Goblin Oppression; fact or fiction?

[Lethologica]

I suppose the Twelve Gods are all into the inherent worth and dignity of individual goblins until some of them begin to pursue a plan that threatens the Gods themselves.

I mean, at the threat of the Snarl, Heimdall was all for flushing the whole worth and dignity of all life in the planet down the toilet. And he is Lawful Good.

Besides, the Gods have been portrayed as seldom communicating with mortals at all. Safest bet is that they inspired the writing of some scriptures (like the Dark One did through the Crimson Mantle) and haven't minded much since. I suppose they have a bajillion rules preventing them from direct contract, that's why Thor had to wait until Durkon died in order to be able to talk to him.

We can suppose whatever we like about what happened before the Plan. The only information we have about that period is Redcloak's crayon narrative, whose reliability is contested ground. But other narratives don't have more basis.

Either way, you are making the argument that the gods' respect for the inherent worth and dignity of individual goblins has not applied for as long as the Plan has existed, hence citing scripture about said dignity tells us little about the general moral attitudes of the Twelve's followers.

I think he somewhat undermined the "karma" aspect of Azure City being wiped out by a villain they created when he revealed in HtPGHS that even captains in the Azure City guard like O-Chul didn't know the Sapphire Guard even existed.
It's clear the average Azurite knew nothing about any goblin massacres.

The comment about karma was directed at the Twelve Gods, not at Azure City. That is to say, Rich's comment is not a claim that the average Azure City citizen was facing karma for the Sapphire Guard's past massacres, so the new information in HtPGHS does not undermine the claim.

I further note that there is a gap of some ten years between the original comment by Rich on the "Karma" of Azure City and the events of HTPGHS.

But there are not ten years between War & XPs and the Giant's comments about whether paladins fell at Redcloak's village.

Moreover, the statement that some paladins may have fell, most did not, and it's up to us to decide who did or didn't fall doesn't leave us with much firm ground when deciding what isn't acceptable. We can decide that the most heinous acts committed during the slaughter were unacceptable to the good gods, but that's an extremely low bar.

[The Pilgrim]

I think he somewhat undermined the "karma" aspect of Azure City being wiped out by a villain they created when he revealed in HtPGHS that even captains in the Azure City guard like O-Chul didn't know the Sapphire Guard even existed.
It's clear the average Azurite knew nothing about any goblin massacres.

People are reading too much into a comment that began with The Giant explaining that the destruction of Azure City was a necessary plot point to deny the Heores the backup of it's vast amount of resources.

We can suppose whatever we like about what happened before the Plan. The only information we have about that period is Redcloak's crayon narrative, whose reliability is contested ground. But other narratives don't have more basis.

We know that Goblins weren't created as inherenty evil, because they aren't inherently evil.

We also know that peaceful co-existence between humans and goblins is possible, as proven by Right-Eye's village in SoD and by the events in HTPGHS. Hobgoblin raids were not a thing for decades before the Sapphire Guard began raiding hobgoblin villages, and peace between humans and hobgoblins was restored by the end of that story.

Either way, you are making the argument that the gods' respect for the inherent worth and dignity of individual goblins has not applied for as long as the Plan has existed, hence citing scripture about said dignity tells us little about the general moral attitudes of the Twelve's followers.

The fact that the Twelve Gods may or may not mind about the inherent worth and dignity of individual goblins, doesn't means it's not present in azurite culture. Because it is, as proven by the fact that Hinjo cited it as part of his nation's heritage.

[Jason]

I'm trying to square the circle of the facts of "The gods commanded the annihilation of goblins" with " the good gods revoked the powers of any paladin doing exactly that."

Well, neither the 12 gods sanctioning the massacres nor the falls of any of the paladins who participated happened on-panel, so you can pretty much make up any theory you like.

[Lethologica]

Sorry, but that's a non-sequitur. The fact that the Twelve Gods don't mind about the inherent worth and dignity of individual goblins, doesn't means it's not present in azurite culture. Because it is, as proven by the fact that Hinjo cited it as part of his nation's heritage.

That's the 'little' that it does tell us. The idea is present. The most idealistic of Azure City's citizens believes it. So when examining the question of whether the system is a good one with a few bad apples, or an unjust one propped up by a few good leaders - which cannot be a non sequitur, because it is the question I asked and you were claiming to answer - this fact does not narrow the window of possibilities.

We know that Goblins weren't created as inherenty evil, because they aren't inherently evil.

As previously stated, the crayon narrative is that goblins were created as acceptable targets, not that they were created as inherently evil. No one in comic or out has claimed that goblins were created inherently evil.

We also know that peaceful co-existence between humans and goblins is possible, as proven by Right-Eye's village in SoD and by the events in HTPGHS. Hobgoblin raids were not a thing for decades before the Sapphire Guard began raiding hobgoblin villages, and peace between humans and hobgoblins was restored by the end of that story.

This is true.

[The Pilgrim]

That's the 'little' that it does tell us. The idea is present. The most idealistic of Azure City's citizens believes it. So when examining the question of whether the system is a good one with a few bad apples, or an unjust one propped up by a few good leaders - which cannot be a non sequitur, because it is the question I asked and you were claiming to answer - this fact does not narrow the window of possibilities.

It narrows it when the moral philosopy of Azure City instructs that all life is sacred, including non-humanoid one, with the rulers of the city adhering to those moral standards.

It also narrows it when, in a clash between people who think they can kill goblins just for being goblins VS people who uphould azurite ideals of all life being worth, the Lord of the City supports the latter group rather than the former.

As previously stated, the crayon narrative is that goblins were created as acceptable targets, not that they were created as inherently evil. No one in comic or out has claimed that goblins were created inherently evil.

But that's The Giant critique to fantasy tradition. That it creates races as inherently evil and, thus, as legitimate targets.

This is not, though, the world that The Giant has created in OOTS. The characters that behave like if it was are the ones out of place, as demonstrated by the fact that they are always portrayed as antagonistic characters, not as sympatetic ones.

The Gods may or may have not created the goblins, and other monster races, as acceptable targets. But thousands of years have passed, and such convention, if ever existed, has withered out.

[Lethologica]

It narrows it when the moral philosopy of Azure City instructs that all life is sacred, including non-humanoid one, with the rulers of the city adhering to those moral standards.

It also narrows it when, in a clash between people who think they can kill goblins just for being goblins VS people who uphould azurite ideals of all life being worth, the Lord of the City supports the latter group rather than the former.

This is just restating the same points with the same people that make up the "good leaders" in the second scenario.

