Redcloak and his way of thinking

[danielxcutter]

I won’t deny that war sucks and that Redcloak is an asshat, but I wonder how much hate he gets is reasonable and how much is simply “hur dur villain bad”. Or even “hur dur goblins bad”? I think that third one is a minority in a minority, but I’ve actually seen people unironically say that once or twice on this forum.

[unluckiest13]

Late to the conversation, but to clear up, if the resistance sent the goblin that was polymorphed to spy on the goblins so he was "spying" for both sides, then he would be a double agent. A double agent is someone who both sides know is a spy "for them", but is really only working for one side (off the top of my head think Fairy Tail *spoiler* the Iron Dragon Slayer).

Back to the rest of the convo, I haven't seen too much hate towards Redcloak himself, rather than hating his sunken cost fallacy and the decisions that leads to. Admittedly I haven't been to the forums for a while so that may be different now.

One thing I love about the Giant's storytelling in a DnD format is he makes it really hard to judge people/creatures based on their alignment

[denthor]

Quick question

Both were allowed to be maintained. Without outside forces invading.

In the paladin got his scar

Redcloak is up rooting these and destroying what he seeks.

I typed more but I can not see it. Used the wrong SPOILER tag. Just hit quote to see the rest

[danielxcutter]

You, uh.

You might not know how to use them, me thinks.

You're supposed to put the text between the spoiler tags. Or quote tags or stuff like that.

[unluckiest13]

You, uh.

You might not know how to use them, me thinks.

You're supposed to put the text between the spoiler tags. Or quote tags or stuff like that.

you are absolutely right. i have maybe made 3 posts in these forums. but also, i didnt feel like finding the spoiler thing for a show thats 10 years old haha. i just wanted to say, there was a spoiler, but wasn't too concerned about it since it wasn't comic relevant.

In retrospect, i am beginning to think you were talking to the post after mine. but either way it applies to mine too.

[Jasdoif]

As long as Xykon continues to exist, the best thing for goblinkind really is the thing that Redcloak is doing. Any better alternative would require first destroying Xykon.

I'm curious how trying to handicap the only group that's destroyed Xykon fits into that picture.

I mean, Redcloak knows the gist of Roy's quest and knows Durkon was with them. Even if Redcloak doesn't trust Durkon, he knows that destroying Xykon is among their goals; walking away from the negotiation/discussion with a comment like "There shall be no peace, as long as Kirk lives Xykon exists" would increase the chances of Xykon's destruction more than killing Durkon would...and if/after either side is defeated fighting it out, Redcloak has the option of going after the other while they're still down the resources they expended fighting. It'd have a much better chance of success than just casting spells at Xykon himself.

Unless, of course, Redcloak rates Gobbotopia below completing the Plan on his own terms; in which case Durkon's proposal is a bigger threat to his plans than Xykon is, and protecting Xykon until the ritual's completion is indeed a rational response on his part.

[Ionathus]

Disclaimer: I still haven't gotten SoD and only know a bit about it, so some relevant points might be missing. The majority of the analysis here is from the main comic.

Reading through Rich's answer post made me realize something. Redcloak, for the most part, views goblinoids and their issues as hypotheticals.

Although we're now digging into this in the main comic, I would still recommend reading SoD -- if only because it's a stellar piece of art! Very enjoyable and does a good job of telling Xykon & Redcloak's history together.

As for your "hypothetical" comment...SoD also shows us the origins of Redcloak's quest, and the plight of goblinoids affected him directly in a deeply, deeply personal way.

Doesn't change the fact that he's a walking lesson in the Sunk Cost Fallacy, but that just makes the story and his character more interesting for me.

[kenlund]

I wonder how Redcloak would be planning to eliminate Xykon? With all the planning and thinking he does, he must have something in mind. If he and Xykon can cast the ritual and move the gate to the Dark One's domain...Xykon is gonna be really pissed off when he finds out what the spell really does.

[danielxcutter]

I’m voting on either “feed him to the Snarl” or “Redcloak turned Miko into a death knight blackguard and has been keeping her in a Bag of Holding until just the right moment”.

