Goblin Oppression; fact or fiction?

[dancrilis]

This is D&D. There is absolutely a way to "get" to the Bearer without wiping out the village. And once the Bearer is dead, there is absolutely no reason for the paladins to continue what they did.

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.

Which means they lose all those size-related bonuses, and gain ... extra carrying capacity, and better at grappling.

Depends on if The Giant used the size increase table for this - but I am inclined to think he didn't.

it would be interesting to see what he said back then.

In my experience many people don't mellow with age (or really change than much at all over the decades past childhood).

[hamishspence]

...Okay, Chaotic Good characters enslaving evil characters sounds so hilariously out of character for Chaotic Good that I have to come to the conclusion that Gygax had nothing to do with the shift from a single-axis Lawful-Chaos alignment to a two-axis Lawful-Chaos/Good-Evil alignment grid.

I can believe that "Law is better than Chaos" was a Gygax thing, and that he resisted as much as he could, the addition of anything that might suggest otherwise.

[Jason]

Gary Gygax was hardly the average player or DM, was he?
I'll see if I can find some examples from "back then".

[hamishspence]

Gary Gygax was hardly the average player or DM, was he?

He might not have been the average DM, but he was the prototype DM, and he casts a long shadow.

[pendell]

It's possible. IMO not likely in this context..




Given that Gygax sided with the kid-killers in fairly recent years, kind of, suggesting it was permissible for LG, and CN and LN:

https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/v...08d69&start=90



it would be interesting to see what he said back then.

"Non-combatants" is a different thing from "children and infants". Also, reading the text, it looks to me like Gygax has an ancient world/medieval world context. In the ancient world, almost all societies were slave societies. Slaves were what happened to captives taken in battle; before that, they were often simply slaughtered. Athens, Rome, ancient China, India, Babylon all made slaves out of captives.

Likewise, in the medieval world, slaughtering non-combatants was a thing that happened.

Gygax' advice would make sense in a medieval historical context, but it's completely out of place in OOTSworld, which is essentially a modern world with lighting, sanitation, and race issues, except with magic instead of science and no modern guns.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[hungrycrow]

"Non-combatants" is a different thing from "children and infants". Also, reading the text, it looks to me like Gygax has an ancient world/medieval world context. In the ancient world, almost all societies were slave societies. Slaves were what happened to captives taken in battle; before that, they were often simply slaughtered. Athens, Rome, ancient China, India, Babylon all made slaves out of captives.

Likewise, in the medieval world, slaughtering non-combatants was a thing that happened.

Gygax' advice would make sense in a medieval historical context, but it's completely out of place in OOTSworld, which is essentially a modern world with lighting, sanitation, and race issues, except with magic instead of science and no modern guns.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Slavery and mass-slaughter was pretty common among ancient and medieval armies, but I wouldn't define those armies as Good, even in their social context.

[Worldsong]

...Okay, Chaotic Good characters enslaving evil characters sounds so hilariously out of character for Chaotic Good that I have to come to the conclusion that Gygax had nothing to do with the shift from a single-axis Lawful-Chaos alignment to a two-axis Lawful-Chaos/Good-Evil alignment grid.

I can believe that "Law is better than Chaos" was a Gygax thing, and that he resisted as much as he could, the addition of anything that might suggest otherwise.

I've come to a similar conclusion. As someone who associates himself most with the Chaotic Good alignment I'm not very fond of the man who appears to have set the trend that Lawful Good is seen as the best alignment and Chaotic Evil as the worst.

Even these days I still have to deal with players who specifically target Chaotic Evil as the worst or who act like Chaotic Good is an off-brand type of Good.

[hamishspence]

I've come to a similar conclusion. As someone who associates himself most with the Chaotic Good alignment I'm not very fond of the man who appears to have set the trend that Lawful Good is seen as the best alignment and Chaotic Evil as the worst.

Even these days I still have to deal with players who specifically target Chaotic Evil as the worst or who act like Chaotic Good is an off-brand type of Good.

I can believe The Giant feels the same way. While he might respect Gygax for his contributions to D&D, hence the tribute strip:


https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0536.html


I doubt very much that him and Gygax were on the same page about much else.

