OOTS #1213 - The Discussion Thread

[CriticalFailure]

To be honest, kids aren't that stupid either.

Kids aren’t that stupid, but a lot of people think they are. Of late, a lot of people think adults are as well. There’s a whole trend right now of people wanting simple stories that reflect what they think is right or wrong.

[Squire Doodad]

Kids aren’t that stupid, but a lot of people think they are. Of late, a lot of people think adults are as well. There’s a whole trend right now of people wanting simple stories that reflect what they think is right or wrong.

"Children are smarter than adults think, but stupider then children think. Of course, many adults are smarter than children think, and far stupider than adults think."

[danielxcutter]

"Children are smarter than adults think, but stupider then children think. Of course, many adults are smarter than children think, and far stupider than adults think."

Well ain't that a mood.

[Riftwolf]

It's one reason why, in the later SW episodes, Lucas et al stopped giving the Empire any redeeming characteristics.

Not that I particularly want to segue into a Star Wars tangent, but I'm having trouble remembering where the nuance was in the first few films. What with the Empire being happy to blow up planets and kill innocents (Lukes aunt and uncle), and that was just film 1.

[Squire Doodad]

Not that I particularly want to segue into a Star Wars tangent, but I'm having trouble remembering where the nuance was in the first few films. What with the Empire being happy to blow up planets and kill innocents (Lukes aunt and uncle), and that was just film 1.

It was the decision to have Warning Force Chokes, obviously.

[bunsen_h]

It would be fairly poetic if he basically ends up alone because of all the crap he's put his "allies" through, if you ask me.

In Babylon 5, Londo Mollari is a patriot. He starts on his path to evil out of an aggrieved sense of the loss of status of his people. He ends up sitting on the Imperial throne, both figuratively and sometimes literally alone. He can't trust anyone, he knows that most of the people around him are just sucking up to him, and his body is being used -- puppet-like -- to perpetrate even more evil.

[understatement]

First:

Sure thing. Feel free to. Glad you like it.

I love the detail of "The Shining One." The Dark One's name is equivalent to Redcloak deciding to worship the deity "Bloodrazor Babymuncher," which should have set off alarm bells for everyone.

***

I pretty much agree with all the points made in the previous page. It's perfectly possible that the Dark One and Redcloak remain evil, but I'd be surprised as hell if the purple quiddity isn't somehow utilized by a goblinoid to help things along. As pendell referred to earlier, having the heroes do it by themselves and "offer" equality to the goblins out of the goodness of their hearts feels, frankly, pretty condescending.

[Larsaan]

I think he shifts between them, which is why the tone is so mixed. I do remember having a conversation with him, back when he was still active in the forums, when he explained that part of his writing was aimed at adolescents who would roll up an infant dragon on an encounter table and think it was cool to just kill it.

I suspect, though, that this comic is long past that point where that would be meaningful. 3.5 is possibly a decade out of date at this point; I have to wonder how many readers we have following the comic who are in that young adolescent demographic. I know that when I started following in 2006, I was in my 30s.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Ironically, 3.5 was much closer to Rich's ideals than 5E is. 3.5 made a big deal of separating usually Chaotic Evil from always Chaotic Evil, which meant there were canonically a fair amount of non-Evil orcs and goblins out there (even if they were a minority). Meanwhile, 5E doubled down on race-essentialism in weird ways, with the only concession to variety or ambiguity being a single weaksauce line in the MM stating that you're free to retcon it in your homebrew.

Which I guess is just one more reason to disregard 5E lore in its entirely.

[Jason]

The problem arises because Redcloak's characterization does not end there; he's not just an Evil villain, but a symptom, and the disease is the manyfold wrongs heaped onto goblinkind.

Redcloak is not a symptom of a disease. He's a villain, and he's a villain because of his own bad choices and inability to learn from them. It is in fact a soft sort of racism to say "he can't really be blamed for the way he is." Yes he can.

I don't hate Redcloak. I think he's one of the best characters in the comic. But he's flat out wrong when he says the goblins need the deities in order to be equal in any way that matters.

[danielxcutter]

Redcloak is not a symptom of a disease. He's a villain, and he's a villain because of his own bad choices and inability to learn from them. It is in fact a soft sort of racism to say "he can't really be blamed for the way he is." Yes he can.

