Goblin Oppression; fact or fiction?

[Jason]

I have a lot of things to say about how Rich chooses to portray paladins who pretend to be good in order to maintain their powers. Most of them are not complimentary, and certainly none of them belong in this particular thread.

They wouldn't be able to get away with half of what they do in this comic in my games.

A paladin's powers come in part from their sincere devotion to their code. No sincere devotion = no paladin powers. Actively looking for loopholes to allow you to do something clearly not in keeping with the spirit of the code means you have already lost your devotion. Bye bye, paladinhood - without any divine intervention required.

The bad paladins who are still sincerely devoted but are seriously twisted about it, like Miko, are the instances where divine intervention occurs and the paladin loses his or her abilities.

Paladins in my games can still be obstacles or even antagonists, but they can't be only pretending to be good, or go on sincerely believing they are good when they're not. The universe (and the DM) can't be fooled that way.

[Keltest]

They wouldn't be able to get away with half of what they do in this comic in my games.

A paladin's powers come in part from their sincere devotion to their code. No sincere devotion = no paladin powers. Actively looking for loopholes to allow you to do something clearly not in keeping with the spirit of the code means you have already lost your devotion. Bye bye, paladinhood - without any divine intervention required.

The bad paladins who are still sincerely devoted but are seriously twisted about it, like Miko, are the instances where divine intervention occurs and the paladin loses his or her abilities.

Paladins in my games can still be obstacles or even antagonists, but they can't be only pretending to be good, or go on sincerely believing they are good when they're not. The universe (and the DM) can't be fooled that way.

Agreed. If you try and tell me that youre good while you casually try and instigate the death of a team mate over a casual annoyance, youre going to get hit with purple lightning and then probably kicked from my table for trying to treat me like an idiot.

[dancrilis]

They wouldn't be able to get away with half of what they do in this comic in my games.

We don't know they 'got away' with in in the OOTS either - did any of them use paladin powers after engaging in 'poor' behaviour?

The universe (and the DM) can't be fooled that way.

Well ... that would require the player to be honest with the DM which they might not be, also it raises the question of evil thoughts are enough to cause a paladin to fall - and generally they are not, paladins have to deal with evil thoughts the same way as everyone else but are not punished for having them.

Essentially a paladin who intends to kill an 'innocent' but at the last minute does not probably doesn't lose their powers in most games.

[pendell]

I have to ask: Is anyone here familiar with Knights of the Dinner Table ? . It's also a D&D comic, based around an offshoot, Hackmaster.

The PCs in the story -- the untouchable trio +1 -- constantly massacre their way across the continent, butchering humans, dwarves, and elves alike. All while retaining the "lawful good" label. This is because the team lead -- Brian Van Hoose -- is the former DM and is constantly finding rules lawyer ways to get what he wants. The DM, B.A. is hapless and lets them get away with it.

I have to ask: How many tables out there are really like that? Full of bitter people and young men with too much adrenaline looking for an excuse to break things and kill people? I can imagine a table like that if you're playing, say, at boot camp or a posting somewhere. But I have to wonder if it's really indicative of D&D players as a whole. And whether the problem Rich is complaining about is more a strawman of real players than something that actually happens.

The last time I sat down at a table my character was a CN orcish rogue, so it wasn't anything like the murderhobo caricature we see so often.

Anyone else ?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Gallowglass]

I have to ask: Is anyone here familiar with Knights of the Dinner Table ? . It's also a D&D comic, based around an offshoot, Hackmaster.

The PCs in the story -- the untouchable trio +1 -- constantly massacre their way across the continent, butchering humans, dwarves, and elves alike. All while retaining the "lawful good" label. This is because the team lead -- Brian Van Hoose -- is the former DM and is constantly finding rules lawyer ways to get what he wants. The DM, B.A. is hapless and lets them get away with it.

I have to ask: How many tables out there are really like that? Full of bitter people and young men with too much adrenaline looking for an excuse to break things and kill people? I can imagine a table like that if you're playing, say, at boot camp or a posting somewhere. But I have to wonder if it's really indicative of D&D players as a whole. And whether the problem Rich is complaining about is more a strawman of real players than something that actually happens.