[The Pilgrim]

My take on the issue is that Goblins haven't been portrayed as systematically oppresed and victimized people in the comic.

The main agent oppresing and victimizing the Goblins in this comic is Xykon himself. And his actions are tolerated by Redcloak and, tacitally, by The Dark One, who are the ones promoting the "Goblins are opressed victims that must be freed" narrative.

The actions of the Sapphire Guard, while oppresive for the Goblins, were finally stopped by humans. So, they can't be used to support the "goblins are systematically oppresed by pc races" narrative.

The racist elf commander is the closest example of victimization of goblins. But he was just a ranger with Goblin as prefered enemy, much like Belkar is a ranger with Kobold as prefered enemy. The Elf Commander's mindset is as much an example of systematic oppresion against Goblins as Belkar's is of systematic oppresion of Kobolds.

While The Giant has stated his critique on the classical fantasy trope of "they are monsters, we can kill them all without moral implications", he has still portrayed his real Heroes and his real Good characters as people who don't behave that way, as Roy and O-Chul's actions demonstrate.

Of course, different group of peoples hold prejudices against other groups of people, but the general tone of the OOTS world is very far from "everyone against the Goblins", that's just the villiains' narrative to justify their unjustifiable actions.

[Ionathus]

I can believe The Giant feels the same way. While he might respect Gygax for his contributions to D&D...I doubt very much that him and Gygax were on the same page about much else.

Seconded. Gygax was a complicated person and had a lot of opinions about the changes that happened to D&D -- many of which I am deeply thankful he was unable to stop.

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
...
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

This is starting to smack of the "stats for baby dragons" conversation, specifically this linked quote. You're inventing justifications and scenarios that don't exist in the comic and weren't even suggested, and using them to justify why Person X is somehow responsible for Person Y's actions.

The Paladins are responsible for their actions. Not The Dark One. Not the Crimson Mantle Bearer. Not Young Redcloak. The paladins were capable of fulfilling their mission without slaughtering scores of noncombatants -- as shown by Gin-Jun's actions & repercussions in HtPGHS.

Ninja edit:

The actions of the Sapphire Guard, while oppresive for the Goblins, were finally stopped by humans. So, they can't be used to support the "goblins are systematically oppresed by pc races" narrative.

"An oppressive group was allowed to act for years with free reign, but then that one group stopped, therefore systematic oppression is solved!" is not a very compelling argument to me. It's a single example of a larger problem.

While The Giant has stated his critique on the classical fantasy trope of "they are monsters, we can kill them all without moral implications", he has still portrayed his real Heroes and his real Good characters as people who don't behave that way, as Roy and O-Chul's actions demonstrate.

Finally, something we agree on! It only took twelve pages of debate.

Of course, different group of peoples hold prejudices against other groups of people, but the general tone of the OOTS world is very far from "everyone against the Goblins", that's just the villiain's narrative to justify their unjustifiable actions.

Look, I know you've already decided that Redcloak is morally bankrupt and you're working to reverse-engineer that therefore he must be wrong about the goblin oppression, but the comic is saying that he ISN'T wrong. The goblins are oppressed. Redcloak's actions are abhorrent, but he has a point.

[Worldsong]

That the heroes are behaving like heroes and the villains behaving like villains says very little about systematic discrimination. From the start that's a pretty poor argument.

And O-Chul is as much of a hero as the protagonists, I'm pretty certain Rich at some point stated that he intentionally designed O-Chul to be the example of everything a paladin should be, a paragon of Lawful Good. Him managing to do some good says absolutely nothing about the behaviour of the average person.

Rich has stated that Redcloak's story is him commenting on players treating goblinoids as fair game. I'm going to take his Word of God over the fact that his comic might not always represent his intentions perfectly.

Then again I can't put the blame solely on Rich for that, because if someone doesn't want to believe something you can write your story with as much skill and elegance as you want, the only way they'll accept it is if you force the message down their throat.

[Jason]

The Paladins are responsible for their actions. Not The Dark One. Not the Crimson Mantle Bearer. Not Young Redcloak. The paladins were capable of fulfilling their mission without slaughtering scores of noncombatants -- as shown by Gin-Jun's actions & repercussions in HtPGHS.

