Goblin Oppression; fact or fiction?

[Keltest]

Because you're not taking Redcloak's word for it, you're taking Rich's word for it. And if you still don't believe that nothing I'm going to say is going to convince you.

Unless youre referring to a different quote than the ones you have in your signature, they dont say what you claim theyre saying. They make no reference to the factuality or lack thereof of mass goblinoid oppression in the setting. As others have mentioned, there are individuals who look down on them, and they are treated as the bad guys and not representative of society as a whole.

[Worldsong]

Redcloak isn't a third person omniscient narrator. Rich has told us that goblin oppression is a real thing in the comics .. but what Rich believes about goblin oppression isn't what Redcloak believes. Redcloak has a twisted view , which is why he's the villain in this story rather than the hero.

SOD shows the original atrocity and experiences which made Redcloak who he is today. But what Redcloak took away from those experiences isn't what other goblins who lived through it did. Redcloak's mad adherence to the Plan, at the expense of the goblins he supposedly cares about, has been called out twice in comic. The first time by a fellow goblin in Start of Darkness, the second time by Minrah in the main comic.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Well, yeah, but that's the point. The oppression issue is real but Redcloak goes about it the wrong way. Like, very wrong.

Unless youre referring to a different quote than the ones you have in your signature, they dont say what you claim theyre saying. They make no reference to the factuality or lack thereof of mass goblinoid oppression in the setting. As others have mentioned, there are individuals who look down on them, and they are treated as the bad guys and not representative of society as a whole.

Yes they do, they pretty much say it as clear as possible without literally, word for word, saying "It is 100% real, there is no discussion, everything is completely objectively this."

The fact that you're not accepting it is not because Rich has been ambiguous about the situation.

[dancrilis]

Redcloak and Tsukiko 2/The Phylactery:
the undead as Redcloak points out are not an oppressed minority, they are necromantic weapons in the shape of a man, flesh-robots made of dark energies

The Giant has mentioned on occassion that the Undead are people.

I'd always assumed that Haera had created Familicide for use against other humans -- her own rivals.

Personally I am of the opinion that the target of the spell doesn't die and that she targeted herself to wipe out her own family - I base that on nothing, but then there is nothing to base who she might have targeted the spell on.

[Keltest]

Yes they do, they pretty much say it as clear as possible without literally, word for word, saying "It is 100% real, there is no discussion, everything is completely objectively this."

The fact that you're not accepting it is not because Rich has been ambiguous about the situation.

Youre going to have to bold the part where he says "goblins are totally oppressed in my setting" for me then, because its not jumping out at me. They are all talking about his opinions about D&D as a whole.

[Worldsong]

Youre going to have to bold the part where he says "goblins are totally oppressed in my setting" for me then, because its not jumping out at me. They are all talking about his opinions about D&D as a whole.

Yeah, that's kind of what I was expecting.

[Keltest]

Yeah, that's kind of what I was expecting.

Look, i dont want to believe that youre arguing in bad faith here, but if you arent willing to explain how you reach your conclusions besides insisting that "its obvious", you arent leaving me with a lot of alternatives. You claim that Rich said a thing. I say he didnt. I cant prove a negative and youre the one making the claim, so it falls on you to explain and demonstrate your conclusion. From where im sitting, it looks like youre reading more into his statements than is there. If you want me to see how you got to the point that you did, you need to show me the freaking steps you took.

[hamishspence]

There is a recurring theme of monsters in general being oppressed. Mostly by adventurers. The occasional really nice guy (like Elan's old boss) protests this kind of behaviour - but we never see anything done about it.

Roy protests that his old adventuring party's behaviour is wrong, to their faces, and leaves the party - but he doesn't try to bring them to justice, either.

[Worldsong]

Look, i dont want to believe that youre arguing in bad faith here, but if you arent willing to explain how you reach your conclusions besides insisting that "its obvious", you arent leaving me with a lot of alternatives. You claim that Rich said a thing. I say he didnt. I cant prove a negative and youre the one making the claim, so it falls on you to explain and demonstrate your conclusion. From where im sitting, it looks like youre reading more into his statements than is there. If you want me to see how you got to the point that you did, you need to show me the freaking steps you took.

I believe that everything I have provided is already enough evidence. That and what everyone else has provided. The fact that you're not accepting it doesn't mean you haven't been provided evidence, it's that you look at the evidence and go "That isn't convincing, what else you got."

