Goblin Oppression; fact or fiction?

[dancrilis]

There has been a number of discussion on Goblin Oppression within the comic and these tend to go down a number of pathways as I see it.

Firstly to define what I mean by Goblin Oppression (hopefully everyone can agree the defination is fair enough at any rate):
Goblin Oppression: Where goblins are the victims of consistent unjust or cruel exercises of authority or power.

1. Goblins are oppressed and are so based on the fact that the gods created them to fit this role.
2. Goblins are oppressed and are so based on the fact that the humans and other races oppress them without the gods punishing such behaviour.
3. Goblins are oppressed because as a society they choose to engage in evil and this resulted in other not being willing to associate with them and so they didn't benefit from trade etc.
4. Goblins are not oppressed.
5. While goblins are oppressed by others much of this oppression is a result of the actions of The Dark One.
6. Goblins are oppressors which means they stronger ones oppress the weaker ones.
7. Other.

I think the first 6 cover most opinions (with 5 being my personal take).

Option 1 is supported seemingly by the crayon drawings in SOD - however there are indications that these may not be accurate.
Option 2 is supported by the actions of a small group within SOD - but there is little to indicate that others engage in this, it is also supported partially by the action of the OOTS in DCF but that may not be valid due to much of it being before a long term narrative was considered.
Option 3 is not really strongly supported in my view, and undermined by the fact that in Gobbotopia they do have relations with other evil humanoids (and others), however there behaviour within Gobbotopia would act as a problem for relations with more neutral and good aligned peoples.
Option 4 is somewhat supported by the online comic where we don't really see much oppression of goblins by others, although SOD and to a lesser extent HTPGHS offer much more in the way of opposition to it (although by a small select group).
Option 5 is supported by the fact that the oppression in SOD and HTPGHS is a direct result of The Dark One's machinations - however this does not account for how the goblins got to the position there were in prior to his appearance, which has been indicated on the forum as them not worshipping any gods.
Option 6 is supported by the comic where we see Redcloak sieze control of a hobgoblin settlement by might of arms, or in SOD where similiar might grants authority is practiced at times.
Option 7 unsupported by the nature of being a catch all option.

Just wondering if I missed any obvious option and where people might stand on these options.

[understatement]

What I'm surprised at is that you hadn't brought this thread up sooner.

ETA: Since the word 'oppression' seems to be used a lot here, I'd like to point that it only takes one group - in a superior position of power - systemically crusading against another to qualify.

[Jason]

I would say that there is very little goblin oppression evident in the online strips, and lots of scenes of goblins and goblinoids oppressing others, but that might be the nature of the story being told, where the goblins shown are mostly in the service, willingly or no, of Xykon.

There are more people actively hating goblins in the books, but there are also more goblins willing to take a more tolerant attitude towards the other races. We see goblin families attending a circus with human families without any friction between the two races, for instance.

[Ionathus]

There has been a number of discussion on Goblin Oppression within the comic and these tend to go down a number of pathways as I see it.

[snip]



I'm gonna go with Options #1 and #2, because:

These are the scenarios depicted & explained in the comic.
At no point do any characters offer counterpoints or evidence that these are not the case -- sure they justify their actions, but they don't dispute the facts.
Rich himself has stated outright that goblinoids and other "monstrous" humanoids are often attacked on sight (see the orcs in Roy & Durkon's first adventuring party).
Rich himself has stated that he's deliberately pointing at this exact situation while he tells the story of Redcloak (See Worldsong's signature for more on that, once they inevitably sniff out this thread).
I can't name a single instance of any PC Race character expressing sympathy for the goblins' plight within the main comic.
The Sapphire Guard's actions in SOD & HtPGHS -- not just that they killed goblinoids indiscriminately, but that nobody seems to care, or only cares from a tactical standpoint.


Your statement that this is all the "fault" of The Dark One's actions would ring a lot truer if it weren't for Redcloak's first scene in SoD.
Unless you're saying those goblin children deserved to die because their priest was wearing the MacGuffin...in which case, we will never see eye to eye on this.

[knag]

Are Goblins (and orcs, ogres, xvarts, gnolls (including flinds), trolls, lycanthropes, minotaurs, orogs, medusas, sligs, grimlocks, lamias, hill giants, ettins, yakfolk, ettercaps, half-orcs, and others) all oppressed?

Surely the reality is that some are oppressed and some are not. Just as some humans (particularly in the Western Continent) are oppressed. Dwarves are deeply oppressed by Loki's bet.

I think the question is not nuanced enough.

[Worldsong]

I think the reason we don't see much discrimination against goblinoids in the comic itself is because the comic focuses on the goblinoids fighting back (primarily Redcloak). Or in other words the consequences of years of discrimination, that is a member of the discriminated group goes ballistic and resorts to extreme measures to put a stop to it.

That goblinoids get treated as fair game for adventurers and Good-aligned people to kill is mostly established by the fact that the story is a parody of DnD 3.5e and criticism on the way that Rich saw people play the game, and apparently Rich saw a lot of people play like murderhobos who had zero objections to striking down members of monster races.

[Jason]

I can't name a single instance of any PC Race character expressing sympathy for the goblins' plight within the main comic.
That again might be the nature of the story being told. The goblins have been an active threat throughout the storyline.

Durkon was expressing sympathy before Red Cloak tried to murder him.

[Ionathus]

That again might be the nature of the story being told. The goblins have been an active threat throughout the storyline.

Durkon was expressing sympathy before Red Cloak tried to murder him.

Sorry, I should've clarified "before this Redcloak/Durkon negotiation." Didn't mean to be moving the goalposts like that, but here we are.

[Jason]

Sorry, I should've clarified "before this Redcloak/Durkon negotiation." Didn't mean to be moving the goalposts like that, but here we are.
If memory serves, that's also the first time any goblin has brought up the subject with a member of a PC race, isn't it?

[understatement]

If memory serves, that's also the first time any goblin has brought up the subject with a member of a PC race, isn't it?

Not really; the Dark One did bring it up back when he was mortal. Or tried to, at least.

[Jason]

Not really; the Dark One did bring it up back when he was mortal. Or tried to, at least.
That wasn't in the main comic.

[pendell]

If I have to be pinned down to one answer, I'll choose #1: the goblins are oppressed because they have been specifically created for the role by the gods, and very few adventurers are willing to question this state of affairs.

Be that as it may, I think two other points in here have partial value:
A) I concur that the oppression from the gods is bad enough, but TDO is making things worse. I also don't see the path he is following as one that is likely to make things better. As others have pointed out, Redcloak has killed more goblinoids than any random band of adventurers, and is on course to put their entire existence as a species on the table.

B) As seen in Azure City, goblins are not saints. They are just as capable as the other species of oppression when they are the ones on top. Be that as it may, their own evil actions do not justify their continued oppression. Two wrongs don't make a right.



Not really; the Dark One did bring it up back when he was mortal. Or tried to, at least.


So he tells us. That's crayon. There may be more to the story than just a {scrubbed} being butchered without cause and in cold blood by treacherous humans. That portion of the story, more than any other, has the stench of propaganda about it to me.


Respectfully,

Brian P.

[hamishspence]

Thor, at least, claims The Dark One had killed many Thor-worshippers, as a mortal.

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1143.html

[Jason]

There may be more to the story than just a {scrub the post, scrub the quote} being butchered without cause and in cold blood by treacherous humans. That portion of the story, more than any other, has the stench of propaganda about it to me.
{scrubbed}

Even in the Dark One's own propaganda he was a military leader as well as a moral crusader for goblinoid rights.

[understatement]

So he tells us. That's crayon. There may be more to the story than just a {scrub the post, scrub the quote} being butchered without cause and in cold blood by treacherous humans. That portion of the story, more than any other, has the stench of propaganda about it to me.


Respectfully,

Brian P.

I don't disagree, but that was the only example I could think of off the top of my head of a goblin speaking to a PC race. Every other interaction (besides the recent strips) has been during conflict.

[hungrycrow]

Are Goblins (and orcs, ogres, xvarts, gnolls (including flinds), trolls, lycanthropes, minotaurs, orogs, medusas, sligs, grimlocks, lamias, hill giants, ettins, yakfolk, ettercaps, half-orcs, and others) all oppressed?

Surely the reality is that some are oppressed and some are not. Just as some humans (particularly in the Western Continent) are oppressed. Dwarves are deeply oppressed by Loki's bet.

I think the question is not nuanced enough.

All of these races suffer under the 'kill on sight' mentality adventurers seem to run on.

I do think it complicates things that a lot of members of these races also attack innocent members of PC races. Should we call it oppression if both sides are committing the same atrocities?

[Worldsong]

All of these races suffer under the 'kill on sight' mentality adventurers seem to run on.

I do think it complicates things that a lot of members of these races also attack innocent members of PC races. Should we call it oppression if both sides are committing the same atrocities?

Most of those races have the advantage that they're individually strong enough that it requires some work to kill them. I think goblins (and goblinoids in general) have it worse because they're individually small and weak.

[dancrilis]

Your statement that this is all the "fault" of The Dark One's actions would ring a lot truer if it weren't for Redcloak's first scene in SoD.
Unless you're saying those goblin children deserved to die because their priest was wearing the MacGuffin...in which case, we will never see eye to eye on this.

Consider it this way - I have a plan to create a device to enslave the minds of all people (or possibly kill them you are unsure), but you can't reach me to stop me you can only reach those who are building it for me - so you drop a bomb on the village, and then when you get word that others are continuing the plan for me you drop another bomb, and another, and another ... you drop a lot of bombs.

You are content to wipe out all my people to stop me - but again you can't reach me - at some point you are going to be legitimately regarded as an oppressor of my people and when one of them wipes you out not many will think it is unfair to you.

But I am still the cause of the oppression in the first place (your actions began to combat my plans rather then from nowhere) - you may be in the wrong to slaughter my people in that manner, but it is my actions that triggered your oppression of my people.

Bare in mind I said:

5. While goblins are oppressed by others much of this oppression is a result of the actions of The Dark One.

This acknowledges that they are oppressed (at least to an extent).


I don't disagree, but that was the only example I could think of off the top of my head of a goblin speaking to a PC race. Every other interaction (besides the recent strips) has been during conflict.

Not the main comic but:

1. Right-Eye speaks to Eugene when Eugene sets him on the course for a better life (not really about goblin oppression but still a civilised conversation where Eugene didn't attack him even when Right-Eye pulled a weapon on him - so Eugene at least seems to regard goblins as people, even if he regards them as evil people and doesn't really care about them).

2. Right-Eye and Redcloak specifically talk to Xykon about goblin oppression and he does not disagree.

In the main comic Redcloak talks to Tsukiko about the plan and she does not fault him on his reasoning (and then he kills her).

[Jason]

In the main comic Redcloak talks to Tsukiko about the plan and she does not fault him on his reasoning (and then he kills her).
Tsukiko is much more concerned with the reveal that the Plan isn't what Xykon thinks it is rather than disputing whether or not goblins really have gotten a raw deal.

[Keltest]

Most of those races have the advantage that they're individually strong enough that it requires some work to kill them. I think goblins (and goblinoids in general) have it worse because they're individually small and weak.

In 3.5, a normal human commoner is infamously less likely to win a combat than a typical housecat. As a species, humanity has no particular advantage in that department.

[Doug Lampert]

I don't disagree, but that was the only example I could think of off the top of my head of a goblin speaking to a PC race. Every other interaction (besides the recent strips) has been during conflict.

Start of Darkness has goblins able to attend the circus alongside humans with no trouble at all, and they all are allowed to, and do, speak.

They don't discuss goblin oppression, but there's no sign that they couldn't if they thought goblins being oppressed was an active problem.

Of course there is a conflict and those goblins are oppressed: When RC shows up and kills some humans while robbing the circus there is conflict, and then the goblins are all enslaved (by X and RC) and forced to work and fight (for RC and X) prior to RC murdering spoiler for daring to try to fix this situation. Then later of course RC has the brilliant epiphany that MAYBE deliberately getting hobgoblins killed for the horrid crime of having orange skin and fangs is wrong after he's ONLY arranged for 10,000+ to be killed. But you can't make an omelette without ruthlessly crushing some eggs beneath your feet utterly destroying your brother's peaceful village which is successfully doing what you claim is impossible.

So yeah, goblins and goblinoids are oppressed quite often in the comic. If you want to eliminate the worst single oppressor shown, RC can see him by getting a mirror.

It would also be nice if someone stopped low level adventurers from killing goblins without worrying about finding actual evidence of an actual crime. But that doesn't seem to be nearly as imminent a threat to goblinkind as RC and his "plan" which is likely to destroy the souls of every living goblin if it "works".

[hamishspence]

In 3.5, a normal human commoner is infamously less likely to win a combat than a typical housecat. As a species, humanity has no particular advantage in that department.

Commoners are an unusually fragile NPC class. Better to compare the basic human statblock with the basic goblin statblock.

https://www.d20srd.org/index.htm

Human:

Medium: As Medium creatures, humans have no special bonuses or penalties due to their size.
Human base land speed is 30 feet.
1 extra feat at 1st level.
4 extra skill points at 1st level and 1 extra skill point at each additional level.
Automatic Language: Common. Bonus Languages: Any (other than secret languages, such as Druidic). See the Speak Language skill.
Favored Class: Any. When determining whether a multiclass human takes an experience point penalty, his or her highest-level class does not count.

Goblin:

-2 Strength, +2 Dexterity, -2 Charisma.
Small size: +1 bonus to Armor Class, +1 bonus on attack rolls, +4 bonus on Hide checks, -4 penalty on grapple checks, lifting and carrying limits ¾ those of Medium characters.
A goblin’s base land speed is 30 feet.
Darkvision out to 60 feet.
+4 racial bonus on Move Silently and Ride checks.
Automatic Languages: Common, Goblin. Bonus Languages: Draconic, Elven, Giant, Gnoll, Orc.
Favored Class: Rogue.

Goblins are massively worse at anything Str based or Charisma based and better only at being sneaky rogues. Humans are all-rounders - half-decent at everything. And that feat and that skill bonus makes a huge difference.

There's a reason why goblin warriors are CR 1/3 whereas "PC races" are CR 1/2 as warriors.

[understatement]

SOD spoilers ahead.


Consider it this way -

Considering this is a hypothetical situation, this isn't even comparable in any way.


I have a plan to create a device to enslave the minds of all people (or possibly kill them you are unsure), but you can't reach me to stop me you can only reach those who are building it for me - so you drop a bomb on the village, and then when you get word that others are continuing the plan for me you drop another bomb, and another, and another ... you drop a lot of bombs.

The Cloak ( or its Bearer) is not a bomb. It doesn't actively threaten lives in an immediate radius. The only time it becomes a threat is if the Bearer is near the rift.


You are content to wipe out all my people to stop me - but again you can't reach me - at some point you are going to be legitimately regarded as an oppressor of my people and when one of them wipes you out not many will think it is unfair to you.

This is D&D. There is absolutely a way to "get" to the Bearer without wiping out the village. And once the Bearer is dead, there is absolutely no reason for the paladins to continue what they did.


But I am still the cause of the oppression in the first place (your actions began to combat my plans rather then from nowhere) - you may be in the wrong to slaughter my people in that manner, but it is my actions that triggered your oppression of my people.

So...the Bearer forced the Sapphire Guard to attack fleeing villagers, before and after he was dead.

Doesn't sound right.




They don't discuss goblin oppression, but there's no sign that they couldn't if they thought goblins being oppressed was an active problem.


Yeah, okay. I'd like to revise my statement that besides Durkon - Redcloak and the TDO example, I don't think there's been seen a "formal negotation" of sorts.

[hamishspence]

I'd say a big part of it, is The Giant attacking the attitude of the average player (and maybe even the average DM) to the average monster.


In that context, the "goblinoid oppression by PC races is real" hypothesis makes the most sense to me as being True. As such, for me, 1. and 2. seem by far the most likely.

DMs stand for "the gods" and "PC races" stand for "the players".

[hungrycrow]

Commoners are an unusually fragile NPC class. Better to compare the basic human statblock with the basic goblin statblock.

https://www.d20srd.org/index.htm

Human:

Medium: As Medium creatures, humans have no special bonuses or penalties due to their size.
Human base land speed is 30 feet.
1 extra feat at 1st level.
4 extra skill points at 1st level and 1 extra skill point at each additional level.
Automatic Language: Common. Bonus Languages: Any (other than secret languages, such as Druidic). See the Speak Language skill.
Favored Class: Any. When determining whether a multiclass human takes an experience point penalty, his or her highest-level class does not count.

Goblin:

-2 Strength, +2 Dexterity, -2 Charisma.
Small size: +1 bonus to Armor Class, +1 bonus on attack rolls, +4 bonus on Hide checks, -4 penalty on grapple checks, lifting and carrying limits ¾ those of Medium characters.
A goblin’s base land speed is 30 feet.
Darkvision out to 60 feet.
+4 racial bonus on Move Silently and Ride checks.
Automatic Languages: Common, Goblin. Bonus Languages: Draconic, Elven, Giant, Gnoll, Orc.
Favored Class: Rogue.

Goblins are massively worse at anything Str based or Charisma based and better only at being sneaky rogues. Humans are all-rounders - half-decent at everything. And that feat and that skill bonus makes a huge difference.

There's a reason why goblin warriors are CR 1/3 whereas "PC races" are CR 1/2 as warriors.

Goblins are Medium sized in comic though.

[Jason]

I'd say a big part of it, is The Giant attacking the attitude of the average player (and maybe even the average DM) to the average monster.I think I would disagree that the average player of D&D has no qualms cutting up goblin kids they find in a lair after killing off all the warriors who were actively trying to kill their characters. It's more like the rare player of D&D who gives the others a bad name when he acts in that way. And this has always been true, even in 1st edition AD&D days. You can find regular debates in early issues of Dragon.

[hamishspence]

Goblins are Medium sized in comic though.

Which means they lose all those size-related bonuses, and gain ... extra carrying capacity, and better at grappling.

[Jason]

Which means they lose all those size-related bonuses, and gain ... extra carrying capacity, and better at grappling.
They might lose the -2 Strength penalty as well.

[hamishspence]

They might lose the -2 Strength penalty as well.It's possible. IMO not likely in this context..



I think I would disagree that the average player of D&D has no qualms cutting up goblin kids they find in a lair after killing off all the warriors who were actively trying to kill their characters. It's more like the rare player of D&D who gives the others a bad name when he acts in that way. And this has always been true, even in 1st edition AD&D days. You can find regular debates in early issues of Dragon.

Given that Gygax sided with the kid-killers in fairly recent years, kind of, suggesting it was permissible for LG, and CN and LN:

https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=11762&sid=4e338775c7270c219456fd4c3ed08d69&start=90


The non-combatants in a humanoid group might be judged as worthy of death by a LG opponent force and executed or taken as prisoners to be converted to the correct way of thinking and behaving. A NG opponent would likely admonish them to change their ways before freeing them. A CG force might enslave them so as to correct their ways or else do as the NG party did. CN and LN opponents would likely slaughter the lot.

it would be interesting to see what he said back then.

[Yuki Akuma]

...Okay, Chaotic Good characters enslaving evil characters sounds so hilariously out of character for Chaotic Good that I have to come to the conclusion that Gygax had nothing to do with the shift from a single-axis Lawful-Chaos alignment to a two-axis Lawful-Chaos/Good-Evil alignment grid.

[dancrilis]

This is D&D. There is absolutely a way to "get" to the Bearer without wiping out the village. And once the Bearer is dead, there is absolutely no reason for the paladins to continue what they did.

It is DnD any of those goblins could be polymorphed adults, any of them could be 'true' bearer having used a proxy to throw off the paladins etc, we know that was not the case but the paladins couldn't be sure about it - which does not justify their actions (you don't get to kill innocent people and say 'I had to be sure') but might help explain why they took such extreme measures.
I would imagine that it is fairly standard for evil creatures to pretend to be children so that people are put off attacking them with full force - kindof like how not-Durkon deliberately didn't reveal to Roy that he wasn't Durkon in the hopes Roy might hold back.



So...the Bearer forced the Sapphire Guard to attack fleeing villagers, before and after he was dead.

I am not blaming the Bearer - I am blaming The Dark One.


Which means they lose all those size-related bonuses, and gain ... extra carrying capacity, and better at grappling.
Depends on if The Giant used the size increase (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/improvingMonsters.htm#sizeIncreases) table for this - but I am inclined to think he didn't.


it would be interesting to see what he said back then.
In my experience many people don't mellow with age (or really change than much at all over the decades past childhood).

[hamishspence]

...Okay, Chaotic Good characters enslaving evil characters sounds so hilariously out of character for Chaotic Good that I have to come to the conclusion that Gygax had nothing to do with the shift from a single-axis Lawful-Chaos alignment to a two-axis Lawful-Chaos/Good-Evil alignment grid.
I can believe that "Law is better than Chaos" was a Gygax thing, and that he resisted as much as he could, the addition of anything that might suggest otherwise.

[Jason]

Gary Gygax was hardly the average player or DM, was he?
I'll see if I can find some examples from "back then".

[hamishspence]

Gary Gygax was hardly the average player or DM, was he?

He might not have been the average DM, but he was the prototype DM, and he casts a long shadow.

[pendell]

It's possible. IMO not likely in this context..




Given that Gygax sided with the kid-killers in fairly recent years, kind of, suggesting it was permissible for LG, and CN and LN:

https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=11762&sid=4e338775c7270c219456fd4c3ed08d69&start=90



it would be interesting to see what he said back then.

"Non-combatants" is a different thing from "children and infants". Also, reading the text, it looks to me like Gygax has an ancient world/medieval world context. In the ancient world, almost all societies were slave societies. Slaves were what happened to captives taken in battle; before that, they were often simply slaughtered. Athens, Rome, ancient China, India, Babylon all made slaves out of captives.

Likewise, in the medieval world, slaughtering non-combatants was a thing that happened.

Gygax' advice would make sense in a medieval historical context, but it's completely out of place in OOTSworld, which is essentially a modern world with lighting, sanitation, and race issues, except with magic instead of science and no modern guns.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[hungrycrow]

"Non-combatants" is a different thing from "children and infants". Also, reading the text, it looks to me like Gygax has an ancient world/medieval world context. In the ancient world, almost all societies were slave societies. Slaves were what happened to captives taken in battle; before that, they were often simply slaughtered. Athens, Rome, ancient China, India, Babylon all made slaves out of captives.

Likewise, in the medieval world, slaughtering non-combatants was a thing that happened.

Gygax' advice would make sense in a medieval historical context, but it's completely out of place in OOTSworld, which is essentially a modern world with lighting, sanitation, and race issues, except with magic instead of science and no modern guns.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Slavery and mass-slaughter was pretty common among ancient and medieval armies, but I wouldn't define those armies as Good, even in their social context.

[Worldsong]

...Okay, Chaotic Good characters enslaving evil characters sounds so hilariously out of character for Chaotic Good that I have to come to the conclusion that Gygax had nothing to do with the shift from a single-axis Lawful-Chaos alignment to a two-axis Lawful-Chaos/Good-Evil alignment grid.


I can believe that "Law is better than Chaos" was a Gygax thing, and that he resisted as much as he could, the addition of anything that might suggest otherwise.

I've come to a similar conclusion. As someone who associates himself most with the Chaotic Good alignment I'm not very fond of the man who appears to have set the trend that Lawful Good is seen as the best alignment and Chaotic Evil as the worst.

Even these days I still have to deal with players who specifically target Chaotic Evil as the worst or who act like Chaotic Good is an off-brand type of Good.

[hamishspence]

I've come to a similar conclusion. As someone who associates himself most with the Chaotic Good alignment I'm not very fond of the man who appears to have set the trend that Lawful Good is seen as the best alignment and Chaotic Evil as the worst.

Even these days I still have to deal with players who specifically target Chaotic Evil as the worst or who act like Chaotic Good is an off-brand type of Good.

I can believe The Giant feels the same way. While he might respect Gygax for his contributions to D&D, hence the tribute strip:


https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0536.html


I doubt very much that him and Gygax were on the same page about much else.

[The Pilgrim]

My take on the issue is that Goblins haven't been portrayed as systematically oppresed and victimized people in the comic.

The main agent oppresing and victimizing the Goblins in this comic is Xykon himself. And his actions are tolerated by Redcloak and, tacitally, by The Dark One, who are the ones promoting the "Goblins are opressed victims that must be freed" narrative.

The actions of the Sapphire Guard, while oppresive for the Goblins, were finally stopped by humans. So, they can't be used to support the "goblins are systematically oppresed by pc races" narrative.

The racist elf commander is the closest example of victimization of goblins. But he was just a ranger with Goblin as prefered enemy, much like Belkar is a ranger with Kobold as prefered enemy. The Elf Commander's mindset is as much an example of systematic oppresion against Goblins as Belkar's is of systematic oppresion of Kobolds.

While The Giant has stated his critique on the classical fantasy trope of "they are monsters, we can kill them all without moral implications", he has still portrayed his real Heroes and his real Good characters as people who don't behave that way, as Roy and O-Chul's actions demonstrate.

Of course, different group of peoples hold prejudices against other groups of people, but the general tone of the OOTS world is very far from "everyone against the Goblins", that's just the villiains' narrative to justify their unjustifiable actions.

[Ionathus]

I can believe The Giant feels the same way. While he might respect Gygax for his contributions to D&D...I doubt very much that him and Gygax were on the same page about much else.

Seconded. Gygax was a complicated person and had a lot of opinions about the changes that happened to D&D -- many of which I am deeply thankful he was unable to stop.


It is DnD any of those goblins could be polymorphed adults
...
any of them could be 'true' bearer having used a proxy to throw off the paladins
...
the paladins couldn't be sure about it - which does not justify their actions (you don't get to kill innocent people and say 'I had to be sure') but might help explain why they took such extreme measures
...
I would imagine that it is fairly standard for evil creatures to pretend to be children

This is starting to smack of the "stats for baby dragons (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=16153660&postcount=37)" conversation, specifically this linked quote. You're inventing justifications and scenarios that don't exist in the comic and weren't even suggested, and using them to justify why Person X is somehow responsible for Person Y's actions.

The Paladins are responsible for their actions. Not The Dark One. Not the Crimson Mantle Bearer. Not Young Redcloak. The paladins were capable of fulfilling their mission without slaughtering scores of noncombatants -- as shown by Gin-Jun's actions & repercussions in HtPGHS.

Ninja edit:

The actions of the Sapphire Guard, while oppresive for the Goblins, were finally stopped by humans. So, they can't be used to support the "goblins are systematically oppresed by pc races" narrative.

"An oppressive group was allowed to act for years with free reign, but then that one group stopped, therefore systematic oppression is solved!" is not a very compelling argument to me. It's a single example of a larger problem.


While The Giant has stated his critique on the classical fantasy trope of "they are monsters, we can kill them all without moral implications", he has still portrayed his real Heroes and his real Good characters as people who don't behave that way, as Roy and O-Chul's actions demonstrate.

Finally, something we agree on! It only took twelve pages of debate.


Of course, different group of peoples hold prejudices against other groups of people, but the general tone of the OOTS world is very far from "everyone against the Goblins", that's just the villiain's narrative to justify their unjustifiable actions.

Look, I know you've already decided that Redcloak is morally bankrupt and you're working to reverse-engineer that therefore he must be wrong about the goblin oppression, but the comic is saying that he ISN'T wrong. The goblins are oppressed. Redcloak's actions are abhorrent, but he has a point.

[Worldsong]

That the heroes are behaving like heroes and the villains behaving like villains says very little about systematic discrimination. From the start that's a pretty poor argument.

And O-Chul is as much of a hero as the protagonists, I'm pretty certain Rich at some point stated that he intentionally designed O-Chul to be the example of everything a paladin should be, a paragon of Lawful Good. Him managing to do some good says absolutely nothing about the behaviour of the average person.

Rich has stated that Redcloak's story is him commenting on players treating goblinoids as fair game. I'm going to take his Word of God over the fact that his comic might not always represent his intentions perfectly.

Then again I can't put the blame solely on Rich for that, because if someone doesn't want to believe something you can write your story with as much skill and elegance as you want, the only way they'll accept it is if you force the message down their throat.

[Jason]

The Paladins are responsible for their actions. Not The Dark One. Not the Crimson Mantle Bearer. Not Young Redcloak. The paladins were capable of fulfilling their mission without slaughtering scores of noncombatants -- as shown by Gin-Jun's actions & repercussions in HtPGHS.
I would go even further and say that Gin-Jun is primarily responsible for the actions of the Sapphire Guard during HtPGHS. Not the Sapphire Guard, nor the Azurites, nor humans as a whole, nor the Southern Pantheon.
Likewise Gin-Jun's un-named predecessor is the one primarily responsible for wiping out Redcloak's village during SoD along with the bearer of the Crimson Mantle, their primary target during that raid.
That one paladin, not the whole guard or all the Azurites or all of humanity or the Southern Pantheon.


"An oppressive group was allowed to act for years with free reign, but then that one group stopped, therefore systematic oppression is solved!" is not a very compelling argument to me. It's a single example of a larger problem.
It's a bad sign, but if it was the only or the last oppressive group operating then there may very well be no larger problem that must still be addressed after that group is no longer oppressive. If you want to prove an ongoing systemic problem then you need to show that the system continues to produce oppressive groups because of that problem.


Look, I know you've already decided that Redcloak is morally bankrupt and you're working to reverse-engineer that therefore he must be wrong about the goblin oppression, but the comic is saying that he ISN'T wrong. The goblins are oppressed. Redcloak's actions are abhorrent, but he has a point.
Granted it hasn't said Red Cloak is wrong, but I don't think the comic has demonstrated that he's correct either, at least not yet. There are counter-examples to the Sapphire Guard's massacre of his village, such as the circus in SoD welcoming goblin families alongside human families.

[The Pilgrim]

"An oppressive group was allowed to act for years with free reign, but then that one group stopped, therefore systematic oppression is solved!" is not a very compelling argument to me. It's a single example of a larger problem.

Actually the opposite. If an oppresing faction withing a certain group is stopped by that same group, it means the actions of that faction weren't representative of the mindset of the whole group, who stopped them precisely for not saring that mindset. As yes, oppresion is solved, unless you can prove that the actions carried away by the Sapphire Guard continued to happen after O-Chul joined it.


Look, I know you've already decided that Redcloak is morally bankrupt and you're working to reverse-engineer that therefore he must be wrong about the goblin oppression, but the comic is saying that he ISN'T wrong. The goblins are oppressed. Redcloak's actions are abhorrent, but he has a point.

I haven't decided that Redcloak is a morally bankrupt character. That has been the consistent work of The Giant for six book and several side material. SoD is the story of how Redcloak became a morally bankrupt character. In the main comic, thus far, we have been told how Redcloak keeps being a morally bankrupt character and refuses any chance to turn on that.

And of course he is wrong. He has no point. He has no justification for the scores of deaths he has provoked, most of them goblins.

Even if the Goblins were oppresed people, that still wouldn't justify him. O-Chul's backstory basically stablishes that fact.

"There are only two sides: Those who want war, and those who want peace".

The Hobgoblin General was the (in)moral equivalent of Gin-Jun in the Hobgoblin's side. That was clearly stated as they were put on the same panel under the "those who want war" statement.

Others wanted peace. Like O-Chul and the soon-to-be Hobgoblin Supreme Leader.

Those who wanted peace won, and had peace... until Redcloak took over leadership of the Hobgoblins.

Right-Eye wanted peace. Redcloak wants war.