The last time I sat down at a table my character was a CN orcish rogue, so it wasn't anything like the murderhobo caricature we see so often.

Anyone else ?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

I don't think there would be so many web cartoons making fun of the murderhobo style of play if it wasn't well known and prevalent. I don't think the word "murderhobo" would be a well known phrase in the roll playing community if it wasn't well known and prevalent.

Personally, anecdotally, when I was 14 to mid 20s, this was the normal mode of play. Now that i'm 46, I still see it now and then albeit less frequently, because I've honed my roll playing circle down to a small group of people I enjoy playing with.

[Worldsong]

My party keeps telling me that I'm not allowed to eat the dead even though they're... well, dead. So I think I can safely say my party is less on the murderhobo side.

Except for that one goblin encampment.

And that street thug.

For Rich I don't think he's making stuff up but he could have a negative bias where his memories prioritized the bad campaigns over the good campaigns.

[Keltest]

I have to ask: Is anyone here familiar with Knights of the Dinner Table ? . It's also a D&D comic, based around an offshoot, Hackmaster.

The PCs in the story -- the untouchable trio +1 -- constantly massacre their way across the continent, butchering humans, dwarves, and elves alike. All while retaining the "lawful good" label. This is because the team lead -- Brian Van Hoose -- is the former DM and is constantly finding rules lawyer ways to get what he wants. The DM, B.A. is hapless and lets them get away with it.

I have to ask: How many tables out there are really like that? Full of bitter people and young men with too much adrenaline looking for an excuse to break things and kill people? I can imagine a table like that if you're playing, say, at boot camp or a posting somewhere. But I have to wonder if it's really indicative of D&D players as a whole. And whether the problem Rich is complaining about is more a strawman of real players than something that actually happens.

The last time I sat down at a table my character was a CN orcish rogue, so it wasn't anything like the murderhobo caricature we see so often.

Anyone else ?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

I dont think theres anything wrong with running a hack and slash combat simulator as long as everybody is on board with it. If the DM wants to run a morally complex game where everything is a shade of grey (say, The Witcher), then the players need to be buying into that too. Likewise, if the players want to run a hack and slash, the DM needs to understand and agree to be running that. When the streams cross is when you get people breaking into a dungeon full of innocent orcs who just live their lives, having backstories and families and what not that the PCs dont care about because thats not the stuff theyre there for.

[Jason]

We don't know they 'got away' with in in the OOTS either - did any of them use paladin powers after engaging in 'poor' behaviour?

Let's just say that I wouldn't have been nearly as patient with Miko as the 12 gods were.

Well ... that would require the player to be honest with the DM which they might not be, also it raises the question of evil thoughts are enough to cause a paladin to fall - and generally they are not, paladins have to deal with evil thoughts the same way as everyone else but are not punished for having them.

Essentially a paladin who intends to kill an 'innocent' but at the last minute does not probably doesn't lose their powers in most games.

Momentary evil thoughts are not a problem. Constantly having evil thoughts or discussing ways to break the code means I give the player a warning that they're in danger of falling from paladinhood unless they quit it. Actively breaking the code means you're not playing a paladin anymore.

EDIT:

I don't think there would be so many web cartoons making fun of the murderhobo style of play if it wasn't well known and prevalent. I don't think the word "murderhobo" would be a well known phrase in the roll playing community if it wasn't well known and prevalent.

It's a popular stereotype. If anything, that probably means it's less common than popular fiction depicts it. Also, KotDT and similar gaming parodies wouldn't be as popular as they are if the weren't, well, parodies - people acting in ways so extreme you wouldn't ever see it in real life.

It's like arguing "back in the early '80s D&D players must have really been all into Satanism and trying to practice real magic - why else would everyone think they were doing that? There was a Tom Hanks movie all about it, and a Chick Tract, and my pastor warned us away from it, and everyone knew that anyone who played D&D was a total nerd who would never get a date or out of their mom's basement..."

Personally, anecdotally, when I was 14 to mid 20s, this was the normal mode of play. Now that i'm 46, I still see it now and then albeit less frequently, because I've honed my roll playing circle down to a small group of people I enjoy playing with.

