OOTS #1234 - The Discussion Thread

[The Giant]

New comic is up.

[Fyraltari]

Love everything on this page. Especially Roy branching out and Durkon needing a moment to solve global inequality.

[UnintensifiedFa]

Couldn't have come at a better time, we were just about to run out of pages on the last discussion thread.

Very much like that Durkon is actively thinking of a solution, and that Roy also recognizes this as both a problem (as an injustice) and a potential route to the solution, (by negotiating with redcloak).

[Cikomyr2]

I love you Rich for rising and discussing these big questions.

I know you don't usually answer questions in these threads, but was this planned from the (somewhat) beginning, or have you managed to organically merge this type of discussion to your story because it happened to already have pre-existing themes that fitted this perfectly?

[Worldsong]

Well, there we have it, the heroic solution is to try and fix the inequality, especially if it seems to be connected to saving the world.

[Ivrytwr]

The absence of a solution has never stopped us before!
Another good beard scratcher of a conundrum.
Thanks Giant!

[Fyraltari]

Well, there we have it, the heroic solution is to try and fix the inequality, especially if it seems to be connected to saving the world.

https://s2.qwant.com/thumbr/0x0/e/d/8528fc7be62531fd6118970082ac1bebe01869aaeedb916660 f9df28edc437/tumblr_inline_p1brmcd9Dk1rr08jv_500.jpg?u=http%3A% 2F%2Fi0.kym-cdn.com%2Fentries%2Ficons%2Ffacebook%2F000%2F025%2 F090%2Ftumblr_inline_p1brmcd9Dk1rr08jv_500.jpg&q=0&b=1&p=0&a=0

[StragaSevera]

The problem, as I said earlier, is not about "is it morally right or wrong to help goblins" - all normal people would agree on that.
The problem is - is it morally right to focus on just the goblin's problems? Because, I guarantee you, a lot of other people got the bad lands too - look at humans and lizardfolk on the Western continent, for example.

If heroes try to solve only the "goblin land inequality" problem, and not the "all-people land inequality", then... the moral of the story kinda becomes "if you want your problems to be solved, you need to take the world hostage, and if you do not make such an evil act and just try to survive yourself, then heroes will never think about helping you".

So, I would really like if this comic will raise this problem too - but I feel that it will not, and this feeling makes me sad.

[Ferrick]

I love you Rich for rising and discussing these big questions.

I know you don't usually answer questions in these threads, but was this planned from the (somewhat) beginning, or have you managed to organically merge this type of discussion to your story because it happened to already have pre-existing themes that fitted this perfectly?

That might be a question for the next q&a

[dancrilis]

Dubious about it all - I do wonder if anyone in The Order has any serious ranks in 'Knowledge: History' to know that:


The goblin starting position did not stop them creating the greatest military force the north had ever seen which even after its leader was assassinated still needed three races (humans, elves and dwarves) to join together to stop it.


Because as the goblin starting position allowed for that I don't think that current goblin position can be blamed on the gods giving them a bad starting hand.

[StragaSevera]

Dubious about it all - I do wonder if anyone in The Order has any serious ranks in 'Knowledge: History' to know that:


The goblin starting position did not stop them creating the greatest military force the north had ever seen which even after its leader was assassinated still needed three races (humans, elves and dwarves) to join together to stop it.


Because as the goblin starting position allowed for that I don't think that current goblin position can be blamed on the gods giving them a bad starting hand.

Interesting idea that ties into my other concern - if we give goblins a better starting position, we better use some peacekeeping forces with this humanitarian aid to prevent this influx of resources to be used to build a second force like that.

[Ferrick]

Also made respect to the Giant for somehow creating an entirely new system of classist injustice that is clear enough that most could agree with it but separate enough from reality to not make people's personal lives blind them to it? That's not a simple trying to do damn.

[Peelee]

"That" and "the" both being used as "tha" made panel 3 a bit wonky to read.

[pendell]

Rich Burlew, if you're reading this, the last panel has Durkon asking "Can a dwarf get a minute to solve worldwide generational inquality?"

I think that's a spelling error, and I think it's important because you could mean either "inequity" or "inequality", and they are two different concepts. "Equality" means "everyone gets treated exactly the same". "Equity" means "we recognize that not everyone starts at the same starting line, and make allowances for the disadvantaged."

"Equality" means a chess grandmaster and an amateur sit down at the same board and play a game with the same starting conditions. "Equity" means the grandmaster spots the amateur a piece or two in order to give the amateur a fighting chance and make the game sporting.

There are two different ideas with very different solutions. Having equity doesn't necessarily mean having equality and vice versa. So it's important to know exactly what problem Durkon is trying to solve here.

ETA: Less important, but "Doesn't" in panel 6 has two apostrophes. That's a typo.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Reboot]

1234 hype!


Also made respect to the Giant for somehow creating an entirely new system of classist injustice that is clear enough that most could agree with it but separate enough from reality to not make people's personal lives blind them to it? That's not a simple trying to do damn.

Not so sure about that. After all, the last strip's thread got locked over discussing this. Twice.

[greenfunkman]

So the offer will be... the empty planet in the rift?

[Worldsong]

So the offer will be... the empty planet in the rift?

The one with the soul-destroying abomination?

[Sir_Norbert]

I think that's a spelling error, and I think it's important because you could mean either "inequity" or "inequality", and they are two different concepts. "Equality" means "everyone gets treated exactly the same". "Equity" means "we recognize that not everyone starts at the same starting line, and make allowances for the disadvantaged."

Those are different concepts, sure, but it's not at all universal that "equality" can only mean the first one.

[Fyraltari]

"if you want your problems to be solved, you need to take the world hostage, and if you do not make such an evil act and just try to survive yourself, then heroes will never think about helping you".
Uh, no? This problem would have need to be adressed regardless of Redcloak's actions. Thor wants the dark One's help because of the Snarlproblem not because of anything the Dark One or his church did. Also we've had Oona and the Monster in the Dark pointing out that Redcloak's agenda isn't even focused on all goblinoids, we have Roy pointing out that the goblins' situation isn't "the most pressing global problem" this very comic and we've seen prejudice against orcs, kobolds, trolls and even a ghost taking the non-online books into account. I'm pretty sure that whatever solution is put forth, it won't just be a goblin/human thing.

My reading of the whole Redclaok situation is that when you mistreat entire groups like that, you will end up with extremists willing to kill inordinate amount of people to get some "retribution". That's part of the problem.

Dubious about it all - I do wonder if anyone in The Order has any serious ranks in 'Knowledge: History' to know that:


The goblin starting position did not stop them creating the greatest military force the north had ever seen which even after its leader was assassinated still needed three races (humans, elves and dwarves) to join together to stop it.


Because as the goblin starting position allowed for that I don't think that current goblin position can be blamed on the gods giving them a bad starting hand.
Assuming the "greatest military foce the nortern lands have ever seen" wasn't just Redcloak fanboying over his deity-senpai, having a largest army than everybody else doesn't translate to being a wealthier group than the others, far from it. Like we know the humans are divided into multiple nations so it's hardly a surprise a union of all the goblins in the north leads to a biggest army any human nation have. Especially if a greater portion of the goblinoid population had to become soldiers/warriors to defend their tribes.

[Czhorat]

The problem, as I said earlier, is not about "is it morally right or wrong to help goblins" - all normal people would agree on that.
The problem is - is it morally right to focus on just the goblin's problems? Because, I guarantee you, a lot of other people got the bad lands too - look at humans and lizardfolk on the Western continent, for example.

If heroes try to solve only the "goblin land inequality" problem, and not the "all-people land inequality", then... the moral of the story kinda becomes "if you want your problems to be solved, you need to take the world hostage, and if you do not make such an evil act and just try to survive yourself, then heroes will never think about helping you".

So, I would really like if this comic will raise this problem too - but I feel that it will not, and this feeling makes me sad.

This framing feels a bit "all lives matter" to me. The goblins are in the situation where they are - and made an alliance with an evil lich - because of the inequities they've faced since literally the creation of the world.

Are there others who suffer? Almost certainly. Those problems can be faced as well. At present, the OOTS is in a conflict with the goblins - and one in which they've only very recently even begun to try to understand their antagonists.

[Dragonus45]

Dubious about it all - I do wonder if anyone in The Order has any serious ranks in 'Knowledge: History' to know that:


The goblin starting position did not stop them creating the greatest military force the north had ever seen which even after its leader was assassinated still needed three races (humans, elves and dwarves) to join together to stop it.


Because as the goblin starting position allowed for that I don't think that current goblin position can be blamed on the gods giving them a bad starting hand.

We still need to know more about the Dark ones backstory to be able to really put all this together but pretty much that yeah. The various Goblinoid races seemed to be getting by just fine with their own functioning nation states and armies, they just seem to be stuck in in a forever war in a way a lot of the other "monstrous" races haven't been shown to be and I am betting TDO will be the answer there. Sure not everything turns out perfectly equal all the time, but equality of outcome is a myth and equity is a lie.


This strip though, this one finally put to words what it is that is sticking in my craw. "Don't we need to take responsibility for our part in a bad setup." No, because you have no responsibility there, as near as I can tell even in tis fantasy universe no one asks to be born and while it's certainly laudable and clearly Good for someone who was for example born to noble parents and rich compared to someone born in a small farming village, no one has a responsibility or obligation to anyone to just go and give them their property.

[Fyraltari]

So the offer will be... the empty planet in the rift?

I really doubt the answer to "how do we deal with disenfranchised people?" the comic is going to put forth is "let's send them to a spare planet so we don't have to."

[Worldsong]

My reading of the whole Redclaok situation is that when you mistreat entire groups like that, you will end up with extremists willing to kill inordinate amount of people to get some "retribution". That's part of the problem.

And then the problem becomes self-sustaining because people begin to oppose the idea of helping the mistreated group because they don't want to feel like the extremists should be rewarded for their immoral actions.


I really doubt the answer to "how do we deal with disenfranchised people?" the comic is going to put forth is "let's send them to a spare planet so down't have to."

Yeah, I doubt Rich's answer to systematic discrimination will be segregation.

[hamishspence]

I like the back-and-forth between Roy and Durkon here.

[ShinigamiKenji]

This one strikes very close to our own world... Props to The Giant for that.

[UnintensifiedFa]

Assuming the "greatest military foce the nortern lands have ever seen" wasn't just Redcloak fanboying over his deity-senpai, having a largest army than everybody else doesn't translate to being a wealthier group than the others, far from it. Like we know the humans are divided into multiple nations so it's hardly a surprise a union of all the goblins in the north leads to a biggest army any human nation have. Especially if a greater portion of the goblinoid population had to become soldiers/warriors to defend their tribes.

Thank you for this. I was trying to find a good way to express this but you've hit what I wanted to say right on the nose.

The Goblins assembling massive armies is not an indicator that they're somehow "Better Off".

The Dark One does not indicate that the Goblins have "Solved' their problems now that they have a god, he's a symptom of their inequalities.

[Haruspex_Pariah]

It's great that the goblins have a motivation that goes beyond them being evil monsters.

And it's also great that all of this makes sense in the context of how D&D worlds are constructed, with large numbers of sentient beings existing as nothing more than loot and XP sources.

OOTS from the beginning was a send up of D&D (weapon shrinkage?), so there was always the risk of the drama and stakes clashing with the parodic and lighthearted aspects. I won't name names but I've seen a few stories suffer from exactly that. IMHO so far OOTS has done well enough in maintaining the balance and now we seem to be getting (closer) to the climax.

Not sure if I would have gone with the "gods gave them a bad hand" and "cosmic soul farm" approach myself, seems a little meta, but hey it's Rich's story and it does explain the way of things.

[Dion]

I feel like he’s answering some of the noisiest voices in the forums.

Which is great, but I’m not entirely convinced that the noisiest voices in the forum are arguing about what’s in the actual comic.

[UnintensifiedFa]

I feel like he’s answering some of the noisiest voices in the forums.

Which is great, but I’m not entirely convinced that the noisiest voices in the forum are arguing about what’s in the actual comic.

In my experience, the noisiest voices often have the views most counter to the messages Rich is trying to convey. I think he "answers" them because he wants the work to be interpreted the way he intends it, and they're bringing up points of view that run counter to this. I don't think he's deliberately answering them either, I believe he's said that he doesn't visit these discussion threads too often, and he hardly uses them to construct his comic/story. I think the "answering" is a product of Rich trying to drive home his point with low levels of ambiguity, and the loudest voices are the ones whose views are grounded in those ambiguities that Rich intends to solve. (If that makes sense).

[StragaSevera]

This framing feels a bit "all lives matter" to me. The goblins are in the situation where they are - and made an alliance with an evil lich - because of the inequities they've faced since literally the creation of the world.

Are there others who suffer? Almost certainly. Those problems can be faced as well. At present, the OOTS is in a conflict with the goblins - and one in which they've only very recently even begun to try to understand their antagonists.

As I recall, your "framing" reference is prohibited by the rules of the forum, so I would not answer to it.

Yes, that's the point. There are people who suffer from bad lands situation, who are not goblins - and we literally had them in the comics as the people who live in the southern part of the Western Continent.
If the heroes will not think about them and concentrate only on goblins, just because the Free City of Doom did not manage to find a Doomsday artifact of significant enough scale for blackmail, then... it will be very sad.

Of course, to stop the whole planet from being destoyed or conquered by a mad lich you MAY need to do something with the goblins now - but, when the crisis is over, if heroes will not think about other bad lands and people who live there (and I have a feeling that they will not, because not even once in this comics a character compared a goblins situation to the westerners situation) - then it will become a twisted aesop.

[Czhorat]

This strip though, this one finally put to words what it is that is sticking in my craw. "Don't we need to take responsibility for our part in a bad setup." No, because you have no responsibility there, as near as I can tell even in tis fantasy universe no one asks to be born and while it's certainly laudable and clearly Good for someone who was for example born to noble parents and rich compared to someone born in a small farming village, no one has a responsibility or obligation to anyone to just go and give them their property.

Whether you ask or not, you still benefit.

I'm an able-bodied white cisgender heterosexual man born to middle-class parents in America. ALL of those characteristics give me privileges for which I've never asked but do benefit. Do I have a responsibility to acknowledge my unearned privileges and use them to try help level the playing field? I say that I do.

[Fyraltari]

There are people who suffer from bad lands situation, who are not goblins - and we literally had them in the comics as the people who live in the southern part of the Western Continent.
If the heroes will not think about them and concentrate only on goblins, just because the Free City of Doom did not manage to find a Doomsday artifact of significant enough scale for blackmail, then... it will be very sad.

Of course, to stop the whole planet from being destoyed or conquered by a mad lich you MAY need to do something with the goblins now - but, when the crisis is over, if heroes will not think about other bad lands and people who live there (and I have a feeling that they will not, because not even once in this comics a character compared a goblins situation to the westerners situation) - then it will become a twisted aesop.

Let me just quote myself:


Uh, no? This problem would have need to be adressed regardless of Redcloak's actions. Thor wants the dark One's help because of the Snarl problem not because of anything the Dark One or his church did. Also we've had Oona and the Monster in the Dark pointing out that Redcloak's agenda isn't even focused on all goblinoids, we have Roy pointing out that the goblins' situation isn't "the most pressing global problem" this very comic and we've seen prejudice against orcs, kobolds, trolls and even a ghost taking the non-online books into account. I'm pretty sure that whatever solution is put forth, it won't just be a goblin/human thing.

My reading of the whole Redclaok situation is that when you mistreat entire groups like that, you will end up with extremists willing to kill inordinate amount of people to get some "retribution". That's part of the problem.

[Dion]

I think the "answering" is a product of Rich trying to drive home his point with low levels of ambiguity, and the loudest voices are the ones whose views are grounded in those ambiguities that Rich intends to solve. (If that makes sense).

That’s a reasonable thing to do. But even here on the first page of the discussion, we have someone arguing that Durkon is wrong about the history of Stickverse.

Im as guilty as anyone for engaging with people who are essentially saying the author is wrong about what’s going on his own self created universe. But at some point you just have to smile, say “you have an interesting point of view”, and move on.

[Rinazina]

...and this is a though one Durkon!

I mean, to solve it, you might need an entirely new world full of unexploited resources and then ask gods to open a wormhole for the goblin safe-space (note about biases, my grammar corrector fix it with goblin-safe space, dah);

Well, Durkon, if I can just sneak into the telepathy network, I would drop this idea. It would at least find you a perfect reason to talk about a planet in the rift next time you prepare Commune.


also, I love the password reference in today comic URL! :)

[Dragonus45]

Whether you ask or not, you still benefit.


People benefit from lots of things, if I scratch a winning lotto ticket I don't suddenly have to go out and run around passing money out to people in penance.


That’s a reasonable thing to do. But even here on the first page of the discussion, we have someone arguing that Durkon is wrong about the history of Stickverse.

Im as guilty as anyone for engaging with people who are essentially saying the author is wrong about what’s going on his own self created universe. But at some point you just have to smile, say “you have an interesting point of view”, and move on.

Have you ever been running a D&D game, and brought up some subject like astronomy or sailing only to suddenly be kind of ambushed when a player knows a lot more then you about the subject, or at least thinks they do. Well imagine that situation, only the subject is a much more subjective one to begin with and the DM's description of the state of things has a few holes in it since he wasn't always planning for the campaign to turn into an epic battle against the forces of the Semi-Elemental Plane of Ranch Dressing and things aren't exactly matching up. Like, I get what Rich MEANS here. I see his intention, I just don't entirely see things from his point of view to begin with and I feel like the story elements are not all adding up 100% to what he says they are.

[UnintensifiedFa]

Personally, what's really going to end up swaying me one way or another is what Durkon's plan entails. "Actions speak louder than words" might have particular relevance here.
Just knowing what the Heroes intend to propose will give us a good idea if they're on the right path.

But honestly, I don't know... I know it'll be resolved (or dealt with, or somehow subverted into a result that addresses the problem in an even more thought-provoking way), but the how, when, and where are kinda out of my purview.

[RMS Oceanic]

...and this is a though one Durkon!

I mean, to solve it, you might need an entirely new world full of unexploited resources and then ask gods to open a wormhole for the goblin safe-space (note about biases, my grammar corrector fix it with goblin-safe space, dah);

Nah, I don't see the world within the world being the solution. I mean it could be in a super clever fashion, but the obvious interpretation of "here's a planet all to yourselves, problem solved" seems a bit external factor, if that makes sense. A more satisfying solution would probably still have the goblins abutting the other races, but with less pointy things in between.

[Worldsong]

Yes, that's the point. There are people who suffer from bad lands situation, who are not goblins - and we literally had them in the comics as the people who live in the southern part of the Western Continent.
If the heroes will not think about them and concentrate only on goblins, just because the Free City of Doom did not manage to find a Doomsday artifact of significant enough scale for blackmail, then... it will be very sad.

Of course, to stop the whole planet from being destoyed or conquered by a mad lich you MAY need to do something with the goblins now - but, when the crisis is over, if heroes will not think about other bad lands and people who live there (and I have a feeling that they will not, because not even once in this comics a character compared a goblins situation to the westerners situation) - then it will become a twisted aesop.

The people living in the desert of the Western Continent have it bad, yes, but they still have it better than the goblinoids. They can build pretty large settlements and openly trade with each other. Yes, they're struggling for survival and yes, there are wars which result in a lot of fatalities, but at least they're at the stage of warring kingdoms, whereas goblinoids for the most part seem to be living in small villages in remote and hard to reach places because if they become big enough to be noticed adventurers of all alignments start heading their way to fix that. And if it's not adventurers it's Azure City and the Sapphire Guard.

Also, note how when the Order talks about dealing with Tarquin it's very specifically about Tarquin. They don't talk about laying waste to the entire Empire of Blood just because the people at the top are Evil.

While the Western Continent also suffers from inequality I don't agree with the assessment that they're on the same level as the systematic discrimination goblinoids face. Of course, ideally the Order would try to fix the Western Continent as well, but the story is focusing on the problem which is more relevant and which the author believes is more prevalent in DnD campaigns.


Nah, I don't see the world within the world being the solution. I mean it could be in a super clever fashion, but the obvious interpretation of "here's a planet all to yourselves, problem solved" seems a bit external factor, if that makes sense. A more satisfying solution would probably still have the goblins abutting the other races, but with less pointy things in between.

Also, it would be avoiding the actual problem, namely that treating sapient beings like they're of a lower order because of their species or race is wrong. Instead of addressing that problem, you'd just be chucking the discriminated party somewhere else so the discrimination still exists but is no longer immediately relevant.

[UnintensifiedFa]

People benefit from lots of things, if I scratch a winning lotto ticket I don't suddenly have to go out and run around passing money out to people in penance.

With a lotto ticket, you've still Risked something, whatever small amount of money you invested into a ticket (or tickets), was risked. Sure the reward was great but you've put something up.

With being born, there's no "Risk" that you put up, no conscious effort taken to try and "Win" the birth lottery. You're just given what you're given, with no control or decision made to "enter" the lotto.

Anyways, maybe we should normalize giving away some portion of lottery winnings. I think those people should still be able to live comfortably (just like privileged people should be able to maintain a comfortable living style as well), but certainly, that money could go to better use than living a life of absolute luxury and experience.

And I feel like people aren't often asking the privileged people to completely give up their lifestyle, just sacrifice some of the benefits that they've accrued from having a far easier start in life to help those who didn't get those same advantages.

[StragaSevera]

Let me just quote myself:
...
This problem would have need to be adressed regardless of Redcloak's actions.
...

The problem lies in defining what "this problem" is.
As far as I see, in comics "this problem" is defined as "the goblins' problem", and not "the problem of people who live in bad lands".

And if we define problem using the first, and not the second definition, then it just becomes the blackmail game - we help not those who need it most, but those who can destroy the world if we don't help them.

[BruceGee]

I think this might be a good place to discuss the upcoming D&D movie. (Apologies if I missed a discussion in a preceding thread).

It would be ideal if they asked someone like Mr. Burlew to write the script. But failing that (and from what I've heard, they already have a script), it seems like we should try to figure out some way of mobilizing D&D fandom worldwide to make some specific demands. Decades worth of previous fantasy films have laid down some terrible precedents (sadly including LOTR), and if a modern movie gets made with the same 80s sensibilities, we ought to riot.

We should insist that any D&D movie made in the 2020s has the following non-negotiable attributes:

1) An ensemble cast. The essence of what makes D&D a great hit is that there are five or six stars, not just one. Dashing hero + comic sidekick + love interest doesn't cut it anymore. (The casting of Chris Pine does not fill me with confidence in this area.) Don't tell me it can't be done in a major movie -- have you heard of a little thing called the Avengers?

