Why Redcloak is my favourite character.

[Luna_Mayflower]

Last night, between dreams of beating my mother and going to Spain, I awoke and realized that Redcloak is best boy. He's respectful, reasonable and logical. He's ironically one of the most human characters in the comic. Twisted by, and unable to escape, his past. His sacrifices holding him like shackles from gaining a bright future.

I do believe he's only evil because of his environment. He reminds me of certain individuals in history (not sure if I'm allowed to mention names) who grew up as oppressed peoples, usually black or other minorities, but let it turn them bitter and hateful. As a result they became just as bad as the people who trampled on them. Redcloack acts as if equality is what drives him, but instead its both anger at other races and sunk costs from his past. He's such a damaged individual who really needs someone to love him, to help him escape his past and hold him when he's weak.

And that person is me! Yes! I've decided that Jake is never coming back and so there is no better evil cleric (I've got a thing for them) than the Green Goblin!

[The Pilgrim]

Last night, between dreams of beating my mother and going to Spain

Why Spain?

[Squire Doodad]

Last night, between dreams of beating my mother and going to Spain

Okay hold up a sec


Also there's very much a difference between having a tragic past and (twisted) character development and being "human". Redcloak treats his people better than, say, Tarquin, but that doesn't mean he is a good person.

[Conradine]

Actually, Redcloak showed way more concern for the life of his subordinates than, historically, the overwhelming majority of warlords / generals / dictators.

This makes not him a "good person" but for sure is far from the worst.

[InvisibleBison]

I do believe he's only evil because of his environment.

No, Redcloak is evil because he chooses to do evil things, like enslaving people or attempting to murder Durkon. And you can't argue that his life experiences left him with no other choice, because

Spoiler: SoD

Show

his brother, who had the same life experiences as Redcloak, didn't make the same choices as he did.

[Worldsong]

No, Redcloak is evil because he chooses to do evil things, like enslaving people or attempting to murder Durkon. And you can't argue that his life experiences left him with no other choice, because

Spoiler: SoD

Show

his brother, who had the same life experiences as Redcloak, didn't make the same choices as he did.

Doesn't mean his environment didn't play a big role in him deciding to do evil. Not that it excuses his actions but I'm pretty sure Luna's point is that under different circumstances Redcloak could very easily have been Neutral or even Good, in contrast to people like Xykon or Tarquin who are evil because that's just the kind of people they are.

[Squire Doodad]

Doesn't mean his environment didn't play a big role in him deciding to do evil. Not that it excuses his actions but I'm pretty sure Luna's point is that under different circumstances Redcloak could very easily have been Neutral or even Good, in contrast to people like Xykon or Tarquin who are evil because that's just the kind of people they are.

I could see a Neutral Redcloak with Evil tendencies in an environment where Xykon was not present.

[Metastachydium]

No, Redcloak is evil because he chooses to do evil things, like enslaving people or attempting to murder Durkon. And you can't argue that his life experiences left him with no other choice, because

Spoiler: SoD

Show

his brother, who had the same life experiences as Redcloak, didn't make the same choices as he did.

That comparison is a little bit unfair. Especially using ”choices” in the plural. You know, people keep forgetting that

Spoiler: SoD

Show

1. hiring Xykon (their first misguided move) was Right-Eye's decision (and a decision Redcloak initially opposed);
2. turning him into a lich (their second, even more misguided move) was Redcloak's idea, but Right-Eye ultimately gave it his express consent;
3.a. arguably, Right-Eye quitting to found that village of his would not have gone so smoothly were it not for Redcloak covering his escape;
3.b. Right-Eye was never quite in the same position as Redcloak: he did not serve as a cleric, let alone the Bearer for many years when he suggested on Lair Island that Redcloak should just toss the Mantle to the first goblin cleric in the castle, and unlike Redcloak who would have had to make a very quick decision there (with Right-Eye urging him and with Xykon in the next room), Right-Eye has been pondering the whole business with his defection for some time;
4. when Xykon disappeared, Redcloak eventually decided he'll quit as well and join his brother;
5. Xykon catching up with them was no fault of his own;
6. and at that point they both made the same choice: follow Xykon and save their lives.
The only (ethically speaking) wrong call Redcloak made (NB: Right-Eye never had a chance of succeeding) was siding with Xykon instead of his brother, and all he would have achieved by not doing so would have been dying an honourable death and leaving the Plan in potentially less-than-capable hands.

