Big Problem in Redcloak's Logic

[JessmanCA]

Of course O-Chul would be willing to sacrifice a handful of people to save the entire world from the wrath of the Snarl. He would not talk even if it was to save the entire city from being thrown off the tower, since he took a blood oath and it is for the greater good.

Redcloak should've realized that.

[Alex Warlorn]

Mathmatically that might make sense.
But that sounds more like the logic of a Lawful Neutral.

O-Chu isn't Miko, in fact, he appears to be the foil to Miko. Then again, when she was first introduced Miko said "praise breeds ego" and clearly was wary of hubris.
Something happened that CAUSED her to take a turn for the worst. To the point where she'd jump to conclusion, kill her master on charges without trial, and refuse to admit she made a mistake in doing so.

[Renegade Paladin]

Not that I don't agree (and the something was largely Belkar), but what does Miko have to do with this thread?

[†Seer†]

Not that I don't agree (and the something was largely Belkar), but what does Miko have to do with this thread?

She's coming back, haven't you heard? :smalleek: (I really hope not)

@OP: Yet, he is still human. Even the strongest-willed people will break with enough time, and I believe RC is doing everything to break him. His oversight is that O-Chul won't break because there's nothing he's hiding.

[FujinAkari]

Also, there is the issue of these innocents being -unmade- not just killed, IN ADDITION to the implied threat that these innocents might awaken the snarl. It was able to kill people when the rift was the size of a doorway, and the rift is NOW the size of a manor.

It was possible that Redcloak's action might have unleashed the Snarl on the world -right then and there-

[Ossian]

Of course O-Chul would be willing to sacrifice a handful of people to save the entire world from the wrath of the Snarl. He would not talk even if it was to save the entire city from being thrown off the tower, since he took a blood oath and it is for the greater good.

Redcloak should've realized that.

Human heroism. Humans are short sighted, and they always believe that it's better to save a bunch of innocents who will die in the next minute, put the world at stake for that, and try to thwart the enemy in a second time. Especially if you are a fantasy hero! Somewhere his conscience would have kept whispering: save those lives, Paladin! if you kill redcloak those informations you gave him won't do him any good, AND those people will not be unmade....

Too bad he actually did not know what to say about the next gate (or, that is what I believe at the moment).

Yeah, heroes think they can get away with everything, and that there will always be a second chance to fix a hole with a patch. What if redcloak was aware of that?

O.

[Renegade Paladin]

She's coming back, haven't you heard? :smalleek: (I really hope not)
I'm fairly certain she is, but not right now; it wouldn't make any sense for her to randomly appear in media res without an explanation as to how she was restored to life.

[Tingel]

Human heroism. Humans are short sighted, and they always believe that it's better to save a bunch of innocents who will die in the next minute, put the world at stake for that
Doesn't it strike you as questionable to make such claims for a whole race? Clearly humanity cannot be that uniform.
I think that for a lawful character like O-Chul (who values the weal of the group higher than the weal of the individual) reasoning like JessmanCA described is viable. Not mandatory, but viable.

[Ossian]

Doesn't it strike you as questionable to make such claims for a whole race? Clearly humanity cannot be that uniform.
I think that for a lawful character like O-Chul (who values the weal of the group higher than the weal of the individual) reasoning like JessmanCA described is viable. Not mandatory, but viable.

Surely it is questionable. What drove me in that direction was the typical "Flash Gordon vs Ming the Merciless" situation, with the hero trying to buy time making the Evil Guy happy and hoping to remedy later. As a Paladin, and a believer in the mercy of his 12 gods, he might well ALSO go for saving the lifes he can save immediately, and then hope Redcloak gets an ictus, or that Hinjo comes back that very minute. Especially since whatever O Chul might knows isn't "the key to open the gate", but just which defenses guard it. That is one possible course of action, and since we're in heroic fantasy, with a hero tied to a stake som stereotypes might find a fertile ground, you know, like "keep talking o'chul, feed him what he wants...those bonds, they are already less tight, just another minute".

