Redcloak: Tragic Hero or True Villain [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Remirach

2008-05-30, 09:56 PM

Yeah, as the posters above have noted, he's basically both -- a tragic villain. I see him as the Well Intentioned Extremist (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WellIntentionedExtremist) who has long since jumped off the slippery slope (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/JumpingOffTheSlipperySlope). BIG time, as even he realizes how far he's fallen.

He possesses the traits necessary to seek out redemption, but he has his own weaknesses which block him from doing the same. As of the current comic, I believe he thinks he can redeem himself by continuing on the course he's chosen, because if he's finally successful in carrying out the Dark One's plan that will make everything he's done to achieve it worth the sacrifice. But there are all kinds of plot twists I could see coming which might shake that up.

I mean, for one, consider what might happen if Xykon found out that RC lied to him about "controlling" the Snarl. (Well, consider what might happen if Xykon found out when Redcloak wasn't within immediate blasting range.) Or if his long-lost niece showed up -- that's a huge potential wildcard.

Jayngfet

2008-05-30, 10:11 PM

Redeemable if the proper buttons are pressed... Very dangerous if they are pressed in the wrong order.

In an old fable you had beware the one sandaled man...

Here a one eyed man could have the same effect.

The problem it that youve got a few hundred buttons, blinking and buzing, with a goblin god pushing them in an entirley different way, so you have to get him away from the dark one, ignore the flashing things, and have some idea of what to do, really anything at this point could set him off i done the right way.

Kato

2008-05-31, 02:51 AM

Hm... I think I miss SoD knowledge, to contribute, but I'll still try.

I'd also say he's the kind of tragic hero, with a small disadvantage. He's born into the wrong race. He's born to be a goblin, so he lives to be one. Which is from our view bad, because goblin and human races are just not compatible. Each fights the other without regrets. RC's goal is to achieve the best possible outcome for his people, which includes a bad end for the humans. He just doesn't give a crap about them, as most humans do about them.
So, I don't think he'll ever be one of the good guys, because there's no sense behind that. But he much likely will turn from Xykon, if he thinks him to be a threat to his goals or the good of the goblins. Still, I don't see any great, peaceful goblin nation coming towards us, because worshiping the Dark One includes fighting humans, doesn't it? Though, I'd like him to start something like that ^^' Don't know if Rich will consider that.

Reed

2008-05-31, 03:17 AM

Yes, 'tragic villain' is a good description of Redcloak (he's definitely no hero).

I don't believe he can be redeemed in the sense that he will ever be able to turn away from his plan and find a more positive way to better live for goblinhood. SoD:
We were explicitely shown that moment where Redcloak swayed and was about to join Right-Eye's peaceful course of life. I think it was symbolic that this was ruined by Xykons reappearence and don't see how that chance can ever come again. Redcloak is far too damaged now.
What I find more likely is that in the end, he will be unable to carry out the Dark One's plan for some reason and turn against Xykon, before the lich gains ever more power. He might die (I'm fairly positive he won't survive) knowing that even though he failed at his quest, he at least helped to eliminate a very grave danger to goblinhood (Xykon). He'll probably not repent though.

Bogardan_Mage

2008-05-31, 05:45 AM

mago

2008-05-31, 07:39 AM

he is indeed redeemable.
true, he is/was to week to seek it out. but i think that will change. how? i dont know. maybe if Xykon goes to far. i think that's the biggest possibility. if he shoves a goblin into the rift. kills his niece. something like that. readcloak is stronger that he was at the end of the SOD.

maputo

2008-05-31, 08:00 AM

Has anyone brought up the fact that the half orc ninja could either be his niece or at least be his niece's daughter? She, with her human loving ways, could be the one to help redeem Redcloak.

Mauve Shirt

2008-05-31, 08:48 AM

Has anyone brought up the fact that the half orc ninja could either be his niece or at least be his niece's daughter? She, with her human loving ways, could be the one to help redeem Redcloak.

How exactly is that supposed to work? Half ORC, not half GOBLIN.
And yes, this was considered a LOT after Therkla's first appearance.

Rebelle

2008-05-31, 09:07 AM

Maputo-

As Mauve Shirt has already said, Therkla is half ORC not half GOBLIN. She said that she was half orc herself, for crying out loud! And we've SEEN the flashback of her parents!

Back on the origianl topic, I think that at the final battle, Haley will somehow become unable to defend herself, and Elan will risk his own life to protect her. RC will see this, think of his own familyand Right-Eye's, and will realise that humans (or whatever Haley is: remember, the 'Elan, it turns out I may not actually be what you call-' might mean that she's not human, and the Giant said himself that Haley hasn't shown her true colours or whatever yet in the commentry of DCF) are actually quite simelar to goblins in a lot of ways. He'll stop the hobgoblins/goblins/whatever he has attacking. Xykon won't be best pleased, and will bring out what's left of RE to show Redcloak just what happenes to people wo diobey him. RC will destroy what's left of RE, and then Xykon gets MAD and begins chasing everyone himself! The Order and RC team up to stop him. Maybe goblins will get fair rights without having to resort to the Snarl after all!

SPoD

2008-05-31, 09:44 AM

I think Redcloak could be partly redeemable in death. As in, he sacrifices himself at the last minute to destroy Xykon. But that will ONLY happen if it is plain to him that Xykon will win in such a way as to put the goblins in a worse final position. For example, if Xykon gets control of the Snarl's portal and is about to release it on the Dark One's plane. I really believe that Redcloak has a death wish as a result of what he did, and that would qualify (in his mind) as making up for it.

And technically, I don't know if that would actually be redemption, so much as responding to a double-cross.

hamishspence

2008-05-31, 12:00 PM

In a sense, the Emperor double-crossed Vader in RotJ: vader wasn't going into the fight with the assumption that the Emperor would have Luke kill him. So, his attack on the emperor could be said to be at least partly motivated by knowledge that the Emperor wanted him dead. Yet Vader is described as redeemed.