But that's The Giant critique to fantasy tradition. That it creates races as inherently evil and, thus, as legitimate targets.

This is not, though, the world that The Giant has created in OOTS. The characters that behave like if it was are the ones out of place, as demonstrated by the fact that they are always portrayed as antagonistic characters, not as sympatetic ones.

There are, roughly speaking, two schools of thought on how to write against a problematic tradition. One is to write some version of the tradition and show that it is problematic - for example, Moonlight, which explores oppression against LGBT people in depth. The other is to write the tradition out of the story entirely and envision a better world without it - for example, the She-Ra remake, which entirely normalizes queer identities and refuses to grant homophobia or discrimination even the courtesy of being the villain (although there are some metaphorical nods to the struggle). Both of these can be effective ways of writing against the problem.

What is not effective is to write a story where the problem looks like it exists, and is explored, and characters call it out, but in the end we find out that this is fake and the problem would not exist were it not for the very characters calling it out. That is not writing against the problem. That is writing against the critique.

Redcloak's point is precisely the Giant's critique. He is reacting to the racist tradition of seeing goblins as legitimate targets. And that does not mean that Redcloak is a good person, or that his actions are justified, or that his plan will solve the problem, or that he is not himself racist, or that he is not worsening the very situation he complains of. But once the critique is expressed within the story, the problem must exist for the critique to be valid. Otherwise, the villainy of Redcloak is not an evil reaction to racism, but rather believing that racism exists and merits a reaction.

[The Pilgrim]

There are, roughly speaking, two schools of thought on how to write against a problematic tradition. One is to write some version of the tradition and show that it is problematic - for example, Moonlight, which explores oppression against LGBT people in depth. The other is to write the tradition out of the story entirely and envision a better world without it - for example, the She-Ra remake, which entirely normalizes queer identities and refuses to grant homophobia or discrimination even the courtesy of being the villain (although there are some metaphorical nods to the struggle). Both of these can be effective ways of writing against the problem.

What is not effective is to write a story where the problem looks like it exists, and is explored, and characters call it out, but in the end we find out that this is fake and the problem would not exist were it not for the very characters calling it out. That is not writing against the problem. That is writing against the critique.

Redcloak's point is precisely the Giant's critique. He is reacting to the racist tradition of seeing goblins as legitimate targets. And that does not mean that Redcloak is a good person, or that his actions are justified, or that his plan will solve the problem, or that he is not himself racist, or that he is not worsening the very situation he complains of. But once the critique is expressed within the story, the problem must exist for the critique to be valid. Otherwise, the villainy of Redcloak is not an evil reaction to racism, but rather believing that racism exists and merits a reaction.

My personal opinion is that a lot of readers are taking the "goblin oppression" thing as it if were a major theme of the story, instead of just background flavor for one of the main villains.

In the main story, goblinoids are still mostly evil, and mostly present as antagonistic mooks. That doesn't strikes me as matching the notion that "writting against goblin oppression" is one of the main themes of this work.

[Lethologica]

My personal opinion is that a lot of readers are taking the "goblin oppression" thing as it if were a major theme of the story, instead of just background flavor for one of the main villains.

In the main story, goblinoids are still mostly evil, and mostly present as antagonistic mooks. That doesn't strikes me as matching the notion that "writting against goblin oppression" is one of the main themes of this work.

It is not typical to refer to a main villain's raison d'etre as minor background flavor. Nor is this an argument against my portrayal of the consequences, merely a claim that they are unimportant.

That said, the author's thematic intent is one point where authorial intent absolutely does pertain:

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.

Our fiction reflects who we are as a civilization, and it disgusts me that so many people think it's acceptable to label creatures with only cosmetic differences from us as inherently Evil. I may like the alignment system overall, but that is its ugliest implication, and one that I think needs to be eliminated from the game. I will ALWAYS write against that idea until it has been eradicated from the lexicon of fantasy literature. If they called me up and asked me to help them work on 5th Edition, I would stamp it out from the very game itself. It is abhorrent to me in every way.

So, complaining that I am failing to uphold it is the best compliment you could give me.

(Second emphasis mine)

Yeah, this definitely sounds like a guy who's going to casually undercut Redcloak's point and make his belief in racism against goblins in Stickworld the root of his villainy.

EDIT: Forgot another one (all emphasis mine):

The primary purpose of Redcloak's characterization is to specifically prove that this point is completely and utterly wrong. That D&D cannot and should not begin and end at black-and-white, and indeed already doesn't, if everyone would just learn to look at things a little more complexly.

Obviously, I still have work to do on that point.

Further, your definition of "what the comic is about" is also wrong. You seem to think it should be about me regurgitating an accurate portrayal of how the game should ideally be played. Nothing could be further from my mind. 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. If you've never played in a game with people like that, then congratulations! You've had an exceptionally lucky D&D career, and that whole portion of the comic's subtext is Not For You. But there are plenty of people who maybe have never given it a second thought. Just because you've already learned some of the lessons of a work of fiction does not mean that there's no point to including them.

[Jason]

No matter how many times that quote is posted, he's still wrong about the "this is how the game is played 9 times out of 10" part.

[Lethologica]

No matter how many times that quote is posted, he's still wrong about the "this is how the game is played 9 times out of 10" part.

Probably! But it removes all ambiguity as to what he is writing against and how seriously he takes it.

[The Pilgrim]

Probably! But it removes all ambiguity as to what he is writing against and how seriously he takes it.

The fact that you need to repeat all over again the same two comments from eight years ago, is not exactly proof of it being the main theme of the story, instead of just a side theme.

Yeah, this definitely sounds like a guy who's going to casually undercut Redcloak's point and make his belief in racism against goblins in Stickworld the root of his villainy.

But... Redcloak's belief in specism againt goblins is the root of his villany.

[Lethologica]

The fact that you need to repeat all over again the same two comments from eight years ago, is not exactly proof of it being the main theme of the story, instead of just a side theme.

No, the proof would be the content of the comments.

Also, whether it's a main theme or a side theme has nothing to do with whether the theme has been analyzed correctly.

But... Redcloak's belief in specism againt goblins is the root of his villany.

Uh huh. The Giant is writing against believing that racism is a problem. Come back when the story ends and see if that prediction comes to pass.

No, the root of Redcloak's villainy, what makes Redcloak wrong and evil, is not his belief in speciesism against goblins. What makes him wrong and evil is that he will justify anything in the name of that belief.

