Hypothesis: Redcloak is not evil

[Wordweaver]

It is quite possible that Redcloak is not evil. I suggest looking at the following evidence:

1. His overarching aim is the betterment of the goblinoid races. This is as altruistic as it gets.
2. He even steps aside from that quest to help individuals, like his brother during the attack on their camp just after he had donned the red cloak.
3. He feels deep regret over the deaths of fellow goblinoids (though he does sometimes happily send them to their deaths as well - but then again, he might just have had a "bad day").
4. He concentrates his killing on humans and opponents of the goblinoid races.

Compare to others:
1. Paladins are allowed to kill any number of non-humans, apparently, who attack them. Even preventative strikes are not out of the question.
2. Roy, who is arguably Good, allows his fellow order members to fall into the hands of bandits, though he rescues them afterwards (this is one such mentioned bad day).

I would like to write more, but I'm feeling more than slightly unwell, so I'll stop here and leave this open to discussion...

[Falconer]

Unfortunately, for all his awesome, my friend, Redcloack is indeed evil, and even he acknowledges this.

He's a well-intentioned extremist, true, and his ultimate goals are arguably good, but he is without a doubt "evil".

[Draco Dracul]

It is quite possible that Redcloak is not evil. I suggest looking at the following evidence:

1. His overarching aim is the betterment of the goblinoid races. This is as altruistic as it gets.
2. He even steps aside from that quest to help individuals, like his brother during the attack on their camp just after he had donned the red cloak.
3. He feels deep regret over the deaths of fellow goblinoids (though he does sometimes happily send them to their deaths as well - but then again, he might just have had a "bad day").
4. He concentrates his killing on humans and opponents of the goblinoid races.

Compare to others:
1. Paladins are allowed to kill any number of non-humans, apparently, who attack them. Even preventative strikes are not out of the question.
2. Roy, who is arguably Good, allows his fellow order members to fall into the hands of bandits, though he rescues them afterwards (this is one such mentioned bad day).

I would like to write more, but I'm feeling more than slightly unwell, so I'll stop here and leave this open to discussion...

By your reasoning anyone acting to futher there people wellbeing, no matter the atrosities they impose on other races and people, one notable example comes to mind however I will not be the one to invoke that perticular law of the internet.

[ArmorArmadillo]

Start of Darkness
Redcloak turned Xykon into a lich, enabling his further evil.
He killed his own brother rather than admit his mistakes.
He deals with a dark god to try and tamper with the seal on a god-killing abomination.

He tortures O-Chul, he is willing to murder humans to motivate him.
He doesn't focus his attacks on "enemies of goblins," he just deems all humans enemies of goblins.



Your entire argument is based on the fact that caring about people makes you good...it doesn't. Redcloak cares about people he likes...his family, his race, his allies.

You can be evil and still have family connections and friends, see the Giant's writing on the subject.

[Heliomance]

I rather think that Godwin's Law is invoked by even indirect reference. This thread is now over. Move along, nothing to see here.

[NikkTheTrick]

SoD:
Xykon put it nicely: evil for a good cause.
While Redcloak's goal is good, there is no evil act he will not commit to reach it.

[Morty]

That, and Miko's and Soon's Smite Evil attacks works on him, which makes it even more obvious that he's Evil.

[Palthera]

Not to mention, purely from a games mechanic point of view, he has to prepare healing spells - he can't spontaneously convert them like a good cleric(and I believe neutral clerics can spontaneously convert too).

[slayerx]

1. His overarching aim is the betterment of the goblinoid races. This is as altruistic as it gets.
3. He feels deep regret over the deaths of fellow goblinoids (though he does sometimes happily send them to their deaths as well - but then again, he might just have had a "bad day").
4. He concentrates his killing on humans and opponents of the goblinoid races.

1. "the road to hell is paved with good intentions"... really could just invoke godwin's law in response to that...
3. no one ever said that Goblins can't love... Redcloak's loyalty to his peolpe is one of the things that make him Lawful Evil, instead of neutral or chaotic
4. Redcloak hates ALL humans, even ones who have done nothing to the goblins, like he said, he is a "species-ist"... take Tsukiko for example, she wanted to join team evil and be on his side, but he chose to shune her and try to kill her


Compare to others:
1. Paladins are allowed to kill any number of non-humans, apparently, who attack them. Even preventative strikes are not out of the question.
2. Roy, who is arguably Good, allows his fellow order members to fall into the hands of bandits, though he rescues them afterwards (this is one such mentioned bad day).