I would go even further and say that Gin-Jun is primarily responsible for the actions of the Sapphire Guard during HtPGHS. Not the Sapphire Guard, nor the Azurites, nor humans as a whole, nor the Southern Pantheon.
Likewise Gin-Jun's un-named predecessor is the one primarily responsible for wiping out Redcloak's village during SoD along with the bearer of the Crimson Mantle, their primary target during that raid.
That one paladin, not the whole guard or all the Azurites or all of humanity or the Southern Pantheon.

"An oppressive group was allowed to act for years with free reign, but then that one group stopped, therefore systematic oppression is solved!" is not a very compelling argument to me. It's a single example of a larger problem.

It's a bad sign, but if it was the only or the last oppressive group operating then there may very well be no larger problem that must still be addressed after that group is no longer oppressive. If you want to prove an ongoing systemic problem then you need to show that the system continues to produce oppressive groups because of that problem.

Look, I know you've already decided that Redcloak is morally bankrupt and you're working to reverse-engineer that therefore he must be wrong about the goblin oppression, but the comic is saying that he ISN'T wrong. The goblins are oppressed. Redcloak's actions are abhorrent, but he has a point.

Granted it hasn't said Red Cloak is wrong, but I don't think the comic has demonstrated that he's correct either, at least not yet. There are counter-examples to the Sapphire Guard's massacre of his village, such as the circus in SoD welcoming goblin families alongside human families.

[The Pilgrim]

"An oppressive group was allowed to act for years with free reign, but then that one group stopped, therefore systematic oppression is solved!" is not a very compelling argument to me. It's a single example of a larger problem.

Actually the opposite. If an oppresing faction withing a certain group is stopped by that same group, it means the actions of that faction weren't representative of the mindset of the whole group, who stopped them precisely for not saring that mindset. As yes, oppresion is solved, unless you can prove that the actions carried away by the Sapphire Guard continued to happen after O-Chul joined it.

Look, I know you've already decided that Redcloak is morally bankrupt and you're working to reverse-engineer that therefore he must be wrong about the goblin oppression, but the comic is saying that he ISN'T wrong. The goblins are oppressed. Redcloak's actions are abhorrent, but he has a point.

I haven't decided that Redcloak is a morally bankrupt character. That has been the consistent work of The Giant for six book and several side material. SoD is the story of how Redcloak became a morally bankrupt character. In the main comic, thus far, we have been told how Redcloak keeps being a morally bankrupt character and refuses any chance to turn on that.

And of course he is wrong. He has no point. He has no justification for the scores of deaths he has provoked, most of them goblins.

Even if the Goblins were oppresed people, that still wouldn't justify him. O-Chul's backstory basically stablishes that fact.

Spoiler: GDGU, SoD

Show

"There are only two sides: Those who want war, and those who want peace".

The Hobgoblin General was the (in)moral equivalent of Gin-Jun in the Hobgoblin's side. That was clearly stated as they were put on the same panel under the "those who want war" statement.

Others wanted peace. Like O-Chul and the soon-to-be Hobgoblin Supreme Leader.

Those who wanted peace won, and had peace... until Redcloak took over leadership of the Hobgoblins.

Right-Eye wanted peace. Redcloak wants war.

[AdAstra]

Redcloak being a Bad Guy has no bearing on the goblin race or their plight, the same way that Thog has no bearing on fighters. We’re discussing Redcloak’s point, and that point needs to be held in isolation from the person, especially since no one in story seems to actually think that point is invalid.

If, for example, the Crimson Mantle had been in the hands of a human, and a bunch of elven elite soldiers, representatives of the government, ran in and murdered that person’s entire village, that would clearly be unjustified killing, and if an author used that as an example of elves oppressing humanity, very few people would object.

Yeah, Redcloak is a hypocritical monster, but hypocrisy doesn’t invalidate a worldview or history, only the hypocrite. If a person says murder is bad, but then spends their time stabbing children, that doesn’t make murder somehow good. If a person points out that a city has a lot of destitute people and does nothing about it, they’re not necessarily wrong just because they spend their free time stealing from panhandlers.

