that Jordan spent years milking the cow instead of finishing the story, as GRR Martin seems to be doing right now.

I suppose that makes the last page of this thread moot. :smallredface:

...

Ok, back on topic... I love how every new page from this scene is exposing Redcloak more and more like a lunatic. While some readers apparently believe the narrative point of all this is to break Redcloak and make him change his views, all I see is the heroes telling Redcloak the same stuff his brother already did. It didn't work then, and will not work now.

It's interesting to see Oona becoming the voice of reason, and a reminder for the readers that average goblins aren't like Redcloak.

[Ionathus]

Ok, back on topic, I love how every new page from this scene is exposing Redcloak more and more like a lunatic. While some appear to believe the objective of this all is to break Redcloak and make him change his views, my oppinion is that the heroes are telling Redcloak the same his brother already did. It didn't work then, and will not work now.

It's interesting to see Oona becoming the voice of reason, and a reminder for the readers that average goblins aren't like Redcloak.

I don't want to get sucked back in here, but I wanted to provide some insight to the PoV you've been debating this whole time:

These recent pages have not surprised me in the slightest. For people who think Redcloak can be redeemed, these pages of verbal and physical smackdown on him and his motives are fully, 100% expected and wished-for. It's just that you lose me when you follow it up with "therefore, Redcloak is a lost cause forever, obviously."

You won't change the bad guy's mind right away. If it's even possible, it'll still take time and energy. Just because he wasn't open to these arguments a year and a half ago with Right-Eye doesn't mean he won't eventually be open to it this time. You seem to consider this time and energy spent here as a concrete example of his refusal to change, when it could just as easily be the beginning of his constructed worldview shattering around him and forcing him to re-evaluate.

[Jason]

If I may, there are plenty of modern writers that are very prolific, and there are plenty who seem to have to have their books forceably dragged out of them by their publisher, or who only ever wrote one book of note. Most modern writers fall somewhere in between those extremes.

This is just as true of the writers of the 19th century. 19th century writers as a body can't be described as having been more or less prolific than 20th or 21st century authors.

[Worldsong]

I don't want to get sucked back in here, but I wanted to provide some insight to the PoV you've been debating this whole time:

These recent pages have not surprised me in the slightest. For people who think Redcloak can be redeemed, these pages of verbal and physical smackdown on him and his motives are fully, 100% expected and wished-for. It's just that you lose me when you follow it up with "therefore, Redcloak is a lost cause forever, obviously."

You won't change the bad guy's mind right away. If it's even possible, it'll still take time and energy. Just because he wasn't open to these arguments a year and a half ago with Right-Eye doesn't mean he won't eventually be open to it this time. You seem to consider this time and energy spent here as a concrete example of his refusal to change, when it could just as easily be the beginning of his constructed worldview shattering around him and forcing him to re-evaluate.

Arguably this entire encounter just serves to show the challenge that Durkon and the Order face. It's the first time they've actually had interactive dialogue with Redcloak, without this encounter they wouldn't know that persuading him to help them seal the rifts and save the world would be as monumental a challenge as defeating Xykon.

[understatement]

Arguably this entire encounter just serves to show the challenge that Durkon and the Order face. It's the first time they've actually had interactive dialogue with Redcloak, without this encounter they wouldn't know that persuading him to help them seal the rifts and save the world would be as monumental a challenge as defeating Xykon.

I don't have much to add here, so I'll just throw in that the chances of convincing Redcloak is one-to-a-million...but the Order was already facing those odds against Team Evil anyway. What's one more impossibility going to change?

It's more fun to watch the heroes succeed against impossible odds than have the long-running plot solved in ten strips flat.

[Worldsong]

I don't have much to add here, so I'll just throw in that the chances of convincing Redcloak is one-to-a-million...but the Order was already facing those odds against Team Evil anyway. What's one more impossibility going to change?

It's more fun to watch the heroes succeed against impossible odds than have the long-running plot solved in ten strips flat.

Truly it would be heroic if the protagonists managed to pull it off.

And we know how The Giant feels about heroes being heroic.

[KorvinStarmast]

It's more fun to watch the heroes succeed against impossible odds than have the long-running plot solved in ten strips flat. It also lets the author string out the series as Jordan or Martin did ... no, wait, that's not what he's doing. Graphic novels released as serials are a whole different animal to a novel ... (A friend of mine has had three novels published and he worked on a comic book series back in the 1980's ... as he says, it's a whole different animal).

[The Pilgrim]

These recent pages have not surprised me in the slightest. For people who think Redcloak can be redeemed, these pages of verbal and physical smackdown on him and his motives are fully, 100% expected and wished-for. It's just that you lose me when you follow it up with "therefore, Redcloak is a lost cause forever, obviously."

