OOTS #1213 - The Discussion Thread

[Hatu]

This is kind of unfair to Durkon. How was he supposed to know how committed Redcloak was to the Plan?

I don't think he really needed to, at least not at first.

He already knew that Redcloak was trying to seize indirect control of the Snarl via the Gates; that's what Thor told him. He seems to have realized that Redcloak's goal was more than just a direct attack, because in 1206 he says Redcloack wants to "threaten" the gods, not "attack" them. Everyone involved realizes there's only one gate left and it's destruction would doom the world. And he himself already realized that destruction of the world would mean the Dark One would participate in the creation on a new one (until Thor revealed the snag in that).

Given all that, it's hard to see why Durkon would assume the risk of getting the world destroyed had never occurred to Redcloak and the Dark One. Yet he never really addressed that. Not in his opening pitch, and definitely not once it was clear Redcloak was willing to roll the dice if it came down to it.

Now this comic has more or less ignored the fundamental issue that the deaths of characters in a world where their souls are definitively given an afterlife is not automatically a bad thing when their souls are on the line. So the fact that Durkon also has to ignore that problem is par for the course (even though you'd think the lawfulest of lawful good dwarves would be the one to notice it).

Still, the most fundamental aspect of negotiation is to point out that half a loaf is better than no loaf at all. And Durkon botched that because a) as he admits, he can at best offer an IOU for the quarter-loaf Redcloak already stole and b) the downside if Redcloak turns down Durkon's offer is the exact same circumstance Redcloak already has!

Seriously, Durkon's deal has absolutely no downside if it's rejected. He offered no reason to think the OotS would be able to stop Redcloak from securing the last Gate - certainly not without destroying it, which was already a known risk. He asserted that the gods would blow up the world before Redcloak's plan could succeed, but he offered no new details on that. And he decided not to mention the risk that the Dark One wouldn't survive to a new world.

All Durkon did was inform Redcloak that the Dark One's nature might be an additional bargaining chip, but that all it could buy was a better lease on what they already had. So, in essence, he revealed that Redcloak might as well play out his current hand because if things go badly wrong, at worst it's what they already expected and at best the Dark One will now have a different option to pursue instead.

Even if we had never read SoD, why would we expect Redcloak to take the deal?

[Rogar Demonblud]

Even so, I would definitely houserule "being 80% gaseous" as "unable to make normal melee attacks".

You are never X% something. You are a solid until you are a gas, and vice versa.

[F.Harr]

O.K., so the Not Destroy the World side has had to take a minor set back. Not a problem, not a problem. It does rather make we wonder if Xyon and Roy are going to show up at any moment.

[Ace of Rogues]

I'd say Durkon's tactic was an attempt to highlight how much Redcloak's people stood to lose when the gods nuked the world or the Snarl got loose and that this was Redcloak's chance to get some leverage besides force of arms, which Redcloak himself basically admitted wouldn't do much long-term good. Not the worst strategy, but yeah between Redcloak's raging Sunk Cost Fallacy, general fanaticism, and the lack of any concrete proof for Durkon's claims, it was a long shot. That said, the first two of those factors were traits Durkon had no way of knowing about ahead of time, and the last was unavoidable so he just had to make the best of it. Going in to make the offer definitely wasn't the best move at this point, but if nothing else Durkon now knows he made a sincere offer to settle things peaceably and Redcloak rejected it, which clears up most of the moral ambiguity of forcing the issue at sword-point down the line.

[understatement]

I don't think he really needed to, at least not at first.

He already knew that Redcloak was trying to seize indirect control of the Snarl via the Gates; that's what Thor told him. He seems to have realized that Redcloak's goal was more than just a direct attack, because in 1206 he says Redcloack wants to "threaten" the gods, not "attack" them. Everyone involved realizes there's only one gate left and it's destruction would doom the world. And he himself already realized that destruction of the world would mean the Dark One would participate in the creation on a new one (until Thor revealed the snag in that).

Kind of, maybe.

