Redcloak and his way of thinking

[lowoki]

Disclaimer: I still haven't gotten SoD and only know a bit about it, so some relevant points might be missing. The majority of the analysis here is from the main comic.

Reading through Rich's answer post made me realize something. Redcloak, for the most part, views goblinoids and their issues as hypotheticals.

In the very beginning of the comic he cares at least a bit, as long as he knows the goblin personally (though this was before a lot of his character development). For the most part he doesn't put up more than verbal objections to his boss tossing his brethren through a big hole. Later on when he assumes command of the hobgoblins a mere species grudge is enough to justify sending them to die en masse in Azure City. When he's told about the massive causalities he tells them to "suck it up". Hobgoblins are a tool for him to command up until one dies in front of him, saving his life. His commands affect him directly, making him realize just what he's doing. ("WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH ME?!?") He responds to his unexpected guilt by riding into battle and making himself into the hero of the encounter. Suffering doesn't really matter until he's up close and personal with it.

But somewhere between the idea of Gobbotopia and its fruition, he falls back into an old thought pattern. He has something he needs to get done. He has something that needs to happen, opponents he needs to neutralize, and someone he needs to keep in one spot while he works. So he starts treating people like variables to be managed. Xykon is distracted, Tsukiko is (sort of) tolerated while she's useful, and Jirix is trained to take his place during the next step of his plan. He outright states that he sees Xykon as a means to an end. He uses his understanding of others to get them where he wants them and gets mad when things don't go according to plan (see the O'Chul parapet scene). When Tsukiko becomes more of a threat than she's worth, Redcloak takes her off the table entirely. And he feels nothing about it. He displays nothing towards the elder he destroys to hide the evidence, merely noting some regret at the cultural loss. He places the most value on the intangible, his plans and ideals. Interestingly enough, his favorite spells seem to be Disintegrate and Implosion, both of which eliminate the target's physical form entirely.

It's at Kraagor's Gate that we see the most obvious examples of how he thinks. When Oona makes a statement about the bugbears' conditions that doesn't fit into his narrative, it's dismissed with a platitude. When Durkon explains the gods' problem to him, Redcloak jumps on the opportunity to bolster his own ego with the idea that the gods are afraid of him. Later in the conversation, when Durkon asks him what he means by "equality", he first makes an assumption about Durkon's material conditions based on his perception of dwarves. After taking a crack at Durkon, he lays out a very general idea of what he wants for goblinkind, but justifies the murders committed in the pursuit of equality with:

"I did what I had to do to get where I am.--Where we are."

And that one line sums up his thoughts perfectly. He will justify everything he does by saying that he needed to do it for goblins, but in his own mind he comes first. He just won't admit it. Not to himself, and certainly not to anyone else. Goblins are a tool to him the way everyone else is. They're an idea that can be trotted out to defend his position, which is why the potential goblins in the next world are just as valuable to him as the real ones in the current world. Redcloak is pursuing his own glory and his own revenge above all else, and the concept of goblin welfare is the ideological justification for every terrible act he commits. Durkon's comment about Redcloak killing more goblins than him made Redcloak angry because it was a truth that contradicted the false way he sees himself. He needs to believe that he is important. He needs to be the hero, the brave, cunning underdog, the chosen prophet of the goblins' only god. Redcloak, and only Redcloak, will save goblinkind from the unjust world. He needs a good lie, because without it he'd just be a selfish, egotistical, ruthless monster pursuing his own goals at the expense of everyone ever to exist. Just like Xykon.

[The Pilgrim]

You forgot to important scenes about how Redcloak thinks, in the main comic:

Redcloak to the Polymorphed Spy: "I just thank the Dark One that I didn't need to execute you myself"
https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0827.html

Redcloak to the Elder Artisan: "The loss of your craftmaship diminishes our people...Disintegrate".
https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0831.html

Both instances show that, despite his epiphany during the Battle of Azure City, he still treats the goblinoids as disposable minions, forfeiting their lives if it's only slight more convenient than letting them live.

[Goblin_Priest]

You forgot to important scenes about how Redcloak thinks, in the main comic:

Redcloak to the Polymorphed Spy: "I just thank the Dark One that I didn't need to execute you myself"
https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0827.html

Redcloak to the Elder Artisan: "The loss of your craftmaship diminishes our people...Disintegrate".
https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0831.html

Both instances show that, despite his epiphany during the Battle of Azure City, he still treats the goblinoids as disposable minions, forfeiting their lives if it's only slight more convenient than letting them live.

Yea, past that point, he no longer lets them die pointlessly. He's still very willing to dispose of them if it serves a purpose, though.

[Grey Watcher]

Yea, past that point, he no longer lets them die pointlessly. He's still very willing to dispose of them if it serves a purpose, though.

I'm still a little unclear in what that purpose was, though. Jirix and Xykon are well aware that the phylactery was found, lost, and found again, so it's not like the spy knew anything that Redcloak actually intended to keep secret.

The craftsman makes a little more sense, but still seems like overkill, given that he and Xykon are leaving soon anyway.

[Kornaki]

The craftsman makes perfect sense. I think the reason he let the spy die is the spy knows he let the resistance live until the phylactery was found. He could have crushed it weeks ago but waited and let them steal the phylactery back so he would have a chance to swap with the fake

[lowoki]

The craftsman makes perfect sense. I think the reason he let the spy die is the spy knows he let the resistance live until the phylactery was found. He could have crushed it weeks ago but waited and let them steal the phylactery back so he would have a chance to swap with the fake

Exactly. He gets rid of anything that could possibly trip up his plans. The only person he really trusts not to mess everything up is himself.

[KorvinStarmast]

The only person he really trusts not to mess everything up is himself. Given that he works with Xykon - who is all about himself - and MiTD - who is wavering in any commitment he has to Team Evil, and is not the sharpest knife in the drawer - who else is he going to rely on? Oona's too new to the team to have earned his full trust and confidence, though she's competent in her field of expertise.

[RMS Oceanic]

I'm still a little unclear in what that purpose was, though. Jirix and Xykon are well aware that the phylactery was found, lost, and found again, so it's not like the spy knew anything that Redcloak actually intended to keep secret.

The craftsman makes a little more sense, but still seems like overkill, given that he and Xykon are leaving soon anyway.

Anyone who witnessed the actual phylactery being recovered could potentially be used to uncover the switcheroo. It's overkill, but Redcloak will go quite far to avoid those strings being exposed, as Tsukiko shows.

[Dion]

Exactly. He gets rid of anything that could possibly trip up his plans. The only person he really trusts not to mess everything up is himself.

And let’s not kid ourselves. Double agents aren’t exactly known for their loyalty. Their natural proclivity for treachery is *why* they’re double agents in the first place. Once redcloak decided to burn his secret operation with the intention of keeping it secret forever, double agents were the standard place to start.

Redcloak’s heart might have softened a bit; he’s not nearly as cavalier with the lives of hobgoblins as he once was. But he’s still an evil overlord, and killing spies and double agents to protect your secrets is de rigueur.

[BaronOfHell]

I used to believe in RedCloak's reasoning to himself, and I was cheering for him.

I actually don't recall when I realized he was being delusional (for lack of a better word), but I guess the alternative is just too crushing for him to deal with.

Btw. I don't think Tsukiko was ever really useful to RC, it was only that it was an unnecessary risk to eliminate her before she herself became too big of a risk.
I also have a feeling that Xykon was close to considering replacing RedCloak about that point in time, it is only my interpretation, but perhaps RC personally getting Xykon's phylactery back was a huge step in rectifying the situation. At least to me it looks like Xykon is still not as "happy" about RedCloak as he was from the time after Dorukan's gate fell and until Team Evil conquered Azure City.

[Kornaki]

And let’s not kid ourselves. Double agents aren’t exactly known for their loyalty. Their natural proclivity for treachery is *why* they’re double agents in the first place. Once redcloak decided to burn his secret operation with the intention of keeping it secret forever, double agents were the standard place to start.

Redcloak’s heart might have softened a bit; he’s not nearly as cavalier with the lives of hobgoblins as he once was. But he’s still an evil overlord, and killing spies and double agents to protect your secrets is de rigueur.

A polymorphed goblin working in the human camp isn't a double agent, they're just an agent.

[Emanick]

A polymorphed goblin working in the human camp isn't a double agent, they're just an agent.

I think you’re confusing double agents and triple agents. All it takes to be a double agent is to pretend to work for one side while actually working for the other. That fits Redcloak’s polymorphed goblinoid spy, as far as I can tell.

[hungrycrow]

And let’s not kid ourselves. Double agents aren’t exactly known for their loyalty. Their natural proclivity for treachery is *why* they’re double agents in the first place. Once redcloak decided to burn his secret operation with the intention of keeping it secret forever, double agents were the standard place to start.

I don't see why a goblin willing to spy on humans would be particularly willing to rat out Redcloak. If anything he'd be better at keeping secrets.

That said, Redcloak is too ruthless to take chances anyways.

[Goblin_Priest]

I think you’re confusing double agents and triple agents. All it takes to be a double agent is to pretend to work for one side while actually working for the other. That fits Redcloak’s polymorphed goblinoid spy, as far as I can tell.


In the field of counterintelligence, a double agent (also double secret agent) is an employee of a secret intelligence service for one country, whose primary purpose is to spy on a target organization of another country, but who is now spying on their own country's organization for the target organization.[1]

You are just describing an agent, not a double agent.

[hroþila]

Regardless of the terminology, a spy who started spying on their own employer after being turned by a third party would be treacherous, but a spy who infiltrated an organization to spy on behalf of their original employer would not. The polymorphed spy was not untrustworthy.

[Dion]

I don't see why a goblin willing to spy on humans would be particularly willing to rat out Redcloak. If anything he'd be better at keeping secrets.

I suspect that with the right enticement, a goblin agent could find himself very willing to rat our Redcloak's secrets to Jyrix.

[hungrycrow]

I suspect that with the right enticement, a goblin agent could find himself very willing to rat our Redcloak's secrets to Jyrix.

Maybe, but he was loyal enough to the cause to risk his life and endure living with humans. And as a spy he would understand that certain information is on a need-to-know basis.

[fuschiawarrior]

Spies really are the most trustworthy people. Besides Jyrix with the right amount of violence the Goblin agent would rat out Redcloak to Xykon.

[BaronOfHell]

This Jyrix guy sounds really dangerous, is he one of Xykon's brothers or something?

[lowoki]

This Jyrix guy sounds really dangerous, is he one of Xykon's brothers or something?

Jyrix is Xykon's scary lawful good twin brother who likes to be nice and help people.

[Doug Lampert]

Jyrix is Xykon's scary lawful good twin brother who likes to be nice and help people.

No, no. Jyrix is Zyklon's LG twin brother. His arch-foe is a rouge named Hally.

[wumpus]

He needs to believe that he is important. He needs to be the hero, the brave, cunning underdog, the chosen prophet of the goblins' only god. Redcloak, and only Redcloak, will save goblinkind from the unjust world. He needs a good lie, because without it he'd just be a selfish, egotistical, ruthless monster pursuing his own goals at the expense of everyone ever to exist. Just like Xykon.

You seem to be under the illusion that Redcloak sees himself as good. He's seen his character sheet. He knows he's an NPC. He accepts that. Do you think he doesn't accept that line that says:
Alignment: Lawful Evil?

He (like Taquin and old Belkar) are perfectly aware of their villiany and happy with it. He might see himself as the hero of the Goblins (and may very well be seen as a hero from a long enough historical perspective. Many national heroes never were in the upper section of the alignment chart), but he knows he's very much Lawful Evil (or possibly Neutral Evil).

[Emanick]

You seem to be under the illusion that Redcloak sees himself as good. He's seen his character sheet. He knows he's an NPC. He accepts that. Do you think he doesn't accept that line that says:
Alignment: Lawful Evil?

He (like Taquin and old Belkar) are perfectly aware of their villiany and happy with it. He might see himself as the hero of the Goblins (and may very well be seen as a hero from a long enough historical perspective. Many national heroes never were in the upper section of the alignment chart), but he knows he's very much Lawful Evil (or possibly Neutral Evil).

I think Redcloak rejects the terms ‘Good’ or ‘Evil’ as meaningful, particularly given his belief that paladins are wicked and depraved hypocrites who have no problem slaughtering the innocent. Or rather, they might have some meaning, but more in a loose “these are two opposing teams” sense.

He fully identifies as a member of the Evil team, but he doesn’t believe that makes him the true moral inferior of a being whom a Detect Good spell would ping.

[Darth Paul]

Spies really are the most trustworthy people.

I'm not sure here whather you meant "are" or "aren't" the most trustworthy of people, but IRL, during World War 2, Britain's "20 Bureau", in charge of counter-espionage, was so successful at turning German spies that they couldn't believe, until after the war, how good they had really been. When they finally got a look at German records, it turned out they had suborned every single German spy in Britain, and had them feeding fake information back to Germany.

So, no matter how much he trusted his spy to live among the humans, among other goblinoids it was a different story. Whether by subterfuge, bribery, someone magically disguising themselves as Redcloak, magically reading the spy's mind, or... who knows what (do psionics exist in this world? he stilll wasn't sure), there was too much risk of information leaking out- specifically, the time frame between recovering the real phylactery and Redcloak handing the "phylactery" over to Xykon. Too many questions could be asked about what Redcloak was doing in the meantime. So the spy had to go.

By the way, the 20 Bureau was so named for the Roman numeral XX (Double Cross).

[Edric O]

Years ago, after I read SoD and Redcloak's character development in the battle for Azure City, I was 100% on board with his plan and I was totally cheering for him (see my sig, which is from those times). Today, I still think he's mostly right. Really, the only delusional aspect to his way of thinking is the fact that he's willing to risk destroying the world (and killing all existing goblinoids) for the sake of potential goblinoids in the next world. That is such an insane reckless gamble that it should be enough, by itself, to shift his alignment a few points away from fully Lawful.

But other than that? I don't see anything to indicate that he isn't really doing what is best for goblinoids. The conquest of Azure City and the founding of Gobbotopia were undoubtedly huge gains for goblinkind, and they happened thanks to Redcloak. Now, the story wants us to think that the best thing for goblinoids would be if Redcloak was just content with Gobbotopia and no longer pursued the Plan, but why? He left all his goblinoid followers back in Gobbotopia, where they were as safe as possible (literally safer than anyone else in the world), and under the competent rule of Jirix. In the bid for the last two Gates, he risked no goblin lives at all except his own (well, and the bugbears, now, but he ran into bugbears by accident; he didn't intend to put them in harm's way).

So, what is Redcloak doing now that is actually bad for the goblins? At this point he couldn't go back to Gobbotopia and abandon the Plan even if he wanted to, as that would require first defeating Xykon to prevent him from murdering all the goblins out of spite.