I probably acted that way the first few sessions. But as I have said, nobody stays playing a murderhobo. Either they grow out of it or they move to other hobbies.

[pendell]

I dont think theres anything wrong with running a hack and slash combat simulator as long as everybody is on board with it.

Even in a hack and slash simulator, "lawful good" characters , especially paladins, need to earn their class features. You can't, for example , decide the bartender in a pub is looking at you funny and roll initiative, then kill the watch when it shows up, ending by burning down the town.

The way I see it, if "lawful good" does not cause the characters to behave differently than they would if true neutral why even have alignment at the table in the first place?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[The Pilgrim]

Agreed. If you try and tell me that youre good while you casually try and instigate the death of a team mate over a casual annoyance, youre going to get hit with purple lightning and then probably kicked from my table for trying to treat me like an idiot.

That reminds me of that time I was playing Vampire - The Masquerade, and one team member had two elder vampires staked with the intent of diabolizing them in a row, but lacked enough Humanity to pull it without running the risk of falling down to zero humanity and, thus, lose his character to the Beast. Therefore, he stored the staked elders somewhere safe, and began to play his character as a parangon of goodness in order to justify a raise in Humanity, so he could safely diabolize the elders.

The DM said nothing for several game sessions, until the player gathered enough XP to purchase the increase in Humanity, and the DM said: "Nope". The player, of course, complained, and recalled all the "good" things his character had been doing to justify the raise. The DM just answered: "raising humanity in order to safely diabolize isn't the kind of character motivation that justifies a raise in humanity". At that point everyone in the table was laughing so hard that the player either understood the basic problem of his powermongering scheme, or felt too ashamed to keep trying, so he shut up.

Twenty years have passed, but my gaming group still remembers the anecdote and laughts about it occasionally.

[Bunny Commando]

I have to ask: How many tables out there are really like that? Full of bitter people and young men with too much adrenaline looking for an excuse to break things and kill people? I can imagine a table like that if you're playing, say, at boot camp or a posting somewhere. But I have to wonder if it's really indicative of D&D players as a whole. And whether the problem Rich is complaining about is more a strawman of real players than something that actually happens.

The last time I sat down at a table my character was a CN orcish rogue, so it wasn't anything like the murderhobo caricature we see so often.

Anyone else ?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

When I started playing D&D the first adventure of my character was killing a goblin tribe because reasons; the goblin tribe lived in a cave and the other players agreed to just smoke them out and kill them - civilians included. It was twentyfive years ago, give or take.

I never had another table like that, to be honest. Not saying that every D&D campaign has been focused on the moral consequences of my character's actions, but I never had a game where the focus was on the senseless killing of people.
As a sidenote this news has caused a bit of an uproar in the RPG communities of my country - many players didn't want this change and preferred a less nuanced approach to the game: some races are intrinsically evil and could be killed without much thought.

[The Pilgrim]

Redcloak isn't a third person omniscient narrator. Rich has told us that goblin oppression is a real thing in the comics .. but what Rich believes about goblin oppression isn't what Redcloak believes. Redcloak has a twisted view , which is why he's the villain in this story rather than the hero.

SOD shows the original atrocity and experiences which made Redcloak who he is today. But what Redcloak took away from those experiences isn't what other goblins who lived through it did. Redcloak's mad adherence to the Plan, at the expense of the goblins he supposedly cares about, has been called out twice in comic. The first time by a fellow goblin in Start of Darkness, the second time by Minrah in the main comic.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

You are going in the right direction.

The Giant did comment that: (you can find the full quotes with link in Worldsong signature)

(...)The comic is criticizing not how the game is intended to be played, but how the game is actually played and has been for 35+ years. And how it is actually played 9 times out of 10 is that goblins are slaughtered because they are goblins, and the book says that goblins are Evil so it's OK.(...)

(...)I CARE. I care, and every goddamn person in the world should care, because it's objectification of a sentient being. It doesn't matter that the sentient being in question is a fictional species, it's saying that it's OK for people who look funny to be labeled as Evil by default, because hey, like 60% of them do Evil things sometimes! That is racism. It is a short hop to real-world racism once we decide it is acceptable to make blanket negative statements about entire races of people. (...)

Now, what about Redcloak narrative? Nothing about that.