[King of Nowhere]

i, for once, am extremely happy that redcloak got this offer from durkon.
so far, all his life, redcloak never had an honest choice he could take. he's right in that regard. if he hadn't conquered azure city, nobody would have negotiated with him. if he hadn't worked with xykon, he'd be dead already. even the business with his brother was not much of a clean choice, it would have required giving up on goblins everywhere else, on his responsibility as leader of all goblinkind. all his life, redcloak was forced to pick evil because he never had a workable good option.

but this time, redcloak was given a good deal. he had a clear choice between good and evil, with good being a real possibility and not a crazy optimistic chance.
and he made his choice. A bad choice.
redcloak is a tragic character. he could have been a genuinely good person if he had a different life. but in the end he made his choice. and i think he deserved at least that much: a clean, clear choice.

Also there's very much a difference between having a tragic past and (twisted) character development and being "human".

being "human" does not mean being a good person. it's generally meant as having a complex, multifaceted personality.

No, Redcloak is evil because he chooses to do evil things, like enslaving people or attempting to murder Durkon. And you can't argue that his life experiences left him with no other choice

the interplay between environment and choice is more complex than that.
sure, we can pick any single evildoer and see that it was his choices leading him to his path, that he always had chances for redemption. we definitely can't say that people are doomed to evil and have no choice in the matter.
at the same time, if we pick 1000 people who grew up in a bad environment, and 1000 people who grew up in a good environment, we'll get many more evil people from the first batch. and while for all of them we can highlight the choices they made, we certainly cannot disregard the impact of life experiences in steering one's choices in certain directions.

[Fyraltari]

See this is much more in line of what I’ve come to expect from you.

Also there's very much a difference between having a tragic past and (twisted) character development and being "human". Redcloak treats his people better than, say, Tarquin, but that doesn't mean he is a good person.

Redcloak is a human character but not a humane one.

No, Redcloak is evil because he chooses to do evil things, like enslaving people or attempting to murder Durkon. And you can't argue that his life experiences left him with no other choice, because

Spoiler: SoD

Show

his brother, who had the same life experiences as Redcloak, didn't make the same choices as he did.

These are hardly incompatible. Had Redcloak grown up with his loving family he wouldn’t have become Evil. The evil that people do is always their choice but it is also always a consequence to their life story. In this manner, Redcloak is much more human a character than Xykon whose evilness we are supposed to believe was inborn.

Also it’s a detail but

Spoiler

Show

Right-Eye did not have the same life experience abs Redcloak. As both the eldest brother and the high priest Redcloak was the leader, meaning that the pressure to carry out the plan and to make the right decisions was on him while Right-Eye had the (relative) luxury of passing responsibility to Redcloak. But also, and that’s a key point, Right-Eye’s metabolism wasn’y tampered by the Mantle and so he matured and aged. His decision to leave was in part due to the fact that unlike his brother he only ever had one lifetime.

[Lord Torath]

Hey, Luna, I found something for you: Enjoy!

[understatement]

These are hardly incompatible. Had Redcloak grown up with his loving family he wouldn’t have become Evil. The evil that people do is always their choice but it is also always a consequence to their life story. In this manner, Redcloak is much more human a character than Xykon whose evilness we are supposed to believe was inborn.

I don't think Xykon was evil from birth -- more like he got power at an early age, and chose to inflict as much pain and suffering as possible.

Also it’s a detail but

Spoiler

Show

Right-Eye did not have the same life experience abs Redcloak. As both the eldest brother and the high priest Redcloak was the leader, meaning that the pressure to carry out the plan and to make the right decisions was on him while Right-Eye had the (relative) luxury of passing responsibility to Redcloak. But also, and that’s a key point, Right-Eye’s metabolism wasn’y tampered by the Mantle and so he matured and aged. His decision to leave was in part due to the fact that unlike his brother he only ever had one lifetime.

Maybe someone should take the mantle off of Redcloak.

[137beth]

And that person is me! Yes! I've decided that Jake is never coming back and so there is no better evil cleric (I've got a thing for them) than the Green Goblin!

But what if Redcloak becomes a vampire? Would the Vampire Redcloak be better than the goblin Redcloak?


More seriously, I do think Redcloak is one of my favorite characters in the comic, as someone I love to read about. I don't think he's a good person, but he is a good character.