[The Pilgrim]

If, for example, the Crimson Mantle had been in the hands of a human, and a bunch of elven elite soldiers, representatives of the government, ran in and murdered that person’s entire village, that would clearly be unjustified killing, and if an author used that as an example of elves oppressing humanity, very few people would object.

Except that the author hasn't used the Sapphire Guard's actions as an example of humankind oppresing goblinkind.

In fact, the author used the Sapphire Guard's actions, in GDGU, as an example of how humans and goblins want, mostly, to live in peace.

Anyway, right now we have a Hobgoblin Nation resorting to massive human slavery. We haven't been shown any evidence in-comic of any nation, human or other race, that that resorts to massive goblinoid slavery. The only instances were we have been shown goblin slavery are... when enslaved by Xykon, Redcloak, or other goblins.

[Jason]

Redcloak being a Bad Guy has no bearing on the goblin race or their plight, the same way that Thog has no bearing on fighters. We’re discussing Redcloak’s point, and that point needs to be held in isolation from the person, especially since no one in story seems to actually think that point is invalid.

I grant that Redcloak's character is irrelevent to whether goblins are actually being oppressed. However, no one has outright agreed with Redcloak on this point except his brother (Durkon said he wouldn't be surprised. Which is not quite agreement).
If Redcloak is the only source of the "goblins are oppressed and were even created as second-class people in the first place by the gods," story, then his character becomes relevant again in determining whether that narrative is true. If we have sufficient evidence not dependent on Redcloak then yes, we can continue to ignore his character.

I don't think the comic has provided enough evidence to determine if Redcloak is correct or not at this point.

Edit: And even Redcloak's brother seemed to change his mind on whether it was important that goblins are oppressed. Or perhaps he started to see Xykon - correctly - as the most dangerous oppressor.

[Ionathus]

Except that the author hasn't used the Sapphire Guard's actions as an example of humankind oppresing goblinkind.

In fact, the author used the Sapphire Guard's actions as an example of how humans and goblins want, mostly, to live in peace, as stated in GDGU.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that we're reading different comics.

I don't really know what other proof you're looking for. O-Chul's experience in GDGU, as well as Redcloak's in SoD, clearly demonstrates brutal and indiscriminate violence against goblinoid noncombatants. That's how the author is choosing to show us these experiences: through the characters that have experienced them.

Anyway, right now we have a Hobgoblin Nation resorting to massive human slavery. We haven't been shown any evidence in-comic of any nation, human or other race, that that resorts to massive goblinoid slavery. The only instances were we have been shown goblin slavery are... when enslaved by Xykon, Redcloak, or other goblins.

"This hobgoblin nation has human slaves, and human nations don't have goblinoid slaves, therefore the goblinoids aren't worse-off than other races" is also a flawed argument, you know. There are other metrics to gauge the goblinoids' plight as an entire race than the evil actions of Gobbotopia.

EDIT to add:

Edit: And even Redcloak's brother seemed to change his mind on whether it was important that goblins are oppressed. Or perhaps he started to see Xykon - correctly - as the most dangerous oppressor.

That's my opinion, too -- that Right-Eye was trying to fix his error of involving Xykon, and Redcloak had tunnel-vision until it was too late. Right-Eye was less extreme than Redcloak, but his story is still completely overshadowed by the trauma he and Redcloak experienced early in their lives.

The difference in their reactions isn't proof that Redcloak was wrong about the core concept -- it's a depiction of how two people can experience the same horrible thing and react to it in completely different ways.

[The Pilgrim]

I'm becoming more and more convinced that we're reading different comics.

I don't really know what other proof you're looking for. O-Chul's experience in GDGU, as well as Redcloak's in SoD, clearly demonstrates brutal and indiscriminate violence against goblinoid noncombatants. That's how the author is choosing to show us these experiences: through the characters that have experienced them.

Do I need to point you the many panels in the comic that show brutal and indiscriminate violence towards human noncombatants, performed by goblinoids?

The difference is that human voices were raised in opposition of the indiscriminate violence against goblins in GDGU. Thus far I have seen no goblin voice objecting human slavery in Gobbotopia.

The situation seems more a cycle of violence between two groups that needs to be broken, rather than a situation of one group suffering sistematic oppresion from the other.

