How many goblinoids HAS Durkon killed?

[Ionathus]

He was in the Dungeon of Dorukan at the start, and the Battle of Azure City. But then he got swept away in the boats, so he wasn't involved in any Gobbotopia Resistance business.

Then when you look back through the archives...he's not really the one doing the killing. Basically everyone except Elan gets more kills in the Dungeon of Dorukan, and the first time we actually see him kill a goblin on-panel is in comic 34. The only other time is comic 111. He gets involved in plenty of brawls with goblins, but isn't often the one actually killing them (on panel).

Then at the Battle of Azure City, he kills one hobgoblin in comic 445, plus three more in comic 473. (thanks dancrilis for that 473 catch!)

That's a grand total of 9, on-panel.

Of course, this is a tiny portion of what he was actually doing at those events. He certainly killed more off-panel, and the kills that he does get are -- like those of the rest of the Order -- throwaway moments, so it's not like "snuffed out" is a poor description of what he was doing. I just find it very interesting that Redcloak would direct his rage towards perhaps the least bloodthirsty member of The Order...at least when it comes to goblinoids and other sentient creatures.

[dancrilis]

9 seemingly (I had missed the one from 445 earlier), but gave him the 4 in 111 (as it seemed Belkar didn't kill any) and you seem to be missing the three here (panel 7).

[BloodSquirrel]

For the record, since this is obviously in comparison to Redcloak's kill count:

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0300.html

[Darth Paul]

Regarding Redcloak's question, even were Durkon to have tried a straight answer, it would have been a lose-lose situation.

RC, for all his bluster about the way PCs treat his people as disposable lumps of XP, has the exact same tendency to lump all humanoids in together as indistinguishable, identical, monster-slaying, amoral, murder-hobos, basically like the party Roy first adventured with in On The Origin Of PCs.

I don't believe Redcloak has really taken most of what Durkon's been saying seriously, simply because it came out of the mouth of a dwarf (i.e., monster-slaying, amoral, murder-hobo). RC is morally invested in the view of the world that he formed in his youth, as the result of his very first encounter with humans; unfortunately, those humans being the paladins of Azure City, who wiped out his village and family for (as far as he knew) no reason but the thrill of it.

I think RC believes in collective guilt, and it really doesn't matter to him how many goblins any particular humanoid personally killed; merely existing as a humanoid "enables" the killers. So to him, all humanoids share the guilt and are equally deserving of goblinoid vengeance. It didn't matter what Durkon's answer was. Even if he said he'd never killed a goblin, so what? What has he done to stop others from killing them? Against a viewpoint like Redcloak's, you can't win that argument.

[Psyren]

For the record, since this is obviously in comparison to Redcloak's kill count:

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0300.html

Durkon wouldn't have known about that though, so it's likely he was referring to the likelihood of Redcloak's decision at that table resulting in the avoidable deaths of many more (if not all) goblins when the world is destroyed.

[hroþila]

Much of Durkon's contribution to the battle of Azure City was off-panel (we know it included a lot of healing, but chances are he also killed a few hobgoblins).

[King of Nowhere]

just because he didn't personally hit those goblins, it does not mean he did not take part in the killing, since he was buffing his teammates.

then again, it was a war.

[Ionathus]

Regarding Redcloak's question, even were Durkon to have tried a straight answer, it would have been a lose-lose situation.
...
I don't believe Redcloak has really taken most of what Durkon's been saying seriously, simply because it came out of the mouth of a dwarf (i.e., monster-slaying, amoral, murder-hobo).

I disagree, I do think that he has taken it seriously -- for the simple fact that, if he hadn't been considering Durkon's words, he would have been casting on sight. Redcloak is too genre-savvy to indulge somebody in discussion that he doesn't intend to get anything from -- that behavior reeks of a villain like Greg, who just liked to twirl his mustache and gloat about how EEEEVILLLL he was. Redcloak would be more pragmatic, and would just see a threat to The Plan, and would have cast Implosion immediately.