Same principle would apply for Redcloak: if Xykon (or the Dark One) betrays him, and because of this he is motivated to wreck the whole Evil Plan at the cost of his own life, that would still be a redemptive act even if it was provoked by a betrayal.

Calinero

2008-05-31, 12:54 PM

I am thinking that there is a term that applies here, it is called Anti Villain. Like an Anti Hero, but with villains...I also like Tragic Villain.

At this point, RC is still redeemable. He hasn't had a true Kick The Dog moment, and definitely not a Rape the Dog moment. In fact, he has handily dodged several of these with his epiphany, and choosing not to throw the humans into the rift. The downside is that I see little possibility of him redeeming himself without dying. It would be too awkward if he lived, really...trying to be friendly with the OotS.

Elan: Hey, RC, what's up?
RC: Um....not much. How's the reconstruction of Azure City going?
Elan: Pretty well....lots of dead bodies to move out of the way, though. People your army killed.
RC: *looks around awkwardly* Right....sorry about that....

As much as I would like him to redeem himself, I don't see it happening any time soon.

Corsair

2008-05-31, 01:37 PM

Redemption does not necessarily = Friendliness with the OotS.

TigerHunter

2008-05-31, 01:49 PM

At this point, RC is still redeemable. He hasn't had a true Kick The Dog moment, and definitely not a Rape the Dog moment. In fact, he has handily dodged several of these with his epiphany, and choosing not to throw the humans into the rift.
You haven't read SoD, I take it. Killing his own brother is definitely a kick/rape the dog moment.

David Argall

2008-05-31, 03:12 PM

I think Redcloak could be partly redeemable in death. As in, he sacrifices himself at the last minute to destroy Xykon.
SoD makes it clear that Redcloak is betraying Xykon from the start, which means absolute obedience to Xykon until a Gate is controlled, at which point Xykon is simply unimportant. So as long as Redcloak believes in his plan, he is not going to destroy Xykon. Instead he is going to do his best to preserve him.

But that will ONLY happen if it is plain to him that Xykon will win in such a way as to put the goblins in a worse final position. For example, if Xykon gets control of the Snarl's portal and is about to release it on the Dark One's plane.
SoD But if our understanding of the Gates is correct, Xykon can't do this. Any redemption by Redcloak has to involve realizing his Plan is a bad one, and on the face of it, that is quite unlikely to happen.

I really believe that Redcloak has a death wish as a result of what he did, and that would qualify (in his mind) as making up for it.

By Redcloak's reasoning, what crimes he has done can only be justified by success, which means obeying Xykon.

Iranon

2008-06-02, 03:00 AM

Redcloak has enough Magnificent Bastard qualities that it's hard to say whether he's a hero or a villain.

Blackmailing the gods and considering the destruction of the physical and spiritual world an acceptable backup plan definitely makes him larger than life. At the same times, his motivations are straightforward and consistent, dead little brother nonwithstanding.

If anything, I expect a last-minute alliance of the protagonists with Xykon to save the world from destruction.

***

How exactly would a 'redemption' of Redcloak work? The goblinoid races really got a rough deal in the Stickiverse; from a certain perspective Redcloak's cause is downright admirable. He had a minor epiphany considering casual villainy, but he seems to know and accept the moral implications of his work.

kpenguin

2008-06-02, 03:38 AM

He's the Tragic Hero is SoD, and a True Villain in the main comic

Manga Shoggoth

2008-06-02, 05:20 AM

From the Goblinoid point of view, Readcloak probably is a redeemed hero. He had his epiphany in #451 Change of Direction (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0451.html) when his life is saved by a hobgoblin.

WHAT THE HELL IS WRONG WITH ME?!? ... Oh my God - I'm turning into XYKON!

(Speech abridged...)

King of Nowhere

2008-06-03, 09:47 AM

Killing his own brother
is definitely a kick/rape the dog moment.

He did it to save the lives of other goblins; in fact, if his brother had failed, then Xykon would have killed a lot of goblins just for repercussion. And if Xykon died, Dorukan would have killed the goblins because they're evil humanoids; or at least that's the perception of humans that Redcloak has.
He had the choice between killing his brother and causing the death of hundreds, and tried to do what was best, at great personal sacrifice. I don't count it as rape the dog moment

I am for the redeemable. Redcloak is having constant developement, from his lowest point where he was killing hobbos to now, he keeps improving. I concur that it's a matter of pushing the right buttons; the hardest point would be convince him that humans aren't that bad. That would convince him that the Plan isn't the only solution for the goblins.
Or forcing him out of the Plan: SoD When Xykon disappeared, he couldn't seek the plan and he went to his brother. In the end he decided to settle there and try to build a goblin civilization peacefully. Only Xykon's arrival spoiled all.
Anyway, it can still happen everything to him, from redemption to becaming really bad.

ArmorArmadillo

2008-06-07, 12:26 AM

It seems like almost everything that Redcloak does gets to fall under the umbrella of "ends justify the means."

The problem with this justification is that it's essentially banking everything off some future goal that he is given no indication is really possible.
The problem with Redcloak isn't just that he's a tragic hero, but that he's a tool. At some point, "always thinking about the greater good" becomes "unable to admit you screwed up."

SoD:
If you actually think about his plan, it's already failed. Is there any reasonable possibility that Xykon will really go along peacefully in creating Goblin Utopia once the two have power over the snarl?

The problem with RC is that he made a critical error in judgement in thinking that he could manipulate Xykon, he was wrong. Now, he's refusing to own up to it, which moves him from tragic hero, to tool.

