OOTS #1212 - The Discussion Thread

[Worldsong]

“Jirix is bad for stomping on the demon-roach” honestly sounds to me as yet another “goblins are bad and Redcloak’s grievances are all lies” type of opinion.

Same. It sounds like one of those arguments where the reasoning is backwards: the person starts out with the desire to prove that the character is bad and then starts crafting arguments which support that notion.

While I find the distinction between « demons are evil because they’re made of it, therefore it’s okay to kill them » and « goblins are evil because it’s in their blood to be, therefore it’s okay to kill them » to be academic at best, I will say that an important difference between stomping on the roach and killing a mortal is, if my understanding of D&D cosmology is correct, that the roach isn’t actually dead in any meaningful sense and can come back to the material plane in the same way they came before.

Yeah okay, I'll admit that even as I wrote it I knew the distinction was rather arbitrary.

It's honestly a real problem. It feels like there should be qualifiers which would justifiably mark a certain type of intelligent creature as too dangerous or too harmful, but whatever I can come up with someone else could use to discriminate against a group they don't like.

So far the best I've got is that denizens of the Outer Planes, at least the ones which represent the corresponding alignment, don't have free will in the same way flesh and blood mortals do (or outsiders like Celia who don't represent a specific alignment)... except that someone could just turn around and say that goblinoids don't truly have free will either and we're back to square one.

Of course one could make the argument that this indicates such a qualifier doesn't exist and even creatures such as demons deserve a fair chance but then someone like Greg comes along and proves that certain creatures are so dangerous that all it takes is a single person giving them a chance for things to go wrong big time.

Which would mean that the only sustainable argument is that beyond a certain threat level caution and distrust are necessities to prevent unacceptable amounts of damage, even if it's unfair to well-meaning individuals who carry that threat level. Of course given that the demon roaches appear to be mostly harmless that argument wouldn't apply to them.

Am I too hopeful for still expecting a successful... diplomacy check?

Depends on whether a successful diplomacy check is defined by them convincing Redcloak or making him take what they're saying seriously. If it's the former it's not going to happen in this encounter, if it's the latter Maxrah might already have done so.

[ebarde]

It's cause I feel that generally creates a pressure for players to always try to one up each other to not lag behind, and since the game is mostly based on cooperation, having a lower level sorta colectively make the fighting force of the party lower. On the subject of outsiders, I never really got them just being this one alignment? Celestials become evil all the time, and I guess when they do they just become devils, but this seems to be an exception to the rule as the opposite has never been shown to be true in any sort of main DnD canon I'm aware of.

[Corseth]

I'm sure it's no coincidence here that Redcloak sounds like... well, an awful lot of people I know who debate a problem but don't actually seem like they want to solve it so much as just make you agree with their specifically chosen method of solving it.

In my experience, that often comes because they're more attached to the particular form of the 'solution' they arrived at, than whether or not that solution is effective, achievable, or agreeable. Sort of a "my way or the high way" approach but one where they include reality itself as one of those factors that has to just get in line, instead of something they have to account for. It's just human (And I suppose goblin) to get extremely attached to an idea and not be able to give it up, even when the alternative achieves the same end state. You end up caring so much about using YOUR way of getting there, that you start becoming an obstacle to actually getting there at all and start rationalizing why the other ways to the same end "can't" work. Heck I can think of times when I've done that too - fortunately never with anything as crazy huge as this problem.

[Worldsong]

It's cause I feel that generally creates a pressure for players to always try to one up each other to not lag behind, and since the game is mostly based on cooperation, having a lower level sorta colectively make the fighting force of the party lower. On the subject of outsiders, I never really got them just being this one alignment? Celestials become evil all the time, and I guess when they do they just become devils, but this seems to be an exception to the rule as the opposite has never been shown to be true in any sort of main DnD canon I'm aware of.

Most of the campaigns I've been in basically had the entire party synced in level. It oversimplifies progression in a way but at least people don't end up feeling like they're lagging behind, which often is counterproductive to having fun.