By this point every single point has been gone over thoroughly at least once already. It's not like I'm just pulling this entire stance out of nowhere and acting like there's no basis for it. In fact it's not even like I'm alone in this: there's been quite a few people who've been banging their head against this brick wall. I'm pretty much convinced that you and Pilgrim and... whoever else holds the stance that the goblinoid oppression is false aren't going to be convinced by anything less than Rich himself entering the discussion (which isn't going to happen because he doesn't read the forums any more) and flat out saying that you're wrong. Which means that effectively you've created a stance which is impossible for anyone other than Rich to break down.

If you consider it bad faith for someone to just get tired of repeating the same thing over and over with the other side just throwing it to the side and saying "I don't accept this" then yes, I'm arguing in bad faith. But in that case I don't agree with the definition of bad faith and I'd declare that the entire discussion is pointless because the opposition has declared impossible conditions, namely "Get Rich himself to come down here and tell me I'm wrong." I don't know Rich and I'm not cruel enough to try and drag him into the same kind of arguments that probably helped convince him to just leave the forums be.

[Keltest]

I believe that everything I have provided is already enough evidence.

Dont take this the wrong way, but why should your opinion on "enough evidence" matter? Youre trying to convince me. If im unconvinced by what you brought up the first time, repeating yourself and insisting that i should now change my mind isnt going to do anything except annoy me. There isnt a magic standard of evidence that, if you bring it to the table, gives you a gold star and declares you the automatic winner. If somebody cant see how you reached your conclusion from the evidence presented, you need to elaborate. Where does Rich speak about his setting in the quotes you provided? All i see him making commentary on is trends he sees in other games that arent OOTS. Well games that go on outside OOTS dont affect the setting here, and if Rich doesnt want his goblins to be dirty, sweaty and always evil adventurer bait, then... they just arent. Its entirely possible for him to make commentary on a trend he sees without emulating that trend directly in his work.

[Worldsong]

Dont take this the wrong way, but why should your opinion on "enough evidence" matter? Youre trying to convince me. If im unconvinced by what you brought up the first time, repeating yourself and insisting that i should now change my mind isnt going to do anything except annoy me. There isnt a magic standard of evidence that, if you bring it to the table, gives you a gold star and declares you the automatic winner. If somebody cant see how you reached your conclusion from the evidence presented, you need to elaborate. Where does Rich speak about his setting in the quotes you provided? All i see him making commentary on is trends he sees in other games that arent OOTS. Well games that go on outside OOTS dont affect the setting here, and if Rich doesnt want his goblins to be dirty, sweaty and always evil adventurer bait, then... they just arent. Its entirely possible for him to make commentary on a trend he sees without emulating that trend directly in his work.

There isn't a magic standard for sufficient evidence, but there are points where someone can reasonably say "Okay I've tried and clearly this isn't working". It's not like the side I'm on just threw some quotes and declared victory. At least not until after we'd tried several times to elaborate without it seemingly doing anything.

It's in Pilgrim's thread, it's in JuanCu's thread, it's in this thread, it's in several of the comic threads, this discussion has been lasting for ages and it keeps repeating itself because the evidence which is clearly sufficient for quite a few people is not sufficient for you and several others, and you give the impression of basically saying "Either it's 100% evidence or it's 0% evidence, there is no in between" which does not register as a reasonable approach. Part of the problem is that I'm willing to concede that it's possible that the oppression is false but it seems unlikely for several reasons as have been repeated several times. Meanwhile from the other side I get voices which boil down to "Redcloak is evil therefore WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG ALWAYS EVER WRONG".

Besides I already tried to cut off the discussion by telling you that if you weren't convinced by this point nothing I'd say would convince you. Everything after that is just the two of us trying to make it look like the other side is being unreasonable.

EDIT: To put it otherwise, if you stand by the idea that the monster races aren't oppressed but at least acknowledge that it's possible that the oppression is real then fine, good, fantastic, I love it when people can have different opinions. What I have trouble stomaching however is for example Pilgrim's stance of "Redcloak is the villain therefore literally everything he's ever said about anything ever in the history of ever is completely, utterly, objectively wrong."

[Keltest]

if you stand by the idea that the monster races aren't oppressed but at least acknowledge that it's possible that the oppression is real then fine, good, fantastic, I love it when people can have different opinions. What I have trouble stomaching however is for example Pilgrim's stance of "Redcloak is the villain therefore literally everything he's ever said about anything ever in the history of ever is completely, utterly, objectively wrong."

Thats not his stance though. Its literally his character arc that Redcloak is making the wrong decisions over and over again, and lying to himself and others to justify decisions that he knows to be wrong. He was literally called out for it, twice, in the past few comics, to say nothing about SoD having that as the whole. Redcloak isnt wrong because he's the villain, he's the villain because he's wrong. He has to be wrong, because otherwise he cant fill the narrative role he needs to.