David Argall

2008-06-07, 02:47 AM

SoD:
If you actually think about his plan, it's already failed. Is there any reasonable possibility that Xykon will really go along peacefully in creating Goblin Utopia once the two have power over the snarl?

The problem with RC is that he made a critical error in judgement in thinking that he could manipulate Xykon, he was wrong. Now, he's refusing to own up to it, which moves him from tragic hero, to tool.

SoD Recheck the scribbles. If the two ever manage to control a Gate, Xykon becomes a trivial problem. The Gate becomes the toy of the Dark One, not of Xykon, and the lich can be disposed of however the god desires, and there is nothing the lich can do about it. [Of course the god may not get around to disposing of him before Xykon kills Redcloak for playing him, but Redcloak considers this an acceptable risk.]
As far as Redcloak is concerned, the problems are getting a gate, not the afterwards.

ArmorArmadillo

2008-06-07, 03:41 AM

SoD Recheck the scribbles. If the two ever manage to control a Gate, Xykon becomes a trivial problem. The Gate becomes the toy of the Dark One, not of Xykon, and the lich can be disposed of however the god desires, and there is nothing the lich can do about it. [Of course the god may not get around to disposing of him before Xykon kills Redcloak for playing him, but Redcloak considers this an acceptable risk.]
As far as Redcloak is concerned, the problems are getting a gate, not the afterwards.
Redcloak is trying to make a goblin civilization...if Xykon found out that Redcloak played him that entire civilization is in danger. Also, the snarl does not become the toy of the Dark One, the Dark One just gets to choose where the rifts open. Using it as a weapon on the material plane is impossible without pretty much destroying the entire plane.
Moreover, Redcloak needs Xykon to go along with the ritual, which Xykon won't do just to give the Dark One power...so far every time Redcloak thought that he knew something Xykon didn't he was wrong.
Redcloak is playing with something that can destroy reality, and he's betting on a losing track record. "End's justify the means" only applies if there's actually a decent chance of achieving the ends.

Revlid

2008-06-07, 06:36 AM

He did it to save the lives of other goblins; in fact, if his brother had failed, then Xykon would have killed a lot of goblins just for repercussion. And if Xykon died, Dorukan would have killed the goblins because they're evil humanoids; or at least that's the perception of humans that Redcloak has.
He had the choice between killing his brother and causing the death of hundreds, and tried to do what was best, at great personal sacrifice. I don't count it as rape the dog moment

But that's the whole point! Redcloak didn't kill his brother to save Goblin lives, he did it to save Xykon's 'life', in order to fulfill The Plan with him. Hell, he wouldn't even accept allowing him to be killed and just getting another Arcane Caster - to remove Xykon at this point would invalidate all the lives, goblin and hob alike, that he's thrown away after his involvement in the plan. In order to validate the 'sacrifices' of those already dead, he'll make 'sacrifices' of those still living. And now that the sacrifices requiring validation include HIS OWN BROTHER BY HIS OWN HAND, you can be damn sure he'll "throw good goblin lives after bad" to convince himself it was all worth it in the end.

So it is "The ends justify the means". But for Redcloak, the means just keep on stacking up. "The ends justify the means, which justify the means, which justify the means". ad infinitum.

I find it frankly astonishing (no insult meant here) that you could have misinterpreted that scene as an act of selflessness, given that the above motivation (far more complex and realistic) is explicitly stated in the book.

Kish

2008-06-07, 08:07 AM

But that's the whole point! Redcloak didn't kill his brother to save Goblin lives, he did it to save Xykon's 'life', in order to fulfill The Plan with him. Hell, he wouldn't even accept allowing him to be killed and just getting another Arcane Caster - to remove Xykon at this point would invalidate all the lives, goblin and hob alike, that he's thrown away after his involvement in the plan. In order to validate the 'sacrifices' of those already dead, he'll make 'sacrifices' of those still living. And now that the sacrifices requiring validation include HIS OWN BROTHER BY HIS OWN HAND, you can be damn sure he'll "throw good goblin lives after bad" to convince himself it was all worth it in the end.

So it is "The ends justify the means". But for Redcloak, the means just keep on stacking up. "The ends justify the means, which justify the means, which justify the means". ad infinitum.

I find it frankly astonishing (no insult meant here) that you could have misinterpreted that scene as an act of selflessness, given that the above motivation (far more complex and realistic) is explicitly stated in the book.

To this I'll add: All the goblins who Redcloak claimed to be trying to save by killing his brother, are dead now. By following Xykon, by never trying to stop him, Redcloak made their deaths inevitable.

David Argall

2008-06-07, 01:51 PM

SoD

Redcloak is trying to make a goblin civilization...if Xykon found out that Redcloak played him that entire civilization is in danger.
That civilization either won't be build at all if Xykon finds out early, or won't be built until after it's too late for Xykon to do anything if he doesn't find out before the gate is controlled.

Also, the snarl does not become the toy of the Dark One, the Dark One just gets to choose where the rifts open.
Unimportant to our discussion. The point for our discussion is that the gate is absolutely worthless to Xykon according to all the information we have. He gets no power at all. [It might be possible for him to release the Snarl, but he doesn't want to destroy the world, so even if he could manage that, he wouldn't be going to all this trouble for such a poor reward.]

so far every time Redcloak thought that he knew something Xykon didn't he was wrong.
True, but on those past events, it was in Xykon's [possible?] interest to pretend he didn't know. As long as Right-eye doesn't know Xykon is on to him, Xykon can make sure he doesn't do anything effective. But in our case, Xykon is working hard at a goal that doesn't benefit him. Pretending ignorance is a bad idea. So unless Xykon knows something he shouldn't know, he is being suckered by Redcloak.

ArmorArmadillo

2008-06-07, 04:10 PM

In response...

