OOTS #1209 - The Discussion Thread

[Conradine]

So a bunch of innocents being slaughtered for something they knew nothing about means it's only fair that a bunch of other innocents are also slaughtered for something they knew nothing about? Because that's what you're saying.

The civilians are innocents but the paladins and the nobles definetly are not.

[darkelement]

So a few things come to mind. Why is there the assumption that Thor and Durkon are correct here? I don't think that's obvious at all.

The threat that the Dark One poses right now is solely because of Xykon and Redcloak. Once they're dead (or, in X's case, dead-er) TDO has no more latitude to hold millions of lives and souls hostage, and he can either agree to help seal the snarl with whatever the gods choose to give him as recompense, or resign himself to his entire existence having been completely pointless.

The goblin army only won and conquered the Azure lands because of Xykon. Without him, they aren't going to be able to hold it (nor SHOULD they - what they did to Azure was worse than the occasional raiding and destroying villages for XP the Azurites did). And Thor doesn't represent all of the gods, either! I'm not sure why Durkon thought Redcloak would be won over by this proposal but the fact is that if they just stop Redcloak now then that doesn't close the door on making a deal later, from a position of strength, without just handing over a huge swath of the world to the damn goblins. I mean, you all DO remember when we got to see what Azure City is like under their rule, right? And I don't know how canon book 1 is by this point, or maybe it was because of Xykon's influence, but by that point the goblins under Redcloak's command were pretty uniformly evil. Goblins are d***s, they aren't going to live in peace with anybody. And I don't suppose it crossed Durkon's mind that if Hinjo, nice guy though he may be, were to make it official that he was signing a treaty with the horde that invaded, despoiled and enslaved their city and make their exile permanent, his remaining term as leader of the Azurites would be measured in minutes.

Edit:

The civilians are innocents but the paladins and the nobles definetly are not.

I guess this is a reference to SOD and the scene with Redcloak's village getting wiped out? I figure this has been debated to death but you do remember that those goblins were part of the retinue of the high priest of an evil god, right? It's unfortunate that the paladins were indoctrinated to think of them as living target practice and cutting them up indiscriminately, but the danger they were addressing by assaulting that camp was legitimate. The previous redcloak bears some measure of the blame for sheltering among noncombatants like that.

[Rrmcklin]

The civilians are innocents but the paladins and the nobles definetly are not.

1) Not sure how blaming literally all of the paladins and nobles for that makes sense.

2) The taking of Azure city didn't just affect them; indeed, it would stand to reason that the vast majority of people affecting were neither paladin or noble.

So what's your point?

[Snails]

I agree that the current offer - keep a city you’ve already got solid military control of, and only if Durkon can get several other parties to agree - isn’t a very good one, and not enough for Redcloak to switch from The Plan to containing the Snarl. But outright killing the negotiator gets him nowhere.

What does The Plan positively offer? That TDO will be able to force concessions from other gods, at the negotiation table or by killing enough gods to cow them.

But now that Durkon has informed him that the gods are willing to destroy the world, why is the The Plan still superior? Because Durkon is must surely be wrong about the gods? That the admittedly anticipated contact from the gods, even though he is lacking feathers and a halo, will simply bull**** him? That is just making a guess.

Redcloak is deep into guessing games. Which is why Durkon's negotiation tactics are illuminating: How does Redcloak weigh getting concessions for Gobotopia in the near future, versus wild guesses about how seizing a Gate will turn out? Where does his values lie?

[Fergurg]

Well, there's your answer. Redcloak is irredeemable.

Redcloak, high priest of The Dark One, the god that all the goblins follow, was offered a chance to save the goblins and elevate their status. While not a perfect plan, it was at least a starting point that could be built upon later. What would Redcloak have to have given up for this? His plan to unleash the Snarl upon the gods.

Even when being told about how the gods will destroy the world before letting The Plan complete, Redcloak chooses to not only refuse the chance given him, but to brutally murder the one person he has ever encountered who was willing to listen and even to find a way to help to enfranchise the goblins.

[Conradine]

I figure this has been debated to death but you do remember that those goblins were part of the retinue of the high priest of an evil god, right?

Really?
Even the children?

Because Redcloack may be evil, but I've yet to see him killing a child in cold blood. Like the paladins did with his little sister.

1) Not sure how blaming literally all of the paladins and nobles for that makes sense.

2) The taking of Azure city didn't just affect them; indeed, it would stand to reason that the vast majority of people affecting were neither paladin or noble.

