Redcloak and the misattribution of blame

[ReaderAt2046]

So, for the past couple dozen strips I've been thinking a lot about Redcloak's beliefs, motives, and arguments, and there's something I've noticed, something that I didn't realize until recently. If you look at what Redcloak says, he seems to have a very warped opinion of the role of the various gods in Stickworld, and specifically in how those gods relate to racial prejudice. In the first place, I've noticed that he seems to think of "the gods" as a single homogenous group, instead of 30+ entities with differing alignments and personalities and mutually contradictory agendas. Witness, for example, the panels in strip 1207 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1207.html) where he refuses to believe that "gods like Thor or Odin" would sacrifice the dwarves and other "good" races to stop Redcloak. But that's a secondary point, mainly important because of how it contributes to the main thrust of this post: How Redcloak blames "the gods" for anti-goblinoid racism.

If you look at everything Redcloak says, he seems to believe that there is some kind of divinely endorsed "favored race" class from which goblins have been excluded, and 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.

And as far as I can tell, there is no external evidence that that is the case. There are undoubtedly anti-goblin racists among the population of Stickworld, but as far as I can tell, there is no evidence that any of the gods endorse such prejudice, any more than they endorse Laurin's resentment of the elves, or the prejudice between reptilians and mammals on the Western Continent, or the anti-orc sentiments that Roy ran into at the beginning of OTOoPC.

Similarly, Redcloak seems to believe that if "the gods" grant goblins this hypothetical "favored race" status, it will prevent other nations from trying to conquer Gobbotopia, even though (for example) the Realm of the Dragon and Azure City were at war with each other in HtPGHS despite both being mostly human nations. And when Durkon started talking about specific deals, about getting recognition from individual nations, establishing trade relations, Redcloak rejected anything short of "the gods" fixing everything in one big deus ex machina.

[Ionathus]

I think it all hinges on whether or not you believe Redcloak's crayon narrative in Start of Darkness: that "monstrous" humanoids were created to be XP fodder for the gods' clerics and paladins. If you believe that's true, then everything by extension is indeed prejudice by all the gods. If you don't think that's how it truly went down, it's hard to point to solid evidence of monstrous humanoids being forsaken by the gods...beyond lots of maybe-evidence baked into average racism & societal disadvantages in the comic (like the examples you gave).

The other thing I'll say - and this isn't in support of Redcloak's viewpoint, merely to explain it - is that if you're in the "out" group (the goblinoids), and you feel completely powerless against the whims & actions of the "in" group (the gods), you're going to be more likely to view them all as a united group.

Whether or not the invading army has any competing interests or minor feuds between their generals, they're still going to feel like a unified army as they run roughshod over your meager defenses.

[BaronOfHell]

The way I see it, RC was in the middle of the worst moment of his life (or at least one of the worst) when he learned about what he believed to be the background behind the very same moment, from the highest authority possible even, of course he was going to believe it.

I don't know if it is true for OotS, but I have the impression that goblins are legal targets for parties in their adventures without much doubt having to be risen (e.g. Dungeons of Dorukan), while even a bandit camp would only get the same treatment from Belkar.
Also while the hobgoblin race was able to prosper, their lands did seem like to be mostly rock, probably not the best environment.

When RC stands almost at the gates of Azure City, ordering the attack, I believe he is attacking the Sapphire Guard that was behind the worst loss he has ever experienced, not even knowing if this version of the Sapphire Guard and everyone who were part of it even exists anymore.
We learn most of the nobles manages to flee to sea, and I won't be surprised if some of them aren't retired former Sapphire Guards (and former Paladins!) who could have been part of the attack of RC's village.

I don't believe RC himself has that much knowledge of the every day life of a goblin since he took the mantle of the crimson mantle, so when he speaks on behalf of all goblins, I think he is very misguided, but I don't think the "evidence" he has from which he forms his opinions are incorrect, rather they are treated poorly, like a judge that sentence someone because deep down he simply don't like this person (or species in this instance).

[brian 333]

Redcloak blames all gods and all of their worshippers for what a small, very specific, group did?

When you begin with any premise, (the gods created goblins for XP,) you can 'prove' it by extrapolating from any evidence.

The SG attacked his village to eliminate knowledge and evidence of the rifts, not for the exp.

[The Pilgrim]

Recloak is an eternal child whose maturing process was frozen when he was a teenager by donning the Crimson Mantle (as Right-Eye stated in SoD).

Redcloak doesn't understands how the world of adult people works, and thus instead of trying to work hard to improve things (like Right-Eye or the Former Hobgoblin Supreme Leader attempted, and like Durkon just proposed), he wants mommny and daddy (the Dark One) to force Reality to bend on Redcloak's dream world.

[BaronOfHell]

I don't believe it is stated that RC knows why the SG attacked his village.

Also TDO's claims is a proof. It is not a proof in the mathematical sense, but this isn't mathematics.

Anyway otherwise RC's line when he attacked Azure City doesn't make any sense to me if it is not related to the SG's attack on his family.


Redcloak blames all gods and all of their worshippers for what a small, very specific, group did?
Not a claim I have made, but it honestly wouldn't surprise me if he did. Like you say yourself, once you believe everyone is against you, it becomes easy to blame anyone for anything, at least indirectly.

[Emanick]

I don't believe it is stated that RC knows why the SG attacked his village.

I think he does. The previous Bearer of the Crimson Mantle tells Redcloak (either directly or while Redcloak is standing next to him, I don't remember exactly) that the Sapphire Guard came to destroy him because he's the Bearer, just like they did for previous Bearers. That is almost certainly an accurate statement, and Redcloak would have remembered it.

Whether he understands the reason for all the "collateral damage" is less clear. I'm not entirely sure I understand it, to be honest.

[Fyraltari]

The Crayons of Time blatantly casts the gods in the role of game designers/masters, with for example Monkey ruining the knights-and-wizards theme with demands of ninja. It's not all they are in the story of the OOTS but it is part of it. And in that angle, Redcloak is right. Why do goblins exist? Because Tolkien needed someone for his heroes to fight. Why are there goblins in fantasy roleplaying games? So that your player characters have someoone to fight and grow stronger. The comic is, among other things, a reflexion on fantasy in general and ttrpg


Redcloak blames all gods and all of their worshippers for what a small, very specific, group did?

When you begin with any premise, (the gods created goblins for XP,) you can 'prove' it by extrapolating from any evidence.

The SG attacked his village to eliminate knowledge and evidence of the rifts, not for the exp.

The exact reasons for which each adventurer attack goblins isn't the point. The point is that the gods are apparently fine with the wholesale slaughter of goblins because, at least according to the Dark One and from a Doylist perspective, that's what they're there for.

[Jason]

Pandora, the box is opening again!

There have been a couple of lengthy threads about whether or not anti-goblin prejudice is an issue in Stickworld and how much that might justify Redcloak's actions if it is. The threads usually get locked after a while because people can't avoid comparing the situation to real world racism and things get too heated.

[Fyraltari]

I think he does. The previous Bearer of the Crimson Mantle tells Redcloak (either directly or while Redcloak is standing next to him, I don't remember exactly) that the Sapphire Guard came to destroy him because he's the Bearer, just like they did for previous Bearers. That is almost certainly an accurate statement, and Redcloak would have remembered it.

Whether he understands the reason for all the "collateral damage" is less clear. I'm not entirely sure I understand it, to be honest.

Yes, Redcloak's master was speaking directly to him. As for the reason for the collateral damage, well...

Hey, check it out: three in a row. I'll get to use my Great Cleave Feat!
This one was having some murderhobo fun.

[Dion]

Redcloak has the Players Handbook and the DMG and probably even an old copy of Keep on the Borderlands.

He sees what the gods wrote. He understands the world they imagined, and his role in it. He’s not wrong.

[Darth Paul]

That may have been where it started out. But blaming the current situation of specific goblins on what happened hundreds of years ago... there are too many intervening random chances and choices to draw a straight line from A to B and say, "This and only this is the reason for our current predicament."

And as Jason says, this has a lot in common with IRL issues, where history is a root cause, but cannot possibly be the sole root cause, for any given individual's current problems. And that's all I will have to say on that.

[Lord Raziere]

there is another factor that people seem to forget in these discussions:

the gods are affected by peoples belief. Loki literally cannot tell the truth unless he specifically rubbing it in Thor's face. Thor was once a redhead but became blonde, and Odin is still recovering from the beliefs of the last world.

therefore deities are not entirely free from their mortal followers wishes and thus reflect in some way their viewpoints, wants, desires, fears and so on. not entirely, but to a certain extent this applies to any god, even TDO or that one monster god that the orc high priest represents at the Godsmoot.

if TDO is so focused on enacting the plan, its because on some level the goblins want him to be. they may not know the specifics but they do know how they are treated and thus how it manifests in their deity is important.

at the same time, the same cannot be ignored for any other deity. the deity may command, but the deity also obeys. however the deities also transcend in some ways, the boundaries of any given world they create. they're clearly able to remember and maintain their identities throughout the eons of destroyed worlds. they have room to act and do their thing but not enough to go against what their followers believe about them, and those beliefs can remain long after those people are dead, as with Odin's current state.

Therefore its very possible that the current deities are highly determined by the thoughts and beliefs of the previous world, and that the previous world was thus much like the current one. whats different seems mainly to be how long its managed to last, the appearance of a new deity, TDO. therefore if one was to cast blame on the gods they'd have to cast blame on the previous world made for their beliefs making them into their current form as well, at the very least. but the goblins have only themselves to blame for how TDO is acting.

[Finagle]

Why do goblins exist? Because Tolkien needed someone for his heroes to fight.
This is oversimplified and largely incorrect. Tolkien didn't just create goblins (and orcs, he uses the terms interchangably) out of nowhere so his heroes could have someone to kill and look heroic. Tolkien's nature of Evil is that it cannot create. It can only pervert and degrade that which Good has created. Goblins were elves, once. They were captured by Morgoth (a being a bajillion times more powerful than wimpy Sauron) and tortured and malformed until they were naught but a parody of elves. Can goblins be redeemed, or are they permanently damned? That's something that Tolkien had a lot of trouble with, and never resolved before his death. The story of the creation of the orcs, in chibi form (start at the bottom and scroll up). (https://stormwreath.livejournal.com/?skip=260)

[Fyraltari]

This is oversimplified and largely incorrect. Tolkien didn't just create goblins (and orcs, he uses the terms interchangably) out of nowhere so his heroes could have someone to kill and look heroic. Tolkien's nature of Evil is that it cannot create. It can only pervert and degrade that which Good has created. Goblins were elves, once. They were captured by Morgoth (a being a bajillion times more powerful than wimpy Sauron) and tortured and malformed until they were naught but a parody of elves. Can goblins be redeemed, or are they permanently damned? That's something that Tolkien had a lot of trouble with, and never resolved before his death. The story of the creation of the orcs, in chibi form (start at the bottom and scroll up). (https://stormwreath.livejournal.com/?skip=260)

Yes it is simplified, bit it is essentially correct. I am not talking about the diegetic creation of the orcs (which is entirely besides the point) but the reason why Tolkien wrote the race in the first place. As you said Tolkien struggled until his death with the issue of the goblins being innately damned. Do you know why he still had them in his writings? Because he needed his Dark Lords to have armies. He quite literally needed his heroes to have someone to fight.

As for him not creating them out of nowhere, while it's true that they were mosters in myths and tales before he was thz first to have them form armies and do battle with mankind.

[Jason]

Yes it is simplified, bit it is essentially correct. I am not talking about the diegetic creation of the orcs (which is entirely besides the point) but the reason why Tolkien wrote the race in the first place. As you said Tolkien struggled until his death with the issue of the goblins being innately damned. Do you know why he still had them in his writings? Because he needed his Dark Lords to have armies. He quite literally needed his heroes to have someone to fight.

As for him not creating them out of nowhere, while it's true that they were mosters in myths and tales before he was thz first to have them form armies and do battle with mankind.
Fyraltari is perfectly correct.
The first of Tolkien's developed stories was the Fall of Gondolin, and it had to Fall to somebody.

[understatement]

He believes the gods have it out for him (and other goblins) because the group that attacks his village is not a random wandering adventurer party. The Sapphire Guard is essentially the Southern gods' strike team against mortal plane threats, and in SOD that's what Redcloak witnessed. And it's not the first time the Guard has led mass attacks, nor is it the last.

It's like if a group of, I don't know, the Northern gods' clerics (that are all dwarves or whatever) came into Cliffport and killed Julia, Eric, and Sara right in front of Roy, and then killed all the humans in Cliffport, and also these clerics previously killed Eugene and Horace or something. Redcloak's conclusion isn't likely to be 100% true (because the TDO himself is very much full of susceptibility) but it didn't come out of nowhere.

[Jason]

It's like if a group of, I don't know, the Northern gods' clerics (that are all dwarves or whatever) came into Cliffport and killed Julia, Eric, and Sara right in front of Roy, and then killed all the humans in Cliffport, and also these clerics previously killed Eugene and Horace or something. Redcloak's conclusion isn't likely to be 100% true (because the TDO himself is very much full of susceptibility) but it didn't come out of nowhere.

Of course, the difference there is that Roy's family didn't live in the same small village as the high priest of an evil god bent on blackmailing the other gods by controlling a god-slaying abomination, which plan endangers the very existence of the world and everyone in it. And Roy himself didn't join the priesthood of said god. But, yeah, other than that it would kind of be the same.

[quinron]

I have a little conspiracy theory - recently developed - that the goblins willingly rejected the gods that created the world, and Redcloak's Mantle vision is, as suggested, a lie. My evidence:

In strip 275, (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0275.html) the elven gods are explicitly mentioned - alongside the Dark One, even - as having been created after the world's creation. But the elves were definitely created by the gods. So there's precedent for a created race rejecting the worship of the main pantheons in favor of their own; the Dark One is different because he's specifically antagonistic, rather than ambivalent, toward the creator gods.

Besides goblinoids, Redcloak's recounting of his Mantle vision includes three specific races: kobolds, lizardfolk, and orcs. Though the Giggles-worshipping orcs claim to have no god, the High Priest of Tyr is at least half-orc, meaning orcs can find acceptance among the main pantheons. Lizardfolk are the major non-human race in the Western Continent, enjoying a much more privileged position than goblinoids in the North and seemingly giving the lie to the idea that the gods consider them less valuable than humans; but even ignoring that, considering Malack at least publicly performs being a lizardfolk, it seems that clerics of the Western gods are unremarkable among them. And despite not having seen much of the worship practices of kobolds, Malack says in strip 737 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0737.html) that Tiamat - a Western god - "prefers" kobolds over lizardfolk, and the one kobold we know to be a cleric with god-given power is her Oracle.

It's bits and pieces and a lot of reading between the lines - I did call it a conspiracy theory, after all - but this suggests to me that Redcloak got a very biased (or potentially fraudulent) vision from a god who already had beef with the major pantheons by the time he donned the Mantle. It's still possible that goblins really were made as XP fodder, but considering the other holes in that vision, I find that increasingly unlikely.

[understatement]

Of course, the difference there is that Roy's family didn't live in the same small village as the high priest of an evil god bent on blackmailing the other gods by controlling a god-slaying abomination, which plan endangers the very existencd of the world and everyone in it. And Roy himself didn't join the priesthood of said god. But, yeah, other than that it would kind of be the same.

Doesn't account for the non-High-priest goblins getting killed.

[Jasdoif]

In strip 275, (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0275.html) the elven gods are explicitly mentioned - alongside the Dark One, even - as having been created after the world's creation. But the elves were definitely created by the gods. So there's precedent for a created race rejecting the worship of the main pantheons in favor of their own; the Dark One is different because he's specifically antagonistic, rather than ambivalent, toward the creator gods.The elves worship Western gods alongside their own...which is presumably why the elven gods vote as part of the Western Pantheon (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0999.html).

[hungrycrow]

Doesn't account for the non-High-priest goblins getting killed.

It doesn't, but it's kind of a leap to go from "paladins massacred civilians during a divinely sanctioned raid" to "all the gods specifically created our race as fodder".

Of course I think Redcloak is getting this idea from the Dark One's religion, and the raid just gives Redcloak every reason to trust TDO over other sources of information.

[elros]

One thing to remember is the TDO started out as a mortal goblin-oid. Yes, he was purple, but he otherwise had mortal experiences. And one of those experiences was getting murdered by leaders of the other races when he met with them for peace.
After ascending to god-hood, TDO has had limited interactions with other gods, and since he is alone in his pantheon, any of his interactions with other gods have the risk of forming a “two-color rift.”
How can we expect Red Cloak to have a more expansive understanding of the other gods when his own god has the same perspective?

[Jason]

Doesn't account for the non-High-priest goblins getting killed.
Some additional light is thrown on the subject in How The Paladin Got His Scar.
HtPGHS makes it clear that the paladins in that raid didn't know that the Crimson Mantle is an artifact designed by the Dark One to impart knowledge of the Plan to his high priest. Which means that as far as they knew, any goblin that worshipped the Dark One could be told about the Plan by their diety and was therefore a potential threat to the world's continued existence, not just the bearer of the Crimson Mantle. If any goblin worshipper is a potential threat to the world's survival then it makes more sense to eliminate any village of Dark One worshippers with an active priesthood.
It's still a callous act, but the potential costs of not eliminating all potential threats are the world and everyone in it.
If the Southern Gods had told them that "the Crimson Mantle and its current bearer are the real threat", then they may have targeted only the Crimson Mantle rather than the entire village, but for whatever reason (possibly being over-cautious about who learns about the Snarl) they didn't say this.
Of course, the current leader of the paladins in HtPGHS makes it clear that he at least probably would still have eliminated all of the goblins, despite knowing the Crimson Mantle is the real threat; but it also makes it clear that the other paladins under his command, once they understand the true situation, would not.

[BaronOfHell]

All this potential evil stuff reminds me of Kore from the Goblins comic.

Anyway my impression is that at least some of the Paladins who raids RedCloak's village aren't only doing it because they believe they must, they're having a jolly time doing this. In my opinion this take away from the "unfortunately we must", which in my opinion in itself doesn't mean their actions are good or even neutral, and goes directly to lack of respect for the sanctity of life.

[Fyraltari]

Some additional light is thrown on the subject in How The Paladin Got His Scar.
HtPGHS makes it clear that the paladins in that raid didn't know that the Crimson Mantle is an artifact designed by the Dark One to impart knowledge of the Plan to his high priest. Which means that as far as they knew, any goblin that worshipped the Dark One could be told about the Plan by their diety and was therefore a potential threat to the world's continued existence, not just the bearer of the Crimson Mantle. If any goblin worshipper is a potential threat to the world's survival then it makes more sense to eliminate any village of Dark One worshippers with an active priesthood.
It's still a callous act, but the potential costs of not eliminating all potential threats are the world and everyone in it.
If the Southern Gods had told them that "the Crimson Mantle and its current bearer are the real threat", then they may have targeted only the Crimson Mantle rather than the entire village, but for whatever reason (possibly being over-cautious about who learns about the Snarl) they didn't say this.
The Twelve didn't tell the SG anything about the Dark One and the Mantle. Goblins and and PC races have been at war since time immemorial. A previous bearer of the Crimson Mantle lead an attack on Soon's gate so the SG knew that the church of the Dark One (or at least a goblin cult whose leader is called the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle) has designs for their Gate. Killing the Bearer and his lieutenants made sense, "exterminating" (their word) the entire village children included didn't.

All this potential evil stuff reminds me of Kore from the Goblins comic.

Anyway my impression is that at least some of the Paladins who raids RedCloak's village aren't only doing it because they believe they must, they're having a jolly time doing this. In my opinion this take away from the "unfortunately we must", which in my opinion in itself doesn't mean their actions are good or even neutral, and goes directly to lack of respect for the sanctity of life.
This.

[Jason]

Anyway my impression is that at least some of the Paladins who raids RedCloak's village aren't only doing it because they believe they must, they're having a jolly time doing this. In my opinion this take away from the "unfortunately we must", which in my opinion in itself doesn't mean their actions are good or even neutral, and goes directly to lack of respect for the sanctity of life.
Yes. Paladins seem to get away with much more unlawful and evil behavior in Stickworld and remain paladins than they ever would be able to in any game I were running.

[hamishspence]

The Giant did say that some of them may not have gotten away with their questionable behaviour.

[brian 333]

Redcloak kills thousands and he's given a pass because he has a just cause. The paladins kill hundreds and are condemned even though their cause is the survival of the world?

I suppose this is where I diverge from the majority viewpoint. Two wrongs can't make a right.

The paladins may have done a lot of evil, but this in no way mitigates or excuses or justifies the evil Redcloak does. Revenge is always an evil motive.

[hamishspence]

Paladins have "May not commit an evil act or they will lose their power" built into the class.

Redcloak doesn't.

That's why people focus more on "did these particular paladins lose their powers or not" whereas this kind of question isn't even relevant to what Redcloak does.

[Keltest]

The Giant did say that some of them may not have gotten away with their questionable behaviour.

The standards to which Rich holds his paladins before they Fall (at least in the comic) is such that im not sure much meaningful connection can be made between them and actual D&D paladins. the idea of "technically Lawful Good" is very much a metagame concept that cant really coherently apply in a narrative-driven story that lacks players and other external judges of character who are willing to shrug and move on due to not caring enough to start a fight with real people over imaginary orcs.

It is, at best, very much a square peg and round hole issue.

[hamishspence]

The standards to which Rich holds his paladins before they Fall (at least in the comic) is such that im not sure much meaningful connection can be made between them and actual D&D paladins.
Actual D&D paladins don't exist. Only players of D&D paladins exist.


the idea of "technically Lawful Good" is very much a metagame concept that cant really coherently apply in a narrative-driven story that lacks players and other external judges of character who are willing to shrug and move on due to not caring enough to start a fight with real people over imaginary orcs.

The story focuses rather heavily on this kind of metagame.

[Fyraltari]

Redcloak kills thousands and he's given a pass because he has a just cause. The paladins kill hundreds and are condemned even though their cause is the survival of the world?

I suppose this is where I diverge from the majority viewpoint. Two wrongs can't make a right.

The paladins may have done a lot of evil, but this in no way mitigates or excuses or justifies the evil Redcloak does. Revenge is always an evil motive.

No one has given Redcloak a pass, what are you on about?

[Keltest]

Actual D&D paladins don't exist. Only players of D&D paladins exist.



The story focuses rather heavily on this kind of metagame.

Im aware. And i dont think it does a particularly good job of it. Theres no "pretending" to be Lawful Good to the forces of reality in a setting, you just are.

[Jason]

The Giant did say that some of them may not have gotten away with their questionable behaviour.
Well, the paladin cited already as seeming to enjoy killing goblins in Start of Darkness gets killed in the next panel, so she at least didn't get away with it. None of the other paladins pictured are smiling while they attack the village.

[Riftwolf]

It's been a while since I read SOD, but does it explain *how* The Dark One found out goblins were xp fodder?

That said, I think it kinda undercuts Richs theme of the portrayal of D&D races having uncomfortable parallels with bigotry if Redcloaks vision is completely unfounded. Also, the vision is a rug that we've only seen in print form. It's only been hinted at in the online comic. If Rich was going for a rug-pull, he'd have to establish the rug was there to begin with, which at this stage would be clumsy.

Maybe the Gods really were that cruel, and we just have to deal with that.

[hamishspence]

It is simply suggested that this knowledge came to him with ascension to godhood - that it "opened his eyes" to this information.

[hungrycrow]

It's been a while since I read SOD, but does it explain *how* The Dark One found out goblins were xp fodder?

That said, I think it kinda undercuts Richs theme of the portrayal of D&D races having uncomfortable parallels with bigotry if Redcloaks vision is completely unfounded. Also, the vision is a rug that we've only seen in print form. It's only been hinted at in the online comic. If Rich was going for a rug-pull, he'd have to establish the rug was there to begin with, which at this stage would be clumsy.

Maybe the Gods really were that cruel, and we just have to deal with that.

I disagree. Anti-goblin bigotry can still be a thing even if TDO and Redcloak are wrong about its source.

[quinron]

The elves worship Western gods alongside their own...which is presumably why the elven gods vote as part of the Western Pantheon (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0999.html).

Fair enough - I guess since the dwarves don't have their own pantheon (just Dvalin, as far as I can tell, who's a demigod) and just worship the Northern gods, I figured the elven pantheon must be separate and they got called in as a tiebreaker for the West the same way the demigods got called in for the North. My mistake.

My second point still stands, though - if there's any kind of divine prejudice toward certain races, it's definitely not happening the way it was depicted in the Mantle vision, otherwise lizardfolk and kobolds wouldn't hold the societal standing that they do in the West.


No one has given Redcloak a pass, what are you on about?

This is almost certainly bleedover from another thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?624759-Redcloak-and-his-way-of-thinking) that's been going on (which some of the posters here, myself and brian 333 included, were involved in) arguing over Redcloak's ultimate morality/culpability in his own turn toward evil given the injustice in his backstory. It's a related topic and it got, if not aggressive, definitely tense. I think the argument is just trying to migrate here since the activity on that thread has stopped.

[Jason]

This is almost certainly bleedover from another thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?624759-Redcloak-and-his-way-of-thinking) that's been going on (which some of the posters here, myself and brian 333 included, were involved in) arguing over Redcloak's ultimate morality/culpability in his own turn toward evil given the injustice in his backstory. It's a related topic and it got, if not aggressive, definitely tense. I think the argument is just trying to migrate here since the activity on that thread has stopped.
Every thread that discusses Redcloak's backstory eventually has one or more posters who argue that anti-goblin racism either mitigates or outright justifies Redcloak's role in destroying the sapphire guard and conquering Azure City.

[The Pilgrim]

Every thread that discusses Redcloak's backstory eventually has one or more posters who argue that anti-goblin racism either mitigates or outright justifies Redcloak's role in destroying the sapphire guard and conquering Azure City.

It atonishes me that there are people who not only thinks that Gobbotopia has a right to exist, but also that it's continual existence is a necessity for a proper conclusion of this story.

[Ionathus]

The way I see it, RC was in the middle of the worst moment of his life (or at least one of the worst) when he learned about what he believed to be the background behind the very same moment, from the highest authority possible even, of course he was going to believe it.

This is something I'd never fully connected in my head: were I Redcloak, that experience of "entire family massacred, receive sacred message explaining the situation, receive divine orders" would be pretty hard to ever let go of.


Of course, the difference there is that Roy's family didn't live in the same small village as the high priest of an evil god bent on blackmailing the other gods by controlling a god-slaying abomination, which plan endangers the very existence of the world and everyone in it. And Roy himself didn't join the priesthood of said god. But, yeah, other than that it would kind of be the same.

I know you're not actually justifying the wholesale slaughter of goblin civilians and children, but the rhetorical device you're using kind of implies that. By nature of his knowledge and goals, the former High Priest was a threat to reality (though given that he was taking the time to visit a small village and ordain some minor clerics, he seemed to be doing much more "guiding the flock" than Redcloak ever has). That threat does not extend to ANY goblins that didn't know about The Plan. Of course the paladins would assume all the goblins were "in" on The Plan. The fact that they were not makes the scene that much more tragic, and drives home the injustice Redcloak experienced.


Redcloak kills thousands and he's given a pass because he has a just cause. The paladins kill hundreds and are condemned even though their cause is the survival of the world?

I suppose this is where I diverge from the majority viewpoint. Two wrongs can't make a right.

The paladins may have done a lot of evil, but this in no way mitigates or excuses or justifies the evil Redcloak does. Revenge is always an evil motive.

Nobody is giving Redcloak "a pass". His actions are evil. He is evil. The attack on Azure City was evil.

[Dion]

It atonishes me that there are people who not only thinks that Gobbotopia has a right to exist, but also that it's continual existence is a necessity for a proper conclusion of this story.

Why wouldn’t gobbotopia have a right to exist?

[Ionathus]

Why wouldn’t gobbotopia have a right to exist?

Presumably because it's a product of conquest? Territorial aggression is a tale as old as time, but it's often glossed over in fantasy stories: nobody wants the "Good" kingdom to rest on the ruins of another invaded & subjugated kingdom, so "Good" kingdoms are either millenia old, formed from an alliance of smaller kingdoms, or reclaimed from some dark obviously evil Sauron-type tyrant.

You don't often see a nation attacking another nation solely for territorial reasons in fantasy stories -- and when one does, it's almost never portrayed in a good light by the narrative.

I wonder, The Pilgrim, do you think the warring nations on the Western Continent (the ones not controlled by the Vector Legion, of course) are legitimate? I'd argue they exist for many of the same reasons but I also don't have a well-formed answer to my own question.

[Jason]

Gobbotopia's economy is also dependent on enslaved humans.

[Fyraltari]

This is almost certainly bleedover from another thread (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?624759-Redcloak-and-his-way-of-thinking) that's been going on (which some of the posters here, myself and brian 333 included, were involved in) arguing over Redcloak's ultimate morality/culpability in his own turn toward evil given the injustice in his backstory. It's a related topic and it got, if not aggressive, definitely tense. I think the argument is just trying to migrate here since the activity on that thread has stopped.
Right, I may have been a bit jumpy but Brian333's claim to be in the minority for not "giving Redcloak a pass" when the position on most people here reguarding Redcloak and the pre-O-Chul Sapphire Guard would be aptly summarised as "a plague on both your houses" rubs me the wrong way.


It atonishes me that there are people who not only thinks that Gobbotopia has a right to exist, but also that it's continual existence is a necessity for a proper conclusion of this story.

It astonishes me that not more people agree. There have been exactly three things wrong with Gobbotopia:
1) Team Evil
2) The Azurites were left homelandless
3) slavery.

1 and 2 have been fixed and I see no reason 3 couldn't. Meanwhile, to our knowledge, Gobbotopia is the first goblinoid settlement to have standind amongst the other nations. If the wars between the goblins and PC races are to stop, a continued Gobbotopia is a step on the right direction. Hell, even Durkon thinks so.

So what are your arguments for it not deserving to exist?

[Dion]

Gobbotopia's economy is also dependent on enslaved humans.

Sure. Slavery is wrong. They should stop doing that.

But I don’t see how it negates their right to exist?

[Ionathus]

Gobbotopia's economy is also dependent on enslaved humans.

Since Durkon included the condition "Gobbotopia releases their slaves" in the peace talks and proposed treaty, I had assumed any discussion here of Gobbotopia's legitimacy or continued existence wouldn't factor in its current policy on slavery. That was probably too big of an assumption.

[The Pilgrim]

So what are your arguments for it not deserving to exist?

20.000 hobgoblins enslaving 400.000 humans*

*(Take or give. Pre-war azurite population was 530k, with about half living in Azure City itself. Humans suffered 10.000 casualties at the battle. The Refugee Fleet clearly wasn't big enough to carry more than a few thousand).


It astonishes me that not more people agree. There have been exactly three things wrong with Gobbotopia:
1) Team Evil
2) The Azurites were left homelandless
3) slavery.

1 and 2 have been fixed and I see no reason 3 couldn't.

Point #2 hasn't been fixed. Most of the azurite population remains in Gobbotopia, enslaved by the Hobgoblins.

Point #1 isn't an issue. Team Evil is gone, Gobbotopia remains a brutal slaver regime.


Meanwhile, to our knowledge, Gobbotopia is the first goblinoid settlement to have standind amongst the other nations. If the wars between the goblins and PC races are to stop, a continued Gobbotopia is a step on the right direction. Hell, even Durkon thinks so.

Durkon doesn't thinks so. Read panel #2 here (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1209.html)

:durkon: "Clearly, I dinnae think ye should keep Azure City".

So that's another fact you got wrong.

[Dion]

Durkon doesn't thinks so. Read panel #2 here (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1209.html)
:durkon: "Clearly, I dinnae think ye should keep Azure City".