Oh I'm the one being racist? I never said it was because he's a goblin, I said it's because the Sapphire Guard literally marched in and slaughtered his hometown. The only chance he's ever had to back away was right after Dungeon Crawlin' Fools and that was only a few weeks after Start of Darkness.

I don't hate Redcloak. I think he's one of the best characters in the comic. But he's flat out wrong when he says the goblins need the deities in order to be equal in any way that matters.

When has he said that? And if the gods aren't willing to protect the goblins like any other mortals, then this is all going to happen again in some other form. "The goblins were able of doing it on their own without anything done on a cosmic scale" is flat out wrong as well because no, they bloody well weren't.

[Larsaan]

When has he said that? And if the gods aren't willing to protect the goblins like any other mortals, then this is all going to happen again in some other form.

What protection are the other mortals being afforded that goblins aren't? The gods never intervene in earthly matters aside from empowering and disempowering clerics, paladins, and other divine classes. At most we've seen Thor bending the rules for what a spell can do, but that still required Durkon to cast the spell first.

[danielxcutter]

What protection are the other mortals being afforded that goblins aren't? The gods never intervene in earthly matters aside from empowering and disempowering clerics, paladins, and other divine classes. At most we've seen Thor bending the rules for what a spell can do, but that still required Durkon to cast the spell first.

We've seen followers of the Twelve stomping on goblinoids for little more than being there in SoD and GDGU haven't we?

[understatement]

What protection are the other mortals being afforded that goblins aren't? The gods never intervene in earthly matters aside from empowering and disempowering clerics, paladins, and other divine classes. At most we've seen Thor bending the rules for what a spell can do, but that still required Durkon to cast the spell first.

From the W&XP's commentary:

Spoiler

Show

Most damning, though, is a decades-long history of paladins exterminating entire villages of goblins and other humanoids at the behest of their gods (a point that is seen directly in the pages of Start of Darkness). That the city’s undoing should be orchestrated by Redcloak, a villain that they themselves accidentally created, is only fitting. The Twelve Gods may have sanctioned the paladins’ massacres, but even the gods can’t stop Karma from kicking them in their divine asses once in a while.

[dancrilis]

Oh I'm the one being racist? I never said it was because he's a goblin, I said it's because the Sapphire Guard literally marched in and slaughtered his hometown. The only chance he's ever had to back away was right after Dungeon Crawlin' Fools and that was only a few weeks after Start of Darkness.

Months (panel 7).

When has he said that? And if the gods aren't willing to protect the goblins like any other mortals, then this is all going to happen again in some other form. "The goblins were able of doing it on their own without anything done on a cosmic scale" is flat out wrong as well because no, they bloody well weren't.

The gods didn't seem to really care about these two - one of whom didn't even have a chance to attack, note that Miko had abilities to resolve that without killing them - she just didn't use them and had there been a whole load of low level bandits with them I am not sure there wouldn't have been a whole load more corpses, I am not at all convinced that if the Sapphire Guard had slaughtered a cell of human devil worshippers bent on claiming a gate they wouldn't have slaughtered them down to the children also.

[danielxcutter]

Months (panel 7).

So? What happened is still something that could take years to get over, if at all!

The gods didn't seem to really care about these two - one of whom didn't even have a chance to attack, note that Miko had abilities to resolve that without killing them - she just didn't use them and had there been a whole load of low level bandits with them I am not sure there wouldn't have been a whole load more corpses, I am not at all convinced that if the Sapphire Guard had slaughtered a cell of human devil worshippers bent on claiming a gate they wouldn't have slaughtered them down to the children also.

Goblinoids aren't devil-worshipers or beings of similar morality.

[Lemarc]

Ironically, 3.5 was much closer to Rich's ideals than 5E is. 3.5 made a big deal of separating usually Chaotic Evil from always Chaotic Evil, which meant there were canonically a fair amount of non-Evil orcs and goblins out there (even if they were a minority). Meanwhile, 5E doubled down on race-essentialism in weird ways, with the only concession to variety or ambiguity being a single weaksauce line in the MM stating that you're free to retcon it in your homebrew.

Which I guess is just one more reason to disregard 5E lore in its entirely.

