Goblin Oppression; fact or fiction?

[hamishspence]

Heck, it's possible to be both oppressed and oppressor simultaneously.


Imagine a culture like the Neogi, which have a "chain of slavery" - one being at the top owns slaves, these slaves own slaves, and so on down. Everyone oppresses those they own.


Result - someone in the middle of the chain, is getting oppressed by their owner, and oppressing those they own.

[danielxcutter]

Also Redcloak is right that as it is currently Gobbtopia is absolutely crusade bait. Heck, even if they choose to free their slaves and sign a peace treaty with the remnants of Azure City the surrounding countries would probably be able to invade with little justification besides “they’re goblinoids” if they actually had the power to do it. They need a power base to not get slaughtered and actually get a chance to move beyond their current Evil-leaning culture because otherwise they’re not just kneecapped, they had both legs blown off with a shotgun.

[The Pilgrim]

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.

And here we have another one who is justifying the destruction and enslavement of the Azurites because they were "rich" and the hobgoblins were supposedly "poor".

Never mind that Azurites and Hobgoblins had managed build a stable peace between them, until Redcloak showed up.

Heck, it's possible to be both oppressed and oppressor simultaneously.

Yes, of course. But that means the current situation in the OOTS world is "a cycle of mutual violence that needs to be stopped", and not "a situation of oppression from one group over another that needs to be upset".

The first factual data in the comic is that The Dark One initatied it, with the engineering of The Plan. But there may be some truth in the claim that humans began it by murdering The Dark One during parley (if that indeed happened the way Redcloak told it, which is doubtful), or that the Gods began it by creating the goblinoids unequal (far more probable, but still not the fault of the mortals).

But who started that cycle of violence is not really important. The important thing is to stop it. Like Right-Eye attepted, and like the former Hobgoblin Supreme Leader did.

[hroþila]

And here we have another one who is justifying the destruction and enslavement of the Azurites because they were "rich" and the hobgoblins were supposedly "poor".

Never mind that Azurites and Hobgoblins had managed build a stable peace between them, until Redcloak showed up.

You really need to stop putting words in people's mouths. Or stop to actually read what you're quoting.

[The Pilgrim]

You really need to stop putting words in people's mouths. Or stop to actually read what you're quoting.

Robin Hood stole from the oppresing rich to give to the oppresed poor.

The Hobgoblins were living at peace with the humans in Azure City, and were prospering and multiplying. The Hobgoblins weren't being oppresed by the Azurites. The Hobgoblins did not attack the Azurites in retaliation for anything.

Maybe you should be the one that stops making comparations that don't hold water.

[hamishspence]

Redcloak may be "no Robin Hood" - but he is a being that has suffered a life-shaping injustice:

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.

Makes sense that he would see all goblinoids as the victims of injustice - because that's consistent with his own experiences - and seek to put a stop to this kind of injustice, through The Plan.

That he perpetrates injustices himself, is true - but it doesn't change the validity of his overall goal - to put a stop to certain injustices.

[The Pilgrim]

Redcloak may be "no Robin Hood" - but he is a being that has suffered a life-shaping injustice.

Makes sense that he would see all goblinoids as the victims of injustice - because that's consistent with his own experiences - and seek to put a stop to this kind of injustice, through The Plan.

So, an human whose family gets murdered by goblin raiders, is thus justified in considering that all humans are the victims of injustice, and begin burning goblin towns in retaliation?

Because, you know, the justification that certain paladins of the Sapphire Guard made for exterminating entire goblin villages was not far from that. The Dark One was engineering a Plan to destroy or enslave the entire world, thus they felt justified in going around killing all their followers, children or not.

That he perpetrates injustices himself, is true - but it doesn't change the validity of his overall goal - to put a stop to certain injustices.

When your overall goal is to put an end to certain injustice by promoting more injustice, your overall goal still tilts as invalid.

As Redcloak told Durkon a few comics ago, "peaceful" is not in his list of demands.

