Thoughts on the OOTS goblin predicament

[Lamoni]

Before I start, I just wanted to reiterate that I have read the posting rules, specifically that the following two topics are never allowed:
Real-world religions (including religious reactions to gaming)
Real-world politics (including political reactions to gaming)

With that in mind, I want my comments to be focused on OOTS, but to be universally applicable. I wasn't going to bring up religion or politics, but I have scrubbed my examples out of fear that they would spark a political or religious response.

1. You are not defined by your circumstance. Many people are dealt a bad hand. The goblins worse than most. The world was created long ago. It is not hard to think of examples on your own about people who have been dealt an awful hand, but were able to rise up and make something great. Within OOTS, it certainly seems like the goblins haven been able to thrive from looking at their numbers.

2. Most of our judgement is when we make a comparison. One comparison that we can all do is to compare our lives to the lives of our grandparents or great grandparents. My grandparents had it rough with none of the nice things in life I take for granted. On the other hand, they never felt oppressed. It is natural to look to others who have it better than you, so I don't fault the goblins one bit. Almost every other race within OOTS has an easier life than they have.

3. The best people in life and most of the heroes we look up to are able to overcome their base instincts and actually get out and do something with their lives, usually at great personal cost. The goblins have a problem. Everyone kills them on sight. However, unlike a race of animals with no language, the goblins all seem to know common (or whatever the OOTS language is), with many being able to read and write. If their goal is to not be killed on sight, they can find ways to overcome that. Starting with "don't be evil" and then they can accomplish other goals such as obtaining better land. There are ways to improve land on your own (look at the good races who lived in the desert), or you can expand into other better land (after accomplishing the "don't be evil")

4. I applaud Redcloak for wanting to better their plight. I have less sympathy to others who feel like the goblins are so inferior that it takes a human or a dwarf to solve their problems for them. If they are truly so inferior, they will fall back to their old way of living as soon as your are out of the picture. If they are truly as equal as you think they are, why can't they do things on their own after generations?

If the moderators feel like I still crossed over any line, feel free to delete this post.

[Dion]

I have less sympathy to others who feel like the goblins are so inferior that it takes a human or a dwarf to solve their problems for them.

I hate the “benevolent white savior” trope as much as anyone, but...

If the problem in OotS-verse is “dwarfs and humans are oppressing the goblins”, then that’s a problem with dwarfs and human behavior. Dwarfs and humans are broken, and only dwarfs and humans can fix themselves.

Oppression is by its very definition something that oppressor does to the oppressed. The only way to fix oppression is for the oppressor to stop oppressing.

[dancrilis]

1. You are not defined by your circumstance. Many people are dealt a bad hand. The goblins worse than most.

This does not seem accurate.

Based on Redcloak's history of the world the goblins were created alongside lizardmen, kobolds, orcs and dozens of other for the same reasons and all were given bad land.

So the goblins at least in Redcloak's historical understanding are not uniquely worse off.

From that starting position the goblinoid people could still band together into a nation without military conquest and form the largest army ever on the northern continent - which after the death of their leader was able to effectively able to defeat multiple human armies until such time as allies arrived to aid the humans.

As such had the Dark One's army not attacked they would have been able to presumedly keep the nation they formed.



It is natural to look to others who have it better than you, so I don't fault the goblins one bit. Almost every other race within OOTS has an easier life than they have.
Ignoring the above from SOD this also seems incorrect.
The hobgoblins had a functioning nation prior to the arrival of Redcloak with outposts and 87 legions of troops, meanwhile humans are held as slaves on two continents and we have seen lizardfolk held as slaves on one - even the goblins working for Redcloak and Xykon are employees not slaves, see here (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0115.html).


The goblins have a problem. Everyone kills them on sight.
This seems to be untrue:

Right-Eyes family was able to visit the circus with humans with no problems - and he believed his daughter might be being raised by humans.

Seperately we have confirmation that the hobgoblins do seem to effectively attack on sight here (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0520.html).



I don't know where the story is going and the message it will ultimately give - if any - but at a dispassionate view the idea that something needs to be done to help the goblins does not seem supported.

[kalkyrie]

This thread could very easily move into real-world politics, if it hasn't already.

I'll just flag up that your first point interacts strongly with the 'Equity v Equality' concept. Which is an (interesting) area of real-world politics.
Your second point is an observation, and talking about it in depth would require real world politics (ie, talking about your grandparents, other grandparents, and comparisons to groups in the modern day, etc).
Your third point is very hard to make universally applicable, since that would suggest a group which is regularly attacked on sight should focus on 'not being evil'. Your argument is clearly more nuanced, but going into depth with specific examples... real world politics.
Your fourth point was already addressed by Dion.

In short, I can't see a way of interacting meaningfully with this thread without very rapidly moving into real-world politics.
I'm not saying it's a bad topic (I can see at least 3 interesting areas to talk about).
It's just that people responding here should be cautious.

[Shadowknight12]

"If you were dealt a bad hand, just pull yourself up by your bootstraps!" conveniently absolves those in power from the consequences of their actions and discourages giving help to the least fortunate, because giving them help would be depriving them of a chance to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and grow stronger as a result.

It's a convenient rationale that absolves everyone of any responsibility for worsening anybody's circumstances, and actively discourages assistance. Intelligent social species succeed and thrive through cooperation and resource-sharing, so while this logic may produce the occasional extraordinary person, it does so at the expense of thousands that suffer and die before they can make it.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think that there is already a thread about this.
Here.
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?631683-The-Solution-to-the-Goblins-Problem

Goblin Problem and Goblin Predicament? Same thing.

I think you can PM the mods and ask them to merge the threads, or add this one to the other one ...

[Kerching]

I think that there is already a thread about this.
Here.
{url i can't post}

Goblin Problem and Goblin Predicament? Same thing.

I think you can PM the mods and ask them to merge the threads, or add this one to the other one ...

This is a completely different thread, talking about a different thing. The thread you linked mostly discusses possible solutions to the goblins' predicament. This thread is about general comments and observation of the goblins' predicament.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Lamoni

[Mariele]

It tends to take a pretty extraordinary person to rise up from their circumstances and make something of themselves... and that leaves everyone else, who were just ordinary, still in those same rotten circumstances. A Good society should want fairness and equal opportunity, yea?

But aside from that point, I do mostly agree with your message. But I don't think there's a problem with Good people wanting to help out the less fortunate, especially if that means that it'll be diffusing some of the rage from one of those less fortunate people, and help save the world in the process...

Got to admit I'm with dancrilis in that I don't think the goblin plight has been portrayed that well in the comic so far, though. There are effective ways to portray oppression and I feel like if I have to squint and use non-online content for 99% of the context, well, this ain't been it.

Edit for typo

[GeoffWatson]

Most of the Goblins we've seen have been working for Redcloak or Xykon. It would suck to have those insane evil nutters as a boss, but doesn't say much about the other goblins.

Right-Eye's village was peaceful, and not oppressed, at least until Xykon showed up.

The Hobgoblins can afford a huge standing army. That they spent their resources on that rather than nice things was their choice. They were at peace for a long time.

So if the goblins have been oppressed, it's by other goblins (or a lich).

[hroþila]

It is not hard to think of examples on your own about people who have been dealt an awful hand, but were able to rise up and make something great. Within OOTS, it certainly seems like the goblins haven been able to thrive from looking at their numbers.
The hobgoblin army was some 26,000-30,000 strong, but that was said to be 90% of their population. Even if we assume that this 90% figure represented the percentage of male hobgoblins capable of bearing arms that were mobilized rather than literally the whole population, we're talking of what, a total population of 100,000 tops? The state of Azure City alone had around 500,000 people.

[GeoffWatson]

They had a huge army (87 legions of ~300) before Xykon and Redcloak took over.

[hamishspence]

I'd speculate that, being a military culture, the hobgoblins use the term "legion" in place of "tribe" - so the 87 legions are not a standing army but 87 tribes - and, based on that War & XPs bonus strip, they need 90% of the entire hobgoblin population to go to war, to field the 30,000-goblin army.

Rather than being a fully-trained standing army, they are more of a militia, with most of them, while trained, doing nonmilitary stuff until Xykon turns up.

[brian 333]

The problem with the 'stop oppressing' theory is that it does nothing to make up for past oppression. In fact, short of role reversal in which the formerly oppressed get to oppress the children of the oppressors, there is no remedy, no punishment, that would appease the current generation of goblins for past injustice.

The only solution is to forgive those long dead oppressors and move forward. But force and threat has already gotten the goblins to the place where the humans and dwarves offer them equality. Why would they want to stop there? Their cause is just and their god is mighty. What stands between them and rulership of The North?

There is an opportunity here to break the mold and create a new future, but like all opportunities, one must be educated to see it. Peace is not what you get when you stop fighting, it's what you choose in cooperation with an enemy fully capable of continuing the fight. If one is not educated in the benefits of peace, one might be inclined to continue the fight seeking victory instead. Victory leaves the losing side subject to the whims of the victor, but it also plants the seeds of further grievance which can be used as justification for another war.

For the goblins to 'win' the other races have to stop oppressing them, but the goblins also have to give up the idea of revenge for past wrongs. The opportunity for equality exists at this point, but equality cannot be given. The goblins cannot have both peace and revenge.

Choose the red pill or the blue pill.

[Edreyn]

For the goblins to 'win' the other races have to stop oppressing them, but the goblins also have to give up the idea of revenge for past wrongs.

Goblins, or at least Redcloak, don't want to give up vengeance, that's the main problem. While I can't know how the story will progress, I assume that people like Redcloak will continue invading more and more countries, because literally all other races are "guilty" by his definition. Goblins are not evil, but Redcloak is. People like him never stop. Goblins will never truly be at peace (holding Gobotopia or without it) while Redcloak lives.

[hamishspence]

Redcloak does say "If our issues are addressed, we will have no reason to seize further territories".

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1208.html


Based on Utterly Dwarfed commentary, it seems pretty clear that making some kind of peace with Redcloak rather than simply killing him, will be a part of the story in some form.

[Worldsong]

Honestly, I'm not sure where the idea that Redcloak will always keep pushing for more vengeance against the PC races comes from other than straightforward 'Evil villain must be Evil villain.' I certainly don't remember him being portrayed that way in the comic. He's deadset in achieving his goals to the point of being willing to commit torture and genocide if that's what it takes but his stated goals are equality, not payback. Even the assault on Azure City, the place which ruined his life, was as much for pragmatic reasons as any desire on Redcloak's side to get revenge.

[danielxcutter]

Honestly, I'm not sure where the idea that Redcloak will always keep pushing for more vengeance against the PC races comes from other than straightforward 'Evil villain must be Evil villain.' I certainly don't remember him being portrayed that way in the comic. He's deadset in achieving his goals to the point of being willing to commit torture and genocide if that's what it takes but his stated goals are equality, not payback. Even the assault on Azure City, the place which ruined his life, was as much for pragmatic reasons as any desire on Redcloak's side to get revenge.

I’d say it’s revenge and equality plus a good dose of sunken cost fallacy, but having one of these reasons does not exactly negate the others. People are complex, yo.

[brian 333]

The idea that RC won't stop at equality comes from the fact that he attempted to implode Durkon when that offer was on the table.

[Worldsong]

I’d say it’s revenge and equality plus a good dose of sunken cost fallacy, but having one of these reasons does not exactly negate the others. People are complex, yo.

Yes, but the question is where the idea of him being obsessed with revenge comes from, not whether his desire for equality excludes the possibility.


The idea that RC won't stop at equality comes from the fact that he attempted to implode Durkon when that offer was on the table.

Given that he did that out of pragmatic (if misguided and Evil) reasons I wouldn't consider that a good argument for him being busy with revenge.

Especially since he actually went and told Durkon that he considered the agonizing death an unfortunate side effect to preventing resurrection, with him only beginning to consider it a bonus after Durkon struck a nerve.

And when Durkon first appeared and Redcloak didn't recognize him he was perfectly fine with letting Durkon walk away. He only turned hostile when he realized Durkon was a potential threat.

Redcloak is Evil and quick to think that all PC races are the enemy together with the gods, but he doesn't exactly seem hell bent on hurting them for the sake of hurting them. He's not sadistic or bloodthirsty either since he complains about having to kill so many monsters in Kraagor's Tomb without it helping them find the Gate.

It's entirely possible that he also is motivated by revenge but the idea that Redcloak will forever be driven by vengeance doesn't seem to have solid support in the comic.

Just because he's Evil and irrational doesn't mean every aspect of his character is wretched.

[Mariele]

Durkon's offer wasn't exactly solid.

[Squire Doodad]

Durkon's offer wasn't exactly solid.

It's arguably the best he could offer, though he definitely would have benefitted by bringing up specific points to underscore the urgency of the situation.
You know, things like "Thor has told me the gods are about to blow up the world if the final gate is disturbed, and very nearly voted to do so just last week", or "The Dark One won't automatically survive the interim period, so not releasing the Snarl and helping the other gods make four-color seals would be in his best interest too"

[hroþila]

He couldn't bring that up until he had Redcloak's full trust and interest. In principle, Redcloak has zero reason to believe those things are true coming from an enemy.

[Mariele]

Oh yeah, it was the best he could offer... but if I have $10 to my name and go to a Ferrari dealership, they aren't going to care that $10 is the best I can offer. It still won't be enough.

[arimareiji]

I don't know of anything inherently wrong with having as many as people like, but I wonder how many threads we need that basically boil down to "This is why goblins don't deserve any better than status quo ante and treating them that way is justified". The result has been going from thread to thread, mostly just revivifying different spins on the same arguments that didn't hold up well in the last one.

[danielxcutter]

I don't know of anything inherently wrong with having as many as people like, but I wonder how many threads we need that basically boil down to "This is why goblins don't deserve any better than status quo ante and treating them that way is justified". The result has been going from thread to thread, mostly just revivifying different spins on the same arguments that didn't hold up well in the last one.

I know, right? Perhaps Rich could have sent the message better, but that doesn't change what the message is.

[brian 333]

I don't know of anything inherently wrong with having as many as people like, but I wonder how many threads we need that basically boil down to "This is why goblins don't deserve any better than status quo ante and treating them that way is justified". The result has been going from thread to thread, mostly just revivifying different spins on the same arguments that didn't hold up well in the last one.

This is certainly not what I am trying to say, and to be honest, i don't see any posts that make this argument.

Saying that the goblins must be a part of the solution is not the same as saying that they deserved the problem.

[hamishspence]

When it comes to "they deserve what's done to them" assumptions, I think The Giant said it best, regarding the assumption that Redcloak's little sister deserved to be killed.




She attended a religious ceremony for an evil god - Redcloak's initiation. Just the very end is shown, but it is likely that some form of active participation would have been required from the audience.

Besides that there may have been something else that caused detect evil to ping which was not shown.

Willingly attending a ceremony for an Evil religion would normally be considered an evil act. Anyway, where in the comic is there evidence that she has not committed such an act.

She had not committed an Evil act.

And it's ridiculous to think that any given six-year-old may have committed a horrible act worthy of being executed unless the text says otherwise, just because that six-year-old has green skin and her parents bring her to their church services. That right there is enough reason for the story to be the way it is. No author should have to take the time to say, "This little girl ISN'T evil, folks!" in order for the reader to understand that. It should be assumed that no first graders are irredeemably Evil unless the text tells you they are.

[Worldsong]

Yeah, goblinoids really need to kick that nasty habit of breathing. Wasting valuable air.

[Dr.Zero]

When it comes to "they deserve what's done to them" assumptions, I think The Giant said it best, regarding the assumption that Redcloak's little sister deserved

Following that reasoning, in the same book, the first thing shown to us bout X is

He crying for his dead dog and zombifing it without intent.
Nothing really evil, indeed.
The evil comes the next scene, when the zombie dog eats a bird and X reacts like: "Cool!" (I can't remember the exact words)


We should then assume that X could have been easily redeemed back there, which really makes X not the petty villain Rich tried to make for the whole SOD, but a tragic figure who lacked a good guide in his starting years. We should not blame X but his tragic past.

Even more, that being excited to see your dog killing a bird is more (in the intent) irredemeable than participating without being utterly shocked to a ceremony for an evil god?
Rich talks of it like "going to Church", but standard evil deities are supposed to be cruel: with sacrifices and what not.

This attitude reminds me of a scene from a movie, The Devil's Advocate: "Popes, Swamis, snake handlers all feeding at the same trough"

Evil deities and their ceremonies aren't supposed to be just like regular church with the only difference being people liking more dark colors.

Rich says the little girl isn't evil? Ok, I believe it. I honestly didn't even thought about the whole "evil ceremony" before reading this.
But handwaving the thing with: "She was just at a ceremony at her church", like an evil church is no different from a good one, sounds quite off.

[hamishspence]

The evil comes the next scene, when the zombie dog eats a bird and X reacts like: "Cool!" (I can't remember the exact words)


The exact words were:

"Cool. Let's go find more birds!" for X's zombie to attack and eat the brains of.

The point is that he's already gotten the traditional serial killer "kills animals for entertainment" trait.

By contrast, the ceremony:

only has a white cloak being lowered onto the future Redcloak's shoulders. No sacrifice anywhere - not even when the scene is zoomed out.

[Worldsong]

Xykon having had the potential to grow into a Good person as a child doesn't make him a tragic villain. It would have been tragic if he tried to be Good and the world slammed him for it, or if him being Evil was the result of a curse or something.

Instead, Xykon was a piece of work even as a child who didn't grow out of the kind of ignorant sadism children often indulge in, he just became worse.

[Dr.Zero]

By contrast, the ceremony:

only has a white cloak being lowered onto the future Redcloak's shoulders. No sacrifice anywhere - not even when the scene is zoomed out.

Of course, that is the whole point of the comments quoted above, though.
A sacrifice isn't shown, but a sacrifice is supposed to happen, because, you know, evil god.
The fact that a ceremony for an evil god is shown to be like a picnic (and so the act of the paladins coming out of blue) is the problem.

To be more clear, this is what an evil ceremony should look (and probably does, if the "evil" means anything) like:

{scrubbed}

One might argue that the little girl is not evil, but only lacking empathy because bad people taught her so.
But a paladin attack would be waaaay more understandable.

[Worldsong]

I don't agree with the assessment that an Evil god's services must require blatantly horrible rituals. I wouldn't expect every Good god's services to include acts of blatant Goodness. For both sides I'd predict that it's mostly a bit of prayer and ceremony.

End result, a little girl is brought to a religious ceremony by the parents where nothing really questionable happens, and both Rich and I agree that it's ridiculous that we then must assume that something happens offscreen which brings the girl's alignment into doubt.

I think you're confusing Evil with Saturday morning cartoon levels of villainy. Just because you're worshipping an Evil god doesn't mean you should be kicking puppies and drowning kittens at every opportunity.

[arimareiji]

This is certainly not what I am trying to say,
Then I'm sure you'll be glad to know I didn't specifically (or at all) have you in mind.

and to be honest,
Nor did I intend to specifically question your personal honesty or other traits. But I should note for the record, that (generally speaking, and for clarity I'm again not talking about you specifically):When it comes to human behavior/traits, "honesty" and "being unaware of one's own confirmation bias" can easily coexist.

i don't see any posts that make this argument.
Last but not least, I certainly didn't mean to demand that you be aware of (let alone have carefully analyzed, sans confirmation bias) every post in existence. Apart from other considerations, it would be ludicrous on its face.

Saying that the goblins must be a part of the solution is not the same as saying that they deserved the problem.
Aside from the oversimplification down to a straw man of 'Someone said X [one of the most facially-innocent statements made in the thread], therefore you're talking only specifically about X', I did use the wording "basically boils down to". It can be quite literally true that "Joe didn't say 'Let's kill all the puppies'", and for Joe to have made a number of statements about how puppies are a cancer on the face of the earth that should be excised posthaste due to their inherent evil nature. But it "basically boils down to" the same.

And I hope you'll understand that since I wasn't talking to or about you, I don't plan on engaging further based on an innocent but inaccurate premise that I was. Daisy chains really aren't my thing.

[Dr.Zero]

I don't agree with the assessment that an Evil god's services must require blatantly horrible rituals. I wouldn't expect every Good god's services to include acts of blatant Goodness. For both side I'd predict that it's mostly a bit of prayer and ceremony.

End result, a little girl is brought to a religious ceremony by the parents where nothing really questionable happens, and both Rich and I agree that it's ridiculous that we then must assume that something happens offscreen which brings the girl's alignment into doubt.

I think you're confusing Evil with Saturday morning cartoon levels of villainy. Just because you're worshipping an Evil god doesn't mean you should be kicking puppies and drowning kittens at every opportunity.

Actually all good ceremonies usually include some act of goodness (getting some money from the people which is then meant to go to the poors, tipically).

Aside that, all that accomplish is to hide the evil from a ceremony of an evil god, because else the attack of the paladins wouldn't be of impact.
Not liking it.

[Worldsong]

Actually all good ceremonies usually include some act of goodness (getting some money from the people which is then meant to go to the poors, tipically).

Aside that, all that accomplish is to hide the evil from a ceremony of an evil god, because else the attack of the paladins wouldn't be of impact.
Not liking it.

Pretty sure that doesn't happen at every Good-aligned service. I imagine some Good gods would require that, yes, but certainly not all, and even then that's a very minor gesture of which the Evil equivalent could be just as minor and easily overlooked (maybe the Dark One demands that every service dedicated to him involves the cleric in charge sacrificing some of their own blood as a sign of devotion).

All that accomplishes is that the goblins weren't doing anything which makes them deserving of being slaughtered, with Rich making it very clear that suggesting stuff must have happened off-screen which did make them deserving is both morally questionable and completely missing the point.

[danielxcutter]

Has it been specified which plane he's on? I think it might have been Acheron but that might just be my headcanon like Loki probably being in Pandemonium.

[Dr.Zero]

All that accomplishes is that the goblins weren't doing anything which makes them deserving of being slaughtered, with Rich making it very clear that suggesting stuff must have happened off-screen which did make them deserving is both morally questionable and completely missing the point.

And that's the point.
Rich tries to (and with me he managed to, till today, and I blame myself for accepting the frame presented to me when I read SOD) overlook the fact the ceremony is EVIL.
"They weren't doing anything bad."
Well, they were, or at least should. That wasn't a picnic, even if Rich makes it look like that.

Making the evil look innocent because else the story won't be of such impact isn't something I can like.

[danielxcutter]

I feel that it's worth noting that the one-step rule still applies to evil gods, so if TDO is LE then it's entirely acceptable to be LN and still get spells from him.

[Worldsong]

And that's the point.
Rich tries to (and with me he managed to, till today, and I blame myself for accepting the frame presented to me when I read SOD) overlook the fact the ceremony is EVIL.
"They weren't doing anything bad."
Well, they were, or at least should. That wasn't a picnic, even if Rich makes it look like that.

Making the evil look innocent because else the story won't be of such impact isn't something I can like.

Given that I can easily see Good-aligned ceremonies being little more than a picnic I don't think it's a big issue. Yes, maybe the ceremony should include some small signs of Evil (maybe the ceremony requires a holy symbol crafted from the bones of an enemy of goblinkind), but even then if it was on the same level to serve as a counter to asking for small donations on the Good-aligned side it'd be so minor that it'd still mean that the reaction "All right, they've done something Evil, kill them all" is an extreme overreaction.