Yes I know I’m stretching but that’s the fun.

[understatement]

I wonder how Redcloak would be planning to eliminate Xykon? With all the planning and thinking he does, he must have something in mind. If he and Xykon can cast the ritual and move the gate to the Dark One's domain...Xykon is gonna be really pissed off when he finds out what the spell really does.

Spoiler

Show

Redcloak is expecting that the Dark One will interfere on his behalf and destroy Xykon.

[Dion]

Redcloak turned Miko into a death knight blackguard and has been keeping her in a Bag of Holding until just the right moment

This is so clearly the correct answer it belongs in a spoiler tag.

[Darth Paul]

I also don't see so much hate for Redcloak around here, but not many seem to be fans of his point of view either. Yes, many like his snark warfare with Xykon, because we've all worked for incompetent bosses and been the only sane one in the room, but behind that there's always the awareness that the tasks RC is keeping everyone focused on were things like staging an invasion, maintaining an occupation of the city they invaded, and a plan which may very well end the world- and he doesn't care about the last possibility.

I for one understand his Freudian excuses, but they're just that- excuses he's making to justify the increasingly awful things he does. They're not reasons. So I don't sympathize with him and I certainly don't empathize with him. There is no point where invading another country to get paybacks is the sympathetic course of action.

[danielxcutter]

Oh don't get me wrong, Redcloak very much is a hypocritical asshat who's committed numerous war crimes. But I still think the circumstances surrounding him are too complicated to be brushed off with "eh, tragic backstory but he's Evil so he needs killings".

Redcloak committing atrocities does not invalidate the wrongs that have been inflicted on him, or on goblinoids in general. Arguably, the only reason the situation has degenerated to this point in the first place is because these problems haven't been properly addressed until now.

[The Pilgrim]

Redcloak committing atrocities does not invalidate the wrongs that have been inflicted on him, or on goblinoids in general. Arguably, the only reason the situation has degenerated to this point in the first place is because these problems haven't been properly addressed until now.

Actually they were adressed, as shown in HtPGhS. After the events in that story, Azurites and Hobgoblins were living in peace... until Redcloak took control of the Hobgoblins.

Redcloak is the only goblinoid that seems to really believe in the Dark One's victimization narrative. Right-Eye discarded it. Oona discards it. Even Jirix (the reasonable guy who shared laughts with Xykon over watching prisoners get tortured) seems to be on board just for the plunder and conquest rather than for "leveling the playing field".

[Doug Lampert]

Actually they were adressed, as shown in HtPGhS. After the events in that story, Azurites and Hobgoblins were living in peace... until Redcloak took control of the Hobgoblins.

Redcloak is the only goblinoid that seems to really believe in the Dark One's victimization narrative. Right-Eye discarded it. Oona discards it. Even Jirix (the reasonable guy who shared laughts with Xykon over watching prisoners get tortured) seems to be on board just for the plunder and conquest rather than for "leveling the playing field".

Similar to the way Right-Eye's village was doing fine, facing no threat worse than a visit by a circus where goblins and humans were watching the show side by side with no sign of animosity.

Then Red Cloak and his tool Xykon showed up and there was no more of THAT sort of nonsense of living peacefully side by side rather than concentrating on the vital plan needed to get goblins an equal place in the world.

RC is directly responsible for more goblinoid death and suffering than every other character we've seen in comic combined. X is in second place, and he's basically RC's creation, no one else even comes close.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Actually they were adressed, as shown in HtPGhS. After the events in that story, Azurites and Hobgoblins were living in peace... until Redcloak took control of the Hobgoblins.

Redcloak is the only goblinoid that seems to really believe in the Dark One's victimization narrative. Right-Eye discarded it. Oona discards it. Even Jirix (the reasonable guy who shared laughts with Xykon over watching prisoners get tortured) seems to be on board just for the plunder and conquest rather than for "leveling the playing field".

Similar to the way Right-Eye's village was doing fine, facing no threat worse than a visit by a circus where goblins and humans were watching the show side by side with no sign of animosity.