[hamishspence]

The Dark One was engineering a Plan to destroy or enslave the entire world, thus they felt justified in going around killing all their followers, children or not.

And Redcloak, unlike the Sapphire Guard, isn't "going around killing all followers of the Twelve Gods, children or not".

He can't even bring himself to kill a bunch of adult prisoners, when his attempt to use their fates as leverage against O-Chul, fails:

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0547.html

[hungrycrow]

Also Redcloak is right that as it is currently Gobbtopia is absolutely crusade bait. Heck, even if they choose to free their slaves and sign a peace treaty with the remnants of Azure City the surrounding countries would probably be able to invade with little justification besides “they’re goblinoids” if they actually had the power to do it. They need a power base to not get slaughtered and actually get a chance to move beyond their current Evil-leaning culture because otherwise they’re not just kneecapped, they had both legs blown off with a shotgun.

I'm not sure this is true. It took a long time for Hinjo to find an ally actually willing to do anything. And that's with the goblins acting like evil conquerers.

[Worldsong]

I'm not sure this is true. It took a long time for Hinjo to find an ally actually willing to do anything. And that's with the goblins acting like evil conquerers.

We haven't received any data indicating that after the seizing of Azure City the hobgoblin army showed any sign of attacking other locations, and the reason we were given why other nations were so hesitant to act was because they were afraid of the mid-20s epic sorcerer lich.

Not saying that other countries might not be hesitant to start a crusade against Gobbotopia, especially now that they've established trade partners, but the data we've given so far could also be read as other countries primarily being concerned about Xykon and being willing to consider crusading against Gobbotopia once they're sure doing so won't incite the wrath of Xykon.

By the by, Wrath of Xykon sounds pretty cool.

[Jason]

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.

Yes he could. And a good DM probably will provide his players with evidence that his goblins are evil before sending the players after them, or let them find the evidence that yes they were really evil while raiding the lair.

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.

Well I'll have to disagree with him on that point. My take is that the book wasn't written by some anti-goblin propagandist. It says goblins are usually evil because they are in fact usually evil. It's okay to kill their warriors when raiding their homes not because some book says so but because they really do live by raiding and enslaving those weaker than themselves, like all those friendly human farmers you passed on the way to the goblin lair who were just trying to earn a living in peace and would leave the goblins completely alone if the goblins would stop carrying off their food, animals, and the occasional child.

[hamishspence]

My take is that the book wasn't written by some anti-goblin propagandist. It says goblins are usually evil because they are in fact usually evil.

But this can be true, without the "strong inborn predisposition" that people keep hypothesising exists without much in-book evidence.

All that's needed is a weak inborn predisposition, and a culture shaped by a long unpleasant history. Still, jettisoning all "inborn predispositions" entirely, may be better - no more "Usually X alignment" for anything short of the extremely supernatural.

Hmm- how do we retain the alignment system (as per the much earlier post about liking some of it) while jettisoning all "unfortunate implications"?

Maybe, for all Monster Manuals, leave out the alignment line in a statblock entirely?

Leave it up to the DM what alignment to assign a particular monster (based on its personality and actions as determined by the same DM).

Yeah, I think that would take care of 90% of the problem. I mean, you can still describe the goblins' place in the world and how they usually live by raiding civilized nations without passing a personal moral judgment on all of them. Let alignment be something assigned by the DM when he places that creature in his campaign. If he wants them to be amoral slavers, he gives them and Evil alignment; if he wants them to be scrappy survivors making the best out of their lot in life, he might give them True Neutral or even Chaotic Good (especially if the civilized nations are Evil Empires). DMs already do that for every human that appears, is it so difficult to imagine doing it for the other races, too? Leave inborn alignment to the overtly supernatural—if it exists at all—and away from biological creatures.