That is, IF he knew something. But to me, O Chul is oblivious to the nature of the next gate.

O.

[Newtkeeper]

Doesn't it strike you as questionable to make such claims for a whole race? Clearly humanity cannot be that uniform.
I think that for a lawful character like O-Chul (who values the weal of the group higher than the weal of the individual) reasoning like JessmanCA described is viable. Not mandatory, but viable.

Item one, we're a species. Item two, we can make certain generalizations about humans. There will always be exceptions (and, admittedly, those with PC classes are most often those exceptions), but we can generalize.

[Tingel]

Item one, we're a species.
The game calls humanity a race. That is the terminology I use here, considering the context of my statement.


Item two, we can make certain generalizations about humans.
Obviously we can, but unless the exceptions are very few we shouldn't. Even more importantly, we shouldn't base our arguments on erroneous generalizations, because if we do said arguments become humbug.

Claiming that "all humans are short-sighted" is a generalization that is certainly not adequate. I do not understand why you defend it.

[Ossian]

The game calls humanity a race. That is the terminology I use here, considering the context of my statement.


Obviously we can, but unless the exceptions are very few we shouldn't. Even more importantly, we shouldn't base our arguments on erroneous generalizations, because if we do said arguments become humbug.

Claiming that "all humans are short-sighted" is a generalization that is certainly not adequate. I do not understand why you defend it.

It is inadequate in real life. Although, looking back at history, we really haven't learned much from the past (but that is another story). They fit slightly better in the world of fantasy, where elves love arts and are stuckup big brains, dwarves speak scottish and are stubborn and stable and greedy for gems, and humans are treacherous or heroic to amazing levels. What I called short-sightedness in my post is, in fact, the best and most morally correct thing to do for the one that made such a decision, sticking to a narrative clichee of "we can make it, no matter the odds. I save those humans now that I can, endangering the galaxy while doing so, and I'll snap redcloak's neck in a second moment"

Of course, that is one course of action out of many possible, and just my interpretation of why would o'chul actually tell the truth if he knew it.

O.

[JonahFalcon]

I think Redcloak is Lawful Neutral, not Evil.

An evil aligned character wouldn't think twice of killing the humans ANYWAY - actually, wouldn't thick twice of killing anything.

However, Redcloak seems to care for all life, not just his own race, when they are helpless.

I hope Redcloak gets killed and undergoes the same examination as Roy did, except the notary questions why he would have even bothered putting them back in the jail - a true evil character would kill them anyway, to intimidate the other prisoners. "Good PR"? Nice try, Redcloak.

[Newtkeeper]

Claiming that "all humans are short-sighted" is a generalization that is certainly not adequate. I do not understand why you defend it.

Replace all with 'most in positions of authority' then, if you wish. I cannot explain [the Cold War, Environmental Destruction, ignoring AIDS for some five years (until it started to effect straight people)] otherwise. Like it or not, humans are very able to ignore distant threats.

[hamishspence]

There are more forms of being evil than just doing evil acts all the time. You can have a chracter who respects life a lot, but still kills people. In this sense, they are someone who things there are more important things than their own personal feelings.

Redcloak thinks a bit like a good person, but is far too ruthless to be one. Added to his bigotry, he's Evil.

that is what people need to remember: not all evil people actually LIKE what they do. redcloak, in Champions of Ruin terms (FR sourcebook) sees himself as Driven to Evil.

[Teron]

Not to mention that Redcloak sometimes seems to think the Divine Conspiracy had the definitions of good and evil reversed in the Player's Handbook (especially in Start of Darkness).

[JonahFalcon]

There are more forms of being evil than just doing evil acts all the time. You can have a chracter who respects life a lot, but still kills people. In this sense, they are someone who things there are more important things than their own personal feelings.

Redcloak thinks a bit like a good person, but is far too ruthless to be one. Added to his bigotry, he's Evil.

that is what people need to remember: not all evil people actually LIKE what they do. redcloak, in Champions of Ruin terms (FR sourcebook) sees himself as Driven to Evil.