(Of course I say this about a villain who was just caught MONOLOGUING instead of finishing the Implosion job. Yes, Redcloak has some genre blind-spots but you get a pass when you only have one eye)

When Durkon revealed he was here on behalf of Thor, that got Redcloak's attention, and I do honestly believe he had it for the entirety of the discussion. Redcloak wouldn't have had that conflicted look on his face on comic 1209, page #2, panel #8 if he hadn't been taking the talks seriously. That panel is one of my favorite moments because it shows that the words DO sink in.

Against a viewpoint like Redcloak's, you can't win that argument.

Agreed, unfortunately. Durkon really had no chance of walking in and resolving it. But I love how, as many others have pointed out, the seed of doubt is now planted.

just because he didn't personally hit those goblins, it does not mean he did not take part in the killing, since he was buffing his teammates.

then again, it was a war.

That's a fair point, and goes with Darth Paul's point about "collective guilt." Regardless of his actual personal kill count, he's participated in the slaying of many more goblins, and probably didn't even think it was all that unsavory until recently.

[Psyren]

None of which makes his rebuttal to Redcloak any less accurate.

[Ionathus]

None of which makes his rebuttal to Redcloak any less accurate.

Also correct. I find it interesting to tally and consider the goblin deaths Durkon has caused (and considered cannon fodder), but Redcloak is the one here who's steeped in hypocrisy.

[Elfey]

Top of my head, of various types of goblins, goblinoids, and related, Redcloak has killed ~400 directly, including Hobgoblin "supreme leader", various discipline cases, the artisan, and . Far more if we include those he ordered to their deaths, which is in the thousands at least. And more who were killed off due to Xykon's whims including

He's blind due to the sunk cost and the need to think The Plan will redeem those deaths.

"I'm well aware that there's a high chance that what I'm doing will result in doomsday for us all. But I pushed my chips into the middle of the table long ago, so I might as well play my hand to the end."

Redcloak is unable to recognize the win being offered. He's emotionally tied to The Plan as the only thing that can redeem his actions. Even though, in essence, Durkon is offering a compromised based on what he's done to get the plan to work.

[Alcore]

the artisan,

Pigtail lady killed that one. he merely dusted the body.

He's blind due to the sunk cost and the need to think The Plan will redeem those deaths.

"I'm well aware that there's a high chance that what I'm doing will result in doomsday for us all. But I pushed my chips into the middle of the table long ago, so I might as well play my hand to the end."

Redcloak is unable to recognize the win being offered. He's emotionally tied to The Plan as the only thing that can redeem his actions. Even though, in essence, Durkon is offering a compromised based on what he's done to get the plan to work.

I don't think he will be redeemed. If the Dark One doesn't punish him then, I feel, he will use Redcloak up like a pawn after a half hearted thanks. His most redeemable moment was towards the end of the battle for Azure City when he finally learned that Hobgoblins are goblins and he was now a green Xykon. there is hope for him but I don't think that will save him.

[ebarde]

Yeah, I am surprised though how the fact that dwarves literally get racial bonuses against goblinoids haven't been brought up yet. I say this cause this has been mentioned in the comic before, so I thought there would be some throwback.

Although maybe it was just for that one joke, idk the thing with OOTS is cause it's hard to tell when something is 100 per cent rule of funny or not.

[Darth Paul]

Yeah, I am surprised though how the fact that dwarves literally get racial bonuses against goblinoids haven't been brought up yet. I say this cause this has been mentioned in the comic before, so I thought there would be some throwback.

Although maybe it was just for that one joke, idk the thing with OOTS is cause it's hard to tell when something is 100 per cent rule of funny or not.

That was mentioned back in the "joke per comic" period, as a play on how gamers at the table scratch for every conceivable bonus even after the dice stop rolling.

On the other hand, the background to the bonus in game terms was based on an ancient hatred between goblins and dwarves, which in turn was an allusion to Tolkien, where goblins and dwarves truly did have a bloody history and good reason to hate one another, what with peoples' grandfathers' heads being chopped off left and right, smashed in with iron clubs, or whatever the gruesome particulars. I haven't read Tolkien in quite a while because it began to put me off. The history of the Misty Mountains and pretty much the whole shebang seems to me just thousands of years of tribal warfare made more noble-sounding because he wrote poetry about it.