[AdAstra]

Redcloak being a Bad Guy has no bearing on the goblin race or their plight, the same way that Thog has no bearing on fighters. We’re discussing Redcloak’s point, and that point needs to be held in isolation from the person, especially since no one in story seems to actually think that point is invalid.

If, for example, the Crimson Mantle had been in the hands of a human, and a bunch of elven elite soldiers, representatives of the government, ran in and murdered that person’s entire village, that would clearly be unjustified killing, and if an author used that as an example of elves oppressing humanity, very few people would object.

Yeah, Redcloak is a hypocritical monster, but hypocrisy doesn’t invalidate a worldview or history, only the hypocrite. If a person says murder is bad, but then spends their time stabbing children, that doesn’t make murder somehow good. If a person points out that a city has a lot of destitute people and does nothing about it, they’re not necessarily wrong just because they spend their free time stealing from panhandlers.

[The Pilgrim]

If, for example, the Crimson Mantle had been in the hands of a human, and a bunch of elven elite soldiers, representatives of the government, ran in and murdered that person’s entire village, that would clearly be unjustified killing, and if an author used that as an example of elves oppressing humanity, very few people would object.

Except that the author hasn't used the Sapphire Guard's actions as an example of humankind oppresing goblinkind.

In fact, the author used the Sapphire Guard's actions, in GDGU, as an example of how humans and goblins want, mostly, to live in peace.

Anyway, right now we have a Hobgoblin Nation resorting to massive human slavery. We haven't been shown any evidence in-comic of any nation, human or other race, that that resorts to massive goblinoid slavery. The only instances were we have been shown goblin slavery are... when enslaved by Xykon, Redcloak, or other goblins.

[Jason]

Redcloak being a Bad Guy has no bearing on the goblin race or their plight, the same way that Thog has no bearing on fighters. We’re discussing Redcloak’s point, and that point needs to be held in isolation from the person, especially since no one in story seems to actually think that point is invalid.I grant that Redcloak's character is irrelevent to whether goblins are actually being oppressed. However, no one has outright agreed with Redcloak on this point except his brother (Durkon said he wouldn't be surprised. Which is not quite agreement).
If Redcloak is the only source of the "goblins are oppressed and were even created as second-class people in the first place by the gods," story, then his character becomes relevant again in determining whether that narrative is true. If we have sufficient evidence not dependent on Redcloak then yes, we can continue to ignore his character.

I don't think the comic has provided enough evidence to determine if Redcloak is correct or not at this point.

Edit: And even Redcloak's brother seemed to change his mind on whether it was important that goblins are oppressed. Or perhaps he started to see Xykon - correctly - as the most dangerous oppressor.

[Ionathus]

Except that the author hasn't used the Sapphire Guard's actions as an example of humankind oppresing goblinkind.

In fact, the author used the Sapphire Guard's actions as an example of how humans and goblins want, mostly, to live in peace, as stated in GDGU.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that we're reading different comics.

I don't really know what other proof you're looking for. O-Chul's experience in GDGU, as well as Redcloak's in SoD, clearly demonstrates brutal and indiscriminate violence against goblinoid noncombatants. That's how the author is choosing to show us these experiences: through the characters that have experienced them.


Anyway, right now we have a Hobgoblin Nation resorting to massive human slavery. We haven't been shown any evidence in-comic of any nation, human or other race, that that resorts to massive goblinoid slavery. The only instances were we have been shown goblin slavery are... when enslaved by Xykon, Redcloak, or other goblins.

"This hobgoblin nation has human slaves, and human nations don't have goblinoid slaves, therefore the goblinoids aren't worse-off than other races" is also a flawed argument, you know. There are other metrics to gauge the goblinoids' plight as an entire race than the evil actions of Gobbotopia.

EDIT to add:

Edit: And even Redcloak's brother seemed to change his mind on whether it was important that goblins are oppressed. Or perhaps he started to see Xykon - correctly - as the most dangerous oppressor.

That's my opinion, too -- that Right-Eye was trying to fix his error of involving Xykon, and Redcloak had tunnel-vision until it was too late. Right-Eye was less extreme than Redcloak, but his story is still completely overshadowed by the trauma he and Redcloak experienced early in their lives.

The difference in their reactions isn't proof that Redcloak was wrong about the core concept -- it's a depiction of how two people can experience the same horrible thing and react to it in completely different ways.

[The Pilgrim]

I'm becoming more and more convinced that we're reading different comics.

I don't really know what other proof you're looking for. O-Chul's experience in GDGU, as well as Redcloak's in SoD, clearly demonstrates brutal and indiscriminate violence against goblinoid noncombatants. That's how the author is choosing to show us these experiences: through the characters that have experienced them.

Do I need to point you the many panels in the comic that show brutal and indiscriminate violence towards human noncombatants, performed by goblinoids?

The difference is that human voices were raised in opposition of the indiscriminate violence against goblins in GDGU. Thus far I have seen no goblin voice objecting human slavery in Gobbotopia.

The situation seems more a cycle of violence between two groups that needs to be broken, rather than a situation of one group suffering sistematic oppresion from the other.


"This hobgoblin nation has human slaves, and human nations don't have goblinoid slaves, therefore the goblinoids aren't worse-off than other races" is also a flawed argument, you know. There are other metrics to gauge the goblinoids' plight as an entire race than the evil actions of Gobbotopia.

If two random massacres commited by a group of paladins are proof that goblins as a whole suffer systematic oppression from humans, then systematic slavery commited by the only know Goblin nation in the World should be proof that humans suffer systematic oppression from goblinoids.

If the latter argument is false (and it is), thus is the former.


That's my opinion, too -- that Right-Eye was trying to fix his error of involving Xykon, and Redcloak had tunnel-vision until it was too late. Right-Eye was less extreme than Redcloak, but his story is still completely overshadowed by the trauma he and Redcloak experienced early in their lives.

The difference in their reactions isn't proof that Redcloak was wrong about the core concept -- it's a depiction of how two people can experience the same horrible thing and react to it in completely different ways.

Right-Eye quit The Plan, and went to live in a goblin village that co-existed in peace with humans, working with what they had. Right-Eye acknowledged that The Plan was flawed, and it didn't improved the lives of goblin people, but the opposite.

Right-Eye was capable of growing past his childhood traumatic experience. Redcloak never did, and is still using it to justify his evil actions.

[Jason]

The situation seems more a cycle of violence between two groups that needs to be stopped, rather than a situation of one group suffering systematic oppresion from the other.
Quoted for truth. Maybe showing more examples of goblins being oppressed by random human societies wouldn't serve the story well or would just be depressing and that's why they aren't in the comic.

But they aren't in the comic.

We've got one massacre of a goblin village and one attempted massacre of a hobgoblin city by the same small group which latter changed its leadership precisely because of the massacres, one pretty clear instance of elf bigotry towards goblins...and...that's about it. Everything else is Redcloak or other goblins doing horrible things to other races or sometimes their own race.

[hroþila]

It seems to me you guys are looking for examples of the kind of oppression that happens when people of different backgrounds live together. But the goblinoids don't live alongside the other races, Right-Eye's family being the only known exception (and even then, they lived in a separate goblin village, and we only saw them visiting the circus, which didn't seem to be in any particular settlement). And the explanation for why the goblinoids don't live alongside the other races might well be something we've been told explicitly about in regards to the hobgoblins and the bugbears: other races kept them bottled up in their bad lands through military force.

We've seen a perfectly innocent kobold being murdered in a human city just for being a kobold. We've seen half orcs being discriminated against in Azure City. You're free to believe goblinoids are exempt from that kind of treatment, but I think that's a reach. When taken all together, the evidence is compelling enough, in my opinion.

This doesn't mean the goblinoids don't live mostly in Evil societies. They do, from what we've seen. Who would have thought creating whole peoples, leaving them with no spiritual guidance (in a world where gods verifiably exist and help the other races), and putting them on the worst lands so they turn to banditry, making targets of themselves (by design, as far as the gods are concerned), would lead to warlike, predatory societies that can be described as Evil in D&D terms? I just don't think that changes anything, because the goblinoids deserve better treatment regardless of what they do, just by virtue of being people. And personally I wouldn't be surprised if part of the message the Giant wants to send is that the oppressed don't have to "ask nicely" or "earn it" or play along to deserve justice, because that's their inherent right, collectively. Regardless of individual, personal responsibility.

[Worldsong]

It seems to me you guys are looking for examples of the kind of oppression that happens when people of different backgrounds live together. But the goblinoids don't live alongside the other races, Right-Eye's family being the only known exception (and even then, they lived in a separate goblin village, and we only saw them visiting the circus, which didn't seem to be in any particular settlement). And the explanation for why the goblinoids don't live alongside the other races might well be something we've been told explicitly about in regards to the hobgoblins and the bugbears: other races kept them bottled up in their bad lands through military force.

We've seen a perfectly innocent kobold being murdered in a human city just for being a kobold. We've seen half orcs being discriminated against in Azure City. You're free to believe goblinoids are exempt from that kind of treatment, but I think that's a reach. When taken all together, the evidence is compelling enough, in my opinion.

This doesn't mean the goblinoids don't live mostly in Evil societies. They do, from what we've seen. Who would have thought creating whole peoples, leaving them with no spiritual guidance (in a world where gods verifiably exist and help the other races), and putting them on the worst lands so they turn to banditry, making targets of themselves (by design, as far as the gods are concerned), would lead to warlike, predatory societies that can be described as Evil in D&D terms? I just don't think that changes anything, because the goblinoids deserve better treatment regardless of what they do, just by virtue of being people. And personally I wouldn't be surprised if part of the message the Giant wants to send is that the oppressed don't have to "ask nicely" or "earn it" or play along to deserve justice, because that's their inherent right, collectively. Regardless of individual, personal responsibility.

Two thumbs up from me. Well said, especially the last part. I'd be very surprised if part of Rich's message wasn't "Nobody should have to earn equal treatment."

[The Pilgrim]

Quoted for truth. Maybe showing more examples of goblins being oppressed by random human societies wouldn't serve the story well or would just be depressing and that's why they aren't in the comic.

But they aren't in the comic.

We've got one massacre of a goblin village and one attempted massacre of a hobgoblin city by the same small group which latter changed its leadership precisely because of the massacres, one pretty clear instance of elf bigotry towards goblins...and...that's about it. Everything else is Redcloak or other goblins doing horrible things to other races or sometimes their own race.

The interesting thing is that the author has shown us, twice, that there are goblin characters who make the "right" choices, like Right-Eye in SoD or the hobgoblin priest in HtPGHS, and that there are goblin characters who make the "wrong" choices, like Redcloak in SoD or the Hobgoblin General in HtPGHS.

And all seems to indicate that TDO belongs to the second group. Which wouldn't be surprising, as he is a God, and Gods haven't been portrayed as particulary level-headed beings in this webcomic.

Right now the biggest threat to goblin safety is Redcloak himself. And the biggest oppresive situation in human-goblin relations is the fact that Goblinoids are occuping Azure City and keeping scores of human slaves working for them. Also, it's interesting to point out that, up until recently, Redcloak didn't even considered the Hobgoblins as part of "his people", but different people that had "a long history" of bulling "his people" (see #148 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0148.html), eight panel). So Redcloak's whole pan-goblinoid narrative is really a very new thing. Before that, pointlessly killing thousands of hobgoblins seemed like a justified retribution in Redcloak's eyes. Even MiTD is able to see the truth behind Redcloak's pan-goblinoid narrative ((#1038) (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1038.html).

All in all, I think the message that The Giant attempts to convey is not that Redcloak's mindset, and by extension The Dark One's, is the right one, in any way.

It may be true that the Gods created the goblins, and other so-called monster races, as XP-Fodder. But the Gods don't rule the world. Mortals do. The Gods attempt to influence the world, and mostly seem to nullify each other in their efforts. Nothing prevents the Goblins from improving their lot, like other races who got a raw deal at creation did. Redcloak wants his God to solve things for him, when he should be working at improving the goblinoid's living standards by himself, like his brother attempted, and like the former Hobgoblin Supreme Leader did.

[bravelove]

But the Gods don't rule the world. Mortals do.

Dwarves, that is all.

[The Pilgrim]

Dwarves, that is all.

Dwarves don't rule the world either. Just a small part of it.

[danielxcutter]

I think there is an aspect of the cycle of revenge going round and round.

That being said, I am willing to believe that the goblins got the shorter end of the stick until Team Evil, if only because they were weaker and didn’t have the backing of a pantheon recognized by the Godsmoot.

[bravelove]

Dwarves don't rule the world either. Just a small part of it.
And yet as mortals they can't really do a whole lot about the lot in life the gods gave the dwarves. Their entire culture is influenced by gods, their entire way of life influenced by gods, their afterlife determined thanks to a bet, and it has not been neutralized by other gods. Through the dwarves we can see mortals don't exactly run the world either, and that mortals as a whole can't always escape the confines of the rules gods set from mortal means, and while we see one character attempting to personally escape the system, there is no guarantee her gambit will work, and even if it does I really wouldn't say escaping the confines of one god system, for another god is escaping the confines that gods in general place upon races and still means nearly all dwarves are trapped in the system. The only way to stop the strict honor afterlife system from what we've seen would be to go to the gods themselves, and likely knowing Hel, have to force their hands. Which is a very familiar sounding plan to me.

[Ionathus]

It may be true that the Gods created the goblins, and other so-called monster races, as XP-Fodder. But the Gods don't rule the world. Mortals do. The Gods attempt to influence the world, and mostly seem to nullify each other in their efforts.

"Look, Billy, I know that we didn't give you any football pads, but there's nothing stopping you from winning! Just get out there and give it your best! We won't even interfere, so you only have to play against the other, stronger players!"

The onus does not lie on goblinoids to improve their lot against the designs of actual, real world-creating gods. WHETHER OR NOT they choose to attempt that improvement has NO bearing on whether the game was rigged from the start.

You literally just admitted that monstrous races were created to be easily killed. Watching them achieve anything despite those disadvantages, then saying "See? They're fine!" does not help your point.

[PontificatusRex]

Taking the Meta-view, the goblins are totally an oppressed race. This is a world based on D&D rules. In D&D, goblins, orcs etc absolutely exist for the reasons described in Start of Darkness: to be foes for low-level adventurers. The Gods of the Ootsverse are game designers - that's been made clear over and over again.

But the creations aren't like Tolkien's orcs and goblins - they're basically just folks, stuck into a role but not really more inclined to "EVIL" than anyone else. This was made abundantly clear in How the Paladin Got His Scar. So they're basically screwed, put in a role to make them sword-fodder, and the Dark One was rebelling against that while at the same time falling into the trap of becoming "THAT BIG EVIL DEITY/POWER BOSS BEHIND THE CANON FODDER", though it is said in SoD that the Dark One mostly encouraged his followers to stay away from humans as much as possible.

[The Pilgrim]

"Look, Billy, I know that we didn't give you any football pads, but there's nothing stopping you from winning! Just get out there and give it your best! We won't even interfere, so you only have to play against the other, stronger players!".

They can't win? Really?

Remind me again who rules Azure City right now, please.


The onus does not lie on goblinoids to improve their lot against the designs of actual, real world-creating gods. WHETHER OR NOT they choose to attempt that improvement has NO bearing on whether the game was rigged from the start.

And whether or not the game was rigged from the start has no bearing on the fact that in the main comic we have seen more opression provoked by goblinoids on humans than opression provoked by humans on goblinoids.

As Durkon said, Redcloak has killed more goblinoids than any of the protagonists. And given Redcloak's reaction, he hit home with that one.


You literally just admitted that monstrous races were created to be easily killed. Watching them achieve anything despite those disadvantages, then saying "See? They're fine!" does not help your point.

The Goblins are the ones doing the opression right now, at Azure City, no matter what the Gods intended to do when they created them at the start of the world, thousands of years ago.

You seem to debate with a very high Righteous tone, for someone who is just overlooking the fact that the "opressed people" are forcing into slavery the entire population of a nation (except for those few that managed to flee).

It's a bit late to resort to Redcloak's narrative as an argument for the debate. Rich Burlew has totally dismantled it through Durkon in the last scene.

[Jason]

Taking the Meta-view, the goblins are totally an oppressed race. This is a world based on D&D rules. In D&D, goblins, orcs etc absolutely exist for the reasons described in Start of Darkness: to be foes for low-level adventurers. The Gods of the Ootsverse are game designers - that's been made clear over and over again. True to a point. However goblins in D&D usually have their own dieties who created therm, so from a meta standpoint it's true that they were designed as XP fodder, but from an in-game standpoint they weren't, and they weren't deliberately placed by the gods where they would find it impossible to thrive either. So if the Dark One's creation story is true then Stickworld goblins were actually far worse off jn the beginning than "average" D&D goblins, in-game.


But the creations aren't like Tolkien's orcs and goblins - they're basically just folks, stuck into a role but not really more inclined to "EVIL" than anyone else.In Stickworld perhaps. In regular D&D they are in fact more inclined to evil than other races. That's what their alignment of "usually neutral evil" means and what the notes on their culture boil down to - a race that is generally evil. From what we've seen I would say goblins in Stickworld are also generally inclined to evil. Whether it's something innate or really is a result of being created as XP fodder is unclear.

[The Pilgrim]

The difference between Tolkien's orcs and Burlew's goblins, is that Tolkien's orcs aren't people, while Burlew's goblins are.

That's basically what The Giant objects about fantasy tradition. That whole sentient species are created as not people, but legitimate targets the heroes can kill without raising moral concerns.

That's not how real heroes operate in the world that The Giant has created in this webcomic, though, no matter what the intent of the Gods was supposed to be when they created the world. After all, the OOTS world was not created by the in-comic Gods, it was created by Mr. Burlew, and Mr. Burlew hasn't created a world where "monster races" are not people.

Roy refuses to kill the orcs when a peaceful solution can be found, and Durkon joins him and becomes his friend just because of that. O-Chul refuses to let the Sapphire Guard keep slaughtering hobgoblin settlements, and it's the Obese Hobgoblin Supreme Leader (a member of the supposedly "opressed people") who can't understand why O-Chul cares for the lives of people from a different species. The Planetar refuses to follow Gin-Jun's order to slaugher the Hobgoblin settlement. Right-Eye lived in peace with humans, his family regulary visited an human circus without problem, and in the end he hide his youngest daughter with humans.

Some people in the OOTS world have been shown to behave like traditional fantasy heroes, and all of them have been featured as antagonists or, at least, as unsympathetical for the readers.

The goblins in the OOTS world have agency, they are people, not just fodder for the Heroes, like "monster races" are in traditional fantasy works and most RPG games.

Now, are they "oppressed" in-comic? According to The Dark One's narrative, preached by Redcloak, they are. According to actual events shown in-comic, they don't appear to suffer more "oppresion" than any other sentient species.

[hamishspence]

But the creations aren't like Tolkien's orcs and goblins - they're basically just folks, stuck into a role but not really more inclined to "EVIL" than anyone else.

The difference between Tolkien's orcs and Burlew's goblins, is that Tolkien's orcs aren't people, while Burlew's goblins are.


In Stickworld perhaps. In regular D&D they are in fact more inclined to evil than other races. That's what their alignment of "usually neutral evil" means and what the notes on their culture boil down to - a race that is generally evil. From what we've seen I would say goblins in Stickworld are also generally inclined to evil.
Both "Usually X Alignment" and "Often X Alignment" allow for a degree of "their alignment is determined by their culture and upbringing rather than being inborn".

And at least one of Tolkien's essays said that Orcs are "within the Law" which basically means "they are people, and must be treated that way":

Myths Transformed
... the Wise in the Elder Days taught always that the Orcs were not 'made' by Melkor, and therefore were not in their origin evil. They might have become irredeemable (at least by Elves and Men), but they remained within the Law. This is, that though of necessity, being the fingers of the hand of Morgoth, they must be fought with the utmost severity, they must not be dealt with in their own terms of cruelty and treachery. Captives must not be tormented, not even to discover information for the defence of the homes of Elves and Men. If any Orcs surrendered and asked for mercy, they must be granted it, even at a cost. This was the teaching of the Wise, though in the horror of the War it was not always heeded.

Plus, The Giant's own writings suggest that in Stickworld (and, in his opinion, in regular D&D), any differences are cosmetic:


Our fiction reflects who we are as a civilization, and it disgusts me that so many people think it's acceptable to label creatures with only cosmetic differences from us as inherently Evil. I may like the alignment system overall, but that is its ugliest implication, and one that I think needs to be eliminated from the game. I will ALWAYS write against that idea until it has been eradicated from the lexicon of fantasy literature. If they called me up and asked me to help them work on 5th Edition, I would stamp it out from the very game itself. It is abhorrent to me in every way.





Some people in the OOTS world have been shown to behave like traditional fantasy heroes, and all of them have been featured as antagonists or, at least, as unsympathetical for the readers.


Yes. Because the Giant disagrees with those people. But the fact that they are so common, may indicate that they are closer to being the rule than the exception - and that "oppressing monsters" is a norm, with people who both don't do it, and oppose it, being the odd ones out.




Now, are they "oppressed" in-comic? According to The Dark One's narrative, preached by Redcloak, they are. According to actual events shown in-comic, they don't appear to suffer more "oppresion" than any other sentient species.


Are goblins more oppressed than other monsters? Hard to say. Are monsters in general oppressed? I'd have to say that all signs point to "Yes".

Roy and O-Chul are unusual in their sheer degree of acceptance of the proposition that monsters are people.

[danielxcutter]

Oh, and even regular 3.5e often tends to state that unless said race is literally, supernaturall Evil it's usually not supposed to be a blanket statement.

This is most pronounced in Eberron; I strongly suggest you check Keith Baker's blog for his commentary about his opinions about the setting, and I believe in general Mr. Burlew subscribes to this both personally and in terms of OotS. For example, in one post on the aforementioned blog, I recall he says that a dolgrim(aberration slaves of the daelkyr made by fusing two goblin bodies together) would not be the same as a normal goblin due to the method of how it was created, but it is entirely possible if one was hypothetically raised in a loving goblin family that it could learn to be non-Evil, if not all the way to Good.

[Lord Raziere]

I don't know, lets try and find out. (Warning, this will be long) I will look through various examples found throughout OOTS to find examples of not just goblins but any monstrous race interacting with PC races to figure out what I can. now keep in mind: Dungeon Crawlin' Fools was made before the plot was underway enough to start showing these examples and thus strips 1-120 will be ignored. In its place we will look at Start of Darkness. now keep in mind: oppression, prejudice and mistreatment can take many forms, especially as there are gods in the world of OOTS perfectly capable of making sure the very geography and environment is made to do so and thus we cannot entirely evaluate the examples from a completely realistic perspective, as there is a potential level of fantastic inequality where the gods have a lot of power over everyone else. Also, I will not be taking alignment much into account, for the purposes of this, mistreatment is mistreatment no matter who its done to and whether something is not mistreatment is evaluated based on the circumstances and the persons reasoning.

Lets begin.

The Massacre of Redcloak's Village:
The first example I can find is perhaps, one of the most stark and damning: the slaughter of Redcloak's village. to be specific, the Paladins come out of nowhere, taking them by surprise and cutting down any goblin they see whether it be adult, elderly or child. The previous holder of red cloak knows that they're really after him and attempts to sacrifice themselves to keep them focused on him so that the others may escape. the paladins kill him, then their leader orders them to exterminate the rest, even though they clearly have had already killed the person they were after. This is not a justified attack. this is a slaughter, and given the previous holder of the red cloaks words that they came after his master and his master before that, this is an intentional concentrated genocide spanning generations. Redcloak is urged by the ghost of the previous holder to take the cloak and learnt he plan so that this slaughter may not happen again. Redcloak's mother, sister and his entire family aside from his brother, dies and he goes from a goblin cleric who just wanted to serve the community in some small way to someone carrying his injured little brother out, hoping that the plan he has been given is worth all this slaughter.

Commentary: here we see that its not just Redcloak that thinks this is happening, his Revered Master, the one who made him a cleric in the first place very clearly states that the paladins have been coming for the bearers of the red cloak for at least three generations now and if they're as slaughter happy now I doubt they were less so then. now this doesn't prove widespread oppression or prejudice by itself, it only proves that the Sapphire Guard is consistently seeking out the goblins and mass-slaughtering them using the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle as a justification, when its clearly shown they kill any goblin they find even if they are a child. this act of mass-murder is unforgivable, and those paladins lost any justification for their actions the moment an innocent woman died.

The Evil Promotion Scene:
This seems like a small scene, but it mgiht be enlightening: Xykon and two other people a dark witch and Keith Baker are being considered to be promoted by an evil overlord person, and basically Keith and the dark witch get promoted and Xykon does not. what is missing from this? monstrous races. this is an evil lair, and yet all the people considered for promotion are human? We know that monstrous/evil races are supposed to outnumber the good, so why are all three people considered by his evil overlord, human? guess this evil isn't as equal opportunity as he seems.

Xykon and the death of Ekdysdioskosirrwo:
Next we have something a bit less dramatic but telling. Here we see Xykon, a human kill the lizardfolk whom I'll nickname "Ekdys" for simply having an overly long name that he can't remember. now, sure its Xykon he is basically the main villain and such, but that doesn't mean this isn't an example of a monster getting by what is basically an evil human adventurer for no good reason. and yes evil adventurers do exist in this world as Nale, the people who attacked Roy when he was in Celestia and Tarquin demonstrate, and Xykon can be called one himself since he just goes from place to place randomly killing things and gains class levels and is as murderhobo as they come. he also of course kills numerous paladins and lizardfolk during the battle and the paladins/soldiers don't realize he is evil at first because he is still human and thus gets killed from two sides, even though seeing a spellcaster flying around would logically be more of a threat in DnD than a random bunch of lizardfolk with spears, as any spellcaster capable of flying is probably high level enough to cause mass slaughters all by himself, so it comes down to the fact that these paladins saw that he was human and thus thought he wasn't a threat....even though he clearly wasn't doing anything to help and was high level enough to kill them all. they weren't even aware enough to ask Xykon "friend or foe!?" during a combat situation. thats not very wary for a fortress of paladins in the middle of nowhere. seems like they were letting prejudice and thus the thought that all humans were on their side, cloud their judgment. and the killing of Ekdys is so casual and sudden that Redcloak is forever scared into using nicknames for themselves so that Xykon won't kill them, thus showing how Xykon uses forces to manipulate people to follow his directions even when he doesn't realize it.

Redcloak's Tale:
This is a tale that is told to us by Redcloak, so its a bit suspect, sure. But we can glean a few things from this: this is probably the story that the Revered Masters before RC also believed. So its not just something thats in his head, at least two other goblins before him was told and was working to make this plan happen in one form or another. Furthermore, the story of The Dark One in general is probably common knowledge among the goblins and since he is a god well....it implies that the goblins have enough reason to believe the story. if they didn't, if nothing was wrong...why would they feel as if the Dark One is necessary over any other god? he wouldn't be around if the goblins didn't have a reason to believe in his cause. whether or not the tidbit about non-arable resource poor lands is true is a different matter, but RC and his village/tribe was clearly living somewhere rocky when they were slaughtered.

Right Eye and Eugene:
Here we see Right Eye trying to get Eugene to go after Xykon and kill him to save Redcloak from the lich. Only he is in disguise under a cloak to make sure he isn't found out and while Eugene doesn't attack him when Right-Eye reveals his face to him, Right Eye is quick to put his cloak back on and just a few moments later points out that the tavern they are drinking in is filled with adventurers. Eugene in his refusal is clearly threatening him with magic to make him back down, and his reaction to Right Eye's story at first is to say "a bunch of evil people killing each other? so what who cares?" a telling attitude if he is at all representative of a normal adventurer. basically Right Eye does everything he possibly can to get help and yet...the human he wants help from would rather point how strong in comparison to him to get him to leave than help his plight. there is no overt oppression or racism, but it suggests a pretty callous attitude towards monstrous races and Right Eye's efforts to hide himself suggests that he could've died in that city if he wasn't careful.

MITD and the Hunters:
MitD being captured by hunters and used a circus thing despite talking and being sapient is a form of slavery. so y'know, thats not okay either. and they are monstrous race even though we don't know what race that is. which suggests that any particularly weird monster from the manual could be subjected to a similar fate in this world even if they are sapient.

Eriaxnikol and the Julio Scoundrel Action Figure
Wait, why is a goblin child carrying around a human action figure? If goblins weren't oppressed or having problems, wouldn't they have their own heroes made into action figures for children to play with and imagine themselves through? a part of overcoming systemic problems like this is providing examples and representation in media for everyone to relate to and wouldn't the Dark One be a perfect fit for this? would it not bring worship to him? Yet its a human thats being played with. now a cigar could just be a cigar, but the Giant knows that representation matters given him writing in characters like Roy and Vaarsuvious and their family as well as others. It might be that there are no goblin hero action figures, only human, dwarf or elf ones. and that Right Eye had to buy Julio Scoundrel because it was the only kind they had.

Xykon And The Second Goblin Village:
Again a demonstration of Xykon using his power to force people to do things his way, only this time its more intentional, and has gore back up that he probably also strong-armed into doing his bidding, and Right Eye having to submit or die. Thing is though, an entire peaceful goblin village just up and leaves and what do the adventurers sent after it do? they kill the goblins without investigating further. Xykon just watches as Right Eye's family is slaughtered, laughing while the adventurers involved kill first and ask questions later, which is what drives Right Eye to kill Xykon because its the only thing he has left aside from the niece he smuggled out.

This makes it clear: the adventurers normally speaking, don't care about the circumstances why the monstrous races join up with evil. they don't consider hostage situations, they don't investigate why a goblin village would suddenly turn to help a lich, they just go in and kill.

Xykon and Redcloak:
Despite Redcloak keeping the secret from Xykon, a lot of Redcloak's action are based around his fear of what Xykon does.
-he fears Xykon killing him and his brother thus he changes their names to be short and memorable
-he fears Xykon killing any wizard or sorcerer that might be competition thus he doesn't seek any out to do the ritual instead
-he fears leaving Xykon to abandon the plan because Xykon might return or find him with his magic and force him to do it anyways or kill him for disobeying: a fear that is proven right when he tries to join Right Eye's Village
-he feared how Xykon would've reacted to the real plan...thus he lied about it to make sure he got onboard at all.

In every scene where Redcloak interacts with Xykon, it could be argued that Redcloak is acting of fear of Xykon's power and thus in a way submissive to him. He acts noticeably different when he is not around Xykon, for when Xykon is gone long enough, Redcloak actually intended on settling down and not doing the Plan anymore-its only when Xykon came BACK that he started falling back into his sunk cost fallacy. Right Eye similarly ends up submitting to Xykon out of fear until his family dies. So Xykon could be argued to be just as big of an oppressor to the goblins as the paladins, and Redcloak is letting that oppression happen because he sees no other way out: with Xykon around he is arguably forced to let the deaths of his people constantly happen, that Xykon is the one truly in control despite the secret, because Xykon keeps demonstrating that he is willing to kill people at the drop of a hat. because Redcloak knows more than anyone that Xykon can come back and straight up murder anyone who tries to show him an alternative, a way out. Xykon even rubs this fact in his face in his final speech of the book.

Thus are the goblins oppressed. Too bad Redcloak is submitting to one of their oppressors.