2) Racial diversity in the casting of the leads -- both fantasy races and real-world.

3) Gender equity in the party, and passing the Bechdel test.

4) Female characters wearing sensible outfits. All female characters are not impossibly skinny. Who wouldn't want to see Melissa McCarthy as a mace-swinging cleric?

5) No "evil races," especially not "swarthy" evil races. D&D itself just spent the better part of a decade trying to purge that legacy of Tolkien from its system, and the fallout continues (eg. today's OotS strip). Has Hollywood noticed?

6) A bad guy who has motivations more interesting than "ruling the world."

7) A bad guy without a British accent. (The casting of Hugh Grant does not fill me with confidence in this area.)

What else?

[Czhorat]

The problem lies in defining what "this problem" is.
As far as I see, in comics "this problem" is defined as "the goblins' problem", and not "the problem of people who live in bad lands".

And if we define problem using the first, and not the second definition, then it just becomes the blackmail game - we help not those who need it most, but those who can destroy the world if we don't help them.

That would be a point if anyone were trying to help them before they threatened to destroy the world.

The goblins have lived under oppression for as long as they've lived. There's no reason for them NOT to burn it all down. There's every reason for the rest of of the world to wake up and see the error of their ways after it reaches that boiling point.

[Fyraltari]

To paraphrase another comic book "with some power comes some responsability."

People born into privilege have a duty to realize it and do something, however minor to help those who weren't, at the very least, not to hinder them. It's not a moral failure not to solve injustice world-wide because that can't be done just like that, but every bit helps.

[Czhorat]

I think this might be a good place to discuss the upcoming D&D movie. (Apologies if I missed a discussion in a preceding thread).

It would be ideal if they asked someone like Mr. Burlew to write the script. But failing that (and from what I've heard, they already have a script), it seems like we should try to figure out some way of mobilizing D&D fandom worldwide to make some specific demands. Decades worth of previous fantasy films have laid down some terrible precedents (sadly including LOTR), and if a modern movie gets made with the same 80s sensibilities, we ought to riot.

We should insist that any D&D movie made in the 2020s has the following non-negotiable attributes:

1) An ensemble cast. The essence of what makes D&D a great hit is that there are five or six stars, not just one. Dashing hero + comic sidekick + love interest doesn't cut it anymore. (The casting of Chris Pine does not fill me with confidence in this area.) Don't tell me it can't be done in a major movie -- have you heard of a little thing called the Avengers?

2) Racial diversity in the casting of the leads -- both fantasy races and real-world.

3) Gender equity in the party, and passing the Bechdel test.

4) Female characters wearing sensible outfits. All female characters are not impossibly skinny. Who wouldn't want to see Melissa McCarthy as a mace-swinging cleric?

5) No "evil races," especially not "swarthy" evil races. D&D itself just spent the better part of a decade trying to purge that legacy of Tolkien from its system, and the fallout continues (eg. today's OotS strip). Has Hollywood noticed?

6) A bad guy who has motivations more interesting than "ruling the world."

7) A bad guy without a British accent. (The casting of Hugh Grant does not fill me with confidence in this area.)

What else?

This really highlights what RB is doing here; he's tackling the rot at the core of the hobby. It may have gotten better, but D&D in particular has really problematic roots, and it's very important to acknowledge that and try to correct it.

I'm still disappointed in the use of the p-word for Xykon's soul-repository, but that's even more tangential (but if the D&D movie has a Lich, let's not call its soul-container a phylactery, OK? Add that to your list.)

[StragaSevera]

The people living in the desert of the Western Continent have it bad, yes, but they still have it better than the goblinoids. They can build pretty large settlements and openly trade with each other. Yes, they're struggling for survival and yes, there are wars which result in a lot of fatalities, but at least they're at the stage of warring kingdoms, whereas goblinoids for the most part seem to be living in small villages in remote and hard to reach places because if they become big enough to be noticed adventurers of all alignments start heading their way to fix that. And if it's not adventurers it's Azure City and the Sapphire Guard.

Also, note how when the Order talks about dealing with Tarquin it's very specifically about Tarquin. They don't talk about laying waste to the entire Empire of Blood just because the people at the top are Evil.

While the Western Continent also suffers from inequality I don't agree with the assessment that they're on the same level as the systematic discrimination goblinoids face. Of course, ideally the Order would try to fix the Western Continent as well, but the story is focusing on the problem which is more relevant and which the author believes is more prevalent in DnD campaigns.

The fact that there are lot of fatalities means that there are lot of people suffering and dying - and if we value the life of a human, a lizardfolk and a goblin equally, then it means we need to help the places where there are more people dying and suffering regardless of race - and the kingdom can oppress far more people than the small village.

No slave in the western continent is happy just because his discrimination is not systematic. This difference is irrelevant.

But, to be fair, the main question is not "where people suffer more" - the main question is "where do we get bigger reduction of suffering per unit of humanitarian aid" - and this is the main question that effective altruists in the Stickyverse (and in real life) should ask themselves =-)


That would be a point if anyone were trying to help them before they threatened to destroy the world.

The goblins have lived under oppression for as long as they've lived. There's no reason for them NOT to burn it all down. There's every reason for the rest of of the world to wake up and see the error of their ways after it reaches that boiling point.

And if the world wakes up and helps them specifically, then it is clear that you can get help only if you blackmail the world.
Sorry, but I think playing hot potato with the universe is not an optimal strategy to reduce suffering.

[Czhorat]

The fact that there are lot of fatalities means that there are lot of people suffering and dying - and if we value the life of a human, a lizardfolk and a goblin equally, then it means we need to help the places where there are more people dying and suffering regardless of race - and the kingdom can oppress far more people than the small village.

No slave in the western continent is happy just because his discrimination is not systematic. This difference is irrelevant.

But, to be fair, the main question is not "where people suffer more" - the main question is "where do we get bigger reduction of suffering per unit of humanitarian aid" - and this is the main question that effective altruists in the Stickyverse (and in real life) should ask themselves =-)

Systematic issues which disadvantage entire groups have a corrosive effect across the entire world. It's how you get, say, a murderous goblinoid army aligned with an evil lich.

Fixing bad and racist structures should be a priority.

[StragaSevera]

Systematic issues which disadvantage entire groups have a corrosive effect across the entire world. It's how you get, say, a murderous goblinoid army aligned with an evil lich.

Fixing bad and racist structures should be a priority.

Yes, but it is not fair to help goblins at the expense of, for example, Empire of Blood slaves, only because Empire of Blood happens not to be racist.
It does not work that way, you don't just compare the "labels of evil words", and the one who has more labels get the humanitarian aid.

[Czhorat]

And if the world wakes up and helps them specifically, then it is clear that you can get help only if you blackmail the world.
Sorry, but I think playing hot potato with the universe is not an optimal strategy to reduce suffering.

The problem is that they CAN'T get help without a violent uprising - the entire history of the goblinoid people says so. Roy and Durkon - who are both canonically good people who got into the good-aligned afterlife - wouldn't have been in a position to consider the goblins' condition without the uprising.

So, if fighting were the only way to make your voice heard against oppression, would you not fight?

[locksmith of lo]

we'll give you a minute to figure this problem out! :smallbiggrin:

[UnintensifiedFa]

And if we define problem using the first, and not the second definition, then it just becomes the blackmail game - we help not those who need it most, but those who can destroy the world if we don't help them.

The "Blackmail Game" part is a very interesting point, but I'm not sure I take it the same way as you.

The fact that these negotiations only started now isn't necessarily because the world is being threatened at spellpoint, but because someone did a big enough, radical, world-threatening plan, and it got a god's attention. I think that feeling the need to blackmail the entire Earth just so that you could receive better treatment is indicative of the scale of the problem, and that's why the Goblins are just now getting this treatment because the scope of their actions have brought the issue to the attention of Good god's and Good adventurers.

[Severance]

This strip though, this one finally put to words what it is that is sticking in my craw. "Don't we need to take responsibility for our part in a bad setup." No, because you have no responsibility there, as near as I can tell even in tis fantasy universe no one asks to be born and while it's certainly laudable and clearly Good for someone who was for example born to noble parents and rich compared to someone born in a small farming village, no one has a responsibility or obligation to anyone to just go and give them their property.

Thanks for saying this, I've been following this series for a long time but I felt someone had to given how frankly unsufferably preachy the last three strips of this comic have been. The only responsibility you carry is the one that comes from your actions not your being. That's a terrible notion to put forth.
What Durkon is putting forth and Roy agreeing to is group guilt. How abominable.
"You're born as x therefore you have to do y" is such a terrible notion to hold.


Whether you ask or not, you still benefit.

I'm an able-bodied white cisgender heterosexual man born to middle-class parents in America. ALL of those characteristics give me privileges for which I've never asked but do benefit. Do I have a responsibility to acknowledge my unearned privileges and use them to try help level the playing field? I say that I do.

Ditto. "Privilege" is just another reframing for "sin" and both are disgusting ways to look at a human being. Wish I was a mage so I could cast Wish and end this unsufferable parentesis in the action already, or to at least give Roy a Mind Blank so he can call out Durkon on his bs.

[UnintensifiedFa]

So, if fighting were the only way to make your voice heard against oppression, would you not fight?

Because if you do your past violence will be used by people on the internet to say that you're not worthy of attaining equaliy

[StragaSevera]

The problem is that they CAN'T get help without a violent uprising - the entire history of the goblinoid people says so. Roy and Durkon - who are both canonically good people who got into the good-aligned afterlife - wouldn't have been in a position to consider the goblins' condition without the uprising.

So, if fighting were the only way to make your voice heard against oppression, would you not fight?

And if we start helping people only after they make a violent uprising, then we will have violent uprisings all across the world.
I think people who have as bad starting conditions as goblins (for example, the bugbears, who live in the frickin' snow wastes), but did not resort to killing and enslaving other people (at least as far as we saw in-comics), deserve humanitarian aid too. But if we focus the help only on those who killed and enslaved...

[pendell]

Nah, I don't see the world within the world being the solution. I mean it could be in a super clever fashion, but the obvious interpretation of "here's a planet all to yourselves, problem solved" seems a bit external factor, if that makes sense. A more satisfying solution would probably still have the goblins abutting the other races, but with less pointy things in between.

My problem with this solution is that Rich is, again, trying to hold up a mirror to real-world problems. I think he wants to present a hopeful vision where people of many skin tones , even those with fangs and green skin, can live together in harmony with other people. A world where goblins and humans of good will can build a life together, even when it means confronting members of their own species who love slaughter and bloodshed more. That was the entire theme of "How the Paladin Got his scar".

It really isn't possible in the real world to go off to another planet and have it all to yourselves, and because of this it would not be a 'worthwhile' solution, from Rich's perspective, because it offers no meaningful commentary on the real world. It's a Deus Ex Machina solution, and not even a particularly good one. In any story where humans colonize other planets, peace and happiness as people who hate each other permanently separate does not follow. Instead, all the problems we have on this planet get magnified many times over via interstellar conflict.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[The MunchKING]

Hmmmm... If he doesn't even give half, I wonder if he gives one letter about the Goblin people. Maybe a D or a M? :smalltongue:


Yeah, I doubt Rich's answer to systematic discrimination will be segregation.

Not segregation, Colonization!

"If you feel like you've gotten a bad hand because of how non-fertile your land is, and are willing to work hard on new fertile land, have we got some new land for you!" Nobody is forced to go, it's just the enterprising ones that WANT to go are allowed to.

And yes, if you're trying to be fair, the offer isn't just for Goblins, but the dirt farmers, any slaves you can free from the Western Continent, whomever.


Of course when the second planet's good land runs out, you might have a bit of a population problem. But that's a far future generation's problem. And it's a way better deal than they'd get now.

[Czhorat]

Thanks for saying this, I've been following this series for a long time but I felt someone had to given how frankly unsufferably preachy the last three strips of this comic have been. The only responsibility you carry is the one that comes from your actions not your being. That's a terrible notion to put forth.
What Durkon is putting forth and Roy agreeing to is group guilt. How abominable.
"You're born as x therefore you have to do y" is such a terrible notion to hold.



Ditto. "Privilege" is just another reframing for "sin" and both are disgusting ways to look at a human being. Wish I was a mage so I could cast Wish and end this unsufferable parentesis in the action already, or to at least give Roy a Mind Blank so he can call out Durkon on his bs.

Are you aware that you're disagreeing with me?

The last three steps are the thematic heart of OOTS. This is literally what the story is about - the corrosive effect of systemic racism and the fight to understand and correct it. The stuff with the gates and the evil lich is just plot.

It's also about looking at the racism and sexism at the core of much epic fantasy and TTRPGs, and attempting to do better.

"Privilege" and "sin" are far, FAR different concepts. As a gamer, you might want to read Scalzi's essay titled "The Lowest Difficulty Setting" for a great metaphor.

[Lord Torath]

"That" and "the" both being used as "tha" made panel 3 a bit wonky to read.I also found it hard to understand. Glad it's not just me.
... it dinnae really matter tha some oth'r god's tha one tha made tha first mistake.I think he's saying "It doesn't really matter that some other god is the one that made the first mistake." Okay, typing it out really helped my understand that better.


Rich Burlew, if you're reading this, the last panel has Durkon asking "Can a dwarf get a minute to solve worldwide generational inquality?"

I think that's a spelling error, and I think it's important because you could mean either "inequity" or "inequality", and they are two different concepts. "Equality" means "everyone gets treated exactly the same". "Equity" means "we recognize that not everyone starts at the same starting line, and make allowances for the disadvantaged."

"Equality" means a chess grandmaster and an amateur sit down at the same board and play a game with the same starting conditions. "Equity" means the grandmaster spots the amateur a piece or two in order to give the amateur a fighting chance and make the game sporting.

There are two different ideas with very different solutions. Having equity doesn't necessarily mean having equality and vice versa. So it's important to know exactly what problem Durkon is trying to solve here.

Respectfully,

Brian P.I fully support this point, too. Also, should that be "in'quality"? Or "inequality"?

[Czhorat]

And if we start helping people only after they make a violent uprising, then we will have violent uprisings all across the world.
I think people who have as bad starting conditions as goblins (for example, the bugbears, who live in the frickin' snow wastes), but did not resort to killing and enslaving other people (at least as far as we saw in-comics), deserve humanitarian aid too. But if we focus the help only on those who killed and enslaved...

So where is any of this help for those who aren't uprising violently?

Again, the paragons of goodness in this world DON'T SEEM TO CARE.

If you keep getting uprisings that's maybe because you keep engaging in oppression; fix the problem of the ones with whom you're at war and then take a look in the mirror and fix the others unbidden. Give them land. Give them wealth. Offer them positions of power.

But that's the problem. I can't think of any oppressed people - in fiction or reality - which was gifted freedom absent a struggle for it.

[Czhorat]

Because if you do your past violence will be used by people on the internet to say that you're not worthy of attaining equaliy


And if you don't you'll continue to live under the boot.

Damned either way, so may as well go down swinging.

[The MunchKING]

I'm still disappointed in the use of the p-word for Xykon's soul-repository, but that's even more tangential (but if the D&D movie has a Lich, let's not call its soul-container a phylactery, OK? Add that to your list.)

Why? What's wrong with that word?

[StragaSevera]

So where is any of this help for those who aren't uprising violently?

Again, the paragons of goodness in this world DON'T SEEM TO CARE.

If you keep getting uprisings that's maybe because you keep engaging in oppression; fix the problem of the ones with whom you're at war and then take a look in the mirror and fix the others unbidden. Give them land. Give them wealth. Offer them positions of power.

But that's the problem. I can't think of any oppressed people - in fiction or reality - which was gifted freedom absent a struggle for it.

It seems we are talking about different issues.

I'm talking about stuff that can be done at this moment going forward. Not at the stuff that should be done a long time ago.

And, as I say, if now, as a response to goblins inducing mass suffering on innocent people, you single them out in humanitarian aid... then you are only encouraging somebody else to hold the world hostage.

But neither Roy nor Durkon ever said anything about people who did not make other people suffer and who still have bad lands.

[pendell]

And if you don't you'll continue to live under the boot.

Damned either way, so may as well go down swinging.

There is a third option, and that is nonviolent resistance. Regrettably, I can't think of a really good fantasy analog at this moment, because heroic fantasy loves its violent solutions, but it is at thing that has worked before. The closest I can think of is the pacifist route of Undertale, in which one neither allows the villain to have their way nor does the protagonist kill a single monster.



But that's the problem. I can't think of any oppressed people - in fiction or reality - which was gifted freedom absent a struggle for it.


No one receives freedom without struggling for it, that is true. I would argue , in fact, that any one who was gifted freedom wouldn't be able to keep it, since acquiring and keeping freedom are pretty close to the same skill set. The same principle by which a chick must peck its own way out of an egg without help.

However, there is a difference between struggling for freedom and armed conflict or murder as part of that struggle. Remember the pigs of Animal Farm -- they turned to human weapons and tools to create their Utopia, and the end state was a society no less unjust than the previous one. It's still a farm in which the animals are exploited , worked to the bone and then shipped off to the butcher at the end of their useful lives. It's only the face of the oppressor that has changed, and not by much.

To paraphrase one of the UN-problematic parts of Tolkien's legacy , it isn't enough to overthrow the dark lord if you simply put another dark lord in his place. The true goal is to overthrow the dark lord and have *no one* in his place.

ETA: Which brings up one of the really serious problems with fighting for justice in this or in a fantasy world. It's because there are a significant percentage of people who are just happy with an unjust society provided they're the ones running the show. Napoleon in Animal Farm was deeply exercised about animal rights when he was just another farm animal. But he found ways to rationalize and excuse his privileged position once he took it for himself.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Severance]

To paraphrase another comic book "with some power comes some responsability."

People born into privilege have a duty to realize it and do something, however minor to help those who weren't, at the very least, not to hinder them. It's not a moral failure not to solve injustice world-wide because that can't be done just like that, but every bit helps.

There's no such thing as people born into privilege the same way as there's no such thing as people born into guilt or sin. Spiderman's responsibility lied in not misusing his great powers like for robbery, not in being forced into helping others, that was his free willed choice not some sort of "privilege" that shackled his being and forced him to go solving crimes.
People aren't "born into", they're just born. And carry no duty nor guilt because of how they're born. This idea is so repulsive to me.

[UnintensifiedFa]

And if we start helping people only after they make a violent uprising, then we will have violent uprisings all across the world.
I think people who have as bad starting conditions as goblins (for example, the bugbears, who live in the frickin' snow wastes), but did not resort to killing and enslaving other people (at least as far as we saw in-comics), deserve humanitarian aid too. But if we focus the help only on those who killed and enslaved...

This attitude is kind of worrying, essentially saying that you should only support those who have quietly submitted to the inequalities and injustices with no complaints.
There are two reasons I feel that currently, things focus on the Goblins. The first is the fact that the Goblins are very present to the Order (who are the ones exposed to the full facts of the universe and in a position to negotiate) and that maybe, just maybe, the Goblins resort to violence doesn't denote their unworthiness for help, but that their problem is especially desperate, that they should need to resort to such violent measures.



The problem is that they CAN'T get help without a violent uprising - the entire history of the goblinoid people says so. Roy and Durkon - who are both canonically good people who got into the good-aligned afterlife - wouldn't have been in a position to consider the goblins' condition without the uprising.

So, if fighting were the only way to make your voice heard against oppression, would you not fight?

[Rinazina]

Why? What's wrong with that word?

I googled quickly and it has some religious reference from a very specific religion.
but, I mean, golem, phoenyx, succubus, pit fiend, unicorns, chimera, medusa... they all are inspired to mythical (from official religion or the so called pagan) folklore ...
sometime I belive D&D is the only way to keep alive these concepts, before they would be replaced by this or the next Iron Man

[Worldsong]

Yes, but it is not fair to help goblins at the expense of, for example, Empire of Blood slaves, only because Empire of Blood happens not to be racist.
It does not work that way, you don't just compare the "labels of evil words", and the one who has more labels get the humanitarian aid.

Not like the Order is going to use the slaves in the Empire of Blood as sacrifices to help the goblinoids.

The goblinoid issue is a more pressing issue so it gets priority. It might feel like rewarding bad behaviour, but being principled about not helping people if they don't act like saints is how the world gets blown up.

Pragmatically speaking the systemic injustice which has led to the possibility of the world ending is more important than the one which just results in a lot of people constantly fighting each other.


And if we start helping people only after they make a violent uprising, then we will have violent uprisings all across the world.
I think people who have as bad starting conditions as goblins (for example, the bugbears, who live in the frickin' snow wastes), but did not resort to killing and enslaving other people (at least as far as we saw in-comics), deserve humanitarian aid too. But if we focus the help only on those who killed and enslaved...

Well, no, because if a group started a violent uprising and it turned out they already had it pretty good, they just wanted more gold, you could respond with "Okay no you guys are just asshats" and stomp on them for being horrible greedy people.

That's not what's happening here. The goblinoids are causing a violent uprising and the Good guys are saying "Oh wow, now that I'm paying attention you guys really have it bad. Note, that doesn't mean your violent uprising is acceptable behaviour but it seems like the most realistic way of resolving the issue, including the violent uprising, is improving your situation so you no longer have to feel like a violent uprising is literally the only method to get people to pay attention to your plight."

Violent uprisings don't give you a free ticket for preferential treatment, they might just help outsiders realize that there's a big problem they either haven't noticed or haven't been paying attention to.

[Severance]

Are you aware that you're disagreeing with me?


Ditto means "like above" meaning my answer to the other user applied to you as well. Of course I'm disagreeing with you, the ideas you exposed sounded abominable to me, like the notion that your skin color or gender dictates your responsibility/guilt/duty to correct the world. It absolutely doesn't. Only actions hold someone responsible, not their state of being, even less so their state of birth.

[Dr.Zero]

The problem, as I said earlier, is not about "is it morally right or wrong to help goblins" - all normal people would agree on that.
The problem is - is it morally right to focus on just the goblin's problems? Because, I guarantee you, a lot of other people got the bad lands too - look at humans and lizardfolk on the Western continent, for example.

If heroes try to solve only the "goblin land inequality" problem, and not the "all-people land inequality", then... the moral of the story kinda becomes "if you want your problems to be solved, you need to take the world hostage, and if you do not make such an evil act and just try to survive yourself, then heroes will never think about helping you".