Last time I checked, Durkon is a comic strip character who can be and often is wrong. If you’re going to appeal to authority, I’m going to need a bigger authority, like maybe Tarquin.

[The Pilgrim]

Last time I checked, Durkon is a comic strip character who can be and often is wrong. If you’re going to appeal to authority, I’m going to need a bigger authority, like maybe Tarquin

What the Durkon character says in the comic strip is indeed authority on what the Durkon character believes.

[Dion]

So wait... there are seriously people who believe that Gobbotopia doesn’t have the right to exist?

This is an actual position taken by real people on this thread? This isn’t just performance argument, for the sake of argument?

Clearly I am in the wrong thread. This one doesn’t make a lick of sense to me. I’m going to go back to arguing about Star Wars, or something that doesn’t bang so hard against RL

[The Pilgrim]

So wait... there are seriously people who believe that Gobbotopia doesnÂ’t have the right to exist?

This is an actual position taken by real people on this thread? This isnÂ’t just performance argument, for the sake of argument?

Clearly I am in the wrong thread. This one doesnÂ’t make a lick of sense to me.

Given that the position you defend is contrary to all basic ethical grounds, I'd say yes, of course there are people who believe Gobbotopia doesn't have the right to exist.

Good luck trying to justify brutal conquest and enslavement of a whole nation.

[Ionathus]

Durkon doesn't thinks so. Read panel #2 here (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1209.html)

:durkon: "Clearly, I dinnae think ye should keep Azure City".

So that's another fact you got wrong.

Except he then immediately follows it up by saying "but thar's jack squat we can do aboot it." Later in that same page, Durkon is the one who proposes the peace treaty wherein Gobbotopia remains (but releases its slaves). He suggests that the existence of Gobbotopia might even lead to better treatment of goblins worldwide:


:durkon: Mebbe...if'n everyone's tradin' an' dealin' wit ye all that time, someday down tha line they'll stop seein' ye as monsters.

Mebbe na. I dunno. People're stubborn.

I think it's fair to say Durkon is not morally opposed to the idea of Gobbotopia.

[The Pilgrim]

Except he then immediately follows it up by saying "but thar's jack squat we can do aboot it." Later in that same page, Durkon is the one who proposes the peace treaty wherein Gobbotopia remains. He suggests that the existence of Gobbotopia might even lead to better treatment of goblins worldwide...

Which doesn't means Durkon agrees that Gobbotopia's continual existence is right. He is bargaining, and he is making a concession to strike a deal, as he literally stated.

[Dion]

Given that the position you defend is contrary to all basic ethical grounds, I'd say yes, of course there are people who believe Gobbotopia doesn't have the right to exist.

In stickverse, every race started out with the land given to them by the gods.

Either people have the right to live where they want, even in land that was was once owned by other people, or they only have the right to live in land given to them by the gods.

If the former, then goblins have the right to live there, even if other goblins did steal it (I’m not saying goblins have the right to steal. I’m saying that people have the right to live where they want, regardless of if it was stolen ).

If the later, then goblins are oppressed by the gods to live only undesirable lands.

[Jason]

In stickverse, every race started out with the land given to them by the gods.That is the story the Dark One's high priest tells potential allies, yes. But is it true?

[The Pilgrim]

Either people have the right to live where they want, even in land that was was once owned by other people, or they only have the right to live in land given to them by the gods.

People have the right to live where they want.

People don't have the right to steal property and enslave the former owners. Which is basically what Gobbotopia is about.

[hungrycrow]

I would have thought Gobbotopia not having a right to exist was ridiculous before but if those numbers are right that kind of changes things.

Like, what if Gobbotopia did accept Durkon's terms and end human slavery. Those 400,000 azurites get booted out of their homes and become refugees? They're forced to stay and be ruled by the brutal regime that just stopped killing and enslaving them? Those options seem a lot less fair than the 20,000 goblins just returning to homes they left a few months ago.

[The Pilgrim]

I would have thought Gobbotopia not having a right to exist was ridiculous before but if those numbers are right that kind of changes things.

Like, what if Gobbotopia did accept Durkon's terms and end human slavery. Those 400,000 azurites get booted out of their homes and become refugees? They're forced to stay and be ruled by the brutal regime that just stopped killing and enslaving them? Those options seem a lot less fair than the 20,000 goblins just returning to homes they left a few months ago.

My numbers are a gross estimation. But the truth is, there is a huge number of human slaves in Gobbotopia, and they likely exceed the goblinoid population, given the pre-war numbers.

I don't know were Mr Burlew is going with that part of his story. But I know he still presents the azurites as the good guys and the goblinoids as mainly evil. I don't know how The Giant plans to end his story, but the Durkon-Redcloak negotiation was Redcloak's big chance to solidify Gobbotopia, and Redcloak rejected it.

Gobbotopia wasn't the Hobgoblin's dream. It was Redcloak's. If the hobbos are forced to give up on human slavery, and thus are left with no workforce, they might be happy to grab all the loot and return to their hilly mountains, instead of standing and fight for far more land that they can farm or defend. Who knows?

[Fyraltari]

20.000 hobgoblins enslaving 400.000 humans*

*(Take or give. Pre-war azurite population was 530k, with about half living in Azure City itself. Humans suffered 10.000 casualties at the battle. The Refugee Fleet clearly wasn't big enough to carry more than a few thousand).
First, source.
Second, your "clearly" is doing a lot of work here.
Third, half of 530, 000 is 265, 000 not not 400, 000.




Point #2 hasn't been fixed. Most of the azurite population remains in Gobbotopia, enslaved by the Hobgoblins.
No. Some of the population, precisely the ones who were inside the city during the attack are still there. How many is that? I don't know, but the thought of hobgoblins keeping humans enslaved with a ratio of 1 hobgoblin to 20 humans is patently ridiculous.


Point #1 isn't an issue. Team Evil is gone, Gobbotopia remains a brutal slaver regime.
Jirix isn't Redcloak or Xykon and he has stated that he intends to rule differently than Redcloak no that they have transitionned from occupying a foreign land to sovereign nation.




Durkon doesn't thinks so. Read panel #2 here (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1209.html)

:durkon: "Clearly, I dinnae think ye should keep Azure City".
Read panel #9, he proposes to let the goblins keep the land in exchange for the release of the slaves still there.


So that's another fact you got wrong.
You have a skewed view of what a fact is.


Oh, and on general principle, asking why something or someone deserves to exist is the wrong question. The right question is to ask wether it deserves to be destroyed or killed. Things that exist should continue existing unless there is more good to be had from the destruction than their continued existence. And it seems clear to me that driving the goblins aways from Gobbotopia, and so taking everyone to square one so that they can do the same dance again one generation later provides less benefits than a slaveless, recognized Gobbotopia would.

[hungrycrow]

My numbers are a gross estimation. But the truth is, there is a huge number of human slaves in Gobbotopia, and they likely exceed the goblinoid population, given the pre-war numbers.

I don't know were Mr Burlew is going with that part of his story. But I know he still presents the azurites as the good guys and the goblinoids as mainly evil. I don't know how The Giant plans to end his story, but the Durkon-Redcloak negotiation was Redcloak's big chance to solidify Gobbotopia, and Redcloak rejected it.

Gobbotopia wasn't the Hobgoblin's dream. It was Redcloak's. If the hobbos are forced to give up on human slavery, and thus are left with no workforce, they might be happy to grab all the loot and return to their hilly mountains, instead of standing and fight for far more land that they can farm or defend. Who knows?

I imagine they'd still keep Gobbotopia. It's pretty defensible, and eventually more goblins will move in to replace the workforce. And while I can't predict exactly how the Giant will play out the Azurite-Goblin conflict, he gave the Azurites such a convenient out in the elven lands that I can't see them retaking Azure City in the end.

[Ionathus]

My numbers are a gross estimation. But the truth is, there is a huge number of human slaves in Gobbotopia, and they likely exceed the goblinoid population, given the pre-war numbers.

I don't know were Mr Burlew is going with that part of his story. But I know he still presents the azurites as the good guys and the goblinoids as mainly evil. I don't know how The Giant plans to end his story, but the Durkon-Redcloak negotiation was Redcloak's big chance to solidify Gobbotopia, and Redcloak rejected it.

Gobbotopia wasn't the Hobgoblin's dream. It was Redcloak's. If the hobbos are forced to give up on human slavery, and thus are left with no workforce, they might be happy to grab all the loot and return to their hilly mountains, instead of standing and fight for far more land that they can farm or defend. Who knows?

Your entire argument seems to rest on the (dubious) assumption that Gobbotopia can't exist without human slaves. You haven't given any strong evidence that human slaves outnumber goblinoids, and you've responded to every disagreement about Gobbotopia's right to exist with some variation of "Gobbotopia uses slaves, therefore, it doesn't deserve to exist."

But a slaveless Gobbotopia has already been established as feasible. Both Durkon and Redcloak treat it as possible during negotiations. Durkon says Gobbotopia could "barely" farm all their owned land without slaves -- but he doesn't say that it would be impossible. "Barely" means that the goblinoids would have to do the hard work themselves: they would have to create and improve their circumstances, rather than just pillage and oppress. Maybe they'd return to the hills, but that's a huge logical leap. They might just as easily stay.

That's the Gobbotopia that people are talking about. Nobody is saying they'd keep the slaves: that's ridiculous. Stop conflating the current Gobbotopia with a Treaty Gobbotopia -- one with reshaped boundary lines, no slavery, and ceased hostilities with the Azurites.

[Jason]

Gobbotopia is also under a widening dimensional rift containing a god-slaying abomination that consumes the souls of those it kills. I'm not really seeing a happy ending in the cards for Gobbotopia.

[Dion]

Oh, and on general principle, asking why something or someone deserves to exist is the wrong question. The right question is to ask wether it deserves to be destroyed or killed.

Thank you. This is the most sane thing I’ve read here.

It sometimes seems that history is just a catalogue of “population group A took land and resources from group B who took them from group C who took them from... who took them from group Z”.

And I really don’t want to get into the ethics of population groups taking land and resources from other population groups, because all that conversation ever seems to do is reveal how situational everyone’s view of ethics and morality are. I’ll just say my own view is “don’t take other people’s stuff”, but I recognize that’s coming from a place where I have the excellent privilege of having lots of stuff, so of course I think that.

But asking “should something continue to exist” is different question from “did we arrive at this current state through a method I approve of”. And we sure do seem to be conflating them.

[Jason]

That's the Gobbotopia that people are talking about. Nobody is saying they'd keep the slaves: that's ridiculous. Stop conflating the current Gobbotopia with a Treaty Gobbotopia -- one with reshaped boundary lines, no slavery, and ceased hostilities with the Azurites.
Maybe "Gobbotopia" is the right name, since it's derived from "Utopia" which means "nowhere".

"Stop talking about the Gobbotopia that actually exists and start talking about the future Gobbotopia that will exist, if it's leaders do everything right and it's neighbors play along."

[Fyraltari]

Thank you. This is the most sane thing I’ve read here.
Thanks.

Maybe "Gobbotopia" is the right name, since it's derived from "Utopia" which means "nowhere".

Gobbo-: goblin
-topia: place.

Gobbotopia: Land of the goblins. It is a fitting name. As was the not-as-liked Hobgobbostan.

[The Pilgrim]

First, source.

Pre-war population of the Azurite Nation was 530.000, about half of it lived inside the city. As stated in the bonus material of War and XP.

Hobgoblin army was 30.000, suffered 10.000 casualties in Azure City.


Third, half of 530, 000 is 265, 000 not not 400, 000.

And so? The rest of the Azurite Nation was conquered by the Hobgoblins, too.


No. Some of the population, precisely the ones who were inside the city during the attack are still there. How many is that? I don't know, but the thought of hobgoblins keeping humans enslaved with a ratio of 1 hobgoblin to 20 humans is patently ridiculous.

Make it 10 to 1, or 5 to 1 if you like. That still makes Gobbotopia a nation whose majority of population are human slaves.


Jirix isn't Redcloak or Xykon and he has stated that he intends to rule differently than Redcloak no that they have transitionned from occupying a foreign land to sovereign nation.

Jirix is still the guy who had fun with Xykon watching O-Chul being tortured and making bets on his prospect of surviving the next torture.


Read panel #9, he proposes to let the goblins keep the land in exchange for the release of the slaves still there.

And he had previously said that he doesn't think that was right. He wouldn't propose that to Redcloak if not for the fact that he needed to strike a bargain with him in order to get his cooperation for sealing the Rifts. He isn't proposing it because he thinks the hobgoblins deserve it.


You have a skewed view of what a fact is.

The character literally saying you are wrong on what you think that character believes, is a fact in my book.


Oh, and on general principle, asking why something or someone deserves to exist is the wrong question. The right question is to ask wether it deserves to be destroyed or killed. Things that exist should continue existing unless there is more good to be had from the destruction than their continued existence. And it seems clear to me that driving the goblins aways from Gobbotopia, and so taking everyone to square one so that they can do the same dance again one generation later provides less benefits than a slaveless, recognized Gobbotopia would.

That's because for you, the lives and welfare of 20.000 hobgoblin slavers are worth more than the lives and wekfare of 500.000 azurites, several hundred thousands of whom are currently under hobgoblin slavery.

Mine, isn't the case. I don't value the welfare of hobgoblin slavers avobe the welfare of their slaves.

Anyway, the Hobgoblins only came down their Hills because of Redcloak. They have thrived in their hills and lived in peace with the Azurites for decades. And managed to keep the peace even when the actions of the Sapphire Guard threatened it. With no demagogue full of hatred, the Hobgoblins would have remained in their lands.

So I fail to see why the continued existence of "crusader-bait" Gobbotopia is a necessity. Even if the slaves were released, you can bet all those hundreds of thousands of humans will want their property back. Gobbotopia got recognized by several nations only out of fear of the Lich. But soon, the Lich will be no more...

[Lord Raziere]

Or alternatively, Hinjo hears the reason behind why Gobbotopia exists and drops any claim to Azure city. He is the one in charge after all, the king, so he is the only one who matters when it comes to this sort of decision of the Azurites trying to retake it. (whether the nobles agree with this is a different matter and an internal dispute)

Trying to retake Azure city would be even more warfare, when many of their soldiers are not well trained, when they are already settling on islands and beginning to set up a new society. war is incredibly wasteful to peoples time, resources and lives. Furthermore many nations have recognized Gobbotopias sovereignty, which means the Azurites will not be getting assistance to retake the city. Hinjo has seen war, and we know from O-chul's story that war is an incredibly unwise idea when there are better solutions. Why continue retaliation?

At the same time, no matter the moral justification or lack thereof, its getting unreasonable to expect the goblins to just leave. the time to spin it as getting rid of an occupying force, is past. they have some form of political legitimacy in their sovereignty now and now they are starting to settle down as well. I highly doubt that they want to go back, not after such success. Hinjo could insist on retaking the city but even if he won, would it be worth it given all the lives he'd probably lose doing so? Furthermore the reason why Azure City was founded was to protect the Gate. When all this is over, the rift will be gone or fixed in some manner, so all it will be is a plot of land no different from any other. Why fight over it? Getting to it will require sailing across the ocean for who knows how long from the islands with the Azurites being the attacking force, the hobgoblins just have to set up good defenses while their enemies have to deal with a logistically difficult way of even getting to them

Hinjo is a paladin and not just any paladin but one who does things for the best as taught by O-chul, not just because something is right. would spending so many lives to retake a piece of land be worth it? I don't think it would. Asking them to leave is out of the question. to put it from probably Jirix's perspective:
"Uh no? Look human dude, I know you want it back, but this is best we ever got. and we got it by beating you. You don't have the forces or the power to get us out. Why should we listen to this when we don't need to? Your nothing but a leader of a bunch of refugees get out of here, you lost, take it with grace and we can all be peaceful. We're not going to hunt you down after all, your like what somewhere in the ocean? We don't time to find you we got a city to live in. get out of here dude."
No, Hinjo I bet will go after something different: the release of slaves and allowing them to be citizens in Gobbotopia with all the rights deserving of sapient beings, and open trade between the Azurite Islands and Gobbotopia-Coexistence. It may not be perfect, it may come up about from a great injustice, but where is it written that Hinjo must retaliate in kind? That the Azurites MUST have their land back for there to be a happy ending? Are paladins not supposed to hold themselves to higher standards? To insist on retaking Azure City's lands is to insist on potentially going to war over it, and if the Azurites go to war.....It may not end well, even with the OOTS's help. But if Hinjo negotiates the end of human slavery in Gobbotopia and establishes trade between them in returning for renouncing all claims to Azure City, that benefits everybody, not just the Azurite nobles who want their manors back.

The only reason we the readers care about Azure City being taken over, is because we spent so much time there. Its just a location. If that location will just be the cause of more conflict between humans and goblins, why care about it? Why ask the Azurites to potentially fight a war just so they can relocate again? The gate is no longer a factor, the entire reason why Azure City and the Sapphire Guard existed is done. The land is only valuable for what it can give and what it can give can be replaced.

I don't see Hinjo making the decision to continue trying to get back Azure City, especially not after How the Paladin Got his Scar.

[The Pilgrim]

Your entire argument seems to rest on the (dubious) assumption that Gobbotopia can't exist without human slaves. You haven't given any strong evidence that human slaves outnumber goblinoids, and you've responded to every disagreement about Gobbotopia's right to exist with some variation of "Gobbotopia uses slaves, therefore, it doesn't deserve to exist."

My entire arguments rests of the fact that the Hobgoblins are brutal slaver invaders.


That's the Gobbotopia that people are talking about. Nobody is saying they'd keep the slaves: that's ridiculous. Stop conflating the current Gobbotopia with a Treaty Gobbotopia -- one with reshaped boundary lines, no slavery, and ceased hostilities with the Azurites.

May I ask why do you think the Hobgoblins deserve to be rewarded for invading foreign lands, pillaging, killing and enslaving their population, and occuping their country?

I mean, letting them just peacefully retreat with the loot looks already like a big concession in my book.

[hungrycrow]

Pre-war population of the Azurite Nation was 530.000, about half of it lived inside the city. As stated in the bonus material of War and XP.

Hobgoblin army was 30.000, suffered 10.000 casualties in Azure City.



And so? The rest of the Azurite Nation was conquered by the Hobgoblins, too.



Make it 10 to 1, or 5 to 1 if you like. That still makes Gobbotopia a nation whose majority of population are human slaves.



Jirix is still the guy who had fun with Xykon watching O-Chul being tortured and making bets on his prospect of surviving the next torture.



And he had previously said that he doesn't think that was right. He wouldn't propose that to Redcloak if not for the fact that he needed to strike a bargain with him in order to get his cooperation for sealing the Rifts. He isn't proposing it because he thinks the hobgoblins deserve it.



The character literally saying you are wrong on what you think that character believes, is a fact in my book.



That's because for you, the lives and welfare of 20.000 hobgoblin slavers are worth more than the lives and wekfare of 500.000 azurites, several hundred thousands of whom are currently under hobgoblin slavery.

Mine, isn't the case. I don't value the welfare of hobgoblin slavers avobe the welfare of their slaves.

Anyway, the Hobgoblins only came down their Hills because of Redcloak. They have thrived in their hills and lived in peace with the Azurites for decades. And managed to keep the peace even when the actions of the Sapphire Guard threatened it. With no demagogue full of hatred, the Hobgoblins would have remained in their lands.

So I fail to see why the continued existence of "crusader-bait" Gobbotopia is a necessity. Even if the slaves were released, you can bet all those hundreds of thousands of humans will want their property back. Gobbotopia got recognized by several nations only out of fear of the Lich. But soon, the Lich will be no more...
I'm not sure these numbers all add up. A lot of Azurites outside the city probably fled. And there are a lot more goblins than just the hobgoblin soldiers who invaded initially. Still, there's clearly a significant human slave population that needs to be considered. I don't think merely ending the practice of slavery resolves the situation as neatly as people seem to think.

Also, it's uncharitable to make assumptions about what lives another poster does or does not value, to put it mildly.

[Jasdoif]

Still, there's clearly a significant human slave population that needs to be considered. I don't think merely ending the practice of slavery resolves the situation as neatly as people seem to think.It seems like a good starting point, though.

[The Pilgrim]

I'm not sure these numbers all add up. A lot of Azurites outside the city probably fled. And there are a lot more goblins than just the hobgoblin soldiers who invaded initially.

Well, according to the glimpses we get of the demographic comosition of Gobbotopia, it's still 99% Hobgoblins.
https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0701.html

EDIT:
93% Hobgoblins according to Redcloak's books:
https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0702.html

Let's say, then, 20.000 hobgoblins and about 1.400 miscellaneous goblinoids.

Number of azurite slaves unknown. Of 530.000 pre-war pop, 10.000 fell in battle, many thousands fleed the City with the Fleet, and an undisclosed amout of countryside population has fleed as refugees (we know some neighbours have sheltered refugees (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0501.html)).

Though maybe not 20 to 1, my bet is that the total of human slaves still outnumber the amount of goblinoids in Gobbotopia.


Also, it's uncharitable to make assumptions about what lives another poster does or does not value, to put it mildly.

The fact is that 530.000 people got stripped of their homes, freedom and, in some cases, even their lives. And that fails to register as a factor into the analysis of so many people in this board.

[Lord Raziere]

It seems like a good starting point, though.

Indeed, negotiate for humans to have all the rights and protections of a goblin in Gobbotopia, establish trade if possible, guarantee the sovereignty of the new Azure city island nation so that they don't attack them, things like that are all things that should be considered.

[Dion]

The fact is that 530.000 people got stripped of their homes, freedom and, in some cases, even their lives. And that fails to register as a factor into the analysis of so many people in this board.

I guess I don’t understand . Everyone single person on this board agrees that they should end slavery. Every single person. You get 100% agreement in this point.

So who are you arguing against?

[The Pilgrim]

I guess I don’t understand . Everyone single person on this board agrees that they should end slavery. Every single person. You get 100% agreement in this point.

So who are you arguing against?

That you still fail to consider than even if you end slavery, you are still stripping 530.000 people of their homes.

Not to mention all the brutality those 530.000 people have already endured, even if everything returned to Status Quo Ante Bellum tomorrow.

[Fyraltari]

Pre-war population of the Azurite Nation was 530.000, about half of it lived inside the city. As stated in the bonus material of War and XP.

Hobgoblin army was 30.000, suffered 10.000 casualties in Azure City.
Thank you.




And so? The rest of the Azurite Nation was conquered by the Hobgoblins, too.
All of it? All the population and the armies they had there just threw their hands in the air and said "well the goblins took over the city, I guess we're slaves now." ? It doesn't work like that. Gobbotopia's territory extends from the city itself, through Blueriver valley to the Hobgoblins' old base. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0702.html) Looking at the map included in GDGU, that's a straight path from A to B, meaning that didn't conquer the Cerulean River or Robinsegg so that's plenty of Azurite territory and Azurite people not enslaved in Gobbotopia.



Make it 10 to 1, or 5 to 1 if you like. That still makes Gobbotopia a nation whose majority of population are human slaves.
I will not, because I do not pull numbers out of my bottom.




Jirix is still the guy who had fun with Xykon watching O-Chul being tortured and making bets on his prospect of surviving the next torture.
So? You judge a politican on their policies, not their character. Also Jirix was there because Xykon invited him. Do you really think he could have turned Xykon down?




And he had previously said that he doesn't think that was right. He wouldn't propose that to Redcloak if not for the fact that he needed to strike a bargain with him in order to get his cooperation for sealing the Rifts. He isn't proposing it because he thinks the hobgoblins deserve it.
And? Who cares who deserves what? I thought this was about rights and the proper conclusion of the story? Sure in an ideal world everyone would get what they deserves and free unicorn rides and sugar wouldn't make us fat, but in the real world past wrongs don't matter as much as future rights.




The character literally saying you are wrong on what you think that character believes, is a fact in my book.
No, because
I never said Durkon believed the goblins deserved the land, I said he believed them keeping it inexchange for the slaves' freedom was a step in the right direction. As evidenced by the fact that it was exactly what he proposed.



That's because for you, the lives and welfare of 20.000 hobgoblin slavers are worth more than the lives and wekfare of 500.000 azurites, several hundred thousands of whom are currently under hobgoblin slavery.Mine, isn't the case. I don't value the welfare of hobgoblin slavers avobe the welfare of their slaves.

Please kindly refrain to invent motives and values behind the words of the people you argue against. I value the lives and freedom of everybody and wishes for the path that involves the least blooshed and most people getting to enjoy their freedom. Also these numbers are still bunk.


Anyway, the Hobgoblins only came down their Hills because of Redcloak. They have thrived in their hills and lived in peace with the Azurites for decades. And managed to keep the peace even when the actions of the Sapphire Guard threatened it. With no demagogue full of hatred, the Hobgoblins would have remained in their lands.
The Azurites atacking the Hobgoblins and then the Azurites stopping because of an Azurite convincing the head of government that reforms were needed is not the hobgoblins keeping the peace, it's the hobgoblins living at the mercy of their neighbours.


So I fail to see why the continued existence of "crusader-bait" Gobbotopia is a necessity. Even if the slaves were released, you can bet all those hundreds of thousands of humans will want their property back. Gobbotopia got recognized by several nations only out of fear of the Lich. But soon, the Lich will be no more...
These nations didn't recognize Gobbotopia out of fear of Xykon, you are confusing them with those who refused to attack gobbotopia. Cliffport recognized Gobbotopia because it aligned with their foreign policy.

As for why Gobbotopia is a necessity, it's because the goblins and humans have been at this for time immemorial and Gobbotopia is apparently the first time goblins have managed to get humans to treat with them diplomatically rather than alternating between isolation and war. It looks like the best shot there is to stop the slaughters.

Or alternatively, Hinjo hears the reason behind why Gobbotopia exists and drops any claim to Azure city. He is the one in charge after all, the king, so he is the only one who matters when it comes to this sort of decision of the Azurites trying to retake it. (whether the nobles agree with this is a different matter and an internal dispute)

Trying to retake Azure city would be even more warfare, when many of their soldiers are not well trained, when they are already settling on islands and beginning to set up a new society. war is incredibly wasteful to peoples time, resources and lives. Furthermore many nations have recognized Gobbotopias sovereignty, which means the Azurites will not be getting assistance to retake the city. Hinjo has seen war, and we know from O-chul's story that war is an incredibly unwise idea when there are better solutions. Why continue retaliation?

At the same time, no matter the moral justification or lack thereof, its getting unreasonable to expect the goblins to just leave. the time to spin it as getting rid of an occupying force, is past. they have some form of political legitimacy in their sovereignty now and now they are starting to settle down as well. I highly doubt that they want to go back, not after such success. Hinjo could insist on retaking the city but even if he won, would it be worth it given all the lives he'd probably lose doing so? Furthermore the reason why Azure City was founded was to protect the Gate. When all this is over, the rift will be gone or fixed in some manner, so all it will be is a plot of land no different from any other. Why fight over it? Getting to it will require sailing across the ocean for who knows how long from the islands with the Azurites being the attacking force, the hobgoblins just have to set up good defenses while their enemies have to deal with a logistically difficult way of even getting to them

Hinjo is a paladin and not just any paladin but one who does things for the best as taught by O-chul, not just because something is right. would spending so many lives to retake a piece of land be worth it? I don't think it would. Asking them to leave is out of the question. to put it from probably Jirix's perspective:
"Uh no? Look human dude, I know you want it back, but this is best we ever got. and we got it by beating you. You don't have the forces or the power to get us out. Why should we listen to this when we don't need to? Your nothing but a leader of a bunch of refugees get out of here, you lost, take it with grace and we can all be peaceful. We're not going to hunt you down after all, your like what somewhere in the ocean? We don't time to find you we got a city to live in. get out of here dude."
No, Hinjo I bet will go after something different: the release of slaves and allowing them to be citizens in Gobbotopia with all the rights deserving of sapient beings, and open trade between the Azurite Islands and Gobbotopia-Coexistence. It may not be perfect, it may come up about from a great injustice, but where is it written that Hinjo must retaliate in kind? That the Azurites MUST have their land back for there to be a happy ending? Are paladins not supposed to hold themselves to higher standards? To insist on retaking Azure City's lands is to insist on potentially going to war over it, and if the Azurites go to war.....It may not end well, even with the OOTS's help. But if Hinjo negotiates the end of human slavery in Gobbotopia and establishes trade between them in returning for renouncing all claims to Azure City, that benefits everybody, not just the Azurite nobles who want their manors back.

The only reason we the readers care about Azure City being taken over, is because we spent so much time there. Its just a location. If that location will just be the cause of more conflict between humans and goblins, why care about it? Why ask the Azurites to potentially fight a war just so they can relocate again? The gate is no longer a factor, the entire reason why Azure City and the Sapphire Guard existed is done. The land is only valuable for what it can give and what it can give can be replaced.

I don't see Hinjo making the decision to continue trying to get back Azure City, especially not after How the Paladin Got his Scar.
100% this.

Well, nitpick: Soon didn't found Azure City it existed long before the adventures of the Scribblers.
So, 97% this.

[Lord Raziere]

Edit:

100% this.

Well, nitpick: Soon didn't found Azure City it existed long before the adventures of the Scribblers.
So, 97% this.

Apologies, little details like that are sometimes lost. your correct.


That you still fail to consider than even if you end slavery, you are still stripping 530.000 people of their homes.

Not to mention all the brutality those 530.000 people have already endured, even if everything returned to Status Quo Ante Bellum tomorrow.

Yes those are horrible.

But again, if you negotiate for humans to have rights and protections of goblins they don't even have to leave.

while the brutality.....okay? such a problem is not really a thing for a nation to solve. at best the goblins can pay out money in recompense, but dealing with trauma and brutality is something for therapy to take care of. such wounds take time to heal no matter what and they will figure out how as they go along.

[Ionathus]

"Stop talking about the Gobbotopia that actually exists and start talking about the future Gobbotopia that will exist, if it's leaders do everything right and it's neighbors play along."

That's...that's what peace treaty negotiations are. They're a collection of world leaders debating what each future country will look like. The question is not, and has never been, "is Gobbotopia in its current form acceptable to everyone?". The question is "would the Gobbotopia proposed by Durkon be feasible?" That's the Gobbotopia I believe most people are talking about. Maybe it's an error of terminology.

The Pilgrim keeps treating everyone's discussions of Gobbotopia like it would still include slavery, when literally nobody is saying that. I'm just trying to cut through the rhetoric and establish that we're talking about two different situations: the current (bad) one, and a future (less bad) one.


Pre-war population of the Azurite Nation was 530.000, about half of it lived inside the city. As stated in the bonus material of War and XP.

Hobgoblin army was 30.000, suffered 10.000 casualties in Azure City.

Make it 10 to 1, or 5 to 1 if you like. That still makes Gobbotopia a nation whose majority of population are human slaves.
{Scrubbed} You started with two cited numbers (Azure City population and Hobgoblin army size) and then just made unfounded assumptions about who ended up where. You have absolutely no basis for claiming that "most" of that 215,000 is still enslaved in Azure city. Maybe the fleet was huge (remember, some of the Southern Continent allies agreed to take in refugees). Maybe refugees ran for the hills before the fight. You simply don't know. You're not basing it on anything tangible. Knocking it down to 10 to 1, or 5 to 1, doesn't make the assumption any more credible. You started with real numbers, but you then started assuming there are more humans than hobgoblins without any actual proof.


That's because for you, the lives and welfare of 20.000 hobgoblin slavers are worth more than the lives and wekfare of 500.000 azurites, several hundred thousands of whom are currently under hobgoblin slavery.

Mine, isn't the case. I don't value the welfare of hobgoblin slavers avobe the welfare of their slaves.

Believing Gobbotopia is capable of continued existence without slavery does not equate to caring more about the slavers than the enslaved. {Scrubbed}


May I ask why do you think the Hobgoblins deserve to be rewarded for invading foreign lands, pillaging, killing and enslaving their population, and occuping their country?