SoD That civilization either won't be build at all if Xykon finds out early, or won't be built until after it's too late for Xykon to do anything if he doesn't find out before the gate is controlled. Xykon is an epic lich; remember that the plan is designed to neutralize the gods...Xykon is still a rogue element, and we really don't know what Xykon is capable of even after the plan goes off.

Unimportant to our discussion. The point for our discussion is that the gate is absolutely worthless to Xykon according to all the information we have. He gets no power at all. [It might be possible for him to release the Snarl, but he doesn't want to destroy the world, so even if he could manage that, he wouldn't be going to all this trouble for such a poor reward.] It's important in that it demonstrates a limitation of the Dark One's power over the snarl; as stated above the plan was meant to deal with the other gods, whereas Xykon, being on the material, can cause all sorts of problems that can't be solved by the Dark One's power over the snarl, as the gate can't safely be opened in the Prime Material.

True, but on those past events, it was in Xykon's [possible?] interest to pretend he didn't know. As long as Right-eye doesn't know Xykon is on to him, Xykon can make sure he doesn't do anything effective. But in our case, Xykon is working hard at a goal that doesn't benefit him. Pretending ignorance is a bad idea. So unless Xykon knows something he shouldn't know, he is being suckered by Redcloak.
This is a good point, however, Xykon is reallly, really difficult person to read. He's chaotic, and especially since becoming undead he seems to do things on whims very often. For all we know right now, Xykon knows pretty much everything about everything and he's just playing it out for laughs.
My point isn't that Xykon definitely knows or has demonstrated knowledge, but that operating on the idea that Xykon doesn't know something seems to be a very bad idea.

krossbow

2008-06-07, 04:20 PM

Just because someone is opposing the big bad doesn't mean he's neccecarily a force for good. After all, Starscream tried to kill megatronne multiple times in Transformers, but he's still wholely a villian.

Redcloak COULD be redeemed if it weren't for the fact that, even if he THINK'S he's avoided it, he's still, deep down a racist.

Though he's overcome his hatred of hobgoblins, he's failed to realize that he's still ruled by preconcieved notions of Humans, and as such, treats them all with a racists philosohpy (reverse racism if you wish, coming about due to racism inflicted on him).

He views all humans as being evil, contemptible beings who would kill him and his people on a whim, though there ARE many that fight against this (for example, those in the Sticks party have been shown, on many occasions, to attempt to avoid confontation with peaceful monstrous races)

He's a tragic villian in my book, as he will not be redeemed as a hero IMO, but will still sacrifice himself in a way that is in conflict with another evil.

Jayngfet

2008-06-07, 04:40 PM

It depends on who's point of view you use.

To a goblin RC's a man who's given up everything he hasn't already lost to better his people, and generalizes who his people are as time goes on.

To a paladin Redcloaks an abomination, serving an evil god to release an elder being who will unmake the world itself.

To Xykon he's a fool who tries to justify everything he does in the name of some "greater good" instead of having fun.

Roy sees him as an obstacle, someone who protects and empowers his greatest foe.

To the gods he's their worst nightmare, a creation who realises his place in the world and hates it, fighting against their order in an act that could destroy them.

To the dark one Redcloak is like his +6 longsword, unwavering and mighty, obeying his wishes no mater the cost.

ArmorArmadillo

2008-06-07, 04:53 PM

To a goblin RC's a man who's given up everything he hasn't already lost to better his people, and generalizes who his people are as time goes on.
SoD
Righteye would disagree, the goblins killed by Xykon would disagree. The problem is that a lot of what RC is 'sacrificing' isn't his to sacrifice. Moreover, the goal of helping his people is becoming befuddled with "if X goblins die for the goal, then I have to succeed or else they die in vain, if X+1 goblins die while I'm trying to succeed for the X goblins, I have to succeed so they don't die in vain, if X+2 goblins die while I'm trying to succed for X+1 goblins..."

Remirach

2008-06-07, 06:51 PM

He views all humans as being evil, contemptible beings who would kill him and his people on a whim, though there ARE many that fight against this (for example, those in the Sticks party have been shown, on many occasions, to attempt to avoid confontation with peaceful monstrous races)
I have to disagree with this. There's no indication that "many" humans fight against this. There's evidence that ROY fights against it and also plenty of evidence that Roy's an anomaly in the stick-verse. He certainly didn't inherit that attitude from his father ("Xykon's killing a bunch of his minions? But they're evil humanoids, so who cares?"). As to the rest of the OOTS... consider some of the opinions expressed by Belkar, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0013.html) ("kill 'em because they've got green skin and fangs and we don't"), Vaarsuvius (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0436.html) ("these foul creatures are too stupid to come up with a real strategy"), or even Haley (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0539.html) (I'll grant you this last one is weak, since it's only Celia's conjecture that Haley's acceptance of Belkar's actions is tinged by racism.)

When the so-called champions of justice, the paladins, can cut down unarmed goblin children or slaughter orcs who aren't even doing anything wrong just because they're "listed as chaotic evil," when the monstrous races were literally created to be slaughtered to give the PCs experience, you're looking at a world where viewing humans (and the other PC races) with automatic mistrust is a good skill to hone just for survival purposes. Remember that even Right-Eye still didn't actually like humans at the end of SoD.

King of Nowhere

2008-06-08, 03:50 PM

In addition to what Remirach said, here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.html) the order slain some defensless sleeping goblins. When they captured Samantha, who was far worse than any goblin in this strip, they didn't want to kill her. When they captured Nale, they imprisonated him. Those goblins were much better than them, and they just executed them mindlessy. The goblins may be mostly evil, but they're treated far worse than proven evil humans guilty of horrible facts are, and just because they're goblins. Humans have a good bunch of guilt in what's happening, and Redcloak, while wrong, has every good reason to think all humans evil. If I were at his place, I'd share his views.