Except Redcloak doesn't like the idea of having hobgoblin slaves. Evil characters love having power over others - definition of evil. Evil PCs and NPCs don't mind having slaves of their OWN race. Redcloak's behavior is fairly Lawful Neutral - and I've been DMing for 25 years. I know LN when I see it.

[BisectedBrioche]

Mathmatically that might make sense.
But that sounds more like the logic of a Lawful Neutral.

O-Chu isn't Miko, in fact, he appears to be the foil to Miko. Then again, when she was first introduced Miko said "praise breeds ego" and clearly was wary of hubris.
Something happened that CAUSED her to take a turn for the worst. To the point where she'd jump to conclusion, kill her master on charges without trial, and refuse to admit she made a mistake in doing so.

Maybe the "praise breeds ego" thing was just something she picked up without really understanding. Ironically this would mean that the statement was only said by her to re-enforce her ego.

[hamishspence]

Lawful Neutral outlook + lots of atrocities = Lawful Evil. Redcloak's an Evil guy with a lot of potential for Good in him that hasn't been realised. Acts are very important to alignment, although not the whole thing.

A good rule to remember is that not all Evil characters are malicious all the time. Champions of Ruin, a D&D sourcebook, gave us various variants of evil.

At best he was LN at start of darkness, as a cleric of a possibly LE deity. If Dark one is NE that rules LN possibility out, requiring him to be NE or LE.

After putting on the Crimson mantle, its likely his Good streak started decreasing.

[JonahFalcon]

Lawful Neutral outlook + lots of atrocities = Lawful Evil. Redcloak's an Evil guy with a lot of potential for Good in him that hasn't been realised. Acts are very important to alignment, although not the whole thing.

A good rule to remember is that not all Evil characters are malicious all the time. Champions of Ruin, a D&D sourcebook, gave us various variants of evil.

At best he was LN at start of darkness, as a cleric of a possibly LE deity. If Dark one is NE that rules LN possibility out, requiring him to be NE or LE.

After putting on the Crimson mantle, its likely his Good streak started decreasing.

NO. Absolutely NOT. "Atrocities" has nothing to do with it. A LN character will USE ANY MEANS to preserve the law. He will do morally despicable things if that's what it takes.

For example, while the others are having their evil fun with O-Chul, Redcloak's only desire is to get the info out of him. That's it.

If Redcloak were evil, he'd have killed the hostages, to

1. show he means business
2. intimidate the slaves
3. it's evil

Redcloak SPARES the hostages, expressing shock and surprise that the paladin doesn't seems to care for the helpless.

Look at the AD&D definition of evil - through it all, the main def is that THE STRONG BULLY THE WEAK.

Being lawful evil with good tendencies? Sounds Neutral to me, by your OWN definition.

However, trust me, this is LN behavior. Roy consorts with Belkar who is evil. Does that make him evil? No. Furthermore, if you recall, intentions are everything. If Redcloak believes in helping slaves, his kind and others (remember the hobgoblins?), he's showing extreme Neutral tendencies, minimum.

Being on the Evil side doesn't make him evil. He has shown, once again, throughout the ENTIRE STORY a desire for stability and law and order - but not via evil means - by any means necessary.

Again, I've DM'ed for over 2 decades. I know LN when I see it.

[hamishspence]

Intentions are important, but they aren't everything, otherwise any Machiavellian tyrant would be Neutral. Consorting is not the same as commiting the acts (and Roy was called on it in earlier strips, and only got out of it by pointing out he was reining Belkar in)

"some of the most evil things in history have been done by people acting with the best of intentions" Jurassic Park 3

willingly commiting multiple atrocities defaults to evil, not matter what the reasons. A potential for good does not make him good, or even neutral, if its never realised. Redcloak has some nice traits, but his obsession drowns them out. Evil.

Dig around in various supplements and you will probably find must corroboration. Elric is cited in Vile Darkness as having compassion and love, but his evil methods make him Evil.