The narrative of TDO is that Goblins were created as XP Fodder by the Gods and given worse lands. Therefore, a redistribution of land is needed in order to correct that inequality. TDO needs the Snarl in order to force the other Gods to agree to the redistribution, and if it triggers the End of the World, it will allow TDO to be part of the creation of the next and give Goblins a better lot.

Nowere the doctrine of TDO says that the Goblins were created as Evil by default and that such thing needs to be changed. In fact, TDO, being an Evil God, is perfeclty comfortable with his followers being Evil.

Nowere the doctrine of the TDO says he needs the Snarl to force the Gods into telling their clerics to stop killing goblins.

The doctrine of TDO (as relayed by Redcloak in SoD, page 37), does say that humans are a "cowardly, distrustfull and morally bankrupt race" and goblins must avoid all dealings with them. That sound to me as the actual mirror opposite of the racism that The Giant was critiquizing in fantasy works.

Redcloak has always been talking about the need for redistribution of resources. "We have so little compared with the humans". "We need to level the playing field". When he begins the conversation with Durkon about equality, it's all "the goblins have been at a material disadvantage and forced to live in barren lands".

Only when Durkon agrees to a redistribution of land, does Redcloak conveniently remember that Goblins were created as XP and are attacked on sight. At that point, it sounds too much like an excuse to break the negotiations than anything else. Specially as both his brother and the Hobgoblins were able to co-exist in peace with humans. Redcloak's very niece is growing up among humans.

So, the "goblin oppression" The Giant talks about, is not the same "goblin oppression" that TDO talks about in his narrative, and is not the same "goblin oppression" that Redcloak preaches left and right.

When certain readers here talk about Redcloak having a point, they resort to The Giant's critiques, not to Redcloak's actual narrative, which has little bearing with The Giant's statements.

[Lethologica]

Redcloak has always been talking about the need for redistribution of resources. "We have so little compared with the humans". "We need to level the playing field". When he begins the conversation with Durkon about equality, it's all "the goblins have been at a material disadvantage and forced to live in barren lands".

Only when Durkon agrees to a redistribution of land, does Redcloak conveniently remember that Goblins were created as XP and are attacked on sight. At that point, it sounds too much like an excuse to break the negotiations than anything else.

So, the "goblin oppression" The Giant talks about, is not the same "goblin oppression" that TDO talks about in his narrative, and is not the same "goblin oppression" that Redcloak preaches left and right.

When certain readers here talk about Redcloak having a point, they resort to The Giant's critiques, not to Redcloak's actual narrative, which has little bearing with The Giant's statements.

Going back even slightly farther in the conversation with Durkon, we find: "Gods like Odin and your Thor clearly like to think of themselves as being oh-so-very-benevolent. At least to their precious chosen species. While I don't doubt they would wipe out my people without a second thought, the idea that they would do the same to your people...well, it strains credulity." Clearly the divine side of the equation is very much on Redcloak's mind, and not just an excuse to break off negotiations. Instead, Redcloak sees the material disadvantages he brings up as a reflection of the divine oppression.

Further, once Redcloak brings up the divine oppression, does that have the purportedly intended effect of breaking off negotiations? No: Redcloak and Durkon come to an understanding of what equality Redcloak wants, and the breakdown is instead much later, over whether what Redcloak wants is something Durkon can provide. There is no basis even for the cynical reading that Redcloak brings this up now so that negotiations will break down later, because the fact is that Durkon can't promise material equality any more than he can promise divine equality.

So there doesn't appear to be much support in this conversation for the idea that Redcloak regards the narrative of divine oppression as an excuse or convenience, or that Redcloak's narrative of how the goblins have been oppressed is meaningfully different from (some) readers' impression of goblin oppression in OotS.

And really, now. The 'certain readers' you speak of have not avoided Redcloak's narrative; they have brought it up constantly. The reason they also 'resort to' the Giant's critiques is because it has been made plain that certain other readers give Redcloak no credibility. And that's fair as far as it goes, but we cannot then turn around and criticize people for bringing up other sources.