The way I see it, while Redcloak certainly did kill more goblins than Durkon, he also delivered on his promises. He created Gobbotopia, which represents the greatest golden age in goblinoid history, and everything he did afterwards was the only thing he could have done to keep Gobbotopia safe from Xykon. Redcloak may be delusional, but would a hypothetical non-delusional Redcloak who has nothing but the best interests of goblinoids in mind act any different? Not up to this point in the story, no.

The only difference between our Redcloak and a hypothetical non-delusional Redcloak is that the latter would be looking for ways to betray and destroy Xykon rather than find the Gate, so he might have taken Durkon's offer. But that point of divergence was, what, 20 minutes ago in-story? And even a perfectly rational Redcloak might have refused Durkon's offer simply because it's too risky to trust a former enemy who suddenly claims to have your best interests in mind (after all, Durkon provided no evidence for his claims).

In short, Redcloak's options are constrained by the existence of Xykon. As long as Xykon continues to exist, the best thing for goblinkind really is the thing that Redcloak is doing. Any better alternative would require first destroying Xykon.

[The Pilgrim]

But other than that? I don't see anything to indicate that he isn't really doing what is best for goblinoids. The conquest of Azure City and the founding of Gobbotopia were undoubtedly huge gains for goblinkind, and they happened thanks to Redcloak.

Yeah. Redcloak killed about one third of the hobgoblin population, and turned the rest into Crusade Bait for everyone else. Huge gains for Goblinkind.


The way I see it, while Redcloak certainly did kill more goblins than Durkon, he also delivered on his promises. He created Gobbotopia, which represents the greatest golden age in goblinoid history

As far as we have been shown, "Gobbtopia" is just a brutal regime with a few hobgoblins sitting over a ruined city, slavedriving hundreds of thousands of human slaves.


In short, Redcloak's options are constrained by the existence of Xykon. As long as Xykon continues to exist, the best thing for goblinkind really is the thing that Redcloak is doing. Any better alternative would require first destroying Xykon.

Xykon only exists because of Redcloak.

All Redcloak has done for Goblinkind is:

- Create a monster that likes to sacrifice goblinoid lives for his own amusement.
- Pursue a Divine Plan that puts the existence of all goblinoids at risk.
- Provoke a war in which thousands of goblinoids died and that has put a big Crusade Marker on their heads.

I very much doubt that the goblinoids are better now than before Redcloak.

[brian 333]

The OP is very close to right, in my opinion. The thing is, from Redcloak's PoV, the only trustworthy being is himself.

Craftsman might brag one day, spy might be made to talk. Even if it's 99.999% certain no one will blab, they can't be trusted. Only Redcloak is trustworthy; everyone else is a threat.

Xykon? A threat. He's useful. For now. Keep him happy, keep him distracted, and once he becomes more of a threat than he's worth, eliminate him.

Xykon knows this, and that's why he...
geased MitD

[Lord Raziere]

Years ago, after I read SoD and Redcloak's character development in the battle for Azure City, I was 100% on board with his plan and I was totally cheering for him (see my sig, which is from those times). Today, I still think he's mostly right. Really, the only delusional aspect to his way of thinking is the fact that he's willing to risk destroying the world (and killing all existing goblinoids) for the sake of potential goblinoids in the next world. That is such an insane reckless gamble that it should be enough, by itself, to shift his alignment a few points away from fully Lawful.

But other than that? I don't see anything to indicate that he isn't really doing what is best for goblinoids. The conquest of Azure City and the founding of Gobbotopia were undoubtedly huge gains for goblinkind, and they happened thanks to Redcloak. Now, the story wants us to think that the best thing for goblinoids would be if Redcloak was just content with Gobbotopia and no longer pursued the Plan, but why? He left all his goblinoid followers back in Gobbotopia, where they were as safe as possible (literally safer than anyone else in the world), and under the competent rule of Jirix. In the bid for the last two Gates, he risked no goblin lives at all except his own (well, and the bugbears, now, but he ran into bugbears by accident; he didn't intend to put them in harm's way).

So, what is Redcloak doing now that is actually bad for the goblins? At this point he couldn't go back to Gobbotopia and abandon the Plan even if he wanted to, as that would require first defeating Xykon to prevent him from murdering all the goblins out of spite.

The way I see it, while Redcloak certainly did kill more goblins than Durkon, he also delivered on his promises. He created Gobbotopia, which represents the greatest golden age in goblinoid history, and everything he did afterwards was the only thing he could have done to keep Gobbotopia safe from Xykon. Redcloak may be delusional, but would a hypothetical non-delusional Redcloak who has nothing but the best interests of goblinoids in mind act any different? Not up to this point in the story, no.

The only difference between our Redcloak and a hypothetical non-delusional Redcloak is that the latter would be looking for ways to betray and destroy Xykon rather than find the Gate, so he might have taken Durkon's offer. But that point of divergence was, what, 20 minutes ago in-story? And even a perfectly rational Redcloak might have refused Durkon's offer simply because it's too risky to trust a former enemy who suddenly claims to have your best interests in mind (after all, Durkon provided no evidence for his claims).

In short, Redcloak's options are constrained by the existence of Xykon. As long as Xykon continues to exist, the best thing for goblinkind really is the thing that Redcloak is doing. Any better alternative would require first destroying Xykon.

Agreed. and given how Redcloak has the real phylactery? Its pretty much certain that Redcloak plans to betray Xykon after the Plan is done anyways because revenge for Right-Eye is a dish best served cold and Xykon has it coming. the difference between non-delusional and delusional Redcloak is whether he betrays Xykon now or after he goes through with it.

[hroþila]

Yeah. Redcloak killed about one third of the hobgoblin population, and turned the rest into Crusade Bait for everyone else. Huge gains for Goblinkind.
It's true that they'd be less of a target if they had known their place and stayed put.

Every hobgoblin we saw express an opinion on the idea of going to war and taking Azure City was fully on board with it, and it's not like Redcloak had made any efforts to win them over. And even as the most extremely negative appraisal of Redcloak's actions there, "getting someone killed by sending them to war" is not remotely the same as "killing someone".

As far as we have been shown, "Gobbtopia" is just a brutal regime with a few hobgoblins sitting over a ruined city, slavedriving hundreds of thousands of human slaves.

What?

[The Pilgrim]

It's true that they'd be less of a target if they had known their place and stayed put.

You are paraphrasing the speech invoked by one of the comic's Main Villiain for justifying himself in front of one of the comic's Main Heroes.

That should be indicative for you that there is something wrong in your way of reasoning.

Preventing yourself from butchering your neighbours does not means you are "knowing your place and staying put". It just means you are a reasonable person.

[danielxcutter]

I won’t deny that war sucks and that Redcloak is an asshat, but I wonder how much hate he gets is reasonable and how much is simply “hur dur villain bad”. Or even “hur dur goblins bad”? I think that third one is a minority in a minority, but I’ve actually seen people unironically say that once or twice on this forum.

[unluckiest13]

Late to the conversation, but to clear up, if the resistance sent the goblin that was polymorphed to spy on the goblins so he was "spying" for both sides, then he would be a double agent. A double agent is someone who both sides know is a spy "for them", but is really only working for one side (off the top of my head think Fairy Tail *spoiler* the Iron Dragon Slayer).

Back to the rest of the convo, I haven't seen too much hate towards Redcloak himself, rather than hating his sunken cost fallacy and the decisions that leads to. Admittedly I haven't been to the forums for a while so that may be different now.

One thing I love about the Giant's storytelling in a DnD format is he makes it really hard to judge people/creatures based on their alignment

[denthor]

Quick question

Both were allowed to be maintained. Without outside forces invading.

In the paladin got his scar

Redcloak is up rooting these and destroying what he seeks.

I typed more but I can not see it. Used the wrong SPOILER tag. Just hit quote to see the rest

[danielxcutter]

You, uh.

You might not know how to use them, me thinks.

You're supposed to put the text between the spoiler tags. Or quote tags or stuff like that.

[unluckiest13]

You, uh.

You might not know how to use them, me thinks.

You're supposed to put the text between the spoiler tags. Or quote tags or stuff like that.

you are absolutely right. i have maybe made 3 posts in these forums. but also, i didnt feel like finding the spoiler thing for a show thats 10 years old haha. i just wanted to say, there was a spoiler, but wasn't too concerned about it since it wasn't comic relevant.

In retrospect, i am beginning to think you were talking to the post after mine. but either way it applies to mine too.

[Jasdoif]

As long as Xykon continues to exist, the best thing for goblinkind really is the thing that Redcloak is doing. Any better alternative would require first destroying Xykon.I'm curious how trying to handicap the only group (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1210.html) that's destroyed Xykon (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0115.html) fits into that picture.

I mean, Redcloak knows the gist of Roy's quest (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0901.html) and knows Durkon was with them (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1205.html). Even if Redcloak doesn't trust Durkon, he knows that destroying Xykon is among their goals; walking away from the negotiation/discussion with a comment like "There shall be no peace, as long as Kirk lives Xykon exists" would increase the chances of Xykon's destruction more than killing Durkon would...and if/after either side is defeated fighting it out, Redcloak has the option of going after the other while they're still down the resources they expended fighting. It'd have a much better chance of success than just casting spells at Xykon himself.

Unless, of course, Redcloak rates Gobbotopia below completing the Plan on his own terms; in which case Durkon's proposal is a bigger threat to his plans than Xykon is, and protecting Xykon until the ritual's completion is indeed a rational response on his part.

[Ionathus]

Disclaimer: I still haven't gotten SoD and only know a bit about it, so some relevant points might be missing. The majority of the analysis here is from the main comic.

Reading through Rich's answer post made me realize something. Redcloak, for the most part, views goblinoids and their issues as hypotheticals.

Although we're now digging into this in the main comic, I would still recommend reading SoD -- if only because it's a stellar piece of art! Very enjoyable and does a good job of telling Xykon & Redcloak's history together.

As for your "hypothetical" comment...SoD also shows us the origins of Redcloak's quest, and the plight of goblinoids affected him directly in a deeply, deeply personal way.

Doesn't change the fact that he's a walking lesson in the Sunk Cost Fallacy, but that just makes the story and his character more interesting for me.

[kenlund]

I wonder how Redcloak would be planning to eliminate Xykon? With all the planning and thinking he does, he must have something in mind. If he and Xykon can cast the ritual and move the gate to the Dark One's domain...Xykon is gonna be really pissed off when he finds out what the spell really does.

[danielxcutter]

I’m voting on either “feed him to the Snarl” or “Redcloak turned Miko into a death knight blackguard and has been keeping her in a Bag of Holding until just the right moment”.

Yes I know I’m stretching but that’s the fun.

[understatement]

I wonder how Redcloak would be planning to eliminate Xykon? With all the planning and thinking he does, he must have something in mind. If he and Xykon can cast the ritual and move the gate to the Dark One's domain...Xykon is gonna be really pissed off when he finds out what the spell really does.


Redcloak is expecting that the Dark One will interfere on his behalf and destroy Xykon.

[Dion]

Redcloak turned Miko into a death knight blackguard and has been keeping her in a Bag of Holding until just the right moment

This is so clearly the correct answer it belongs in a spoiler tag.

[Darth Paul]

I also don't see so much hate for Redcloak around here, but not many seem to be fans of his point of view either. Yes, many like his snark warfare with Xykon, because we've all worked for incompetent bosses and been the only sane one in the room, but behind that there's always the awareness that the tasks RC is keeping everyone focused on were things like staging an invasion, maintaining an occupation of the city they invaded, and a plan which may very well end the world- and he doesn't care about the last possibility.

I for one understand his Freudian excuses, but they're just that- excuses he's making to justify the increasingly awful things he does. They're not reasons. So I don't sympathize with him and I certainly don't empathize with him. There is no point where invading another country to get paybacks is the sympathetic course of action.

[danielxcutter]

Oh don't get me wrong, Redcloak very much is a hypocritical asshat who's committed numerous war crimes. But I still think the circumstances surrounding him are too complicated to be brushed off with "eh, tragic backstory but he's Evil so he needs killings".

Redcloak committing atrocities does not invalidate the wrongs that have been inflicted on him, or on goblinoids in general. Arguably, the only reason the situation has degenerated to this point in the first place is because these problems haven't been properly addressed until now.

[The Pilgrim]

Redcloak committing atrocities does not invalidate the wrongs that have been inflicted on him, or on goblinoids in general. Arguably, the only reason the situation has degenerated to this point in the first place is because these problems haven't been properly addressed until now.

Actually they were adressed, as shown in HtPGhS. After the events in that story, Azurites and Hobgoblins were living in peace... until Redcloak took control of the Hobgoblins.

Redcloak is the only goblinoid that seems to really believe in the Dark One's victimization narrative. Right-Eye discarded it. Oona discards it. Even Jirix (the reasonable guy who shared laughts with Xykon over watching prisoners get tortured) seems to be on board just for the plunder and conquest rather than for "leveling the playing field".

[Doug Lampert]

Actually they were adressed, as shown in HtPGhS. After the events in that story, Azurites and Hobgoblins were living in peace... until Redcloak took control of the Hobgoblins.

Redcloak is the only goblinoid that seems to really believe in the Dark One's victimization narrative. Right-Eye discarded it. Oona discards it. Even Jirix (the reasonable guy who shared laughts with Xykon over watching prisoners get tortured) seems to be on board just for the plunder and conquest rather than for "leveling the playing field".

Similar to the way Right-Eye's village was doing fine, facing no threat worse than a visit by a circus where goblins and humans were watching the show side by side with no sign of animosity.

Then Red Cloak and his tool Xykon showed up and there was no more of THAT sort of nonsense of living peacefully side by side rather than concentrating on the vital plan needed to get goblins an equal place in the world.

RC is directly responsible for more goblinoid death and suffering than every other character we've seen in comic combined. X is in second place, and he's basically RC's creation, no one else even comes close.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Actually they were adressed, as shown in HtPGhS. After the events in that story, Azurites and Hobgoblins were living in peace... until Redcloak took control of the Hobgoblins.

Redcloak is the only goblinoid that seems to really believe in the Dark One's victimization narrative. Right-Eye discarded it. Oona discards it. Even Jirix (the reasonable guy who shared laughts with Xykon over watching prisoners get tortured) seems to be on board just for the plunder and conquest rather than for "leveling the playing field".


Similar to the way Right-Eye's village was doing fine, facing no threat worse than a visit by a circus where goblins and humans were watching the show side by side with no sign of animosity.

Then Red Cloak and his tool Xykon showed up and there was no more of THAT sort of nonsense of living peacefully side by side rather than concentrating on the vital plan needed to get goblins an equal place in the world.

RC is directly responsible for more goblinoid death and suffering than every other character we've seen in comic combined. X is in second place, and he's basically RC's creation, no one else even comes close.

This is a lot like Tarquin and his adventuring party. Where we only heard about them and Tarquin's role within them from Tarquin and people took them for unabridged, absolute fact. To some degree, the plight of goblinoids is terrible. But believing RC word on the extent and the methods to fix said plight is folly.