[hamishspence]

Redcloak isn't the villain because he's fighting a non-existent problem - he's the villain because he resorts to extreme methods in fighting it.

[Keltest]

Redcloak isn't the villain because he's fighting a non-existent problem - he's the villain because he resorts to extreme methods in fighting it.

Redcloak isnt fighting the problem at all. Thats the thing. Again, as was called out in the past few comics, he isnt acting in the interests of goblins, he's acting out of his own need for justification for past actions.

[Worldsong]

Thats not his stance though. Its literally his character arc that Redcloak is making the wrong decisions over and over again, and lying to himself and others to justify decisions that he knows to be wrong. He was literally called out for it, twice, in the past few comics, to say nothing about SoD having that as the whole. Redcloak isnt wrong because he's the villain, he's the villain because he's wrong.

You mean the parts of SoD which weren't about Redcloak's life being screwed over horribly? Often without it being his own fault?

That aside, having argued with Pilgrim I can tell that you that either you're interpreting everything he says too positively or I interpret everything he says too negatively, because to me his motivations seem to earnestly, honestly, genuinely, without a shred of attempted strawmanning, boil down to "I just hate Redcloak so goddamn much."

[danielxcutter]

I think there is like seven parts "Redcloak is a villain and villains are wrong therefore everything he stands for is wrong and killing him solves the problem" and three parts of the actual stance that Rich has explicitly called out, and I'll leave who's how much to the rest of you because it's almost 2 AM for me here and I only can't be assed to be more emotionally invested in this right now.

[hamishspence]

Redcloak isnt fighting the problem at all. Thats the thing.

He's trying to. He believes he is. Yes, he's deluding himself about some things, but not about everything.

[Keltest]

You mean the parts of SoD which weren't about Redcloak's life being screwed over horribly? Often without it being his own fault?

That aside, having argued with Pilgrim I can tell that you that either you're interpreting everything he says too positively or I interpret everything he says too negatively, because to me his motivations seem to earnestly, honestly, genuinely, without a shred of attempted strawmanning, boil down to "I just hate Redcloak so goddamn much."

Redcloak had one tragic event that wasnt of his own making, and while this doesnt excuse their actions, in another story we do see that the Guard ultimately collected itself and rejected the way of thinking that led to that tragedy. Its a far cry from "bad people did bad things in isolated scenarios" to "there is systemic oppression across the world." especially when we are actually shown the system working to remove the ideas and individuals responsible.

And The Pilgrim can hate redcloak beyond what is reasonable and still be right in this case.

[Worldsong]

I think there is like seven parts "Redcloak is a villain and villains are wrong therefore everything he stands for is wrong and killing him solves the problem" and three parts of the actual stance that Rich has explicitly called out, and I'll leave who's how much to the rest of you because it's almost 2 AM for me here and I only can't be assed to be more emotionally invested in this right now.

And thank for proving that I'm not alone in feeling like this.

Redcloak had one tragic event that wasnt of his own making, and while this doesnt excuse their actions, in another story we do see that the Guard ultimately collected itself and rejected the way of thinking that led to that tragedy. Its a far cry from "bad people did bad things in isolated scenarios" to "there is systemic oppression across the world." especially when we are actually shown the system working to remove the ideas and individuals responsible.

And The Pilgrim can hate redcloak beyond what is reasonable and still be right in this case.

Yeah, but I don't think he is right and I get annoyed by the idea that someone is denying the possibility of systematic discrimination/racism with as main motivation hatred.

I really hope I do not have to explain why that particular motivation+argument combination bothers me.

[dancrilis]

Meanwhile from the other side I get voices which boil down to "Redcloak is evil therefore WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG ALWAYS EVER WRONG".

In fairness I did list 6 clear options in the opening post and give reasons to support or oppose any of them (spelling, grammer and missing word issues aside).

I think the issue with goblin oppression boils down to the following.
The Giant is telling a story in the online comic and he doesn't expect everyone to read the additional material or read his commentary or posts.
As such if something doesn't appear in the online comic it isn't really relevant to the message, themes etc of the comic as a whole - as such Goblin Oppression which has not really been shown (so far) in the online comic becomes hard to accept as a theme of the work (particularly when many people are mistreated in the work to at least the extent that the goblins are - again online).

It is easier to accept 'here is how to have creatures be evil in DnD - show them as evil don't just assume they are evil' i.e a message that can be taken from the online comic about how DnD is played (that many don't like as they prefer to avoid moral issues such as that and merely kill the green guys while they pretend to be a dwarven ranger riding a giant badger or whatever) rather then a wider message about 'discrimination for no reason except cosmetic differences is bad' which effectively (nearly) everyone likely already agrees on.