About what Redcloak did at the end of SoD, yes, he did it only partly to not admit responsability, but he also did it partly because persuaded it was the right thing to do. And yes, he did it for Xykon, but in the belief that Xykon is the best chance for the goblins. He may find a new arcane caster, but will he be nearly as powerful as Xykon?
How many goblins die needlessy by the hand of adventurers? tens of thousands a year? hundreds of thousands? It seems a cause important enough to sacrifice lives for it.
So, Redcloak may be wrong, but he had enough good reasons to do it to make my point stand.

ArmorArmadillo

2008-06-08, 06:16 PM

How many goblins die needlessy by the hand of adventurers? tens of thousands a year? hundreds of thousands? It seems a cause important enough to sacrifice lives for it.
So, Redcloak may be wrong, but he had enough good reasons to do it to make my point stand.

The problem with "Ends Justify the Means" logic is that it's essentially trading the present for the future, and the future is uncertain.

Is it worth sacrificing lives to save goblin-kind? How many?

Is it worth sacrificing a hundred to save a million? Utilitarian logic says yes.

But what if you're sacrificing a hundred for a point-one percent chance of saving ten million? Utilitarian logic still still says yes, but there's a 99.9% chance that you're sacrificing a hundred lives to accomplish nothing.

The problem is, Redcloak's goals may be grand, but he's ignoring the extremely low chance of success it has. Considering he's sacrificing others, this is really poor justification.

King of Nowhere

2008-06-09, 07:21 AM

I agree. I consider this to be the main reason for why the ends very rarely justify the means. I don't say that I agree with all Redcloak decisions, but they are reasonable under his point of view. Because while we are omniscent readers, he knows only a part of the story, and that part he knows point in the direction of controlling a gate at all cost. That's why I'm willing to give him a chance.

kpenguin

2008-06-09, 07:35 AM

The problem with "Ends Justify the Means" logic is that it's essentially trading the present for the future, and the future is uncertain.

Is it worth sacrificing lives to save goblin-kind? How many?

Is it worth sacrificing a hundred to save a million? Utilitarian logic says yes.

But what if you're sacrificing a hundred for a point-one percent chance of saving ten million? Utilitarian logic still still says yes, but there's a 99.9% chance that you're sacrificing a hundred lives to accomplish nothing.

Um, I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Utilitarian logic would dictate that the horridly small chance of success would not justify the means. My understanding of utilitarianism is very basic, but I believe that the general gist of it is maximum benefit for maximum amount of people.

DigoDragon

2008-06-09, 08:12 AM

I like the Sympathetic villian idea. Can I vote for that one?

Goblins have been trampled on for decades by humans and ReadCloak wants some respect for goblin society. There's some admiration for the cause he's working toward even if his methods are very much unhealthy for a lot of humans. But I see "Evil" in this case can be subjective depending on who you are anyway.

Egmorn

2008-06-09, 08:26 AM

In order to answer to your question, you would have first to define Hero.

If by Hero you mean : Main protagonist of the story - then he is not and will never be.

If by Hero you mean : Someone fighting for a greater "good" Then he is not. He is in fact fighting for a greater "evil" which is seen as something good by Gobelins but since he is worshipping an "Evil" god, he can't fight for a greater "good". In fact he hates "good" people.
You can trust D&D to give you headache if you try to enter moral in it. Since it is actually morally good to be "Evil" for an evil worshiper, but it won't be good anyway since it is a good evil action...

If by Hero you mean a great leader, an example, then he is for all his people.

Eric

2008-06-09, 09:57 AM

I always called him a "sympathetic villain" in that he has a backstory that explains his actions but it doesn't make them any less villainous. I wonder if tragic would be a better term? Eh, probably about the same.

Think about Judas. He shopped The Big Man not because he wanted him offed but because he was CERTAIN that Jesus would do a miracle to get out of it. Doing such a miracle would PROVE he was the Son of God and may even (if the saving of His life was to be by the death of those come to arrest him) start a Holy War.

Judas never thought that the Garden of Gethsemene would see him killed for it.

That he'd been the cause of the death of his saviour caused Judas to kill himself.

Tragic.

And somewhat like RC: he continues along the ruinous path CERTAIN that The Dark One will make it all worthwhile. Add to that the fact that he's totally bought into the fallacy of the sunk cost and the CERTAINTY that he isn't the baddie, the white-skins are. A dash of inability to admit wrong and you have RC tied up so tight he can't get out.

If RC ever founf out that The Dark One was As Right Eye told him self-centred and unworthy of the sacrifices, he may crack.

That would be after the Snarl is released, though.

Maybe the end will be OOTS taking out the Snarl (although the Snarl is deadly to gods, that doesn't mean he's as irresistable to mortals, loss of life may be certain but they may have in this case more power than the Gods).

After all, all the humans have to do is stop believing in a God and it dies.

Eric

2008-06-09, 10:04 AM

He did it to save the lives of other goblins; in fact, if his brother had failed, then Xykon would have killed a lot of goblins just for repercussion.

That wasn't known until after the act. As it was, the plan was good and would have ended the Goblin Troubles. The dead ones would be lost, but RC can't admit that because he then knows he's killing for A Better World.

Which is why the paladins killed the Goblins.

Hard to kid on you're on the high ground when you find out everyone's on it.

Eric

2008-06-09, 10:11 AM

I have to disagree with this. There's no indication that "many" humans fight against this. There's evidence that ROY fights against it and also plenty of evidence that Roy's an anomaly in the stick-verse.

No, Red Eye lived happily for a while. Most don't care and, as Celia is having problems with (and Roy has managed to come to terms with much better), adventurers see them as convenient chunks of XP.

Rank and File?