[Doug Lampert]

This is a lot like Tarquin and his adventuring party. Where we only heard about them and Tarquin's role within them from Tarquin and people took them for unabridged, absolute fact. To some degree, the plight of goblinoids is terrible. But believing RC word on the extent and the methods to fix said plight is folly.

Yes, we have evidence that monster races are often treated extremely unfairly (as in murdered out of hand with no real justification, it doesn't get all that much less fair than that). What we don't have is any evidence at all that supports the PLAN being justified or in any way a good thing for goblins or any evidence that RC has ever done ANYTHING actually helpful of his own will for any other goblin in the entire history of the comic!

Yes: RC's village and family WERE killed when a bunch of paladins decided that murdering non-combatants was fine when they were raiding a goblin village. Murdering non-combatants was 100% evil and unjustified. But equally certainly, this does not even begin to justify RC's willingness to see the destruction of the soul of every living goblin on the basis that this MIGHT help hypothetical future goblins in another world (that he is wrong about even that is simply icing on the cake of totally incorrect that is RC and the Plan). And if RC in the attack on Azure City and aftermath showed any concern whatsoever for non-combatants, I totally missed it.

Roy had to stop an adventuring party from killing orcs for the horrid crime of wanting to attend a concert. O'Chul had to stop an attack on the Hobgoblin city. But in both cases, the actually GOOD character did successfully stop the attack. Just maybe working WITH those actually good people would be a better idea than casting Implosion to try to kill them or holding them for months of torture? Not according to RC, he's had multiple chances, and has gone for murder or torture of the actual Hero every time.

There is a real problem in the world of the OotS, but RC is part of the problem. He has given no indication that he wants to be or can be part of the solution. In O'Chul's words, "There are always only two sides, those who want a war and those who don't." RC has chosen his side, and it puts him squarely in the same corner as the people who murdered his little sister, trying to win the race to the bottom by attacking and killing or enslaving non-combatants for the crimes of others.

Edited to add: Just to make it clear, I'm agreeing with MesiDoomstalker that this is like people believing Tarquin, they are believing RC that the plan is somehow a good thing. They are believing him that Goblintopia is a gain, rather than 10,000 dead hobgoblins for nothing worth the cost. They are somehow taking the Dark One's story of being a failed extortionist murdered by his proposed victims as indicating that he was in the right.

[WanderingMist]

I'm curious how trying to handicap the only group (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1210.html) that's destroyed Xykon (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0115.html) fits into that picture.

I mean, Redcloak knows the gist of Roy's quest (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0901.html) and knows Durkon was with them (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1205.html). Even if Redcloak doesn't trust Durkon, he knows that destroying Xykon is among their goals; walking away from the negotiation/discussion with a comment like "There shall be no peace, as long as Kirk lives Xykon exists" would increase the chances of Xykon's destruction more than killing Durkon would...and if/after either side is defeated fighting it out, Redcloak has the option of going after the other while they're still down the resources they expended fighting. It'd have a much better chance of success than just casting spells at Xykon himself.

Unless, of course, Redcloak rates Gobbotopia below completing the Plan on his own terms; in which case Durkon's proposal is a bigger threat to his plans than Xykon is, and protecting Xykon until the ritual's completion is indeed a rational response on his part.
He does. If he didn't, there would've been no reason for him to give Xykon advice during V's attack. In fact, if he did value The Goblin's Republic Of Goblins more, he would have had no reason not to actively help V in their attempt on Xykon's unlife.

[The Pilgrim]

RC has chosen his side, and it puts him squarely in the same corner as the people who murdered his little sister

Indeed. After all, murdering Redcloak's relatives in cold blood is something the Paladins and Redcloak have in common.

[danielxcutter]

Okay so... are you guys saying that Redcloak has to die and Rich should pull some BS with Banjo being the sixth quiddity or something?

I find it ironic that people compare him to Tarquin, because people seem to be going in the exact opposite direction; assuming that literally everything he stands for is wrong.

Honestly, I’m a bit surprised that people are even admitting monstrous races got unfairly slaughtered. I’ve seen (poor) arguments against that.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Okay so... are you guys saying that Redcloak has to die and Rich should pull some BS with Banjo being the sixth quiddity or something?

I find it ironic that people compare him to Tarquin, because people seem to be going in the exact opposite direction; assuming that literally everything he stands for is wrong.

Honestly, I’m a bit surprised that people are even admitting monstrous races got unfairly slaughtered. I’ve seen (poor) arguments against that.

I'm not making any judgements on whether RC should or should not die. I'm simply pointing out that trusting RC to be forthwith, honest and unbiased about The Plan and its necessity is a mistake. I don't know how the story should end; I trust Rich to write it far better than I could concoct. And my comparison to Tarquin was to the audience reaction to them more than the character themselves.

[brian 333]

The presumption in the previous argument is that the only thing those monstrous creatures did was to be born with an evil alignment.

Alignment doesn't work like that. If you do nothing evil your alignment is not evil. In The Giant's work children default to their mothers' alignment until the weight of their moral choices is significant enough to establish their place on the alignment grid.

But all alignments are earned by the cumulative choices a creature makes. If a creature has Evil on its alignment entry, it did Evil stuff off panel before the PCs got there.

For example, those teenaged goblins in The Dungeon of Dorukon participated in unholy religous practices, (drink the blood of the innocents,) and they were not the good guys they pretended to be any more than Haley was a Mistress of Pain.

The real question is, how do the Good characters know the monsters really are Evil. If they don't know but slaughter them anyway, how is that different from being a mons...

Oh. That's Belkar's story arc.

[danielxcutter]

I'm not making any judgements on whether RC should or should not die. I'm simply pointing out that trusting RC to be forthwith, honest and unbiased about The Plan and its necessity is a mistake. I don't know how the story should end; I trust Rich to write it far better than I could concoct. And my comparison to Tarquin was to the audience reaction to them more than the character themselves.

A lot of people who attack Redcloak seem to think that not saying that everything he stands for is wrong is the same as saying he's 100% right.

I don't think that the Plan is justified and I don't like what he's done so far, but "thinking that he's not on the right path" isn't the same as "hur dur villain is bad".

[CriticalFailure]

I don’t see how Gobbotopia can be argued to have been anything but a massive victory for goblinoids given the exposition we have that goblins live in marginal low productivity lands, that the hobgoblin mountain town was previously the largest settlement on the surface, and that monstrous races are attacked by humans etc. Azure City was clearly a wealthy target, it’s pretty clearly implied that the long term strategic and economic implications of conquering it were a game changer - and Redcloak delayed Xykon for months getting the situation stabilized; they clearly care about it. The argument they don’t care about Gobbotopia doesn’t hold water.

Obviously that Doesn’t justify conquering AC, thats not the point.

I also don’t buy the idea that killing Tsukkiko was anything other than a neutral or even good act, regardless of whether Tsukikko was motivated by *wuv.* They were a menace to any living thing near them and they were also a menace to Redcloak’s continued existence and ability to implement their own plans. I don’t really see how killing a consistently homicidal necromancer who has just said they are going to tell a lich something that will assuredly end with the lich killing you and tens of thousands of your best friends can be argued to be evil; just because the person doing it is evil doesn’t mean it’s an inherently evil act.

part of the point of Redcloak’s arc is to look at how exposure to and toleration of evil leads to moral decay. Redcloak specifically says they’re turning into Xykon; there is a direct link to allowing themself to become numb and used to Xykon and allowing Xykon to shape their behavior. We are all products of our environment and Redcloak has chosen Xyjon as part of his environment, leading to moral rot.

Additionally, it seems that their scenes also show how isolation can make us callous, self centered, and lacking in compassion. Redcloak still has agency on this front - the part in the battle for AC shows they haven’t completely shed their own values and they quite clearly alter course away from turning into Xykon (though obviously they are still evil).

I think people often get wrong why exactly Redcloak follows the plan so closely. It isn’t lawless recklessness but lawful obedience to his god. On a deeper level, I think this obedience is sort of polar opposite of the hubris that lead V to case familicide and launch their ill considered assault on Xykon.

Redcloak was thrust into the responsibility of Bearer/High Priest with no preparation and no guidance outside the revelation of the plan, as a very vulnerable (because everyone they knew had just been killed) teen. They followed the plan because of a sense of duty to their god, trust in the plan, and need for purpose and structure after losing almost everything - but they didn’t have the maturity to truly understand and accept the responsibility for their position. But as long as he was following the Dark One’s plan, he could keep attributing ultimate responsibility to the dark one and see himself as merely a pawn of the dark one.

So, their attempts to follow the plan went on, with little guidance, and as doubts and failures piled up he kept telling himself he was following the plan. Every time he made a decision that he didn’t have the emotional maturity to accept responsibility for he told himself that he was simply obeying the dark one, denying his own agency and responsibility.

As their crusade continued, taking responsibility for their own actions became a more and more scary prospect as sacrifices and regrets piled up. Redcloak clearly lacked the emotional capacity and resilience to accept responsibility for command, then they added creating a lich and right-eye to the decisions they were too afraid to accept responsibility for as well.

Redcloak wasn’t all wrong in trying to face his duty to his god and his people rather than running or shirking as Eugene and Right-Eye suggested. In contrast to Eugene’s abdication of responsibility, there is something very noble in Redcloak’s decision to face his duty when he first becomes high priest and when he chooses not to give up his position, but this decision is ultimately tragic because he merely accepts his duty as the servant of a god, engaging in self-objectification that allows him to see himself as a mere tool of a higher authority. He lacks the insight and moral courage to see and embrace his moral duty to take responsibility for his own actions, both as a leader and simply as an individual with agency.

Overall I think Redcloak is an interesting character because he seems to offer a portrait of how the inability to deal with ones’ own choices and failings leads to the fear of making the wrong choice, the fear of responsibility, and ultimately to intolerable moral cowardice that can be all consuming and cause a person to try to escape their own free will. That’s why I see Redcloak as a sort of opposite to V; in contrast to her hubris he is dominated by a kind of insecurity, the fear of his own choices. Where V feels entitled to see their judgment enforced on anything and everything, Redcloak is so afraid of their own judgment that they trick themself into believing it is the will of the Dark One and that their choices aren’t their own.

[danielxcutter]

I don’t see how Gobbotopia can be argued to have been anything but a massive victory for goblinoids given the exposition we have that goblins live in marginal low productivity lands, that the hobgoblin mountain town was previously the largest settlement on the surface, and that monstrous races are attacked by humans etc. Azure City was clearly a wealthy target, it’s pretty clearly implied that the long term strategic and economic implications of conquering it were a game changer - and Redcloak delayed Xykon for months getting the situation stabilized; they clearly care about it. The argument they don’t care about Gobbotopia doesn’t hold water.

Obviously that Doesn’t justify conquering AC, thats not the point.

I think this is a "no it's not morally justified, it's war, but at the same time it's the only way at this point that goblinoids can actually manage to get to the point where it's no longer socially acceptable for adventurers to waltz in and slaughter them" argument, in which case I agree.

I wouldn't say that Redcloak doesn't care about Gobbotopia either; maybe he cares about the Plan and not being wrong more but I don't think that means it's all just a load of gorgon manure either.


I also don’t buy the idea that killing Tsukkiko was anything other than a neutral or even good act, regardless of whether Tsukikko was motivated by *wuv.* They were a menace to any living thing near them and they were also a menace to Redcloak’s continued existence and ability to implement their own plans. I don’t really see how killing a consistently homicidal necromancer who has just said they are going to tell a lich something that will assuredly end with the lich killing you and tens of thousands of your best friends can be argued to be evil; just because the person doing it is evil doesn’t mean it’s an inherently evil act.

I don't think it's particularly the actual killing her that's the problem, it's more about feeding her to her own wights. I would argue Redcloak killing her with Destruction or Disintegrate would have been less Evil than that.


part of the point of Redcloak’s arc is to look at how exposure to and toleration of evil leads to moral decay. Redcloak specifically says they’re turning into Xykon; there is a direct link to allowing themself to become numb and used to Xykon and allowing Xykon to shape their behavior. We are all products of our environment and Redcloak has chosen Xyjon as part of his environment, leading to moral rot.

Additionally, it seems that their scenes also show how isolation can make us callous, self centered, and lacking in compassion. Redcloak still has agency on this front - the part in the battle for AC shows they haven’t completely shed their own values and they quite clearly alter course away from turning into Xykon (though obviously they are still evil).

I think people often get wrong why exactly Redcloak follows the plan so closely. It isn’t lawless recklessness but lawful obedience to his god. On a deeper level, I think this obedience is sort of polar opposite of the hubris that lead V to case familicide and launch their ill considered assault on Xykon.

Hmm, I wouldn't say this. I think part of the reason Redcloak is still with Xykon is because Xykon's too powerful to ditch and partly because ditching him would mean that Redcloak's been wrong all along - Start of Darkness handles this well I believe.

But I think the "moral decay" factor isn't entirely without merit either; I've heard a very good theory that Redcloak's passiveness and callousness towards hobgoblins in the early strips was due to his spirits being crushed by the events of SoD and the hobgoblin soldier saving him is what snapped him out of it.


Redcloak was thrust into the responsibility of Bearer/High Priest with no preparation and no guidance outside the revelation of the plan, as a very vulnerable (because everyone they knew had just been killed) teen. They followed the plan because of a sense of duty to their god, trust in the plan, and need for purpose and structure after losing almost everything - but they didn’t have the maturity to truly understand and accept the responsibility for their position. But as long as he was following the Dark One’s plan, he could keep attributing ultimate responsibility to the dark one and see himself as merely a pawn of the dark one.

So, their attempts to follow the plan went on, with little guidance, and as doubts and failures piled up he kept telling himself he was following the plan. Every time he made a decision that he didn’t have the emotional maturity to accept responsibility for he told himself that he was simply obeying the dark one, denying his own agency and responsibility.

As their crusade continued, taking responsibility for their own actions became a more and more scary prospect as sacrifices and regrets piled up. Redcloak clearly lacked the emotional capacity and resilience to accept responsibility for command, then they added creating a lich and right-eye to the decisions they were too afraid to accept responsibility for as well.

Redcloak wasn’t all wrong in trying to face his duty to his god and his people rather than running or shirking as Eugene and Right-Eye suggested. In contrast to Eugene’s abdication of responsibility, there is something very noble in Redcloak’s decision to face his duty when he first becomes high priest and when he chooses not to give up his position, but this decision is ultimately tragic because he merely accepts his duty as the servant of a god, engaging in self-objectification that allows him to see himself as a mere tool of a higher authority. He lacks the insight and moral courage to see and embrace his moral duty to take responsibility for his own actions, both as a leader and simply as an individual with agency.