Sigh....this took longer than I expected, might have to do this analysis in parts, but from Start of Darkness alone I can see there being some signs of not overt oppression going on, but certainly evidence that many adventurers have a strong "kill first ask questions never" attitude about this stuff, and that if your a goblin caught up with some evil dude who doesn't want to work for that evil dude? your probably not going to be saved an adventurer coming in to kill that guy, and telling an adventurer about it is no guarantee that adventurer will be sympathetic to your plight.

furthermore, I would say given the evidence we have elsewhere, not all adventurers are good aligned, and thus not all adventurers would use good methods to complete their quests. and that even if the monstrous races are being oppressed by the PC ones....that doesn't necessarily mean its always the good ones doing the oppressing if at all, and its more likely that its evil adventurers doing it. adventurers are far from a homogeneous organization and its likely that any oppression done to the monstrous races are mostly done by the Belkars, Xykons, Big Game Hunters and the Tarquins of the world than the Roys and O-chuls. PC Races oppressing Monstrous Races does not necessarily mean all adventurers are good aligned and that all monstrous races are evil aligned, and its more likely that not all adventurers are good aligned and not all paladins are successful ones that keep the classes high standards intact. we clearly see with Right Eye and other goblins in Start of Darkness that not all goblins are evil after all, but they are forced to work under an evil anyways that doesn't care about their survival and get killed by another evil that doesn't care who they kill in order to fight the first.

Lirian is one of the only examples of mercy I can find: she spares both Xykons and Redcloaks lives and puts them in prison and the other example of mercy I find is two paladins putting a young Xykon in jail for his crimes with a corny one liner despite the person being completely evil both times. this suggests that in OOTS world, good characters at least try to put people in jail first rather than go straight to killing- and that people who don't....well they probably aren't good.

[hamishspence]

This is most pronounced in Eberron; I strongly suggest you check Keith Baker's blog for his commentary about his opinions about the setting, and I believe in general Mr. Burlew subscribes to this both personally and in terms of OotS. For example, in one post on the aforementioned blog, I recall he says that a dolgrim(aberration slaves of the daelkyr made by fusing two goblin bodies together) would not be the same as a normal goblin due to the method of how it was created, but it is entirely possible if one was hypothetically raised in a loving goblin family that it could learn to be non-Evil, if not all the way to Good.

This was Keith Baker's biggest essay on goblins specifically:

http://keith-baker.com/dragonmarks-goblins/


In many settings, goblins and orcs are presented as genetically evil — malicious by nature, enemies the players can always feel good about fighting. From the start, we wanted to take a different approach to goblins and orcs in Eberron. I liked the idea that these creatures were fundamentally inhuman, and had a cultural history that often them set at odds with humanity, but that they were no more innately evil than dwarves or elves.

although a point is made of how they're not just "humans with fangs" or "orange humans" either:


City goblins, the Ghaal’dar, and the Dhakaani have dramatic cultural differences. But they are all goblins, and share basic traits that concretely differentiate them from humans, elves, and other races. Goblins possess darkvision, and are quite comfortable dwelling underground. While they aren’t the only race to do so, it’s still a thing to bear in mind. Goblins don’t fear night or shadows the way many creatures do. On a primal, instinctual level night is a time when humans are vulnerable; for a goblin, it is a time when they are strong, as their darkvision gives them an advantage over their enemies. They don’t need light as humans do, which means that their buildings will have fewer windows and that they have no need for casual lighting. This is a small thing, but it’s part of remembering that they aren’t just humans with orange skin. They are a different species that has evolved under different circumstances and who have different instincts and brain chemistry than humans do.


Goblins are innately lawful. They don’t have anything like an insect hive mind, but they naturally gravitate to hierarchical societies, establishing a social order and holding to it.

Tied to this is the idea that goblins are inherently rational. Goblins are deeply pragmatic and faith is an alien concept to them.

[Jason]

Both "Usually X Alignment" and "Often X Alignment" allow for a degree of "their alignment is determined by their culture and upbringing rather than being inborn". Either that or the idea is to allow for occasional "good" goblins, because unlike demons or devils they aren't literal embodiments of evil and there can therefore be exceptions.


And at least one of Tolkien's essays said that Orcs are "within the Law" which basically means "they are people, and must be treated that way":Tolkien's orcs are a corrupted race, "twisted" from another race (either elves as he originally thought and as appears in the published Silmarillion or men as he later considered). Their situation is a bit different from a race that was created as they are now from the beginning. The corruption of the orcs from their parent race is definitely not just a matter of cosmetic differences.


Plus, The Giant's own writings suggest that in Stickworld (and, in his opinion, in regular D&D), any differences are cosmetic: He is free to make the differences only cosmetic in Stickworld, his creation, but are they really only cosmetic differences in D&D? It depends on the DM and world being used, doesn't It? Ebberron has already been pointed out as a world where the normal rules don't apply.
The default in the rules would seem to be that it is not merely cosmetic differences. Some races really are innately predisposed towards evil or good, such that the majority of the species will be of a particular alignment regardless of what culture they are raised in. You will get the odd individual who won't accept his race's behavior, but they are exceptional.

[hamishspence]

Some races really are innately predisposed towards evil or good, such that the majority of the species will be of a particular alignment regardless of what culture they are raised in. You will get the odd individual who won't accept his race's behavior, but they are exceptional.

It does not say "regardless of the culture" under Usually X alignment.

IMO it's safe to say that this alignment includes the "default culture" and if they were all raised in a different culture, the "majority alignment" would be different.

Within "Usually X" there are differing degrees of predisposition. It's specifically stated in the PHB that kobolds have a much weaker "inborn predisposition" than beholders - yet both are :"Usually Lawful Evil"

[AdAstra]

Using protagonists as examples of goblins not being oppressed seems a little wonky to me. Like, is Rich expected to make Roy and Durkon racist for the sake of some sort of “realism”? Characters like O-Chul are explicitly far better people than the average, far better even than the typical “heroes” of the setting.

As Lord Raziere points out, the slaughter that the Sapphire Guard commit against the goblins was very clearly not a one-off occurrence. It explicitly took someone like O-Chul, one of the most morally incorruptible characters in the whole story, to turn things around. Even the angel wasn’t actively willing/able to stop them. These are supposed to be god-empowered paragons of Law and Good, yet they’re allowed to go around committing genocide without any repercussions from the gods that empower them.

If oppressing goblins wasn’t the norm for both the society and deities of the time, then those Paladins would never have been able to do what they did in the first place. Those in favor would have lost their powers and those who weren’t would have taken them down. And if enough pro-genocide Paladins were present that they could go ahead and do it anyway, that probably says something about how many pro-genocide paladins there were.

[The Pilgrim]

Using protagonists as examples of goblins not being oppressed seems a little wonky to me. Like, is Rich expected to make Roy and Durkon racist for the sake of some sort of “realism”? Characters like O-Chul are explicitly far better people than the average, far better even than the typical “heroes” of the setting.

Yes, they are better than the average people. Most people aren't invested enough to go out and protect the lives of others. But their lack of investment is not only regarding goblin lives, but anyone else.

If we move further, into the spectrum of murderers, the people who doesn't care to kill goblins, is the same people who doesn't care to kill anything else. The heroes that wanted to just kill the orcs in OOoPCs are the same people that were actively looking to get Durkon, a LG dwarf, killed. The paladins that didn't care to act under a "detect evil - kill" directive, are the same that ended up losing their paladin powers for murdering, or attepting to murder, human good-aligned characters.

So, goblins aren't "special" in that regard. The same people that doesn't cares about murdering them, is the same people who doesn't cares to murder anybody else.

It should also be noted that O-Chul, in his mission, was the one endorsed by Azure City's official authorities, while the Paladins were acting behind the back of their ruler, and most of them only needed a little nudge to give their leader the cold shoulder. One even skulked away in the night to congress with O-Chul and tell him how to get her leader deposed.

So, people like O-Chul or Roy aren't that scarce. Their mindset is the one shared by the average Good-aligned people.


UAs Lord Raziere points out, the slaughter that the Sapphire Guard commit against the goblins was very clearly not a one-off occurrence. It explicitly took someone like O-Chul, one of the most morally incorruptible characters in the whole story, to turn things around. Even the angel wasn’t actively willing/able to stop them. These are supposed to be god-empowered paragons of Law and Good, yet they’re allowed to go around committing genocide without any repercussions from the gods that empower them.

If oppressing goblins wasn’t the norm for both the society and deities of the time, then those Paladins would never have been able to do what they did in the first place. Those in favor would have lost their powers and those who weren’t would have taken them down. And if enough pro-genocide Paladins were present that they could go ahead and do it anyway, that probably says something about how many pro-genocide paladins there were.

The Planetar did refuse to follow the order of slaughtering the hobgoblin town. After that, Gin-Jun is literally portrayed as attepting to fool the Planetar into having to commit the killing anyway in self-defense.

And, regarding the Gods, most of them aren't Good to begin with, and regarding the LG ones, no, they aren't simply allowing the Paladins to go around killing:


Oooo! Oooo! I know this one!

The events of Start of Darkness are not a narrative being told by Redcloak, except for the crayon pages (which totally are). You are right, your friend is wrong. Everything you see happened.

However, everything that happened is not necessarily seen.

Suffice to say that the Twelve Gods are not beholden to put on the same visual display they did for Miko for every paladin who transgresses, and that all transgressions are not created equal. It is possible that some of the paladins who participated in the attack crossed the line. It is also possible that most did not. A paladin who slips up in the execution of their god-given orders does not warrant the same level of personal attention by the gods as one who executes the legal ruler of their nation on a glorified hunch. Think of Miko's Fall as being the equivalent of the CEO of your multinational company showing up in your cubicle to fire you, because you screwed up THAT much.

Of course, while Redcloak is not narrating the scene, it is shown mostly from his perspective; we don't see how many Detect Evils were used before the attack started, and we don't see how many paladins afterwards try to heal their wounds and can't, because these things are not important to Redcloak's story. Whether or not some of the paladins Fell does not bring Redcloak's family back to life. Indeed, if we transplant the scene to real life, he would think it cold comfort that some of the police officers who gunned down his family had to turn in their badge afterward (but were otherwise given no punishment by their bosses at City Hall).

Dramatically, showing no-name paladins Falling at that point in the story would confuse the narrative by making it unclear whether or not Redcloak had already earned a form of retribution against them. To be clear, he had not: Whether or not some of them lost a few class abilities does not change the fact that Redcloak suffered an injustice at their hands, one that shaped his entire adult life. That was the point of the scene. Showing them Fall or not simply was not important to Redcloak's story, so it was omitted.

Further, it would have cheapened Miko's fall to show the same thing over and over--and Miko, as a major character in the series, deserved the emotional weight that her Fall carried (or at least that I hope it carried).

I hope that clears this issue up. I hope in vain, largely, but there you have it.

(Oh, and I leave it up to the readers to form their own opinions on which paladins may have Fallen and which didn't.)

All in all, you may find my reasoning to be "wonky", but yours is denying objective facts stated by the Author of the comic.

[danielxcutter]

I also remember something about divinely sanctioned genocide...

[King of Nowhere]

I would say both.
Right or wrong are rarely on one side. Both oppression and thinking in terms of "us" and "them" are basic human instinct.

Goblins are certainly oppressed. there's more than enough evidence for it. If goblins were in power, they would not behave better. there is also plenty of evidence for this. it is also, again, part of human nature. just like power corrupts individuals, so it corrupts groups.

and, finally, it's also true that redcloak's rethoric is fiction. it takes the true basis of goblin oppression, but it spins it in new and exxaggerated ways that are simply wrong.
When it comes to the ideals that motivate people, you rarely find a fiction without a core of truth, or a truth without an embellishing in fiction.

[danielxcutter]

I would say both.
Right or wrong are rarely on one side. Both oppression and thinking in terms of "us" and "them" are basic human instinct.

Goblins are certainly oppressed. there's more than enough evidence for it. If goblins were in power, they would not behave better. there is also plenty of evidence for this. it is also, again, part of human nature. just like power corrupts individuals, so it corrupts groups.

and, finally, it's also true that redcloak's rethoric is fiction. it takes the true basis of goblin oppression, but it spins it in new and exxaggerated ways that are simply wrong.
When it comes to the ideals that motivate people, you rarely find a fiction without a core of truth, or a truth without an embellishing in fiction.

You're right that the goblins aren't completely innocent while still have being grievously, but what proof do you have that his rhetoric is fiction? There is a difference between exaggerating events for the sake of control(which he's not really doing) and having a genuinely valid point while going at it in entirely the wrong way(which he absolutely is, in the sense that he's being Evil).

[mjasghar]

Remember humans are Neutral
Technically thats supposed to represent an even spread of alignments
So most Humans aren’t Good

[Lord Raziere]

Now to move on. I don't expect to find as many examples as Start of Darkness, as its the primary source of Redcloaks story and thus his concerns. However, I wish to be thorough, and thus need to go through as much as I can.


Roy's Lie:
Its notable that in Comic 139 Roy uses a lie of "king giants" loaded with treasure to motivate them to go on his side quest. Belkar only needed a strong foe to fight, and Haley perfectly willing to steal some hypothetical giants wealth without any other reason behind it. how many adventurers cause oppression based on such reasons and how many leaders motivate them with such reasons rather than checking to see if they were okay with it? Notice that Roy didn't say these giants were evil or anything just that they were tough and loaded with money. morality didn't enter the equation in any of the party members reasoning. I doubt other adventuring groups are more thoughtful about such quests.

The Hobgoblins:
They clearly live in a mountainous area which is generally less ideal than grassy farmlands and such. but its not clear whether its because of the gods putting them there, or if its because of the other races pushing them out. So something is clearly making them live in the mountains, but its not clear what the cause IS. I doubt its because they want to be there: mountainous areas are harder to farm, and farming the basis of all civilization. they have perilous paths where rocks fall from the slightest sound and Redcloak exploits that to kill twenty of them simply because he doesn't like them and only did so because MitD pointed out that he was doing the right thing and respected him for it when if MITD had kept his mouth shut twenty hobgoblin lives would've been saved, and Redcloak could've used some clever method to simply set off the rock slide without being killed by it, but alas. as well as other sacrificial stunts that show what kind of influence Xykon is having on RC.

at the same time, the Hobgoblins have an entire CITY with a wall, towers, near a river, its still rocky but how are they supporting all this? its not clear how much Gobbotopia is a step up from this city? like Gobbotopia was once Azure City and is thus a port city on flat land with farms which is much better for a lot of things, but they must have some farming going to have a city with fortifications like that set up, but unfortunately we don't get any clear information on what life is like in this hobgoblin city.

The Random Encounter and the Bandits:
This a clear-cut case of the trolls/ogres/whatever these two are supposed to be as people attacking PCs out of nowhere and therefore in the wrong. However V is arguably proven wrong by their "one random encounter per travel" thing as the bandit camp is a second random encounter where they are attacked out of nowhere yet they are all human and somehow all the bandits are kept alive, while the two trolls/ogres are killed. the arguably do the right thing both times but its inconsistent: why are the bandits worth keeping alive and not the trolls before them? Why didn't they try to capture and tie up the random encounter? I doubt the OOTS aside from Belkar intends anything racist/evil out of their actions, defending themselves is not morally wrong and sparing peoples isn't either and sometimes you can't choose who lives or dies. combat is chaotic, but still its telling that V resorts to powerful evocation spells to take out those trolls yet for some reason only uses counterspells on the human bandits. seems to be a bit human-favoring there. (of course Miko Miyazaki kills the humans some time later but we'll get to her)

Vaarsuvius and the Stable-Orc:
Now I doubt that Vaarsuvius was exploding this orc out of prejudice. But still she uses force to make the orc give her the horse, which counts as mistreatment and disproportionate response. if anything this more points out a clear oppression of the magic user over the normal person, similar to how Xykon uses force of magic to oppress people.

The Black Dragon:
Ah yes, this part. Its not clear whether its the dragon or the humans who attacked first but a case can be made that the Black Dragon was just defending its home. again, we are not taking alignment into account. the OOTS went into someone elses home with the intent of taking their loot after killing them. However they didn't know a dragon was there you might say, which is fair they didn't. But at the same time they were under the impression that there were giants guarding it instead, so they were prepared to end TWO lives rather than the one they did end. at the same time...I doubt the black dragon got all that gold Haley was swimming in through legitimate means. its tough to call, but knowing that the result of adventure turned out for the worse with a bigger meaner black dragon seeking revenge which led to Familicide....well lets just say that V's frustration with being turned into a Newt that she kept them sitting there until dawn as payback grabbing the idiot ball when they could've look for the loot and began transporting it themselves during that time and thus led to the black dragon's death when they could've grabbed the stuff and went before the spell wore off cost a lot of people's lives because of V's selfishness.

Miko and the Color Coded Convenience
Here Miko rants to Roy about how they didn't know whether the dragon was good or not after question where they got the gold from and Roy responds its scales weren't all shiny....and she does a complete 180 and accepts this. its played off as a joke at the time. But this is Miko Miyazaki, changing her mind isn't a thing she does. its quite telling that a zealous paladin who not seconds before was getting on their case about potentially killing a good dragon just drops the matter over such a flimsy answer. it tells us that all her moral concerns about it are less important than whether or not the dragon had the right scales. and that she is more having these concerns out of dogma than out of actual moral reasoning because a moral person wouldn't accept such a weak answer as the end of it- in short Miko is the exact kind of paladin who would slaughter Redcloak's village if ordered to, because her dogma would demand it of her.

The Displacer Beasts:
These two DBs are genre saavy enough to know that adventurers will kill them if they attack and thus hold off from becoming a random encounter even though they are carnivores and very hungry. that says volumes- "I'd rather starve than get killed by adventurers" is a pretty big statement of how things as for monstrous races if these guys are any indication.

The Ogre Attack and the Climax:
Miko pretends to be honorable....just to gather all the ogres up so they can die in one fell swoop. now granted, the ogres attacked the town first. the ogres are getting what they deserve...but at the same time, Miko is quite called out as "a mean socially inept bully who hides behind a badge and a holier than thou morality as excuses to treat other people like dirt" to paraphrase Roy after the whole inn debacle. its not much of a stretch to think she has done similar things in the past to others who might've deserved it less.

and judging from her interactions with Soon, it seems she needs to be constantly reminded that people need to be arrested and jailed properly rather than just killing them where they stand. extend that to how she probably interacts with monstrous races, her throwing away moral objection for not-shiny scales and how obsessed she was with getting Belkar's alignment and you start getting a picture of someone who if she thought Belkar was a monstrous race she wouldn't even be bothering with the detect evil.

Pompey, Sabine and Thog:
Pompey comments that his racial features are bad, Sabine says "no wonder you turned to a life of crime" while Thog sympathizes with also having sub-par racial abilities. this implies that racial abilities determine how well you do to some extent that Sabine isn't surprised by a half-elf being worse off than a human, which implies that monstrous races might have it even worse because of Level Adjustment

Soon's Tale:
The Sapphire Guard as told by him went on a crusade to purge all mention of the gates and rifts from the libraries to keep them safe. this.....has very book-burning and killing people to keep the secret vibe to it and even has dead goblin visuals to accompany it, very clearly connecting this to Redcloak. But I doubt that the goblins were the only ones affected by this- this implies that anyone who looked into the gates were targeted and that could've been all sorts of people monstrous race or no. like just imagine how many wizards probably died to keep the gates from being toyed with by arcane magic. goblins aren't the first logical place to look after all, but well-educated magic users who would investigate such things out of simple curiosity would be- and have more power to do so than any random mob of monsters. this kind of secret keeping crusade would not discriminate between people who intend harm or not with the knowledge. Vaarsuvius didn't even know of the gates after all and you'd think wizards of all people would be clued up on the true nature of reality. such a crusade would lead to a lot of paranoia and people getting killed by it, fairly or not.

So yeah, Paladin Blues does have a lot of relevant stuff. considering Miko treats people she is supposed to be allies with, and what she thinks of her enemies, if other paladins and adventurers are anything like her, thats a clear sign of oppression for those she is facing: we see all too well what Miko's dogmatic kill-focused mindset leads to. while the black Dragon is a muddied when you think about it, but clearly even if the black dragon was in the wrong, ending his life still brought about bad consequences down the line and killed many people who had nothing to do with the conflict as a result, so I'm going to lean/err on the side of saying killing the Black Dragon was probably a bad idea and an example of an adventurer thoughtlessly killing a monster, if you aren't apart of the solution your apart of the problem after all....


(Sidenote: "krakakoom!" is also onomatopoeia used for thunder early on, so we know that the explosion of a gate sounds a lot like thunder, never noticed that before)

[danielxcutter]

I don’t think Xykon counts, if only because he’s typically horrible to pretty much everybody.

[Worldsong]

I don’t think Xykon counts, if only because he’s typically horrible to pretty much everybody.

Agreed. The reason why monster races in general and goblinoids in particular suffer from discrimination and oppression is because they can reasonably expect to be treated horribly by people who aren't supposed to be horrible for little reason.

[danielxcutter]

I mean if “better than Xykon” is the bar it’s probably floating somewhere around Redcloak’s sunken cost fallacy and the weird fishes with glowing mouths.

[Worldsong]

I have a very large gap between 'Better than Xykon' and 'People who are not horrible'.

[Jason]

It does not say "regardless of the culture" under Usually X alignment.

IMO it's safe to say that this alignment includes the "default culture" and if they were all raised in a different culture, the "majority alignment" would be different.

Within "Usually X" there are differing degrees of predisposition. It's specifically stated in the PHB that kobolds have a much weaker "inborn predisposition" than beholders - yet both are :"Usually Lawful Evil"

Like I said, it really depends on the DM and the world being used, doesn't it?

You go with the "creature alignment includes the influence of the default culture of the species and if they were raised outside that culture they might think completely differently" option. I favor "these creatures really have an innate biological difference in how they think from how humans think, and their default culture is the way it is because of those innate alignment tendencies, and so most individuals will be of their listed alignment regardless of what culture they are raised in."
One of the reasons I favor that approach is because it lets my players feel less bad about killing them.

I insist in my games that, like Tolkien, even if goblins have an inherent predisposition to evil that killing non-combatants is an evil act, torture is an evil act, and enslavement is an evil act, so my players don't do those things if they aren't evil (which they generally aren't - I usually don't allow evil alignments in my players). But raiding a goblin lair and killing all the goblins who try to defend the lair is generally fine morally, because goblins live by plundering those weaker than themselves; because that's the way goblins are, and trying to civilize them so they play nice with other races doesn't work. You can argue "We shouldn't kill creatures for innate biological differences that they didn't choose to have in the first place," but the reality is that because those biological differences extend to alignment goblins are a threat to the other races around them.

D&D is a game about pretend people making heroic choices, and a lot of the point of the game is defeating monsters, so defeating monsters has to be an authentically good and heroic choice. Making the majority of those monsters genuinely evil is a practical move that makes the combat the game is built around more morally acceptable.

[hamishspence]

I favor "these creatures really have an innate biological difference in how they think from how humans think, and their default culture is the way it is because of those innate alignment tendencies, and so most individuals will be of their listed alignment regardless of what culture they are raised in."
One of the reasons I favor that approach is because it lets my players feel less bad about killing them.

It is not that hard, for the majority of enemies faced by the PCs to be "genuinely evil" without any "inborn predisposition".

For example, in a campaign where the vast majority of enemies will be human, all the DM has to do, is put some effort into making these enemies do acts that the PCs won't forgive, and make it easy for the PCs to find out who's deserving of being "gone-after".

If the DM can do this for a "mostly human" campaign, then they can do it for a "mixed-species" campaign.


raiding a goblin lair and killing all the goblins who try to defend the lair is generally fine morally, because goblins live by plundering those weaker than themselves; because that's the way goblins are, and trying to civilize them so they play nice with other races doesn't work.

Inborn predispositions, in practice, are mostly just a shortcut that allows players to attack monsters on sight without any evidence of wrongdoing - and The Giant has noted this, and hates it.

It seems to me pretty clear that, from his perspective, in most games, the "inborn predispositions" are entirely theoretical, and the monsters normally act just like regular humans - and get slaughtered anyway.


Because all authors are human, it is exceedingly difficult for anyone to imagine a fully realized non-human intelligence. It has been done maybe a dozen times in the history of speculative fiction, and I would venture not at all in the annals of fantasy roleplaying games. (Certainly, goblins, dwarves, and elves don't qualify, being basically green short humans, bearded greedy humans, and pointy-eared magical humans.) Therefore, it's a moot distinction and one not worth making. Statistically speaking, ALL depictions of non-human intelligence—ever—are functionally human with cosmetic differences. Which is as it should be, because only by creating reflections of ourselves will we learn anything. There's precious little insight into the human condition to gain from a completely alien thought process.

The comic is criticizing not how the game is intended to be played, but how the game is actually played and has been for 35+ years. And how it is actually played 9 times out of 10 is that goblins are slaughtered because they are goblins, and the book says that goblins are Evil so it's OK. If you've never played in a game with people like that, then congratulations! You've had an exceptionally lucky D&D career, and that whole portion of the comic's subtext is Not For You. But there are plenty of people who maybe have never given it a second thought. Just because you've already learned some of the lessons of a work of fiction does not mean that there's no point to including them.

[understatement]

I also remember something about divinely sanctioned genocide...

Yup.



Most damning, though, is a decades-long history of paladins exterminating entire villages of goblins and other humanoids at the behest of their gods (a point that is seen directly in the pages of Start of Darkness). That the city’s undoing should be orchestrated by Redcloak, a villain that they themselves accidentally created, is only fitting. The Twelve Gods may have sanctioned the paladins’massacres, but even the gods can’t stop Karma from kicking them in their divine asses once in a while.

Additionally, the Giant does liken it to genocide (if indirectly):


Q: And what is the difference between preemptive (since they are mostly evil) decimation of dragons by V different from preemptive genocide of goblins by Azurites?

A: None. There is no difference. Except narratively, because one was a main character taking an action as part of the primary story while the other was a backstory relating to tertiary characters. Thus the repercussions of one is of key importance to the plot while the other is a background issue, at best.


I'm not sure how hard the message has to be dropped, but apparently it's not enough.

I'd also like to point out that the hobgoblins taking Azure City is possibly the first time the status quo has ever been upsetted, and it was led by Xykon and Redcloak (which stemmed directly from SOD events).

[The Pilgrim]

I'm not sure how hard the message has to be dropped, but apparently it's not enough.

Given that you are rooting for a character who is exterminating people on behalf of his God, it appears that The Giant isn't dropping the message hard enough, indeed.

[understatement]

Given that you are rooting for a character who is exterminating people on behalf of his God, it appears that The Giant isn't dropping the message hard enough, indeed.

Damn, I lost a bet with myself on how fast the answer would be pulled out of absolutely thin air.

[The Pilgrim]

Damn, I lost a bet with myself on how fast the answer would be pulled out of absolutely thin air.

Let's look at the "thin air"...


I'd also like to point out that the hobgoblins taking Azure City is possibly the first time the status quo has ever been upsetted, and it was led by Xykon and Redcloak (which stemmed directly from SOD events).

According to you, destroying Azure City, killing thousands, and enslaving thousands more, was a necessity to upset the "unfair" status quo of hobgoblins living in peace in their hills and prospering, with no conflict with Azure City.

You are righteously condemning violence when it flows from A to B, while expressing support for violence when it flows from B to A.

So if you are looking for people that isn't getting the message of this webcomic, you should go fetch a mirror.

[hamishspence]

Given that you are rooting for a character who is exterminating people on behalf of his God, it appears that The Giant isn't dropping the message hard enough, indeed.

"The Azurites"? Redcloak didn't "Exterminate them on behalf of his god" - he sacked their city to seize their gate. Most of them escaped - and he enslaved (but did not exterminate) the few remaining.

Now, a case could be made that if The Dark One messes up, then The Snarl will exterminate the population of the entire world. Or the gods will, in an attempt to contain The Snarl.

But Redcloak himself, has no "intent to exterminate".

[The Pilgrim]

"The Azurites"? Redcloak didn't "Exterminate them on behalf of his god" - he sacked their city to seize their gate. Most of them escaped - and he enslaved (but did not exterminate) the few remaining.

Now, a case could be made that if The Dark One messes up, then The Snarl will exterminate the population of the entire world. Or the gods will, in an attempt to contain The Snarl.

But Redcloak himself, has no "intent to exterminate".

Redcloak has expressed several times, from SoD to the last comics, that getting the world destroyed is a perfectly valid outcome. He has also declared himself an specist, and proud of it.

If you want to make a distinction between extermination and enslavement, be my guest. I find little difference between a slaver and a exterminator, mainly becasue slavery tends to be the first step towards extermination. But arguing this point further would drive this conversation into forbidden territory.

[understatement]

According to you, destroying Azure City, killing thousands, and enslaving thousands more, was a necessity to upset the "unfair" status quo of hobgoblins living in peace in their hills and prospering, with no conflict with Azure City.

You are righteously condemning violence when it flows from A to B, while expressing support for violence when it flows from B to A.

So if you are looking for people that isn't getting the message of this webcomic, you should go fetch a mirror.

Dang it, another bet.

You must have pulled it from somewhere, because it's...pretty obvious that I didn't say that? I didn't know I had to slap the message "what Redcloak and the hobgoblins did to Azure City is evil and wrong" on the end of every single post.

Oh, here: "what Redcloak and the hobgoblins did to Azure City is evil and wrong." Never said the status quo changed for the better. Again, I think it's glaringly obvious that it did not.

[The Pilgrim]

Dang it, another bet.

You must have pulled it from somewhere, because it's...pretty obvious that I didn't say that? I didn't know I had to slap the message "what Redcloak and the hobgoblins did to Azure City is evil and wrong" on the end of every single post.

Oh, here: "what Redcloak and the hobgoblins did to Azure City is evil and wrong." Never said the status quo changed for the better. Again, I think it's glaringly obvious that it did not.

Thank you for the clarification.

Now, if you think that way, please explain to me how you can support the idea that the goblins are suffering opression right now, when they are the ones dealing it.

[hamishspence]

Now, if you think that way, please explain to me how you can support the idea that the goblins are suffering opression right now, when they are the ones dealing it.
Because even the population of Gobbotopia, represent a tiny minority of the goblinoids on the planet as a whole.


The vast majority of goblinoids still being subject to being "attacked by adventurers just for being goblinoids."

"A tiny minority of goblinoids are currently oppressors" is quite compatible with "The vast majority of goblinoids are currently oppressed."

[hroþila]

Saying that the goblinoids have no claim to being victims of oppression because some of them upended the status quo for their group in particular and in relation to a particular group of humans strikes me as saying Robin Hood should steal the money back from the poor because they're rich now.

[hamishspence]

Heck, it's possible to be both oppressed and oppressor simultaneously.


Imagine a culture like the Neogi, which have a "chain of slavery" - one being at the top owns slaves, these slaves own slaves, and so on down. Everyone oppresses those they own.


Result - someone in the middle of the chain, is getting oppressed by their owner, and oppressing those they own.

[danielxcutter]

Also Redcloak is right that as it is currently Gobbtopia is absolutely crusade bait. Heck, even if they choose to free their slaves and sign a peace treaty with the remnants of Azure City the surrounding countries would probably be able to invade with little justification besides “they’re goblinoids” if they actually had the power to do it. They need a power base to not get slaughtered and actually get a chance to move beyond their current Evil-leaning culture because otherwise they’re not just kneecapped, they had both legs blown off with a shotgun.

[The Pilgrim]

Saying that the goblinoids have no claim to being victims of oppression because some of them upended the status quo for their group in particular and in relation to a particular group of humans strikes me as saying Robin Hood should steal the money back from the poor because they're rich now.

And here we have another one who is justifying the destruction and enslavement of the Azurites because they were "rich" and the hobgoblins were supposedly "poor".

Never mind that Azurites and Hobgoblins had managed build a stable peace between them, until Redcloak showed up.


Heck, it's possible to be both oppressed and oppressor simultaneously.