Given all that, it's hard to see why Durkon would assume the risk of getting the world destroyed had never occurred to Redcloak and the Dark One. Yet he never really addressed that. Not in his opening pitch, and definitely not once it was clear Redcloak was willing to roll the dice if it came down to it.

He assumed that, above all else, that a person (specifically, an Evil one) has some degree of self-preservation. Redcloak is not that person.

Now this comic has more or less ignored the fundamental issue that the deaths of characters in a world where their souls are definitively given an afterlife is not automatically a bad thing when their souls are on the line. So the fact that Durkon also has to ignore that problem is par for the course (even though you'd think the lawfulest of lawful good dwarves would be the one to notice it).

Most people prefer a chance of living over dying. Durkon would certainly prefer living with his own son over both of them dying.

Still, the most fundamental aspect of negotiation is to point out that half a loaf is better than no loaf at all. And Durkon botched that because a) as he admits, he can at best offer an IOU for the quarter-loaf Redcloak already stole and b) the downside if Redcloak turns down Durkon's offer is the exact same circumstance Redcloak already has!

Hmm, that's sorta true. I feel like Durkon should have mentioned the bennies the Dark One gets if he's given a spot at the table, but then again Thor didn't really mention it either.

Seriously, Durkon's deal has absolutely no downside if it's rejected. He offered no reason to think the OotS would be able to stop Redcloak from securing the last Gate - certainly not without destroying it, which was already a known risk. He asserted that the gods would blow up the world before Redcloak's plan could succeed, but he offered no new details on that. And he decided not to mention the risk that the Dark One wouldn't survive to a new world.

All Durkon did was inform Redcloak that the Dark One's nature might be an additional bargaining chip, but that all it could buy was a better lease on what they already had. So, in essence, he revealed that Redcloak might as well play out his current hand because if things go badly wrong, at worst it's what they already expected and at best the Dark One will now have a different option to pursue instead.

Even if we had never read SoD, why would we expect Redcloak to take the deal?

What (I think) was most damning wasn't that Redcloak turned down the offer -- after all, it does get vague on promises, and Durkon didn't mention a lot of information -- it was that he decided to murder the negotiator afterward. The message is crystal-clear to Durkon and to any gods that might be watching: Redcloak says no to any attempt at peace, and killing the messenger is as strong of a message as any that he'll do the same in future attempts.

If the deal truly had been terrible, Redcloak would have still argued for it, like they did from 1206-1208. He knows that Durkon, even with his charisma in the toilet, absolutely means the best of intentions. He knows at least that the negotiations are worth haggling over. He could've told Durkon to "screw off, and I'll give you six rounds before I turn you into sauce." Nope. Straight-up murder.

[Anitar]

Now this comic has more or less ignored the fundamental issue that the deaths of characters in a world where their souls are definitively given an afterlife is not automatically a bad thing when their souls are on the line.

The comic may have ignored it, but the author hasn't. Being in any of the afterlives is significantly less than ideal; even Celestia ends with each of its resident souls reduced to a thoughtless mote of Law and Good with no personality or identity to speak of. Apparently this is already the case in (some?) canon D&D settings; and Rich chose to keep it specifically so that dying is still a bad outcome, for the sake of the story.

...Someone else can find the quote for that, I'm sure.

He could've told Durkon to "screw off, and I'll give you six rounds before I turn you into sauce."

I like this threat. I kind of want to ask permission to use/quote it elsewhere, but I don't actually have anything worth using it for.

[CriticalFailure]

Redcloak doesn't try to kill him because it was a bad offer; he does so because it was too good of one.

Although I'm not sure what Durkon was thinking either when he moved talks to mortal level.

I don’t think his offer was really too great to turn down. He basically offered trying to convince the Azurites not to take their home back, but right now they aren’t in ina position to do so anyways, so this is basically nothing. He says they will work together, but admits that he doesn’t have any way to actually get either humans or gods to agree to any concessions. So unless you trust Durkon and Thor, the offer is basically meaningless. Durkon is a generally trusting person from a Lawful Good society. Redcloak is much more jaded and not inclined to put a bunch of trust in a stranger, not to mention a barely known enemy. Redcloak has had a generally ****ty life, most of which has been spent working for a manipulative, easily bored sociopath. He’s not trusting in general, it completely makes sense for his character to keep working on the plan rather than putting his faith in an enemy and the cooperation and good will of player races and the gods, even without his need to make sure the plan was “worth it.”