[JonahFalcon]

Intentions are important, but they aren't everything, otherwise any Machiavellian tyrant would be Neutral. Consorting is not the same as commiting the acts (and Roy was called on it in earlier strips, and only got out of it by pointing out he was reining Belkar in)

"some of the most evil things in history have been done by people acting with the best of intentions" Jurassic Park 3

willingly commiting multiple atrocities defaults to evil, not matter what the reasons. A potential for good does not make him good, or even neutral, itf its never realised. Redcloak has some nice traits, but his obsession drowns them out. Evil.

Well, Redcloak's intentions AND ACTIONS are all LN. He has consistantly shown he is Lawful while using Good and Evil means - and Neutral. He's almost the epitomy of a LN working in an Evil group.

[hamishspence]

Compare his Evil Deeds list to Good deeds list. BIG difference. one good deed does not a good character make. A red Dragon on FRCS sometimes rescues people on a whim. still Evil.

[JonahFalcon]

Compare his Evil Deeds list to Good deeds list. BIG difference. one good deed does not a good character make. A red Dragon on FRCS sometimes rescues people on a whim. still Evil.

What part of "using any means necessary" do you not understand?

[hamishspence]

when Any Means Necessary consists of a great deal of evil and very little Good, we usually call that an Evil character.

even LN chracters are supposed to have limits: a chracter who is neutral with respect to good and evil has "compunctions against killing the innocent"

LN means you are "reliable and honorable without being a zealot"

quotes from PHB.

[hamishspence]

"You are free to use any methods necessary, but I want them ALIVE"
Darth Vader

Boba Fett is cited in Complete Scoundrel as a LE chracter. Never truly malicious in novels, comics, films, but his ruthless, mercenary behaviour and personal code of honour define him as LE pretty well.

Same principle applies to Redcloak, except sometimes he can be somewhat malicious, depending on circumstances.

[Shatteredtower]

A LN character will USE ANY MEANS to preserve the law.Only if alignment is used as a straitjacket. Otherwise, it's just one option a lawful neutral character may take.


If Redcloak were evil, he'd have killed the hostages...Or not. Again, alignment is not a straitjacket.

Remember, Redcloak has maliciously sacrificed a number of minions for reasons that were completely unnecessary. That's evil. He's a racist, and that's also evil -- even if the other races did start it first.


Redcloak SPARES the hostages, expressing shock and surprise that the paladin doesn't seems to care for the helpless.Because he can't handle the idea that O-Chul isn't acting the way he expects the paladin to be required to act. That makes his comment about the twirling mustache all the more ironic, because he expects O-Chul to play the square-jawed Mountie.

And Redcloak spared the hostage in an (unsuccessful) attempt to spite the paladin. That's not good; it's just petty.


Look at the AD&D definition of evil - through it all, the main def is that THE STRONG BULLY THE WEAK.Actually, it's more like, "It is right to take what you can get," and, "It is foolish to fight on anyone's terms but your own."

But again, these guidelines are not meant to straitjacket any creature's specific behaviour.


Furthermore, if you recall, intentions are everything.Miko's fall proves otherwise.


If Redcloak believes in helping slaves, his kind and others (remember the hobgoblins?), he's showing extreme Neutral tendencies, minimum.Redcloak has never helped a human slave. Sparing their lives out of spite is not a helpful act.


He has shown, once again, throughout the ENTIRE STORY a desire for stability and law and order - but not via evil means - by any means necessary.Redcloak is willing to sacrifice all of creation -- every life, soul, and entity -- for a slim chance of a better life for all goblinkind. In pursuit of this goal, he's allied himself to a sorcerer with no concern for how many goblins he kills (often with complete indifference) in the course of their mission. Not only does he seldom raise complaint against such behaviour, he's also put the sorcerer's welfare ahead of that of his own people.

This is more thoroughly demonstrated in Start of Darkness, but such displays are not limited to that text.