So, I would really like if this comic will raise this problem too - but I feel that it will not, and this feeling makes me sad.


That is, a time more, a proof that the squeaking wheel gets the oil.
And that might makes right (or at least your squeaking audible).

[hroþila]

"You must help absolutely everybody at once and fix every single problem at the same time" is a great way to defend the status quo.

[StragaSevera]

This attitude is kind of worrying, essentially saying that you should only support those who have quietly submitted to the inequalities and injustices with no complaints.
There are two reasons I feel that currently, things focus on the Goblins. The first is the fact that the Goblins are very present to the Order (who are the ones exposed to the full facts of the universe and in a position to negotiate) and that maybe, just maybe, the Goblins resort to violence doesn't denote their unworthiness for help, but that their problem is especially desperate, that they should need to resort to such violent measures.

Where did I say that "you should only support those who have quietly submitted to the inequalities and injustices with no complaints" or "the Goblins resort to violence does denote their unworthiness for help"? You are projecting your own ideas on me.

Goblins may really need help. But there may be other people that really need help too - and who did not kill and enslave as much innocents as goblins did. So maybe, just maybe, it is more effective to help people who did not commit mass murder first? Not because goblins are "not worthy", but to prevent other people from following the goblins road.


Violent uprisings don't give you a free ticket for preferential treatment, they might just help outsiders realize that there's a big problem they either haven't noticed or haven't been paying attention to.
Yes, and now that we realized there is a big problem, we can measure the whole problem and not only the part that directly involves people who killed and enslaved innocents.

[UnintensifiedFa]

I googled quickly and it has some religious reference from a very specific religion.
but, I mean, golem, phoenyx, succubus, pit fiend, unicorns, chimera, medusa... they all are inspired to mythical (from official religion or the so called pagan) folklore ...
sometime I belive D&D is the only way to keep alive these concepts, before they would be replaced by this or the next Iron Man

Personally (although I'm not the most qualified to weigh in) the difference between Phylactery and those Mythical concepts is that Phylacteries are commonly used today, and hold real-life religious significance. All of the DnD monsters are just as evil (or at least deadly) as they are in myth, but Phylactery as an evil creature's life force and soul is quite different from its real-life usage.

Personally, the fantasy and real-world concepts are divorced enough that I don't see it as a significant issue, but I think it couldn't hurt to ask your players if they're alright (especially if they are followers of the aforementioned real-world religion)

[Czhorat]

It seems we are talking about different issues.

I'm talking about stuff that can be done at this moment going forward. Not at the stuff that should be done a long time ago.

And, as I say, if now, as a response to goblins inducing mass suffering on innocent people, you single them out in humanitarian aid... then you are only encouraging somebody else to hold the world hostage.

But neither Roy nor Durkon ever said anything about people who did not make other people suffer and who still have bad lands.

What happened up to now is how we got here. It's also a case-study in why the uprising is not only justified but necessary.

Absent the uprising the idea of reparations to disadvantages races wouldn't have occurred to Roy or Durkon. So your take is that the result of the goblin uprising should be "let's make life better for unrelated lizardfolk?"

That's
a) still reactive to the uprising
b) punishing all goblinkind for the actions of a few
c) ignoring the problem, and allowing it to get worse.

[Aniaas]

Why? What's wrong with that word?

I'm not sure what they're getting at - a phylactery can refers to {scrubbed}. The word itself is derived from an ancient greek word for protection - so the usage is "this box protects that which is sacred/important". I think it's a suitable word for a container for a soul - it very much plays along with the theme of the lich being a perversion of immortality.

[Worldsong]

Yes, and now that we realized there is a big problem, we can measure the whole problem and not only the part that directly involves people who killed and enslaved innocents.

Good, so we're also paying attention to the vast majority of goblinoids who have not participated in any killing or enslaving so far as we're aware. I can agree with that.

EDIT:
As a more serious answer, slavery is not the same problem as systemic discrimination. Injustice takes shape in many forms and being made aware of one form doesn't mean you should hurry to find another form to address just because the first form was made public knowledge through violence.

[StragaSevera]

What happened up to now is how we got here. It's also a case-study in why the uprising is not only justified but necessary.

Absent the uprising the idea of reparations to disadvantages races wouldn't have occurred to Roy or Durkon. So your take is that the result of the goblin uprising should be "let's make life better for unrelated lizardfolk?"

That's
a) still reactive to the uprising
b) punishing all goblinkind for the actions of a few
c) ignoring the problem, and allowing it to get worse.

No. The result of the uprising should be - ideally - something like forming an alliance of people and factions that are willing to help those who are in need - and help effectively, to not unwittingly do more harm by misplacing the aid.
And such alliance, or council, whatever, should make a deep analysis of current injustices in the world, and which are easier to fix with the limited amount of resources.

For example, if there are two territories that have infertile soil, but first can be helped by simple Stone Shape to redirect a portion of a nearby river, and the second needs constant attention fo a high-level druid for a long time, then it is efficient to focus on the first problem first.

This should be the result of the uprising. Not the knee-jerk reaction of "let's help goblins!!!".


Good, so we're also paying attention to the vast majority of goblinoids who have not participated in any killing or enslaving so far as we're aware. I can agree with that.

It is good that we reached a kind of understanding ;-)

[Dr.Zero]

The people living in the desert of the Western Continent have it bad, yes, but they still have it better than the goblinoids. They can build pretty large settlements and openly trade with each other. Yes, they're struggling for survival and yes, there are wars which result in a lot of fatalities, but at least they're at the stage of warring kingdoms, whereas goblinoids for the most part seem to be living in small villages in remote and hard to reach places because if they become big enough to be noticed adventurers of all alignments start heading their way to fix that. And if it's not adventurers it's Azure City and the Sapphire Guard.


This, though, has nothing to do with the bad position they get at the start, but with the fact that everyone seems to hate the goblinoids (but the goblinoids themselves... to some extent).
If everyone hated the dwarfs, even if they got better land, I doubt they could withstand a global war all by themselves.
At least if they didn't start outrageously better than anyone else.

[pendell]

What happened up to now is how we got here. It's also a case-study in why the uprising is not only justified but necessary.


Actually, the characters in comic both just condemned the conquest of Gobbotopia and it's enslavement of the former human population as 'unjustified'.

We've met goblins and hobgoblins in both HTPGHS and SOD who are finding ways to make a better life for goblinoids that don't require genocidal war or holding the world hostage. Redcloak's "plan" may have created gobbotopia, but it also meant the complete extermination of the goblins who had previously been occupying Dorukan's dungeon. Not to mention a fair number of his direct blood relations being killed off as unwilling conscripts in a war while Xykon looked on and gloated.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Czhorat]

I'm not sure what they're getting at - a phylactery can refers to {scrub the post, scrub the quote}. The word itself is derived from an ancient greek word for protection - so the usage is "this box protects that which is sacred/important". I think it's a suitable word for a container for a soul - it very much plays along with the theme of the lich being a perversion of immortality.

{scrubbed}

[UnintensifiedFa]

Where did I say that "you should only support those who have quietly submitted to the inequalities and injustices with no complaints" or "the Goblins resort to violence does denote their unworthiness for help"? You are projecting your own ideas on me.

Goblins may really need help. But there may be other people that really need help too - and who did not kill and enslave as much innocents as goblins did. So maybe, just maybe, it is more effective to help people who did not commit mass murder first? Not because goblins are "not worthy", but to prevent other people from following the goblins road.

And I'm not advocating against helping those people, I'm merely suggesting that currently, the Order is in the best position to help the Goblins, while also accomplishing another important objective. You can't use the existence of another problem that is (or is at least believed to be) greater than your current issue to argue that this issue shouldn't be solved, or should be put on hold until you fix the greater problems. (Unless those problems are conflicting in solutions, which certainly isn't the case here.

And I apologize for any perceived projections, It's easy to get into the mindset that the forum is divided into two groups, those with whom I agree and those with whom I disagree, and there's obviously loads of nuance that get's ignored when that mindset is present.

[Empiar93]

What happened up to now is how we got here. It's also a case-study in why the uprising is not only justified but necessary.

“Other people oppressed us so we are going to oppress you” is wrong 100% of the time. Slaughter and slavery is never justified. Please never say such a thing again. Azure City was not a war of rebellion against oppressors, it was a violent invasion and occupation. Those aren’t okay.

[The MunchKING]

{scrubbed}

All the other options google gave me except "Definition" were D&D or Pathfinder references. So I'm thinking the link might already be in the culture mindset pretty strongly.

That or Google is just offering me those because it knows I check out a lot of D&D/Pathfinder stuff.

[Czhorat]

All the other options google gave me except "Definition" were D&D or Pathfinder references. So I'm thinking the link might already be in the culture mindset pretty strongly.

That or Google is just offering me those because it knows I check out a lot of D&D/Pathfinder stuff.

And that's the problem - it's taken a real-world ritual object for a group often facing discrimination and turned it into not only a fantasy trope, but an evil-coded fantasy trope.

[StragaSevera]

And I'm not advocating against helping those people, I'm merely suggesting that currently, the Order is in the best position to help the Goblins, while also accomplishing another important objective. You can't use the existence of another problem that is (or is at least believed to be) greater than your current issue to argue that this issue shouldn't be solved, or should be put on hold until you fix the greater problems. (Unless those problems are conflicting in solutions, which certainly isn't the case here.

And I apologize for any perceived projections, It's easy to get into the mindset that the forum is divided into two groups, those with whom I agree and those with whom I disagree, and there's obviously loads of nuance that get's ignored when that mindset is present.

They are conflicting in solutions, because you have limited time and resources to help people.

Of course, now Order is in such a position that makes it more efficient to help goblins than to help Westerners, but it is a big difference between this and the attitude I see in the comics. The current situation is purely logistical, not ontological.

No problems, I understand that it is too easy to subconciously divide people to "us" and "them" =-)

[SavageWombat]

Oh, sure - we're not allowed to talk about politics, but the Giant gets to. Humph.

/great strip

[Zonkerbl]

{scrubbed}

[Worldsong]

This, though, has nothing to do with the bad position they get at the start, but with the fact that everyone seems to hate the goblinoids (but the goblinoids themselves... to some extent).
If everyone hated the dwarfs, even if they got better land, I doubt they could withstand a global war all by themselves.
At least if they didn't start outrageously better than anyone else.

I think the goblinoids having a bad hand at the start and everyone treating goblinoids like crap are related issues. Fenris designed goblinoids to propagate rapidly and overwhelm the other races while making them pretty bad at everything else (short lifespans get in the way of developing skills and inventing new things due to the flawed nature of passing on information to your descendants), so at the start, goblinoids tried to expand rapidly and all the other races beat them back and afterwards stuck with a mindset of "Goblinoids are vermin who'll overrun our societies if given the chance, so cut them down before they get a chance to do so." End result, goblinoids are stuck with subpar racial traits, living in badlands because that's the only place they aren't constantly hunted down.

This all on top of any bad land goblinoids were dropped in when the world was created.

[The MunchKING]

And that's the problem - it's taken a real-world ritual object for a group often facing discrimination and turned it into not only a fantasy trope, but an evil-coded fantasy trope.

Now there's other phylacteries in D&D like the Phylactery of faithfulness (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#phylacteryofFaithfulness) or Undead-turning that aren't evil-coded.

[UnintensifiedFa]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

This is roughly what I was getting at as well. I really just think it's something you should ask if people are comfortable with (or even better, bring up to the DM if you're not comfortable with it.)

[TriciaOso]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

{scrubbed}

[Gift Jeraff]

I feel like Roy is speaking out of the reader's knowledge here. I don't think any of the heroes have really interacted with Xykon enough to make the judgment call that he's not in it to help the goblins. I suppose O-Chul has witnessed his depravity firsthand with his torturous games, but being sadistic doesn't preclude being sympathetic to Redcloak's cause.

[Enixon]

I might be totally off base and over thinking things, but I can't help but feel like the discussion here is sort of equating real world civil rights protests with Redcloak threating to literally murder the entire planet if he doesn't get what he wants which strike me as a kind of uncomfortable false equivalency

but then I'm also the type that looks at the recent D&D orc issue and thinks "if you read about a fantasy culture that treats slaughter and the subjection of everyone that's not them as virtues and think "they're talking about (insert minority of choice here)!" I'm not sure it's the book that's racist" so I might just be out of touch.

[Worldsong]

They are conflicting in solutions, because you have limited time and resources to help people.

Of course, now Order is in such a position that makes it more efficient to help goblins than to help Westerners, but it is a big difference between this and the attitude I see in the comics. The current situation is purely logistical, not ontological.

No problems, I understand that it is too easy to subconciously divide people to "us" and "them" =-)

For the record, I do strongly agree that one should be smart and pragmatic in combination with altruism. Reflexively helping whichever group is in front of you might feel good but isn't very practical.

In this situation, however, I don't think the Order is in any better position to help the Western Continent than the goblinoids (probably worse), and the situation with the goblinoids simply is more pressing given the world destruction issue. And the problem with the goblinoids also seems like it's part of a more deeply rooted issue where people are judged by their species/race, which might actually need addressing before you can properly deal with the Western Continent situation. As pointed out by another commenter, such discrimination is poisonous because it gives rise to the idea that there are circumstances in which it's okay to treat others poorly regardless of what actions they might have taken, which then makes it easier to find other excuses to treat people horribly, such as slavery.

On top of that, the argument that you shouldn't help groups which misbehave, on the basis that if you help them that'll convince people to misbehave to also receive help, is one of those arguments which is often used by people who, when they're being honest about it, just don't want to have to help others. I can believe that in your case you're genuinely concerned about the possibility, but the connection between "Don't help the unfortunate because they'll take advantage of it" and "I just don't want to help people" is strong and difficult to dismiss from my mind.

I also think such arguments often are based on believing the average person is worse than they actually are.

[Wraithfighter]

Violent uprisings don't give you a free ticket for preferential treatment, they might just help outsiders realize that there's a big problem they either haven't noticed or haven't been paying attention to.

This. This so much.

The problem that we run into in real-world societies is that we run into an ugly series of escalations:

1: Oppressed group gets oppressed, does nothing but hope for people to do better, nothing changes.

2: Oppressed group gets oppressed, makes mild comments to try to get people to do better, nothing changes.

3: Oppressed group gets oppressed, peacefully (but vocally) protests in order to get people to do better, get oppressed harder during protests, nothing changes.

4: Oppressed group gets oppressed, more aggressively protests in order to get people to do better, finally shock some people into realizing how bad things are, maybe only now things change.

{scrubbed}

It's easy to dismiss the plight of the Goblins here, because they've nearly always been the unequivocal villains in the strip. But if given the choice between being good guys and oppressed and starving and destroyed, or bad guys and strong and surviving... is that really much of a choice?

[UnintensifiedFa]

They are conflicting in solutions, because you have limited time and resources to help people.

Of course, now Order is in such a position that makes it more efficient to help goblins than to help Westerners, but it is a big difference between this and the attitude I see in the comics. The current situation is purely logistical, not ontological.



I don't see them as conflicting at all. Is one of higher priority, maybe, but that's not important. They are both problems that should be solved, and using resources from one shouldn't take away from the effort that you put into the other solutions.

WHat I do see is an opportunity to solve a problem that is closer than any other solution to either of the issues raised has ever been.

[Dr.Zero]

"Don't help the unfortunate because they'll take advantage of it" and "I just don't want to help people" is strong and difficult to dismiss from my mind.

I also think such arguments often are based on believing the average person is worse than they actually are.

But its point seems more "Don't help who tries to force you with violence, care about the unfortunate who can't even make their screams audible or who tried peaceful ways".

[Feruk]

I love you Rich for rising and discussing these big questions.

I know you don't usually answer questions in these threads, but was this planned from the (somewhat) beginning, or have you managed to organically merge this type of discussion to your story because it happened to already have pre-existing themes that fitted this perfectly?

Without being the Giant - AFAIK he's had the plot planned since ~strip 100, and I'm taking that to be the whole outline including this. Which, honestly, seems bad to me - the online strip has utterly failed to show the discrimination against the goblinoids (or even times when the order could have tried talking to goblins to defuse like they do with other races), hence part of why people are speaking up now it's mentioned. It's in print materials, but IMHO the online strip should stand on its own merits.

But I'm not the author, and honestly not really invested. I disagree heavily with one of the Giant's paradigms anyway, and I'm here to enjoy the story.

[locksmith of lo]

"That" and "the" both being used as "tha" made panel 3 a bit wonky to read.

i think he forgot the accents... it's "tha" and "thà" for the correct pronounciation. :smallbiggrin:

[Aniaas]

{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

{scrubbed}

[UnintensifiedFa]

but then I'm also the type that looks at the recent D&D orc issue and thinks "if you read about a fantasy culture that treats slaughter and the subjection of everyone that's not them as virtues and think "they're talking about (insert minority of choice here)!" I'm not sure it's the book that's racist" so I might just be out of touch.

This is common rhetoric I see a lot, and it's not wrong. Having cultures that are "savage" and "uncivilized" (by modern standards of course) doesn't inherently lend to racism, and often inserting other cultures into those positions is very racist.
That's not the issue most have with "fantasy racism". The issue arises when any member of that race is seen as fit to slaughter indiscriminately because of their appearance, which is a very DnD/Fantasy Fiction relevant story.
There are usually a few people who associate [Savage Race] with [Minority] and undoubtedly they are racist, but the primary issue is associating these people with the more reasonable advocates who simply don't think that someone's race/species immediately marks them for execution.

[Jasdoif]

....and Durkon needing a moment to solve global inequality.And with such optimism! (http://freefall.purrsia.com/ff2700/fc02626.htm)


"You must help absolutely everybody at once and fix every single problem at the same time" is a great way to defend the status quo.It is indeed a very effective way to bundle manageable problems into an unmanageable package, and then protest that the package can't be managed; it's basically the opposite of problem solving: breaking down an unmanageable problem into manageable pieces.

[Teioh]

Without being the Giant - AFAIK he's had the plot planned since ~strip 100, and I'm taking that to be the whole outline including this. Which, honestly, seems bad to me - the online strip has utterly failed to show the discrimination against the goblinoids (or even times when the order could have tried talking to goblins to defuse like they do with other races), hence part of why people are speaking up now it's mentioned. It's in print materials, but IMHO the online strip should stand on its own merits.

But I'm not the author, and honestly not really invested. I disagree heavily with one of the Giant's paradigms anyway, and I'm here to enjoy the story.

If anyone is shocked the story taking this turn (which I'm not even sure we can talk about without breaking forum rules) they haven't been paying attention for the past 9 years or so. The Giant was fairly vocal that he had a limited worldview in the past, and would work going forward to change that in his comic.

Like you said though, it's tied to first 9 years or so, where while the story was mapped out, the tone wasn't, and we see some tearing at the edges. But, it's been clear for almost a decade where this was going, and I've been fine with it. (though if it keeps like this for every comic, well, I won't make it to double digits, but I expect we'll get back to the plot soon)

[Thermophille]

Maybe it's just because I've had weeks rather than minutes to think about this, but the solution Durkon's wanting seems pretty obvious; have the goblins give up their slaves in exchange for Hinjo giving them official claim to the land. It frees the slaves, making the goblins look less like the bad guys in everyone else's eyes, and it basically forces most nations to acknowledge them.

[The Pilgrim]

Violent uprisings don't give you a free ticket for preferential treatment, they might just help outsiders realize that there's a big problem they either haven't noticed or haven't been paying attention to.

More often violent uprisings lead to the revolters getting killed en masse, if they lose, or the revolters slaughtering the other people, if they win.

After that, whoever has won begins to look inside his own ranks in search for "traitors" and "unvelievers", and keeps the slaughter going.

Because once someone realizes that if he hits things with a hammer he gets rewarded, all problems begin to look like nails.

Violence leads to violence.

[The_Weirdo]

The problem lies in defining what "this problem" is.
As far as I see, in comics "this problem" is defined as "the goblins' problem", and not "the problem of people who live in bad lands".

Well, last time they asked nicely, TDO got killed for it.

The time after that was shortly after the SG created Redcloak by slaughtering his village and destroying his life.

O-Chul tried to reach a fairly amicable solution, but, after that, Redcloak led the chickens home to roost. Besides which, well, asking nicely had not worked.


Violence leads to violence.

Not the least of it because groups that commit violence cannot really get all surprised when it's visited on them...

[Worldsong]

But its point seems more "Don't help who tries to force you with violence, care about the unfortunate who can't even make their screams audible or who tried peaceful ways".

As Wraithfighter said above, often violent uprisings happen after peaceful attempts at reform failed, so it's not like these are two completely different groups where one is being more ethical than the other.

The vast majority of groups and people don't resort to violent uprisings as their first solution to injustice because war and other such things are harmful to the instigator as well.

There might be instances where a group of people are just way too quick to resort to violence to try and improve their situation, but Redcloak is the end result of what appears to be thousands of years of goblinoids being unable to make any headway through non-violent means. The violent uprising is a testament to how long the problem has existed and how deep it goes, not how unethical the oppressed group is.

Of course, if you do learn that this violent uprising is the result of a bunch of people just being way too eager to resort to extreme means to achieve their goals you can determine that other groups need help while being less problematic, but if the violent uprising is the end result of an oppressed group giving up on peaceful attempts at reform you'd essentially be punishing them for not putting up with an unfair situation for quite long enough for you to arrive and fix it. Especially if the only reason you noticed their plight is because they resorted to violence to be noticed.

"You need to be noisy enough that we can't ignore you but you can't actually do anything harmful" is a pretty tall order, especially if another, more powerful group is invested in keeping the oppressed group oppressed and silenced.

EDIT2:
In addition, how easy it is to spread information also affects how easy it is to make people aware of your plight. While the Stickverse has things like scrying and other divination spells I don't think they could just have thousands of goblinoids gather in one place for a peaceful protest and then send a recording of that protest to every corner of the world to make sure it's out there and visible.

And if they tried to gather somewhere where they're visible it'd probably be treated as some kind of goblinoid army and Good-aligned adventurers would be sent that way to break it up. Terminally.

[danielxcutter]

But it still seems like an injustice. And if right now, fixing it happens to mean helping everyone else by saving the world, then I'm on board on trying.

Of course not being Literally The Biggest Problem EverTM isn't the point! The point is that it's an injustice and solving it also helps to stop the world from blowing up.

[The_Weirdo]

"You need to be noisy enough that we can't ignore you but you can't actually do anything harmful" is a pretty tall order, especially if another, more powerful group is invested in keeping the oppressed group oppressed and silenced.