The paladins are a martial elite who, until proven otherwise, keeps doing exactly what they did 50 years before to Redcloack's village. They hunted goblins - including civilian and children - in the hills and then pursued them in the swamps. The nobles are those who gave orders.

Basically, these guys were doing their best to commit a genocide.
Damn, the hobgoblins and goblins actually behaved better than the azurites when they won, since they at least didn't exterminate the civilians.

[Snails]

So a few things come to mind. Why is there the assumption that Thor and Durkon are correct here? I don't think that's obvious at all.

Sure. But that argument cuts both ways. Why is there the assumption that TDO is correct about the Gates and the Snarl? Redcloak does know enough to realize TDO may be less well informed than Thor or even a specific priest of Thor. Questioning veracity is fair. But is Redcloak questioning the veracity of all the information that informs his choices in an even-handed manner? Or is it just a matter of convenience to dismiss one particular potential source of information, based on emotional reasoning?

[understatement]

So a few things come to mind. Why is there the assumption that Thor and Durkon are correct here? I don't think that's obvious at all.

The threat that the Dark One poses right now is solely because of Xykon and Redcloak. Once they're dead (or, in X's case, dead-er) TDO has no more latitude to hold millions of lives and souls hostage, and he can either agree to help seal the snarl with whatever the gods choose to give him as recompense, or resign himself to his entire existence having been completely pointless.

Thor mentions it's too risky to talk to the Dark One at all, in fear of a two-color snarl. That's why he needs Durkon to talk to Redcloak to talk to the Dark One.

The goblin army only won and conquered the Azure lands because of Xykon. Without him, they aren't going to be able to hold it (nor SHOULD they - what they did to Azure was worse than the occasional raiding and destroying villages for XP the Azurites did). And Thor doesn't represent all of the gods, either! I'm not sure why Durkon thought Redcloak would be won over by this proposal but the fact is that if they just stop Redcloak now then that doesn't close the door on making a deal later, from a position of strength, without just handing over a huge swath of the world to the damn goblins. I mean, you all DO remember when we got to see what Azure City is like under their rule, right?

The deal needs to be made now because 4 of the 5 gates are leaking open, and there's a timer before the gods call it quits and blow the world.

What's your point? Is it wrong for the goblins to seize the Azurite homelands? Yeah. Is it not going to help anyone at all if the Azurites tried to take it back? Yes, because you're looking at a second war which will devastate thousands of lives on both sides, some which weren't even present at the original conflict.

And I don't know how canon book 1 is by this point, or maybe it was because of Xykon's influence, but by that point the goblins under Redcloak's command were pretty uniformly evil. Goblins are d***s, they aren't going to live in peace with anybody. And I don't suppose it crossed Durkon's mind that if Hinjo, nice guy though he may be, were to make it official that he was signing a treaty with the horde that invaded, despoiled and enslaved their city and make their exile permanent, his remaining term as leader of the Azurites would be measured in minutes.

People throw around the acronym SOD for some reason. It doesn't stand for "Standard Oil Drill."

And there's never been countries before that started off with slavery and got rid of it, because that'd be crazy.

Why is this still a line of thought? It's been 1200 strips, and long past the dungeon-crawling days.

[Fergurg]

Really?
Even the children?

Yes, even the children. This isn't some cultural difference issue we're talking about. The goblins were created to be evil - and they embrace their evilness. In fact, the only non-evil goblins we've ever encountered, or even heard of, were the teenagers rebelling waaaaaay back near the beginning of the story - and the one that was helping the OOTS betrayed them because his goodness was just a phase.

[Dausuul]

No, it's not. Hypocritical characters are very hard to swallow, because it's grating, but it doesn't make them eviler -- just deluded (in Redcloak's case, evil and deluded.) Honesty/civility =/= goodness.

Xykon for sure does not have more "goodness" than Redcloak. Even Tarquin has more "goodness" than Xykon. Xykon is as evil (or even eviler) than a fiend, and more so because he chose to be.

Maybe in a strictly moral sense--but in a practical sense, Redcloak is worse, because his desire to justify himself locks him into an evil more destructive than anything Xykon's self-indulgent sadism would produce.

It is, after all, Redcloak who has been calmly contemplating the annihilation of the world and every soul in it, himself included, since SoD. For all his cartoonish villainy, Xykon doesn't want that. Durkon might actually have done better making his case to Xykon here! It would still have ended with a kill spell, because that's how the Big X rolls, but Xykon might have been open to reconsidering his scheme out of pure self-interest.

