Formerly RC's Alignment. Now about Redcloak's possible redeemability

[CommodoreFluffy]

I realize that Redcloak does worship an evil god, and the goblin entry in the Monster Manual does say evil, but do Redcloak's actions actually put him in the alignment of Evil?

Redcloak kills and manipulates to serve an evil god, but only towards the ultimate goal of liberating his people. His actions differ little from what a human paladin would do if the tables were turned.

I'm tired, so i'll work out the rest of the argument later, but yeah...Discuss:

**************UPDATE****************************** ******
Alright, I have conceded that Redcloak is evil by DnD and OOTS cannon standards. And this discussion, if anyone wants to continue participating in it, is more about morality than alignment, and the possibility of considering Redcloak more of an anti-hero than a villain as we might look at V, or Dirty Harry or whoever.

[Xelbiuj]

but do Redcloak's actions actually put him in the alignment of Evil?


Yes, yes they do. /topic
Not doing evil acts to achieve positive results is a pretty big part of being good.

[zimmerwald1915]

I realize that Redcloak does worship an evil god, and the goblin entry in the Monster Manual does say evil, but do Redcloak's actions actually put him in the alignment of Evil?

Absolutely. Your own argument implicitly acknowledges that his actions are evil. What you are arguing as that his intentions mitigate his actions' evil to such an extent that Redcloak himself is not evil.

That is not the case.

[Burner28]

He has been confirmed to be Lawful Evil and actually acts like it, by DnD defintion.

[PetterTomBos]

BBBBbbbbbaaadddd to the bone!

[Raddish]

The Giant comment on a similar thread a few days ago saying that Redcloak ss Evil by the D&D alignment system

[The Succubus]

This seems familiar....

[Castamir]

He still does exactly the same things a Lawful Good paladin would do, though.

A wholesale genocide of orcs, goblinoids and others differs from killing humans... how? "Noble sacrifices" of brave paladins vs the craftman's death... I see no difference.

There are places in D&D where good and evil are distinct, but at least Azure City vs Gobbotopia is a case of pure "us vs them" to me.

Like a vast majority of RL conflicts, really.

[bluewurm]

The Monster Manual says he's Evil and Rich has confirmed it. Has Rich confirmed he is Lawful, though? the D20 website says "usually Neutral Evil"

[Palthera]

He still does exactly the same things a Lawful Good paladin would do, though.

A wholesale genocide of orcs, goblinoids and others differs from killing humans... how? "Noble sacrifices" of brave paladins vs the craftman's death... I see no difference.

There are places in D&D where good and evil are distinct, but at least Azure City vs Gobbotopia is a case of pure "us vs them" to me.

Like a vast majority of RL conflicts, really.

That would make the craftman not evil, not Redcloak. Sacrificing other people, rather than yourself, is definitely evil. And killing those orcs and stuff that register as "evil" when you detect evil at someone? Nothing wrong with smiting the evil ones.

[bluewurm]

Pandera is right, discussion of real-life morality is off-limits on this board. Under the D&D Alignment System, killing evil creatures "just because" isn't a non-good act.

[jidasfire]

Whenever arguments like this come up, and lord do they with an almost comedic frequency, I'm forced to wonder if the people who ask have ever heard the words or seen the actions of tyrants in the real world who talk quite largely about how they're doing it for the good of their own people.

Of course, I can't really mention those by name, so let's talk fiction.

If Redcloak isn't evil, who is? Is Magneto evil? Sure, he wants to help mutants, but he wants to help them by crushing humanity, either enslaving or destroying them, depending what story you read. Is Demona evil? Sure, she wants to help gargoyles, but she wants to do so by, again, destroying or enslaving humanity, not to mention the fact that her hatred of humans has led to the death and destruction of more of her own kind than any of the supposedly evil humans she hates. Is Herr Starr (from Preacher) evil? Sure, he wants to save the world from chaos and create order in its place, but he does so through blackmail and assassination, not to mention recklessly using dangerous resources like nuclear bombs in populated areas. He would admittedly murder millions of innocents to destroy the chaos he so hates, and he's also just a nasty, petty, cruel, bitter man.

Those are just a couple examples of villains who are supposedly noble, and often have people support them, when in fact, they are terrible people. Even if it's possible to relate to some of what they say, and the initial suffering they went through, it doesn't negate the suffering they cause to achieve their goals, and even if it did, the worlds they would create are not nice places. They would be every bit as ugly and terrible as the injustices they want to destroy, and probably worse, because what they want to do is intentional, rather than built on ignorance and misunderstanding.

All of which applies to Redcloak. Maybe there was a time when he meant well, but that time is long past. Whatever he says, and even thinks, it's not about his race, it's about him. He has to be right. He has to follow the Plan because he's thrown away everything else he could have had in life on it. He has to prove his brother wrong, his brother who thought that goblins and humans could live in peace, simply by living, rather than by creating tyranny and risking the destruction of everything. That brother, the one he murdered in cold blood.

If you don't think that's evil, well, I simply don't know what to say to you.

[Bastian Weaver]

Magneto is good or evil depending on who writes about him. He started out as clearly evil, and not too bright as well.
Redcloak serves the Dark One and the Plan fanatically, so he seems Lawful to me.
And Evil, naturally.

[thisisnotspam]

there was a thread about his aligment LESS THAN 3 DAYS AGO, THE GIANT HIMSELF CLOSED THE THREAD AND SAID THAT RC IS EVIL BY THE RULES OF DND even if he might be a heroic figure in our not sho black and white world, his world functions by the rules of the game


edit : http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=229949

[Sunken Valley]

A master planner who believes in order? Lawful Evil.

[FujinAkari]

Redcloak himself has confirmed he is Lawful Evil.