Yes, of course. But that means the current situation in the OOTS world is "a cycle of mutual violence that needs to be stopped", and not "a situation of oppression from one group over another that needs to be upset".

The first factual data in the comic is that The Dark One initatied it, with the engineering of The Plan. But there may be some truth in the claim that humans began it by murdering The Dark One during parley (if that indeed happened the way Redcloak told it, which is doubtful), or that the Gods began it by creating the goblinoids unequal (far more probable, but still not the fault of the mortals).

But who started that cycle of violence is not really important. The important thing is to stop it. Like Right-Eye attepted, and like the former Hobgoblin Supreme Leader did.

[hroþila]

And here we have another one who is justifying the destruction and enslavement of the Azurites because they were "rich" and the hobgoblins were supposedly "poor".

Never mind that Azurites and Hobgoblins had managed build a stable peace between them, until Redcloak showed up.
You really need to stop putting words in people's mouths. Or stop to actually read what you're quoting.

[The Pilgrim]

You really need to stop putting words in people's mouths. Or stop to actually read what you're quoting.

Robin Hood stole from the oppresing rich to give to the oppresed poor.

The Hobgoblins were living at peace with the humans in Azure City, and were prospering and multiplying. The Hobgoblins weren't being oppresed by the Azurites. The Hobgoblins did not attack the Azurites in retaliation for anything.

Maybe you should be the one that stops making comparations that don't hold water.

[hamishspence]

Redcloak may be "no Robin Hood" - but he is a being that has suffered a life-shaping injustice:


Whether or not some of the paladins Fell does not bring Redcloak's family back to life. Indeed, if we transplant the scene to real life, he would think it cold comfort that some of the police officers who gunned down his family had to turn in their badge afterward (but were otherwise given no punishment by their bosses at City Hall).

Dramatically, showing no-name paladins Falling at that point in the story would confuse the narrative by making it unclear whether or not Redcloak had already earned a form of retribution against them. To be clear, he had not: Whether or not some of them lost a few class abilities does not change the fact that Redcloak suffered an injustice at their hands, one that shaped his entire adult life. That was the point of the scene. Showing them Fall or not simply was not important to Redcloak's story, so it was omitted.

Makes sense that he would see all goblinoids as the victims of injustice - because that's consistent with his own experiences - and seek to put a stop to this kind of injustice, through The Plan.

That he perpetrates injustices himself, is true - but it doesn't change the validity of his overall goal - to put a stop to certain injustices.

[The Pilgrim]

Redcloak may be "no Robin Hood" - but he is a being that has suffered a life-shaping injustice.

Makes sense that he would see all goblinoids as the victims of injustice - because that's consistent with his own experiences - and seek to put a stop to this kind of injustice, through The Plan.

So, an human whose family gets murdered by goblin raiders, is thus justified in considering that all humans are the victims of injustice, and begin burning goblin towns in retaliation?

Because, you know, the justification that certain paladins of the Sapphire Guard made for exterminating entire goblin villages was not far from that. The Dark One was engineering a Plan to destroy or enslave the entire world, thus they felt justified in going around killing all their followers, children or not.


That he perpetrates injustices himself, is true - but it doesn't change the validity of his overall goal - to put a stop to certain injustices.

When your overall goal is to put an end to certain injustice by promoting more injustice, your overall goal still tilts as invalid.

As Redcloak told Durkon a few comics ago, "peaceful" is not in his list of demands (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1211.html).

[hamishspence]

The Dark One was engineering a Plan to destroy or enslave the entire world, thus they felt justified in going around killing all their followers, children or not.

And Redcloak, unlike the Sapphire Guard, isn't "going around killing all followers of the Twelve Gods, children or not".

He can't even bring himself to kill a bunch of adult prisoners, when his attempt to use their fates as leverage against O-Chul, fails:

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0547.html

[hungrycrow]

Also Redcloak is right that as it is currently Gobbtopia is absolutely crusade bait. Heck, even if they choose to free their slaves and sign a peace treaty with the remnants of Azure City the surrounding countries would probably be able to invade with little justification besides “they’re goblinoids” if they actually had the power to do it. They need a power base to not get slaughtered and actually get a chance to move beyond their current Evil-leaning culture because otherwise they’re not just kneecapped, they had both legs blown off with a shotgun.

I'm not sure this is true. It took a long time for Hinjo to find an ally actually willing to do anything. And that's with the goblins acting like evil conquerers.

[Worldsong]

I'm not sure this is true. It took a long time for Hinjo to find an ally actually willing to do anything. And that's with the goblins acting like evil conquerers.

We haven't received any data indicating that after the seizing of Azure City the hobgoblin army showed any sign of attacking other locations, and the reason we were given why other nations were so hesitant to act was because they were afraid of the mid-20s epic sorcerer lich.

Not saying that other countries might not be hesitant to start a crusade against Gobbotopia, especially now that they've established trade partners, but the data we've given so far could also be read as other countries primarily being concerned about Xykon and being willing to consider crusading against Gobbotopia once they're sure doing so won't incite the wrath of Xykon.

By the by, Wrath of Xykon sounds pretty cool.

[Jason]

It is not that hard, for the majority of enemies faced by the PCs to be "genuinely evil" without any "inborn predisposition".

For example, in a campaign where the vast majority of enemies will be human, all the DM has to do, is put some effort into making these enemies do acts that the PCs won't forgive, and make it easy for the PCs to find out who's deserving of being "gone-after".

If the DM can do this for a "mostly human" campaign, then they can do it for a "mixed-species" campaign.
Yes he could. And a good DM probably will provide his players with evidence that his goblins are evil before sending the players after them, or let them find the evidence that yes they were really evil while raiding the lair.


Inborn predispositions, in practice, are mostly just a shortcut that allows players to attack monsters on sight without any evidence of wrongdoing - and The Giant has noted this, and hates it.

It seems to me pretty clear that, from his perspective, in most games, the "inborn predispositions" are entirely theoretical, and the monsters normally act just like regular humans - and get slaughtered anyway.
Well I'll have to disagree with him on that point. My take is that the book wasn't written by some anti-goblin propagandist. It says goblins are usually evil because they are in fact usually evil. It's okay to kill their warriors when raiding their homes not because some book says so but because they really do live by raiding and enslaving those weaker than themselves, like all those friendly human farmers you passed on the way to the goblin lair who were just trying to earn a living in peace and would leave the goblins completely alone if the goblins would stop carrying off their food, animals, and the occasional child.

[hamishspence]

My take is that the book wasn't written by some anti-goblin propagandist. It says goblins are usually evil because they are in fact usually evil.

But this can be true, without the "strong inborn predisposition" that people keep hypothesising exists without much in-book evidence.

All that's needed is a weak inborn predisposition, and a culture shaped by a long unpleasant history. Still, jettisoning all "inborn predispositions" entirely, may be better - no more "Usually X alignment" for anything short of the extremely supernatural.




Hmm- how do we retain the alignment system (as per the much earlier post about liking some of it) while jettisoning all "unfortunate implications"?

Maybe, for all Monster Manuals, leave out the alignment line in a statblock entirely?

Leave it up to the DM what alignment to assign a particular monster (based on its personality and actions as determined by the same DM).Yeah, I think that would take care of 90% of the problem. I mean, you can still describe the goblins' place in the world and how they usually live by raiding civilized nations without passing a personal moral judgment on all of them. Let alignment be something assigned by the DM when he places that creature in his campaign. If he wants them to be amoral slavers, he gives them and Evil alignment; if he wants them to be scrappy survivors making the best out of their lot in life, he might give them True Neutral or even Chaotic Good (especially if the civilized nations are Evil Empires). DMs already do that for every human that appears, is it so difficult to imagine doing it for the other races, too? Leave inborn alignment to the overtly supernatural—if it exists at all—and away from biological creatures.

[Jason]

You know, on further reflection I think the Giant is not really speaking out about "how the game is played", he's complaining about a particular type of problem player. That would be the player who wants to do horrible things to a monster and justifies it by saying "I can do what I want and still play a lawful good paladin because the book says they're evil."

That sort of player is rather rare in my experience (though I have encountered them), and usually they either don't stay in the hobby very long or they grow out of that behavior.

That sort of behavior has never been looked at as acceptable by most players or DMs. It's certainly not how the game has been played "9 times out of 10," at least not in my experience.

[hamishspence]

You know, on further reflection I think the Giant is not really speaking out about "how the game is played", he's complaining about a particular type of problem player.

It's certainly not how the game has been played "9 times out of 10," at least not in my experience.



Maybe you should just take The Giant's word for it about what his experience has been?

[Worldsong]

Maybe you should just take The Giant's word for it about what his experience has been"?

What, and trust the author to know his own story better than the readers?

[Jason]

What, and trust the author to know his own story better than the readers?
This isn't his own story, this is a claim that D&D is played this way in the real world "9 times out of 10." Well either I am much more fortunate than he is in that I've found this way of playing to be rather more rare than that in the 35+ years I have played the game, or he was exaggerating for effect.

[mjasghar]

It’s ironic when part of the whole Redcloak story is sunk cost fallacy, that so many people have their own sunk cost fallacy about ‘goblins are usually evil so it’s okay to kill any goblins’

[Worldsong]

This isn't his own story, this is a claim that D&D is played this way in the real world "9 times out of 10." Well either I am much more fortunate than he is in that I've found this way of playing to be rather more rare than that in the 35+ years I have played the game, or he was exaggerating for effect.

Rich had the experience that nine times out of ten people played like murderhobos, you had the experience that it happened far less. Both experiences can be true in the same world and Rich's claim that you have to be lucky to experience things differently is based on the fact that his perspective is coloured by his own experience. However the story is based on his experience, in which such behaviour is a common trait among players rather than limited to a smaller percentage of players who'd earn the moniker 'problem player'. In part because if it was limited to problem players it would be acknowledged as problematic behaviour by most players, which from Rich's experience and perspective is untrue.

[Jason]

Well I guess I'll just change my name to Jason the Lucky then.

[Worldsong]

You do that.

[The Pilgrim]

And Redcloak, unlike the Sapphire Guard, isn't "going around killing all followers of the Twelve Gods, children or not".

Durkon (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1208.html) dissents with you. The azurite population, too.

Right-Eye would also raise an objection to your affirmation, on the grounds that Redcloak is going around killing goblinoids, and protecting Xykon while the lich does it for pleasure.

[hamishspence]

Durkon (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1208.html) dissents with you.
Exact quote and panel? I don't see where Durkon accuses Redcloak of exactly the kind of child slaughter we know the Sapphire Guard have committed.


When I see Redcloak slaughter Azurite children the way those paladins slaughtered goblinoid children - I'll concede he's become as bad as them. Until then, I'm going with:



'The Giant does not intend us to see Redcloak as that kind of slaughterer".

[Worldsong]

Word of God trumps the opinion of a character in the story anyway. Otherwise the entire idea that Redcloak could be wrong would fall apart.

And no, being a protagonist doesn't mean Durkon has the power of magically being right about everything.

[danielxcutter]

I think the panel referred to is the middle one on the second-to-last row.


Are ye askin' us ta stop killin' goblins... or are ye askin' tha goblins be allow'd ta kill more o' us? 'Cause ye've been doing yer best on tha second option, which'll make it awful tough fer anyone ta see yer side.

The thing is, one, this is probably hyperbole, and two, Redcloak says in like literally two panels later that if the issues of goblins are addressed then there's no need for senseless violence.

[Keltest]

I think the panel referred to is the middle one on the second-to-last row.



The thing is, one, this is probably hyperbole, and two, Redcloak says in like literally two panels later that if the issues of goblins are addressed then there's no need for senseless violence.

Yeah, he says that, but the only issue he has that wasnt really resolved with Gobbotopia was that goblins arent welcome in human cities, which is A: a fairly dubious claim given that we've seen goblins interact perfectly fine with humans in SoD, and B: absolutely not ever going to be resolved with violence.

Redcloak is just reaching for excuses to stick with The Plan. He even catches himself referring to himself in the singular instead of goblinoids as a whole during that dialogue. Heck, he even touches on how bad his excuse is when he brings up the orcs not counting: They learned to freaking get along with humans while the goblins remain belligerent and, at least under Redcloak's leadership, actively reject attempts at joining society. No crap you arent welcome when you deliberately go out of your way to make sure you remain unwelcome.

[danielxcutter]

I thought this forum was for people, not bots. This isn't friggin' binary, folks, it's more complicated than that.

[Keltest]

I thought this forum was for people, not bots. This isn't friggin' binary, folks, it's more complicated than that.

Is it? We have an example of a goblin who gave up on being belligerent, settled down and got along perfectly well with his human neighbors. This worked well for them until Redcloak showed up and ruined everything. We have other examples of hobgoblins who were able to negotiate a peace with Azure City and achieve a fair measure of prosperity. This worked well for them until Redcloak showed up and ruined everything. The issue does not seem to be that society is inherently biased against goblins existing in any sort of peaceful format.

Most of the time when somebody says something to the effect of "its not that simple" in reference to resolving conflicts between two parties, what they really mean is "one or more sides are being unreasonable" but dont want to actually say it like that. Im just pointing that out.

[Worldsong]

Okay, here's the magic trick:

Systematic oppression doesn't mean that every single person who is part of the oppressed group absolutely must lead a ****ty life. It's entirely possible that discrimination is widespread and consistently causes trouble for a large amount of people while individuals or even communities belonging to the discriminated group still manage to have things work out for them.

Word of God states that the treatment of goblinoids is a real problem and finding examples of goblinoids doing well doesn't really disprove that. The world is a big place, we could find a dozen towns like the ones the hobgoblins built and it could still turn out that the majority of goblinoids worldwide suffer mistreatment.

Yes, under other circumstances the fact that we've found more examples of the villains causing trouble for the goblinoids than anyone else would be a convincing argument, but Word of God trumps everything. It's why it's called Word of God.

I believe in past conversations Rich has said something along the lines of "If your perspective doesn't match my perspective about my own story, rather than telling me I'm doing it wrong you should ask yourself what you're missing."

EDIT: Also if you want my honest opinion, I do feel like this entire argument about whether goblinoid discrimination is true or not stopped being reasonable a while ago. I mean Word of God all but outright says it, if people still bend themselves into hoops trying to prove the opposite I don't really see that as reasonable.

[Lord Raziere]

I don’t think Xykon counts, if only because he’s typically horrible to pretty much everybody.

I disagree. Just because a person is extremely horrible to everyone does not absolve him of participating such oppression. he participates in it therefore he counts, no exceptions.


The Oracle:
Hm, I'm not sure Roy and Durkon getting three answers through force is the most morally upright thing in the world....I mean....the Oracle is a big jerk, but does he really deserve what he gets? eh. its not as if he doesn't have contingencies for these things.

The Death of Yokyok:
Ouch, this is unambiguous. Yokyok is a kobold literally out to avenge his father out of justice against Belkar, and Belkar just writes a note saying there is a kobold menace and causes a nearby tavern of adventurers to kill him for money because he can't while under the mark of justice. Again adventurers don't ask questions why or how, they just leap in to kill Yokyok because they want the XP. A clear case that adventurers in this world don't investigate: they will kill people for any reason the person wants, as long as they get xp and money out of it. Whats to stop people from posting a note- to go kill some random goblin or orc village for money? Nothing. If Belkar can cause that kind of thing to happen with a simple note, I dread to think what people with power, money and connections can make adventurers do to monstrous races.

Miko and Redcloak/Red Vs. Blue:
When these two see each other, its instant: Miko attacks Redcloak calling him an abomination. Xykon doesn't help and just watches them fight, even betting on the paladin winning. So...not much changing in terms of Xykon's choices of entertainment. after the fight Redcloak calls her out on the paladins crusades having killed his friends and family. Miko calls him a soulless nihilist (demonstrably untrue, he both has a soul and a religion) who seeks to undo creation (accurate) and doubt that the bonds of family have any meaning to him (he loved his aging mother you jerk) while Redcloak then goes on to compare paladins and liches as being unnatural then says he himself all-natural goblin (not true at all! the cloak gives him extended life and has frozen his mind's age to that of a teenager) fittingly, that exchange is called "Pot Vs. Kettle" and every person in the room is some measure of skewed or enhanced by magic, with both Miko and Redcloak denying they're unnatural with only Xykon fully acknowledging his state. of course Miko tries to escape but MitD blocks her path and promptly sends her flying with his "game". despite Miko automatically attacking him. its an interesting exchange, and pretty much shows that the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle is pretty much a Kill On Sight kind of deal.

The Battle of Azure City:
Redcloak begins the attack. This is unambiguously evil. Redcloak and the hobgoblins the aggressor here and is in some way taking revenge on the humans in this battle.
-There is an moment where Azure City's General is talking about hobgoblins being good soldiers who wouldn't continue a tactic they know isn't working and Vaarsuvius makes a racist comment that the hobgoblins simply aren't bright enough and calls them foul creatures. When really the hobgoblins are being commanded by a death knight to serve as a ramp for his horse and his ghouls. It says a lot that a highly intelligent person like Vaarsuvius can make such an assumption about a monstrous race when V's otherwise logical about other matters, though its a running theme in OOTS-verse that wizards seem to underestimate the intelligence of anyone that isn't them (see also: Eugene, Roy's Sister, all the wizards that speak to Xykon in Start of Darkness) combining this with Pompey's comment about how half-elves have horrible racials, and it wouldn't surprise me if the wizard universities don't accept monstrous races as students on the assumption that they're all stupid like orcs. to further back this up, I can't recall the last time a monstrous race was also a competent wizard in OOTS- there was the one hobgoblin in Start of Darkness who yelled "pork!" but he doesn't seem to count was implied to be incompetent- like Zzri'dt was a drow wizard, but drow hardly count as monstrous races anymore, for obvious CG rebel reasons.
All the wizards/sorcerers I can recall are:
Human: Eugene, Roy's Sister, Fyron, Xykon, Nale, Bandit Leader's Daughter, the Soul Splice Casters, Dorukan, Azure Teleport Wizard, Tsukiko...
Elven: Vaarsuvius, Aarindarius
Half-Elf: Pompey

(Of course Redcloak and Right-Eye discuss Right-eye's oldest son possibly becoming a wizard, suggesting that it is possible for monstrous races to do so, but then again I wouldn't expect two goblins who grew up in the wilderness and isolated villages to know what the situation is for higher education for monstrous races in such universities, and if Redcloak ever encountered a monstrous wizard competent enough for his Plan, I'd daresay he'd take the risk to eliminate Xykon for the new guy. The fact that we've encountered no monstrous wizard or sorcerer 1000 strips in and its not only implied, but plot relevant that Redcloak can't find any, I think we can safely say that monstrous races like goblins, orcs and such don't get access to higher education in OOTS, and if there are any out there they're rare enough that they'll never be important while a vast majority of wizards/sorcerers we see are all human or elven, and thus a clear selection bias towards more human and elven wizards)

-And of course Redcloak has his revelation that he is turning into Xykon and decides to no longer waste goblin lives but to try to honor their sacrifices, and from then on he becomes more calculated about spending the lives of his troops rather than wasting them- there is a difference between them, especially as he is a military leader much of the time, while I would say that his actions with hobgoblins up to this point are wasting their lives and thus not justifiable, its his actions after that, that are murkier and start heading closer to someone who cares about his people. Its notable that Redcloak goes out of his way to fight the cleric of the twelve gods himself to save the lives of hobgoblin soldiers after his revelation, much like his Revered master before him, and specifically ordered his hobgoblin lackey to keep other hobgoblins from coming into the throne room so he can Xykon can handle it themselves.

One Village plus 35 Years Interest:
Yeah, Redcloak was so doing all this out of revenge. I don't think his conquest of Azure City is justified- but that doesn't matter whether it is. Its done and unless something happens to change that....its not going to be fixed. Sure people say that the city is crusade bait....but a whole timeskip, a dead resistance and us coming up on the finale arc, I don't think thats happening. This is just a straight up victory for Redcloak. The Sapphire Guard reaped the seeds of what they sown when they started indiscriminately killing goblins to get rid of one particular priest. You kill someone's village when they're young in a fantasy story, your going to pay for it, a narrative rule that has not been broken. The usual cliche is that its the hero is on the quest for revenge....but not this time.

As for whether he is a slaughterer.....well he doesn't give any commands like "kill the children as well" or anything like that. closest he comes is trying to sink the last ship of Azure City with a bunch of innocent refugees on it by commanding an octopus to trying and grab people off it and it was the last ship in the harbor. but then again he clearly sees that there are PC's and paladins defending the innocents so capturing killing them might be worth his time? its weird he wants to sink the boat, but he doesn't specifically say to kill the innocents, and his hobgoblin troops never get the chance to try. nor does he know that he just aimed a disintegrate at Azure City's current leader and nearly killed him. he just knows that the last boat is still here for some reason, has people protecting it and is full of innocents. He is right to be suspicious but also wrong to be attacking civilians, though he could just be ensuring a full routing of the enemy- he lets the ship sail away after all. like many of Redcloak's actions, they are made upon a certain sensibly horrible and horribly sensible rationale you'd find in ruthless military leaders. I'd say he attempted a slaughter, but didn't succeed and that it averages to somewhere evil regardless, but that while its attempted, he didn't actually do it so....I technically can't rake him over the coals for something he didn't succeed at doing? but it was still attempted to at least "sink that boat" which isn't necessarily a death sentence for the civilians on board, they in theory could swim ashore and of course get enslaved like we see later but that its own iffyness.

[Keltest]

Okay, here's the magic trick:

Systematic oppression doesn't mean that every single person who is part of the oppressed group absolutely must lead a ****ty life. It's entirely possible that discrimination is widespread and consistently causes trouble for a large amount of people while individuals or even communities belonging to the discriminated group still manage to have things work out for them.

Word of God states that the treatment of goblinoids is a real problem and finding examples of goblinoids doing well doesn't really disprove that. The world is a big place, we could find a dozen towns like the ones the hobgoblins built and it could still turn out that the majority of goblinoids worldwide suffer mistreatment.

Yes, under other circumstances the fact that we've found more examples of the villains causing trouble for the goblinoids than anyone else would be a convincing argument, but Word of God trumps everything. It's why it's called Word of God.

I believe in past conversations Rich has said something along the lines of "If your perspective doesn't match my perspective about my own story, rather than telling me I'm doing it wrong you should ask yourself what you're missing."

I know exactly what im missing: in-story evidence of any sort of systemic oppression actually occurring. Rich can say that its there in the background all he wants, but unless and until it actually makes it into the work, that means very little to me. It hasnt been shown practically at all, and the only character telling us that its happening both has an agenda beyond goblin equality and is the primary perpetrator behind most of the bad things that happen to goblins on screen, and thus im unwilling to simply take him at his word.

Also, you know, he's had a fairly level headed and rational character call out that objectively, the goblins dont really seem to be having it any worse than anybody else at this point except for the fights they keep picking, which kind of undermines the idea that the goblins have been and are still being horribly mistreated by the world.

[Worldsong]

I know exactly what im missing: in-story evidence of any sort of systemic oppression actually occurring. Rich can say that its there in the background all he wants, but unless and until it actually makes it into the work, that means very little to me. It hasnt been shown practically at all, and the only character telling us that its happening both has an agenda beyond goblin equality and is the primary perpetrator behind most of the bad things that happen to goblins on screen, and thus im unwilling to simply take him at his word.

Also, you know, he's had a fairly level headed and rational character call out that objectively, the goblins dont really seem to be having it any worse than anybody else at this point except for the fights they keep picking, which kind of undermines the idea that the goblins have been and are still being horribly mistreated by the world.

If you're taking in-comic evidence above Word of God that's not really my problem. Very limited evidence, mind you.

And no, we've had a level-headed and rational character with a limited perspective of the issue point out that the only personal experience he had with the entire issue was that the hobgoblins successfully managed to take one city. Durkon doesn't have the experience or the perspective to be considered an authority on the subject.

[Keltest]

If you're taking in-comic evidence above Word of God that's not really my problem. Very limited evidence, mind you.

And no, we've had a level-headed and rational character with a limited perspective of the issue point out that the only personal experience he had with the entire issue was that the hobgoblins successfully managed to take one city. Durkon doesn't have the experience or the perspective to be considered an authority on the subject.

Redcloak is meanwhile actively dishonest about it, with himself at least. Durkon asks what it is the goblins dont have that the humans do, and instead of giving a specific example, Redcloak immediately jumps to "well the humans still hate us." Which may be true, but thats not a matter of opportunity at that point, thats just Redcloak having burned all those bridges of his own volition.

[danielxcutter]

...You know, why didn't Redcloak bring his hometown up? I think that still works for both sides of this debate, frankly.

[Keltest]

...You know, why didn't Redcloak bring his hometown up? I think that still works for both sides of this debate, frankly.

The Sapphire Guard of the time were a group of extremists seeking out and picking a fight with another group of extremists, with the innocents of the village caught in the middle.

The Guard has changed, and also been destroyed, so thats not really something that can work for him, and its really not in Redcloak's interest to portray the various goblin noncombatants as universally being directly complicit in a plot to overthrow the gods and/or destroy the world. That leaves portraying the various bearers of the Mantle in the past as bad guys themselves for dragging innocents into their conflict, which is probably not acceptable to him either.

[Worldsong]

Redcloak is meanwhile actively dishonest about it, with himself at least. Durkon asks what it is the goblins dont have that the humans do, and instead of giving a specific example, Redcloak immediately jumps to "well the humans still hate us." Which may be true, but thats not a matter of opportunity at that point, thats just Redcloak having burned all those bridges of his own volition.

Redcloak's statement is not "Humans hate me because I've done horrible things", his statement is "Humans hate me because I have green skin and fangs".

Which is an entirely accurate assessment in a world with systematic and widespread discrimination against monster races. We can say that everything that comes out of Redcloak's mouth must be false but frankly that sounds more like a backwards reasoning along the lines of "Discrimination isn't real so when the villain states that discrimination is real that must be false because discrimination isn't real and as a villain he can't be right."

Also Lord Raziere has been doing a respectable job digging through the comic and side content looking for interactions between monster races and PC races and I feel like the claim "I just don't see any examples of monster races suffering from discrimination" is false.


...You know, why didn't Redcloak bring his hometown up? I think that still works for both sides of this debate, frankly.

I have no idea. Maybe he thought Durkon wouldn't care or something. Maybe he felt like his personal trauma wasn't as important in negotiations about the entirety of his people.

[danielxcutter]

I mean, Redcloak pretty much expects PC races to be callous regarding goblinoid lives by now and he hasn't had much personal reason to think otherwise. Maybe that's why?

[Keltest]

Redcloak's statement is not "Humans hate me because I've done horrible things", his statement is "Humans hate me because I have green skin and fangs".

Which is an entirely accurate assessment in a world with systematic and widespread discrimination against monster races. We can say that everything that comes out of Redcloak's mouth must be false but frankly that sounds more like a backwards reasoning along the lines of "Discrimination isn't real so when the villain states that discrimination is real that must be false because discrimination isn't real and as a villain he can't be right."

Yeah, and Redcloak is mistaken about the source of the hate, or lying to himself about it. His own brother calls him out on this, and proves that no, people will not kill and despoil goblins just out of reflex or habit when he makes his own village.

Maybe he genuinely believes it, and has failed to consider his own role in it, but the fact remains that he has started every on-screen conflict between goblins and humans except for the initial attack on his village.

[Worldsong]

Yeah, and Redcloak is mistaken about the source of the hate, or lying to himself about it. His own brother calls him out on this, and proves that no, people will not kill and despoil goblins just out of reflex or habit when he makes his own village.

Maybe he genuinely believes it, and has failed to consider his own role in it, but the fact remains that he has started every on-screen conflict between goblins and humans except for the initial attack on his village.

Or maybe his claim is real and he's just ignoring the fact that the PC races have an additional reason to hate him specifically. It's possible to hate someone for more than one reason.

And as pointed out before, the fact that it's not literally impossible for an individual or a community which belongs to a discriminated group to build up a better life doesn't automatically disprove the fact that such discrimination is real.

The fact is that Redcloak is a villain and that as a villain his role is to cause trouble in the story. That does not mean that his story accurately reflects the situation for other goblinoids, especially since Redcloak is significantly stronger than pretty much everyone else in the setting so it makes sense that in his case the situation would be reversed.

[Keltest]

Or maybe his claim is real and he's just ignoring the fact that the PC races have an additional reason to hate him specifically. It's possible to hate someone for more than one reason.

And as pointed out before, the fact that it's not literally impossible for an individual or a community which belongs to a discriminated group to build up a better life doesn't automatically disprove the fact that such discrimination is real.

The fact is that Redcloak is a villain and that as a villain his role is to cause trouble in the story. That does not mean that his story accurately reflects the situation for other goblinoids, especially since Redcloak is significantly stronger than pretty much everyone else in the setting so it makes sense that in his case the situation would be reversed.

If it were real, dont you think he would, you know, actually have an example of how goblins were still being oppressed when Durkon asked for one?

[Worldsong]

If it were real, dont you think he would, you know, actually have an example of how goblins were still being oppressed when Durkon asked for one?

You mean aside from "If I were to enter a PC city I would be killed for having green skin and fangs"? Or maybe since the negotiations were sprung on him he didn't prepare a complete speech with cited sources. Or maybe he didn't think Durkon would be swayed by specific examples. Or maybe Redcloak is a person, and as a person he isn't perfect and can have a variety of reasons why he takes a suboptimal route which don't result in 'He's completely and utterly wrong'.

Besides, that's still missing the point. Word of God says it real. That the comic doesn't portray it perfectly is largely irrelevant.

[danielxcutter]

"Redcloak is a hypocrite" is not mutually exclusive with "goblinoids as a whole have been screwed over for like the entire history of the world".

[Keltest]

"Redcloak is a hypocrite" is not mutually exclusive with "goblinoids as a whole have been screwed over for like the entire history of the world".

No, but when the only ones playing that narrative are also the only ones currently screwing over goblins, it becomes pretty difficult to swallow.

[Worldsong]

No, but when the only ones playing that narrative are also the only ones currently screwing over goblins, it becomes pretty difficult to swallow.

I wouldn't be surprised if Rich did that on purpose. If Redcloak was portrayed as being righteous and virtuous and overall the most reasonable person in the setting people would side with him not because racism is bad but because they want to support the guy they like.

[Keltest]

I wouldn't be surprised if Rich did that on purpose. If Redcloak was portrayed as being righteous and virtuous and overall the most reasonable person in the setting people would side with him not because racism is bad but because they want to support the guy they like.

I have no doubt it was deliberate. Im a bit confused about the followup thoughts of "therefore we should take it at face value" of some people though. It seems like a pretty good reason to regard it with a healthy amount of skepticism to me.

[Worldsong]

I have no doubt it was deliberate. Im a bit confused about the followup thoughts of "therefore we should take it at face value" of some people though. It seems like a pretty good reason to regard it with a healthy amount of skepticism to me.

Makes sense to me. If we supported Redcloak because he was likeable and was portrayed as the most sensible person in the story then we wouldn't be motivated by our dislike of racism, we would be motivated by our opinion of a single individual.

The point for me is that if Rich hadn't gone and said what he said I would also have heavily questioned the truth of Redcloak's position. However I'll accept Word of God as being true until proven otherwise and the evidence so far doesn't point towards Word of God being false, it points towards Redcloak specifically being a hypocrite who causes more problems than he solves despite his belief that he's fighting the good fight.

EDIT: Actually the idea that we're supporting Redcloak is false. I don't support Redcloak, I support the notion that discrimination is both real and bad. My bad there, I phrased myself poorly.