Overall I think Redcloak is an interesting character because he seems to offer a portrait of how the inability to deal with ones’ own choices and failings leads to the fear of making the wrong choice, the fear of responsibility, and ultimately to intolerable moral cowardice that can be all consuming and cause a person to try to escape their own free will. That’s why I see Redcloak as a sort of opposite to V; in contrast to her hubris he is dominated by a kind of insecurity, the fear of his own choices. Where V feels entitled to see their judgment enforced on anything and everything, Redcloak is so afraid of their own judgment that they trick themself into believing it is the will of the Dark One and that their choices aren’t their own.

I don't think the "following the Dark One" is as big of a factor as you're saying, but you're right that the only thing Redcloak really has left is the Plan and that's why he's so obsessed with it.

Honestly, I can't really say that Redcloak was right, but I can't say that all the crap he's been through was entirely his fault either. There's just so many ifs... if the Sapphire Guard hadn't slaughtered his entire village just because they were goblinoids, if he'd never met Xykon, if Dorukan had ended up winning... You get the idea.

[CriticalFailure]

I think this is a "no it's not morally justified, it's war, but at the same time it's the only way at this point that goblinoids can actually manage to get to the point where it's no longer socially acceptable for adventurers to waltz in and slaughter them" argument, in which case I agree.

I wouldn't say that Redcloak doesn't care about Gobbotopia either; maybe he cares about the Plan and not being wrong more but I don't think that means it's all just a load of gorgon manure either.



Yeah, agree. I was addding that because some people seem to like to ignore that this conquest lets the goblins play at a level they have never had access to before and saying that Redcloak only cares about revenge and conquering AC accomplished nothing but revenge is pointless oversimplification. Just because he’s evil doesn’t mean that he has no motivations outside revenge.





I don't think it's particularly the actual killing her that's the problem, it's more about feeding her to her own wights. I would argue Redcloak killing her with Destruction or Disintegrate would have been less Evil than that.



If she’d been eaten alive by wights I’d agree but I didn’t get the impression that being level drained by wights was a worse death that other spells or bleeding out from swords or arrows or being bludgeoned to death with a club or mace. Maybe I was missing the point. Having the wights eat her to dispose of her corpse was gross but she was already dead, so I guess I didn’t see the difference between that and simply disintegrating her besides the gross out factor. I can see the argument that forcing her to confront the fact that her wights didn’t love her as she died was unnecessarily cruel but I guess ironic final realizations are enough of a trope that I don’t think of it as out of bounds when a character shows another they were wrong all along in their final confrontation. Maybe I am just missing the point or being overly cold and analytical though.




Hmm, I wouldn't say this. I think part of the reason Redcloak is still with Xykon is because Xykon's too powerful to ditch and partly because ditching him would mean that Redcloak's been wrong all along - Start of Darkness handles this well I believe.



Overall I agree with this, I was more arguing about the effect that being around Xykon was having on him.




But I think the "moral decay" factor isn't entirely without merit either; I've heard a very good theory that Redcloak's passiveness and callousness towards hobgoblins in the early strips was due to his spirits being crushed by the events of SoD and the hobgoblin soldier saving him is what snapped him out of it.



I think that’s a good theory about why Redcloak has that attitude. I think they merge together in that by working with Xykon Redcloak has had to become numb to the horrible things Xykon dies and he gets used to them. I think the events at the end of SOD exacerbated this effect because Redcloak was broken down and his response to this disempowerment was to be more compliant to Xykon since he saw himself as unable to escape that subordination. And to become more like Xykon as sort of an adaption to being under his thumb, the path of least resistance. Whereas I think that choosing to stop allowing himself to turn into Xykon was a big moment in Redcloak’s path to claiming his own agency back and rejecting the idea that he’s stuck being a slave to Xykon (not that he’s actually been able to escape his subordination). However, I think Redcloak sees it as a choice to be subordinate to and a tool of the the Dark One.





I don't think the "following the Dark One" is as big of a factor as you're saying, but you're right that the only thing Redcloak really has left is the Plan and that's why he's so obsessed with it.



I think he’s obsessed with following the Plan because it’s the only thing left, but also because he is able to rationalize that everything he does following the plan is simply following the Dark One and that it’s ultimately the Dark One who is responsible rather than him. A big part of his attachment to following the plan/following the dark one is that it lets him defer responsibility for his actions to the Dark One. He’s obsessed with being able to tell himself that right-eye/xykon’s lichification/the death of all those he’s ordered into battle were demanded by The Plan and are the will of the Dark One because accepting that they were his choice and his responsibility is terrifying and he has no idea how to process that or move forward from it. I think that when he finally can’t maintain the denial any more and has to accept responsibility for it all he’ll have a hell of a mental break down.




Honestly, I can't really say that Redcloak was right, but I can't say that all the crap he's been through was entirely his fault either. There's just so many ifs... if the Sapphire Guard hadn't slaughtered his entire village just because they were goblinoids, if he'd never met Xykon, if Dorukan had ended up winning... You get the idea.

Yeah I completely agree, there are so many points especially in SOD where you can see could’ve been a better and happier person if things had been different. I think it’s particularly tragic because he tried to rise to the occasion when he became high priest but he completely lacked the emotional maturity and insight he needed to do so and he didn’t really have any resources to learn that or figure it out. So he just kept running away from responsibility and his moral cowardice spun more and more out of control and things got worse and worse.

[danielxcutter]

Yeah, agree. I was addding that because some people seem to like to ignore that this conquest lets the goblins play at a level they have never had access to before and saying that Redcloak only cares about revenge and conquering AC accomplished nothing but revenge is pointless oversimplification. Just because he’s evil doesn’t mean that he has no motivations outside revenge.

Precisely. I'm reminded of Nale and Sabine; both are unquestionably Evil but it's not hard to see that they do genuinely love each other.


If she’d been eaten alive by wights I’d agree but I didn’t get the impression that being level drained by wights was a worse death that other spells or bleeding out from swords or arrows or being bludgeoned to death with a club or mace. Maybe I was missing the point. Having the wights eat her to dispose of her corpse was gross but she was already dead, so I guess I didn’t see the difference between that and simply disintegrating her besides the gross out factor. I can see the argument that forcing her to confront the fact that her wights didn’t love her as she died was unnecessarily cruel but I guess ironic final realizations are enough of a trope that I don’t think of it as out of bounds when a character shows another they were wrong all along in their final confrontation. Maybe I am just missing the point or being overly cold and analytical though.

Let me rephrase that; the really Evil part was feeding her to her wights; Tsukiko was a delusional necrophilic bitch but it kinda seemed to me that she clung to being loved by the undead because she didn't feel loved by the living.


Overall I agree with this, I was more arguing about the effect that being around Xykon was having on him.

Fair.


I think that’s a good theory about why Redcloak has that attitude. I think they merge together in that by working with Xykon Redcloak has had to become numb to the horrible things Xykon dies and he gets used to them. I think the events at the end of SOD exacerbated this effect because Redcloak was broken down and his response to this disempowerment was to be more compliant to Xykon since he saw himself as unable to escape that subordination. And to become more like Xykon as sort of an adaption to being under his thumb, the path of least resistance. Whereas I think that choosing to stop allowing himself to turn into Xykon was a big moment in Redcloak’s path to claiming his own agency back and rejecting the idea that he’s stuck being a slave to Xykon (not that he’s actually been able to escape his subordination). However, I think Redcloak sees it as a choice to be subordinate to and a tool of the the Dark One.

Hmm... I guess that kinda makes sense.


I think he’s obsessed with following the Plan because it’s the only thing left, but also because he is able to rationalize that everything he does following the plan is simply following the Dark One and that it’s ultimately the Dark One who is responsible rather than him. A big part of his attachment to following the plan/following the dark one is that it lets him defer responsibility for his actions to the Dark One. He’s obsessed with being able to tell himself that right-eye/xykon’s lichification/the death of all those he’s ordered into battle were demanded by The Plan and are the will of the Dark One because accepting that they were his choice and his responsibility is terrifying and he has no idea how to process that or move forward from it. I think that when he finally can’t maintain the denial any more and has to accept responsibility for it all he’ll have a hell of a mental break down.

Probably, yeah.


Yeah I completely agree, there are so many points especially in SOD where you can see could’ve been a better and happier person if things had been different. I think it’s particularly tragic because he tried to rise to the occasion when he became high priest but he completely lacked the emotional maturity and insight he needed to do so and he didn’t really have any resources to learn that or figure it out. So he just kept running away from responsibility and his moral cowardice spun more and more out of control and things got worse and worse.

It's a shame, isn't it?

[Darth Paul]

However, I think Redcloak sees it as a choice to be subordinate to and a tool of the the Dark One.


Exactly. He's made a choice. And now he's chosen not to present his god with an option that might preserve all the presently existing goblins, along with the rest of the world, and end the cycle of destruction... because he is committed to The Plan and only The Plan. He's so far into the sunk costs that he won't even think of any other option.

I'm not talking about Good or Evil here, now we're getting into Lawful Stupid. When your determination to follow The Plan, despite the known flaws and possibility of world destruction, makes you reject all other options, well, maybe you have a 20 Wisdom but you're not using it to its potential.

A High Priest is a little more than just a subordinate. The HP is the right hand to their god, the first officer, and should be living up to that- especially in advising the Big Guy when the ship is metaphorically on a collission course with an iceberg. Blindly following orders when you're at that level does a disservice to the god and your followers alike.

[quinron]

Exactly. He's made a choice. And now he's chosen not to present his god with an option that might preserve all the presently existing goblins, along with the rest of the world, and end the cycle of destruction... because he is committed to The Plan and only The Plan. He's so far into the sunk costs that he won't even think of any other option.

...

A High Priest is a little more than just a subordinate. The HP is the right hand to their god, the first officer, and should be living up to that- especially in advising the Big Guy when the ship is metaphorically on a collission course with an iceberg. Blindly following orders when you're at that level does a disservice to the god and your followers alike.

I think it's pretty clear from Start of Darkness that this underpins Redcloak's entire personality. He spends the entire back half of that book abdicating responsibility for his actions because he's following the Plan, but he also balks at the idea of giving the Mantle to another goblin and walking away. His consistent pattern is to reject his obligations to others because he's the High Priest and knows best, then deny his culpability in the fallout of those actions.

This kind of thinking is pretty clear in his discussion with Durkon. If the Dark One and the greater pantheons can negotiate more-or-less peacefully, then Redcloak's not in charge; what's more, all the horrible things he's done in accordance with the Plan will no longer be justified, and he'll be forced to confront his complicity in them.

[JDMSJR]

I don't understand what people think Redcloak's options are. The Plan isn't just something he came up with after the massacre of his village, it is something that he was commanded to do by the god of his people, something that the god of his people had been working on for generations. Sure, if he stopped he would have to face the fact that everything he had done and sacrificed for the Plan had been meaningless, but he would have also had to face an angry Dark One when he died who then has his soul tortured for eternity for disregarding what he was told to do. Gods aren't very understanding when you just ignore their express commands.
Why should he listen to Durkon who is a representative of the gods who supported his people being slaughtered for the benefit of their own followers and now that the balance of power is about to shift, NOW they want to make a deal, let them talk to the Dark One themselves if they want to make a deal. What's that? My god will not speak to them? Then why should I have anything to do with them?

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't understand what people think Redcloak's options are. The Plan isn't just something he came up with after the massacre of his village, it is something that he was commanded to do by the god of his people, something that the god of his people had been working on for generations.

In a universe where deities are objectively real, that's a non trivial matter. Redcloak was, shall we say, in a position where the spirit of TDO overcame him and all that he could say was "Yes"

It's not as though he was on a game show and picked "Door Number Three!" He didn't have that much agency.

[danielxcutter]

I recall Rich saying something about there being people who choose Evil and those who are forced into it...

[quinron]

My opposition to excusing Redcloak's behavior is primarily thematic. His longest running character traits have been refusal to take responsibility for the consequences of his actions, belief that ends justify means, and arrogance borne out of his position as Bearer of the Crimson Mantle.

Assuming we don't want to see him redeemed somehow (which, personally, I don't), Redcloak being punished by the Dark One for refusing the offer to negotiate would provide a satisfying culmination to all these flaws. If the Dark One is forcing him to be evil, well... That's not a super interesting story to me.

Plus, the confrontation with Right-Eye about abandoning the Mantle gives the lie to this a bit. Yeah, maybe Redcloak abandoning the Mantle would get him punished by the Dark One. But that doesn't mean he doesn't have the choice.

[brian 333]

How many of you think that a Redcloak who never encountered the Mantle would have been a peaceful farmer working to improve his people and raise his children to be moral and responsible?

QUESTION:
What was he doing when he encountered the Mantle?

[danielxcutter]

How many of you think he'd be the high priest executing a Plan so risky the worst case scenario is the destruction of the multiverse, then?

[understatement]

How many of you think that a Redcloak who never encountered the Mantle would have been a peaceful farmer working to improve his people and raise his children to be moral and responsible?

QUESTION:
What was he doing when he encountered the Mantle?

He was literally chilling at a cleric ceremony (y'know, the same kind that Durkon went through in one of his flashbacks) and probably would have lived and died in his village. He all but spells it out in the first page of his SOD appearance.

[danielxcutter]

It's not like he was living in a place as big as that hobgoblin settlement either, you know. It was practically a backwater village compared to that, let alone Azure City.

[quinron]

He was literally chilling at a cleric ceremony (y'know, the same kind that Durkon went through in one of his flashbacks) and probably would have lived and died in his village. He all but spells it out in the first page of his SOD appearance.

It's not like he was living in a place as big as that hobgoblin settlement either, you know. It was practically a backwater village compared to that, let alone Azure City.

Devil's advocate: he was being ordained as a cleric of an evil god of war. The villagers seemed pretty peaceful (for all the 1 page we see of them), but who's to say that the clerics were as well?

Though frankly I think this says less about you guys' reasoning/interpretation than it does about the gaps between how the world is presented and how it plays out. Between Redcloak and the High Priest of Hel, there's been so much focus on major character clerics enacting their gods' explicit wishes that it's easy to forget that most clerics we've seen are basically just local doctor/priests with no real cosmic agenda. Which is probably what Redcloak would've been without the Mantle.

[Ionathus]

Devil's advocate: he was being ordained as a cleric of an evil god of war. The villagers seemed pretty peaceful (for all the 1 page we see of them), but who's to say that the clerics were as well?

Though frankly I think this says less about you guys' reasoning/interpretation than it does about the gaps between how the world is presented and how it plays out. Between Redcloak and the High Priest of Hel, there's been so much focus on major character clerics enacting their gods' explicit wishes that it's easy to forget that most clerics we've seen are basically just local doctor/priests with no real cosmic agenda. Which is probably what Redcloak would've been without the Mantle.