EDIT:

I feel that it's worth noting that the one-step rule still applies to evil gods, so if TDO is LE then it's entirely acceptable to be LN and still get spells from him.

Also a good point. While I'd imagine that ceremonies would be designed to match the alignment of the god they're dedicated to I highly doubt the Dark One would demand such atrocious deeds to be performed that it would make Neutral characters bail out and justify sending in the paladins to exterminate everyone who attended.

[hamishspence]

The point is that just being present at the ceremony is not evidence of wrongdoing - and certainly not evidence of "they deserve to die" levels of wrongdoing. Especially not for children brought to the ceremony by their parents.

[Empiar93]

Redcloak does say "If our issues are addressed, we will have no reason to seize further territories".

Durkon: okay, we’ll do our absolute best to address your issues to the best of our abilities, and here’s how I plan to do it.

Redcloak:

Redcloak: Implosion

[Worldsong]

Durkon: okay, we’ll do our absolute best to address your issues to the best of our abilities, and here’s how I plan to do it.

Redcloak:

Redcloak: Implosion

Turns out you might need more than good intentions and a vague idea of where to start, with no way to guarantee any part of your idea will even work, to come across as persuasive.

[Empiar93]

Turns out you might need more than good intentions and a vague idea of where to start, with no way to guarantee any part of your idea will even work, to come across as persuasive.

I think openly stating that you can keep the land you’ve already acquired is a pretty clear show of good faith. You might be suggesting that Durkon go out and do that without even negotiating with Redcloak, which is technically fine, except that the dwarf didn’t even know what Redcloak wanted before that conversation, and he immediately proclaimed the concessions he would have everyone else make without consulting the others.

Turns out you might need to learn where to start and be given a damn chance in order to be able to actually meet someone’s demands.

[Worldsong]

I think openly stating that you can keep the land you’ve already acquired is a pretty clear show of good faith. You might be suggesting that Durkon go out and do that without even negotiating with Redcloak, which is technically fine, except that the dwarf didn’t even know what Redcloak wanted before that conversation, and he immediately proclaimed the concessions he would have everyone else make without consulting the others.

Turns out you might need to learn where to start and be given a damn chance in order to be able to actually meet someone’s demands.

Durkon didn't even have any way to guarantee that Azure City would concede the territory of Gobbotopia. He just said he thought he could convince Hinjo, who wasn't even present, and Redcloak had to take him at his word that not only Hinjo would accept but that the rest of Azure City would go along with that idea.

Redcloak appears to trust Durkon to have good intentions but Durkon's offer was shoddy and could easily fall apart if the people Durkon thought he could persuade refused to be persuaded. That Redcloak turned down the offer isn't because Redcloak doesn't accept equality, but because the offer was bad. Just because it was the best Durkon could do at the time doesn't mean it was good enough.

That Redcloak resorted to Implosion was Evil, if also pragmatic.

[mjasghar]

That’s a bit naive - he resorted to Implosion because it meant the Plan would have to be abandoned and all the PERSONAL evil he has done wouldn’t be self-justifiable anymore.

[t209]

Also on Goblins, I think Orcs and other "monster races" seems to have that yet other "good" races seems to mingle with them alot.
Goblins...seems that they're at short end.
Plus can we assume Goblin Slayers anime as "what if Fenrir's original plan suceeded" albeit with more gore (like entire theme being why ignoring small but endemic problems can be dangerous, like entire villages being devasted by goblins and people who bothered to deal with them died easily).

[danielxcutter]

Also on Goblins, I think Orcs and other "monster races" seems to have that yet other "good" races seems to mingle with them alot.
Goblins...seems that they're at short end.
Plus can we assume Goblin Slayers anime as "what if Fenrir's original plan suceeded" albeit with more gore (like entire theme being why ignoring small but endemic problems can be dangerous, like entire villages being devasted by goblins and people who bothered to deal with them died easily).

According to Rich goblins are essentially green humans with fangs(in the sense that elves are long-lived haughty magical humans and dwarves are short bearded humans)... so no, probably not that extreme. Possibly analogous with raider or barbarian cultures for lack of a better term, but noting on the extreme of Goblin Slayer.

[Mariele]

Yeahh, I feel like there's a lot of "informed Evil" in this comic as a whole if you go that route. As in, you're told they're Evil, but they never actually show it. Heck, are we ever even told there's an Evil bias with the goblins, or is that just assumed? With the exception of Redcloak and the goblins tormenting the slaves, the goblins seem to act about as Neutral as humans, and I can't see why the ceremony for TDO wouldn't just be a LN affair.

I mean, going to a church for a family member's wedding doesn't make me religious, attending a Good ceremony doesn't make me Good. It's a bit of a stretch to say that attending a ceremony for a family member automatically makes you the alignment of the ceremony, especially since they're just there to celebrate a family member.

[arimareiji]

Yeahh, I feel like there's a lot of "informed Evil" in this comic as a whole if you go that route. As in, you're told they're Evil, but they never actually show it. Heck, are we ever even told there's an Evil bias with the goblins, or is that just assumed? With the exception of Redcloak and the goblins tormenting the slaves, the goblins seem to act about as Neutral as humans, and I can't see why the ceremony for TDO wouldn't just be a LN affair.

I mean, going to a church for a family member's wedding doesn't make me religious, attending a Good ceremony doesn't make me Good. It's a bit of a stretch to say that attending a ceremony for a family member automatically makes you the alignment of the ceremony, especially since they're just there to celebrate a family member.

Imo, when you dig down there are a lot of really ugly assumptions* inherent in "X fantasy religion is inherently Evil" leading to "therefore anyone who attends a ceremony for X fantasy religion is inherently Evil".

* - Unless it's an example as blatant as 1) the religion is "sacrificing babies for fun and profit", 2) the ceremony is "sacrificing a baby", and 3) the attendee knew about it ahead of time and/or is going to be an active participant in the ceremony. But in that case, I don't know if you could call them assumptions.

[Dr.Zero]

I mean, going to a church for a family member's wedding doesn't make me religious, attending a Good ceremony doesn't make me Good. It's a bit of a stretch to say that attending a ceremony for a family member automatically makes you the alignment of the ceremony, especially since they're just there to celebrate a family member.

Being Good requires quite more work than being Evil.

I think I can prove it easily.
Seeing someone helping someone else without caring does make you Good? No? I agree.
Seeing someone torturing/sacrificing someone else without caring does make you Evil? No? Are you sure this is your final reply?

The fact that some of TDO followers might be LN for the rules? I agree, as long as we keep in mind what I asked just above.
The fact that a ceremony regarding an evil god and the accolities of his evil church might be neutral in its formalities? I don't think so.
"Oh, unnamed evil god of massacres, we know you like the massacres, but here we decided to go with just ignoring it. Yeah, we are your church so your supposed most faithful followers, but we reformed. Take or leave. If you leave, we'd like to get that double refund for past offers, thanks." Mmh. Doesn't sound convincing.

[hroþila]

That might be relevant if we were discussing the church of an unnamed evil god of massacres.

I re-read this strip (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0093.html) for this discussion because I assumed "drinking the blood of the innocent" was something a priest of the Dark One did (I'm not a fan of dismissing early stuff as non-canon; if it's on panel, it can't be ignored), but it turns out the teen referred to his dad's deity as "this big demon prince guy". I see three possibilities here:

1) "This big demon prince guy" is actually the Dark One, and the teenager either isn't very knowledgeable about his nominal religion, or he's being edgily dismissive of it by referring to the Dark One that way. Possible, I guess.
2) That goblin priest didn't actually worship the Dark One but a different being. We know goblins didn't worship anyone when the Dark One ascended, but it's always possible that some of them worshipped someone else later, or indeed that some oddballs did that before.

Even if that guy was a member of the church of the Dark One, however, there's little to no indication that he's representative of the church as a whole. We saw nothing of the sort at Redcloak's iniciation.

[Worldsong]

Being Good requires quite more work than being Evil.

I think I can prove it easily.
Seeing someone helping someone else without caring does make you Good? No? I agree.
Seeing someone torturing/sacrificing someone else without caring does make you Evil? No? Are you sure this is your final reply?

The fact that some of TDO followers might be LN for the rules? I agree, as long as we keep in mind what I asked just above.
The fact that a ceremony regarding an evil god and the accolities of his evil church might be neutral in its formalities? I don't think so.
"Oh, unnamed evil god of massacres, we know you like the massacres, but here we decided to go with just ignoring it. Yeah, we are your church so your supposed most faithful followers, but we reformed. Take or leave. If you leave, we'd like to get that double refund for past offers, thanks." Mmh. Doesn't sound convincing.

The flaw there is that Evil =/= automatically loves massacres.

By all accounts, the Dark One would be a god of war and conquest, not mindless slaughter.

And if Evil is easier to achieve than Good that actually makes it more likely that an Evil church wouldn't bother with extremely Evil rituals for ceremonies. Just have the clerics chant something about how they'll kill all the heretics and you're done. And then any child who attends that ceremony still doesn't deserve to be cut down and any paladin who does so is still horribly, horribly wrong.

This is some village in the middle of nowhere with limited resources. They're not going to demand a living sacrifice every time there's a religious ceremony, that would be an excessive drain on their resources.

At this point you're simultaneously arguing that a ceremony held by an Evil church for an Evil god must contain some blatantly horrible rituals because otherwise it's not Evil enough, but at the same time it's easier to be Evil than to be Good even though a Good church holding a service in the name of a Good god doesn't need to do anything more than ask people for a small donation to charity for it to count as Good.

[Mike Havran]

Has it been specified which plane he's on? I think it might have been Acheron but that might just be my headcanon like Loki probably being in Pandemonium.Jirix describes his afterlife destination (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0704.html)as an iron plateau, which matches Acheron very well.

[Worldsong]

Jirix describes his afterlife destination (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0704.html)as an iron plateau, which matches Acheron very well.

I still think the Dark One is pulling the dead goblinoids into his own divine realm. As others have already pointed out if they were dropped into the middle of Acheron they would be too busy fighting to form orderly ranks with Big Purple himself at the head.

Of course he might have based his divine realm off of Acheron since that place probably would suit him pretty well.

[Mariele]

Being Good requires quite more work than being Evil.

I think I can prove it easily.
Seeing someone helping someone else without caring does make you Good? No? I agree.
Seeing someone torturing/sacrificing someone else without caring does make you Evil? No? Are you sure this is your final reply?

The fact that some of TDO followers might be LN for the rules? I agree, as long as we keep in mind what I asked just above.
The fact that a ceremony regarding an evil god and the accolities of his evil church might be neutral in its formalities? I don't think so.
"Oh, unnamed evil god of massacres, we know you like the massacres, but here we decided to go with just ignoring it. Yeah, we are your church so your supposed most faithful followers, but we reformed. Take or leave. If you leave, we'd like to get that double refund for past offers, thanks." Mmh. Doesn't sound convincing.

I dunno man, those don't seem equivalent to me. Something like "seeing someone personally sacrifice a great deal, when you could have helped in that situation, without caring" seems more fitting to the extremes of torture/sacrifice than just "helping someone else", which could be as mild as helping someone carry their groceries. Alternatively, how about "seeing someone make a clearly unfair business deal without caring", if you want to go with the mild "helping someone else" for Good, as that seems roughly more equivalent...

I'd say that real life morality is very different from D&D morality and I'd shrug and call a lack of reaction to both as Neutral.

But yeah, as I said earlier, this feels more like the "informed Evil" of TDO than anything. Isn't he a god of war and conquest, not torture and massacre? Seems more likely to be that his church would promote military action and claiming more resources, rather than "drinking the blood of innocents" as described in the ritual for that demon guy (which I don't think is supposed to be TDO). And even in RL religions, you get people who worship it in a variety of ways, so eeehhh... seems kinda silly to me to just automatically assume that "TDO is an Evil god! Torture is Evil! Therefore, all ceremonies for TDO must involve torture!".

[Fyraltari]

I still think the Dark One is pulling the dead goblinoids into his own divine realm. As others have already pointed out if they were dropped into the middle of Acheron they would be too busy fighting to form orderly ranks with Big Purple himself at the head.

Of course he might have based his divine realm off of Acheron since that place probably would suit him pretty well.

Seems more likely that his divine realm is in Acheron. Hel lives in the Neutral Evil plane, so it's likely that the gods don't have entire planes to themselves, just domains within the Outer Planes.

[Shadowknight12]

Rich talks of it like "going to Church", but standard evil deities are supposed to be cruel: with sacrifices and what not.

Not all evil deities are the same. Just like not every good deity wants the same exact type of ceremony where everyone hugs puppies (some Good deities are quite serious and dour, or tortured and martyred, but nonetheless still Good), some Evil deities break the mold. Some examples from the Faerun wiki:


Northlanders considered Auril one of their primary deities and was a key part of their culture. She was feared and seen as the harbinger of winter upon the whole world. In the late autumn and over the winter, regular sacrifices were made to her. Sacrifices of food were place upon rafts which were then set adrift in the ocean. Human sacrifices, usually prisoners of war or slaves, were placed on these rafts. Human sacrifice was a rare occurrence and was only seen during dire times.[41]


Beshaba was revered more out of fear than out of religious faith. Her doctrine stated that bad luck befell everybody and the only way to avoid it was by worshiping her. She was renowned for being spiteful and malevolent, and her priests manipulated common folk into revering and providing for them by acting mysteriously and playing on morbid fears. Her clerics offered an entreaty for their spells and made sacrifices of alcoholic beverages such as burning brandy or wine. There were two festivals in the calendar of Beshaba followers at Midsummer and Shieldmeet. Both were celebrated by revelry and indulgence in food and drink.


All of Hecate's clerics had a special rapport with hell hounds and would not be attacked by them in any case.[10] Each month they would make their sacrifices to her under the night of a full moon,[10][2] often in the form of black ewes and honey. Failure to do so would result in her depriving the worshiper of their magical powers until the proper sacrifice was made.[9]


Loviatans often engaged in self-flagellation, often in the morning when praying for spells. They celebrated each season with the Rite of Pain and Purity, a ritual that involved followers dancing on glass, thorns, or barbed-wire while being whipped by higher-level Loviatans. A smaller ritual occurring every twelve days involved followers passing their bodies through the flames of candles.


Each year the clerics of Memnor would hold three feasts in his honor for the mainstream of giant society. They were also known to gather together with their wyverns every one hundred days atop crags. There they would discuss strategies and at times even receive orders from Memnor himself.[9]


The holy day of Surtr was the Summer Solstice. Surtur did not demand sacrifice or propitiation.


It was a typical tribute among sailors and ship crews to toss gems, gold, and valuables overboard to appease Umberlee and calm the storming waters.[17] On cargo ships, the sailors often tossed the transported valuable trade goods overboard to gain favorable winds, while the sounds of mouthpipes played tunes dedicated to the goddess. When the danger was especially severe, the sailors made sure the goods tossed overboard contained living creatures.


Before a voyage, sailors often left small tokens on Umberlee's shrine altars in hopes of calm waters. The most common tributes were flowers, candles, coins, and candy. Such tributes were also often paid by merchants who transported their trade cargo by sea, the townsfolk of coastal cities and islands who did not have a powerful patron deity and were in danger of storms and hurricanes.


Vhaeraun's priests prayed for their spells at dusk, and whenever they accomplished something that made them closer to their goal.[1] Apparently, it was a silent matter which consisted of meditating in shadows.[71]

Their rituals were unique among the drow religions’. These rituals themselves didn’t involve putting the followers intentionally at lethal danger or causing the death, or even the sacrifice, of other sentient creatures.[19]


The most common ritual dedicated to Vhaeraun was the sacrifice of weapons and tools of defeated enemies, which was done by melting them into a bowl-shaped altar. While Vhaeraun appreciated the value of the sacrificed items, he considered diligence to be more important.[1]

Another sacrificial ritual was held during nights of new moon. Followers of Vhaeraun, usually riding Underdark lizards, hunted a stag and then sacrificed its rack of antlers and still-beating heart to the Masked Lord. The ritual was considered a perversion of elven rituals, though it wasn't clear how so.[1]

The most holy ritual of the faith was called the Masked Lord’s Embrace and was held on Midwinter Night. Using their innate drow ability to conjure magical darkness, the participants surrounded themselves with a curtain of shadow, in order to block any eventual distraction. Vhaeraun's magic sustained the darkness, making it last up to a whole day (rather than its usual duration), and his followers spent that time meditating about new ways to further the goals of their faith, and to form new plans,[1] while levitating in the darkness.[9]

As you can see (especially from Beshaba, Memnor, Surtur and Vhaeraun), it is quite possible for an Evil deity to have perfectly innocent rituals of worship that do not justify everyone attending to be slaughtered.

[Dr.Zero]

Not all evil deities are the same. Just like not every good deity wants the same exact type of ceremony where everyone hugs puppies (some Good deities are quite serious and dour, or tortured and martyred, but nonetheless still Good), some Evil deities break the mold. Some examples from the Faerun wiki:





















As you can see (especially from Beshaba, Memnor, Surtur and Vhaeraun), it is quite possible for an Evil deity to have perfectly innocent rituals of worship that do not justify everyone attending to be slaughtered.

Ok, this indeed proves your point.

(I won't comment about the level of lameness an evil god must be to accept food and alchool as offering, if not produced by the meat and bones of enemies, but they seem to exist and a fact is a fact).

[mjasghar]

In a world with neutral and good deities demanding human sacrifice isn’t going to get you worshippers - maybe fear but not worship. And most societies ban sentient sacrifices- so you’d be forced to have a secret religion and lose worship.
That doesn’t mean they don’t do the dodgy stuff but it’s mostly in secret and/or to non humans. See lolth where the sacrifices are almost always non-drow and drow sacrifices are for significant purposes.
The fact that they demand food and other sacrifices from communities that are likely struggling says a lot - a Good or Neutral deity might just ask for dances and prayers.
And finally most Humans are Neutral. If you ask for human sacrifice you’re pushing them to evil which they’ll not likely do. So you’re deliberately depriving yourself of a lot of worship and devotion when you could simply ask for a lesser sacrifice.

[Shadowknight12]

Also deities have their own personalities and like different things, so it's not even that complex. Some deities are vain and find sacrifices boring, but singing their praises and giving them shiny valuable items as gifts is more enticing. Others are more serious and pragmatic, and they don't see the point in sacrifice when it doesn't accomplish anything of practical use (the Dark One seems to be this type).

[arimareiji]

To clarify my above post: I was responding to a train of thought that started with someone back in 2012 asserting that if you* attend a ceremony of an Evil religion, that makes you Evil (and the Giant utterly repudiating it).
* - "you" in this case being Redcloak's little sister

Unless you're talking about a ceremony that's unequivocally an Evil act in which the attendee is a knowing participant, that assertion stems from the same root as tribalism. Replace "religion" with "tribe" in the following, and it's just as applicable. (YMMV on whether Evil/Good become synonymous with Them/Us.)


Religion X is Evil because [I can cite examples of Evil acts done by people who claim to or do belong to religion X]. Therefore every single member of religion X is just as Evil as my examples. Therefore anyone who so much as goes to a ceremony of religion X, or can be loosely associated in any fashion with religion X, is Evil. To oppose their Evil, we members of religion Y may have to commit a few Evil acts ourselves but that's Good because they're Evil and you have to fight fire with fire.

Even if the part in brackets is true, it doesn't keep the rest from being utter fallacy. It's not hard to imagine both X and Y using this justification, and both spiraling down into what outside observers would see as depraved Evil (because both will always perceive the other's Evil as worse than their own).

[brian 333]

A point could be made that a child is below the age of moral responsibility, and thus any moral responsibility for their participation in Evil religious rites lies with their parent/guardian.

[arimareiji]

A point could be made that a child is below the age of moral responsibility, and thus any moral responsibility for their participation in Evil religious rites lies with their parent/guardian.

A willful Evil act shades a person toward some inchoate sense of "being Evil". Alone it may place, or as a pattern it may place, "Is it right to harm this person to stop them from harming others?" into a grey area. Many people would call it "justified", and they may be right -- but it's completely dependent on the circumstances, and people have argued about the particulars for centuries.

If an "Evil religious rite" is an Evil act, then the above applies. No association with religion is necessary or helpful.

If an "Evil religious rite" is not an Evil act, then you're looking at thinly-veiled tribalism. And "This person socializes with or belongs in the same group, tribe, religion, etc as someone who willfully committed an Evil act" does not make the above apply, unless they were willfully, directly involved in facilitating the commission of an Evil act.

Not to mention: Tribalism is often itself the driving motive for an Evil act, and if you ask me, should be regarded with more suspicion than an "Evil religious rite" devoid of context that is not an Evil act.

[danielxcutter]

Link to the strip in which Redcloak talks about their little sister being killed?

You do know that scene was in SoD right? Though I think there was a part in-comic where he makes an offhand comment about the paladins saving their competence for slaughtering helpless innocents or something. I think it was after failing to break O-Chul?

[hamishspence]

Link to the strip in which Redcloak talks about their little sister being killed?

It's in the Start of Darkness prequel comic.

The Giant's comments on people's assumptions that she deserved to be killed are in the spoiler tags in the post of mine that you're quoting.

And even in the main strip, Redcloak comments on how the Sapphire Guard "reserved their efficiency for killing goblin women and children."

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0548.html

[danielxcutter]

It's in the Start of Darkness prequel comic.

The Giant's comments on people's assumptions that she deserved to be killed are in the spoiler tags in the post of mine that you're quoting.

And even in the main strip, Redcloak comments on how the Sapphire Guard "reserved their efficiency for killing goblin women and children."

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0548.html

That one, thank you.

[Dr.Zero]

A point could be made that a child is below the age of moral responsibility, and thus any moral responsibility for their participation in Evil religious rites lies with their parent/guardian.


Coff... Xykon... coff.

It's hard to tell, and it's the usual debate "nature vs nurture". And then "nurture vs nurture too late to count". And then again "you are what you do, who cares about your attempt to excuse yourself and what you might, maybe, be. only what you are now counts".
I won't link it here, because I got already a warning about the graphic violence of that movie, but let's take as example the little girl in The Wicker Man (the version with N. Cage).

The adults are responsible for her creepy, sadistic, without empathy behaviour? Probably. I don't know. Maybe she had already something wrong in her (nature vs nurture)
Is she redeemable? Maybe, with the right time and means. Maybe not. Who knows what will happen in her mind anyway, and if she can be brainwashed enough to cancel the first things she learnt (nurture vs nurture too late to count)
Is she not evil because all the above? Hell, no. She is completely evil. Tens of times more than X who likes to see little birds die. She lacks any decent amount of empathy, which means she is evil, and only needs the chance to prove it. (you are what you do, who cares about your attempt to excuse yourself and what you might, maybe, be. only what you are now counts)

[hamishspence]

She is completely evil. Tens of times more than X who likes to see little birds die.

Xykon didn't just "like to see little birds die" - he liked to kill little birds with zombies, and then he murdered his parents at the age of about 12 or so.

[Ionathus]

Xykon didn't just "like to see little birds die" - he liked to kill little birds with zombies, and then he murdered his parents at the age of about 12 or so.