[hamishspence]

Apparently this is already the case in (some?) canon D&D settings; and Rich chose to keep it specifically so that dying is still a bad outcome, for the sake of the story.

...Someone else can find the quote for that, I'm sure.

This is the thread:

https://forums.giantitp.com/showthre...-After-vs-Life

And these are the quotes:

You're saying the afterlife shouldn't have flaws, and therefore Roy should be OK with everyone dying. I'm saying that I require Roy to be not OK with everyone dying in order to continue the story, and therefore the afterlife must have flaws (and here they are). Since the goal here is for me to continue to tell the story I have imagined, my position wins.

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.

There's other quotes by The Giant in there, but these two are the ones that cover it.

[Worldsong]

IIRC Redcloak tends to tease people he gets along with.

Spoiler

Show

based on SOD banter seems to be his way of showing affection, he and his brother constantly tease each other. Not sure what this says about him and his weird emotional issues, but yeah.

Even better. A grump who makes snarky comments about the people he actually likes.

I don’t think his offer was really too great to turn down. He basically offered trying to convince the Azurites not to take their home back, but right now they aren’t in ina position to do so anyways, so this is basically nothing. He says they will work together, but admits that he doesn’t have any way to actually get either humans or gods to agree to any concessions. So unless you trust Durkon and Thor, the offer is basically meaningless. Durkon is a generally trusting person from a Lawful Good society. Redcloak is much more jaded and not inclined to put a bunch of trust in a stranger, not to mention a barely known enemy. Redcloak has had a generally ****ty life, most of which has been spent working for a manipulative, easily bored sociopath. He’s not trusting in general, it completely makes sense for his character to keep working on the plan rather than putting his faith in an enemy and the cooperation and good will of player races and the gods, even without his need to make sure the plan was “worth it.”

I'm somewhat confused anyone would consider "We might be able to convince those guys whose lands you've conquered to not come back" an offer that is too good to be true. Especially when the demands of the person you're negotiating with involve some kind of cosmic recognition of the plight of his people.

[Linkcat]

I don't know if this has been brought up before, but I find the 4th and 5th panels of strip 672 very amusing considering the current situation.

[Anitar]

I don't know if this has been brought up before, but I find the 4th and 5th panels of strip 672 very amusing considering the current situation.

It's been brought up that he's probably using Malack's custom Mass Death Ward (now that Malack can no longer dispel it at will due to being a pile of dust), rather than any version he created on his own.

[Mic_128]

This would be a very poor area to do that in.


You know, I've been wondering. Haley said they searched every inch of that valley before trying doors. But who would think to check the memorial itself as a possible location?

Literally everyone. "Here's hundreds of doors that the gate could be behind. Also here's this conspicuous statue." Everyone would check it first before starting to go through weeks of death traps.

[Harbajar]

Just finished yet another re-read from comic 1 and glad I did.
I also agree to the plushie idea of Greyview.
Hope they have diamonds.
Fully expecting the rest of the Order to arrive and Xykon to pop out.

[Worldsong]

You know, I've been wondering. Haley said they searched every inch of that valley before trying doors. But who would think to check the memorial itself as a possible location? Though that would render MitD's extra marks pointless...perhaps it just shows which door to choose, which might possibly reveal MitD's betrayal to Team Evil.

Given that the statue kind of stands out, lots of people on these boards have already suggested it, and Haley has pointed out that Xykon and Redcloak (mostly Redcloak) were the ones to use the shell game con the first time around... The odds are pretty high.

The odds are even higher when you remember that at the time that the statue was created the bugbear village didn't exist yet (unless the Order of the Scribble had some very strange connections). So from the perspective of the people who both erected the statue and set out to protect the rifts the statue would stand there in the middle of nowhere, practically serving as a landmark in front of Kraagor's Tomb.

