Goblin Oppression; fact or fiction?

[Worldsong]

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.

If you're taking in-comic evidence above Word of God that's not really my problem. Very limited evidence, mind you.

And no, we've had a level-headed and rational character with a limited perspective of the issue point out that the only personal experience he had with the entire issue was that the hobgoblins successfully managed to take one city. Durkon doesn't have the experience or the perspective to be considered an authority on the subject.

[Keltest]

If you're taking in-comic evidence above Word of God that's not really my problem. Very limited evidence, mind you.

And no, we've had a level-headed and rational character with a limited perspective of the issue point out that the only personal experience he had with the entire issue was that the hobgoblins successfully managed to take one city. Durkon doesn't have the experience or the perspective to be considered an authority on the subject.

Redcloak is meanwhile actively dishonest about it, with himself at least. Durkon asks what it is the goblins dont have that the humans do, and instead of giving a specific example, Redcloak immediately jumps to "well the humans still hate us." Which may be true, but thats not a matter of opportunity at that point, thats just Redcloak having burned all those bridges of his own volition.

[danielxcutter]

...You know, why didn't Redcloak bring his hometown up? I think that still works for both sides of this debate, frankly.

[Keltest]

...You know, why didn't Redcloak bring his hometown up? I think that still works for both sides of this debate, frankly.

The Sapphire Guard of the time were a group of extremists seeking out and picking a fight with another group of extremists, with the innocents of the village caught in the middle.

The Guard has changed, and also been destroyed, so thats not really something that can work for him, and its really not in Redcloak's interest to portray the various goblin noncombatants as universally being directly complicit in a plot to overthrow the gods and/or destroy the world. That leaves portraying the various bearers of the Mantle in the past as bad guys themselves for dragging innocents into their conflict, which is probably not acceptable to him either.

[Worldsong]

Redcloak is meanwhile actively dishonest about it, with himself at least. Durkon asks what it is the goblins dont have that the humans do, and instead of giving a specific example, Redcloak immediately jumps to "well the humans still hate us." Which may be true, but thats not a matter of opportunity at that point, thats just Redcloak having burned all those bridges of his own volition.

Redcloak's statement is not "Humans hate me because I've done horrible things", his statement is "Humans hate me because I have green skin and fangs".

Which is an entirely accurate assessment in a world with systematic and widespread discrimination against monster races. We can say that everything that comes out of Redcloak's mouth must be false but frankly that sounds more like a backwards reasoning along the lines of "Discrimination isn't real so when the villain states that discrimination is real that must be false because discrimination isn't real and as a villain he can't be right."

Also Lord Raziere has been doing a respectable job digging through the comic and side content looking for interactions between monster races and PC races and I feel like the claim "I just don't see any examples of monster races suffering from discrimination" is false.

...You know, why didn't Redcloak bring his hometown up? I think that still works for both sides of this debate, frankly.

I have no idea. Maybe he thought Durkon wouldn't care or something. Maybe he felt like his personal trauma wasn't as important in negotiations about the entirety of his people.

[danielxcutter]

I mean, Redcloak pretty much expects PC races to be callous regarding goblinoid lives by now and he hasn't had much personal reason to think otherwise. Maybe that's why?

[Keltest]

Redcloak's statement is not "Humans hate me because I've done horrible things", his statement is "Humans hate me because I have green skin and fangs".

Which is an entirely accurate assessment in a world with systematic and widespread discrimination against monster races. We can say that everything that comes out of Redcloak's mouth must be false but frankly that sounds more like a backwards reasoning along the lines of "Discrimination isn't real so when the villain states that discrimination is real that must be false because discrimination isn't real and as a villain he can't be right."

Yeah, and Redcloak is mistaken about the source of the hate, or lying to himself about it.

Spoiler: SOD

Show

His own brother calls him out on this, and proves that no, people will not kill and despoil goblins just out of reflex or habit when he makes his own village.

Maybe he genuinely believes it, and has failed to consider his own role in it, but the fact remains that he has started every on-screen conflict between goblins and humans except for the initial attack on his village.

[Worldsong]

Yeah, and Redcloak is mistaken about the source of the hate, or lying to himself about it.

Spoiler: SOD

Show

His own brother calls him out on this, and proves that no, people will not kill and despoil goblins just out of reflex or habit when he makes his own village.

Maybe he genuinely believes it, and has failed to consider his own role in it, but the fact remains that he has started every on-screen conflict between goblins and humans except for the initial attack on his village.

Or maybe his claim is real and he's just ignoring the fact that the PC races have an additional reason to hate him specifically. It's possible to hate someone for more than one reason.

And as pointed out before, the fact that it's not literally impossible for an individual or a community which belongs to a discriminated group to build up a better life doesn't automatically disprove the fact that such discrimination is real.