Again, I've DM'ed for over 2 decades. I know LN when I see it.Well, no, it seems you don't, because you're not treating it as a guideline. Redcloak isn't limiting himself to necessary evils in pursuit of law; he's attempting to justify the evil he does as necessary means by which to achieve justice. As such, he's evil.

And he loves his mother.

[Porthos]

I agree with everything Shatteredtower said. :smallsmile:

But to add a bit, someone who commits hundreds of evil acts, but occasionally Pets the Dog (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PetTheDog), doesn't suddenly shift alignment. Just as someone who is massively good, and then suddenly curses out a barmaid doesn't suddenly shift to Neutral.

Belkar is Chaotic Evil.
Thog is Chaotic Evil.
Redcloak is Lawful Evil.
Haley is Chaotic Good. Barely. :smallwink:

Yes you can find isolated examples when taken out of context that will show that these characters don't always act like the sterotypical example of their alignment. But that just proves that they're well rounded 3D characters and not One Trick Ponies.

Okay, Belkar might be a One Trick Pony, but I stand by my comment on the rest. :smalltongue:

I'm going to say something radcial here. When it comes to alignment both intent and actions matter. As for which matters more, well it depends. In the case of Redcloak, he constantly uses Evil means to accomplish what he thinks is a Good goal. Whether it's actually Good for the Goblin Race to be rules by Xykon/Redcloak/The Dark One/<Insert Random Ruler Of Your Choice HERE> is a matter of debate.

Yes, Redcloak feels conflicted over what he feels he has to do. And, yes, Redcloak will occasionally step back from the brink of Cartoon Villnay. But he's still evil. By actions and intents.

PS: "By Any Means Necessary" is a hallmark of a Neutral Evil, not a pure Neutral one. And since Redcloak is exceedingly Lawful, that means he is Lawful Evil. Albeit one with the potential to shift to LN one day. But that's all it is: potential.

PPS: I would think that one would agree that Roy, Miko and Durkon all had radically different temperments, reactions to situations, and outlooks on life. Yet they were all LG. So if different LG people can react to the same situation differently, why can't different LE people? :smallsmile:

[Alex Warlorn]

I thought Thog was True Neutral or Chaotic Neutral, since he basically has the mind of a child.

[SPoD]

The irony here is that Redcloak himself is frustrated with O-Chul because he himself expects alignment to be a straitjacket. He expects to be able to manipulate O-Chul because he thinks he understands that all Lawful Good people must always give in to save lives. And then, moments later, demonstrates that no, alignment ISN'T a straitjacket, because if it were, he would be forced by his Lawful Evil alignment to kill the hostages anyway.

Good doesn't always need to save lives, Evil doesn't always need to take them. But Redcloak has never taken a Good action that wasn't solely in support of his own race* (and has taken many Evil actions toward them). So if the world were populated only by goblins, Redcloak would be Neutral. It is not, so the weight of his Evil actions toward every other race makes him Evil.

* Not killing someone you are holding as a slave is not a Good action. It is merely the absence of an Evil action, and nowhere does it say that an Evil character must commit every Evil act that is possible at any given point in time in order to stay Evil. A Good action would be to free them and let them leave the city.

[Porthos]

I thought Thog was True Neutral or Chaotic Neutral, since he basically has the mind of a child.

Someone who has enjoyed committing mass murder (well over 400 people at this point) and knows he is committing evil deeds, is evil. Especially if they don't have hundreds of saintly deeds to counterbalance them. And we've already seen that children can have a LG alignment, so that argument is chucked out as well. Sure he doesn't go Bwahahahaha and twirl a mustache like a cliched villain. But that's not required for the Evil alignment (no matter what some people might tell you). Thog enjoys wanton carnage and destruction because it makes him feel good. And that's all you need to know to peg him at CE.

Thog is the perfect embodiment of the Psychopathic Manchild (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/PsychopathicManchild), emphasis on the Psychopathic and with a subversion of Dumb is Good (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DumbIsGood) thrown in for good measure.