[Worldsong]

In fairness I did list 6 clear options in the opening post and give reasons to support or oppose any of them (spelling, grammer and missing word issues aside).

I think the issue with goblin oppression boils down to the following.
The Giant is telling a story in the online comic and he doesn't expect everyone to read the additional material or read his commentary or posts.
As such if something doesn't appear in the online comic it isn't really relevant to the message, themes etc of the comic as a whole - as such Goblin Oppression which has not really been shown (so far) in the online comic becomes hard to accept as a theme of the work (particularly when many people are mistreated in the work to at least the extent that the goblins are - again online).

It is easier to accept 'here is how to have creatures be evil in DnD - show them as evil don't just assume they are evil' i.e a message that can be taken from the online comic about how DnD is played (that many don't like as they prefer to avoid moral issues such as that and merely kill the green guys while they pretend to be a dwarven ranger riding a giant bander or whatever) rather then a wider message about 'discrimination for no reason except cosmetic differences is bad' which effectively (nearly) everyone likely already agrees on.

Yes, and I'm not actually annoyed at you. I just wish your arguments didn't so often seem to boil down to "It's not technically impossible therefore let's go with it."

EDIT: And yes I acknowledge that the comic by itself doesn't get the message across as much although on the other hand I could still make the argument that we haven't had anyone actively disproving it in-comic, just Durkon with his limited perspective having trouble seeing it for himself and Durkon/Minrah calling Redcloak out to be more motivated by selfish motivations, which to me doesn't add much weight to the 'opression isn't real' thing because Redcloak is a person and therefore capable of taking a real issue and then making it all about himself. Personal experience tells me that's not really that rare a thing for people to do.

Also the whole thing that every established city we've seen with trade routes and everything has been predominantly PC-race inhabited with Gobbotopia standing out as the new exception. And the fact that monster races and PC races seem to be segregated for the most part which in combination with the fact that most of the advanced settlements appear to be in the hands of PC races indicates that either all the monster cities are off-screen or they don't exist.

None of which proves that oppression is real but it does make me put question marks by the argument that the comic clearly portrays a picture of there being no discrimination or oppression or anything.

[Keltest]

Yeah, but I don't think he is right and I get annoyed by the idea that someone is denying the possibility of systematic discrimination/racism with as main motivation hatred.

I really hope I do not have to explain why that particular motivation+argument combination bothers me.

I can see why that would bother you, yes.

And i would treat Redcloak as more of an authority if the alleged oppression were present in the comic outside his personal narrative. But kobolds and lizardfolk seem perfectly integrated, Orcs are shown and identified as separate but basically getting along, and besides Redcloak's village, we havent even seen the goblins be disrupted except by Xykon and Redcloak. The Hobgoblins had a city the size of.. i think it was 14th? century London, and were able to assemble a fighting force capable of taking on a major nation state after an extreme force march across the continent, so they clearly had access to at least tolerable resources.

So maybe there are individual racists in the world, but theyre not the status quo and they arent considered to be good guys by moral authories.

[danielxcutter]

I'm like 99% sure that Rich had the reptilian races treated as equals on the Western Continent because he was sick of them being portrayed as savages.

Also kobolds at least got some racial support in 3.5e. Goblinoids have gotten the short stick in that regard so many times I think the LA-assignment thread made that joke at least five times.

[hamishspence]

Orcs are shown and identified as separate but basically getting along

And being slaughtered on sight by adventuring parties like Roy's first one.

[Keltest]

I'm like 99% sure that Rich had the reptilian races treated as equals on the Western Continent because he was sick of them being portrayed as savages.

Also kobolds at least got some racial support in 3.5e. Goblinoids have gotten the short stick in that regard so many times I think the LA-assignment thread made that joke at least five times.

I mean, probably, but that just lends more credence to the idea that he wouldnt write the goblins as being an actively oppressed lower class race who legitimately dont have anything going for them, because he doesnt want to participate in the trend he's decrying.

[danielxcutter]

And being slaughtered on sight by adventuring parties like Roy's first one.

I mean, that was a major "what the heck" moment for me when I heard of it. At least goblinoid slaughter had a justification, those guys didn't even bother with that.

Edit:

I mean, probably, but that just lends more credence to the idea that he wouldnt write the goblins as being an actively oppressed lower class race who legitimately dont have anything going for them, because he doesnt want to participate in the trend he's decrying.

"Oh, I won't draw them as having inherent shortcomings forced on them because I don't want them being portrayed as oppressed."