"This hobgoblin nation has human slaves, and human nations don't have goblinoid slaves, therefore the goblinoids aren't worse-off than other races" is also a flawed argument, you know. There are other metrics to gauge the goblinoids' plight as an entire race than the evil actions of Gobbotopia.

If two random massacres commited by a group of paladins are proof that goblins as a whole suffer systematic oppression from humans, then systematic slavery commited by the only know Goblin nation in the World should be proof that humans suffer systematic oppression from goblinoids.

If the latter argument is false (and it is), thus is the former.

That's my opinion, too -- that Right-Eye was trying to fix his error of involving Xykon, and Redcloak had tunnel-vision until it was too late. Right-Eye was less extreme than Redcloak, but his story is still completely overshadowed by the trauma he and Redcloak experienced early in their lives.

The difference in their reactions isn't proof that Redcloak was wrong about the core concept -- it's a depiction of how two people can experience the same horrible thing and react to it in completely different ways.

Spoiler: SoD

Show

Right-Eye quit The Plan, and went to live in a goblin village that co-existed in peace with humans, working with what they had. Right-Eye acknowledged that The Plan was flawed, and it didn't improved the lives of goblin people, but the opposite.

Right-Eye was capable of growing past his childhood traumatic experience. Redcloak never did, and is still using it to justify his evil actions.

[Jason]

The situation seems more a cycle of violence between two groups that needs to be stopped, rather than a situation of one group suffering systematic oppresion from the other.

Quoted for truth. Maybe showing more examples of goblins being oppressed by random human societies wouldn't serve the story well or would just be depressing and that's why they aren't in the comic.

But they aren't in the comic.

We've got one massacre of a goblin village and one attempted massacre of a hobgoblin city by the same small group which latter changed its leadership precisely because of the massacres, one pretty clear instance of elf bigotry towards goblins...and...that's about it. Everything else is Redcloak or other goblins doing horrible things to other races or sometimes their own race.

[hroþila]

It seems to me you guys are looking for examples of the kind of oppression that happens when people of different backgrounds live together. But the goblinoids don't live alongside the other races, Right-Eye's family being the only known exception (and even then, they lived in a separate goblin village, and we only saw them visiting the circus, which didn't seem to be in any particular settlement). And the explanation for why the goblinoids don't live alongside the other races might well be something we've been told explicitly about in regards to the hobgoblins and the bugbears: other races kept them bottled up in their bad lands through military force.

We've seen a perfectly innocent kobold being murdered in a human city just for being a kobold. We've seen half orcs being discriminated against in Azure City. You're free to believe goblinoids are exempt from that kind of treatment, but I think that's a reach. When taken all together, the evidence is compelling enough, in my opinion.

This doesn't mean the goblinoids don't live mostly in Evil societies. They do, from what we've seen. Who would have thought creating whole peoples, leaving them with no spiritual guidance (in a world where gods verifiably exist and help the other races), and putting them on the worst lands so they turn to banditry, making targets of themselves (by design, as far as the gods are concerned), would lead to warlike, predatory societies that can be described as Evil in D&D terms? I just don't think that changes anything, because the goblinoids deserve better treatment regardless of what they do, just by virtue of being people. And personally I wouldn't be surprised if part of the message the Giant wants to send is that the oppressed don't have to "ask nicely" or "earn it" or play along to deserve justice, because that's their inherent right, collectively. Regardless of individual, personal responsibility.

[Worldsong]

It seems to me you guys are looking for examples of the kind of oppression that happens when people of different backgrounds live together. But the goblinoids don't live alongside the other races, Right-Eye's family being the only known exception (and even then, they lived in a separate goblin village, and we only saw them visiting the circus, which didn't seem to be in any particular settlement). And the explanation for why the goblinoids don't live alongside the other races might well be something we've been told explicitly about in regards to the hobgoblins and the bugbears: other races kept them bottled up in their bad lands through military force.

We've seen a perfectly innocent kobold being murdered in a human city just for being a kobold. We've seen half orcs being discriminated against in Azure City. You're free to believe goblinoids are exempt from that kind of treatment, but I think that's a reach. When taken all together, the evidence is compelling enough, in my opinion.

