The most dangerous question: What do you want?

[understatement]

If he hadn't written or expanded on Redcloak's backstory - if The Giant had went 'goblin, doesn't like how goblins are treated, wants more divine recognition for his people, no more backstory needed' then Redcloak would still be where he is doing what he is doing.

Now it is important to the narrative in that it makes a better narrative - but it doesn't mean that Redcloak would be somewhere else now doing something else had it never happened.

I'm thinking more along the narrative lines of "if the SG hadn't attacked his village, Redcloak would stay whitecloak and probably live in his village, and eventually die there, instead of being revenge-driven enough to embark on a divine Plan that will result in him meeting Xykon and having enough power to conquer Azure City, which will lead to him and Xykon trying to seize the Gates, which have them wound up at Kraagor's Gate, which has Redcloak and Durkon meeting face-to-face for the first time."

Nothing to do with meta.

[Jason]

Thank you, Minrah. There it is in the comic: Redcloak doesn't really care about goblin welfare, he cares about feeling bad that he doesn't care. He would like to appear like he cares, but he won't let any concern for actual goblin welfare stand in the way of what he really wants, which is vindication of his own bad choices.

Any altruism that Redcloak shows towards goblin kind is in fact only the appearance of altruism, to make him feel better about himself. If Redcloak ever does begin to care about actual goblins living now that will be the moment he gives up on The Plan.

[Worldsong]

Thank you, Minrah. There it is in the comic: Redcloak doesn't really care about goblin welfare, he cares about feeling bad that he doesn't care. He would like to appear like he cares, but he won't let any concern for actual goblin welfare stand in the way of what he really wants, which is vindication of his own bad choices.

Any altruism that Redcloak shows towards goblin kind is in fact only the appearance of altruism, to make him feel better about himself. If Redcloak ever does begin to care about actual goblins living now that will be the moment he gives up on The Plan.

I'm in favour of that development.

[keybounce]

More dangerous than, say, 'Who are you?'

Or, 'Do you have anything worth living for?'

Why, yes. Being able to understand your goals, what you will drive for, what you will sacrifice for, those are good things.

But "What do you want?"? There are plenty of stories that deal with the whole idea of "Satisfy one desire, and then ensure that there is another". Lead someone by controlling their wants. With no real goal, just step and step, you are a tool of whoever it is that is guiding you.

That's *NOT* inherently wrong. If your goal is to serve that leader, it's fine.

There are plenty of real-world examples of this being good; plenty of it being bad. I will not give any examples.

If your reason for living is to aid someone and their goals, fine.
If your goal is to get what you want, and you aren't able to understand how whoever is helping you get what you want can influence your next want and your next activity, then bad.

I would have seriously thought you'd understand this by now. Your whole "Lets make use of Telepaths in the war, and not even pay them" is a great example -- you wanted Leeta's help, and did not believe in the end goal of "Rewarding people for their help". You took one person's goals -- DeLenn -- and made her goals your own.

And the consequences of that ...

[Emanick]

I would have seriously thought you'd understand this by now. Your whole "Lets make use of Telepaths in the war, and not even pay them" is a great example -- you wanted Leeta's help, and did not believe in the end goal of "Rewarding people for their help". You took one person's goals -- DeLenn -- and made her goals your own.

And the consequences of that ...

Okay, fine, I'll watch that last season of Babylon 5 already.

[KorvinStarmast]

Thank you, Minrah. There it is in the comic: Redcloak doesn't really care about goblin welfare, he cares about feeling bad that he doesn't care. He would like to appear like he cares, but he won't let any concern for actual goblin welfare stand in the way of what he really wants, which is vindication of his own bad choices.

I find this to be a very narrow take on Redcloak. He absolutely cares about goblin welfare. He also has some personal issues. He's arrived at the level of "big hand, little map" - which is the political level or the high echelon of leadership level (the level at which Shojo operated for this story). Most great leaders (and the not-so-great leaders) of their people have to reach into that aspect of leadership - for the greater good - to achieve the collective's ends. However, the pitfalls at that level increase the higher one rises.

On the other hand, Minrah has identified clearly in-comic that he's not a perfect leader, and why he's not a perfect leader. When given another option, he rejects it based (apparently) on the momentum he's already established along his previous course. To get him to change course requires a top notch sales job. (Haley, where are you?)
Let's be practical here: the offer from Durkon wasn't without its shortcomings. The sales job was hardly gonna get that Cadillac off of the show room floor.

We, the readers, know Durkon was playing it straight and honest, but Redcloak does not know that. Showing the stakes, and getting him to listen to what keeps goblins alive in the long term, may take an event as profound as

Spoiler: SOD

Show

his own betrayal of his brother

. I think (guessing here) that this event will be something that Xykon - his necessary ally - either does or does not do.

My other guess is that something the IFCC does or says will shake Redcloak up so much that he'll take a good hard look at his assumptions. What that might be is very uncleaer since we have not yet seen the artifact in question.