[ebarde]

I think at this point the only way goblin oppression can be stated more clearly is if Rich himself self-inserts into the story to swear under oath in a PSA like fashion that Goblin Oppression is in fact a thing in the book. If Durkon who has been fighting goblins and Redcloak for the whole comic is too biased for you, literal word of god is genuinely the only way I can see it being clearer. Goblins doing bad things isn't indicative of them not being oppressed, just of the comic portraying a group of people as individuals capable of doing good or bad things due to their own choices. Same way as humans as a group oppressing goblinoids doesn't mean every single one of them is gonna kill every goblin on sight.

[The Pilgrim]

Going back even slightly farther in the conversation with Durkon, we find: "Gods like Odin and your Thor clearly like to think of themselves as being oh-so-very-benevolent. At least to their precious chosen species. While I don't doubt they would wipe out my people without a second thought, the idea that they would do the same to your people...well, it strains credulity." Clearly the divine side of the equation is very much on Redcloak's mind, and not just an excuse to break off negotiations. Instead, Redcloak sees the material disadvantages he brings up as a reflection of the divine oppression.

Further, once Redcloak brings up the divine oppression, does that have the purportedly intended effect of breaking off negotiations? No: Redcloak and Durkon come to an understanding of what equality Redcloak wants, and the breakdown is instead much later, over whether what Redcloak wants is something Durkon can provide. There is no basis even for the cynical reading that Redcloak brings this up now so that negotiations will break down later, because the fact is that Durkon can't promise material equality any more than he can promise divine equality.

So there doesn't appear to be much support in this conversation for the idea that Redcloak regards the narrative of divine oppression as an excuse or convenience, or that Redcloak's narrative of how the goblins have been oppressed is meaningfully different from (some) readers' impression of goblin oppression in OotS.

And really, now. The 'certain readers' you speak of have not avoided Redcloak's narrative; they have brought it up constantly. The reason they also 'resort to' the Giant's critiques is because it has been made plain that certain other readers give Redcloak no credibility. And that's fair as far as it goes, but we cannot then turn around and criticize people for bringing up other sources.

The "other sources" (that is, The Giant) have little bearing on Redcloak's narrative. TDO claims that the Gods did create the Goblins as XP Fodder and casted them away in barred lands. TDO doesn't claims that the Gods did create the Goblins as inherently evil. And we know for sure the Gods didn't, because the goblins aren't inherently evil in the OOTS world.

And Redcloak's narrative that the Gods are biased towards their "chosen" species, isn't substantiated by the reality we saw at the Godsmoot, where several High Priests belonged to so-called "monstruous races".

[pendell]

The "other sources" (that is, The Giant) have little bearing on Redcloak's narrative. TDO claims that the Gods did create the Goblins as XP Fodder and casted them away in barred lands. TDO doesn't claims that the Gods did create the Goblins as inherently evil. And we know for sure the Gods didn't, because the goblins aren't inherently evil in the OOTS world.

And Redcloak's narrative that the Gods are biased towards their "chosen" species, isn't substantiated by the reality we saw at the Godsmoot, where several High Priests belonged to so-called "monstruous races".

We know on one point at least Redcloak is misinformed on: His belief that the other gods wouldn't dream of killing off the dwarves and humans because they love them so much, compared to the goblins.

I don't know whether he got this from the Dark One, or made it up himself, but his understanding of the relationship between gods and mortals is way off.

There's also This line by Redcloak

We have those things because we made them ourselves from scratch! Whereas your people were handed everything by those same gods. I wouldn't expect a dwarf who grew up surrounded by gold and gems to understand what it means to struggle or do without.

When he says this, Redcloak demonstrates that he has no earthly idea what a dwarf's life is like. He has this image of the gods relationship to the other species which is pure fantasy. Well, even more fantasy than a fantasy world. Double fantasy?

In this it occurs to me that the Giant would do well to spell out the stuff he's shown us in extra material and his forum comments in the main comic more thoroughly. Redcloak pretty clearly doesn't know what he's talking about, at least when it comes to non-goblinoids.

...

It occurs to me that if Redcloak and Durkon ever really sat down, they would conclude that the problem is with the gods , not with them.

Mortals of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but an eternity as a cosmic battery!

Tongue-in-cheek,

Brian P.