I mean, letting them just peacefully retreat with the loot looks already like a big concession in my book.

That's what war is. People killing each other for control of stuff. It's not about being "rewarded" -- it's about whether you believe Gobbotopia is somehow different in its legitimacy than the Realm of the Dragon, or numerous Western Continent nations, or any of thousands of nations throughout fiction that are established by seizing territory in war.

[Fyraltari]

That you still fail to consider than even if you end slavery, you are still stripping 530.000 people of their homes.

Not to mention all the brutality those 530.000 people have already endured, even if everything returned to Status Quo Ante Bellum tomorrow.

These things happened, no amount of violence towards the goblins can make them unhappen. Making peace with the goblins, however, is the only way to make sure they don't happen again. And your numbers are still bunk.

[Ionathus]

That you still fail to consider than even if you end slavery, you are still stripping 530.000 people of their homes.

Not to mention all the brutality those 530.000 people have already endured, even if everything returned to Status Quo Ante Bellum tomorrow.

Not to put too fine a point on it (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0467.html), but those 530,000 people already lost their homes, almost a year ago.

[hroþila]

It makes zero sense that ~400,000 Azurites would be slaves in Gobbotopia. It rests on the assumption that the fleet couldn't have carried that many people, but in that case neither could the Azurite cells hold that many slaves, nor the hobgoblins feed that many people.

It's much more likely IMO that The Giant intended much of the civilian population to have escaped on the fleet, and that he simply didn't care about the logistics of such a feat. Which is why at no point has the text hinted at most of the Azurite population being enslaved.

[The Pilgrim]

All of it? All the population and the armies they had there just threw their hands in the air and said "well the goblins took over the city, I guess we're slaves now." ? It doesn't work like that. Gobbotopia's territory extends from the city itself, through Blueriver valley to the Hobgoblins' old base. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0702.html) Looking at the map included in GDGU, that's a straight path from A to B, meaning that didn't conquer the Cerulean River or Robinsegg so that's plenty of Azurite territory and Azurite people not enslaved in Gobbotopia.

If Robinsegg hadn't fallen under Hobgoblin control, Hinjo would have landed there and continued the fight.

Though I suppose a lot of the countryside population fleed as refugees. Hinjo mentioned their neighbours taking refugees.


So? You judge a politican on their policies, not their character. Also Jirix was there because Xykon invited him. Do you really think he could have turned Xykon down?

I dunno. He seems to be enjoying the show.
https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0541.html


And? Who cares who deserves what?

Apparently, a lot of people



I never said Durkon believed the goblins deserved the land, I said he believed them keeping it inexchange for the slaves' freedom was a step in the right direction. As evidenced by the fact that it was exactly what he proposed.

Durkon believed it was a step in the right direction... for striking a bargaing with Redcloak to enlist his help into sealing the Rifts.

Redcloak refused. So right now, Gobbotopia holds no bargaining value for Durkon's side.


The Azurites atacking the Hobgoblins and then the Azurites stopping because of an Azurite convincing the head of government that reforms were needed is not the hobgoblins keeping the peace, it's the hobgoblins living at the mercy of their neighbours.

The Azurites did never attack the Hobgoblins. The Hobgoblins were attacked by a secret organization whose very existence is secret to almost all azurite population. And it was the azurites who stopped that secret organization from further attacking the Hobgoblins.


As for why Gobbotopia is a necessity, it's because the goblins and humans have been at this for time immemorial and Gobbotopia is apparently the first time goblins have managed to get humans to treat with them diplomatically rather than alternating between isolation and war. It looks like the best shot there is to stop the slaughters.

HtPGhS proves you wrong. Humans have treated the goblinoids diplomatically before. Humans have stopped the slaughter before.

SoD proves further proof that goblins can live peacefully alongside humans and even attend the Circus together.


These things happened, no amount of violence towards the goblins can make them unhappen. Making peace with the goblins, however, is the only way to make sure they don't happen again. And your numbers are still bunk.

Violence against the specific hobgoblins who commited those acts, will end slavery and restitute the property back to their rightfull owners. It will also prevent those brutal slavers from hurting anyone else again, on the account of being dead.

Peace with the Goblinoids without restitution will only encourage goblins to repeat the deed against other populations, since they have learnt that they can get away with invading, looting, killing, enslaving and stealing.

[Jason]

As for why Gobbotopia is a necessity, it's because the goblins and humans have been at this for time immemorial and Gobbotopia is apparently the first time goblins have managed to get humans to treat with them diplomatically rather than alternating between isolation and war. It looks like the best shot there is to stop the slaughters.
There are a lot of assumptions built into that statement.

Have goblinoids and humans really been fighting since the creation of Stickworld?

Is this really the first time humans and goblinoids have tried to negotiate rather than fight it out?

Apparently there really have been slaughters, since we've seen two (Redlcoak's village by Azurite Paladins in SoD and the aftermath of an Azurite outpost wiped out by hobgoblins in HtPGHS), but how extensive and widespread have they really been in the past?
The two biggest ones we hear about seem to be the Dark One crusade that caused him to ascend to deityhood and the sacking of Azure City - both perpetrated by goblinoids against non-goblins.

[quinron]

This thread has devolved into a lot of real-world/Stickworld conflation. I'm not interested in that; I don't think my views on real-world morality are important to in-universe analysis of this comic. But I'm curious if there's been an in-comic/Word-of-Giant response to this:

A major part of many Stickworld characters' opposition to Gobbotopia is that it's a slave state. One would surmise that, especially among characters like Durkon whose morality derives from their deities, this means that their gods disapprove of the practice of slavery.

But the Western Continent seems to be composed, if not entirely, then primarily of slave states, and neither the followers of the Western gods - as a whole, at least - nor the followers of the elven gods - which, as I just learned earlier in this thread, are considered a "subset" of the Western pantheon - seem to be organizing an opposition to these slave states.

We've seen one on-panel elven anti-slavery unit, and they were brought into Azure City. There didn't seem to be any organized resistance in the EoB until Haley showed up. I'm totally willing to chalk this up to conservation of detail, but I would actually find it pretty interesting and compelling if the Western Pantheon turned out to be more-or-less cool with slavery. It would add a lot of wrinkles to the inter-pantheon relationships.

[hroþila]

The Azurites did never attack the Hobgoblins.
Canonically, the Azurites (not the Sapphire Guard) kept the hobgoblins holed up in the mountains through military force. It's very bold to assume they were never ever the aggressors in their long and protracted border wars.

[M1982]

It doesn't, but it's kind of a leap to go from "paladins massacred civilians during a divinely sanctioned raid" to "all the gods specifically created our race as fodder".

Of course I think Redcloak is getting this idea from the Dark One's religion, and the raid just gives Redcloak every reason to trust TDO over other sources of information. I believe it's not just the DO religion but specifically word of the DO himself told him that the moment he first put ont he red cloak.

[The Pilgrim]

The Pilgrim keeps treating everyone's discussions of Gobbotopia like it would still include slavery, when literally nobody is saying that. I'm just trying to cut through the rhetoric and establish that we're talking about two different situations: the current (bad) one, and a future (less bad) one.

I'm treating your side of the debate as people who don't seem to mind that 530.000 people got their homes, freedom and in some cases lives stolen from them by a gang of brutal and mostly evil slaver invaders.

The normal expectation would be to have the victims get restitution, rather than to have the agressors get rewarded.


{Scrub the post, scrub the quote}

You started with two cited numbers (Azure City population and Hobgoblin army size) and then just made unfounded assumptions about who ended up where. You have absolutely no basis for claiming that "most" of that 215,000 is still enslaved in Azure city. Maybe the fleet was huge (remember, some of the Southern Continent allies agreed to take in refugees). Maybe refugees ran for the hills before the fight. You simply don't know. You're not basing it on anything tangible. Knocking it down to 10 to 1, or 5 to 1, doesn't make the assumption any more credible. You started with real numbers, but you then started assuming there are more humans than hobgoblins without any actual proof..

You said that you are not defending that Gobbotopia should keep existing with slavery. Therefore, it's moot that you discuss the specific numbers.

If you say that you don't endorse slavery, then it doesn't matters if the ratio of goblinoids-to-slaves is 1-1, 1-5, or 1-20, as you agree nonetheless that it has to stop.


That's what war is. People killing each other for control of stuff. It's not about being "rewarded" -- it's about whether you believe Gobbotopia is somehow different in its legitimacy than the Realm of the Dragon, or numerous Western Continent nations, or any of thousands of nations throughout fiction that are established by seizing territory in war.

Well, since "that's what war is", then you'll have no problem if, after the Lich is vanquished and Redcloak is slain, the Order and the Azurites, together with many allies, call a Crusade to recover the Azurite lands, kill all the 20.000 hobgoblins currently there, and then ride up the Hills and kill every goblinoid there, to make sure they can't repeat the deed again.

Because "that's what war is", doesn't it?

Or "that's what war is" only applies when it suits the goblinoids?

[M1982]

I'm treating your side of the debate as people who don't seem to mind that 530.000 people got their homes, freedom and in some cases lives stolen from them by a gang of brutal and mostly evil slaver invaders.

The normal expectation would be to have the victims get restitution, rather than to have the agressors get rewarded. That's just how nations are made. There's hardly any modern nation (if at all) that did not experience that multiple times in the last millennia. Celts, Visgoths, Vandals, the list goes on and on until you get to modern nations such as Spain, France, Germany, etc. And on the other side of the atlantic it hasn't been any different.

[Lord Raziere]

I'm treating your side of the debate as people who don't seem to mind that 530.000 people got their homes, freedom and in some cases lives stolen from them by a gang of brutal and mostly evil slaver invaders.

The normal expectation would be to have the victims get restitution, rather than to have the agressors get rewarded.

Yes it has been stolen. Yes it is unjust. But again: if you insist on taking that back, your doing nothing but endangering those people again and for what? a plot of land? some buildings? while restitution can take many forms without having anyone getting killed over it, or the hobgoblins chance at a better life ruined. justice need not be an eye for an eye.


You said that you are not defending that Gobbotopia should keep existing with slavery. Therefore, it's moot that you discuss the specific numbers.

If you say that you don't endorse slavery, then it doesn't matters if the ratio of goblinoids-to-slaves is 1-1, 1-5, or 1-20, as you agree nonetheless that it has to stop.


{Scrubbed}


Well, since "that's what war is", then you'll have no problem if, after the Lich is vanquished and Redcloak is slain, the Order and the Azurites, together with many allies, call a Crusade to recover the Azurite lands, kill all the 20.000 hobgoblins currently there, and then ride up the Hills and kill every goblinoid there, to make sure they can't repeat the deed again.

Because "that's what war is", doesn't it?

Or "that's what war is" only applies when it suits the goblinoids?

Except, what your describing isn't war. every single goblinoid? Every civilian? every child? thats not war, thats genocide. the hobgoblins didn't go about exterminating humans out of existence even if they did enslave them and they didn't go pursuing after the Azure Fleet to kill them off. to respond with genocide is to be even worse than the goblins. you do not respond to something like this by being even worse. do it and your only proving Redcloak right.

[The Pilgrim]

That's just how nations are made. There's hardly any modern nation (if at all) that did not experience that multiple times in the last millennia. Celts, Visgoths, Vandals, the list goes on and on until you get to modern nations such as Spain, France, Germany, etc. And on the other side of the atlantic it hasn't been any different.

I'm not interested in debating real-life issues here. Even less when your argument hardly has any relevance for the issue at hand.

If your argument is "that's just how nations are made", then you will see no problem in that the ending of this webcomic would see the Azurites taking back their land and then going up the hills and remove the Hobgoblins from there, to ensure they will never be a menace again. Because "that's just how nations are made".

[M1982]

I'm not interested in debating real-life issues here. But the only argument that would label them as wrong is based on very recent RL morality which is still a blink of an eye in human history of conquest and might no longer be the standard in a mere 100 years (if it ever was, quite a view borders have been violently redrawn since WW2, as recent as 2020).

But if your argument is "that's just how nations are made", then you will see no problem in that the ending of this webcomic would see the Azurites taking back their land and exterminating all hobgoblins to ensure they would never be a menace ever again. Because "that's just how nations are made". No, winner takes it all until he becomes loser. The latest winner is the current nation for as long as he can hold it together.

[hungrycrow]

I'm not interested in debating real-life issues here.

But if your argument is "that's just how nations are made", then you will see no problem in that the ending of this webcomic would see the Azurites taking back their land and then going up the hills and remove the Hobgoblins from there, to ensure they will never be a menace again. Because "that's just how nations are made".

Their point isn't that ethics don't matter at all when dealing with nations, it's that 'how we got here' isn't important. What matters is which path going forward will help or hurt the most people.

[The Pilgrim]

No, winner takes it all until he becomes loser. The latest winner is the current nation for as long as he can hold it together.

Therefore, you believe that Gobbotopia only has a right to exist as long as it can defend itself. And Azurites striking back and taking everything, including the former hobgoblin homelands, would be a perfecly ending to the hobgoblin-azurite conflict.

Ok. I agree to disagree, but I acknowledge that your position is coherent. Which is more than I can say about the position of other people here.


Their point isn't that ethics don't matter at all when dealing with nations, it's that 'how we got here' isn't important. What matters is which path going forward will help or hurt the most people.

And my amazement is that they think that letting 20.000 brutal slaver invaders keep the land and homes of the 500.000 humans they have brutalized, is the path forward that will help the most people.

It's like if I beat up my neighbour, evict him from his home, keep his wife and children kidnapped, and then tell him "Ok, I will release your wife and children if you let me keep you home and stuff. That's the path forward that will help the most people".

And they pretend to sound reasonable!

It's madness.

[Ionathus]

I dunno. He seems to be enjoying the show.
https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0541.html

Agreed, I think Jirix being openly entertained by O-Chul's predicament is an obvious Evil act. He's not as ambitious as Redcloak or Xykon, but he seems perfectly fine with torture as entertainment.


Redcloak refused. So right now, Gobbotopia holds no bargaining value for Durkon's side.

Of course Gobbotopia still has bargaining value for Durkon's side. Just because negotiations went south on Attempt #1 doesn't mean Durkon can never discuss Gobbotopia's status if Attempt #2 ever comes up.

And yes, I know you don't believe Attempt #2 will ever happen. I do. And if it does, Gobbotopia will still be just as big a bargaining chip. So establishing what it would look like is worthwhile.



Violence against the specific hobgoblins who commited those acts, will end slavery and restitute the property back to their rightfull owners. It will also prevent those brutal slavers from hurting anyone else again, on the account of being dead.

Peace with the Goblinoids without restitution will only encourage goblins to repeat the deed against other populations, since they have learnt that they can get away with invading, looting, killing, enslaving and stealing.

OR the Goblinoids will develop trade partners and form alliances, just like every other nation that has ever established itself through conquest. The remaining Azurites will want their land back and Gobbotopia will say "screw you suckers, it's our turn now!" and the Azurites will make do with their abandoned keep on an island off the coast of the Western Continent.

Everything doesn't always work out perfectly. The good guys don't always get everything they want. Not every wrong is always righted. Sometimes territory stays conquered. Sometimes people who have done evil things stick around, and the characters have to figure out a way to move forward...even if that means negotiating with the nation that drove them from their land.


I'm treating your side of the debate as people who don't seem to mind that 530.000 people got their homes, freedom and in some cases lives stolen from them by a gang of brutal and mostly evil slaver invaders.

The normal expectation would be to have the victims get restitution, rather than to have the agressors get rewarded.

Again, I never said I "don't mind." I do, in fact. War & XPs wrecked me -- I didn't expect The Order to lose, and the sacking of Azure City was a huge blow to me. It pissed me off, in fact. The villains weren't supposed to win, but they did - at least partially.

I understand your sense of justice, and the feeling that Gobbotopia has to "pay" for their attack. But that's just not how national diplomacy works, even in fiction. If every country maintained hostilities with every country that had ever wronged it, there wouldn't be any countries left.


You said that you are not defending that Gobbotopia should keep existing with slavery. Therefore, it's moot that you discuss the specific numbers.

If you say that you don't endorse slavery, then it doesn't matters if the ratio of goblinoids-to-slaves is 1-1, 1-5, or 1-20, as you agree nonetheless that it has to stop.

I 100% agree that the number of slaves doesn't matter - it is always an evil act. But that's not what we were talking about when you brought the numbers up. You first referenced that (unfounded) ratio as an argument that Gobbotopia was unfeasible without slavery.

The numbers are not moot, because if goblinoids outnumber slaves 5 to 1, they could release the slaves and still have a viable society. If I misunderstood your original point, I apologize. I don't want to keep debating an unverified ratio anyway, I think that's a waste of everyone's time.


Well, since "that's what war is", then you'll have no problem if, after the Lich is vanquished and Redcloak is slain, the Order and the Azurites, together with many allies, call a Crusade to recover the Azurite lands, kill all the 20.000 hobgoblins currently there, and then ride up the Hills and kill every goblinoid there, to make sure they can't repeat the deed again.

Because "that's what war is", doesn't it?

Or "that's what war is" only applies when it suits the goblinoids?


Except, what your describing isn't war. every single goblinoid? Every civilian? every child? thats not war, thats genocide. the hobgoblins didn't go about exterminating humans out of existence even if they did enslave them and they didn't go pursuing after the Azure Fleet to kill them off. to respond with genocide is to be even worse than the goblins. you do not respond to something like this by being even worse. do it and your only proving Redcloak right.

Everything Raziere said here. Exaggerating my point unfairly does not prove your point.


And my amazement is that they think that letting 20.000 brutal slaver invaders keep the land and homes of the 500.000 humans they have brutalized, is the path forward that will help the most people.

It's like if I beat up my neighbour, evict him from his home, keep his wife and children kidnapped, and then tell him "Ok, I will release your wife and children if you let me keep you home and stuff. That's the path forward that will help the most people".

People and nations are not equivalent. Assault and theft are not the same as war and conquest. War is always brutal, messy, and a tragic loss of life. Nation-state diplomacy is too complex to be simplified down to a single glib example of one human attacking their neighbor and taking their stuff.

If you are expecting every fictional country to apologize and make restitution (or else be subsequently brutally conquered) for every hostile act it takes against another country, you are going to be sorely disappointed by everything that isn't Lord of the Rings.

[Lord Raziere]

And my amazement is that they think that letting 20.000 brutal slaver invaders keep the land and homes of the 500.000 humans they have brutalized, is the path forward that will help the most people.

It's like if I beat up my neighbour, evict him from his home, keep his wife and children kidnapped, and then tell him "Ok, I will release your wife and children if you let me keep you home and stuff. That's the path forward that will help the most people".

And they pretend to sound reasonable!

It's madness.

The situations are not comparable. your talking about being a criminal where some paladin or other guard is likely to distract you long enough to sneak up behind you to knock you out, rescue the hostages and arrest you, because the law is stronger than you, and thus enforces the rules. regardless of the victims feelings on the matter.

the situation of the Azurites and goblins is more comparable to say, two people out in the wilderness. one has a hut. the other kicks the first out of the hut because they are stronger, had a grudge against the hut-dweller and now owns the hut. the now hutless person can't get the hut back, and has no higher authority to appeal to, just other people in the wilderness who might not care about whom the hut belongs to, might want the hut for themselves, might like the current hut dweller better, or might want to do business with the new hut-dweller for whatever reason. so they decide to go and build a second hut despite being the person who spent a lot of time building the first hut and it being unfair that they got kicked out of their first hut, because they can't reasonably expect to get the first hut back, because there is no police, army or whatever around to enforce getting that hut back, just what the person can convince others to do for him, or the training he can do to get the hut back himself.

but even if he convinced someone else to help get the hut back, there is always the problem that the third person will use it as an opportunity to kill the first two people to get the hut for themselves, or to use the situation to make the first hut dweller owe the third person a debt, so getting the hut back may have a price to pay that they don't want to. thus the person has to either risk dying to get that first hut back or to acknowledge that its just a freaking hut man and that he will be happier if he makes a second hut which the second hut-dweller won't care about because he already has a hut, and maybe if the first hut dweller talks with him amicably enough the second hut-dweller will learn to be a better person who doesn't go around taking huts from other people.

Whereas if he chooses to fight and succeeds in driving off the second hut dweller, that teaches the second hut dweller only that the second hut dweller is not strong enough to keep the hut and thus get stronger and more allies to come back and keep the hut and how dare this first hut dweller who has already done something to him deny him a hut again after living so long without a hut! not everyone has a luxury of a hut y'know! which would only lead to them fighting until the hut is destroyed because they valued fighting over the hut too much.

the lesson being that huts aren't that valuable and one shouldn't put too much importance on the hut when they can both be happy instead, even if one hut being taken from the other is unfair. now getting back the family, noble, but the family might get killed in the fighting, best to make sure the guy gives the family up peacefully so they can live in the second hut, so that the family doesn't die fighting over the first hut. its just a freaking hut after all.

[brian 333]

The thing is, even if the leaders get together and hammer out a binding treaty, it won't matter. And the reason has nothing to do with anti-goblin bigotry. The Dark One must still be laughing about the perpetual war Redcloak has created here, and it is already beyond the control of any and every leader involved.

1) every mid level adventurer in the Stickverse has to be considering just how much wealth the Azurites left behind, not counting the ones hired by Azurites to retrieve family heirlooms.

2) every holy order, and a few unholy ones too, is very likely gearing up for a chance to punish those who offended their gods, robbed and profaned their holy sites.

3) neighboring nations, their border lands full of refugees, are looking forward to either a war or a perpetual series of reprisal raids as the goblins chase Azurite adventurer/raiders back across their borders. Even if the rulers of those lands forbid it, the adventurers will come, and border lords will ae found who are sympathetic to the cause.

4) even if none of these things happen, the goblins, bolstered by their success, will wonder if they can take even more territory by force.

As for judging Jirix by his policies rather than his personality:

A) he's in favor of abrogating treaties when he thinks it will be fun.

B) he's pro-slavery

C) he's in favor of the torture of prisoners of war.

D) he supports wars of aggression.

E) he advocates perpetual war as a lifestyle rather than as a means to an end.

Sounds like the kind of fellow we can trust to hammer out a lasting peace.

Or did you mean we should judge a politician by the policies he says he will support rather than the policies he has already enacted?

[Lord Raziere]

1) every mid level adventurer in the Stickverse has to be considering just how much wealth the Azurites left behind, not counting the ones hired by Azurites to retrieve family heirlooms.

Logical, but there is no evidence in the comic for this happening.


2) every holy order, and a few unholy ones too, is very likely gearing up for a chance to punish those who offended their gods, robbed and profaned their holy sites.

I don't know, you'd think this would be a topic of discussion at the Godsmoot given that Redcloak is directly connected to this whole Gate thing and thus Gobbotopia is to, but apparently the gods don't care about land- why would they? its all going to be destroyed by the Snarl sooner or later. therefore if the gods don't care, why should their holy orders?


3) neighboring nations, their border lands full of refugees, are looking forward to either a war or a perpetual series of reprisal raids as the goblins chase Azurite adventurer/raiders back across their borders. Even if the rulers of those lands forbid it, the adventurers will come, and border lords will ae found who are sympathetic to the cause.

again, reasonable to think in this world, but there is no evidence of this happening


4) even if none of these things happen, the goblins, bolstered by their success, will wonder if they can take even more territory by force.

Reasonable to assume again, but there is no evidence of it happening.


As for judging Jirix by his policies rather than his personality:

A) he's in favor of abrogating treaties when he thinks it will be fun.

B) he's pro-slavery

C) he's in favor of the torture of prisoners of war.

D) he supports wars of aggression.

E) he advocates perpetual war as a lifestyle rather than as a means to an end.

Sounds like the kind of fellow we can trust to hammer out a lasting peace.

Or did you mean we should judge a politician by the policies he says he will support rather than the policies he has already enacted?

Evidence for these claims, please? your making a lot of claims without being clear about where in the comic your getting them from. like I can see the torture and slavery parts because he attended those O-Chul torture sessions with Xykon but that might just be brown-nosing to get ahead, not an unknown thing in hobgoblin society. given the events of How the Paladin Got His Scar, I can see Jirix being like the first supreme leader being possible, but I'll need proof for this claim to be solidified in my mind.

also, by that measure, Shojo was in favor of keeping secrets, creating faked unlawful trials or even jailing people without trial, lying about his senility, manipulating paladins, and generally being a lying manipulative ruler who went against his nation's laws. do we discard him as an untrustworthy lying snake?

[Jason]

If you are expecting every fictional country to apologize and make restitution (or else be subsequently brutally conquered) for every hostile act it takes against another country, you are going to be sorely disappointed by everything that isn't Lord of the Rings.
You would be disappointed by the Lord of the Rings too. The Numenoreans, the people Aragorn is so proud to be a descdendent of, enslaved most of Middle-earth during the Second Age, and by the end were active devil worshippers who practiced human sacrifice.
Gondor had continual wars with the Haradrim and a brutal civil war over the royal succession.
The Rohirrim drove the Dunlanders out of their lands when Gondor gave them to them, and actively hunted the wild men of the woods.
The elves have all sorts of unsightly wars and kinslayings in the Silmarillion.
The hobbits are pretty much the only people who don't have a war of conquest in their history, and that's because they moved into a land where the former inhabitants had all been destroyed by war and plague already.

[Ionathus]

You would be disappointed by the Lord of the Rings too. The Numenoreans, the people Aragorn is so proud to be a descdendent of, enslaved most of Middle-earth during the Second Age, and by the end were active devil worshippers who practiced human sacrifice.
Gondor had continual wars with the Haradrim and a brutal civil war over the royal succession.
The Rohirrim drove the Dunlanders out of their lands when Gondor gave them to them, and actively hunted the wild men of the woods.
The elves have all sorts of unsightly wars and kinslayings in the Silmarillion.
The hobbits are pretty much the only people who don't have a war of conquest in their history, and that's because they moved into a land where the former inhabitants had all been destroyed by war and plague already.

Holy crap that is wild. As a casual fan I had no idea Middle Earth was that hard-core.

Still not sure it's enough to finally get me into reading The Silmarillion...

[Saint-Just]

In general it almost entirely hinges on how true the Crayons of Time in SoD. If the Gods have created goblins to be fought by the PCs and placed them at a disadvantage it is a great offense against them. It doesn't justify his actions but his motivation is a righteous one. If situation came to be as it is by some other means Redcloak has done evil for no good reason. Dark One's personal experiences may (I'd bet do) color his understanding of the situation, but the existence of prosperous lizardfolk societies and clerics don't meant that they have not been at a disadvantage from the beginning. No sure way to know.


I have a little conspiracy theory - recently developed - that the goblins willingly rejected the gods that created the world, and Redcloak's Mantle vision is, as suggested, a lie.
...
It's bits and pieces and a lot of reading between the lines - I did call it a conspiracy theory, after all - but this suggests to me that Redcloak got a very biased (or potentially fraudulent) vision from a god who already had beef with the major pantheons by the time he donned the Mantle. It's still possible that goblins really were made as XP fodder, but considering the other holes in that vision, I find that increasingly unlikely.


Crayons may be false, but I do not see how that means that goblins somehow "rejected" the gods.



Tiamat - a Western god - "prefers" kobolds over lizardfolk, and the one kobold we know to be a cleric with god-given power is her Oracle.


He is explicitly an Expert, not a Cleric. No magic at all, but god-given prophetic powers which exist outside of normal magical and clerical hierarchies




Re: Gobbotopia's right to exist (too many posts to quote).

From any point of view concerned with order, international trade, peace and prosperity Gobbotopia has no right to exist. It's a naked aggression for no justifiable reason. Leaving it unopposed encourages other strong nations to engage in territorial grabs whenever possible, and the Southern Lands seemed to be less affected by the endemic warfare than Western Continent (extrapolation, not 100% proven).

That doesn't meant that it will not exist and that will not be allowed to exist even when other nations (including the Azurite Government-in-Exile) could technically win a war against it. As others have noted even if you are only concerned with the well-being of the enslaved and displaced Azurites there is no reason to suppose that winning war against the Hobgoblins will be better than trading some concessions and leaving the goblins where they are (and humans may or may not be welcome there heretofore).

It seems that at least in part it has been reduced to a semantic argument, whether you equate "right to exist" to "Hobgoblins' actions are justifiable", or to "the only acceptable resolution is the one where Hobgoblins leave the environs of the Azure City", but they are not mutually exclusive. I, for one, think that both are false, Hobgoblins are entirely in the wrong - even the aforementioned border wars do not excuse their actions, yet the best way forward is likely (though not guaranteed) is not another war - as long as goblins will be amenable to at least release every slave other conditions may be negotiable.

A couple of additional points:


At the same time, no matter the moral justification or lack thereof, its getting unreasonable to expect the goblins to just leave. the time to spin it as getting rid of an occupying force, is past. they have some form of political legitimacy in their sovereignty now and now they are starting to settle down as well.
...
Hinjo is a paladin and not just any paladin but one who does things for the best as taught by O-chul, not just because something is right. would spending so many lives to retake a piece of land be worth it? I don't think it would. Asking them to leave is out of the question. to put it from probably Jirix's perspective:
"Uh no? Look human dude, I know you want it back, but this is best we ever got. and we got it by beating you. You don't have the forces or the power to get us out. Why should we listen to this when we don't need to? Your nothing but a leader of a bunch of refugees get out of here, you lost, take it with grace and we can all be peaceful. We're not going to hunt you down after all, your like what somewhere in the ocean? We don't time to find you we got a city to live in. get out of here dude."
No, Hinjo I bet will go after something different: the release of slaves and allowing them to be citizens in Gobbotopia with all the rights deserving of sapient beings, and open trade between the Azurite Islands and Gobbotopia-Coexistence. It may not be perfect, it may come up about from a great injustice, but where is it written that Hinjo must retaliate in kind? That the Azurites MUST have their land back for there to be a happy ending? Are paladins not supposed to hold themselves to higher standards? To insist on retaking Azure City's lands is to insist on potentially going to war over it, and if the Azurites go to war.....It may not end well, even with the OOTS's help. But if Hinjo negotiates the end of human slavery in Gobbotopia and establishes trade between them in returning for renouncing all claims to Azure City, that benefits everybody, not just the Azurite nobles who want their manors back.



Barely more than one year is too late? Dayum, now all territorial disputes turn into "capture the flag". And while some countries may recognize them others don't (elves in particular may be itching for rematch) and again, merely because a country recognize Gobbotopia doesn't mean that they un-recognized Azurites, so if the Azurites (and friends) come back they may be willing to sit on the sidelines trading with the highest bidder. In the end if conquests were allowed to stand doesn't mean they have been seen justifiable at the moment; equating a conquest which happened N centuries ago with one that happened N years ago is also not the most honest comparison.

Second part of your argument seems to rely on Hinjo acting in Good-ish ways and hobgoblins acting in ways which if not exactly Evil are at least realpolitik to the core. Except any ruler (manager, leader, whoever) will recognize that if there is a general rule to forgive aggressors (because punishing them will waste lives and money) aggressors will repeat their aggression whenever profitable. It is not a simple matter of "let's live in peace in the future forever". I am not saying that a continuation of war is inevitable or desirable, but to say in advance that it is undesirable or does not align with the paladin's honor is also not exactly reasonable. Given the message of the Giant's work I highly doubt that there will be a further war between the Azurites and Hobgoblins but that is narrative structure, not something that can be deduced from the actions and situation in-story. CoDominium with the full rights for the Azurites sounds very promising, but I doubt that Hobgoblins as presented in the story would agree to it - and it would take a great trust in the Goodness of the other side to agree to share full citizen rights with your former slaves (not merely former enemies) especially at such population proportions. And alternative of release of the slaves followed by their expulsion seems a bit too unjust to agree with - though that may be actually palatable to Hobgoblins and improvement (if not a just restoration of at least part of their pre-war livelihood) for the slaves.