I'm still baffled by the physical capabilities of that zombie dog. How could even a regular dog extract a bird's brain whole? Let alone a zombie dog with decreased mobility/dexterity? Plot hole, plz retcon

[pearl jam]

I'm still baffled by the physical capabilities of that zombie dog. How could even a regular dog extract a bird's brain whole? Let alone a zombie dog with decreased mobility/dexterity? Plot hole, plz retcon

A wizard sorceror did it. :smallbiggrin:

[Ionathus]

Okay, so what do we have that isn't part of some kind of Expanded Universe, actually part of the comic, to show us that Goblin behavior is justified, vs unjustified? (Please note that I still maintain that even it isn't justified, that still doesn't mean they should stop. It just makes it not a "predicament".)

Interesting. Thats definitely a reference in the comic, and it's right after he's threatened but not actually followed through on killing a bunch of slaves. But his complete lack of understanding of humans and Paladins are being heavily highlighted in that comic and the proceeding ones. I guess I always figured it was a throwaway line to underscore how Redcloak complete and utter bias and obsession is blinding him.

Yeah, that's a pretty fair point that people have brought up before. The goblins' position is explored a lot more in the prequel comics, mostly because the main plot was already shaped around the non-goblin heroes by the time SoD's themes came out. I do think the main comic could've included more examples, but I also see how that would be tricky to do without muddying the waters of the smaller arcs. For instance, Rich is on record saying he intentionally made the hobgoblin army completely homogenous to make it seem like a scary overwhelming horde...because it was from the perspective of the heroes & Azure City and he wanted it to seem like a daunting threat to them.

[hamishspence]

Okay, so what do we have that isn't part of some kind of Expanded Universe, actually part of the comic, to show us that Goblin behavior is justified, vs unjustified?

Don't think of the prequel comics as "Expanded Universe" - since they are written by The Giant and not by other authors that The Giant has licenced to write them.


Instead, think of the free online comics as one big preview The Giant is providing for the complete OOTS saga.

[danielxcutter]

Don't think of the prequel comics as "Expanded Universe" - since they are written by The Giant and not by other authors that The Giant has licenced to write them.


Instead, think of the free online comics as one big preview The Giant is providing for the complete OOTS saga.

But that would mean it can't be ignored when something there inconveniently contradicts my argument!

Also when the Nine Hells did we start using blue text for sarcasm?

[Dr.Zero]

I'm still baffled by the physical capabilities of that zombie dog. How could even a regular dog extract a bird's brain whole? Let alone a zombie dog with decreased mobility/dexterity? Plot hole, plz retcon

While I understand your humor, for the sake of truth let me point out that zombies are supposed to eat flesh, not brain.
Apparently in OOTS they want brain (crf the granny and some ogres I think asked for the same), but we can suppose that is restricted to higher intellect creatures.

[hamishspence]

If we see animal zombies specifically "going for the brains" it's reasonable to presume that in the OOTS-verse, all zombies "go for the brains".

[Worldsong]

But that would mean it can't be ignored when something there inconveniently contradicts my argument!

Also when the Nine Hells did we start using blue text for sarcasm?

Don't know about anyone else, but I started doing it because I've had one too many experiences where apparently my sarcasm wasn't obvious enough. And I couldn't think of any other colour which would be appropriate.

And I do feel like Rich could have done better in getting across the plight of the goblinoids in the online comic. When part of the story is free it's a bit of a nuisance when vital information, which can have a significant impact on how one reads the free story, is hidden behind a paywall.

On the other hand, it's also unrealistic to expect those who do have access to said vital information to just pretend it doesn't exist. Imagine what kind of headache that would be:

"Because I bought and read the books I know X is true, but because the free story doesn't provide the same evidence I must concede that Y is also possible, even though I know that X is definitely the correct answer."

[dancrilis]

Also when the Nine Hells did we start using blue text for sarcasm?

I don't, I kindof regard it as the text equivalent of saying out loud 'I'm being sarcastic' after or before a sarcastic statement - in which case people might as well just type 'I'm being sarcastic' rather then introduce the confusion to people who don't know the colour scheme they are using.

You however seemed to start using it on this forum November 13th 2016 (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=21391530&postcount=52).


Don't know about anyone else, but I started doing it because I've had one too many experiences where apparently my sarcasm wasn't obvious enough. And I couldn't think of any other colour which would be appropriate.

And I do feel like Rich could have done better in getting across the plight of the goblinoids in the online comic. When part of the story is free it's a bit of a nuisance when vital information, which can have a significant impact on how one reads the free story, is hidden behind a paywall.

On the other hand, it's also unrealistic to expect those who do have access to said vital information to just pretend it doesn't exist. Imagine what kind of headache that would be:

"Because I bought and read the books I know X is true, but because the free story doesn't provide the same evidence I must concede that Y is also possible, even though I know that X is definitely the correct answer."

I can't find the quote but I believe that the Giant has gone on record (and I could be wrong on that) as saying that only the online information is needed for the story and anything that he doesn't introduce to it is not - he does not expect everyone to purchase the books so they cannot be important for his overall message (no matter what it ultimately turns out to be).

[danielxcutter]

I don't, I kindof regard it as the text equivalent of saying out loud 'I'm being sarcastic' after or before a sarcastic statement - in which case people might as well just type 'I'm being sarcastic' rather then introduce the confusion to people who don't know the colour scheme they are using.

Mostly I just saw people using it for sarcasm and I joined in.


You however seemed to start using it on this forum November 13th 2016 (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=21391530&postcount=52).

Also how the bloody hell did you find that post?


I can't find the quote but I believe that the Giant has gone on record (and I could be wrong on that) as saying that only the online information is needed for the story and anything that he doesn't introduce to it is not - he does not expect everyone to purchase the books so they cannot be important for his overall message (no matter what it ultimately turns out to be).

Well, none of the points Redcloak's been bringing up are really being disputed in-comic. The only real things he's wrong about are his methods and the technical reason his species got shafted.

And now that I think of it, the Bet could be considered very good foreshadowing that in the grand scheme of things some races can and have been absolutely screwed over for no good reason. Which was like, most of the plot last book.

So it might not have been too jarring for people who've been reading the online comic only then.

[Fyraltari]

While I understand your humor, for the sake of truth let me point out that zombies are supposed to eat flesh, not brain.
Apparently in OOTS they want brain (crf the granny and some ogres I think asked for the same), but we can suppose that is restricted to higher intellect creatures.

Doesn't brain count as flesh? I mean both muscle and fat count as flesh and brain matter certainly isn't bone, fluid, skin, nail or hair.

[hamishspence]

I believe that the Giant has gone on record (and I could be wrong on that) as saying that only the online information is needed for the story and anything that he doesn't introduce to it is not - he does not expect everyone to purchase the books so they cannot be important for his overall message (no matter what it ultimately turns out to be).

In Origin of PCs commentary:

Which is not to imply that the events in this book "didn't happen" or will not impact the characters and plots of the main strip. Quite the opposite. It's just that should the readers ever NEED to know something contained in these backstories, it will probably be summarized in the strip in question.

In Start of Darkness commentary:

Technically, you don't need to know any of what is contained here to enjoy the main story, insofar as you'll never be left after reading a new update going, "Huh, I didn't get that," because of anything in this book. That's not to say that this book doesn't contain crucial context for these characters, explaining why they do what they do. It does. But ultimately, most people aren't going to enjoy the main comic less if they never understand the exact reasons that, say, Xykon feels he can trust Redcloak with this phylactery, just as an example. If you want to know the whole story, here it is. If you only care about what is needed to get to the resolution of the main plot, then consider this ancillary material. Sort of like bonus material on a DVD.

[dancrilis]

Also how the bloody hell did you find that post?
While looking for Giant quotes to support my statement regarding what he I believe he has said (and failing) I decided to test the search tool against formatting (wasn't expecting it to work).
Searching using your name and the string '#0000FF' was enough to find it - filtering oldest to newest brought that up.



Well, none of the points Redcloak's been bringing up are really being disputed in-comic. The only real things he's wrong about are his methods and the technical reason his species got shafted.

And now that I think of it, the Bet could be considered very good foreshadowing that in the grand scheme of things some races can and have been absolutely screwed over for no good reason. Which was like, most of the plot last book.

So it might not have been too jarring for people who've been reading the online comic only then.

Personal theory is that the comic will eventually show that the goblins are oppressed but not by divine forces at the start of the world, and not by other races holding them back - instead they are oppressed by an evil dictator (The Dark One) who has convinced them that everyone else is there enemies and that all other gods are the problem.
There is limited support for this and limited against it - and I could easily be wrong (or right but only to an extent etc).

I do have some limited concerns about if those who have bought fully into the goblin oppression story and passionatly advocate it on the forum might have a very hard time dealing with that, and might see it less as a message of 'evil dictators can be presuasive and convince people to do evil things and support evil structures - but that doesn't mean the people that follow them are wholely evil' and more as a message of 'it was all the goblins fault' (I could see a lot of the 'goblins are evil' missing it also).

But the story isn't over so I am not going to commit to assuming any final message before it is.

EDIT:

In Origin of PCs commentary:

Which is not to imply that the events in this book "didn't happen" or will not impact the characters and plots of the main strip. Quite the opposite. It's just that should the readers ever NEED to know something contained in these backstories, it will probably be summarized in the strip in question.

In Start of Darkness commentary:

Technically, you don't need to know any of what is contained here to enjoy the main story, insofar as you'll never be left after reading a new update going, "Huh, I didn't get that," because of anything in this book. That's not to say that this book doesn't contain crucial context for these characters, explaining why they do what they do. It does. But ultimately, most people aren't going to enjoy the main comic less if they never understand the exact reasons that, say, Xykon feels he can trust Redcloak with this phylactery, just as an example. If you want to know the whole story, here it is. If you only care about what is needed to get to the resolution of the main plot, then consider this ancillary material. Sort of like bonus material on a DVD.

Thank you - I wasn't just imagining things.

[Worldsong]

I can't find the quote but I believe that the Giant has gone on record (and I could be wrong on that) as saying that only the online information is needed for the story and anything that he doesn't introduce to it is not - he does not expect everyone to purchase the books so they cannot be important for his overall message (no matter what it ultimately turns out to be).

True, and personally I feel like the free online content already has provided sufficient reason to believe the goblinoid problem is genuine. However, there clearly are people who find what's available online unconvincing, which results in the same set of topics being discussed over and over while those who've read the books can be pretty confident about the answers.

EDIT:
And knowing the answer (or thinking you know the answer) but not being able to actually settle the debate because of stuff such as "You shouldn't need the books to understand the webcomic" can get kind of exasperating.

[Ionathus]

Well, none of the points Redcloak's been bringing up are really being disputed in-comic. The only real things he's wrong about are his methods and the technical reason his species got shafted.

And now that I think of it, the Bet could be considered very good foreshadowing that in the grand scheme of things some races can and have been absolutely screwed over for no good reason. Which was like, most of the plot last book.

So it might not have been too jarring for people who've been reading the online comic only then.

Yep, add me to that list too. I read the entire online comic multiple times through before I picked up any of the prequels, and by then I already thought Redcloak had a point and certain races had the short end of the stick.

[Jason]

While I understand your humor, for the sake of truth let me point out that zombies are supposed to eat flesh, not brain.
Depends on your zombie type.
Standard D&D zombies don't eat anything - it's ghouls that do that.
Zombies from the horror/comedy Return of the Living Dead (1985) were the origin of zombies wanting to eat brains, and that's what's been carried over into the comic.

[danielxcutter]

Yep, add me to that list too. I read the entire online comic multiple times through before I picked up any of the prequels, and by then I already thought Redcloak had a point and certain races had the short end of the stick.

Not to mention DStP and BRItF both make it quite clear what Redcloak's agenda is, just not his specific backstory. It helps show his motivations, but the online comic's already shown what he was working for.

Also I found it disturbing when the Peregrine leader killed the hobgoblin prisoner like that. If the hobgoblin had to die, why give him false hope like that? If he really was an undercover spy, the fall damage might not have killed him and a full attack would probably have done more damage anyways.

Yet there were quite a few people cheering for the leader specifically because of that. Despite that being a paraphrase of a real-life racist statement and the Giant intentionally making the leader unsympathetic so people wouldn't be sorry when Redcloak Imploded him.

[Shadowknight12]

If the Sapphire Paladins in the EU are goblin-baby-killers, that's a significant difference from the online comic

So you don't take Redcloak's word, as a victim of the Sapphire Paladins, that they kill children?

[Jason]

No, that's an EU. It doesn't have other authors involved, and it's pretty clear the events are part of the same continuity (except the comics in Snips, Snaps, and Dragon Tails), and there have been clear references to events that occurred in them in the main comic, so it's not what I think of when I think "EU".


Apparently the Giant's EU has many Paladins that subscribe to "nits make lice".
I created a whole thread about it and why it's a problem.

[dancrilis]

There's nothing that indicates he was a victim.


In 300 Redcloak makes it clear that Azure City is a nice target for reasons other then simply being only one nation "the best part if WHICH nation we get to conquer (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0300.html)", in 422 he mentions that 'this one is for you, Mom (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0422.html)', in 480 he mentions that he figures that the paladin "owes him one village plus 35 years interest (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0480.html)" and then in 548 he mentions that they "reserved their efficiency for killing goblin women and children (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0548.html)".

You can choose to ignore it but the main comic does paint a narrative that paladins from Azure City attacked his village when he was young and killed women and children - any justification for the paladins doing that is (largely) unexplored in the main comic - but that Redcloak somehow escaped this attack and holds it against them is fairly clear.

[Shadowknight12]

In 300 Redcloak make special it clear that Azure City is a nice target for reasons other then simply being only one nation "the best part if WHICH nation we get to conquer (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0300.html)", in 422 he mentions that 'this one is for you, Mom (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0422.html)', in 480 he mentions that he figures that the paladin "owes him one village plus 35 years interest (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0480.html)" and then in 548 he mentions that they "reserved their efficiency for killing goblin women and children (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0548.html)".

You can choose to ignore it but the main comic does paint a narrative that paladins from Azure City attacked his village when he was young and killed women and children - any justification for the paladins doing that is (largely) unexplored in the main comic - but that Redcloak somehow escaped this attack and holds it against them is fairly clear.

I was going to head down to the archive to find these threads, but thank you dancrilis for beating me to it.

It's been stated in the story. Regardless what you may think of Redcloak, there's no reason to believe he's being inaccurate.

[danielxcutter]

Also there are in-comic strips where Redcloak talks about his agenda even before this book, so yeah.

[Worldsong]

If you start out from the assumption that everything Redcloak says is wrong or made up then yeah I guess the only conclusion is that the goblinoids have nothing to complain about and he's just using false claims to justify his actions.

[arimareiji]

If you start out from the assumption that everything Redcloak says is wrong or made up then yeah I guess the only conclusion is that the goblinoids have nothing to complain about and he's just using false claims to justify his actions.

{scrubbed}

[danielxcutter]

Leeeeeeeeeeeeet's not go there now. Don't want to get the thread to get locked.

[Morty]

If you start out from the assumption that everything Redcloak says is wrong or made up then yeah I guess the only conclusion is that the goblinoids have nothing to complain about and he's just using false claims to justify his actions.

That does seem to sum up about 75% of arguments following recent strips.

[danielxcutter]

That does seem to sum up about 75% of arguments following recent strips.

Only 75% of them?

[elros]

Before I start, I just wanted to reiterate that I have read the posting rules, specifically that the following two topics are never allowed:
Real-world religions (including religious reactions to gaming)
Real-world politics (including political reactions to gaming)

With that in mind, I want my comments to be focused on OOTS, but to be universally applicable. I wasn't going to bring up religion or politics, but I have scrubbed my examples out of fear that they would spark a political or religious response.

1. You are not defined by your circumstance. Many people are dealt a bad hand. The goblins worse than most. The world was created long ago. It is not hard to think of examples on your own about people who have been dealt an awful hand, but were able to rise up and make something great. Within OOTS, it certainly seems like the goblins haven been able to thrive from looking at their numbers.

2. Most of our judgement is when we make a comparison. One comparison that we can all do is to compare our lives to the lives of our grandparents or great grandparents. My grandparents had it rough with none of the nice things in life I take for granted. On the other hand, they never felt oppressed. It is natural to look to others who have it better than you, so I don't fault the goblins one bit. Almost every other race within OOTS has an easier life than they have.

3. The best people in life and most of the heroes we look up to are able to overcome their base instincts and actually get out and do something with their lives, usually at great personal cost. The goblins have a problem. Everyone kills them on sight. However, unlike a race of animals with no language, the goblins all seem to know common (or whatever the OOTS language is), with many being able to read and write. If their goal is to not be killed on sight, they can find ways to overcome that. Starting with "don't be evil" and then they can accomplish other goals such as obtaining better land. There are ways to improve land on your own (look at the good races who lived in the desert), or you can expand into other better land (after accomplishing the "don't be evil")

4. I applaud Redcloak for wanting to better their plight. I have less sympathy to others who feel like the goblins are so inferior that it takes a human or a dwarf to solve their problems for them. If they are truly so inferior, they will fall back to their old way of living as soon as your are out of the picture. If they are truly as equal as you think they are, why can't they do things on their own after generations?

If the moderators feel like I still crossed over any line, feel free to delete this post.
There are many forms of these points going through the forums, and everyone seems to overlook one fact: the goblins enslaved a city of innocent people!!!! The Giant even has Roy casually mention that fact as an afterthought (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1234.html). I'm sorry, but the forums seem to be supporting the narrative that "the people of Azure City deserve to be enslaved" because: 1) they didn't give the Goblins advantages, and 2) the Sapphire Guard killed innocent Goblins in their attempt to stop an evil god that wanted to destroy creation.
Everyone seems to be downplaying the slavery part of Gobbotopia because the goblins were denied a fair chance from the beginning. But now the Goblins have so many resources that the human slaves are needed to farm the fertile land (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1209.html). The goblins even torture slaves as a form of entertainment (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0511.html). When given the option of peace in exchange for releasing the slaves, Redcloak rejects it because he regards Azure city as table scraps and he wants more (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1211.html).
In every other instance in the comic, slavery is regarded as an evil (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0760.html) that must be stopped (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0749.html). Yet everyone downplays that Redcloak brutally murdered people who were trying to free slaves (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0825.html).
Nothing that Redcloak experienced in his life can justify slavery, and please do not pretend that slavery is not a defining feature of Gobbotopia, otherwise you sound just like Elan (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0749.html). Do people need 200-foot-tall flaming letters (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0759.html) to understand that Gobbotopia is evil?

[Morty]

Only 75% of them?

I'm being generous and accounting for some reasonable objections.

[Worldsong]

As a follow-up to my previous post, I can understand wanting to see some more blatant mistreatment of the goblinoids in the webcomic instead of having it mostly narrated at you by one of the villains.

However, once the Peregrine Leader threw that hobgoblin prisoner from the building that should have been reason to take what Redcloak says more seriously. It's a single incident, sure, but it shows someone who ostensibly is on team Good treating a defenceless prisoner pretty horribly for no explained reason other than their species, which is exactly what Redcloak has been talking about.

Also, the fact that the bugbears live all the way out in the arctic is because they were driven away from milder territories by the dwarves. You could say "Okay but maybe the bugbears did something to deserve being chased out", but you don't know that and it once again could fit Redcloak's story that goblinoids have to live with the scraps because they're treated as less by everyone else.

To me, it just seems like there have been quite a few hints that goblinoids have it pretty rough, combined with Redcloak's input, that when a god who has been present since the creation of the world and has been spectating the world ever since says "Okay, kinda, but it wasn't intentional" it's not some kind of plot twist or an abrupt change. It's just that up until this point there was still some room for doubt in a topic which has very much been present in the story, with the most recent updates only serving to confirm "No, the villain isn't making stuff up, the situation is actually pretty bad."

Oh, and I will figuratively stab the first person to say "But that hobgoblin prisoner could have been assassin so the Peregrine Leader was just being cautious." Aside from the fact that there are much more merciful ways to kill someone who can't really fight back than pushing them off a building (Peregrine Leader literally has two swords on him), you can't just pull the "But they COULD be dangerous!" card every time someone on team Good does something bad to a character who appears harmless/innocent/defenceless. If your argument could be used to justify a party of (supposedly) Good-aligned adventurers burning down an orphanage with all the orphans still inside "They could have been trained as child soldiers, you don't know!" you should reconsider whether you aren't giving the Good Guys (i.e., the ones supposedly on your side) too much benefit of the doubt.


Lengthy post

I haven't seen a single person in these discussions say that the enslavement of the people of Azure City is acceptable. In fact, even those who think Gobbotopia should remain have made it clear that for this conclusion to be satisfactory they would have to let the slaves go.

Nobody is ignoring the fact that Gobbotopia, as it is, is an Evil nation. However, that doesn't somehow make how goblinoids are treated okay (and Thor pretty much acknowledges this, he just says the gods didn't intentionally design it this way).

The more I think about it the more obvious it seems to me that Rich did this on purpose. To avoid the idea that goblinoids should be treated like people rather than monsters, but only if they behave. You can oppose Gobbotopia because they practise slavery. You can oppose Redcloak because he's killing people left and right. But you can't just push an unarmed and chained up hobgoblin off a building because "The only good hobgoblin is a dead hobgoblin."

[Severance]

There are many forms of these points going through the forums, and everyone seems to overlook one fact: the goblins enslaved a city of innocent people!!!! The Giant even has Roy casually mention that fact as an afterthought (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1234.html). I'm sorry, but the forums seem to be supporting the narrative that "the people of Azure City deserve to be enslaved" because: 1) they didn't give the Goblins advantages, and 2) the Sapphire Guard killed innocent Goblins in their attempt to stop an evil god that wanted to destroy creation.
Everyone seems to be downplaying the slavery part of Gobbotopia because the goblins were denied a fair chance from the beginning. But now the Goblins have so many resources that the human slaves are needed to farm the fertile land (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1209.html). The goblins even torture slaves as a form of entertainment (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0511.html). When given the option of peace in exchange for releasing the slaves, Redcloak rejects it because he regards Azure city as table scraps and he wants more (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1211.html).
In every other instance in the comic, slavery is regarded as an evil (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0760.html) that must be stopped (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0749.html). Yet everyone downplays that Redcloak brutally murdered people who were trying to free slaves (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0825.html).
Nothing that Redcloak experienced in his life can justify slavery, and please do not pretend that slavery is not a defining feature of Gobbotopia, otherwise you sound just like Elan (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0749.html). Do people need 200-foot-tall flaming letters (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0759.html) to understand that Gobbotopia is evil?

Yeah but... that elf! Yeah, that one elf we saw with a grudge against goblins while freeing the slaves, that clearly means they're oppressed and thus poor victims!
Clearly that also shows how the gods and heroes should both feel bad and intervene as a whole to help giving them more land... and of course every previous prejudice and wariness of them was 100% unwarranted by the other races. /sarcasm

[danielxcutter]

As a follow-up to my previous post, I can understand wanting to see some more blatant mistreatment of the goblinoids in the webcomic instead of having it mostly narrated at you by one of the villains.

I do think that the impact is a lot less than SoD and GDGU at least.


However, once the Peregrine Leader threw that hobgoblin prisoner from the building that should have been reason to take what Redcloak says more seriously. It's a single incident, sure, but it shows someone who ostensibly is on team Good treating a defenceless prisoner pretty horribly for no explained reason other than their species, which is exactly what Redcloak has been talking about.