Then Red Cloak and his tool Xykon showed up and there was no more of THAT sort of nonsense of living peacefully side by side rather than concentrating on the vital plan needed to get goblins an equal place in the world.

RC is directly responsible for more goblinoid death and suffering than every other character we've seen in comic combined. X is in second place, and he's basically RC's creation, no one else even comes close.

This is a lot like Tarquin and his adventuring party. Where we only heard about them and Tarquin's role within them from Tarquin and people took them for unabridged, absolute fact. To some degree, the plight of goblinoids is terrible. But believing RC word on the extent and the methods to fix said plight is folly.

[Doug Lampert]

This is a lot like Tarquin and his adventuring party. Where we only heard about them and Tarquin's role within them from Tarquin and people took them for unabridged, absolute fact. To some degree, the plight of goblinoids is terrible. But believing RC word on the extent and the methods to fix said plight is folly.

Yes, we have evidence that monster races are often treated extremely unfairly (as in murdered out of hand with no real justification, it doesn't get all that much less fair than that). What we don't have is any evidence at all that supports the PLAN being justified or in any way a good thing for goblins or any evidence that RC has ever done ANYTHING actually helpful of his own will for any other goblin in the entire history of the comic!

Yes: RC's village and family WERE killed when a bunch of paladins decided that murdering non-combatants was fine when they were raiding a goblin village. Murdering non-combatants was 100% evil and unjustified. But equally certainly, this does not even begin to justify RC's willingness to see the destruction of the soul of every living goblin on the basis that this MIGHT help hypothetical future goblins in another world (that he is wrong about even that is simply icing on the cake of totally incorrect that is RC and the Plan). And if RC in the attack on Azure City and aftermath showed any concern whatsoever for non-combatants, I totally missed it.

Roy had to stop an adventuring party from killing orcs for the horrid crime of wanting to attend a concert. O'Chul had to stop an attack on the Hobgoblin city. But in both cases, the actually GOOD character did successfully stop the attack. Just maybe working WITH those actually good people would be a better idea than casting Implosion to try to kill them or holding them for months of torture? Not according to RC, he's had multiple chances, and has gone for murder or torture of the actual Hero every time.

There is a real problem in the world of the OotS, but RC is part of the problem. He has given no indication that he wants to be or can be part of the solution. In O'Chul's words, "There are always only two sides, those who want a war and those who don't." RC has chosen his side, and it puts him squarely in the same corner as the people who murdered his little sister, trying to win the race to the bottom by attacking and killing or enslaving non-combatants for the crimes of others.

Edited to add: Just to make it clear, I'm agreeing with MesiDoomstalker that this is like people believing Tarquin, they are believing RC that the plan is somehow a good thing. They are believing him that Goblintopia is a gain, rather than 10,000 dead hobgoblins for nothing worth the cost. They are somehow taking the Dark One's story of being a failed extortionist murdered by his proposed victims as indicating that he was in the right.

[WanderingMist]

I'm curious how trying to handicap the only group that's destroyed Xykon fits into that picture.

I mean, Redcloak knows the gist of Roy's quest and knows Durkon was with them. Even if Redcloak doesn't trust Durkon, he knows that destroying Xykon is among their goals; walking away from the negotiation/discussion with a comment like "There shall be no peace, as long as Kirk lives Xykon exists" would increase the chances of Xykon's destruction more than killing Durkon would...and if/after either side is defeated fighting it out, Redcloak has the option of going after the other while they're still down the resources they expended fighting. It'd have a much better chance of success than just casting spells at Xykon himself.

Unless, of course, Redcloak rates Gobbotopia below completing the Plan on his own terms; in which case Durkon's proposal is a bigger threat to his plans than Xykon is, and protecting Xykon until the ritual's completion is indeed a rational response on his part.

He does. If he didn't, there would've been no reason for him to give Xykon advice during V's attack. In fact, if he did value The Goblin's Republic Of Goblins more, he would have had no reason not to actively help V in their attempt on Xykon's unlife.