This doesn't mean the goblinoids don't live mostly in Evil societies. They do, from what we've seen. Who would have thought creating whole peoples, leaving them with no spiritual guidance (in a world where gods verifiably exist and help the other races), and putting them on the worst lands so they turn to banditry, making targets of themselves (by design, as far as the gods are concerned), would lead to warlike, predatory societies that can be described as Evil in D&D terms? I just don't think that changes anything, because the goblinoids deserve better treatment regardless of what they do, just by virtue of being people. And personally I wouldn't be surprised if part of the message the Giant wants to send is that the oppressed don't have to "ask nicely" or "earn it" or play along to deserve justice, because that's their inherent right, collectively. Regardless of individual, personal responsibility.

Two thumbs up from me. Well said, especially the last part. I'd be very surprised if part of Rich's message wasn't "Nobody should have to earn equal treatment."

[The Pilgrim]

Quoted for truth. Maybe showing more examples of goblins being oppressed by random human societies wouldn't serve the story well or would just be depressing and that's why they aren't in the comic.

But they aren't in the comic.

We've got one massacre of a goblin village and one attempted massacre of a hobgoblin city by the same small group which latter changed its leadership precisely because of the massacres, one pretty clear instance of elf bigotry towards goblins...and...that's about it. Everything else is Redcloak or other goblins doing horrible things to other races or sometimes their own race.

The interesting thing is that the author has shown us, twice, that there are goblin characters who make the "right" choices, like Right-Eye in SoD or the hobgoblin priest in HtPGHS, and that there are goblin characters who make the "wrong" choices, like Redcloak in SoD or the Hobgoblin General in HtPGHS.

And all seems to indicate that TDO belongs to the second group. Which wouldn't be surprising, as he is a God, and Gods haven't been portrayed as particulary level-headed beings in this webcomic.

Right now the biggest threat to goblin safety is Redcloak himself. And the biggest oppresive situation in human-goblin relations is the fact that Goblinoids are occuping Azure City and keeping scores of human slaves working for them. Also, it's interesting to point out that, up until recently, Redcloak didn't even considered the Hobgoblins as part of "his people", but different people that had "a long history" of bulling "his people" (see #148, eight panel). So Redcloak's whole pan-goblinoid narrative is really a very new thing. Before that, pointlessly killing thousands of hobgoblins seemed like a justified retribution in Redcloak's eyes. Even MiTD is able to see the truth behind Redcloak's pan-goblinoid narrative ((#1038).

All in all, I think the message that The Giant attempts to convey is not that Redcloak's mindset, and by extension The Dark One's, is the right one, in any way.

It may be true that the Gods created the goblins, and other so-called monster races, as XP-Fodder. But the Gods don't rule the world. Mortals do. The Gods attempt to influence the world, and mostly seem to nullify each other in their efforts. Nothing prevents the Goblins from improving their lot, like other races who got a raw deal at creation did. Redcloak wants his God to solve things for him, when he should be working at improving the goblinoid's living standards by himself, like his brother attempted, and like the former Hobgoblin Supreme Leader did.

[bravelove]

But the Gods don't rule the world. Mortals do.

Dwarves, that is all.

[The Pilgrim]

Dwarves, that is all.

Dwarves don't rule the world either. Just a small part of it.

[danielxcutter]

I think there is an aspect of the cycle of revenge going round and round.

That being said, I am willing to believe that the goblins got the shorter end of the stick until Team Evil, if only because they were weaker and didn’t have the backing of a pantheon recognized by the Godsmoot.

[bravelove]

Dwarves don't rule the world either. Just a small part of it.

And yet as mortals they can't really do a whole lot about the lot in life the gods gave the dwarves. Their entire culture is influenced by gods, their entire way of life influenced by gods, their afterlife determined thanks to a bet, and it has not been neutralized by other gods. Through the dwarves we can see mortals don't exactly run the world either, and that mortals as a whole can't always escape the confines of the rules gods set from mortal means, and while we see one character attempting to personally escape the system, there is no guarantee her gambit will work, and even if it does I really wouldn't say escaping the confines of one god system, for another god is escaping the confines that gods in general place upon races and still means nearly all dwarves are trapped in the system. The only way to stop the strict honor afterlife system from what we've seen would be to go to the gods themselves, and likely knowing Hel, have to force their hands. Which is a very familiar sounding plan to me.