You won't change the bad guy's mind right away. If it's even possible, it'll still take time and energy. Just because he wasn't open to these arguments a year and a half ago with Right-Eye doesn't mean he won't eventually be open to it this time. You seem to consider this time and energy spent here as a concrete example of his refusal to change, when it could just as easily be the beginning of his constructed worldview shattering around him and forcing him to re-evaluate.

Do you really believe that "Just because he wasn't open to these arguments a year and a half ago with Right-Eye doesn't mean he won't eventually be open to it this time"?

Of course that the fact that he wasn't open to these arguments when his little brother made them, means he's not going to be open to those arguments when made by two random dwarfs.

He slayed his own kin in rejection of those arguments, for heaven's shake.

Do you think that after doing that, he's going to feel forced to "re-evaluate" his worldview just because of two random dwarfs?

Redcloak is totally detatched from any emotional investment towards real people. He's willing to keep sacrificying real goblins for imaginary ones. The last real goblins he felt emotional attatchment to, were killed long ago either by Xykon or by himself.

You believe that Redcloak is out for a villain redemption arc. I'm pointing out that Redcloak is just following a classical tragic character self-destruction path. For him to redeem, he would need a reedeming virtue, or at least an emotional investment in a character capable of redeeming him. Redcloak cut off those ties long ago.

Specifically, he cut them with a Disintegrate spell.

[KorvinStarmast]

The Heroes are down to basically the same arguments that someone blood-related to Redcloak already attempted. If his own blood wasn't able to convince him, it's evident that two random dwarfs won't either. While that's not a bad point, I wonder. I think Redcloak has the chance for growth, however hard that may be to manifest itself.

Redcloak isn't a static character (well, I don't think Rich envisions him as static). The important characters in this series change as the series goes on, particularly the six people in OoTS. But so too does MiTD, one of the three charter members of Team Evil, who are Xykon, Redcloak, MiTD.

While Xykon is very unlikely to change, I think Redcloak can change, and as I read his progress, comic 451 is a significant beginning of that. It's an "Aha!" moment.

I don't think that Redcloak's brother's truth telling - reaching him through the voices of other characters - is out of reach, narratively. Redcloak has the chance for another "Aha!" moment. Right now, in mid-fight, unlikely. There is a little hint in panel 20 of strip 1209 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1209.html) that the regret hasn't been buried.

The way I read it is that this was a reach back to his expression, and his internal regret, when the betrayal of his brother was the big deal in the narrative.


I'm pointing out that Redcloak is just following a classical tragic character self-destruction path. Sure, it can go that way as well. All of the ingredients are there. But: given Rich's fundamental trope subversion in re the plight of goblins, might it not fit Rich's intention to subvert or twist that trope (self destruction/tragic, one each) a little bit so that he's telling a slightly different story?

[dancrilis]

I'm pointing out that Redcloak is just following a classical tragic character self-destruction path. For him to redeem, he would need a reedeming virtue, or at least an emotional investment in a character capable of redeeming him. Redcloak cut off those ties long ago.

It is this kind of thinking that gets me to 'Xykon kills The Dark One after manipulating the ritual' - The Dark One is the only one that Redcloak still cares about really and if his entire life of service leads to his 'ally' murdering his god it might cause him to have a bit of an awakening of where his life has brought him and the decisions he made to get there.

Anything less than something like that in magnitude I don't see reaching him.

I do think that Redcloak will help save the world for the goblin people - but not because of the talking points of someone else he has to see what he has caused and know that it is bad and that it has (nearly) always been bad.

[KorvinStarmast]

It is this kind of thinking that gets me to 'Xykon kills The Dark One after manipulating the ritual' - The Dark One is the only one that Redcloak still cares about really and if his entire life of service leads to his 'ally' murdering his god it might cause him to have a bit of an awakening of where his life has brought him and the decisions he made to get there.

Not seeing how Xykon the lich can kill a deity.
(But if he can, yeah, that would shake Redclaok to the core)

[The Pilgrim]

Redcloak isn't a static character (well, I don't think Rich envisions him as static). The important characters in this series change as the series goes on, particularly the six people in OoTS. But so too does MiTD, one of the three charter members of Team Evil, who are Xykon, Redcloak, MiTD.

Sure. Characters can change. And can change for the worse. Which is the course that Redcloak has been following all this time.


Sure, it can go that way as well. All of the ingredients are there. But: given Rich's fundamental trope subversion in re the plight of goblins, might it not fit Rich's intention to subvert or twist that trope (self destruction/tragic, one each) a little bit so that he's telling a slightly different story?

Already subverted that trope with Belkar. Too many redemptions would cheapen it's value. Redemption is not for everyone (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0464.html).