[Lethologica]

Well, to start, I've inferred that the main reason this point about ascended gods not surviving between worlds is to make it so that Durkon has to succeed in swaying the Dark One to help save this world, rather than having him assist with making the next. But if that's the case, then it's an unnecessary plot point, because there's still a reason for Durkon to want to avoid having to let the gods destroy the world: namely, that the dwarves will still be taken by Hel and condemned to torment by her.

Durkon has endless reasons to avoid having the gods destroy the world, starting with the fact that he and all his friends live there. So it makes no sense to say this plot point is introduced to motivate Durkon. On the other hand, the gods have little other reason not to destroy the world and start over like they've done a squillion times before. So this plot point is relevant to them in a non-redundant way.

But on the other hand, if you need a certain amount of worship and soul energy to survive the transition process, then that's bad news for Hel, who also hasn't had much worship of late to draw upon. Her plan hinges on the influx of dwarven souls tiding her over. But if they can, then the Dark One, who has sole custody over the souls of not one race, but several, and who is actively worshiped by mortals as well as getting dedications and souls, would logically have a better chance of making it than she does. If he's in danger, then so is she, and her plan becomes self-defeating.

Only if there is no difference between a newborn god and one who has survived a squillion interims (babies starve faster than adults, for a rather gruesome comparison). Only if there are far more goblinoids than the ten million dwarves Hel plans to claim, and we know Thor considers the number of TDO worshippers relatively small. It's only a plot hole if you dig the hole yourself, because the story certainly isn't doing it for you.

In-universe, the fact remains that Durkon has no evidence to give Redcloak to convince him his god is at risk here. He only has the word of one god who Redcloak thinks is a deceitful hypocrite. Worse, he only has his word that his god has said these things.

I agree with this part.

[Worldsong]

Yes, even the children. This isn't some cultural difference issue we're talking about. The goblins were created to be evil - and they embrace their evilness. In fact, the only non-evil goblins we've ever encountered, or even heard of, were the teenagers rebelling waaaaaay back near the beginning of the story - and the one that was helping the OOTS betrayed them because his goodness was just a phase.

Seems like a decent demonstration of the train of thought The Giant is exactly fighting against.

[understatement]

Maybe in a strictly moral sense--but in a practical sense, Redcloak is worse, because his desire to justify himself locks him into an evil more destructive than anything Xykon's self-indulgent sadism would produce.

It is, after all, Redcloak who has been calmly contemplating the annihilation of the world and every soul in it, himself included, since SoD. For all his cartoonish villainy, Xykon doesn't want that. Durkon might actually have done better making his case to Xykon here! It would still have ended with a kill spell, because that's how the Big X rolls, but Xykon might have been open to reconsidering his scheme out of pure self-interest.

Good and evil are moral senses, not practical ones. Else by this same train of thought V is eviler than Xykon because they killed millions of sentient beings at once, which Xykon didn't.

Intentions account for a lot, not just actions/results. Redcloak has conflated personal flaws and overall goals very thoroughly, but the root of it is to give people equality. How much of that drives him is YMMV. Xykon is pure cruelty, petty, and sadism, willing to trap souls forever, make paladins slaughter each other, and torture people for fun.

Redcloak is evil. But practically anyone in the comic is "gooder" than Xykon. It's not a competition.

Yes, even the children. This isn't some cultural difference issue we're talking about. The goblins were created to be evil - and they embrace their evilness. In fact, the only non-evil goblins we've ever encountered, or even heard of, were the teenagers rebelling waaaaaay back near the beginning of the story - and the one that was helping the OOTS betrayed them because his goodness was just a phase.

1200 strips in, not 120. And also -- really?

[Wizard_Lizard]

Well that didn't go how I expected to.. Hopefully Durkon survives.. uhh..

[TRH]

I agree with you that this world matters just because it is the setting and that a resolution where it is destroyed and all the problems are solved in the next one would be unsatisfying. I agree too that TDO dying before a new world is a redudant plot point but I think it is still necessary especially because my third point. People would argue that damning all dwarfs and turning Hel in the head of the northern pantheon is an okay price to pay to lock up forever the abomination that not only kills but destroys mortal souls.

Which people, though? A good chunk of the gods are already arguing that, even though they realize that this squanders the opportunity TDO represents. Hell, Tyr seems to want to destroy the world even more, just to spite the goblins!