[Keltest]

Makes sense to me. If we supported Redcloak because he was likeable and was portrayed as the most sensible person in the story then we wouldn't be motivated by our dislike of racism, we would be motivated by our opinion of a single individual.

The point for me is that if Rich hadn't gone and said what he said I would also have heavily questioned the truth of Redcloak's position. However I'll accept Word of God as being true until proven otherwise and the evidence so far doesn't point towards Word of God being false, it points towards Redcloak specifically being a hypocrite who causes more problems than he solves despite his belief that he's fighting the good fight.

EDIT: Actually the idea that we're supporting Redcloak is false. I don't support Redcloak, I support the notion that discrimination is both real and bad. My bad there, I phrased myself poorly.

I dont think that tracks. Most of the protagonists are likable, but i dont think he was ever particularly concerned with making sure they werent "too" likable for him to use them as vehicles for a message.

[Worldsong]

I dont think that tracks. Most of the protagonists are likable, but i dont think he was ever particularly concerned with making sure they werent "too" likable for him to use them as vehicles for a message.

Do any of them carry a message as important and controversial as 'Racism is both real and a serious issue'? Most of their stuff is a lot more personal.

[Keltest]

Do any of them carry a message as important and controversial as 'Racism is both real and a serious issue'? Most of their stuff is a lot more personal.

I dont know that that is a particularly safe topic to discuss in detail, so i will simply answer: Yes.

[Worldsong]

I dont know that that is a particularly safe topic to discuss in detail, so i will simply answer: Yes.

We are in dangerous territory yes, so I can't say much more than 'I disagree'.

[mjasghar]

There is one fact - the only cities shown and referred to are human dwarf or elf (maybe a few other races?)
We have seen gnomes and halflings living openly in those cities as equals
Meanwhile goblinoids have only had villages at best, where they live separate form other races. Even right-eye has to establish a separate village of his own- he couldn’t join as existing one.
The hobgoblins had their own society - yes. But we never saw them openly wandering azure city- and the peace was after centuries of conflict with blame on both sides.
And then we have the bugbears who were forced out of their own lands by dwarves.
But if you’ve closed your mind then facts will not persuade you.

[dancrilis]

Word of God says it real.

I don't think it does actually - if you read The Giant's quotes in your signature they don't seem to say that.

You can read it that way (I suppose) but it seems a stretch to me.
1: The Giant is writting a story were goblins are treated as monsters because they are goblins and the justification for that is that goblins are listed as usually evil in a book despite the fact that The Giant hates that kindof thing - but he hopes to subvert it.
2: The Giant is writting a story were some goblins are evil because they do evil things and where good people oppose them for those evil things, these evil goblins then claim oppression because evil people often seek justification for their actions and do they have limited justification (which is why they started on the evil path they are on), but they have blown that justification way out of proportion and applied it to any situation where they feel it gives them an advantage.

I think 2 is just as valid (more valid perhaps) a reading of his quotes as 1.

If it is 1 then he would need to show that in comic to get the point across, if it is 2 that he is showing how you can have goblins as enemies in a DnD story not because they are goblins but because they are evil - in the same way you could have it be humans, orcs, elves etc.

[Worldsong]

I considered that and dismissed it because having the entire goblinoid plot revolve around supposed discrimination only to have it be the result of evil people trying to dismiss the consequences of their own actions would send a horribly twisted message about how people who rebel against racism are merely troublemakers who are falsely trying to justify their behaviour.

Given that Rich has gone on record as to state that he wants to make it clear that racism is bad having that be the message someone could read in his story would be shooting himself in the foot so hard that the bullet burrowed through the planet, burst out on the other side, flew around the planet and hit him in the other foot.

Seriously, you can't send a much worse message than "People who claim to be standing up against racism are lying bad guys" and I don't think Rich is naive enough to think that nobody would read his story that way if the discrimination thingy ended up being false.

EDIT: Also I feel like people who are opposing the discrimination plot are not actually being fully objective when judging whether the story portrays that message properly.

[danielxcutter]

I considered that and dismissed it because having the entire goblinoid plot revolve around supposed discrimination only to have it be the result of evil people trying to dismiss the consequences of their own actions would send a horribly twisted message about how people who rebel against racism are merely troublemakers who are falsely trying to justify their behaviour.

Given that Rich has gone on record as to state that he wants to make it clear that racism is bad having that be the message someone could read in his story would be shooting himself in the foot so hard that the bullet burrowed through the planet, burst out on the other side, flew around the planet and hit him in the other foot.

Seriously, you can't send a much worse message than "People who claim to be standing up against racism are lying bad guys" and I don't think Rich is naive enough to think that nobody would read his story that way if the discrimination thingy ended up being false.

EDIT: Also I feel like people who are opposing the discrimination plot are not actually being fully objective when judging whether the story portrays that message properly.

I agree and also I am totally going to ask you if I can quote that metaphor.

[Worldsong]

I agree and also I am totally going to ask you if I can quote that metaphor.

I've been waiting for an opportunity to use that metaphor so yes, please, quote the metaphor.

[Keltest]

I considered that and dismissed it because having the entire goblinoid plot revolve around supposed discrimination only to have it be the result of evil people trying to dismiss the consequences of their own actions would send a horribly twisted message about how people who rebel against racism are merely troublemakers who are falsely trying to justify their behaviour.

Given that Rich has gone on record as to state that he wants to make it clear that racism is bad having that be the message someone could read in his story would be shooting himself in the foot so hard that the bullet burrowed through the planet, burst out on the other side, flew around the planet and hit him in the other foot.

Seriously, you can't send a much worse message than "People who claim to be standing up against racism are lying bad guys" and I don't think Rich is naive enough to think that nobody would read his story that way if the discrimination thingy ended up being false.

EDIT: Also I feel like people who are opposing the discrimination plot are not actually being fully objective when judging whether the story portrays that message properly.

But Redcloak is a lying bad guy. Like, explicitly. Even in a world where the discrimination is totally real and inarguable, Redcloak is a lying bad guy who isnt fighting for the reasons he says he is.

[Worldsong]

But Redcloak is a lying bad guy. Like, explicitly. Even in a world where the discrimination is totally real and inarguable, Redcloak is a lying bad guy who isnt fighting for the reasons he says he is.

Yes, but the message "Racism is real even if some people use it as an excuse for their behaviour" is still significantly better than "Racism is false and only used as an excuse by bad guys to justify their behaviour."

Besides I'm one of the people who's betting big that Redcloak is going to be brought around, in which case the final message of the story isn't going to be "Lying guy justifies bad behaviour with claims of oppression".

[hroþila]

But Redcloak is a lying bad guy. Like, explicitly. Even in a world where the discrimination is totally real and inarguable, Redcloak is a lying bad guy who isnt fighting for the reasons he says he is.
There is no contradiction between this and what you're quoting. We shouldn't conflate Redcloak and the goblinoids like he does, and no one on the side arguing that discrimination is real has said anything about Redcloak not being a bad guy (I'd say self-deluded rather than lying, though).

[Keltest]

I dont see how you can get "racism is not real" as a valid message from a story where the goblins arent oppressed. Redcloak's perceptions and motivations have always been more important to the story than the reality of the situation, and he believes that the goblins have it bad. Even if he's wrong, using it as a motivator for (nominally) positive change is still what makes him somewhat sympathetic. Its the same way that the Sapphire Guard can be different from what he thinks of them without delegitimizing his response to the attack on his village.

[understatement]

I don't think it does actually - if you read The Giant's quotes in your signature they don't seem to say that.

You can read it that way (I suppose) but it seems a stretch to me.
1: The Giant is writting a story were goblins are treated as monsters because they are goblins and the justification for that is that goblins are listed as usually evil in a book despite the fact that The Giant hates that kindof thing - but he hopes to subvert it.
2: The Giant is writting a story were some goblins are evil because they do evil things and where good people oppose them for those evil things, these evil goblins then claim oppression because evil people often seek justification for their actions and do they have limited justification (which is why they started on the evil path they are on), but they have blown that justification way out of proportion and applied it to any situation where they feel it gives them an advantage.

I think 2 is just as valid (more valid perhaps) a reading of his quotes as 1.

If it is 1 then he would need to show that in comic to get the point across, if it is 2 that he is showing how you can have goblins as enemies in a DnD story not because they are goblins but because they are evil - in the same way you could have it be humans, orcs, elves etc.

He did show #1. He showed it so clearly at the start of SOD that the only way he could make it more obvious is to hang a neon sign on it and have it stamped across every character's forehead.

Is it somehow not possible that Redcloak can have a point and still be evil?

[Metastachydium]

There is one fact - the only cities shown and referred to are human dwarf or elf (maybe a few other races?)
We have seen gnomes and halflings living openly in those cities as equals
Meanwhile goblinoids have only had villages at best, where they live separate form other races. Even right-eye has to establish a separate village of his own- he couldn’t join as existing one.
The hobgoblins had their own society - yes. But we never saw them openly wandering azure city- and the peace was after centuries of conflict with blame on both sides.
And then we have the bugbears who were forced out of their own lands by dwarves.
But if youÂ’ve closed your mind then facts will not persuade you.

Also, we know for certain that somehow all but four of the formal and official high-priests of the 29 Northern and Southern gods (not counting Hel) belong to non-monster races (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0999.html). Two of the remaining four are half-orcs (who are apparently a „tolerated race”, as implied by, among others, Redcloak himself), while a third one is explicitly a god of monsters. To this, we can add two (judging by the size) half giant high priests for demigods (out of seven) (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1012.html). The Westerners have/had up to four reptilian humanoid high priests (if Malack was one), and (apparently) a drow, out of (probably) 19 (unless there are/were further high priests we do not see).
Speaking of the Western Continent, we should also note that lizardfolk and kobolds were apparently enfranchised in the Empire of Blood and even had a small state of their own, but the representatives of other „monster races” were absent even from the Western settlements we saw, and the we only saw lizardfolk citizens in the Empire of Blood and in Sandsedge, while they were absent from any scene depicting the Empire of Tears and that of Sweat (the military of these two polities, I'd add, uses helmets that are impossible to fit on a reptilian head).
Personally, I have difficulty believing that the „monstrous” population of either continent is so small or lacks diversity to such an extent that this would be explicable without assuming that this population does not really have a place in the „civilized world” or much of a say in big time matters.



Is it somehow not possible that Redcloak can have a point and still be evil?

Well said.

[The Pilgrim]

1: The Giant is also writting a story were goblins are treated as monsters because they are goblins and the justification for that is that goblins are listed as usually evil in a book despite the fact that The Giant hates that kindof thing - but he hopes to subvert it.

And he does subvert it by presenting the people who "treat goblins as monsters just for being goblins" as antagonists and villiains that are opposed and stopped by the Heroes.

And subverts it further by stablishing a World in which average people don't operate under the principe that goblins or other non-pc races are there just for XP fodder, but acknowledge them as people.


2: The Giant is writting a story were some goblins are evil because they do evil things and where good people oppose them for those evil things, these evil goblins then claim oppression because evil people often seek justification for their actions and do they have limited justification (which is why they started on the evil path they are on), but they have blown that justification way out of proportion and applied it to any situation where they feel it gives them an advantage.

Ding!


I considered that and dismissed it because having the entire goblinoid plot revolve around supposed discrimination only to have it be the result of evil people trying to dismiss the consequences of their own actions would send a horribly twisted message about how people who rebel against racism are merely troublemakers who are falsely trying to justify their behaviour.

Given that Rich has gone on record as to state that he wants to make it clear that racism is bad having that be the message someone could read in his story would be shooting himself in the foot so hard that the bullet burrowed through the planet, burst out on the other side, flew around the planet and hit him in the other foot.

Seriously, you can't send a much worse message than "People who claim to be standing up against racism are lying bad guys" and I don't think Rich is naive enough to think that nobody would read his story that way if the discrimination thingy ended up being false.

EDIT: Also I feel like people who are opposing the discrimination plot are not actually being fully objective when judging whether the story portrays that message properly.

So...

First, you are acknowleding that you are projecting your personal stuff into the comic.

Then, you are demanding that the comic's message must adhere to your personal beliefs.

After that, you accuse others of not being objective in their judgings.

And finally...


Yes, but the message "Racism is real even if some people use it as an excuse for their behaviour" is still significantly better than "Racism is false and only used as an excuse by bad guys to justify their behaviour."

Besides I'm one of the people who's betting big that Redcloak is going to be brought around, in which case the final message of the story isn't going to be "Lying guy justifies bad behaviour with claims of oppression".

... according to you, the best way to deliver the message that "racism is bad" is by conceding some measure of validation to the most racist character present in the story.

Maybe you should approach the comic with an open mind, instead of forcing it to adhere to your personal mindset.

I have my beliefs too. But when it comes to analizing the story, I try to do it according to the mindset of the author creating it, not according to mine.

[Metastachydium]

Someone please explain to me how reading „[t]he primary purpose of Redcloak's characterization is to specifically prove that this point [i.e. D&D is a world of black and white morality] is completely and utterly wrong. That D&D cannot and should not begin and end at black-and-white, and indeed already doesn't, if everyone would just learn to look at things a little more complexly” (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) as ”Redcloak is an unambiguously Evil, whining, lying terrorist who is obviously wrong” is not a stretch, to put it mildly.

[Jason]

Yes, under other circumstances the fact that we've found more examples of the villains causing trouble for the goblinoids than anyone else would be a convincing argument, but Word of God trumps everything. It's why it's called Word of God.
Uh, no, not really. "Word of God" is called that because it comes from the creator of the work. It is a statement of the author's intent, not a statement of what is actually in the work.

Word of God does not "trump everything." Dan Brown can say "99% of [The Da Vinci Code] is true. All of the architecture, the art, the secret rituals, the history, all of that is true..." and his saying that does not make it true. Not even a little bit.

Word of God is useful for understanding what the Giant's intent is, but not what is actually in the work. And Word of God can sometimes change or have been misleading in the first place.

I think it's reasonable to say that Rich Burlew intends that goblin oppression is real, but I also think it reasonable to say that there aren't many concrete examples of it in the comic. Especially if we confine ourselves to the online comic.

I also think it reasonable to believe it possible that this oppression was not in fact begun by the gods at the creation of the goblins, isn't really the primary obstacle keeping goblins from living happy and fulfilling lives at present, and that it will not be made to instantaneously go away by blackmailing the gods, which are all things that Redcloack says he believes.

[Worldsong]

Uh, no, not really. "Word of God" is called that because it comes from the creator of the work. It is a statement of the author's intent, not a statement of what is actually in the work.

Word of God does not "trump everything." Dan Brown can say "99% of [The Da Vinci Code] is true. All of the architecture, the art, the secret rituals, the history, all of that is true..." and his saying that does not make it true. Not even a little bit.

Word of God is useful for understanding what the Giant's intent is, but not what is actually in the work. And Word of God can sometimes change or have been misleading in the first place.

I think it's reasonable to say that Rich Burlew intends that goblin oppression is real, but I also think it reasonable to say that there aren't many concrete examples of it in the comic. Especially if we confine ourselves to the online comic.

I also think it reasonable to believe it possible that this oppression was not in fact begun by the gods at the creation of the goblins, isn't really the primary obstacle keeping goblins from living happy and fulfilling lives at present, and that it will not be made to instantaneously go away by blackmailing the gods, which are all things that Redcloack says he believes.

All of these are good points, and they miss the point.

The first point misses because I didn't state that Word of God is an objective truth for things outside of the setting of the story. Within the story however it is, and this entire argument is about a certain aspect of the setting Rich created. Yes I didn't add that clause last time but that's because it didn't occur to me someone would nitpick that.

The second point misses because the possibility that Rich in the future states that he changed his mind or that he gave the wrong impression is not something that could feasibly be used to construct valid arguments in the present. That's just saying "Nothing is certain so we might as well not bother."

The third point misses because this argument isn't about whether there are concrete examples in the comic of oppression or not. The argument is about whether the oppression is real with one side arguing that because they find the examples in the story insufficient evidence it's not real, and the other side saying that Word of God has confirmed the oppression as being real (with it making little sense if it wasn't real).

The fourth point misses because the argument also isn't about whether said oppression is caused by the gods or not. Again, it's about whether the oppression is real in the first place.

None of these points actually address the position, namely that the oppression is almost certainly real because Word of God has said/implied as much, and within the confines of the story Word of God is law. If the author says "Dragons exist in this setting" then you can go read their entire work and point out that not a single dragon gets mentioned and the author can still say "Yeah, I didn't write about any of them, but they do exist in the setting." And that would be objectively true.

[The Pilgrim]

None of these points actually address the position, namely that the oppression is almost certainly real because Word of God has said/implied as much, and within the confines of the story Word of God is law. If the author says "Dragons exist in this setting" then you can go read their entire work and point out that not a single dragon gets mentioned and the author can still say "Yeah, I didn't write about any of them, but they do exist in the setting." And that would be objectively true.

And, as others have pointed out, Word of God has never confirmed that "oppresion of the Goblins" is real in the OOTS world.

Word of God has critiquized the approach of "it's a monster, we can just kill it" on RPG gaming and fantasy writings. OOTS, being in origin a parody of D&D, reflected that position to critiquize it. And critiquized it by exposing those with that position as antagonists and villains that oppose the heroes, who don't share that approach.

As the comic grew more serious, The Giant went the next logical step, which is to develope a world in which the statement is not true. The moral standard of the OOTS is racism being considered anti-social behaviour.

Note that If OOTS were, as you want to belive, just a monothematic author's tract on racist oppresion symbolized in the goblinoids, then logic dictates that the goblins would be the protagonists of this story, not the antagonists, and that the latter scene wouldn't have been about Durkon and a newcomer character giving Redcloak a moral lecture debunking his whole narrative.

The heroes still fight the goblins, but do it for reasons beyond them being goblins.

[Jason]

The first point misses because I didn't state that Word of God is an objective truth for things outside of the setting of the story. Within the story however it is, and this entire argument is about a certain aspect of the setting Rich created. Yes I didn't add that clause last time but that's because it didn't occur to me someone would nitpick that.I respectfully disagree. Word of God is not objective truth for the work until the points or concepts it addresses actually appear in the work. Word of God can change or be misleading, so until it appears in the work it cannot be regarded as set in stone, so to speak (and even then, the author could decide to revisit something already revealed and change it).

George Lucas did not originally intend for Darth Vader to be Luke's Father. Even after Darth Vader claimed he was, George could have decided that Vader had been lying. Once Luke's parentage was confirmed in Return of the Jedi then it became "truth" for Star Wars. It was not "truth" before that point, no matter what George Lucas had to say about Luke's parentage.


The third point misses because this argument isn't about whether there are concrete examples in the comic of oppression or not. The argument is about whether the oppression is real with one side arguing that because they find the examples in the story insufficient evidence it's not real, and the other side saying that Word of God has confirmed the oppression as being real (with it making little sense if it wasn't real).Until it's demonstrated in the comic it isn't true, because Rich can still change his mind. The author can say the cat is alive, but the "objective truth" is the cat is neither alive nor dead until the box is opened.

[Dion]

I blame Worf for this discussion.

I'm 100% serious about this.

Worf, who was basically a Space Orc, was the first major character on TV from an evil species that became a non-evil PC.

And everyone watch STTNG said "Oh boy, I want to play a big strong non-evil space orc! Now I have a +5 strength bonus. Hab SoSlI’ Quch! But Goblins don't have a bonus to strength, so they're still just for XP farming. Silly little useless goblin. NuqDaq 'oH puchpa''e'?"

[NihhusHuotAliro]

My take is that Goblin Oppression is real, but not nearly as distressing to me as the fact that making Lizardfolk into accessories is common enough for Haley to use "You'll make a very nice handbag" as a threat to Gannji.

Also, I had Gouda cheese for the first time a few days ago, and am now convinced that, if the balance inclines, it inclines such that the true victims are those cultures who do not have access to Gouda.

The Gnomes are clearly not oppressed as they have all the best hats.

[Dion]

The Gnomes are clearly not oppressed as they have all the best hats.

People are not wearing enough hats.

[Lethologica]

The comic has intentionally left plenty of room for interpretation. In a way this better reflects present reality than either narrative would on its own - strongly held, highly divergent narratives on contentious issues appear to be the political order of the day, after all.

[hamishspence]

"Non-combatants" is a different thing from "children and infants".

Not in the context of the "nits make lice" phrase. That is, unambiguously, a justification for killing children - compared to "nits" - on the grounds that they will, metaphorically, "grow up to be lice".

[Worldsong]

I respectfully disagree. Word of God is not objective truth for the work until the points or concepts it addresses actually appear in the work. Word of God can change or be misleading, so until it appears in the work it cannot be regarded as set in stone, so to speak (and even then, the author could decide to revisit something already revealed and change it).

George Lucas did not originally intend for Darth Vader to be Luke's Father. Even after Darth Vader claimed he was, George could have decided that Vader had been lying. Once Luke's parentage was confirmed in Return of the Jedi then it became "truth" for Star Wars. It was not "truth" before that point, no matter what George Lucas had to say about Luke's parentage.

Until it's demonstrated in the comic it isn't true, because Rich can still change his mind. The author can say the cat is alive, but the "objective truth" is the cat is neither alive nor dead until the box is opened.

Yeah no.

Word of God can change or be misleading, but we can't use that as a valid argument because then we might as well throw our hands up in the air.

If George Lucas had stated that it was a lie all along and that there was no connection between Anakin and Luke then that would be the end of it. Of course at that point the fans would be justified in asking what the hell was going on for everything in the story to point in literally the opposite direction, but if George insisted on it being a lie and gave no indication of being anything but serious on the matter his statement would be the truth, because the story is his creation and his Word is God.

If Word of God states something then that is the truth about the setting until either it's been proven that Word of God was lying or joking. If the author changes their mind that just means the truth has changed because it's a fictional story and the details are not set in stone. Of course it is possible for the author to use parts of the story to send the message 'I was lying/joking' but that's going to have to be a little bit more blatant than what we've got here, because frankly all these claims that the story proves that the goblinoids aren't oppressed have been very unconvincing. I mean they basically boil down to "But I haven't seen the oppression happen for myself yet" which is just ignoring the fact that it's a big world and if all the oppression happened off-screen it would still be real for the setting and it would still mean that the majority of the goblinoids suffer from it. We just happen to follow the villain who is powerful enough to not suffer daily oppression and, like, two settlements who seemed to be doing pretty well in spite of the global discrimination of goblinoids.

If it takes magic to imagine that maybe we happen to be looking at cases where the discrimination is at its minimum and Word of God is still accurate about the setting in its entirety then I am a flipping wizard.

EDIT: As another thought, Star Wars might have been directed by George Lucas but it was a group project by virtue of it being a film. If there's one thing which can bring Word of God into question it's the presence of other people during the creation of the product who might have added their own ideas. In Rich's case that doesn't apply because unless I've been gravely misinformed Order of the Stick is his creation and his alone.

[Lord Raziere]

Also Lord Raziere has been doing a respectable job digging through the comic and side content looking for interactions between monster races and PC races and I feel like the claim "I just don't see any examples of monster races suffering from discrimination" is false.


Thank you. However I'm going to continue it regardless, as its always good to reread OOTS and this analysis has been been giving me a new perspective on the story, that and its always good to be as thorough as possible when doing things like this, and I still have 2-3 books to go.

That and this next one has Familicide in it. Which is too relevant to not analyze, but we'll get to that in...

Evil Adventuring Party:
While Roy is in the afterlife, a group of evil adventurers come attack and they are dispatched, one them is Drow, but again I doubt they count as a monstrous race anymore, but it does tell us that evil adventurers are normal enough that them going to attack Celestia for the xp is so common that Roy's grandfather doesn't even bat an eye at it. Not even the afterlife is safe from adventurers coming to kill you. This is relevant to the analysis because: whats to stop evil adventurers form attacking the goblin afterlife? the dwarven afterlife? ANY afterlife? they don't care who they have kill to get stronger, they're evil. which lends support to the fact that monstrous races may be oppressed- and that its Evil adventurers doing the oppressing.

Those Four Other Nations:
All four nations Hinjo mentions as allies are depicted as human, with no indication of other races monstrous or non ruling or being in them

Therkla:
I'm just gonna have a section for her here to note various things:
-A half-orc is serving as ninja for a human noble. historically ninja come from lower classes as they used a lot of tools that peasants did just repurposed to be more versatile, so its probable that this is the highest Therkla could rise in Azure City's socio-economic hierarchy.

Sea Trolls:
Hm, if the land monstrous races have it bad, imagine how bad the aquatics have it: no fire, no paper, no wood....just nothing that would make civilization unless you have powerful magic going on. Kubota manipulating them to attack Hinjo isn't even him making deals, its just charming them to follow Kubota's orders through an imp. and if Kubota, a noble from a city of paladins could be a devil worshiper without anyone know imagine what nobles in other cities could be hiding...

Human Slavery in Gobbotopia:
Meanwhile, humans are outright chattel slaves for the hobgoblins, complete with a whip while they are dressed in rags. Yeah this is pretty bad. But at least Redcloak didn't go full genocidal on them. Notably there is exchange between three hobgoblins where one questions the sense in whipping them and the other two either joke about it or laugh at their pain and claims to make them go faster, and of course in a story when you whip an elderly person there is a 60% chance for heroes to show up and they do. It implies that at the hobgoblin questioning the sense of it is not entirely on board with it even though whipping them is his job, I don't think it makes it okay, but it is kind of interesting to note. Also Redcloak could've decided to make these humans into zombies to do these tasks instead but didn't.

Imported From Greysky City:
One of the boxes says its imported from Greysky City, and another has text I couldn't make out unless I zoomed in real close and it turns out the other one I think reads "Gouda, Product of Cliffport" which means that Gobbotopia is doing economic trade with these cities in peace. considering these two cities are the ones we know most about aside from Azure City, and those other four nations not helping Hinjo, its pretty clear a precedent has been established that the nations around aren't willing to step up to help and are in fact trading with the hobgoblins

Flumphs and Monster Safety:
I haven't been commenting on these two, but it seems like these two flumphs were doing well in Cliffport during War and XPs, while now they are in Gobbotopia with a pamphlet claiming its "monster safe" but are complaining that it meant "evil monsters" which means that while monsters distinguish between good and evil monsters, the rest of the world probably does not.

Haley and the Smugglers:
There is a cutaway panel where Haley is negotiating prices with a lizardfolk and presumably duergar smuggler, which might mean these races often turn to a life of crime because they are stereotyped as evil and thus can't get legitimate jobs. considering that Right Eye was a rogue, this might continue the trend of certain classes being cutoff to people without the opportunity to pursue them.

Celia and the Hobgoblins and the Gnome:
Its notable that Celia is the only one here who doesn't want to kill the hobgoblins. she is not an adventurer, she doesn't know how they work, and doesn't see killing the hobgoblins as acceptable- she wanted to by them without a single one dying. This is the only person we've seen express this, but Celia is also one of the few people in OOTS who isn't an adventurer of some kind- though one must remember, Celia comes from the elemental plane of air. things probably work differently on that plane since most adventurers simply can't fly, and thus most air elementals are safe from adventurers coming in and killing people. At the same time, Celia is a paralegal who is did study law to work on the material plane so she has good knowledge of whats considered legal action and thus whats acceptable among most people, and most people aren't adventurers, which implies that while adventurers are the foundation of the world's economy and get paid to kill things, most people don't do that in this world and would consider what they as immoral, even in a situation where Haley is right that they are at war with a power that has conquered land that isn't legitimately theirs.

oh and then Belkar murders a gnome right after that, to put this into stark relief that Belkar demonstrates that there is adventurers who don't care about good causes or anything and thus is just looking for any excuse to kill and loot things.

O-Chul and Redcloak:
I'mma ignore the whole sick games Xykon games does to O-Chul, because the interrogation scene is more important.

Redcloak says "I know exactly what I'm doing and whats at stake" (not as accurate he'd like to believe) then when O-Chul says allowing RC to win would be the safety of the grave and Redcloak just says "glad we're on the same page!" which implies that Redcloak as he was then didn't care whether "equality" was actually achieved but rather that his enemies all died so he could get what he wants. O-Chul then tells him to go to hell, Redcloak oddly enough goes on a tangent about how the Snarl will simply unmake them then threatens to do the experiment where he pushes humans off the tower to see if the group of the Snarl will give him any data that he might want (a very low chance indeed) O-Chul attempts to lie his way out of it, but fails.

We then have the part where Redcloak rants to O-Chul with Occam's Razor reasoning, seeing the paladin order's oath as ridiculous, and concludes that the Sapphire Guard must have some secret knowledge buried in him, but O-Chul points out that its simpler that he simply does not know everything. which shows us something important about Redcloak: he is a logical person but he is also stubbornly logical and won't change his mind until someone can definitively prove that he is acting illogical. another manifestation of his sunk cost fallacy, perhaps?

Red cloak say its gives him no pleasure to end their lives, then O-Chul says if he was free he'd kill Redcloak and free those people but his words can't do anything since he knows nothing leading to is this exchange:
"How? how can you condemn fourteen of your own people like that? Don't their lives-their very souls-mean anything to you?"-Redcloak
"They mean everything. more than you know. But I must endure their senseless loss nonetheless"-O-Chul
"humans I've come to expect your lack of respect for the lives of my people, but I'm still continually amazed at how little you value those of your own. your nothing but savages. amoral savages."-Redcloak
Redcloak is probably thinking of his village at this moment. the senseless loss HE had to endure, and now encountering someone who is enduring the prospect with more grace than he did. So he either denies what he is witnessing or he doesn't understand it and mistakes what O-Chul says as callousness wrapped up in piousness.

Of course, sociologically speaking....there might be other factors than good and evil at play here.O-Chul living in a city with good trade, safe walls, and so on has probably lived a better life than Redcloak even if he joined the military, as he would have more positive experiences and teachings to draw upon to make sure he get through death and pain, while Redcloak is from a small village of goblins in constant threat of being attacked by humans and probably other species as well including other monstrous races, and thus would come from a culture where everyone is personally known to each other and thus Redcloak felt each loss of his original village much deeper than one would think, while his hobgoblins he had "million is a statistic" mindset going before his revelation and thus caring for them better- basically a better upbringing means better emotional support to handle the pain, and Redcloak never got that- only a Plan that promised not just revenge, but future prevention of what he went through. thus Redcloak never developed a proper way of dealing with loss. I'd imagine most other monsters wouldn't fare much better with such feelings as a random ogre troll orc, or what have you wandering the wilderness will have nothing but their muscle, natural powers and anger to rely on when their mothers dies to some adventurer's blade, and revenge doesn't leave a lot of time for doing something productive like figuring out farming.

then Redcloak makes the guards take the prisoners back to the cells without killing them, thinking himself "merciful" for not doing what he threatened to do to them. Again we come close to Redcloak nearly slaughtering innocents, but not actually succeeding or going through with it. Between this and the slaves, there might be a little shred of mercy in Redcloak....
....But then next comic shows that O-Chul's lack of knowledge hasn't been the point for some time, his torture is just means to buy time for Xykon to wait so that Redcloak can get the legitimacy of Gobbotopia going, then tells Jirix about Xykon is not to be trusted and doesn't care about the goblin race- that he is only a tool for RC's end. its notable that RC has a subjectivist viewpoint on the matter of the current conflict, suggesting that probably doesn't care much for the cosmic labels of good and evil since he says "those who call themselves good" which probably means he doesn't buy the cosmic alignment thing- which makes sense, given that the paladins the holiest most paragon of people kill your entire family and friends I'd wager he has good reason to not hold alignment in high regard, and I doubt many other monstrous races would disagree- having a good alignment doesn't feed you or protect you from adventurers after all. I'd wager that to Redcloak he has his own form of morality that serves his needs and purposes and isn't interested in the whole "angel vs. devil" thing and regards the Lawful Evil label as incidental.