When going back to the topic thread, it's a bit disturbing how many people thought the leader was cool for doing that. It's not like that particular hobgoblin did much to humans.


Also, the fact that the bugbears live all the way out in the arctic is because they were driven away from milder territories by the dwarves. You could say "Okay but maybe the bugbears did something to deserve being chased out", but you don't know that and it once again could fit Redcloak's story that goblinoids have to live with the scraps because they're treated as less by everyone else.

Maybe it's because I wasn't participating on the forums much around then(I honestly forget when I joined in the story), but I don't think that's been brought up much until recently.


To me, it just seems like there have been quite a few hints that goblinoids have it pretty rough, combined with Redcloak's input, that when a god who has been present since the creation of the world and has been spectating the world ever since says "Okay, kinda, but it wasn't intentional" it's not some kind of plot twist or an abrupt change. It's just that up until this point there was still some room for doubt in a topic which has very much been present in the story, with the most recent updates only serving to confirm "No, the villain isn't making stuff up, the situation is actually pretty bad."

I do suppose it'd be easier to miss that in like the thousand or so other strips, but I agree this isn't really new even without the bonus material.


Oh, and I will figuratively stab the first person to say "But that hobgoblin prisoner could have been assassin so the Peregrine Leader was just being cautious." Aside from the fact that there are much more merciful ways to kill someone who can't really fight back than pushing them off a building (Peregrine Leader literally has two swords on him), you can't just pull the "But they COULD be dangerous!" card every time someone on team Good does something bad to a character who appears harmless/innocent/defenceless. If your argument could be used to justify a party of (supposedly) Good-aligned adventurers burning down an orphanage with all the orphans still inside "They could have been trained as child soldiers, you don't know!" you should reconsider whether you aren't giving the Good Guys (i.e., the ones supposedly on your side) too much benefit of the doubt.

For real, if the prisoner was an assassin there's a chance the fall damage wouldn't have killed him. And the Peregrine Leader would probably do more damage with a full attack or something.

And that assumes the prisoner actually had to die. He still was a major *******, but getting help from native collaborators is a strategy used more than a few times in history.

Possibly dumb question: could they just have left him in jail? I suppose he could have been a witness. But if he's chained and unarmed, then a full attack would have been more than enough.

[hamishspence]

When given the option of peace in exchange for releasing the slaves, Redcloak rejects it because he regards Azure city as table scraps and he wants more (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1211.html).

Redcloak has no problem with having the presence of slavery in Gobbotopia be influenced by "Economic engagement" with states like Cliffport


https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0702.html


Presumably, he's willing to give up slavery completely in return for diplomatic deals, non-aggression pacts, and the like - ensuring that nevermore will goblins be attacked on sight for entering human cities.


https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1208.html


Since Durkon only says "maybe in future they won't treat you as monsters"

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1209.html

that's not enough - I think Redcloak wants that guaranteed in law, and Durkon can't do so the way states like Cliffport can.

[Morty]

I haven't seen a single person in these discussions say that the enslavement of the people of Azure City is acceptable. In fact, even those who think Gobbotopia should remain have made it clear that for this conclusion to be satisfactory they would have to let the slaves go.

Nobody is ignoring the fact that Gobbotopia, as it is, is an Evil nation. However, that doesn't somehow make how goblinoids are treated okay (and Thor pretty much acknowledges this, he just says the gods didn't intentionally design it this way).

The more I think about it the more obvious it seems to me that Rich did this on purpose. To avoid the idea that goblinoids should be treated like people rather than monsters, but only if they behave. You can oppose Gobbotopia because they practise slavery. You can oppose Redcloak because he's killing people left and right. But you can't just push an unarmed and chained up hobgoblin off a building because "The only good hobgoblin is a dead hobgoblin."

I feel as though more people defended the Empire of Blood's slavery, in that toppling it would only destabilize the region further, so it shouldn't be done. I'm not sure if Tarquin's "this is for everyone's own good" spiel was a deliberate contrast to how "monster races" aren't given any benefit of the doubt when they do the same thing, but it still works this way.

[arimareiji]

Leeeeeeeeeeeeet's not go there now. Don't want to get the thread to get locked.

Indeed. Thus the wording so vague and extreme that it doesn't matter, because if someone mistakenly thinks it's calling My Guy out specifically, I could say "snugglebunnies (https://allthetropes.fandom.com/wiki/Informed_Obscenity#Newspaper_Comics)" and they would take it as an obscene personal attack. (^_~)

[Worldsong]

Since Durkon only says "maybe in future they won't treat you as monsters"

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1209.html

that's not enough - I think Redcloak wants that guaranteed in law, and Durkon can't do so the way states like Cliffport can.

Agreed. Durkon might have displayed a sincere intention to help, but with Gobbotopia involved this is a matter of diplomacy on an international scale.

Such matters require formal agreements and contracts between state leaders and/or representatives, not a single cleric saying he'll do his best and maybe he can get one state leader on board.

[Morty]

Agreed. Durkon might have displayed a sincere intention to help, but with Gobbotopia involved this is a matter of diplomacy on an international scale.

Such matters require formal agreements and contracts between state leaders and/or representatives, not a single cleric saying he'll do his best and maybe he can get one state leader on board.

I don't think this lets Redcloak off the hook, though. Durkon might not have much in terms of guarantees, but he was someone who sat down with Redcloak and was willing to accept his grievance as something to be addressed. Redcloak tried to implode him.

[Worldsong]

I don't think this lets Redcloak off the hook, though. Durkon might not have much in terms of guarantees, but he was someone who sat down with Redcloak and was willing to accept his grievance as something to be addressed. Redcloak tried to implode him.

Oh, no, the Implode was definitely unwarranted. Straight up Evil, clap his ass for it.

I was talking about Redcloak turning down the offer, which is not the same as Imploding Durkon even if the Implosion was Redcloak's signal that he's turning down the offer.

[Dion]

Hey guys, I’m pretty sure The Giant is tricking us.

I’m positive he’s going to show us that TDO is lying and oppressed goblins deserve anything they get.

And anyone who figures out the trick and posts about it in the forum will get a t-shirt.

[Jason]

As a follow-up to my previous post, I can understand wanting to see some more blatant mistreatment of the goblinoids in the webcomic instead of having it mostly narrated at you by one of the villains.A villain who flat-out admits to having lied about some aspects of his story of oppression immediatly after he told it, no less.


However, once the Peregrine Leader threw that hobgoblin prisoner from the building that should have been reason to take what Redcloak says more seriously. It's a single incident, sure, but it shows someone who ostensibly is on team Good treating a defenceless prisoner pretty horribly for no explained reason other than their species, which is exactly what Redcloak has been talking about.
Sure, it was horrible, but t's not EXACTLY what Redcloak was talking about, because it wasn't a peaceful goblin merchant trying to enter a human village and being mobbed and killed by the villagers. It was a member of an occupying army in a city enslaved by that army facing professional soldiers. Still an example of prejudice, but rather a different scenario than the one Redcloak objects to so strongly.


Also, the fact that the bugbears live all the way out in the arctic is because they were driven away from milder territories by the dwarves.Oona says.

You could say "Okay but maybe the bugbears did something to deserve being chased out", but you don't know that and it once again could fit Redcloak's story that goblinoids have to live with the scraps because they're treated as less by everyone else.You don't know that the bugbears didn't do anything to warrant being driven away, or even that they actually were driven anywhere. You have an unsupported claim by an unreliable witness (someone who surprise attacks random strangers she finds out on the ice because they don't have green skin and tusks - a scenario much closer to what Redcloak decries, actually). It's not a point in support of either side of the debate because we don't know the facts. Any injustice to the bugbears is an informed attribute at this point.


To me, it just seems like there have been quite a few hints that goblinoids have it pretty rough, combined with Redcloak's input, that when a god who has been present since the creation of the world and has been spectating the world ever since says "Okay, kinda, but it wasn't intentional" it's not some kind of plot twist or an abrupt change. It's just that up until this point there was still some room for doubt in a topic which has very much been present in the story, with the most recent updates only serving to confirm "No, the villain isn't making stuff up, the situation is actually pretty bad." Using a narrator the audience will trust is a more reliable way to say "yes this is really a problem," but it still isn't showing the problem.

[hamishspence]

A villain who flat-out admits to having lied about some aspects of his story of oppression immediatly after he told it, no less.


The only thing he admits to lying about is that the Snarl can be controlled.

[brian 333]

Assume the goblins are the victims and they have been dealt a crappy hand.

Now what?

It seems that every proposed solution is met with a comment about goblin victimhood and how the poster of the proposal is blaming the goblins.

So, what can the other races give the goblins that will allow them to move on from being victims to becoming participants in a better future?

I started a thread on that topic and I'm still waiting for an answer. But there is a solution.

The goblins have to start living like full participants in society. Nobody can give them equality, they have to live it. After a few generations their enemies will have died off and their children and the children of their enemies will live and work together.

This does not absolve the PC races. They have to accept goblin participation and seek out and punish those who persecute goblins for being goblins. But there is no gift they can offer to absolve the crimes of the gods or of mortals long dead.

Revenge, or JUSTICE!, traps one in the bitterness of the past. So long as one lives in the past one can never change the present. To achieve RC's dream the goblins must put the past behind them and live for the future.

Nothing the PC races can do will amount to more than token gestures. If the goblins want equality the goblins must choose it and do it themselves.

[dancrilis]

A villain who flat-out admits to having lied about some aspects of his story of oppression immediatly after he told it, no less.


I think it might be more reasonable to point out that Redcloak might have no idea what he is talking about - he wasn't there at the beginning of the world, his god wasn't there at the beginning of the world, his version is at odds with Thor's version i.e goblins were not created as experience fodder to level up clerics etc.

Redcloak's version of events is likely to be what is taught in the dogma of The Dark One, as such from Redcloak prespective he is likely telling what he understands to be a true story (he had no reason to lie because he wasn't trying to get Xykon's sympathy, and unneeded lying would have been a bad idea in case Xykon makes his sense motive check on one of them) - just how true it is was unknown until recently, and signs point to grain of truth to it but not much more then that.

[danielxcutter]

I think it might be more reasonable to point out that Redcloak might have no idea what he is talking about - he wasn't there at the beginning of the world, his god wasn't there at the beginning of the world, his version is at odds with Thor's version i.e goblins were not created as experience fodder to level up clerics etc.

Redcloak's version of events is likely to be what is taught in the dogma of The Dark One, as such from Redcloak prespective he is likely telling what he understands to be a true story (he had no reason to lie because he wasn't trying to get Xykon's sympathy, and unneeded lying would have been a bad idea in case Xykon makes his sense motive check on one of them) - just how true it is was unknown until recently, and signs point to grain of truth to it but not much more then that.

Also TDO may have not known the technical details either considering that one of the guys who told him was friggin' Loki, the literal god of BS.

[Last_Riot]

Feels like all of a sudden every "good guy" is suddenly 100% in agreement that the goblins are poor victims that are owed reparations from everyone else.

This is extremely sudden, and does not feel earned, either in terms of character attitude or in-comic depictions.

For the characters, sure it's not completely out of place to realize "yea maybe we never tried". But they should also very well remember that the goblins have always attacked them without second thought. They have also observed the goblins commit various crimes against humanity. It's not merely a "oh but the opponents have equally valid moral standings as we do and we should give them a chance", when these opponents are self-proclaimed followers of an evil god, and employ slavery, public executions, and invasions. The Order has even been tricked by the young goblins in the early comics, where they had granted mercy and it bit them in the ass.

And as a tie-in to the next point, the order, Roy in particular, has already expressed intent to confront similarly evil /human/ empires (Empire of Blood). So it's not like they were just realizing they had a double-standard, they were already coherently anti-slavery and anti-evil, and thus, if anything, giving a free pass to Gobbotopia now creates actual incoherence.

Which brings us to just how bad the goblins have had it. And it is.... honestly, not that bad. A ton of humans are living on terrible land, just look at the western continent. We've seen goblins in a number of way more hospitable locations that what humans have on the western continent. We also know that goblins have on multiple occasions have the resources necessary to rise huge armies, huge enough to threaten and conquer "good" humanoid lands. You can't just invent these resources. Weapons, armor, food... there's a huge ton of logistics and equipment involved. Infrastructure. And we have seen multiple depictions of just that. Goblin towns. Some small, such as Redcloak's initial village, others larger, such as where his brother had retired to, and actual nation-sized such as the hobgoblins Redcloak took command of. Big enough to just steamroll Azure City. And while yea, Azure City had a few defenses knocked down, and lacked the advanced warning... it's still a fortified location that easily broke, whereas in RL storming a fortified location like that is practically impossible, you need to siege it to surrender. Xykon barely contributed anything to the battle, arguably he contributed nothing at all.

So not only have we seen a bunch of examples of goblins actually holding vast amounts of resources, not only have we seen the "lucky good races" hold a ton of terrible lands, but we've also often seen depictions of the goblinoids just being terrible evil people. In the main comic, in Good Deeds Gone Unpunished, for example. They are racist, content to blindly follow evil masters, pro-slavery, unconcerned with the welfare of other races or even their own.

The goblins are holding themselves back. They embrace militaristic evil autocrats, and no nothing to help themselves out, canonically even oppressing each other (see Redcloak's rants about Hobgoblins, and Oona's rants about treatment of Bugbears). The only goblin who ever displayed a will to actually improve the quality of life of the goblinoids, the former Supreme Leader, was still overtly evil and treacherous and a latent warmonger, having poisoned the prior leadership and pinned it on the humans.

This new and sudden "we owe the goblins reparations" narrative is really incoherent with the rest of the story and sticks out as overt political preachiness. And while it's fine to want to add messages to one's story in later phases, even if they weren't planned to begin with, this last comic really strikes me as a botched attempt at it that fails to respect the story as told up to this point. And having been signaled on a few occasions prior does not suffice to erase the different narrative the rest of the story has been telling for so many years. It also summons a whole lot of issues, as it feels like a heavy handed attempt to make RL parallels, but doing so would imply a whole lot of pretty nasty ones as well. Because if you start pushing that the goblin oppression are a stand-in for some sort of RL oppression, then... well... ick... because the goblins have not been showcased to be good people, not one bit.

[hroþila]

No one has talked about reparations or about giving a free pass for slavery in the comic, and Roy literally brought up that the goblins have always attacked without second thought. You're tilting at windmills.

[Dancingdeath]

{Scrubbed]

[mjasghar]

So on the one hand you’re arguing the goblins don’t have it bad because a minority of humans live that way as well through choice (there’s plenty of fertile land). Then you gaslight at the end by insinuating the goblins deserve to have it bad because they’ve not be seen as anything but evil 🤔 (ignoring Goblin Dan)

[Last_Riot]

No one has talked about reparations or about giving a free pass for slavery in the comic, and Roy literally brought up that the goblins have always attacked without second thought. You're tilting at windmills.

They keep talking about letting the goblins keep Azure City, with the mention of their poor starting locations being mentioned very near.

Sounds like reparations to me.

[elros]

The more I think about it the more obvious it seems to me that Rich did this on purpose. To avoid the idea that goblinoids should be treated like people rather than monsters, but only if they behave. You can oppose Gobbotopia because they practise slavery. You can oppose Redcloak because he's killing people left and right. But you can't just push an unarmed and chained up hobgoblin off a building because "The only good hobgoblin is a dead hobgoblin."
I agree with you there. The Giant has made the point that in most D&D campaigns, creatures like goblins are treated as fodder for the PCs. I was guilty of doing that when my friends and I were in our munchkin (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Munchkin) phase of gaming (I used ogres).
But I do sense that some of the posts suggest that Redcloak is the way he is because of the trauma he experienced. Yes, the goblins have a bad lot in life. Yes, Redcloak's family was slaughtered. Those facts should not be minimized, but the evil of Gobbotopia shout not be minimized, either.

[Last_Riot]

So on the one hand you’re arguing the goblins don’t have it bad because a minority of humans live that way as well through choice (there’s plenty of fertile land). Then you gaslight at the end by insinuating the goblins deserve to have it bad because they’ve not be seen as anything but evil 🤔 (ignoring Goblin Dan)

Pretty much? One's an argument about their starting condition, and the other's an argument about their development.

They are depicted as having it bad because:

1) they were given scraps, but if that was so then they'd never have been able to amass the resources required to invade human settlements. Can't give RL examples, but try to think of how many times a colonized nation invaded a colonizer nation in RL. It just doesn't happen, it's impossible. You need resources to extract resources, growth is exponential.

2) they keep having it bad because they are the victims of constant persecution from the "good races", depicting it as a simple dichotomous oppressor vs oppressed narrative, except that no such simple relation exists, with the goblin settlements not all being victims of harassment and the human settlements not all reaping the benefits of great lands to go and raid goblins. That one faction (the Saphire Guard) does it doesn't make the supposed rule of "goblins are XP fodder to PC races" any more true. PC races kill all races, including their own, pretty indiscriminately, as a whole. And goblins are victims of each other possibly moreso than they are victims of PC races.

So the two underlying arguments of goblin oppression are pretty weak, and relies on ignoring all evidence seen thus far, with putting the whole focus on the sole exception of the genocidal cult that was the Saphire Order (which has arguably reformed a good while prior to the start of the main comic).

[dancrilis]

They keep talking about letting the goblins keep Azure City, with the mention of their poor starting locations being mentioned very near.

Sounds like reparations to me.

Letting the goblins keep a city they already have and which no-one has a realistic plan which could take it away from them is in my view not a reparation.

Without being a mindreader I think you might be finding things in the narrative that are not really intended - as an example the superman comics where Lex Luthor became president of the US and was at odds with members of the press in the form of Lois Lane and Clark Kent and at odds with some leaders in the fields of technology such as Bruce Wayne while working with certain authoritian leaders such as Darkseid, could be mistaken for discussion of modern politics and modern politicians - but as that story came out around 2000 it is possible that some adults making that connection without checking the dates of publication might not have been born when the tale was released.

In a similiar manner The Giant is also clear (and has been for years) that he knew the major points in his story sometime around the comic hit strip 100, back around ~2004 - if people are seeing modern politics in the wider narrative then it might be them rather then the story.

I would encourage people to wait until the story is done before deciding what the narrative/message is - personally I kindof expect some significant reveals to the narrative before the end (and I could of course be wrong in that).

[Last_Riot]

Letting the goblins keep a city they already have and which no-one has a realistic plan which could take it away from them is in my view not a reparation.

Then we'll have to disagree on this. Once Xykon's taking out of the picture, reclaiming Azure City would certainly be plausible. If the humans and elves truly have had it so good, and have so many resources to build off, after all. Dwarves even have a racial bonus against goblins, and dying in combat is a beloved way to avoid Hel.

Not to mention that Gobbotopia is full of slaves. "Being filled with slaves" is not really a factor that generally favors victory. Even before any sort of liberation campaign from a "good" army, Gobbotopia was struggling with resistance movements. And they have lost their chief enforcers. No more Tsukiko, no more Redcloak, no more Xykon. Heck, with Tsukiko's death, they probably had a bunch of rogue undead to deal with, some of those having the Create Spawn ability. In a city stuffed with very weak minions, that's a recipe for the apocalypse.


Without being a mindreader I think you might be finding things in the narrative that are not really intended - as an example the superman comics where Lex Luthor became president of the US and was at odds with members of the press in the form of Lois Lane and Clark Kent and at odds with some leaders in the fields of technology such as Bruce Wayne while working with certain authoritian leaders such as Darkseid, could be mistaken for discussion of modern politics and modern politicians - but as that story came out around 2000 it is possible that some adults making that connection without checking the dates of publication might not have been born when the tale was released.

In a similiar manner The Giant is also clear (and has been for years) that he knew the major points in his story sometime around the comic hit strip 100, back around ~2004 - if people are seeing modern politics in the wider narrative then it might be them rather then the story.

I would encourage people to wait until the story is done before deciding what the narrative/message is - personally I kindof expect some significant reveals to the narrative before the end (and I could of course be wrong in that).

There's a difference between having a broad idea of where the grand story is going and having an immutable knowledge of what every single plot point and dialogue will be.

Are you seriously arguing that Rich's take on his authorial responsibility towards real life politics has not changed since strip 100? Because he's pretty much gone on record multiple times showing that's not even remotely true. Both his vision and his approach have changed a lot since strip 100, even if the broad strokes of the story might be mostly the same.

And his on-the-records comments mean that these lenses of analysis are not just "seeing what one wants to see", but "seeing what the author has been stating he'd incorporate more of for some time now".

[Dion]

2) they keep having it bad because they are the victims of constant persecution from the "good races",

I’d like to correct and say that humans are *NOT* a “good” race in D&D, nor are they portrayed as a good race in the comic.

Humans are a neutral race.

Humans are routinely shown in comic to be warlike, bloodthirsty, greedy slavers; we have seen *far* more evil acts by humans in comic than we’ve ever seen from goblins.

Honestly, I’d challenge you to consider this: if you perceive the humans to be good, what led you to that conclusion? I’d argue the comic doesn’t show them that way.

[Jason]

Redcloak's version of events is likely to be what is taught in the dogma of The Dark One, as such from Redcloak prespective he is likely telling what he understands to be a true story (he had no reason to lie because he wasn't trying to get Xykon's sympathy, and unneeded lying would have been a bad idea in case Xykon makes his sense motive check on one of them) - just how true it is was unknown until recently, and signs point to grain of truth to it but not much more then that.
But he did lie to Xykon. He admitted the fact that he lied to Xykon to his brother literally the moment Xykon left the room.

[dancrilis]

But he did lie to Xykon. He admitted the fact that he lied to Xykon to his brother literally the moment Xykon left the room.

He lied about what the plan was and he was called out on that one lie by someone who presumedly knew what the ritual is intended to do - the general goblin history was not challenged as in any way inaccurate.

[Dr.Zero]

In a similiar manner The Giant is also clear (and has been for years) that he knew the major points in his story sometime around the comic hit strip 100, back around ~2004 - if people are seeing modern politics in the wider narrative then it might be them rather then the story.


Major points should be underlined, though.
It's clear that some things are changed on the fly, still in accord with the "major points".

Example in point: Goblin situation.

In SOD (I think, not 100% it was there, though) it was presented literally as Gods screwing with goblins because they needed xp-fodders. And goblinoids (and monsters generally) being created after the other races for that exact purpose. That could be seen as commentary and take that to RPG-writers.

Here Thor explains it differently, to make it fit with the strict rules "one turn/one god" and probably to introduce something different: monsters weren't created strictly to be evil xp fodders, but they became so because their lacking of starting resources, introducing here a completely different theme and scope: no more a take that to RPG-writers, but something more political and social.

Ok, the first version could be unreliable narrator (being it RC or TDO) stuff. Fine.

But if the latter version is to be believed, the whole Durkon: "You other gods didn't do anything about what Fenrir decided" loses any sense. They couldn't do anything, because arguing would create another rift. So what do you want from them? And even more, if any race is created by a patron god, why they should argue to make another race more powerful (and so to endanger one of their own?)

If we increase the zoom, RC and X relationship makes even less sense.
X forced RC in submission before the start of the comic, and RC really hated the guts of him.
At the start of the comic, RC and X have a funny and almost friendly kind of interaction.
Moving forward, they return to be more bitter/forced allies.
One should expect the inverse to happen.
Probably, twisting psychology enough, one might find a justification for it, but the obvious reasons is that Rich didn't think, up to that point, about the origin of X and RC relation. And when he thought about a good story (because, per se, SOD makes a good story) didn't bash his head too much about the fact it didn't fit completely with their initial behaviour.