EDIT:
Also, I thought Redcloak's real name was Carlton? Are you telling us the vision you had seven years ago was not completely accurate?!?

[Jason]

A person's history can explain their character, but it can never excuse their character. Redcloak is the villain he is ultimately because of his own bad choices. The terrible things that happened to him can make his choices seem more plausible and reasonable, but they were still bad choices. And Redcloak's most noticeable flaw is a refusal to admit that he made bad decisions.

[Jason]

There seems to be an assumption throughout these forums that Redcloak's story about the gods creating the goblin races as xp fodder for their clerics and giving them all the low-resource areas to prevent them from overcoming the other races is true.
That story is certainly what Redcloak believes, and is (with perhaps some edits for his audience) what The Dark One told him in his information download, but is it true?

The only parts of the story that Thor confirmed directly were that The Dark One arose without the help of other deities, that his followers killed a lot of Thor's followers, and that Thor himself at first wanted to destroy him. Thor doesn't say anything about the gods having created goblinoids as xp fodder in the first place or having given them a raw deal as far as lands went.

Is there other evidence in the comic that the goblins have been given a raw deal? The hobgoblins had their own thriving city when Redcloak became their supreme leader, didn't they?

The bugbears seem to believe the Dark One only cares about goblins and hobgoblins too, not improving the lot of all goblinoids.

[InvisibleBison]

There seems to be an assumption throughout these forums that Redcloak's story about the gods creating the goblin races as xp fodder for their clerics and giving them all the low-resource areas to prevent them from overcoming the other races is true.
That story is certainly what Redcloak believes, and is (with perhaps some edits for his audience) what The Dark One told him in his information download, but is it true?

I think the Western Continent demonstrates that story is, at most, only partially true. Lizardfolk are very much a monster race, and yet on the Western Continent they seem to be equal to humans.

[brian 333]

While societal pressures often require them to limit their self-expression, evil people come from good backgrounds as often as from bad. Just watch a few episodes of Springer to see the horror show suburban life can be. There's still a lot we don't know about nature versus nurture, but evil cannot be explained by childhood poverty and oppression.

[The Pilgrim]

There seems to be an assumption throughout these forums that Redcloak's story about the gods creating the goblin races as xp fodder for their clerics and giving them all the low-resource areas to prevent them from overcoming the other races is true.
That story is certainly what Redcloak believes, and is (with perhaps some edits for his audience) what The Dark One told him in his information download, but is it true?

The only parts of the story that Thor confirmed directly were that The Dark One arose without the help of other deities, that his followers killed a lot of Thor's followers, and that Thor himself at first wanted to destroy him. Thor doesn't say anything about the gods having created goblinoids as xp fodder in the first place or having given them a raw deal as far as lands went.

Is there other evidence in the comic that the goblins have been given a raw deal? The hobgoblins had their own thriving city when Redcloak became their supreme leader, didn't they?

The bugbears seem to believe the Dark One only cares about goblins and hobgoblins too, not improving the lot of all goblinoids.

At this point, does it really matters if the Gods created the goblins as XP fodder or not?

I mean, the Gods created the Dwarves as bargaining chips, yet the dwarves have prospered. The Gods probably created a lot more races intended as XP fodder, yet those races prospered. The Dark One, according to his own narrative, was betrayed by the humans, not by the Gods. Redcloak himself wasn't originally wronged by the Gods, but by mortal people.

Yes, the Goblins were perhaps given a worse starting package than other races. That doesn't means there is a Celestial Boot over their heads preventing them from prospering, as many goblinoid communities, like the Hobgoblins, were able to develope to the point of managing to take over better lands from the supposedly "privileged" races.

[Conradine]

There's still a lot we don't know about nature versus nurture, but evil cannot be explained by childhood poverty and oppression.

Poverty and oppression are a thing.

Genocide, the deliberate and systematic destruction of a group of people, is on a whole different level.

What Redcloak went through is almost inconcivable from a modern perspective.

[Jason]

At this point, does it really matters if the Gods created the goblins as XP fodder or not?

Yes, that's part of the point, isn't it? Redcloak acts as if goblins will forever be victims until the gods and other races begin treating them as equals, but as Durkon points out "I guess I'm na really clear on how yer na already equal. Ye goblins got yer own territory, yer own rules an' clerics. An' yer own army tha ye killed a bunch o' people wit. Ye've even got yer own god all ta yerself. Us dwarves've gotta share gods wit ev'ryone else."
Redcloak's response is basically "okay, so in those terms we're equal, but we had to work for what we have while you were handed it," which is obviously false. The other races might have had better resources in their lands than the goblinoids to begin with, but the gods didn't build their cities for them.