[The Pilgrim]

It occurs to me that if Redcloak and Durkon ever really sat down, they would conclude that the problem is with the gods , not with them.

Mortals of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but an eternity as a cosmic battery!

Tongue-in-cheek,

Brian P.

I agree. The Gods have been portrayed more as a source of mess than a source of solutions. Even Thor has resorted to commanding a mortal follower to reach an agreement between mortals that the Gods are unable to attain.

But I'm affraid Redcloak may have become, at this point, more "Dark-Onist" than The Dark One. Much like certain Paladins were more "twelvists" than the Twelve Gods.

I wonder if The Dark One wouldn't end up revoking Redcloak's powers. A possiblity already hinted by Redcloak himself. And I wonder if, in that situation, Redcloak will go all the Miko Way. I suppose not, because he has already blown up a Gate, so I think Xykon is more qualified than him to blow the last one.

[dancrilis]

It occurs to me that if Redcloak and Durkon ever really sat down, they would conclude that the problem is with the gods , not with them.

So you agree:

The amount of lack of understanding the Xykon receives makes me sad.

Here is a man that has been put down by people all his life, but who consistently rose above their petty insults to make something of himself.

Than he is nearing the end of his life and he finds out that the gods have been playing everyone as chumps since before the beginning of the world and he is offered a chance to even the playing field.

Here is one man who is reviled for daring to have the audacity to indicate that regular people can have control over their own lives - that ultra-powerful outsiders can be stood up to.
He should be a beacon of hope in the darkness - a shining light for the mortal races to look to and admire. But instead for his idiosyncrasies he is hated and feared.

Truly he is the tragic hero of the Order of the Stick.

[Lethologica]

The "other sources" (that is, The Giant) have little bearing on Redcloak's narrative. TDO claims that the Gods did create the Goblins as XP Fodder and casted them away in barred lands. TDO doesn't claims that the Gods did create the Goblins as inherently evil. And we know for sure the Gods didn't, because the goblins aren't inherently evil in the OOTS world.

Where is the discrepancy you claimed between TDO's narrative of 'goblin oppression' and Redcloak's? Was someone claiming that the gods made goblins inherently evil? The crayon narrative, to which Redcloak and presumably TDO adhere, is that the gods made goblins acceptable targets. Within the crayon narrative, depriving the goblins of resources is to keep the acceptable targets from transforming into genuine threats.

Rich's comments indicate that he is writing against labeling goblins Evil because of general tendencies, which he calls racism; and against slaughtering goblins for being goblins because the book says they're Evil. This is certainly compatible with the crayon narrative. It is also compatible with a Stickworld where similar patterns of goblin slaughter and goblin oppression arose without divine sanction, and the crayon narrative errs in attributing it to the gods.

It is not, I think, compatible with a Stickworld where goblin oppression was made up and goblin slaughter was justified (or at least properly to be blamed on something other than goblin oppression, like a few bad paladin apples or TDO's provocations). Since there seem to be people arguing for this last position, 'certain posters' have good reason to bring Rich's comments to bear.

And Redcloak's narrative that the Gods are biased towards their "chosen" species, isn't substantiated by the reality we saw at the Godsmoot, where several High Priests belonged to so-called "monstruous races".

I agree that to the extent that the crayon narrative implicates all monstrous species, the story does not bear that out. I am simply addressing the claims that (1) Redcloak treats the narrative of divine oppression as an excuse rather than a genuine belief, and (2) 'certain posters' are neglecting Redcloak's narrative in order to argue unrelated narratives.

[Lord Raziere]

In this it occurs to me that the Giant would do well to spell out the stuff he's shown us in extra material and his forum comments in the main comic more thoroughly. Redcloak pretty clearly doesn't know what he's talking about, at least when it comes to non-goblinoids.

Indeed, it is perhaps one of the few weaknesses I can find in the Giant's normally well-plotted storytelling: He is too subtle at times, despite having a literal parody cartoon world of meta-humor to work with. Remember Malack's plan? He tried to make a cattle slaughter metaphor but everyone interpreted it as death camps. Personally from the evidence I gathered I'm convinced that they are oppressed, but its all background and details surrounding the main events, and a lot of telling but not showing. if there is systemic oppression going on, its that invisible oppression that wouldn't be clear to humans, and unfortunately the comic follows a party made entirely of PC races so we wouldn't even see that most of the time. Not helping is how most of the characters follow the traditional alignment stuff you see in usual DnD. For example, we don't have a single example of a good aligned monstrous party in the entire comic.