These things happened, no amount of violence towards the goblins can make them unhappen. Making peace with the goblins, however, is the only way to make sure they don't happen again. And your numbers are still bunk.

Same as above. Making peace at whatever terms as soon (ha!) as possible means that aggression is rewarded and there will be another war. Accepting no terms other than unconditional surrender means fighting to the bitter end. There is no universal solution, and yes, solution which involves least suffering and deaths is probably not the one which would allow Azurite citizens to regain most of their pre-war lives. But to ignore things that happened because you can't make them unhappen means creating incentives for further aggression (not even necessary on the goblins' part).


by that measure, Shojo was in favor of keeping secrets, creating faked unlawful trials or even jailing people without trial, lying about his senility, manipulating paladins, and generally being a lying manipulative ruler who went against his nation's laws. do we discard him as an untrustworthy lying snake?

Depend on what you mean untrustworthy. If you are somehow sure that he has your interests in his heart? You can rely on him. But to trust words that come out of his mouth? Nah. He is an untrustworthy lying snake. Not "trickster", not "egoist", not "megalomaniac". He was doing his untrustworthy lying in service of the interests of Good (and also existence of the world). But if you have seen all he has done and want something else than just Good (maybe a trade deal or something)? No reason to trust him.


Presumably because it's a product of conquest? Territorial aggression is a tale as old as time, but it's often glossed over in fantasy stories: nobody wants the "Good" kingdom to rest on the ruins of another invaded & subjugated kingdom, so "Good" kingdoms are either millenia old, formed from an alliance of smaller kingdoms, or reclaimed from some dark obviously evil Sauron-type tyrant.

You don't often see a nation attacking another nation solely for territorial reasons in fantasy stories -- and when one does, it's almost never portrayed in a good light by the narrative.

Everyone has their own experience, of course, but in my experience I see territorial aggression left right and center in fantasy I read. Even when protagonist is on the defending side (what would you say about having protagonists on the both sides of the war, and neither of them presented as a villain?) aggressors may be portrayed as savage, cruel, or tyrannical but it's rare to see something that is openly presented as a Tolkien-grade Evil. Oh, and even when there is a mad tyrant desiring to become a god/destroy the world/kill every X - if he is killed by the Resistance, or by the last samurai of the conquered city there is no expectation that everything - including international borders - returns to the status quo ante bellum.

[Jason]

In general it almost entirely hinges on how true the Crayons of Time in SoD. If the Gods have created goblins to be fought by the PCs and placed them at a disadvantage it is a great offense against them. It doesn't justify his actions but his motivation is a righteous one.
That is the question. How much should we trust the story told by an evil diety's evil high priest while trying to recruit an evil sorcerer into his plan for magically controlling a god-slaying abomination? An account that a few panels later, when the evil sorcerer has left, the evil high priest admits to his brother was not entirely accurate?

[brian 333]

I trust Shojo to do and say whatever he thinks best at the time he does or says it, and if manipulating me into riding a blind horse at top speed into a canyon best serves his city's and his people's interest, I guess I should practice my best Slim Pickens 'Woo-hoo-hoo!'

That means that no, I do not trust Shojo.

Ironically, I also distrust Hinjo. I don't think he would lie, but my best interests are way at the bottom of his priority list, and if sacrificing me somehow advantaged his people, I'm certain he would assuage his feelings of guilt by reflecting on the good my brave sacrifice accomplished.

[Keltest]

I trust Shojo to do and say whatever he thinks best at the time he does or says it, and if manipulating me into riding a blind horse at top speed into a canyon best serves his city's and his people's interest, I guess I should practice my best Slim Pickens 'Woo-hoo-hoo!'

That means that no, I do not trust Shojo.

Ironically, I also distrust Hinjo. I don't think he would lie, but my best interests are way at the bottom of his priority list, and if sacrificing me somehow advantaged his people, I'm certain he would assuage his feelings of guilt by reflecting on the good my brave sacrifice accomplished.

How are you defining trust at that point though? Yeah, if Hinjo is in a situation that directly puts him at odds with you, he probably isnt going to act against his own interests, but that isnt really a useful standard for trust in and of itself, because its going to hold true for a vast majority of people. Its such a specific circumstance its almost redundant.

[Lord Raziere]

Barely more than one year is too late? Dayum, now all territorial disputes turn into "capture the flag". And while some countries may recognize them others don't (elves in particular may be itching for rematch) and again, merely because a country recognize Gobbotopia doesn't mean that they un-recognized Azurites, so if the Azurites (and friends) come back they may be willing to sit on the sidelines trading with the highest bidder. In the end if conquests were allowed to stand doesn't mean they have been seen justifiable at the moment; equating a conquest which happened N centuries ago with one that happened N years ago is also not the most honest comparison.

Second part of your argument seems to rely on Hinjo acting in Good-ish ways and hobgoblins acting in ways which if not exactly Evil are at least realpolitik to the core. Except any ruler (manager, leader, whoever) will recognize that if there is a general rule to forgive aggressors (because punishing them will waste lives and money) aggressors will repeat their aggression whenever profitable. It is not a simple matter of "let's live in peace in the future forever". I am not saying that a continuation of war is inevitable or desirable, but to say in advance that it is undesirable or does not align with the paladin's honor is also not exactly reasonable. Given the message of the Giant's work I highly doubt that there will be a further war between the Azurites and Hobgoblins but that is narrative structure, but something that can be deduced from the actions and situation in-story. CoDominium with the full rights for the Azurites sounds very promising, but I doubt that Hobgoblins as presented in the story would agree to it - and it would take a great trust in the Goodness of the other side to agree to share full citizen rights with your former slaves (not merely former enemies) especially at such population proportions. And alternative of release of the slaves followed by their expulsion seems a bit too unjust to agree with - though that may be actually palatable to Hobgoblins and improvement (if not a just restoration of at least part of their pre-war livelihood) for the slaves.


It is not about length of time, its about the nations recognizing sovereignty. they have legitimacy in story now, no matter what you claim.

I've never claimed their actions were just. legal/political legitimacy is not moral legitimacy. I was just talking about Hinjo's position and what actions he is likely to take, based on the intended message and what has been written so far.

Sure, its possible that the hobgoblins could decide to aggress more. until we have evidence this is happening, it isn't happening, and might not even be a thing after Redcloak's Plan fails. He might return a redeemed goblin, see Jirix screwing things up and come back to kick him out and be the real good leader that the goblins finally deserve, or perhaps Second Supreme Leader will fulfill that role while Redcloak goes to some punishment for his crimes after helping them get rid of Xykon and fix the rifts.

and yet despite all that talk about them not agreeing to such thing, I highly doubt the ending of the story will be "the OOTS retake the city from those evil goblins and the goblins get absolutely nothing running back to their mountain, the injustices done upon them weren't real and nothing is wrong with how DnD portrays monster races at all". While at the same time the comic must maintain its light, comedic heroic tone, so there must be some form of happy ending involved, even if its not a perfect one. it may be idealistic, unrealistic and too much to expect, but we're talking about the comics direction, not how it would "actually" go.

any solution we propose has the detriment of detachment and ignorance, we do not know fully the minds of Hinjo and Jirix, (if Jirix will be the one negotiating at all, there are two possible alternate candidates with possibly better morals than him to do that with). Or the possible solutions of the political situation that the characters themselves are educated upon, what they find reasonable or whatever. I do not claim to be an expert on anything, I simply am going off the story itself, nothing more.

As for Shojo: we have evidence for him though. whats the evidence for Jirix of all the claims on him?

[Saint-Just]

It is not about length of time, its about the nations recognizing sovereignty. they have legitimacy in story now, no matter what you claim.

I've never claimed their actions were just. legal/political legitimacy is not moral legitimacy. I was just talking about Hinjo's position and what actions he is likely to take, based on the intended message and what has been written so far.


Political legitimacy is always a two-place function. Legitimate for whom? Recognized by whom? I bet there is significantly greater recognition of the Azure City and there are examples in the history where some foreign nation recognized both nations who did not recognize each other. It's not that there is some inherent superiority in being recognized by more nations, but there is no abstract legitimacy in the story to be had either. And I was not claiming that they were not legitimate, but pointing out that whatever recognition they have is unlikely to result in anything better than guarded neutrality (and still may result in supporting the intervention/liberation/whatever-you-name-it if it should happen).



and yet despite all that talk about them not agreeing to such thing, I highly doubt the ending of the story will be "the OOTS retake the city from those evil goblins and the goblins get absolutely nothing running back to their mountain, the injustices done upon them weren't real and nothing is wrong with how DnD portrays monster races at all". While at the same time the comic must maintain its light, comedic heroic tone, so there must be some form of happy ending involved, even if its not a perfect one. it may be idealistic, unrealistic and too much to expect, but we're talking about the comics direction, not how it would "actually" go.

any solution we propose has the detriment of detachment and ignorance, we do not know fully the minds of Hinjo and Jirix, (if Jirix will be the one negotiating at all, there are two possible alternate candidates with possibly better morals than him to do that with). Or the possible solutions of the political situation that the characters themselves are educated upon, what they find reasonable or whatever. I do not claim to be an expert on anything, I simply am going off the story itself, nothing more.


Hmm


Given the message of the Giant's work I highly doubt that there will be a further war between the Azurites and Hobgoblins but that is narrative structure, but not something that can be deduced from the actions and situation in-story. CoDominium with the full rights for the Azurites sounds very promising...

Sorry, made a mistake while typing my previous post which lead to the ambiguity I did not intend. Full agree that given what we know about Giant's work and ideas war as a resolution is extremely unlikely. Then I just try to analyze possible decisions without benefit of meta-knowledge (so detached, but treating it as a situation which exists on its own merits, not as a conflict within the story). And later I also say that decision can be unjust and still the least harmful of all available.

[The Pilgrim]

Of course Gobbotopia still has bargaining value for Durkon's side. Just because negotiations went south on Attempt #1 doesn't mean Durkon can never discuss Gobbotopia's status if Attempt #2 ever comes up.

And yes, I know you don't believe Attempt #2 will ever happen. I do. And if it does, Gobbotopia will still be just as big a bargaining chip. So establishing what it would look like is worthwhile.

Perhaps Attempt #2 will happen. I'm not the author of this webcomic. But the point is, Gobbotopia only holds a right to exist in Durkon's view because Thor needs The Dark One to seal the Rifts. Not because the Hobgoblins have any right to the land.

What does that mean? That if, for example, The Dark One realizes He will dissapear if the World is Undone, and thus submits to help sealing the Rifts because he has no other option to survive, the Heroes will have no reason to respect the continuation of existence of Gobbotopia.

What I'm saying is that the Heroes doesn't have any moral obligation to respect the continuation of Gobbotopia. Much on the contrary, they have a moral obligation of helping the Azurites destroy it and reclaim their lands.


OR the Goblinoids will develop trade partners and form alliances, just like every other nation that has ever established itself through conquest. The remaining Azurites will want their land back and Gobbotopia will say "screw you suckers, it's our turn now!" and the Azurites will make do with their abandoned keep on an island off the coast of the Western Continent.

Everything doesn't always work out perfectly. The good guys don't always get everything they want. Not every wrong is always righted. Sometimes territory stays conquered. Sometimes people who have done evil things stick around, and the characters have to figure out a way to move forward...even if that means negotiating with the nation that drove them from their land.

Perhaps. Or perhaps the Hobgoblins will realize that stealing land from other people is not the best way to live in peace with other races. Or they will realize they don't like growing crops that much if they don't have a herd of slaves to sow and harvest them.


Again, I never said I "don't mind." I do, in fact. War & XPs wrecked me -- I didn't expect The Order to lose, and the sacking of Azure City was a huge blow to me. It pissed me off, in fact. The villains weren't supposed to win, but they did - at least partially.

I understand your sense of justice, and the feeling that Gobbotopia has to "pay" for their attack. But that's just not how national diplomacy works, even in fiction. If every country maintained hostilities with every country that had ever wronged it, there wouldn't be any countries left.

You still have around 500.000 people deprived of their homes and means of substenance. People that the Giant has mostly displayed sympathetically, in opposition to the Hobgoblins, who have mostly been displayed by the Giant as evil and unsympathetic.

If the Giant intends to let the Hobgoblins keep Azure City in the end, I find it odd that he has persisted in presenting the Azurites as good people that work hard and prosper even when stranded in a tiny island, and the Hobgoblins as evil minions who can't do better than resort to brutal slavery even with all the vast resources of the Azurite Nation under they possession.


I 100% agree that the number of slaves doesn't matter - it is always an evil act. But that's not what we were talking about when you brought the numbers up. You first referenced that (unfounded) ratio as an argument that Gobbotopia was unfeasible without slavery.

The numbers are not moot, because if goblinoids outnumber slaves 5 to 1, they could release the slaves and still have a viable society. If I misunderstood your original point, I apologize. I don't want to keep debating an unverified ratio anyway, I think that's a waste of everyone's time.

When I talked about the number of slaves, my primary intent was to make people realize that the slavery issue is no small thing. The number of slaves in Gobbotopia is likely hugue and, if we attend to pre-war population figures, it's likely to exceed the number of goblinoids.

On the other hand, I really think that 20.000 hobgoblins (plus 1.400 other goblinoids) can't defend and farm the amount of land that used to support 530.000 people, without extensive use of slavery. But I acknowledge that there is little point on that line of debate.


Everything Raziere said here. Exaggerating my point unfairly does not prove your point.

I'm not exaggerating your point. Right of conquest works for both ways. That is why nations try to justify their right to exist with something a lot more substantiated than right of conquest.


People and nations are not equivalent. Assault and theft are not the same as war and conquest. War is always brutal, messy, and a tragic loss of life. Nation-state diplomacy is too complex to be simplified down to a single glib example of one human attacking their neighbor and taking their stuff.

I'm failing to see your point here. Waging a war of agression is a Crime against Peace. Wars of agression stopped being considered a legitimate means of diplomacy a long time ago.


If you are expecting every fictional country to apologize and make restitution (or else be subsequently brutally conquered) for every hostile act it takes against another country, you are going to be sorely disappointed by everything that isn't Lord of the Rings.

I'm expecting the good guys to win and the bad guys to lose. Which is a reasonable expectation in a work of fantasy fiction from an author that has stated to loathe "gritty realism" and to like heroes being heroic.

[brian 333]

I do not expect a resolution of the Gobbotopia issue unless there is a sequel devoted to that issue. The story is about The OotS, not the Orange versus Blue conflict.

I believe the author has us just where he wants us: discussing the morality and consequences of bigotry and territorial expansion through military force. To resolve the issue wnuld be to show that these things can lead to happy endings, which they never do in real life.

[Ionathus]

I do not expect a resolution of the Gobbotopia issue unless there is a sequel devoted to that issue. The story is about The OotS, not the Orange versus Blue conflict.

I believe the author has us just where he wants us: discussing the morality and consequences of bigotry and territorial expansion through military force. To resolve the issue wnuld be to show that these things can lead to happy endings, which they never do in real life.

I really like this way of looking at it. I agree that we won't see an easy or quick resolution, one way or another - whether or not Hinjo even wants to retake Azure City, he simply won't have the strength to do so for a long time...if ever.

[Jason]

I really like this way of looking at it. I agree that we won't see an easy or quick resolution, one way or another - whether or not Hinjo even wants to retake Azure City, he simply won't have the strength to do so for a long time...if ever.

If the Snarl comes out of the rift and kills all the hobgoblins that will be a pretty definitive resolution.

[Dion]

If the Snarl comes out of the rift and kills all the hobgoblins that will be a pretty definitive resolution.

Will it? I mean, the snarl doesn’t seem to have any agency, much less any type or moral or ethical framework...

So I am not sure that we’re going to be able to say “letting snarl killed tens of thousands of people solved the moral and ethical quandary”

[Keltest]

Will it? I mean, the snarl doesn’t seem to have any agency, much less any type or moral or ethical framework...

So I am not sure that we’re going to be able to say “letting snarl killed tens of thousands of people solved the moral and ethical quandary”

Blowing things to hell is not a particularly good or satisfying resolution, but it is indeed a resolution.

[The Pilgrim]

If the Snarl comes out of the rift and kills all the hobgoblins that will be a pretty definitive resolution.

If the Snarl begins to manifest through the Rift at Azure City, the Hobgoblins may become scared and abandon the forsaken place, fleeing back to their hills. The Order could then move in an seal the Rift, then the Azurites could return and begin rebuilding their nation.

It could be a possible resolution.

[hroþila]

The statu quo ante bellum is only a satisfactory solution if you posit there was nothing wrong with it, though.

[Jason]

I'm half expecting a scene where Redcloak will discover that the Snarl has devoured Gobbotopia, and that it will be the final straw that breaks him out if his sunken cost deal with Xykon and turns him firmly against the lich. We'll see.

[Ionathus]

I'm half expecting a scene where Redcloak will discover that the Snarl has devoured Gobbotopia, and that it will be the final straw that breaks him out if his sunken cost deal with Xykon and turns him firmly against the lich. We'll see.

I'd probably bet against that scenario happening -- feels a little too grim for the tone of OotS.

Sure we've had countless worlds destroyed in the past, but that has the feel of an ancient apocalypse.

I can foresee The Snarl manifesting in the world or causing some sort of dimensional/spatial distortion (maybe everyone winds up on the world within the Rift?) but I don't really think we're going to see wholesale slaughter of entire nation-states from the Snarl.

[hungrycrow]

If the Snarl manifests through the rifts, it will be in Monster Hollow where it can ratchet up the tension. If the Snarl actually gets through a rift, that's just the end of the story; it would still be on OOTSworld if they sealed the rifts afterwards and there wouldn't be time to fight it even if the Order plausibly could.

[Fyraltari]

The statu quo ante bellum is only a satisfactory solution if you posit there was nothing wrong with it, though.
It seems to me that it is the foundation of The Pilgrim's position: everything was fine and the goblinoids are the only aggressors.

If the Snarl manifests through the Rifts
It has. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0945.html)

[hungrycrow]

It has. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0945.html)

True, but this already revealed what the Snarl is capable of. If this kind of scene happens again, it has to escalate the main conflict somehow. Appearing thousands of miles away from all the major players doesn't really do that.

[Jason]

True, but this already revealed what the Snarl is capable of. If this kind of scene happens again, it has to escalate the main conflict somehow. Appearing thousands of miles away from all the major players doesn't really do that.

I would think that the news that everything he tried to build in Gobbotopia is gone, to the point that the souls of all those hobgoblins were consumed and won't even get to spend their afterlife with the Dark One would be a game-changer for Redcloak.

[quinron]

Crayons may be false, but I do not see how that means that goblins somehow "rejected" the gods.

As I said: conspiracy theory. It's just a juicy little conclusion I can jump to as a possibility that would add some interesting tension once it's revealed. I'm totally fine with - and honestly expecting - it no being the case.


He [the Oracle] is explicitly an Expert, not a Cleric. No magic at all, but god-given prophetic powers which exist outside of normal magical and clerical hierarchies

My bad - I tend to forget details like that, as I only recently got involved in these board discussions and haven't done much detail-digging. I think, though, that this fact makes a better case for the sub-point I was using it to make: that some of the monstrous races that the Mantle vision claimed were just XP fodder are in actuality important enough to the creator gods to be gifted with divine magic outside the proscribed system of advancement.

[Doug Lampert]

I would think that the news that everything he tried to build in Gobbotopia is gone, to the point that the souls of all those hobgoblins were consumed and won't even get to spend their afterlife with the Dark One would be a game-changer for Redcloak.

How so? He's ALREADY willing to see the soul of every goblin in existence destroyed as part of the plan. Why would a few thousand phase him?

And everything he "loses" (note that the actual losses are always to other goblins), just confirms to Redcloak that he must succeed to make everything have been worth it.

Wrongeye doesn't let trivialities like proof that he's made a mistake slow him down.

[Jasdoif]

It seems like a good starting point, though.Indeed, negotiate for humans to have all the rights and protections of a goblin in Gobbotopia, establish trade if possible, guarantee the sovereignty of the new Azure city island nation so that they don't attack them, things like that are all things that should be considered.I was thinking starting somewhere like...food.

Azure City's agriculture was advanced enough to produce a small food surplus for its population of 530,000...including the approximately 265,000 that lived within the city walls, which of course is not where farming happens.

If Redcloak's relying on trade to stabilize the food situation (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0548.html), there's clearly more to the Azurite's agriculture than whatever stuff they left behind.
So that seems like an opener there: Gobbotopia release the slaves to Azurites so they don't need to keep feeding them, the Azurites loan Gobbotopia some experts on their agriculture to get them up to speed so they can be self-sufficient with less/no slaving/raiding; possibly throw in a stockpile of some sort until the agriculture project bears fruit (or grains)....The Azurites get their people unenslaved (deslaved?), the Gobbotopians reduce their reliance on outside resources for their continued existence; everyone comes out ahead. (The implementation would certainly be far messier than that, but gotta start somewhere.)

And if Gobbotopia doesn't go for it, the stated preference for slaving/raiding makes a good point for the Azurites trying to get more allies (especially from Gobbotopia's neighbors, the most likely targets of said slaving/raiding) onboard with less-diplomacy-based approaches.

[Ionathus]

I would think that the news that everything he tried to build in Gobbotopia is gone, to the point that the souls of all those hobgoblins were consumed and won't even get to spend their afterlife with the Dark One would be a game-changer for Redcloak.

Whether or not it would be a game-changer doesn't mean that it would fit the tone of the story around it.

Sam being unable to reach Frodo in time, and watching him get brutally murdered, would certainly be a strong motivator for Sam to take the Ring and finish the quest on his behalf. But that's not the way it happened, because that wouldn't have fit the tone of Lord of the Rings.

It's the same thing here for me. I just don't see any situation where an entire city of living people is eradicated offscreen, just to make Redcloak feel bad.

[Saint-Just]

The statu quo ante bellum is only a satisfactory solution if you posit there was nothing wrong with it, though.

It seems to me that it is the foundation of The Pilgrim's position: everything was fine and the goblinoids are the only aggressors.


It looks that such position mixes up "goblinoids" and Hobgoblin tribes and by extension the Azure City-state and "PC races" as Redcloak would call them. I do not pretend that in history (and in good literature dealing with all the messiness of actual politics) actually achieving status quo ante bellum was ever feasible (not only there are deaths which are irreversible but usually there are very significant destruction of property - which affects even more people - so someone will end up poorer, probably both but sometimes only one). And I do not find likely that in the situation the best way forward is continuation of war (though I do not dismiss that possibility outright). But that's about politics, about the best way forward, not about what is just.

I only own SoD and OtOoPCs so I may be missing some information but from what I gathered from this thread pre-war situation was one of lasting peace (12 years?) between the Hobgoblin tribes and the Azure City. Previous raiding cannot be justification for the aggression against the Azurites for two reasons: previous raiding was done by the both sides, so trying to demand any recompense whatsoever from the Azurites necessitates also calculating the Hobgoblins responsibility which would be absolutely impossible; more importantly peace treaties are at least in theory supposed to be the thing that washes off previous scores and provides some framework for peace, trade, or at least coexistence. So hobgoblins have violated the peace (note to those who say that we can't take in account possibility that overly generous peace terms now will incentivize further aggression) and are responsible for that.


I was thinking starting somewhere like...food.

Azure City's agriculture was advanced enough to produce a small food surplus for its population of 530,000...including the approximately 265,000 that lived within the city walls, which of course is not where farming happens.

If Redcloak's relying on trade to stabilize the food situation (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0548.html), there's clearly more to the Azurite's agriculture than whatever stuff they left behind.
So that seems like an opener there: Gobbotopia release the slaves to Azurites so they don't need to keep feeding them, the Azurites loan Gobbotopia some experts on their agriculture to get them up to speed so they can be self-sufficient with less/no slaving/raiding; possibly throw in a stockpile of some sort until the agriculture project bears fruit (or grains)....The Azurites get their people unenslaved (deslaved?), the Gobbotopians reduce their reliance on outside resources for their continued existence; everyone comes out ahead. (The implementation would certainly be far messier than that, but gotta start somewhere.)


Seems like a tall order? It's one thing if hobgoblins end up with more resources (lands, goods, whatever) than they had when they started the war; it's entirely different thing if they end up with more resources by the end of negotiations than they had when negotiations have started. Release claims to the territory (and presumably help the Gobbotopia reach better recognition because now there is no choice between mainlining friendly relations with Azurites and relations and trading with Gobbotopia) is one thing; spending a lot of wealth to help Gobbotopia prosper least they abuse your countrymen is entirely another; depending on exact political situation it may be necessary but it is in effect making the enslaved population hostages; definitely not a way to cooperation.



It's the same thing here for me. I just don't see any situation where an entire city of living people is eradicated offscreen, just to make Redcloak feel bad.

Yeah not seeing it as likely; nor do I think that it necessary follows that if Snarl manifests through the Desert rift it also manifests through the Azure rift, no there is a surety that lashing out of Azure rift will destroy all or most of the city instead of taking just the castle remnants.

[Jasdoif]

it's entirely different thing if they end up with more resources by the end of negotiations than they had when negotiations have started.That's the entire reason negotiations exist....

[The Pilgrim]

It seems to me that it is the foundation of The Pilgrim's position: everything was fine and the goblinoids are the only aggressors.

Of course the goblinoids were the agressors in the war depicted in the Comic. That's fact. They were the ones crossing the border and marching their army deep into Azurite territory.

Only derranged people like Redcloak may believe that killing one third of the hobgoblin population and killing, enslaving or evicting from their homes 530.000 persons was a necessity to correct the "unfair" status quo before the war. A status quo that anyone who has read HtPGhS knows to have been the Azurites and the Goblinoids living in peace, with the latter thriving in their mountain homeland.

[Saint-Just]

That's the entire reason negotiations exist....

Um, no? I was explicitly referring to the physical resources here. Or would you consider the idea of "you liberate the slaves, we drop any claims to the lands and help you to establish diplomatic communications with other nations" so biased in the Azurites' favour that no sane leader would take it? In this case Gobbotopia gains nothing physical.

In the more general case it is absolutely impossible for everyone to leave negotiations with more resources than they have started with. You were probably referring to the resources desirability or to the comparative advantage in the long run.

[Jason]

Whether or not it would be a game-changer doesn't mean that it would fit the tone of the story around it...It's the same thing here for me. I just don't see any situation where an entire city of living people is eradicated offscreen, just to make Redcloak feel bad.

V executed through Familiacide a huge number of people, mostly off-panel, and when he found Girard's family all dead the net effect story-wise was for V to feel bad and engage in some introspective character growth.

[Jasdoif]

I was explicitly referring to the physical resources here.So noted.


In the more general case it is absolutely impossible for everyone to leave negotiations with more resources than they have started with. You were probably referring to the resources desirability or to the comparative advantage in the long run.I was referring to value, the thing negotiations (and trade) try to maximize; and how different parties have different values on the same things, the reason negotiations (and trade) ever make sense. For example, I'm fairly confident the Azurites place more value on the lives of the Azurite slaves, than the Gobbotopians who enslaved them do.

[Lord Raziere]

I only own SoD and OtOoPCs so I may be missing some information but from what I gathered from this thread pre-war situation was one of lasting peace (12 years?) between the Hobgoblin tribes and the Azure City. Previous raiding cannot be justification for the aggression against the Azurites for two reasons: previous raiding was done by the both sides, so trying to demand any recompense whatsoever from the Azurites necessitates also calculating the Hobgoblins responsibility which would be absolutely impossible; more importantly peace treaties are at least in theory supposed to be the thing that washes off previous scores and provides some framework for peace, trade, or at least coexistence. So hobgoblins have violated the peace (note to those who say that we can't take in account possibility that overly generous peace terms now will incentivize further aggression) and are responsible for that.


If you haven't read Good Deeds Gone Unpunished then.....

In this story, the hobgoblins raid an outlying settlement seemingly unprovoked. O-Chul, the soldier in charge and not yet a paladin decides to investigate and figure out a way to stop this before the nobles in Azure City push for war, as war between the hobgoblins and the Azurites would only help an empire known as the Realm of the Dragon, making them see an opportunity to move in and attack them.

stuff happens, they work with two hobgoblin civilians who basically tell them that hobgoblin leaders basically spew out propaganda about humans and burn effigies of them in a lazy hate sort of way to blame all their problems on humans, but actually doing something about it isn't really the goal.

and basically they find out the Sapphire Guard is raiding the hobgoblins in secret trying to find Redcloak which could lead to an unnecessary war. the Sapphire Guard and its mission not being known to O-chul yet. they talk to the first hobgoblin supreme leader and O-chul has to use realpolitik and explain the situation in terms the hobgoblins would understand as "we don't want to waste resources on this war" because they don't understand the compassionate humanitarian reasons and think its the talk of madmen.

but basically O-chul gives a speech at the climax about how "there are two sides in a war: those want a war, and those who don't." and goes on to show how both sides have people in them who don't want a war and people who do, that the people who do are more similar to each other than their allies. and ends up preventing the war on his side, thought its only prevented from the hobgoblin end by the first hobgoblin supreme leader getting killed by second one to make sure it doesn't happen years down the line afterwards, as the second is busy trying to reorganize their society to try and better solve its problems.


The problem is....

......Redcloak is a victim of Sapphire Guard attacks long before this ever happened. The entire reason that the hobgoblins went to war is because Redcloak was wronged in a seemingly unrelated incident but then he took over their country, and his problem became the hobgoblins problem. so both Redcloak and the hobgoblins have been victim of the Sapphire Guard attacking them, and technically for the same reason both times, and both times they put blame on the entire species of humans for it despite the Sapphire Guard being a secretive organization that few humans know about or would endorse due to the actions it took.

But then again if the situation was reversed, given that this is a DnD world I doubt humans seeing a raiding party of goblins going around killing humans for the greater good of the universe would go over well either, nor would they be any less vengeful and prejudiced in their response to all goblins. certainly if Gin-Jun is any indication there are humans perfectly willing to zealously hate goblins just because of the cosmic evil label.

even further, the Sapphire Guard is like, two people now. currently imprisoned somewhere near the polar regions of stickverse, and people who didn't really have anything to do with the those raids besides. technically O-Chul is not responsible for anything that happened even though he the sapphire guards captain (but he is so self-sacrificing that he is the type to take responsibility anyways, as he did when he entered the Sapphire Guard).
so really its a complicated situation where:
-the wounded party was wounded long before anyone else, but caused more suffering as a result
-its unprovoked to everyone who doesn't have a personal connection to the events
-the provokers of both incidents are dead now and the only remnants are people who had nothing to do with the initial injustices inflicted upon the goblins

so its one of those cases where war happens because there are other motives involved than the nations motives for this or that, which screws up the negotiation as both sides technically have organizations with motives that have nothing to do with their nations wellbeing:
-the Sapphire Guard their quest to protect the universe
-Redcloak his quest to threaten the gods to make changes

It has to be acknowledged that both sides had people that weren't acting with the nation's consensus on the matter as both of their quests are secret in some manner and caused unneeded suffering as a result. I don't think you could have a fair negotiation without this being acknowledged on both sides.

[The Pilgrim]

I only own SoD and OtOoPCs so I may be missing some information but from what I gathered from this thread pre-war situation was one of lasting peace (12 years?) between the Hobgoblin tribes and the Azure City. Previous raiding cannot be justification for the aggression against the Azurites for two reasons: previous raiding was done by the both sides, so trying to demand any recompense whatsoever from the Azurites necessitates also calculating the Hobgoblins responsibility which would be absolutely impossible; more importantly peace treaties are at least in theory supposed to be the thing that washes off previous scores and provides some framework for peace, trade, or at least coexistence. So hobgoblins have violated the peace (note to those who say that we can't take in account possibility that overly generous peace terms now will incentivize further aggression) and are responsible for that.