Don't really mind as long as the Goblins don't raid. And they'd be as pissed off if it were human bandits raiding.

Remirach

2008-06-09, 01:01 PM

No, Red Eye lived happily for a while. Most don't care and, as Celia is having problems with (and Roy has managed to come to terms with much better), adventurers see them as convenient chunks of XP.

Rank and File?

Don't really mind as long as the Goblins don't raid. And they'd be as pissed off if it were human bandits raiding.
What bearing does a sylph's behavior have on the discussion of human behavior? Celia herself is used to feeling just like an entry in a monster book (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0315.html). Whereas humans don't even get (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0530.html) an entry.

Right-Eye lived at peace for a time, in the not-at-all-fertile-sounding "scrublands," at levels humans would consider poverty. He also mostly stayed away from humans and even at the end of SoD was clearly disgusted at the idea of his daughter being raised by any. This is not indicative of humans basically being cool with goblins except for those mean old adventurers, this is indicative of him basically being too far out of the way and POOR for most humans to want to bother with, so long as he wasn't making trouble.

David Argall

2008-06-09, 03:07 PM

Um, I'm going to have to disagree with you there. Utilitarian logic would dictate that the horridly small chance of success would not justify the means. My understanding of utilitarianism is very basic, but I believe that the general gist of it is maximum benefit for maximum amount of people.

Now the math here is best considered suspect. People are amazingly good at cooking the books to get the answer they want. And even when we have honest intent, there are tremendous uncertainities. But the basic idea is correct. There are a thousand cases. You will lose 1 million in one of them, unless you lose 100 in each of them. So you will lose 100,000 or 1,000,000. That is an obvious choice, and what utilitarian thinking would dictate. [It's what just about any moral system would dictate. The others just try to avoid thinking of it that way, with the result they make more mistakes.] The small chance of success is more than overcome by the small cost.
But we do get back to the complexities of the human condition. Just how can we measure one chance in a thousand? Nor are we likely to be able to do more than guess that a hundred will be lost. And where does the figure of one million come from? Somebody's paniced guesstimate? We are in danger of false precision here.
However, ultimately there is no good way to avoid this. Your small child has a very high chance of surviving an unsupervised visit to the neighbor's pool, but you don't let him do it. But you can't watch him all the time and so you must guard him from the greater dangers, which work out to the more costly ones and the ones he is more likely to fall victim to. The same thing as as our example, except you have just not made the figures as visible.
When we look, we see that most moral rules are simply ways to avoid having to do the math. "Thou shall not kill". It hardly takes any analysis at all to find that a killing is quite costly to society, and routinely that exceeds any benefit to the killer by a large margin. There is no need to do the math in the individual case. You pretty much know in advance the answer is not to shoot.
We identify some of the exceptions [Self defense says society is going to lose somebody anyway and so the cost of shooting is actually a good deal lower], but this leads to more complexity, making for more mistakes, and to more people finding ways to fiddle with the system. So our crude indirect ways to do our utilitarian anaysis have major problems.

Eric

2008-06-09, 03:42 PM

What bearing does a sylph's behavior have on the discussion of human behavior?

Well, the point was (if you get that knee out your eye) was *Roy* took that idea and worked BETTER with it. Celia is a pretty good externalisation of what we would think (we are humans, aren't we?) if we saw a world that acted like D&D. Celia can't (as yet?) work out what's going on because, like us, she's an outsider.

Eric

2008-06-09, 03:46 PM

You will lose 1 million in one of them, unless you lose 100 in each of them. So you will lose 100,000 or 1,000,000. That is an obvious choice, and what utilitarian thinking would dictate. [It's what just about any moral system would dictate. The others just try to avoid thinking of it that way, with the result they make more mistakes.] The small chance of success is more than overcome by the small cost.

O'Chul has an absolute cracker of an answer to that (and it's one I have believed myself for decades): YOU don't kill them. You try to save them.

If you have to kill one child to save a city, you don't kill that child. It may result in that child being killed anyway, but that act is done by those who wanted to force YOU to be their catspaw.

Each live is individual, precious and will never be returned to you.

But the only life you can gamble with is your own. Never someone else's.

David Argall

2008-06-09, 05:09 PM

YOU don't kill them. You try to save them.

If you have to kill one child to save a city, you don't kill that child. It may result in that child being killed anyway, but that act is done by those who wanted to force YOU to be their catspaw.
Now there is a fair amount of practical thinking behind this idea. The situations where you can kill one child and save a city are obviously rare, and generally completely artificial. So routinely thinking it is the child or the city is almost always a misunderstanding of the situation. There are routinely other options.
But when we look at less dramatic examples, we find more and more cases where the killing seems to be justified. Take the basic self defense plea. If you don't kill him, he is going to kill you. Same logic as if you don't kill the kid the city dies. In both, you look for ways not to kill, but in the end, you may kill.

But the only life you can gamble with is your own. Never someone else's.
Sounds nice, but it is utterly impossible to live by. You risk the lives of others every time you take a drive. No way to avoid it, except by not driving, and by extension, not living [And be sure to dispose of your body where it won't cause disease].

You want to lower these risks and only take them when justified, but you have to gamble with the lives of others.

ArmorArmadillo

2008-06-09, 05:28 PM

And where does the figure of one million come from? Somebody's paniced guesstimate? We are in danger of false precision here.
Don't get hung up on that example...I was pulling numbers out of nowhere.:smalltongue:
I was just trying to illustrate that the greater good shouldn't be taken as a given, but rather the chance of success should be considered; doing so is what I believe is Redcloak's flaw.

