OOTS #702 - The Discussion Thread

[Teleporker]

This is exactly why I think Gobbotopia doesn't have any real approval at all- the other nations are afraid of going to war with it, but the moment Hinjo and his people return in force, they won't defend the Goblins' rights either. Cliffport might enjoy more slave trade freedom (pun intended) for now, but unless they're dumb they won't favor the nation with the Epic-Level Undead Sorcerer on top forever. I don't think anybody outside the city actually agrees the gobs have a right to their nation, no matter what RC claims (but then, he's talking to his own, beloved, not-too-smart people.)

My point exactly. We're talking approval by fear, not respect.

When you respect something, you support it willingly, sometimes beyond your own boundaries (or at least keep a certain distance from it).

When you fear something, you run from it, and either forever submit to it unwillingly, or eventually become fed up with it enough to seek means to destroy it.

Tyrants usually know they rule by fear, and they are perfectly okay with earning such "approval". They rely on such an iron fist rule to act on those who do not submit to fear, by no less than their full force.

[rewinn]

... That is, if he wants this to be a state where Goblins may live free and go about their lives, why set a precedent for the government to lie to them?

Because persuasion depends on emotion, not logic.

Plenty of leaders lie to their followers and, when caught out, plenty of followers shrug and say, "Eh!"

In the particular case of goblins vs. elves, there's enough preexisting animosity to predispose goblins not to care if RC is telling the truth or not; it's emotionally resonant and that suffices.

Anyway, I for one would not like to be the Brave Like Goblinoid who tells RC to his face "You're a liar!" since it would then be a race between the enraged crowd of RC supporters and RC's zapping finger.

[Hurkyl]

Okay, point taken. But why is it that we treat countries that do not grant that right as "criminals", as opposed to treating those that do as "generous", if the granting of these rights is an act of benevolence - as opposed to the revocation of these rights being one of malevolence?

If I'm going to praise or condemn a government from the list of rights afforded to its citizens, then I'm going to do so based on the contents of that list rather than on a game of semantics.

Taking away freedom of speech is a bad thing in the moral sense, as it is a violation of the individuals personhood, and a nation that does this is bad or criminal.

That sounds like a very brief outline of what might be a reasonable argument in favor of condemning a government.

Much better than a dogmatic claim that (1) that some right is natural, and (2) that natural rights are something we should care about.


{Scrubbed}

[Solara]

Not going to read all eleven pages to see if this has been brought up already, but does anyone else think that giant rift in the sky might become a bit of a problem for the fledgling Gobbotopia?

[Dunesen]

Not going to read all eleven pages to see if this has been brought up already, but does anyone else think that giant rift in the sky might become a bit of a problem for the fledgling Gobbotopia?

The hole isn't growing at the same rate it originally was. There's a projected limit to how much it'll grow.

[Teleporker]

The hole isn't growing at the same rate it originally was. There's a projected limit to how much it'll grow.

Also, it's been there for about a year, so I bet the hobbos are pretty much going "Meh" about it by now.

As for a problem in itself, remember Blackwing did not see the snarl, but rather another world in the other side of the rift. At least right now, it is not an active threat. (I will probably come up a crackpot theory no one will listen to once we get the next clue about that).

[kierthos]

The Oracle's prophecy keeps him from being raised, because it specified (in various ways) that his death would be rather permanent. It seems unlikely Roy and the others would WANT to raise Belkar in any case. Finally, note that having no body does NOT prevent someone being raised--True Resurrection will do the job regardless, but nobody in the Order is high enough level to cast that.

*sigh* Belkar is my favorite character. I'm going to miss him if he stays dead.

[Cbh66]

Also, Belkar's the kind of character who will have the most awesome, badass death ever. Raising him would just be anticlimactic.

[Kome]

Okay, would this be a bad moment to point out that

Spoiler

Show

The Lawful Good Paladins, oh how nice they are, randomly attacked a defenseless Goblin village, killed them all, and let the gods sort it out? Because, yes, of their species?

How is doing that too different from enslaving someone else because of their species? How exactly do they get to claim moral high ground? Because of the words in the alignment part of their char sheet? You can argue that the slaves aren't the ones that attacked the village; fine. In that case, the ones that attacked the village must be handed over for trial. No matter their current age. And, given that one CAN disturb the dead with spells in that world, no matter even their condition of dead or alive.