O-Chul and Monster-San:
Best friendship. O-Chul is one of the most moral people in the comic for a reason, though Xykon and Redcloak are clearly mistreating him. MITD is literally in a box thinking these people are his friends and being led on because his childish nature.

The Island Orcs:
The orcs live on an island in the middle of an ocean. I'm not an expert on how people get on islands like these or how they live, but it doesn't seem like these orcs got a good deal with this land? thought at least they'd be safe from most adventurers, even pirate campaigns generally only do one island for an arc then skip off to the next one.

Snuggly Green Cutie Pie:
Here we have a subversion: Therkla reveals she is half-orc and the orcs says that implies an ugly backstory, we cut away to an orc mother and human father couple being in love and the father calling his wife a pet name to a level of diabetes. Therkla then says "try growing up with it" implying she found her parents doing that embarrassing. However the set up still implies the usual "orc rape" backstory that people come up with to make the half-orc edgy, implying that it might be known enough to be commented on in a genre-savvy roundabout way, even if it doesn't happen in this world. the orcs certainly aren't told what actually happened by Therkla. Though from what Redcloak implies in his speech more recently that its the humans being attracted to everything that leads to half-orcs like any other half-anything, and that orcs are more accepted as a result. Though.... "accepted" might be a strong term given what we can see of the orc and half-orc characters we see throughout the comic....you'll see what I mean.

The Oracle's Deaths:
Its notable that Oracle getting killed happens often enough that he has lizardfolk resurrecting him on a schedule. notably I think the orange-robed lizardfolk is the only monstrous wizard I've seen in the comic so far, or at least only monstrous spellcaster.

The Thieves Guild Boss:
To get back to the matter of orcs and half orcs.... between Thog, that one stable hand keeping horses, the island orcs Therkla, and Bozzok, it seems a lot of orcs and half orcs are given bad or lower rung jobs that people don't want to do, or are tribal. the highest job we've seen an orc or half-orc holding so far is a criminal one, so I wouldn't say that orcs are equal with humans either. being someone's thug is acceptance in the sense that your working for them, but not really "equal" with them- they are the ones in control after all. and this might be a reason why Redcloak doesn't want to go the orc route to equality, because he sees it as not real progress, but as trading suffering and slaughter for servitude and crime. sure you can technically say the orcs have it "better" but only if you ignore how the ones we see end up being exploited by those that rule over them: Nale when push came to shove, left Thog to rot in jail, and his plans generally assumed that Thog'd be doing the risky parts where one gets hurt while Nale gets the victory, Kubota had a backup plan in case Therkla turned against him and poisoned her without a second thought. I find it unlikely that any other orcs half or full are in any real position of power.

Black Dragon's Revenge:
The black dragon having waited for the right moment, ambushes V and pins them down with an anti-magic field and their strength then tells V what they are going to do in revenge: eat their children, seal them into necromantic gems then vanish. Already we see an escalation from V's killing of a single dragon to the black dragon trying to kill both her children. And thus by thinking on this, I've realized a theme: revenge in this comic, is often disproportionate. Redcloak didn't stop with just the sapphire guard- he destroyed their entire city. the black dragon isn't willing to settle for one child but to kill both, then bind their souls into gems then leave to hide them somewhere for all eternity. Roy's quest to take down Xykon is an exception to how revenge actually works, because all the other examples involve many people paying the price for one or the few. Not that it would make it any better if it was proportionate, but there is a definite theme of such events leading to not just a continuation of hostilities, but an escalation of them.

After all, would these monstrous races, living in caves and the wilds have any education, the socialization, the support to be taught how to properly get justice or help to solve their problems? No, they are people with nothing but their strength to rely on and thus to their strength they turn to solve their problems, to deal with their emotions. As hallucination Shojo would say: they do not live among Society. they are people who don't play the game, because no one invited them to come to sit down and play, or taught them how. that doesn't change the fact that what they do is wrong. but it does mean that options are scarce when one and their friends are family are hunted down and killed as matter of economic trade. Of course....the escalation does not stop there.

Also the Black dragon tells of her husband dying to some other adventurers to be made into armor. So yeah...that happened to, and contributes to the hate. perhaps in a way, she is also avenging her husband by proxy.

Familicide:
And here it is. V's act of genocide so shocking that its one of the most memorable moments of the comic. If this was Homestuck, it'd have [S] flash with some music like "Carne Vale" or "Megalovania" playing as accompaniment while the dragons get killed by pink lightning.

It is perhaps the greatest possible escalation V could've gone for and the worst thing she could've done to the black dragon: she not only killed her, she killed every dragon that could possibly claim to be her descendant or relation, no matter what age or whether they were even born. This spell is the ultimate logical end result of killing an entire family to make sure no one can avenge you. A quarter of all black dragons have been killed, without regard for who they were or what they've done. Unforgivable, and V realizes it when the Soul Splice is done.

But! Want me to point how its actually worse than you thought? No? Too bad. See, Familicide is not a Vaarsuvius invention....but the invention of a long dead necromancer Haera. one of the souls. This necromancer was once alive long ago, was someone who got to epic level and create the Familicide spell at some point. Even worse: why did Haera invent this spell in the first place? You don't make a spell to literally kill everyone who could possibly be related to the target for no reason. Which means Haera at some point used this spell at least once before this, at some point in the past. and we will probably never know why. We might be better off not knowing exactly what it was used for and who died as a result. Or how many times it was used before this. And to top it off? This is an evil unconnected to Xykon or the Sapphire Guard. They have nothing to do with any part of this. You want an example of oppression happening to a monstrous race unconnected to the lich? Look no further than genocide in a can being unleashed on black dragons and potentially who knows how many other people in the past.

And if the existence of this spell doesn't prove that such oppression exists....I don't know what does. This is a spell that could've been used on any number of monstrous races to thin their numbers for adventurers to beat them back, a spell that only exists because someone at some point thought "I'm too lazy to hunt down every single family member of my enemies by hand, so I'm just research a spell to kill them all in an instant for me!" seriously, thats screwed up. The fiends wouldn't have cared if that were the case, and even a logical elf like V in the right circumstances used it for their purposes. Sure we don't know why it was made, and sure its only known by one person. It could've been used to end some human dynasty or something, but the potential remains, especially when the fiends get the soul back, who knows what the next use of it will be? The means to genocide people's bloodlines in an instant is in the hands of demons whose goal is to literally make the world worse for the sake of it. Because all they want is destructive unnecessary conflict, and whats more destructive and unnecessary than killing people over racial prejudice? Than Familicide?

It wouldn't surprise me if the fiends were the ones perpetuating such racial conflicts. After all...they are outsiders as well. They influence the material plane in their own way. Redcloak blames the gods, but has he considered the fiends and that the evil gods specifically might be to blame? Tiamat's demand is that five good dragons die for every one that died to Familicide. That is another escalation. One that I doubt Bahamut would take lying down. and the IFCC says if their plan works such a slaughter will be trivial. Trivial! And who else would send imps to monsters to convince them to even more evil than they already were? to act on their base instincts? Who else would benefit from encouraging people to kill each other over minor differences? Not the good or neutral deities, hopefully. But the IFCC and the Lower Planes do benefit from causing such conflicts and meaningless bloodshed, and Sabine has gone on record saying V's case isn't that special- that they've tempted paladins before. Imagine how easy it must be to tempt so many monsters living in such bad conditions into being evil! IFCC are just the master artisan salesmen dealing out premium offers...for some goblins or orcs living out there constantly in danger of dying? guys like that would be overkill. you'd just need imps and much more basic offers. like knowledge of where to go and who to kill for more food. fiends thrive on tempting people in their worst or lowest moments, and for monsters in this world....their lowest moments may just be their entire lives.

[Worldsong]

Thank you. However I'm going to continue it regardless, as its always good to reread OOTS and this analysis has been been giving me a new perspective on the story, that and its always good to be as thorough as possible when doing things like this, and I still have 2-3 books to go.

Oh I'm definitely in favour of you continuing. I'm more saying that even with the work you've done so far it's already evident that there's enough examples of monster races being in a bad spot if you combine it with Rich saying as much.

So you know, keep up the good work.

[Jason]

The mere existence of the Familicide epic spell is not evidence that goblins are systematically oppressed in Stickworld. We have no information of why Haera created this spell of if he ever actually used it while alive, or how he intended it to be used.
It may have been Haera's "nuke" - intended to keep his (possibly just as PC race as he was) enemies at bay because of just how horrible it is, but never actually used.
The idea that it was intended to be used by parties of adventurers to thin out monstrous races or that the fiends will make sure it is used to do so in the future racial conflicts is pure speculation.

The reason Familicide is in the story is so that Vaarsuvius could do something truly horrible with unforseen consequences and learn and become a better person as a result.

[danielxcutter]

Some of that is reading a bit into it, if you ask me, but still has enough valid points.

Also, I have a different opinion on Redcloak threatening O-Chul there.

Redcloak in the strip where he talks to Jirix afterwards, and in recent strips as well, shows that he has... well, at least some expectations for the Good alignment, even if he'd never admit that to himself.

He's not surprised that they'd treat the lives of his people as worthless, which is also why he doesn't really think that "Good" is really good, but he still thinks they'd care about their own people.

Look at how he reacts when O-Chul doesn't cave in. He expects O-Chul to do the "Good" thing and spill the beans in exchange for the lives of the prisoners, and honestly he might have if he'd actually known.

I think deep, deep down, Redcloak craves the justice and righteousness he and his people were denied long, long ago, on that fateful day.

[Bunny Commando]

The Island Orcs:
The orcs live on an island in the middle of an ocean. I'm not an expert on how people get on islands like these or how they live, but it doesn't seem like these orcs got a good deal with this land? thought at least they'd be safe from most adventurers, even pirate campaigns generally only do one island for an arc then skip off to the next one.

Just a thought: the Azurites and what's left of the OotS are willing to establish a diplomatic and trade relationship with the Island Orcs. I do believe it's worth noting that the Azurite leadership chose the diplomatic route.



The Oracle's Deaths:
Its notable that Oracle getting killed happens often enough that he has lizardfolk resurrecting him on a schedule. notably I think the orange-robed lizardfolk is the only monstrous wizard I've seen in the comic so far, or at least only monstrous spellcaster.

Malak says he was the shaman of his tribe when he was still alive; other than that, there's little evidence that in the Western Continent Kobolds and Lizardfolks are discriminated. Most probably it's the influence of Tiamat that guarantees a good treatment of these races.

Thanks for your analysis!

[danielxcutter]

Just a thought: the Azurites and what's left of the OotS are willing to establish a diplomatic and trade relationship with the Island Orcs. I do believe it's worth noting that the Azurite leadership chose the diplomatic route.

To be fair, there's little stopping Hinjo(a proper paladin) from doing so. I'm not sure if the nobles would have been as accommodating if they could get away with it.

Malak says he was the shaman of his tribe when he was still alive; other than that, there's little evidence that in the Western Continent Kobolds and Lizardfolks are discriminated. Most probably it's the influence of Tiamat that guarantees a good treatment of these races.

Thanks for your analysis![/QUOTE]

The reptilian races probably aren't any worse than the others, yeah.

[The Pilgrim]

Some of that is reading a bit into it, if you ask me, but still has enough valid points.

Also, I have a different opinion on Redcloak threatening O-Chul there.

Redcloak in the strip where he talks to Jirix afterwards, and in recent strips as well, shows that he has... well, at least some expectations for the Good alignment, even if he'd never admit that to himself.

He's not surprised that they'd treat the lives of his people as worthless, which is also why he doesn't really think that "Good" is really good, but he still thinks they'd care about their own people.

Look at how he reacts when O-Chul doesn't cave in. He expects O-Chul to do the "Good" thing and spill the beans in exchange for the lives of the prisoners, and honestly he might have if he'd actually known.

I think deep, deep down, Redcloak craves the justice and righteousness he and his people were denied long, long ago, on that fateful day.

Redcloak is the Number #1 Hyprocrite in the Comic. He scorns O-Chul for "not caring for the lives of his own people" because Redcloak himself doesn't cares for the lives of his people. Letting aside the scores of goblins he has let Xykon murder for leisure, we have how he casually disposed of the lives of the Goblin Polymorphed Spy or the Goblin Elder Artisan. Redcloak is just projecting his own faults on O-Chul, which is typical hypocrital behaviour.

Minrah rubbed that fact on his face in the last scene. "You don't care about them, you just feel bad about not caring (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1212.html)".

[Dion]

Redcloak is the Number #1 Hyprocrite in the Comic...

You’ve probably hit the nail right on the head.

This strip has two types of bad guys: first there are the “I’m evil and I know know it (clap your hands)” folks who existed in book one, like Xykon and Belkar.

And then there are the “I’m evil and I don’t know it because I think my actions are justified” folks who were either introduced or heavily retconned after book two, like Tarquin, Miko, and and Redcloak.

In books where evil people know they’re evil, the morality is very simple.

But in books where evil people don’t know they’re evil, you end up in morally grey situations with all sorts of justification, equivocation, and sometimes nobody is right and everyone is wrong.

And we have a huge problem as human beings, because we seem to literally have some structure in our brain - some physical nodule baked into us through evolution - where we falsely believe that in any situation someone is right and someone is always wrong.

So, whenever we find some morally ambiguous situation, we are biologically programmed to search for the people and things that are wrong, with some deep animal urge that tells us once we find and eliminate all the people that are wrong, everyone left over must be right.

And this part of our brain that we inherited from long ago, that makes us cast the diseased and broken and toxic things out of our nest, is confusing the way we see the story.

We see that redcloak is diseased and toxic, and so we automatically assume that once we eliminate him from our environment what is left over is clean and good.

And, that’s not how the real world works, and that’s not how the story that we’re reading works.

The idea that the world is good because redcloak opposes the world and redcloak is evil is something that we’ve been programmed by our biology to believe. But it’s not how the world in this comic works.

[The Pilgrim]

You’ve probably hit the nail right on the head.We see that redcloak is diseased and toxic, and so we automatically assume that once we eliminate him from our environment what is left over is clean and good.

And, that’s not how the real world works, and that’s not how the story that we’re reading works.

The idea that the world is good because redcloak opposes the world and redcloak is evil is something that we’ve been programmed by our biology to believe. But it’s not how the world in this comic works.

Very true. Just removing Redcloak will not make everything go okay. However, Redcloak still needs to be removed for a resolution to be reached between the reasonable parties in both sides. Much like the outcome of O-Chul's backstory, where the toxic people in BOTH sides got removed, then peaceful resolution was achieved.

I must also say that I find "oppression" a tricky category to judge things, because everyone can be an oppresor depending on the point of view. Of course, one can find clear examples of "oppression" in the actions of the Sapphire Guard prior of O-Chul and Hijo joining it. But one can find also clear acts of "oppresion" in the way Redcloak tolerates Xykon to treat the goblins, or in the way the Hobgoblins are now treating the human azurite population.

That's why I find "cycle of violence that needs to be broken" a more useful category to understand the webcomic than "unilateral oppression that must be stopped". And no, it doesn't goes against Word of God to suggest that The Giant is writting against racism from a "cycle of violence that needs to be broken" perspective rather than from an "unilateral oppresion that needs to be stopped".

[Dion]

Redcloak still needs to be removed for a resolution to be reached between the reasonable parties in both sides.

Can you expand on this?

What does it mean to “remove” redcloak? Remove him from what?

[Keltest]

Can you expand on this?

What does it mean to “remove” redcloak? Remove him from what?

The equation? Redcloak is a problem actor who disrupts attempts to reach peace by his mere presence in the negotiations. Kill him, banish him to another plane of existence, stick him on an island with a hut and a fishing rod, get him a girlfriend who knows better than to let him go talk politics to people, whatever it takes.

[Dion]

The equation? Redcloak is a problem actor who disrupts attempts to reach peace by his mere presence in the negotiations. Kill him, banish him to another plane of existence, stick him on an island with a hut and a fishing rod, get him a girlfriend who knows better than to let him go talk politics to people, whatever it takes.

Are you suggesting this cycle of violence can be solved by... killing redcloak?

[Keltest]

Are you suggesting this cycle of violence can be solved by... killing redcloak?

What about the thousands of other people who have either suffered violence, perpetuated violence, or both?

Would they also need to be “removed from the equation”? What would that look like to you?

I think killing Redcloak is one of a number of potential ways to move forward in the peace process. It isnt the only way, as evidenced by my off the cuff list of alternative fates that would prevent him from causing problems without killing him, but it is A way.

And yes, if youre going around instigating violence, making you stop doing that is a necessary step in ending that violence. I dont really understand why you seem to be taking issue with that.

[understatement]

I don't think there should be an issue to removing Redcloak (aka killing him) if push comes to shove - the safety of the world does come first, and Roy makes it clear on his position.

The issue presented in this thread's original sentiment, though, is if goblin oppression exists. The heroes aren't going to address that by saying "well, you [goblins] made up the oppression, so you should collectively blame yourself for all your problems."

[Dion]

And yes, if youre going around instigating violence, making you stop doing that is a necessary step in ending that violence. I dont really understand why you seem to be taking issue with that.

No, I have to admit, I honestly don’t understand what you’re saying.

You are claiming that violence is a viable and just way of solving this problem.

Once you’ve decided that violence is an acceptable solution, then your decision about WHO should acceptably be allowed to perpetuate that violence is an extremely strong indicator of YOUR prejudices toward the situation. You should perhaps examine that prejudice.

[Keltest]

No, I have to admit, I honestly don’t understand what you’re saying.

You are claiming that violence is a viable and just way of solving this problem.

Once you’ve decided that violence is an acceptable solution, then your decision about WHO should acceptably be allowed to perpetuate that violence is an extremely strong indicator of YOUR prejudices toward the situation. You should perhaps examine that prejudice.

I think you may need to go re-read what i said, see if that helps clarify. I'm not sure how you got from what i said to "killing Redcloak will fix everything." Redcloak is actively inciting the violence. He needs to be stopped for the violence to stop. Killing him will stop him. It is not the only way to stop him, other methods will work, many equally effectively. But killing him will do it too. Likewise, it wont automatically bring peace and joy to all. Theres more work that will need to be done after that. But that work cant start while Redcloak is around interfering in the process.

To use a metaphor, you need to stop the bleeding before the healing can begin, and redcloak is actively preventing that.

[The Pilgrim]

Are you suggesting this cycle of violence can be solved by... killing redcloak?

Redcloak has already engineered his own doom. He painted himself into a corner when he transformed Xykon into a Lich, and has been fleeing forward ever since. His best bet to get rid of Xykon would have been to accept Durkon's offer and side with the Order, but he just burnt that bridge.

Redcloak has repeatedly chosen to stay with Xykon to the endgame. But the endgame involves Xykon discovering Redcloak has been lying to him all along about The Plan, so even if Team Evil manages to get into position to execute The Plan, it's likely to end poorly for Redcloak.

Now, if the Order defeats Xykon without killing Redcloak, that might put Redcloak in a position to accept a negotiation, as Julia pointed out. However, at that point Redcloak would be irrelevant, as he would simply be signing peace terms imposed on him by force. And anyway it's probable that, down to that situation, Redcloak chooses to enact his Plan B: Get the World destroyed.

[Dion]

He needs to be stopped for the violence to stop. Killing him will stop him.

I’m not saying you can’t end a cycle of violence with more violence. Truth is, V got it right. At a certain point, a big enough bomb fixes just about everything.

HOWEVER, I’ll argue any violence is not a solution for oppression. And, ultimately the problem I believe we are talking about in this thread is oppression.

One of the most common symptoms of oppression is the group doing the oppressing isn’t actually opposed to violence. Instead, the oppressor believes that they have some moral right to decide WHO gets to perpetuate that violence.

As soon as you say “group A has the moral agency to sanction violence, and group B does not”, then you’ve assigned a higher moral agency to group A and it perpetuates the oppression.

[Keltest]

I’m not saying you can’t end a cycle of violence with more violence. Truth is, V got it right. At a certain point, a big enough bomb fixes just about everything.

HOWEVER, I’ll argue any violence is not a solution for oppression. And, ultimately this Th read is about oppression.

One of the most common symptoms of oppression is the group doing the oppressing isn’t actually opposed to violence. Instead, the oppressor believes that they have some moral right to decide WHO gets to perpetuate that violence.

As soon as you say “group A has the moral agency to sanction violence, and group B does not”, then you’ve assigned a higher moral agency to group A and it perpetuates the oppression.

I think youre conflating Redcloak with the entirety of all the goblinoid species. Redcloak is not group B in that scenario.

[Dion]

I think youre conflating Redcloak with the entirety of all the goblinoid species. Redcloak is not group B in that scenario.

Sure. But murdering redcloak is still violence, no matter how many pretty euphemisms you wrap it in.

[Keltest]

Sure. But murdering redcloak is still violence, no matter how many pretty euphemisms you wrap it in.

Yeah, and? I dont really care if its the Azurites who kill him, or the Order of the Stick, or the MITD, or the Goblins who get tired of his warmongering and well poisoning (even if the last one is unlikely for other reasons.) Heck, he could be killed in a random and inexplicably precise meteor strike while he gets out of bed tomorrow and it would work just as well.

[Jason]

Would it be murder to kill Redcloak at this point? Especially if it's done in a straight-up fight?

[Dion]

Would it be murder to kill Redcloak at this point? Especially if it's done in a straight-up fight?

Shrug. For some definitions of murder, yes. For other definitions, no.

But at any rate, this comic probably describes quite well how I feel about the our reflex to give others the moral authority to decide which violence is positive and which violence is negative: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/decisions

[Jason]

Shrug. For some definitions of murder, yes. For other definitions, no.

But at any rate, this comic probably describes quite well how I feel about the our reflex to give others the moral authority to decide which violence is positive and which violence is negative: https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/decisions

So have you just argued yourself into saying the Order has no moral right to try to stop Redcloak and Xykon with violence?

[pendell]

I’m not saying you can’t end a cycle of violence with more violence. Truth is, V got it right. At a certain point, a big enough bomb fixes just about everything.


V's attempts to solve violence with ever more violence first had a mother black dragon set on zir trail, annihilated all the guardians of the fourth gate , and gave the fiends power over zir, and consequently over the fate of the world, they would not otherwise have.

I think that was one of the fundamental lessons of Don't Split the Party which V took to heart (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0667.html): The more power you wield clumsily, as with a cudgel, the less effective you are and the more collateral damage you cause. V could weep because, with omnipotent arcane power, V accomplished so much less than ze might if z stopped to think.

Also, I would note that it is extremely hard to solve a problem with violence permanently. There are no magic spells to instantly kill millions of people who all share the same bloodline, for which I am thankful. The more likely outcome is that the losing side is kept quiescent through sheer terror of what will happen if they so much as look in the victor's direction. Which will only last while the victor's power and will remain unchallenged. Let the victor stumble by losing a battle, and all the victor's enemies rise from their apparent docility to rend the former victor stone by stone. Let the victor step off from horror and try to become peaceable, their enemies interpret this as weakness and, again, attack them en masse.

Which is one of the lesser known problems of rule by terror: Once you start down that path it's very hard to get off it and rule any other way.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[hungrycrow]

Are you suggesting this cycle of violence can be solved by... killing redcloak?

Getting Redcloak out of the picture let's them deal with a more down to earth leader, like Jirix or Oona. Then they might be able to establish peace between the Azurites and Gobbotopia, and after that, finagle Gobbotopia into diplomatic position that isn't under immediate threat of invasion by crusaders.

That's one of the more concrete improvements to the situation i can see happening in the comic. I don't see Rich having the Order solve violence or racism in general. Just putting the world on a slightly better path than it was on before.

[Dion]

So have you just argued yourself into saying the Order has no moral right to try to stop Redcloak and Xykon with violence?

I have no deep understanding of philosophy, or ethics, or morals, so I welcome any education on this others might give me.

But it seems there is some qualitative difference between the two statements:

“I had to kill some people to save the world”

“I had to kill some people to stop oppressing them”

Honestly, I’m not sure if either one is “moral”; I’m not even sure what that would mean. But it does seem to me that one feels more “justifiable” than the other.

[pendell]

I have no deep understanding of philosophy, or ethics, or morals, so I welcome any education on this others might give me.

But it seems there is some qualitative difference between the two statements:

“I had to kill some people to save the world”

“I had to kill some people to stop oppressing them”

Honestly, I’m not sure if either one is “moral”; I’m not even sure what that would mean. But it does seem to me that one feels more “justifiable” than the other.

Several thousand years of Just War Theory allow us to flesh out some of the questions you are asking , I think.

1) Is the expected remedy less harmful than the injury it is supposed to redress? If we kill one human to save six million, do we do more harm by acting or by forebearing? What if , rather than their actual deaths, it's something less dramatic? Their access to clean water and air, say? Or at the far end of the scale, what if I kill someone because I want their iPad?

Somewhere along that continuum are the two choices you face -- to save the world or to stop oppressing. And in that, what exactly is meant by "oppression"? Are they being hunted on a yearly basis, as the Spartans did the Helots? Or are people just saying mean things about them on twitter? While we have a pretty good idea from the comic what "oppression" means for the goblins, as a rule the word is too ambiguous and squishy to have much meaning, certainly not when we're discussing the taking of intelligent life. It needs clarification.

2) Is war the last resort? Have you attempted any other means and either found them wanting, or they are otherwise not practicable?

In this I think Redcloak and TDO fall short. The last time we saw them attempt peaceful dialog was back before TDO had even ascended to Godhood. Based on events in Start of Darkness, you can't really say that you've given peace a chance if you've only tried once in four hundred years.

3) Not addressed but I mention it for completeness: Is a successful war reasonably possible? Five heroes declaring war on an entire nation sounds good in some fantasy, but in real wars that sort of thing doesn't work. All you'll do is get people killed and leave things worse than before, when the other side takes it out on your nearest and dearest.

There are other aspects I am neglecting , but those are the basic requirements to have cause to fight a just war. But that's not enough: You also have to practice justice in war (saving the world doesn't justify massacring innocents who cannot contribute to the war, for example), but again, that's a longer piece.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[danielxcutter]

I swear, we could get Redcloak owning up to his mistakes and proof that goblinoids have been oppressed, and like half the thread at this point would either ignore that or bash Rich for poor storytelling.

[Jason]

I swear, we could get Redcloak owning up to his mistakes and proof that goblinoids have been oppressed, and like half the thread at this point would either ignore that or bash Rich for poor storytelling.

I very much want Redcloak to finally own up to his mistakes - probably just as he decides to finally turn on Xykon, but I also fully expect him to die immediatly afterwards. There is a reason the Death Equals Redemption trope is so popular.

[ebarde]

I don't really get what is the point of even discussing if Goblins are oppressed or not at this point? No character so far has disputed that they are, the writer has said that they are, the whole message of the comic is based around them being oppressed. You can just not enjoy the comic, that's fine, but what seriously has to be gained in arguing against something that multiple times both in and out of universe has been proven to be true? This isn't even a mystery thing, it's just as much part of the comic's premise as self aware humor and RPG mechanics.

Sure, certainly it's not literally impossible for everything we know about goblins to be a lie. Just like it's technically not impossible for the entire comic to be Roy hallucinating after hitting his head really hard or something. If you wanna believe Rich has been playing a long con for years by misleading his audience on numerous posts about the themes of his story, and his personal beliefs about fantasy tropes, just to pull the rug over everyone then sure Goblin Oppression is fiction.

[The Pilgrim]

I don't really get what is the point of even discussing if Goblins are oppressed or not at this point?

The elephant in the room is the fact that those arguing that "goblin oppresion" is real, do so basically to justify Redcloak's actions. While those arguing against are basically doing so to dismiss the idea that Redcloak has any justification for his actions at all.

Beyond the figure of Redcloak, no other goblinoid character in the story has been sustaining the "goblin oppresion" narrative. The Hobgoblins certainly weren't, and they marched to war against Azure City for the shake of fighting, looting and enslaving the humans, not because they felt they needed to get freed from their "yoke".

At this point of the story, the "goblin oppresion" narrative is just Gobbotoppian propaganda to justify the robbery of the azurite lands and the enslavement of tens of thousands (quite possibly hundreds of thousands) of humans.


the whole message of the comic is based around them being oppressed.

The comic has a lot of themes beyond "goblin oppresion", which has been largely absent from the main comic. The main comic has featured a lot more of "goblin oppresing others", or "Xykon and Redcloak brutalizing their goblinoid minions" than "goblins being oppresed by PCs".

Book 1 didn't have any themes still, the main plot begins with Book 2, were the Hobgoblins are featured as being brutalized by Redcloak for racist reasons. Book 3 presented the Hobgoblins as an anonymous mass of invaders. Book 4 and 5 presented the hobgoblins as brutal slaver occupiers. Book 6 didn't even featured the Hobgoblins at all.

So, your claim that this webcomic's main theme is "goblin oppresion" is largely unsubstained.


If you wanna believe Rich has been playing a long con for years by misleading his audience on numerous posts about the themes of his story, and his personal beliefs about fantasy tropes, just to pull the rug over everyone then sure Goblin Oppression is fiction.

It would only pull the rug over the people that apparently stopped paying attention to the comic beyond the first pages of "Start of Darkness". Because by the ending of Start of Darkness, the author had pretty much already stated that Redcloak's whole "goblin opression" narrative was a big load of hockey.

[Dion]

The elephant in the room is the fact that those arguing that "goblin oppresion" is real, do so basically to justify Redcloak's actions.

Is... is.... is this a joke?

I mean that seriously.

Is this thread tongue in cheek? Because if so, then I’m happy to continue contributing Monty Python references. I would simply ask that you make the joke *slightly* more obvious so we don’t accidentally post more “just war” dialogues.

[The Pilgrim]

Is... is.... is this a joke?

In these cyclic debates, defendants of the "goblin oppression" narrative tend to go by the line that "okay, Redcloak is wrong in his actions, but he has a point".

Also, there seems to be a widespread perception that Gobbotopia needs to continue existing after the comic's conclussion because it "solves" some sort of "unbalance" created by the "systematic oppression of goblins".

[pendell]

Is... is.... is this a joke?

I mean that seriously.

Is this thread tongue in cheek? Because if so, then I’m happy to continue contributing Monty Python references. I would simply ask that you make the joke *slightly* more obvious so we don’t accidentally post more “just war” dialogues.

It's not tongue in cheek, but monty python references are always welcome . "Life of Brian's" What have the Romans gods done for us"? seems apropos. :smallamused:

Here's the drain we keep circling:
1) Goblin oppression is real in OOTS verse.
2) Redcloak's narrative about goblin oppression is 1/10th historical fact, coupled with delusion, self-justification, sunken cost fallacy, and speciesism. His face should be in TV Tropes under the entry "Unreliable narrator".

If anyone remember's Miko's introduction to the comic strip
-- here (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0120.html) --

we later saw that original panel, greatly expanded (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0290.html).

Everything in the original strip is true, BUT because we weren't seeing the entire context, that first strip is actively misleading. We're lead to believe Miko is an assassin sent to slay the Order, as opposed to being sent to "capture" them by an ally who wished to help them.

I think we need to take the same approach to Redcloak's story, and to Start of Darkness. He views the world a certain way, but we shouldn't take that as third person omniscient narrative view of OOTS world. It's missing needed context (as see in "How the Paladin Got His Scar").