The fact is that Redcloak is a villain and that as a villain his role is to cause trouble in the story. That does not mean that his story accurately reflects the situation for other goblinoids, especially since Redcloak is significantly stronger than pretty much everyone else in the setting so it makes sense that in his case the situation would be reversed.

[Keltest]

Or maybe his claim is real and he's just ignoring the fact that the PC races have an additional reason to hate him specifically. It's possible to hate someone for more than one reason.

And as pointed out before, the fact that it's not literally impossible for an individual or a community which belongs to a discriminated group to build up a better life doesn't automatically disprove the fact that such discrimination is real.

The fact is that Redcloak is a villain and that as a villain his role is to cause trouble in the story. That does not mean that his story accurately reflects the situation for other goblinoids, especially since Redcloak is significantly stronger than pretty much everyone else in the setting so it makes sense that in his case the situation would be reversed.

If it were real, dont you think he would, you know, actually have an example of how goblins were still being oppressed when Durkon asked for one?

[Worldsong]

If it were real, dont you think he would, you know, actually have an example of how goblins were still being oppressed when Durkon asked for one?

You mean aside from "If I were to enter a PC city I would be killed for having green skin and fangs"? Or maybe since the negotiations were sprung on him he didn't prepare a complete speech with cited sources. Or maybe he didn't think Durkon would be swayed by specific examples. Or maybe Redcloak is a person, and as a person he isn't perfect and can have a variety of reasons why he takes a suboptimal route which don't result in 'He's completely and utterly wrong'.

Besides, that's still missing the point. Word of God says it real. That the comic doesn't portray it perfectly is largely irrelevant.

[danielxcutter]

"Redcloak is a hypocrite" is not mutually exclusive with "goblinoids as a whole have been screwed over for like the entire history of the world".

[Keltest]

"Redcloak is a hypocrite" is not mutually exclusive with "goblinoids as a whole have been screwed over for like the entire history of the world".

No, but when the only ones playing that narrative are also the only ones currently screwing over goblins, it becomes pretty difficult to swallow.

[Worldsong]

No, but when the only ones playing that narrative are also the only ones currently screwing over goblins, it becomes pretty difficult to swallow.

I wouldn't be surprised if Rich did that on purpose. If Redcloak was portrayed as being righteous and virtuous and overall the most reasonable person in the setting people would side with him not because racism is bad but because they want to support the guy they like.

[Keltest]

I wouldn't be surprised if Rich did that on purpose. If Redcloak was portrayed as being righteous and virtuous and overall the most reasonable person in the setting people would side with him not because racism is bad but because they want to support the guy they like.

I have no doubt it was deliberate. Im a bit confused about the followup thoughts of "therefore we should take it at face value" of some people though. It seems like a pretty good reason to regard it with a healthy amount of skepticism to me.

[Worldsong]

I have no doubt it was deliberate. Im a bit confused about the followup thoughts of "therefore we should take it at face value" of some people though. It seems like a pretty good reason to regard it with a healthy amount of skepticism to me.

Makes sense to me. If we supported Redcloak because he was likeable and was portrayed as the most sensible person in the story then we wouldn't be motivated by our dislike of racism, we would be motivated by our opinion of a single individual.

The point for me is that if Rich hadn't gone and said what he said I would also have heavily questioned the truth of Redcloak's position. However I'll accept Word of God as being true until proven otherwise and the evidence so far doesn't point towards Word of God being false, it points towards Redcloak specifically being a hypocrite who causes more problems than he solves despite his belief that he's fighting the good fight.

EDIT: Actually the idea that we're supporting Redcloak is false. I don't support Redcloak, I support the notion that discrimination is both real and bad. My bad there, I phrased myself poorly.

[Keltest]

Makes sense to me. If we supported Redcloak because he was likeable and was portrayed as the most sensible person in the story then we wouldn't be motivated by our dislike of racism, we would be motivated by our opinion of a single individual.

The point for me is that if Rich hadn't gone and said what he said I would also have heavily questioned the truth of Redcloak's position. However I'll accept Word of God as being true until proven otherwise and the evidence so far doesn't point towards Word of God being false, it points towards Redcloak specifically being a hypocrite who causes more problems than he solves despite his belief that he's fighting the good fight.

EDIT: Actually the idea that we're supporting Redcloak is false. I don't support Redcloak, I support the notion that discrimination is both real and bad. My bad there, I phrased myself poorly.

I dont think that tracks. Most of the protagonists are likable, but i dont think he was ever particularly concerned with making sure they werent "too" likable for him to use them as vehicles for a message.

[Worldsong]

I dont think that tracks. Most of the protagonists are likable, but i dont think he was ever particularly concerned with making sure they werent "too" likable for him to use them as vehicles for a message.