Whereas the Sapphire Guard was defending a gate, which is part of a prison to hold a god-killing abomination, the Goblins were part of a cult that's trying to control and manipulate the gate in order to control/unleash said god-killing abomination in a mad scheme that has a very high probability of unmaking reality. THAT is the difference. The Paladins were only a threat to those who were a threat to the world - goblin or not. The fact that they are goblins didn't seem to matter, since I imagine Soon would carry on the legacy from his time in the Scribble group of defending the gates against ANY threat. So whatever racism/speciesism you see on the part of the Paladins is most likely wholly in your head.

It should be noted that...

Spoiler

Show

...that village wasn't defenseless, it's defenses just weren't enough. Like Azure City, they had defenses but they were just overrun by superior numbers. And the attack wasn't random. They attacked a village of goblins that had the bearer of the crimson mantle - the supreme leader of the goblin cult.

[Kish]

Whereas the Sapphire Guard was defending a gate, which is part of a prison to hold a god-killing abomination, the Goblins were part of a cult that's trying to control and manipulate the gate in order to control/unleash said god-killing abomination in a mad scheme that has a very high probability of unmaking reality. THAT is the difference. The Paladins were only a threat to those who were a threat to the world - goblin or not. The fact that they are goblins didn't seem to matter, since I imagine Soon would carry on the legacy from his time in the Scribble group of defending the gates against ANY threat. So whatever racism/speciesism you see on the part of the Paladins is most likely wholly in your head.

Yes, I'm sure if the village had been a human village, they would have wiped out every single villager before leaving, too.

[/sarcasm]

Excuse the paladins' actions as you see fit, but realize that the author's commentary in Start of Darkness, in War and XPs, and in Don't Split the Party is against you.

[Akal Saris]

Personally I'm just glad to see that xvarts and flinds are welcome as well.

[Kome]

Yes, I'm sure if the village had been a human village, they would have wiped out every single villager before leaving, too.

[/sarcasm]

Excuse the paladins' actions as you see fit, but realize that the author's commentary in Start of Darkness, in War and XPs, and in Don't Split the Party is against you.

Not excusing anyone's actions, really. Killing non-combatants is never truly excusable. Your sarcasm aside, you can't automatically project bigotry on the Paladins when we have seen no evidence that it exists. If it were a village of all-Evil humans (as determined by their ability to, you know, Detect Evil) I'm willing to bet some Paladins would see no problem in killing every last villager. Either way, what the Paladins did and what the Goblins are doing are not all that analogous. I'm just trying to explain that.

And I fail to see how any of Rich's commentary is against me. The Paladins have done some incredibly jerky things, yes, but the Paladin's doing some messed up things is not an excuse for the Goblins to do what they're doing plus a little extra. If only there was some catchy saying about multiple wrongs and the outcome somehow being right...

The most I can find is in SoD's introduction when Rich says that...

Spoiler

Show

"There are people in this world who are driven to evil because of what their life has forced them to endure; Xykon is not one of those.
Redcloak might be, though." (emphasis mine)

Rich didn't say he "is," but he "might" be. And he "might" be because of what "life has forced" him to endure. Of course, considering the many choices Redcloak willingly made, an argument can be made that Redcloak "might" only be perceived of that way in the eyes of people who are moral illiterates.

[Kish]

Not excusing anyone's actions, really. Killing non-combatants is never truly excusable. Your sarcasm aside, you can't automatically project bigotry on the Paladins when we have seen no evidence that it exists.

No, but I can observe bigotry in the paladins when the evidence of its existence is clear and present. Evidently, we disagree about which of those is the case, but in any case, arguing that the paladins would have eradicated a human village down to the children after observing a general evil aura around the village hardly makes their actions seem less monstrous. Somehow, I find your implied premise that they stood around the village, unobserved, for enough rounds to ascertain that every single goblin in the village was evil to be implausible--for multiple reasons.

[Larocs Macalar]

just interrupting the topic, I liked the motte: screw you, suckers, its OUR turn now!

[Kome]

No, but I can observe bigotry in the paladins when the evidence of its existence is clear and present. Evidently, we disagree about which of those is the case, but in any case, arguing that the paladins would have eradicated a human village down to the children after observing a general evil aura around the village hardly makes their actions seem less monstrous. Somehow, I find your implied premise that they stood around the village, unobserved, for enough rounds to ascertain that every single goblin in the village was evil to be implausible--for multiple reasons.

I said none of those things, and if you think I implied it, that says more about how you read my posts than about what I'm posting. I am NOT trying to paint the Paladins' actions as not-monstrous. So, please stop suggesting that I am.

The only threats to the gates we've seen thus far have been goblins. The Sapphire Guard swore an oath to protect Soon's gate. If we saw a threat to the gate from a human/elf/dwarf village and the Sapphire Guard act differently, then you may have support for your point. Until then, you don't. It's just your opinion about the Paladins supported by nothing but how you feel about the Paladins.