You got the facts in HtPGhS basically right. If you want to have it all spoiled to you, you may read the storyline here:
https://oots.fandom.com/wiki/How_the_Paladin_Got_His_Scar

If you don't want it spoiled that much, the relevant information about the pre-"War and XPs" situation is:

Twelve years ago:
- The Hobgoblins and Azurites had been at peace for almost a decade.
- The Sapphire Guard, acting on it's own (Lord Shojo doesn't cares to pay attention to them) begins raiding Hobgoblin Villages looking for the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle (who is totally not there).
- The Hobgoblins begin to raid human villages as reprisal.
- O-Chul (then a Regular Army Captain, not a member of the Sapphire Guard) learns that the Hobgoblins are attacking as reprisal for the actions of an human cavalry squadron, and is sent by the Army General into hobgoblin territory to investigate (they don't know about the Sapphire Guard, as it's a secret organization)

By the end of O-Chul's mission:
- The extremist elements had been removed from leadership of the Sapphire Guard, the rest realizing their raids on hobgoblin territory were wrong.
- The Hobgoblin Leader had granted peace to the Azurites, as he was not interested in warfare but in developing his own land.
- Lord Shojo realizes he has done wrong for not checking on the Paladins, and introduces reforms on the Sapphire Guard.

That was the pre-war status quo, that some people here believe necessary of correction at the cost of the deaths of one third of the Hobgoblins and the death, enslavement or eviction of 530,000 humans.

[Ionathus]

V executed through Familiacide a huge number of people, mostly off-panel, and when he found Girard's family all dead the net effect story-wise was for V to feel bad and engage in some introspective character growth.

Hm, fair point. The destruction of Gobbotopia still feels different to me, but I'll concede that the OotS world is no stranger to death en-masse.


That was the pre-war status quo, that some people here believe necessary of correction at the cost of the deaths of one third of the Hobgoblins and the death, enslavement or eviction of 530,000 humans.

Please stop asserting that this is anyone's actual position. Nobody is saying that the invasion of Azure City was "necessary." I'm certainly not.

Believing that goblinoids were getting a raw deal is not the same as believing their attack on AC was justified.

You and I disagree on the first point, while agreeing on the second.

We also disagree on the characters' available options going forward, now that Gobbotopia is (tenuously) established and the Azurites have begun to put down roots elsewhere.

[The Pilgrim]

Please stop asserting that this is anyone's actual position. Nobody is saying that the sacking of Azure City was "necessary."

hroþila and Fyraltari are. They both have objected on my position on the grounds of the previous status quo somewhat making the sacking necessary.

I suppose they will now deny it, leaving their previous objections to my position pointless.


I'm certainly not.

No, you are not, and I know it. I'm not replying to your position now.

[Saint-Just]

I was referring to value, the thing negotiations (and trade) try to maximize; and how different parties have different values on the same things, the reason negotiations (and trade) ever make sense. For example, I'm fairly confident the Azurites place more value on the lives of the Azurite slaves, than the Gobbotopians who enslaved them do.

Lives are a funny thing. For a Paladin-led Azurite government (being heavy on Honor helps too) lives of the fellow citizens should be worth about infinity minus one. Or at least everything they could spare which doesn't result in more deaths and suffering (and then you go down the rabbit hole of "how far in the future we need to look" and "how big the error margins we can afford").

And yet even "influencing position on human slavery through economic engagement" is saying "slavery is not a dealbreaker". Negotiating value of the slave labor lost means you actually recognize that slave labor rightfully belongs to them. Intersection between people (organizations, governments) willing to pay for release of all the captives indiscriminately, merely because that they are citizens and people actually recognizing prisoners as a legitimate part of war booty is extremely small; it seems that after arranging payments there is very good (and very Good if not Lawful) reason to screw the hostage-takers as much as possible as long as it doesn't endanger the hostages.

Ionathus and Lord Raziere seems to be envisioning some sort of reconciliation, and I do agree that it is probable given the tone of work. You are talking about goblins demanding even more than they have in exchange for slaves; and it is also a possible situation (and probably Hinjo will pay). I do not believe it could be the same situation - either goblins are seen as "one of us" by the other states and people or they reserve the right to enslave and be paid in full for the slaves.

Going back to value: Azurites hold intangible resource of their diplomatical standing,land claims and alliances; they can use it to harm Gobbotopia (again it is strongly implied that elves in particular are ready to further commit their forces). To speak plainly Azurites can remove the status of a crusade-bait from Gobbotopia. And that is what the Durkon's agreement was: Azurites remove that status and do a few other diplomatic things (all of which cost very little to the Azurites but give significant value to Gobbotopia) and Gobbotopia releases the slaves and otherwise is given legal possession of everything they have physical possession of. To actually deprive the Azurite refugees of food or even money which can be used to better their lives sets entirely different tone for the future relations. Oh, and aforementioned pulling of the diplomatic strings is something which is harder to demand than to give willingly - demanding that elves should recognize Gobbotopia and promise not to intervene before Gobbotopians release the slaves makes it look like they are demanding of the Azurites something that is not in their power (whether it is actually in their power or not; I do not think that outsiders would be able to reliably guess how far would other countries be willing to extend their goodwill if the Azurites ask for it).



The problem is....

......Redcloak is a victim of Sapphire Guard attacks long before this ever happened. The entire reason that the hobgoblins went to war is because Redcloak was wronged in a seemingly unrelated incident but then he took over their country, and his problem became the hobgoblins problem. so both Redcloak and the hobgoblins have been victim of the Sapphire Guard attacking them, and technically for the same reason both times, and both times they put blame on the entire species of humans for it despite the Sapphire Guard being a secretive organization that few humans know about or would endorse due to the actions it took.

But then again if the situation was reversed, given that this is a DnD world I doubt humans seeing a raiding party of goblins going around killing humans for the greater good of the universe would go over well either, nor would they be any less vengeful and prejudiced in their response to all goblins. certainly if Gin-Jun is any indication there are humans perfectly willing to zealously hate goblins just because of the cosmic evil label.

even further, the Sapphire Guard is like, two people now. currently imprisoned somewhere near the polar regions of stickverse, and people who didn't really have anything to do with the those raids besides. technically O-Chul is not responsible for anything that happened even though he the sapphire guards captain (but he is so self-sacrificing that he is the type to take responsibility anyways, as he did when he entered the Sapphire Guard).
so really its a complicated situation where:
-the wounded party was wounded long before anyone else, but caused more suffering as a result
-its unprovoked to everyone who doesn't have a personal connection to the events
-the provokers of both incidents are dead now and the only remnants are people who had nothing to do with the initial injustices inflicted upon the goblins

so its one of those cases where war happens because there are other motives involved than the nations motives for this or that, which screws up the negotiation as both sides technically have organizations with motives that have nothing to do with their nations wellbeing:
-the Sapphire Guard their quest to protect the universe
-Redcloak his quest to threaten the gods to make changes

It has to be acknowledged that both sides had people that weren't acting with the nation's consensus on the matter as both of their quests are secret in some manner and caused unneeded suffering as a result. I don't think you could have a fair negotiation without this being acknowledged on both sides.


I see no problem. What you describe sounds more like in-person conflict resolution techniques that the state diplomacy. I do not think that either acknowledgement is necessary. Words are cheap, especially if it's representatives of conglomerates of thousands upon thousands of people and not just two or five or twelve persons. Well, I cannot exactly fault the idea of making apologies but I do see it as entirely orthogonal to the actual conflict resolution



That was the pre-war status quo, that some people here believe necessary of correction at the cost of the deaths of one third of the Hobgoblins and the death, enslavement or eviction of 530,000 humans.

Yes, I do agree that the just resolution here would be to send Hobgoblins "home without boots, and in foul weather too". It is unlikely to be easily achievable, so the Good (humane) solution will likely result in giving the hobgoblins (the legal right to) significantly more than they had pre-war. But nothing whatsoever that could happen to a Redcloak 34 years ago could justify the war.



Please stop asserting that this is anyone's actual position. Nobody is saying that the invasion of Azure City was "necessary." I'm certainly not.

Believing that goblinoids were getting a raw deal is not the same as believing their attack on AC was justified.

You and I disagree on the first point, while agreeing on the second.



hroþila and Fyraltari are. It's their actual position.


I will let people speak for themselves but from my screen it looks like nobody actually saying the attack is justified but some people think that the plight of goblinhood is relevant and should be taken into account (not the same as justification) and others (Pilgrim and me) think that it isn't; at least as far as states and not people are concerned. I also do not think the only good resolution is goblins leaving the Azure City.

[The Pilgrim]

Yes, I do agree that the just resolution here would be to send Hobgoblins "home without boots, and in foul weather too". It is unlikely to be easily achievable, so the Good (humane) solution will likely result in giving the hobgoblins (the legal right to) significantly more than they had pre-war. But nothing whatsoever that could happen to a Redcloak 34 years ago could justify the war.

The Good solution depends on a lot of varibles, including what the Hobgoblins will really want once they are freed from Redcloak's influence. So we shall see. I'm not really looking forward to another war, though. At least, not an on-screen one. But Gobbotopia's preceived strenght will drastically change once the Lich and Redcloak are no more.

Wthout fear of the Lich, Azurite allies may have the guts to actually attack.

Without Team Evil, the Hobgoblin Horde is too individually weak to stand a chance against High-Level PCs.

And who knows, maybe a lot of goblin inmigrants come in, and goblins and hobgoblins begin a civil war. The existence of sectarian divisions among goblinoids has been heavy hinted by the Author.

For a lot of reasons, after Xykon and Redcloak are out of the picture, the Hobgoblins may realize it's best for them to grab the loot and return to their homes, instead of remaining in Azurite lands and get killed.

[Saint-Just]

The Good solution depends on a lot of varibles, including what the Hobgoblins will really want once they are freed from Redcloak's influence. So we shall see. I'm not really looking forward to another war, though. At least, not an on-screen one. But Gobbotopia's preceived strenght will drastically change once the Lich and Redcloak are no more.

Wthout fear of the Lich, Azurite allies may have the guts to actually attack.

Without Team Evil, the Hobgoblin Horde is too individually weak to stand a chance against High-Level PCs.

And who knows, maybe a lot of goblin inmigrants come in, and goblins and hobgoblins begin a civil war. The existence of sectarian divisions among goblinoids has been heavy hinted by the Author.

For a lot of reasons, after Xykon and Redcloak are out of the picture, the Hobgoblins may realize it's best for them to grab the loot and return to their homes, instead of remaining in Azurite lands and get killed.

A lot of things can happen, and yes, it depends, but I try to look for what can be expected. Given my understanding of the situation Azurites are not in position to attack by themselves (not only they have lost large chunk of population and larger chunk of their military but they are far away from the Azure Cirty itself - so they are safer from Hobgoblins but Hobgoblins also get a defensive advantage) and coordinating alliances will take time - while the slaves suffer and die and also invites other powers to take a bite - even if other potential occupiers are significantly more Azurite-friendly.

Goblin Horde vs High-level PCs has bean dealt with in #417. Without optimization tricks (not used in the Stickyverse) going against such odds is not an option (even if it were so by the rules Giant doesn't want it).

And I think that Durkon's offers show us at least the general direction what will happen if there is any negotiation between the Azurites and Gobbotopia. Hobgoblins will gain something, some recognition, not just whatever they can carry on their backs*. Now, there are other possible resolutions, of course, but Hobgoblins getting up and leaving is a bit too clean.

*offer does not apply to carrying slaves

All in all it sounds like you are listing what you want to happen rather than what can be expected.

[Jasdoif]

And yet even "influencing position on human slavery through economic engagement" is saying "slavery is not a dealbreaker".Indeed; "Influencing position on human slavery through economic engagement" is roughly equivalent to "don't give a **** about human slavery except to use its existence as a nice-sounding excuse for economic engagement".


Negotiating value of the slave labor lost means you actually recognize that slave labor rightfully belongs to them.Similarly to the city itself, I'm pretty sure they have slave labor; and pretending they don't is tacit approval of them retaining it. Much like "deserve", "rightfully" has nothing to do with it.


Ionathus and Lord Raziere seems to be envisioning some sort of reconciliation, and I do agree that it is probable given the tone of work. You are talking about demanding goblins demanding even more than they have in exchange for slaves; and it is also a possible situation (and probably Hinjo will pay). I do not believe it could be the same situation - either goblins are seen as "one of us" by the other states and people or they reserve the right to enslave and be paid in full for the slaves.Well, I said it was somewhere to start because I saw it as a starting point, with an expectation that an actual reconciliation (if any) would be down the road (after both sides have shown they'll honor an agreement with each other, perhaps).

Perhaps more to your point, the "stockpile" thing is for a very simple reason: Gobbotopia would almost certainly balk at the Wimpy-esque proposal of letting all the slaves go now for a burger better agriculture months in the future, and an offer to cover the gap in the interim is going to be a stronger sign of good faith than the simple declaration of Hinjo saying "you can trust me, I'm a paladin".


Going back to value: Azurites hold intangible resource of their diplomatical standing,land claims and alliances; they can use it to harm Gobbotopia (again it is strongly implied that elves in particular are ready to further commit their forces).This is where it gets questionable....Azure City's already been rebuffed on their attempts thus far (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0501.html); and while that was stated to be because of Xykon, it's unclear whether they'd actually change their minds after Xykon's out of the picture or if they'd find new reasons to stay out of it.


(Also, I've been assuming that the scenario here is that the world's been saved, the Snarl's been sealed, Team Evil is out of the picture, etc.; so an agreement between nations isn't liable to be voided by either nation being expunged by an epic threat....So by extension there's no high-level OotS nor high-level Team Evil involved here, and the Azurites and Gobbotopians are trying to deal with each other's existence on their own terms. Apologies if that hasn't been the case.)

[Ironsmith]

And I think that Durkon's offers show us at least the general direction what will happen if there is any negotiation between the Azurites and Gobbotopia. Hobgoblins will gain something, some recognition, not just whatever they can carry on their backs*. Now, there are other possible resolutions, of course, but Hobgoblins getting up and leaving is a bit too clean.

At this point, they're established. With the help of the Order, I think a third option might come up: coexistence (albeit uneasy coexistence). The horde would likely have to be downsized; the hobgoblins would never agree for it to total disarmament for fear of being oppressed by the Azurites, and the Azurites would not agree to go back into a throng of hobgoblins for the same reasons, but an active presence in the city on both sides gives potential for reconciliation.

[hungrycrow]

Goblin Horde vs High-level PCs has bean dealt with in #417. Without optimization tricks (not used in the Stickyverse) going against such odds is not an option (even if it were so by the rules Giant doesn't want it).

There'd be a lot different if the Order were to go up against the Horde at the end of the story: the Order is higher level, all the high level members of the Goblin Horde are gone, and the Order no longer has to worry about defending the city, so they can retreat and reengage as they like. They still couldn't fight every goblin soldier at once, but if they decided to kill off the hobgoblin leadership there's nothing that could really stop them.

Not gonna happen in Rich's story of course, but it's worth noting that Gobbotopia is in a terrible position if the Order wins without cutting a deal with Redcloak.

[Saint-Just]

Similarly to the city itself, I'm pretty sure they have slave labor; and pretending they don't is tacit approval of them retaining it. Much like "deserve", "rightfully" has nothing to do with it.

Well, I said it was somewhere to start because I saw it as a starting point, with an expectation that an actual reconciliation (if any) would be down the road (after both sides have shown they'll honor an agreement with each other, perhaps).

Perhaps more to your point, the "stockpile" thing is for a very simple reason: Gobbotopia would almost certainly balk at the Wimpy-esque proposal of letting all the slaves go now for a burger better agriculture months in the future, and an offer to cover the gap in the interim is going to be a stronger sign of good faith than the simple declaration of Hinjo saying "you can trust me, I'm a paladin".


My point was more along the lines: people dealing with Gobbotopia don't recognize their ownership of slaves (they don't, probably on entirely different level from material possessions - you can say hobgoblins de-facto own the city without it being in the least contentious, but to say that they de-facto own the slaves implies endorsement of slavery in general), so unless very strongly Lawful (to a degree that I am not sure is demanded from every paladin in Stickyverse) you are free and almost encouraged to not pay up or do something else that screws up Gobbotopia. Even if nothing can safely be done before exchange is completed there is still every reason to oppose the Gobbotopia after that.



(Also, I've been assuming that the scenario here is that the world's been saved, the Snarl's been sealed, Team Evil is out of the picture, etc.; so an agreement between nations isn't liable to be voided by either nation being expunged by an epic threat....So by extension there's no high-level OotS nor high-level Team Evil involved here, and the Azurites and Gobbotopians are trying to deal with each other's existence on their own terms. Apologies if that hasn't been the case.)

No questions about that.


At this point, they're established. With the help of the Order, I think a third option might come up: coexistence (albeit uneasy coexistence). The horde would likely have to be downsized; the hobgoblins would never agree for it to total disarmament for fear of being oppressed by the Azurites, and the Azurites would not agree to go back into a throng of hobgoblins for the same reasons, but an active presence in the city on both sides gives potential for reconciliation.

Ionathus is proposing something like that; I say time after time that it is unjust AND that it is a good way forward which - unless tempers rise too high - will allow for Azurites regain most of what they had and for Hobgoblins to keep most of what they have.

[Fyraltari]

hroþila and Fyraltari are. They both have objected on my position on the grounds of the previous status quo somewhat making the sacking necessary.

I suppose they will now deny it, leaving their previous objections to my position pointless.

I dare you to quote me on this, find one time in that thread where I said the sacking of Gobbotopia was either just or necessary.

Edit: I meant Azure City.

[Kelenius]

Is this a replacement for Miko as a forum hot topic?

[Fyraltari]

Is this a replacement for Miko as a forum hot topic?

Has been for a long while.

At least Hilgya seems to be a dead topic.

[M1982]

That's the entire reason negotiations exist....
It's an ideal reason for negotiations.

Negotiating with the goal of losing less in the end than without negotiations is also common

[hroþila]

I dare you to quote me on this, find one time in that thread where I said the sacking of Gobbotopia was either just or necessary.
To be fair, you've said that like x100000~infinite times more than me.

[Fyraltari]

To be fair, you've said that like x100000~infinite times more than me.

I've never said that!

Edit: okay, I think you're teasing me because I typed Gobbotopia instead of Azure City.

[hungrycrow]

the sacking of Gobbotopia was either just or necessary.

Edit: I meant Azure City.

Ha! I found it!

[The Pilgrim]

I dare you to quote me on this, find one time in that thread where I said the sacking of Gobbotopia was either just or necessary.

Edit: I meant Azure City.

Challenge Accepted.


As for why Gobbotopia is a necessity, it's because the goblins and humans have been at this for time immemorial and Gobbotopia is apparently the first time goblins have managed to get humans to treat with them diplomatically rather than alternating between isolation and war. It looks like the best shot there is to stop the slaughters.

Done.

How many Quatloos have I won?

(As I replied back then to your argument, HtPGhS demonstrates humans have treated Hobgoblins diplomatically before, managing to stop the slaughters and co-exist with them in Peace. SoD also gives an example of goblins and humans co-existing and even attending public spectacles together. Therefore, Gobbotopia, and thus the previus destruction of Azure City, is not a necessity and has never been a necessity for peaceful coexistence of goblinoids with humans).

[Ironsmith]

(As I replied back then to your argument, HtPGhS demonstrates humans have treated Hobgoblins diplomatically before, managing to stop the slaughters and co-exist with them in Peace. SoD also gives an example of goblins and humans co-existing and even attending public spectacles together. Therefore, Gobbotopia, and thus the previus destruction of Azure City, is not a necessity and has never been a necessity for peaceful coexistence of goblinoids with humans).

If I understand Fyralti's position right, that doesn't actually satisfy his conditions. Gobbotopia didn't *have* to be established in the ruins of Azure City. Hell, it didn't have to be established in any ruins at all: if Redcloak found that fortress of Hobgoblins and decided to develop it from a military base to a full-on city, we'd have both a Gobbotopia and Azure City, without any need for bloodshed.

The point is, the goblins having a city-state (and the political power it came with) might be needed for peaceful coexistence. Destriying Azure City is not.

[The Pilgrim]

If I understand Fyralti's position right, that doesn't actually satisfy his conditions.

He literally wrote that Gobbotopia is a necessity. And Gobbotopia is the sacked and ruined Azure City.


The point is, the goblins having a city-state (and the political power it came with) might be needed for peaceful coexistence. Destorying Azure City is not.

The Hobgoblins already had a full-on city:
https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0197.html

And they lived and prospered at peace with the azurites.

By destroying the Azurites, the Hobgoblins only obtained one third of their own killed, a lot of humans slaughtered, 500.000 displaced persons, a lot of loot and slaves, and placing a big shinning "crusade bait" target mark on their foreheads.

Stablishing Gobbotopia was not necessary, neither is the continuation of it's existence. The Hobgoblins have given proof of being able to prosper without it.

[Lord Raziere]

The Hobgoblins already had a full-on city:
https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0197.html

Gobbotopia was not necessary, neither is the continuation of it's existence.

An unnamed city, somewhere in the mountains, that no one knows about, that we have no clue what the living conditions are, when civilizations based in mountains aren't exactly known for their successes, given that most working civilizations have a similar need of access to certain things to thrive. what actual improvement is it over

The town of twelve years ago under the GSL-1 as opposed to GSL-2?


Its not convincing to me. If this city was important to anything wouldn't we have more details on it to show what life is like there to clear this up? I don't think it proves anything. Quantity of life is not quality of life. it is OOTs canon that hobgoblins reproduce faster and more numerously that humans and living beings tend to reproduce more in BAD conditions than in good ones as ensuring as many progeny can potentially survive to offset the ones that are inevitably going to die. while life more well off can afford to reproduce LESS because their offspring is safer and thus can afford to spend more time on the quality of their child being raised.

[The Pilgrim]

A lot of things can happen, and yes, it depends, but I try to look for what can be expected. Given my understanding of the situation Azurites are not in position to attack by themselves (not only they have lost large chunk of population and larger chunk of their military but they are far away from the Azure Cirty itself - so they are safer from Hobgoblins but Hobgoblins also get a defensive advantage) and coordinating alliances will take time - while the slaves suffer and die and also invites other powers to take a bite - even if other potential occupiers are significantly more Azurite-friendly.

Narratively-wise, the conflict between the azurites and the hobgoblins has been frozed so it doesn't draw attention from the conflict for the Gates, which is the real story here. The Giant has commented this on a number of ocassions.

And just like some of the azurites got re-settled in a distant insland with a deus-ex-machina devils-ex-machina, The Giant can use similar devices to defrozen and resolve the conflict in the epilogue once the main story is over.


And I think that Durkon's offers show us at least the general direction what will happen if there is any negotiation between the Azurites and Gobbotopia. Hobgoblins will gain something, some recognition, not just whatever they can carry on their backs*. Now, there are other possible resolutions, of course, but Hobgoblins getting up and leaving is a bit too clean.

Well, my interpretation of Durkon's offer is that The Giant just made Durkon offer Redcloak exactly the kind of deal wanted by every forum member who roots for the goblinoids. And Redcloak rejected, strenously.

And that once again gives proof, in my opinion, that the ongoing theme with the Goblinoids is not a matter of goblinoids vs humanoids, but a matter of Xykon, Redcloak, and possibly The Dark One, oppresing the Goblinoids. As Right-Eye already pointed in SoD.

[Ionathus]

Well, my interpretation of Durkon's offer is that The Giant just made Durkon offer Redcloak exactly the kind of deal wanted by every forum member who roots for the goblinoids. And Redcloak rejected, strenously.

And that once again gives proof, in my opinion, that the ongoing theme with the Goblinoids is not a matter of goblinoids vs humanoids, but a matter of Xykon, Redcloak, and possibly The Dark One, oppresing the Goblinoids. As Right-Eye already pointed in SoD.

As I see it, Redcloak debated back-and-forth on the subject for multiple pages, seriously grappled with it in a moment of conflict, and then rejected Durkon's offer. Honestly, negotiations went a lot better than they could've, for a first meeting after 1200 pages of hostilities between the two sides. This negotiation (plus Minrah's verbal & physical beatdown) could've all just been planting the seeds of doubt in Redcloak's mind, to be paid off at a future moment of decision.

[Jason]

The Hobgoblins already had a full-on city:
https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0197.html

And they lived and prospered at peace with the azurites.Not only that, but the hobgoblin priest in How The Paladin Got His Scar describes the hobgoblin city at that time as "one of the largest goblinoid settlements on the surface," (emphasis mine). That would seem to indicate that there are other goblinoid settlements comparable in size on the surface, and bigger goblinoid settlements underground.

[Fyraltari]

Challenge Accepted.



Done.

How many Quatloos have I won?

(As I replied back then to your argument, HtPGhS demonstrates humans have treated Hobgoblins diplomatically before, managing to stop the slaughters and co-exist with them in Peace. SoD also gives an example of goblins and humans co-existing and even attending public spectacles together. Therefore, Gobbotopia, and thus the previus destruction of Azure City, is not a necessity and has never been a necessity for peaceful coexistence of goblinoids with humans).
Wrong.
I said Gobbotopia, as in a goblin nation-state recognized by the stickworld's international community, was necessary, not that it be founded by violence. You are blatantly trying to move the golaposts here.

HtPghS did not demonstrate that hobgoblins and humans lived in peace before Redcloak came along, it demonstrated that a prt of the Azurite military (which the sapphire Guard is, secret society or not) could indiscriminately slaughter them without it raising much of a fuss until a random captain got involved. The Azurites decided by themselves to stop harassing the hobgoblins for a while and the new Supreme Leader assassinated his prdecessor and the resident warhawks because he felt that launching an attack on the Azurites would be too destructive to the hobgoblins. IF that's not peace, that's a cold war at best. It also shows that both the previous Supreme leader and the general considered war with the humans an inevitability.

The existence of one village who was left alone and whose population could go to human-run and attended circus is only evidence that there are places where the anti-goblin sentiment is less pronounced or even inexistant it certainly isn't proof that PC races and goblinoids are generally co-existing peacefully, just as Kilkil being an imporant member of the EoB's government doesn't invalidate the fact that Belkar could offer a bounty on indiscriminate kobold murder (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0357.html).

The evidence of the PC races generally treating the monster races, goblinoids included, as sword fodder is pretty overwhelming, from these guys (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0975.html), to Oona's tribe having fled the dwarves all the way to the freaking arctic (and the notion that heroic Kraagor killed thousands of goblins) (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1039.html), to the elven supremacist commando (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0707.html), to the group of orcs in OtOoPCs who almost got murdered for wanting to attend a metal concert.

By the way, Jasdoif, I thpught I remembered a post of the Giant talking about humans and goblins being at war since basically forever but I can't find it in the index.

If I understand Fyralti's position right, that doesn't actually satisfy his conditions. Gobbotopia didn't *have* to be established in the ruins of Azure City. Hell, it didn't have to be established in any ruins at all: if Redcloak found that fortress of Hobgoblins and decided to develop it from a military base to a full-on city, we'd have both a Gobbotopia and Azure City, without any need for bloodshed.

The point is, the goblins having a city-state (and the political power it came with) might be needed for peaceful coexistence. Destriying Azure City is not.
Correct. Also, it's F-y-r-a-l-t-a-r-i.

Yes, it does. He said literally that Gobbotopia is a necessity. And Gobbotopia is nothing more than the sacked and ruined Azure City.
No, it's not. It's a nation-state with a flag, an hymn and international standing.

[Jason]

The evidence of the PC races generally treating the monster races, goblinoids included, as sword fodder is pretty overwhelming, from these guys (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0975.html), to Oona's tribe having fled the dwarves all the way to the freaking arctic (and the notion that heroic Kraagor killed thousands of goblins) (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1039.html), to the elven supremacist commando (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0707.html), to the group of orcs in OtOoPCs who almost got murdered for wanting to attend a metal concert.
That is all evidence of the current state of PC vs. "monster" relations. In other words, it's all after the goblinoids fought a giant crusade that killed enough members of the PC races in a single year to raise the Dark One to deity status. Who knows what things were really like between the two sides before that crusade?
The Dark One's minions, including Redcloak, say that they were merely trying to get equality in land and resources with the other races to correct an injustice the gods created when they formed the world. But then they would hardly admit that "we were trying to conquer the world and either make slaves of you or exterminate you all, because goblins are a superior race," now would they?

[Fyraltari]

That is all evidence of the current state of PC vs. "monster" relations. In other words, it's all after the goblinoids fought a giant crusade that killed enough members of the PC races in a single year to raise the Dark One to deity status. Who knows what things were really like between the two sides before that crusade?
The Dark One's minions, including Redcloak, say that they were merely trying to get equality in land and resources with the other races to correct an injustice the gods created when they formed the world. But then they would hardly admit that "we were trying to conquer the world and either make slaves of you or exterminate you all, because goblins are a superior race," now would they?

I don't give a single **** about who started it and neither should anybody. What happened centuries ago is not more important than what is happening today. If the goal is to stop the violence, the question of who started the cycle of violence isn't nearly as important as how to stop it.

[Jasdoif]

it's entirely different thing if they end up with more resources by the end of negotiations than they had when negotiations have started.That's the entire reason negotiations exist....It's an ideal reason for negotiations.

Negotiating with the goal of losing less in the end than without negotiations is also commonYes; losing less is still coming out in a better position than you had going in.


By the way, Jasdoif, I thpught I remembered a post of the Giant talking about humans and goblins being at war since basically forever but I can't find it in the index.It's in the author commentary for War and XPs (thus ineligible for the Index, as it's not available for free online).

I had previously mentioned the idea that the Sapphire Guard conducted crusades against the goblins back during Shojo's "Crayons of Time" exposition. The immediate hatred displayed by Redcloak and Miko toward each other is part of the idea that these two groups--goblins and humans, particularly Southern humans--have been battling back and forth for centuries. At this point, it has become impossible to tell who started the hostilities; each side remembers nothing so much as their last defeat by the other. And so the cycle of violence continues, generation after generation. Did the humans start it by crusading against the goblins, or did the goblins start it by trying to harness the rifts? Or did the humans start it by putting the goblins into a position where they felt they had no recourse but to try to harness the rifts? Who can say? Well, I suppose I could, but I find it much more interesting to keep it ambiguous.

[Jason]

I don't give a single **** about who started it and neither should anybody. What happened centuries ago is not more important than what is happening today. If the goal is to stop the violence, the question of who started the cycle of violence isn't nearly as important as how to stop it.
Well if the history of the conflict is not important, then let's have no more talk about how the two sides "have been battling back and forth for centuries." Or how the gods creating the goblinoids as XP fodder is an injustice that requires the nations of the world to officially recognize Gobbotopia.

[Fyraltari]

Well if the history of the conflict is not important, then let's have no more talk about how the two sides "have been battling back and forth for centuries." Or how the gods creating the goblinoids as XP fodder is an injustice that requires the nations of the world to officially recognize Gobbotopia.
Exactly. Let's instead talk how about the i njsut treatment of the goblinoids by the PC races with the tacit approval of at least some of the gods needs to stop and how a nation-state such as Gobbotopia, recognized by the PC races' own nation-states is an imporant part of this process.

EDIT: To clarify my position, the history of a conflict is important, but only in the ways that relate to the present states of the conflict. ho threw the first stone or who killed the most people isn't as important as who is suffering right now, how and how it can be stopped.

[The Pilgrim]

Exactly. Let's instead talk how about the i njsut treatment of the goblinoids by the PC races with the tacit approval of at least some of the gods needs to stop and how a nation-state such as Gobbotopia, recognized by the PC races' own nation-states is an imporant part of this process.

And once again, you are justifying the sack and enslavement of Azure City as a necessity.