[The Pilgrim]

RC has chosen his side, and it puts him squarely in the same corner as the people who murdered his little sister

Indeed. After all, murdering Redcloak's relatives in cold blood is something the Paladins and Redcloak have in common.

[danielxcutter]

Okay so... are you guys saying that Redcloak has to die and Rich should pull some BS with Banjo being the sixth quiddity or something?

I find it ironic that people compare him to Tarquin, because people seem to be going in the exact opposite direction; assuming that literally everything he stands for is wrong.

Honestly, I’m a bit surprised that people are even admitting monstrous races got unfairly slaughtered. I’ve seen (poor) arguments against that.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Okay so... are you guys saying that Redcloak has to die and Rich should pull some BS with Banjo being the sixth quiddity or something?

I find it ironic that people compare him to Tarquin, because people seem to be going in the exact opposite direction; assuming that literally everything he stands for is wrong.

Honestly, I’m a bit surprised that people are even admitting monstrous races got unfairly slaughtered. I’ve seen (poor) arguments against that.

I'm not making any judgements on whether RC should or should not die. I'm simply pointing out that trusting RC to be forthwith, honest and unbiased about The Plan and its necessity is a mistake. I don't know how the story should end; I trust Rich to write it far better than I could concoct. And my comparison to Tarquin was to the audience reaction to them more than the character themselves.

[brian 333]

The presumption in the previous argument is that the only thing those monstrous creatures did was to be born with an evil alignment.

Alignment doesn't work like that. If you do nothing evil your alignment is not evil. In The Giant's work children default to their mothers' alignment until the weight of their moral choices is significant enough to establish their place on the alignment grid.

But all alignments are earned by the cumulative choices a creature makes. If a creature has Evil on its alignment entry, it did Evil stuff off panel before the PCs got there.

For example, those teenaged goblins in The Dungeon of Dorukon participated in unholy religous practices, (drink the blood of the innocents,) and they were not the good guys they pretended to be any more than Haley was a Mistress of Pain.

The real question is, how do the Good characters know the monsters really are Evil. If they don't know but slaughter them anyway, how is that different from being a mons...

Oh. That's Belkar's story arc.

[danielxcutter]

I'm not making any judgements on whether RC should or should not die. I'm simply pointing out that trusting RC to be forthwith, honest and unbiased about The Plan and its necessity is a mistake. I don't know how the story should end; I trust Rich to write it far better than I could concoct. And my comparison to Tarquin was to the audience reaction to them more than the character themselves.

A lot of people who attack Redcloak seem to think that not saying that everything he stands for is wrong is the same as saying he's 100% right.

I don't think that the Plan is justified and I don't like what he's done so far, but "thinking that he's not on the right path" isn't the same as "hur dur villain is bad".

[CriticalFailure]

I don’t see how Gobbotopia can be argued to have been anything but a massive victory for goblinoids given the exposition we have that goblins live in marginal low productivity lands, that the hobgoblin mountain town was previously the largest settlement on the surface, and that monstrous races are attacked by humans etc. Azure City was clearly a wealthy target, it’s pretty clearly implied that the long term strategic and economic implications of conquering it were a game changer - and Redcloak delayed Xykon for months getting the situation stabilized; they clearly care about it. The argument they don’t care about Gobbotopia doesn’t hold water.

Obviously that Doesn’t justify conquering AC, thats not the point.

I also don’t buy the idea that killing Tsukkiko was anything other than a neutral or even good act, regardless of whether Tsukikko was motivated by *wuv.* They were a menace to any living thing near them and they were also a menace to Redcloak’s continued existence and ability to implement their own plans. I don’t really see how killing a consistently homicidal necromancer who has just said they are going to tell a lich something that will assuredly end with the lich killing you and tens of thousands of your best friends can be argued to be evil; just because the person doing it is evil doesn’t mean it’s an inherently evil act.

part of the point of Redcloak’s arc is to look at how exposure to and toleration of evil leads to moral decay. Redcloak specifically says they’re turning into Xykon; there is a direct link to allowing themself to become numb and used to Xykon and allowing Xykon to shape their behavior. We are all products of our environment and Redcloak has chosen Xyjon as part of his environment, leading to moral rot.