However, ultimately there is no good way to avoid this. Your small child has a very high chance of surviving an unsupervised visit to the neighbor's pool, but you don't let him do it. But you can't watch him all the time and so you must guard him from the greater dangers, which work out to the more costly ones and the ones he is more likely to fall victim to. The same thing as as our example, except you have just not made the figures as visible.
When we look, we see that most moral rules are simply ways to avoid having to do the math. "Thou shall not kill". It hardly takes any analysis at all to find that a killing is quite costly to society, and routinely that exceeds any benefit to the killer by a large margin. There is no need to do the math in the individual case. You pretty much know in advance the answer is not to shoot.
We identify some of the exceptions [Self defense says society is going to lose somebody anyway and so the cost of shooting is actually a good deal lower], but this leads to more complexity, making for more mistakes, and to more people finding ways to fiddle with the system. So our crude indirect ways to do our utilitarian anaysis have major problems.

Of course not everything is about creating an objective societal good. Sometimes, people just find a certain behavior 'wrong.' And although it may have roots in a societal benefit, the actual decision is made without any 'moral math'. Espcially considering that most 'societal good' calculations are made by different people without any kind of common ground to work on, and they end up being totally subjective.

Really though, some moral systems take such calculations out of the equation altogether.

Consider the following.

A dark knight captures a town of a thousand people, and takes the town's mayor aside. "Select one person, other than yourself, to be sacrificed, and I shall leave. Refuse, and you must choose ten."

The mayor can't select a member of his town that should die, and refuses, and the dark knight says. "Select ten to be sacrificed, and I shall leave. Refuse, and you must choose one hundred."

The mayor refuses. "Select one hundred, or I shall kill everyone."

The mayor still refuses, and the dark knights armies level the town.

From a utilitarian standpoint, the mayor should have chosen one person, any person, and saved the vast majority of the town. However, doing so would be to pinpoint one person's life as of lower value than those who he did not select. Such a moral feeling figures nowhere in the societal good, at least not as heavily as the loss of one thousand lives.

There's no question that 999 people, and society, would have been better off if the Mayor had chosen at the first step. However, he was following a moral code in his decision, and there was nothing invalid or immoral about his decision. The immorality was the dark knight's, and both the mayor and the town were his victims.

Counterpower

2008-06-09, 07:45 PM

Now there is a fair amount of practical thinking behind this idea. The situations where you can kill one child and save a city are obviously rare, and generally completely artificial. So routinely thinking it is the child or the city is almost always a misunderstanding of the situation. There are routinely other options.

Very true.

But when we look at less dramatic examples, we find more and more cases where the killing seems to be justified. Take the basic self defense plea. If you don't kill him, he is going to kill you. Same logic as if you don't kill the kid the city dies. In both, you look for ways not to kill, but in the end, you may kill.

I don't think that the logic is anywhere near the same. If someone draws a gun on you and tries to kill you with it, I'd say you were perfectly justified in responding with your own force. However, in that instance that person has presented a threat to you (and, depending on his choice of weapons, everyone nearby). If you were offered a simple choice between the child and the city by a third entity, the child in question would have done nothing to you or anyone else to justify him being killed.

Sounds nice, but it is utterly impossible to live by. You risk the lives of others every time you take a drive. No way to avoid it, except by not driving, and by extension, not living [And be sure to dispose of your body where it won't cause disease]. You want to lower these risks and only take them when justified, but you have to gamble with the lives of others.

Personally, I would have reworded Eric's statment to read "But the only life you can sacrifice is your own. Never someone else's." No one has the right to say that someone else should die for the greater good. If an announcement is made throughout a city that it will be leveled unless 1,000 of that city's inhabitants are brought out of the city and killed, it's a heroic sacrifice for 1,000 people to volunteer. But if only 999 volunteer, it would be an act of murder for the city authorities to force that last person out.

And that's the biggest problem I have with Redcloak, and the facet of him that I feel makes him clearly a villian: he appears to believe through the Azure City war that he's justified by any previous atrocities that have been visited on the goblinoids, that he's in the right for sacrificing Azure City and its population for the good of the goblinoid races. (Note: I do not have SoD yet.)

hamishspence

2008-06-10, 05:29 AM

David Gemmell Druss books mentioned the "commit an evil act or we will kill you all" dilemma: same one, the killing of a child by a besieged city. In this case, they refused, and were stormed. While abiding by an "iron code" is moral in these books, it can sometimes contradict utilitarian logic.

King of Nowhere

2008-06-10, 07:00 AM

I don't agree with that "iron code": the problem is that while I may agree, as a principle, that you can't sacrifice others to greater good, there are instances in which you can't refuse to choice.
Consider an example more suitable in real world, a terrorist who is shooting on the crowd and shielding himself with a hostage. You may shoot him, but you're not a sniper, so you will kill also the hostage. So, if you shoot, you are sacrificing the hostage, but if you don't, you're sacrificing all the other people. Just because you don't kill them directly don't mean that you're not sending them to death. You are forced to choose between killing someone or killing someone else. Choosing to not choose is a choice by itself.
While I understand that you don't intend it that way (so please don't take as offence), I feel that "don't do evil to prevent greater evil; instead allow evil to happen, other people are doing it, not you" is very near to "let evil happens, as long as you can keep your hands clean". Which sounds quite hypocrite.
If we applied this principle during second world war, we should have surrendered to Hitler and gave him what he wanted, to not endanger the population of bombarded cities; I don't think someone here would agree with that conduct.
Luckily that kind of situations happens very rarely. And, yes, you should try to find alternative solutions everytime possible. But sometimes you can't.

hamishspence

2008-06-10, 08:13 AM

True. but there is a difference between knowingly killing an innocent and merely taking the risk of killing them (sniper, well placed headshot, deeming the small risk of gun going off acceptable)

Exalted Deeds tends to this view, that you shouldn't allow yourself to be coerced into doing evil, nor should you intentionally kill the innocent with the guilty. However not everybody holds that view. And what if said innocent would actually rather be sacrified than the reverse, yelling "Take the shot" at the cops?