Yeah, exactly that. The Dark One is definitely an Evil God of War, but he's also the ONLY god of the goblinoids. By necessity, he's their God of Everything. So sure, goblinoid armies will definitely give him credit and attribute their actions & warfare to his teachings...but backwater farmers and the low-level cleric who heals their ouchies are also still his followers, despite never being aggressive to anyone.


I recall Rich saying something about there being people who choose Evil and those who are forced into it...

One of my favorite lines of analysis. From the SoD intro:

There are people in this world who are driven to evil because of what their life has forced them to endure; Xykon is not one of those.
Redcloak might be, though.

For a long while, I'd taken that to mean that Rich believes Redcloak is Right: that is, his quest is noble and unimpeachable even if his means are evil. I've since shifted into a more nuanced interpretation: I believe Redcloak is truly trying to do the "right" thing, but the circumstances of his life have screwed him up so much emotionally, theologically, and mentally that not only is he willing to do evil in the pursuit of "good", his perspective on what's "good" has warped more and more as time goes on.

[danielxcutter]

Yeah, exactly that. The Dark One is definitely an Evil God of War, but he's also the ONLY god of the goblinoids. By necessity, he's their God of Everything. So sure, goblinoid armies will definitely give him credit and attribute their actions & warfare to his teachings...but backwater farmers and the low-level cleric who heals their ouchies are also still his followers, despite never being aggressive to anyone.

And the bugbear shamans seem to be rather loose with their worship of TDO without actually abandoning him or anything; I take that to mean "just because you don't oppose TDO doesn't mean you're super Evil."

Granted, Oona does seem somewhat Evil, if less than, say, Xykon, but Xykon is kind of a league of his own.


For a long while, I'd taken that to mean that Rich believes Redcloak is Right: that is, his quest is noble and unimpeachable even if his means are evil. I've since shifted into a more nuanced interpretation: I believe Redcloak is truly trying to do the "right" thing, but the circumstances of his life have screwed him up so much emotionally, theologically, and mentally that not only is he willing to do evil in the pursuit of "good", his perspective on what's "good" has warped more and more as time goes on.

That sounds more or less accurate, yeah.

[Ionathus]

And the bugbear shamans seem to be rather loose with their worship of TDO without actually abandoning him or anything; I take that to mean "just because you don't oppose TDO doesn't mean you're super Evil."

Granted, Oona does seem somewhat Evil, if less than, say, Xykon, but Xykon is kind of a league of his own.

I propose a new alignment: "Casual Evil".

[KorvinStarmast]

I propose a new alignment: "Casual Evil".

I proposed an alignment "Lawful Silly" for a Monk/cleric multiclass (D&D 5e forum) where a monk runs around naked, wearing a mask, and alternately healing or beating up others. I think there's room at the bar, and a beer on tap, for Casual Evil.

(And when it comes to Robilar, Rob Kuntz' character and D&D lore stuff, I get the idea that Casual Evil might have been that character's natural mode).

[brian 333]

If the goblins are non-aggressive and never cause harm, why then they are not Evil. This point is ignored over and over in order to concoct rationalizations for the goblins. Let me be clear:

If the character has an Evil alignment, that character did enough evil stuff to earn that alignment.

The comic focuses on The Order of the Stick, and therefore the backstory of how Farmer Goblin got her Evil alignment is never told. Because it is untold, the presumption is made that she never did wrong. This is a fallacy.

The Giant doesn't go into the background of every NPC, or even most of them. Does this mean they are all good? Can we trust the info on their character sheet?

[understatement]

If the goblins are non-aggressive and never cause harm, why then they are not Evil. This point is ignored over and over in order to concoct rationalizations for the goblins. Let me be clear:

If the character has an Evil alignment, that character did enough evil stuff to earn that alignment.

The comic focuses on The Order of the Stick, and therefore the backstory of how Farmer Goblin got her Evil alignment is never told. Because it is untold, the presumption is made that she never did wrong. This is a fallacy.

The Giant doesn't go into the background of every NPC, or even most of them. Does this mean they are all good? Can we trust the info on their character sheet?

Since nothing on-page shows they were evil or did anything evil, can you prove that any of the goblins of Redcloak's village had an Evil alignment?

(fyi, this discussion was made back in #1206 #1205, and these exact same points were brought up)

[brian 333]

By the fact that the paladins who attacked them did not fall.

A massacre of innocents would have caused blue guys to turn brown en masse. You can argue that the paladins didn't have the right to act as judge, jury, and executioner and I'd agree. But any presumption that the goblins were not Evil conflicts with the evidence.

Unless we also presume all goblins carry lead sheets we must presume the paladins knew they were Evil as well.

[danielxcutter]

Let me just link you to here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?p=16673090#post16673090) and here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?p=8081896#post8081896).

[brian 333]

Since both of those links support my thesis, I'm not certain what your point may be.

I'm not saying the paladins were justified. In fact, I would argue the opposite in a thread about that. My point has nothing to do with them, other than as evidence to support my thesis.

Let me recap: the assumption that the goblins are not Evil is based on not having seen them do evil things. On this basis it could be argued that Adult Black Dragon, Trigak, and even Buggy Lou were not Evil. The fallacy becomes obvious once we realize the comic does not delve into the backstory of almost any of the NPCs unless they have a point to make. I mean, what's Oona's sad tale of misunderstood good intentions? When it becomes relevant to the Order of the Stick, i'm sure The Giant will let us know. But to presume Oona to be non-Evil at this point conflicts with what we know. When it turns out to have been Serini in disguise all along we'll have reason to doubt.

[danielxcutter]

Uh, hello? (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?p=12718923#post12718923)

[understatement]

Since both of those links support my thesis, I'm not certain what your point may be.

I'm not saying the paladins were justified. In fact, I would argue the opposite in a thread about that. My point has nothing to do with them, other than as evidence to support my thesis.

Let me recap: the assumption that the goblins are not Evil is based on not having seen them do evil things. On this basis it could be argued that Adult Black Dragon, Trigak, and even Buggy Lou were not Evil. The fallacy becomes obvious once we realize the comic does not delve into the backstory of almost any of the NPCs unless they have a point to make. I mean, what's Oona's sad tale of misunderstood good intentions? When it becomes relevant to the Order of the Stick, i'm sure The Giant will let us know. But to presume Oona to be non-Evil at this point conflicts with what we know. When it turns out to have been Serini in disguise all along we'll have reason to doubt.

Since those links danielxcutter provided pretty clearly state that there were paladins that Fell, doesn't that sort of disprovse your point?

Your argument boils down to "since you can't prove they didn't not do Evil things (due to a limited screentime), then they must be evil." This applies to the existence of aliens as well.

For the case of the ABD, you're right. No solid alignment proof. But there's a staggering amount of evidence that she's evil; she is willing to kill Inky and two elven children, was in the process of doing so, and torturing and killing innocents is Evil.

For the case of Trigak, it doesn't matter the alignment for him, since he attacked first with lethal intent. The Order has every right to self-defense.

For the case of Buggy Lou, they were slavers.

These all have strong evidence that they are evil, or have malicious intent. Is there any strong, clear evidence that the goblin villagers showed on-panel or by word of author?

[danielxcutter]

If I remember correctly, there is a non-zero possibility of Redcloak's mentor not being Evil, in fact, considering that he laid down his life in order to spare the rest of the village.

And then the paladins just slaughtered the rest of the village anyways, so yeah.

[Ionathus]

Let me recap: the assumption that the goblins are not Evil is based on not having seen them do evil things. On this basis it could be argued that Adult Black Dragon, Trigak, and even Buggy Lou were not Evil. The fallacy becomes obvious once we realize the comic does not delve into the backstory of almost any of the NPCs unless they have a point to make. I mean, what's Oona's sad tale of misunderstood good intentions? When it becomes relevant to the Order of the Stick, i'm sure The Giant will let us know. But to presume Oona to be non-Evil at this point conflicts with what we know. When it turns out to have been Serini in disguise all along we'll have reason to doubt.

To flip the script on your argument, I'd argue you're talking about "innocent until proven guilty." And none of the examples you used work: ABD, Trigak, and Buggy Lou each initiated hostilities with members of the Order. In each instance, their reasons for attacking were pretty quickly shown as self-serving or even sadistic.

It's one of the main sticking points in character writing: how do you clearly signal your villain's evilness to the audience without mustache-twirling? Thankfully, things have been pretty clear-cut in OotS for acts of villainy. It's easy to tell who the bad guys are...usually, at least.

I agree that Oona is Evil, but for seemingly different reasons than yours: she's willingly helping Team Evil take over the world, and she attacked a pair of humans on sight with the intention of feeding them to the MitD. I'm going off her behavior and outlook, but I usually do presume Good/Neutral alignment until proven otherwise.


If I remember correctly, there is a non-zero possibility of Redcloak's mentor not being Evil, in fact, considering that he laid down his life in order to spare the rest of the village.

Plenty of fictional evil characters have sacrificed themselves for a loved one, teammates, or entire villages/populations before. That's nothing new, and isn't really an act of Goodness on its own.

[danielxcutter]

To flip the script on your argument, I'd argue you're talking about "innocent until proven guilty." And none of the examples you used work: ABD, Trigak, and Buggy Lou each initiated hostilities with members of the Order. In each instance, their reasons for attacking were pretty quickly shown as self-serving or even sadistic.

It's one of the main sticking points in character writing: how do you clearly signal your villain's evilness to the audience without mustache-twirling? Thankfully, things have been pretty clear-cut in OotS for acts of villainy. It's easy to tell who the bad guys are...usually, at least.

I agree, yes; there's absolutely no reason to assume somebody's Evil unless there's reasonable proof. At least the hobgoblin soldiers were attacking Azurites and the Order.


I agree that Oona is Evil, but for seemingly different reasons than yours: she's willingly helping Team Evil take over the world, and she attacked a pair of humans on sight with the intention of feeding them to the MitD. I'm going off her behavior and outlook, but I usually do presume Good/Neutral alignment until proven otherwise.

Same here.


Plenty of fictional evil characters have sacrificed themselves for a loved one, teammates, or entire villages/populations before. That's nothing new, and isn't really an act of Goodness on its own.

Eh, I suppose. Still a stronger argument that the village as a whole wasn't that Evil than against it IMO, though.

[quinron]

This leg of the discussion has actually made me kind of disappointed with the writing in SoD. If those paladins were committing an evil act by massacring goblins' they should've been falling on-panel. Miko committed one fall-worthy act and immediately got a whole light show over her fall, but the Azurites in SoD went totally unchecked.

Maybe chalk that up to SoD being written before Miko's fall; I think that timeline checks out. It's possible Rich didn't intend for a paladin's fall to be a big flashy event until he was actively writing Miko's.

[hamishspence]

This leg of the discussion has actually made me kind of disappointed with the writing in SoD. If those paladins were committing an evil act by massacring goblins' they should've been falling on-panel. Miko committed one fall-worthy act and immediately got a whole light show over her fall, but the Azurites in SoD went totally unchecked.

The Giant's explanation why Miko fell dramatically and the SoD paladins didn't:





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.)



Maybe chalk that up to SoD being written before Miko's fall; I think that timeline checks out. It's possible Rich didn't intend for a paladin's fall to be a big flashy event until he was actively writing Miko's.

Preorders for SOD started arriving in June 2007:

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?49064-Start-of-Darkness-Discussion-Thread-(MARK-ALL-SPOILERS!)

And Miko fell in January 2007:

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?33162-OOTS-407-The-Discussion-Thread

The decision to have Miko Fall was also intended right from the moment the character was invented:


Everything from the point where Miko drags the Order to Azure City in chains in #251 is more-or-less exactly what was always going to happen, with only some tone changed. Miko, and only Miko, was intended to kill Shojo, fall from grace, and ultimately destroy the Azurite gate. No one else was ever considered for this role, and this role was assigned to her from before her first appearance in #200. It was the entire narrative purpose of her character. Of course, I couldn't SAY that in the notes to Paladin Blues, because none of that had happened yet. There was never an intention for there to be a relationship with Roy, merely a few clumsy attempts on Roy's part to start one, followed by a rebuff and the Order's capture. Miko was always a "villain", and I did not intend for Roy to have a long-running relationship with a villain, merely to make her an appealing enough antagonist that some people were rooting for her.

and War and XPs commentary explains what storytelling reasons are behind making it so visually dramatic - to prevent the readers from being under any misapprehensions, was one of them.

[Ionathus]

This leg of the discussion has actually made me kind of disappointed with the writing in SoD. If those paladins were committing an evil act by massacring goblins' they should've been falling on-panel. Miko committed one fall-worthy act and immediately got a whole light show over her fall, but the Azurites in SoD went totally unchecked.

Maybe chalk that up to SoD being written before Miko's fall; I think that timeline checks out. It's possible Rich didn't intend for a paladin's fall to be a big flashy event until he was actively writing Miko's.

I can see that. The massacre is brutal -- brutal enough that you could argue none of the paladins should've kept their powers and I might be swayed. Rich's point (that showing the paladins falling wouldn't make sense in the narrative, nor would it make Redcloak feel any better about the death of almost his entire family) was enough for me to suspend my disbelief, it does still feel like a deep injustice. Which I suppose is the point.

[Debatra]

But I think the "moral decay" factor isn't entirely without merit either; I've heard a very good theory that Redcloak's passiveness and callousness towards hobgoblins in the early strips was due to his spirits being crushed by the events of SoD and the hobgoblin soldier saving him is what snapped him out of it.

Ooh, I like that. It even provides an in-universe explanation for why he was only acting like Xykon's lackey in the early strips. X's temporary destruction gave him the confidence to resume acting a bit like his old self, and the soldier's sacrifice snapped him out it (more or less) completely.

[danielxcutter]

Ooh, I like that. It even provides an in-universe explanation for why he was only acting like Xykon's lackey in the early strips. X's temporary destruction gave him the confidence to resume acting a bit like his old self, and the soldier's sacrifice snapped him out it (more or less) completely.

That was the theory, yes.

[Kellogg]

Good Morning,

My first post here. I only read through the archive a week ago.

Just reading through folk's analysis on what Redcloak was saying, and I'm afraid I think something fundamental was overlooked. But, in truth, Durkon and Thor both overlooked it. Frankly, Thor sent Durkon on a fool's errand.

To explain reference an old Aesop's fable: "The Wolf and the Lamb."


A Wolf was drinking at a spring on a hillside. On looking up he saw a Lamb just beginning to drink lower down. “There’s my supper,” thought he, “if only I can find some excuse to seize it.” He called out to the Lamb, “How dare you muddle my drinking water?”

“No,” said the Lamb; "if the water is muddy up there, I cannot be the cause of it, for it runs down from you to me.”

“Well, then,” said the Wolf, “why did you call me bad names this time last year?”

“That cannot be,” said the Lamb; “I am only six months old.”

“I don’t care,” snarled the Wolf; “if it was not you, it was your father;” and with that he rushed upon the poor little Lamb and ate her all up.