So, in short: "major points" probably means mostly the idea about the rift and (if I recall correctly a comment I read somewhere) the subplot "D is vampirized". The modern politics being introduced in recent times? Totally possible, keeping still fixed the major points

[Jason]

He lied about what the plan was and he was called out on that one lie by someone who presumedly knew what the ritual is intended to do - the general goblin history was not challenged as in any way inaccurate.
Redcloak may very well believe the story, but he admits he was lying about important details of the Plan while he was telling the story, and later information has shown that at least some of it is in fact false. In short it's not a trustworthy account.

Personally I expect even more of it to be revealed as false as the story unfolds, particularly the depictions of the Dark One as only wanting peace and being a wise and good leader of goblinkind, but possibly also the whole "was literally stabbed in the back while negotiating" story.

[Ionathus]

The more I think about it the more obvious it seems to me that Rich did this on purpose. To avoid the idea that goblinoids should be treated like people rather than monsters, but only if they behave. You can oppose Gobbotopia because they practise slavery. You can oppose Redcloak because he's killing people left and right. But you can't just push an unarmed and chained up hobgoblin off a building because "The only good hobgoblin is a dead hobgoblin."

Agreed. It's pretty clear that the goblins aren't meant to be one-dimensional, in either direction: they're not mindless amoral sociopaths, but they aren't perfect little angels either. They're mortals, reacting how mortals might in the circumstances. Is their behavior worse than other mortals would display with the same starting conditions? Debatable. Maybe. But that doesn't mean the problem isn't there: to quote Durkon from literally two strips ago, they're "right about what's wrong, but wrong about how to make it right."

The result is a subplot that's narratively interesting, without coming across as Morality Play levels of simplistic. Nobody is blameless, but that doesn't somehow nullify the core problem.

[Last_Riot]

I’d like to correct and say that humans are *NOT* a “good” race in D&D, nor are they portrayed as a good race in the comic.

Humans are a neutral race.

Humans are routinely shown in comic to be warlike, bloodthirsty, greedy slavers; we have seen *far* more evil acts by humans in comic than we’ve ever seen from goblins.

Honestly, I’d challenge you to consider this: if you perceive the humans to be good, what led you to that conclusion? I’d argue the comic doesn’t show them that way.

I believe I've put all of the "good" in quotation marks. Might have missed a few. Called them as such because I believe that's how they have been described in-comic. I've also called the PC races (player character races).

It's debatable which side we've seen do more evil, and it's not like they've had an equal representation either, but in any case, I never really argued that the PC races were all good. They are indeed displayed as being morally diverse. Which, itself, is a contrast to the goblinoids, who are depicted as being near universally evil, and following a single evil god.

Though I'd point out that the evil human nations did not seem to practice race-based discrimination. They enslaved everyone equally. ;) Their government also had dragons, kobolds, lizardfolks, women, different skin-toned humans... The Empire of Blood could be argued to be way more diverse and progressive than Gobbotopia. ;)

[Dion]

The Empire of Blood could be argued to be way more diverse and progressive than Gobbotopia. ;)

Gobotopia, the evil kingdom created and ruled by a human sorcerer with a lich template?

[mjasghar]

Gobotopia, the evil kingdom created and ruled by a human sorcerer with a lich template?

Shush now it doesn’t count if it doesn’t fit the goblins deserved it narrative.

[Worldsong]

A villain who flat-out admits to having lied about some aspects of his story of oppression immediatly after he told it, no less.


Sure, it was horrible, but t's not EXACTLY what Redcloak was talking about, because it wasn't a peaceful goblin merchant trying to enter a human village and being mobbed and killed by the villagers. It was a member of an occupying army in a city enslaved by that army facing professional soldiers. Still an example of prejudice, but rather a different scenario than the one Redcloak objects to so strongly.

Oona says.
You don't know that the bugbears didn't do anything to warrant being driven away, or even that they actually were driven anywhere. You have an unsupported claim by an unreliable witness (someone who surprise attacks random strangers she finds out on the ice because they don't have green skin and tusks - a scenario much closer to what Redcloak decries, actually). It's not a point in support of either side of the debate because we don't know the facts. Any injustice to the bugbears is an informed attribute at this point.

Using a narrator the audience will trust is a more reliable way to say "yes this is really a problem," but it still isn't showing the problem.

This is kind of my point though. I didn't say "It was always clear that this is exactly how it is", I said that this topic has always been in the comic and enough things have happened in the comic that people could reasonably suspect that something might actually be up and that Redcloak isn't just pulling things out of thin air. Up until Thor confirmed that the goblinoids do have it bad (he only denied that the gods put them in that position on purpose) one could be justified in being doubtful or wanting more evidence, but Thor confirming it and Roy and Durkon acknowledging it is only confirmation of a possibility which was always on the table. In a certain way Thor's testimony is that evidence.

Which is in contrast to the claim some people are making that these last pages are a 180, some kind of massive plot twist or completely new. Yes, if one approaches everything which would point towards goblinoids having it bad as either anecdotal, wrong, or made up then I can imagine that it would come as a surprise when it turns out goblinoids do actually have it bad, but someone who does that is pretty much approaching the story with the mindset "The villain must be wrong about this" so they're kind of setting themselves up to be surprised because they're blindsiding themselves to the possibility that the villain may be right.

[Empiar93]

Gobotopia, the evil kingdom created and ruled by a human sorcerer with a lich template?

Did he create or rule anything regarding Gobbotopia? Certainly he built up the castle into his personal lair, but he didn’t do any leading or ruling of the nation itself.

Not to mention he is one (1) example out of literally everyone else. The only other human was killed as a matter of convenience. And Xykon himself is less of a person and more of a walking nuke.
I believe everyone involved is being fairly tongue-in-cheek, so don’t take me too seriously :p

[Morty]

No one has talked about reparations or about giving a free pass for slavery in the comic, and Roy literally brought up that the goblins have always attacked without second thought. You're tilting at windmills.

Indeed, pretty much all Roy and Durkon have concluded is that defeating Xykon and Redcloak and returning to the status quo is not enough. But they have no idea what to do instead. All the complains about how the goblins are going to get everything handed to them on a silver platter are attacking imagined scenarios.

[Dion]

Did he create or rule anything regarding Gobbotopia?

Despite what RedCloak wanted to believe, I’d argue that Xykon did create and rule gobbotopia indirectly through the goblins, similar to how Tarquin rules the empire of blood indirectly through the red dragon.

Xykon has effectively given up that control at this point, but all of our comments about slavery in gobbotopia are referring to a time when a human sorcerer ran the show there.

[Jason]

Which is in contrast to the claim some people are making that these last pages are a 180, some kind of massive plot twist or completely new. Yes, if one approaches everything which would point towards goblinoids having it bad as either anecdotal, wrong, or made up then I can imagine that it would come as a surprise when it turns out goblinoids do actually have it bad, but someone who does that is pretty much approaching the story with the mindset "The villain must be wrong about this" so they're kind of setting themselves up to be surprised because they're blindsiding themselves to the possibility that the villain may be right.
I agree, it's not a 180 from out of nowhere.
But I also agree that it's a valid criticism to say "this didn't have sufficient set-up." As long as goblin inequality was just Redcloak's motivation it was acceptable for it be an informed attribute. If resolving goblin inequality is going to become a goal of the heroes and a focus of the remaining comic then I think it's a valid criticism to say it wasn't set up properly.
It doesn't help that the primary instance of goblin oppression that was shown, the fate of Redcloak's village, isn't in the online comic. Building major plot points on material that isn't ever shown in the main story almost never works.

[dancrilis]

Up until Thor confirmed that the goblinoids do have it bad (he only denied that the gods put them in that position on purpose) one could be justified in being doubtful or wanting more evidence, but Thor confirming it and Roy and Durkon acknowledging it is only confirmation of a possibility which was always on the table. In a certain way Thor's testimony is that evidence.


Thor effectively confirmed that a goblin has it bad compared to a dwarf on an individual basic - he did not say that goblinoids have it bad compared to dwarves overall.

Yes of a goblin warrior and a dwarf warrior fight then the dwarf might likely win, but if the goblin lives in peace with the dwarf for 20 years and then they fight it could be the goblin's 5 warriors adult children vs that same 1 dwarf warrior.

Vastly different life spans and fertility rates play havok with comparisons of entire populations and make individual comparisons fairly meaningless.

And this gets back to Durkon's statement to Redcloak: Equality can mean a lot of different things.

For instance a goblin has 100lbs of steel and so does a dwarf - skip a hundred years and that dwarf still has his steel but the goblin, well he is dead and his steel has potentially been splitup between dozens of goblins - all of whom are individually worse off then the dwarf but collectively they might be better off.
So should every goblin always have the same amount of steel as every dwarf and if they don't the dwarves should share, or should goblins in total have the same amount of steel as dwarves in total in which case everything is fine etc.

[hamishspence]

The first hints that unequal adventurer treatment of "monster humanoids" compared to "PC humanoids" might bother Roy, came long before Start of Darkness - they were in Origin of PCs, with the orcs.

[Ionathus]

Indeed, pretty much all Roy and Durkon have concluded is that defeating Xykon and Redcloak and returning to the status quo is not enough. But they have no idea what to do instead. All the complains about how the goblins are going to get everything handed to them on a silver platter are attacking imagined scenarios.

Yes, well, debating actual arguments takes a lot more work. Strawmen don't fight back.

I should turn it into a drinking game: take a shot every time somebody says "so Gobbotopia just gets to keep its Azurite slaves?" Take a drink every time understanding Redcloak is conflated with supporting Redcloak's actions.

ninja:

Xykon has effectively given up that control at this point, but all of our comments about slavery in gobbotopia are referring to a time when a human sorcerer ran the show there.

In fairness, I don't really expect the goblin leadership to stop enslaving the Azurite prisoners. I can see Jirix using them as bargaining chips in diplomatic talks, though, or something similar.


The first hints that unequal adventurer treatment of "monster humanoids" compared to "PC humanoids" might bother Roy, came long before Start of Darkness - they were in Origin of PCs, with the orcs.

Depending on your interpretation of Roy's expression, I might even argue it was in his response to Belkar's casual comment in #0013 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0013.html).

[Dion]

The first hints that unequal adventurer treatment of "monster humanoids" compared to "PC humanoids" might bother Roy, came long before Start of Darkness - they were in Origin of PCs, with the orcs.

And the first hint that the standard D&D playstyle of “roll dice some to kill a bag of XP” might bother The Giant was probably in strip #11, where Roy kills a bunch of sleeping orcs.

[Last_Riot]

Gobotopia, the evil kingdom created and ruled by a human sorcerer with a lich template?


Did he create or rule anything regarding Gobbotopia? Certainly he built up the castle into his personal lair, but he didn’t do any leading or ruling of the nation itself.

Not to mention he is one (1) example out of literally everyone else. The only other human was killed as a matter of convenience. And Xykon himself is less of a person and more of a walking nuke.
I believe everyone involved is being fairly tongue-in-cheek, so don’t take me too seriously :p

He barely played a role in the conquest. RC is the Supreme Ruler. Redcloak organized the invasion. Redcloak led the army to victory.

Xykon killed a few paladins and one adventurer fairly far from where the rest of the fighting was actually taking place, and almost got killed himself in the process, leaving Miko to actually finish off that last line of defense. Which she might have even done without Xykon ever going to the throne room.

The Redcloak was again the one to lead the city and organize it. And he's the one with an agenda.

To argue that Xykon is actually the Tarquin of the goblins is kind of a stretch. He bullies them around now and then, and squats their city, but isn't really their leader, or the nation's creator, in any tangible sense. And he's being duped and played by Redcloak, and the only other human around, Tsukiko, was also being harassed on account of being a human. Various goblins, such as Redcloak, openly admit to being anti-human "speciesist" (AKA racist).

[danielxcutter]

And the first hint that the standard D&D playstyle of “roll dice some to kill a bag of XP” might bother The Giant was probably in strip #11, where Roy kills a bunch of sleeping orcs.

Er, strip #11? I don't think there were any orcs at that point...

[Jason]

Indeed, pretty much all Roy and Durkon have concluded is that defeating Xykon and Redcloak and returning to the status quo is not enough. But they have no idea what to do instead. All the complains about how the goblins are going to get everything handed to them on a silver platter are attacking imagined scenarios.
To be fair, that does seem to be Redcloak's imagined scenario.

[Ionathus]

He barely played a role in the conquest. RC is the Supreme Ruler. Redcloak organized the invasion. Redcloak led the army to victory.
...
The Redcloak was again the one to lead the city and organize it. And he's the one with an agenda.

To argue that Xykon is actually the Tarquin of the goblins is kind of a stretch. He bullies them around now and then, and squats their city, but isn't really their leader, or the nation's creator, in any tangible sense. And he's being duped and played by Redcloak

Redcloak may have gotten to play Civic Leader, but Xykon could have vaporized the entire population on a whim if he wanted to. Just because he wasn't interested in paperwork doesn't mean he wasn't the one in control.

And that extends to Redcloak. Just because Redcloak is running a long con on Xykon (heh) doesn't mean he's actually capable of stopping Xykon from doing literally whatever the hell he wants. RC's ability to skulk in the shadows and do things behind Big X's back is a pretty typical ability for The Dragon, but it doesn't mean Redcloak has ultimate veto power...it just means he will turn traitor if/when circumstances change and he gains the upper hand.

[hamishspence]

And the first hint that the standard D&D playstyle of “roll dice some to kill a bag of XP” might bother The Giant was probably in strip #11, where Roy kills a bunch of sleeping orcs.Actually we know from online commentary that this is the sort of thing that "modern The Giant" probably wouldn't have had Past Roy do, without a bit more context.




Does this mean Roy did wrong when he slit all the throats of sleeping goblins
Probably. Strictly speaking, those specific goblins hadn't attacked him, and I guess it is theoretically possible that they wouldn't have. He didn't choose to make that distinction before killing them, since he had been attacked by every goblin thus far, so that's probably a black mark on his record. Or maybe they stood there at the door and heard the goblins talking about having killed a bunch of villagers or something.

However, the more accurate assessment is that was strips #11, before there was even the semblance of a plot, and I was far more interested in describing how D&D is played than prescribing how D&D should be played. So it shouldn't be taken as some sort of statement on my part for what is proper behavior.



Maybe I'm being too bold for suggesting it, but I guess that in Rich Burlew's personal list of "things I regret having done in OOTS", Strip #11 panel #1 ranks rather high.
I wouldn't rank it that high, but yeah. All I would really change would be to have the goblins see the OOTS and draw weapons. While you could still make the argument that subsequently killing them in their sleep wasn't lily-white pure, it would be far more in keeping with Roy's character.

[Morty]

To be fair, that does seem to be Redcloak's imagined scenario.

That would be because Redcloak is a villain who wants vindication as much or (probably) more than justice and hasn't really thought about it beyond "control a Gate and let The Dark One take it from there".

[Jason]

That would be because Redcloak is a villain who wants vindication as much or (probably) more than justice and hasn't really thought about it beyond "control a Gate and let The Dark One take it from there".
Right. But my point is that the people on the forum who are arguing "this shouldn't happen" are not imagining the scenario entirely on their own. It's basically what Redcloak has said he's trying to achieve.

[danielxcutter]

That would be because Redcloak is a villain who wants vindication as much or (probably) more than justice and hasn't really thought about it beyond "control a Gate and let The Dark One take it from there".

Well yeah, Redcloak's got a lot of emotional baggage clouding his judgement. I don't blame him for having said baggage considering the circumstances though.

[Ionathus]

Right. But my point is that the people on the forum who are arguing "this shouldn't happen" are not imagining the scenario entirely on their own. It's basically what Redcloak has said he's trying to achieve.

Yes, and...?

The villain's plan is bad, and the heroes agree on this. What's your argument?

[Morty]

Right. But my point is that the people on the forum who are arguing "this shouldn't happen" are not imagining the scenario entirely on their own. It's basically what Redcloak has said he's trying to achieve.

But we have no reason to believe the heroes will help him in any way. They've agreed that the problem goes way beyond one goblin cleric and lich sorcerer, not that anything Redcloak has done to rectify it is a good idea.


Well yeah, Redcloak's got a lot of emotional baggage clouding his judgement. I don't blame him for having said baggage considering the circumstances though.

Neither do I, but at the end of the day, Redcloak is responsible for his own choices.

[Worldsong]

I agree, it's not a 180 from out of nowhere.
But I also agree that it's a valid criticism to say "this didn't have sufficient set-up." As long as goblin inequality was just Redcloak's motivation it was acceptable for it be an informed attribute. If resolving goblin inequality is going to become a goal of the heroes and a focus of the remaining comic then I think it's a valid criticism to say it wasn't set up properly.
It doesn't help that the primary instance of goblin oppression that was shown, the fate of Redcloak's village, isn't in the online comic. Building major plot points on material that isn't ever shown in the main story almost never works.

I'm fine with people saying "The webcomic could have put some more effort into portraying the issue" since I agree some more examples of goblinoid oppression could have made the situation a bit clearer. Especially since it's a legitimate complaint that online content shouldn't require supporting by content which is hidden behind a paywall (and apparently Rich tried to avoid that).

My issue is more people going off and saying that because they didn't get sufficient evidence (while at the same time treating any potential evidence as invalid because it wasn't unambiguous enough) this development with Roy, Durkon, and Thor acknowledging the problem is wrong and is in conflict with the rest of the story. As if there's some objective flaw which invalidates the entire thing.


Thor effectively confirmed that a goblin has it bad compared to a dwarf on an individual basic - he did not say that goblinoids have it bad compared to dwarves overall.

Yes of a goblin warrior and a dwarf warrior fight then the dwarf might likely win, but if the goblin lives in peace with the dwarf for 20 years and then they fight it could be the goblin's 5 warriors adult children vs that same 1 dwarf warrior.

Vastly different life spans and fertility rates play havok with comparisons of entire populations and make individual comparisons fairly meaningless.

And this gets back to Durkon's statement to Redcloak: Equality can mean a lot of different things.

For instance a goblin has 100lbs of steel and so does a dwarf - skip a hundred years and that dwarf still has his steel but the goblin, well he is dead and his steel has potentially been splitup between dozens of goblins - all of whom are individually worse off then the dwarf but collectively they might be better off.
So should every goblin always have the same amount of steel as every dwarf and if they don't the dwarves should share, or should goblins in total have the same amount of steel as dwarves in total in which case everything is fine etc.

I'm not really on board with the idea that it literally was just about what happens if a dwarf fights a goblin. To me, that seemed more like an example of the overarching issue that goblinoids start out with less and have less chance of being on equal footing with the PC races.

And part of the reason why I believe that is that neither Roy, nor Durkon, nor Thor has provided any counterexamples such as "Okay, but the goblins can just farm their land and use it to build up their economy" or whatever. These characters are not outsiders, they're not like us people reading the story and talking about it on the forum. That these three characters are accepting the idea that goblinoids have it rough overall is a part of the story and a message from the story, which to me is most easily interpreted as there not being some easy knockdown argument which dismisses the idea that goblinoids are not on equal footing with the PC races.

Of course, people have already made it clear that they specifically object to Roy and Durkon accepting this narrative, but that to me feels a lot like dismissing any indication of goblinoids having it rough before the last couple of pages. If you set out with the mindset that the idea is questionable then you are going to find ways to keep questioning it and find anything which supports or hints towards the idea lesser parts of the story or outright flawed. That's not an accusation, that's just how people work. Positive bias is very strong and hard to shake (and I'm not quite ready to believe someone if they respond to this by saying that they've already overcome their positive bias).

It's entirely possible that as the story continues more nuance will be added once more. In fact, I kind of expect it. The other members of the Order might already have some valuable input available. But I strongly disagree with the notion that someone like Haley has to set Roy and Durkon straight because obviously they're completely wrong about the entire thing and Rich is having his protagonists accept unacceptable ideas.

[Jason]

Yes, and...?

The villain's plan is bad, and the heroes agree on this. What's your argument?
That the people on the forum who are arguing that the goblins shouldn't be handed everything on a silver platter are arguing against something one of the villains is actually trying to achieve, not setting up strawmen.

[hamishspence]

To be fair, that does seem to be Redcloak's imagined scenario.

The primary things Redcloak asks for, aren't "more reparations" (beyond retaining possession of Azure City itself) or "a free pass on slavery",


they are for adventurer attacks on goblinoid towns to stop, and for goblins to be able to walk into "PC race towns" without being attacked on sight:

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1208.html


https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1209.html


All that, he basically summarises as "being on an equal footing to everyone else".

[Morty]

That the people on the forum who are arguing that the goblins shouldn't be handed everything on a silver platter are arguing against something one of the villains is actually trying to achieve, not setting up strawmen.

I don't see much more of a point in complaining about it than in complaining about Xykon being crowned emperor of the world after he takes control of a Gate. He wants it, but it's not going to happen.


The primary things Redcloak asks for, aren't "more reparations" (beyond retaining possession of Azure City itself) or "a free pass on slavery",


they are for adventurer attacks on goblinoid towns to stop, and for goblins to be able to walk into "PC race towns" without being attacked on sight:

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1208.html


https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1209.html


All that, he basically summarises as "being on an equal footing to everyone else".

I get the impression Redcloak doesn't have a very clear idea of what's actually supposed to happen once the Plan succeeds. He's pretty tunnel-visioned on getting it done and justifying all he's done to achieve it.

[Worldsong]

I don't see much more of a point in complaining about it than in complaining about Xykon being crowned emperor of the world after he takes control of a Gate. He wants it, but it's not going to happen.

More importantly, it's not what the protagonists are supporting.

[danielxcutter]

Neither do I, but at the end of the day, Redcloak is responsible for his own choices.

Oh sure.

But people are confusing or deliberately portraying him as the disease rather than the symptom.

[Jason]

Oh sure.

But people are confusing or deliberately portraying him as the disease rather than the symptom.
That's an interesting choice of words. Because saying Redcloak is a "symptom" does rather make it sound like he had no choice but to be as he is.

Start of Darkness would have little point if you believe Redcloak could never have chosen differently than he did.

[Fyraltari]

I get the impression Redcloak doesn't have a very clear idea of what's actually supposed to happen once the Plan succeeds. He's pretty tunnel-visioned on getting it done and justifying all he's done to achieve it.

To be fair, step 2 of the Plan is "The Dark One takes it from there."
Also I don't think he expects to survive long past casting his ritual with Xykon.

[danielxcutter]

To be fair, step 2 of the Plan is "The Dark One takes it from there."
Also I don't think he expects to survive long past casting his ritual with Xykon.

Or he expects TDO to smite Xykon, and to be frank I don't think the other gods would care about that at that point.

Though it also seems legit for Redcloak to expect that he won't survive it, yeah.

[Ionathus]

That's an interesting choice of words. Because saying Redcloak is a "symptom" does rather make it sound like he had no choice but to be as he is.

Start of Darkness would have little point if you believe Redcloak could never have chosen differently than he did.

I mean, Rich's intro to SoD outright says "There are people who choose evil because of what their life has forced them to endure. That's not Xykon. But it might be Redcloak."