And its a common view, even if it can be a little simplistic "I was forced to do it" is a defence that doesn't always work. sometimes it does (kidnapped sailers forced into working for pirates were sometimes acquitted) but not always.

there is a bit of graduation: I think people are better able to accept collateral damage than intentional criminal acts. Or, "the ends justify the means, but only up to a point, beyond which no-one will tolerate certain means"

Selene

2008-06-10, 09:10 AM

Consider an example more suitable in real world, a terrorist who is shooting on the crowd and shielding himself with a hostage. You may shoot him, but you're not a sniper, so you will kill also the hostage.

Well if you're walking around carrying a gun, you're probably a good enough shot that hitting the hostage isn't a forgone conclusion. So you might hit the hostage. And even if you do hit him/her, being shot does not equal being killed. People survive gunshot wounds all the time.

Also, if you walk around carrying a gun, which I don't, you accept the responsibilities that come with that. If you are a law enforcement officer, you know you could be in a situation like that at any time. And I'm thinking standard operating procedure wouldn't be to just wildly start trying to blow the terrorist's head off, no matter what Hollywood would like us to believe. For one thing, if somebody's firing into a crowd, the SWAT team is probably on its way.

Niknokitueu

2008-06-10, 09:28 AM

Dragging this thread back to Redcloak, I firmly believe him to be a True Villain.

Like all the best villains, he has a very good reason for turning out the way he has. He does what he does, not because he can, but that he must.

Besides, to me a tragic hero is someone that has the best intentions, just does not have a sufficient grasp of events to guide things to his advantage. Radcloak is not like this at all - he is just about as powerful as he could possibly be (without ruining the comic, anyway).

Just give Rich his due: he has created a real villain, to counterbalance Xykon, who is no different to any second-rate paper cut-out bad guy (He does what he does because he can).

Have Fun!
Niknokitueu

David Argall

2008-06-10, 03:23 PM

Don't get hung up on that example...I was pulling numbers out of nowhere
Which is the point [or irrelevant, depending on how it is worded]. In any real situation, it is not rare [indeed may be the norm] to find out that one or more of the critical numbers in the calculation is no more than a wild guess, which can be deliberately biased to create the desired conclusion. That makes for major worries in our moral calculations.

Of course not everything is about creating an objective societal good. Sometimes, people just find a certain behavior 'wrong.' And although it may have roots in a societal benefit, the actual decision is made without any 'moral math'.
Without any moral math being confessed to. Consider the common "But nobody got really hurt..." Now ignoring that the speaker is frequently lying or wrong, we see an appeal to moral math. There was a benefit and there was no cost. And we all do it on a routine basis. Those things that whatever moral code deems wrong are still done because people just do not see them as actually costing much.

Espcially considering that most 'societal good' calculations are made by different people without any kind of common ground to work on, and they end up being totally subjective.
But there is plenty of common ground. "I want to live" is effectively universal. [The exceptions are soon gone and don't need to concern us.] We can find a variety of other things that can be universalized as well.

he was following a moral code in his decision, and there was nothing invalid or immoral about his decision.
So if your neighbor chops you up for a human sacrifice, that's ok because he is following a moral code?
No, moral codes are also subject to judgement and can be valid or immoral. That someone is following a moral code in no way excuses his behavior.

If someone draws a gun on you and tries to kill you with it, I'd say you were perfectly justified in responding with your own force. However, in that instance that person has presented a threat to you (and, depending on his choice of weapons, everyone nearby). If you were offered a simple choice between the child and the city by a third entity, the child in question would have done nothing to you or anyone else to justify him being killed.
So? Let us take a more real world case here. A disease is killing thousands. The doctors produce a vaccine that will save them. However, reactions to the vaccine will kill hundreds, a good number of which would not die of the disease. Do you ban the vaccine in order to save those hundreds? [Note by the way that all vaccines do kill some small number of those that get it. The number can be trivial, but it is not zero.]
The innocence is not a block to action. Rather, it is evidence that the action would be ineffective. Our terrorist is shooting up a school. We say "Stop, or I will shoot random child." and he is likely to laugh at us. But if we say "Stop, or I will shoot your child.", we have a serious chance he will stop. Both kids can be deemed entirely innocent here, but we still see one as a possible tactic.

Personally, I would have reworded Eric's statment to read "But the only life you can sacrifice is your own. Never someone else's."
Different words, same meaning. Particularly when we get into the large numbers of government. "I have the money to put in a signal at corner A or B. At A, there will be 3 less deaths. At B there will be 5 less. I decide..." Either way, you are sacrificing some innocents for other innocents. [At least we would hope so. Government being government, a little bribery or influence may put the signal at C, where it actually costs lives, but is convenient for the Mayor on his morning commute.]

No one has the right to say that someone else should die for the greater good.
The right is claimed all too often, but denying it entirely is obviously wrong. No army can function if the commander can't say "You! Random soldier. Go to point X and get killed." [He of course will generally put a more positive spin on it. Maybe "Here's your chance to earn a whole bunch of medals." But both parties often know it means the same thing. The soldier is not coming back alive.]

If an announcement is made throughout a city that it will be leveled unless 1,000 of that city's inhabitants are brought out of the city and killed, it's a heroic sacrifice for 1,000 people to volunteer. But if only 999 volunteer, it would be an act of murder for the city authorities to force that last person out.
Rather clearly justifiable homicide, IF [a quite major one actually] we think the offer is a valid one [which is distinctly questionable].

but there is a difference between knowingly killing an innocent and merely taking the risk of killing them (sniper, well placed headshot, deeming the small risk of gun going off acceptable)
These differences are practical, and precisely what is meant by utilitarian thinking.