I'm pretty sure the reason why we get more stories about celestials turning evil than demons turning good is because the former provides a tragic story about a bastion of good having been brought low while also opening up new challenges for the protagonists whereas the latter creates the moral quandary for every demon slain whether the heroes tried hard enough to redeem said demon before putting them down.

[Corseth]

It's honestly a real problem. It feels like there should be qualifiers which would justifiably mark a certain type of intelligent creature as too dangerous or too harmful, but whatever I can come up with someone else could use to discriminate against a group they don't like.

I would say one of the burdens of being "Good" is realizing you can never really MAKE that sort of qualifier, and having to take each case as they come as individuals. They often say "Evil is easy" and I think that's a good example of how - it's easy to just lay down a rule of "All beings of type X are Y morality, always do bad things even if you don't know about it, and automatically deserve punishment without investigation" but it isn't right to. Good has to actually care about the acts and history of an individual before judging them (and should care about the circumstances and reasons that individual ended up as they did and why, even if it can't change this specific judgement), evil doesn't have to bother with all that hard work and can just slap a broad rule down.

The cosmic forces of D&D are definitely wonkier than the mortal races, but there's certainly existing, if rare story instances of demons (less often fiends) who haven't really done anything bad, even if they're not trustworthy. Or petty kinds of bad that don't justify ultimate destruction. It's definitely trickier ground because of the whole divine aspect... but I'd personally say morality wise, when you can't be sure, you have to err on the side of caution and mercy if you want to be "good" yourself.

[danielxcutter]

I would say one of the burdens of being "Good" is realizing you can never really MAKE that sort of qualifier, and having to take each case as they come as individuals. They often say "Evil is easy" and I think that's a good example of how - it's easy to just lay down a rule of "All beings of type X are Y morality, always do bad things even if you don't know about it, and automatically deserve punishment without investigation" but it isn't right to. Good has to actually care about the acts and history of an individual before judging them (and should care about the circumstances and reasons that individual ended up as they did and why, even if it can't change this specific judgement), evil doesn't have to bother with all that hard work and can just slap a broad rule down.

The cosmic forces of D&D are definitely wonkier than the mortal races, but there's certainly existing, if rare story instances of demons (less often fiends) who haven't really done anything bad, even if they're not trustworthy. Or petty kinds of bad that don't justify ultimate destruction. It's definitely trickier ground because of the whole divine aspect... but I'd personally say morality wise, when you can't be sure, you have to err on the side of caution and mercy if you want to be "good" yourself.

I think there’s at least some degree of “rational doubt” factor here; if they give you good reason to believe that they’re telling the truth it might be worth giving them a chance but even then you should keep an eye on them, just in case.

[Quild]

I'm sure it's no coincidence here that Redcloak sounds like... well, an awful lot of people I know who debate a problem but don't actually seem like they want to solve it so much as just make you agree with their specifically chosen method of solving it.

In my experience, that often comes because they're more attached to the particular form of the 'solution' they arrived at, than whether or not that solution is effective, achievable, or agreeable. Sort of a "my way or the high way" approach but one where they include reality itself as one of those factors that has to just get in line, instead of something they have to account for. It's just human (And I suppose goblin) to get extremely attached to an idea and not be able to give it up, even when the alternative achieves the same end state. You end up caring so much about using YOUR way of getting there, that you start becoming an obstacle to actually getting there at all and start rationalizing why the other ways to the same end "can't" work. Heck I can think of times when I've done that too - fortunately never with anything as crazy huge as this problem.

"Start of Darkness" was published in 2007 and really bring a lot about Redcloak's character.

It's no spoiler to say that Redcloak is a perfect example of "sunk cost fallacy".
He states in #544 : I'm well aware that there's a high chance that what we're doing may 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.

I believe Redcloak wants things be done his way because... He doesn't want everything he had done so far to be for nothing.