[Luna_Mayflower]

Look at all these people, using words. It brings a tear to my eye.

But what if Redcloak becomes a vampire? Would the Vampire Redcloak be better than the goblin Redcloak?
EDIT:
Also, I thought Redcloak's real name was Carlton? Are you telling us the vision you had seven years ago was not completely accurate?!?

Okay, see, here is someone who gets me. Yes, vampire Redcloak would obviously be better. Yes, his real name is Carlton. Everyone knows Redcloak is just a pseudonym, but it is also the only name is his know by. At least to those who don't study my prophecies.

Why Spain?

I think my grandmother suggested it. In the dream.

Okay hold up a sec

My dreams have been proven to provide "end time prophetic insights". No time to hold.

Hey, Luna, I found something for you: Enjoy!

He's not topless, but it'll do. Do you think his powerful turn undead (but not quite) means he has high Charisma? Perhaps not bad Strength too? I just really want him to have a six pack.

Jake the Snake had a six pack. He showed it to Nale. Now he's gone.

[understatement]

Yes, that's part of the point, isn't it? Redcloak acts as if goblins will forever be victims until the gods and other races begin treating them as equals, but as Durkon points out "I guess I'm na really clear on how yer na already equal. Ye goblins got yer own territory, yer own rules an' clerics. An' yer own army tha ye killed a bunch o' people wit. Ye've even got yer own god all ta yerself. Us dwarves've gotta share gods wit ev'ryone else."
Redcloak's response is basically "okay, so in those terms we're equal, but we had to work for what we have while you were handed it," which is obviously false. The other races might have had better resources in their lands than the goblinoids to begin with, but the gods didn't build their cities for them.

I said some stuff about this back in 1208, and I'll just shift it over here:

What really cheesed Redcloak off was not the resource inequality; it was the racial stigma. It's the fact that other races can kill goblinoids on sight for no reason without any form of meaningful repercussion, divine or not.

Redcloak, for all his very severe issues, did not pull out some "perceived stigma" from empty air. He has a valid example of it:

Spoiler: the usual

Show

the Sapphire Guard massacring his village and having no punishment whatsoever.

Yes, some may have Fallen -- but as the Giant equates it, it's the equivalent of a city cop shooting your family dead and then having to turn in their badge. If an adventurer killed Eric, Sara, and Julia personally in front of Roy, and as punishment had to pay all his gold to the town hall, you honestly cannot expect Roy to swallow that and sit on his hands.

Nothing divine intervened or punished the Sapphire Guard, and so Redcloak believes the gods themselves have something against the goblins. This fact, coupled with the Giant's confirmation that the goblins worshipped no one before the TDO, lends some credibility to the XP story. It certainly does not mean all goblins are helpless victims (that's also a form of racism) nor does it mean the Dark One is telling the whole, complete truth, but Redcloak's claim can't be dismissed as groundless.

[Luna_Mayflower]

I said some stuff about this back in 1208, and I'll just shift it over here:

What really cheesed Redcloak off was not the resource inequality; it was the racial stigma. It's the fact that other races can kill goblinoids on sight for no reason without any form of meaningful repercussion, divine or not.

Redcloak, for all his very severe issues, did not pull out some "perceived stigma" from empty air. He has a valid example of it:

Spoiler: the usual

Show

the Sapphire Guard massacring his village and having no punishment whatsoever.

Yes, some may have Fallen -- but as the Giant equates it, it's the equivalent of a city cop shooting your family dead and then having to turn in their badge. If an adventurer killed Eric, Sara, and Julia personally in front of Roy, and as punishment had to pay all his gold to the town hall, you honestly cannot expect Roy to swallow that and sit on his hands.

Nothing divine intervened or punished the Sapphire Guard, and so Redcloak believes the gods themselves have something against the goblins. This fact, coupled with the Giant's confirmation that the goblins worshipped no one before the TDO, lends some credibility to the XP story. It certainly does not mean all goblins are helpless victims (that's also a form of racism) nor does it mean the Dark One is telling the whole, complete truth, but Redcloak's claim can't be dismissed as groundless.

At least someone watched the black-and-white picture show. You have clear intelligence. Be proud.