[Ionathus]

It may be true that the Gods created the goblins, and other so-called monster races, as XP-Fodder. But the Gods don't rule the world. Mortals do. The Gods attempt to influence the world, and mostly seem to nullify each other in their efforts.

"Look, Billy, I know that we didn't give you any football pads, but there's nothing stopping you from winning! Just get out there and give it your best! We won't even interfere, so you only have to play against the other, stronger players!"

The onus does not lie on goblinoids to improve their lot against the designs of actual, real world-creating gods. WHETHER OR NOT they choose to attempt that improvement has NO bearing on whether the game was rigged from the start.

You literally just admitted that monstrous races were created to be easily killed. Watching them achieve anything despite those disadvantages, then saying "See? They're fine!" does not help your point.

[PontificatusRex]

Taking the Meta-view, the goblins are totally an oppressed race. This is a world based on D&D rules. In D&D, goblins, orcs etc absolutely exist for the reasons described in Start of Darkness: to be foes for low-level adventurers. The Gods of the Ootsverse are game designers - that's been made clear over and over again.

But the creations aren't like Tolkien's orcs and goblins - they're basically just folks, stuck into a role but not really more inclined to "EVIL" than anyone else. This was made abundantly clear in How the Paladin Got His Scar. So they're basically screwed, put in a role to make them sword-fodder, and the Dark One was rebelling against that while at the same time falling into the trap of becoming "THAT BIG EVIL DEITY/POWER BOSS BEHIND THE CANON FODDER", though it is said in SoD that the Dark One mostly encouraged his followers to stay away from humans as much as possible.

[The Pilgrim]

"Look, Billy, I know that we didn't give you any football pads, but there's nothing stopping you from winning! Just get out there and give it your best! We won't even interfere, so you only have to play against the other, stronger players!".

They can't win? Really?

Remind me again who rules Azure City right now, please.

The onus does not lie on goblinoids to improve their lot against the designs of actual, real world-creating gods. WHETHER OR NOT they choose to attempt that improvement has NO bearing on whether the game was rigged from the start.

And whether or not the game was rigged from the start has no bearing on the fact that in the main comic we have seen more opression provoked by goblinoids on humans than opression provoked by humans on goblinoids.

As Durkon said, Redcloak has killed more goblinoids than any of the protagonists. And given Redcloak's reaction, he hit home with that one.

You literally just admitted that monstrous races were created to be easily killed. Watching them achieve anything despite those disadvantages, then saying "See? They're fine!" does not help your point.

The Goblins are the ones doing the opression right now, at Azure City, no matter what the Gods intended to do when they created them at the start of the world, thousands of years ago.

You seem to debate with a very high Righteous tone, for someone who is just overlooking the fact that the "opressed people" are forcing into slavery the entire population of a nation (except for those few that managed to flee).

It's a bit late to resort to Redcloak's narrative as an argument for the debate. Rich Burlew has totally dismantled it through Durkon in the last scene.

[Jason]

Taking the Meta-view, the goblins are totally an oppressed race. This is a world based on D&D rules. In D&D, goblins, orcs etc absolutely exist for the reasons described in Start of Darkness: to be foes for low-level adventurers. The Gods of the Ootsverse are game designers - that's been made clear over and over again.

True to a point. However goblins in D&D usually have their own dieties who created therm, so from a meta standpoint it's true that they were designed as XP fodder, but from an in-game standpoint they weren't, and they weren't deliberately placed by the gods where they would find it impossible to thrive either. So if the Dark One's creation story is true then Stickworld goblins were actually far worse off jn the beginning than "average" D&D goblins, in-game.

But the creations aren't like Tolkien's orcs and goblins - they're basically just folks, stuck into a role but not really more inclined to "EVIL" than anyone else.

In Stickworld perhaps. In regular D&D they are in fact more inclined to evil than other races. That's what their alignment of "usually neutral evil" means and what the notes on their culture boil down to - a race that is generally evil. From what we've seen I would say goblins in Stickworld are also generally inclined to evil. Whether it's something innate or really is a result of being created as XP fodder is unclear.