But tbh, it would be kind of a longshot for Redcloak to trust Durkon and Minrah at this point. He can have legitimate doubts about what there's saying. Both how his plan wouldn't work and on their plan would bring good to the goblins.
There's also the fact that in #1208, Durkon is not very fond of letting Azure City to the Goblins and then in #1209 he swears to deal about that with Hinjo. But there's no guarantee here. Durkon barely speaks for Thor (and Redcloak has to trust him on this) while there are so many parties involved.
In #1143, Thor explains how the Northern Pantheon is divided about what to do, how the 12 gods also are and how the Wester ones don't even believe TDO has brings a new quiddity to the game.

Things would be so much easier if Redcloak could communicate to The Dark One and simply tell him that the Gods are willing to bargain with him and that he simply needs to open a framework for safe communication (#1142).
But then again, TDO might not be willing to do that before he has control over the Snarl. For SoD reasons.

[danielxcutter]

As stated in an earlier thread, Redcloak’s so deep in sunk cost fallacy that weird-looking fish with lights in their eyes are looking down at him(which I agree with), but honestly “feeling bad about not caring” IS still a lot better than someone like Durkula, or Tarquin, or Xykon. He’s a villain, but the circumstances that made him into a villain are still problems that need to be addressed.

[Worldsong]

As stated in an earlier thread, Redcloak’s so deep in sunk cost fallacy that weird-looking fish with lights in their eyes are looking down at him(which I agree with), but honestly “feeling bad about not caring” IS still a lot better than someone like Durkula, or Tarquin, or Xykon. He’s a villain, but the circumstances that made him into a villain are still problems that need to be addressed.

It also leaves open the path to resolving the conflict in a manner which doesn't boil down to 'murder the opposition and move on with your life'. Kind of like the Pacifist Route in Undertale: yes it's going to hurt, but maybe it's worth it if it means that the amount of corpses at the end of the conflict is kept to an absolute minimum.

Then again I'm kind of biased.

[understatement]

The Jirix = former supreme leader doesn't really fly when you realize O-Chul never shows any sign of recognition, and also skewered him with a bar.

Regarding Redcloak - I guess I said this somewhere else, but the story is a lot more interesting if the characters have to persuade someone who is, by generous terms, near impossible to convince, then simply have hobgoblin #833 show up at the Pole at the last minute packing a full-on 9th level spell.

[Jason]

I'm pretty sure the reason why we get more stories about celestials turning evil than demons turning good is because the former provides a tragic story about a bastion of good having been brought low while also opening up new challenges for the protagonists whereas the latter creates the moral quandary for every demon slain whether the heroes tried hard enough to redeem said demon before putting them down.

Having a celestial being fall and become the epitome of evil is one of the foundational themes of Western civilization, if you think about it. There is no equivalent theme of an infernal being going the other way and becoming the ultimate force for good.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm sure it's no coincidence here that Redcloak sounds like... well, an awful lot of people

Yeah, and in some work environments you discover that rather than solve a given problem they'd rather make sure that their way is what is best is the final messaged that gets head nods. I'll stop there.

Had a boss who used to mentor us a bit, and his biggest bit of advice was: "When we {as an organization} have really hard problems to solve, your first step when you enter the meeting room is to leave your ego at the door."

Good advice. (I think Redcloak either forgot to do that, or may be unable to do that).

[danielxcutter]

It also leaves open the path to resolving the conflict in a manner which doesn't boil down to 'murder the opposition and move on with your life'. Kind of like the Pacifist Route in Undertale: yes it's going to hurt, but maybe it's worth it if it means that the amount of corpses at the end of the conflict is kept to an absolute minimum.

Then again I'm kind of biased.

Undertale is a bit... odd.

I mean, don’t get me wrong, I love Undertale, but the situation does not exactly match 1-to-1 here.

Spoiler: Massive Undertale spoilers!!!