For someone to not check out the statue they'd have to convince themselves that the statue is too obvious a place to hide the Gate, and be so sure of themselves that they wouldn't even bother to check because it would be beath them. Which might work if you're protecting the Gate against a specific villain who is known for delusions of grandeur, but the Order of the Scribble didn't design their defences with a specific villain in mind: their goal was to keep the Gates safe for as long as possible, both against the Snarl and anyone who might want to use the Gates/rifts.

Here's how I think the conversation would go down if one of the Scribblers had suggested using the statue to hide the gate:
1: "Hey, why don't we use Kraagor's statue to hide the Gate?"
2: "...Why?"
1: "It's out there in the open. Nobody would ever believe we'd be so careless."
2: "That's a good idea-"
1: "Thank you."
2: "Right up until someone decides they'd rather be safe than sorry."
1: "Well, I mean-"
2: "Anyone who comes all the way out here probably can afford to spend some time demolishing a statue."
1: "But what if-"
2: "A single fireball could blow it up and then the Gate is revealed."
1: "Couldn't we-"
2: "And if we made the statue out of materials that could resist attempts at removing it we might as well use 200-foot-tall flaming letters to declare we're hiding something there."
3: "...Let's just use the tomb of horrors instead."
1: "Fine. But what if someone manages to fight their way past all the monsters?"
2: "Come on, they'd have to be, like, an epic sorcerer lich with an entourage of high level minions."
1: "It could happen!"
2: "Odds are still better than that every single villain who thinks it's worth coming all the way out here can't be bothered to destroy a single statue."

[dancrilis]

In fairness while I find the idea that the statue was hidding the entrance to the true dungeon highly unlikely (to say the least) - I am not sure what odds I would give it, and one in a thousand that the Order of the Scribble did that combined with a one in a thousand that Team Evil didn't check immediately might be accurate ....

[danielxcutter]

Roy says he doesn’t want the world to end before everyone has their fill of life or something I think? It makes sense; if you’re going have a decent afterlife that’s good, but there’s nothing wrong with living a decent actual life before that isn’t it?

[mjasghar]

Roy says he doesn’t want the world to end before everyone has their fill of life or something I think? It makes sense; if you’re going have a decent afterlife that’s good, but there’s nothing wrong with living a decent actual life before that isn’t it?

That’s an issue with any apocalypse - unless you have some mass infertility plague which itself isn’t exactly fair on those effected.
Reminds of me the novel Childhood’s End

[danielxcutter]

That’s an issue with any apocalypse - unless you have some mass infertility plague which itself isn’t exactly fair on those effected.
Reminds of me the novel Childhood’s End

So... are we in agreement then? I’m not 100% sure as to the point you’re making.

[Hatu]

Kind of, maybe.
He assumed that, above all else, that a person (specifically, an Evil one) has some degree of self-preservation. Redcloak is not that person.

A bizarre expectation from someone selflessly devoted to his own deity, wouldn't you agree?

What (I think) was most damning wasn't that Redcloak turned down the offer -- after all, it does get vague on promises, and Durkon didn't mention a lot of information -- it was that he decided to murder the negotiator afterward. The message is crystal-clear to Durkon and to any gods that might be watching: Redcloak says no to any attempt at peace, and killing the messenger is as strong of a message as any that he'll do the same in future attempts.

If the deal truly had been terrible, Redcloak would have still argued for it, like they did from 1206-1208. He knows that Durkon, even with his charisma in the toilet, absolutely means the best of intentions. He knows at least that the negotiations are worth haggling over. He could've told Durkon to "screw off, and I'll give you six rounds before I turn you into sauce." Nope. Straight-up murder.

But that is absolutely the correct response to Durkon, assuming you ignore morality and just go with just cold logic.

First, because Durkon had made it clear that he had literally nothing to offer Redcloak, the negotiation was already over. That means Redcloak is back to trying to maximize the chances his original scheme works. As he says, killing Durkon is a great benefit to his odds, and surprise makes killing Durkon that much more likely. It's ruthless, sure, but that's what evil is all about.