The moral of the story is: A Tyrant needs no excuse.

Like the Shell Game that Haley explained: The biggest mistake here is to assume that Redcloak is negotiating in good faith. Both Thor and Durkon believed (or hoped) they could get Redcloak to believe what they had to say and see reason.

He's simply not. He's just playing Durkon (and Thor.) I mean, the guy who lets Zyklon massacre Goblins and Hates Hobgoblins himself is now pretending that he's concerned about them? It's just a game to him.

Admittedly, Durkon doesn't know Redcloak doesn't give a damn about Goblins, so it's an effective way for him to play Durkon for a fool, while he gets ready to implode him.

Diplomacy, they say, is the art of saying "Nice Doggy" while you're reaching for a rock.
Redcloak just babbled off some excuses and Durkon (and Thor) fell for it like a ton of starmetal, because it was exactly what they wanted to hear: Redcloak negotiating.

Sadly, a lot of folks who should know better, have not learned this lesson in the real world.
It's a relief that here, the only consequences are happening to cartoon characters and not nations.

Tyrants use negotiations as a smoke screen to hide what they're doing.
They don't abide by them.
To expect them to do so is just a foolish lack of human understanding.

[danielxcutter]

I have a feeling you are overlooking the point that Redcloak is not supposed that kind of one-dimensional character.

[hroþila]

Yeah any analysis that doesn't take into account that Redcloak is fooling himself first and foremost really misses the mark. None of this is a conscious charade on his part.

[brian 333]

Redcloak may be deceiving himself, but the fact remains that he is Evil and all of his grievances are only excuses he uses to justify his evil deeds.

This is why Durkon's, "Nae as many as ye," comment angered Redcloak so much. Durkon called him on his b s.

Without the Crimson Mantle he would still be and do Evil, and he would have to concoct other rationalizations to excuse them. One thing is sure: he will always say, "Look what you made me do!"

[danielxcutter]

There's a fairly large leap from "Redcloak is a hypocritical *******" and "literally everything Redcloak stands for is wrong".

[hroþila]

Without the Crimson Mantle he would still be and do Evil, and he would have to concoct other rationalizations to excuse them. One thing is sure: he will always say, "Look what you made me do!"
We have no reason to assume this. Without the Crimson Mantle there's no trauma, no Plan, no sunk cost fallacy. The Crimson Mantle and the way he got it are such a fundamental part of Redcloak's story we simply cannot know what kind of person he'd be otherwise. The few pages of pre-Crimson Mantle Redcloak we saw weren't enough to assume there was a fundamental personality change after he got it, but they don't suggest any Evilness either.

[Kellogg]

I have a feeling you are overlooking the point that Redcloak is not supposed that kind of one-dimensional character.

I didn't say he's one dimensional.
Real tyrants are not one dimensional.

A one dimensional character would not pretend to negotiate in good faith.

But a one dimensional character would Expect a Tyrant to negotiate in good faith.

Frankly, I thought the writer did a very good job of exploring the nature of Redcloak and his ability to play even the gods for fools.

[understatement]

Without the Crimson Mantle he would still be and do Evil, and he would have to concoct other rationalizations to excuse them. One thing is sure: he will always say, "Look what you made me do!"

Can you offer any evidence of this?

[Ionathus]

Yeah any analysis that doesn't take into account that Redcloak is fooling himself first and foremost really misses the mark. None of this is a conscious charade on his part.

Exactly this. The only person Redcloak is "playing for a fool" is Xykon. Thor and Durkon both approached the Redcloak Negotiation expecting to be rejected, but trying to give it their best shot anyway.

If you don't think Redcloak is fooling himself, look back at his recent negotiation with Durkon and the way Minrah calls him out. Lots of "I'm willing -- I mean, the goblinoids are willing" stuff going on to show that he's conflicted and beginning to realize his own hypocrisy, but still sunk deep in the "I'm doing it for my people" delusion.


Without the Crimson Mantle he would still be and do Evil, and he would have to concoct other rationalizations to excuse them. One thing is sure: he will always say, "Look what you made me do!"

Yeah I'm also casting my vote for "without the Crimson Mantle, Redcloak would've been the minor cleric of a relatively insignificant farming village." We can't begin to predict what a non-Plan Redcloak would look like, because the overwhelming trauma he suffered as a child -- and the direct command he got from his god thirty seconds later -- changed literally everything about his life.

[brian 333]

Hd already did enough evil to be ordained as the cleric of an evil deity. It's very obvious that he didn't get there by being a good neighbor and kindly country doctor. Absent the Mantle one can assume his life continues as before: as a devoted follower of an Evil deity of war with no reason to stop being one.

The Mantle did not make him Evil, it just gave him an excuse to blame something other than himself for his choices.

I have never asserted that everything Redcloak stands for is wrong. Redcloak is not the first character to do Evil in the name of Good. It is not his stated cause or goal I question.

[understatement]

Hd already did enough evil to be ordained as the cleric of an evil deity. It's very obvious that he didn't get there by being a good neighbor and kindly country doctor. Absent the Mantle one can assume his life continues as before: as a devoted follower of an Evil deity of war with no reason to stop being one.

The Mantle did not make him Evil, it just gave him an excuse to blame something other than himself for his choices.

Neutral Clerics can worship Evil gods (especially if the Dark One is the only god available to goblins), so no, it's not "very obvious." That's not evidence. That's...it's not even extrapolation, since it's not based off anything seen on-panel.

I mean, who else would the goblins worship?

[brian 333]

They could worship Loki.

The dwarves have Dvalin and they are not obligated to worship him.

Thd idea that goblins have no other choice is patently false.

[Kellogg]

I've only gone through the archives once, but, I haven't seen anything that tells me Redcloak is fooling himself.

I read the character as basically a politician.

He'll do anything, say anything to achieve his goals, even when those goals are amorphously changing.

He seems to me to have nothing to believe in. Even his professed loyalty to the Dark One only appears to be an excuse to angle more power for himself. He talks a good game about his caring for Goblins, but he curses and hates them and when the chips are down, he'll let Xyklon do what he wants to them.

(I think I'm spelling that wrong. I always think of him as Xyklon-B. I kind of guess that's where the name comes from.)

Anyway, what you folks seem to think of as Redcloak fooling himself, I'm thinking of as him simply getting caught by his own lies and changing his story. Politicians do that all the time. (Anyone read "Shoe" with Senator Belfry?)

I don't recall having seen a strip where we hear his actual private thoughts, only ones where he's talking to others, which (I recall) is mostly lies. So, like all politicians, I don't judge him by his words, but by his actions.

His actions tell me his only second thoughts are about how to maneuver Xyklon into doing what Redcloak wants.

[Saint-Just]

I've only gone through the archives once, but, I haven't seen anything that tells me Redcloak is fooling himself.

I read the character as basically a politician.

He'll do anything, say anything to achieve his goals, even when those goals are amorphously changing.

He seems to me to have nothing to believe in. Even his professed loyalty to the Dark One only appears to be an excuse to angle more power for himself. He talks a good game about his caring for Goblins, but he curses and hates them and when the chips are down, he'll let Xyklon do what he wants to them.

(I think I'm spelling that wrong. I always think of him as Xyklon-B. I kind of guess that's where the name comes from.)

Anyway, what you folks seem to think of as Redcloak fooling himself, I'm thinking of as him simply getting caught by his own lies and changing his story. Politicians do that all the time. (Anyone read "Shoe" with Senator Belfry?)

I don't recall having seen a strip where we hear his actual private thoughts, only ones where he's talking to others, which (I recall) is mostly lies. So, like all politicians, I don't judge him by his words, but by his actions.

His actions tell me his only second thoughts are about how to maneuver Xyklon into doing what Redcloak wants.

First: the lich is Xykon and the poison is spelled with Z. There is no intentional parallels, because in the SoD
we see the origin of the name:
A certain wheelchair-bound bald-headed man whose name sounds suspiciously like Xavier (but not Xavier, obviously) tries to recruit the young sorcerer. Young sorcerer doesn't take the offer but likes the name so much he mangles it further into Xykon and takes it for himself

Second: if Redcloak cared about power for himself (for whatever purposes) there were easier ways to dispose of the Xykon in the Gobbotopia and rule the relatively safe location with the population (or at least what passes for full citizens) fanatically devoted to him. Instead he is going to the Frozen North and doing annoying seemingly endless gruntwork. If you think he does that to get more power then you'd need to say how it will get him more power. Do you think that it's actually possible to do the ritual the way Xykon thinks - to control the Gate yourself instead of passing control to his god? Or what?

Finally: there is a lot more information in the Start of Darkness book, and it was confirmed by the Word of Giant to be factual, not a self-serving Redcloak tale (like some have supposed).

[hroþila]

Hd already did enough evil to be ordained as the cleric of an evil deity. It's very obvious that he didn't get there by being a good neighbor and kindly country doctor.
This is weird to me because while SoD didn't give us a lot of info about pre-Crimson Mantle Redcloak, what we did get could easily be summarized as "being a good neighbor".

[Ionathus]

Hd already did enough evil to be ordained as the cleric of an evil deity. It's very obvious that he didn't get there by being a good neighbor and kindly country doctor. Absent the Mantle one can assume his life continues as before: as a devoted follower of an Evil deity of war with no reason to stop being one.

So what you're saying is:

"It is important to remember simply that hobgoblins are usually Evil, and those who may not be so technically still worship an Evil God -- or defend an Evil social order, or grow food for Evil warriors, or give birth to Evil children. It is enough for us to destroy their Evil society, and let any who survive reflect on the path of wickedness. Never hesitate to punish Evil, or support for Evil, or tolerance for Evil."
Gin-Jun, advocating Goblinoid Genocide


This is weird to me because while SoD didn't give us a lot of info about pre-Crimson Mantle Redcloak, what we did get could easily be summarized as "being a good neighbor".

Absolutely! He had one single page of characterization before The Event, and it was all either "I just want to help the community" or "Mom stop telling me to have children I'm embarrassed." Based off that interaction, I'm not going to predict he'd have turned out a Lawful Good paladin of Sunna, but that's the point -- we can't predict anything about who he'd have been without The Event, because it completely restructured his entire life and worldview.

[ReaderAt2046]

I think one of the key things about Redcloak is that he has a very warped idea of the other (non-TDO) gods and the role they play in Stickworld. For starters, he always seems to talk about "the gods" as if they were a single homogenous group, instead of thirty-odd different entities with their own goals, personalities, and conflicting agendas.

But more importantly, he seems fixated on this idea that there is some kind of "favored race" class that goblins have been excluded from, and that getting this classification will prevent crusades against them or adventurers attacking them, or even other nations trying to conquer them. He seems to believe that other races are attacking goblins only because these homogenous "gods" he believes in have given the OK, rather than because the goblins are Evil, or because the adventurers are Evil, or because of complex sociopolitical factors leading to conflict between different nations.

Which... I really don't think is the case. Think about it: outside of Redcloak's narration and the crayon sequences from SoD (which are both hearsay and involve two unreliable narrators), have we seen any evidence of anti-goblin racism (or for that matter any racism against mortal races) endorsed or supported by the Gods? Not by mortals, but by the Gods themselves? I can't think of any. Or again, have we seen any evidence that there is any meaningful difference between the anti-goblin prejudice we do see from mortals and the numerous other fantastic racisms that pop up across the Stickworld (some humans vs some orcs, some mammals vs some lizardfolk, some metallic vs some chromatic dragons, Laurin's resentment of the elves, etc.)

Which leads back to another problem Redcloak is facing, which is that he doesn't know exactly what he wants himself. He knows he wants equality, but he's never sat down and figured out exactly what that might look like in practice, or how to get from where the goblin race was at the start of the Plan to that hypothetical perfect world. Probably because, again, he believes that the troubles of the goblin race come not from mortal conflicts and errors and evils, but because these homogenous "gods" he believes in have excluded them from this imaginary "favored race" classification. So all he thinks he has to do is blackmail "the gods" into giving the goblins "favored race" status, and that will somehow magically make everything better.

[danielxcutter]

Didn't he get that beamed into his head when he got the Mantle along with the divine half of the Ritual?

Also, even if that's completely false, it's hard to deny that goblinoids have gotten shafted for a very long time; I don't think the comic will end with Redcloak getting off scot-free but I do think there'll be some arrangements made so that it's no longer cosmically acceptable to roflstomp goblinoids in the face just because of their species.

[Kellogg]

Nuts.

A friend of mine just pointed out an OOTS fan wiki that gives Redcloak's full Tragic Backstory.
Sadly, it Looks like he really Does believe all that stuff.

I'm afraid I've heard and read so many Villain Tragic Backstories that they're... well... stereotyped cliché's.
You can understand a villain with a tragic backstory. It makes them predictable. Some folks would say it adds depth to a character, making them less one dimensional. Understanding an different or alien point of view like that makes an interesting exercise for the reader.

But to me, there's nothing more alien than the guy who doesn't believe in anything, and will happily stab you in the back just for the $5 Bill you have in your wallet.

Like the Paladins:
The Paladins strategies come from their beliefs. If they find that they've got a loosing strategy, they can't change it because they can't change their beliefs.

A Villain who's simply lying can simply change strategy, tactics, even sides if it's to his advantage.

That makes them Far More Dangerous than someone who's acting on a Tragic Backstory.

Anyway, it looks like you folks are right and I was wrong.

Too bad.

But, I was just going on how the character is portrayed online.

[danielxcutter]

It sounds to me you want him to be a one-dimensional villain who's only doing Evil things for power and the lulz. That... couldn't be farther.

[hungrycrow]

It sounds to me you want him to be a one-dimensional villain who's only doing Evil things for power and the lulz. That... couldn't be farther.

Also, don't we already have a one-dimensional villain who only does Evil things for power and the lulz?

[Kellogg]

It sounds to me you want him to be a one-dimensional villain who's only doing Evil things for power and the lulz. That... couldn't be farther.

I came nowhere even close to saying that.

Merely that the Traditional Tragic Backstory Villain has been done to death.
(See Phineas and Ferb's "Dr. Doofenschmirtz" character for example.)
They're understandable, and therefore predictable. That's why you almost never see them get anywhere
outside of fiction.

In the real world, the successful villains are far more flexible. They're not driven by ideology, or a tragic past.
They're thinking, planning human beings, who can react and change to what's going on.
And that makes them Far Far more dangerous an opponent than a driven fanatic.

Fanatics are far less dangerous than the guy who's pulling their strings.

Scott

[danielxcutter]

I’m sorry, I thought D&D was supposed to be a fantasy game.

Also, it’s not too hard to draw parallels between the goblins and real life minorities.

[Ionathus]

Nuts.

A friend of mine just pointed out an OOTS fan wiki that gives Redcloak's full Tragic Backstory.
Sadly, it Looks like he really Does believe all that stuff.