[Lord Raziere]

There are, roughly speaking, two schools of thought on how to write against a problematic tradition. One is to write some version of the tradition and show that it is problematic - for example, Moonlight, which explores oppression against LGBT people in depth. The other is to write the tradition out of the story entirely and envision a better world without it - for example, the She-Ra remake, which entirely normalizes queer identities and refuses to grant homophobia or discrimination even the courtesy of being the villain (although there are some metaphorical nods to the struggle). Both of these can be effective ways of writing against the problem.

What is not effective is to write a story where the problem looks like it exists, and is explored, and characters call it out, but in the end we find out that this is fake and the problem would not exist were it not for the very characters calling it out. That is not writing against the problem. That is writing against the critique.

Redcloak's point is precisely the Giant's critique. He is reacting to the racist tradition of seeing goblins as legitimate targets. And that does not mean that Redcloak is a good person, or that his actions are justified, or that his plan will solve the problem, or that he is not himself racist, or that he is not worsening the very situation he complains of. But once the critique is expressed within the story, the problem must exist for the critique to be valid. Otherwise, the villainy of Redcloak is not an evil reaction to racism, but rather believing that racism exists and merits a reaction.

Agree, though I find both schools of thought to have their flaws. the flaw of the former tradition is that sometimes it can get too lost in portraying the problem to show that it doesn't actually support it or how to solve it, while the latter while showing a better world doesn't show us how to best achieve from where we are now.

While the Giant's portrayal of such matters is well....here is the problem:
he doesn't address the alignment issue. its clear he thinks evil people can still be worthy of respect and working with as long as they participate in civilization like everyone else. numerous examples throughout the comic are of how an evil person can be apart of society in DnD and one of the main protagonists is a Chaotic Evil halfling learning to be smart chaotic evil rather than stupid evil and thus acceptable to group even if he isn't a good person.

problem is, many of the hobgoblins die and are used as disposable mooks anyways, there is even a joke about how they're named by numbers! there is no indication of good goblins who don't want to be apart of this (though they probably wouldn't participate in an attack on Azure City or anything like that). there is no focus on what oppression they're facing outside of the Sapphire Guards raids and while thats bad, what we have right now is that it implies the goblinoid oppression is a regional thing.

While we're constantly told the story from a POV that can't show the former school of thought very well (because they're too busy fighting those that are retaliating with their own problematic things to show off) or demonstrate the latter better world without some sympathetic goblins to demonstrate it ON. the only goblin they have the opportunity to demonstrate that is Redcloak aaaannd.....well. Redcloak is either one egomania trip away from becoming Tarquin, or one fanaticism breakdown away from becoming Goblin Miko Miyazaki. While the hobgoblins have demonstrated racism is bad....by being the racist oppressors to the slaves still in Azure City.

So we're left with various implications and side details that from my sociological analysis are signs of it happening, but not everyone chooses to interpret things from that sociological perspective, when systemic oppression is an inherently sociological concept.

though, but then again I'd have to wonder what people would specifically consider "proof" of goblin oppression that would be good enough to definitively say its happening with no doubts, no alternate interpretations or anything that could be misconstrued as a few bad apples. depending on the answer, it might not even be achievable.

[danielxcutter]

I think at least most of the people here are agreeing with:

1. Redcloak is Evil and needs to be stopped.

2. What the Sapphire Guard did to his village was wrong.

Personally I don't like people trying to invalidate his points because they hate Redcloak, but it's still better than people hating Redcloak because his points make them uncomfortable.

[Enixon]

I'm trying to square the circle of the facts of "The gods commanded the annihilation of goblins" with " the good gods revoked the powers of any paladin doing exactly that."

My conclusion is that the good gods of the 12 did not condone or command genocide of goblins. If they had done so, they would not punish their own followers for obeying their commands.

This has always bugged me. The fact that the Paladins that killed goblins that weren't a threat lost their powers seems to me like it should single-handedly disprove the "Goblins were created to be exp fodder" line of thinking, because why would the gods consider it to be an evil act to kill something that the gods explicitly made to be killed?


Maybe it was wrong because those Paladins were too high level to get any EXP from the innocent goblins, that's a bunch of EXP that low level adventurers can't earn now.

[hamishspence]

While the Giant's portrayal of such matters is well....here is the problem:
he doesn't address the alignment issue. its clear he thinks evil people can still be worthy of respect and working with as long as they participate in civilization like everyone else. numerous examples throughout the comic are of how an evil person can be apart of society in DnD and one of the main protagonists is a Chaotic Evil halfling learning to be smart chaotic evil rather than stupid evil and thus acceptable to group even if he isn't a good person.

Not exactly:

I'd like to discuss how much Tarquin has changed in his run of the comic.

When he first showed up, he was an ultra-competent LE character running the empire (and half the continent or more) from behind the throne with his group of ex-adventurers. While UNDENIABLY evil, he kind of shattered some of the illusions held by a lot of people (and players) in regards to how evil people think and act. His obvious love for his children shocked Elan, and cemented his place as Evil, but somewhat redefined evil...at least in regards to this comic. (Most of the evil villains in this comic have been wholly and undeniably evil...nothing to show that they have normal lives outside of being evil. Redcloak {with his goal of Goblin equality [Supremacy?]} and Tsukiko {With really just wanting to be loved} would be the closest parallel, but even then both of those characters merely show somewhat noble / understandle motivations for their obviously evil acts)

Fast forward to now. Tarquin has killed one child, for no other reason than that son acted as that son *always* has. No longer do we see the calm, cool, and collected dictator that always has a plan. We're seeing a rage driven maniac who's just flat out murdering people for murder's sake. He had *EXACTLY* what he wanted when the OotS flew away from the Empire of Blood. A conflicted Elan who still felt obligated to come back and take down his father's regime. But instead of just waiting it out, he comes in and stops being the 'redefinition of evil' from before, and just flat out becomes the 2 dimensional cookie cutter villain that we, as D&D players, so often see.

TL;DR I guess I'm just disappointed that the character stopped being so interesting and thought provoking, and just became, frankly, boring.

Also, undercutting that so-called "redefinition of evil" is sort of the point. Because it's bull****. It's not a real thing. You can't be a torturing, mass-murdering rapist and then go home and turn your Evil Switch to the "off" position to spend time with your kids. It doesn't work that way. If you are the sort of person that can commit the acts that Tarquin does daily, then that will find its way into every aspect of your existence. It's who you are. This idea that Tarquin was this perfectly rational actor despite being a complete monster at his Day Job is a pipe dream. Tarquin wants you (and Elan) to think that what he does is separate from who he is—that he's a fundamentally decent man who just so happens to murder a bunch of people here and there—because that's how he tricks you into slowly accepting his blatant Evil as a valid life choice that needs to be respected. Which it is not.