And that's why we're constantly arguing here. There are two extremes that I see: One extreme views Redcloak's narrative as entirely reliable and a misunderstood hero. The other side dismisses Redcloak and the plight of the goblins entirely because neither Redcloak nor the Dark One are exactly poster children for honesty and integrity. Since the truth is somewhere between those two poles, we argue ceaselessly. Until the next comic, of course.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[hroþila]

One of the extremes here is not "Redcloak is a misunderstood hero" but rather "Redcloak has chosen an Evil path to try to solve a real problem". If that seems extreme, I wager that the middle ground here wouldn't actually be the middle ground.

[Lord Raziere]

Just a thought: the Azurites and what's left of the OotS are willing to establish a diplomatic and trade relationship with the Island Orcs. I do believe it's worth noting that the Azurite leadership chose the diplomatic route.

Malak says he was the shaman of his tribe when he was still alive; other than that, there's little evidence that in the Western Continent Kobolds and Lizardfolks are discriminated. Most probably it's the influence of Tiamat that guarantees a good treatment of these races.

Thanks for your analysis!

Thank you, I missed the Azurites opting for a diplomatic solution. Interesting to note.

As for Familicide:
okay I'll walk that back: its not proof of oppression. but its still a human spellcaster among the human spellcaster majority having a bloodline-nuke and could be used for oppressing them in the future if not now, and was probably used at least once before.

Blood Runs In The Family will be....interesting. its taking place somewhere completely different and I don't know if I'll have much to talk about.


Desert Continent:
Hm, one wonders: if the monstrous races got all the bad land, why are humans living in the desert? Surely the desert is like.....worst land right? this continent is full of changing nations and a lot of them are humans killing each other over it, and I don't think Redcloak has ever been over here.

Spell Component Market
In the comic where a human guy provokes V into attacking him, there is a purple-robed individual with pale green skin that might indicate a half-orc caster just off panel. (Also as an aside calling V a warlock might actually have a deeper element to it: V isn't just reacting to the fact that they've been called a lower level of caster, but a warlock isn't too dissimilar from a soul splice, so the insult is actually pretty personal and fresh to them since V just got done borrowing power from fiends a couple days ago)

Bug Slavers:
I don't know what race the bug men are, but they are enslaving others, not the other way around, so humans are being oppressed here.

The Rise of Gobbotopia:
Redcloak says to a reflection with the eyepatch reversed "It'll all be worth it. You'll see." showing he still cares for his brother enough want to talk to him to catch up and see how he is doing. Then he makes a speech about how he will no longer be occupying Azure City.....but be building the sovereign nation of Gobbotopia, and says that seventeen nations around the world have recognized their borders stretching from Gobbotopia City to the mountain forts where many of their women and children still live, including Cliffport who decided to influence their position on human slavery through economic means. then he hands out a textbook which has interesting stuff to say on it once we get past the propaganda:
-the majority of the nation is goblinoid and hobgoblins make up 93% of the nation.
-however it says their borders are open to any disenfranchised humanoids and supports growing minorities of (if I get these wrong the text is very small and hard to read so bear with me):
orcs, ogres, xvarts, gnolls (including Flind), trolls, lycanthropes, minotaurs, orogs, medusas, slig/slogs (??) grimlocks, lamias, hill giants, ettins, yakfolk, ettercaps, half-orcs, half-(unknown)

so if this is true, Redcloak isn't just doing this for goblins, he is allowing other monstrous races to join his nation, backed up by the Flumphs trying to find a safe place here earlier. and some of these are pretty obscure, I didn't know what a Flind WAS until I looked it up. he could just be doing it for the PR, but it'd be bad for PR if he didn't back up his words with action, so this tells me even if he isn't shooting for it specifically, Redcloak is pretty okay with sharing his dreams of a goblin utopia with other monstrous races. that half orcs are on the list of people that its talking about, is significant because it backs up what we've seen of orcs and half orcs being in subservient positions elsewhere unless its crime, it says that being a core/PC race doesn't necessarily translate to good or fair treatment. if this were 4e or 5e, I'd suspect we'd see Tieflings on here as well. and also means Redcloak is okay with a race that is "half human".
the text ends with "and others" just off page so I assume the ones we do know of are just the more popular and larger ones they can fit in

Though one must note the races that aren't explicitly mentioned on the list of disenfranchised minorities:
duergar, drow, kobolds, lizardfolk...

things like that, which you'd think he'd mention since we'e explicitly shown at least three of these in comic, but nope. I guess this backs up "Tiamat supports her own" theory while also showing that evil versions of elves and dwarves don't get the monster treatment.

Jirix after the speech says "A legitimate peacetime leader should seem relaxed. I figure it would clarify the transition"

oh hey that goblin who got rich on hydras is selling hydra burgers in gobbotopia. neat.

"The Only Good Goblin...."
Oooooh.....this is ugly. the elf commander basically kills an unarmed prisoner saying "the only good goblin is a dead goblin." sure he is doing it out of suspicion that he is a plant, a spy to report back to Redcloak...and I can totally see Redcloak doing that ploy....but its still killing an unarmed guy whom you don't actually know whether or not they're a plant, and if what the gobbotopia textbook says about open borders to monstrous races being true he wouldn't want someone roughing up an immigrant and giving his nation a bad name. I dunno, this could legitimately go either way, but its generally not ethical to do something like this. that and the resistance could've used him as a hostage, like it probably wouldn't have worked, its Redcloak after all, he has been known to sacrifice lives before, but for a goblinoid he might be willing to deal? Mm. dirty business. dir-ty business.

after which, the report is that they killed 43 guards, and 4 browncloaks- and the killed a hobgoblin couple making out in the back. Okay thats unnecessary, the prisoner there is some ambiguity, but killing a couple of lovers making out? thats a war crime if I ever saw one.

Redcloak and Tsukiko 1:
there is an interesting exchange where Redcloak suddenly tells Tsukiko to NOT reanimate the hobgoblins who died, and she threatens him with more goblins dying to get the undead she wants/needs, where Redcloak previously would've been more okay with reanimating his dead brethren to fight as ghouls. Compare the Redcloak of No Cure For the Paladin Blues and War and XP's Pre-Revelation, and its clear Redcloak is slowly growing more caring for the goblin people under his command. he is not good yet, but he is slowly inching towards being a better person, there is character development here. he may have dipped for a time but he is a slight incline upwards, just ever so slowly.

The Empire of Blood In General:
The Empire of Blood doesn't seem to interact with monstrous races much? So I don't know if this section is making it in, but I'll take note of things about the Empire because its full of oppression but necessarily on monsters? Kobolds, draconic beings and lizardfolk are in control to some extent? Tiamat's influence is probably strong on this continent.
-The slavedrivers are the ones protesting for better pay and healthcare....thats bad. satire levels of bad. ouch.
-there is a dragon....but she is a figurehead for a human to manipulate
-you need entry papers to enter the city, which by itself isn't bad but its the fact that its basically an excuse to throw people into gladiatorial combat for life is evil
-Tarquin arranges the lizard bounty hunters to get sent to jail over something petty
-in general, injustice is pretty blind around here
-the poster outright says its a brutal oppressive regime ALSO: breads and circuses.
-uses phoenixes and pegasuses as food
The parade which features two reporters smiling soullessly
-a schools marching band screwed up another bands hands
-a bunch of actors singing a song about PC's killing things and a mascot balloon held aloft by enslaved air elementals
-a dark Sesame Street parody, and beauty pageant implied to have killed or injured the competition to get where she is
-a death squad of ninjas that then kill the reporter and badly lies that its an amateur snorkeling club. The other reporter keeps on smiling without stopping the commentary
-Tarquin sends his troops to conquer a city rather than free it
-Of Thog is one of the people put into the arena, a half orc, and he got put for urination. as Roy says before he knows who it is, its unjust to fight someone for a crime like that. given how blind the injustice is, while I'm pretty sure Tarquin's dictatorships haven't oppressed many monstrous races- I doubt they would care if they did, or pass up the opportunity. Tarquin's empires are on here, I guess simply to show that not all oppression is monster-race based and that humans are oppressed in some places as well. Its possible that such racial tensions is apart of something larger general plan by the fiends.

Resistance, Crushed:
Redcloak crushes what remains of the azure city resistance. and only one hobgoblin intentionally sacrificed for it. he is getting more precise and calculated with that kind of thing. its notable that both sides use polymorph spies in this. they can literally walk in each other's shoes, experience each other's world, see their perspective, yet they choose to kill each other with this ability instead. What a waste of magic.

Redcloak and Tsukiko 2/The Phylactery:
Tsukiko tries to bully Redcloak around, says she will reveal the secret of the Gate.....then gets killed by her own Wights. And honestly.....

I don't blame Redcloak one bit. Tsukiko is a sick twisted individual that got what was coming to her. His reasons to kill her make sense AND I'm pretty sure anyone sane would've killed her long ago. the undead as Redcloak points out are not an oppressed minority, they are necromantic weapons in the shape of a man, flesh-robots made of dark energies. moving on.

as for the dead elder, Redcloak can't really be blamed for, this guys death was on TSUKIKO's hands and he sends the guy off with a short funerary rite and a disintegration.

Its noted that when Redcloak talks about killing a paladin he says its "less satisfying" than he remembers. Xykon assumes thats just what happens when you get older, but Redcloak doesn't grow older, remember? It seems Redcloak's more revenge-driven emotions are spent and hollow, which is a change from his speech to Hinjo about "one village plus 35 years interest". Its either that or the reality that he is actually achieving something for his people and thus giving a him a lot to work on and organize is softening him.

Death of the Draketooths:
And here we find out the full extent of the Familicide, rearing its ugly head. the law of unintended consequences is strong when decide to destroy so much, so fast.

Demons and Reasonable Adults:
Sabine claims that if reasonable adults keep up talking out their differences that her and Qarr would be out of a job. more evidence for my theory that the devils and demons are specifically keeping the racial tensions up to serve their own agenda of more evil.

The rest of the book doesn't really concern this discussion. At least I can't find anything else.

[Keltest]

Thank you, I missed the Azurites opting for a diplomatic solution. Interesting to note.

As for Familicide:
okay I'll walk that back: its not proof of oppression. but its still a human spellcaster among the human spellcaster majority having a bloodline-nuke and could be used for oppressing them in the future if not now, and was probably used at least once before.

Blood Runs In The Family will be....interesting. its taking place somewhere completely different and I don't know if I'll have much to talk about.


Desert Continent:
Hm, one wonders: if the monstrous races got all the bad land, why are humans living in the desert? Surely the desert is like.....worst land right? this continent is full of changing nations and a lot of them are humans killing each other over it, and I don't think Redcloak has ever been over here.

Spell Component Market
In the comic where a human guy provokes V into attacking him, there is a purple-robed individual with pale green skin that might indicate a half-orc caster just off panel. (Also as an aside calling V a warlock might actually have a deeper element to it: V isn't just reacting to the fact that they've been called a lower level of caster, but a warlock isn't too dissimilar from a soul splice, so the insult is actually pretty personal and fresh to them since V just got done borrowing power from fiends a couple days ago)

Bug Slavers:
I don't know what race the bug men are, but they are enslaving others, not the other way around, so humans are being oppressed here.

The Rise of Gobbotopia:
Redcloak says to a reflection with the eyepatch reversed "It'll all be worth it. You'll see." showing he still cares for his brother enough want to talk to him to catch up and see how he is doing. Then he makes a speech about how he will no longer be occupying Azure City.....but be building the sovereign nation of Gobbotopia, and says that seventeen nations around the world have recognized their borders stretching from Gobbotopia City to the mountain forts where many of their women and children still live, including Cliffport who decided to influence their position on human slavery through economic means. then he hands out a textbook which has interesting stuff to say on it once we get past the propaganda:
-the majority of the nation is goblinoid and hobgoblins make up 93% of the nation.
-however it says their borders are open to any disenfranchised humanoids and supports growing minorities of (if I get these wrong the text is very small and hard to read so bear with me):
orcs, ogres, xvarts, gnolls (including Flind), trolls, lycanthropes, minotaurs, orogs, medusas, slig/slogs (??) grimlocks, lamias, hill giants, ettins, yakfolk, ettercaps, half-orcs, half-(unknown)

so if this is true, Redcloak isn't just doing this for goblins, he is allowing other monstrous races to join his nation, backed up by the Flumphs trying to find a safe place here earlier. and some of these are pretty obscure, I didn't know what a Flind WAS until I looked it up. he could just be doing it for the PR, but it'd be bad for PR if he didn't back up his words with action, so this tells me even if he isn't shooting for it specifically, Redcloak is pretty okay with sharing his dreams of a goblin utopia with other monstrous races. that half orcs are on the list of people that its talking about, is significant because it backs up what we've seen of orcs and half orcs being in subservient positions elsewhere unless its crime, it says that being a core/PC race doesn't necessarily translate to good or fair treatment. if this were 4e or 5e, I'd suspect we'd see Tieflings on here as well. and also means Redcloak is okay with a race that is "half human".
the text ends with "and others" just off page so I assume the ones we do know of are just the more popular and larger ones they can fit in

Though one must note the races that aren't explicitly mentioned on the list of disenfranchised minorities:
duergar, drow, kobolds, lizardfolk...

things like that, which you'd think he'd mention since we'e explicitly shown at least three of these in comic, but nope. I guess this backs up "Tiamat supports her own" theory while also showing that evil versions of elves and dwarves don't get the monster treatment.

Jirix after the speech says "A legitimate peacetime leader should seem relaxed. I figure it would clarify the transition"

oh hey that goblin who got rich on hydras is selling hydra burgers in gobbotopia. neat.

"The Only Good Goblin...."
Oooooh.....this is ugly. the elf commander basically kills an unarmed prisoner saying "the only good goblin is a dead goblin." sure he is doing it out of suspicion that he is a plant, a spy to report back to Redcloak...and I can totally see Redcloak doing that ploy....but its still killing an unarmed guy whom you don't actually know whether or not they're a plant, and if what the gobbotopia textbook says about open borders to monstrous races being true he wouldn't want someone roughing up an immigrant and giving his nation a bad name. I dunno, this could legitimately go either way, but its generally not ethical to do something like this. that and the resistance could've used him as a hostage, like it probably wouldn't have worked, its Redcloak after all, he has been known to sacrifice lives before, but for a goblinoid he might be willing to deal? Mm. dirty business. dir-ty business.

after which, the report is that they killed 43 guards, and 4 browncloaks- and the killed a hobgoblin couple making out in the back. Okay thats unnecessary, the prisoner there is some ambiguity, but killing a couple of lovers making out? thats a war crime if I ever saw one.

Redcloak and Tsukiko 1:
there is an interesting exchange where Redcloak suddenly tells Tsukiko to NOT reanimate the hobgoblins who died, and she threatens him with more goblins dying to get the undead she wants/needs, where Redcloak previously would've been more okay with reanimating his dead brethren to fight as ghouls. Compare the Redcloak of No Cure For the Paladin Blues and War and XP's Pre-Revelation, and its clear Redcloak is slowly growing more caring for the goblin people under his command. he is not good yet, but he is slowly inching towards being a better person, there is character development here. he may have dipped for a time but he is a slight incline upwards, just ever so slowly.

The Empire of Blood In General:
The Empire of Blood doesn't seem to interact with monstrous races much? So I don't know if this section is making it in, but I'll take note of things about the Empire because its full of oppression but necessarily on monsters? Kobolds, draconic beings and lizardfolk are in control to some extent? Tiamat's influence is probably strong on this continent.
-The slavedrivers are the ones protesting for better pay and healthcare....thats bad. satire levels of bad. ouch.
-there is a dragon....but she is a figurehead for a human to manipulate
-you need entry papers to enter the city, which by itself isn't bad but its the fact that its basically an excuse to throw people into gladiatorial combat for life is evil
-Tarquin arranges the lizard bounty hunters to get sent to jail over something petty
-in general, injustice is pretty blind around here
-the poster outright says its a brutal oppressive regime ALSO: breads and circuses.
-uses phoenixes and pegasuses as food
The parade which features two reporters smiling soullessly
-a schools marching band screwed up another bands hands
-a bunch of actors singing a song about PC's killing things and a mascot balloon held aloft by enslaved air elementals
-a dark Sesame Street parody, and beauty pageant implied to have killed or injured the competition to get where she is
-a death squad of ninjas that then kill the reporter and badly lies that its an amateur snorkeling club. The other reporter keeps on smiling without stopping the commentary
-Tarquin sends his troops to conquer a city rather than free it
-Of Thog is one of the people put into the arena, a half orc, and he got put for urination. as Roy says before he knows who it is, its unjust to fight someone for a crime like that. given how blind the injustice is, while I'm pretty sure Tarquin's dictatorships haven't oppressed many monstrous races- I doubt they would care if they did, or pass up the opportunity. Tarquin's empires are on here, I guess simply to show that not all oppression is monster-race based and that humans are oppressed in some places as well. Its possible that such racial tensions is apart of something larger general plan by the fiends.

Resistance, Crushed:
Redcloak crushes what remains of the azure city resistance. and only one hobgoblin intentionally sacrificed for it. he is getting more precise and calculated with that kind of thing. its notable that both sides use polymorph spies in this. they can literally walk in each other's shoes, experience each other's world, see their perspective, yet they choose to kill each other with this ability instead. What a waste of magic.

Redcloak and Tsukiko 2/The Phylactery:
Tsukiko tries to bully Redcloak around, says she will reveal the secret of the Gate.....then gets killed by her own Wights. And honestly.....

I don't blame Redcloak one bit. Tsukiko is a sick twisted individual that got what was coming to her. His reasons to kill her make sense AND I'm pretty sure anyone sane would've killed her long ago. the undead as Redcloak points out are not an oppressed minority, they are necromantic weapons in the shape of a man, flesh-robots made of dark energies. moving on.

as for the dead elder, Redcloak can't really be blamed for, this guys death was on TSUKIKO's hands and he sends the guy off with a short funerary rite and a disintegration.

Its noted that when Redcloak talks about killing a paladin he says its "less satisfying" than he remembers. Xykon assumes thats just what happens when you get older, but Redcloak doesn't grow older, remember? It seems Redcloak's more revenge-driven emotions are spent and hollow, which is a change from his speech to Hinjo about "one village plus 35 years interest". Its either that or the reality that he is actually achieving something for his people and thus giving a him a lot to work on and organize is softening him.

Death of the Draketooths:
And here we find out the full extent of the Familicide, rearing its ugly head. the law of unintended consequences is strong when decide to destroy so much, so fast.

Demons and Reasonable Adults:
Sabine claims that if reasonable adults keep up talking out their differences that her and Qarr would be out of a job. more evidence for my theory that the devils and demons are specifically keeping the racial tensions up to serve their own agenda of more evil.

The rest of the book doesn't really concern this discussion. At least I can't find anything else.


The fact that V targeted a dragon and affected humans with it (as well as many steps between) would suggest that it is not particularly intended to wipe out species. Sure it "could" be used that way, but so could an ordinary sword. It isnt particularly more suited to wiping out species, specifically, than any other weapon of mass death would be.

Also, for the hobgoblin couple that got killed by the resistance, remember that Redcloak specifically calls out that the non-combatants are still back where the hobgoblins originally came from. Thats part of why they use slaves to work the economy for the time being. Theyre almost guaranteed to be off duty soldiers (or on duty soldiers doing something they shouldnt) as opposed to random civilians.

[Lord Raziere]

The fact that V targeted a dragon and affected humans with it (as well as many steps between) would suggest that it is not particularly intended to wipe out species. Sure it "could" be used that way, but so could an ordinary sword. It isnt particularly more suited to wiping out species, particularly, than any other weapon of mass death would be.

I don't think "Its only as bad as any other weapon of massive death" is as good of a point as you think it is. :smallconfused: genocide is genocide dude. no matter who gets caught in the crossfire. the fact that its technically worse than genocide by targeting more people doesn't make it better.

[Metastachydium]

neither Redcloak nor the Dark One are exactly poster children for honesty and integrity

Name one instance of Big Purple being dishonest that we know of for certain.



Desert Continent:
Hm, one wonders: if the monstrous races got all the bad land, why are humans living in the desert? Surely the desert is like.....worst land right? this continent is full of changing nations and a lot of them are humans killing each other over it, and I don't think Redcloak has ever been over here.

They have good lands and bad lands. It's not like having the best third of an entire continent for one's species, but still beats only having bad lands.


Spell Component Market
In the comic where a human guy provokes V into attacking him, there is a purple-robed individual with pale green skin that might indicate a half-orc caster just off panel.

Caster's a lizard. Their crest and tail are both visible. Like I said earlier, lizards and kobolds seem to be enfranchised in Sandsedge, the Empire of Blood and (obviously) Reptilia. It's also likely that Western kobolds are better off than other „monsters” because of Tiamat's influence.


Bug Slavers:
I don't know what race the bug men are, but they are enslaving others, not the other way around, so humans are being oppressed here.

They are criminals, basically, with a hive of tgheir own somewhere underground, living off passing soft targets. I don't think oppression is the right word here.


The Rise of Gobbotopia:
Redcloak says to a reflection with the eyepatch reversed "It'll all be worth it. You'll see." showing he still cares for his brother enough want to talk to him to catch up and see how he is doing. Then he makes a speech about how he will no longer be occupying Azure City.....but be building the sovereign nation of Gobbotopia, and says that seventeen nations around the world have recognized their borders stretching from Gobbotopia City to the mountain forts where many of their women and children still live, including Cliffport who decided to influence their position on human slavery through economic means. then he hands out a textbook which has interesting stuff to say on it once we get past the propaganda:
-the majority of the nation is goblinoid and hobgoblins make up 93% of the nation.
-however it says their borders are open to any disenfranchised humanoids and supports growing minorities of (if I get these wrong the text is very small and hard to read so bear with me):
orcs, ogres, xvarts, gnolls (including Flind), trolls, lycanthropes, minotaurs, orogs, medusas, slig/slogs (??) grimlocks, lamias, hill giants, ettins, yakfolk, ettercaps, half-orcs, half-(unknown)

so if this is true, Redcloak isn't just doing this for goblins, he is allowing other monstrous races to join his nation, backed up by the Flumphs trying to find a safe place here earlier. and some of these are pretty obscure, I didn't know what a Flind WAS until I looked it up. he could just be doing it for the PR, but it'd be bad for PR if he didn't back up his words with action, so this tells me even if he isn't shooting for it specifically, Redcloak is pretty okay with sharing his dreams of a goblin utopia with other monstrous races. that half orcs are on the list of people that its talking about, is significant because it backs up what we've seen of orcs and half orcs being in subservient positions elsewhere unless its crime, it says that being a core/PC race doesn't necessarily translate to good or fair treatment. if this were 4e or 5e, I'd suspect we'd see Tieflings on here as well. and also means Redcloak is okay with a race that is "half human".
the text ends with "and others" just off page so I assume the ones we do know of are just the more popular and larger ones they can fit in

One thing that people keep overlooking is that according to Redcloak's story, all „monster races” have been created as XP-fodder. He never claims it's a purely goblinoid issue.



Also, for the hobgoblin couple that got killed by the resistance, remember that Redcloak specifically calls out that the non-combatants are still back where the hobgoblins originally came from. Thats part of why they use slaves to work the economy for the time being. Theyre almost guaranteed to be off duty soldiers (or on duty soldiers doing something they shouldnt) as opposed to random civilians.

Unless they employ child soldiers with no armour on them, (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0702.html) I wouldn't be so sure.

[Keltest]

I don't think "Its only as bad as any other weapon of massive death" is as good of a point as you think it is. :smallconfused: genocide is genocide dude. no matter who gets caught in the crossfire. the fact that its technically worse than genocide by targeting more people doesn't make it better.

Youre the one who is trying to argue that its a tool of oppression against the monster races by virtue of it being a big weapon. Yeah, it is a big weapon, and thats pretty awful, but its awful because its a weapon of mass indiscriminate death at all, not because it was developed by a human, and certainly not because of a completely baseless assumption that it was used to oppress the goblins or other monsters, specifically, to establish PC-racial dominance.


Unless they employ child soldiers with no armour on them, (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0702.html) I wouldn't be so sure.

Given Xykon's treatment of the hobgoblins, i wouldnt necessarily rule that out as an impossibility except that i dont think Rich wants to write that.

Regardless, existing children in the city are also explicitly called out as having been born in the year since the occupation started. Goblins grow up fast, but not that fast.

[Ionathus]

In these cyclic debates, defendants of the "goblin oppression" narrative tend to go by the line that "okay, Redcloak is wrong in his actions, but he has a point".

Also, there seems to be a widespread perception that Gobbotopia needs to continue existing after the comic's conclussion because it "solves" some sort of "unbalance" created by the "systematic oppression of goblins".

What you said exactly but without being sarcastic (https://www.dumbingofage.com/2015/comic/book-5/02-threes-a-crowd/endgame/).

Seriously, this is the entire thread in a nutshell. All the things you put in quotation marks are the actual opinions of many readers, and you're phrasing them as ludicrous extremes. You say Redcloak is Irredeemable and Wrong Forever, and you provide convenient explanations for all the discrimination against monstrous races in the story.

Other people say there's more going on, maybe an entire race can be oppressed even if some members have it pretty well off, and you extrapolate their arguments to "so you're saying Redcloak and the Gobbotopia Slavers are innocent?" while refusing to see ANY nuance in the story.

As Brian P. put it, this discussion is circling the drain.

[pendell]

Youre the one who is trying to argue that its a tool of oppression against the monster races by virtue of it being a big weapon. Yeah, it is a big weapon, and thats pretty awful, but its awful because its a weapon of mass indiscriminate death at all, not because it was developed by a human, and certainly not because of a completely baseless assumption that it was used to oppress the goblins or other monsters, specifically, to establish PC-racial dominance.



While they've never spelled it out, I'd always assumed that Haera had created Familicide for use against other humans -- her own rivals. Capulets vs. Montagues, Starks vs. Lannisters, Hatfields vs. Mccoys. The fact that it works against other species is a bonus. I would expect a spell aimed at specific races to be a genoicide, rather than familicide, spell. It exists in nethack (https://nethackwiki.com/wiki/Scroll_of_genocide) .

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Keltest]

While they've never spelled it out, I'd always assumed that Haera had created Familicide for use against other humans -- her own rivals. Capulets vs. Montagues, Starks vs. Lannisters, Hatfields vs. Mccoys. The fact that it works against other species is a bonus. I would expect a spell aimed at specific races to be a genoicide, rather than familicide, spell. It exists in nethack (https://nethackwiki.com/wiki/Scroll_of_genocide) .

Respectfully,

Brian P.

That was my assumption as well. Certainly its a spell intended to inflict a very specific form of cruelty on its target, rather than one designed to cast the widest net.

[Worldsong]

And that's why we're constantly arguing here. There are two extremes that I see: One extreme views Redcloak's narrative as entirely reliable and a misunderstood hero. The other side dismisses Redcloak and the plight of the goblins entirely because neither Redcloak nor the Dark One are exactly poster children for honesty and integrity. Since the truth is somewhere between those two poles, we argue ceaselessly. Until the next comic, of course.

Respectfully,

Brian P.


One of the extremes here is not "Redcloak is a misunderstood hero" but rather "Redcloak has chosen an Evil path to try to solve a real problem". If that seems extreme, I wager that the middle ground here wouldn't actually be the middle ground.

Seconding hroþila here. I don't think anyone here has been claiming that Redcloak is a misunderstood hero. The one thing that I (and the people whose side I'm on) have been arguing is that the discrimination and oppression of monster races is real and that Redcloak being a villain doesn't make it magically disappear or false.

I'm seriously beginning to consider that the exact reason why this argument keeps going is because apparently the idea "It's not fundamentally impossible for a villain to have an accurate assessment of the situation" is incomprehensible or unacceptable for some people.

[Keltest]

Seconding hroþila here. I don't think anyone here has been claiming that Redcloak is a misunderstood hero. The one thing that I (and the people whose side I'm on) have been arguing is that the discrimination and oppression of monster races is real and that Redcloak being a villain doesn't make it magically disappear or false.

I'm seriously beginning to consider that the exact reason why this argument keeps going is because apparently the idea "It's not fundamentally impossible for a villain to have an accurate assessment of the situation" is incomprehensible or unacceptable for some people.

Why should we take Redcloak at his word on this? He's obviously not objective about it, has a vested personal interest in fabricating reasons for revenge, and he lacks any sort of independent corroboration. None of the other goblin or monster races seem to have any particular feelings about this alleged oppression, and indeed whenever communities of monsters show up that arent explicitly acting as bandits, they seem to be getting along with humans and PC races just fine (or at least as well as the PC races get along with each other).

[Worldsong]

Why should we take Redcloak at his word on this? He's obviously not objective about it, has a vested personal interest in fabricating reasons for revenge, and he lacks any sort of independent corroboration. None of the other goblin or monster races seem to have any particular feelings about this alleged oppression, and indeed whenever communities of monsters show up that arent explicitly acting as bandits, they seem to be getting along with humans and PC races just fine (or at least as well as the PC races get along with each other).

Because you're not taking Redcloak's word for it, you're taking Rich's word for it. And if you still don't believe that nothing I'm going to say is going to convince you.

[pendell]

Because you're not taking Redcloak's word for it, you're taking Rich's word for it. And if you still don't believe that nothing I'm going to say is going to convince you.

Redcloak isn't a third person omniscient narrator. Rich has told us that goblin oppression is a real thing in the comics .. but what Rich believes about goblin oppression isn't what Redcloak believes. Redcloak has a twisted view , which is why he's the villain in this story rather than the hero.

SOD shows the original atrocity and experiences which made Redcloak who he is today. But what Redcloak took away from those experiences isn't what other goblins who lived through it did. Redcloak's mad adherence to the Plan, at the expense of the goblins he supposedly cares about, has been called out twice in comic. The first time by a fellow goblin in Start of Darkness, the second time by Minrah in the main comic.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Keltest]

Because you're not taking Redcloak's word for it, you're taking Rich's word for it. And if you still don't believe that nothing I'm going to say is going to convince you.

Unless youre referring to a different quote than the ones you have in your signature, they dont say what you claim theyre saying. They make no reference to the factuality or lack thereof of mass goblinoid oppression in the setting. As others have mentioned, there are individuals who look down on them, and they are treated as the bad guys and not representative of society as a whole.

[Worldsong]

Redcloak isn't a third person omniscient narrator. Rich has told us that goblin oppression is a real thing in the comics .. but what Rich believes about goblin oppression isn't what Redcloak believes. Redcloak has a twisted view , which is why he's the villain in this story rather than the hero.

SOD shows the original atrocity and experiences which made Redcloak who he is today. But what Redcloak took away from those experiences isn't what other goblins who lived through it did. Redcloak's mad adherence to the Plan, at the expense of the goblins he supposedly cares about, has been called out twice in comic. The first time by a fellow goblin in Start of Darkness, the second time by Minrah in the main comic.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Well, yeah, but that's the point. The oppression issue is real but Redcloak goes about it the wrong way. Like, very wrong.


Unless youre referring to a different quote than the ones you have in your signature, they dont say what you claim theyre saying. They make no reference to the factuality or lack thereof of mass goblinoid oppression in the setting. As others have mentioned, there are individuals who look down on them, and they are treated as the bad guys and not representative of society as a whole.

Yes they do, they pretty much say it as clear as possible without literally, word for word, saying "It is 100% real, there is no discussion, everything is completely objectively this."

The fact that you're not accepting it is not because Rich has been ambiguous about the situation.

[dancrilis]

Redcloak and Tsukiko 2/The Phylactery:
the undead as Redcloak points out are not an oppressed minority, they are necromantic weapons in the shape of a man, flesh-robots made of dark energies
The Giant has mentioned on occassion that the Undead are people.