I'm afraid I've heard and read so many Villain Tragic Backstories that they're... well... stereotyped cliché's.
You can understand a villain with a tragic backstory. It makes them predictable. Some folks would say it adds depth to a character, making them less one dimensional. Understanding an different or alien point of view like that makes an interesting exercise for the reader.

I disagree with the notion that tragic villain backstories are automatically cliche. Every villain with a tragic backstory still has a DIFFERENT backstory, and the skill of the telling matters a great deal.

I still suggest you actually READ Start of Darkness -- just getting the story from a wiki synopsis really doesn't do it justice, and of course a pared-down synopsis is going to sound less original!

As others have said, we've already got the "for the Evulz" villain in Xykon, but Redcloak adds another side to the dynamic and enriches Team Evil's interactions. I think that's a story worth telling, even if it checks some boxes that you consider cliche.

[Kellogg]

Think about it this way:
Which is more dangerous/evil?


The Villain who understands the plight of a persecuted minority because he burns for revenge as a part of his tragic backstory?

Or, the Villain who understand the plight of a persecuted minority and is so cold blooded that he exploits that to advance his own ambitions for a power that frightens the Gods themselves?



I'm sorry, but to my mind, the latter is a much deeper and less one dimensional character.

It's like when MacBeth realizes that he cares more about power than about Lady MacBeth in the "She should have died hereafter, tomorrow..." soliloquy.

But, to each his own.

As I said, I've only read the online comic.

[understatement]

Think about it this way:
Which is more dangerous/evil?


The Villain who understands the plight of a persecuted minority because he burns for revenge as a part of his tragic backstory?

Or, the Villain who understand the plight of a persecuted minority and is so cold blooded that he exploits that to advance his own ambitions for a power that frightens the Gods themselves?



I'm sorry, but to my mind, the latter is a much deeper and less one dimensional character.

It's like when MacBeth realizes that he cares more about power than about Lady MacBeth in the "She should have died hereafter, tomorrow..." soliloquy.

But, to each his own.

As I said, I've only read the online comic.

These aren't mutually exclusive, and I think you'll find that Redcloak has elements from both (although not exactly fitting either).

[Ionathus]

Think about it this way:
Which is more dangerous/evil?

I don't really care about which one is "more evil". I care about which one is more interesting to read.

Redcloak is interesting to me specifically because his journey down the path of evil was motivated by good intentions and an interesting backstory. The way he manipulates Xykon and Tsukiko, among others, is interesting. The way he interacts with paladins and The Order is interesting.

At the end of the day, your value as a villain isn't just measured in your kilonazis. Belkar learned that the hard way, when his constant murderhobo-ing came back to bite him in the ass. He had to pretend to have character growth -- essentially, he had to learn to be a more interesting character.

If you're only measuring a villain by how EEEEEVIILLLLLL they are, you're missing a lot of the value of a good villain. While I agree your proposed villain who cynically uses a good cause for personal gain would be an interesting story, don't discount the value of a villain who's genuinely trying to forward a cause with flawed and self-deluded means.

Essentially, this story doesn't fit the constraints you're trying to put on it, but that doesn't mean you can't enjoy it.

[The Pilgrim]

Think about it this way:
Which is more dangerous/evil?


The Villain who understands the plight of a persecuted minority because he burns for revenge as a part of his tragic backstory?

Or, the Villain who understand the plight of a persecuted minority and is so cold blooded that he exploits that to advance his own ambitions for a power that frightens the Gods themselves?


Actually the first is far more dangerous. Because the second will stop before destroying the world and killing everyone included himself. Unlike Redcloak.

[KorvinStarmast]

The Crimson Mantle and the way he got it are such a fundamental part of Redcloak's story we simply cannot know what kind of person he'd be otherwise. The few pages of pre-Crimson Mantle Redcloak we saw weren't enough to assume there was a fundamental personality change after he got it, but they don't suggest any Evilness either. I don't think that Rich did this on purpose, but Redcloak and the Crimson mantle are (in part) an interesting inversion of Frodo and the One Ring.
The One Ring and the Crimson Mantle are both, in D&D terms, artifacts.

The cloak allows a normal being (a goblin) to become very powerful. Redcloak embraces it.
The Ring allows a normal being (a hobbit, a king, whatever Gollum was{hobbit?}) to become more powerful. Frodo, rather than embracing it, wants to destroy it.
Granted, both of these characters got some advice from their wise elders regarding the artifact they had.

Each of these artifacts have world shaking impacts

Anyway, there are also plenty of differences in the two stories, so any comparison is only "well, sorta like that".

This is weird to me because while SoD didn't give us a lot of info about pre-Crimson Mantle Redcloak, what we did get could easily be summarized as "being a good neighbor". As well as being a young goblin who wanted to make his parents proud by becoming a cleric, which is a bit like how young Durkon is portrayed.

[Saint-Just]

Think about it this way:
Which is more dangerous/evil?


The Villain who understands the plight of a persecuted minority because he burns for revenge as a part of his tragic backstory?

Or, the Villain who understand the plight of a persecuted minority and is so cold blooded that he exploits that to advance his own ambitions for a power that frightens the Gods themselves?



I'm sorry, but to my mind, the latter is a much deeper and less one dimensional character.

It's like when MacBeth realizes that he cares more about power than about Lady MacBeth in the "She should have died hereafter, tomorrow..." soliloquy.

But, to each his own.

As I said, I've only read the online comic.

In contexts strongly resembling RL I'd vote for "lust for power" villain as more likely to win. There are two caveats: first, more likely to win doesn't mean more dangerous; as others have noted above "driven by the plight" villain may choose the option where everybody loses where many others will back down. Second - in contexts sufficiently different from RL honest zealot may be more powerful: being empowered by the strength of belief or by the gods who seek out zealots comes to mind first, but there are enough examples where manipulation is prevented by other means, e.g. even limited mind-reading/emotion sense/truth-detection can prevent manipulators but not suicidal zealots from rising to leadership

Question of who is more evil I find meaningless; not because all evil is created equal but because there are so many things unspecified that either type may come ahead in one particular situation.

Finally: I find the lust for power sufficiently less complex motivation, you can even see it from the length of description: saying "lust for power" encompasses the first one, for the honest zealot you need to at least specify whose cause he is championing and why, and that's already longer (unless you are like Kronar from the Oglaf). However motivation is only part of the character, and actual character with either may end up more complex. Maybe you've seen too many shallowly written zealots and mostly well-characterized "looking out for the number one" guys. That's not something improbable. However I fail to see how lust for power is inherently better motivation (for the villain) than unlimited devotion to a cause.

[quinron]

It sounds to me you want him to be a one-dimensional villain who's only doing Evil things for power and the lulz. That... couldn't be farther.

You've been making a lot of arguments in this thread and poking at a lot of other people's arguments. I don't have a problem with that, nor do I have a problem with you holding whatever views of the story you hold. But I think I - and I think a lot of other folks here - could find the answer to one question enlightening: you've admitted that Redcloak is self-identifiably Evil, but do you think Redcloak is, generally speaking, a good person?

[danielxcutter]

You've been making a lot of arguments in this thread and poking at a lot of other people's arguments. I don't have a problem with that, nor do I have a problem with you holding whatever views of the story you hold. But I think I - and I think a lot of other folks here - could find the answer to one question enlightening: you've admitted that Redcloak is self-identifiably Evil, but do you think Redcloak is, generally speaking, a good person?

Oh *bleep* no, he's not. Maybe in other circumstances he could have been a good person, if a bunch of paladins hadn't stomped over any chance of that out, but he's pulled too many Evil things for me to quite say that now.

I think the best way to put it is that he's a symptom of a disease, rather than the cause of it - and the disease is called "goblins have gotten the short stick for ages". You can't leave the symptoms to run amok, but it'll just keep happening if you don't fix the root cause.

[Ionathus]

I don't think that Rich did this on purpose, but Redcloak and the Crimson mantle are (in part) an interesting inversion of Frodo and the One Ring.
The One Ring and the Crimson Mantle are both, in D&D terms, artifacts.

To extend the comparison: they both ruined their Bearers' lives.


You've been making a lot of arguments in this thread and poking at a lot of other people's arguments. I don't have a problem with that, nor do I have a problem with you holding whatever views of the story you hold. But I think I - and I think a lot of other folks here - could find the answer to one question enlightening: you've admitted that Redcloak is self-identifiably Evil, but do you think Redcloak is, generally speaking, a good person?

I'm not danielxcutter, but have taken many of their same viewpoints. I'd say "No."

I think Redcloak started out with good intentions, and possibly was even a "good" person in the beginning of his quest -- we simply can't know. But wherever his heart was before, the events of SoD definitely pushed him over the precipice. By the end of that story, he is most certainly not "a good person." His recent rejection of Durkon's offer further solidifies that.

That said, I don't truly believe he's crossed any Moral Event Horizons (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoralEventHorizon) yet. His actions in both SoD and the online comic are appalling, but they haven't turned my stomach like the sadistic behavior of Xykon or Tarquin. It does still feel like Redcloak's got some shred of decency within him, however buried and twisted it may be under his delusions and cutthroat behavior. If he didn't have that, he'd have rejected the negotiations with Durkon outright. The fact that he struggled with the offer makes me think he's not a completely lost cause yet.

It's a long, long shot, to be sure. But then, where's the fun in an easy redemption?

[The Pilgrim]

That said, I don't truly believe he's crossed any Moral Event Horizons (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MoralEventHorizon) yet.

Well, in Start of Darkness...

He murdered his little brother.

That's solid "Crossing The Moral Event Horizon" for me.

In my opinnion, all his character development in the Main Comic has been driven by the purpose of making him grow as a villain, and turning him into a credible threat to both the Order and Xykon.

The fact that during the conversation with Durkon he has begin to use the "We the Goblins" means he has begun to act like all the good fanatic megalomaniacs, by identifying his own will as the will of all of the Goblins - something he had never done before. Sure, he's not still there, but has been going down the slide for all the main comic's plot.

[Edric O]

But to me, there's nothing more alien than the guy who doesn't believe in anything, and will happily stab you in the back just for the $5 Bill you have in your wallet.
You're describing Xykon.

The reason why Redcloak isn't the guy who doesn't believe in anything is because we already have another villain character who is that guy, and it wouldn't be a very good story if both of the main villains were the same.

[danielxcutter]

You're describing Xykon.

The reason why Redcloak isn't the guy who doesn't believe in anything is because we already have another villain character who is that guy, and it wouldn't be a very good story if both of the main villains were the same.

I'd say that's a little closer to Tarquin than Xykon, frankly. Xykon would stab you for the lulz.

[Ionathus]

Well, in Start of Darkness...

He murdered his little brother.

That's solid "Crossing The Moral Event Horizon" for me.

Yes, I know that's your position - you've stated as such in previous responses and threads.

Some Moral Event Horizons are absolute and obvious. I think of Tarquin setting escaped slaves on fire and expecting his son to appreciate it, for instance. Or heck, TarKIN blowing up Alderaan.

Others can be subjective. What crosses the line of "irredeemable" will vary by the audience member.

Basically, I find it a little strange that a comic wherein Vaarsuvius (aka Familicide McSoulSplice) is portrayed as a flawed but redeemable person and a member of Team Heroes, but the Right-Hand Man of the Big Bad is completely beyond redemption because of the choice he made at the end of SoD.

I don't presume to know your thoughts on V's actions. But I believe a narrative that leaves the door open to V's redemption has more than enough room for a change of heart in Redcloak.

[KorvinStarmast]

(Anyone read "Shoe" with Senator Belfry?) For many years. :smallsmile: ( McNally's comic? )

... do you think Redcloak is, generally speaking, a good person? No. The SoD moment where he killed his brother is for me the clincher. But I do believe that he sincerly desires to improve the general conditions for goblinkind. Whether or not he's going about it the right way is a matter of opinion.

To extend the comparison: they both ruined their Bearers' lives. Bingo. Amen. Yes. Power can corrupt, and absolute power ... :smallcool:

{snip} But then, where's the fun in an easy redemption? Given what Rich expressed through Soon, to Miko, regarding redemption I'd love to see how he tackles a possible redemption for Redcloak.
What complicates this slightly is that the only agent for Redcloak's redemption, mechanically, would seem to be The Dark One, who is the deity Redcloak's serves, and who doesn't seem to be a very sympathetic deity: "Don't screw this up...no pressure, though (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0704.html)" is hardly indicative, in tone, of that feeling toward's TDO's highest ranking servant in OoTSland.

[ReaderAt2046]

You've been making a lot of arguments in this thread and poking at a lot of other people's arguments. I don't have a problem with that, nor do I have a problem with you holding whatever views of the story you hold. But I think I - and I think a lot of other folks here - could find the answer to one question enlightening: you've admitted that Redcloak is self-identifiably Evil, but do you think Redcloak is, generally speaking, a good person?

Most definitely not. Redcloak is just as much a wicked monster as Xykon, he's just a different kind of evil. He's a living illustration of the "Journey before Destination" principle, the truth that doing the wrong thing for the right reasons is still doing the wrong thing.


Well, in Start of Darkness...

He murdered his little brother.

That's solid "Crossing The Moral Event Horizon" for me.



Yes, I know that's your position - you've stated as such in previous responses and threads.

Some Moral Event Horizons are absolute and obvious. I think of Tarquin setting escaped slaves on fire and expecting his son to appreciate it, for instance. Or heck, TarKIN blowing up Alderaan.

Others can be subjective. What crosses the line of "irredeemable" will vary by the audience member.

Basically, I find it a little strange that a comic wherein Vaarsuvius (aka Familicide McSoulSplice) is portrayed as a flawed but redeemable person and a member of Team Heroes, but the Right-Hand Man of the Big Bad is completely beyond redemption because of the choice he made at the end of SoD.

I don't presume to know your thoughts on V's actions. But I believe a narrative that leaves the door open to V's redemption has more than enough room for a change of heart in Redcloak.

For myself, I'd say that Redcloak's Moral Event Horizon is right here (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1209.html). I believe that anyone can be redeemed, provided they are willing to acknowledge their sins as sins and repent. But here, Redcloak is given the chance once again to turn aside from his evils and embrace a better way, but he chooses instead to double down on the Xykon Plan rather than admit his own mistakes. That is the point where redemption becomes impossible, not because Redcloak's crimes are too severe to be forgiven, but because his own pride won't let him admit that what he did was wrong.

[hungrycrow]

Most definitely not. Redcloak is just as much a wicked monster as Xykon, he's just a different kind of evil. He's a living illustration of the "Journey before Destination" principle, the truth that doing the wrong thing for the right reasons is still doing the wrong thing.





For myself, I'd say that Redcloak's Moral Event Horizon is right here (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1209.html). I believe that anyone can be redeemed, provided they are willing to acknowledge their sins as sins and repent. But here, Redcloak is given the chance once again to turn aside from his evils and embrace a better way, but he chooses instead to double down on the Xykon Plan rather than admit his own mistakes. That is the point where redemption becomes impossible, not because Redcloak's crimes are too severe to be forgiven, but because his own pride won't let him admit that what he did was wrong.