Some people want to love the villain without having to face the fact that villains are largely terrible people who do horrific things with deficient reasoning. Not on my watch.

[Worldsong]

What is not effective is to write a story where the problem looks like it exists, and is explored, and characters call it out, but in the end we find out that this is fake and the problem would not exist were it not for the very characters calling it out. That is not writing against the problem. That is writing against the critique.

Pretty much. Having one of the main villains fighting against perceived discrimination and oppression is one thing and can help them come across as tragic instead of just being another banally malicious villain who destroys because they enjoy destroying (read; Xykon).

Having that discrimination and oppression be non-existent suddenly turns the message of the story into "Social injustice isn't real and people who claim to fight against it are just liars who want to exploit other people's sympathy for personal gain."

And while there are people who actually want to take advantage of other people and society like that I don't think Rich would want to undercut legitimate protests against social injustice.

Of course it is possible that Redcloak is supposed to represent the problem of social injustice... but that sounds like a real stretch.

While the Giant's portrayal of such matters is well....here is the problem:
he doesn't address the alignment issue. its clear he thinks evil people can still be worthy of respect and working with as long as they participate in civilization like everyone else. numerous examples throughout the comic are of how an evil person can be apart of society in DnD and one of the main protagonists is a Chaotic Evil halfling learning to be smart chaotic evil rather than stupid evil and thus acceptable to group even if he isn't a good person.

I don't think he's trying to say that Evil should be respected as a lifestyle choice. Rather I think his message is that people being treated as people regardless of alignment is fundamentally more important than their alignment.

If someone commits Evil deeds then they are either a villain or a criminal and have to be treated accordingly, but they're still a person so you can't go torture them, enslave them, or do other things which would essentially deny them the position of being a person.

And depending on where you live killing them is either not acceptable at all or it's an absolute last resort in case there does not appear to be any chance for rehabilitation. Of course that part of the message gets a bit muddied by the fact that in DnD murder is often the best solution. It can be difficult to alter your perspective to merge "People should be treated like people" with "Killing your enemies is fair game."

This has always bugged me. The fact that the Paladins that killed goblins that weren't a threat lost their powers seems to me like it should single-handedly disprove the "Goblins were created to be exp fodder" line of thinking, because why would the gods consider it to be an evil act to kill something that the gods explicitly made to be killed?


Maybe it was wrong because those Paladins were too high level to get any EXP from the innocent goblins, that's a bunch of EXP that low level adventurers can't earn now.

Given that Rich was intentionally ambiguous about how many and which paladins fell we can't really get a clear answer for this unless Rich changes his mind. Personally I'd argue that since the War and XP's commentary strongly suggests that the Twelve Gods are fine with genociding the goblinoids the paladins who fell were the ones who went out of their way to target villagers who were trying to flee or couldn't fight back and paladins made a game out of it.

We know from Roy's journey through the afterlife that intent matters a lot so maybe the Good part of the Twelve Gods takes the perspective of "Killing goblinoids is one thing, but you shouldn't be a total **** about it."

Assuming that the "Monster races are bags of XP" narrative is true it'd make sense if the Good Gods at least want their followers to not get too casual about it.

EDIT: to elaborate upon this, Underdwarfed showed us that the gods aren't one big happy family and that a lot of their interactions are built upon compromise and minimizing conflict. Within a pantheon they might bicker and quarrel but anything which is big enough to cross the boundaries between pantheons gets handled with utmost care because they're deadly terrified of the Snarl or the possibility of creating another Snarl.

So the question "Why would the Good Gods be fine with treating monster races as lower class" might be "They aren't but they got outvoted."

Of course the next question would be "Why do the Good Gods then still allow their followers to treat monster races like that" but Underdwarfed also showed that even among the Good Gods most do not necessarily have the well-being of mortals as their highest priority. Which would mean that while they're unhappy about the situation their higher priority is ensuring that the Evil Gods don't gain an advantage from rampantly farming the free bags of XP while their own Good followers have to painstakingly hunt down individual criminals.

So the Good part of the Twelve Gods would begrudgingly tolerate wiping out goblin villages but they'd draw the line at paladins who seem to make a game out of it, such as "I'll see if I can hit three goblins with the same cleave attack because that'd be cool."

[Lethologica]

Agree, though I find both schools of thought to have their flaws. the flaw of the former tradition is that sometimes it can get too lost in portraying the problem to show that it doesn't actually support it or how to solve it, while the latter while showing a better world doesn't show us how to best achieve from where we are now.

Certainly both kinds of storytelling can get lost in wallowing in the problem, or indulging in fluffy escapism, respectively.

While the Giant's portrayal of such matters is well....here is the problem:
he doesn't address the alignment issue. its clear he thinks evil people can still be worthy of respect and working with as long as they participate in civilization like everyone else. numerous examples throughout the comic are of how an evil person can be apart of society in DnD and one of the main protagonists is a Chaotic Evil halfling learning to be smart chaotic evil rather than stupid evil and thus acceptable to group even if he isn't a good person.

I think this is a reasonable but incorrect take on Belkar. A stupid evil character becoming a smart evil character to fit into society is a fine arc, but that's not what we see - Belkar's moral journey is not lateral. Learning to play 'society' is part of Belkar becoming a better person, because his evil is a deeply antisocial, self-centered amorality. It's sold to him as letting him be evil and fit into society. Instead it becomes him learning to care about others, because even playing along requires one to pay attention, and once he's taking input from the outside he can be influenced by the good people (and animals) around him. That's not to say he's out of the deep end of the alignment pool, but he's become more acceptable to the group in direct correspondence with him becoming less evil, not independent of it. Learning to be a better person ironically was the gateway drug to learning to be a better person for realsies.

More broadly, a lot of the evil people that are participating in civilization are able to fit in because the civilization has problems; they are either an inevitable feature of, or an exploiter of, those societal problems. Tarquin's group is the obvious example. The Thieves' Guild is another, Kubota arguably a third. I'm actually not clear on where evil people are portrayed as worthy of respect and collaboration, rather than being allies of practicality at best. (Well, Hamishspence kind of put that part to bed.)

Of course it is possible that Redcloak is supposed to represent the problem of social injustice... but that sounds like a real stretch.

