Redcloaks alignment (some spoilers)

[Prince_Selm]

I just read Start of Darkness and I got to thinking, Redcloak is fighting for justice to the goblin race, and only allies himself with Xykon for this purpose. If that's true, shoudn't Redcloak be good? On the other hand Redcloak does many evil acts to further this goal. He can't be neutral because he is doing everything, not for himself, but for the goblin race. I'm just confused.

Any thoughts? (I'm sorry if this was already posted somewhere, I didn't see it.)

[Spiryt]

In this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=61354) it seems to be an agreement that RC is Lawful Evil.

His position on Law - Chaos line is debatable, but his evilness not.

Seriously - just read few strip again. Like this one (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0190.html). It's funny and silly in the first place, but if one want to seriously state his aligment, it leaves no doubts.

[Morty]

Since Miko succesfully smites him here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0369.html), he's evil. Sympathetic evil for good goals maybe, but evil.

[d'Bwobsling]

In that sence he seems to be alot like magneto

[NerfTW]

He's evil because all Goblins are evil in the OotS universe, as stated in Start of Darkness, where his race was created as XP fodder for clerics.

Plus, his tendency to kill people, including those close to him, for personal gain, puts him squarely in the "evil" bracket.

[Nerdanel]

Redcloak is clearly Lawful Evil and both components of the alignments are well-supported. However, I think he had a good chance of being Lawful Neutral the first few pages we saw him in SoD. The fact that he has the Law domain but not the Evil domain suggests that at the very least he leaned more towards law than evil in the beginning when he chose his domains.

[David Argall]

Redcloak's possession of the Law domain is our best guess. It isn't based on much. Given his goblin background [usually NE] and serving an evil god, NE is really the better choice, but that may not have been the writer's choice.

[Morty]

Redcloak's possession of the Law domain is our best guess. It isn't based on much. Given his goblin background [usually NE] and serving an evil god, NE is really the better choice, but that may not have been the writer's choice.

Isn't based on much? This "not much" includes a tendency towards planning, systematic, scientific research, thinking things through on a practical level, dedication to a single cause and lack of any strongly chaotic features of character. So I'd say Redcloak being Lawful is a fairly strong bet.

[Lissou]

He is Lawful Evil, I think it's pretty clear.

He doesn't care how many people (read people, but also goblins) die to acheive his goal. Sure, that includes himself, but that doesn't change the facts. he's brave and consistent, but Evil. What matters isn't his goal, it's the way he's trying to achieve it. If he were good, he would do it in a manner that wouldn't hurt others, even it it risked his own life. Because he's not worried about how many people, goblins or not, die for the greater good, he's evil.

The lawful part seems even more obvious to me in matters of personnality, and also the way he's sticking to the plan.

You just have to remember that Evil characters are not necessarily fundamentally bad, or evil just because they like it that way. They don't all kill people just because they like killing people. in other words, not everybody is like Xykon.

Redcloak is a very interesting villain, but indeed a villain. He's definitely not good or even neutral, because of what he's willing to risk for his goals, which is, if you read SoD, the complete destruction of the current world and all its inhabitants, complete with destruction of their souls, i.e; no afterlife
Just because he's willing to take that risk for himself included doesn't make him any less evil, as I said, only consistent and brave.

[Kool-Aid]

The fact that he has the law domain (and the destruction domain if you're curious) would suggest that he's either lawful neutral or lawful evil, since the dark one is an evil deity, and clerics must be within one step of their deities alignment, that would make him lawful evil.

[Fighteer]

Rich has not exactly been subtle in establishing the alignments of his main characters. Redcloak is Lawful Evil. He's practically an archetype of the alignment. With all the ways that he's demonstrated it in the comic, it couldn't be any more obvious if he had a big "LE" sticker taped to his forehead.

He plans everything. He is totally goal-oriented, focusing on his deity's quest to the point of obsession. He sweats the details. Although he may twist the intent, he always keeps his word. He has a very strong sense of honor. He seeks to defeat his enemies by outthinking them every bit as much as by overpowering them. He gets extremely upset when his careful schedules are disrupted, especially by Xykon, and in fact has a very difficult time dealing with situations where he has to be spontaneous.