No matter how much time you invest in denying it, you end up there again anyway.


EDIT: To clarify my position, the history of a conflict is important, but only in the ways that relate to the present states of the conflict. ho threw the first stone or who killed the most people isn't as important as who is suffering right now, how and how it can be stopped.

Who is suffering now, are half a million azurites. And you don't get that fixed with just releasing those of them who are enslaved from their slavehood.

Who was suffering before, was no one, as the Hobgoblins had their own recognized territory, big city, and peace with the Azurites.

If Redcloak wanted to stablish a fancy nation-state with flag and athem, he didn't need to invade Azure City.

[Jason]

Exactly. Let's instead talk how about the i njsut treatment of the goblinoids by the PC races with the tacit approval of at least some of the gods needs to stop and how a nation-state such as Gobbotopia, recognized by the PC races' own nation-states is an imporant part of this process.

EDIT: To clarify my position, the history of a conflict is important, but only in the ways that relate to the present states of the conflict. ho threw the first stone or who killed the most people isn't as important as who is suffering right now, how and how it can be stopped.

How do we know the true history of the conflict isn't something like this: "the goblinoids were created on a parity with the other races, but their common culture seems to have a deep-seated legend that they were unjustly treated at their creation and that they therefore have a right to take what they need from other races, so anytime they gather in any numbers they become a danger to their neighbors. This led to skirmishes that only reinforced the goblin belief that they were getting a raw deal. It got much worse when a charismatic leader known as the Dark One seized on this legendary injustice and formed an army that tried to conquer the world and enslave or destroy all the other races. He died from overindulgence while celebrating a victory, but his generals quickly spread the false story that he had been killed while attempting peaceful negotiations with the human kingdoms. The resulting crusade slaughtered millions, and catapulted the Dark One to godhood. Finally the PC kingdoms banded together and destroyed the rampaging goblin army. From that point forward they have understandably never trusted goblinoids and have taken measures to nip any new crusade in the bud. An unfortunate result of this justified caution is anti-goblinoid prejudice, but until the goblins stop believing in their legendary injustice and have a wider pantheon than just one evil deity who is driving them to conquer all non-goblinoids they remain a real danger to everyone else."?

[The Pilgrim]

Not only that, but the hobgoblin priest in How The Paladin Got His Scar describes the hobgoblin city at that time as "one of the largest goblinoid settlements on the surface," (emphasis mine). That would seem to indicate that there are other goblinoid settlements comparable in size on the surface, and bigger goblinoid settlements underground.

Which also implies that goblinoids like to live underground more than on the surface.

[Jason]

Which also implies that goblinoids like to live underground more than on the surface.
Well, maybe. It might also mean that underground is the only place they've been able to build larger cities without harassment.
Edit: The hobgoblins in HtPGHS do mention that goblinoid eyesight is weaker in the day, but they also obviously want to have more surface settlements.

[Keltest]

Well, maybe. It might also mean that underground is the only place they've been able to build larger cities without harassment.
Edit: The hobgoblins in HtPGHS do mention that goblinoid eyesight is weaker in the day, but they also obviously want to have more surface settlements.

Given that dwarves exist, i kind of struggle to believe that being underground provides any sort of intrinsic shelter that being on the surface would not. At best you would be changing the type of enemies you face. This may actually be worse, given that dwarves get a racial bonus to fight goblinoids.

[Ionathus]

And once again, you are justifying the sack and enslavement of Azure City as a necessity.

No matter how much time you invest in denying it, you end up there again anyway.


...how a nation-state such as Gobbotopia...

Emphasis mine. Such as Gobbotopia. Fyraltari is saying it's necessary for goblinoids to have an established political territory. Fyraltari did not say it's necessary for that territory to replace Azure City. It's a significant distinction.


How do we know the true history of the conflict isn't something like this: "the goblinoids were created on a parity with the other races, but their common culture seems to have a deep-seated legend that they were unjustly treated at their creation and that they therefore have a right to take what they need from other races, so anytime they gather in any numbers they become a danger to their neighbors. This led to skirmishes that only reinforced the goblin belief that they were getting a raw deal. It got much worse when a charismatic leader known as the Dark One seized on this legendary injustice and formed an army that tried to conquer the world and enslave or destroy all the other races. He died from overindulgence while celebrating a victory, but his generals quickly spread the false story that he had been killed while attempting peaceful negotiations with the human kingdoms. The resulting crusade slaughtered millions, and catapulted the Dark One to godhood. Finally the PC kingdoms banded together and destroyed the rampaging goblin army. From that point forward they have understandably never trusted goblinoids and have taken measures to nip any new crusade in the bud. An unfortunate result of this justified caution is anti-goblinoid prejudice, but until the goblins stop believing in their legendary injustice and have a wider pantheon than just one evil deity who is driving them to conquer all non-goblinoids they remain a real danger to everyone else."?

How do we know it is? Do we have literally any evidence of this proposed history? Beyond Redcloak being an unreliable narrator?

Redcloak is a self-serving evil person, with a warped view of reality and a burning desire for revenge that stems from deep childhood trauma. That makes him an unreliable narrator. It does not mean that his crayon version of events in SoD is automatically 100% false on all counts.

My personal theory is that Redcloak's crayon narrative, similar to Shojo's & Thirden's, is factually correct on a large scale: the goblinoids started out scattered and at a disadvantage, The Dark One united them, the PC races were afraid, they assassinated him during negotiations, goblinoids went on a revenge crusade that caused his apotheosis. I expect it's casting TDO in a more favorable light (he's portrayed as charismatic and diplomatic with the PC diplomats before his assassination), possibly exaggerating the gods' reasons for creating "monstrous" humanoids, and justifying The Plan as the only possible way to fix these problems.

But I don't buy that it's 100% fabricated. Nobody has refuted the claims made in that crayon narrative. Thor's only reference was that TDO's followers had killed lots of Thor's followers -- which fits the narrative. Redcloak says the goblinoids were created as XP fodder and Durkon doesn't debate him on that point: in fact, he sympathizes with the idea, having just learned of Hel's plot himself. Right-Eye never once questions the narrative Redcloak tells, only Redcloak's methods for fixing the problem. Every narrative opportunity to refute Redcloak's version of events has passed by without a refutation.

I just don't think the story is building up to "Redcloak and TDO are lying about everything". It's likely, though, that the story is building up to "Redcloak and TDO, while not lying about the problem, are making things much worse with their attempted solution" or something similar.

[Fyraltari]

It's in the author commentary for War and XPs (thus ineligible for the Index, as it's not available for free online).

Thanks.

And once again, you are justifying the sack and enslavement of Azure City as a necessity.
No I have not. Stating that the continued existence of Gobbotopia is a better thing than its destruction is not the same as justifying the manner in which it was founded, no matter how much you want it to.


No matter how much time you invest in denying it, you end up there again anyway.
Because you keep claiming I say something I haven't.




Who is suffering now, are half a million azurites. And you don't get that fixed with just releasing those of them who are enslaved from their slavehood.
And the bugbears scrapping a living out of the arctic, and all the goblinoids routinely attacked by adventurers.


Who was suffering before, was no one
I guess all the goblins murdered by thr Sapphire Guard under Gin-Jun and his predecessors don't count, then?

as the Hobgoblins had their own recognized territory, big city, and peace with the Azurites.
The Azurites hadn't recognized squat, they didn't even know it was there until the SG found it.

If Redcloak wanted to stablish a fancy nation-state with flag and athem, he didn't need to invade Azure City.
That's true. It's possible that if he had worked on it he could have turned that one peaceful community into a city-state and so founded an alternate Gobbotopia on an healthier base. But the fact that Redcloak is an evil, kinslaying, racist, specist, hypocritical, murderous zealot, constantly teetering on the verge of insanity who has done terrible damage to his own cause because he cares more about assuaging his own guilt than the lives of the people who follow him does not retract from the fact that for the conflict to end, the PC races must regard the "monster" races as equals and partners with their own territory where they would be safe from external aggression and so far, Gobbotopia is on ots way to achieve that.

How do we know the true history of the conflict isn't something like this: "the goblinoids were created on a parity with the other races, but their common culture seems to have a deep-seated legend that they were unjustly treated at their creation and that they therefore have a right to take what they need from other races, so anytime they gather in any numbers they become a danger to their neighbors. This led to skirmishes that only reinforced the goblin belief that they were getting a raw deal. It got much worse when a charismatic leader known as the Dark One seized on this legendary injustice and formed an army that tried to conquer the world and enslave or destroy all the other races. He died from overindulgence while celebrating a victory, but his generals quickly spread the false story that he had been killed while attempting peaceful negotiations with the human kingdoms. The resulting crusade slaughtered millions, and catapulted the Dark One to godhood. Finally the PC kingdoms banded together and destroyed the rampaging goblin army. From that point forward they have understandably never trusted goblinoids and have taken measures to nip any new crusade in the bud.
An unfortunate result of this justified caution is anti-goblinoid prejudice
That might be true, but then the PC races need to realize that their behaviour is fueling the goblinoids' hatred of them. And that they cannot expect the goblinoids not to fight them if they don't stop attacking them. There are only two ways to end a conflict: peace of utter extermination of one side. The injsutice may have started as a myth but it is now very real and it needs to stop. As the currently most powerful side of the conflict, the onus is on them to de-escalate it.

but until the goblins stop believing in their legendary injustice and have a wider pantheon than just one evil deity who is driving them to conquer all non-goblinoids they remain a real danger to everyone else."?
But they're not. Until 60 years ago and the discovery of the Rift, the goblins haven't been a threat. Their rampage after. The death of the Dark One ultimately lead to their defeat in battle. The bugbears were driven away in the Arctic. The largest hobgoblin settlement on the surface nearly got wiped out by a fraction of the Azurite military acting without thz support of their government. They only conquered Azure City because they had an Epic lich on their side and the recent kingslaying resulted in the nobles withdrawing their forces. They just keep losing.

[Jason]

How do we know it is? Do we have literally any evidence of this proposed history? Beyond Redcloak being an unreliable narrator?We don't. By presenting an alternate that fits what we know I'm pointing out that we don't know the true history. We have a one-sided account from Redcloak that merely "hasn't been refuted yet." That means it is impossible to make an informed judgement about whether the goblins are justified in any of their actions, or if the humans and other PC races are justified in theirs.


My personal theory is that Redcloak's crayon narrative, similar to Shojo's & Thirden's, is factually correct on a large scale: the goblinoids started out scattered and at a disadvantage, The Dark One united them, the PC races were afraid, they assassinated him during negotiations, goblinoids went on a revenge crusade that caused his apotheosis. I expect it's casting TDO in a more favorable light (he's portrayed as charismatic and diplomatic with the PC diplomats before his assassination), possibly exaggerating the gods' reasons for creating "monstrous" humanoids, and justifying The Plan as the only possible way to fix these problems.I tend to believe along your lines. It was probably essentially accurate in the wider events but told with green glasses on. The notions that the Dark One gathered an army only because he wanted to address a real injustice, that he only wanted peaceful coexistence with the other races, that he was a wise and kind ruler, and that he was universally loved by goblinkind are particularly suspicious. It's exactly how any tyrant would like to have himself be described.


Redcloak says the goblinoids were created as XP fodder and Durkon doesn't debate him on that point: in fact, he sympathizes with the idea, having just learned of Hel's plot himself.Durkon sympathizes, and says that from what he knows of the gods it may be correct, yes, but no one has yet confirmed the idea that goblins were created as XP fodder. Thor didn't address the subject.


Right-Eye never once questions the narrative Redcloak tells, only Redcloak's methods for fixing the problem.Right-Eye was raised in the same culture that Redcloak was. He has no way of knowing if the story is true or not, and Right-Eye does have incentive not to contradict his brother while trying to recruit Xykon. In fact he points out to Redcloak that he was knowingly lying to Xykon about being able to control the Snarl immediately after the story is over. Xykon of course doesn't really care if the story is true or not and wouldn't have the historical knowledge to refute it if he did care.


Every narrative opportunity to refute Redcloak's version of events has passed by without a refutation.There haven't been that many opportunities. Durkon makes it clear that this was the first time he'd heard of the idea when Redcloak mentions it to him. What other opportunity has there been?

[Ironsmith]

Who is suffering now, are half a million azurites. And you don't get that fixed with just releasing those of them who are enslaved from their slavehood.

No, but it does help. And it'd be a necessary step to repairing relations regardless. Plus, by the time these hypothetical negotiations finish, the Azurites will have an established presence elsewhere, so it's not like the freed slaves won't have anywhere to go or anyone waiting for them when they get there. It's a step in the right direction.


Who was suffering before, was no one, as the Hobgoblins had their own recognized territory, big city, and peace with the Azurites.

I'd characterize it as more indifference or ignorance than peace. The Azurites didn't seem to know about the fortress, and probably wouldn't until soneone decides to attack (i.e Redcloak).


If Redcloak wanted to stablish a fancy nation-state with flag and athem, he didn't need to invade Azure City.

Exactly. But he didn't, and now we have a diplomatic nightmare for all involved. Stuff like this is why very few people condone his methods.

[Ionathus]

We don't. By presenting an alternate that fits what we know I'm pointing out that we don't know the true history. We have a one-sided account from Redcloak that merely "hasn't been refuted yet." That means it is impossible to make an informed judgement about whether the goblins are justified in any of their actions, or if the humans and other PC races are justified in theirs.

I tend to believe along your lines. It was probably essentially accurate in the wider events but told with green glasses on. The notions that the Dark One gathered an army only because he wanted to address a real injustice, that he only wanted peaceful coexistence with the other races, that he was a wise and kind ruler, and that he was universally loved by goblinkind are particularly suspicious. It's exactly how any tyrant would like to have himself be described.

Durkon sympathizes, and says that from what he knows of the gods it may be correct, yes, but no one has yet confirmed the idea that goblins were created as XP fodder. Thor didn't address the subject.

Right-Eye was raised in the same culture that Redcloak was. He has no way of knowing if the story is true or not, and Right-Eye does have incentive not to contradict his brother while trying to recruit Xykon. In fact he points out to Redcloak that he was knowingly lying to Xykon about being able to control the Snarl immediately after the story is over. Xykon of course doesn't really care if the story is true or not and wouldn't have the historical knowledge to refute it if he did care.

There haven't been that many opportunities. Durkon makes it clear that this was the first time he'd heard of the idea when Redcloak mentions it to him. What other opportunity has there been?

Yeah, Redcloak kinda glosses over why TDO had gathered that big army in the first place. I think there are even some references to how good of a military leader he was -- I wouldn't be surprised if there were battles/wars with PC races that got glossed over to make TDO seem super reasonable and trusting and OH NO, the EVIL HUMANS KILLED HIM

The thing is, if the "XP Fodder" narrative is a falsehood, why did so much of the Durkon/Redcloak negotiation strips focus on Redcloak's tactics, instead of his claims? If Rich had wanted to refute that narrative, he could've had Thor tell Durkon the truth last book, and then question Redcloak's story during negotiations. Instead, the negotiations focus on Redcloak's behavior and establishing a way to move forward.

What characters talk about in a story is important, not just because those arguments often form the conflict, but because concepts need to exist and be stated in-story for readers to form any opinion about them. Rich has spent plenty of panel time exploring the idea that Redcloak's methods are evil, delusional, and dangerous, even if his goal is noble (or at least started out that way). Rich hasn't spent any panel time exploring the idea that Redcloak's "XP Fodder" narrative is false.

I don't have ironclad proof that the "XP Fodder" narrative is true, but I don't have a compelling reason to disbelieve it, and in fact would have to make several assumptions to do so. Going by a sort of narrative Occam's razor, "the narrative presented is, on some level, true" is a simpler explanation.

[The Pilgrim]

No I have not. Stating that the continued existence of Gobbotopia is a better thing than its destruction is not the same as justifying the manner in which it was founded, no matter how much you want it to.

And again you are changing what you said:


Exactly. Let's instead talk how about the i njsut treatment of the goblinoids by the PC races with the tacit approval of at least some of the gods needs to stop and how a nation-state such as Gobbotopia, recognized by the PC races' own nation-states is an imporant part of this process.

What you said is that stablishing Gobbotopia was a necessity.

Destroying Azure City was a necessity for stablishing Gobbotopia.

Therefore, destroying Azure City was a necessity.


And the bugbears scrapping a living out of the arctic, and all the goblinoids routinely attacked by adventurers.

The Bugbears are happy with their life. Oona has already stated what she thinks about the Dark One and about Redcloak's plan. She is accompanying Team Evil just to make sure they don't extingish the monsters in Monster Hollow.

And there are goblinoid attacked by adventurers, much like there are humanoids routinely attacked by goblinoids. You only see one half of the conflict, despite the fact that The Giant has kept showing goblinoids mostly as evil minions, while all attempts at resolving conflicts with monstruous races without violence have been either the initiative of humanoid heroes (Roy in Origins, O-Chul in GDGU, Durkon a few strips ago) or the initiative of goblinoids murdered by Redcloack or deposed by him.


I guess all the goblins murdered by thr Sapphire Guard under Gin-Jun and his predecessors don't count, then?

No, they don't count, because they belong to a conflict that was sucessfully settled by both parties 12 years ago.

So the Hobgoblin don't get to use those as justification for their war of agression, as much as azurites wouldn't have got either to use the human villagers murdered by Hobgbolins 12 years ago as justification for breaking the Peace.


The Azurites hadn't recognized squat, they didn't even know it was there until the SG found it.

The azurites made a peace agreement with the Hobgoblins 12 years ago. You don't make peace agreements with groups of people you don't recognize.


That's true. It's possible that if he had worked on it he could have turned that one peaceful community into a city-state and so founded an alternate Gobbotopia on an healthier base.

Then Gobbotopia isn't necessary. The Hobgoblins could keep working on their already sizeable city in the mountains.

Therefore, there is no need for Gobbotopia keeps existing in order to solve the "conflict".


But the fact that Redcloak is an evil, kinslaying, racist, specist, hypocritical, murderous zealot, constantly teetering on the verge of insanity who has done terrible damage to his own cause because he cares more about assuaging his own guilt than the lives of the people who follow him does not retract from the fact that for the conflict to end, the PC races must regard the "monster" races as equals and partners with their own territory where they would be safe from external aggression and so far, Gobbotopia is on ots way to achieve that..

Gobbotopia is on his way of becoming Crusading Free Buffet the next minute after Xykon and Redcloak are vanquished.

You don't get to be recognized as equal by killing, looting, enslaving and stealing the people you want to be recognized as equal by. Half a million azurites aren't right now thinking that the goblinoids who have killed, evicted and enslaved the azurite people are poor victims of specieist unequality.

The sole reason why Durkon negotiated with Redcloak was because Thor needs The Dark One. Gobbotopia is irrelevant, Durkon would have gone to negotiate with Redcloak all the same if Redcloak hadn't razed Azure City.

And in that negotiation, Durkon pointed out that getting PC races to acknowledge goblinoids as equals isn't going to happen just as fruit of a negotiation. It will take years of hard work, trade, mutual relations, and turning the other cheek. Just the kind of things that someone who was murdered by Redcloak attempted to do, and that someone who was ousted from power by Redcloak attempted also.

[Jason]

The thing is, if the "XP Fodder" narrative is a falsehood, why did so much of the Durkon/Redcloak negotiation strips focus on Redcloak's tactics, instead of his claims? If Rich had wanted to refute that narrative, he could've had Thor tell Durkon the truth last book, and then question Redcloak's story during negotiations. Instead, the negotiations focus on Redcloak's behavior and establishing a way to move forward.
Durkon didn't know the story until he spoke with Redcloak, so he didn't ask Thor about it.
There are any number of reasons why Thor didn't talk about it, starting with "Durkon didn't ask and he was focused on showing what's at stake," and ranging on to "Thor didn't talk about it because a 'dumb god rule' prevents him," and possibly "it's not true and Thor had no idea the Dark One was telling this particular lie to his high priests."


I don't have ironclad proof that the "XP Fodder" narrative is true, but I don't have a compelling reason to disbelieve it, and in fact would have to make several assumptions to do so. Going by a sort of narrative Occam's razor, "the narrative presented is, on some level, true" is a simpler explanation.
A point. But the fact that we have no confirmation means it's open to a sudden twist reveal, especially if it serves a plot point. "Your god has been lying to you all along," could be a very effective twist for Redcloak's story.

If the "XP fodder" story is true, I think it's likely that this isn't the first world with "XP fodder" races. And it doesn't seem likely that it would always have been the goblinoids (many of those past worlds don't seem to have goblinoids). Maybe there were worlds where the goblinoids were the PC races and the dwarves, elves, and humans were the XP fodder, and they reversed it for Stickworld because it just happened to be the goblinoid's turn.

[Ionathus]

What you said is that stablishing Gobbotopia was a necessity.

Destroying Azure City was a necessity for stablishing Gobbotopia.

Therefore, destroying Azure City was a necessity.

A nation-state such as Gobbotopia. That's what Fyraltari said. You quoted it yourself.

The distinction is important.


And in that negotiation, Durkon pointed out that getting PC races to acknowledge goblinoids as equals isn't going to happen just as fruit of a negotiation. It will take years of hard work, trade, mutual relations, and turning the other cheek. Just the kind of things that someone who was murdered by Redcloak attempted to do, and that someone who was ousted from power by Redcloak attempted also.

All things that would require political power to do. It doesn't sound like anyone even acknowledged the goblinoids as an official territory until Gobbotopia. The years of hard work, trade, mutual relations, and turning the other cheek have to start with an acknowledgement of sovereignty. Gobbotopia the literal location was not necessary, but some measure of sovereignty and political borders (wherever it sat) was. The narrative seems to imply hobgoblins weren't getting that in the mountains. But I accept I can't prove that.


Durkon didn't know the story until he spoke with Redcloak, so he didn't ask Thor about it.
There are any number of reasons why Thor didn't talk about it, starting with "Durkon didn't ask and he was focused on showing what's at stake," and ranging on to "Thor didn't talk about it because a 'dumb god rule' prevents him," and possibly "it's not true and Thor had no idea the Dark One was telling this particular lie to his high priests."

Those are all in-character reasons. Watsonian, if you will. I'm talking about narrative reasons, Doylist ones. Not "why did Thor do X or Y?" but "why did Rich have Thor do X or Y?". You've offered in-character reasons that explain why Thor did certain things, but the fact remains that Rich had an opportunity to refute Redcloak's ideals, and he instead took that time to address his methods. That seems to imply the methods are the focus of Redcloak's story.



A point. But the fact that we have no confirmation means it's open to a sudden twist reveal, especially if it serves a plot point. "Your god has been lying to you all along," could be a very effective twist for Redcloak's story.

If the "XP fodder" story is true, I think it's likely that this isn't the first world with "XP fodder" races. And it doesn't seem likely that it would always have been the goblinoids (many of those past worlds don't seem to have goblinoids). Maybe there were worlds where the goblinoids were the PC races and the dwarves, elves, and humans were the XP fodder, and they reversed it for Stickworld because it just happened to be the goblinoid's turn.

Yes, it's possible we'd have a twist reveal on that topic -- though I don't think it's very likely. The biggest twist we've had in the entire comic (IMO) was very similar in its cosmic scope: that the Stickworld wasn't the 2nd world or even the 100th, but the latest of literal billions. That twist was incredibly effective, but it didn't completely upend the entire narrative of the Snarl. It just added a new, gamechanging wrinkle to the situation. If we ever get a similar revelation on the "XP fodder" narrative, my guess is it'd have a similar effect: complicating the story instead of negating it.

[Jason]

A nation-state such as Gobbotopia. That's what Fyraltari said. You quoted it yourself.

The distinction is important.
I agree. Fyraltari is arguing that something like Gobbotopia is necessary for lasting peace between the races, not that Gobbotopia had to be built on the corpse of Azure City.


Those are all in-character reasons. Watsonian, if you will. I'm talking about narrative reasons, Doylist ones. Not "why did Thor do X or Y?" but "why did Rich have Thor do X or Y?". You've offered in-character reasons that explain why Thor did certain things, but the fact remains that Rich had an opportunity to refute Redcloak's ideals, and he instead took that time to address his methods. That seems to imply the methods are the focus of Redcloak's story.
Again, a fair point. But since he didn't take the opportunity to have Thor confirm the story and admit it was wrong for the gods to act this way either, some further twist seems possible, perhaps even likely.

[Ionathus]

Again, a fair point. But since he didn't take the opportunity to have Thor confirm the story and admit it was wrong for the gods to act this way either, some further twist seems possible, perhaps even likely.

Agreed. If it's true, I am curious why he didn't bring it up, or just say something like "the goblins got a raw deal this time." He did regret his hostility against TDO, but that was functional/strategic -- i.e. "I shouldn't have burned that bridge so early, we needed him for his quiddity."

I suspect, story-wise, it's because at this point the backstory doesn't change much about the current conundrum, and he wanted Durkon to focus on the task ahead of him. I wish so dearly that we'd gotten even just a little more exposition from the gods during Durkon & Minrah's stint in the afterlife - one way or the other, it would have answered so many questions!

Which, I'm sure, is exactly why we didn't :smallbiggrin:

[The Pilgrim]

A nation-state such as Gobbotopia. That's what Fyraltari said. You quoted it yourself.

The distinction is important.

Gobbotopia is a nation-state built through bloody war, over stolen land, that uses a sizeable amount of the conquered people as slave workforce.

So either you believe that what the Hobgoblins did was necessary, or you mean that what the goblinoids need is a nation-state NOT like Gobbotopia.


All things that would require political power to do. It doesn't sound like anyone even acknowledged the goblinoids as an official territory until Gobbotopia. The years of hard work, trade, mutual relations, and turning the other cheek have to start with an acknowledgement of sovereignty. Gobbotopia the literal location was not necessary, but some measure of sovereignty and political borders (wherever it sat) was. The narrative seems to imply hobgoblins weren't getting that in the mountains. But I accept I can't prove that. .

If you say that the Hobgoblins weren't getting the recognition they needed in the Mountains, but they are getting it now, then you are saying that razing Azure City was necessary.

I know that you don't mean to say that, but that's the logical conclusion of that line of reasoning.

If Gobbotopia can be built someplace else, then there is no need for Gobbotopia to keep existing at it's current location, over stolen land. The Hobgoblins can return to their mountains and keep building Gobbotopia there, maybe even keeping some former azurite lands like the Blueriver valley (an outcome that already seems to me like a big concession, as it means rewarding the agressor).

After all, Gobbotopia has barely existed for a few weeks since it's declaration by Redcloak. Barely a year has passed since the Battle of Azure City. The Hobgoblins haven't really built much there, beyond brutalizing slaves, fighting the resistance, and looking for Xykon's lost phylactery.

[hungrycrow]

Durkon didn't know the story until he spoke with Redcloak, so he didn't ask Thor about it.
There are any number of reasons why Thor didn't talk about it, starting with "Durkon didn't ask and he was focused on showing what's at stake," and ranging on to "Thor didn't talk about it because a 'dumb god rule' prevents him," and possibly "it's not true and Thor had no idea the Dark One was telling this particular lie to his high priests."


I think this part is really important. Thor plotted Durkon's death just so he could talk about the Snarl, and broke the gag rule for Minrah at the slightest excuse. If Thor knew that TDO had a legitimate grievance, he would have done everything he could to let Durkon know about it, dumb god rule or no. Instead he suggests TDO is just another evil god, and that he thinks TDO is mad just because of his aggression when TDO ascended.

[hamishspence]

Yeah, Redcloak kinda glosses over why TDO had gathered that big army in the first place. I think there are even some references to how good of a military leader he was -- I wouldn't be surprised if there were battles/wars with PC races that got glossed over to make TDO seem super reasonable and trusting and OH NO, the EVIL HUMANS KILLED HIM

Thor does claim that, as a mortal, The Dark One had killed many of his followers:

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

though based on this:



Northern Pantheon:
There's no direct evidence in the comic to support this, but in 3E Deities and Demigods, I believe the Asgardian pantheon is divided into suggested race-based groups, with Thor, etc for Dwarves, and Frey, Freya, etc for Humans. Presumably, Dwarves like hammers and getting hammered, and Humans are into procreating like bunnies. Maybe Rich's world has a similar thing going on, where certain groups of worshippers are culturally predisposed towards particular deities' portfolios..
Pretty much this. A human can worship Thor if he wants, certainly, but he is much more popular among the dwarves.


those followers were likely to have been dwarves, not humans.

[The Pilgrim]

I agree. Fyraltari is arguing that something like Gobbotopia is necessary for lasting peace between the races, not that Gobbotopia had to be built on the corpse of Azure City.

Gobbotopia is built over the corpse of Azure City. That's the sole Gobbotopia that exists (in-comic).

As long as they defend the argument that it's necessary that Gobbotopia keeps existing, they will be defending that the destruction of Azure City was a necessity. Because the sole Gobbotopia that exists is the one built over the land and the suffering of the azurite people.

If they meant that the Hobgoblins need the ideal of Gobbotopia and all that, then ok, the Hobgoblins can grab the Ideal and stuff and go someplace else* to build it, were they will not be killing and enslaving people, stealing their lands, and destroying their achievments. That someplace else could be the Mountains they came from, for example.

*(no, not *that* (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0226.html) Someplace Else)

[Saint-Just]

An unnamed city, somewhere in the mountains, that no one knows about, that we have no clue what the living conditions are, when civilizations based in mountains aren't exactly known for their successes, given that most working civilizations have a similar need of access to certain things to thrive. what actual improvement is it over

The town of twelve years ago under the GSL-1 as opposed to GSL-2?


Its not convincing to me. If this city was important to anything wouldn't we have more details on it to show what life is like there to clear this up? I don't think it proves anything. Quantity of life is not quality of life. it is OOTs canon that hobgoblins reproduce faster and more numerously that humans and living beings tend to reproduce more in BAD conditions than in good ones as ensuring as many progeny can potentially survive to offset the ones that are inevitably going to die. while life more well off can afford to reproduce LESS because their offspring is safer and thus can afford to spend more time on the quality of their child being raised.

You don't get to assume that they were unimportant, unknown to anyone etc. That it not shown. Nor "bad conditions" are the only possible cause of disparate population growth. All in all it sounds like you are presenting possible explanations and then demanding to be proven otherwise without showing that your explanations are probable.

Also about "civilizations based in mountains aren't exactly known for their successes" - what about Incas? What about Tibetans? Again, you may have a weak correlation on your side (not actually possible to calculate because criteria for "successful civilization" would be impossible to define), but even if it exists you go and treat it as if it proves your point instead of vaguely pointing in it's general direction.


Wrong.
I said Gobbotopia, as in a goblin nation-state recognized by the stickworld's international community, was necessary, not that it be founded by violence. You are blatantly trying to move the golaposts here.



If I understand Fyralti's position right, that doesn't actually satisfy his conditions. Gobbotopia didn't *have* to be established in the ruins of Azure City. Hell, it didn't have to be established in any ruins at all: if Redcloak found that fortress of Hobgoblins and decided to develop it from a military base to a full-on city, we'd have both a Gobbotopia and Azure City, without any need for bloodshed.

The point is, the goblins having a city-state (and the political power it came with) might be needed for peaceful coexistence. Destriying Azure City is not.

There is no Gobbotopia other than one that exists. If you wanted to say "they needed to have a political recognition etc." you didn't need to say "Gobbotopia". There is very good reason to assume that words mean what they mean in history (or in the story) otherwise you are demanding that everything else should conform to your definition of the word, and that results in placing asymmetrical burden on your opponents during the discussion.




HtPghS did not demonstrate that hobgoblins and humans lived in peace before Redcloak came along, it demonstrated that a prt of the Azurite military (which the sapphire Guard is, secret society or not) could indiscriminately slaughter them without it raising much of a fuss until a random captain got involved. The Azurites decided by themselves to stop harassing the hobgoblins for a while and the new Supreme Leader assassinated his prdecessor and the resident warhawks because he felt that launching an attack on the Azurites would be too destructive to the hobgoblins. IF that's not peace, that's a cold war at best. It also shows that both the previous Supreme leader and the general considered war with the humans an inevitability.