/thread

[CommodoreFluffy]

I suppose it's easiest to believe he's evil, but if i follow your arguments i would refuse to accept the magical/cannonical definition of good and evil as a proper judgement of morality.

His actions mirror the actions of hundreds of revolutionary, rebel and military leaders, whether history has declared them evil or good. He kills in the name of ideal for the betterment of his race. At worst I think he is misguided and dangerous like Willow from Buffy the Vampire Slayer when she turns all destroy the world in the 6th season.

Characters like Magneto or V aren't interesting because they're saints or demons, but rather because they have a moral complexity which transcends black and white definitions of right and wrong.

[luc258]

Real life comparisons? This thread will be locked soon.
Redcloak is Lawful Evil.

[Fish]

His actions are in service to a long-term goal of using a universe-destroying monstrosity to extort the gods into destroying his enemies.

Yes: clearly not just evil, he's Ernst Blofeld evil.

[Crœsos]

The Monster Manual says he's Evil and Rich has confirmed it. Has Rich confirmed he is Lawful, though? the D20 website says "usually Neutral Evil"

Redcloak's lawfulness is strongly implied in strip 546 ( "Unfortunately, I wrote it on my schedule in ink, so here we are. You're Lawful, I'm sure you understand.")

[dps]

A master planner who believes in order? Lawful Evil.

Not only that, but he insists on color-coded covers on reports filed by his subordinates, and insists that those reports be in on time. They don't come much more Lawful than Redcloak. In fact, I'd argue that he's more Lawful than he is Evil, but there's no doubt that he's both.

Interestingly, an honorable man in the sevice of an evil (or at least dishonorable) cause is a reasonably common theme in fiction (and history, but let's NOT go there), but Redcloak is the opposite--an evil person in the service of an (at least arguably) noble cause. That's much less common, at least for a character that's the leader of such a cause.

[CommodoreFluffy]

His actions are in service to a long-term goal of using a universe-destroying monstrosity to extort the gods into destroying his enemies.

Yes: clearly not just evil, he's Ernst Blofeld evil.

He never explicitly states that he wants to destroy other races, and generally wants to avoid major wars and battles because of the casualties on his side. I think that perhaps he is falling into the same kind of power addiction that Vaarsuvius had, just a lot slower.

**************UPDATE****************************** ******
Alright, I have conceded that Redcloak is evil by DnD and OOTS cannon standards. And this discussion, if anyone wants to continue participating in it, is more about morality than alignment, and the possibility of considering Redcloak more of an anti-hero than a villain as we might look at V (from V for Vendetta), or Dirty Harry or whoever.

[luc258]

In addition to the already mentioned "plan which risks to undo all creation", he is also using slavery in Gobbotopia. That alone is enough to put him into the evil category in my books.

[Oscredwin]

He's willing to risk helping Xykon survive SoD by turning him into a lich and he's willing to risk the end of existence by playing with the Snarl. He's a villain with admirable goals, but he's still a villain who's unleashed an epic lich on the world and is risking unmaking existence. That's evil.

[Fish]

He never explicitly states that he wants to destroy other races...

So extorting the gods is okay then?

Redcloak has already said his idea of peace with humans is "the silence of the grave." It doesn't get much clearer.

[Iranon]

Very clearly Lawful Evil, under D&D standards.

Unlike a lot of real life morality D&D isn't consistently Good-centric, so it doesn't mean he's "in the wrong". Don't think I can go any further without throwing personal conceptions of morality around, which is neither helpful nor wanted here.

[CommodoreFluffy]

Okay, you kind of with the whole silence of the grave thing...genocide trumps all.

but to previous arguments

So extorting the gods is okay then?

how would we feel about this if it were a good cleric extorting evil gods or demon lords. If we forget about the black and white alignment system, i think we can get a much more interesting take on the motivations and actions of all the characters.

he is also using slavery in Gobbotopia

It would be easy for one to argue that this is instead the forced labor of civilian (and probably military) POWs of another race (who would kill him if they had the chance). which while definitely terrible, abhorrent and evil in and of itself has been carried out in other instances by people not considered fully evil...like Santa Claus to the elves.

Interestingly, an honorable man in the sevice of an evil (or at least dishonorable) cause is a reasonably common theme in fiction (and history, but let's NOT go there), but Redcloak is the opposite--an evil person in the service of an (at least arguably) noble cause. That's much less common, at least for a character that's the leader of such a cause.

Ultimately this is probably the only conclusion we can reach, but it makes for one of the more interesting characters in this genre of stick figure fiction, and i think warrants more discussion.


I suppose the best solution would be to look at it the other way, and instead go to the conclusion that while paladins and other "good" characters are technically good that doesn't mean they can't be bad like Miko the crazy paladin

**************UPDATE****************************** ******
Alright, I have conceded that Redcloak is evil by DnD and OOTS cannon standards. And this discussion, if anyone wants to continue participating in it, is more about morality than alignment, and the possibility of considering Redcloak more of an anti-hero than a villain as we might look at V (from V for Vendetta), or Dirty Harry or whoever.

[zimmerwald1915]

His actions mirror the actions of hundreds of revolutionary, rebel and military leaders, whether history has declared them evil or good. He kills in the name of ideal for the betterment of his race.

If the best brush you can paint Redcloak with is that of a petty-minded nationalist, you've got a long way to go towards proving he's not evil.

[Bastian Weaver]

If we forget about the black and white alignment system, i think we can get a much more interesting take on the motivations and actions of all the characters.

Does it change anything? Like that fact that Redcloak willingly caused death of goblinoids for the greater good of goblinoids? I don't think so.

[Ksyr]

Even if RC is doing it for the "good" of his people, his people is still evil and will do evil deeds. He is not doing the same as a paladin because a paladin wouldn't overthrow a good civilisation to replace it with an evil one.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0511.html