[Jason]

The +1 combat bonus against goblins for dwarves is in all the editions of D&D up through 3.5, but was dropped in 4th and 5th editions. It applies to orcs, half-orcs, and goblinoids.
It is undoubtedly from Tolkien, where orcs and goblins are different varieties of one species, and they drove the dwarves from all of their homes one by one, with many bloody wars fought between them.
It wasn't really tribal warfare though. All orcs in Tolkien are servants of the current Dark Lord, whether Morgoth or Sauron, even if that Dark Lord is in hiding or temporarily destroyed, and they are obeying his will in destroying and driving out the dwarves.

[Vinyadan]

The +1 combat bonus against goblins for dwarves is in all the editions of D&D up through 3.5, but was dropped in 4th and 5th editions. It applies to orcs, half-orcs, and goblinoids.
It is undoubtedly from Tolkien, where orcs and goblins are different varieties of one race, and they drove the dwarves from all of their homes one by one, with many bloody wars fought between them.
It wasn't really tribal warfare though. All orcs in Tolkien are servants of the current Dark Lord, whether Morgoth or Sauron, even if that Dark Lord is in hiding or temporarily destroyed, and they are obeying his will in destroying and driving out the dwarves.

Not only that, Galadriel is explicitly said to have thought that Dwarves were the best race when it came to fighting Orcs (=goblins).

In this case Galadriel was more far-sighted than Celeborn; and she perceived from the beginning that Middle-earth could not be saved from the 'residue of evil' that Morgoth had left behind him save by a union of all the peoples who were in their way and in their measure opposed to him. She looked upon the Dwarves also with the eye of a commander, seeing in them the finest warriors to pit against the Orcs.

(Unfinished Tales, The Story of Galadriel and Celeborn).

[Fyraltari]

That was mentioned back in the "joke per comic" period, as a play on how gamers at the table scratch for every conceivable bonus even after the dice stop rolling.

On the other hand, the background to the bonus in game terms was based on an ancient hatred between goblins and dwarves, which in turn was an allusion to Tolkien, where goblins and dwarves truly did have a bloody history and good reason to hate one another, what with peoples' grandfathers' heads being chopped off left and right, smashed in with iron clubs, or whatever the gruesome particulars. I haven't read Tolkien in quite a while because it began to put me off. The history of the Misty Mountains and pretty much the whole shebang seems to me just thousands of years of tribal warfare made more noble-sounding because he wrote poetry about it.

The +1 combat bonus against goblins for dwarves is in all the editions of D&D up through 3.5, but was dropped in 4th and 5th editions. It applies to orcs, half-orcs, and goblinoids.
It is undoubtedly from Tolkien, where orcs and goblins are different varieties of one race, and they drove the dwarves from all of their homes one by one, with many bloody wars fought between them.
It wasn't really tribal warfare though. All orcs in Tolkien are servants of the current Dark Lord, whether Morgoth or Sauron, even if that Dark Lord is in hiding or temporarily destroyed, and they are obeying his will in destroying and driving out the dwarves.

Orcs and goblins are different names for the same people, not subspecies. It’s just a marker of language drift.

The orcs didn’t drive the dwarves from their homes, dragons (and the occasional Balrog) did that.

In the backstory there is only one significant war that’s purely a dwarf-goblin affair (the War of the Dwarves and Orcs) and, long and bloody though it was, it’s a recent affair: the casus belli was the murder of Thorin’s grandfather.


Ironically dwarves were first imagined as being servants of Melko/Morgoth alongside orcs and later on as neutral arms dealers and only around the inclusion of The Hobbit did they become one of the Free People.

[Jason]

In Tolkien the difference between orcs and goblins is one of different names for the same species yes, but there is also the implication that goblins are the smaller orcs, and orcs are the biggest and nastier varieties..
You are correct that balrogs and dragons were the main reason for the dwarves leaving their most prominent strongholds, but other strongholds, such as Mount Gundabad, fell to orcs.

[Fyraltari]

In Tolkien the difference between orcs and goblins is one of different names for the same species yes, but there is also the implication that goblins are the smaller orcs, and orcs are the biggest and nastier varieties..