Show

In Undertale, part of the point is that you can show mercy without too much of a cost, especially because you, the player, can literally rewind time. It is also important to remember that the monsters you meet in-game are in the end, good people who are misguided or aren’t really capable of being held responsible for what they did, and genuinely care for you and want to help you after you show them kindness.

Here it’s... hard to show that kind of mercy. And I’ve seen Undertale fanworks that deconstruct that kind of mindset and mercy. But even so... just killing everything in front of you usually isn’t the answer in real life, is it? Not when the opposition are people just like you.

Redcloak is horribly misguided and hypocritical, and I honestly don’t think he’ll get out of this alive. But even so, he’s not just “evil guy who needs to be killed #Who the heck cares”.

Violence sometimes is the answer, but not always and as a last resort. If you have a better option - a way with less bloodshed, a more peaceful way - why should you not take it?

Because it won’t work? How do you know? Have you tried? Have you seen how it turns out?

Because what they did is “unforgivable”? Oh, maybe the actions of a few, if what they did really is even that vile, but did they all explicitly help with it or are you too lazy to sort out the bad ones?

Because it’s better for “us”? Because they’re inherently bad, unlike how “we” are? Aren’t they people too?

[Gray Mage]

I don't think Jirix is the former supreme leader, as his cloak is of a different color. Sure, it's possible that he's wearing another one, but as cloak's color seem to indicate rank and it'd be a good foreshadowing, I think it's more likely he isn't.

As for him stomping the demon roach, I think it was meant to be a sign that he's breaking away/distancing from Team Evil. The timing/expression reinforces that for me. If it's for good or evil it remains to be seen, but my money's on evil, personally.

[Fyraltari]

The Jirix = former supreme leader doesn't really fly when you realize O-Chul never shows any sign of recognition, and also skewered him with a bar.

That is an excellent point.

Having a celestial being fall and become the epitome of evil is one of the foundational themes of Western civilization, if you think about it.

To be more specific would break the rules, so let me just say that I strongly disagree with that assertion.

Also, civilizations don’t have themes.

[ebarde]

The Jirix = former supreme leader doesn't really fly when you realize O-Chul never shows any sign of recognition, and also skewered him with a bar.

Regarding Redcloak - I guess I said this somewhere else, but the story is a lot more interesting if the characters have to persuade someone who is, by generous terms, near impossible to convince, then simply have hobgoblin #833 show up at the Pole at the last minute packing a full-on 9th level spell.

I mean, I honestly doubt O-Chul remembers the Supreme Leader enough to recognize him after all these decades. It wouldn't be the first time someone in this comic doesn't recognize someone they met previously. I've been thinking and I feel that the roach scene seemed to mirror a bit when the Leader immediately started being less passive as soon as O-Chul wasn't there anymore, although I think the similarity is a bit too vague to be intentional. Honestly, despite thinking it's reasonable enough that O-Chul doesn't remember him, I think the easiest explanation is probably that it really is someone else ig.

That being said, I do wanna see the supreme leader again, cause he was a pretty fun character.

[Worldsong]

Undertale is a bit... odd.

I mean, don’t get me wrong, I love Undertale, but the situation does not exactly match 1-to-1 here.

Spoiler: Massive Undertale spoilers!!!

Show

In Undertale, part of the point is that you can show mercy without too much of a cost, especially because you, the player, can literally rewind time. It is also important to remember that the monsters you meet in-game are in the end, good people who are misguided or aren’t really capable of being held responsible for what they did, and genuinely care for you and want to help you after you show them kindness.

Here it’s... hard to show that kind of mercy. And I’ve seen Undertale fanworks that deconstruct that kind of mindset and mercy. But even so... just killing everything in front of you usually isn’t the answer in real life, is it? Not when the opposition are people just like you.

Redcloak is horribly misguided and hypocritical, and I honestly don’t think he’ll get out of this alive. But even so, he’s not just “evil guy who needs to be killed #Who the heck cares”.