[dancrilis]

Not seeing how Xykon the lich can kill a deity.
(But if he can, yeah, that would shake Redclaok to the core)

My thinking (wild guessing) is that Xykon provides the teleportation magic, Redcloak links that magic to The Dark One and Xykon co-opts that link to launch the Gate at him (i.e he is smarter then Redcloak gave him credit for) - killing The Dark One with the very plan that he started to have a means to killing the other gods, a somewhat karmic to the goblin deity.
My thinking then descends further into speculation and imagination land.

Honestly I think it unlikely that I have guessed correctly - but in the story of Redcloak being forced to review his life choices I could see it working.

[Ionathus]

Do you really believe that "Just because he wasn't open to these arguments a year and a half ago with Right-Eye doesn't mean he won't eventually be open to it this time"?

Of course that the fact that he wasn't open to these arguments when his little brother made them, means he's not going to be open to those arguments when made by two random dwarfs.

I dunno.

The only times in my life that I've changed have been a result of multiple data points. Multiple unconnected voices from different social circles pointing out the same flaw in my personality.

When only one person says something, it's easier to dismiss it. When multiple people start to make the same point (people who, I should add, would have no way of knowing or collaborating with Right-Eye), you might start to wonder whether they're all saying the same things for a reason.


Already subverted that trope with Belkar. Too many redemptions would cheapen it's value. Redemption is not for everyone (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0464.html).

"Only one redemption allowed per work of fiction" is a ridiculous rule. You seem to have a lot of these absolute rules of storytelling, none of which are supported by any actual storytelling advice, education, or public opinion.

[The Pilgrim]

I dunno.

The only times in my life that I've changed have been a result of multiple data points. Multiple unconnected voices from different social circles pointing out the same flaw in my personality.

When only one person says something, it's easier to dismiss it. When multiple people start to make the same point (people who, I should add, would have no way of knowing or collaborating with Right-Eye), you might start to wonder whether they're all saying the same things for a reason.

How many brothers of yours have you killed over those flaws in your personality?


"Only one redemption allowed per work of fiction" is a ridiculous rule.

V seems to hold a head advantage over Redcloak for the second redemption spot.


You seem to have a lot of these absolute rules of storytelling, none of which are supported by any actual storytelling advice, education, or public opinion.

Please, point me to those examples of storytelling advice, education or public opinion that support the idea of giving redemption to kinslayer characters.

Other than redemption trought Death, of course.

[KorvinStarmast]

Already subverted that trope with Belkar. Too many redemptions would cheapen it's value. Redemption is not for everyone (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0464.html). Given that I link to that time and again during various discussions, and how redemption is special and requires admitting one has been wrong, you are preaching to the choir, Reverend. :smallwink:

My thinking (wild guessing) is that Xykon provides the teleportation magic, Redcloak links that magic to The Dark One and Xykon co-opts that link to launch the Gate at him (i.e he is smarter then Redcloak gave him credit for) - killing The Dark One with the very plan that he started to have a means to killing the other gods, a somewhat karmic to the goblin deity. Y'know, the more I chew on that, the more I think that this is the kind of backstab that Xykon might pull purely for the LULZ. That's how I see Xykon, and I agree that he's a bit smarter than Redcloak gives him credit for. It would also mean that OoTS has to defeat the new yet related threat to the world that is the IFCC and whatever ripple effect that gate being moved creates in the OoTS world.

[deltamire]

Please, point me to those examples of storytelling advice, education or public opinion that support the idea of giving redemption to kinslayer characters.

Other than redemption trought Death, of course.
I 'unno, Roy's been a pretty good character since we met him : ]

All Laffs aside, there is no example, because there is nothing to give an example against. Redemption arcs (which, technically, Redcloak, if he is going to go down that path, is not exactly going to have - I'd argue it's more of an atonement arc) aren't based on some binary 'if you did X Y or Z you are officially too far gone' switch. They're unique and created for an individual character, and in fact, a story that only allows one or two cases (again, V is technically not really on a redemption arc, they're firmly in the atonement category too) like we're rationing them is going to suffer as a result.

[Jason]

The Dark One is the only one that Redcloak still cares about really and if his entire life of service leads to his 'ally' murdering his god it might cause him to have a bit of an awakening of where his life has brought him and the decisions he made to get there.
Does he really care about The Dark One, though? Redcloak has never actually spoken with his god. At this point Redcloak's god is The Plan. That and his own sunken costs.

[dancrilis]

Does he really care about The Dark One, though? Redcloak has never actually spoken with his god. At this point Redcloak's god is The Plan. That and his own sunken costs.

He cares about his idea of The Dark One, the one who will fight for goblin rights, who will take care of goblins in the new world etc.

However if The Dark One personally came down and said 'stop the plan Redcloak, there is a better way' Redcloak might well respond with 'I understand ... you're not The Dark One at all!'.

Those two items are not in contradiction to each other.