1) According to the gods, goblins are considered "evil" and as such it is not considered an evil act to kill them... Just because Redcloak sees the humans the same way does not mean he is correct in terms of "good" and "evil" in the DnD world; For example, Miko BELIEVED whol heartily that Shojo was evil but that did not stop the gods from smacking her down
2) that is but ONE act... a single act will not change a character's alignment unless its an extreme act without anykind of regret/redemption; the fact that Roy went back and saved them was pretty much his redemption for the act

[Eric]

Pol Pot wasn't evil because he liked puppies.

Vlad the impaler wasn't evil because he often worried about his mum.

Sheesh. Evil isn't all "Ming the Merciless" sort of evil, in the same way as all Good isn't "Flash Gordon" sort of good.

[Bavarian itP]

Hypothesis Fact: Redcloak is the new Miko

[King of Nowhere]

That Redcloak is evil in game mechanics is beyond doubt, but that he's evil in the sense of "bad person" is open to interpretation.
Also, we must remember that Redcloak is maybe the character with more development in the whole comic, and he passed through many attitudes, some of which were definitely evil.
Well-intentioned extremist is the most suitable way to define him.
I personally don't consider him a bad person since strip 451 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0451.html). Because at this time his faults came from believing things that are not true (that humans are bad people and deserve any punisment; that good people is exctly as bad as evil people, just more hypocrite; that the Plan is the only way to improve the goblinoids). Under that assumptions his actions were reasonable, and he was led to believe that things by the behaviour of paladins acting bad, and by the inexcusable behaviour of the "good" gods.
I'd be willing to consider Redcloak a bad person if I see him doing something he knows to be wrong. While he keeps doing wrong things considering them right, and having good reasons to consider them right, I can't fully condemn him.

[Gensuru]

Hypothesis: you´d even believe Terrorist to be "not evil". After all they also claim to murder people for the sake of their own people and claim that they aim to improve the life-quality of their own people.

Honestly as far as those arguments go i´d still not be evil even if i gathered a group of people around me that meant everything to me and started murdering anyone else for the sake of ensuring the safety of my loved ones. Any method would be fine as long as my loved ones and my long term target is protected by it. My reasoning might as well be "Any other species will try to attack mine sooner or later so i have to either enslave them forever or erase them all." and i´d still fulfill all those arguments of yours that "prove" that RC is not evil. "This child will inevitably grow into a potential fighter against my people...it has to be killed."

[Jayngfet]

By your reasoning anyone acting to futher there people wellbeing, no matter the atrosities they impose on other races and people, one notable example comes to mind however I will not be the one to invoke that perticular law of the internet.

Damn you Godwin!

[Spiryt]

That Redcloak is evil in game mechanics is beyond doubt, but that he's evil in the sense of "bad person" is open to interpretation.


He tortures people. He raises te war. He sacrifices minions. He's doing many other horrible things.
What else he needs to be "bad person".

OotS is about D&D. But it's not a GAME. Giant have showed us many times that he have no interest in standard, simple "good paladins and elfs, bad greens" D&D . Redcloak isn't evil in some "game mechanic" way, he's just evil.

Redcloak is very good writen and interesting character, of course, but still evil character.

[BRC]

Is Redcloak evil? Yes, but you must remember that this is a world that tries to take the endless span of morality and motivations and stuff them all into one of nine boxes. This wouldn't be so bad, except that one-third of those boxes give the death penalty to anybody in them. In DnD you can kill three people at random and, statistically, one of them deserved it.

[Chronos]

This wouldn't be so bad, except that one-third of those boxes give the death penalty to anybody in them. In DnD you can kill three people at random and, statistically, one of them deserved it.First of all, nowhere is it stated that 1 in 3 people is evil. Second, neither is it stated that all evil people deserve death. The school bully who beats up the other kids for lunch money is probably evil (in our world or D&D's), but he probably doesn't deserve death in either world.

And there is no possible interpretation of good or evil under which Redcloak isn't evil. Citing how he treated his brother should be the last argument anyone would make for proof of his supposed goodness. Or did you skip over the last few pages of Start of Darkness?

[BRC]

First of all, nowhere is it stated that 1 in 3 people is evil. Second, neither is it stated that all evil people deserve death. The school bully who beats up the other kids for lunch money is probably evil (in our world or D&D's), but he probably doesn't deserve death in either world.