Ever since 2E there has been this weird tension in the default "presumed setting" presented in D&D between wanting to present intelligent monsters as essential or mythical evils to be defeated, or as people with societies and complexities. Arguably ever since 1E, with its % women/children in the Monster Manual and mention of "creature rights" in the DMG, except that 1E didn't seem to feel conflicted about it like later editions did.

If in your setting goblins are evil unseelie fairies born from stone who literally eat babies, then it is a lot easier to have a dungeon crawl where you wipe out waves of the little imps without raising any troublesome implications. Likewise if dragons are the quasi-Satanic creatures that tend to crop up in medieval myth, it makes sense to kill them while they're young before they grow up to ravage the countryside (like the Lambton Worm). It seems to me that the attitude Rich dislikes springs in large part from material like 3.5 which tried to have it both ways - "these guys are evil raiders and slavers who despoil the land like locusts. Oh, but some of them are lawful good and here are rules to play as one if you want." Presented as monsters first but then qualified as people.

[dancrilis]

So? What happened is still something that could take years to get over, if at all!

So nothing, that was merely adding accuracy of scope - which may or may not be relevant (you could also argue that a few months and a few weeks are similiar enough to not be worth splitting the hair on it).

Goblinoids aren't devil-worshipers or beings of similar morality.

While I am dubious about if The Dark One is actually LE it would be the understanding from Redcloak seeming to have the Law Domain and being called an Evil deity at times - so lets assume it is true that he is LE, then Goblinoids worship a LE outsider (with the Evil and Lawful subtypes).

So yes a being of similiar morality to a Archdevil.

[hamishspence]

Evil deities might ping like they were archfiends due to having the Evil subtype and the Outsider type - but they are rather more flexible.

[Jasdoif]

I don't think letting the Plan succede is something Roy would ever begin considering as a valid option. In the best case it would still mean that an evil god with a huge "Destroy the world" button and that's not a desiderable outcome.

If the Dark One get controls of the Gate, the Snarl is almost certainly getting released in some form. If not because unleashing the Snarl on the gods has been the Dark One's plan all along, with the concession thing being a pie-in-the-sky veneer that costs the Dark One little to try and makes the whole thing look more palatable to his priests; then because he's not going to get concessions in any meaningful way.

This is the last Gate; if it ceases functioning, the Snarl will be able to get out in short order. Which means any gods that don't trust in the Dark One's or Redcloak's ability to not have screwed it up in the process of manipulating it; have a new reason to remake the world and little reason to believe the Snarl won't get out even if they were to give the Dark One everything he demanded, even if the Dark One was (foolhardily) willing to relinquish control of the Gate in turn. If the Dark One does get concessions for the world, it'll almost immediately be followed by destroying the world to obviate those concessions.

[hungrycrow]

We can't make blanket statements about all goblinoids or even all Dark One worshippers, but the goblins that work for Redcloak are pretty card-carrying evil. These hobgoblins give a fiendish necromancer a pass specifically because she seems evil https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0538.html.
Redcloak even summons devils to do his dirty work.

[Metastachydium]

If the Dark One get controls of the Gate, the Snarl is almost certainly getting released in some form. If not because unleashing the Snarl on the gods has been the Dark One's plan all along, with the concession thing being a pie-in-the-sky veneer that costs the Dark One little to try and makes the whole thing look more palatable to his priests;

Never mind that this makes precious little sense (if Big Purple wanted to commit suicide by cop, he'd have found some easier way to achieve that by now), not to mention that this idea directly contradicts the Word of the Giant.

then because he's not going to get concessions in any meaningful way.

This is the last Gate; if it ceases functioning, the Snarl will be able to get out in short order. Which means any gods that don't trust in the Dark One's or Redcloak's ability to not have screwed it up in the process of manipulating it; have a new reason to remake the world and little reason to believe the Snarl won't get out even if they were to give the Dark One everything he demanded, even if the Dark One was (foolhardily) willing to relinquish control of the Gate in turn. If the Dark One does get concessions for the world, it'll almost immediately be followed by destroying the world to obviate those concessions.

I think this is largely irrelevant. No poster that I know of (myself included, surprising as that may sound) believes that the story will end with the Dark One ruling the cosmos from atop his trusty nuke, while everyone blissfully ignores the four exposed Rifts. Allowing the Plan to succeed would only serve to pave the way for a safer long term solution via getting the Dark One to initiate talks (which is part of the Plan).