[Jason]

You know, on further reflection I think the Giant is not really speaking out about "how the game is played", he's complaining about a particular type of problem player. That would be the player who wants to do horrible things to a monster and justifies it by saying "I can do what I want and still play a lawful good paladin because the book says they're evil."

That sort of player is rather rare in my experience (though I have encountered them), and usually they either don't stay in the hobby very long or they grow out of that behavior.

That sort of behavior has never been looked at as acceptable by most players or DMs. It's certainly not how the game has been played "9 times out of 10," at least not in my experience.

[hamishspence]

You know, on further reflection I think the Giant is not really speaking out about "how the game is played", he's complaining about a particular type of problem player.

It's certainly not how the game has been played "9 times out of 10," at least not in my experience.

Maybe you should just take The Giant's word for it about what his experience has been?

[Worldsong]

Maybe you should just take The Giant's word for it about what his experience has been"?

What, and trust the author to know his own story better than the readers?

[Jason]

What, and trust the author to know his own story better than the readers?

This isn't his own story, this is a claim that D&D is played this way in the real world "9 times out of 10." Well either I am much more fortunate than he is in that I've found this way of playing to be rather more rare than that in the 35+ years I have played the game, or he was exaggerating for effect.

[mjasghar]

It’s ironic when part of the whole Redcloak story is sunk cost fallacy, that so many people have their own sunk cost fallacy about ‘goblins are usually evil so it’s okay to kill any goblins’

[Worldsong]

This isn't his own story, this is a claim that D&D is played this way in the real world "9 times out of 10." Well either I am much more fortunate than he is in that I've found this way of playing to be rather more rare than that in the 35+ years I have played the game, or he was exaggerating for effect.

Rich had the experience that nine times out of ten people played like murderhobos, you had the experience that it happened far less. Both experiences can be true in the same world and Rich's claim that you have to be lucky to experience things differently is based on the fact that his perspective is coloured by his own experience. However the story is based on his experience, in which such behaviour is a common trait among players rather than limited to a smaller percentage of players who'd earn the moniker 'problem player'. In part because if it was limited to problem players it would be acknowledged as problematic behaviour by most players, which from Rich's experience and perspective is untrue.

[Jason]

Well I guess I'll just change my name to Jason the Lucky then.

[Worldsong]

You do that.

[The Pilgrim]

And Redcloak, unlike the Sapphire Guard, isn't "going around killing all followers of the Twelve Gods, children or not".

Durkon dissents with you. The azurite population, too.

Right-Eye would also raise an objection to your affirmation, on the grounds that Redcloak is going around killing goblinoids, and protecting Xykon while the lich does it for pleasure.

[hamishspence]

Durkon dissents with you.

Exact quote and panel? I don't see where Durkon accuses Redcloak of exactly the kind of child slaughter we know the Sapphire Guard have committed.


When I see Redcloak slaughter Azurite children the way those paladins slaughtered goblinoid children - I'll concede he's become as bad as them. Until then, I'm going with:



'The Giant does not intend us to see Redcloak as that kind of slaughterer".

[Worldsong]

Word of God trumps the opinion of a character in the story anyway. Otherwise the entire idea that Redcloak could be wrong would fall apart.

And no, being a protagonist doesn't mean Durkon has the power of magically being right about everything.

[danielxcutter]

I think the panel referred to is the middle one on the second-to-last row.

Are ye askin' us ta stop killin' goblins... or are ye askin' tha goblins be allow'd ta kill more o' us? 'Cause ye've been doing yer best on tha second option, which'll make it awful tough fer anyone ta see yer side.

The thing is, one, this is probably hyperbole, and two, Redcloak says in like literally two panels later that if the issues of goblins are addressed then there's no need for senseless violence.

[Keltest]

I think the panel referred to is the middle one on the second-to-last row.



The thing is, one, this is probably hyperbole, and two, Redcloak says in like literally two panels later that if the issues of goblins are addressed then there's no need for senseless violence.