[Lethologica]

Which people, though? A good chunk of the gods are already arguing that, even though they realize that this squanders the opportunity TDO represents. Hell, Tyr seems to want to destroy the world even more, just to spite the goblins!

And that's the point, isn't it? If the gods are on the verge of destroying the world despite what TDO offers, then the fact that TDO is a one-time offer explains why the world hasn't already been destroyed.

[dude123nice]

Called it! CalledItCalledItCalledItCalledItCalledItCalledItCa lledIt!

[LadyEowyn]

Analyzing Redcloak’s options:

1) Durkon’s offer is asking that Redcloak and The Dark One save the world rather than threatening it, but is offering little beyond what they already have, and the little that is being offered is conditional on several other parties agreeing. Taking the deal as it stands would throw away a massive bargaining chip.

2) The Plan (A) - use the threat of the Snarl to extort concessions from the gods - is kaput. The ritual to control the gate takes days to weeks (mentioned in War & XPs) and the moment Redcloak and Xykon start it, the gods will destroy the world. That means the only feasible avenue left for The Plan is (B) - the gods destroy the world, TDO gets a say in the next one. That’s not feasible because TDO is unlikely to survive, but Redcloak doesn’t know that and there’s no decent evidence to offer him.

3) Therefore, holding out for a better offer - if the gods want us to save the world, they’d better put more on the table - is the strongest option for Redcloak at the moment. He’s got something BIG to offer - if the gods want his help, they’d better offer something big in return.

Which requires channels of communication to remain open.

Which makes killing the current emissary a move that makes little sense, unless he’s trying to send Durkon to talk with Thor immediately - and in that case, telling Durkon to cast Commune and come back with better terms is a far simpler and less inflammatory option than killing him.

That’s what I don’t get. “Continue with the Plan, extort concessions from the gods” is no longer viable. It stopped being viable the moment the gods decided that destroying the world was preferable to the Plan’s success. You cannot pursue a hostage strategy against someone who is willing to kill the hostage.

[Jason]

In fact, the only non-evil goblins we've ever encountered, or even heard of, were the teenagers rebelling waaaaaay back near the beginning of the story - and the one that was helping the OOTS betrayed them because his goodness was just a phase.

Start of Darkness features goblins living in peace with humans. They might have not been exactly good goblins, but they were peaceful, and perfectly content to stay that way if Xykon hadn't come along and enslaved them all.

[JSSheridan]

Thanks Giant!

I thought Redcloak didn't need senseless violence.

I bet Durkon lives though

[TRH]

Only if there is no difference between a newborn god and one who has survived a squillion interims (babies starve faster than adults, for a rather gruesome comparison). Only if there are far more goblinoids than the ten million dwarves Hel plans to claim, and we know Thor considers the number of TDO worshippers relatively small. It's only a plot hole if you dig the hole yourself, because the story certainly isn't doing it for you.

I'm not convinced there is a difference, in point of fact. Not enough of one for Loki to not be concerned for Hel's safety, certainly. And the one thing that could tide her over, a sudden influx of souls, is something TDO could also expect under the same circumstances. Look, long story short, there are two things we know a god needs, souls and worship. Hel is in danger because she only has one. TDO has two. Hel expects to survive with one, somehow, yet TDO won't with two. Her souls and worship from prior worlds has no bearing on the question since it's already factored in and doesn't prevent Loki from giving his pessimistic prognosis. Support from the rest of the pantheon is speculative, and doesn't hold water when every ascended god before TDO joined a pantheon, and they nevertheless failed to survive.

And so on. We can engage in more conjecture, more hair-splitting and special pleading, but the fact remains that the information we have in front of us requires additional context or rules and principles we weren't provided to be reconciled. And through all of this, we have no concrete examples or other illustrations of the problem that would make it feel more organic. Honestly, the thing it reminds me the most of is the bit where Haley and Belkar were convinced to spare Bozzok for fear of letting MMO-parody crime bosses from taking his place. Pretty obviously an excuse to leave him as a loose end to cause more trouble later, which he did, and to add insult to injury, we learned that the huge pile of money Haley gave them to raise the dead thieves wasn't spent on that. And now he's dead anyways. Will Haley have to go clean up those offscreen bad guys later? One hopes so, otherwise her decision will seem even more foolish in retrospect.

[Dragonus45]

Even the children?