Second, because Durkon's parley never set any actual conditions for what happened if the two failed to reach an accord. Again, Durkon was so blinded by the need for this scheme to work that he didn't really think out what would happen if it didn't. Durkon might have expected safe passage back to his party if Reedcloak turned down the offer, but Redcloak was under no obligation to honor that. After all the legal loopholes in the last book, that's something Durkon should have seen coming.

But third and most important, Durkon's own argument illustrated why Redcloak would suffer no consequences for this 'treachery.' Normally the downside to this sort of thing is that future opponents won't risk negotiating with you.

While it was played for laughs in the comic, Redcloak points out that Durkon's very presence is an indication that the Dark One's plan to force the gods to the negotiating table is actually working. That means that how they feel about Redcloak is irrelevant, the conditions on the ground alone are what matter.

And, as I said before, Durkon also revealed that the Dark One's nature was uniquely valuable to the gods for some reason. This again underlines that even if Redcloak burns bridges now and the plan winds up failing, the Dark One will still have something of value to offer and the gods will not want to just kill him in retaliation.

So in the end, I don't think Redcloak's sudden attack has anything to do with his pent up issues. I think it was a logical and highly predictable outcome of the situation Durkon set up. Which is why I feel I must give him so much flak over it.

[KorvinStarmast]

You are never X% something. You are a solid until you are a gas, and vice versa.

Sublimation?

The characters know they're in a comic, so I think Durkon was trying to move the plot along so the readers don't have to sit through ten more strips of the order scouting the outpost.

Fair point.

Redcloak has had a generally ****ty life, most of which has been spent working for a manipulative, easily bored sociopath.

Hmm, I expect that a variety of people can identify what that situation.

I also agree to the plushie idea of Greyview.

I think I'd get one.

[pendell]

Redcloak doesn't try to kill him because it was a bad offer; he does so because it was too good of one.

Although I'm not sure what Durkon was thinking either when he moved talks to mortal level.

Please explain your reasoning for the offer being "too good to be true".

Because when I read the negotiation, here is what I saw (from Redcloak's point of view):

: "We want ye to give up all ye have worked so hard to obtain in exchange for vague promises from the same human kingdoms who have proven themselves both treacherous and genocidal in the past. Promises which they have not empowered me to make."

I wouldn't have taken that deal either. I wouldn't have tried to kill Durkon during Parley -- Peter Jackson nothwithstanding, that's an evil act -- but I would have told him to come back when he had something tangible to offer.

Humans are a pretty mixed bag. Redcloak could deal honorably enough with Hinjo, but there's no guarantee that would be binding on Hinjo's successor. If Hinjo were to concede the city he is supposed to be ruling, it's quite likely he would be deposed as the ruler by the rest of the nobles, who would view the action as dishonorable.

And of course the Tarquins, Nales, and Xykons of the world don't need any excuse to be treacherous or to take over countries that don't belong to them.

Redcloak is right: Goblins are going to have to fight for their place in the sun and, if they DO agree to negotiations, they have to be backed by effective guarantees, not mere promises.

After all, from his perspective in sod

Spoiler

Show

The last time the Dark One tried honest negotiation he was assassinated during parley. The humans/elves/dwarves will speak softly until they can safely kill the dark one, at which point status quo ante will resume

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Jason]

So in the end, I don't think Redcloak's sudden attack has anything to do with his pent up issues. I think it was a logical and highly predictable outcome of the situation Durkon set up. Which is why I feel I must give him so much flak over it.

You think Red Cloak's pent up issues had nothing to do with how he responded to Durkon's offer?
I think you've laid out some fairly logical rationalizations for why Red Cloak would act as he did, but I think that his "pent up issues" are the real reasons he chose to act as he did. Because choosing to support his obsession with being right and then rationalizing it after the fact is what RC has always done.

[Jacky720]

Ceding title to Azure City is worthless to Redcloak

I know there are other issues with Durkon's offer, but consider this:
Do you think for one second that I'm not fully aware of what the Azurites will do to us to get their land back, the moment they have the strength to try?
So yeah, that is one of the things Redcloak wants.