He made his own decisions. This was a path he chose. But that doesn't mean his life and the trauma he's experienced isn't a symptom of a wider problem.

[Empiar93]

He barely played a role in the conquest. RC is the Supreme Ruler. Redcloak organized the invasion. Redcloak led the army to victory.

Xykon killed a few paladins and one adventurer fairly far from where the rest of the fighting was actually taking place, and almost got killed himself in the process, leaving Miko to actually finish off that last line of defense. Which she might have even done without Xykon ever going to the throne room.

The Redcloak was again the one to lead the city and organize it. And he's the one with an agenda.

To argue that Xykon is actually the Tarquin of the goblins is kind of a stretch. He bullies them around now and then, and squats their city, but isn't really their leader, or the nation's creator, in any tangible sense. And he's being duped and played by Redcloak, and the only other human around, Tsukiko, was also being harassed on account of being a human. Various goblins, such as Redcloak, openly admit to being anti-human "speciesist" (AKA racist).

I mean, Xykon killed more than a few paladins. More like all except two that were in that room. That’s significant since the paladins were among the greatest defense the city had. But I agree Xykon is not the ruler, and initially I was going to say he doesn’t rule Gobbotopia, he just bullies it. As for Tsukiko though, I also personally think she was bullied for being an intolerable person; that she was a human just made it easier to pick on her and let Redcloak find other ways to insult her and justify her death beyond the urgent necessity of the matter.

[Severance]

Despite what RedCloak wanted to believe, I’d argue that Xykon did create and rule gobbotopia indirectly through the goblins, similar to how Tarquin rules the empire of blood indirectly through the red dragon.

Xykon has effectively given up that control at this point, but all of our comments about slavery in gobbotopia are referring to a time when a human sorcerer ran the show there.

Oh wow, am I actually reading what I think I'm reading?
Is this a super-stretched attempt to sweep the goblin's practice and enjoyment of slavery under the rug by pretending "it was just Xykon all along"?
Is that it?


My issue is more people going off and saying that because they didn't get sufficient evidence (while at the same time treating any potential evidence as invalid because it wasn't unambiguous enough) this development with Roy, Durkon, and Thor acknowledging the problem is wrong and is in conflict with the rest of the story. As if there's some objective flaw which invalidates the entire thing.

When a comic fails to present a convincing case for something but at the same time still has all characters buying into it immediately, yes, it tends to create a dissonance in logic that some people might notice and point out since it feels like a step was skipped.

We get nothing but the premise and then the conclusion to the case, with the "bringing evidence" part barely presented and skipped, and yet in-story characters react as if that was handed rock solid the very panel they're exposed to it.
And some readers rightfully go..."wait wha?".

[Rhyvurg]

I hate the “benevolent white savior” trope as much as anyone, but...

If the problem in OotS-verse is “dwarfs and humans are oppressing the goblins”, then that’s a problem with dwarfs and human behavior. Dwarfs and humans are broken, and only dwarfs and humans can fix themselves.

Oppression is by its very definition something that oppressor does to the oppressed. The only way to fix oppression is for the oppressor to stop oppressing.

They're not oppressing the goblins, they just take advantage of the things they have that the goblins do not. They do the same against each other as well, and it's hardly their fault they were given a head start. One god deciding "lol gobbos are for xp" does not make everyone who benefitted from that responsible to change it.

[Severance]

They're not oppressing the goblins, they just take advantage of the things they have that the goblins do not. They do the same against each other as well, and it's hardly their fault they were given a head start. One god deciding "lol gobbos are for xp" does not make everyone who benefitted from that responsible to change it.

Yeah making good use of what you have and whatever advantage card life dealt you is not "oppression" or something that should be fixed.

Man, oppressor-oppressed narratives are so low-key shallow.

[Mariele]

I'm just astounded at how people are having issues with two Good aligned characters seeing an unfair situation and saying "hey, that's unfair, we should do our best to help once we're done saving the world, because we're Good people."

[Worldsong]

When a comic fails to present a convincing case for something but at the same time still has all characters buying into it immediately, yes, it tends to create a dissonance in logic that some people might notice and point out since it feels like a step was skipped.

We get nothing but the premise and then the conclusion to the case, with the "bringing evidence" part barely presented and skipped, and yet in-story characters react as if that was handed rock solid the very panel they're exposed to it.
And some readers rightfully go..."wait wha?".

Given that I don't agree with your starting position, namely that the comic hasn't provided enough hints that the goblinoid situation might be real for it to be worth considering, the rest of your argument falls flat for me.

I may have admitted that the webcomic could have done more to showcase the situation, but there's a large gap between 'could have done more' and 'it's completely unsupported.'

Of course, what might be the case is that since you clearly aren't happy with the idea in and of itself you've placed pretty high requirements for what the story needs to show before you're convinced, whereas I'm fine with the idea so the story had an easier time clearing my requirements.


I'm just astounded at how people are having issues with two Good aligned characters seeing an unfair situation and saying "hey, that's unfair, we should do our best to help once we're done saving the world, because we're Good people."

In all fairness, more than one has taken the angle that the idea that the situation is unfair is in itself highly questionable, so they don't seem to be opposed to the idea of Good-aligned characters addressing unfair situations as much as that they don't feel like the situation presented in the comic is unfair in a way that would justify the goblinoids getting help from Good-aligned characters.

[Ionathus]

Oh wow, am I actually reading what I think I'm reading?
Is this a super-stretched attempt to sweep the goblin's practice and enjoyment of slavery under the rug by pretending "it was just Xykon all along"?
Is that it?

Agreed, that's a BIG stretch. The goblins are clearly the ones perpetuating slavery in Gobbotopia.


When a comic fails to present a convincing case for something but at the same time still has all characters buying into it immediately, yes, it tends to create a dissonance in logic that some people might notice and point out since it feels like a step was skipped.

We get nothing but the premise and then the conclusion to the case, with the "bringing evidence" part barely presented and skipped, and yet in-story characters react as if that was handed rock solid the very panel they're exposed to it.
And some readers rightfully go..."wait wha?".

A story's narrative can reveal sudden information that casts the status quo in a new light. That's clearly what's happening here: Durkon explains the situation and Roy pauses for a few seconds before saying "you know what, I never thought about it before, but now that you mention it..." and a large swath of readers were not surprised at all, because they'd been picking up on those hints for years: "bringing evidence" in advance, to use your own language.

You're putting very narrow constraints on how stories are allowed to be told. You might personally require Premise, Evidence, Conclusion – in that order – to believe a plot development, but numerous twist endings across fiction subvert that concept. What is a twist ending, if not a sudden revelation that throws a bunch of prior hints and background inconsistencies into sharp relief?

If the revelation wasn't to your personal tastes, that's fine. If you want to demand that your fiction have all the procedural rigor of a courtroom, that's fine. I'm sure you'll love Ace Attorney and the second season of Broadchurch. But stop pretending it's the only way a story (or in-character argument) is allowed to happen.

[Shadowknight12]

There are many forms of these points going through the forums, and everyone seems to overlook one fact: the goblins enslaved a city of innocent people!!!!

Nobody is talking about this because this isn't the point. Did you skip the entirety of Blood Runs In The Family, where we see an entire nation of oppressive, tyrannical people that enslave others, just like Gobbotopia? Nobody is arguing that because the Western continent is mostly an awful place with evil nations and slavery, that humans, lizardfolk and whatever other races live in the desert area of the Western continent should be oppressed. It is understood that the actions of some members of those races do not reflect the entire group.

Therefore, we can apply the same to Gobbotopia and say that just because a group of goblins conquered a city and enslaved part of its population, does not mean all goblins deserve oppression.

[Severance]

Exactly. The problem here is the "good" characters appear to be getting duped by the evil character narrative framing of events.

This. Nobody's against good characters fighting unfairness but first that unfairness must be proved otherwise those supposedly "good" characters just sound like guillible fools aiding villains or guillible fools fighting windmills.



Agreed, that's a BIG stretch. The goblins are clearly the ones perpetuating slavery in Gobbotopia.

A story's narrative can reveal sudden information that casts the status quo in a new light. That's clearly what's happening here: Durkon explains the situation and Roy pauses for a few seconds before saying "you know what, I never thought about it before, but now that you mention it..." and a large swath of readers were not surprised at all, because they'd been picking up on those hints for years: "bringing evidence" in advance, to use your own language.

You're putting very narrow constraints on how stories are allowed to be told. You might personally require Premise, Evidence, Conclusion – in that order – to believe a plot development, but numerous twist endings across fiction subvert that concept. What is a twist ending, if not a sudden revelation that throws a bunch of prior hints and background inconsistencies into sharp relief?

If the revelation wasn't to your personal tastes, that's fine. If you want to demand that your fiction have all the procedural rigor of a courtroom, that's fine. I'm sure you'll love Ace Attorney and the second season of Broadchurch. But stop pretending it's the only way a story (or in-character argument) is allowed to happen.

There's no revelation here. Villain says X, Hero buys it, asks god who says Y, still goes with X, another Hero is exposed and buys X and so on and so forth in a chain. It doesn't feel natural.
If you author wanna create a goal for your heroes to aim at fine but you have to present me the reader reasons why that goal is worthwile and reasonable because unlike the characters in your story who are forced to follow your commands us readers are gonna get taken out your story if it's not logical.
There's a complete lack of contradictory over the whole "goblins are oppressed/unfairly disadvantaged" in the comic.

Every character just buys into it naturally for no apparent reason other than "I say so", and I've read multiple users on the forums parrot that we should all do the same too. No we don't. I'm not used in turning off my brain when reading stories, I question and poke holes at them to see if they stand up to scrutiny, and this whole "goblin oppression unfairness" angle is full of holes.

[Shadowknight12]

I'm not used in turning off my brain when reading stories, I question and poke holes at them to see if they stand up to scrutiny, and this whole "goblin oppression unfairness" angle is full of holes.

You seem to be very selective when questioning things, since you don't question the gods, who stand to gain from convincing mortals to maintain the status quo. Questioning stories is good, but if you only question the statements of one group while taking another group's statements at face value, perhaps you aren't giving your quest for intellectual examination its due diligence.

[hroþila]

There's no revelation here. Villain says X, Hero buys it, asks god who says Y, still goes with X, another Hero is exposed and buys X
Not true. Villain says X, Hero asks god to confirm, god denies X but says Y, Hero says Y is still bad, god acknowledges this, another Hero is exposed and buys Y (not X).

[Tvtyrant]

The Doom Brigade covered a lot of the same ground 30 years earlier and was completely uncontroversial, where is the pushback coming from? Because they are saying the heroes are responsible for helping?

[Mariele]

I mean, I'm getting the feeling the "goblins are unfairly persecuted" is just a Redcloak-centric way of saying "plenty of monster races are unfairly persecuted", and that broader message is what Roy and Durkon are thinking about, even if the Goblin Problem is the specific matter at hand. Redcloak mentioned orcs in his discussion (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1208.html), and Serini talked about "kobolds, orcs, and trolls" not doing so well under the current setup (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1229.html), as well as O-Chul mentioning that her trading with the trolls is probably the nicest interaction they've had with a player class (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1227.html).

Maybe most of the examples of goblin unfairness were in the bonus content, but we have seen general comments about treatment of the monster races throughout the entire comic (heck, V had a whole subplot surrounding this). I think Rich's message is probably closer to "racism is bad" than "racism is bad when it's against this one particular race", and it just so happens that it's a member of that one particular race that is drawing attention to this. :P

[Mechalich]

There's no revelation here. Villain says X, Hero buys it, asks god who says Y, still goes with X, another Hero is exposed and buys X and so on and so forth in a chain. It doesn't feel natural.
If you author wanna create a goal for your heroes to aim at fine but you have to present me the reader reasons why that goal is worthwile and reasonable because unlike the characters in your story who are forced to follow your commands us readers are gonna get taken out your story if it's not logical.
There's a complete lack of contradictory over the whole "goblins are oppressed/unfairly disadvantaged" in the comic.

Every character just buys into it naturally for no apparent reason other than "I say so", and I've read multiple users on the forums parrot that we should all do the same too. No we don't. I'm not used in turning off my brain when reading stories, I question and poke holes at them to see if they stand up to scrutiny, and this whole "goblin oppression unfairness" angle is full of holes.

A generalized characterization of the overall scenario is that this whole subplot represents a Broken Aesop (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BrokenAesop). The author is very clearly trying to make a point about oppression and moral responsibility and so forth. However, the conditions in the fictional world do not actually support that narrative.

Now, partly this is the nature of a D&D based world, with all the bizarre moral strictures attached to alignment, something the comic leans into by having one of the major factions being comprised of paladins, which according to standard D&D parlance are definitionally good (you can have jerkface paladins, self-righteous paladins, and absurdly uncompromising paladins, but you can't have evil or even neutral paladins, because paladins who stop being good aren't paladins anymore).

The moral system of D&D was generated expressly for the purpose of providing cover for exactly the sort of action the goblin plotline is attempting to criticize. 'Good' characters are supposed to be able to go out and murder whole villages full of 'evil' beings and still count that as doing good. That is extremely problematic in many ways but so long as the fictional world plays by those rules, there's nothing that can be done to change them. All that can really be said is that, since the rules of the world were set by the gods, the gods suck, but since the gods fall along the D&D alignment spectrum of course they do. D&D style worlds should contain horrors and races that are entirely evil and monstrous and so on because of the way D&D style theological setups function.

In fact, OOTS, with its iterative worlds scenario, actually takes things further. If, by some miraculous chain of events, good triumphed utterly over evil, the neutral and evil gods would be deprived of souls, so they would gather together and immediately vote to destroy the world and build a new one before their power collapsed (and vice versa, the same thing would happen if evil triumphed). Therefore a prolonged victory by one moral faction is impossible. There is a distinct ceiling on how much better the world can become. To paraphrase Game of Thrones, the Giant has created a world where it is impossible to 'break the wheel' because the instant the wheel is broken the gods will reboot a new one into existence.

And...****, that's actually a lot darker than I thought it would be. OOTS, grimdark stick-figure fantasy, yahoo!

[Rrmcklin]

Exactly. The problem here is the "good" characters appear to be getting duped by the evil character narrative framing of events.

Even if you choose to say things like the prequel books "don't count" for some reason, this thread is full of things from the comic which can easily be interpreted as reaffirming the villains framing.

Maybe you, personally, didn't take it like that. But the fact that other people did, and that seems to match what the author was going for, cannot be discounted just because, again, you don't personally like it.

[Severance]

You seem to be very selective when questioning things, since you don't question the gods, who stand to gain from convincing mortals to maintain the status quo. Questioning stories is good, but if you only question the statements of one group while taking another group's statements at face value, perhaps you aren't giving your quest for intellectual examination its due diligence.

Nobody ever tried convincing anyone to mantain any status quo in any strip for personal gain, you're completely making this up.
Due diligence is addressing things that are in the story, not those that aren't. There's no indication in the story that Thor was lying to Durkon there, while there are plenty that make the goblins untrustworthy on their narrative.


A generalized characterization of the overall scenario is that this whole subplot represents a Broken Aesop (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BrokenAesop). The author is very clearly trying to make a point about oppression and moral responsibility and so forth. However, the conditions in the fictional world do not actually support that narrative.

Pretty much. I still have to see any evidence that the goblins are these poor unfairly oppressed victims Redcloak claims they are and that every character exposed to this story seems to be immediately swallowing without question, even Thor.
Oh they will question Redcloak's actions, or what to do from now on about it, but the basic premise is completely unchallenged and being given a free pass from scrutiny for some reason.

[Shadowknight12]

Nobody ever tried convincing anyone to mantain any status quo in any strip for personal gain, you're completely making this up.
Due diligence is addressing things that are in the story, not those that aren't. There's no indication in the story that Thor was lying to Durkon there, while there are plenty that make the goblins untrustworthy on their narrative.

This strip (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1232.html) shows us Thor attempting to convince Durkon that the status quo is simply the way things are and have to be. This doesn't mean Thor is lying, it means Thor has a vested interest in the world continuing to operate the way it does, and you unquestioningly accepting everything Thor says as unbiased fact while actively questioning what Redcloak says and anyone that agrees with Redcloak (including the protagonists), and any third-party characters that do not specifically agree with Redcloak but provide supporting evidence (like Serini), is not questioning the entire story out of an impartial spirit of inquisitiveness.

[Severance]

This strip (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1232.html) shows us Thor attempting to convince Durkon that the status quo is simply the way things are and have to be.

Ludicrously false. What Thor is saying there is that's the way ecosystems work, and he's right.
How do I know he's right and not trying to spin some biased wool over Durkon's eyes?
Because that's how our ecosystem works as well.

The element you're missing is that I already questioned his story and found it massively concrete and valid given how our very reality functions by those same rules, my "impartial spirit of inquisitiveness" is perfectly satisfied by his explanation, much less with Redcloak's given his lack of supportive evidence.
He's just claiming their oppressed but claiming isn't enough, and while Thor has the whole of Nature by his side, Redcloak has... Redcloak.

[Shadowknight12]

Because that's how our ecosystem works as well.

So even though you know for a fact that OOTS world does not function the way ours does, you simply accept Thor's explanation without any evidence from the text itself that what he's saying is right? Even though his own follower, and a protagonist of the story, does not agree with him that this is necessary or correct?

[Rrmcklin]

Also, even accepting the ecosystem explanation, any ecosystem built by sapient beings for the exploitation of other sapient beings is completely different (and morally abhorrent) compared to the real world.

Real world nature has no conscious design or aims behind it. There's no moral considerations to be had. That cannot be said for the Stickverse. And while I don't fault the gods for wanting to continue their existence, am not especially sympathetic to the idea that sapient beings must suffer for it.

[arimareiji]

I mean, I'm getting the feeling the "goblins are unfairly persecuted" is just a Redcloak-centric way of saying "plenty of monster races are unfairly persecuted", and that broader message is what Roy and Durkon are thinking about, even if the Goblin Problem is the specific matter at hand. Redcloak mentioned orcs in his discussion (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1208.html), and Serini talked about "kobolds, orcs, and trolls" not doing so well under the current setup (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1229.html), as well as O-Chul mentioning that her trading with the trolls is probably the nicest interaction they've had with a player class (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1227.html).

Maybe most of the examples of goblin unfairness were in the bonus content, but we have seen general comments about treatment of the monster races throughout the entire comic (heck, V had a whole subplot surrounding this). I think Rich's message is probably closer to "racism is bad" than "racism is bad when it's against this one particular race", and it just so happens that it's a member of that one particular race that is drawing attention to this. :P
From a story point of view, it makes perfect sense. The goblins are the most clearly-developed, and even they get a ton of "I bet they deserved it because they're Evil". The forums would not be a pretty sight if the Giant explicitly tried to make a general case (rather than what he's done, which is to present enough context and then let those who are willing draw their own conclusions).

Also -- although I don't have it in front of me, I think it's in keeping with what he said about Familicide. He was trying to illustrate that if killing a thousand black dragons for no reason other than "because they're black dragons" is wrong, so is killing one for no other reason. (But with goblins the illustration scales up, while with Familicide it scales down.)

[Severance]

So even though you know for a fact that OOTS world does not function the way ours does--

--but nature does and that's all that matters here.
That speech was no different than Thor revealing why gravity pulls stuff down, how fire combusts, or how day and night cycles.
Because that's how worlds work.


you simply accept Thor's explanation without any evidence from the text itself that what he's saying is right? Even though his own follower, and a protagonist of the story, does not agree with him that this is necessary or correct?

Evidence of what, that ecosystems work like that? Look out your window, you'll find all the evidence you need inside the nearest garden.
If Durkon doesn't agree or even believes that's not necessary it just means he's on flat-earthers level of crazy.

[Dion]

How do I know he's right and not trying to spin some biased wool over Durkon's eyes?
Because that's how our ecosystem works as well.


This seems suspect to me. I admit I’ve never tried, but I doubt I get XP for murdering goblins.

[Shadowknight12]

--but nature does and that's all that matters here.
That speech was no different than Thor revealing why gravity pulls stuff down, how fire combusts, or how day and night cycles.
Because that's how worlds work.

Nature does not actually work that way, since Haley says she once scrubbed mold from the Thieves' Guild showers and she got copper pieces and a fire resistance potion. That's not how *our* nature works. Furthermore, there's another strip where Haley and Belkar are eating V's tropical bird messengers and both tell Haley that encounters make no sense that one time Belkar fought dire camels in a swamp. That is also not how *our* nature works.


Evidence of what, that ecosystems work like that? Look out your window, you'll find all the evidence you need inside the nearest garden.
If Durkon doesn't agree or even believes that's not necessary it just means he's on flat-earthers level of crazy.

Or he knows the world he lives in better than you.

[Severance]

Also, even accepting the ecosystem explanation, any ecosystem built by sapient beings for the exploitation of other sapient beings is completely different (and morally abhorrent) compared to the real world.

First we're gonna need evidence there's exploitation going on.
The gods require souls and belief to exist but in exchange give out miracles and literally create the world in which people are given a chance to exist in the first place, not to mention the luxury of providing an afterlife.
The mortals gets to suffer (like we do) in life but can also rake XP and turn out growing into superhuman beings we can only dream of while they live.

Bottom line: if this is "exploitation" please kindly exploit me all the way, Thor-sama.


Real world nature has no conscious design or aims behind it. There's no moral considerations to be had. That cannot be said for the Stickverse. And while I don't fault the gods for wanting to continue their existence, am not especially sympathetic to the idea that sapient beings must suffer for it.

*giggle*
Who the heck doesn't suffer living? What a bizarre standard. The gods even said they mostly sit back after creation's done and let the dices roll where they may, even if it means stuff like Odin going crazy they still let mortals live their own lives in freedom, so nobody *must* suffer, they're in charge of their own fate.

[Rrmcklin]

From a story point of view, it makes perfect sense. The goblins are the most clearly-developed, and even they get a ton of "I bet they deserved it because they're Evil". The forums would not be a pretty sight if the Giant explicitly tried to make a general case (rather than what he's done, which is to present enough context and then let those who are willing draw their own conclusions).

Also -- although I don't have it in front of me, I think it's in keeping with what he said about Familicide. He was trying to illustrate that if killing a thousand black dragons for no reason other than "because they're black dragons" is wrong, so is killing one for no other reason. (But with goblins the illustration scales up, while with Familicide it scales down.)

Yeah, it makes sense to me: focus the narrative on this one particular facet, while also mentioning that there are others. Several people have acted like other problems existing makes the focus on this one in particularly illogical, but I imagine it's much easier to form a coherent story on that basis than trying to tackle a million different injustices at once. Not to go too into real life again, but "I'm an ally to many causes, but my specialization is one in particular" is a very common thing for a reason.

[Severance]

Nature does not actually work that way, since Haley says she once scrubbed mold from the Thieves' Guild showers and she got copper pieces and a fire resistance potion. That's not how *our* nature works. Furthermore, there's another strip where Haley and Belkar are eating V's tropical bird messengers and both tell Haley that encounters make no sense that one time Belkar fought dire camels in a swamp. That is also not how *our* nature works.

You're confusing gag jokes for world setting, careful.


Or he knows the world he lives on better than you.

Nah, he's just dumb assuming he knows better than the gods who created countless working worlds before.

[Shadowknight12]

You're confusing gag jokes for world setting, careful.