While I am dubious about if The Dark One is actually LE it would be the understanding from Redcloak seeming to have the Law Domain and being called an Evil deity at times - so lets assume it is true that he is LE, then Goblinoids worship a LE outsider (with the Evil and Lawful subtypes).

So yes a being of similiar morality to a Archdevil.

…and this is how and why the entire demon-worshipping sect of the Chaotic Evil Archfiend-equivalent, Loki was wiped out long ago.

[pendell]

Not that I particularly want to segue into a Star Wars tangent, but I'm having trouble remembering where the nuance was in the first few films. What with the Empire being happy to blow up planets and kill innocents (Lukes aunt and uncle), and that was just film 1.

I am thinking primarily of the period of the early EU, after the original trilogy wrapped up but before the Prequels were released. There were sympathetic portrayals of Imperial officers in Timothy Zahn's work, there was the Tie Fighter game (still arguably the best first person space sim ever) and there were also Grey Jedi and the Unifying Force , in which the Force was not seen as purely light or purely dark. Some discussion here .

George Lucas put a stop to that. He flat out said the Grey Jedi were mistaken in their views; there is light/good and there is dark/evil, end of discussion. Any attempt to compromise or find agreement with the Dark results in becoming Dark oneself.

Right about the same time he also re-cut Episode IV so that Greedo, not Han, shot first . He felt that Han was insufficiently heroic and set a bad example, so he was recut to shoot in response to Greedo.

I can't find the article, but there were other notes at the time of Lucas thinking kids were drawing the entirely wrong lesson from the material and sympathizing with the Imperials. So the prequels and the Disney shows did away with even the semblance of moral nuance; no longer do we have a Captain Needa willing to take the fall for his crew, or an Admiral Piett unflinchingly facing his death as the Millenium Falcon jumps into hyperspace. Instead, we get unquestionably evil villains with not even a shred of sympathy. They do not show even the martial virtues -- fortitude and courage -- you would expect of lawful evil soldiers fighting on behalf of a lawful evil empire.

... that is, until he decided to make Anakin Skywalker the hero of a six movie epic, and then added the line about only the Sith believing in absolutes at the end of the last film . There's a certain irony that, in a Manichean universe in which good is utterly opposed to evil, the Sith are the only ones allowed to acknowledge this truth. But then, that's what happens when you try to respond to real-world current events in a myth; it undercuts and cheapens the message you're trying to send, which should last for all ages.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Metastachydium]

I am thinking primarily of the period of the early EU, after the original trilogy wrapped up but before the Prequels were released. There were sympathetic portrayals of Imperial officers in Timothy Zahn's work, there was the Tie Fighter game (still arguably the best first person space sim ever) and there were also Grey Jedi and the Unifying Force , in which the Force was not seen as purely light or purely dark. Some discussion here .

George Lucas put a stop to that. He flat out said the Grey Jedi were mistaken in their views; there is light/good and there is dark/evil, end of discussion. Any attempt to compromise or find agreement with the Dark results in becoming Dark oneself.

Right about the same time he also re-cut Episode IV so that Greedo, not Han, shot first . He felt that Han was insufficiently heroic and set a bad example, so he was recut to shoot in response to Greedo.

I can't find the article, but there were other notes at the time of Lucas thinking kids were drawing the entirely wrong lesson from the material and sympathizing with the Imperials. So the prequels and the Disney shows did away with even the semblance of moral nuance; no longer do we have a Captain Needa willing to take the fall for his crew, or an Admiral Piett unflinchingly facing his death as the Millenium Falcon jumps into hyperspace. Instead, we get unquestionably evil villains with not even a shred of sympathy. They do not show even the martial virtues -- fortitude and courage -- you would expect of lawful evil soldiers fighting on behalf of a lawful evil empire.

... that is, until he decided to make Anakin Skywalker the hero of a six movie epic, and then added the line about only the Sith believing in absolutes at the end of the last film . There's a certain irony that, in a Manichean universe in which good is utterly opposed to evil, the Sith are the only ones allowed to acknowledge this truth. But then, that's what happens when you try to respond to real-world current events in a myth; it undercuts and cheapens the message you're trying to send, which should last for all ages.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Technically, the mythical paradigm of thinking differs from the logical one only inasmuch as it presents information through metaphor, analogy and narratives rather than abstract concepts and causal reasoning, which is to say that the distinction is mostly formal. The Trojan Cycle (and to some extent its sequels, such as the Aeneid) is closer to what one could properly call a mythical representation of the core values the society which produced the work in question had than Star Wars, but good luck figuring out which side of the main conflict is right and Good and which one is Evil and wrong.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Never mind that this makes precious little sense.