And there is no possible interpretation of good or evil under which Redcloak isn't evil. Citing how he treated his brother should be the last argument anyone would make for proof of his supposed goodness. Or did you skip over the last few pages of Start of Darkness?

Point 1: I oversimplify things in order to distort them for my amusment, live with it.
Point 2: Oh, RC is definetally evil, he might not have started that way, but he definetally is. I was moreso jabbing at the alignment system itself. RC is very evil indeed, sure his original motivations wern't that bad, but the road to hell and all that.

[Mococa]

He tortures people. He raises te war. He sacrifices minions. He's doing many other horrible things.
What else he needs to be "bad person".


Well, I really don't think that alone could turn a person into an evil one, neither in game mechanics nor in real life.

Okay, maybe that would make them evil but, hey... Don't think everyone would condemn a paladin for torturing a prisioner who he knows, know something capable of changing tides to the the "greater good" side.

Raise war, also, could be included in the "attack before being attacked" thing. I can see a hero doing that: An evil kingdom (or power) keeps growing stronger and everyone knows that, if nothing is done quickly, would result in everyones damnation(wait -- SoD does have something like that, huh?). Oh, and for revenge seems to be a valid motive too: Wasn't the beginning of the comic about a blood oath too? And sacrificing minions... Well, I don't think most of the good aligned kings, or generals, or strategists of some kind completely ignore the fact that putting a person in the front line is almost certain death to them.

So doing it all for a good cause wouldn't look so bad if the person doing it wore more shiny clothes and was not one of the "usually evil" races.

After all of that beeing said, just want to say I would not put him in the good alignment. Think the best suited alignment on in-game mechanics for him would be evil, because we're looking through the prism of the pre-defined good aligned ones.

But hey, in real life, we know that the ones who decide what is good and bad through times are the ones who decides who pay the greater price (Think I saw that in a manga). I think that the most evilness evidence in Redcloak actions in real life would be that bad bad thing he did in SoD.

[Superglucose]

I would say that evidence is fairly strong that Redcloak wasn't BORN evil but became evil after the way he saw the world.

[FujinAkari]

Don't think everyone would condemn a paladin for torturing a prisioner who he knows, know something capable of changing tides to the the "greater good" side.

Torture, by definition, is an evil act. A Paladin automatically falls for doing it. Just use Zone of Truth ya sadist!

[Estelindis]

Don't think everyone would condemn a paladin for torturing a prisioner who he knows, know something capable of changing tides to the the "greater good" side.
I would. Torture - that is to say, the systematic infliction of agony on another person for one's own ends - is evil. Claiming otherwise isn't just the beginning of the classic "slippery slope" - it's somewhat far down along it. :smalleek:

[Corwin Weber]

I would. Torture - that is to say, inflicting systematic agony on another person for one's own ends - is evil. Claiming otherwise isn't just the beginning of the classic "slippery slope" - it's somewhat far down along it. :smalleek:

It would be a lot less of a grey area if torture actually worked as a means of extracting reliable information. What most people (even today) who try to justify torture fail to realize is that it doesn't.

It's a great way to get a false confession out of somebody. It's a lousy way to get reliable information. This has been recognized for a long time.

[Kurald Galain]

While Redcloak's goal is good, there is no evil act he will not commit to reach it.

And that, in a nutshell, is the definition of "evil".

I second the Dante quote above, that the road to hell yadda yadda yadda.

[Callista]

People like their villains to be so evil that they can't possibly think they themselves might ever do anything like this... When the villain is understandable and has redeeming aspects, when you identify with him, it gets uncomfortable to say he is evil because he shows that somebody very much like you could do very horrible things. The only difference is the choices you make.

Understandable, even sympathetic evil... is still evil. Though there's more chance for redemption there than in those who don't have any humanity left--like Xykon.

[Renegade Paladin]

It is quite possible that Redcloak is not evil.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/RenegadePaladin/incorrect4dr.jpg

[Kish]

Well, I really don't think that alone could turn a person into an evil one, neither in game mechanics nor in real life.

Okay, maybe that would make them evil but, hey... Don't think everyone would condemn a paladin for torturing a prisioner who he knows, know something capable of changing tides to the the "greater good" side.
Of course not everyone would. Only--bluntly put--everyone who is worth listening to on moral issues. I've seen people flatly deny that torture is an evil act. Did that mean torture is not an evil act? No, it meant I knew everything I needed to know about those people.