**EDIT: grammatical errors**

[Teleporker]

*sigh* Belkar is my favorite character. I'm going to miss him if he stays dead.

Call it wishful thinking, but I feel that even if Belkar dies, that does not mean we've seen the last of him.

I personally figure that the fiends from the IFCC are going to intercept him on his way to hell and try to make him part of whatever their plan is.

[Kome]

Call it wishful thinking, but I feel that even if Belkar dies, that does not mean we've seen the last of him.

Speaking of wishful thinking, since the Oracle has never said outright that Belkar will die, I wonder exactly what will happen to him.

"...the halfling shouldn't bother funding his IRA."
"...he should savor his next birthday cake..."
"...your pal isn't long for this world..."
"Belkar will draw his last breath..."

Euphemisms for death, for sure, but Rich does like to surprise us.

[Optimystik]

The only threats to the gates we've seen thus far have been goblins. The Sapphire Guard swore an oath to protect Soon's gate. If we saw a threat to the gate from a human/elf/dwarf village and the Sapphire Guard act differently, then you may have support for your point. Until then, you don't. It's just your opinion about the Paladins supported by nothing but how you feel about the Paladins.

The problem is that they correctly identified that only ONE goblin was after the Gates.

"ONE among you threatens the very foundations of creation itself."

But they killed (or tried to kill) all of them anyway.

"Exterminate the rest and let us be done here."

(Hint: there's a reason that word is used most often with bugs, by the way.)

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Real World Politics is an Inappropriate Topic on this Forum. Please don't raise it - not even in reaction or relation to gaming or comics. Please review the Forum Rules.

[hamishspence]

And he "might" be because of what "life has forced" him to endure. Of course, considering the many choices Redcloak willingly made, an argument can be made that Redcloak "might" only be perceived of that way in the eyes of people who are moral illiterates.

I'd be surprised if that was the intent.

[The_Weirdo]

Okay, how about this for a fair game? Redcloak gets to sacrifice every single Paladin that survived that one raid, and to sacrifice their souls if they're already dead for power, due to the fact that - yes - these Paladins attacked a Goblin village and, without a hint of remorse, these Lawful Good people "exterminated the rest of them", women and children included. Surely the Lawful society of Azure City would see the logic in such indemnification. I mean, heck, this deal even lets Azurite women and children live!

The point being, snarl and world conquer aside, if they act like this and get to remain LG and retain their nifty powers, it becomes increasingly easier to see Redcloak's point of view regarding Humans, Paladins, Law and Good. Redcloak, by taking over Azure City, is acting in a not-very-different fashion than the Paladins - Lawful Good, remember - acted. And this is the Evil spiritual leader of a race made by the gods to be fodder. That said Evil leader is acting so much like Paladins speaks volumes about at least either one of them.

Consider that Azure City wouldn't have given up its (genocidal) Paladins - and their names for necromantic spells that could see the dead ones punished - for a trial had Redcloak asked nicely. Consider that Goblins were literally never given a fair chance - they are designated by the gods as fodder. And consider that Lawful Good Paladins can kill an entire village of them, women and children included, and somehow remain Lawful Good Paladins.

I'll assume most people are Good or at least Neutral. Think about it. Suppose you live in a world in which you are relegated to the outskirts of civilization, in which it is clearly not a crime to kill you, and you find out that the gods made the world like this with you as XP material.

Redcloak was never, not once, given a reasonale stimulus. He lives in a world in which it is not a crime, or even an Evil act, to kill him or his family, regardless of whether or not they did anything whatsoever to deserve this.

Quoting Henry the Navigator in Civ III, Redcloak's response to the world is a very fair: "Bull! You make an unreasonable demand and then expect a reasonable answer!".

Consider what Redcloak is doing. Were he the human, and the Azurites the Goblins, he'd be treated by that world as Lawful Good, and we'd not even be having this conversation.

As an aside, Giant is a great author - because, among other things, he creates villains that can easily see something about the world the way we do.

My apologies for the rant. But anyways, those in the moral discussion got the point.

[Kome]

The problem is that they correctly identified that only ONE goblin was after the Gates.

"ONE among you threatens the very foundations of creation itself."

But they killed (or tried to kill) all of them anyway.

"Exterminate the rest and let us be done here."

(Hint: there's a reason that word is used most often with bugs, by the way.)