Belkar is also on the path to change, despite being an unrepentant psychopath at the start of the comic. I don't think there's any point a character couldn't plausibly come back from as far as OOTS goes. But that change takes time, and there isn't much time left.

[KorvinStarmast]

For myself, I'd say that Redcloak's Moral Event Horizon is right here (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1209.html). I believe that anyone can be redeemed, [I]provided they are willing to acknowledge their sins as sin Heh, is that his Miko Moment? :smallbiggrin:

Belkar is also on the path to change, despite being an unrepentant psychopath at the start of the comic. I don't think there's any point a character couldn't plausibly come back from as far as OOTS goes. But that change takes time, and there isn't much time left. I am not sure that Belkar ever gets to redemption; but we have another 200 strips, roughly, to discover if I am right or wrong about that.

[Doug Lampert]

For myself, I'd say that Redcloak's Moral Event Horizon is right here (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1209.html). I believe that anyone can be redeemed, provided they are willing to acknowledge their sins as sins and repent. But here, Redcloak is given the chance once again to turn aside from his evils and embrace a better way, but he chooses instead to double down on the Xykon Plan rather than admit his own mistakes. That is the point where redemption becomes impossible, not because Redcloak's crimes are too severe to be forgiven, but because his own pride won't let him admit that what he did was wrong.

Miko couldn't be redeemed, because she never really admitted that she'd done anything wrong.

V can be redeemed, because V has admitted that he did something wrong (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0843.html).

RC? At present, definitely in the Miko camp on this one.

Nor do I expect this to change. The entire "get the Dark One or his cleric to contribute a spell to seal the rift" is a described plan, plans described in the story in advance never work. Elan can explain this. Nor does that plan explain or need an explanation of the planet in the rift, and who wastes foreshadowing like that?

[hungrycrow]

Heh, is that his Miko Moment? :smallbiggrin:
I am not sure that Belkar ever gets to redemption; but we have another 200 strips, roughly, to discover if I am right or wrong about that.

I think whether V and Belkar count as achieving redemption might end up being up to the reader. But the point is that they both regret their actions and are trying to be different. Conceivably Redcloak could do the same, he just isn't doing so now with the climax of the comic fast approaching.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think whether V and Belkar count as achieving redemption might end up being up to the reader. But the point is that they both regret their actions and are trying to be different. Conceivably Redcloak could do the same, he just isn't doing so now with the climax of the comic fast approaching. I see no evidence that Belkar admits to, nor regrets, wrong doing (beyond that hard core ultimate apology to Durkon :smallconfused:) but he is becoming different ...

[quinron]

I don't know. I think Redcloak and Miko are clearly foils in a lot of ways, but there's a major difference for me. Miko believes that doing awful things for the sake of a good cause excuses her actions; she doesn't admit that she's done bad things, because as a good person, they can't be bad if she's doing them. Redcloak justifies his actions; he admits he's done plenty of bad things, but because they were for a good cause, he feels that he'll be given leniency.

The thing about Redcloak, though, is that he is capable of realizing his mistakes - for example, his change of heart about the hobgoblins. But he never realizes the flaws in his thinking until his actions have already caused harm. Assuming he were to complete the Plan, I think we'd see him panicking and regretting that decision as soon as the gods start unmaking the world, but not a moment before.

[Ionathus]

For myself, I'd say that Redcloak's Moral Event Horizon is right here (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1209.html). I believe that anyone can be redeemed, provided they are willing to acknowledge their sins as sins and repent. But here, Redcloak is given the chance once again to turn aside from his evils and embrace a better way, but he chooses instead to double down on the Xykon Plan rather than admit his own mistakes. That is the point where redemption becomes impossible, not because Redcloak's crimes are too severe to be forgiven, but because his own pride won't let him admit that what he did was wrong.

I disagree that his attempted Implosion of Durkon is a point of no return. As far as negotiations go, Durkon got a lot farther than could've been expected! Keep in mind this is the first time a member of the Order has gotten a chance to speak with Redcloak in terms of diplomacy. Both sides have been openly hostile for the entire run of the comic, and suddenly they pause hostilities to talk! That's a huge bit of progress in my opinion. This first meeting, narratively speaking, could just as easily have been about sowing yet another seed of doubt in Redcloak's mind.

In Return of the Jedi, Vader says "it is too late for me, my son" when the two of them are alone, rejects his attempt at redemption, then turns him over to Palpatine. They even have a nasty, brutal duel after that! Then, when the chips are down and Palpatine is frying Luke, Vader turns. I'm not saying the same thing has to happen here, but I don't think it's out of the question!


Miko couldn't be redeemed, because she never really admitted that she'd done anything wrong.

V can be redeemed, because V has admitted that he did something wrong (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0843.html).

RC? At present, definitely in the Miko camp on this one.


I think whether V and Belkar count as achieving redemption might end up being up to the reader. But the point is that they both regret their actions and are trying to be different. Conceivably Redcloak could do the same, he just isn't doing so now with the climax of the comic fast approaching.

Counterpoint: what better time for Redcloak to have those regrets than right at the climax?


Nor do I expect this to change. The entire "get the Dark One or his cleric to contribute a spell to seal the rift" is a described plan, plans described in the story in advance never work. Elan can explain this. Nor does that plan explain or need an explanation of the planet in the rift, and who wastes foreshadowing like that?
(Emphasis mine)

"Get the Dark One or his cleric to help seal the rift" isn't a plan, it's an entire quest. It's an end goal.

"Take The Ring to Mt. Doom and cast it into the fire", "blow up the Death Star (twice)," and "Defeat the Fire Lord before he destroys the world" all succeeded despite being just as specific.

[The Pilgrim]

I don't know. I think Redcloak and Miko are clearly foils in a lot of ways, but there's a major difference for me. Miko believes that doing awful things for the sake of a good cause excuses her actions; she doesn't admit that she's done bad things, because as a good person, they can't be bad if she's doing them. Redcloak justifies his actions; he admits he's done plenty of bad things, but because they were for a good cause, he feels that he'll be given leniency.

The thing about Redcloak, though, is that he is capable of realizing his mistakes - for example, his change of heart about the hobgoblins. But he never realizes the flaws in his thinking until his actions have already caused harm. Assuming he were to complete the Plan, I think we'd see him panicking and regretting that decision as soon as the gods start unmaking the world, but not a moment before.

Haven't seen him yet realize that his actions in SoD were a mistake.

1) Recruiting Xykon -> Mistake
2) Keep working with Xykon -> Mistake
3) Murdering his own brother to protect Xykon -> Mistake

His change of heart about the Hobgoblins is the sole time he has acknowledged a mistake. It's an exception, not a rule. It's relevance for the comic was to mark the point were Redcloak regained his own agency, no longer being Xykon's glorified lackey like he was from the start of the comic. It was not to mark the beggining of a redemption plot for Redcloak.

[quinron]

Haven't seen him yet realize that his actions in SoD were a mistake.

1) Recruiting Xykon -> Mistake
2) Keep working with Xykon -> Mistake
3) Murdering his own brother to protect Xykon -> Mistake

His change of heart about the Hobgoblins is the sole time he has acknowledged a mistake. It's an exception, not a rule. It's relevance for the comic was to mark the point were Redcloak regained his own agency, no longer being Xykon's glorified lackey like he was from the start of the comic. It was not to mark the beggining of a redemption plot for Redcloak.

Oh, I fully agree with you. Sorry if I got a bit muddled. I was mostly just pointing out that Miko isn't as clean a parallel to Redcloak as one might be inclined to think. I would also be more inclined to depict the hobgoblin exception more cynically than I did here - yes, he changed his mind, but it took him being personally benefitted by a hobgoblin to do so.

My point re:redemption is that if he does have any kind of change of heart regarding the Plan, it's almost definitely not going to happen until AFTER the damage has been done. Miko died thinking she'd never done anything wrong; Redcloak seems like the kind of guy who might admit he was wrong, but not until he was dying.

[Darth Paul]

Redcloak has regretted his actions in SoD: that's clear when he looks at his reflection wearing the eyepatch and says to his brother, in spirit, "It will all be worth it." But he hasn't regretted them because, in any sense, they were the wrong thing to do; he's regretted them because they cost him something. Allying with Xykon cost him his autonomy and self-respect, not to mention the major event of the story, which I won't mention. He's also dragged into having to work with Tsukiko, who he disposes of in an efficient but gruesome way; he could see this as another result of his mistake in allying with Xykon in the first place.

But at no point does RC say to himself, in essence, "I have done specific, horrible things, beyond the 'evil' deeds I would expect to do; I have crossed the line between everyday villainy and cartoonish supervillainy; what kind of person am I?" He only regrets his actions because he has lost something by them, not because he realizes they were wrong.

[Darth V]

Are we talking about Star Wars? I think we are talking about Star Wars. Let's talk about Star Wars!



The entire "get the Dark One or his cleric to contribute a spell to seal the rift" is a described plan, plans described in the story in advance never work. Elan can explain this. Nor does that plan explain or need an explanation of the planet in the rift, and who wastes foreshadowing like that?

Yeah i don't see that as a solution either. It feels like both Obi-Wan and Yoda trying to convince Luke that he has to kill Vader. Ok, that it is the end goal of the Big Good Guys that can't be bothered to do stuff themself, but the actual hero(es) of the story will throw a big curveball on that for sure.

Always talk about Star Wars!

[brian 333]

In Return of the Jedi we see Luke recognize that he has become his father when he compares his damaged prosthetic hand to the severed limb of Vader. He immediately rejects this outcome and disarms.

Redcloak has had many such moments, specifically his change of heart regarding hobgoblins at Azure City, and yet he has continued on his path deluding himself that it will pay off in the end.

Redemption is possible, but Redcloak has yet to admit he's just like his father.

[Dion]

Redemption is possible, but Redcloak has yet to admit he's just like his father.

Do you remember that scene in Jedi where pieces from destroyed Death Star II, The Quickening stripped away the atmosphere of Endor (or maybe Endor’s moon), killing the Ewoks and everyone else, ending the movie series forever?

I do. I remember it fondly.

[brian 333]

Sorry, but I've only seen the digitally remasterd version.

[Jason]

You can't have redemption without realizing that you were doing something wrong.

[Goblin_Priest]

I’m sorry, I thought D&D was supposed to be a fantasy game.

Also, it’s not too hard to draw parallels between the goblins and real life minorities.

Just because you can do something, doesn't mean that it's pertinent to do so.

[Dion]

I am not sure that Belkar ever gets to redemption; but we have another 200 strips, roughly, to discover if I am right or wrong about that.

Belkar already achieved as much redemption as anyone ever really gets, in strip 1194.

Will he ever get more than that? Yeah, probably. I predict he’s going to die, and Roy and the rest of the party will actually be sad that he’s dead. Roy might even put up a statue.

That’s his “redemption”, for some narrow little definition of redemption.

He’s not going to tip some cosmic balance beam over to the “good” side or anything. He’s just going to remembered by a few people as someone who wasn’t a complete bastard.

[KorvinStarmast]

He’s not going to tip some cosmic balance beam over to the “good” side or anything. He’s just going to remembered by a few people as someone who wasn’t a complete bastard. I am pretty sure that Haley will only ever remember him as a complete little (censored) thanks to his DSTP shenanigans when she was the nominal OoTS leader.
Elan can see the good in anyone.
Roy has been putting up with him for the sole reason that he can keep pointing Belkar at the bad guys. All Belkar has done recently is make that less of a burden.
Durkon is so big hearted that he'll say nice things about Belkar at his funeral, plus, Belkar laying the stakes on Durkula was what got Durkon to finally get free of Durkula.

V ... is a hot mess inside anyway. Blackwing may persuade V to say something nice about Belkar.

Belkar dies, and the Order of the Stick goes into the future with six members: Roy, Haley, Durkon, V, Elan and Minrah. To me, Minrah is the Belkar replacement character. Minrah is also the only OoTS member who has only ever met the New Belkar (faking it or not). She'll be the one to put the statue project together and see it to completion.

Redemption? Not seeing it.

[The Pilgrim]

Belkar dies, and the Order of the Stick goes into the future with six members: Roy, Haley, Durkon, V, Elan and Minrah. To me, Minrah is the Belkar replacement character. Minrah is also the only OoTS member who has only ever met the New Belkar (faking it or not). She'll be the one to put the statue project together and see it to completion.

I was going to say that the replacement for Belkar should be O-Chul. But O-Chul is too cool for the Order. Though he might contribute to the Belkar Statue Project by cutting a chunk of marble rock and shaping it into Belkar's likeness with his bare hands. While blindfolded, of course.

[Goblin_Priest]

Belkar dies, and the Order of the Stick goes into the future with six members: Roy, Haley, Durkon, V, Elan and Minrah. To me, Minrah is the Belkar replacement character. Minrah is also the only OoTS member who has only ever met the New Belkar (faking it or not). She'll be the one to put the statue project together and see it to completion.



Lien is the Elan replacement.

[KorvinStarmast]

I was going to say that the replacement for Belkar should be O-Chul. But O-Chul is too cool for the Order. Though he might contribute to the Belkar Statue Project by cutting a chunk of marble rock and shaping it into Belkar's likeness with his bare hands. While blindfolded, of course. Yes, vintage O-Chul. :smallsmile:
Lien is the Elan replacement. If only that were true.

[Ironsmith]

Lien is the Elan replacement.

...Can we just appreciate something real quick? She's one letter off from being an anagram of Elan/Nale, and has an alignment that sits between them (Lawful Good, as opposed to Elan's Chaotic Good and Nale's Lawful Evil). Elan made a joke about possibly having a "neutral sibling named Lean or Anel or something".

Just something to smirk over.

[KorvinStarmast]

...Can we just appreciate something real quick? She's one letter off from being an anagram of Elan/Nale, and has an alignment that sits between them (Lawful Good, as opposed to Elan's Chaotic Good and Nale's Lawful Evil). Elan made a joke about possibly having a "neutral sibling named Lean or Anel or something". She's from Azure City. She knows who her parents are. (GDGU material). Interesting coincidence, but no sale on her being a long lost sibling of Elan and Nale.

[Ironsmith]

She's from Azure City. She knows who her parents are. (GDGU material). Interesting coincidence, but no sale on her being a long lost sibling of Elan and Nale.

Obviously. I just thought it was a funny coincidence.

[The Pilgrim]

Yes, vintage O-Chul. :smallsmile:

Vintage O-Chul would shape the rock by giving it a stern look. Present-day O-Chul likes to try new things.

[brian 333]

Chuck Norris is an O-Chul immitator.

[KorvinStarmast]

Chuck Norris is an O-Chul immitator. I think that they went to different schools together. :smallcool: