Goblin Oppression; fact or fiction?

[The Pilgrim]

The difference between Tolkien's orcs and Burlew's goblins, is that Tolkien's orcs aren't people, while Burlew's goblins are.

That's basically what The Giant objects about fantasy tradition. That whole sentient species are created as not people, but legitimate targets the heroes can kill without raising moral concerns.

That's not how real heroes operate in the world that The Giant has created in this webcomic, though, no matter what the intent of the Gods was supposed to be when they created the world. After all, the OOTS world was not created by the in-comic Gods, it was created by Mr. Burlew, and Mr. Burlew hasn't created a world where "monster races" are not people.

Roy refuses to kill the orcs when a peaceful solution can be found, and Durkon joins him and becomes his friend just because of that. O-Chul refuses to let the Sapphire Guard keep slaughtering hobgoblin settlements, and it's the Obese Hobgoblin Supreme Leader (a member of the supposedly "opressed people") who can't understand why O-Chul cares for the lives of people from a different species. The Planetar refuses to follow Gin-Jun's order to slaugher the Hobgoblin settlement. Right-Eye lived in peace with humans, his family regulary visited an human circus without problem, and in the end he hide his youngest daughter with humans.

Some people in the OOTS world have been shown to behave like traditional fantasy heroes, and all of them have been featured as antagonists or, at least, as unsympathetical for the readers.

The goblins in the OOTS world have agency, they are people, not just fodder for the Heroes, like "monster races" are in traditional fantasy works and most RPG games.

Now, are they "oppressed" in-comic? According to The Dark One's narrative, preached by Redcloak, they are. According to actual events shown in-comic, they don't appear to suffer more "oppresion" than any other sentient species.

[hamishspence]

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.

The difference between Tolkien's orcs and Burlew's goblins, is that Tolkien's orcs aren't people, while Burlew's goblins are.

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.

Both "Usually X Alignment" and "Often X Alignment" allow for a degree of "their alignment is determined by their culture and upbringing rather than being inborn".

And at least one of Tolkien's essays said that Orcs are "within the Law" which basically means "they are people, and must be treated that way":

Myths Transformed
... the Wise in the Elder Days taught always that the Orcs were not 'made' by Melkor, and therefore were not in their origin evil. They might have become irredeemable (at least by Elves and Men), but they remained within the Law. This is, that though of necessity, being the fingers of the hand of Morgoth, they must be fought with the utmost severity, they must not be dealt with in their own terms of cruelty and treachery. Captives must not be tormented, not even to discover information for the defence of the homes of Elves and Men. If any Orcs surrendered and asked for mercy, they must be granted it, even at a cost. This was the teaching of the Wise, though in the horror of the War it was not always heeded.

Plus, The Giant's own writings suggest that in Stickworld (and, in his opinion, in regular D&D), any differences are cosmetic:

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.

Some people in the OOTS world have been shown to behave like traditional fantasy heroes, and all of them have been featured as antagonists or, at least, as unsympathetical for the readers.

Yes. Because the Giant disagrees with those people. But the fact that they are so common, may indicate that they are closer to being the rule than the exception - and that "oppressing monsters" is a norm, with people who both don't do it, and oppose it, being the odd ones out.

Now, are they "oppressed" in-comic? According to The Dark One's narrative, preached by Redcloak, they are. According to actual events shown in-comic, they don't appear to suffer more "oppresion" than any other sentient species.

Are goblins more oppressed than other monsters? Hard to say. Are monsters in general oppressed? I'd have to say that all signs point to "Yes".

Roy and O-Chul are unusual in their sheer degree of acceptance of the proposition that monsters are people.

[danielxcutter]

Oh, and even regular 3.5e often tends to state that unless said race is literally, supernaturall Evil it's usually not supposed to be a blanket statement.

This is most pronounced in Eberron; I strongly suggest you check Keith Baker's blog for his commentary about his opinions about the setting, and I believe in general Mr. Burlew subscribes to this both personally and in terms of OotS. For example, in one post on the aforementioned blog, I recall he says that a dolgrim(aberration slaves of the daelkyr made by fusing two goblin bodies together) would not be the same as a normal goblin due to the method of how it was created, but it is entirely possible if one was hypothetically raised in a loving goblin family that it could learn to be non-Evil, if not all the way to Good.

[Lord Raziere]

I don't know, lets try and find out. (Warning, this will be long) I will look through various examples found throughout OOTS to find examples of not just goblins but any monstrous race interacting with PC races to figure out what I can. now keep in mind: Dungeon Crawlin' Fools was made before the plot was underway enough to start showing these examples and thus strips 1-120 will be ignored. In its place we will look at Start of Darkness. now keep in mind: oppression, prejudice and mistreatment can take many forms, especially as there are gods in the world of OOTS perfectly capable of making sure the very geography and environment is made to do so and thus we cannot entirely evaluate the examples from a completely realistic perspective, as there is a potential level of fantastic inequality where the gods have a lot of power over everyone else. Also, I will not be taking alignment much into account, for the purposes of this, mistreatment is mistreatment no matter who its done to and whether something is not mistreatment is evaluated based on the circumstances and the persons reasoning.

Lets begin.

Spoiler: Start of Darkness Analysis

Show

The Massacre of Redcloak's Village:
The first example I can find is perhaps, one of the most stark and damning: the slaughter of Redcloak's village. to be specific, the Paladins come out of nowhere, taking them by surprise and cutting down any goblin they see whether it be adult, elderly or child. The previous holder of red cloak knows that they're really after him and attempts to sacrifice themselves to keep them focused on him so that the others may escape. the paladins kill him, then their leader orders them to exterminate the rest, even though they clearly have had already killed the person they were after. This is not a justified attack. this is a slaughter, and given the previous holder of the red cloaks words that they came after his master and his master before that, this is an intentional concentrated genocide spanning generations. Redcloak is urged by the ghost of the previous holder to take the cloak and learnt he plan so that this slaughter may not happen again. Redcloak's mother, sister and his entire family aside from his brother, dies and he goes from a goblin cleric who just wanted to serve the community in some small way to someone carrying his injured little brother out, hoping that the plan he has been given is worth all this slaughter.

Commentary: here we see that its not just Redcloak that thinks this is happening, his Revered Master, the one who made him a cleric in the first place very clearly states that the paladins have been coming for the bearers of the red cloak for at least three generations now and if they're as slaughter happy now I doubt they were less so then. now this doesn't prove widespread oppression or prejudice by itself, it only proves that the Sapphire Guard is consistently seeking out the goblins and mass-slaughtering them using the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle as a justification, when its clearly shown they kill any goblin they find even if they are a child. this act of mass-murder is unforgivable, and those paladins lost any justification for their actions the moment an innocent woman died.

The Evil Promotion Scene:
This seems like a small scene, but it mgiht be enlightening: Xykon and two other people a dark witch and Keith Baker are being considered to be promoted by an evil overlord person, and basically Keith and the dark witch get promoted and Xykon does not. what is missing from this? monstrous races. this is an evil lair, and yet all the people considered for promotion are human? We know that monstrous/evil races are supposed to outnumber the good, so why are all three people considered by his evil overlord, human? guess this evil isn't as equal opportunity as he seems.

Xykon and the death of Ekdysdioskosirrwo:
Next we have something a bit less dramatic but telling. Here we see Xykon, a human kill the lizardfolk whom I'll nickname "Ekdys" for simply having an overly long name that he can't remember. now, sure its Xykon he is basically the main villain and such, but that doesn't mean this isn't an example of a monster getting by what is basically an evil human adventurer for no good reason. and yes evil adventurers do exist in this world as Nale, the people who attacked Roy when he was in Celestia and Tarquin demonstrate, and Xykon can be called one himself since he just goes from place to place randomly killing things and gains class levels and is as murderhobo as they come. he also of course kills numerous paladins and lizardfolk during the battle and the paladins/soldiers don't realize he is evil at first because he is still human and thus gets killed from two sides, even though seeing a spellcaster flying around would logically be more of a threat in DnD than a random bunch of lizardfolk with spears, as any spellcaster capable of flying is probably high level enough to cause mass slaughters all by himself, so it comes down to the fact that these paladins saw that he was human and thus thought he wasn't a threat....even though he clearly wasn't doing anything to help and was high level enough to kill them all. they weren't even aware enough to ask Xykon "friend or foe!?" during a combat situation. thats not very wary for a fortress of paladins in the middle of nowhere. seems like they were letting prejudice and thus the thought that all humans were on their side, cloud their judgment. and the killing of Ekdys is so casual and sudden that Redcloak is forever scared into using nicknames for themselves so that Xykon won't kill them, thus showing how Xykon uses forces to manipulate people to follow his directions even when he doesn't realize it.

Redcloak's Tale:
This is a tale that is told to us by Redcloak, so its a bit suspect, sure. But we can glean a few things from this: this is probably the story that the Revered Masters before RC also believed. So its not just something thats in his head, at least two other goblins before him was told and was working to make this plan happen in one form or another. Furthermore, the story of The Dark One in general is probably common knowledge among the goblins and since he is a god well....it implies that the goblins have enough reason to believe the story. if they didn't, if nothing was wrong...why would they feel as if the Dark One is necessary over any other god? he wouldn't be around if the goblins didn't have a reason to believe in his cause. whether or not the tidbit about non-arable resource poor lands is true is a different matter, but RC and his village/tribe was clearly living somewhere rocky when they were slaughtered.

Right Eye and Eugene:
Here we see Right Eye trying to get Eugene to go after Xykon and kill him to save Redcloak from the lich. Only he is in disguise under a cloak to make sure he isn't found out and while Eugene doesn't attack him when Right-Eye reveals his face to him, Right Eye is quick to put his cloak back on and just a few moments later points out that the tavern they are drinking in is filled with adventurers. Eugene in his refusal is clearly threatening him with magic to make him back down, and his reaction to Right Eye's story at first is to say "a bunch of evil people killing each other? so what who cares?" a telling attitude if he is at all representative of a normal adventurer. basically Right Eye does everything he possibly can to get help and yet...the human he wants help from would rather point how strong in comparison to him to get him to leave than help his plight. there is no overt oppression or racism, but it suggests a pretty callous attitude towards monstrous races and Right Eye's efforts to hide himself suggests that he could've died in that city if he wasn't careful.

MITD and the Hunters:
MitD being captured by hunters and used a circus thing despite talking and being sapient is a form of slavery. so y'know, thats not okay either. and they are monstrous race even though we don't know what race that is. which suggests that any particularly weird monster from the manual could be subjected to a similar fate in this world even if they are sapient.

Eriaxnikol and the Julio Scoundrel Action Figure
Wait, why is a goblin child carrying around a human action figure? If goblins weren't oppressed or having problems, wouldn't they have their own heroes made into action figures for children to play with and imagine themselves through? a part of overcoming systemic problems like this is providing examples and representation in media for everyone to relate to and wouldn't the Dark One be a perfect fit for this? would it not bring worship to him? Yet its a human thats being played with. now a cigar could just be a cigar, but the Giant knows that representation matters given him writing in characters like Roy and Vaarsuvious and their family as well as others. It might be that there are no goblin hero action figures, only human, dwarf or elf ones. and that Right Eye had to buy Julio Scoundrel because it was the only kind they had.

Xykon And The Second Goblin Village:
Again a demonstration of Xykon using his power to force people to do things his way, only this time its more intentional, and has gore back up that he probably also strong-armed into doing his bidding, and Right Eye having to submit or die. Thing is though, an entire peaceful goblin village just up and leaves and what do the adventurers sent after it do? they kill the goblins without investigating further. Xykon just watches as Right Eye's family is slaughtered, laughing while the adventurers involved kill first and ask questions later, which is what drives Right Eye to kill Xykon because its the only thing he has left aside from the niece he smuggled out.

This makes it clear: the adventurers normally speaking, don't care about the circumstances why the monstrous races join up with evil. they don't consider hostage situations, they don't investigate why a goblin village would suddenly turn to help a lich, they just go in and kill.

Xykon and Redcloak:
Despite Redcloak keeping the secret from Xykon, a lot of Redcloak's action are based around his fear of what Xykon does.
-he fears Xykon killing him and his brother thus he changes their names to be short and memorable
-he fears Xykon killing any wizard or sorcerer that might be competition thus he doesn't seek any out to do the ritual instead
-he fears leaving Xykon to abandon the plan because Xykon might return or find him with his magic and force him to do it anyways or kill him for disobeying: a fear that is proven right when he tries to join Right Eye's Village
-he feared how Xykon would've reacted to the real plan...thus he lied about it to make sure he got onboard at all.

In every scene where Redcloak interacts with Xykon, it could be argued that Redcloak is acting of fear of Xykon's power and thus in a way submissive to him. He acts noticeably different when he is not around Xykon, for when Xykon is gone long enough, Redcloak actually intended on settling down and not doing the Plan anymore-its only when Xykon came BACK that he started falling back into his sunk cost fallacy. Right Eye similarly ends up submitting to Xykon out of fear until his family dies. So Xykon could be argued to be just as big of an oppressor to the goblins as the paladins, and Redcloak is letting that oppression happen because he sees no other way out: with Xykon around he is arguably forced to let the deaths of his people constantly happen, that Xykon is the one truly in control despite the secret, because Xykon keeps demonstrating that he is willing to kill people at the drop of a hat. because Redcloak knows more than anyone that Xykon can come back and straight up murder anyone who tries to show him an alternative, a way out. Xykon even rubs this fact in his face in his final speech of the book.

Thus are the goblins oppressed. Too bad Redcloak is submitting to one of their oppressors.

Sigh....this took longer than I expected, might have to do this analysis in parts, but from Start of Darkness alone I can see there being some signs of not overt oppression going on, but certainly evidence that many adventurers have a strong "kill first ask questions never" attitude about this stuff, and that if your a goblin caught up with some evil dude who doesn't want to work for that evil dude? your probably not going to be saved an adventurer coming in to kill that guy, and telling an adventurer about it is no guarantee that adventurer will be sympathetic to your plight.

furthermore, I would say given the evidence we have elsewhere, not all adventurers are good aligned, and thus not all adventurers would use good methods to complete their quests. and that even if the monstrous races are being oppressed by the PC ones....that doesn't necessarily mean its always the good ones doing the oppressing if at all, and its more likely that its evil adventurers doing it. adventurers are far from a homogeneous organization and its likely that any oppression done to the monstrous races are mostly done by the Belkars, Xykons, Big Game Hunters and the Tarquins of the world than the Roys and O-chuls. PC Races oppressing Monstrous Races does not necessarily mean all adventurers are good aligned and that all monstrous races are evil aligned, and its more likely that not all adventurers are good aligned and not all paladins are successful ones that keep the classes high standards intact. we clearly see with Right Eye and other goblins in Start of Darkness that not all goblins are evil after all, but they are forced to work under an evil anyways that doesn't care about their survival and get killed by another evil that doesn't care who they kill in order to fight the first.

Lirian is one of the only examples of mercy I can find: she spares both Xykons and Redcloaks lives and puts them in prison and the other example of mercy I find is two paladins putting a young Xykon in jail for his crimes with a corny one liner despite the person being completely evil both times. this suggests that in OOTS world, good characters at least try to put people in jail first rather than go straight to killing- and that people who don't....well they probably aren't good.

[hamishspence]

This is most pronounced in Eberron; I strongly suggest you check Keith Baker's blog for his commentary about his opinions about the setting, and I believe in general Mr. Burlew subscribes to this both personally and in terms of OotS. For example, in one post on the aforementioned blog, I recall he says that a dolgrim(aberration slaves of the daelkyr made by fusing two goblin bodies together) would not be the same as a normal goblin due to the method of how it was created, but it is entirely possible if one was hypothetically raised in a loving goblin family that it could learn to be non-Evil, if not all the way to Good.

This was Keith Baker's biggest essay on goblins specifically:

http://keith-baker.com/dragonmarks-goblins/

In many settings, goblins and orcs are presented as genetically evil — malicious by nature, enemies the players can always feel good about fighting. From the start, we wanted to take a different approach to goblins and orcs in Eberron. I liked the idea that these creatures were fundamentally inhuman, and had a cultural history that often them set at odds with humanity, but that they were no more innately evil than dwarves or elves.

although a point is made of how they're not just "humans with fangs" or "orange humans" either:

City goblins, the Ghaal’dar, and the Dhakaani have dramatic cultural differences. But they are all goblins, and share basic traits that concretely differentiate them from humans, elves, and other races. Goblins possess darkvision, and are quite comfortable dwelling underground. While they aren’t the only race to do so, it’s still a thing to bear in mind. Goblins don’t fear night or shadows the way many creatures do. On a primal, instinctual level night is a time when humans are vulnerable; for a goblin, it is a time when they are strong, as their darkvision gives them an advantage over their enemies. They don’t need light as humans do, which means that their buildings will have fewer windows and that they have no need for casual lighting. This is a small thing, but it’s part of remembering that they aren’t just humans with orange skin. They are a different species that has evolved under different circumstances and who have different instincts and brain chemistry than humans do.

Goblins are innately lawful. They don’t have anything like an insect hive mind, but they naturally gravitate to hierarchical societies, establishing a social order and holding to it.

Tied to this is the idea that goblins are inherently rational. Goblins are deeply pragmatic and faith is an alien concept to them.

[Jason]

Both "Usually X Alignment" and "Often X Alignment" allow for a degree of "their alignment is determined by their culture and upbringing rather than being inborn".

Either that or the idea is to allow for occasional "good" goblins, because unlike demons or devils they aren't literal embodiments of evil and there can therefore be exceptions.

And at least one of Tolkien's essays said that Orcs are "within the Law" which basically means "they are people, and must be treated that way":

Tolkien's orcs are a corrupted race, "twisted" from another race (either elves as he originally thought and as appears in the published Silmarillion or men as he later considered). Their situation is a bit different from a race that was created as they are now from the beginning. The corruption of the orcs from their parent race is definitely not just a matter of cosmetic differences.

Plus, The Giant's own writings suggest that in Stickworld (and, in his opinion, in regular D&D), any differences are cosmetic:

He is free to make the differences only cosmetic in Stickworld, his creation, but are they really only cosmetic differences in D&D? It depends on the DM and world being used, doesn't It? Ebberron has already been pointed out as a world where the normal rules don't apply.
The default in the rules would seem to be that it is not merely cosmetic differences. Some races really are innately predisposed towards evil or good, such that the majority of the species will be of a particular alignment regardless of what culture they are raised in. You will get the odd individual who won't accept his race's behavior, but they are exceptional.

[hamishspence]

Some races really are innately predisposed towards evil or good, such that the majority of the species will be of a particular alignment regardless of what culture they are raised in. You will get the odd individual who won't accept his race's behavior, but they are exceptional.

It does not say "regardless of the culture" under Usually X alignment.

IMO it's safe to say that this alignment includes the "default culture" and if they were all raised in a different culture, the "majority alignment" would be different.

Within "Usually X" there are differing degrees of predisposition. It's specifically stated in the PHB that kobolds have a much weaker "inborn predisposition" than beholders - yet both are :"Usually Lawful Evil"

[AdAstra]

Using protagonists as examples of goblins not being oppressed seems a little wonky to me. Like, is Rich expected to make Roy and Durkon racist for the sake of some sort of “realism”? Characters like O-Chul are explicitly far better people than the average, far better even than the typical “heroes” of the setting.

As Lord Raziere points out, the slaughter that the Sapphire Guard commit against the goblins was very clearly not a one-off occurrence. It explicitly took someone like O-Chul, one of the most morally incorruptible characters in the whole story, to turn things around. Even the angel wasn’t actively willing/able to stop them. These are supposed to be god-empowered paragons of Law and Good, yet they’re allowed to go around committing genocide without any repercussions from the gods that empower them.

If oppressing goblins wasn’t the norm for both the society and deities of the time, then those Paladins would never have been able to do what they did in the first place. Those in favor would have lost their powers and those who weren’t would have taken them down. And if enough pro-genocide Paladins were present that they could go ahead and do it anyway, that probably says something about how many pro-genocide paladins there were.

[The Pilgrim]

Using protagonists as examples of goblins not being oppressed seems a little wonky to me. Like, is Rich expected to make Roy and Durkon racist for the sake of some sort of “realism”? Characters like O-Chul are explicitly far better people than the average, far better even than the typical “heroes” of the setting.

Yes, they are better than the average people. Most people aren't invested enough to go out and protect the lives of others. But their lack of investment is not only regarding goblin lives, but anyone else.

If we move further, into the spectrum of murderers, the people who doesn't care to kill goblins, is the same people who doesn't care to kill anything else. The heroes that wanted to just kill the orcs in OOoPCs are the same people that were actively looking to get Durkon, a LG dwarf, killed. The paladins that didn't care to act under a "detect evil - kill" directive, are the same that ended up losing their paladin powers for murdering, or attepting to murder, human good-aligned characters.

So, goblins aren't "special" in that regard. The same people that doesn't cares about murdering them, is the same people who doesn't cares to murder anybody else.

It should also be noted that O-Chul, in his mission, was the one endorsed by Azure City's official authorities, while the Paladins were acting behind the back of their ruler, and most of them only needed a little nudge to give their leader the cold shoulder. One even skulked away in the night to congress with O-Chul and tell him how to get her leader deposed.

So, people like O-Chul or Roy aren't that scarce. Their mindset is the one shared by the average Good-aligned people.

UAs Lord Raziere points out, the slaughter that the Sapphire Guard commit against the goblins was very clearly not a one-off occurrence. It explicitly took someone like O-Chul, one of the most morally incorruptible characters in the whole story, to turn things around. Even the angel wasn’t actively willing/able to stop them. These are supposed to be god-empowered paragons of Law and Good, yet they’re allowed to go around committing genocide without any repercussions from the gods that empower them.

If oppressing goblins wasn’t the norm for both the society and deities of the time, then those Paladins would never have been able to do what they did in the first place. Those in favor would have lost their powers and those who weren’t would have taken them down. And if enough pro-genocide Paladins were present that they could go ahead and do it anyway, that probably says something about how many pro-genocide paladins there were.

The Planetar did refuse to follow the order of slaughtering the hobgoblin town. After that, Gin-Jun is literally portrayed as attepting to fool the Planetar into having to commit the killing anyway in self-defense.

And, regarding the Gods, most of them aren't Good to begin with, and regarding the LG ones, no, they aren't simply allowing the Paladins to go around killing:

Oooo! Oooo! I know this one!

The events of Start of Darkness are not a narrative being told by Redcloak, except for the crayon pages (which totally are). You are right, your friend is wrong. Everything you see happened.

However, everything that happened is not necessarily seen.

Suffice to say that the Twelve Gods are not beholden to put on the same visual display they did for Miko for every paladin who transgresses, and that all transgressions are not created equal. It is possible that some of the paladins who participated in the attack crossed the line. It is also possible that most did not. A paladin who slips up in the execution of their god-given orders does not warrant the same level of personal attention by the gods as one who executes the legal ruler of their nation on a glorified hunch. Think of Miko's Fall as being the equivalent of the CEO of your multinational company showing up in your cubicle to fire you, because you screwed up THAT much.

Of course, while Redcloak is not narrating the scene, it is shown mostly from his perspective; we don't see how many Detect Evils were used before the attack started, and we don't see how many paladins afterwards try to heal their wounds and can't, because these things are not important to Redcloak's story. Whether or not some of the paladins Fell does not bring Redcloak's family back to life. Indeed, if we transplant the scene to real life, he would think it cold comfort that some of the police officers who gunned down his family had to turn in their badge afterward (but were otherwise given no punishment by their bosses at City Hall).

Dramatically, showing no-name paladins Falling at that point in the story would confuse the narrative by making it unclear whether or not Redcloak had already earned a form of retribution against them. To be clear, he had not: Whether or not some of them lost a few class abilities does not change the fact that Redcloak suffered an injustice at their hands, one that shaped his entire adult life. That was the point of the scene. Showing them Fall or not simply was not important to Redcloak's story, so it was omitted.

Further, it would have cheapened Miko's fall to show the same thing over and over--and Miko, as a major character in the series, deserved the emotional weight that her Fall carried (or at least that I hope it carried).

I hope that clears this issue up. I hope in vain, largely, but there you have it.

(Oh, and I leave it up to the readers to form their own opinions on which paladins may have Fallen and which didn't.)

All in all, you may find my reasoning to be "wonky", but yours is denying objective facts stated by the Author of the comic.

[danielxcutter]

I also remember something about divinely sanctioned genocide...

[King of Nowhere]

I would say both.
Right or wrong are rarely on one side. Both oppression and thinking in terms of "us" and "them" are basic human instinct.

Goblins are certainly oppressed. there's more than enough evidence for it. If goblins were in power, they would not behave better. there is also plenty of evidence for this. it is also, again, part of human nature. just like power corrupts individuals, so it corrupts groups.

and, finally, it's also true that redcloak's rethoric is fiction. it takes the true basis of goblin oppression, but it spins it in new and exxaggerated ways that are simply wrong.
When it comes to the ideals that motivate people, you rarely find a fiction without a core of truth, or a truth without an embellishing in fiction.

[danielxcutter]

I would say both.
Right or wrong are rarely on one side. Both oppression and thinking in terms of "us" and "them" are basic human instinct.

Goblins are certainly oppressed. there's more than enough evidence for it. If goblins were in power, they would not behave better. there is also plenty of evidence for this. it is also, again, part of human nature. just like power corrupts individuals, so it corrupts groups.

and, finally, it's also true that redcloak's rethoric is fiction. it takes the true basis of goblin oppression, but it spins it in new and exxaggerated ways that are simply wrong.
When it comes to the ideals that motivate people, you rarely find a fiction without a core of truth, or a truth without an embellishing in fiction.

You're right that the goblins aren't completely innocent while still have being grievously, but what proof do you have that his rhetoric is fiction? There is a difference between exaggerating events for the sake of control(which he's not really doing) and having a genuinely valid point while going at it in entirely the wrong way(which he absolutely is, in the sense that he's being Evil).

[mjasghar]

Remember humans are Neutral
Technically thats supposed to represent an even spread of alignments
So most Humans aren’t Good

[Lord Raziere]

Now to move on. I don't expect to find as many examples as Start of Darkness, as its the primary source of Redcloaks story and thus his concerns. However, I wish to be thorough, and thus need to go through as much as I can.

Spoiler: No Cure For the Paladin Blues Analysis

Show

Roy's Lie:
Its notable that in Comic 139 Roy uses a lie of "king giants" loaded with treasure to motivate them to go on his side quest. Belkar only needed a strong foe to fight, and Haley perfectly willing to steal some hypothetical giants wealth without any other reason behind it. how many adventurers cause oppression based on such reasons and how many leaders motivate them with such reasons rather than checking to see if they were okay with it? Notice that Roy didn't say these giants were evil or anything just that they were tough and loaded with money. morality didn't enter the equation in any of the party members reasoning. I doubt other adventuring groups are more thoughtful about such quests.

The Hobgoblins:
They clearly live in a mountainous area which is generally less ideal than grassy farmlands and such. but its not clear whether its because of the gods putting them there, or if its because of the other races pushing them out. So something is clearly making them live in the mountains, but its not clear what the cause IS. I doubt its because they want to be there: mountainous areas are harder to farm, and farming the basis of all civilization. they have perilous paths where rocks fall from the slightest sound and Redcloak exploits that to kill twenty of them simply because he doesn't like them and only did so because MitD pointed out that he was doing the right thing and respected him for it when if MITD had kept his mouth shut twenty hobgoblin lives would've been saved, and Redcloak could've used some clever method to simply set off the rock slide without being killed by it, but alas. as well as other sacrificial stunts that show what kind of influence Xykon is having on RC.

at the same time, the Hobgoblins have an entire CITY with a wall, towers, near a river, its still rocky but how are they supporting all this? its not clear how much Gobbotopia is a step up from this city? like Gobbotopia was once Azure City and is thus a port city on flat land with farms which is much better for a lot of things, but they must have some farming going to have a city with fortifications like that set up, but unfortunately we don't get any clear information on what life is like in this hobgoblin city.

The Random Encounter and the Bandits:
This a clear-cut case of the trolls/ogres/whatever these two are supposed to be as people attacking PCs out of nowhere and therefore in the wrong. However V is arguably proven wrong by their "one random encounter per travel" thing as the bandit camp is a second random encounter where they are attacked out of nowhere yet they are all human and somehow all the bandits are kept alive, while the two trolls/ogres are killed. the arguably do the right thing both times but its inconsistent: why are the bandits worth keeping alive and not the trolls before them? Why didn't they try to capture and tie up the random encounter? I doubt the OOTS aside from Belkar intends anything racist/evil out of their actions, defending themselves is not morally wrong and sparing peoples isn't either and sometimes you can't choose who lives or dies. combat is chaotic, but still its telling that V resorts to powerful evocation spells to take out those trolls yet for some reason only uses counterspells on the human bandits. seems to be a bit human-favoring there. (of course Miko Miyazaki kills the humans some time later but we'll get to her)

Vaarsuvius and the Stable-Orc:
Now I doubt that Vaarsuvius was exploding this orc out of prejudice. But still she uses force to make the orc give her the horse, which counts as mistreatment and disproportionate response. if anything this more points out a clear oppression of the magic user over the normal person, similar to how Xykon uses force of magic to oppress people.

The Black Dragon:
Ah yes, this part. Its not clear whether its the dragon or the humans who attacked first but a case can be made that the Black Dragon was just defending its home. again, we are not taking alignment into account. the OOTS went into someone elses home with the intent of taking their loot after killing them. However they didn't know a dragon was there you might say, which is fair they didn't. But at the same time they were under the impression that there were giants guarding it instead, so they were prepared to end TWO lives rather than the one they did end. at the same time...I doubt the black dragon got all that gold Haley was swimming in through legitimate means. its tough to call, but knowing that the result of adventure turned out for the worse with a bigger meaner black dragon seeking revenge which led to Familicide....well lets just say that V's frustration with being turned into a Newt that she kept them sitting there until dawn as payback grabbing the idiot ball when they could've look for the loot and began transporting it themselves during that time and thus led to the black dragon's death when they could've grabbed the stuff and went before the spell wore off cost a lot of people's lives because of V's selfishness.

Miko and the Color Coded Convenience
Here Miko rants to Roy about how they didn't know whether the dragon was good or not after question where they got the gold from and Roy responds its scales weren't all shiny....and she does a complete 180 and accepts this. its played off as a joke at the time. But this is Miko Miyazaki, changing her mind isn't a thing she does. its quite telling that a zealous paladin who not seconds before was getting on their case about potentially killing a good dragon just drops the matter over such a flimsy answer. it tells us that all her moral concerns about it are less important than whether or not the dragon had the right scales. and that she is more having these concerns out of dogma than out of actual moral reasoning because a moral person wouldn't accept such a weak answer as the end of it- in short Miko is the exact kind of paladin who would slaughter Redcloak's village if ordered to, because her dogma would demand it of her.

The Displacer Beasts:
These two DBs are genre saavy enough to know that adventurers will kill them if they attack and thus hold off from becoming a random encounter even though they are carnivores and very hungry. that says volumes- "I'd rather starve than get killed by adventurers" is a pretty big statement of how things as for monstrous races if these guys are any indication.

The Ogre Attack and the Climax:
Miko pretends to be honorable....just to gather all the ogres up so they can die in one fell swoop. now granted, the ogres attacked the town first. the ogres are getting what they deserve...but at the same time, Miko is quite called out as "a mean socially inept bully who hides behind a badge and a holier than thou morality as excuses to treat other people like dirt" to paraphrase Roy after the whole inn debacle. its not much of a stretch to think she has done similar things in the past to others who might've deserved it less.

and judging from her interactions with Soon, it seems she needs to be constantly reminded that people need to be arrested and jailed properly rather than just killing them where they stand. extend that to how she probably interacts with monstrous races, her throwing away moral objection for not-shiny scales and how obsessed she was with getting Belkar's alignment and you start getting a picture of someone who if she thought Belkar was a monstrous race she wouldn't even be bothering with the detect evil.

Pompey, Sabine and Thog:
Pompey comments that his racial features are bad, Sabine says "no wonder you turned to a life of crime" while Thog sympathizes with also having sub-par racial abilities. this implies that racial abilities determine how well you do to some extent that Sabine isn't surprised by a half-elf being worse off than a human, which implies that monstrous races might have it even worse because of Level Adjustment

Soon's Tale:
The Sapphire Guard as told by him went on a crusade to purge all mention of the gates and rifts from the libraries to keep them safe. this.....has very book-burning and killing people to keep the secret vibe to it and even has dead goblin visuals to accompany it, very clearly connecting this to Redcloak. But I doubt that the goblins were the only ones affected by this- this implies that anyone who looked into the gates were targeted and that could've been all sorts of people monstrous race or no. like just imagine how many wizards probably died to keep the gates from being toyed with by arcane magic. goblins aren't the first logical place to look after all, but well-educated magic users who would investigate such things out of simple curiosity would be- and have more power to do so than any random mob of monsters. this kind of secret keeping crusade would not discriminate between people who intend harm or not with the knowledge. Vaarsuvius didn't even know of the gates after all and you'd think wizards of all people would be clued up on the true nature of reality. such a crusade would lead to a lot of paranoia and people getting killed by it, fairly or not.

So yeah, Paladin Blues does have a lot of relevant stuff. considering Miko treats people she is supposed to be allies with, and what she thinks of her enemies, if other paladins and adventurers are anything like her, thats a clear sign of oppression for those she is facing: we see all too well what Miko's dogmatic kill-focused mindset leads to. while the black Dragon is a muddied when you think about it, but clearly even if the black dragon was in the wrong, ending his life still brought about bad consequences down the line and killed many people who had nothing to do with the conflict as a result, so I'm going to lean/err on the side of saying killing the Black Dragon was probably a bad idea and an example of an adventurer thoughtlessly killing a monster, if you aren't apart of the solution your apart of the problem after all....

(Sidenote: "krakakoom!" is also onomatopoeia used for thunder early on, so we know that the explosion of a gate sounds a lot like thunder, never noticed that before)

[danielxcutter]

I don’t think Xykon counts, if only because he’s typically horrible to pretty much everybody.

[Worldsong]

I don’t think Xykon counts, if only because he’s typically horrible to pretty much everybody.

Agreed. The reason why monster races in general and goblinoids in particular suffer from discrimination and oppression is because they can reasonably expect to be treated horribly by people who aren't supposed to be horrible for little reason.

[danielxcutter]

I mean if “better than Xykon” is the bar it’s probably floating somewhere around Redcloak’s sunken cost fallacy and the weird fishes with glowing mouths.

[Worldsong]

I have a very large gap between 'Better than Xykon' and 'People who are not horrible'.

[Jason]

It does not say "regardless of the culture" under Usually X alignment.

IMO it's safe to say that this alignment includes the "default culture" and if they were all raised in a different culture, the "majority alignment" would be different.

Within "Usually X" there are differing degrees of predisposition. It's specifically stated in the PHB that kobolds have a much weaker "inborn predisposition" than beholders - yet both are :"Usually Lawful Evil"

Like I said, it really depends on the DM and the world being used, doesn't it?

You go with the "creature alignment includes the influence of the default culture of the species and if they were raised outside that culture they might think completely differently" option. I favor "these creatures really have an innate biological difference in how they think from how humans think, and their default culture is the way it is because of those innate alignment tendencies, and so most individuals will be of their listed alignment regardless of what culture they are raised in."
One of the reasons I favor that approach is because it lets my players feel less bad about killing them.

I insist in my games that, like Tolkien, even if goblins have an inherent predisposition to evil that killing non-combatants is an evil act, torture is an evil act, and enslavement is an evil act, so my players don't do those things if they aren't evil (which they generally aren't - I usually don't allow evil alignments in my players). But raiding a goblin lair and killing all the goblins who try to defend the lair is generally fine morally, because goblins live by plundering those weaker than themselves; because that's the way goblins are, and trying to civilize them so they play nice with other races doesn't work. You can argue "We shouldn't kill creatures for innate biological differences that they didn't choose to have in the first place," but the reality is that because those biological differences extend to alignment goblins are a threat to the other races around them.

D&D is a game about pretend people making heroic choices, and a lot of the point of the game is defeating monsters, so defeating monsters has to be an authentically good and heroic choice. Making the majority of those monsters genuinely evil is a practical move that makes the combat the game is built around more morally acceptable.

[hamishspence]

I favor "these creatures really have an innate biological difference in how they think from how humans think, and their default culture is the way it is because of those innate alignment tendencies, and so most individuals will be of their listed alignment regardless of what culture they are raised in."
One of the reasons I favor that approach is because it lets my players feel less bad about killing them.

It is not that hard, for the majority of enemies faced by the PCs to be "genuinely evil" without any "inborn predisposition".

For example, in a campaign where the vast majority of enemies will be human, all the DM has to do, is put some effort into making these enemies do acts that the PCs won't forgive, and make it easy for the PCs to find out who's deserving of being "gone-after".

If the DM can do this for a "mostly human" campaign, then they can do it for a "mixed-species" campaign.

raiding a goblin lair and killing all the goblins who try to defend the lair is generally fine morally, because goblins live by plundering those weaker than themselves; because that's the way goblins are, and trying to civilize them so they play nice with other races doesn't work.

Inborn predispositions, in practice, are mostly just a shortcut that allows players to attack monsters on sight without any evidence of wrongdoing - and The Giant has noted this, and hates it.

It seems to me pretty clear that, from his perspective, in most games, the "inborn predispositions" are entirely theoretical, and the monsters normally act just like regular humans - and get slaughtered anyway.

Because all authors are human, it is exceedingly difficult for anyone to imagine a fully realized non-human intelligence. It has been done maybe a dozen times in the history of speculative fiction, and I would venture not at all in the annals of fantasy roleplaying games. (Certainly, goblins, dwarves, and elves don't qualify, being basically green short humans, bearded greedy humans, and pointy-eared magical humans.) Therefore, it's a moot distinction and one not worth making. Statistically speaking, ALL depictions of non-human intelligence—ever—are functionally human with cosmetic differences. Which is as it should be, because only by creating reflections of ourselves will we learn anything. There's precious little insight into the human condition to gain from a completely alien thought process.

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.

[understatement]

I also remember something about divinely sanctioned genocide...

Yup.

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

Additionally, the Giant does liken it to genocide (if indirectly):

Q: And what is the difference between preemptive (since they are mostly evil) decimation of dragons by V different from preemptive genocide of goblins by Azurites?

A: None. There is no difference. Except narratively, because one was a main character taking an action as part of the primary story while the other was a backstory relating to tertiary characters. Thus the repercussions of one is of key importance to the plot while the other is a background issue, at best.

I'm not sure how hard the message has to be dropped, but apparently it's not enough.

I'd also like to point out that the hobgoblins taking Azure City is possibly the first time the status quo has ever been upsetted, and it was led by Xykon and Redcloak (which stemmed directly from SOD events).

[The Pilgrim]

I'm not sure how hard the message has to be dropped, but apparently it's not enough.

Given that you are rooting for a character who is exterminating people on behalf of his God, it appears that The Giant isn't dropping the message hard enough, indeed.

[understatement]

Given that you are rooting for a character who is exterminating people on behalf of his God, it appears that The Giant isn't dropping the message hard enough, indeed.

Damn, I lost a bet with myself on how fast the answer would be pulled out of absolutely thin air.

[The Pilgrim]

Damn, I lost a bet with myself on how fast the answer would be pulled out of absolutely thin air.

Let's look at the "thin air"...

I'd also like to point out that the hobgoblins taking Azure City is possibly the first time the status quo has ever been upsetted, and it was led by Xykon and Redcloak (which stemmed directly from SOD events).

According to you, destroying Azure City, killing thousands, and enslaving thousands more, was a necessity to upset the "unfair" status quo of hobgoblins living in peace in their hills and prospering, with no conflict with Azure City.

You are righteously condemning violence when it flows from A to B, while expressing support for violence when it flows from B to A.

So if you are looking for people that isn't getting the message of this webcomic, you should go fetch a mirror.

[hamishspence]

Given that you are rooting for a character who is exterminating people on behalf of his God, it appears that The Giant isn't dropping the message hard enough, indeed.

"The Azurites"? Redcloak didn't "Exterminate them on behalf of his god" - he sacked their city to seize their gate. Most of them escaped - and he enslaved (but did not exterminate) the few remaining.

Now, a case could be made that if The Dark One messes up, then The Snarl will exterminate the population of the entire world. Or the gods will, in an attempt to contain The Snarl.

But Redcloak himself, has no "intent to exterminate".

[The Pilgrim]

"The Azurites"? Redcloak didn't "Exterminate them on behalf of his god" - he sacked their city to seize their gate. Most of them escaped - and he enslaved (but did not exterminate) the few remaining.

Now, a case could be made that if The Dark One messes up, then The Snarl will exterminate the population of the entire world. Or the gods will, in an attempt to contain The Snarl.

But Redcloak himself, has no "intent to exterminate".

Redcloak has expressed several times, from SoD to the last comics, that getting the world destroyed is a perfectly valid outcome. He has also declared himself an specist, and proud of it.

If you want to make a distinction between extermination and enslavement, be my guest. I find little difference between a slaver and a exterminator, mainly becasue slavery tends to be the first step towards extermination. But arguing this point further would drive this conversation into forbidden territory.

[understatement]

According to you, destroying Azure City, killing thousands, and enslaving thousands more, was a necessity to upset the "unfair" status quo of hobgoblins living in peace in their hills and prospering, with no conflict with Azure City.

You are righteously condemning violence when it flows from A to B, while expressing support for violence when it flows from B to A.

So if you are looking for people that isn't getting the message of this webcomic, you should go fetch a mirror.

Dang it, another bet.

You must have pulled it from somewhere, because it's...pretty obvious that I didn't say that? I didn't know I had to slap the message "what Redcloak and the hobgoblins did to Azure City is evil and wrong" on the end of every single post.

Oh, here: "what Redcloak and the hobgoblins did to Azure City is evil and wrong." Never said the status quo changed for the better. Again, I think it's glaringly obvious that it did not.

[The Pilgrim]

Dang it, another bet.

You must have pulled it from somewhere, because it's...pretty obvious that I didn't say that? I didn't know I had to slap the message "what Redcloak and the hobgoblins did to Azure City is evil and wrong" on the end of every single post.

Oh, here: "what Redcloak and the hobgoblins did to Azure City is evil and wrong." Never said the status quo changed for the better. Again, I think it's glaringly obvious that it did not.

Thank you for the clarification.

Now, if you think that way, please explain to me how you can support the idea that the goblins are suffering opression right now, when they are the ones dealing it.

[hamishspence]

Now, if you think that way, please explain to me how you can support the idea that the goblins are suffering opression right now, when they are the ones dealing it.

Because even the population of Gobbotopia, represent a tiny minority of the goblinoids on the planet as a whole.


The vast majority of goblinoids still being subject to being "attacked by adventurers just for being goblinoids."

"A tiny minority of goblinoids are currently oppressors" is quite compatible with "The vast majority of goblinoids are currently oppressed."

[hroþila]

Saying that the goblinoids have no claim to being victims of oppression because some of them upended the status quo for their group in particular and in relation to a particular group of humans strikes me as saying Robin Hood should steal the money back from the poor because they're rich now.