Yeah, he says that, but the only issue he has that wasnt really resolved with Gobbotopia was that goblins arent welcome in human cities, which is A: a fairly dubious claim given that we've seen goblins interact perfectly fine with humans in SoD, and B: absolutely not ever going to be resolved with violence.

Redcloak is just reaching for excuses to stick with The Plan. He even catches himself referring to himself in the singular instead of goblinoids as a whole during that dialogue. Heck, he even touches on how bad his excuse is when he brings up the orcs not counting: They learned to freaking get along with humans while the goblins remain belligerent and, at least under Redcloak's leadership, actively reject attempts at joining society. No crap you arent welcome when you deliberately go out of your way to make sure you remain unwelcome.

[danielxcutter]

I thought this forum was for people, not bots. This isn't friggin' binary, folks, it's more complicated than that.

[Keltest]

I thought this forum was for people, not bots. This isn't friggin' binary, folks, it's more complicated than that.

Is it? We have an example of a goblin who gave up on being belligerent, settled down and got along perfectly well with his human neighbors. This worked well for them until Redcloak showed up and ruined everything. We have other examples of hobgoblins who were able to negotiate a peace with Azure City and achieve a fair measure of prosperity. This worked well for them until Redcloak showed up and ruined everything. The issue does not seem to be that society is inherently biased against goblins existing in any sort of peaceful format.

Most of the time when somebody says something to the effect of "its not that simple" in reference to resolving conflicts between two parties, what they really mean is "one or more sides are being unreasonable" but dont want to actually say it like that. Im just pointing that out.

[Worldsong]

Okay, here's the magic trick:

Systematic oppression doesn't mean that every single person who is part of the oppressed group absolutely must lead a ****ty life. It's entirely possible that discrimination is widespread and consistently causes trouble for a large amount of people while individuals or even communities belonging to the discriminated group still manage to have things work out for them.

Word of God states that the treatment of goblinoids is a real problem and finding examples of goblinoids doing well doesn't really disprove that. The world is a big place, we could find a dozen towns like the ones the hobgoblins built and it could still turn out that the majority of goblinoids worldwide suffer mistreatment.

Yes, under other circumstances the fact that we've found more examples of the villains causing trouble for the goblinoids than anyone else would be a convincing argument, but Word of God trumps everything. It's why it's called Word of God.

I believe in past conversations Rich has said something along the lines of "If your perspective doesn't match my perspective about my own story, rather than telling me I'm doing it wrong you should ask yourself what you're missing."

EDIT: Also if you want my honest opinion, I do feel like this entire argument about whether goblinoid discrimination is true or not stopped being reasonable a while ago. I mean Word of God all but outright says it, if people still bend themselves into hoops trying to prove the opposite I don't really see that as reasonable.

[Lord Raziere]

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

I disagree. Just because a person is extremely horrible to everyone does not absolve him of participating such oppression. he participates in it therefore he counts, no exceptions.

Spoiler: War and XP's Analysis

Show

The Oracle:
Hm, I'm not sure Roy and Durkon getting three answers through force is the most morally upright thing in the world....I mean....the Oracle is a big jerk, but does he really deserve what he gets? eh. its not as if he doesn't have contingencies for these things.

The Death of Yokyok:
Ouch, this is unambiguous. Yokyok is a kobold literally out to avenge his father out of justice against Belkar, and Belkar just writes a note saying there is a kobold menace and causes a nearby tavern of adventurers to kill him for money because he can't while under the mark of justice. Again adventurers don't ask questions why or how, they just leap in to kill Yokyok because they want the XP. A clear case that adventurers in this world don't investigate: they will kill people for any reason the person wants, as long as they get xp and money out of it. Whats to stop people from posting a note- to go kill some random goblin or orc village for money? Nothing. If Belkar can cause that kind of thing to happen with a simple note, I dread to think what people with power, money and connections can make adventurers do to monstrous races.