Precisely!

[understatement]

Yeah, I'm not sure what's the fuss here. Helping the goblins is pretty much a direct line to helping everyone else on the world at this point.

[UnintensifiedFa]

Of course not being Literally The Biggest Problem EverTM isn't the point! The point is that it's an injustice and solving it also helps to stop the world from blowing up.

Disregarding the World Blowing up (which is hard to do in theory and nigh-impossible in practice). This is still an issue, and it still deserves to be solved, another bigger issue does not prevent that solution, unless the solving of both issues are mutually exclusive, which in this case it isn't, as the ideal solution is that both issues are solved. (I say both but it's really the issue with every individual "monster" race that needs to be approached both holistically and individually).

[The Pilgrim]

Whether you ask or not, you still benefit.

I'm an able-bodied white cisgender heterosexual man born to middle-class parents in America. ALL of those characteristics give me privileges for which I've never asked but do benefit. Do I have a responsibility to acknowledge my unearned privileges and use them to try help level the playing field? I say that I do.

I don't want to derrail this thread into RL issues, but...

Someone must explain me by which magic a white cisgender heterosexual man born into a middle-class family belongs to the privileged now, while a non-white transgender homosexual woman born into a billonaire family belongs to the oppressed.

[Severance]

To quote every racist white man's favorite person to pretend to idolize, "A riot is the language of the unheard". Oppressed groups almost never, if at all, start out with riots and violence. They only seem to because no one hears their peaceful protests, or sneer at their protests for being "unpatriotic" and the like. Like, remember the "controversies" about kneeling for the national anthem before sporting events? A fully peaceful, non-violent protest on a public stage, gee, maybe its the sort of thing that one should have listened to.

People did listen to that but then also used their own minds to evaluate the complaint and then judged it bogus and unconvincing, then proceeding to complain about injecting bogus unconvincing political arguments into sports events that should be all about entertainment and fun and unity... hence why the olympics if I remember right have now decided to ban such stuff.

It's not they didn't listen to it but that they didn't agree and if your answer to not convincing people is taking up arms and resorting to violent uprisings to bypass that process then I'm not gonna look at you with a sympathetic eye.

Also "racist white man" feels like a contradictory term, singling out a specific skincolor when complaining about racism kinda shows the evil you claimed to be against.


It's easy to dismiss the plight of the Goblins here, because they've nearly always been the unequivocal villains in the strip. But if given the choice between being good guys and oppressed and starving and destroyed, or bad guys and strong and surviving... is that really much of a choice?

Yes, and it's a big choice. It's far too easy to dismiss peaceful but more long and difficult solutions under the excuse that there's no peaceful solution at all and thus taking the easy route of pretending that becoming the bad guy wasn't your fault.
The end justifies the means is not an acceptable position to hold. Becoming a terrorist (like the goblins) doesn't change the fact you're a terrorist regardless of your motives.


More often violent uprisings lead to the revolters getting killed en masse, if they lose, or the revolters slaughtering the other people, if they win.

After that, whoever has won begins to look inside his own ranks in search for "traitors" and "unvelievers", and keeps the slaughter going.

Because once someone realizes that if he hits things with a hammer he gets rewarded, all problems begin to look like nails.

Violence leads to violence.

This thanks.


I don't want to derrail this thread into RL issues, but...

Someone must explain me by which magic a white cisgender heterosexual man born into a middle-class family belongs to the privileged now, while a non-white transgender homosexual woman born into a billonaire family belongs to the oppressed.

And thanks.
This whole mentality is just so abhorrent, group guilt at its finest. Sorry for the lenght.

[UnintensifiedFa]

Someone must explain me by which magic a white cisgender heterosexual man born into a middle-class family belongs to the privileged now, while a non-white transgender homosexual woman born into a billonaire family belongs to the oppressed.

Nobody said that any of this is true, but what is true is that some of the traits these people possess (from "billionaire" to "white cisgender heterosexual man"), are traits that either predispose them to easier or more difficult conditions. Money is probably an overall larger factor when it comes to how people are treated, but that doesn't mean that someone doesn't suffer worse conditions based on their other traits and factors.

[Frozenstep]

A great discussion that's been built up to for years. As expected, though, some hot takes in this discussion thread already.

[Dragonus45]

With a lotto ticket, you've still Risked something, whatever small amount of money you invested into a ticket (or tickets), was risked. Sure the reward was great but you've put something up.

With being born, there's no "Risk" that you put up, no conscious effort taken to try and "Win" the birth lottery. You're just given what you're given, with no control or decision made to "enter" the lotto.

Being born comes with plenty of risk, just none that you got to consent too.



To paraphrase another comic book "with some power comes some responsability."

People born into privilege have a duty to realize it and do something, however minor to help those who weren't, at the very least, not to hinder them. It's not a moral failure not to solve injustice world-wide because that can't be done just like that, but every bit helps.

No one should have kind of obligation or debt placed on them for the circumstances of their birth, or any other reason short of a willing commitment to such or a direct need to rectify ones own bad actions or negligence.


"You must help absolutely everybody at once and fix every single problem at the same time" is a great way to defend the status quo.

Yea letting the perfect be the enemy of the good is always a problem.

[The_Weirdo]

The "Blackmail Game" part is a very interesting point, but I'm not sure I take it the same way as you.

The fact that these negotiations only started now isn't necessarily because the world is being threatened at spellpoint, but because someone did a big enough, radical, world-threatening plan, and it got a god's attention. I think that feeling the need to blackmail the entire Earth just so that you could receive better treatment is indicative of the scale of the problem, and that's why the Goblins are just now getting this treatment because the scope of their actions have brought the issue to the attention of Good god's and Good adventurers.

I'd posit that, if you oppressed and hurt someone enough that they feel the need to threaten to ixnay the world just to get some iota of justice, then you can't get surprised when they do precisely that...

[Fergurg]

There is an important detail here: When offered a chance to get what he wants without killing everybody currently alive and without the risk of killing everybody that has ever lived, Redcloak refused and tried to kill Durkon, who came to him in good faith and agreed that there was a problem and wanted to find a solution.

Azure City was not conquered as part of goblins overthrowing their oppressors; it was conquered as a side effect of a plan to force the gods to destroy the world and start over.

[Czhorat]

I don't want to derrail this thread into RL issues, but...

Someone must explain me by which magic a white cisgender heterosexual man born into a middle-class family belongs to the privileged now, while a non-white transgender homosexual woman born into a billonaire family belongs to the oppressed.

Because even with the money as a shield they'll face disparities in how they're treated.

A middle-class cisgender male will never be told that he's using the wrong restroom. They'll not face hiring discrimination in looking for a job (and yes, I'm aware that literal billionaires are an edge-case in which they don't need to work. For anyone near the normal range of wealth - the 99% if you will - this is a consideration).

Non-white people - of any wealth level - are more likely to have negative interactions with police.

Etc, etc. There's been a LOT written on this. If you're genuinely curious and not looking to score internet points it's easy enough to educate yourself.

[Thermophille]

To say something nonspecific and not necessarily about real life issues...

Someone's race is determined by their heritage, and that heritage might be predisposed to certain levels of wealth. It's hard to be born into a billionaire family of a race that has a lower wealth average.

[Empiar93]

With a lotto ticket, you've still Risked something, whatever small amount of money you invested into a ticket (or tickets), was risked. Sure the reward was great but you've put something up.

With being born, there's no "Risk" that you put up, no conscious effort taken to try and "Win" the birth lottery. You're just given what you're given, with no control or decision made to "enter" the lotto.

Anyways, maybe we should normalize giving away some portion of lottery winnings. I think those people should still be able to live comfortably (just like privileged people should be able to maintain a comfortable living style as well), but certainly, that money could go to better use than living a life of absolute luxury and experience.

And I feel like people aren't often asking the privileged people to completely give up their lifestyle, just sacrifice some of the benefits that they've accrued from having a far easier start in life to help those who didn't get those same advantages.

You may not have put up any risk in being born, but your parents put up risk in making you, and I think it would be undue to make either you or your parents “pay” in some way just because one group has it good and another doesn’t.

Especially since that privilege doesn’t stop you from being raise in poverty, poor household, poor neighborhood, etc... but of course the only factors anyone considers is the one staring them in the face. And that one factor leads one to assume other circumstances of the subjects life.

In english: Redcloak’s abhorrently wrong assumption that Durkon was raised rich, due to the fact that he’s a dwarf.

Also I resent the idea that anyone other than a bartender should decide that someone else has had enough of anything. And even the bartender won’t ask you to give your drinks away after paying for em.

[Worldsong]

There is an important detail here: When offered a chance to get what he wants without killing everybody currently alive and without the risk of killing everybody that has ever lived, Redcloak refused and tried to kill Durkon, who came to him in good faith and agreed that there was a problem and wanted to find a solution.

Azure City was not conquered as part of goblins overthrowing their oppressors; it was conquered as a side effect of a plan to force the gods to destroy the world and start over.

Destroying the world is not Redcloak's plan. Ideally, the Snarl can be used to threaten the gods directly so they'll improve the situation for the goblinoids to save their own hides. Of course, it's starting to look like the gods literally can't do what Redcloak wants in which case yes, he'll shift to destroying the world.

Also, Durkon may have appeared genuine in his offer to help Redcloak but his proposed solution was pretty weaksauce and also relied on information which Redcloak couldn't certify to be true.

Redcloak deciding to implode Durkon was very much Evil but I don't think it's accurate to say that Redcloak turned down an offer to get literally everything he wanted. He turned down an offer to receive help from a single cleric devoted to a single deity who claimed they could get some other people to help as well, and in exchange for this he'd have to give up on the plan which, so far, appears to be working quite well, given that aforementioned cleric has made it clear the gods are genuinely worried about what Redcloak is doing.

[UnintensifiedFa]

Yes, and it's a big choice. It's far too easy to dismiss peaceful but more long and difficult solutions under the excuse that there's no peaceful solution at all and thus taking the easy route of pretending that becoming the bad guy wasn't your fault.
The end justifies the means is not an acceptable position to hold. Becoming a terrorist (like the goblins) doesn't change the fact you're a terrorist regardless of your motives.

Doing the evil things that the goblins do is decidedly evil, and very difficult to justify as "Good" by any means.

But that doesn't make the Goblin cause invalid either. I personally disagree with many environmental terrorists on their methods but do I agree that the plight the Earth is facing from industry, business, and the inefficient power grid is very disturbing and deserves to be resolved.

I also think that when we address these groups we have to take their situations into context. It means something that the Goblins are doing this out of a desire to remove the oppression, and not out of just a selfish desire to rule and conquer. It doesn't justify what they've done, but it does warrant some attention, and certainly doesn't deny them the aid they deserve.

[Doug Lampert]

That would be a point if anyone were trying to help them before they threatened to destroy the world.

The goblins have lived under oppression for as long as they've lived. There's no reason for them NOT to burn it all down. There's every reason for the rest of of the world to wake up and see the error of their ways after it reaches that boiling point.

Have they? Right Eye's village was doing fine, and wasn't being threatened at all, and was engaged in trade and commerce with the nearby humans.

IIRC Eugene and Red Cloak sat down together at a bar once. No combat.

O'chul created peaceful relations with the hobgoblins, if they'd wanted trade and a military alliance I doubt that anyone would have refused, certainly there is no evidence in comic for that claim.

Desperate refugee fleet seeking land arrives at an island full of orcs, their emissaries are attacked, and at the end they have a pie eating contest.

I'm not seeing this oppression they've lived under for as long as they've lived. We have some people who try to oppress, and we have others who try to stop them, and we have O'chul CLEARLY establishing that there are people willing to risk their lives to help goblins even prior to knowing about any threat to destroy the world.

Basically, you state the point Rich seems to be trying to make, but the comic doesn't really support that point particularly well.

[Haluesen]

What a great thing to wake up to, one of my favorite comics had an update and then tons of back and forth on racial bias, being born with guilt, culpability, violence, and how to change the world. How wonderful, depression! :smallsigh:


Doing the evil things that the goblins do is decidedly evil, and very difficult to justify as "Good" by any means.

But that doesn't make the Goblin cause invalid either. I personally disagree with many environmental terrorists on their methods but do I agree that the plight the Earth is facing from industry, business, and the inefficient power grid is very disturbing and deserves to be resolved.

I also think that when we address these groups we have to take their situations into context. It means something that the Goblins are doing this out of a desire to remove the oppression, and not out of just a selfish desire to rule and conquer. It doesn't justify what they've done, but it does warrant some attention, and certainly doesn't deny them the aid they deserve.

Lots to react to here, but just want to say that I am glad someone talks about context of an individual situation. I think others here probably did too but this is the most recent post I saw. Having a blanket solution/idea to cover all situations of radical change is just not feasible. Going on a case-by-case basis concerning the motives, means, actions, and intents of a group and how/whether to work with them seems like the most sure way to actually make change happen, at least little by little.

[UnintensifiedFa]

In english: Redcloak’s abhorrently wrong assumption that Durkon was raised rich, due to the fact that he’s a dwarf.


I wouldn't call it abhorrently wrong. Durkon (a poor dwarf) was certainly still better off than Redcloak (a poor/average Goblin) was. He lived in a mountain home that was very secure, had ample meals, and many people capable of protecting him.

[pendell]

Lots to react to here, but just want to say that I am glad someone talks about context of an individual situation. I think others here probably did too but this is the most recent post I saw. Having a blanket solution/idea to cover all situations of radical change is just not feasible. Going on a case-by-case basis concerning the motives, means, actions, and intents of a group and how/whether to work with them seems like the most sure way to actually make change happen, at least little by little.


Indeed. I also don't like how so many people claim that armed uprising is the logical and necessary conclusion to oppression. Revolution is an extremely high-risk enterprise which fails far more frequently than not. Barring the small number of successful revolutions which turned out well, the majority either 1) Fail and make things worse for the oppressed 2) Succeed but the oppression doesn't go away -- just a new ruling class.

I find it really hard to talk about this in a fantasy setting because so much American-influenced fantasy has the plucky underdog rebels overcoming overwhelming odds to overthrow an evil empire by pluck and courage. Real-life rebellions rarely have so sanguine an ending.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[The_Weirdo]

Yes, and it's a big choice. It's far too easy to dismiss peaceful but more long and difficult solutions under the excuse that there's no peaceful solution at all and thus taking the easy route of pretending that becoming the bad guy wasn't your fault.
The end justifies the means is not an acceptable position to hold. Becoming a terrorist (like the goblins) doesn't change the fact you're a terrorist regardless of your motives.

That is a supremely comfortable view to hold when you are not the oppressed group that will have to keep on being oppressed, suffering and dying until they've said "pretty please" enough times to the oppressor. You should demand moral behavior from the oppressors, instead of the oppressed!

[The Pilgrim]

Nobody said that any of this is true, but what is true is that some of the traits these people possess (from "billionaire" to "white cisgender heterosexual man"), are traits that either predispose them to easier or more difficult conditions. Money is probably an overall larger factor when it comes to how people are treated, but that doesn't mean that someone doesn't suffer worse conditions based on their other traits and factors.

Ultimately, the descriptor that really matters is how much money and power your family had when you were born. All others are derivative from it. Yeah, there are other things too, but you can't really label a person with no wealth or political power as part of the "privileged" just because he or she happens to have been born with certain traits.

In ancient Rome, blonde people were looked down because they were regarded to come from barbarian, and often slave, stock. In those same lands in the middle ages, blonde people were looked up because they were regarded to come from aristocratic stock. What happened is that the former "barbarians" became the conquerors and thus the dominant group.

In this webcomic, Goblins are regarded as oppresed because they have less, and started with less. Not because they have green skin, pointy ears, and long fangs.

[Fyraltari]

StregaSevera, if I undeestand you correctly, your position is twofold: A) the goblins are not the only one who have been treated poorly and B) adressing only the goblins' situation would give the story the moral of "if you want a problem fixed, kill enough people to make society care" which is bad.
Is that correct?

If so, I will once more reiterate that the heroes' newfound willingness to negotiate isn't due to Redcloak's actions, in fact as Durkon noted, Redcloak's actions just made it worse.

And secondly, why do you think the story's ending will only adress the goblins' situation? Like Roy and Durkon just realized they/their society treated goblins unfairly in the last few strips why do you think they'll stop there? You are complaining about a conclusion that only exist in your mind. The Giant has pointed out in strip prejudice against other species (not limited to but must (in)famously, the black dragons), do you think that was accidental?

You want something more concrete? The horrible situation of the Western Continent has been mentionned a few time in this thread, and guess what? The Order plans to do something about the Western Continent! Elan promised the people of Bleedingham that he'll come back to try to help once they're done with the possible imminent end of the world and later he gave Ian a plan "that could work" to topple the Vector Legion's triple-Empire. I feel fairly confident that the situation in the Western Continent will be adressed before the last panel of the last strip of this comic.



But that's the problem. I can't think of any oppressed people - in fiction or reality - which was gifted freedom absent a struggle for it.
Well, they wouldn't be oppressed if that were the case, would they?


There's no such thing as people born into privilege
Oh boy, this thread is going to get locked, isn't it?


"You must help absolutely everybody at once and fix every single problem at the same time" is a great way to defend the status quo.
What's the name of that fallacy again? Perfect solution? Golden Path?

It's easy to get into the mindset that the forum is divided into two groups, those with whom I agree and those with whom I disagree, and there's obviously loads of nuance that get's ignored when that mindset is present.
Quoted for truth.

I feel like Roy is speaking out of the reader's knowledge here. I don't think any of the heroes have really interacted with Xykon enough to make the judgment call that he's not in it to help the goblins. I suppose O-Chul has witnessed his depravity firsthand with his torturous games, but being sadistic doesn't preclude being sympathetic to Redcloak's cause.
Roy has had two discussions with Xykon were he made very clear how much of a murderous lunatic he is. Including one where he said "I wouldn't blow up the world unless I get really, really bored" and Vaarsuvius heard him rant about how power and doing whatever he can to never die is all that matters to him. I feel the burden of proof for "Xykon is not a social justice sorcerer" has been met.

This. This so much.

The problem that we run into in real-world societies is that we run into an ugly series of escalations:

1: Oppressed group gets oppressed, does nothing but hope for people to do better, nothing changes.

2: Oppressed group gets oppressed, makes mild comments to try to get people to do better, nothing changes.

3: Oppressed group gets oppressed, peacefully (but vocally) protests in order to get people to do better, get oppressed harder during protests, nothing changes.

4: Oppressed group gets oppressed, more aggressively protests in order to get people to do better, finally shock some people into realizing how bad things are, maybe only now things change.

To quote every racist white man's favorite person to pretend to idolize, "A riot is the language of the unheard". Oppressed groups almost never, if at all, start out with riots and violence. They only seem to because no one hears their peaceful protests, or sneer at their protests for being "unpatriotic" and the like. Like, remember the "controversies" about kneeling for the national anthem before sporting events? A fully peaceful, non-violent protest on a public stage, gee, maybe its the sort of thing that one should have listened to.

It's easy to dismiss the plight of the Goblins here, because they've nearly always been the unequivocal villains in the strip. But if given the choice between being good guys and oppressed and starving and destroyed, or bad guys and strong and surviving... is that really much of a choice?
Quoted for truth.

(though if it keeps like this for every comic, well, I won't make it to double digits, but I expect we'll get back to the plot soon)
I mean, isn't this the plot?

[Severance]

Because even with the money as a shield they'll face disparities in how they're treated.

A middle-class cisgender male will never be told that he's using the wrong restroom. They'll not face hiring discrimination in looking for a job (and yes, I'm aware that literal billionaires are an edge-case in which they don't need to work. For anyone near the normal range of wealth - the 99% if you will - this is a consideration).

Non-white people - of any wealth level - are more likely to have negative interactions with police.

Etc, etc. There's been a LOT written on this. If you're genuinely curious and not looking to score internet points it's easy enough to educate yourself.

And? Everyone has ups and downs in their life with some more than others, but none of this means the "better offs" should be saddled with a debt they did nothing to incur.
You don't remedy to disparities in life through forcing injustice upon others on the basis of birth or immutable characteristics.

[Rack]

This is getting a bit on the nose for me. Allegory is all well and good but if you strip out all the subtlety you just end up with a Ben Garrison cartoon.

[Doctor Awkward]

Personally, I think there's a different real-world parallel that most everyone posting here is overlooking.

Redcloak didn't instigate a violent uprising because the goblins made peaceful pleas for better relations with other races that went unheeded. He started a violent uprising because for generations goblins were viewed by the other races as nothing but a resource to be exploited in order to improve their own lot in life instead of as thinking beings with rights that should be respected.

And then a bunch of humans got really surprised and upset when the goblins started treating them the same way they had been treated, and then got extra offended when the goblins had the gall to ask for equality after all the harm they had caused.


Honest question for anyone who thinks it's not okay someone to show contrition for the wrongs committed by their ancestors: do you think it would be unreasonable for Redcloak's grandson to be expected to return control of Gobbotopia to any surviving Azurites? How many generations does it take for an atrocity to become justified because it happened in the past?

[UnintensifiedFa]

Indeed. I also don't like how so many people claim that armed uprising is the logical and necessary conclusion to oppression. Revolution is an extremely high-risk enterprise which fails far more frequently than not. Barring the small number of successful revolutions which turned out well, the majority either 1) Fail and make things worse for the oppressed 2) Succeed but the oppression doesn't go away -- just a new ruling class.

I find it really hard to talk about this in a fantasy setting because so much American-influenced fantasy has the plucky underdog rebels overcoming overwhelming odds to overthrow an evil empire by pluck and courage. Real-life rebellions rarely have so sanguine an ending.


I'm not sure this can be accurately compared to Revolution. There's no authority to revolt against, the Goblins already have that, and they're somewhat satisfied with it (at least, satisfied enough to not want to demolish the system). This is actually why I think these Goblins are often seen as less Good. Revolutions are often seen as righteous and just, but invasions have a significantly worse reputation. (and generally are worse for the people involved).

But what might be important is that there are people who have an opportunity to make this one of the "Successful" revolutions, and they should definitely take that chance, because I don't want to think about the alternative.

[Haluesen]

Indeed. I also don't like how so many people claim that armed uprising is the logical and necessary conclusion to oppression. Revolution is an extremely high-risk enterprise which fails far more frequently than not. Barring the small number of successful revolutions which turned out well, the majority either 1) Fail and make things worse for the oppressed 2) Succeed but the oppression doesn't go away -- just a new ruling class.