Oh, I totally think Redcloak is supposed to represent the problem of social injustice. He's part of the cycle of violence, he's escalating the cycle of violence, he's a raging hypocrite on the very issues he wants to address. And that's half the point. On the one hand, fighting injustice by no means prevents one from being part of the problem of injustice; it's not enough to simply topple those currently benefiting from injustice in favor of those currently oppressed. On the other hand, injustice gives rise to the very monsters it fears; it's no good suppressing the hot summers of riots without addressing the long cold winters that precede them.

[Worldsong]

Oh, I totally think Redcloak is supposed to represent the problem of social injustice. He's part of the cycle of violence, he's escalating the cycle of violence, he's a raging hypocrite on the very issues he wants to address. And that's half the point. On the one hand, fighting injustice by no means prevents one from being part of the problem of injustice; it's not enough to simply topple those currently benefiting from injustice in favor of those currently oppressed. On the other hand, injustice gives rise to the very monsters it fears; it's no good suppressing the hot summers of riots without addressing the long cold winters that precede them.

Okay, fine, fair enough, I'll rephrase myself:

I think it'd be a real stretch that Redcloak is supposed to represent the entirety of social injustice by himself with the PC races and the gods having nothing to do with it. It's entirely true that Redcloak plays a role in social injustice, but as a dangerous and problematic reaction to pre-existent social injustice rather than being the cause himself.

And the same applies to the Dark One. The guy's up there making trouble but I highly doubt the moral of the story is going to be "If the Dark One and Redcloak didn't exist everything would be fine and dandy."

[Lord Raziere]

glad I'm wrong then, hamish.

This has always bugged me. The fact that the Paladins that killed goblins that weren't a threat lost their powers seems to me like it should single-handedly disprove the "Goblins were created to be exp fodder" line of thinking, because why would the gods consider it to be an evil act to kill something that the gods explicitly made to be killed?

That is a more complex question than you think. Good deities are not the only deities around. If the world of DnD was only good deities I could see it being complete proof but.... well....

lets just start analyzing Utterly Dwarfed, shall we?

Spoiler: Utterfly Dwarfed Analysis

Show

Reframing The Narrative:
We get a cut-away panel of a pair of adventurers who say they were attacked first being lectured by a guy saying they were committing a home invasion with a bunch of orcs dead at their feet. the adventurers response is "which never would've happened if they weren't living in such an obviously cool adventuring location" Yeah this isn't a scribble this is two adventurers outright trying to justify their slaughter of random orcs by saying they should've never chosen to live there in the first place if they didn't want to be killed. its victim-blaming.

Godsmoot:
This is going to be interesting, because this will reveal a lot about each god and what their stances on the world are and thus mortals.
-Southern Pantheon votes NO to destroying the world.
-The Western Pantheon votes YES to destroying the world

keep in mind that the southern pantheon is home to the Twelve Gods and Azure Cities culture which they have influenced. Azure City is supposed to be an example of relatively "good" city, while the Western Pantheon has the Empire of Blood and its evilness so.....so far, good people have vote no, and evil has voted yes.

Next we have the Northern Pantheon and what official alignments I can find of them:
Odin God of Magic: No (Neutral Good)
Thor, God of Storms: No (Chaotic Good)
Sif Goddess of Earth: No (Chaotic good)
Tyr God of War: Yes (Lawful Neutral)
Balder, God of Beauty: No (Neutral Good)
Heimdall, God of the Watch: Yes (Lawful Good)
Freya, Goddess of Fertility: No (Neutral Good)
Freyr, God of Prosperity: No (Neutral Good)
Sunna, Goddess of the Sun: Yes
Frigg, Goddess of Wisdom: No (Neutral)
Njord, God of the Sea: Yes (Neutral Good)
Mani, God of the Moon: No
Skadi, Goddess of the Hunt: Yes (True Neutral)
Hoder God of Winter: Yes
Fenrir God of Monsters: Yes
Vafthrudnir, God of Secrets: Yes
Loki, God of Fire: No (Chaotic Evil)

Now its very possible that the Giant has changed around the alignments from official ones and/or that my source too recent as I'm using the DnD 5e book, if anyone provide information on 3.5 alignment for the Norse pantheon it'd be appreciated, but these two sources don't match up, for example in this world Sif is a goddess of earth but in Dnd 5e she is a goddess of war, so I'm probably using the wrong source for this. and then there is some gods that I've elft blank, because the book simply does not list them so I can only speculate on their alignments:

Fenrir: probably Chaotic Evil, most obvious
Sunna: This one is tough. usually sun deities are given a good alignment in DnD, but the nuke it form orbit comment only makes me of think of WH40k? I mean Heimdall is good and he is voting yes, but the phrasing of this one makes me think of someone who overreacts so its like....Neutral Good at best, but I'd personally this kind of deity into True Neutral.
Mani: sounds pretty True Neutral to me
Hoder: this is very death deity reasoning to me, I'd give him a True Neutral
Vatfhrudnir: Either True Neutral or Lawful Neutral, since he seems like a knowledge deity

The northern gods in total are 18 total. the Southern Gods as we know are 12, counting the western gods clerics whom we seen the least of, I count at least 19 in their panel. Since we know all the Norse gods and all the Southern gods are the Eastern Zodiac, we can safely put any remaining gods we know of in the Western pantheon, such as Tiamat, Nergal and the elven gods.

As for race:
-There are two orc/half orc priests in the northern pantheon, one representing Tyr and one representing Fenrir. The southern pantheon has one orc/half orc representative, deity unclear.
-one ratfolk probably representing the rat god in the southern pantheon
-out of the nineteen western priests, two of them are lizardfolk and one is a kobold, four are elves one of which is a drow
-one priest of the western pantheon has wings for some reason
-there are three dwarven representatives in the northern pantheon, two halflings and one gnome.
-the majority of the priests/clerics represented are human, at 29 compared to the nonhuman 18
-In total there are 47 deities in attendance, not counting the Dark One, Hel and demigods, thus humans represent roughly two thirds of the high priests that have attended these godsmoots.
-the goblins of course, do not have even a single priest there.

I would also like to note that aside from the orcs/halforcs, none of these races are any of the monstrous races that Redcloak listed in his Gobbotopia book. Fenrir if he is supposed be "the god of monsters" would supposedly speak for them, but I doubt that most monsters would agree with his decision no matter how oppressed or evil they are. Even Chaotic Evil people have a survival instinct.

Now this lineup may or may not represent anything...but its the closest thing we have to world-wide information on this sort of stuff. So if the Godsmoot is any indication, sociologically speaking human priests are over-represented, while elves, dwarves and orcs get about the same representation, lizardfolk and halflings both get two and gnomes, whatever that winged person is and kobolds only get one. If most of the clerics of the world are humans that means most of them are probably serving human interests, with elves, half-orcs/orcs and dwarves having enough minorities to be heard. this isn't equal at all, even among the "PC" races.