[Keltest]

And being slaughtered on sight by adventuring parties like Roy's first one.

Yes, evil people do evil things. We already know there are evil adventuring parties. The existence of bad guys does not mean they therefore dominate the world.

I mean, that was a major "what the heck" moment for me when I heard of it. At least goblinoid slaughter had a justification, those guys didn't even bother with that.

It was, IIRC, a specific "Take That" against groups that claim to play good characters but then play them as evil murderhobos (as opposed to good murderhobos, who at least pick their victims for good reasons instead of for just being there).

[Worldsong]

I can see why that would bother you, yes.

And i would treat Redcloak as more of an authority if the alleged oppression were present in the comic outside his personal narrative. But kobolds and lizardfolk seem perfectly integrated, Orcs are shown and identified as separate but basically getting along, and besides Redcloak's village, we havent even seen the goblins be disrupted except by Xykon and Redcloak. The Hobgoblins had a city the size of.. i think it was 14th? century London, and were able to assemble a fighting force capable of taking on a major nation state after an extreme force march across the continent, so they clearly had access to at least tolerable resources.

So maybe there are individual racists in the world, but theyre not the status quo and they arent considered to be good guys by moral authories.

I kind of just answered this to Dancrilis but I'll just refine it, I agree that the comic doesn't show a lot of oppression but I also don't think it portrays a world where everything is hunky-dory. Monster races and PC races rarely seem to mingle, all the established bastions of civilization appear to be dominated by PC races, and the biggest example we have of a monster race settlement (other than Gobbotopia) is a city which is at worst somewhere between 15 to 20 times as small as Azure City and at best around... 5 times as small? I mean even with Azure City being the biggest city that's a glaring difference and if Hobgoblin City was the biggest monster settlement that does imply things aren't going very well for the monster races.

As a rule I exempt lizardfolk and kobolds because it appears that Tiamat has a thing for reptiles so it'd make sense that out of all the monster races they'd be able to escape that situation. It has been established as a cold hard fact that goblinoids didn't worship anyone before the Dark One, and one easy explanation for that is that no deity wanted to support them like Tiamat appears to have supported lizardfolk and kobolds.

Basically it seems to me that something is up with PC races appearing to have civilization, society, progress and culture whereas monster races for the most part seem to be more in the category of 'getting by'. Which could have reasons other than global oppression/discrimination/mistreatment but I haven't really heard any beyond 'maybe monster races are just bastards who have no interest in establishing functional empires and kingdoms' which seems... like a really easy way out.

EDIT: I mean reasons from the comic itself, not theories on the forums.

[hamishspence]

Yes, evil people do evil things. We already know there are evil adventuring parties.

That party had a paladin in it, who was OK with all of that, and supported his buddies' arguments.

It bears repeating - this is a world where paladins can be very bad and not fall.

[Metastachydium]

And i would treat Redcloak as more of an authority if the alleged oppression were present in the comic outside his personal narrative. But kobolds and lizardfolk seem perfectly integrated,

They are shown to be enfranchised in some Western states but no Northern or Southern one we've seen. The largest kobold settlement on the Eastern continent might be the village around the Oracle's tower, and speaking of the Oracle, our fair heroes keep finding it surprising that he is a lowly kobold rather than a halfling.
Also: the elves have the best third of a continent, the dwarves a huge mountainous land with large cities. The reptilians only have a few desert hellhioles for them.

Orcs are shown and identified as separate but basically getting along,

Half-orcs are consistently shown to be more like a tolerated race, and we have at least two instances of adventurers slaughtering/intending to slaughter orcs mostly for being orcs.

and besides Redcloak's village, we havent even seen the goblins be disrupted except by Xykon and Redcloak. The Hobgoblins had a city the size of.. i think it was 14th? century London, and were able to assemble a fighting force capable of taking on a major nation state after an extreme force march across the continent, so they clearly had access to at least tolerable resources.

Yup. The bugbears just want to shiver in the cold with soup and the greenskins just want to live in small huts that belong to no internationally recognized state.
Also, the ”monster races” just prefer to stay away from major Northern and Southern (and in the case of non-reptilian races) Western population centers and they prefer not to rise too high in the clergy of any non-racial deity.

Edit: I see Worldsong beat me to much of this.

[hamishspence]

They are shown to be enfranchised in some Western states but no Northern or Southern one we've seen.

War & XPs was explicit that in Azure City, nobody who is completely nonhuman can be a citizen. "Everybody's disenfranchised except humans and part-humans" in short.

So a "bastion of law and good" can have pretty racist policy.