Additionally, it seems that their scenes also show how isolation can make us callous, self centered, and lacking in compassion. Redcloak still has agency on this front - the part in the battle for AC shows they haven’t completely shed their own values and they quite clearly alter course away from turning into Xykon (though obviously they are still evil).

I think people often get wrong why exactly Redcloak follows the plan so closely. It isn’t lawless recklessness but lawful obedience to his god. On a deeper level, I think this obedience is sort of polar opposite of the hubris that lead V to case familicide and launch their ill considered assault on Xykon.

Redcloak was thrust into the responsibility of Bearer/High Priest with no preparation and no guidance outside the revelation of the plan, as a very vulnerable (because everyone they knew had just been killed) teen. They followed the plan because of a sense of duty to their god, trust in the plan, and need for purpose and structure after losing almost everything - but they didn’t have the maturity to truly understand and accept the responsibility for their position. But as long as he was following the Dark One’s plan, he could keep attributing ultimate responsibility to the dark one and see himself as merely a pawn of the dark one.

So, their attempts to follow the plan went on, with little guidance, and as doubts and failures piled up he kept telling himself he was following the plan. Every time he made a decision that he didn’t have the emotional maturity to accept responsibility for he told himself that he was simply obeying the dark one, denying his own agency and responsibility.

As their crusade continued, taking responsibility for their own actions became a more and more scary prospect as sacrifices and regrets piled up. Redcloak clearly lacked the emotional capacity and resilience to accept responsibility for command, then they added creating a lich and right-eye to the decisions they were too afraid to accept responsibility for as well.

Redcloak wasn’t all wrong in trying to face his duty to his god and his people rather than running or shirking as Eugene and Right-Eye suggested. In contrast to Eugene’s abdication of responsibility, there is something very noble in Redcloak’s decision to face his duty when he first becomes high priest and when he chooses not to give up his position, but this decision is ultimately tragic because he merely accepts his duty as the servant of a god, engaging in self-objectification that allows him to see himself as a mere tool of a higher authority. He lacks the insight and moral courage to see and embrace his moral duty to take responsibility for his own actions, both as a leader and simply as an individual with agency.

Overall I think Redcloak is an interesting character because he seems to offer a portrait of how the inability to deal with ones’ own choices and failings leads to the fear of making the wrong choice, the fear of responsibility, and ultimately to intolerable moral cowardice that can be all consuming and cause a person to try to escape their own free will. That’s why I see Redcloak as a sort of opposite to V; in contrast to her hubris he is dominated by a kind of insecurity, the fear of his own choices. Where V feels entitled to see their judgment enforced on anything and everything, Redcloak is so afraid of their own judgment that they trick themself into believing it is the will of the Dark One and that their choices aren’t their own.

[danielxcutter]

I don’t see how Gobbotopia can be argued to have been anything but a massive victory for goblinoids given the exposition we have that goblins live in marginal low productivity lands, that the hobgoblin mountain town was previously the largest settlement on the surface, and that monstrous races are attacked by humans etc. Azure City was clearly a wealthy target, it’s pretty clearly implied that the long term strategic and economic implications of conquering it were a game changer - and Redcloak delayed Xykon for months getting the situation stabilized; they clearly care about it. The argument they don’t care about Gobbotopia doesn’t hold water.

Obviously that Doesn’t justify conquering AC, thats not the point.

I think this is a "no it's not morally justified, it's war, but at the same time it's the only way at this point that goblinoids can actually manage to get to the point where it's no longer socially acceptable for adventurers to waltz in and slaughter them" argument, in which case I agree.

I wouldn't say that Redcloak doesn't care about Gobbotopia either; maybe he cares about the Plan and not being wrong more but I don't think that means it's all just a load of gorgon manure either.

I also don’t buy the idea that killing Tsukkiko was anything other than a neutral or even good act, regardless of whether Tsukikko was motivated by *wuv.* They were a menace to any living thing near them and they were also a menace to Redcloak’s continued existence and ability to implement their own plans. I don’t really see how killing a consistently homicidal necromancer who has just said they are going to tell a lich something that will assuredly end with the lich killing you and tens of thousands of your best friends can be argued to be evil; just because the person doing it is evil doesn’t mean it’s an inherently evil act.