I take it you haven't read a lot of history? Because the TDO is acting like pretty much every jumped up warlord who thinks a temporary advantage is going to last longer than it takes to blink. We've seen the Godsmoot, we know that even the gods voting to keep the world a little longer are willing to pull the plug to protect themselves from the Snarl--the issue being "When do we destroy the world", not If.

Basically, any real attempt to complete the Plan results in Stickworld going poof.

And honestly, I don't expect Redcloak to be part of the solution because if The Dark One popped in and announced that he's been to the Graveyard, he knows exactly how many worlds the Snarl has munched and the Plan is being revoked in favor of working with the other pantheons, I feel there's at least an 80% that Redcloak will tell his god to get bent and then continue on with the Plan.

[CriticalFailure]

Ever since 2E there has been this weird tension in the default "presumed setting" presented in D&D between wanting to present intelligent monsters as essential or mythical evils to be defeated, or as people with societies and complexities. Arguably ever since 1E, with its % women/children in the Monster Manual and mention of "creature rights" in the DMG, except that 1E didn't seem to feel conflicted about it like later editions did.

If in your setting goblins are evil unseelie fairies born from stone who literally eat babies, then it is a lot easier to have a dungeon crawl where you wipe out waves of the little imps without raising any troublesome implications. Likewise if dragons are the quasi-Satanic creatures that tend to crop up in medieval myth, it makes sense to kill them while they're young before they grow up to ravage the countryside (like the Lambton Worm). It seems to me that the attitude Rich dislikes springs in large part from material like 3.5 which tried to have it both ways - "these guys are evil raiders and slavers who despoil the land like locusts. Oh, but some of them are lawful good and here are rules to play as one if you want." Presented as monsters first but then qualified as people.

I agree, but I don’t think that allowing for both play styles is bad. Both ways are valid ways to play the game depending on what you want in your setting.

[Larsaan]

…and this is how and why the entire demon-worshipping sect of the Chaotic Evil Archfiend-equivalent, Loki was wiped out long ago.

The Church of Thor does have a standing kill order on followers of Loki, though. That's why they practice in secret or take their business to more ethically challenged societies like Greysky City.

[Jason]

When has he said that? And if the gods aren't willing to protect the goblins like any other mortals, then this is all going to happen again in some other form. "The goblins were able of doing it on their own without anything done on a cosmic scale" is flat out wrong as well because no, they bloody well weren't.

When Redcloak turned down Durkon's offer he was saying there is no deal if the gods don't sign on to it. Durkon offered a purely mortal solution and RC decided to murder him for it (I know, i know, there were other reasons for murdering him too, but offering him an escape that would make the Plan unnecessary was likely the prime motivator there).

Do the other gods protect their "chosen races"? Because it doesn't really look like it. RC seems to think the dwarves have riches showered on them daily from the heavens just for being dwarves, but that's obviously not the case.

[understatement]

The Church of Thor does have a standing kill order on followers of Loki, though. That's why they practice in secret or take their business to more ethically challenged societies like Greysky City.

No it doesn't, judging by the fact that Durkon, Minrah, and other acolytes of Thor did not try to kill Hilgya even after knowing she was a cleric of Loki. The "ethically challenged" part is most likely derived from them being Neutral or Evil, which is a personal choice.

[CriticalFailure]

In terms of resources the other races are clearly better positioned overall. The humans have been shown to hold many prosperous port cities, and dwarves live in resource rich mountains. One of Durkon’s family friends owns a nine and is very rich from it.

For goblinoids, we’ve seen barren wastelands, frozen wastelands, and remote mountains without any clear resources or access to trade.

[Kornaki]

I just don't understand how the world is a 3.5 self aware parody, and people are questioning if goblins are treated as equals with the PC races. No, they're not. If you think the giant has failed to communicate that well to the non-Dnd players that seems like a reasonable argument to try to make, but arguing that goblins are the same as humans just seems insane to me.