Miko and Redcloak/Red Vs. Blue:
When these two see each other, its instant: Miko attacks Redcloak calling him an abomination. Xykon doesn't help and just watches them fight, even betting on the paladin winning. So...not much changing in terms of Xykon's choices of entertainment. after the fight Redcloak calls her out on the paladins crusades having killed his friends and family. Miko calls him a soulless nihilist (demonstrably untrue, he both has a soul and a religion) who seeks to undo creation (accurate) and doubt that the bonds of family have any meaning to him (he loved his aging mother you jerk) while Redcloak then goes on to compare paladins and liches as being unnatural then says he himself all-natural goblin (not true at all! the cloak gives him extended life and has frozen his mind's age to that of a teenager) fittingly, that exchange is called "Pot Vs. Kettle" and every person in the room is some measure of skewed or enhanced by magic, with both Miko and Redcloak denying they're unnatural with only Xykon fully acknowledging his state. of course Miko tries to escape but MitD blocks her path and promptly sends her flying with his "game". despite Miko automatically attacking him. its an interesting exchange, and pretty much shows that the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle is pretty much a Kill On Sight kind of deal.

The Battle of Azure City:
Redcloak begins the attack. This is unambiguously evil. Redcloak and the hobgoblins the aggressor here and is in some way taking revenge on the humans in this battle.
-There is an moment where Azure City's General is talking about hobgoblins being good soldiers who wouldn't continue a tactic they know isn't working and Vaarsuvius makes a racist comment that the hobgoblins simply aren't bright enough and calls them foul creatures. When really the hobgoblins are being commanded by a death knight to serve as a ramp for his horse and his ghouls. It says a lot that a highly intelligent person like Vaarsuvius can make such an assumption about a monstrous race when V's otherwise logical about other matters, though its a running theme in OOTS-verse that wizards seem to underestimate the intelligence of anyone that isn't them (see also: Eugene, Roy's Sister, all the wizards that speak to Xykon in Start of Darkness) combining this with Pompey's comment about how half-elves have horrible racials, and it wouldn't surprise me if the wizard universities don't accept monstrous races as students on the assumption that they're all stupid like orcs. to further back this up, I can't recall the last time a monstrous race was also a competent wizard in OOTS- there was the one hobgoblin in Start of Darkness who yelled "pork!" but he doesn't seem to count was implied to be incompetent- like Zzri'dt was a drow wizard, but drow hardly count as monstrous races anymore, for obvious CG rebel reasons.
All the wizards/sorcerers I can recall are:
Human: Eugene, Roy's Sister, Fyron, Xykon, Nale, Bandit Leader's Daughter, the Soul Splice Casters, Dorukan, Azure Teleport Wizard, Tsukiko...
Elven: Vaarsuvius, Aarindarius
Half-Elf: Pompey

(Of course Redcloak and Right-Eye discuss Right-eye's oldest son possibly becoming a wizard, suggesting that it is possible for monstrous races to do so, but then again I wouldn't expect two goblins who grew up in the wilderness and isolated villages to know what the situation is for higher education for monstrous races in such universities, and if Redcloak ever encountered a monstrous wizard competent enough for his Plan, I'd daresay he'd take the risk to eliminate Xykon for the new guy. The fact that we've encountered no monstrous wizard or sorcerer 1000 strips in and its not only implied, but plot relevant that Redcloak can't find any, I think we can safely say that monstrous races like goblins, orcs and such don't get access to higher education in OOTS, and if there are any out there they're rare enough that they'll never be important while a vast majority of wizards/sorcerers we see are all human or elven, and thus a clear selection bias towards more human and elven wizards)

-And of course Redcloak has his revelation that he is turning into Xykon and decides to no longer waste goblin lives but to try to honor their sacrifices, and from then on he becomes more calculated about spending the lives of his troops rather than wasting them- there is a difference between them, especially as he is a military leader much of the time, while I would say that his actions with hobgoblins up to this point are wasting their lives and thus not justifiable, its his actions after that, that are murkier and start heading closer to someone who cares about his people. Its notable that Redcloak goes out of his way to fight the cleric of the twelve gods himself to save the lives of hobgoblin soldiers after his revelation, much like his Revered master before him, and specifically ordered his hobgoblin lackey to keep other hobgoblins from coming into the throne room so he can Xykon can handle it themselves.