He is also ruthless and cruel. He has no compunctions about killing people who stand in his way, and in fact views non-goblins as nothing more than obstacles in his path. He has killed or abandoned people who were very close to him simply because they interfered with his goals. He uses torture. He has willingly made use of and allied with things and people who are absolutely evil. He creates and commands undead and casts Evil spells and negative variants of spells.

He is, in fact, willing to sacrifice every living thing in existence for his goals, including his own people.

Just because he has a moral justification for his actions does not make him any less evil.

[Chronos]

He doesn't care how many people (read people, but also goblins) die to acheive his goal.The parenthetical isn't necessary there. Goblins are people. The term is rather broader than "human", especially in a setting like D&D where there are myriad non-human races running around.

[factotum]

would suggest that he's either lawful neutral or lawful evil, since the dark one is an evil deity, and clerics must be within one step of their deities alignment, that would make him lawful evil.

Clearly that isn't the case in the OotS world, because otherwise the very clearly Lawful Good Durkon couldn't serve the equally clearly Chaotic Good god Thor, could he?

[Lissou]

The parenthetical isn't necessary there. Goblins are people. The term is rather broader than "human", especially in a setting like D&D where there are myriad non-human races running around.

Actually, my parenthesis meant "including goblins", I guess I phrased it wrong. I first wrote "people" without thinking about it, and was about to change it with "goblins" as it's what I meant in the first place, than realised he doesn't only kill goblins, but all kind of people, so I tried to clarify. Obviously I wasn't very successful :P

[kpenguin]

Actually, my parenthesis meant "including goblins", I guess I phrased it wrong. I first wrote "people" without thinking about it, and was about to change it with "goblins" as it's what I meant in the first place, than realised he doesn't only kill goblins, but all kind of people, so I tried to clarify. Obviously I wasn't very successful :P

"Also" implies that people and goblins are separate. You would have been more successful with a "including".

[silvadel]

Actually redcloak started to really care when he had his "I am turning into Xykon" ephiphany. From that point he took big risks in facing the high priest 1 on 1 instead of losing goblins in that battle. I think that was an alignment shift moment -- and we havent seen someone try to smite him since then to confirm whether he is lawful evil or lawful neutral.

Even if the shift didnt happen at that time, he is on that road.

[Remirach]

Actually redcloak started to really care when he had his "I am turning into Xykon" ephiphany. From that point he took big risks in facing the high priest 1 on 1 instead of losing goblins in that battle. I think that was an alignment shift moment -- and we havent seen someone try to smite him since then to confirm whether he is lawful evil or lawful neutral.

Even if the shift didnt happen at that time, he is on that road.
I took that as his reaffirmation of his Lawful side -- he recalled his DUTIES to the goblin people, ALL the goblin people, and realized he had been letting racism color his perceptions, turn him into a monster, and neglect his responsibilities.

But even now he still self-identifies as being evil. His hobgoblins keep slaves (and whip them for slowing down). He tortures O-Chul, even KNOWING the Paladin has nothing more to tell him but only because he needs to keep up a front for Xykon that the human might be holding out on him somehow.

He's Awesome, but he's Evil. In order for him to break toward LN, I think he'd have to lose some of his Us vs. Them mentality. Not to mention his alliance with Xykon!

[Lupy]

Redcloak is evil in that he fights the forces of good, but I feel that at heart he represents good ideals. He'll go to the Nine hells when he dies because of that, although I think really he serves Arcadia the most, just a peaceful place for goblins to live forever... Maybe I'm onto something here!

[WarriorTribble]

I took that as his reaffirmation of his Lawful side -- he recalled his DUTIES to the goblin people, ALL the goblin people, and realized he had been letting racism color his perceptions, turn him into a monster, and neglect his responsibilities.Dunno, if it was due to his lawful aspects I imagine his rationale would've been more like:

:redcloak: : If it were up to me I'd kill you all, but I realized my God demands I save all variations of Goblinkind grumble grumble.

Instead he had a genuine moral crisis. I'd argue his realization, and the subsequent fight were good acts... Well the best the situation could call for at the very least.