I'd always assumed that Haera had created Familicide for use against other humans -- her own rivals.

Personally I am of the opinion that the target of the spell doesn't die and that she targeted herself to wipe out her own family - I base that on nothing, but then there is nothing to base who she might have targeted the spell on.

[Keltest]

Yes they do, they pretty much say it as clear as possible without literally, word for word, saying "It is 100% real, there is no discussion, everything is completely objectively this."

The fact that you're not accepting it is not because Rich has been ambiguous about the situation.

Youre going to have to bold the part where he says "goblins are totally oppressed in my setting" for me then, because its not jumping out at me. They are all talking about his opinions about D&D as a whole.

[Worldsong]

Youre going to have to bold the part where he says "goblins are totally oppressed in my setting" for me then, because its not jumping out at me. They are all talking about his opinions about D&D as a whole.

Yeah, that's kind of what I was expecting.

[Keltest]

Yeah, that's kind of what I was expecting.

Look, i dont want to believe that youre arguing in bad faith here, but if you arent willing to explain how you reach your conclusions besides insisting that "its obvious", you arent leaving me with a lot of alternatives. You claim that Rich said a thing. I say he didnt. I cant prove a negative and youre the one making the claim, so it falls on you to explain and demonstrate your conclusion. From where im sitting, it looks like youre reading more into his statements than is there. If you want me to see how you got to the point that you did, you need to show me the freaking steps you took.

[hamishspence]

There is a recurring theme of monsters in general being oppressed. Mostly by adventurers. The occasional really nice guy (like Elan's old boss) protests this kind of behaviour - but we never see anything done about it.

Roy protests that his old adventuring party's behaviour is wrong, to their faces, and leaves the party - but he doesn't try to bring them to justice, either.

[Worldsong]

Look, i dont want to believe that youre arguing in bad faith here, but if you arent willing to explain how you reach your conclusions besides insisting that "its obvious", you arent leaving me with a lot of alternatives. You claim that Rich said a thing. I say he didnt. I cant prove a negative and youre the one making the claim, so it falls on you to explain and demonstrate your conclusion. From where im sitting, it looks like youre reading more into his statements than is there. If you want me to see how you got to the point that you did, you need to show me the freaking steps you took.

I believe that everything I have provided is already enough evidence. That and what everyone else has provided. The fact that you're not accepting it doesn't mean you haven't been provided evidence, it's that you look at the evidence and go "That isn't convincing, what else you got."

By this point every single point has been gone over thoroughly at least once already. It's not like I'm just pulling this entire stance out of nowhere and acting like there's no basis for it. In fact it's not even like I'm alone in this: there's been quite a few people who've been banging their head against this brick wall. I'm pretty much convinced that you and Pilgrim and... whoever else holds the stance that the goblinoid oppression is false aren't going to be convinced by anything less than Rich himself entering the discussion (which isn't going to happen because he doesn't read the forums any more) and flat out saying that you're wrong. Which means that effectively you've created a stance which is impossible for anyone other than Rich to break down.

If you consider it bad faith for someone to just get tired of repeating the same thing over and over with the other side just throwing it to the side and saying "I don't accept this" then yes, I'm arguing in bad faith. But in that case I don't agree with the definition of bad faith and I'd declare that the entire discussion is pointless because the opposition has declared impossible conditions, namely "Get Rich himself to come down here and tell me I'm wrong." I don't know Rich and I'm not cruel enough to try and drag him into the same kind of arguments that probably helped convince him to just leave the forums be.

[Keltest]

I believe that everything I have provided is already enough evidence.

Dont take this the wrong way, but why should your opinion on "enough evidence" matter? Youre trying to convince me. If im unconvinced by what you brought up the first time, repeating yourself and insisting that i should now change my mind isnt going to do anything except annoy me. There isnt a magic standard of evidence that, if you bring it to the table, gives you a gold star and declares you the automatic winner. If somebody cant see how you reached your conclusion from the evidence presented, you need to elaborate. Where does Rich speak about his setting in the quotes you provided? All i see him making commentary on is trends he sees in other games that arent OOTS. Well games that go on outside OOTS dont affect the setting here, and if Rich doesnt want his goblins to be dirty, sweaty and always evil adventurer bait, then... they just arent. Its entirely possible for him to make commentary on a trend he sees without emulating that trend directly in his work.

[Worldsong]

Dont take this the wrong way, but why should your opinion on "enough evidence" matter? Youre trying to convince me. If im unconvinced by what you brought up the first time, repeating yourself and insisting that i should now change my mind isnt going to do anything except annoy me. There isnt a magic standard of evidence that, if you bring it to the table, gives you a gold star and declares you the automatic winner. If somebody cant see how you reached your conclusion from the evidence presented, you need to elaborate. Where does Rich speak about his setting in the quotes you provided? All i see him making commentary on is trends he sees in other games that arent OOTS. Well games that go on outside OOTS dont affect the setting here, and if Rich doesnt want his goblins to be dirty, sweaty and always evil adventurer bait, then... they just arent. Its entirely possible for him to make commentary on a trend he sees without emulating that trend directly in his work.

There isn't a magic standard for sufficient evidence, but there are points where someone can reasonably say "Okay I've tried and clearly this isn't working". It's not like the side I'm on just threw some quotes and declared victory. At least not until after we'd tried several times to elaborate without it seemingly doing anything.

It's in Pilgrim's thread, it's in JuanCu's thread, it's in this thread, it's in several of the comic threads, this discussion has been lasting for ages and it keeps repeating itself because the evidence which is clearly sufficient for quite a few people is not sufficient for you and several others, and you give the impression of basically saying "Either it's 100% evidence or it's 0% evidence, there is no in between" which does not register as a reasonable approach. Part of the problem is that I'm willing to concede that it's possible that the oppression is false but it seems unlikely for several reasons as have been repeated several times. Meanwhile from the other side I get voices which boil down to "Redcloak is evil therefore WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG ALWAYS EVER WRONG".

Besides I already tried to cut off the discussion by telling you that if you weren't convinced by this point nothing I'd say would convince you. Everything after that is just the two of us trying to make it look like the other side is being unreasonable.

EDIT: To put it otherwise, if you stand by the idea that the monster races aren't oppressed but at least acknowledge that it's possible that the oppression is real then fine, good, fantastic, I love it when people can have different opinions. What I have trouble stomaching however is for example Pilgrim's stance of "Redcloak is the villain therefore literally everything he's ever said about anything ever in the history of ever is completely, utterly, objectively wrong."

[Keltest]

if you stand by the idea that the monster races aren't oppressed but at least acknowledge that it's possible that the oppression is real then fine, good, fantastic, I love it when people can have different opinions. What I have trouble stomaching however is for example Pilgrim's stance of "Redcloak is the villain therefore literally everything he's ever said about anything ever in the history of ever is completely, utterly, objectively wrong."

Thats not his stance though. Its literally his character arc that Redcloak is making the wrong decisions over and over again, and lying to himself and others to justify decisions that he knows to be wrong. He was literally called out for it, twice, in the past few comics, to say nothing about SoD having that as the whole. Redcloak isnt wrong because he's the villain, he's the villain because he's wrong. He has to be wrong, because otherwise he cant fill the narrative role he needs to.

[hamishspence]

Redcloak isn't the villain because he's fighting a non-existent problem - he's the villain because he resorts to extreme methods in fighting it.

[Keltest]

Redcloak isn't the villain because he's fighting a non-existent problem - he's the villain because he resorts to extreme methods in fighting it.

Redcloak isnt fighting the problem at all. Thats the thing. Again, as was called out in the past few comics, he isnt acting in the interests of goblins, he's acting out of his own need for justification for past actions.

[Worldsong]

Thats not his stance though. Its literally his character arc that Redcloak is making the wrong decisions over and over again, and lying to himself and others to justify decisions that he knows to be wrong. He was literally called out for it, twice, in the past few comics, to say nothing about SoD having that as the whole. Redcloak isnt wrong because he's the villain, he's the villain because he's wrong.

You mean the parts of SoD which weren't about Redcloak's life being screwed over horribly? Often without it being his own fault?

That aside, having argued with Pilgrim I can tell that you that either you're interpreting everything he says too positively or I interpret everything he says too negatively, because to me his motivations seem to earnestly, honestly, genuinely, without a shred of attempted strawmanning, boil down to "I just hate Redcloak so goddamn much."

[danielxcutter]

I think there is like seven parts "Redcloak is a villain and villains are wrong therefore everything he stands for is wrong and killing him solves the problem" and three parts of the actual stance that Rich has explicitly called out, and I'll leave who's how much to the rest of you because it's almost 2 AM for me here and I only can't be assed to be more emotionally invested in this right now.

[hamishspence]

Redcloak isnt fighting the problem at all. Thats the thing.

He's trying to. He believes he is. Yes, he's deluding himself about some things, but not about everything.

[Keltest]

You mean the parts of SoD which weren't about Redcloak's life being screwed over horribly? Often without it being his own fault?

That aside, having argued with Pilgrim I can tell that you that either you're interpreting everything he says too positively or I interpret everything he says too negatively, because to me his motivations seem to earnestly, honestly, genuinely, without a shred of attempted strawmanning, boil down to "I just hate Redcloak so goddamn much."

Redcloak had one tragic event that wasnt of his own making, and while this doesnt excuse their actions, in another story we do see that the Guard ultimately collected itself and rejected the way of thinking that led to that tragedy. Its a far cry from "bad people did bad things in isolated scenarios" to "there is systemic oppression across the world." especially when we are actually shown the system working to remove the ideas and individuals responsible.

And The Pilgrim can hate redcloak beyond what is reasonable and still be right in this case.

[Worldsong]

I think there is like seven parts "Redcloak is a villain and villains are wrong therefore everything he stands for is wrong and killing him solves the problem" and three parts of the actual stance that Rich has explicitly called out, and I'll leave who's how much to the rest of you because it's almost 2 AM for me here and I only can't be assed to be more emotionally invested in this right now.

And thank for proving that I'm not alone in feeling like this.


Redcloak had one tragic event that wasnt of his own making, and while this doesnt excuse their actions, in another story we do see that the Guard ultimately collected itself and rejected the way of thinking that led to that tragedy. Its a far cry from "bad people did bad things in isolated scenarios" to "there is systemic oppression across the world." especially when we are actually shown the system working to remove the ideas and individuals responsible.

And The Pilgrim can hate redcloak beyond what is reasonable and still be right in this case.

Yeah, but I don't think he is right and I get annoyed by the idea that someone is denying the possibility of systematic discrimination/racism with as main motivation hatred.

I really hope I do not have to explain why that particular motivation+argument combination bothers me.

[dancrilis]

Meanwhile from the other side I get voices which boil down to "Redcloak is evil therefore WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG ALWAYS EVER WRONG".


In fairness I did list 6 clear options in the opening post and give reasons to support or oppose any of them (spelling, grammer and missing word issues aside).

I think the issue with goblin oppression boils down to the following.
The Giant is telling a story in the online comic and he doesn't expect everyone to read the additional material or read his commentary or posts.
As such if something doesn't appear in the online comic it isn't really relevant to the message, themes etc of the comic as a whole - as such Goblin Oppression which has not really been shown (so far) in the online comic becomes hard to accept as a theme of the work (particularly when many people are mistreated in the work to at least the extent that the goblins are - again online).

It is easier to accept 'here is how to have creatures be evil in DnD - show them as evil don't just assume they are evil' i.e a message that can be taken from the online comic about how DnD is played (that many don't like as they prefer to avoid moral issues such as that and merely kill the green guys while they pretend to be a dwarven ranger riding a giant badger or whatever) rather then a wider message about 'discrimination for no reason except cosmetic differences is bad' which effectively (nearly) everyone likely already agrees on.

[Worldsong]

In fairness I did list 6 clear options in the opening post and give reasons to support or oppose any of them (spelling, grammer and missing word issues aside).

I think the issue with goblin oppression boils down to the following.
The Giant is telling a story in the online comic and he doesn't expect everyone to read the additional material or read his commentary or posts.
As such if something doesn't appear in the online comic it isn't really relevant to the message, themes etc of the comic as a whole - as such Goblin Oppression which has not really been shown (so far) in the online comic becomes hard to accept as a theme of the work (particularly when many people are mistreated in the work to at least the extent that the goblins are - again online).

It is easier to accept 'here is how to have creatures be evil in DnD - show them as evil don't just assume they are evil' i.e a message that can be taken from the online comic about how DnD is played (that many don't like as they prefer to avoid moral issues such as that and merely kill the green guys while they pretend to be a dwarven ranger riding a giant bander or whatever) rather then a wider message about 'discrimination for no reason except cosmetic differences is bad' which effectively (nearly) everyone likely already agrees on.

Yes, and I'm not actually annoyed at you. I just wish your arguments didn't so often seem to boil down to "It's not technically impossible therefore let's go with it."

EDIT: And yes I acknowledge that the comic by itself doesn't get the message across as much although on the other hand I could still make the argument that we haven't had anyone actively disproving it in-comic, just Durkon with his limited perspective having trouble seeing it for himself and Durkon/Minrah calling Redcloak out to be more motivated by selfish motivations, which to me doesn't add much weight to the 'opression isn't real' thing because Redcloak is a person and therefore capable of taking a real issue and then making it all about himself. Personal experience tells me that's not really that rare a thing for people to do.

Also the whole thing that every established city we've seen with trade routes and everything has been predominantly PC-race inhabited with Gobbotopia standing out as the new exception. And the fact that monster races and PC races seem to be segregated for the most part which in combination with the fact that most of the advanced settlements appear to be in the hands of PC races indicates that either all the monster cities are off-screen or they don't exist.

None of which proves that oppression is real but it does make me put question marks by the argument that the comic clearly portrays a picture of there being no discrimination or oppression or anything.

[Keltest]

Yeah, but I don't think he is right and I get annoyed by the idea that someone is denying the possibility of systematic discrimination/racism with as main motivation hatred.

I really hope I do not have to explain why that particular motivation+argument combination bothers me.

I can see why that would bother you, yes.

And i would treat Redcloak as more of an authority if the alleged oppression were present in the comic outside his personal narrative. But kobolds and lizardfolk seem perfectly integrated, Orcs are shown and identified as separate but basically getting along, and besides Redcloak's village, we havent even seen the goblins be disrupted except by Xykon and Redcloak. The Hobgoblins had a city the size of.. i think it was 14th? century London, and were able to assemble a fighting force capable of taking on a major nation state after an extreme force march across the continent, so they clearly had access to at least tolerable resources.

So maybe there are individual racists in the world, but theyre not the status quo and they arent considered to be good guys by moral authories.

[danielxcutter]

I'm like 99% sure that Rich had the reptilian races treated as equals on the Western Continent because he was sick of them being portrayed as savages.

Also kobolds at least got some racial support in 3.5e. Goblinoids have gotten the short stick in that regard so many times I think the LA-assignment thread made that joke at least five times.

[hamishspence]

Orcs are shown and identified as separate but basically getting along

And being slaughtered on sight by adventuring parties like Roy's first one.

[Keltest]

I'm like 99% sure that Rich had the reptilian races treated as equals on the Western Continent because he was sick of them being portrayed as savages.

Also kobolds at least got some racial support in 3.5e. Goblinoids have gotten the short stick in that regard so many times I think the LA-assignment thread made that joke at least five times.

I mean, probably, but that just lends more credence to the idea that he wouldnt write the goblins as being an actively oppressed lower class race who legitimately dont have anything going for them, because he doesnt want to participate in the trend he's decrying.

[danielxcutter]

And being slaughtered on sight by adventuring parties like Roy's first one.

I mean, that was a major "what the heck" moment for me when I heard of it. At least goblinoid slaughter had a justification, those guys didn't even bother with that.

Edit:


I mean, probably, but that just lends more credence to the idea that he wouldnt write the goblins as being an actively oppressed lower class race who legitimately dont have anything going for them, because he doesnt want to participate in the trend he's decrying.

"Oh, I won't draw them as having inherent shortcomings forced on them because I don't want them being portrayed as oppressed."

[Keltest]

And being slaughtered on sight by adventuring parties like Roy's first one.

Yes, evil people do evil things. We already know there are evil adventuring parties. The existence of bad guys does not mean they therefore dominate the world.


I mean, that was a major "what the heck" moment for me when I heard of it. At least goblinoid slaughter had a justification, those guys didn't even bother with that.

It was, IIRC, a specific "Take That" against groups that claim to play good characters but then play them as evil murderhobos (as opposed to good murderhobos, who at least pick their victims for good reasons instead of for just being there).

[Worldsong]

I can see why that would bother you, yes.

And i would treat Redcloak as more of an authority if the alleged oppression were present in the comic outside his personal narrative. But kobolds and lizardfolk seem perfectly integrated, Orcs are shown and identified as separate but basically getting along, and besides Redcloak's village, we havent even seen the goblins be disrupted except by Xykon and Redcloak. The Hobgoblins had a city the size of.. i think it was 14th? century London, and were able to assemble a fighting force capable of taking on a major nation state after an extreme force march across the continent, so they clearly had access to at least tolerable resources.

So maybe there are individual racists in the world, but theyre not the status quo and they arent considered to be good guys by moral authories.

I kind of just answered this to Dancrilis but I'll just refine it, I agree that the comic doesn't show a lot of oppression but I also don't think it portrays a world where everything is hunky-dory. Monster races and PC races rarely seem to mingle, all the established bastions of civilization appear to be dominated by PC races, and the biggest example we have of a monster race settlement (other than Gobbotopia) is a city which is at worst somewhere between 15 to 20 times as small as Azure City and at best around... 5 times as small? I mean even with Azure City being the biggest city that's a glaring difference and if Hobgoblin City was the biggest monster settlement that does imply things aren't going very well for the monster races.

As a rule I exempt lizardfolk and kobolds because it appears that Tiamat has a thing for reptiles so it'd make sense that out of all the monster races they'd be able to escape that situation. It has been established as a cold hard fact that goblinoids didn't worship anyone before the Dark One, and one easy explanation for that is that no deity wanted to support them like Tiamat appears to have supported lizardfolk and kobolds.

Basically it seems to me that something is up with PC races appearing to have civilization, society, progress and culture whereas monster races for the most part seem to be more in the category of 'getting by'. Which could have reasons other than global oppression/discrimination/mistreatment but I haven't really heard any beyond 'maybe monster races are just bastards who have no interest in establishing functional empires and kingdoms' which seems... like a really easy way out.

EDIT: I mean reasons from the comic itself, not theories on the forums.

[hamishspence]

Yes, evil people do evil things. We already know there are evil adventuring parties.

That party had a paladin in it, who was OK with all of that, and supported his buddies' arguments.

It bears repeating - this is a world where paladins can be very bad and not fall.

[Metastachydium]

And i would treat Redcloak as more of an authority if the alleged oppression were present in the comic outside his personal narrative. But kobolds and lizardfolk seem perfectly integrated,

They are shown to be enfranchised in some Western states but no Northern or Southern one we've seen. The largest kobold settlement on the Eastern continent might be the village around the Oracle's tower, and speaking of the Oracle, our fair heroes keep finding it surprising that he is a lowly kobold rather than a halfling.
Also: the elves have the best third of a continent, the dwarves a huge mountainous land with large cities. The reptilians only have a few desert hellhioles for them.


Orcs are shown and identified as separate but basically getting along,

Half-orcs are consistently shown to be more like a tolerated race, and we have at least two instances of adventurers slaughtering/intending to slaughter orcs mostly for being orcs.


and besides Redcloak's village, we havent even seen the goblins be disrupted except by Xykon and Redcloak. The Hobgoblins had a city the size of.. i think it was 14th? century London, and were able to assemble a fighting force capable of taking on a major nation state after an extreme force march across the continent, so they clearly had access to at least tolerable resources.


Yup. The bugbears just want to shiver in the cold with soup and the greenskins just want to live in small huts that belong to no internationally recognized state.
Also, the ”monster races” just prefer to stay away from major Northern and Southern (and in the case of non-reptilian races) Western population centers and they prefer not to rise too high in the clergy of any non-racial deity.

Edit: I see Worldsong beat me to much of this.

[hamishspence]

They are shown to be enfranchised in some Western states but no Northern or Southern one we've seen.

War & XPs was explicit that in Azure City, nobody who is completely nonhuman can be a citizen. "Everybody's disenfranchised except humans and part-humans" in short.

So a "bastion of law and good" can have pretty racist policy.

[Jason]

Why is this debated over and over again? I can think of several reasons:

1. While the author's clear intent seems to be that goblins really are oppressed in Stickworld, the examples of actual oppression of goblins shown in the comic are not numerous and tend to be of the sort that can easily be blamed on individual bad actors, like Gin-Jin, rather than on corrupt systems.
As an example: as HtPGHS shows, hardly anyone in Azure city knew the Sapphire Guard even existed, let alone that they had slaughtered entire goblin villages. When this fact does become more widely known, the leadership of the city acts quickly to reform the Guard. That sounds more like a system that worked than one that produces more oppression.

2. The oppression is a stated major motivation of one of the two main villains. And he is obviously racist himself (shown numerous times). A reader is therefore lead to question his motives, including whether this oppression exists in the first place and to what degree, and if it does exist what other means than what the villain is choosing to attempt might be used to resolve it. His backstory shows rather unambiguously that he did not have to choose his current path.

3. Rich has made statements that amount to saying that D&D players are playing the game wrong, in a moral sense, 90% of the time, and have been doing so throughout D&D's history, and he's trying to criticize their playstyle. Long-time D&D players like myself may question whether this claim is accurate or fair. We might also want to debate the implications of the alignment system (itself a favorite subject of debate since its creation) assigning evil alignments to entire fictional species and whether Rich is correct to criticize this practice.

4. Racial oppression is a big issue of debate in the US in the real world right now. Sucessful fiction has often offered insight into real world issues by presenting a fictionalized version and provoking debate. Enough said.

I don't see the debate on any of these points being resolved anytime soon.

[understatement]

If you want a "reliable source" of the Sapphire Guard (a cosmically Lawful-Good divinely-sanctioned strike team) actively oppressing a large set of goblinoids (and somehow don't buy SOD's beginning):


Saha: And that's why you naturally side with the downtrodden and oppressed.

O-Chul: Yes, of course!

Saha: Even when it's your own people [SG] doing the oppressing.

O-Chul: ...Damn. [He goes on to agree with her.]

[pendell]

So let me see if I understand this.

What it will take to convince the "oppression isn't real" argumenters that it is is to either A) have it portrayed on-screen unambiguously in the main comic or b) have some authority figure who is impartial and uninterested (the Oracle, say, or Thor) tell us "yes, this oppression is real and Redcloak/TDO aren't just making it up."

Absent such evidence, we are left with Redcloak's word , and we've already seen that his word does not match up to the reality of the world he lives in.

Regrettably, it will probably be a long time before we see any such evidence. The focus is on the heroes, and we see most of the comic through their eyes. Which is why we rarely see oppression or what not; not being victims themselves, the heroes not only rarely see it but they don't usually go to places where it is most visible.

Maybe we can call this 'PC Privilege'? :smallamused:

Perhaps the Giant will see fit to spell this out more clearly in comic; perhaps not. But even so, I think his own comments and the other extra-main-comic material make it pretty clear, at least to my eyes, that oppression exists in more than Redcloak's imagination.

But if we're going to rely totally on the main comic, I think we are stalemated, at least for now.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Keltest]

I kind of just answered this to Dancrilis but I'll just refine it, I agree that the comic doesn't show a lot of oppression but I also don't think it portrays a world where everything is hunky-dory. Monster races and PC races rarely seem to mingle, all the established bastions of civilization appear to be dominated by PC races, and the biggest example we have of a monster race settlement (other than Gobbotopia) is a city which is at worst somewhere between 15 to 20 times as small as Azure City and at best around... 5 times as small? I mean even with Azure City being the biggest city that's a glaring difference and if Hobgoblin City was the biggest settlement that does imply things aren't going very well for the monster races.

As a rule I exempt lizardfolk and kobolds because it appears that Tiamat has a thing for reptiles so it'd make sense that out of all the monster races they'd be able to escape that situation. It has been established as a cold hard fact that goblinoids didn't worship anyone before the Dark One, and one easy explanation for that is that no deity wanted to suppor them like Tiamat appears to have supported lizardfolk and kobolds.

Basically it seems to me that something is up with PC races appearing to have civilization, society, progress and culture whereas monster races for the most part seem to be more in the category of 'getting by'. Which could have reasons other than global oppression/discrimination/mistreatment but I haven't really heard any beyond 'maybe monster races are just bastards who have no interest in establishing functional empires and kingdoms' which seems... like a really easy way out.

In settings like the Forgotten Realms that tend to play the monster races straight, that typically is how it plays out. Orcs dont establish kingdoms and trade partners because theyre inherently volatile and difficult to forge into a unified culture in the way that is needed. R. A. Salvatore wrote a series about an orc kind that tried, and it worked for a couple generations before a belligerent warlord rose to power and the whole thing basically dissolved into civil war before it got broken up by its neighbors. Goblins are selfish and cowardly and even dubiously have communities except as is necessary for their survival. Kobolds are... actually, kobolds ironically are usually explicitly oppressed in FR, just by dragons instead of PC races. Dragons themselves are arrogant, lazy and anti-social even when they arent evil.

In OOTS meanwhile, part of it at least seems to be the races proclivities for specific regions not overlapping much. The Dwarves would never live in a forest and the Elves would never live under the mountains. The humans "can" live about anywhere, and seem to have moved in with the lizardfolk and kobolds in the west. The orcs are a hard read, but evidently share space with the humans, at least to a point, and simply arent as numerous (ironically). Goblins seem to be the only ones who want to live in an already occupied region who arent at least tolerated there.

[Metastachydium]

In OOTS meanwhile, part of it at least seems to be the races proclivities for specific regions not overlapping much. The Dwarves would never live in a forest and the Elves would never live under the mountains. The humans "can" live about anywhere, and seem to have moved in with the lizardfolk and kobolds in the west. The orcs are a hard read, but evidently share space with the humans, at least to a point, and simply arent as numerous (ironically). Goblins seem to be the only ones who want to live in an already occupied region who arent at least tolerated there.

I see. Reptilian humanoids have a proclivity for living in a hellhole of a desert, and the ones we see in the North and South (in Dorukan's Dungeon, at Goblin Dan's, in occupied Azure City, at the Oracle's tower) are just too stupid to know they have this proclivity. Also, the Western ones would really rather not live in the Elven third, despite the fact that the elves would welcome them warmly.
Also, the „monster races” have incredibly sparse populations, that's why we don't see more of them.

[Keltest]

I see. Reptilian humanoids have a proclivity for living in a hellhole of a desert, and the ones we see in the North and South (in Dorukan's Dungeon, at Goblin Dan's, in occupied Azure City, at the Oracle's tower) are just too stupid to know they have this proclivity. Also, the Western ones would really rather not live in the Elven third, despite the fact that the elves would welcome them warmly.
Also, the „monster races” have incredibly sparse populations, that's why we don't see more of them.

The hellhole parts of the desert are explicitly unoccupied. None of the lizardfolk, kobolds or humans in the west live there.

And i dont see any dwarves living in the Southern Continent either, even though they would almost certainly get along with the humans there and wouldnt mind, so clearly theres a reason species dont just pick up and move to the other side of the world en masse besides hostile natives.

The elves meanwhile seem content to have the Azurites in their space, settling on a former elven colony, so it isnt like the Westerners couldnt go somewhere else if they were determined to, except maybe the Lizardfolk, who are traditionally cold blooded and require warm climates for their biology to work at all.

[Metastachydium]

The hellhole parts of the desert are explicitly unoccupied. None of the lizardfolk, kobolds or humans in the west live there.

And i dont see any dwarves living in the Southern Continent either, even though they would almost certainly get along with the humans there and wouldnt mind, so clearly theres a reason species dont just pick up and move to the other side of the world en masse besides hostile natives.

The elves meanwhile seem content to have the Azurites in their space, settling on a former elven colony, so it isnt like the Westerners couldnt go somewhere else if they were determined to.

I don't have the impression that anyone (barring hotshot military geniuses) wants to live south of those mountains (even on the „livable scraps” – sounds great, doesn't it, by the way?), and the Elves quite officcially have the northern third sealed up. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0680.html)
As for the dwarves, they have a huge dwarven homeland. Can you show me the orc or lizardfolk homeland which is comparable in size, worth, recognition and life expectancy?

[Jason]

So let me see if I understand this.

What it will take to convince the "oppression isn't real" argumenters that it is is to either A) have it portrayed on-screen unambiguously in the main comic or b) have some authority figure who is impartial and uninterested (the Oracle, say, or Thor) tell us "yes, this oppression is real and Redcloak/TDO aren't just making it up."
Yep, pretty much. The closest we've come is Durkon saying "I wouldna' be surprised."

And I understand full well that the focus of the comic isn't (and shouldn't be) showing examples of goblin oppression, so there are perfectly acceptable reasons for why it hasn't been present. I'm certainly not saying "stop the story and go draw some seriously depressing examples of goblins being oppressed right now!"


Regrettably, it will probably be a long time before we see any such evidence. The focus is on the heroes, and we see most of the comic through their eyes. Which is why we rarely see oppression or what not; not being victims themselves, the heroes not only rarely see it but they don't usually go to places where it is most visible.
We did see Durkon being oppressed by insensitive humans in On the Origin of PCs, just not to the point of them actively trying to kill him.


Maybe we can call this 'PC Privilege'? :smallamused: Please no.

[Worldsong]

In settings like the Forgotten Realms that tend to play the monster races straight, that typically is how it plays out. Orcs dont establish kingdoms and trade partners because theyre inherently volatile and difficult to forge into a unified culture in the way that is needed. R. A. Salvatore wrote a series about an orc kind that tried, and it worked for a couple generations before a belligerent warlord rose to power and the whole thing basically dissolved into civil war before it got broken up by its neighbors. Goblins are selfish and cowardly and even dubiously have communities except as is necessary for their survival. Kobolds are... actually, kobolds ironically are usually explicitly oppressed in FR, just by dragons instead of PC races. Dragons themselves are arrogant, lazy and anti-social even when they arent evil.

In OOTS meanwhile, part of it at least seems to be the races proclivities for specific regions not overlapping much. The Dwarves would never live in a forest and the Elves would never live under the mountains. The humans "can" live about anywhere, and seem to have moved in with the lizardfolk and kobolds in the west. The orcs are a hard read, but evidently share space with the humans, at least to a point, and simply arent as numerous (ironically). Goblins seem to be the only ones who want to live in an already occupied region who arent at least tolerated there.

The latter wouldn't necessarily rule out that the monster races are in a bad spot and need help though. If goblins share their preferred habitat with humans but can't settle down in such a habitat because humans have already claimed everything and their relations with goblins are primarily hostile, then their plight is still real.

It'd just mean that instead of monster oppression being divine mandate the goblins just got beaten out in settling all the good pieces of land. In which case Redcloak would be correct that his people are forced to live in subpar conditions and that this must be rectified and his main mistake (aside from taking the Evil route) is assuming it's a divine issue.

Which honestly I'd be fine with. Granted given what we've seen of the deities at the Godsmoot it really wouldn't surprise me if the amount of deities opposed to planting XP fodder for their servants were the minority, but it could also work well if it was a purely mortal concern instead (up until this point where the gods suddenly have reason to be very interested in the fate of the goblinoids).

[hroþila]

The argument "other monster races [namely the Western lizardfolk] are doing well, so no handicap or oppression exist" should not go unchallenged. I find it appalling.