One Village plus 35 Years Interest:
Yeah, Redcloak was so doing all this out of revenge. I don't think his conquest of Azure City is justified- but that doesn't matter whether it is. Its done and unless something happens to change that....its not going to be fixed. Sure people say that the city is crusade bait....but a whole timeskip, a dead resistance and us coming up on the finale arc, I don't think thats happening. This is just a straight up victory for Redcloak. The Sapphire Guard reaped the seeds of what they sown when they started indiscriminately killing goblins to get rid of one particular priest. You kill someone's village when they're young in a fantasy story, your going to pay for it, a narrative rule that has not been broken. The usual cliche is that its the hero is on the quest for revenge....but not this time.

As for whether he is a slaughterer.....well he doesn't give any commands like "kill the children as well" or anything like that. closest he comes is trying to sink the last ship of Azure City with a bunch of innocent refugees on it by commanding an octopus to trying and grab people off it and it was the last ship in the harbor. but then again he clearly sees that there are PC's and paladins defending the innocents so capturing killing them might be worth his time? its weird he wants to sink the boat, but he doesn't specifically say to kill the innocents, and his hobgoblin troops never get the chance to try. nor does he know that he just aimed a disintegrate at Azure City's current leader and nearly killed him. he just knows that the last boat is still here for some reason, has people protecting it and is full of innocents. He is right to be suspicious but also wrong to be attacking civilians, though he could just be ensuring a full routing of the enemy- he lets the ship sail away after all. like many of Redcloak's actions, they are made upon a certain sensibly horrible and horribly sensible rationale you'd find in ruthless military leaders. I'd say he attempted a slaughter, but didn't succeed and that it averages to somewhere evil regardless, but that while its attempted, he didn't actually do it so....I technically can't rake him over the coals for something he didn't succeed at doing? but it was still attempted to at least "sink that boat" which isn't necessarily a death sentence for the civilians on board, they in theory could swim ashore and of course get enslaved like we see later but that its own iffyness.

[Keltest]

Okay, here's the magic trick:

Systematic oppression doesn't mean that every single person who is part of the oppressed group absolutely must lead a ****ty life. It's entirely possible that discrimination is widespread and consistently causes trouble for a large amount of people while individuals or even communities belonging to the discriminated group still manage to have things work out for them.

Word of God states that the treatment of goblinoids is a real problem and finding examples of goblinoids doing well doesn't really disprove that. The world is a big place, we could find a dozen towns like the ones the hobgoblins built and it could still turn out that the majority of goblinoids worldwide suffer mistreatment.

Yes, under other circumstances the fact that we've found more examples of the villains causing trouble for the goblinoids than anyone else would be a convincing argument, but Word of God trumps everything. It's why it's called Word of God.

I believe in past conversations Rich has said something along the lines of "If your perspective doesn't match my perspective about my own story, rather than telling me I'm doing it wrong you should ask yourself what you're missing."

I know exactly what im missing: in-story evidence of any sort of systemic oppression actually occurring. Rich can say that its there in the background all he wants, but unless and until it actually makes it into the work, that means very little to me. It hasnt been shown practically at all, and the only character telling us that its happening both has an agenda beyond goblin equality and is the primary perpetrator behind most of the bad things that happen to goblins on screen, and thus im unwilling to simply take him at his word.

Also, you know, he's had a fairly level headed and rational character call out that objectively, the goblins dont really seem to be having it any worse than anybody else at this point except for the fights they keep picking, which kind of undermines the idea that the goblins have been and are still being horribly mistreated by the world.