Violence sometimes is the answer, but not always and as a last resort. If you have a better option - a way with less bloodshed, a more peaceful way - why should you not take it?

Because it won’t work? How do you know? Have you tried? Have you seen how it turns out?

Because what they did is “unforgivable”? Oh, maybe the actions of a few, if what they did really is even that vile, but did they all explicitly help with it or are you too lazy to sort out the bad ones?

Because it’s better for “us”? Because they’re inherently bad, unlike how “we” are? Aren’t they people too?

I agree that Undertale isn't the best example: personally I actually don't like Undertale that much, something which has earned me much scorn over the years.

It was just the first example I could think of where the game actively encourages you to resort to non-violent measures to resolve your issues and where this is portrayed as being the better alternative to 'they're the enemy, so let's go on a murder spree.'

Other than that I fully agree with what you've said, except the part about Redcloak not getting out of this alive. Mostly because it'll take a while before they can get a replacement for sealing the rifts. And it'd probably be the easy way out for him.

I especially think the term unforgivable gets thrown around too easily as justification. The difference between justice and vengeance can quickly turn out to be a matter of perspective. I understand how people feel when they can't forgive someone, but does that make killing them a Good act? You could argue that they're too dangerous to let live but in that case you're no longer basing your judgement on them being unforgivable.

[Ionathus]

(Most gods would evidently do anything and everything they can to prevent that. But here's the thing: safely creating a new world is always a collective effort based on a full consensus; I would not be surprised to learn that safely unmaking the world also requires such a consensus, so as long as the Godsmoot is not over (the result of which would force dissenters to cooperate as per the stupid god laws), even a small group of gods might be able to sabotage Armageddon Special for just long enough. And if Thor and his circles/allies would come to see giving Big Purple the Gate the only viable solution, they could perhaps do that.)

The gods have known about The Plan for awhile, maybe ever since The Order of the Scribble had their campaign. It feels reasonable that they could've had a separate Godsmoot to vote on "if The Dark One's high priest begins the ritual, should we unmake the world immediately". Loki says they'd be able to unmake the world in less than 15 minutes, so unless the ritual takes longer than that they'd still have a good window for it.

I'm not married to this thought, and I definitely see where you're coming from.

I really doubt that this would be a viable plot point -- it would be weird to have the Bad Guy For Good Reasons receive their violent, deadly MacGuffin and then still be brought in to negotiations. The Snarl is the only established thing that can kill a god -- if I was a god, I'd do everything in my power to keep someone from getting that power at all.

It's not that he stomped on a demon roach as such, it's what that symbolizes. It's what he chose to do the very moment he had the authority to do whatever he wanted. The demon roach could be a stand-in for Team Evil, and thus it could represent Jirix's rejection of Team Evil, a sign that he had just been pretending up to that point. Or it could just be a show of petty tyranny, asserting his dominance through arbitrary violence.

Am...am I the only person who has never considered the Demon Roaches to be an official part of Team Evil?

They're seen as a nuisance all the way back to DCF, and their introduction in SoD is just as dismissive. They're annoying hangers-on and nobody seems to actually like them -- killing them is considered a pathetic waste of time, not a betrayal. They're occasionally a character foil for the MitD but as far as Redcloak and Xykon go, they're strictly inconsequential comic relief.

I never for a second interpreted Jirix squashing the roach as a statement about his allegiances. It was more "these roaches are tolerated by Team Evil and one roach made the mistake of thinking it was welcome anywhere."

Panel 9 does perhaps show Redcloak struggling with a major flaw in his thinking. If the gods destroy the world BEFORE the Plan is carried out, TDO has no actual leverage. Even if he survives, the other gods can make a goblin free world and leave him out entirely, which will leave him with no worship and no power and ultimately he'd wither away anyway.. and thus so would goblinkind, because the gods won't make the same mistake again.

I'm pretty sure if TDO survived, he'd get at least a say in the next world. The gods would have no choice but to include him in their treaties and agreements, because he'd sure as hell try to involve himself and if they don't let him at least participate, they might come into conflict and spawn another Snarl.