Thing is, he had a golden opportunity to show it right in front of us: the Empire of Blood. you wouldn't need to change any of the events that happened in it, just change some of the many background NPCs you see in the book into goblinoids and we'd have a great example to work with, its not as if Tarquin would care. The whole empire is cartoonishly evil from front to end, including goblinoids or other monstrous races in that wouldn't have made a difference. (Oh but then even there would be no evidence of it occurring on the Northern continent or even outside Tarquin's empires because if we don't explicitly see it, it doesn't exist, nevermind that an author can't show everything all the time)

But honestly this problem isn't unique to the Giant: some of the better writers I've read get so caught up in the moral complexity and other such things of a story they forget to clearly state the message they're trying to impart, and pardon my tvtropes, but Some Anvils Need To Be Dropped. problem is, any explicit showing of it now would be a bit shoehorned in, this is like the finale, and he could've been spreading it more evenly throughout to better enlighten us on how accurate Redcloak's view is. Like I'm sure there is some measure of truth to it, but we really do need something a bit more explicit and a shoehorned in assurance that yes Redcloak isn't entirely wrong would be nice even if its just like, Minrah asking Thor how true his rant is and Thor scrying up a bunch of scry feeds of suffering goblins in response (oh but then those could be illusions made by Thor to convince Minrah to go through with it because Thor would totally have a reason to somehow lie on the Dark One's behalf despite Thor being y'know one of the most honest gods you could find) and we just move on from there. one is better than none after all.

Though I haven't read any of the bonus comics supposedly included in the actual books, but I doubt 11-14 pages per book change much. Analysis of like, Utterly Dwarfed will be later, again I don't expect much from that book since its about mostly dwarves and sometimes gods and the gods will probably be the thing to analyze since that is what will inform us the most about Redcloak's situation.

[danielxcutter]

While I don’t think any of them are in this thread, at least a few people were trying to justify the Guard slaughtering Redcloak’s entire hometown like three comic strips ago, people.

[hamishspence]

Best not to "carry baggage over" from one thread to another.

[Lethologica]

Some of the TDO-blaming in this thread crossed over into justifying the Sapphire Guard's actions. Otherwise, the argument here has generally been that it was an isolated incident, a few bad apples, most violence against goblins is committed by other goblins, etc. I have my reservations about whether the story will validate such an approach to its themes.

[hamishspence]

Some of the TDO-blaming in this thread crossed over into justifying the Sapphire Guard's actions.

True - only once though, and only partially rather than completely:

It is DnD any of those goblins could be polymorphed adults, any of them could be 'true' bearer having used a proxy to throw off the paladins etc, we know that was not the case but the paladins couldn't be sure about it - which does not justify their actions (you don't get to kill innocent people and say 'I had to be sure') but might help explain why they took such extreme measures.
I would imagine that it is fairly standard for evil creatures to pretend to be children so that people are put off attacking them with full force - kindof like how not-Durkon deliberately didn't reveal to Roy that he wasn't Durkon in the hopes Roy might hold back.

So...the Bearer forced the Sapphire Guard to attack fleeing villagers, before and after he was dead.

I am not blaming the Bearer - I am blaming The Dark One.

[The Pilgrim]

Some of the TDO-blaming in this thread crossed over into justifying the Sapphire Guard's actions. Otherwise, the argument here has generally been that it was an isolated incident, a few bad apples, most violence against goblins is committed by other goblins, etc. I have my reservations about whether the story will validate such an approach to its themes.

Mmmmh... let's see...

Redcloak pursuing a Plan that will either kill or enslave the whole world, women and children included, of all races, including his own, because some paladins (who got later stopped by their own compatriots) slaughtered his village -> Redcloak is wrong but he has a point. He is doing wrong for the right reasons.

Redcloak starting a war, killing tens of thousands and enslaving many more, because the people he invaded have better lands than his people -> Redcloak is wrong but he has a point. Doing wrong for the right reasons.