I find it really hard to talk about this in a fantasy setting because so much American-influenced fantasy has the plucky underdog rebels overcoming overwhelming odds to overthrow an evil empire by pluck and courage. Real-life rebellions rarely have so sanguine an ending.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

I don't feel like violent uprising is necessary (at least not anymore in my life) but also imagine it to be a likely step when people are oppressed. Anger is a strong emotion, desperation and the drive to fight injustice are powerful motivations, and all too easily lead to justifying violence. I consider armed revolutions unfortunate and bad but also likely unavoidable. :smallfrown:

Personally I believe that Rich will be able to make the solution to this situation in the story be something more grounded and realistic but hopeful, based on how he is tackling it, rather than just happy ending because happy story.

[Fyraltari]

I think people who have as bad starting conditions as goblins (for example, the bugbears, who live in the frickin' snow wastes), but did not resort to killing and enslaving other people (at least as far as we saw in-comics)
Point of order, the bugbears did not "start" in the arctic wastes. They were driven off to them by the dwarves. By Durkon's clan even.

[UnintensifiedFa]

Personally I believe that Rich will be able to make the solution to this situation in the story be something more grounded and realistic but hopeful, based on how he is tackling it, rather than just happy ending because happy story.

This is why I really think we need to get to the ending of this story to truly determine our feelings. Don't get me wrong, I love discussion, and I've had a lot of fun discussing the themes and their executions in these threads, but until we see the ending and the full story, these discussions will always be incomplete lacking the context of the full story.

[Severance]

That is a supremely comfortable view to hold when you are not the oppressed group that will have to keep on being oppressed, suffering and dying until they've said "pretty please" enough times to the oppressor. You should demand moral behavior from the oppressors, instead of the oppressed!

I will demand moral behaviour from all, thank you very much, and you should too, if only for the fact that absent doing so means that once the immoral oppressed win they'll instantly turn into the next oppressor. History teaches that all too well.

[danielxcutter]

Point of order, the bugbears did not "start" in the arctic wastes. They were driven off to them by the dwarves. By Durkon's clan even.

Are we sure it was specifically Durkon's clan oh wait Rubyrock appeared in the part where Thor was explaining what gods need from their worshipers never mind.

[Worldsong]

Point of order, the bugbears did not "start" in the arctic wastes. They were driven off to them by the dwarves. By Durkon's clan even.

Also, the only reason the bugbears seem to be relatively happy with their situation is because they happened to stumble upon a cave, filled with resources, which is entirely artificial.

If the bugbears hadn't happened upon Kraagor's To-I mean, Monster Hollow their situation would be a lot worse and they might actually have kept warring with the dwarves down south because of the arctic wastes not being able to provide enough resources for an entire tribe of hobgoblins.

[The_Weirdo]

I will demand moral behaviour from all, thank you very much, and you should too, if only for the fact that absent doing so means that once the immoral oppressed win they'll instantly turn into the next oppressor. History teaches that all too well.

Nope. I will demand morality from the side that has the power and misuses it, thank you very much. Morality requires a level playing field, otherwise it's just a convenient excuse for the oppression to keep going:

"See? They're reacting to our oppression with violence! The barbarians!".

[bunsen_h]

I also found it hard to understand. Glad it's not just me.I think he's saying "It doesn't really matter that some other god is the one that made the first mistake." Okay, typing it out really helped my understand that better.

It threw me too.


Now there's other phylacteries in D&D like the Phylactery of faithfulness (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/wondrousItems.htm#phylacteryofFaithfulness) or Undead-turning that aren't evil-coded.

There used to be a Phylactery of Monstrous Attention too -- a cursed item that attracted monsters, and if the character was 10th level or higher, "the attention of his or her deity's most powerful enemy". I don't know when that one, and the Phylactery of Long Years, disappeared from the DMG. The phylacteries were originally for use by clerics only, so apparently weren't supposed to be the same thing as tefillin.


In this situation, however, I don't think the Order is in any better position to help the Western Continent than the goblinoids (probably worse), and the situation with the goblinoids simply is more pressing given the world destruction issue.

Roy did promise Elan that after they'd dealt with Xykon, they'd go back and fix the Empire (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0938.html). (The comic's title was "This is Not a Thing That is Going to Happen", so don't hold your breath.)


O'chul created peaceful relations with the hobgoblins, if they'd wanted trade and a military alliance I doubt that anyone would have refused, certainly there is no evidence in comic for that claim.

A nitpick: it's "O-Chul", with a hyphen rather than an apostrophe.

[Frozenstep]

I will demand moral behaviour from all, thank you very much, and you should too, if only for the fact that absent doing so means that once the immoral oppressed win they'll instantly turn into the next oppressor. History teaches that all too well.

While we can certainly hope that everyone acts as morally as possible, it's kind of difficult to expect people being put in awful situations by others to act like saints. An oppressor that can safely ignore a problem will be happy to keep ignoring it, and go out of their way to avoid addressing problems. I don't advocate violence, but I support long term oppression with no solution in sight even less. I prefer a peaceful solution, but I can't blame oppressed people for being angry.

[UnintensifiedFa]

Also, the only reason the bugbears seem to be relatively happy with their situation is because they happened to stumble upon a cave, filled with resources, which is entirely artificial.

If the bugbears hadn't happened upon Kraagor's To-I mean, Monster Hollow their situation would be a lot worse and they might actually have kept warring with the dwarves down south because of the arctic wastes not being able to provide enough resources for an entire tribe of hobgoblins.
to think this whole problem could've been solved if we just had more dungeons!

In seriousness, providing more "Dungeons" might solve both the XP and food problems in the world's creation. Obviously not a solution now, but if ever a mass extinction event should occur on this world, and the God's decision to generate another "Self-Aware Stick Figure DnD Parody", they might consider putting a bunch of naturally generated "Kraagor's Tombs" around the world.

[Severance]

Nope. I will demand morality from the side that has the power and misuses it, thank you very much. Morality requires a level playing field, otherwise it's just a convenient excuse for the oppression to keep going:

"See? They're reacting to our oppression with violence! The barbarians!".

Then you're just paving the way for a new oppressor to sit on the throne with nothing actually changing.
It's beyond naive to believe that an oppressed side that rises to power through immoral means will suddenly abandon their methods once they're in control.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

:durkon:: Och, I’m workin’ on it.

That cracked me up! I’m glad that the Order is adding justice for the goblinoids to their list of injustices they want to fix. I’m very interested to see how that will be resolved as the story moves forward. Roy is definitely right that Xykon is a huge barrier to any solutions.

[The_Weirdo]

Then you're just paving the way for a new oppressor to sit on the throne with nothing actually changing.
It's beyond naive to believe that an oppressed side that rises to power through immoral means will suddenly abandon their methods once they're in control.

It is at least as naive to believe that the people with no power and the people with all the power should be made to play by the same rules.

[UnintensifiedFa]

Then you're just paving the way for a new oppressor to sit on the throne with nothing actually changing.
It's beyond naive to believe that an oppressed side that rises to power through immoral means will suddenly abandon their methods once they're in control.

Victory over oppression (by the oppressed) through violence doesn't have to involve the destruction of the oppressors or the installation of the oppressed as the oppressors. The Goblins aren't trying to impose their will on the world, just carve out a space where they can exists as equals to the other races.

[Jasdoif]

It is at least as naive to believe that the people with no power and the people with all the power should be made to play by the same rules.Having different rules is a big factor in power being concentrated in one direction, though.

[Hatu]

Have they? Right Eye's village was doing fine, and wasn't being threatened at all, and was engaged in trade and commerce with the nearby humans.

IIRC Eugene and Red Cloak sat down together at a bar once. No combat.

O'chul created peaceful relations with the hobgoblins, if they'd wanted trade and a military alliance I doubt that anyone would have refused, certainly there is no evidence in comic for that claim.

Desperate refugee fleet seeking land arrives at an island full of orcs, their emissaries are attacked, and at the end they have a pie eating contest.

I'm not seeing this oppression they've lived under for as long as they've lived. We have some people who try to oppress, and we have others who try to stop them, and we have O'chul CLEARLY establishing that there are people willing to risk their lives to help goblins even prior to knowing about any threat to destroy the world.

Basically, you state the point Rich seems to be trying to make, but the comic doesn't really support that point particularly well.
Precisely.

This is further exacerbated by the the way the Giant insists Goblins have suffered from a "poor start" despite continuing to use them as dangerous opponents for our high-level heroes.

I'm willing to accept that there's more to life than mere fighting prowess, but I would very much like to have some idea of what *exactly* the Goblins are lacking. Because we've seen the a variety of stable goblinoid civilizations throughout the comic, we've seen they have the military might to conquer (and hold) Azure City, we've seen Redcloak cast 9th level spells, and now we've seen bugbears able to slug it out with high level adventurers/monsters.

Before we get too far down the rabbit hole of whether it's ethical to help the goblins at all, can we figure out what sort of help they actually *need*?

-H

[Teioh]

I mean, isn't this the plot?

I'd say is more of a theme. If the Giant wants to keep on the path and make his characters mouth pieces for his personal philosophy like Ayn Rand and have the plot be an excuse for the message, well, it's been an enjoyable story.

But, I don't think the Giant is a bad Arthur like the above, so I doubt we'll have that issue

[Thermophille]

While we can certainly hope that everyone acts as morally as possible, it's kind of difficult to expect people being put in awful situations by others to act like saints. An oppressor that can safely ignore a problem will be happy to keep ignoring it, and go out of their way to avoid addressing problems. I don't advocate violence, but I support long term oppression with no solution in sight even less. I prefer a peaceful solution, but I can't blame oppressed people for being angry.

So... Hold people responsible for their actions, but also take into consideration the reasons why those actions were taken, and judge whether fixing the reasons or punishing the actions is a better approach?

[Frozenstep]

Then you're just paving the way for a new oppressor to sit on the throne with nothing actually changing.
It's beyond naive to believe that an oppressed side that rises to power through immoral means will suddenly abandon their methods once they're in control.

That's an extremely simplified way to look at things. Large shifts in powers are kind of a mulligan. Maybe power shifts but it's just as bad as before. Maybe the threat is enough to get the oppressor talking with more peaceful groups (kind of like how Durkon would never be negotiating with Redcloak without the violence Redcloak has done). Maybe the violent group isn't the one that manages to take power. It's not so simple.

[The_Weirdo]

Having different rules is a big factor in power being concentrated in one direction, though.

Which is why the oppressed don't need to follow them.

If both sides are forbidden from illegal violence, but one side is oppressed, then the oppressed side is morally cleared to do illegal violence.

[Severance]

It is at least as naive to believe that the people with no power and the people with all the power should be made to play by the same rules.

I never said they have to play by the same rules I said you can't absolve one side from morality altogether as you're doing, because all that means is that you're abetting a newer immoral power to seize control and replace the old one.

History teaches that as soon as violent and immoral revolutions seize control the very first act is to purge their own ranks of all the idealistic fools who thought the world was happy rainbows and sunshines and that their side carried no risk in abandoning morality because they were "the good guys being oppressed". And then they got shot in the back.

[Worldsong]

So... Hold people responsible for their actions, but also take into consideration the reasons why those actions were taken, and judge whether fixing the reasons or punishing the actions is a better approach?

Sounds outrageous. Let's do it.

[bunsen_h]

Are we sure it was specifically Durkon's clan oh wait Rubyrock appeared in the part where Thor was explaining what gods need from their worshipers never mind.

The dwarf who was shown dying at the hands of a bugbear wasn't Rubyrock. This strip (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1144.html) shows them both.


It is at least as naive to believe that the people with no power and the people with all the power should be made to play by the same rules.

Oh, they should play by the same rules, but the rules should be just.

[Fyraltari]

No one should have kind of obligation or debt placed on them for the circumstances of their birth, or any other reason short of a willing commitment to such or a direct need to rectify ones own bad actions or negligence.
I'm sorry, but yes, when someone witnesses something bad happening there is a duty to intervene in what capacity they can.

If I saw a small child holding for dear life off of a bridge and I just passed by without grabbing them and putting them on the ground again you'd call me a heartless monster even though I had no part in the child getting in that situation. In social cases, this holds true as well, even more because the privileged often reap the benefits of the oppression of the less fortunates. Closing one's eyes and saying "I did not set up the system this way" while still profiting of it is morally bankrupt.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that everybody who is priviledged in any way should cast their possessions off and feed only on whatever they can catch with their bare hands dressed in rags. I am saying they should use that very priviledged position to help in what little way they can, even if it's only increasing awereness of the issue.

Help however you can, one problem, one situation, one person at a time if you can.
And yes "well-ordered charity starts with yourself" don't beat yourself up about all the other people you did not help, after all


letting the perfect be the enemy of the good is always a problem.


Have they? Right Eye's village was doing fine, and wasn't being threatened at all, and was engaged in trade and commerce with the nearby humans.
We don't know the last part. We do know that they could go to the circus alongside nearby humans, nothing more. And then they got press-ganged by a human(-derived creature).


IIRC Eugene and Red Cloak sat down together at a bar once. No combat.
Right-Eye had to hide his face and skin for most of the conversation (and most likely, to get in and out of the settlement they were in), Eugene did not know he was sitting down with a goblin.


O'chul created peaceful relations with the hobgoblins, if they'd wanted trade and a military alliance I doubt that anyone would have refused, certainly there is no evidence in comic for that claim.
I think Kubota and his likes wiuld have. Half of the command of the aristocratic sapphire guard resigned in protest of a commoner like O-Chul joining their ranks. Doubt they'd have been fine with trading with the goblins either.



I'm not seeing this oppression they've lived under for as long as they've lived. We have some people who try to oppress, and we have others who try to stop them, and we have O'chul CLEARLY establishing that there are people willing to risk their lives to help goblins even prior to knowing about any threat to destroy the world.

Basically, you state the point Rich seems to be trying to make, but the comic doesn't really support that point particularly well.
Just because not everyone is murder-happy about them doesn't mean they're treated way worse overall. Also you've confused O-Chul with his Irish cousin.

[Thermophille]

If both sides are forbidden from illegal violence, but one side is oppressed, then the oppressed side is morally cleared to do illegal violence.

'Morally cleared to do violence' is a strong term. I prefer 'When we make peace, forgive both sides for what they did wrong. Neither oppression or violence were okay, but if we make a new start we can put that in the past.'

[The_Weirdo]

I never said they have to play by the same rules I said you can't absolve one side from morality altogether as you're doing, because all that means is that you're abetting a newer immoral power to seize control and replace the old one.

History teaches that as soon as violent and immoral revolutions seize control the very first act is to purge their own ranks of all the idealistic fools who thought the world was happy rainbows and sunshines and that their side carried no risk in abandoning morality because they were "the good guys being oppressed". And then they got shot in the back.

Then, by all means, let a set of rules be crafted about just when is it that people can resort to violence to see their basic rights respected.


'Morally cleared to do violence' is a strong term. I prefer 'When we make peace, forgive both sides for what they did wrong. Neither oppression or violence were okay, but if we make a new start we can put that in the past.'

The point at which that "forgiveness" can even be an option is the point after the oppression has ceased. And the means to cease the oppression will tend to involve, yes, quote-unquote immoral actions by the oppressed. It's a very rare oppression that can simply be "pretty please"d out of existence.

[UnintensifiedFa]

...we've seen they have the military might to conquer (and hold) Azure City...


I think someone may have said this, but the conquest of Azure city was a very extraordinary set of circumstances.

Shojo had just been killed, losing both a high-level Paladin and the support of the Majority of Noble houses.

They used the aid of numerous undead and summoned creatures. From zombies to ghouls and wights (Oh My!).

And most importantly Xykon (along with Redcloak but we know who holds the real power) whose accomplishments include: Disabling the early warning system (which would've allowed for much greater preparedness and a larger army present), tying down (and killing) the hundreds of paladins at Soon's gate, which could've drastically changed the course of the battle had they been present to buff, lead, and fight with the soldiers.

We can't be sure that the Goblins could've won without the support of Xykon and the circumstances present around the time, but I don't imagine it's a risk they could afford to take, the losses from such an endeavor would far outweigh the gains.

[Frozenstep]

So... Hold people responsible for their actions, but also take into consideration the reasons why those actions were taken, and judge whether fixing the reasons or punishing the actions is a better approach?

Basically. If I had to commit some crime to get some injustice in the world fixed, I'd be willing to take some jail time for it (as long as the punishment would fit the crime normally). If I'm not willing to put up with that much, then maybe the cause isn't worth committing a crime over. Of course, if it's a law that's injust in the first place, maybe that'd be different.

EDIT: And of course, the ones judging the crimes are probably going to be the ones who personally have something against my cause, so that doesn't make it much easier either.

[UnintensifiedFa]

'Morally cleared to do violence' is a strong term. I prefer 'When we make peace, forgive both sides for what they did wrong. Neither oppression or violence were okay, but if we make a new start we can put that in the past.'

Agreed, and that involves forgiveness of the violence that the oppressed used prior, and making amends, and most importantly, it doesn't mean that you struggle any less in ensuring the equality of the oppressed.

[Jasdoif]

This is further exacerbated by the the way the Giant insists Goblins have suffered from a "poor start" despite continuing to use them as dangerous opponents for our high-level heroes.

I'm willing to accept that there's more to life than mere fighting prowess, but I would very much like to have some idea of what *exactly* the Goblins are lacking. Because we've seen the a variety of stable goblinoid civilizations throughout the comic, we've seen they have the military might to conquer (and hold) Azure City, we've seen Redcloak cast 9th level spells, and now we've seen bugbears able to slug it out with high level adventurers/monsters.

Before we get too far down the rabbit hole of whether it's ethical to help the goblins at all, can we figure out what sort of help they actually *need*?Personally, I would start with how Redcloak has been oppressing the hobgoblins for his own ends, more than we've seen anyone else oppress them, and then uses that oppression as justification for his own actions.


Which is why the oppressed don't need to follow them.

If both sides are forbidden from illegal violence, but one side is oppressed, then the oppressed side is morally cleared to do illegal violence.No, see, you're still talking about unequal sets of rules; which are meant to allow one side to be oppressed but not the other.

[Thermophille]

Agreed, and that involves forgiveness of the violence that the oppressed used prior, and making amends, and most importantly, it doesn't mean that you struggle any less in ensuring the equality of the oppressed.

Forgiveness is the hardest part in any situation like this. If Hinjo gets his people back, I think he'll be willing to forgive the goblins, especially since he has new land, and while that's near-ideal, it's unfortunately not what happens a lot of the time in real life. People hold onto hatred and grudges long after they do anything useful.

[Severance]

Victory over oppression (by the oppressed) through violence doesn't have to involve the destruction of the oppressors or the installation of the oppressed as the oppressors. The Goblins aren't trying to impose their will on the world, just carve out a space where they can exists as equals to the other races.

It doesn't have to but it most often does when "morality" no longer feels an obligation you have to keep in mind.
Redcloak's a test case on how slippery that slope is when you believe immoral and terrible actions become justified by virtue of being "oppressed", and we all know he wouldn't abandon them if he ever were to reach control of the world.


If I saw a small child holding for dear life off of a bridge and I just passed by without grabbing them and putting them on the ground again you'd call me a heartless monster even though I had no part in the child getting in that situation. In social cases, this holds true as well, even more because the privileged often reap the benefits of the oppression of the less fortunates. Closing one's eyes and saying "I did not set up the system this way" while still profiting of it is morally bankrupt.

A false equivalence. One is a case of clear cut imminent danger to someone's life the other is a murky unclear social difference in wealth and status with still no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing. They're not even remotely in the same ballpark.
Refusing to buy the notion of "I'm a victim! give me stuff! Because I say so!" doesn't make you morally bankrupt, it doesn't make you guillible.

[Fyraltari]

I'd say is more of a theme. If the Giant wants to keep on the path and make his characters mouth pieces for his personal philosophy like Ayn Rand and have the plot be an excuse for the message, well, it's been an enjoyable story.

But, I don't think the Giant is a bad Arthur like the above, so I doubt we'll have that issue
The heroes are discussing how to deal with the main villains, this is a very important part of the plot. For a work to have themes it needs moments like this, where charcaters discuss what is going on and make their positions clear.

But more importantly: it's only been two strips. It feels longer because we're getting each page one at a time and we're endlessly, endlessly discussing them on the forum but I assure you, when we re-read this part in two years, it'll go by like a breeze.

Large shifts in powers are kind of a mulligan.
I do not understand this sentence. What does "mulligan" mean?

The dwarf who was shown dying at the hands of a bugbear wasn't Rubyrock. This strip (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1144.html) shows them both.

Yes. This is the strip danielxcutter and I are using to claim that Durkon's clan was the one who fought Oona's. Because it shows a dwarf soldier who died fighting bugbears being lead in prayer by Rubyrock, who is from Durkon's hometown.

[Dion]

I read the my first Drizz’t book yesterday (Crystal Shard). Two things stuck out to me:

1) wow, that book is twilight for 14 year old boys.

2) wow, the treatment of the “monster” races is not good in that book. All goblins, Orcs, giants, and ogres are described only as “it”, and all are slaughtered entirely without mercy.

The decision to dehumanize the non-PC races seemed ham-handed enough that I suspect it was done by a committee.

Are the rest of the books that terrible regarding the goblins, orcs, etc.?

[Teioh]

The heroes are discussing how to deal with the main villains, this is a very important part of the plot. For a work to have themes it needs moments like this, where charcaters discuss what is going on and make their positions clear.

But more importantly: it's only been two strips. It feels longer because we're getting each page one at a time and we're endlessly, endlessly discussing them on the forum but I assure you, when we re-read this part in two years, it'll go by like a breeze.

Oh, I agree entirely. Now, if the next 6 strip involves the rest of the order getting involved, each one taking some opinions we see here in the forums, I'd start to be worried

[UnintensifiedFa]

But more importantly: it's only been two strips. It feels longer because we're getting each page one at a time and we're endlessly, endlessly discussing them on the forum but I assure you, when we re-read this part in two years, it'll go by like a breeze.

Quoting for Truth and Agreement

This is why I really think we need to get to the ending of this story to truly determine our feelings. Don't get me wrong, I love discussion, and I've had a lot of fun discussing the themes and their executions in these threads, but until we see the ending and the full story, these discussions will always be incomplete lacking the context of the full story.
Reposting to Confirm.

[Jasdoif]

I do not understand this sentence. What does "mulligan" mean?A second chance without repercussions, basically (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mulligan_(games)).

[Frozenstep]

I do not understand this sentence. What does "mulligan" mean?