[Worldsong]

Am...am I the only person who has never considered the Demon Roaches to be a part of Team Evil?

They're seen as a nuisance all the way back to DCF, and their introduction in SoD is just as dismissive. Nobody seems to actually like them. They're occasionally a character foil for the MitD but as far as Redcloak and Xykon go, they're strictly inconsequential comic relief.

I never for a second interpreted Jirix squashing the roach as a statement about his allegiances. It was more "these roaches are tolerated by Team Evil and one roach made the mistake of thinking it was welcome anywhere."

Didn't consider them part of Team Evil. I just think that if someone's argument for Jirix being evil (well, evil in the completely harmful and intolerable kind) is that he stepped on a demon roach of all things, a demon roach with no character beyond being 1) a demon, 2) a roach, and 3) a snarky commentator, then that really sounds like they're looking for any excuse to be able to say "See! Hobgoblin bad! Again! Clearly Gobbotopia was a bad idea and isn't going to work out!"

[Ionathus]

Didn't consider them part of Team Evil. I just think that if someone's argument for Jirix being evil (well, evil in the completely harmful and intolerable kind) is that he stepped on a demon roach of all things, a demon roach with no character beyond being 1) a demon, 2) a roach, and 3) a snarky commentator, then that really sounds like they're looking for any excuse to be able to say "See! Hobgoblin bad! Again! Clearly Gobbotopia was a bad idea and isn't going to work out!"

I'm with you on that one. The whole scenario smacks of "Reading Too Much Into It" to me.

On a sidebar, I've enjoyed this Fallen Angel / Redeemed Fiend debate: although I don't have anything useful to add, it's made me rethink a few tropes & assumptions about my narratives as a DM.

[hroþila]

If saying that Jirix stomping on the demon roach is symbolic of either his rejection of Team Evil or his petty tyranny is reading too much into it, then what would you call insisting that people are using any of this as a reason to say all of Gobbotopia and every goblinoid ever are bad?

[Metastachydium]

The gods have known about The Plan for awhile, maybe ever since The Order of the Scribble had their campaign. It feels reasonable that they could've had a separate Godsmoot to vote on "if The Dark One's high priest begins the ritual, should we unmake the world immediately". Loki says they'd be able to unmake the world in less than 15 minutes, so unless the ritual takes longer than that they'd still have a good window for it.

His very next sentence, however, is „if we all agree on that course of action today” [emphases mine].

I'm not married to this thought, and I definitely see where you're coming from.

And I have tons of respect for that attitude. As the annexed figure shows, unfortunately I'm not really good at that.

I really doubt that this would be a viable plot point -- it would be weird to have the Bad Guy For Good Reasons receive their violent, deadly MacGuffin and then still be brought in to negotiations.

That is literally the Plan: to get the violent, deadly McGuffin, and then negotiate (instead of releasing it which would be somewhat counter-productive anyway).

The Snarl is the only established thing that can kill a god -- if I was a god, I'd do everything in my power to keep someone from getting that power at all.

Technically, malnutrition can kill them just as well on the long run, but it is indeed their only ”natural enemy”, so to say. That is the chief reason why the Plan could work if (and I acknowledge that is a big if, between the gods, Xykon, the IFCC and others) the Ritual is completed and the Gate is not destroyed immediately afterwards. And yes, that fear could also become a major issue for Team Purple, to say the least. Nonetheless, enough gods are sufficiently desperate to negotiate with a terrorist organisation. We are yet to see how far they are willing to go.

I'm pretty sure if TDO survived, he'd get at least a say in the next world. The gods would have no choice but to include him in their treaties and agreements, because he'd sure as hell try to involve himself and if they don't let him at least participate, they might come into conflict and spawn another Snarl.

Yes, this comes up from time to time as an idea, but I'm a little skeptical about it. If that's what he is hoping for (the others will cave to prevent a new snarl from getting created), he could just try to violently get himself involved in the decision making now.