In a comedy-based comic, you should not assume gags have nothing to say about the setting.

[Squire Doodad]

In a comedy-based comic, you should not assume gags have nothing to say about the setting.

Maybe, but that's no reason to assume they define the setting.

[Shadowknight12]

Maybe, but that's no reason to assume they define the setting.

No reason to dismiss them either.

[Rhyvurg]

I'm just astounded at how people are having issues with two Good aligned characters seeing an unfair situation and saying "hey, that's unfair, we should do our best to help once we're done saving the world, because we're Good people."

Because they're acting like that because they and their peoples benefitted from the situation, they're obligated to try to change it. At most, they're obligated to tell Redcloak which god is responsible and leave it at that.

[Rhyvurg]

Nobody is talking about this because this isn't the point. Did you skip the entirety of Blood Runs In The Family, where we see an entire nation of oppressive, tyrannical people that enslave others, just like Gobbotopia? Nobody is arguing that because the Western continent is mostly an awful place with evil nations and slavery, that humans, lizardfolk and whatever other races live in the desert area of the Western continent should be oppressed. It is understood that the actions of some members of those races do not reflect the entire group.

Therefore, we can apply the same to Gobbotopia and say that just because a group of goblins conquered a city and enslaved part of its population, does not mean all goblins deserve oppression.

So forcing invading slavers out to save innocent people from them is now oppression? I don't think so.

[Shadowknight12]

So forcing invading slavers out to save innocent people from them is now oppression? I don't think so.

I don't know where you got that from my post, but let me assure you there are ways to liberate slaves from a nation without taking it out on the whole of the race that the nation belongs to. We don't take it out on all humans because the Empire of Blood is a mostly-human nation of slavers that needs to be stopped.

[Lemarc]

Because they're acting like that because they and their peoples benefitted from the situation, they're obligated to try to change it. At most, they're obligated to tell Redcloak which god is responsible and leave it at that.

They're obligated to try to change it because they're lawful good characters who perceive an injustice. It happens not to be their most pressing obligation at this time.

[Dion]

At most, they're obligated to tell Redcloak which god is responsible and leave it at that.

I’m uncomfortable with the idea that the way to solve a problem is to first direct your anger at someone.

It’s an idea that I find difficult to understand, but it a something I’ve seen suggested on this message board numerous times.

Is there some measure or metric for this - the tendency to look at a situation and try to define it by asking “who’s fault is this” or something similar?

[danielxcutter]

I’m uncomfortable with the idea that the way to solve a problem is to first direct your anger at someone.

It’s an idea that I find difficult to understand, but it a something I’ve seen suggested on this message board numerous times.

Is there some measure or metric for this - the tendency to look at a situation and try to define it by asking “who’s fault is this” or something similar?

It also conveniently lets the heroes stop caring about the problem so no I don't think this is what Rich is going to go with.

[Dr.Zero]

I’m uncomfortable with the idea that the way to solve a problem is to first direct your anger at someone.

It’s an idea that I find difficult to understand, but it a something I’ve seen suggested on this message board numerous times.

Is there some measure or metric for this - the tendency to look at a situation and try to define it by asking “who’s fault is this” or something similar?

I used to hear that metric being called "sense of justice", back in the days.

[Jason]

Now, partly this is the nature of a D&D based world, with all the bizarre moral strictures attached to alignment, something the comic leans into by having one of the major factions being comprised of paladins, which according to standard D&D parlance are definitionally good (you can have jerkface paladins, self-righteous paladins, and absurdly uncompromising paladins, but you can't have evil or even neutral paladins, because paladins who stop being good aren't paladins anymore).Yes, having evil paladins is a departure from the rules of D&D on The Giant's part, apparently to make a point about how some players and accommodating DMs try to dance the line of the paladin rules while playing essentially evil characters.


The moral system of D&D was generated expressly for the purpose of providing cover for exactly the sort of action the goblin plotline is attempting to criticize. 'Good' characters are supposed to be able to go out and murder whole villages full of 'evil' beings and still count that as doing good.I disagree. That is not why D&D has alignment. That is how some players have abused the alignment system.


In fact, OOTS, with its iterative worlds scenario, actually takes things further. If, by some miraculous chain of events, good triumphed utterly over evil, the neutral and evil gods would be deprived of souls, so they would gather together and immediately vote to destroy the world and build a new one before their power collapsed (and vice versa, the same thing would happen if evil triumphed). Therefore a prolonged victory by one moral faction is impossible. There is a distinct ceiling on how much better the world can become. To paraphrase Game of Thrones, the Giant has created a world where it is impossible to 'break the wheel' because the instant the wheel is broken the gods will reboot a new one into existence.That is indeed the problem with having a group of gods ruled by majority vote, with each receiving an equal vote. Most D&D worlds do not have such a system, at least not explicitly.

[Dion]

I used to hear that metric being called "sense of justice", back in the days.

Ah! The Superman Justice method!

1) find a person who needs a beating
2) beat them
3) justice!

I admit that does solve most problems in most comic books before 1990 or so (probably changing around Watchmen, though I’m not a comic book historian).

[danielxcutter]

While violence can help solve problems, it’s really best used as a last resort rather than jumping to it as soon as possible.

[hamishspence]

Yes, having evil paladins is a departure from the rules of D&D on The Giant's part, apparently to make a point about how some players and accommodating DMs try to dance the line of the paladin rules while playing essentially evil characters.
Those characters are not "evil by D&D rules" - they are "LG by the letter of D&D rules, but arguably not by the spirit".




That is not why D&D has alignment. That is how some players have abused the alignment system.

According to The Giant, it's his experience that 9 times out of 10 the game is played that way.

Considering that even Gygax, the inventor of the D&D alignment system, has argued "Nits make lice" - the point The Giant is making is IMO that the alignment system itself, right from the very beginning, has been biased in favour of the players and against everything that the players have their characters fight.

[Dr.Zero]

Ah! The Superman Justice method!

1) find a person who needs a beating
2) beat them
3) justice!

I admit that does solve most problems in most comic books before 1990 or so (probably changing around Watchmen, though I’m not a comic book historian).

Ah, I've a news for you.
Every people jailed in the world? Didn't go there by their own will, they were dragged by force (or threat of use of force): violence.
You writing from a pc/phone without someone robbing it from you and bashing your head for good measure? Threat the aforementioned jail time.
You surviving to the germs you inhale with every breath? Microscopic violence of your immune system against germs.

Justice (and is more trivial form: revenge) is a fruit of evolution: if you take revenge on someone who hurt you, they are less likely to do so again, if they are sentient. Zero probabilities, if you outright kill them (in that case that they are sentient or not doesn't matter). And if who saw what you've done when angered is sentient too, they will try to not anger you.

(Mind you, even some will to avoid violence if a fruit of evolution: avoiding bloody conflict when it is not worth the cost)


While violence can help solve problems, it’s really best used as a last resort rather than jumping to it as soon as possible.

I remember a quote from Asimov's stories with a similar opinion (as far as I remember it was Hari Seldon, saying that violence is the last resort used by idiots, or something like that). I always missed the logic about it: if violence reaches the desired result, with minor costs, only an idiot would leave it as last resort or, worse, refuse to use it.

Personally I don't find any reason to define something as "last resort", being it violence or kindness, if not a comparison between costs and results.
And that cannot be done generally, without knowing the specifics of the problem, if not defining the use of violence itself as a (quite high) cost. Which removes the interest in the debate: one doesn't want to use the violence because one doesn't. Fair. But who cares?

[Ionathus]

So forcing invading slavers out to save innocent people from them is now oppression? I don't think so.

Nice strawman, but there is a distinction between "all goblins" and "the goblins who rule/live in Gobbotopia."


Ah, I've a news for you.
Every people jailed in the world? Didn't go there by their own will, they were dragged by force (or threat of use of force): violence.
You writing from a pc/phone without someone robbing it from you and bashing your head for good measure? Threat the aforementioned jail time.
You surviving to the germs you inhale with every breath? Microscopic violence of your immune system against germs.

Justice (and is more trivial form: revenge) is a fruit of evolution: if you take revenge on someone who hurt you, they are less likely to do so again, if they are sentient. Zero probabilities, if you outright kill them (in that case that they are sentient or not doesn't matter). And if who saw what you've done when angered is sentient too, they will try to not anger you.

(Mind you, even some will to avoid violence if a fruit of evolution: avoiding bloody conflict when it is not worth the cost)

You have a very different sense of "justice" than me. It is not the same concept as "revenge." One is about preventing someone from continuing to do harm to innocents. The other is specifically about harming someone because they have harmed you, and is generally not considered a good enough reason in most societies to justify premeditated acts of aggression.

"The only reason we don't all murder each other at each moment is because then we'd be murdered"? What a dark world. I'm glad we don't live there.

[Dr.Zero]

"The only reason we don't all murder each other at each moment is because then we'd be murdered"? What a dark world. I'm glad we don't live there.

If you change "all murder each other" to "you can safely move around with a low probability to be murdered by a random stranger", yeah, pretty much.

It is the world you live on, though. If you don't notice it, it is because, well, the threat to be dragged to a jail works quite well. But it's not that you are defended by your good will, you're defended by people paid (by you, too) to keep the order and force respect of the law. You're just delegating the violence needed to defend your life. As Celia was willing to delegate the "proper punishment" over Belkar to Haley, as long as she might think of herself being not involved in his death.

[Fyraltari]

Ah, I've a news for you.
Every people jailed in the world? Didn't go there by their own will, they were dragged by force (or threat of use of force): violence.
You writing from a pc/phone without someone robbing it from you and bashing your head for good measure? Threat the aforementioned jail time.
You surviving to the germs you inhale with every breath? Microscopic violence of your immune system against germs.

Justice (and is more trivial form: revenge) is a fruit of evolution: if you take revenge on someone who hurt you, they are less likely to do so again, if they are sentient. Zero probabilities, if you outright kill them (in that case that they are sentient or not doesn't matter). And if who saw what you've done when angered is sentient too, they will try to not anger you.

(Mind you, even some will to avoid violence if a fruit of evolution: avoiding bloody conflict when it is not worth the cost)



I remember a quote from Asimov's stories with a similar opinion (as far as I remember it was Hari Seldon, saying that violence is the last resort used by idiots, or something like that). I always missed the logic about it: if violence reaches the desired result, with minor costs, only an idiot would leave it as last resort or, worse, refuse to use it.

Personally I don't find any reason to define something as "last resort", being it violence or kindness, if not a comparison between costs and results.
And that cannot be done generally, without knowing the specifics of the problem, if not defining the use of violence itself as a (quite high) cost. Which removes the interest in the debate: one doesn't want to use the violence because one doesn't. Fair. But who cares?

https://s2.qwant.com/thumbr/0x0/4/1/fc8e94b648ad780be780a60d806728569b2529e2d973719df4 27e5f5daf493/tenor.gif?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia1.tenor.com%2Fimage s%2F48c81d299709caa4b932f3d0a83da653%2Ftenor.gif%3 Fitemid%3D11966746&q=0&b=1&p=0&a=0

[Worldsong]

I'm pretty sure Dr. Zero just described why sensible Evil characters don't go around stabbing people at random and then tried to claim that Neutral and Good characters are the same.

EDIT:
Or Neutral and Good characters are fake.

[danielxcutter]

https://s2.qwant.com/thumbr/0x0/4/1/fc8e94b648ad780be780a60d806728569b2529e2d973719df4 27e5f5daf493/tenor.gif?u=https%3A%2F%2Fmedia1.tenor.com%2Fimage s%2F48c81d299709caa4b932f3d0a83da653%2Ftenor.gif%3 Fitemid%3D11966746&q=0&b=1&p=0&a=0

Er, image doesn’t work. At least on mobile.

Edit: never mind just took a while to load.

[pearl jam]

Those characters are not "evil by D&D rules" - they are "LG by the letter of D&D rules, but arguably not by the spirit".





According to The Giant, it's his experience that 9 times out of 10 the game is played that way.

Considering that even Gygax, the inventor of the D&D alignment system, has argued "Nits make lice" - the point The Giant is making is IMO that the alignment system itself, right from the very beginning, has been biased in favour of the players and against everything that the players have their characters fight.

Yeah, to me being a paladin is more about the spirit than the letter. The problem is probably baked into making it a class. To me it's not really a job as much as a mindset, so such paladins in name only aren't paladins to me in the first place. (I know this has been discussed extensively in several other threads as well.) lol

[hamishspence]

Yeah, to me being a paladin is more about the spirit than the letter. The problem is probably baked into making it a class. To me it's not really a job as much as a mindset, so such paladins in name only aren't paladins to me in the first place. (I know this has been discussed extensively in several other threads as well.) lol

A lot of D&D fluff (both novels and splatbooks) has emphasised the ruthlessness of certain paladins.

What deity the paladin worships, and what culture the paladin's in, may also play a part. Paladins of Helm (LN god of Guardians) while technically LG, tend to be much less "interested in helping others in need" than the average paladin. Their schtick is "guard" not "help".

Paladins of Horus in the Forgotten Realms, may have minimal interest in rescuing slaves or fighting slavery - because their culture, an Expy of Ancient Egypt, has slavery built in.

And so forth.


So The Giant's handling of paladins has plenty of precedent.

[pearl jam]

Again, that's at least partly attributable to making it a class in the first place. If it's a job, then you can have people who do it well, people who do it poorly, people who go about it earnestly and people who do the bare minimum.

The archetype role that is being filled by all these bad paladin characters could just as easily be represented by clerics with no really material difference, other than I guess the fact that there are weapon restrictions on clerics that paladins don't have, if I recall correctly.

Obviously, as you have shown here and in the other threads, these kinds of paladins are not unprecedented, but for me and at least some of the others who have issues with these depictions it's because the spirit is what makes the paladin for us.

[Worldsong]

Again, that's at least partly attributable to making it a class in the first place. If it's a job, then you can have people who do it well, people who do it poorly, people who go about it earnestly and people who do the bare minimum.

The archetype role that is being filled by all these bad paladin characters could just as easily be represented by clerics with no really material difference, other than I guess the fact that there are weapon restrictions on clerics that paladins don't have, if I recall correctly.

Obviously, as you have shown here and in the other threads, these kinds of paladins are not unprecedented, but for me and at least some of the others who have issues with these depictions it's because the spirit is what makes the paladin for us.

I'd say the problem is that no matter how you dress it up, as long as being a paladin grants you (useful) abilities people are going to play paladins for the sake of the abilities and then either be apathetic towards the spirit of the paladin or do their best to skirt around it.

Not counting the players who actively delight in subverting expectations and going against the spirit of things, but those players are going to try and mess things up no matter what you do to try and stop them.

[Dr.Zero]

I'm pretty sure Dr. Zero just described why sensible Evil characters don't go around stabbing people at random

Yes


and then tried to claim that Neutral and Good characters are the same.

Uhm... no



EDIT:
Or Neutral and Good characters are fake.

Almost.
More correctly, that "Good, never using violence" Celias can exist only because either they can fly very fast or because they implicitly delegate the use of violence to someone else. And then turn their head to the other side.

Everything else said by people who live under the protection of armies and of laws enforced by police forces and so on is just hypocrisy.

This without even taking in consideration their very violent immune systems against poor germs. Disable it using proper medicines, and let the germs live in peace!

[Dion]

So are we back to the basic discussion:

Person One: The comic is asking “what is good and evil”.

Person Two: That’s so dumb. Everyone already knows what good and evil are.

Person One: No, not everyone agrees. It’s a nuanced discussion.

Person Two: I know what good and evil are. The author is wrong for discussing it.

Person Three: It’s good to kill babies!

[Worldsong]

More correctly, that "Good, never using violence" Celias can exist only because either they can fly very fast or because they implicitly delegate the use of violence to someone else. And then turn their head to the other side.

Everything else said by people who live under the protection of armies and of laws enforced by police forces and so on is just hypocrisy.

This without even taking in consideration their very violent immune systems against poor germs. Disable it using proper medicines, and let the germs live in peace!

There's a wide gap between "Never use violence, ever" and "The only reason we're not killing each other is because it might result in me being dead."

A very wide gap.

[Dr.Zero]

There's a wide gap between "Never use violence, ever" and "The only reason we're not killing each other is because it might result in me being dead."

A very wide gap.

And, again, "we are not killing each other" is not what I said.
But I think I replied to that already some posts above.

Here exactly

If you change "all murder each other" to "you can safely move around with a low probability to be murdered by a random stranger", yeah, pretty much.

It is the world you live on, though. If you don't notice it, it is because, well, the threat to be dragged to a jail works quite well. But it's not that you are defended by your good will, you're defended by people paid (by you, too) to keep the order and force respect of the law. You're just delegating the violence needed to defend your life. As Celia was willing to delegate the "proper punishment" over Belkar to Haley, as long as she might think of herself being not involved in his death.

And, again. You, while write there, are using violence. In the form of some policemen, paid by you, sent by your government, to drag someone in jail to avoid any damage to you or other law abiding member of your community.
There, that guy dragged in jail with force? Done by you.
That other staying in jail for 20 years? Done by you.
Etc.

[Jason]

Those characters are not "evil by D&D rules" - they are "LG by the letter of D&D rules, but arguably not by the spirit".
The alignment rules are vague enough that they are open to some interpretation, but the villain paladins shown in the comic are pretty obviously in violation of the letter of the rules as well as the spirit. As has been discussed, The Giant's point in creating and showcasing them was to show why it's wrong to play paladins like that.


According to The Giant, it's his experience that 9 times out of 10 the game is played that way.I maintain that if he was not exaggerating for effect then he has been exceptionally unlucky in who he has shared a table with.


Considering that even Gygax, the inventor of the D&D alignment system, has argued "Nits make lice" On the internet, in 2005, 30 years after the last time he had anything to do with the designing and writing of D&D. Gygax was also fairly notorious for trolling people.

If you want to know what the intent and goals of the alignment system were when it was designed, you should look at contemporary accounts on the subject, not 30-years-later internet ramblings.


- the point The Giant is making is IMO that the alignment system itself, right from the very beginning, has been biased in favour of the players and against everything that the players have their characters fight.I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "Biased towards the players". In a very real sense D&D has always been biased towards the players in all of its rules. Since the point of the game is to entertain the players this should not be surprising.
How is the alignment system biased against, say, goblins?

[Ionathus]

And, again. You, while write there, are using violence. In the form of some policemen, paid by you, sent by your government, to drag someone in jail to avoid any damage to you or other law abiding member of your community.
There, that guy dragged in jail with force? Done by you.
That other staying in jail for 20 years? Done by you.

I'm not Celia. What's your point here? "Violence is sometimes necessary to maintain peace?" Because there's a gulf the size of infinity between that argument and "Violence is necessary when dealing with The Other and we should never try to negotiate."

If you're willing, I'd appreciate an explanation of how your arguments here relate back to the subject matter, because I worry I'm misinterpreting you.


So are we back to the basic discussion:

Person One: The comic is asking “what is good and evil”.

Person Two: That’s so dumb. Everyone already knows what good and evil are.

Person One: No, not everyone agrees. It’s a nuanced discussion.

Person Two: I know what good and evil are. The author is wrong for discussing it.

Person Three: It’s good to kill babies!

And the wheel turns ever onward.

[Dion]

the villain paladins shown in the comic are pretty obviously in violation of the letter of the rules as well as the spirit.

Not to be obtuse, but what specific actions did they take that broke rules I can find in the base set?

[Severance]

I’m uncomfortable with the idea that the way to solve a problem is to first direct your anger at someone.

It’s an idea that I find difficult to understand, but it a something I’ve seen suggested on this message board numerous times.

Is there some measure or metric for this - the tendency to look at a situation and try to define it by asking “who’s fault is this” or something similar?

Allow me to rephrase your post in a way that actually depicts the point being made:


I’m uncomfortable with the idea that the way to solve a problem is to first direct your blame to who's responsible.

It’s an idea that I find difficult to understand, but it a something I’ve seen suggested on this message board numerous times.

Is there some measure or metric for this - the tendency to look at a situation and try to define it by asking “who’s responsible for this” or something similar?

And the answer is: yes. That's how you do it.
You point the finger at who directly had a hand in creating the problem, not towards people who did nothing wrong but just happen to be benefitting from it in some distant way.
They don't carry any obligation nor guilt to fix that, as I've seen suggested on this message board numerous times.

[Dr.Zero]

I'm not Celia. What's your point here? "Violence is sometimes necessary to maintain peace?"

Not sometimes, continuosly.
Not because every one else is dangerous, but because there will be always someone dangerous for you or me or anyone else.
And that we all use violence by proxy. Even you, while you're sitting there.


Because there's a gulf the size of infinity between that argument and "Violence is necessary when dealing with The Other and we should never try to negotiate."

Surely there is a vast gulf.
How that relates to finding who is guilty of something specific and -if convenient- punishing the guilty ("whose fault is this"), which introduced the whole "sense of justice" I replied to Dion -and the following replies- is a thing I cannot understand.

Maybe if you explain what you found disturbing, or at least untrue, in my replies, I might understand how the two things relate.

[Jason]

Not to be obtuse, but what specific actions did they take that broke rules I can find in the base set?
It depends on which evil Paladin you're talking about, but the main one the paladins who massacred Redcloak's village broke was "a paladin’s code requires that she...punish those who harm or threaten innocents."
The Giant has made it clear in his commentary that the goblin children were innocents. So by the rules any paladin who participated in the massacre of the goblin children or who failed to punish someone who killed those goblin children broke the paladin's code and should have fallen.

[Rrmcklin]

It seems one of the issues with this discussion is that a lot of people seem to have minority view on what being good entails and/or just don't care about being good at all.

A lot (though not all) of the frustration from Roy and Durkon's conversations seems to stem from the fact that many people think "doing the bare minimum and not being interested in doing more" counts as good. To me, that kind of seems to be missing the point of good entirely. And it also seems that when that's pointed out some people are reacting as if the claim is that everyone who doesn't agree is "bad" or "evil", when that also doesn't seem to be the point being made either.

Obviously moral and philosophical debates are going to be tricky, but I'm not really sure how this goes anywhere if so many people come into the discussion thinking that the characters should only care about doing as little as possible or that the whole reason everyone in the world doesn't go around murdering and killing is for purely practical reasons and morality means nothing.

[Dion]

And the answer is: yes. That's how you do it.
You point the finger at who directly had a hand in creating the problem, not towards people who did nothing wrong but just happen to be benefitting from it in some distant way.
They don't carry any obligation nor guilt to fix that, as I've seen suggested on this message board numerous times.

In your experience, have you found this has been a satisfactory method for solving problems you’ve encountered?

Say, for example, a wolf named fenris carelessly burns down your house. Do you believe that finding and holding that wolf responsible will provide you and your children with shelter to keep you warm at night?

[Rrmcklin]

Fenrir/s also isn't actually responsible for the problems the goblinoids actively face. His negligence allowed things to progress to this point, but the fact remains that it was still humans of the Sapphire Guard actively going on raids and destroying goblin and hobgoblin villages, and it was the dwarves who apparently drove the bugbears into the frozen tundra.

Going "it's all Fenrir/s" fault is ignoring all that has happened since then, and is continuing to happen. And as far as obligation goes - we all probably profit from the misfortune of others in someone, and it might be impossible to complete stop that because the world will never be perfect. But if you find out about the problem and could make it even a little better but go "I have no obligation to stop profiting off your suffering", yes, I'd say that's a moral failing. It doesn't make someone irredeemably evil or anything, but I'd say it is fair to hold such things against people.