But, please, let's not start this debate again. It's almost as bad as the "Belkar is CN arguments". :smallwink:

ETA::: Please don't confuse the concepts of Mean Spirited or Hate Filled Personalities and Evil. :smallsmile: They may mix and match in many characters, but they ain't prerequisites for being Evil. There has been many an Evil person that were filled with happiness and cheer. Probably because they enjoyed their work, or something like that.

If you want a classic example look no further than Bangladesh Dupree of Girl Genius (http://girlgeniusonline.com/index.php). Psychotic as a wolverine on LSD, but she's a happy psychotic as a wolverine on LSD character. :smallwink:

[Paragon Badger]

Redcloak's logic is sharp and not neccesarily out-of-place.... but it just so happens to be wrong. :smalltongue:

[Remirach]

Getting back to the OP for a sec...


Of course O-Chul would be willing to sacrifice a handful of people to save the entire world from the wrath of the Snarl. He would not talk even if it was to save the entire city from being thrown off the tower, since he took a blood oath and it is for the greater good.

Redcloak should've realized that.
This comic really doesn't prove that, though. Redcloak tells O-Chul he isn't intentionally trying to unleash Armageddon through the Snarl, and while O-Chul's belief in this (or lack thereof) isn't clearly stated, it can be noted that RC is also pretty straight with him about his other plans (e.g. no, even if you tell me what I want to know you'll be killed, thanks for asking) and as they have "spent time together" O-Chul could possibly be aware that Redcloak is Lawful and thus unlikely to lie. (RC even somewhat alludes to a shared Lawful alignment between the two of them with his "schedule in ink.") O-Chul wasn't shown to be "willing" to sacrifice the souls of the prisoners, he doesn't HAVE the info Redcloak wants (which is verified elsewhere in other strips), and he doesn't say anything to the effect of "I wouldn't tell you even if I knew." He just reiterates, over and over, that he knows nothing and "his words cannot save them."

[JessmanCA]

Getting back to the OP for a sec...


This comic really doesn't prove that, though. Redcloak tells O-Chul he isn't intentionally trying to unleash Armageddon through the Snarl, and while O-Chul's belief in this (or lack thereof) isn't clearly stated, it can be noted that RC is also pretty straight with him about his other plans (e.g. no, even if you tell me what I want to know you'll be killed, thanks for asking) and as they have "spent time together" O-Chul could possibly be aware that Redcloak is Lawful and thus unlikely to lie. (RC even somewhat alludes to a shared Lawful alignment between the two of them with his "schedule in ink.") O-Chul wasn't shown to be "willing" to sacrifice the souls of the prisoners, he doesn't HAVE the info Redcloak wants (which is verified elsewhere in other strips), and he doesn't say anything to the effect of "I wouldn't tell you even if I knew." He just reiterates, over and over, that he knows nothing and "his words cannot save them."

That could easily be a clever alibi by O-Chul to safeguard his info. These are the scenarios:

O-Chul has the info and refuses to tell Redcloak - Prisoners die and he is subject to further torture.
O-Chul has the info and tells Redcloak - He dies, snarl is potentially unleashed killing thousands.
O-Chul doesn't have the info but acts like he does and tells the false info - He dies, prisoners live. (He tried this but failed a bluff check)
O-Chul doesn't have the info and doesn't claim to have it - Further torture, Prisoners may or may not die.
O-Chul has the info and claims to not have it - Further torture, Prisoners may or may not die.

The only thing I can see is that since his bluff check failed when he tried to tell the false info, his bluff check for safeguarding his knowledge of the true info would probably also fail. Thus he probably does not have the info.

However, if he DID have the info, Redcloak's logic would still be flawed because O-Chul sticking to his story (of not having the info) would be the best outcome for him.

Thus Redcloak's logic is flawed:

If O-Chul claims to not have info but really has it, he will not give it up for a handful of people.

If O-Chul does not have the info this is all a waste of time.

Does that make more sense than my original post?