[Potatopeelerkin]

Am...am I the only person who has never considered the Demon Roaches to be an official part of Team Evil?

They're seen as a nuisance all the way back to DCF, and their introduction in SoD is just as dismissive. They're annoying hangers-on and nobody seems to actually like them -- killing them is considered a pathetic waste of time, not a betrayal. They're occasionally a character foil for the MitD but as far as Redcloak and Xykon go, they're strictly inconsequential comic relief.

I never for a second interpreted Jirix squashing the roach as a statement about his allegiances. It was more "these roaches are tolerated by Team Evil and one roach made the mistake of thinking it was welcome anywhere."

I thought the idea made sense. They're not really a part of the team, but they follow Xykon so they're an indication of his presence and influence. Killing the roaches could be seen as 'cleaning up' Xykon's influence from Gobbotopia. Like removing flags.

When I read the strip I just took a roach kill as a roach kill and assumed he was doing it just because they're annoying, but I liked the more meaningful interpretation.

[understatement]

I think people (and when I mean 'people' I mean this hypothetical nebulous mass here) are more open to Redcloak being cooperative even at this point is because the comic has shown multiple evil individuals working alongside the Order, with Belkar and Hilgya leaping into mind.

[danielxcutter]

To be honest, I think part of the reason TDO isn’t part of the discussions is because he’s not actively trying to be part of them - I would imagine he perceived the initial status of goblinoids as an unwillingness to treat him and goblinkind fairly and cut ties because he thought they had no reason or intention to listen to him.

As we know, this isn’t quite true, but it’s not hard to see why TDO thinks like that, especially considering the nature of his ascension in the first place.

Edit:

I think people (and when I mean 'people' I mean this hypothetical nebulous mass here) are more open to Redcloak being cooperative even at this point is because the comic has shown multiple evil individuals working alongside the Order, with Belkar and Hilgya leaping into mind.

I think part of the reason some people aren’t is because “they’re selfish people so they act like that”, while Redcloak is “my people are being unfairly oppressed and this is a legitimate problem even if my motives and methods aren’t 100% appropriate” and people want to fall back on “they’re goblins, they’re Evil and killing him is fine and Redcloak is a bad character who is wrong”.

[understatement]

I think part of the reason some people aren’t is because “they’re selfish people so they act like that”, while Redcloak is “my people are being unfairly oppressed and this is a legitimate problem even if my motives and methods aren’t 100% appropriate” and people want to fall back on “they’re goblins, they’re Evil and killing him is fine and Redcloak is a bad character who is wrong”.

I get where you're coming from (and I agree with it), but I don't understand why a character being more selfish is somehow less unpalatable.

[Potatopeelerkin]

I think part of the reason some people aren’t is because “they’re selfish people so they act like that”, while Redcloak is “my people are being unfairly oppressed and this is a legitimate problem even if my motives and methods aren’t 100% appropriate” and people want to fall back on “they’re goblins, they’re Evil and killing him is fine and Redcloak is a bad character who is wrong”.

Well, personally I don't see Redcloak's redemption as likely, but that's not because I have anything against goblins (heck, I'm like one of three people on this forum with a goblin avatar). It's more just because he's already had chance after chance to turn back and he's turned down every single one, so I don't see why he'd act any differently this time.

Spoiler: SOD

Show

As Right-Eye mentioned, he hasn't matured at all since he put on the cloak- he's the same angry kid making the same bad choices over and over. I think that's an important part of what his whole story is supposed to be about.

[danielxcutter]

I get where you're coming from (and I agree with it), but I don't understand why a character being more selfish is somehow less unpalatable.

Oh, that’s the easy part. Obviously selfish characters acting selfish mostly sparks “oh, more of this”. Redcloak is more complex though, which is why some people are trying hard to deny this.