Because Redcloack may be evil, but I've yet to see him killing a child in cold blood. Like the paladins did with his little sister.

And I will bet you money right now that paladin fell for committing an evil act, Rich has stopped just short of saying exactly that when talking about the nature of events as seen through RC's eyes and why he chose to leave the exact results of who fell and who didn't of screen, and that doesn't even begin to get into the events of GDGU, which clearly show

Spoiler

Show

that the SG were at that point a borderline rogue operation acting entirely outside of any control of Shojo and that iteration of it was ultimately stopped by someone else from AC before they could commit genocide on the same hobs. That someone, O'Chul the Great Asskicker, literally went on to crate a stable enough peace for the local Hobgoblin nation to prosper, and build a massive army to then sack his homeland when RC coopted it, before personally joining the SG and personally reforming it to the point that it became an entirely different organization. The people RC wanted vengeance on were already or gone. Even then, nothing justifies conquering a city through force, and committing mass enslavement and slaughter on a totally innocent populace with nothing to do with the SG other then living in the same place as them.

[TRH]

And that's the point, isn't it? If the gods are on the verge of destroying the world despite what TDO offers, then the fact that TDO is a one-time offer explains why the world hasn't already been destroyed.

Does it? As I said before, it seems to have no bearing on the decision process for any of the gods except Loki, and he could have come around to his current position for other reasons.

[hroþila]

The paladins are a martial elite who, until proven otherwise, keeps doing exactly what they did 50 years before to Redcloack's village.

Well, good news then: HtPGHS proves otherwise.

[Jay R]

I'm astounded that anybody is surprised. OF COURSE Redcloak wasn't going to switch sides in five minutes at the beginning of the book. And of course he was going to attack Durkon in a surprise round.

I haven't read SoD so maybe I am missing something, but it seems like you're saying Redcloak won't accept getting what he wants at any time before the exact moment the Plan says he will. Which seems incredibly short-sighted and self-defeating, which I find out-of-character for Redcloak.

Redcloak has been working on The Plan for over thirty years, making many sacrifices, of which his eye was not the greatest. He is doing this for his god. He was not convinced to change his mind and turn away from it in a five minute conversation. Durkon could not prove that he was teling the truth, and even if he is, he can't offer him Redcloak any guarantees for his cooperation. That may be being stubborn, or mule-headed, or poor tactics, but continuing to work a plan for over three decades is not really being short-sighted.

C'mon, folks. This is early in the book. The complications don't end here; they get more complicated. Endings happen at the ending.

[Conradine]

Don't get me wrong, I didn't say that sacking the city was good. But the paladins - the guys with the katanas - well, I think the world is a better place without them.

Well, good news then: HtPGHS proves otherwise.

They still send around the world a person like Miko Miyazaki instead of loking her in an asylum. Nuff said.

[TRH]

That’s what I don’t get. “Continue with the Plan, extort concessions from the gods” is no longer viable. It stopped being viable the moment the gods decided that destroying the world was preferable to the Plan’s success. You cannot pursue a hostage strategy against someone who is willing to kill the hostage.

Well, smart or wise people can succumb to fixation on a single plan beyond good sense. We saw that not too long ago with Hel's fantasy of using that one last low-level vampire to make an army with which to attack the dwarven clan leaders and still win the Godsmoot vote. And Redcloak is really good at that kind of rationalization, so I'm sure he has some flimsy model for how he can continue on his current course.

[hroþila]

They still send around the world a person like Miko Miyazaki instead of loking her in an asylum. Nuff said.

Except at the very end of her life, Miko still managed to be a functional member of society who carried out her duties at least adequately enough. Why would they lock her up? Still, I feel that "not locking mean people up" and "failing to provide proper mental health care" are a very definite downgrade from "committing genocide" in the list of reasons why an entire group of people would deserve extermination.

[silversaraph]

Theory: Redcloak put some kind of personal "un-lifealert" spell onto Xykon's fake phylactery, and as a result knows that at some point he started secretly watching. He wants to accept, but has to make X think he's still on his side.

[Conradine]

In my opinion, letting loose a person like Miko Miyazaki is a war crime. They armed her, they trained her, they must answer for her.

Still, I feel that "not locking mean people up" and "failing to provide proper mental health care" are a very definite downgrade from "committing genocide" in the list of reasons why an entire group of people would deserve extermination.

But they are not innocent bystanders. They made the monster, they equipped and clothed her.