Hm, let me ask you: once incursion have been launched by the Sapphire Guard, what exactly could happen in the story that wouldn't satisfy you as peace? Goblins defeating the incursion would mean that it's a cold war because they were only stopped by the force of arms, Azurites (random Captain? How about the heir to the throne - which should translate in significantly more power and responsibilities than nowadays or even in the 19th century - specifically investigating the case?) stopping the rogue commander (yes, the system was not set up to prevent that kind of behaviour, but neither did it demanded it) and killing him means it's a cold war because they were only decided to stop because they wanted to. The peace treaty is the peace treaty, someone saying that something is inevitable is incredibly weak evidence for that.

The rest of the post talks about a few things which in sum point in the direction of existing anti-"monster" prejudice, because while only the elven commando cannot be explained away by itself, other arguments are unlikely to be all wrong at the same time. We also for all intents in purposes know it from the Giant's mouth (while pointing out bias in the IRL idea of "savage species" can be done without it actually existing in the fictional universe, OotS doesn't seem to be going that way).



No, it's not. It's a nation-state with a flag, an hymn and international standing.

They could make a flag and a hymn where they were. Lack of international standing beyond the Azure City is not stated one way or the other; international recognition by Azurites existed. Note that seventeen nations recognized "our borders" specifically including the environs of the Azure City. There is no information available on international standing with other nations before that, nor what attempts were made on establishing the relations; and no, lack of recognition when attempt is made doesn't necessarily imply hostility in the pre-modern world (fantasy may or may not map precisely to the historical reality, but it definitely doesn't map to the modern reality), and recognition of borders is even less of an interest to someone far away than recognition of state as such unless they are given access to the vast wealth, trade routes, products of slave labour etc that Hobgoblins didn't have before.


I don't give a single **** about who started it and neither should anybody. What happened centuries ago is not more important than what is happening today. If the goal is to stop the violence, the question of who started the cycle of violence isn't nearly as important as how to stop it.

There was no violence between the Hobgoblin tribes and Azure City when Xykon came a-knocking. Or is it alright to start the violence but then the sceond party needs to stop it as soon as posssible?


Exactly. Let's instead talk how about the i njsut treatment of the goblinoids by the PC races with the tacit approval of at least some of the gods needs to stop and how a nation-state such as Gobbotopia, recognized by the PC races' own nation-states is an imporant part of this process.

EDIT: To clarify my position, the history of a conflict is important, but only in the ways that relate to the present states of the conflict. ho threw the first stone or who killed the most people isn't as important as who is suffering right now, how and how it can be stopped.

In the first part you seem to declare that we shouldn't look for individual states and persons and look for the races instead. Contentious position, but I'd want to know more if not for the fact that in the first post on this very page you were talking about history of violence between the Azure City-state and Hobgoblin tribes.

For the second part if we look for who is suffering right now then yes, among the people who we have seen Azurites are suffering significantly more on both per-capita basis and in absolute amount than Gobbotopians. And if we again look for races and grant it for the sake of argument than goblinoids (or should it be monster races in general?) are suffering more on per-capita basis than the PC races (or humans? Or weighted avearge of humans, half-elves and half-orcs suffering with weights of 90:5:5?) with aggregate suffering being meaningless because people who are more numerous are not directly disadvantaged because other people are less numerous (unlike the examples of Azurites and Gobbotopians) then how Gobbotopia is achieving it better than non-conquering non-slaveholding state of goblins?



No I have not. Stating that the continued existence of Gobbotopia is a better thing than its destruction is not the same as justifying the manner in which it was founded, no matter how much you want it to.


Depend on what you mean by "destruction". Would you call e.g. presenting them with absolutely overwhelming force and giving option to retreat to their previous borders as destruction? Do you object to killing or do you object to depriving them of Azurite land and wealth?

I do think that such situation is unlikely to come and you've seen my position on the "best way forward" but knowing what should be done gives a direction in which to go and then how closely you can go can then depend on the exact situation.



Because you keep claiming I say something I haven't.



Gobbotopia is the first goblinoid settlement to have standind amongst the other nations


As for why Gobbotopia is a necessity, it's because the goblins and humans have been at this for time immemorial and Gobbotopia is apparently the first time goblins have managed to get humans to treat with them diplomatically


Gobbotopia is a necessity



I guess all the goblins murdered by thr Sapphire Guard under Gin-Jun and his predecessors don't count, then?

Nice. "What happened centuries ago is not more important than what is happening today" but what happened twelve years ago is.Also the history of a conflict is important, but only in the ways that relate to the present states of the conflict (no, dispossessed Azurrites are not a part of the present state).



The Azurites hadn't recognized squat, they didn't even know it was there until the SG found it.

And they recognized it afterwards, so your words, at least taken literally contradict the book.



That's true. It's possible that if he had worked on it he could have turned that one peaceful community into a city-state and so founded an alternate Gobbotopia on an healthier base. But the fact that Redcloak is an evil, kinslaying, racist, specist, hypocritical, murderous zealot, constantly teetering on the verge of insanity who has done terrible damage to his own cause because he cares more about assuaging his own guilt than the lives of the people who follow him does not retract from the fact that for the conflict to end, the PC races must regard the "monster" races as equals and partners with their own territory where they would be safe from external aggression and so far, Gobbotopia is on ots way to achieve that.

That might be true, but then the PC races need to realize that their behaviour is fueling the goblinoids' hatred of them. And that they cannot expect the goblinoids not to fight them if they don't stop attacking them. There are only two ways to end a conflict: peace of utter extermination of one side. The injsutice may have started as a myth but it is now very real and it needs to stop. As the currently most powerful side of the conflict, the onus is on them to de-escalate it.

Hm, so making progress on the front of the "monster" equality if not justifies breaking the peace, taking the land, enslaving people (and no, releasing the slaves doesn't quite settles the case), then at least should provide immunity to the perpetrators, who are, while guilty, is doing more important job.



But I don't buy that it's 100% fabricated. Nobody has refuted the claims made in that crayon narrative. Thor's only reference was that TDO's followers had killed lots of Thor's followers -- which fits the narrative. Redcloak says the goblinoids were created as XP fodder and Durkon doesn't debate him on that point: in fact, he sympathizes with the idea, having just learned of Hel's plot himself. Right-Eye never once questions the narrative Redcloak tells, only Redcloak's methods for fixing the problem. Every narrative opportunity to refute Redcloak's version of events has passed by without a refutation.

I just don't think the story is building up to "Redcloak and TDO are lying about everything". It's likely, though, that the story is building up to "Redcloak and TDO, while not lying about the problem, are making things much worse with their attempted solution" or something similar.

Goblins starting disadvantaged and gods having no particular callousness toward them is not mutually exclusive. One motif, present in IRL myths is randomly distributing traits/lands/resources. So they may actually got the short end of the stick and yet was not designed s fodder.

Agree on the last paragraph.


Emphasis mine. Such as Gobbotopia. Fyraltari is saying it's necessary for goblinoids to have an established political territory. Fyraltari did not say it's necessary for that territory to replace Azure City. It's a significant distinction.



I agree. Fyraltari is arguing that something like Gobbotopia is necessary for lasting peace between the races, not that Gobbotopia had to be built on the corpse of Azure City.


Seems like Fyraltari thinks it's irrelevant. It doesn't had to be built but it is and for Azurites should de-escalate if they don't want to go down in history as opposers to equality. And says that "Azurites recongized **** squat".



I'd characterize it as more indifference or ignorance than peace. The Azurites didn't seem to know about the fortress, and probably wouldn't until soneone decides to attack (i.e Redcloak).

I haven't read HtPGHS but unless you tell me how the wiki summation is wrong I present that they knew and made peace treaty with them (Raid immediately before is initiated by the Sapphire Guard, seems like there were goblin raids before that).

[The Pilgrim]

Also about "civilizations based in mountains aren't exactly known for their successes" - what about Incas? What about Tibetans?

What about dwarves (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1044.html)?

Dwarven Lands are pure mountains and glaciers.

[Ionathus]

If you say that the Hobgoblins weren't getting the recognition they needed in the Mountains, but they are getting it now, then you are saying that razing Azure City was necessary.

I know that you don't mean to say that, but that's the logical conclusion of that line of reasoning.

No, I am not. That is not the logical conclusion of that line of reasoning.

My point: The hobgoblins weren't getting the recognition they needed in the mountains.
My point: They are getting it now that they aren't in the mountains.
Not my point: The only non-Mountain spot possible was Azure City.


I think this part is really important. Thor plotted Durkon's death just so he could talk about the Snarl, and broke the gag rule for Minrah at the slightest excuse. If Thor knew that TDO had a legitimate grievance, he would have done everything he could to let Durkon know about it, dumb god rule or no. Instead he suggests TDO is just another evil god, and that he thinks TDO is mad just because of his aggression when TDO ascended.

Point of fact: he said he "just saw another evil god". Implying he regrets dismissing TDO as "just another evil god."

I agree, I wish he'd said something about it, one way or another. Jason made a good point about that as well.


Goblins starting disadvantaged and gods having no particular callousness toward them is not mutually exclusive. One motif, present in IRL myths is randomly distributing traits/lands/resources. So they may actually got the short end of the stick and yet was not designed s fodder.

Agree on the last paragraph.

I can totally see that -- it's possible (and even common) for a disenfranchised group to experience hardship through a lack of support, rather than explicit sabotage or callousness. It's possible the gods just didn't consider the distribution...or that the PC races were their more favored creations, but they didn't actually set out to sabotage or brutalize the monstrous races.

[The Pilgrim]

No, I am not. That is not the logical conclusion of that line of reasoning.

My point: The hobgoblins weren't getting the recognition they needed in the mountains.
My point: They are getting it now that they aren't in the mountains.
Not my point: The only non-Mountain spot possible was Azure City.

Thank you for the clarification.

Now...

Weren't the hobgoblins getting the recognition they needed in the mountains? They were at peace, the azurites were not attacking them.

Are they getting now the recognition they deserve? I think most of the "recognition" was for the Lich and for Redcloak, not the Hobgoblins. And those two are gone.

Did the Hobgoblins really need more land? There has been no hint in the comic that the Hobgoblins suffered from lack of resources or overpopulation. In fact, azurite border defenses were rather relaxed becase of lack on incidents with the hobgoblins for the last 12 years. It doesn't looks like there was any hobgoblin demographic pressure over the border.

Is there a possible outcome where the Hobgoblins get land someplace else and the Azurites recover their lands? Maybe, if The Giant wants it.

[Jason]

Did the Hobgoblins really need more land? There has been no hint in the comic that the Hobgoblins suffered from lack of resources or overpopulation. In fact, azurite border defenses were rather relaxed becase of lack on incidents with the hobgoblins for the last 12 years. It doesn't looks like there was any hobgoblin demographic pressure over the border.
This is a valid point. HtPGHS reveals that Azure City and Shinjo knew very well that there was a large and growing hobgoblin city in the mountains and apparently did nothing to prepare for possible war with them for 12 years. It sounds rather like they were expecting the hobgoblin to keep their peace treaty.

[Dion]

Are they getting now the recognition they deserve?

This word - deserve - is alien to me. What does it mean to get something you deserve?

So many crazy assumptions and prejudices are wrapped up tightly in that word “deserve”. I never have the slightest clue what ideas people hope they’re communicating when they use it.

[Saint-Just]

My point: The hobgoblins weren't getting the recognition they needed in the mountains.
My point: They are getting it now that they aren't in the mountains.
Not my point: The only non-Mountain spot possible was Azure City.


I am afraid I am going on the tangent, but there remains a distinct possibility that the Azure City lands (if not the city itself) was the only available non-mountainous territory here. It is not really necessary for the main discussion but I would like to tell your ideas what to do in such least convenient possible situation.

In general I do believe that actual situation is likely close enough; other nations are interesting in interacting with hobgoblins because they now hold significantly greater wealth, lands, trade routes + they have made a display of military might. They wouldn't be able to get the current degree of interaction with other governments unless they have deprived someone of something, even though I also do not see how it is possible to deny that hey were recognized by the Azure City, and any lack of interest on the part of others may be also driven by the self-interest, not the desire to screw the goblins (though that is a conjecture).


This is a valid point. HtPGHS reveals that Azure City and Shinjo knew very well that there was a large and growing hobgoblin city in the mountains and apparently did nothing to prepare for possible war with them for 12 years. It sounds rather like they were expecting the hobgoblin to keep their peace treaty.

That is also too far: they had border forts with long-range warning system. #368 and the following comics. They did not expected to be another war, thay did not had huge army, nor they maintained a constant readiness state, yet they were making reasonable precautions expected of practically any country during the most of human history. Early warning system was bypassed by Xykon (I am not sure that even RC by himself could do that) and without undead in huge numbers, elemental borbardment and Xykon himself I think that even if early warning system was somehow disabled (spies/assassins?) 30000 Hobgoblins could have razed the countryside but would not be able to take the Azure City and allies would react before the population could be starved into submission.

[quinron]

Gobbotopia is built over the corpse of Azure City. That's the sole Gobbotopia that exists (in-comic).

As long as they defend the argument that it's necessary that Gobbotopia keeps existing, they will be defending that the destruction of Azure City was a necessity. Because the sole Gobbotopia that exists is the one built over the land and the suffering of the azurite people.

If they meant that the Hobgoblins need the ideal of Gobbotopia and all that, then ok, the Hobgoblins can grab the Ideal and stuff and go someplace else* to build it, were they will not be killing and enslaving people, stealing their lands, and destroying their achievments. That someplace else could be the Mountains they came from, for example.

*(no, not *that* (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0226.html) Someplace Else)

I've largely stopped participating in this, but I'd like you to examine your previous statement compared to this one:


No, they don't count, because they belong to a conflict that was sucessfully settled by both parties 12 years ago.

So the Hobgoblin don't get to use those as justification for their war of agression, as much as azurites wouldn't have got either to use the human villagers murdered by Hobgbolins 12 years ago as justification for breaking the Peace.

Just because Gin-Jun's crusades were stopped and there wasn't an outright war doesn't mean that human adventurers/soldiers in the South stopped raiding goblinoid settlements, killing goblinoid people, stealing goblinoid land, and destroying goblinoid achievements. And just because the goblins have declared themselves an autonomous, sovereign state doesn't mean they aren't exploiting human slaves.

But if the change in leadership 12 years ago constitutes "settling" that conflict, then the hobgoblin army's successful capture and continuing occupation of the territory of former Azure City constitutes "settling" the dispute over who owns this land. The Azurites don't get to use the hobgoblins' aggressive expansionism as an excuse to wipe out Gobbotopia; any further conquest will be just another war of territorial conquest like the one that got the goblins into the city in the first place.

[Saint-Just]

But if the change in leadership 12 years ago constitutes "settling" that conflict, then the hobgoblin army's successful capture and continuing occupation of the territory of former Azure City constitutes "settling" the dispute over who owns this land. The Azurites don't get to use the hobgoblins' aggressive expansionism as an excuse to wipe out Gobbotopia; any further conquest will be just another war of territorial conquest like the one that got the goblins into the city in the first place.

Wait, what? Conflict was settled by the mutual agreement. It's that simple. You can go to elaborate how the Azurites executed the man directly responsible and who was taking his actions without sanction from his superior but in general I think that peace treaty is sufficient (and lest you go this way it was not an effective "surrender" of Hobgoblins like some peace treaties IRL).

But then you go to the extremes of illogic. You first refuse to recognize a peace treaty as a resolution and then say that if peace treaty is a resolution (which you don't recognize) then occupation is a resolution and attempts to reclaim the land is a territorial aggression.

IRL there is no Universal Law, it all based on agreements. But if you recognize some Universal Law would you please state why Hobgoblins marching on the Azure City after 12 years of peace do not break that Law but Azure Islands (or whatever you want to call them) marching on Gobbotopia would?

[quinron]

[edited & self-scrubbed]

I had a response, but I've decided I'd rather not be involved in this argument anymore.

[Saint-Just]

I'm not arguing that at all. I am in fact arguing that if there is a Universal Law regarding the sovereign control of territory, then the hobgoblins broke that law by attacking Azure City. But I'm also saying that any Azurite re-conquest of Gobbotopia would be just as much in violation of that law, regardless of whether we were to see reforms in Gobbotopia.

As Fyraltari and others have been arguing: Gobbotopia clearly isn't a pure and virtuous civilization, but neither was Azure City; it's simply a civilization. If the Azurites were to re-conquer the territory, then fine. But they wouldn't be righteously justified in doing so any more than the goblinoids were righteously justified in conquering the territory in recompense for the crusades carried out by the Sapphire Guard. I'm pushing back against The Pilgrim's assertion that the peace treaty being created means the crusades were no longer a valid grievance.

If the Azurites want to invade or sue to free their people, great. I'm all for that. But that doesn't mean they automatically get the land back.

It seems that I misinterpreted your statement then.

Still your ideas are not easy to parse. I can think of at least three possible interpretations: question of guilt and justification is meaningless, everybody does what they do OR extreme pacifism - everybody who engages in war for any reason is guilty OR some weird universal law when defending your land is fine but if fighting stops for some unspecified period of time then everyone gets the right to keep what they hold and not their pre-existing borders. Please can you elaborate on what is closer to your actual opinion and what is your attempt to demonstrate wired conclusions following in your opinion from The Pilgrim's premises.

Additional note: "crusades" (armed forces sent into territory not inhabited by your people and inhabited by the other side which engage in violence there) are not the Sapphire's Guard preserve, Hobgoblins were just calling them "raids".

Edit: or maybe I didn't and there is actually no underlying system, and there is just a desire to say that situation is somehow symmetrical while avoiding explaining how exactly.

[brian 333]

The assertion that the 'monster races' were given a raw deal at creation is used as a weird kind of justification for their current hostility. But the fact is that even if they had been given garden paradises, (like the island orcs, for example,) they would long since have lost them.

Why? Because they are usually Evil. This means they are usually untrustworthy, and civilizations are built on trust. You don't trade with someone likely to steal your wares, you don't work for someone likely to cheat you of your pay, and you don't produce surplus if it will most likely be taken from you by threat of force.

Because they are usually Evil, they will not cooperate in groups larger than the local strong man can control, which means the greatest danger to a monster race village is raids by other monsters.

Because they are usually evil they will tend to prey on the weaker monster groups, thus weakening their overall population even if a more successeul subset of the population prospers.

The 'Good Races' have advantages which breed success.

Because they are usually good, they tend to honor trade, or at least they don't raid them and take their stuff. The same goes for the surplus generated by farmers and craftsmen. This surplus allows better armed and fed defenders, and fosters the expansion of knowledge which leads to greater efficiency and greater surplus.

Because they are usually good they will generally cooperate, which will usually include cooperation with other Good races. If famine or foe should afflict your group, the other Good groups will help. Perhaps they won't help as much as you want, but at least they won't be plotting how best to take advantage of your temporary weakness.

Because the Evil races will tend to be predatory, the Good races will tend to band together againrt them, and as they grow weaker from constant predation against their monster kin, the Good races will grow stronger. Eventually, having grown tired of the constant predation, the Good races will drive them into places the Good races can't reach.

So, while I have no evidence that the monster races were not intentionally marginalized by the gods, it really would not matter. By this point in the Stickverse history they would have marginalized themselves. There are consequences for being Evil which cannot be mitigated by demands for political recognition.

That's why I say TDO is laughing his head off about Gobbotopia. So long as it exists there will be war, and it's a war that ultimately the hobgoblins can't win.

Unless they stop being Evil.

[Ironsmith]

The assertion that the 'monster races' were given a raw deal at creation is used as a weird kind of justification for their current hostility. But the fact is that even if they had been given garden paradises, (like the island orcs, for example,) they would long since have lost them.

Why? Because they are usually Evil. This means they are usually untrustworthy, and civilizations are built on trust. You don't trade with someone likely to steal your wares, you don't work for someone likely to cheat you of your pay, and you don't produce surplus if it will most likely be taken from you by threat of force.

Because they are usually Evil, they will not cooperate in groups larger than the local strong man can control, which means the greatest danger to a monster race village is raids by other monsters.

Because they are usually evil they will tend to prey on the weaker monster groups, thus weakening their overall population even if a more successeul subset of the population prospers.

The 'Good Races' have advantages which breed success.

Because they are usually good, they tend to honor trade, or at least they don't raid them and take their stuff. The same goes for the surplus generated by farmers and craftsmen. This surplus allows better armed and fed defenders, and fosters the expansion of knowledge which leads to greater efficiency and greater surplus.

Because they are usually good they will generally cooperate, which will usually include cooperation with other Good races. If famine or foe should afflict your group, the other Good groups will help. Perhaps they won't help as much as you want, but at least they won't be plotting how best to take advantage of your temporary weakness.

Because the Evil races will tend to be predatory, the Good races will tend to band together againrt them, and as they grow weaker from constant predation against their monster kin, the Good races will grow stronger. Eventually, having grown tired of the constant predation, the Good races will drive them into places the Good races can't reach.

So, while I have no evidence that the monster races were not intentionally marginalized by the gods, it really would not matter. By this point in the Stickverse history they would have marginalized themselves. There are consequences for being Evil which cannot be mitigated by demands for political recognition.

That's why I say TDO is laughing his head off about Gobbotopia. So long as it exists there will be war, and it's a war that ultimately the hobgoblins can't win.

Unless they stop being Evil.

For your consideration: the Drow and the Duergar.

According to the lore, both of these races were more or less forced into Evil by an external force; Lolth for the Drow, Laduguar for the Duergar. Physically and neurologically, they're more or less identical to their Good/Neutral counterparts. If the same holds true in this setting for goblins (and other Evil races), then in a sense, the gods did screw them over... in the sense that the Evil gods responsible for guiding them gave them a bad blueprint for society.

(Suddenly, Giggles just got a lot more frightening.)

[Keltest]

For your consideration: the Drow and the Duergar.

According to the lore, both of these races were more or less forced into Evil by an external force; Lolth for the Drow, Laduguar for the Duergar. Physically and neurologically, they're more or less identical to their Good/Neutral counterparts. If the same holds true in this setting for goblins (and other Evil races), then in a sense, the gods did screw them over... in the sense that the Evil gods responsible for guiding them gave them a bad blueprint for society.

(Suddenly, Giggles just got a lot more frightening.)

I mean, Lolth screwing over the Drow for her own amusement is more or less canon in regular D&D.

[Lord Raziere]

Unless they stop being Evil.

I mean your basically making an assumption that "successful evil civilizations can't exist, that'd be bad!" and asserting that "its good therefore it must be a successful civilization!".

and I think those an incredibly flawed assumptions. Humans aren't inherently good and nor are their nations in Stickverse, and we have examples of evil versions of all the "good" races existing. furthermore successful civilizations are often built upon tearing down and destroying less successful ones. goodness is in no way a requirement for a successful society, only Lawfulness. Examples of this include the Realm of the Dragon and the Empire of Blood.

[Keltest]

I mean your basically making an assumption that "successful evil civilizations can't exist, that'd be bad!" and asserting that "its good therefore it must be a successful civilization!".

and I think those an incredibly flawed assumptions. Humans aren't inherently good and nor are their nations in Stickverse, and we have examples of evil versions of all the "good" races existing. furthermore successful civilizations are often built upon tearing down and destroying less successful ones. goodness is in no way a requirement for a successful society, only Lawfulness.

I would argue that evil is fundamentally self destructive. An evil society is inherently going to collapse because it is definitionally made up of people who say "i want yours!" and are willing to act on it. You might come up with a strongman who can hold things together for a generation, but as soon as he's gone, either because he got old or because somebody else didnt like him, then things just fall apart. You dont necessarily have to be good to have a society, but you cant be evil.

Honestly, this is something of a tautology, because a lot of the things we consider to be evil are things that destabilize society in some form, which is why we consider them evil.

[Lord Raziere]

I would argue that evil is fundamentally self destructive. An evil society is inherently going to collapse because it is definitionally made up of people who say "i want yours!" and are willing to act on it. You might come up with a strongman who can hold things together for a generation, but as soon as he's gone, either because he got old or because somebody else didnt like him, then things just fall apart. You dont necessarily have to be good to have a society, but you cant be evil.

Honestly, this is something of a tautology, because a lot of the things we consider to be evil are things that destabilize society in some form, which is why we consider them evil.

Sounds more CHAOTIC EVIL than just Evil. Lawful Evil thrives in society all the time, and so does Neutral Evil.

Evil is not fundamentally self-destructive. If it was, it'd be destroyed. self-destructive things tend not to exist long, nor be very competent at surviving long enough to keep fighting against something that isn't self destructive. DnD Evil is still around, and has ways of continuing to exist, therefore not self-destructive.

Edit: going deeper, various Evil gods have been living through this just as much as good gods have, and despite numerous eons have never attempted some self-destructive plan to hijack the Snarl for greater power and gotten killed for it. if the self destructiveness was true, you'd think there would be more good gods around than evil ones.

also you can say Good has self destructive tendencies in its tendency towards martyrdom, numerous people sacrificing their lives to try and fight the hobgoblins at the battle of Azure City and none of it meaning a thing in the end as the city was taken over anyways. Roy and all those soldiers who stayed behind Evil for getting killed?

Heck, the Sapphire Guard pretty much played the usual "unknowingly leave an orphan alive to avenge the slaughtered village" trope to its hilt when they slaughtered Redcloak's village, with Redcloak fulfilling the usual role of a humble hero vowing revenge and successfully paying them back just from the perspective of the goblin. From that point of view, the Sapphire Guard knowing they live in a narrative trope-like universe, was completely self-destructive in that they allowed such a set up to happen, ensuring their own demise.

[RyuHimora]

I mean your basically making an assumption that "successful evil civilizations can't exist, that'd be bad!" and asserting that "its good therefore it must be a successful civilization!".

and I think those an incredibly flawed assumptions. Humans aren't inherently good and nor are their nations in Stickverse, and we have examples of evil versions of all the "good" races existing. furthermore successful civilizations are often built upon tearing down and destroying less successful ones. goodness is in no way a requirement for a successful society, only Lawfulness. Examples of this include the Realm of the Dragon and the Empire of Blood.

Isn't one of those examples explicitly held together by entirely one person pulling all of the strings possible to manipulate everyone he can and can't see into doing exactly what's required to keep said evil society together?

[Ironsmith]

Sounds more CHAOTIC EVIL than just Evil. Lawful Evil thrives in society all the time, and so does Neutral Evil.

Evil is not fundamentally self-destructive. If it was, it'd be destroyed. self-destructive things tend not to exist long, nor be very competent at surviving long enough to keep fighting against something that isn't self destructive. DnD Evil is still around, and has ways of continuing to exist, therefore not self-destructive.

Not really. It just has to propagate faster than it's destroyed; very feasible, if Evil individuals turn several others toward Evil before eventually undoing themselves.

That aside, the chief distinction of Evil creatures is that it's relentlessly self-serving, without regard for the welfare of other creatures. That sort of behavior is foolhardy for any creature that's not self-sustaining; anything that relies on something else to stay alive would be stupid to not ensure that something's continued existence. Consider also that Evil creatures would happily slaughter each other if it would benefit them, and the end result is that none but the strongest Evils are "self-sustaining" (and possibly not even them, since they can be ganged up on).

[Lord Raziere]

Isn't one of those examples explicitly held together by entirely one person pulling all of the strings possible to manipulate everyone he can and can't see into doing exactly what's required to keep said evil society together?

I think your overestimating the amount of control he has, especially since he explicitly has 5 other people to help him do that for starters, as well as all the other people in that society.


Not really. It just has to propagate faster than it's destroyed; very feasible, if Evil individuals turn several others toward Evil before eventually undoing themselves.

That aside, the chief distinction of Evil creatures is that it's relentlessly self-serving, without regard for the welfare of other creatures. That sort of behavior is foolhardy for any creature that's not self-sustaining; anything that relies on something else to stay alive would be stupid to not ensure that something's continued existence. Consider also that Evil creatures would happily slaughter each other if it would benefit them, and the end result is that none but the strongest Evils are "self-sustaining" (and possibly not even them, since they can be ganged up on).

So....not self-destructive then. because it propagates faster than its destroyed. thats still a net gain for creating evil there. if we regard all such sacrifices for a greater number of beings/cause, good is self-destructive as well. But intentionally, since they make self-sacrifice an explicit ideal.

[Ironsmith]

So....not self-destructive then. because it propagates faster than its destroyed. thats still a net gain for creating evil there. if we regard all such sacrifices for a greater number of beings/cause, good is self-destructive as well. But intentionally, since they make self-sacrifice an explicit ideal.

As is Neutral, for engaging in both behaviors alternatively. The big distinction, then, would be Good's tendency toward mutual bolstering; a behavior for which an Evil mindset is not well suited.

[Lord Raziere]

As is Neutral, for engaging in both behaviors alternatively. The big distinction, then, would be Good's tendency toward mutual bolstering; a behavior for which an Evil mindset is not well suited.

If that mindset is as cartoonish as a sith lord maybe.

for everyone smarter than that, there is servants and minions of various kinds.

also I cannot help but feel as if such "evil is self destructive" trope is partly a product of people watching various things where people wrote evil to be self-destructive for who knows how long and thus people assume it is just because everyone keeps saying so. just because stories are written to be karmically satisfying doesn't mean the karmic satisfaction is true.

[Ionathus]

Why? Because they are usually Evil. This means they are usually untrustworthy

Because they are usually Evil, they will not cooperate in groups larger than the local strong man can control

Because they are usually evil they will tend to prey on the weaker monster groups

Because they are usually good, they tend to honor trade

Because they are usually good they will generally cooperate

Because the Evil races will tend to be predatory

[CITATION NEEDED]

Evil as D&D understands it does not ONLY exist as Chaotic Evil sadist robots. There are schemers. There are charismatic warlords. There are religious fanatics. Hell, there are regular, unambitious civilians who will let someone else die when the chips are down.

Evil characters are capable of complex thought, delayed gratification, and higher-order planning. They are capable of participating in society.

Just because this hobby is infamous for murderhoboing does not mean that well-written Evil people cannot function and prosper in a team, an organization, or an entire nation.

And don't even get me started on "Good societies are automatically more cooperative". Fiction is bloated with examples of Good Government dithering about, stuck in red tape and bickering, while Team Hero takes the world's destiny into their own hands.


It just has to propagate faster than it's destroyed

That's not really unique to Evil, given that "just propagate faster than you die" is the single core concept that motivates all biological activity.

[Lord Raziere]

And don't even get me started on "Good societies are automatically more cooperative". Fiction is bloated with examples of Good Government dithering about, stuck in red tape and bickering, while Team Hero takes the world's destiny into their own hands.


Yeah, some forms of good can take the form of argumentative freedom where people are more concerned about arguing over what is right than actually doing it. the reason this is good is because they are actually being open, honest in this discussion and intend to try and figure it out at some point, but aren't having much success, because not even good people can agree on what the goodest thing to do and you can't always take a third option or do multiple things.

and how many times in fiction do you see a hero having to unite a bunch of bickering but good factions against a united evil in fiction? a lot. Its practically the go-to stock plot for saying diversity is a good thing because it also acknowledges the downside of having it and thus when creates a natural logical obstacle to overcome so that when they finally do all cooperate then they can show the benefits of such cooperation in contrast to earlier failure, and it feels like the protagonist earned it and not just because they fought the evil coming to kill them all.

[brian 333]

First: I don't need to cite an authority to support a thought. I am fully capable of thinking for myself, and the fact that someone more famous than me had a similar thought in no way increases the value of the thought. Reliance upon authority is quite simply mental laziness.
Source: Robert A. Heinlein. A man should be able to change a diaper, ckean a fish, write a book, etc.