[Worldsong]

You think Red Cloak's pent up issues had nothing to do with how he responded to Durkon's offer?
I think you've laid out some fairly logical rationalizations for why Red Cloak would act as he did, but I think that his "pent up issues" are the real reasons he chose to act as he did. Because choosing to support his obsession with being right and then rationalizing it after the fact is what RC has always done.

Out of curiosity, how could one disprove to you the idea that Redcloak's decision was based on his pent up issues rather than it being the rational response to Durkon's half-assed proposal?

This is an honest question. If an emotional response and a logical response result in the same action, how can you tell whether it was emotion or logic that influenced someone's decision?

We could point at Redcloak's issues and claim that it's his emotions controlling his behaviour right now, but we could also point at his overall behaviour, of someone who prefers strategy and orderly planning, to say it's logic which dictated that he should try to get rid of Durkon as quickly as possible.

[Ghosty]

In fairness while I find the idea that the statue was hidding the entrance to the true dungeon highly unlikely (to say the least) - I am not sure what odds I would give it, and one in a thousand that the Order of the Scribble did that combined with a one in a thousand that Team Evil didn't check immediately might be accurate ....

So you're saying, a chance like that succeeds...9 times out of 10?

Damn, I miss the guy.

I still think the Gate isn't behind any of the doors at all, but instead behind a panel of stone in that valley, somewhere, that looks like every other piece of valley wall. I would have had though, each of the doors lead to a separate chunk of Plot Coupon, like a scepter broken into 100 pieces, with each fight giving you one piece of the total key. The 'scepter' may be completely worthless, may have powers after each X percentage of it's been put together. Give the challengers to the Gate some false idea of how far they're progressing.

Obviously this story isn't working that way, but hiding the Gate somewhere other than behind a door fits in with how I'd think a Rogue thinks, while still having the Mother of All Dungeon Crawls to honor Kraggor.

[CriticalFailure]

Out of curiosity, how could one disprove to you the idea that Redcloak's decision was based on his pent up issues rather than it being the rational response to Durkon's half-assed proposal?

This is an honest question. If an emotional response and a logical response result in the same action, how can you tell whether it was emotion or logic that influenced someone's decision?

We could point at Redcloak's issues and claim that it's his emotions controlling his behaviour right now, but we could also point at his overall behaviour, of someone who prefers strategy and orderly planning, to say it's logic which dictated that he should try to get rid of Durkon as quickly as possible.

I tend to agree that Redcloak’s decision is largely logically motivated. However, it seems clear that his emotional motivations are at least somewhat on his mind based on what he says to Durkon as he attacks him. Also, he looks pretty conflicted in panel 20 of 1209.

[understatement]

First:

I like this threat. I kind of want to ask permission to use/quote it elsewhere, but I don't actually have anything worth using it for.

I probably cribbed it off from all those death threats they make on movies or something, but yeah! Go ahead.

Since the following are pretty much all the same vein of thought:

I don’t think his offer was really too great to turn down. He basically offered trying to convince the Azurites not to take their home back, but right now they aren’t in ina position to do so anyways, so this is basically nothing. He says they will work together, but admits that he doesn’t have any way to actually get either humans or gods to agree to any concessions. So unless you trust Durkon and Thor, the offer is basically meaningless. Durkon is a generally trusting person from a Lawful Good society. Redcloak is much more jaded and not inclined to put a bunch of trust in a stranger, not to mention a barely known enemy. Redcloak has had a generally ****ty life, most of which has been spent working for a manipulative, easily bored sociopath. He’s not trusting in general, it completely makes sense for his character to keep working on the plan rather than putting his faith in an enemy and the cooperation and good will of player races and the gods, even without his need to make sure the plan was “worth it.”

I'm somewhat confused anyone would consider "We might be able to convince those guys whose lands you've conquered to not come back" an offer that is too good to be true. Especially when the demands of the person you're negotiating with involve some kind of cosmic recognition of the plight of his people.

OK, so, when I said the "offer too good instead of bad" I was actually angling for some rhetoric flair, which fell miserably on its face.