Do any of them carry a message as important and controversial as 'Racism is both real and a serious issue'? Most of their stuff is a lot more personal.

[Keltest]

Do any of them carry a message as important and controversial as 'Racism is both real and a serious issue'? Most of their stuff is a lot more personal.

I dont know that that is a particularly safe topic to discuss in detail, so i will simply answer: Yes.

[Worldsong]

I dont know that that is a particularly safe topic to discuss in detail, so i will simply answer: Yes.

We are in dangerous territory yes, so I can't say much more than 'I disagree'.

[mjasghar]

There is one fact - the only cities shown and referred to are human dwarf or elf (maybe a few other races?)
We have seen gnomes and halflings living openly in those cities as equals
Meanwhile goblinoids have only had villages at best, where they live separate form other races. Even right-eye has to establish a separate village of his own- he couldn’t join as existing one.
The hobgoblins had their own society - yes. But we never saw them openly wandering azure city- and the peace was after centuries of conflict with blame on both sides.
And then we have the bugbears who were forced out of their own lands by dwarves.
But if you’ve closed your mind then facts will not persuade you.

[dancrilis]

Word of God says it real.

I don't think it does actually - if you read The Giant's quotes in your signature they don't seem to say that.

You can read it that way (I suppose) but it seems a stretch to me.
1: The Giant is writting a story were goblins are treated as monsters because they are goblins and the justification for that is that goblins are listed as usually evil in a book despite the fact that The Giant hates that kindof thing - but he hopes to subvert it.
2: The Giant is writting a story were some goblins are evil because they do evil things and where good people oppose them for those evil things, these evil goblins then claim oppression because evil people often seek justification for their actions and do they have limited justification (which is why they started on the evil path they are on), but they have blown that justification way out of proportion and applied it to any situation where they feel it gives them an advantage.

I think 2 is just as valid (more valid perhaps) a reading of his quotes as 1.

If it is 1 then he would need to show that in comic to get the point across, if it is 2 that he is showing how you can have goblins as enemies in a DnD story not because they are goblins but because they are evil - in the same way you could have it be humans, orcs, elves etc.

[Worldsong]

I considered that and dismissed it because having the entire goblinoid plot revolve around supposed discrimination only to have it be the result of evil people trying to dismiss the consequences of their own actions would send a horribly twisted message about how people who rebel against racism are merely troublemakers who are falsely trying to justify their behaviour.

Given that Rich has gone on record as to state that he wants to make it clear that racism is bad having that be the message someone could read in his story would be shooting himself in the foot so hard that the bullet burrowed through the planet, burst out on the other side, flew around the planet and hit him in the other foot.

Seriously, you can't send a much worse message than "People who claim to be standing up against racism are lying bad guys" and I don't think Rich is naive enough to think that nobody would read his story that way if the discrimination thingy ended up being false.

EDIT: Also I feel like people who are opposing the discrimination plot are not actually being fully objective when judging whether the story portrays that message properly.

[danielxcutter]

I considered that and dismissed it because having the entire goblinoid plot revolve around supposed discrimination only to have it be the result of evil people trying to dismiss the consequences of their own actions would send a horribly twisted message about how people who rebel against racism are merely troublemakers who are falsely trying to justify their behaviour.

Given that Rich has gone on record as to state that he wants to make it clear that racism is bad having that be the message someone could read in his story would be shooting himself in the foot so hard that the bullet burrowed through the planet, burst out on the other side, flew around the planet and hit him in the other foot.

Seriously, you can't send a much worse message than "People who claim to be standing up against racism are lying bad guys" and I don't think Rich is naive enough to think that nobody would read his story that way if the discrimination thingy ended up being false.

EDIT: Also I feel like people who are opposing the discrimination plot are not actually being fully objective when judging whether the story portrays that message properly.

I agree and also I am totally going to ask you if I can quote that metaphor.

[Worldsong]

I agree and also I am totally going to ask you if I can quote that metaphor.

I've been waiting for an opportunity to use that metaphor so yes, please, quote the metaphor.

[Keltest]

I considered that and dismissed it because having the entire goblinoid plot revolve around supposed discrimination only to have it be the result of evil people trying to dismiss the consequences of their own actions would send a horribly twisted message about how people who rebel against racism are merely troublemakers who are falsely trying to justify their behaviour.

Given that Rich has gone on record as to state that he wants to make it clear that racism is bad having that be the message someone could read in his story would be shooting himself in the foot so hard that the bullet burrowed through the planet, burst out on the other side, flew around the planet and hit him in the other foot.

Seriously, you can't send a much worse message than "People who claim to be standing up against racism are lying bad guys" and I don't think Rich is naive enough to think that nobody would read his story that way if the discrimination thingy ended up being false.