Next: in every example given of Evil prospering, what has been ignored is that Evil was living a parasitic existence on the backs of non-evil. When there is only Evil you end up with a Highlander scenario in which, in the end, there can omly be one.

[Jason]

Evil is not a biological organism that "wins" if it reproduces. Evil is a descriptor of flawed ideas and methods that have certain immoral characteristics in common: among them selfishness, a lack of empathy, a willingness to harm others to achieve goals, hate, fear, and pride. It is rightly described as self-destructive because it is addictive and harmful to the person using evil methods. It is also flawed in the sense that it cannot achieve its promised goals: lasting happiness cannot be gained through callous disregard of others.

[Lord Raziere]

First: I don't need to cite an authority to support a thought. I am fully capable of thinking for myself, and the fact that someone more famous than me had a similar thought in no way increases the value of the thought. Reliance upon authority is quite simply mental laziness.
Source: Robert A. Heinlein. A man should be able to change a diaper, clean a fish, write a book, etc.

You contradicted yourself immediately by acknowledging that as a quote.


Next: in every example given of Evil prospering, what has been ignored is that Evil was living a parasitic existence on the backs of non-evil. When there is only Evil you end up with a Highlander scenario in which, in the end, there can only be one.

again, can we stop with the sith lord logic here? Not all Evil twirls their mustache and kicks every puppy walking down the street.

But really your logic about evil reminds me of a speech from...


Miko: I have a question. I am not a paladin yet, so I cannot call upon the blessed power of the Twelve Gods to determine which hobgolbins are evil. How shall I know which are fair to attack?
Gin-Jun: An excellent question, and I am glad you are giving these concerns the weight they deserve. It is important to remember simply that hobgoblins are usually evil, and even those that may not be so 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.
Miko: Thank you, Master. You are wise, and I will do my best to follow your example.

It is quite telling that this logic is probably what helped contribute to Miko Miyazaki being the incredibly bad paladin she got to be.

This whole "Good prospers, Evil doesn't" reasoning is just that logic but applied to civilizations to make any successful civilization inherently good, because if its powerful and prosperous, it can't possibly have done anything wrong, could it? While any civilization that isn't successful clearly deserved it, going by this reasoning. Therefore it is a Just World Fallacy. Just because good people do good things, doesn't mean they get rewarded with success for it and just because evil do evil things doesn't mean they get punished for it.


Furthermore, Evil people are completely capable of forming "in groups" and being complete hypocrites where they treat anyone in the "in group" as a person and and on the "outside" as not a person. Then making that in group the elite of that society. mostly because raging hypocrisy is kind of what evil is all about. Evil is completely capable of extending their parasitic mindset beyond one person without collapsing into a murderous cabal of paranoid lunatics with chronic backstabbing disorder.

[Emanick]

You contradicted yourself immediately by acknowledging that as a quote.

I'd assumed that was conscious irony; I don't know how anyone can say "I don't need to rely on citations in order to make a point" and then unironically follow that up with a citation.

There's oodles of other points being made that I'd love to address, but I don't really have the time to give this discussion the attention it deserves, so I'll leave it at that.

[Ironsmith]

Furthermore, Evil people are completely capable of forming "in groups" and being complete hypocrites where they treat anyone in the "in group" as a person and and on the "outside" as not a person. Then making that in group the elite of that society. mostly because raging hypocrisy is kind of what evil is all about. Evil is completely capable of extending their parasitic mindset beyond one person without collapsing into a murderous cabal of paranoid lunatics with chronic backstabbing disorder.

And being marginally more effective in the process, but still self-destructive.

As an example, take Tarquin. Sure, he can cooperate with other Evil people to run an empire, but he still does so in a way that is self-destructive. Putting aside his attempts at engineering his son to be the Hero to his Villain, his indulgences into dog-kicking territory result in people who hate him and have the will and means to destroy his empire(s). Had he just manipulated the continent into three unified empires, he'd probably be fine (such an action is morally ambiguous, but concievably possible to do "right").

(And no, I'm not talking about the Order. I'm talking about the resistance faction we watched form as the Order left the EoB.)

[Keltest]

And being marginally more effective in the process, but still self-destructive.

As an example, take Tarquin. Sure, he can cooperate with other Evil people to run an empire, but he still does so in a way that is self-destructive. Putting aside his attempts at engineering his son to be the Hero to his Villain, his indulgences into dog-kicking territory result in people who hate him and have the will and means to destroy his empire(s). Had he just manipulated the continent into three unified empires, he'd probably be fine (such an action is morally ambiguous, but concievably possible to do "right").

(And no, I'm not talking about the Order. I'm talking about the resistance faction we watched form as the Order left the EoB.)

Dont forget all the other petty warlords who banded together to dethrone him when he tried it on his own.

[Dion]

The assertion that the 'monster races' were given a raw deal at creation is used as a weird kind of justification for their current hostility.

Justification? What an odd word. I have no idea what justification means in this context.

What does it mean to you when you say that someone used something for “justification”?

[RyuHimora]

This word - deserve - is alien to me. What does it mean to get something you deserve?

So many crazy assumptions and prejudices are wrapped up tightly in that word “deserve”. I never have the slightest clue what ideas people hope they’re communicating when they use it.


Justification? What an odd word. I have no idea what justification means in this context.

What does it mean to you when you say that someone used something for “justification”?

This attitude towards the current conversation is unhelpful at best and intentional derailing at worst.

Redcloak is doing what he is doing because he believes the goblinoid races deserve better than being xp fodder for the other races. He is using a perceived injustice (either being created by the gods specifically for this purpose, or the gods implicitly allowing this to happen, we aren't sure which is true or even if either are true) as his justification for his actions. That's all there is to read into it which is relevant to the conversation.

[Ionathus]

First: I don't need to cite an authority to support a thought. I am fully capable of thinking for myself, and the fact that someone more famous than me had a similar thought in no way increases the value of the thought. Reliance upon authority is quite simply mental laziness.
Source: Robert A. Heinlein. A man should be able to change a diaper, ckean a fish, write a book, etc.

Next: in every example given of Evil prospering, what has been ignored is that Evil was living a parasitic existence on the backs of non-evil. When there is only Evil you end up with a Highlander scenario in which, in the end, there can omly be one.

I was not literally saying you must cite a source for every thought you have. I was objecting to your blanket descriptions of evil as incapable of cooperating, collaborating, and prospering, and saying that's not a claim you can prove.


Evil is not a biological organism that "wins" if it reproduces. Evil is a descriptor of flawed ideas and methods that have certain immoral characteristics in common: among them selfishness, a lack of empathy, a willingness to harm others to achieve goals, hate, fear, and pride. It is rightly described as self-destructive because it is addictive and harmful to the person using evil methods. It is also flawed in the sense that it cannot achieve its promised goals: lasting happiness cannot be gained through callous disregard of others.

Emphasis mine: I'd argue that evil is perfectly capable of achieving its goals. Plenty of evil characters can and do live entirely happy and fulfilled lives. There is much to be gained through callous disregard of others -- as long as it's done carefully. Most of our fiction likes to give the villain their comeuppance, because that feels good and is narratively satisfying. But there are plenty of stories where the heroes don't defeat the villain, just survive them, and the villain goes on to live a happy and fulfilled life, despite being a heartless manipulative sadist.

I'm not saying that OotS is one of those stories: it's manifestly not, and I fully expect all the main villains to lose. But that doesn't mean Evil is always self-destructive. It can be, if the Evil character isn't self-aware enough to think through their self-serving actions. But then, the same is true for naive Good characters whose benevolence is taken advantage of. Are Evil characters more likely to be brought low by their own actions? Probably. But that's not exclusive to Evil, and shrewd Evil can do quite well for itself.

[Jason]

Emphasis mine: I'd argue that evil is perfectly capable of achieving its goals. Plenty of evil characters can and do live entirely happy and fulfilled lives. There is much to be gained through callous disregard of others -- as long as it's done carefully. Most of our fiction likes to give the villain their comeuppance, because that feels good and is narratively satisfying. But there are plenty of stories where the heroes don't defeat the villain, just survive them, and the villain goes on to live a happy and fulfilled life, despite being a heartless manipulative sadist.
We'll just have to agree to disagree there.
In my opinion such villains are never truly happy and fulfilled.
They can sometimes achieve their goals, but when they do they are usually the wrong goals - things that won't actually make them happy - or they have poisoned their goals with their methods to the point that they are no longer fulfilling.

I don't believe in a happy ending for evil, because I don't believe that's how it works in real life either. Our stories show that the villain never wins because in reality the villains never really win. To really win you have to be good.

Edit: So call me an idealist, I guess.

[Ionathus]

We'll just have to agree to disagree there.
In my opinion such villains are never truly happy and fulfilled.
They can sometimes achieve their goals, but when they do they are usually the wrong goals - things that won't actually make them happy - or they have poisoned their goals with their methods to the point that they are no longer fulfilling.

I don't believe in a happy ending for evil, because I don't believe that's how it works in real life either. Our stories show that the villain never wins because in reality the villains never really win. To really win you have to be good.

Edit: So call me an idealist, I guess.

I think we will. To me, the idea that Evil can still make you happy on some level is a compelling one - it means that Good has to be a choice made out of a moral conviction, rather than a self-serving one. If being Good was always the better choice for making yourself happy and achieving success, then does that mean Good characters choose Good out of a vested self-interest?

It's kind of like playing a "Good/Evil choice" video game like KotoR, Baldur's Gate, or even Bioshock's option to Harvest or Heal the little sisters. If the Good option always gives you better stuff (which it always seems to do), what story-based reason would there ever be for choosing the Evil option?

[brian 333]

Allow me to simplify:
Me first and I don't care about you is Neutral. Lions and wolves do this, and people can survive this way.

Evil is, me first and you are my toy to play with as I like. To be Evil one must have victims. If everyone is Evil, everyone is a victim. And when you run out of victims you turn on your allies who turn on you.

Evil can only thrive as a parasite on non-evil. When the host dies, so does the parasite.

[Jason]

I think we will. To me, the idea that Evil can still make you happy on some level is a compelling one - it means that Good has to be a choice made out of a moral conviction, rather than a self-serving one. If being Good was always the better choice for making yourself happy and achieving success, then does that mean Good characters choose Good out of a vested self-interest?Good people make good choices because they feel better about themselves when they do, because they know they are doing good to others as well as for themselves.
You may call it self-serving, but there's nothing wrong with a choice where everybody truly wins.


It's kind of like playing a "Good/Evil choice" video game like KotoR, Baldur's Gate, or even Bioshock's option to Harvest or Heal the little sisters. If the Good option always gives you better stuff (which it always seems to do), what story-based reason would there ever be for choosing the Evil option?The paradox of evil is that it is never a better option, yet people still choose it.

[hamishspence]

Evil can only thrive as a parasite on non-evil. When the host dies, so does the parasite.

The Western Continent would suggest otherwise. Constant turnover of evil nations - but those nations still exist - and new ones arise to replace the ones that fall.

It never gets to the point of "all evil nations implode and are destroyed, causing the extinction of evil on the continent."

[hroþila]

Evil doesn't pay (https://i.postimg.cc/5ysFVk1q/descarga.gif).

I've never said that!

Edit: okay, I think you're teasing me because I typed Gobbotopia instead of Azure City.
Noooo, I mean, I've said that 0 times, and you've said it 50000x as many times, so also 0. Ok ok I'll see myself out.

[Jason]

The Western Continent would suggest otherwise. Constant turnover of evil nations - but those nations still exist - and new ones arise to replace the ones that fall.

It never gets to the point of "all evil nations implode and are destroyed, causing the extinction of evil on the continent."

Just because a system has not completely failed yet does not mean that it is not on a self-destructive course.
Edit: And plenty of destruction and suffering is being caused by the evil system.

[Ionathus]

Good people make good choices because they feel better about themselves when they do, because they know they are doing good to others as well as for themselves.
You may call it self-serving, but there's nothing wrong with a choice where everybody truly wins.

The paradox of evil is that it is never a better option, yet people still choose it.

Touche. I do agree that Evil is a Zero-Sum game, whereas Good in cooperation can build greater than the sum of its parts.


Just because a system has not completely failed yet does not mean that it is not on a self-destructive course.
Edit: And plenty of destruction and suffering is being caused by the evil system.

Agreed, destruction and suffering are rampant within every evil society portrayed in OotS. That doesn't necessarily mean they're going to fail anytime soon. I still maintain that groups of Evil characters can cooperate and prosper together without automatically turning on each other at some point -- there's a reason most people think Dirk Dastardly Stops to Cheat (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DickDastardlyStopsToCheat) is such a silly convention. Tarquin's adventuring group, for instance, worked together for years despite all being some flavor of Evil. The fact that Malack was killed by Tarquin's badly-raised son several decades into that partnership doesn't take away from the fact that it was a successful partnership for several decades.

I referenced Baldur's Gate and KotoR for a reason: in those games, if you're playing an Evil character and have Evil party members, they'll rake you over the coals for doing ANY good act, even for self-serving reasons. An Evil person would have no reason to murder the beggar who approached them in a crowded city -- the murder would decrease their standing and reputation, and possibly result in either jail time or at least inconvenience. The game treats Evil as only Chaotic Evil, an insatiable bloodlust and desire to torment everyone in its path.

But the smooth-talking villain with great PR is still a villain, and they've learned to play very nicely with others to get where they are. Get enough of those together, and you can have a functioning society. Sure, there will be plenty of bribery and corruption, but the society will still function on all the important levels.

[Keltest]

The Western Continent would suggest otherwise. Constant turnover of evil nations - but those nations still exist - and new ones arise to replace the ones that fall.

It never gets to the point of "all evil nations implode and are destroyed, causing the extinction of evil on the continent."

I would hardly call anything on the Western Continent thriving either.

[Lord Raziere]

But the smooth-talking villain with great PR is still a villain, and they've learned to play very nicely with others to get where they are. Get enough of those together, and you can have a functioning society. Sure, there will be plenty of bribery and corruption, but the society will still function on all the important levels.

Yup. the only reason the obvious Chaotic Evil villain is so popular is because superhero and fantasy stories are often action based and therefore are all about fighting. therefore to make sure people don't feel bad, people default to making the targets of fighting as morally obvious and evil as possible so that an awesome fight can happen, for the reader's enjoyment. Evil in mystery and crime stories however, tend to be smarter, more complex and the whole challenge is catching them with enough evidence in the first place. Just look at any villain from the Phoenix Wright series: the only reason any of them don't get away with their crimes is often because of small details that everyone but Phoenix overlooks and the fact that Phoenix has lie-detecting magic and thus can press people on things that no one else has any reason to think are lies.

[brian 333]

And yet those smooth talking, cooperative villains still exist as parasites on the non evil host society. Without someone to condemn to the arena or burn at the stake, how would The Vector Legion control a populace which appears ready to overthrow them? Without slaves to shackle and lash, would the slavers and overseers become traders and farmers?

Yes, Evil can thrive for a time, but that clock runs out when the victims run out.

How do vampires survive when they have drunk the last drop of mortal blood?

[Dion]

How do vampires survive when they have drunk the last drop of mortal blood?

Probably turn into space vampires or something, like in that one movie.

[Lord Raziere]

And yet those smooth talking, cooperative villains still exist as parasites on the non evil host society. Without someone to condemn to the arena or burn at the stake, how would The Vector Legion control a populace which appears ready to overthrow them? Without slaves to shackle and lash, would the slavers and overseers become traders and farmers?

Yes, Evil can thrive for a time, but that clock runs out when the victims run out.

How do vampires survive when they have drunk the last drop of mortal blood?

How do adventurers survive when they killed the last monster and looted the last gold coin?

when there are no more goblins, no more orcs or whatever other "evil" races to kill, they will be just lost. if Evil is all about profiting from victims, adventurers count among that number with the monstrous races being the victim. in that sense, adventurers are self-destructive if we're going by this insistence of the term, and doing evil upon the monstrous races.

[brian 333]

I don't disagree with that. What you describe is just another form of parasitism, and putting the 'adventurer' label on the perpetrators does not make it less destructive, self-defeating, or Evil.

[Lord Raziere]

I don't disagree with that. What you describe is just another form of parasitism, and putting the 'adventurer' label on the perpetrators does not make it less destructive, self-defeating, or Evil.

So you admit that Redcloak has a legitimate grievance against the good races and by extension since the gods set up the entire system so that adventurers would exist so that they would benefit, the gods are by extensions are the greater parasite above them and thus also evil by this definition because they get prayer from mortals suffering- when things go wrong, people pray to the gods to fix it or to prevent things from going wrong, or to help them in battle against their enemies, things like that.

because while its not clear whether the gods set up the system for the exact reasons that Redcloak states, its clear that the system was set up by them so that adventurers would exist and get exp for killing things and monstrous races are oddly lacking in PCs. furthermore its clear that TDO is a new god and the goblins didn't have one before that. so if the goblins didn't have a god before that....why were they created?

[hamishspence]

Without someone to condemn to the arena or burn at the stake, how would The Vector Legion control a populace which appears ready to overthrow them? Without slaves to shackle and lash, would the slavers and overseers become traders and farmers?

Yes, Evil can thrive for a time, but that clock runs out when the victims run out.

The idea is that the populace itself is corrupted - it isn't just "those at the top" - it goes right down to the school level:

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0755.html

This is consistent with Fiendish Codex 2's concept that in a sufficiently LE nation, 90% of the population end up in the Nine Hells after death.

[Martijn]

And yet those smooth talking, cooperative villains still exist as parasites on the non evil host society. Without someone to condemn to the arena or burn at the stake, how would The Vector Legion control a populace which appears ready to overthrow them? Without slaves to shackle and lash, would the slavers and overseers become traders and farmers?

Yes, Evil can thrive for a time, but that clock runs out when the victims run out.

How do vampires survive when they have drunk the last drop of mortal blood?

Evil can breed slaves to have an infinite supply to shackle and lash. There is no inherent reason why they'd run out.

[Jason]

How do adventurers survive when they killed the last monster and looted the last gold coin?They retire and become rulers over settled lands if they're warrior types, or go on to do magical research if they're mages, or run their own urban thieves guilds if they're rogues. 1st and 2nd edition D&D had this built into the rules.


when there are no more goblins, no more orcs or whatever other "evil" races to kill, they will be just lost. if Evil is all about profiting from victims, adventurers count among that number with the monstrous races being the victim. in that sense, adventurers are self-destructive if we're going by this insistence of the term, and doing evil upon the monstrous races.
That's a cynic's view. The original assumptions of D&D are that the monstrous races didn't mint those coins themselves - it's all plunder from the non-monstrous peaceful settlers they have raided and destroyed. The monstrous races by their culture or nature are a threat to all around them, and killing or driving them off to more remote areas makes the world a safer and more civilized place. Adventurers are the defenders of civilization in the border lands, and all the treasures they recover were wrongfully taken from the non-monsters in the first place.

[brian 333]

Lord Raziere, I agree with almost none of what you posted.

Redcloak's grievance is with specific adventurers, (the murderhobos described in the post to which I was replying,) and to extrapolate from those actions a culpability for populations, races, and deities who did not participate in the murderhobo activity is quite simply bigotry.

At what point did it become OK to blame a group for the actions of a few? Defining oneself as a victim, regardless of the merit of the claim, does not justify retribution against a race, nation, region, city, organization, village, or family. It entitles the victim to seek justice from the perpetrators of the crime.

Attacking a city because of a superficial similarity of appearance between its inhabitants and the criminals is racism. The only result of such an act would be to create bigotry against the attackers by the new victims who then justify new crimes against those who superfhcially resemble the attackers.

Your argument boils down to, "It's okay to be racist if you pesceive yourself to be a victim of racism, and the perception of victimhood entitles you to commit crimes against those who look like the criminals who you believe harmed you."

[Ionathus]

Attacking a city because of a superficial similarity of appearance between its inhabitants and the criminals is racism. The only result of such an act would be to create bigotry against the attackers by the new victims who then justify new crimes against those who superfhcially resemble the attackers.

Interesting - we've looped back around to a literal description of what happened to Redcloak's village, and Redcloak as a result.

[Jason]

Redcloak's grievance is with specific adventurers, (the murderhobos described in the post to which I was replying,) and to extrapolate from those actions a culpability for populations, races, and deities who did not participate in the murderhobo activity is quite simply bigotry.
Not precisely. The group that destroyed Redcloak's village was not a random adventuring party, but the Sapphire Guard, a secret order of Paladins who attacked Redcloak's village because they were trying to kill the high priest of the Dark One, who was in the village.


Attacking a city because of a superficial similarity of appearance between its inhabitants and the criminals is racism.And again, that's not quite Redcloak's situation. He knew that the Sapphire Guard were from Azure City, under the command of the leaders of Azure City, and received most of their recruits and their financial support from Azure City. He knew that the leaders of Azure City were ultimately the people who were responsible for the destruction of his village and slaughter of most of his family.

[Lord Raziere]

and above that, that, the gods could've prevented this whole situation with the Snarl from ever occurring.

how? Simple. If they were less concerned about treating each world a fun campaign to play and more about what making a good world, they'd have solved this by now.

sure they couldn't have done this in more early iterations of creating a Snarl prison, but as worlds legnthened into lasting for centuries, and now a thousand years they could've come up with a setting where no suffering happened, therefore giving no one any reason to to call upon the Snarl to solve any of their problems. Then simply instructed the populace and try and worship up a new god that wouldn't be a part of any of the existing pantheons so that a fourth quiddity may be formed. as they were experienced enough at remaking worlds at that point, they could try this as many times as they like, gods not being quitters. Instead of trying to actively solve their problem however they instead just act like its all a game with mortals as the pieces. they could've made a better world and solved this but they didn't.

after all, letting a cycle of destroying worlds go on while amusing themselves at making worlds to play with and parasitically get prayer from people they know will die anyways until a new god comes along to try and kill the rest with a new plan is quite self-destructive of the gods, yes? By being so negligent they have allowed their downfall to come about, and sloth is just a valid a sin as any other.

[brian 333]

Not precisely. The group that destroyed Redcloak's village was not a random adventuring party, but the Sapphire Guard, a secret order of Paladins who attacked Redcloak's village because they were trying to kill the high priest of the Dark One, who was in the village.

And again, that's not quite Redcloak's situation. He knew that the Sapphire Guard were from Azure City, under the command of the leaders of Azure City, and received most of their recruits and their financial support from Azure City. He knew that the leaders of Azure City were ultimately the people who were responsible for the destruction of his village and slaughter of most of his family.

So we justify assaulting hundreds of thousands of otherwise uninvolved people because of the actions of a few dozen?

Does that make sense?

Now add to that the fact that the perpetrators had already been caught and punished for crimes the leadership of Azure City did not condone or even know about until after they were committed.

The only remaining justification for the attack was that the Azurites had something Team Evil wanted, and their preferred method of obtaining it was to make war and to kill and enslave as many of the inhabitants as possible.

All of the justifications based on racism are BS, and any honest analysis of the situation would have to include the fact that the assumption of racist motives on the part of Party A in no way justifies a racist response on the part of Party O.

Racism cannot excuse racism. In other words, if we take an eye for an eye we shall all be blind.

[Jason]

So we justify assaulting hundreds of thousands of otherwise uninvolved people because of the actions of a few dozen?
Not at all. I'm just saying that the situation is more complex than what you had outlined there.


Now add to that the fact that the perpetrators had already been caught and punished for crimes the leadership of Azure City did not condone or even know about until after they were committed.We don't know the fate of the commander of the Sapphire Guard at the time of the raid on Redcloak's village, but since the Guard are still raiding goblin settlements in HtPGHS and the leader of the Guard there speaks of his predecessor in glowing terms it would seem unlikely that he was ever punished for leading the raid. And Shinjo does seem to have had at least some knowledge of the Guard's activities, but he did not put any restraint on the raids until the incident in HtPGHS, which is also when O-Chul joined the Guard.




All of the justifications based on racism are BS, and any honest analysis of the situation would have to include the fact that the assumption of racist motives on the part of Party A in no way justifies a racist response on the part of Party O.

Racism cannot excuse racism. In other words, if we take an eye for an eye we shall all be blind.
I generally agree, and Redcloak certainly is a racist, but he has more justification for hating Azure City and its leaders than just anti-human racism. Likewise even if some of the Guard were anti-goblin racists, the goblin high priest really was a threat to the existence of the world.

[Dion]

So we justify assaulting hundreds of thousands of otherwise uninvolved people because of the actions of a few dozen?


I don’t believe anyone has tried to “justify” anything on this thread.

Nobody has said that the actions of the goblins were morally right (i.e. justified).

People say that the goblins had reasons for doing it. Saying there are reasons is not the same as justification.

People say that Redcloak believes he’s justified. Saying that someone believes they’re justified is not saying they are justified.

Look, I’m going to say this: the goblins attacking the azure city was wrong. Gobbotopia is founded in sin. Redcloak is a racist.

And yet... I still believe that goblins are probably the victims of bigotry that was built into the world by the gods. And I believe a lot of terrible, inexcusable, awful things are likely to result from that bigotry.

I believe the actions that formed gobbotopia was a terrible thing.

And I believe actions to destroy gobbotopia would also be a terrible thing.

I believe both of those things at the same time, because I think they’re both true.

There’s no simple answer where you divide the world up into a “good” bucket and a “evil” bucket, and fix all the problems by smashing the stuff in the evil bucket with the stuff you find in the good bucket. There are plenty of stories where things work like that, but this hasn’t been one of those stories so far, and I doubt it’s going to turn into one.

[brian 333]

While I believe some posters have indeed defended the attack on Azure City as a legithmate response to anti-goblin bigotry, I otherwise agree in general with the above post by Dion.

Having said about all I can say on the topic, I will leave this conversation with one final thought:

Good and Evil, Chaotic and Lawful are not arbitrary titles imposed upon a character which thereafter determine his available choices. They are the cumulative result of his moral choices. Even if the alignment is imposed at the creation the Good character can do bad things and when the weight of those choices tip the balance the character becomes Neutral or even, eventually, Evil. Redcloak, and goblinkind in general, is not Evil by the act of any deity or group of deities. Redcloak is Evil by his own choice.

[M1982]

I would hardly call anything on the Western Continent thriving either.

I woudl also argue that those evil nations still consist of neutral rank-and-file citiizens with only the leading positions held by evil people.

[Manga Shoggoth]

I woudl also argue that those evil nations still consist of neutral rank-and-file citiizens with only the leading positions held by evil people.

I wouldn't be so sure about that (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0755.html)... At the very least the Platelet High School Band and the runners-up of the Miss Bloodstain Pagent might argue with your position, and it looks like Hurt and Burnie promote the activity. It's not just the leaders who are evil.

[hamishspence]

I wouldn't be 100% sure about that. In a world where people become a "winning high school band band" by arranging broken fingers for members of the other bands, or win a beauty pageant by eliminating rivals:

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0755.html

it's quite plausible that "Evil goes all the way down"

EDIT: Swordsaged.

[arimareiji]

My opinion, from too many awful examples: When you start talking about how a group of people doesn't deserve to exist because they're evil (with your proof being the perceived actions of a subset), you've gone waaaaay off the rails. The only thing left is for you to abet or ally with those who want to "correct" that. And outsiders may have an increasingly-hard time telling which of you is the evil one.

[Darth Paul]

I woudl also argue that those evil nations still consist of neutral rank-and-file citiizens with only the leading positions held by evil people.

Real life has shown all too often that leaders who demonstrate no qualms about their own evil (as seen by an outside observer; it's also important to remember that almost everyone justifies their own actions as "for the greater good", or "because they had it coming", or "if we don't do it to them, they'll do it to us", or any of a hundred other "reasons"), tend to encourage the same behavior among their population, even if it's only because that sort of immorality (or at least amorality) becomes a survival tool in the regime. It's a sort of social Darwinism: A ruler who rewards ruthlessness will have more ruthless followers.

[BloodSquirrel]

sure they couldn't have done this in more early iterations of creating a Snarl prison, but as worlds legnthened into lasting for centuries, and now a thousand years they could've come up with a setting where no suffering happened, therefore giving no one any reason to to call upon the Snarl to solve any of their problems. Then simply instructed the populace and try and worship up a new god that wouldn't be a part of any of the existing pantheons so that a fourth quiddity may be formed.

You're making two false assumptions here-

First, that the worlds keep being destroyed because mortals are releasing the Snarl. This is wrong- the rifts formed on their own, before any mortal knew about the Snarl or that it could be used. The fact that they were sealed this time around gave the world a little extra life, but even without Xykon, Redcloak, and the Order destroying the gates, more rifts would eventually appear.

Second, that a fourth quiddity being formed was something they knew was possible. They didn't. That's what makes this cycle unique. That's why some gods are saying "Hey, we know this is possible now, let's blow up this world and start over, and see if we can make it happen again with a new god who is more willing to work with us.

[arimareiji]

You're making two false assumptions here-

First, that the worlds keep being destroyed because mortals are releasing the Snarl. This is wrong- the rifts formed on their own, before any mortal knew about the Snarl or that it could be used. The fact that they were sealed this time around gave the world a little extra life, but even without Xykon, Redcloak, and the Order destroying the gates, more rifts would eventually appear.

Second, that a fourth quiddity being formed was something they knew was possible. They didn't. That's what makes this cycle unique. That's why some gods are saying "Hey, we know this is possible now, let's blow up this world and start over, and see if we can make it happen again with a new god who is more willing to work with us.

A reference to back up BloodSquirrel's recap (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1143.html), tripped across it during a reread.

[The_Weirdo]

All right, lessee.

1- The crayon story may or not be true. Redcloak certainly seems to *believe* it and so does TDO, but we cannot really know how correct that info is.
2- That being said, there are a few things that corroborate the narrative; it sorta stretches probability that goblins were given only the worst lands. Furthermore, a decades-long campaign of attacks without the Paladins losing their powers strikes me as the gods being quite cavalier towards goblin life.
3- He now has a place for the goblins. And he's very much not wrong when he says that they'll need some guarantees that they won't simply be the target of a crusade the moment they drop their guard. That's not to say the snarl is one, it's just that, from a purely practical point of view, he does need some assurance.
4- Yes, he's got a severe issue with the sunk cost fallacy and that cost a lot of goblin lives; he's crossed the line from revolutionary to we-have-reserves general a while ago.
5- None of this changes the fact that Redcloak suffered a horrible injustice at the hands of the Sapphire Guard. One he literally had to gather an army and invade a city to see addressed, because, and let's be honest here, if he simply walked into Azure City and politely asked for reparations, he would in all likelihood have been killed. And the fact that, if the goblins indeed were put there as fodder, that issue needs addressing with the gods themselves as well.

An excellent way to humanize a villain is to create said villain in a way that the vast majority of readers would do the exact same as him in his position. And, on a side note, I wonder who the Azurite citizens that were enslaved will hate more if and when they learn the full history of just under what context Redcloak, that Consequence Elemental, attacked their city.

[Fyraltari]

An excellent way to humanize a villain is to create said villain in a way that the vast majority of readers would do the exact same as him in his position. And, on a side note, I wonder who the Azurite citizens that were enslaved will hate more if and when they learn the full history of just under what context Redcloak, that Consequence Elemental, attacked their city.

Oh, that's an easy one: Redcloak. People don't really care about the reason you hurt them, most of the time, only that you hurt them.

[The_Weirdo]

Oh, that's an easy one: Redcloak. People don't really care about the reason you hurt them, most of the time, only that you hurt them.

Fair. I suppose a better question is: "Will they hate their former leadership/the old Sapphire Guard paladins as well?"

[Fyraltari]

Fair. I suppose a better question is: "Will they hate their former leadership/the old Sapphire Guard paladins as well?"

You mean the ones who are all dead?