Maybe I'm the one using it wrong, I think I thought it was more widespread then it was. In Magic the gathering, after drawing your initial hand of cards, you can decide whether to keep it or if you should mulligan (at least, in the informal games I've played), which means you discard all of those cards and draw a new hand (with 1 less card). I basically meant if you throw out an oppressing power, it's kind of a toss-up what happens. Things might get better, worse, or stay the same. It's the drawing of a new hand of cards, basically.

[pendell]

I read the my first Drizz’t book yesterday (Crystal Shard). Two things stuck out to me:

1) wow, that book is twilight for 14 year old boys.

2) wow, the treatment of the “monster” races is not good in that book. All goblins, Orcs, giants, and ogres are described only as “it”, and all are slaughtered entirely without mercy.

The decision to dehumanize the non-PC races seemed ham-handed enough that I suspect it was done by a committee.

Are the rest of the books that terrible regarding the goblins, orcs, etc.?

You did notice that one of the protagonists is a monster himself, right? Drow are considered monsters and there's nowhere he can go without having people scream "Drow" and instantly go murder happy.

The lens through which Salvatore treats monster relations is through the character of Drizzt, and the Homeland trilogy does a much better job of it than the original Crystal Shard trilogy does.

But in all the stories, you get subtlety and nuance when looking at the Dark Elves, such as Jarlaxle and Drizzt. The goblins, orcs, and other goblinoid creatures are essentially walking targets. They're killed by the "good" nations on sight while the evil ones such as Menzoberranzan use them as cannon fodder. Goblins in Drow society are slave labor, test subjects for magical experimentation, used as the first combat wave to trigger all the enemy traps and soak up enemy arrows while the real troops are outflanking or teleporting in.

I'll stand up for Salvatore in that he does address many of the themes of treating someone as inherently evil because of his skin color, many of the same issues that Rich does. The difference is that where Salvatore treated Drow as the objects of prejudice and left goblinoids as fodder, Rich embraces drow and goblins while leaving zombies and other undead as fodder.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Dragonus45]

Nope. I will demand morality from the side that has the power and misuses it, thank you very much. Morality requires a level playing field, otherwise it's just a convenient excuse for the oppression to keep going:

"See? They're reacting to our oppression with violence! The barbarians!".

So, just to be clear here so I make sure I'm not misrepresenting you. You honestly believe right and wrong don't have meaning so long as the people acting are disadvantaged enough? Is there a line here, or is this an all the way to the wall type deal?

[Vinsae]

The last three steps are the thematic heart of OOTS.

(...)

It's also about looking at the racism and sexism at the core of much epic fantasy and TTRPGs, and attempting to do better.


I'll disagree superficially in order to agree deeply: I think the actual thematic heart of OOTS is character growth and redemption. We have seen so many characters grow into stronger, more loving, more thoughtful versions of themselves; consequently, it makes sense at this stage of the comic (and DnD fandom, and the world) to extend that same opportunity to society as a whole.

We do have a chance to change how we function in the world: to improve upon our past mistakes, and to create a wiser, more generous path forward.

Part of why Xykon (and Tarquin, and maybe some others) are such effective villains in the context of this story is that they show no interest in personal or societal improvement; they believe their power and/or methods to be unimpeachable, and they don't care about their effect on others. By contrast, out heroes are heroes because they are willing to examine tactics, methods, habits, feelings, systems, then dismantle them and build them back better. It'd wild, it's scary, it takes them one Gate away from annihilation -- but, presumably, there's a better world waiting on the other side.

[gatemansgc]

Couldn't have come at a better time, we were just about to run out of pages on the last discussion thread.

Very much like that Durkon is actively thinking of a solution, and that Roy also recognizes this as both a problem (as an injustice) and a potential route to the solution, (by negotiating with redcloak).

run out of pages? are threads using this forum backend hard-capped at 50?

[Fyraltari]

A false equivalence.
An analogy. You were, as I understood you, stating that people are only morally obligated to correct the wrongd they are directly responsible for. I provided a case where there is a clear responsability to act on a situation one did not create.

One is a case of clear cut imminent danger to someone's life the other is a murky unclear social difference in wealth and status with still no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing. They're not even remotely in the same ballpark.
But we've seen goblins and orcs being killed simply because they were goblins and orcs. Your "the other" statement, does not match the situation shown in comic.


Refusing to buy the notion of "I'm a victim! give me stuff! Because I say so!" doesn't make you morally bankrupt, it doesn't make you guillible.
Arguing against strawmen doesn't make you convincing, it makes you harder to be polite with.

I read the my first Drizz’t book yesterday (Crystal Shard). Two things stuck out to me:

1) wow, that book is twilight for 14 year old boys.

2) wow, the treatment of the “monster” races is not good in that book. All goblins, Orcs, giants, and ogres are described only as “it”, and all are slaughtered entirely without mercy.
That reminds me, I read the first Gotrek and Felix anthology recently (a series of books set in the Warhammer Fantasy world) and I noticed that the human characters describe mutants, orcs and skavens (ratmen and a clear example of an "always evil race" if I ever saw one) with "it" but the skaven themselves use "he" and "she" for the humans even though they consider them "man-things".


Shojo had just been killed, losing both a high-level Paladin
Aristocrat actually.

They used the aid of numerous undead and summoned creatures. From zombies to ghouls and wights (Oh My!).

Also the city's siege engines were disabled by Julio znd despite all that Gobbotopia only claims a rough half of Azure City's original territory.


Maybe I'm the one using it wrong, I think I thought it was more widespread then it was. In Magic the gathering, after drawing your initial hand of cards, you can decide whether to keep it or if you should mulligan (at least, in the informal games I've played), which means you discard all of those cards and draw a new hand (with 1 less card). I basically meant if you throw out an oppressing power, it's kind of a toss-up what happens. Things might get better, worse, or stay the same. It's the drawing of a new hand of cards, basically.
Hey, I'm not talking in my native tongue here. Me not recognizing an idiom doesn't mean it's uncommon.
With that said, thank you and the others who answered me as well.

[The_Weirdo]

So, just to be clear here so I make sure I'm not misrepresenting you. You honestly believe right and wrong don't have meaning so long as the people acting are disadvantaged enough? Is there a line here, or is this an all the way to the wall type deal?

Let me put it this way: let's take a fictional third-world country in the DC Universe in which women do not get to vote.

Then Power Girl for some reason moves there.

She says: "I will begin the destruction with your capital if you do not let women vote".

Now women can vote.

Was Power Girl wrong?

[hroþila]

Let me put it this way: let's take a fictional third-world country in the DC Universe in which women do not get to vote.

Then Power Girl for some reason moves there.

She says: "I will begin the destruction with your capital if you do not let women vote".

Now women can vote.

Was Power Girl wrong?
I mean, Power Girl didn't even discuss it with any of those women first. Power Girl should get her saviour complex looked at.

[Dragonus45]

I'm sorry, but yes, when someone witnesses something bad happening there is a duty to intervene in what capacity they can.

If I saw a small child holding for dear life off of a bridge and I just passed by without grabbing them and putting them on the ground again you'd call me a heartless monster even though I had no part in the child getting in that situation. In social cases, this holds true as well, even more because the privileged often reap the benefits of the oppression of the less fortunates. Closing one's eyes and saying "I did not set up the system this way" while still profiting of it is morally bankrupt.

So first off I just wan't to say that I find there to be a deep false equivalence between your two examples here, but I'm not going to dig toodeep into that. Instead let me say that I agree, if you see a small child dangling from a ledge in need of help you should help them, and would have to be a real @W#%!@#$!$%!@#$!@#!@#$%@@&^&^#@$%@ to not help them. But... there should never be an OBLIGATION to do so. I realize it's a fine line I'm drawing here but it's an important distinction. Because I can say a person should do a thing all day, but an obligation comes with a lot of implication about things like punishment for noncompliance that I am generally not about.



And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that everybody who is priviledged in any way should cast their possessions off and feed only on whatever they can catch with their bare hands dressed in rags. I am saying they should use that very priviledged position to help in what little way they can, even if it's only increasing awereness of the issue.

That sounds great, but I see no reasonable way to say such a person should be obligated to do so nor a reasonable way to enforce such a thing that doesn't also cross some terrible lines.

[Noodz]

This is obviously a topic of great discussion, so I'll be brief and give my own viewpoint here:

In the grand scheme of things, there might be a perfect hierarchy of moral conundrums where we can properly measure the moral weight of the goblin issue against the moral weight of the multitude of other issues. But the only benefit of discussing this is winning an argument on this forum. Coming up with the perfect method to measure the "ethicality" of our heroes' actions would not solve any problem

Whereas our heroes, right here right now, are empathizing with a sworn enemy to understand its reasoning and motivations. Heroism is not about philosophical arguments on what should or what shouldn't. It's about understanding that behind the threat of every mortal enemy, there might be a shred of compassion and goodness smothered by decades of suffering.

It is truly incredible how the Giant managed to convey such extraordinarily nuanced points through what is still essentially a stick figures webcomic. I've been reading a variety of webcomics for about 20 years now, but OotS is the only one I never dropped.

[Jason]

Let me put it this way: let's take a fictional third-world country in the DC Universe in which women do not get to vote.

Then Power Girl for some reason moves there.

She says: "I will begin the destruction with your capital if you do not let women vote".

Now women can vote.

Was Power Girl wrong?
Yes. What right does Power Girl have to force her moral views on a sovereign nation?

[Fyraltari]

So, just to be clear here so I make sure I'm not misrepresenting you. You honestly believe right and wrong don't have meaning so long as the people acting are disadvantaged enough? Is there a line here, or is this an all the way to the wall type deal?
It's the first time you've interacted with The_Weirdo, isn't it?

I'll disagree superficially in order to agree deeply: I think the actual thematic heart of OOTS is character growth and redemption. We have seen so many characters grow into stronger, more loving, more thoughtful versions of themselves; consequently, it makes sense at this stage of the comic (and DnD fandom, and the world) to extend that same opportunity to society as a whole.

We do have a chance to change how we function in the world: to improve upon our past mistakes, and to create a wiser, more generous path forward.

Part of why Xykon (and Tarquin, and maybe some others) are such effective villains in the context of this story is that they show no interest in personal or societal improvement; they believe their power and/or methods to be unimpeachable, and they don't care about their effect on others. By contrast, out heroes are heroes because they are willing to examine tactics, methods, habits, feelings, systems, then dismantle them and build them back better. It'd wild, it's scary, it takes them one Gate away from annihilation -- but, presumably, there's a better world waiting on the other side.
Yes. Add Nale, Tsukiko, Bozzok and Crystal to the list. Hell, the last big villain we had was defeated changing into a better version of himself.

run out of pages? are threads using this forum backend hard-capped at 50?
They can run longer that 50 pages but they're not supposed to.

[Dragonus45]

Let me put it this way: let's take a fictional third-world country in the DC Universe in which women do not get to vote.

Then Power Girl for some reason moves there.

She says: "I will begin the destruction with your capital if you do not let women vote".

Now women can vote.

Was Power Girl wrong?

I have no idea, sounds like she is probably not thinking through a great deal of complex issues involved in such an undertaking that likely could make the situation explode and get a lot of people hurt. Or it might work out, I doubt it though since generally speaking it's actually very difficult to punch the very concept of sexism in the face. Well, usually it's hard this is DC and I can't remember if Power Girl is still kryptonian anymore but if she is I bet she could manage that. Anyways, back to the question here. Do you honestly believe that right and wrong do not apply to "oppressed" groups in any way. Such as, the Goblins of Gobotopia having human chattel slaves. Yes or no?


It's the first time you've interacted with The_Weirdo, isn't it?


No, but The Weirdo also seems to take very extreme positions more as a rhetorical device then anything and I find I can't resist getting pulled in at times.

[The_Weirdo]

I have no idea, sounds like she is probably not thinking through a great deal of complex issues involved in such an undertaking that likely could make the situation explode and get a lot of people hurt. Or it might work out, I doubt it though since generally speaking it's actually very difficult to punch the very concept of sexism in the face. Well, usually it's hard this is DC and I can't remember if Power Girl is still kryptonian anymore but if she is I bet she could manage that. Anyways, back to the question here. Do you honestly believe that right and wrong do not apply to "oppressed" groups in any way. Such as, the Goblins of Gobotopia having human chattel slaves. Yes or no?

The goblins have a right to do anything at all to stop the oppression and get justice.
The slaves also have a right to do anything at all to stop the oppression and get justice.

Given the context, this justice should be wrestled from the gods or from the souls of the paladins that invaded Redcloak's village (and, to be sure, many others).

Basically, go back up the causal link until the issue is resolved on the backs of those that caused it. This being a fantasy comic, it can be done with strong enough magic.

[Severance]

Let me put it this way: let's take a fictional third-world country in the DC Universe in which women do not get to vote.

Then Power Girl for some reason moves there.

She says: "I will begin the destruction with your capital if you do not let women vote".

Now women can vote.

Was Power Girl wrong?

Absolutely. A capital houses how many people, men, women, children, businesses and shops, elderly, all sorts of lives depending and growing inside its walls that she would've been willing to destroy if the rulers of said capital didn't give in to their demands? Right and wrong don't cease to exist because you don the cape of the good oppressed victim and in your example she would've been a far worse villain than the ones refusing to let women vote.

[UnintensifiedFa]

I'll disagree superficially in order to agree deeply: I think the actual thematic heart of OOTS is character growth and redemption. We have seen so many characters grow into stronger, more loving, more thoughtful versions of themselves; consequently, it makes sense at this stage of the comic (and DnD fandom, and the world) to extend that same opportunity to society as a whole.

We do have a chance to change how we function in the world: to improve upon our past mistakes, and to create a wiser, more generous path forward.

Part of why Xykon (and Tarquin, and maybe some others) are such effective villains in the context of this story is that they show no interest in personal or societal improvement; they believe their power and/or methods to be unimpeachable, and they don't care about their effect on others. By contrast, out heroes are heroes because they are willing to examine tactics, methods, habits, feelings, systems, then dismantle them and build them back better. It'd wild, it's scary, it takes them one Gate away from annihilation -- but, presumably, there's a better world waiting on the other side.
You posted a very genuine response that I wholeheartedly agree with, but I had to add this one, because it's too good to not bring up.

A dwarf.

A brain.

A beauty.

A jock.

A rebel.

And a bard.

Before this comic is over, they'll break the rules. Bare their souls. Take some chances. And touch each other in a way they never dreamed possible.

http://cheesepirate.com/tmp/breakfast_order.jpg

[Elves]

This is kind of falling flat for me. One, I still don't get how the goblins are so disadvantaged. The main argument is they were given poor land, but the dwarves got literal mountain caves, which are a magnitude worse. Two, in RL discussions of ethnic and racial privilege, the disadvantaged people generally aren't about to cause the apocalypse.

[Dragonus45]

The goblins have a right to do anything at all to stop the oppression and get justice.
The slaves also have a right to do anything at all to stop the oppression and get justice.

Given the context, this justice should be wrestled from the gods or from the souls of the paladins that invaded Redcloak's village (and, to be sure, many others).

Basically, go back up the causal link until the issue is resolved on the backs of those that caused it. This being a fantasy comic, it can be done with strong enough magic.

Gotcha, so to make sure I have a clear understanding here, "At least as a short term method towards going up the causal link and punching the gods to gain long term solutions, slavery is just and right."

[The_Weirdo]

Gotcha, so to make sure I have a clear understanding here, "At least as a short term method towards going up the causal link and punching the gods to gain long term solutions, slavery is just and right."

Not really, not the least of it because that slavery is doing nothing to remedy any situation or even to sate a lust for revenge. There is a causal nexus between the prior genocide by the SG and the slavery, but the slaves don't have to care and are entitled to, if they at all are able to, destroy the entirety of Gobbotopia if it will free them.

The premise is as fillows: both sides can do whatever they need to stop the oppression and attain justice, but no more than that and preferably up the causal chain.


Absolutely. A capital houses how many people, men, women, children, businesses and shops, elderly, all sorts of lives depending and growing inside its walls that she would've been willing to destroy if the rulers of said capital didn't give in to their demands? Right and wrong don't cease to exist because you don the cape of the good oppressed victim and in your example she would've been a far worse villain than the ones refusing to let women vote.

I hardly see her as a villain in this scenario. She'd be teaching the world a valuable lesson: disenfranchisement is a capital crime. As in, a crime that costs a capital. :smalltongue:

[Fyraltari]

So first off I just wan't to say that I find there to be a deep false equivalence between your two examples here, but I'm not going to dig two deep into that.
Very helpful, thanks.

Instead let me say that I agree, if you see a small child dangling from a ledge in need of help you should help them, and would have to be a real @W#%!@#$!$%!@#$!@#!@#$%@@&^&^#@$%@ to not help them. But... there should never be an OBLIGATION to do so. I realize it's a fine line I'm drawing here but it's an important distinction. Because I can say a person should do a thing all day, but an obligation comes with a lot of implication about things like punishment for noncompliance that I am generally not about.
I mean, in this particular case, I disagree with you. But we're drifting into forbidden territory, so I'll leave it at that.




That sounds great, but I see no reasonable way to say such a person should be obligated to do so nor a reasonable way to enforce such a thing that doesn't also cross some terrible lines.
Hold on, I never said anything about enforcing that. You can't force people to be moral, that's not how morality works.

[Dragonus45]

Not really, not the least of it because that slavery is doing nothing to remedy any situation or even to sate a lust for revenge. There is a causal nexus between the prior genocide by the SG and the slavery, but the slaves don't have to care and are entitled to, if they at all are able to, destroy the entirety of Gobbotopia if it will free them.

So I think the "Lust for revenge." bit is absolutely present in what we have seen but regardless. So I can grasp the standards a bit clearer here, if you could link the slavery directly to the long term success of the Gobotopian cause of justice against the gods then would be then become justified? Say if they had to wage war on the gods and needed the captured Azurites as fodder to able to win?


Very helpful, thanks.

And thank you for not mentioning the typo...



Hold on, I never said anything about enforcing that. You can't force people to be moral, that's not how morality works.

I agree, but when we get into the idea of people having an obligation to do a thing enforcement is part and parcel with the concept. It's the reason I get so twitchy when I hear people using the term.

[Severance]

An analogy. You were, as I understood you, stating that people are only morally obligated to correct the wrongd they are directly responsible for. I provided a case where there is a clear responsability to act on a situation one did not create.

No I said that people are responsible for their actions not for the color of their skin or other characteristics they were born with, including the wealth they inherited from their parents.
Saddling people with some "privilege-guilt" to carry while also implying they need to atone for it in some way is beyond disgusting to me, it's essentially class and group guilt and as a history student it repulses me knowing what that's meant in the past.

You're only responsible for your actions as an individual, your being "cis-white-ablebodied whatever" is of no importance nor weight whatsoever and has nothing to do with your kid-falling-off-the-bridge example, that's why I said it was a false equivalence.

[Spartan360]

Again I'm not sure how the goblin's are described to have gotten a worse deal at the start. Cause it kind of sounds that they still just got a deal that was somehow countered by.... you know I'm not actually sure about that either since we still don't actually know anything else than a war was started and the Goblin's lost, in fact it's even possible that they might have gutted each other a bit considering how the goblin races used to dislike each other.

Durkon also says that, Humans, dwarves, elves and halflings got more? while some of them have good racial bonuses, we don't know most of their current situations and if they are in combat with other non-human races. Also where should we put the other races that have good racials but likely even worse land than the goblin's for example the Ice-Giants.

Also I'm pretty sure that most races in the OOTS setting would still be pretty pissed off at the mass-sacrifice for TDO since apparently only actual evil aligned spots were willing to host the goblins (prequel) for possibly some reason.

Though I have to also say, I love Roy's use of his high wisdom and intelligence score showing through, shame that his dad didn't do anything similar.

[Jason]

This is kind of falling flat for me. One, I still don't get how the goblins are so disadvantaged. The main argument is they were given poor land, but the dwarves got literal mountain caves, which are a magnitude worse. Two, in RL discussions of ethnic and racial privilege, the disadvantaged people generally aren't about to cause the apocalypse.

I think the problem is that the reported oppression has only been talked about rather than really shown in comic.
We have seen hobgoblins whipping human slaves, including the old and infirm, in Azure City/Gobbotopia.
We have not seen a goblin merchant try to peacefully enter a human town and then be mobbed and killed for having green skin and tusks.

[The_Weirdo]

So I think the "Lust for revenge." bit is absolutely present in what we have seen but regardless. So I can grasp the standards a bit clearer here, if you could link the slavery directly to the long term success of the Gobotopian cause of justice against the gods then would be then become justified? Say if they had to wage war on the gods and needed the captured Azurites as fodder to able to win?

Still not, because Azure City wasn't a democracy, so it's much harder to argue that they had responsibility for it.

That or yes, BUT the slaves have every right to resist and if that resistance somehow slaughters all goblinkind, so be it.

Basically: the oppressed can do whatever, no matter whose side they're on.


I think the problem is that the reported oppression has only been talked about rather than really shown in comic.
We have seen hobgoblins whipping human slaves, including the old and infirm, in Azure City/Gobbotopia.
We have not seen a goblin merchant try to peacefully enter a human town and then be mobbed and killed for having green skin and tusks.

I mean, there was that Inigo Montoya kobold that Belkar got killed?

[The Pilgrim]

Let me put it this way: let's take a fictional third-world country in the DC Universe in which women do not get to vote.

Then Power Girl for some reason moves there.

She says: "I will begin the destruction with your capital if you do not let women vote".

Now women can vote.

Was Power Girl wrong?

And the next day, the freed slaves beg Daenerys to legalize voluntary slavery.

[Severance]

Basically: the oppressed can do whatever, no matter whose side they're on.

I can't agree with that. If the oppressed decided that the genocide of every child of x oppressor race was their way to solve it I would say no, you can't "do whatever".


And the next day, the freed slaves beg Daenerys to legalize voluntary slavery.

No the next day she burns down the capital anyway because bells are awful and she can do whatever since she was oppressed since she was a little child. :smalltongue:

[BruceGee]

if your answer to not convincing people is taking up arms and resorting to violent uprisings to bypass that process then I'm not gonna look at you with a sympathetic eye.



You must really hate George Washington, then. Also Joan of Arc and all those French resistance fighters in World War II. When you watched Braveheart, did you cheer at the end when that disgusting rebel William Wallace met his well-deserved execution?

[The_Weirdo]

I can't agree with that. If the oppressed decided that the genocide of every child of x oppressor race was their way to solve it I would say no, you can't "do whatever".