That's not a problem at all. You see, I'm NOT defending the Paladins' actions as good (and I'm getting tired of having to repeat that). Just because something is "less evil" than something else doesn't make it "good." What the goblins, and Redcloak in particular, are doing is evil. Very evil. Threatens to unmake existence evil (even Xykon only wants to rule the world, until that gets boring). What the Paladins did was messed up, but not near on the scale of what the goblins have been trying to, and are, doing.

Just because two things are wrong doesn't mean they are equally wrong.

And, heck, that's not even bringing up the fact that Redcloak and the goblins don't HAVE to be in that particular cult. They continue to exist holding those beliefs and they are going to have to endure the consequences, good and bad, of holding those beliefs. They could try something else. Right-Eye tried and succeeded until Redcloak entered his life again...

Okay, how about this for a fair game?

How about no. Redcloak belongs to a very twisted variation of a doomsday cult - the variation that seeks to bring about the doomsday if they don't get their way. It scares me that anyone is defending his actions, much less having the audacity to suggest the people trying to stop said cult from unmaking existence are just as morally wrong based only on the fact that they are trying to stop said cult from unmaking existence.

[Optimystik]

Just because two things are wrong doesn't mean they are equally wrong.

I'm not claiming that they are equal. I'm claiming that the second one ("exterminate the rest") is what makes them bigots, which is also what Kish seems to be saying.

[The_Weirdo]

How about no. Redcloak belongs to a very twisted variation of a doomsday cult - the variation that seeks to bring about the doomsday if they don't get their way. It scares me that anyone is defending his actions, much less having the audacity to suggest the people trying to stop said cult from unmaking existence are just as morally wrong based only on the fact that they are trying to stop said cult from unmaking existence.

He wants to unmake an existence that is VERY much slanted against him and his species.

As for Right-eye, would anyone or any deity have batted an eye in that universe should a LG Paladin enter his village, kill all of its inhabitants, and set fire to the place to make way for a new pasture? No? So, no, Right-eye didn't accomplish anything.

[The MunchKING]

I think we're all forgetting a MASSIVE elephant in the room. Remember the Snarl rift? That was (and assumingly still is) growing? That's RIGHT over the city? The whole "Goblin Nation" thing may be a bit short lived, unless they managed to seal it back up, but the purple sky says no to me.

I thought Redcloak Said it'd slacked off growing, then finally staballized. Right when he first showed it to O'chul.

[Kome]

I'm not claiming that they are equal. I'm claiming that the second one ("exterminate the rest") is what makes them bigots, which is also what Kish seems to be saying.

Pretty good odds that each of the goblins they used Detect Evil on (however many it may have been) registered as Evil. Not to mention one of them was the bearer of the crimson mantle. Can you say for certain that they were saying "exterminate" because they were bigoted against goblins and not because they were Evil and allied with someone who in addition to being Evil is threatening the foundation of reality?

Look at the behavior and speech patterns of the Paladins aside from that one incident. Where is the hatred directed disproportionately at the goblinoids? Perhaps that one Paladin who gave the order was prejudiced against the goblins. We don't know. But what we do know is that you shouldn't generalize the actions or beliefs of one individual onto the larger group.

[The MunchKING]

I wouldn't put it past Redcloak to have stored some kind of failsafe on Xykon's phylactery. After all, he's the one who performed the ritual to make him a lich.

His failsafe was "hit it with an axe". Grand Admiral Thrawn the guy wasn't.

[Dunesen]

Redcloak belongs to a very twisted variation of a doomsday cult - the variation that seeks to bring about the doomsday if they don't get their way. It scares me that anyone is defending his actions, much less having the audacity to suggest the people trying to stop said cult from unmaking existence are just as morally wrong based only on the fact that they are trying to stop said cult from unmaking existence.

Unmaking existence is seen as a last resort. Ideally they take control of a gate and then allow the Dark One to negotiate changes to the goblinoid species that currently exists.

[Kish]

Pretty good odds that each of the goblins they used Detect Evil on (however many it may have been) registered as Evil. Not to mention one of them was the bearer of the crimson mantle. Can you say for certain that they were saying "exterminate" because they were bigoted against goblins and not because they were Evil and allied with someone who in addition to being Evil is threatening the foundation of reality?

Again, suggesting that the paladin who stabbed Redcloak's sister would have done the same to a five-year-old human makes him and the entire group seem--not better or worse, still equally vile--but much more visibly sociopathic. If you want to talk about behavior and speech patterns, how would they fit in in Azure City if they valued all life so little? (Conversely, their taking an attitude of "those people aren't people," while it doesn't make them better, certainly explains them being able to function in human society better.)

[Lerky]

Woo! Go Goblins!
I now consider myself a full-time goblin supporter instead of a part-time one