[Zorn]

Hypothesis: you´d even believe Terrorist to be "not evil". After all they also claim to murder people for the sake of their own people and claim that they aim to improve the life-quality of their own people.

I'd believe it. I have trouble considering anyone evil. Terrorists, or anyone committing a morally questionable act for that matter, aren't necessarily evil. Horribly misguided perhaps, but not evil. Acts can be evil, and a person can be inclined to performing said evil acts, but that doesn't make the person evil. Obviously I'm not attempting to justify anything a terrorist does. Just be aware that we cannot be objective enough to really condemn anyone.

That said, in DnD actions do define the person. Redcloak has certainly performed his share of evil actions and, good as his intentions might be, very few that we might consider good. Inaction is really the farthest he gets from not being evil, and that's neutral at best. Besides, goblins are automatically classified as evil. Redcloak automatically gets labeled as evil because of it.

[Estelindis]

Of course not everyone would. Only--bluntly put--everyone who is worth listening to on moral issues. I've seen people flatly deny that torture is an evil act. Did that mean torture is not an evil act? No, it meant I knew everything I needed to know about those people.
QFT! Very well said. *And* you have a Cordelia Vorkosigan quote in your sig. How great can one person be? :smallbiggrin:

[Pronounceable]

He wouldn't be evil if he didn't live in a universe of objective morality.

He's a nice guy (at least if you're goblinoid). In real world, he'd be a racist, genocidal war criminal. But still he'd be a guy you'd like to have a chat now and again, generally hang around and maybe have a drink or two with (if his reputation didn't repel you). Good=!Nice

[Remirach]

Redcloak is interesting to me in that his whole character does seem to be predicated on the alignment system -- he does evil because he is Evil, but maybe he wouldn't be evil if he hadn't already be pre-classified as Evil and thus fair game for the Good guys. In Start of Darkness, I was very struck by how the goblins immediately perceived Xykon as a potential ally solely because "he's obviously totally evil." It worked, for me, but it wouldn't have seemed natural in any other fiction story EXCEPT one in which the goblins would already know they were Evil, and would be affected by that, before they had really even done anything evil. That makes Evil seem more like a SIDE than a meaningful descriptor of intent. Throw in the behavior of the Sapphire Guard and a few other examples of "Good" characters who don't care a whit what real good is, and you wind up with a character whose views on Good and Evil are so warped that he'd state that "that whole Good thing is just a pyramid scheme anyway."

He's definitely Evil in an alignment sense. In a world without objective alignment, you might still call him evil, but in a world without objective alignment I don't think he could ever have turned into the same character. His character lambasts the alignment system but it wouldn't have been the same story without it.

[factotum]

In Start of Darkness, I was very struck by how the goblins immediately perceived Xykon as a potential ally solely because "he's obviously totally evil." It worked, for me, but it wouldn't have seemed natural in any other fiction story EXCEPT one in which the goblins would already know they were Evil, and would be affected by that, before they had really even done anything evil.

No, I think it would have worked in any situation. Consider what the goblins are attempting to do here: even if you put the best possible spin on it, Xykon has to be actively working against his entire species (at least prior to becoming a lich, anyway) and also participating in a plan that has the potential to destroy the entire world. You really see someone Good doing either?

[Remirach]

No, I think it would have worked in any situation. Consider what the goblins are attempting to do here: even if you put the best possible spin on it, Xykon has to be actively working against his entire species (at least prior to becoming a lich, anyway) and also participating in a plan that has the potential to destroy the entire world. You really see someone Good doing either?

It's more a matter of, why think just any random person who enjoys a slaughter is your natural ally? It wasn't his 'disloyalty' to the human race that was the attraction, it was the fact that he was evil in a really demonstrable, kill-those-who-beg-for-mercy kind of way. I cannot see a similar scene happening elsewhere because except for the alignment issue what would Right-Eye and Xykon have in common at all? (Or for that matter Redcloak and Xykon, but Right-Eye was the one with the bright idea.)

[King of Nowhere]

Looks like I need to explain myself better.

I think there's no objective good and evil. I think sometimes is clear what is good and what is evil, but sometimes the distinction is not clear. I think no one can tell for sure what is good in a determinate situation, unless it is a very obvious one.
Therefore I think the only thing a person can do is try to figure out what is good, and do it. We can't do The Right Thing, we can just try to do what we think is the right thing. Sometimes it's not clear, so we may fail. But we can't really be sure to succeed, we can just try.
So, I think trying is enough to be good. I consider good a person that is trying to do the right thing, no matter if he succeed or fail.