I wonder what Redcloak would think about the anime show Goblin Slayer.

[Conradine]

There's one thing that no one ( including Redcloak himself! ) don't seem to take seriously enough.
All those goblins and hobgoblins who died and were sacrificed in order to further the Plan are not erased from existence.

They are with the Dark One, enjoying an eternal reward of glory and honor. Something between Valhalla and Heaven.

So, it's really "sacrifices" those we are talking about, if they still exist as conscious individuals and are enjoying an eternal bliss?

[InvisibleBison]

There's one thing that no one ( including Redcloak himself! ) don't seem to take seriously enough.
All those goblins and hobgoblins who died and were sacrificed in order to further the Plan are not erased from existence.

They are with the Dark One, enjoying an eternal reward of glory and honor. Something between Valhalla and Heaven.

So, it's really "sacrifices" those we are talking about, if they still exist as conscious individuals and are enjoying an eternal bliss?

Given that every single character we've seen who's died and come back to life has been delighted to do so, I think it's safe to say that despite the appeals of the afterlife, being alive is better.

[Luna_Mayflower]

Given that every single character we've seen who's died and come back to life has been delighted to do so, I think it's safe to say that despite the appeals of the afterlife, being alive is better.

I'd argue that they all had unfinished business.

Look at the blonde haired dwarf girl who's name isn't important enough for me to remember. She was happy to live in Valhalla until she decided she wasn't done yet. She didn't immediately beg Durkon to revive her.

[The Pilgrim]

I think my grandmother suggested it. In the dream.

But we discontinued the tradition of beating our mothers centuries ago. We replaced it with bullfighting.

Yes, that's part of the point, isn't it? Redcloak acts as if goblins will forever be victims until the gods and other races begin treating them as equals, but as Durkon points out "I guess I'm na really clear on how yer na already equal. Ye goblins got yer own territory, yer own rules an' clerics. An' yer own army tha ye killed a bunch o' people wit. Ye've even got yer own god all ta yerself. Us dwarves've gotta share gods wit ev'ryone else."
Redcloak's response is basically "okay, so in those terms we're equal, but we had to work for what we have while you were handed it," which is obviously false. The other races might have had better resources in their lands than the goblinoids to begin with, but the gods didn't build their cities for them.

Yeah that's the thing. Redcloak keeps playing the victim card, but he stopped being the victim and started being the offender long ago.

But, frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if someone made the argument that it's fair for the hobgoblins to keep the azurites as slaves, because the humans have to compensate for centuries of goblin opression. Redcloak approves that way of thinking.

[Metastachydium]

I'd argue that they all had unfinished business.

Look at the blonde haired dwarf girl who's name isn't important enough for me to remember. She was happy to live in Valhalla until she decided she wasn't done yet. She didn't immediately beg Durkon to revive her.

I'd argue that the author thinks otherwise:

Folks, this is exactly how the afterlife has always worked in D&D; I've maybe tweaked some specifics, but the gist is the same. Souls go to the afterlife and eventually dissolve into the substance of the Outer Plane to which they are remanded, end of story. You don't have to like it or think it's fair, but it's how it works—because like my story, D&D needs the afterlife to not be Awesome Happy Fun Times Forever or else there's no logical underpinning for why the heroes should want to save the world from destruction.

[Emphasis mine.]

[Jason]

Nothing divine intervened or punished the Sapphire Guard, and so Redcloak believes the gods themselves have something against the goblins. This fact, coupled with the Giant's confirmation that the goblins worshipped no one before the TDO, lends some credibility to the XP story. It certainly does not mean all goblins are helpless victims (that's also a form of racism) nor does it mean the Dark One is telling the whole, complete truth, but Redcloak's claim can't be dismissed as groundless.

I wouldn't say it's groundless, but I still don't think it's completely true either.

The Sapphire Guard being insufficiently punished simply means that the Southern gods may have had something against those particular goblins. It does not show that all the gods have it in for all goblins.

On the flip side, has Redcloak, or any other goblin, for that matter, ever been punished by The Dark One, for killing humans or other races just because they weren't green? If not, then I say again "I don't see how you're na' already equal."

[Jason]

I'd argue that the author thinks otherwise:

With respect to the Giant, there is a reason to try to save the world even if the afterlife is "Awesome Happy Fun Times Forever":
The world is where new souls come from. Without new souls, the gods themselves cease to exist and the afterlife the new souls power eventually goes away.