EDIT: Also I feel like people who are opposing the discrimination plot are not actually being fully objective when judging whether the story portrays that message properly.

But Redcloak is a lying bad guy. Like, explicitly. Even in a world where the discrimination is totally real and inarguable, Redcloak is a lying bad guy who isnt fighting for the reasons he says he is.

[Worldsong]

But Redcloak is a lying bad guy. Like, explicitly. Even in a world where the discrimination is totally real and inarguable, Redcloak is a lying bad guy who isnt fighting for the reasons he says he is.

Yes, but the message "Racism is real even if some people use it as an excuse for their behaviour" is still significantly better than "Racism is false and only used as an excuse by bad guys to justify their behaviour."

Besides I'm one of the people who's betting big that Redcloak is going to be brought around, in which case the final message of the story isn't going to be "Lying guy justifies bad behaviour with claims of oppression".

[hroþila]

But Redcloak is a lying bad guy. Like, explicitly. Even in a world where the discrimination is totally real and inarguable, Redcloak is a lying bad guy who isnt fighting for the reasons he says he is.

There is no contradiction between this and what you're quoting. We shouldn't conflate Redcloak and the goblinoids like he does, and no one on the side arguing that discrimination is real has said anything about Redcloak not being a bad guy (I'd say self-deluded rather than lying, though).

[Keltest]

I dont see how you can get "racism is not real" as a valid message from a story where the goblins arent oppressed. Redcloak's perceptions and motivations have always been more important to the story than the reality of the situation, and he believes that the goblins have it bad. Even if he's wrong, using it as a motivator for (nominally) positive change is still what makes him somewhat sympathetic. Its the same way that the Sapphire Guard can be different from what he thinks of them without delegitimizing his response to the attack on his village.

[understatement]

I don't think it does actually - if you read The Giant's quotes in your signature they don't seem to say that.

You can read it that way (I suppose) but it seems a stretch to me.
1: The Giant is writting a story were goblins are treated as monsters because they are goblins and the justification for that is that goblins are listed as usually evil in a book despite the fact that The Giant hates that kindof thing - but he hopes to subvert it.
2: The Giant is writting a story were some goblins are evil because they do evil things and where good people oppose them for those evil things, these evil goblins then claim oppression because evil people often seek justification for their actions and do they have limited justification (which is why they started on the evil path they are on), but they have blown that justification way out of proportion and applied it to any situation where they feel it gives them an advantage.

I think 2 is just as valid (more valid perhaps) a reading of his quotes as 1.

If it is 1 then he would need to show that in comic to get the point across, if it is 2 that he is showing how you can have goblins as enemies in a DnD story not because they are goblins but because they are evil - in the same way you could have it be humans, orcs, elves etc.

He did show #1. He showed it so clearly at the start of SOD that the only way he could make it more obvious is to hang a neon sign on it and have it stamped across every character's forehead.

Is it somehow not possible that Redcloak can have a point and still be evil?

[Metastachydium]

There is one fact - the only cities shown and referred to are human dwarf or elf (maybe a few other races?)
We have seen gnomes and halflings living openly in those cities as equals
Meanwhile goblinoids have only had villages at best, where they live separate form other races. Even right-eye has to establish a separate village of his own- he couldn’t join as existing one.
The hobgoblins had their own society - yes. But we never saw them openly wandering azure city- and the peace was after centuries of conflict with blame on both sides.
And then we have the bugbears who were forced out of their own lands by dwarves.
But if youÂ’ve closed your mind then facts will not persuade you.

Also, we know for certain that somehow all but four of the formal and official high-priests of the 29 Northern and Southern gods (not counting Hel) belong to non-monster races. Two of the remaining four are half-orcs (who are apparently a „tolerated race”, as implied by, among others, Redcloak himself), while a third one is explicitly a god of monsters. To this, we can add two (judging by the size) half giant high priests for demigods (out of seven). The Westerners have/had up to four reptilian humanoid high priests (if Malack was one), and (apparently) a drow, out of (probably) 19 (unless there are/were further high priests we do not see).
Speaking of the Western Continent, we should also note that lizardfolk and kobolds were apparently enfranchised in the Empire of Blood and even had a small state of their own, but the representatives of other „monster races” were absent even from the Western settlements we saw, and the we only saw lizardfolk citizens in the Empire of Blood and in Sandsedge, while they were absent from any scene depicting the Empire of Tears and that of Sweat (the military of these two polities, I'd add, uses helmets that are impossible to fit on a reptilian head).
Personally, I have difficulty believing that the „monstrous” population of either continent is so small or lacks diversity to such an extent that this would be explicable without assuming that this population does not really have a place in the „civilized world” or much of a say in big time matters.

Is it somehow not possible that Redcloak can have a point and still be evil?

Well said.