That don't means that I agree with them. I think many terrorists are good, because they're doing what they think is good even at great personal loss (some of them may just be bastards who don't care and look for the 72 virgins, but there are surely some who believe they're right). That don't means that I'm not for stopping them. I'm the first to say that terrorist must be stopped to prevent them from killing people, even by shooting them at sight.
Yet I don't hate them. I'm rather sorry for them, who could have been good people if they didn't mistook. They could have been normal people if only they had the chance to go to school in their childhood, or if they had some source of information other than fanatic's propaganda. Again, I'd shoot at them personally to prevent them to do what they think is the right thing, yet I can consider them good.

Now, Redcloak is persuaded that his path is right. He believes that humans deserves what he's doing to them, and that it's necessary to do it.
He don't believe it because he's stupid, he believe it because some "paladins" destroied his village and his whole family.
I don't agree with what he's doing. Yet I see he's trying to do the right thing, so I don't consider him a bad person.
If I were, like, a king in OOTSverse, with my actual knowledge, I'd try to talk him out of the Plan. I'd offer him my help in building peacefully a goblin civilization. I'd maybe donate him some unsettled land to build that civilization, talk in his favour to other countries, and such. If he still refuses to give up the Plan, I'd fight him for the safety of the universe. I'd be sad to fight him, but I'd do it anyway.

By the way, about the whole "end don't justify the means" thing:
Hinjo sacrificed innocents for a good cause, which is defend the gate. Even in case of winning, thousands of soldiers, most of whom good aligned, would have died. So if end don't justify the means he should have just shattered the gate, so Xykon and Redcloak would have no more interest in sending their army against the city. He knew it, yet he preferred to sacrifice innocents, and I don't think anyone here is blaming him for this.
When Roy adventured through the Dungeon of Dorukan, he caused the death of all the goblins in here, and we have SoD evidence that they were more good aligned than the average goblins: The tribe of Right-Eye wanted to settle and grow peacefully; Xykon came and forced them to became his minions, threatening the life of their families.
So he killed innocents, and not even for a good cause but for vengeance (killing Xykon is actually a good cause, but Roy took it for the wrong reasons). No one said he was wrong.
And when the Sapphire guard fought his crusades, even admitting all goblins were evil (which is not true), many good paladins fell, thus it was a sacrifice of innocents for a good cause.
Now, how many goblins die every year by the hand of adventurers? tens of thousands? Hundreds of thousands?
If Redcloak is evil for sacrificing lives to stop that genocide, then Hinjo and Roy are evil. And even the countries who fought Hitler were evil, they could have just surrender to prevent bloodshed.
If I apply the "ends never justify the means" principle I end up concluding that causing indirectly the death of people is ok as long as you can keep your hands clean.
I prefer thinking that sometimes, in desperate cases, ends can justify the means. I think the goblins are one of those cases.

[Mauve Shirt]

When is Roy supposed to get all of this goblin backstory? He can't buy SoD. All he knows, all anyone in this universe knows, is goblins = evil. That's why adventurers and paladins can slaughter them mercilessly.

[Kish]

When is Roy supposed to get all of this goblin backstory? He can't buy SoD.

Probably not--though apparently the Oracle can--but he can read the Monster Manual.

And if you've read OtOoPCs, you know Roy rejected the idea of killing orcs for being orcs.

[Hokum]

People like their villains to be so evil that they can't possibly think they themselves might ever do anything like this... When the villain is understandable and has redeeming aspects, when you identify with him, it gets uncomfortable to say he is evil because he shows that somebody very much like you could do very horrible things. The only difference is the choices you make.





Redcloak is interesting to me in that his whole character does seem to be predicated on the alignment system -- he does evil because he is Evil, but maybe he wouldn't be evil if he hadn't already be pre-classified as Evil and thus fair game for the Good guys.
[...]
He's definitely Evil in an alignment sense. In a world without objective alignment, you might still call him evil, but in a world without objective alignment I don't think he could ever have turned into the same character. His character lambasts the alignment system but it wouldn't have been the same story without it.


Very, very good observations.


Redcloak doesn't enjoy doing morally questionable acts or sacrificing innocents and minions. He has a sense of honor, and in his situation, many would probably do the same as he did. this is why we still can sympathize with him, and have the feeling that he may be Evil, but not bad.

his association with xykon is dubious, but hey, it's good to have him in the strip