Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.

[Nerd_Paladin]

Okay. I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that a neutral evil goblin's motives are categorically different from a neutral evil human's motives? (If so, where does it say so in which D&D sourcebook?)

I'm saying there are no Neutral Evil humans among the historical Mongol hordes; you can't apply D&D alignment to real life.

Just the reverse: there only isn't one if you choose to ignore the fundamental problems with it. For example, how does it make any sense for an intelligent race, capable of thinking for itself and making its own decisions, to always be one alignment, as D&D posits Dragons (to use just one of many examples) are? How does it make any sense for any race to be genetically predisposed to being an alignment at all, as many races in D&D are said to be? It doesn't. It's simply a convenient way to handwave the moral questions that monster-killing would otherwise raise, if you choose not to think about it.

Zevox

There are no moral conundrums about killing monsters in "Beowulf" (except in the lousy Zemeckis movie). There are no moral dilemmas about killing monsters in Tolkien. No one stops to wonder about the morality of Gretel pushing the witch into her own oven, nor to wonder whether all witches are evil, and what do we make of a world full of only-evil witches, and why isn't anyone standing up for witch rights?