If most clerics are human, its possible that deities are chasing after human desires and interests the most to get their prayers. Thus it could be like corporations going after peoples money: they preach to the most amount of people to get the most profit from their efforts and thus minorities like goblins get left by the wayside as a result. and for some reason, humans are the ones who have the most representatives, religiously speaking. Thus its possible that more human prayers are answered before monster prayers. and if humans are prioritized over monstrous races, that could lead to all sorts of things like more divine spells cast upon humans and such. This might be a reason why Redcloak is mad at humans specifically: gods may simply pay much more attention to humans than they do to everyone else. I can only speculate from evidence I have.

Bugbears:
"Dark One nice for weddings and funerals otherwise can take or leave"- given what we know of divine nutrition, thats not a reassuring statement, Oona.
-Bugbears are outright said to get the short end of the stick in the goblinoid narrative, with hobgoblins and goblins being more favored
-the bugbears here are living among the snow, not exactly a good place for crops...or living in general
-Norkers and Nilbogs are mentioned but might not even exist, so it might be a joke
-Kraagor apparently killed thousands of goblins while he was alive
-Oona states that the dwarves aren't willing to chase them this far, which indicates the dwarves not having love for the bugbears.
-Notably when Xykon says "yeah but we got to kill a bunch of stuff" Redcloak asks "to what end? what did their deaths mean?" more character devleopment?
-Redcloak notably says that he has a wordless link to his deity communicating that his deity is still satisfied with his work. this is important.

Frost Giants and two deities:
I'm pretty sure these count as a monstrous race, they seem to be attacking because Hel wants them to? They even have clerics. But then again frost giants probably LIKE the cold, but at the same time, that doesn't leave a lot of places for them to live if they do....oh those were Thrym's BEST CLERICS?? OUCH. thing is, Thrym is the weaker one of the two of a goddess that is in bad straits, thats saying a lot. Thrym is a demigod though...

Apparently there was a North in the previous world as well.

Flumphs:
"Why can't other places treat us this well?"
This implies that the flumphs got bad treatment in other places. while the dwarven lands are relatively good because they're not touching the ground. hm.

Worst Moment:
Hm. Just a thought: Did Redcloak ever stop letting his days being the worst ones of his life? Or is he trying to make his own better days? I honestly can't say.

Thor:
Now Thor's interaction with his dwarves is important, because its the only non-crayon interaction with mortals we have.
-Has to use his "for mortal voice" and shrink down to speak with them
-The astral Plane....hm...I wonder where the Dark One falls into this? Somewhere between "There is only one right way" and "I was just following orders" I bet...
-the gods of course have made millions of gravestones. Did no one ever think to show this to the Dark One? also I just realized, Redcloak is a high priest stuck as teenager, and compared to other gods The Dark One is incredibly young. Redcloak emulates his god perfectly, because they're young people for their positions thinking they need to go to extreme measures because of a tragedy they suffered, both as god and as a priest. At the same time they are something new in seemingly endless cycle, as the previous two bearers of the Mantle didn't seem to accomplish much, basically they're both figures who have great potential to change the world for the better but are squandering it on the wrong methods to do so because the way the world has hurt them
-the western Pantheon doesn't even believe Tiamat. Yeah I imagine there is a lot of problems with only evil deities being the ones to meet with the new guy and try to teach him how things work around here

God Nutrients:
Belief, Worship, Dedication, Souls. Hmmm, lets see if the Dark One meets these four criteria
-Belief: all goblins know what the Dark One is and believe in him
-Worship: is.....harder....while there are clerics of the Dark One, we don't see them praising the Dark One all that much.
-Dedication: Again, harder to say, the hobgoblins die a lot, but its not clear if we see any Dedication happening because they don't explicitly say it out loud, might just be dying in service to them which might be enough...but who knows?
-Souls: thats clearly happening with his afterlife set up

thing is, this whole god-nutrient system seems to require a bit of organization to work? Like I can see the gods favoring organized societies over less organized societies with these kinds of needs, the problem is that the goblins may not be united and organized enough to consistently provide that sort of thing, if the bugbears aren't praising the Dark one all that much thats a problem god nutrition wise. and if the other goblins are worshiping The Dark One improperly, that could also be a problem. Problem is, its hard to know exactly how it works.

Then we get to Odin and how his worshippers beliefs changed him....oh and Thor used to be ginger until that superhero comic which.....opens up another thing, I don't think we discuss at all:
If how the gods work are determined by their worshippers and thus how they act....how much is the Dark One's actions because of his own decisions....and how much is it because of his worshippers deciding things that make him the way he is? Because Odin became a simpleton simply because a bunch of people decided magic was for fools. So how many goblins worship The Dark One in a way that makes him a negative evil deity? Sure the gods influence the world, but the world influences the gods in turn. How much of say....Fenrir is determined by his own actions and how much is determined by everyone in the North deciding monsters are savage beasts and thus making him savage? Could the gods have become more humanocentric simply because of most of their worship coming from humans?

oh and Loki literally cannot tell the truth if enough people believe it with an exception made for Thor. tells us a bit about their actions.

Unrelated: The Three Fiends:
....so the fiends are TRYING to get the world blown up? They deliberately want the Snarl cycle to go on forever, do they?

So yeah, lots of questions about the gods. Some of the stuff in Utterly Dwarfed legitimately make me wonder how much control the gods have over themselves and how much the gods actions about monsters are influenced by the mortals who believe in them- because if it affects them enough? both the theories that its only the mortals doing or Redcloak's idea that its the gods specifically doing it are both wrong- its a mix of both. because if a god does something there might be mortal belief affecting how and why they do it. this detail is not done by accident, but purposefully shown again and again by the author to make sure its clear that the gods aren't beings that just eat your worship and grow strong- they are limited by it as well. thats important, because of Redcloak has a beef with the gods and their behaviors are influenced by their worshipers....well its not like the beef stops with them, its all interconnected and goblinoid oppression may be the result of mortals believing stuff about the gods as much as the gods themselves.