Paladins of the Sapphire Guard slaughtering whole villages of Goblins in order to stop the very real evil plan to destroy or enslave the World pursued by the Evil God the goblins follow -> Doing wrong for the wrong reasons. You monsters, how can you justify what those criminals did???? Do The Giant needs to self-insert himself in the story and give a lecture to make you understand that genocide is wrong??? We are getting tired of having to keep hammering the point home on your brains.

...

Mmmmh... no, guys. Sorry, I'm not buying your product. We all understand that what the Paladins did was wrong. We got the point, like, 8 years ago. It's you who, after all this time, still don't seem to understand that what The Dark One and Redcloak are doing is wrong on the same level if not much, much worse.

[hroþila]

Among other things, you're failing to take into account that this whole thing didn't start with the Crimson Mantle and the plan to control a gate.

some paladins (who got later stopped by their own compatriots)

I don't think this matters as much as you think.

[dancrilis]

Among other things, you're failing to take into account that this whole thing didn't start with the Crimson Mantle and the plan to control a gate.

The Dark One has as far as we know never spoken to Redcloak - so Redcloak's version of events of the history and origin of the Goblins is not even second hand information (and likely not third either), and as religious dogma it would make sense for The Dark One to tie his people to him by painting all the other gods as actively hostile to the goblins.
So I don't trust the crayon drawings or Redcloak on the story of the goblin origins.

As for the Crimson Mantle - it is the reason given for attacks on goblins that we have seen, Redcloak's story (and the tale of goblin oppression) effectively does start with The Crimson Mantle and thereby The Dark One.

I think Redcloak could be part of the solution - but to get there he needs to break from The Dark One, and I only see that happening if The Dark One is out of the picture and Redcloak has to make a decision for himself - not based on what The Dark One might want or based on how Xykon might react.
I think the question of whether he can be part of the solution is: Will he put the goblins first or will he put his own want for justification and revenge first when he is not under threat of Xykon/The Dark One?

[Keltest]

The Dark One has as far as we know never spoken to Redcloak - so Redcloak's version of events of the history and origin of the Goblins is not even second hand information (and likely not third either), and as religious dogma it would make sense for The Dark One to tie his people to him by painting all the other gods as actively hostile to the goblins.
So I don't trust the crayon drawings or Redcloak on the story of the goblin origins.

As for the Crimson Mantle - it is the reason given for attacks on goblins that we have seen, Redcloak's story (and the tale of goblin oppression) effectively does start with The Crimson Mantle and thereby The Dark One.

I think Redcloak could be part of the solution - but to get there he needs to break from The Dark One, and I only see that happening if The Dark One is out of the picture and Redcloak has to make a decision for himself - not based on what The Dark One might want or based on how Xykon might react.
I think the question of whether he can be part of the solution is 'Will he put the goblins first or will he put his own want for justification and revenge first when he is not under threat of Xykon/The Dark One'.

IMO Redcloak crossed that line a long time ago. Redcloak is the villain now, the story isnt going to give him a happy ending.

[dancrilis]

IMO Redcloak crossed that line a long time ago. Redcloak is the villain now, the story isnt going to give him a happy ending.

I am not so sure (subject to defination of happy ending) - I kindof see Redcloak as a man who wants to do the right thing for his people, but he has just never really been in a position to do so without either having a deity want him to do something else or without a lich pushing him to get back to work.
I don't really think he has ever really made a major decision in his life that wasn't thrust onto him by circumstances - and I wonder what his decision would be under the following criteria:
The world will end, Xykon will end, Gobbotopia will end, the Dark One is dead - does Redcloak save the world and give Gobbotopia a slim chance or does he let the world end to take all his failures away with it and hope it destroys Xykon.

I could see him be part of the solution - him settling down with a nice goblin girl, raising a set of kids and he teaching chemistry in a the local goblinoid school seems a lot more distant.

[pendell]

I could see him be part of the solution - him settling down with a nice goblin girl, raising a set of kids and he teaching chemistry in a the local goblinoid school seems a lot more distant.

He was offered that very thing in SOD, and turned it down.

Respectfully,

Brian P.