I mean, at some point, people might decide it's a great idea not to oppress others, no?


No the next day she burns down the capital anyway because bells are awful and she can do whatever since she was oppressed since she was a little child. :smalltongue:

Nope. Context matters. Bells aren't disenfranchisement.


And the next day, the freed slaves beg Daenerys to legalize voluntary slavery.

I didn't watch GoT, but if that's some sort of allegory, I'll stay away from RL politics...

[Jason]

I mean, there was that Inigo Montoya kobold that Belkar got killed?
Yokyok. He wasn't killed for entering a human town. In fact he seems to have had no trouble at all with walking around in a human town with a drawn rapier before He confronted Belkar.
Yokyok was killed because Belkar hired a bunch of clueless adventurers. They were also fine with having a kobold run around town chasing a halfling with a drawn rapier until the halfling offered them money.

[JT]

This strip though, this one finally put to words what it is that is sticking in my craw. "Don't we need to take responsibility for our part in a bad setup." No, because you have no responsibility there, as near as I can tell even in tis fantasy universe no one asks to be born and while it's certainly laudable and clearly Good for someone who was for example born to noble parents and rich compared to someone born in a small farming village, no one has a responsibility or obligation to anyone to just go and give them their property.

As one LG (Roy) to another LG (Durkon), yes, they do need to take responsibility for their part in the bad setup.

Saying that someone has a responsibility to give up their property presumes a zero-sum game. Not necessarily the case (esp with "magic") :)

[Spartan360]

Wasn't there a story where Superman did something similar and aside from the ones that believed in conquest and in "The Ends justify the means", every other hero, criminals, civilians and even politicians were against his rule since they were against those type of methods.

[The_Weirdo]

Yokyok. He wasn't killed for entering a human town. In fact he seems to have had no trouble at all with walking around in a human town with a drawn rapier before He confronted Belkar.
Yokyok was killed because Belkar hired a bunch of clueless adventurers. They were also fine with having a kobold run around town chasing a halfling with a drawn rapier until the halfling offered them money.

I mean, that's both a great point and a testament on just how weird the world is that people don't bat an eye at attempted murder until they get paid to slaughter someone. :smalltongue:


Wasn't there a story where Superman did something similar and aside from the ones that believed in conquest and in "The Ends justify the means", every other hero, criminals, civilians and even politicians were against his rule since they were against those type of methods.

If you're talking about the alternate timelines in which he takes over, he's doing so to the democratic world in these. Not the same as toppling a dictatorship and saying "Be a democracy".

[Spartan360]

I mean, that's both a great point and a testament on just how weird the world is that people don't bat an eye at attempted murder until they get paid to slaughter someone. :smalltongue:

Considering the massive monster manuals, I wouldn't be surprised.

[danielxcutter]

The heroes are discussing how to deal with the main villains, this is a very important part of the plot. For a work to have themes it needs moments like this, where charcaters discuss what is going on and make their positions clear.

But more importantly: it's only been two strips. It feels longer because we're getting each page one at a time and we're endlessly, endlessly discussing them on the forum but I assure you, when we re-read this part in two years, it'll go by like a breeze.

Sounds legit. Though even if I do agree with the comic's message there's only so much standing around and talking that I derive enjoyment from, especially since these arguments have already been covered in the past few threads.


Yes. This is the strip Danielxcuttler and I are using to claim that Durkon's clan was the one who fought Oona's. Because it shows a dwarf soldier who died fighting bugbears being lead in prayer by Rubyrock, who is from Durkon's hometown.

That strip yes, but my username has nothing with cutlery or cuttlefish. :v


I read the my first Drizz’t book yesterday (Crystal Shard). Two things stuck out to me:

1) wow, that book is twilight for 14 year old boys.

You know, I actually read Twilight once. It... wasn't that bad? Mostly a solid "meh". It probably wasn't good by a long stretch, but I'm pretty sure some of the infamy it has is mostly a meme rather than it being objectively horrible.


2) wow, the treatment of the “monster” races is not good in that book. All goblins, Orcs, giants, and ogres are described only as “it”, and all are slaughtered entirely without mercy.

The decision to dehumanize the non-PC races seemed ham-handed enough that I suspect it was done by a committee.

Are the rest of the books that terrible regarding the goblins, orcs, etc.?

Never read them, but if Drizzt's from FR I haven't really heard much good about their book series.


Aristocrat actually.

I think that was about Miko Falling. She was the highest-levelled member of the Guard after all.


They used the aid of numerous undead and summoned creatures. From zombies to ghouls and wights (Oh My!).

Also the city's siege engines were disabled by Julio and despite all that Gobbotopia only claims a rough half of Azure City's original territory.

Also two very high-level casters.


Let me put it this way: let's take a fictional third-world country in the DC Universe in which women do not get to vote.

Then Power Girl for some reason moves there.

She says: "I will begin the destruction with your capital if you do not let women vote".

Now women can vote.

Was Power Girl wrong?

Personally I don't think she should have started with that. Though frankly, I don't have the faintest idea who Power Girl is.

[The_Weirdo]

Personally I don't think she should have started with that. Though frankly, I don't have the faintest idea who Power Girl is.

Blonde, very attractive, female Superman.

[Frozenstep]

I think the problem is that the reported oppression has only been talked about rather than really shown in comic.
We have seen hobgoblins whipping human slaves, including the old and infirm, in Azure City/Gobbotopia.
We have not seen a goblin merchant try to peacefully enter a human town and then be mobbed and killed for having green skin and tusks.

I'm seeing quite a few of these opinions about being unsure how disadvantaged goblins are. The problem is, of course, we see the story from only a few perspectives. It can be really easy to miss the issues others are dealing with when we're not looking through the eyes of everyday people. But besides that, we've seen some serious stuff, even with that limited prespective.

Redcloak states a few of the issues that make them unequal in 1208, but we also see a bit of it in Good Deeds Gone Unpunished, with the sapphire guard just casually destroying a town full of hobgoblins, and being fully prepared to do it again without any remorse. And of course, the slaughter of Redcloak's village. Even Roy, usually the talker, just kills and kills in the first book without really questioning why. That kind of attitude towards goblins doesn't really fill me with confidence that they're treated well. Of course, a few of those examples come from books outside the main comic, but that's kind of what happens when you get to look at more perspectives, you see more of the problem.


This is kind of falling flat for me. One, I still don't get how the goblins are so disadvantaged. The main argument is they were given poor land, but the dwarves got literal mountain caves, which are a magnitude worse. Two, in RL discussions of ethnic and racial privilege, the disadvantaged people generally aren't about to cause the apocalypse.

Another race having hardships to deal with as well doesn't invalidate the goblin's issues. We also don't know exactly what the dwarves have, besides very good mining resources.

As for the apocalypse, it's taken quite a lot for it to get to this point, and it wouldn't have been possible without Xykon.

[danielxcutter]

I do think that Rich could have done a better job portraying goblins getting shafted throughout the comic, but come on. One of the most complex villains in the comic, two LG and wise members of the Order, and a literal god are saying that. I'd say that's good enough to assume that what they're saying is true enough.

[The_Weirdo]

I do think that Rich could have done a better job portraying goblins getting shafted throughout the comic, but come on. One of the most complex villains in the comic, two LG and wise members of the Order, and a literal god are saying that. I'd say that's good enough to assume that what they're saying is true enough.

Then there's the basic reading between the lines: if an army gets into a village and slaughters it and the reaction of the leaders of the place from which this army hails isn't You did what?!!! and trying their hardest to make amends, it sorta stands to reason that they don't view the goblins as people deserving of rights.

[Severance]

You must really hate George Washington, then. Also Joan of Arc and all those French resistance fighters in World War II. When you watched Braveheart, did you cheer at the end when that disgusting rebel William Wallace met his well-deserved execution?

George Washington acted when diplomacy was no longer an option, Joan of Arc intervened in a war that's been going for years, same for those French resistance fighters. None said "screw dialogue, let's kill" as a first measure before more peaceful options were exhausted.
And William Wallace (the movie guy not the real one which was quite a barbarian) didn't resort to immoral methods like his enemies did so he doesn't apply either in what we're talking about here.


I mean, at some point, people might decide it's a great idea not to oppress others, no?

No, they will merely decide that murdering children is acceptable since their enemies did it too and if you can choose it's better to be the murderous oppressor than the murdered oppressed. That's what happens when right and wrong are thrown out of the window and morality is abandoned on the service of who's on the "good" side at the moment.
Ever read Hunger Games? It's that exact scenario, with the oppressed rising to power but because they sacrificed all sense of morality in the process they merely turned out the next oppressor.


Wasn't there a story where Superman did something similar and aside from the ones that believed in conquest and in "The Ends justify the means", every other hero, criminals, civilians and even politicians were against his rule since they were against those type of methods.

Yes there was, with some superheroes going by his side and others fighting him with Batman forming an underground resistance. Also Flash starts by superman side then realizes that abandoning right or wrong punishes the very innocent he purported to protect so he defects to Batman.
It was essentially superman trying to force perfect democracy but because he'd lost all sense of right and wrong he just created a tyranny.

Hell the whole thing was called INJUSTICE and they made a series of videogames with the same name.

[Spartan360]

Then there's the basic reading between the lines: if an army gets into a village and slaughters it and the reaction of the leaders of the place from which this army hails isn't You did what?!!! and trying their hardest to make amends, it sorta stands to reason that they don't view the goblins as people deserving of rights.

Weren't the Hobgoblin leaders happy when their soldiers attempted to slaughter the village/town where O'Chuul was at. They say it was for revenge for what Gil'Jun (or something) but at the same time also state that they always wanted to attack the humans anyway.

[Worldsong]

I do think that Rich could have done a better job portraying goblins getting shafted throughout the comic, but come on. One of the most complex villains in the comic, two LG and wise members of the Order, and a literal god are saying that. I'd say that's good enough to assume that what they're saying is true enough.

Agreed. I'm pretty sure Rich was intending for Roy and Durkon to be proof that goblinoids have it bad, based on the fact that they're both strongly Good-aligned and overall reasonable people who accept the idea that goblinoids have it bad without spending much time bringing up counterexamples (presumably because said counterexamples don't exist). And Thor, a Good-aligned deity who remembers everything.

The problem is that this isn't as persuasive as having goblinoids get discriminated against on-screen so instead of people thinking "Well if Roy, Durkon, and Thor all think the goblinoids have it bad that must mean something really is up" we get people thinking "Durkon is a bleeding heart who is guilt-tripping other Good-aligned characters into feeling bad for the goblinoids without thinking it through."

[The_Weirdo]

No, they will merely decide that murdering children is acceptable since their enemies did it too and if you can choose it's better to be the murderous oppressor than the murdered oppressed. That's what happens when right and wrong are thrown out of the window and morality is abandoned on the service of who's on the "good" side at the moment.
Ever read Hunger Games? It's that exact scenario.

I'm a proponent of increasing the cost of oppression. And no, I haven't read Hunger Games, but if I recall correctly it was more about teenagers being used as pretty much Colosseum entertainment, not quite oppressed vs. oppressor. Maybe at the end, but it got rather unclear what happened between Katniss "missing" her shot and "years later".




Yes there was, with some superheroes going by his side and others fighting him with Batman forming an underground resistance. Also Flash starts by superman side then realizes that abandoning right or wrong punishes the very innocent he purported to protect so he defects to Batman.

Hell the whole thing was called INJUSTICE and they made a series of videogames with the same name.

Again: Supes takes over the world and destroys democracy, rather than toppling a dictatorship somewhere.


The problem is that this isn't as persuasive as having goblinoids get discriminated against on-screen so instead of people thinking "Well if Roy, Durkon, and Thor all think the goblinoids have it bad that must mean something really is up" we get people thinking "Durkon is a bleeding heart who is guilt-tripping other Good-aligned characters into feeling bad for the goblinoids without thinking it through."

At some point, misinterpreting the info you see and read becomes a choice.

I do agree with you that sushi is delicious, though, but I do not think my biological mother is worthy of these compliments you paid her.

See? :smalltongue:

[Doug Lampert]

I think the problem is that the reported oppression has only been talked about rather than really shown in comic.
We have seen hobgoblins whipping human slaves, including the old and infirm, in Azure City/Gobbotopia.
We have not seen a goblin merchant try to peacefully enter a human town and then be mobbed and killed for having green skin and tusks.

In TOoPCs we've seen orcs trying to attend a concert and having merchants run away when they try to purchase food and then adventurers hired to deal with the orc menace.

We've also seen a good character stop those orcs from being massacred, but a massacre was clearly on the table.

Claiming that there is no oppression is not supportable. But as far as I can tell, claiming that the oppression can't be dealt with by peaceful means or is inherent in the current situation or anything close to universal is even less supported.

[Dion]

I do think that Rich could have done a better job portraying goblins getting shafted throughout the comic, but come on. One of the most complex villains in the comic, two LG and wise members of the Order, and a literal god are saying that. I'd say that's good enough to assume that what they're saying is true enough.

Yeah, but maybe Rich is lying, and he’ll come out at the end and say “gotcha”!

That’s totally a thing that could happen.

[Frozenstep]

George Washington acted when diplomacy was no longer an option

To be fair, you could say the same thing happened with the Dark One. He tried diplomacy and got stabbed in the back for it (or at least, that's what we've been told)

[Severance]

Again: Supes takes over the world and destroys democracy, rather than toppling a dictatorship somewhere.

He destroys democracy because he sees it as evil and corrupt as any dictatorship, so he elects himself as the new "good and doing it right this time" dictator.
Because that's what happens when you throw right and wrong out of the window, you just turn out becoming the next evil.

Hunger Games was a story about teenage kids used as sacrificial lambs in a colosseum-styled arena, then by the end of the books they revolt and topple their oppressors with their first move being punishing them by putting their own kids as sacrificial lambs in a colosseum-styled arena, showing how violence begets violence and immorality begets immorality.
Katniss breaks the cycle by killing the next "corrupt oppressor" before she can instill the new regime, but the lesson is there: if you cross too many lines eventually that line disappears forever and you become what you fought.

So no: just because you're "oppressed" you can't "do whatever".

[GregTD]

Seriously? {scrubbed}

I guess I'll check back in a month or so to see if the comic has gone completely insane.

But, for now, this book has gone from "must buy" to "I'll read the strips online, when I get around to it."

I't your strip. You want to push l{scrubbed} , that's your choice.

it's my money, and I don't spend it on {scrubbed}

[Dion]

Seriously? {scrub the post, scrub the quote}


Can you be more specific? {scrubbed}

[Czhorat]

I'll disagree superficially in order to agree deeply: I think the actual thematic heart of OOTS is character growth and redemption. We have seen so many characters grow into stronger, more loving, more thoughtful versions of themselves; consequently, it makes sense at this stage of the comic (and DnD fandom, and the world) to extend that same opportunity to society as a whole.

We do have a chance to change how we function in the world: to improve upon our past mistakes, and to create a wiser, more generous path forward.

Part of why Xykon (and Tarquin, and maybe some others) are such effective villains in the context of this story is that they show no interest in personal or societal improvement; they believe their power and/or methods to be unimpeachable, and they don't care about their effect on others. By contrast, out heroes are heroes because they are willing to examine tactics, methods, habits, feelings, systems, then dismantle them and build them back better. It'd wild, it's scary, it takes them one Gate away from annihilation -- but, presumably, there's a better world waiting on the other side.

I'm reminded of Fiddlers' Green telling someone (Daniel? It's been a long time) that the Dreaming has more than one heart.

So to it is with OOTS, or any worthy work of art.

[The_Weirdo]

He destroys democracy because he sees it as evil and corrupt as any dictatorship, so he elects himself as the new "good and doing it right this time" dictator.
Because that's what happens when you throw right and wrong out of the window, you just turn out becoming the next evil.

Hunger Games was a story about teenage kids used as sacrificial lambs in a colosseum-styled arena, then by the end of the books they revolt and topple their oppressors with their first move being punishing them by putting their own kids as sacrificial lambs in a colosseum-styled arena, showing how violence begets violence and immorality begets immorality.
Katniss breaks the cycle by killing the next "corrupt oppressor" before she can instill the new regime, but the lesson is there: if you cross too many lines eventually that line disappears forever and you become what you fought.

So no: just because you're "oppressed" you can't "do whatever".

The scenario you describe moves beyond the part in which the oppression is over, no?

[Fyraltari]

That strip yes, but my username has nothing with cutlery or cuttlefish. :v
Many apologies! I should have checked. It's fixed now.




You know, I actually read Twilight once. It... wasn't that bad? Mostly a solid "meh". It probably wasn't good by a long stretch, but I'm pretty sure some of the infamy it has is mostly a meme rather than it being objectively horrible.
I haven't read them myself, but my understanding is "a bit of column A, a bit of column B." May I recommend Dominic Noble's videos on the matter? Plus Lindsay Ellis's Dear Stephanie Meyer, if you want more explanation behind the "meme".





I think that was about Miko Falling. She was the highest-levelled member of the Guard after all.
Oh, good point.

[Severance]

The scenario you describe moves beyond the part in which the oppression is over, no?

I don't get your question. The oppression is never over, once the old one fell a new one immediately arose to take its place due to the lack of morals on both sides, which is why morals are important to keep and can't be abandoned by the "good guys".

[Frozenstep]

Weren't the Hobgoblin leaders happy when their soldiers attempted to slaughter the village/town where O'Chuul was at. They say it was for revenge for what Gil'Jun (or something) but at the same time also state that they always wanted to attack the humans anyway.

I don't remember the Hobgoblin leaders being happy about the soldiers trying to attack the village O'Chuul was at, that never seems to come up.

Yeah, some of them want to attack the humans, but again, expecting oppressed people to be forgiving saints is kind of silly. The first hobgoblin that talks in that comic says humans killed his sister. Another one later one also says they lost family in these attacks. Some of them carry hate, some justified and some probably not justified. Hatred enough to be violent. But does that justify an unprovoked slaughter?

[understatement]

Seriously? {scrub the post, scrub the quote}
I guess I'll check back in a month or so to see if the comic has gone completely insane.

But, for now, this book has gone from "must buy" to "I'll read the strips online, when I get around to it."

I't your strip. You want to push {scrub the post, scrub the quote}, that's your choice.

it's my money, and I don't spend it on {scrub the post, scrub the quote}

{scrubbed}

[Wraithfighter]

As one LG (Roy) to another LG (Durkon), yes, they do need to take responsibility for their part in the bad setup.

Saying that someone has a responsibility to give up their property presumes a zero-sum game. Not necessarily the case (esp with "magic") :)

This. Especially when this same conversation has the caveat that, well, the most morally right action is still to stop Redcloak, probably with violence. They realize that the situation that Goblins are undergoing is something that they should feel obligated to resolve, but that doesn't change what Redcloak's trying to do while he has Xykon on his side. They want to do what they can to fix this unequal situation, but "the lives of everyone that's alive" is going to come first by a long shot.

[The_Weirdo]

I don't get your question. The oppression is never over, once the old one fell a new one immediately arose to take its place due to the lack of morals on both sides, which is why morals are important to keep and can't be abandoned by the "good guys".

Put another way: toppling the regime that created the Hunger Games could be done with the ends justifying the means.

Punishing the people that set this regime up needed to have limits. The punishment still needed to happen, but doing it to their children was when things went beyond the pale.

[Spartan360]

I don't remember the Hobgoblin leaders being happy about the soldiers trying to attack the village O'Chuul was at, that never seems to come up.

Yeah, some of them want to attack the humans, but again, expecting oppressed people to be forgiving saints is kind of silly. The first hobgoblin that talks in that comic says humans killed his sister. Another one later one also says they lost family in these attacks. Some of them carry hate, some justified and some probably not justified. Hatred enough to be violent. But does that justify an unprovoked slaughter?

Never was attempting to justify the slaughter, was just trying to point out that both sides would likely be happy to do it to the other side since you know.... they are at some kind of war.

[Jason]

I'm seeing quite a few of these opinions about being unsure how disadvantaged goblins are. The problem is, of course, we see the story from only a few perspectives. It can be really easy to miss the issues others are dealing with when we're not looking through the eyes of everyday people. But besides that, we've seen some serious stuff, even with that limited prespective.
There are good reasons for not having included obvious instances of goblins being oppressed, but the fact remains that such instances aren't in the main comic. The oppression of goblinkind is more of an informed attribute than something we can see for ourselves.
The Giant is doing his best by having characters we the readers are likely to trust (like Thor, Durkon, and Roy) agree that it's a problem, but it's still not a problem that we've seen with our own eyes on-panel.

The interesting thing about using How the Paladin Got His Scar as an example is:
That the Sapphire Guard doesn't want to slaughter the hobgoblin settlement just because they're hobgoblins. Once O-Chul points out that hobgoblins are probably not harboring the Crimson Mantle and that attacking the settlement will mean a war, the paladins mutiny and leave the hobgoblins in peace.

[danielxcutter]

Many apologies! I should have checked. It's fixed now.

Yay!


I haven't read them myself, but my understanding is "a bit of column A, a bit of column B." May I recommend Dominic Noble's videos on the matter? Plus Lindsay Ellis's Dear Stephanie Meyer, if you want more explanation behind the "meme".

I mean on the Internet a lot of things get exaggerated. And I think I may have low standards for considering a story "horrible."

I'll try to look those up if I remember them when I wake up in the morning. Probably won't though.


Oh, good point.

Yaay!


{scrub the post, scrub the quote}

Hah!

Hey, didn't Rich say something about D&D nerds not being able to suspend their disbelief about bisexual people when they do that just fine with dragons? Maybe not on this forum though.


This. Especially when this same conversation has the caveat that, well, the most morally right action is still to stop Redcloak, probably with violence. They realize that the situation that Goblins are undergoing is something that they should feel obligated to resolve, but that doesn't change what Redcloak's trying to do while he has Xykon on his side. They want to do what they can to fix this unequal situation, but "the lives of everyone that's alive" is going to come first by a long shot.

Since righting the injustice done to goblins is more or less "on the way" to fixing the World Unraveling situation there really isn't much reason not to if possible.

[Dion]

no one has a responsibility or obligation to anyone to just go and give them their property.

The real world isn’t a zero sum game. In the real world, ther’s no reason to expect one person to have less when someone else has more.

(No, really. I’m very serious about that. I do not receive fewer rights if I give you rights. I do not receive less kindness if I give you kindness. I do not have less opportunity if I give you opportunity. Only in some very narrow definitions is the world zero sum, and often it’s not how we’ve been trained to believe.