I am working off the assumption that Redcloak hates the Plan, because he sacrificed so much for it, and that he hates Xykon, so he would like to "cease cooperation" with the murdeous skeleton at a certain point. You're right in that Durkon's negotiations were maybe too vague, or not exactly enforceable. But by killing him, instantly, without warning, Redcloak is essentially saying "don't ever send me negotiations again."

A bizarre expectation from someone selflessly devoted to his own deity, wouldn't you agree?

More of that Durkon is bewildered why Redcloak would go such a long way to conquer a city and then come up to the North Pole, but then decide to pull the plug anyway.

But that is absolutely the correct response to Durkon, assuming you ignore morality and just go with just cold logic.

First, because Durkon had made it clear that he had literally nothing to offer Redcloak, the negotiation was already over. That means Redcloak is back to trying to maximize the chances his original scheme works. As he says, killing Durkon is a great benefit to his odds, and surprise makes killing Durkon that much more likely. It's ruthless, sure, but that's what evil is all about.

Second, because Durkon's parley never set any actual conditions for what happened if the two failed to reach an accord. Again, Durkon was so blinded by the need for this scheme to work that he didn't really think out what would happen if it didn't. Durkon might have expected safe passage back to his party if Reedcloak turned down the offer, but Redcloak was under no obligation to honor that. After all the legal loopholes in the last book, that's something Durkon should have seen coming.

But third and most important, Durkon's own argument illustrated why Redcloak would suffer no consequences for this 'treachery.' Normally the downside to this sort of thing is that future opponents won't risk negotiating with you.

While it was played for laughs in the comic, Redcloak points out that Durkon's very presence is an indication that the Dark One's plan to force the gods to the negotiating table is actually working. That means that how they feel about Redcloak is irrelevant, the conditions on the ground alone are what matter.

And, as I said before, Durkon also revealed that the Dark One's nature was uniquely valuable to the gods for some reason. This again underlines that even if Redcloak burns bridges now and the plan winds up failing, the Dark One will still have something of value to offer and the gods will not want to just kill him in retaliation.

So in the end, I don't think Redcloak's sudden attack has anything to do with his pent up issues. I think it was a logical and highly predictable outcome of the situation Durkon set up. Which is why I feel I must give him so much flak over it.

The point is, by killing Durkon (well, almost) Redcloak is also cutting off any future negotiations with him, ever. It's pretty much him saying "my Plan or the highway." If Durkon (and Minrah) had died here, it's quite possible the gods would've decided to blow the world there and then.

I'm mostly basing my judgement off the panel where Redcloak closes his eye. That is as clear of a sign of regret/self-loathing as it can get, which is not something he'd feel if the negotiations were terminally terrible.

<respectful snip>
I wouldn't have taken that deal either. I wouldn't have tried to kill Durkon during Parley -- Peter Jackson nothwithstanding, that's an evil act -- but I would have told him to come back when he had something tangible to offer.

It's not him turning down the offer that shows all his pent-up emotional issues, it's him killing the messenger after.

[Worldsong]

I tend to agree that Redcloak’s decision is largely logically motivated. However, it seems clear that his emotional motivations are at least somewhat on his mind based on what he says to Durkon as he attacks him. Also, he looks pretty conflicted in panel 20 of 1209.

His emotions definitely play a part, but that doesn't mean that the course of action he takes isn't based on what rationally speaking makes sense to him. Saying that all the logical reasons are mere rationalizations sounds... dismissive. The implication is made that the only way you can prove yourself to be logical is if your actions go in direct disagreement with your desires, which would paradoxically mean your actions are no longer logical because you're prioritizing proving yourself to be logical over choosing whatever course of action actually makes sense.

EDIT:

OK, so, when I said the "offer too good instead of bad" I was actually angling for some rhetoric flair, which fell miserably on its face.

I am working off the assumption that Redcloak hates the Plan, because he sacrificed so much for it, and that he hates Xykon, so he would like to "cease cooperation" with the murdeous skeleton at a certain point. You're right in that Durkon's negotiations were maybe too vague, or not exactly enforceable. But by killing him, instantly, without warning, Redcloak is essentially saying "don't ever send me negotiations again."