Furthermore Thor when he speaks about the other worlds, talks saying he can remember every single worshipper and count every world. thats a lot of information they can process all at once. The Dark One would have a similar level of awareness, there is no way he wouldn't be aware of every single goblin dying, everything Redcloak has done and so on. This just backs up my theory that if Redcloak died trying to fulfill the Plan wouldn't be a punishment, as The Dark One be fully aware of what he is doing and let him into his afterlife to be happy regardless, because if he is still satisfied with Redcloak's work as the link says....then he still following the Dark One's values. values that he has followed for 35 years. If the hobgoblins are giving him Dedication like the God-Nutrient explanation says....why would the Dark One stop Redcloak? he is literally powering his god with sacrifices while furthering his agenda. But if he is anything like Hel, then empty Dedications won't be enough, and I haven't seen goblins praising the Dark One all that much....

[Bunny Commando]

-the gods of course have made millions of gravestones. Did no one ever think to show this to the Dark One?

Here Thor says that Loki tried to mantain "a good relationship with the Dark One with the intent of letting him in on the secret of the Snarl"; the Dark One discovered the Snarl on his own and closed all diplomatic channels with Loki. Here Thor says that even trying to talk with the Dark One is difficult and a disagreement could create a new Snarl.

I believe some of the gods wanted to cooperate with the Dark One and chose a cautious approach - the Snarl is their best kept secret, after all. Now the Dark One is unwilling to even talk with the other gods and since a disagreement may turn a bad situation even worse no one had a real chance to tell the Dark One the whole story.

[The Pilgrim]

No, the proof would be the content of the comments.

Also, whether it's a main theme or a side theme has nothing to do with whether the theme has been analyzed correctly.

It does, because mistaking a theme as the main theme of the comic leads to analyzing it incorrectly.

It's like believing that because The Giant did include a genderqueer person in the cast of protagonists, this comic is going to end with a big statement on LGTB rigths. It's not going to happen, among other things because Rich has commented on more than one occasion that he doesn't believes himself to be legitimated to act as a spokesperson for a group he doesn't belongs to.

Of course, The Giant is against discrimination, be it based on race, gender, or sexual orientation. Thus, he has made a world in which that kind of discrimination is absent, except for very specific instances of certain odd individuals.

Now, regarding the quotes that certain forum members repeat over and over again... in those quotes The Giant is not making a statement against racism. Because he takes as granted that racism is bad. He is making an statement against certain conventions in roleplaying and fantasy writing that he belives to be racist.

You may think that the difference between writing against racism or against conventions that are racist, is just technical. But it's not.

Note that the Paladins of the Sapphire Guard are not portrayed as willing to slaughter goblins for them being goblins, but for considering them evil and, thus, legitimate targets. Roy's first adventuring party is not portrayed as willing to kill the Orcs because they are Orcs, but because they consider them evil and, thus, legitimate targets.

There are only two characters who have been protrayed as having openly racist motivations. One was the Racist Elf Commander, who, unlike the Paladins, did indeed kill goblins because they were goblins, not caring about their alignment at all ("the only good goblin is the dead goblin"). And the narrative purpose of characterizing the Elf Commander as Racist was to inmediately make him and his lieutenant (who validates him) legitimate targets for Redcloak's Imposion. A scene that The Giant needed to make Redcloak take a level in badass.

The other character who has been shown to possess racist traits, is Redcloak himself. And that's something that should have made Redcloak look unsympatetic automatically. But, apparently, it didn't work that way for many readers.

So, yes, The Giant has wrote against objectification of a whole sentient species as automatic legitimate targets. But, no, the Goblins are not a placeholder for any real existing racially oppresed group, and The Giant is not making any statement in the name of any racially opressed group. The goblinoids, in fact, have been mostly portrayed as evil, and as mooks and minions regulary slaughtered by the Heroes. They have been portrayed not as a group "oppressed" by humans, but as a group in conflic with humans, and oppresing humans right now.

This story is not one big statement against racism. It just includes, among many other themes, a statement against conventions the author finds racist.

[Jason]

Pretty much. Having one of the main villains fighting against perceived discrimination and oppression is one thing and can help them come across as tragic instead of just being another banally malicious villain who destroys because they enjoy destroying (read; Xykon).

Having that discrimination and oppression be non-existent suddenly turns the message of the story into "Social injustice isn't real and people who claim to fight against it are just liars who want to exploit other people's sympathy for personal gain."

In the comic. The message would be "in this comic these specific fictional people who thought they were social justice warriors were wrong, and their actions were not justified."

The subtext would not be that real world social injustice doesn't exist, but rather "be careful what you do in the name of fighting social injustice, because it's easy to become a part of the problem and escalate a cycle of violence and opression when you always think you are a victim and refuse to consider that some of your choices may have been wrong. The bad consequences of those choices have therefore at least in part been your own fault."

Also "being willing to burn the world might make you feel better about yourself but won't actually solve the problem you said you were trying to fix."

[hamishspence]

Note that the Paladins of the Sapphire Guard are not portrayed as willing to slaughter goblins for them being goblins, but for considering them evil and, thus, legitimate targets.

Gin-Jun has a heavy dose of:

Spoiler

Show

willing to slaughter non-evil hobgoblins because "they will give birth to Evil children."

That's what he says to Miko when she brings up that she does not have Detect Evil yet.


It is fairly safe to say that "evil = legitimate target" is just an excuse for him, and that his real reason for saying that is that he hates all hobgoblins, evil and nonevil alike, and is willing to act on that hatred.

[dancrilis]

Gin-Jun has a heavy dose of:

Spoiler

Show

willing to slaughter non-evil hobgoblins because "they will give birth to Evil children."

That's what he says to Miko when she brings up that she does not have Detect Evil yet.


It is fairly safe to say that "evil = legitimate target" is just an excuse for him, and that his real reason for saying that is that he hates all hobgoblins, evil and nonevil alike, and is willing to act on that hatred.

I disagree.

Spoiler

Show

I got the impression that while he looked down on hobgoblins and didn't truely value their lives - he was not looking to kill them all because they existed he instead was looking for the Crimson Mantle which he believed they had, if they had actually had it and handed it over - or if he had found it in the first village he attacked - he would have left them alone and went on to other matters (namely dealing with the mantle).

[Worldsong]

In the comic. The message would be "in this comic these specific fictional people who thought they were social justice warriors were wrong, and their actions were not justified."

The subtext would not be that real world social injustice doesn't exist, but rather "be careful what you do in the name of fighting social injustice, because it's easy to become a part of the problem and escalate a cycle of violence and opression when you always think you are a victim and refuse to consider that some of your choices may have been wrong. The bad consequences of those choices have therefore at least in part been your own fault."

Also "being willing to burn the world might make you feel better about yourself but won't actually solve the problem you said you were trying to fix."