The only place where I truly believe the world is truly zero sum is in social comparison, where you count the number of people who have more than you do.)

I don’t think there’s any reason to expect that OotS-verse is zero sum either.

[Frozenstep]

Never was attempting to justify the slaughter, was just trying to point out that both sides would likely be happy to do it to the other side since you know.... they are at some kind of war.

I apologize then, though now I'm not sure what you were trying to say by pointing out the hobgoblins weren't fan of humans, then, to the comment you replied too.

Also, they weren't at war, the Hobgoblins hadn't encroached on Azurite Territory in almost a decade at that point, the attacks were retaliations to attacks on them.

[Severance]

{scrubbed}

That's how suspension of disbelief work, you might be able to read about dragons and magic and still remain fully immersed in a fictional gameworld but if said gameworld starts dropping blatant in-your-face real-life stuff it's gonna take you out of it immediately.
I don't see what's so funny about it since this is textbook how suspension of disbelief or otherwise immersion can be broken.

[Worldsong]

That's how suspension of disbelief work, you might be able to read about dragons and magic and still remain fully immersed in a fictional gameworld but if said gameworld starts dropping blatant in-your-face real-life stuff it's gonna take you out of it immediately.
I don't see what's so funny about it since this is textbook how suspension of disbelief or otherwise immersion can be broken.

I guess it's considered funny because it often feels like this breaking of immersion happens when the story delivers social/{scrubbed} commentary the reader doesn't agree with.

[The_Weirdo]

I guess it's considered funny because it often feels like this breaking of immersion happens when the story delivers social/{scrub the post, scrub the quote} commentary the reader doesn't agree with.

I'm eagerly awaiting the first reader annoyed at the book I wrote having political overtones, really. I look at the Amazon page sometimes. Any day now... :smallbiggrin:

[Ionathus]

The real world isn’t a zero sum game. In the real world, ther’s no reason to expect one person to have less when someone else has more.

(No, really. I’m very serious about that. I do not receive fewer rights if I give you rights. I do not receive less kindness if I give you kindness. I do not have less opportunity if I give you opportunity. Only in some very narrow definitions is the world zero sun, and often it’s not how we’ve been trained to believe.)

I don’t think there’s any reason to expect that OotS-verse is zero sum either.

Agreed: this gargantuan assumption just keeps rearing its head in Goblin Justice discussions. Main characters in the comic say "maybe we should help with this problem the goblins have" and someone says "OH so everyone else should suffer" or "OH so you don't care about the Western Continent slaves, what about them?!"

To which the desired response is apparently "huh, I guess you're right, let's not fix anything, that's a much better plan." And perish the thought of addressing the goblins' problem now and the Western Continent later! That's entirely out of the question! It's not like a main character literally said that's what they're going to do (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0938.html).

Frustrated that my first post on this thread is already me getting sucked into an argument, instead of what I actually came here to say, which was:

Yay, new comic! Yay Roy & Durkon having a bro moment! Yay Durkon with face in hands! (we've gotten some dynamic poses from the last few updates that have really let the new art style shine)

[Severance]

Put another way: toppling the regime that created the Hunger Games could be done with the ends justifying the means.

Punishing the people that set this regime up needed to have limits. The punishment still needed to happen, but doing it to their children was when things went beyond the pale.

This is what I pointed at before: the idea that you can practice "evil" up until the oppressor is removed and then turn "good" and stop things from going beyond the pale.
What actually happens in such situations through history is that once the "evil" seizes power it merely removes all the previously useful "good" elements within the ranks and becomes the new oppressor, like in Animal Farm (since I'm lacking the ability to use real life examples which I believe is barred by forum rules) or Hunger Games.


I guess it's considered funny because it often feels like this breaking of immersion happens when the story delivers social/political commentary the reader doesn't agree with.

Maybe, but having three whole strips taking us out from the "Xykon is approaching! Serini's coming! Showdown!" to delve into nothing but preachy {scrubbed} moral justifications I can see why people are seeing their immersion devastated.

I mean one minute we're excited to see a big high-level confrontation and the next it feels like we're being subjected to a bad Troy McClure's Simpson Documentary.

[The_Weirdo]

This is what I pointed at before: the idea that you can practice "evil" up until the oppressor is removed and then turn "good" and stop things from going beyond the pale.
What actually happens in such situations through history is that once the "evil" is in power it merely removes all the previously useful "good" elements within the ranks and becomes the new oppressor, like in Animal Farm (since I'm lacking the ability to use real life examples which I believe is barred by forum rules).

Fair. However, I trust you will agree that stopping an oppression often does require that the oppressed get more leeway with regards to their means. Maybe not "any and all", but certainly not "You can only ask politely".


Dunno, I mean having three whole strips taking us out of the "Xykon is approaching! Serini's coming! Showdown!" to delve into nothing but preachy {scrub the post, scrub the quote} moral justifications I can see why people are seeing their immersion devastated.

Well, this is the main thing that drives the complex villain...

[Jasdoif]

You know, I actually read Twilight once. It... wasn't that bad? Mostly a solid "meh". It probably wasn't good by a long stretch, but I'm pretty sure some of the infamy it has is mostly a meme rather than it being objectively horrible.I haven't read them myself, but my understanding is "a bit of column A, a bit of column B." May I recommend Dominic Noble's videos on the matter? Plus Lindsay Ellis's Dear Stephanie Meyer, if you want more explanation behind the "meme".If you're looking for something (somewhat) analytical, Film Crit Hulk's Twilight review talks a lot about the books, as well as the films.



Hey, didn't Rich say something about D&D nerds not being able to suspend their disbelief about bisexual people when they do that just fine with dragons?Well, without the exaggeration.


If you create a society that differs enough from mine that I cannot readily identify with it, then I ask you to explain it to me. You don't need to spend half the novel doing so: I'm not as dense as you may think. However, so far the only reason given is, "Because D&D says so." Well and good. For the sake of verisimilitude, I would ask you to explain in a bit more depth than a simple resort to authority.

Allow me to explain it in sufficient depth:

It's a comic strip.

No other explanation is necessary, because unless you have some weird mental disorder that prevents you from understanding the concept of fiction, you already know the "explanation" for any aspect of any story that differs from reality: Because the author wrote it that way. Because you are a real person in the real world reading a made-up story in a made-up world, and the real person who made up the made-up story decided to make it up that way for a variety of real world reasons.

Do you need an explanation for why there are dragons when the real world doesn't have dragons? Because it's a story. Do you need an explanation for why those dragons can fly when logically a creature of that size shouldn't be able to do so? Because it's a story. Do you need an explanation for why a human wiggling their fingers and saying certain words causes lightning to shoot out of them and fry that dragon to a crisp? Because it's a story. Do you need a reason for why that finger-wiggling human is a gay woman and not a straight man? No, you don't, because it's the least absurd thing in this paragraph and you accept all of the others without question. But if you do, then it's because it's a story.

Grant Morrison once said in an interview with Rolling Stone:

"Kids understand that real crabs don't sing like the ones in The Little Mermaid. But you give an adult fiction, and the adult starts asking really ****ing dumb questions like 'How does Superman fly? How do those eyebeams work? Who pumps the Batmobile's tires?' It's a ****ing made-up story, you idiot! Nobody pumps the tires!"

"Verisimilitude" is a highly overrated concept. If it is not a requirement for the many things that don't exist in the real world and could never exist (dragons, wizards, zombies, time travel), then it certainly has no power to prevent things that do exist in the real world from making an appearance.

What's even worse is this idea of statistical verisimilitude that I keep seeing—where the numerical percentage of characters with certain traits must match the "likely" percentages in the real world, based on whatever filter the proponent chooses to determine what is likely. This argument is utter unadulterated garbage. It's garbage because stories are about protagonists and protagonists are usually unusual. There are only like 4 Force-wielders in a galaxy of trillions at the start of Star Wars, yet by the end of second movie they've all appeared as part of the narrative. Is anyone complaining that Star Wars breaks verisimilitude because such a small minority group is so over-represented? No, because it happens to be a story about those people who belong to that group. Likewise, if a story has a percentage of LGBTQ+ characters that is higher than the statistical occurrence of LGBTQ+ people in the real world, does that break verisimilitude? No, because it happens to be a story about those people who belong to that group.

The inherent garbageness of the statistical verisimilitude argument cuts both ways, incidentally. It's not really valid to say, "Half of all the people in the real world are women, therefore half of the characters in your story must be women or it breaks verisimilitude." Not true; it might happen to be a story about people who are male—say, a love story between two gay men. A much, much better argument is, "Half of all the people in the real world are women, and those women buy comic books, too, so you better get your thumb out of your ass and draw some women."

An all-male (or predominantly male) story might be a valid artistic choice but doing so opens one up to an assortment of social and economic pressures in the real world. The artist then needs to decide how much he or she cares about those reactions and what it says about them and their work. It's totally valid to then say, "Screw it, my story doesn't have any women in it, deal with it." However, if one does that, one needs to be prepared to accept the consequences of that decision, which may include low sales, poor critical response, being labeled a sexist (or worse), etc. If one believes in one's artistic vision enough to weather that storm, then hey, have at it.

Me? Not only do I not want to sail into that particular tempest, I wasn't even aware I was on that course until it was pointed out to me. And it's tough to turn a ship as big as OOTS around, especially at this late date in the narrative's journey where there are so few characters left to enter the story, but I'm still trying. It would have been totally valid, artistically, for me to plant my flag and say, "No, OOTS needs to be predominantly male for Reasons," and then it would have been equally valid for people to say, "OK, well, that's not really my cup of tea so I'll go throw my money at some other more diverse comic strip." I have no reason to die on that particular hill, however, as I happen to agree with the general notions of representation that have been raised and am somewhat embarrassed that I didn't notice the problems involved sooner.

When you say (earlier in your post) that you have expectations about gender, what you're really saying is, "I expect a story to cater to my existing worldview," or, to put it another way, you're saying that you want it to be your cup of tea. So if I have some readers whose cup of tea is more diversity and some readers whose cup of tea is less diversity, then how do I decide which type of tea to brew? Easy. I brew my cup of tea and let the chips fall where they may, and that happens to be a narrative with plenty of diversity. If I got the tea recipe wrong before, I guess I'll just have to put a new pot on now.

[Severance]

If you're looking for something (somewhat) analytical, Film Crit Hulk's Twilight review talks a lot about the books, as well as the films.


Well, without the exaggeration.


I'd say just watch the Honest Trailers and you're done for life :smallbiggrin:

[Frozenstep]

There are good reasons for not having included obvious instances of goblins being oppressed, but the fact remains that such instances aren't in the main comic. The oppression of goblinkind is more of an informed attribute than something we can see for ourselves.
The Giant is doing his best by having characters we the readers are likely to trust (like Thor, Durkon, and Roy) agree that it's a problem, but it's still not a problem that we've seen with our own eyes on-panel.

We've seen how the main characters treat goblins in book 1, but I guess that was a long time ago and the tone wasn't as serious back then.


The interesting thing about using How the Paladin Got His Scar as an example is:
That the Sapphire Guard doesn't want to slaughter the hobgoblin settlement just because they're hobgoblins. Once O-Chul points out that hobgoblins are probably not harboring the Crimson Mantle and that attacking the settlement will mean a war, the paladins mutiny and leave the hobgoblins in peace.
One of them literally says he couldn't care less about a bunch of humanoids. Maybe they won't take pleasure in it, but they're totally ready to slaughter a town of humanoids, again, and only stop because their main goal is shown to be unsure and the war would hurt their own people. They don't seem to be losing sleep over the idea of attacking and slaughtering another village, just the consequences.

Like, I get it, they think they're chasing down a real threat to the multiverse, but the attitude towards attacking a city of hobgoblins doesn't fill me with confidence over how they're usually treated.

[Ionathus]

Dunno, I mean having three whole strips taking us out of the "Xykon is approaching! Serini's coming! Showdown!" to delve into nothing but preachy {scrub the post, scrub the quote} moral justifications I can see why people are seeing their immersion devastated.

Talking in OotSverse has always been, and still is, a free action, even when you don't like the words the characters are saying. Having the characters talk about the central plot, especially to process a significant complication for the heroes' goals & motivations, is an important part of that development.

[Pax_Chi]

I'm honestly not sure how to feel about this strip.

On the one hand, Roy and Durkon feeling empathy for the goblins and their plight is not only wonderful, but completely in character. These are two Lawful Good individuals who want to try to make the world a better place. They were ignorant of the goblin situation before, but now that they know the motivation for the goblins actions, the bad hand they got dealt early on, they want to help.

On the other hand, I find the idea that Roy and Durkon, and by extension every elf, dwarf, human, gnome, halfling and the like, need to take responsibility for "our part in this bad set up" . . . that's just insane to me.

The goblins had a rougher start compared to a lot of other races due to their creator essentially being a flake. He created those races and moved on, while other races, even other evil races, were watched over by gods that tended to take a more active involvement in the lives of their creations. It's comparable to the real world where children who are raised in a loving household by two good parents have a much better start in life than those raised by neglectful or absent parents. It's a bad situation for the neglected child, but is that the responsibility of the child with good parents?

It comes off as a kind of mandated charity. You have it good in life so you MUST take responsibility for those less fortunate than yourself, especially if they didn't have as good a start as you did. Your resources and efforts MUST be used to address this imbalance and fix this situation that you had no part in.

That kind of enforced charity through collective guilt isn't healthy. People SHOULD want to help others in a bad situation. That's a Good thing to do. Compassion and empathy are good things, and working together, they can build a better world. But that has to be a choice. A responsibility is something you HAVE to do, and that isn't what this situation is.

For another thing, this kind denies the goblins any kind of agency and sweeps any evil they've done under the rug. The goblins got a raw deal, but so have a lot of races. The species living in the Western Continent are all collectively worse off compared to the other lands, and often have to fight tooth and nail for whatever resources they can. Heck, even the dwarves, who have a more comfortable life, live with a constant existential threat of dying before achieving sufficient honor to enter Valhalla thanks to a deal they had no say in. there are plenty of humans, elves, dwarves and the like whose situation is just as bad the goblins, possibly worse.

Likewise, unless there's something I'm missing, it's entirely within the goblin's ability to choose to worship any of the Good pantheons or gods, the same way the Dwarves worship non-dwarven gods. And the Hobgoblin City demonstrates that it's entirely possible for goblin societies to exist. It's possible the discovery of said existence might have led to humans uniting against them to wipe them out, but depending on the location, their resources and possible benefits from things like trade, the goblins could have the starting point of their own civilization WITHOUT taking over another city.

Also . . .



When Red Cloak and Right-Eye debate the merits of living peacefully with their own land, Red Cloak comments that the other races still have it better. And Right-Eye responds with, "Why does it have to be a competition?" If the humans, elves and dwarves had an advantage growing up, then that sucks, but that does nothing to stop the goblins from building their own civilization and perhaps being able to take more pride in what they've built due to their circumstances.



Basically, wanting things to be better for the goblins does not mean taking the whole of the goblins suffering upon themselves and deciding that it's everyone's duty to fix the goblins issues. It's not like everyone has decided that it's the duty of the people outside of the Western Continent to go in and help those people suffering from lack of food, water, livable terrain, etc.

Helping others is good. But being good is a choice, not a responsibility.

I mean, compare this situation to the Marvel film The Black Panther. We can equate Wakanda having access to Vibranium to the help the Player Character Races got from the gods starting out. They got a big head start in life, but they chose to isolate themselves, build a wall around their territory, not share their resources and actively ignore the suffering of everyone around them. And as a result of their inactivity, the surrounding tribes warred with each other, with the winners enslaving the losers. This led to the development of the African slave trade where the more powerful tribes sold people within their continent and then expanded to other continents. Then several European powers came in and spent a couple hundred years colonizing chunks of the continent. All while Wakanda stayed safe in their little utopia. To say nothing of the suffering across the entire world that Wakandan technology could have alleviated.

Is now all of Wakanda collectively responsible for the suffering of every African they could have helped, and thus any potential suffering their descendants are now suffering as a result? Does it go beyond that, and they are now guilty of the suffering of anyone their technology could have helped? T'Challa definitely wants to use his technology to help the world, but is that supposed to be a matter of altruism or him finally being responsible and acknowledging Wakanda's role in the bad set up of the world? Are all Wakandans guilty of the bad situation everyone on Earth in a bad situation now finds themselves in? Or was the problem caused by a small, elite minority within the Wakandan community, and how much help an individual Wakandan should feel responsibility for giving should depend on said Wakandan?

Roy and Durkon feel bad about the goblin's situation, and they want to do something to make it better. And that's really where the whole matter should stop. There doesn't need to be any guilt over their part in a system they didn't create and which only benefits them thanks largely through the efforts they put in. Durkon and Roy were ignorant of the goblins problems, and now that they're aware of them, they want to help. Because they're heroes. That's the only justification they need.

[Spartan360]

I apologize then, though now I'm not sure what you were trying to say by pointing out the hobgoblins weren't fan of humans, then, to the comment you replied too.

Also, they weren't at war, the Hobgoblins hadn't encroached on Azurite Territory in almost a decade at that point, the attacks were retaliations to attacks on them.

That's why I said "Some Kind" of a war, cause yeah, they hadn't attacked each other for a while but there seems to have been some hostile mindsets against each other and they clearly mostly hated each other and no actual peace treaty was made and in the prequel the most they managed to make was "A non-written agreement that the goblin's and paladins wouldn't attack each other for a while", with the Hobgoblin leader stating that he was more interesting in stocking up instead of attacking at the moment.

To the former was simply to the statement about "leaders that didn't react apology for their people slaughtering a different faction's village", where I was trying to hint that both Azure City and Hobgoblin's leaderships would likely not react that way if their men did commit those atrocities.

[Severance]

Fair. However, I trust you will agree that stopping an oppression often does require that the oppressed get more leeway with regards to their means. Maybe not "any and all", but certainly not "You can only ask politely".

Yeah I can agree with that naturally, if you're oppressed like for example Spartacus (the tv show) having a violent uprising massacring your jailers is fine given how there's no other way for you to escape and it would be death sentence trying any other attempt.
But to use that to postulate a vague "oppressed people gets free out of jail cards for being immoral" is a huge no as far as I'm concerned, especially if you go harming innocents instead of the actual oppressors.

[danielxcutter]

If you're looking for something (somewhat) analytical, Film Crit Hulk's Twilight review talks a lot about the books, as well as the films.


Well, without the exaggeration.


Interesting.

Also man, I love Rich's opinions about these things.

[SleeplessEntity]

The real world isn’t a zero sum game. In the real world, ther’s no reason to expect one person to have less when someone else has more.

(No, really. I’m very serious about that. I do not receive fewer rights if I give you rights. I do not receive less kindness if I give you kindness. I do not have less opportunity if I give you opportunity. Only in some very narrow definitions is the world zero sun, and often it’s not how we’ve been trained to believe.

The only place where the world is truly zero sum is in social comparison, where you count the number of people who have more than you do.)

I don’t think there’s any reason to expect that OotS-verse is zero sum either.

I agree with the zero sum part. I wouldn't say that the Oots-verse is anywhere near zero sum since the world keeps getting blown up by the snarl escaping his prison. Nobody gets any of the cake in the end. And then there's the fact that the material plane is inconsequential, and the main focus of people seems to be dying to follow their god's commandments, thereby getting into a cushy eternal afterlife where resources are infinite.

To your other point though, I'd have to disagree with the details. If I give someone kindness, the cost I'm incurring isn't less kindness but my time and resources. If I give rights, I could increase the chances that I'm the next one to be oppressed, or lose the rights to discriminate/cheat in the game of life against others. If I give others opportunity, I'm decreasing my own odds. I think that these things are usually long term investments (granted there are exceptions, like in the case of Durkon's mom, but how often to you get the opportunity to save people from certain eternal torture?). If I croak before my investment pays off, then I've just made my life harder without being able to enjoy the reward of a nicer stable community (assuming I don't care about any dumb would-be descendants).

[Severance]

Talking in OotSverse has always been, and still is, a free action, even when you don't like the words the characters are saying. Having the characters talk about the central plot, especially to process a significant complication for the heroes' goals & motivations, is an important part of that development.

And as for the cry of "reparations!" I keep seeing: show me anywhere in the last three pages where the characters suggest actual reparations instead of somehow working together to fix the problem in a non-zero-sum way.

You are reading an extreme version of the actual message into it, and of course that strawman is breaking your immersion.

No, I believe what's breaking immersion is the preachy 3-strips-long argument that just keeps on going and going and going at a point where the story left us at the edge of our seats for some critical imminent action and thus feels the less appropriate time to go for a {scrubbed} (which despite your claim is clearly what's inspiring this whole dialogue between Durkon and Roy).

[Teioh]

Seriously? {scrub the post, scrub the quote}

I guess I'll check back in a month or so to see if the comic has gone completely insane.

But, for now, this book has gone from "must buy" to "I'll read the strips online, when I get around to it."

I't your strip. You want to push {scrub the post, scrub the quote}, that's your choice.

it's my money, {scrub the post, scrub the quote}

If you're surprised this is where the story was going, you haven't been paying full attention. (Maybe if just reading the online stripes, you'd have a nagging thought in the back of your head a few years)

[Doug Lampert]

Hey, didn't Rich say something about D&D nerds not being able to suspend their disbelief about bisexual people when they do that just fine with dragons? Maybe not on this forum though.

The thing is, fiction is about people.

Dragons can be monsters that people fight, or they can be people that are shaped differently, but it doesn't matter as long as the story is about people, either the people fighting the dragons or the dragons themselves, somewhere there need to be people, and the story needs to be about them.

If the story is not about people, then it's not about anything. So having the people act like people is far and away the most important thing for suspension of disbelief. Nothing else is even close to being as important, and internal consistency is probably the only thing that even belongs on the same list in terms of importance (and yet, you can still get away with inconsistencies as long as the characters behave like real people and REACT to those inconsistencies and show an appropriate degree of bafflement, this is why hanging a lampshade on it works for inconsistencies, because it shows that the characters are still acting like people and observing their environment and expecting it to make sense).

If for some reason, your idea of how people act doesn't include the possibility of someone being bi, then a bi character will break your suspension of disbelief. I'd argue that since there are actually bi people out there, that disbelieving in them in fiction is more than a bit odd, but it plainly happens to some people.

[Dion]

preachy {scrub the post, scrub the quote} moral justifications

I haven’t seen anyone mention reparations, though perhaps you’re using it in a different sense than I’m used to.

What do you mean by reparations when you say this?