Well, personally I don't see Redcloak's redemption as likely, but that's not because I have anything against goblins (heck, I'm like one of three people on this forum with a goblin avatar). It's more just because he's already had chance after chance to turn back and he's turned down every single one, so I don't see why he'd act any differently this time.

Spoiler: SOD

Show

As Right-Eye mentioned, he hasn't matured at all since he put on the cloak- he's the same angry kid making the same bad choices over and over. I think that's an important part of what his whole story is supposed to be about.

That would give the moment he does change more impact, wouldn’t it? Besides, you have to build something up to tear it down.

[Ionathus]

If saying that Jirix stomping on the demon roach is symbolic of either his rejection of Team Evil or his petty tyranny is reading too much into it, then what would you call insisting that people are using any of this as a reason to say all of Gobbotopia and every goblinoid ever are bad?

Probably "Reading Too Much Into It", if I'm being honest.

But then, I've been mired in "Redcloak is obviously Evil Forever and he must now be written out of the story because I, personally, don't like him" debates for the past two weeks and I'm starting to see those boogeymen everywhere.

His very next sentence, however, is „if we all agree on that course of action today” [emphases mine].

Good point. I wondered if they'd already had a separate "Stop the Plan" Godsmoot and voted on that plan, and this one was a "There's Only 1/5 Gates Left" Godsmoot instead. But maybe they're bundled as a single issue (even though I'd expect the Gods to have different allegiances for each one).

That is literally the Plan: to get the violent, deadly McGuffin, and then negotiate (instead of releasing it which would be somewhat counter-productive anyway).

I'm not arguing that this isn't The Dark One's Plan -- it's 100% a cunning and effective (if risky) plan, as far as TDO and Redcloak are concerned.

I'm arguing that the other gods wouldn't be willing to allow this plan. "Let him have his superweapon that can kill us instantly, then once he's calmed down and appeased with that, we can negotiate" is a weird choice.

Technically, malnutrition can kill them just as well on the long run, but it is indeed their only ”natural enemy”, so to say. That is the chief reason why the Plan could work if (and I acknowledge that is a big if, between the gods, Xykon, the IFCC and others) the Ritual is completed and the Gate is not destroyed immediately afterwards. And yes, that fear could also become a major issue for Team Purple, to say the least. Nonetheless, enough gods are sufficiently desperate to negotiate with a terrorist organisation. We are yet to see how far they are willing to go.

Yes, this comes up from time to time as an idea, but I'm a little skeptical about it. If that's what he is hoping for (the others will cave to prevent a new snarl from getting created), he could just try to violently get himself involved in the decision making now.

Good point about malnutrition. And I figured TDO would also be unwilling to get too violent because he also doesn't want to create further Snarls -- however, he's already proven willing to risk destruction by tampering with the first Snarl, so maybe that doesn't hold up even now!

To be honest, I think part of the reason TDO isn’t part of the discussions is because he’s not actively trying to be part of them - I would imagine he perceived the initial status of goblinoids as an unwillingness to treat him and goblinkind fairly and cut ties because he thought they had no reason or intention to listen to him.

As we know, this isn’t quite true, but it’s not hard to see why TDO thinks like that, especially considering the nature of his ascension in the first place.

Agreed. Trying to get Redcloak to negotiate is particularly difficult because of the last time TDO tried to negotiate with PC races. It's both believable and compelling that TDO is unwilling to communicate with gods like Thor or even Loki -- he feels alone and betrayed, still reeling from the last time he came to anybody offering peace and goodwill and got brutally murdered for his troubles.

These last comics have gotten me to reread SoD. It's even more brutal to goblinoids and Redcloak's family than I'd remembered.

This story is so wonderfully compelling. I'm so excited to see where this goes!

[Potatopeelerkin]

That would give the moment he does change more impact, wouldn’t it? Besides, you have to build something up to tear it down.

Maybe. But you'd have to give him something more compelling as motivation than

Spoiler: SoD

Show

not killing his own little brother

to make it believable. It seems like a tall order.