Not really? The only time a difference in size comes up (to my memory at least) is when uruk-hai get involved. Hell, I distinctly remember some being described as unusually tall goblins.
There’s also the fact that Azog is called a goblin in The Hobbit and an orc in the Lord of the Rings

You are correct that balrogs and dragons were the main reason for the dwarves leaving their most prominent strongholds, but other strongholds, such as Mount Gundabad, fell to orcs.

Was Gundabad ever a dwarven stronghold? I remember that it’s where Durin woke up but then he left and settled in Khazad-dum.

[hroþila]

That war between orcs and dwarves happened before Sauron revealed himself. The orcs of the Misty Mountains were pretty much completely independent back then. Also, Tolkien didn't try to depict it as "noble", he went out of his way to say it was particularly savage on both sides, which is pretty unique.

[Jason]

History of Middle Earth 12: The Peoples of Middle-Earth mentions that Gundabad was in origin a Khuzdul name, it served as a council site for the dwarves, with delegates being sent there to discuss matters relating to the dwarves as a whole, "and its occupation in the Third Age by the Orcs of Sauron was one of the chief reasons for their great hatred of the Orcs." It also says that Gundabad was "re-taken" by orcs reinforced and commanded by servants of Sauron in the middle of the Second Age.

There are two passages in The Hobbit that mention orcs, and both imply that they are bigger than goblins.
Bilbo is walking around in the tunnels beneath the Misty Mountains: "'A bit low for goblins, at least for the big ones,' thought Bilbo, not knowing that even the big ones, the orcs of the mountains, go along at a great speed stooping low with their hands almost on the ground." And Gandalf's description of the Grey Mountains to the north of Mirkwood: "they are simply stiff with goblins, hobgoblins, and orcs of the worst description." The implication is that these are progressively bigger or nastier creatures. That passage is also the only place "hobgoblins" are mentioned in Tolkien that I know of.

In The Lord of the Rings orcs are occasionally still called goblins, especially by the hobbits, but there are passages here and there where "goblins" seems to imply the smaller variety. "In the twilight he saw a large black Orc, probably Ugluk, standing facing Grishnakh, a short crook-legged creature, very broad and with long arms that hung almost to the ground. Round them were many smaller goblins. Pippin supposed that these were the ones from the North."

[Morty]

Ironically dwarves were first imagined as being servants of Melko/Morgoth alongside orcs and later on as neutral arms dealers and only around the inclusion of The Hobbit did they become one of the Free People.

The Silmarillion does mention that dwarves fought on both sides of the war of the Last Alliance, but that Durin's folk all sided against Sauron.

[hroþila]

Even in The Hobbit there's Orcrist, "Goblin-cleaver". In-universe, goblin is mostly the dialectal hobbit Westron word for "orc".

[Fyraltari]

History of Middle Earth 12: The Peoples of Middle-Earth mentions that Gundabad was in origin a Khuzdul name, it served as a council site for the dwarves, with delegates being sent there to discuss matters relating to the dwarves as a whole, "and its occupation in the Third Age by the Orcs of Sauron was one of the chief reasons for their great hatred of the Orcs." It also says that Gundabad was "re-taken" by orcs reinforced and commanded by servants of Sauron in the middle of the Second Age.

Having not read HoME XII I accept your view of dwarf-orc history. Although they really should have found a better name for the Moria War then. Seriously why do the names of wars and battle suck so often ? « Last alliance » yeah, unless you count all the other times elves and men fought as allied after that. « Battle of the Plain of the Battle ».

There are two passages in The Hobbit that mention orcs, and both imply that they are bigger than goblins.
Bilbo is walking around in the tunnels beneath the Misty Mountains: "'A bit low for goblins, at least for the big ones,' thought Bilbo, not knowing that even the big ones, the orcs of the mountains, go along at a great speed stooping low with their hands almost on the ground." And Gandalf's description of the Grey Mountains to the north of Mirkwood: "they are simply stiff with goblins, hobgoblins, and orcs of the worst description." The implication is that these are progressively bigger or nastier creatures. That passage is also the only place "hobgoblins" are mentioned in Tolkien that I know of.