Writers like Rich have to take into account the audience, and his audience is potentially everyone who has functional internet. That means there's likely going to be a lot of people who wouldn't get the subtext and only read the surface layer, i.e. "Social injustice isn't real and people who cry about it are just trying to justify their own actions and exploiting others."

The fact that you and I would both be able to understand that there's more nuance to it wouldn't necessarily be an accurate representation of how the average reader would interpret it, especially since the average reader probably doesn't go to these boards and reads all these discussions. All they'd see is that the villain whose only potentially redeeming feature was that he was motivated by a desire to fight social injustice turned out to be either lying, insane, or just wrong. That isn't going to make real life protesters look good, and I really hope this discussion isn't going to enter the territory of propaganda, stereotypes, and confirmation bias.

Not even mentioning all the people who'd intentionally interpret it that way because it suits their own perspective...

Given everything Rich has said so fair I think it's a fair bet that he doesn't have that positive an image of the average person that he'd expect the majority of his readers to reliably get the subtext if that was what was going on. If this was a book aimed at intellectuals it might work, but this is a webcomic with jokes and memes and references. Not that an intellectual text can't have those things but usually they're not quite so dominant.

I do expect Rich to drop some anvils before the end of this book to make it absolutely clear that the social injustice is real and that it needs addressing to make it clear to everyone. But it's a lot easier to get the message across "Hey social injustice is real and it should be opposed but you shouldn't do it like this guy." than the alternative of "Okay in this story social injustice isn't real but it's real in reality and you should oppose it, just not like this guy."

Also it would give the impression that Rich finds it more important to send the message of "Don't be like Redcloak" than the message "Social injustice is bad." Given how pretty much all his comments on the subject have been about how he doesn't like social injustice I don't think his priorities lie with warning people not to be like Redcloak.

[hamishspence]

I disagree.

Spoiler

Show

I got the impression that while he looked down on hobgoblins and didn't truely value their lives - he was not looking to kill them all because they existed he instead was looking for the Crimson Mantle which he believed they had, if they had actually had it and handed it over - or if he had found it in the first village he attacked - he would have left them alone and went on to other matters (namely dealing with the mantle).

Prioritisation.

Spoiler

Show

Destroying all goblinoid civilizations, and letting any survivors "reflect on the fate their own wickedness has brought them" is something he wants - but it takes a back seat to the actual mission.

The speech:

Spoiler: Gin Jun's speech

Show

"It is important to remember simply that hobgoblins are usually Evil, and those who may not be so technically still worship an Evil God, or defend an Evil social order, or grow food for Evil warriors, or give birth to Evil children. It is enough for us to destroy their Evil society, and let any who survive reflect on the path of wickedness. Never hesitate to punish Evil, or support for Evil, or tolerance for Evil."

made it pretty clear what his long term goals were.

[Ionathus]

My personal opinion is that a lot of readers are taking the "goblin oppression" thing as it if were a major theme of the story, instead of just background flavor for one of the main villains.
...
...
It does, because mistaking a theme as the main theme of the comic leads to analyzing it incorrectly.

It's like believing that because The Giant did include a genderqueer person in the cast of protagonists, this comic is going to end with a big statement on LGTB rigths. It's not going to happen, among other things because Rich has commented on more than one occasion that he doesn't believes himself to be legitimated to act as a spokesperson for a group he doesn't belongs to.

This is a whopping huge false equivalency.

References to LGBT issues and characters have been made in passing in the comic, but they haven't taken center stage the way Redcloak and The Plan have at times. The LGBT stuff is more of a representation usage, where Rich wants his comic to reflect a more diverse and open world in terms of gender, but doesn't spend any time talking about it with the reader aside from a few passing jokes about people who can't handle V's undetermined gender.

The goblinoids' experiences and goals (especially Redcloak's) have been discussed multiple times within the comic, and The Plan has been the main motivating force between so many events in-comic that the story would be unrecognizable without Redcloak, doing the things he does, because of what happened to him. That's not just "background flavor," and in my opinion you shouldn't dismiss it so flippantly.

The only information we have about that period is Redcloak's crayon narrative, whose reliability is contested ground. But other narratives don't have more basis.

Honest question for the thread at large: is the crayon narratives' reliability contested ground?

Sure, the Crayons of Time omitted the fact that there was more than one world eaten by the Snarl, but that wasn't so much an outright fabrication or piece of propaganda as it was a piece of missing info, something the gods didn't need mortals at large to know about. Nowhere in that narrative is anything said that's since been proven outright false (unless I'm remembering incorrectly).

Same with the crayon story of Tenrin & Sigdi. The scene is stylized because it's a retelling, but no falsehoods are actually stated.

Why are people treating Redcloak's crayon narrative in SoD as inherently less trustworthy, when no objective facts in it have been proven false?

ETA:

Spoiler: GDGU

Show

or give birth to Evil children.

By the way, reading Gin-Jun's speech again...how utterly creepy is this thought? That he assumes hobgoblin children are evil at the moment of birth is pretty damning in my opinion.

[mjasghar]

There’s word of giant that only stuff drawn in normal cartoon mode actually happens as is (with the exception of dreams and illusions)

[pendell]

Sure, the Crayons of Time omitted the fact that there was more than one world eaten by the Snarl, but that wasn't so much an outright fabrication or piece of propaganda as it was a piece of missing info, something the gods didn't need mortals at large to know about. Nowhere in that narrative is anything said that's since been proven outright false (unless I'm remembering incorrectly).

Because the crayons are, by Rich's own statement, NOT objective fact but Redcloak's and the Dark One's version of events. Redcloak is a proven liar. He's been lying to Xykon for decades, and he's lying to himself.

That's more than enough reason to suspect, at the very least, we're missing critical context which makes the story other than it is.

As for the Dark One, we've never actually heard anything directly from him; everything we know about the Dark One has been revealed to us by Redcloak, his high priest. And I've already given my reasons for not finding Redcloak credible.

Not to mention, that I'm not predisposed to take the word of an evil god on anything. An evil god has no obligation to tell you the disinterested truth. An evil being is more than happy to tell a lie if it serves their interest more than the truth does, and if the truth serves them better, still they tell such of it as benefits them and their goals, not yours.

ETA: This shows another disconnect in the storytelling. Rich seems to be building the story up to an accommodation with evil in the person of the Dark One, and permitting it to co-exist as a valid lifestyle choice, while in the person of Tarquin denying that evil is a valid choice and seemingly wanting a world where it is purged forever. That a world does not need to be balanced by having just enough murder, lies, and treachery.

Respectfully,

Brian P.