[Ionathus]

Hold on a sec, changing the context to "all goblins" is moving the goalposts, isn't it?

The predicament presented in the comic is for the goblins we have on screen.

No. The predicament is explicitly for all goblinoids. It has always been all goblinoids, since the moment Redcloak put on the cloak and learned the "truth."

Thor was talking about the creation of all goblins. Redcloak is fixated on a deeply personal sense of revenge, but he has always claimed to be working for the betterment of all goblins. The fact that his motives are selfish and informed by his own personal trauma doesn't change the fact that when he talks about goblins, he talks about all of them, and that's what Durkon heard and responded to.


Not sometimes, continuosly.
Not because every one else is dangerous, but because there will be always someone dangerous for you or me or anyone else.
And that we all use violence by proxy. Even you, while you're sitting there.

Surely there is a vast gulf.
How that relates to finding who is guilty of something specific and -if convenient- punishing the guilty ("whose fault is this"), which introduced the whole "sense of justice" I replied to Dion -and the following replies- is a thing I cannot understand.

Maybe if you explain what you found disturbing, or at least untrue, in my replies, I might understand how the two things relate.

Mostly, I'm disturbed by this fixation on punishment. As Dion pointed out, punishing the original guilty party is rarely - if ever - the best way to improve things for the victim. Jail time, execution, torture -- these are all either base instinctual revenge or a deterrent against future crime (either by that same guilty party or by other witnesses). Thinking that vengeance/retribution is a self-evident good is a short road to cartoonish Hatfield/McCoy feuds.

Which, incidentally, some people have pointed out as a problem for the goblinoid situation in the past. Goblins kill PC races, PC races kill goblins in response, lather, rinse, repeat. Breaking that cycle is the challenge. On both sides.

Basically, blaming Fenrir isn't going to change anything for the goblins. Their situation still sucks, even if they would know who's specifically responsible.

[Dion]

The Giant has made it clear in his commentary that the goblin children were innocents. So by the rules any paladin who participated in the massacre of the goblin children or who failed to punish someone who killed those goblin children broke the paladin's code and should have fallen.

Hmm... yes, that is a contradiction that’s difficult to resolve!

1) The Giant has said that he considers goblin non-combatants to be innocent.

2) The Giant has built a world where most gods and most humans see all goblins, including non-combatants, as nuisance xp bags, and slaughter them without repercussions (similar to how much of the TSR and WotC supplementary material and many gaming tables play goblins.)

And you’re trying to reconcile: how can both those things be true at once? Clearly The Giant has made a mistake!

The answer is a bit of a twist: The Giant has constructed an artificial world with moral values he personally disagrees with.

Consider the novel Huck Finn by Mark Twain. In Huck Finn, Jim is a slave and property. From the moral values of view of the universe Mark Twain has constructed, Jim no value as a person, and is basically just $800 worth of property that Huck has absconded with..

Mark Twain clearly does not agree with the moral values of the universe he is describing, and spends the entire book demonstrating why those moral values are wrong.

The Giant is trying to do the same thing. He has constructed a world with moral values that he personally disagrees with, and he is showing you why the moral values of that world are wrong.

So, it isn’t a contradiction to say “the moral values of the world the Giant constructed disagree with the Giant’s personal moral values”, because that’s the whole point of the strip.

[Jasdoif]

I’m uncomfortable with the idea that the way to solve a problem is to first direct your anger at someone.

It’s an idea that I find difficult to understand, but it a something I’ve seen suggested on this message board numerous times.

Is there some measure or metric for this - the tendency to look at a situation and try to define it by asking “who’s fault is this” or something similar?Eh, it's an effective enough heuristic; using emotional investment to promote taking otherwise unacceptable actions, directed at the perceived source of a problem, with the intent of mitigating the source's ability to continue causing problems.

It doesn't really work outside of ongoing problems caused by sources that can be meaningfully influenced, is the thing.

[danielxcutter]

What trap?! Just because Redcloak's an Evil villain doesn't mean everything that comes out of his mouth is BS, no matter how much you want it to be.

[Ionathus]

That is exactly my point. The villain Redcloak extends beyond what we've actually seen in the online comic, and Durkon falls into his trap. Thor refutes it, or at least explains why it's not a reasonable way to look at what actually happened. And Durkon refuses to understand.

If your take on the last few strips was actually "Redcloak somehow bamboozled Durkon into rejecting reality", rather than "Durkon talked to both sides (Redcloak & Thor) and realized the truth (and inaccuracy) in both stories, and is now trying to determine a way forward that is fair to all involved", then your interpretation is entirely different from that of the majority of the audience, and therefore I don't think you and I will be able to have a productive conversation about it.

[Jason]

And you’re trying to reconcile: how can both those things be true at once? Clearly The Giant has made a mistake! No, I'm saying "clearly The Giant is choosing not to follow the rules of D&D in this instance."
The reason for not following the paladin rules and having all those paladins fall on-panel seems to be "so I can illustrate that DMs and players who play paladins this way (i.e. without actually following the paladin rules) are doing it wrong."

[Dion]

No, I'm saying "clearly The Giant is choosing not to follow the rules of D&D in this instance."
The reason for not following the paladin rules and having all those paladins fall on-panel seems to be "so I can illustrate that DMs and players who play paladins this way (i.e. without actually following the paladin rules) are doing it wrong."

I don’t believe it’s against the rules for paladins to kill non-combatant goblins.

I dont think there’s anything in the rules or in the supplementary material that says DMs must treat non-combatant goblins as innocents.

[Rrmcklin]

If your take on the last few strips was actually "Redcloak somehow bamboozled Durkon into rejecting reality", rather than "Durkon talked to both sides (Redcloak & Thor) and realized the truth (and inaccuracy) in both stories, and is now trying to determine a way forward that is fair to all involved", then you are reading an entirely different story than the majority of the audience, and therefore I don't think you and I will be able to have a productive conversation about it.

Seriously, Durkon has not accepted Redcloak's narrative uncritically. He has talked to someone else who was directly involved, and come to the conclusion that although Redcloak is off on certain points, overall he is still right about a great injustice being done and continuing. And he is not the kind of person who can ignore that, even while still resolving to stop Redcloak.

A lot of this only seems to be an issue if you're only paying attention to half of what they say, without the context of the other half.

[danielxcutter]

I suppose "hearing" doesn't mean "listening".

[arimareiji]

In your experience, have you found this has been a satisfactory method for solving problems you’ve encountered?

Say, for example, a wolf named fenris carelessly burns down your house. Do you believe that finding and holding that wolf responsible will provide you and your children with shelter to keep you warm at night?
You're a much better diplomat and problem-solver than I am. I don't think I could have composed a productive response to someone rewording me to what they wanted to argue against, and then sticking my name (as it were) on it.

[Jason]

It’s not against the rules for paladins to kill non-combatant goblins.

There’s nothing in the rules that say DMs must treat non-combatant goblins as innocents.
The Giant, the DM of this story, has said he considered them innocents. Therefore he was not enforcing the PHB rules when he didn't cause all those paladins to immediatly fall for having broken the paladin code.

[Dion]

The Giant, the DM of this story, has said he considered them innocents. Therefore he was not enforcing the PHB rules when he didn't cause all those paladins to immediatly fall for having broken the paladin code.

Hmm... yes, that is a contradiction that’s difficult to resolve!

1) The Giant has said that he personally considers goblin non-combatants to be innocent.

2) The Giant has built a world where most gods and most humans see all goblins, including non-combatants, as nuisance xp bags, and slaughter them without repercussions...

No, wait. I think already wrote this post...

Edit: I’ll just re-iterate the important part one last time:

There’s a difference between what the rules *should* be and what the rules *are*.

I think you both and the Giant agree on what the rules *should* be: WotC should make it unambiguous that killing sentient non-combatants is considered evil act by the rules.

However, I think you and the Giant disagree on what the rules *are*: you believe that the rules match your personal moral code, and that the rules say killing sentient non-combatants is already unambiguously an evil act.

The Giant disagrees with your interpretation of the rules. He believes that WotC has consciously avoided making any such statement, and has left it to each individual DM.

[hungrycrow]

The Giant, the DM of this story, has said he considered them innocents. Therefore he was not enforcing the PHB rules when he didn't cause all those paladins to immediatly fall for having broken the paladin code.

It's worth noting that good outsiders in OotS(at least the ones we've seen address the subject) also consider goblin noncombatants innocents. They just don't notice the underlying issues that push goblin noncombatants into becoming combatants.

[Severance]

In your experience, have you found this has been a satisfactory method for solving problems you’ve encountered?
Identifying the source correctly before taking action? Absolutely.


Say, for example, a wolf named fenris carelessly burns down your house. Do you believe that finding and holding that wolf responsible will provide you and your children with shelter to keep you warm at night?

I believe it will provide me and my children assurance that our house won't get burned again.
And maybe the indemnity fees I'm owed from the person actually responsible for burning it down, instead of asking money from innocent random passerbies who just happened to warm themselves by the fire.

[dancrilis]

The Giant, the DM of this story, has said he considered them innocents. Therefore he was not enforcing the PHB rules when he didn't cause all those paladins to immediatly fall for having broken the paladin code.

Where are you seeing that in the rules of the player's handbook.



Code of Conduct
A paladin must be of lawful good alignment and loses all class abilities if she ever willingly commits an evil act.

Additionally, a paladinÂ’s code requires that she respect legitimate authority, act with honor (not lying, not cheating, not using poison, and so forth), help those in need (provided they do not use the help for evil or chaotic ends), and punish those who harm or threaten innocents.

Ex-Paladins
A paladin who ceases to be lawful good, who willfully commits an evil act, or who grossly violates the code of conduct loses all paladin spells and abilities (including the service of the paladinÂ’s mount, but not weapon, armor, and shield proficiencies). She may not progress any farther in levels as a paladin. She regains her abilities and advancement potential if she atones for her violations (see the atonement spell description), as appropriate.

Like a member of any other class, a paladin may be a multiclass character, but multiclass paladins face a special restriction. A paladin who gains a level in any class other than paladin may never again raise her paladin level, though she retains all her paladin abilities.


Unless you are argueing that they committed a 'willing evil act' (something that the handbook does not define), that they ceased to be 'lawful good' (something that the handbook does not give rules on) or 'grossly violated' the code (something the handbook does not clarify) - then I am not seeing what rules you have him not enforcing.

On a different topic:


Basically, blaming Fenrir isn't going to change anything for the goblins. Their situation still sucks, even if they would know who's specifically responsible.

Personal opinion: Fenris isn't the god to blame.

The problem god is The Dark One and placing blame on him is useful.

It was the Dark One who founded a goblin nation and a powerful army and then went to his neighbours and said 'give me stuff and we can live in peace', this lead to a war when they didn't back down and when the goblins lost the conflict (that they effectively started) that lead to the more harsh measures against the goblin people and forced them even further away from civilisation - and that was all on the mortal not divine plane.
If I take out money from an ATM and someone shows up with a group of there friends and say 'don't want your cards, don't want you phone or your keys, don't even want all they money you just took out - but me and my friends here are hungry and would like just half of it and we can all go home in peace ... hint hint' well the guy might be the most polite mugger ever and it might be better for me to agree ... but the guy is still trying to extort me with the threat of violence.

The Dark One created The Crimson Mantle which is the reason that Redcloak's village was attacked - not because they were goblins.
The Goblin purges continued not due to hatred of goblins (which does seem to have been present) but to try and end a threat to the universe - and when the paladins found out that they were likely looking in the wrong place most of them gave up on them.
The Dark One effectively told Redcloak get back to the plan when he was working to establish a peaceful goblin nation.
The Dark One doesn't answer the other gods calls even via a servant - even when he could lay out his terms and hear back from them.
The Dark One knows they cannot betray him without risking another snarl as he seems to know that another could form if they did due to deity conflict - so he doesn't even really need the snarl.

If a goblin embraced Thor's (or Fenris's) dogma and sought to be a cleric would either of them reject the free soul? no indication that they would - but the Dark One's dogma as indicated by Redcloak is that the gods have no use for goblins except as fodder, so why would they shop around.


Ultimately all Redcloak's problems for the goblin people seem like they can be traced to a single source and it isn't Fenris.

[Jason]

No, wait. I think already wrote this post...
Yes you did. So we agree then. He was deliberately not enforcing the rules to illustrate why not following those rules is a bad thing, similar to Mark Twain having Huck Finn decide that if turning Jim in really meant going to hell that Huck would rather go to hell.


Unless you are argueing that they committed a 'willing evil act' (something that the handbook does not define), that they ceased to be 'lawful good' (something that the handbook does not give rules on) or 'grossly violated' the code (something the handbook does not clarify) - then I am not seeing what rules you have him not enforcing.
The paladin code requires you to punish those who harm or threaten innocents. Since failing to punish someone who merely threatens innocents is a violation, killing the innocents yourself (inflicting, in effect, as much harm as possible) is obviously a gross violation. Q.E.D.

You could argue "the paladin could commit suicide immediately after slaughtering innocents, and then claim that he had punished the one who killed the innocents and therefore technically did not violate the code," but;
a) none of the paladins who slaughtered Redcloak's village are shown doing this, and in fact one of them shows up again alive and well (and still a paladin) in How the Paladin Got His Scar; and
b) harming, threatening, or killing innocents also pretty obviously qualifies as a "willful evil action", so the paladin would have fallen anyway.


Personal opinion: Fenris isn't the god to blame.It might be more accurate to say "Fenris isn't the only god to blame. I agree with you that The Dark One probably has even more of the blame for the current state of goblinkind, and that's assuming most of the story Redcloak told was accurate.

[Ionathus]

Yes you did. So we agree then. He was deliberately not enforcing the rules to illustrate why not following those rules is a bad thing, similar to Mark Twain having Huck Finn decide that if turning in freeing Jim really meant going to hell that Huck would rather go to hell.

I think you missed a word, if I remember the story correctly.

[Jason]

I think you missed a word, if I remember the story correctly.

Huck is debating whether to send a letter to Miss Watson telling her where Jim is. He writes the letter, and then decides he had rather go to hell than send it and tears it up. He goes on to actively try to aid Jim in escaping the people that currently are holding him, yes, but the immediate decision when he says "All right then, I'll go to hell," is whether to inform Jim's owner where he is - to turn him in as a runaway slave, effectively.

[Mechalich]

There’s a difference between what the rules *should* be and what the rules *are*.

I think you both and the Giant agree on what the rules *should* be: WotC should make it unambiguous that killing sentient non-combatants is considered evil act by the rules.

However, I think you and the Giant disagree on what the rules *are*: you believe that the rules match your personal moral code, and that the rules say killing sentient non-combatants is already unambiguously an evil act.

The Giant disagrees with your interpretation of the rules. He believes that WotC has consciously avoided making any such statement, and has left it to each individual DM.

The problem is that, from an in-universe perspective the rules aren't simply social conventions or cultural mores set by other people, but actual physics of the fictional universe set by divine beings. The characters in the story, because they are not those divine beings, cannot change the rules. In a fantasy universe where moral rules are set by cosmic forces (in this case the gods, but other examples like The Force are quite well-established) the people living in those universes can only do the best they can to uphold the rules in such a way that maximizes good.

OOTS uses a slightly modified D&D derived set of morality physics. The result, as I posted up-thread, is actually an endlessly repeating grimdark monstrosity where it is impossible for any moral progress to be made towards good or evil because the gods are divided according to a preset balance between the moral axes and their need for souls to survive means that deviation from that balance would kill them.

Now, if the Giant's goal is simply to point out that the rules of D&D as written result in twisted moral monstrosities, I guess he's accomplished that, but that really undercuts the comic since it's basically a statement that nothing the heroes do can ever really change things. It's also not innovative at all, since it was well understood that D&D morality was massively twisted since at least the early 1990s (Planescape, released at the time, kind of tacitly acknowledges this even in official publications).

This sort of grimdark moral statement also really isn't compatible with the overall thrust of the comic, which while a comedic parody is still very much an epic fantasy. In epic fantasy the heroes generally fight valiantly in defense of the status quo as far as social systems go. They either stop a BBEG from destroying the world, or they overthrow a BBEG and replace them with a Good leader who rules wisely for a time, but they never change the social system much. This is largely because actually inducing social change for the better at scale in a pre-industrial society does not easily fit the needs of storytelling, which is why even grand epics about leaders who actually did something like that - Cao Cao of the Three Kingdoms for example - tend to focus on battles and conquests.

Now, it is possible that the Giant has something planned involving the Snarl, the planet in the rift, and the Gates that will break the cycle. In fact it's possible that the Snarl is a grand force for good in the universe because it keeps trying to overthrow the corrupt system of the gods. I hope that's the case. If so, however, it means the goblin plot isn't actually about the goblins at all, it's about how the system created by the gods is inherently awful. In that case I feel the whole thing, especially recently, has been handled poorly because our actual heroic characters are being distracted by a symptom - one that, as others have noted at great length, is of dubious diagnostic value - compared to the underlying disease.

[arimareiji]

Huck is debating whether to send a letter to Miss Watson telling her where Jim is. He writes the letter, and then decides he had rather go to hell than send it and tears it up. He goes on to actively try to aid Jim in escaping the people that currently are holding him, yes, but the immediate decision when he says "All right then, I'll go to hell," is whether to inform Jim's owner where he is - to turn him in as a runaway slave, effectively.

In that case, should it have been "not turning him in"?

[Dr.Zero]

Mostly, I'm disturbed by this fixation on punishment. As Dion pointed out, punishing the original guilty party is rarely - if ever - the best way to improve things for the victim. Jail time, execution, torture -- these are all either base instinctual revenge or a deterrent against future crime (either by that same guilty party or by other witnesses).


Might I take a break here? Because I might missed the post where Dion said that bold (bolded by me) part.
While I can point out the post where I said that.

Here.

Ah, I've a news for you.
Every people jailed in the world? Didn't go there by their own will, they were dragged by force (or threat of use of force): violence.
You writing from a pc/phone without someone robbing it from you and bashing your head for good measure? Threat the aforementioned jail time.
You surviving to the germs you inhale with every breath? Microscopic violence of your immune system against germs.

Justice (and is more trivial form: revenge) is a fruit of evolution: if you take revenge on someone who hurt you, they are less likely to do so again, if they are sentient. Zero probabilities, if you outright kill them (in that case that they are sentient or not doesn't matter). And if who saw what you've done when angered is sentient too, they will try to not anger you.

(Mind you, even some will to avoid violence if a fruit of evolution: avoiding bloody conflict when it is not worth the cost)


Either I'm still misunderstanding your point (which seems to share my view that revenge as deterrent for future misbehavior is obviously a good strategy, used by everything evolved on earth, but ehi, that's my point, and you appear to be in disagreement with me) or you misunderstood who said what.


Which, incidentally, some people have pointed out as a problem for the goblinoid situation in the past. Goblins kill PC races, PC races kill goblins in response, lather, rinse, repeat. Breaking that cycle is the challenge. On both sides.

Basically, blaming Fenrir isn't going to change anything for the goblins. Their situation still sucks, even if they would know who's specifically responsible.

Ok, and here we seem to disagree, indeed.
Now, I can easily admit violence doens't work always (specially when used in little doses).
But what does?

"Dude, those goblins are killing us!"
"Eh, let them do it! Sooner or later they'll get bored!"

About Fenrir, blaming it is not going to solve the problems, because as a God it seems unpunishable.
Not the less, if you point out to the goblins their misfortunes are caused by their patron, it's their job to make 2+2 and realize THEY are usually in war with the wrong targets (and ask peace to the ones who are not responsible of their predictment)

[Jason]

In that case, should it have been "not turning him in"?
No. Huck believes that turning Jim in would be the morally correct thing to do, and that not turning Jim in is the same as damning himself to hell, and then he decides he had rather go to hell than turn Jim in.

It was awful thoughts, and awful words, but they was said. And I let them stay said; and never thought no more about reforming. I shoved the whole thing out of my head; and said I would take up wickedness again, which was in my line, being brung up to it, and the other warn't. And for a starter, I would go and steal Jim out of slavery again; and if I could think up anything worse, I would do that too; because as long as I was in, and in for good, I might as well go the whole hog.

[Ionathus]

Might I take a break here? Because I might missed the post where Dion said that bold (bolded by me) part.
While I can point out the post where I said that.

Here.

Either I'm still misunderstanding your point (which seems to share my view that revenge as deterrent for future misbehavior is obviously a good strategy, used by everything evolved on earth, but ehi, that's my point, and you appear to be in disagreement with me) or you misunderstood who said what.

I wasn't quoting Dion in the second half of the paragraph: I was saying that revenge and punishment may be utilitarian for peacekeeping, but rarely actually solve the problems caused by the original crime -- their purpose is to either prevent similar actions in the future or to vent rage and pain upon someone else.

There's a reason "revenge" is so rarely the territory of heroes: it's not particularly heroic, idealistic, or admirable. It's just hurting others until your own pain stops.


Ok, and here we seem to disagree, indeed.
Now, I can easily admit violence doens't work always (specially when used in little doses).
But what does?

"Dude, those goblins are killing us!"
"Eh, let them do it! Sooner or later they'll get bored!"

Emphasis mine.

I'm more than a little concerned by the implications of your parenthetical statement there, and on top of that I don't appreciate your setting up of a false dichotomy of "all violence" or "no violence, thus death." Diplomacy exists. You can defend yourself against an enemy nation and still have diplomatic talks with them.

The longer we talk, the more I realize that you and I hold such radically different viewpoints and values on this topic that I don't really think we're going to get anywhere. Have a good day.

[Doug Lampert]

I don’t believe it’s against the rules for paladins to kill non-combatant goblins.

I dont think there’s anything in the rules or in the supplementary material that says DMs must treat non-combatant goblins as innocents.

The MM CLEARLY indicates that goblins are not an "always" race, and that thus they are born non-evil and a substantial number are not evil.

What about "not evil child" and "paladin deliberately kills it" goes together in your mind?

The PHB definition of evil clearly states that racism is lawful-evil, thus judging goblins based on race is EVIL.

Killing goblin children because they are goblins is flat evil by the rules.

[Shadowknight12]

I disagree. That is not why D&D has alignment. That is how some players have abused the alignment system.

If it happens enough that someone made a highly popular D&D webcomic and some prequel books, and that a significant portion of the audience confirms that matches their experiences, and if before the webcomic (and during its tenure) you see D&D forums and other message boards discussing this exact thing...

Maybe this is a problem with the core system.

If you design a device that is misused by a substantial portion of the userbase (debatable on whether it's a majority or not), that still is a design flaw on the device. One very important part of design is usability, which means that your device needs to do whatever it can to ensure it's understood and as easy to use as intended by as many of its users as possible.

A significant percentage of misuse is a usability failure.

[arimareiji]

I'd say that's a very accurate summary of Redcloak's view on things. Even if it's not what you meant.

That often seems to be the case around here, and sometimes it's even pertinent as a direct parallel.

My favorite is when people describe the evil things some goblins have done as a reason why it's justifiable for humans to kill any of them, not realizing or not caring that Redcloak could make the exact same argument in reverse about the humans in the story.