In The Lord of the Rings orcs are occasionally still called goblins, especially by the hobbits, but there are passages here and there where "goblins" seems to imply the smaller variety. "In the twilight he saw a large black Orc, probably Ugluk, standing facing Grishnakh, a short crook-legged creature, very broad and with long arms that hung almost to the ground. Round them were many smaller goblins. Pippin supposed that these were the ones from the North."

These sound more like attempts to avoid repetition especially when they are used interchangeably elsewhere in the same book.

[Morty]

Something to keep in mind is that as far as I know, the Hobbit wasn't originally meant to be a part of a larger world. The Tolkien legendarium predates it, and it was sort of grandfathered into it.

[Jason]

In one of Tolkien's letters, where he talks about the origin of "hobbit", and discussing various house spirits of folklore he noted that the passage in The Hobbit mentioning "hobgoblins" as a larger variety of goblin was mistaken: "Alas! one conclusion is that the statement that hobgoblins were 'a larger kind' is the reverse of the original truth."
The note that hobgoblins were "a larger kind of goblin" is in the page "On Runes" at the front of The Hobbit. "On Runes" also says that Orc was the actual name given to the creatures by hobbits, and it was "usually translated as 'goblin'" in The Hobbit.

So I guess I was wrong - there are two mentions of hobgoblins in The Hobbit, although only one is in the main text of the novel.

The History of the Hobbit goes into some detail about the origin of the word "hobbit" and concludes that it was an obscure but "authentic" name for a type of elf or house spirit, but that Tolkien created the name for his protagonist's species independently, by coming up with a name that sounded authentic based on what he knew of languages and folklore. "That his invention should match actual obscure historical words was inevitable provided he did his work well enough...It is a tribute to Tolkien's skill with word-building that his invented hobbit should prove to have indeed had a real-world predecessor, though Tolkien himself probably never knew of it."

[Jason]

Something to keep in mind is that as far as I know, the Hobbit wasn't originally meant to be a part of a larger world. The Tolkien legendarium predates it, and it was sort of grandfathered into it.

That is true, but Tolkien did a great deal of work to try to integrate The Hobbit smoothly into his larger world, and The Lord of the Rings was written with The Hobbit in mind (it was a sequel, after all). The current edition of The Hobbit has lots and lots of small changes from the first edition that also facilitate this. At one point Tolkien did embark on a full re-write of The Hobbit to make it fit even more in line with The Lord of the Rings, but he decided to drop the project after a completing only a few chapters, when an unnamed acquaintance of his said "it's good, but it's not The Hobbit anymore." You can read the re-written chapters in The History of the Hobbit.

It's also true that dwarves were minor servants of the enemy in his legendarium until Tolkien made them good guys in The Hobbit and then while writing LotR decided to integrate The Hobbit into the same world as The Silmarillion. Re-writes followed, and in the published version of The Silmarillion they are among the free peoples. Mîm and the petty-dwarves in The Silmarillion in Turin's story are closer to their original conception.

[hroþila]

Min and the petty-dwarves in The Silmarillion in Turin's story are closer to their original conception.

Mîm was dank.
I'm sorry

[Jason]

Having not read HoME XII I accept your view of dwarf-orc history. Although they really should have found a better name for the Moria War then. Seriously why do the names of wars and battle suck so often ? « Last alliance » yeah, unless you count all the other times elves and men fought as allied after that. « Battle of the Plain of the Battle ».

"The Moria War" or "War of the Dwarves and the Orcs" is what other people call it. The dwarves call the final battle at the gates of Moria "The Battle of Azanulbizar" or "Nanduhirion" in the Elvish tongue. "Azanaulbizar" is the dwarvish name for the great vale that lay between the arms of the mountains about the lake of Kheled-Zaram.
Most of the battles in The Silmarillion have pretty cool names too: like "Dargor-nuin-Gillath - Battle-Under-Stars", "Dagor Aglareb - Glorious Battle", "Dagor Bragoliach - Battle of Sudden Flame" and "Nirnaeth Arnoediad - Battle of Unnumbered Tears".

[hroþila]

Isn't it weird how battles in The Silmarillion tend not to be battles as such but rather campaigns taking place through relatively long periods of time across a whole theatre (compared to ancient, medieval and early modern battles that would be very localized and would very rarely last longer than one day)? They almost read like WW1 battles fought with medieval weapons.