The point is, by killing Durkon (well, almost) Redcloak is also cutting off any future negotiations with him, ever. It's pretty much him saying "my Plan or the highway." If Durkon (and Minrah) had died here, it's quite possible the gods would've decided to blow the world there and then.

I'm mostly basing my judgement off the panel where Redcloak closes his eye. That is as clear of a sign of regret/self-loathing as it can get, which is not something he'd feel if the negotiations were terminally terrible.

It's not him turning down the offer that shows all his pent-up emotional issues, it's him killing the messenger after.

I'm not sure Redcloak outright hates the Plan. He's doing his best to convince himself that the Plan is the only way to achieve what he wants, but if he were completely honest I'd imagine he'd say that it stopped being about the Plan a long time ago.

That aside, I think part of the disagreement here is caused by a different perspective on the concept of death in a DnD-like setting. Senseless killing is still Evil without a shadow of a doubt but using death as a way to deal with your problems is a lot easier to justify than it would be in our world (otherwise the entire Adventurer profession wouldn't really work).

Also keep in mind that Redcloak's killing of Durkon is heavily influened by the fact that if Durkon is allowed to walk away from these negotiations alive he's all but certain to try and interfere with the Plan again. Redcloak's actions are motivated by more than just the negotiations. It's entirely possible that if Durkon actually was some random cleric with no prior history of interference that Redcloak would just have told him to bugger off.

On top of that Redcloak isn't negotiating with Durkon. He's negotiating with the gods. Durkon is just their servant, at least from Redcloak's perspective. Killing Durkon isn't the same as saying 'I will never accept negotiations'. It's more telling the gods that 1) they need to come up with a better offer, and 2) their messenger was a known enemy of Redcloak's, so it shouldn't come as a surprise that the goblin would resort to dusting him afterwards.

Redcloak is certainly playing hardball but he's not shutting down negotations forever, he's treating Durkon as just one of the gods' potential messengers.

EDIT2: If you think about it killing Durkon serves an additional purpose: checking the sincerity of the gods. Durkon comes with a story about saving the world from the Snarl forever, a once in a lifetime opportunity even for the infinite lifetimes of the gods. If one dead mortal already causes the gods to give up on negotiating that's a strong indicator that Durkon was spouting nonsense.

Redcloak approaches life from the perspective that sacrifices are worth it as long as the objective is achieved. He doesn't have much reason to believe the gods would think differently.

[happycrow]

I have the urge to add "Oona is not having compelling reason to not be killing them, and little bald man in red cape did say please. Good manners are being rewarded!" to the quote page of Tvtropes' Affably evil page.

I had precisely the same thought. Oona is not a nice person, but she does have a specific charm to her.

[Jason]

Out of curiosity, how could one disprove to you the idea that Redcloak's decision was based on his pent up issues rather than it being the rational response to Durkon's half-assed proposal?

This is an honest question. If an emotional response and a logical response result in the same action, how can you tell whether it was emotion or logic that influenced someone's decision?

We could point at Redcloak's issues and claim that it's his emotions controlling his behaviour right now, but we could also point at his overall behaviour, of someone who prefers strategy and orderly planning, to say it's logic which dictated that he should try to get rid of Durkon as quickly as possible.

I can't think of anything that is likely to convince me otherwise, given Red Cloak's history. If villains acted completely logically and made wise choices without their own flaws affecting them then they wouldn't be villains. I think we will reach the point in the comic where Red Cloak himself finally is forced to face that he has not been acting rationally, but out of emotion and completely selfish motivations - in short, that he was wrong. We're not at that point yet, so he can continue to rationalize for the moment.

It did make logical sense for Red Cloak to attack Durkon once Red Cloak had decided to reject Durkon's offer. It is the choice to reject the offer that was irrational. Consider that Durkon's offer was the first and only offer RC has ever received to open peaceful negotiations with leaders of the other races.

The question wasn't whether Durkon could actually deliver everything RC wants, it was whether RC was willing to take an opportunity to communicate his grievances and work with the other races towards a mutual solution. His answer was a very firm "no".