I don't think it's particularly the actual killing her that's the problem, it's more about feeding her to her own wights. I would argue Redcloak killing her with Destruction or Disintegrate would have been less Evil than that.

part of the point of Redcloak’s arc is to look at how exposure to and toleration of evil leads to moral decay. Redcloak specifically says they’re turning into Xykon; there is a direct link to allowing themself to become numb and used to Xykon and allowing Xykon to shape their behavior. We are all products of our environment and Redcloak has chosen Xyjon as part of his environment, leading to moral rot.

Additionally, it seems that their scenes also show how isolation can make us callous, self centered, and lacking in compassion. Redcloak still has agency on this front - the part in the battle for AC shows they haven’t completely shed their own values and they quite clearly alter course away from turning into Xykon (though obviously they are still evil).

I think people often get wrong why exactly Redcloak follows the plan so closely. It isn’t lawless recklessness but lawful obedience to his god. On a deeper level, I think this obedience is sort of polar opposite of the hubris that lead V to case familicide and launch their ill considered assault on Xykon.

Hmm, I wouldn't say this. I think part of the reason Redcloak is still with Xykon is because Xykon's too powerful to ditch and partly because ditching him would mean that Redcloak's been wrong all along - Start of Darkness handles this well I believe.

But I think the "moral decay" factor isn't entirely without merit either; I've heard a very good theory that Redcloak's passiveness and callousness towards hobgoblins in the early strips was due to his spirits being crushed by the events of SoD and the hobgoblin soldier saving him is what snapped him out of it.

Redcloak was thrust into the responsibility of Bearer/High Priest with no preparation and no guidance outside the revelation of the plan, as a very vulnerable (because everyone they knew had just been killed) teen. They followed the plan because of a sense of duty to their god, trust in the plan, and need for purpose and structure after losing almost everything - but they didn’t have the maturity to truly understand and accept the responsibility for their position. But as long as he was following the Dark One’s plan, he could keep attributing ultimate responsibility to the dark one and see himself as merely a pawn of the dark one.

So, their attempts to follow the plan went on, with little guidance, and as doubts and failures piled up he kept telling himself he was following the plan. Every time he made a decision that he didn’t have the emotional maturity to accept responsibility for he told himself that he was simply obeying the dark one, denying his own agency and responsibility.

As their crusade continued, taking responsibility for their own actions became a more and more scary prospect as sacrifices and regrets piled up. Redcloak clearly lacked the emotional capacity and resilience to accept responsibility for command, then they added creating a lich and right-eye to the decisions they were too afraid to accept responsibility for as well.

Redcloak wasn’t all wrong in trying to face his duty to his god and his people rather than running or shirking as Eugene and Right-Eye suggested. In contrast to Eugene’s abdication of responsibility, there is something very noble in Redcloak’s decision to face his duty when he first becomes high priest and when he chooses not to give up his position, but this decision is ultimately tragic because he merely accepts his duty as the servant of a god, engaging in self-objectification that allows him to see himself as a mere tool of a higher authority. He lacks the insight and moral courage to see and embrace his moral duty to take responsibility for his own actions, both as a leader and simply as an individual with agency.

Overall I think Redcloak is an interesting character because he seems to offer a portrait of how the inability to deal with ones’ own choices and failings leads to the fear of making the wrong choice, the fear of responsibility, and ultimately to intolerable moral cowardice that can be all consuming and cause a person to try to escape their own free will. That’s why I see Redcloak as a sort of opposite to V; in contrast to her hubris he is dominated by a kind of insecurity, the fear of his own choices. Where V feels entitled to see their judgment enforced on anything and everything, Redcloak is so afraid of their own judgment that they trick themself into believing it is the will of the Dark One and that their choices aren’t their own.

I don't think the "following the Dark One" is as big of a factor as you're saying, but you're right that the only thing Redcloak really has left is the Plan and that's why he's so obsessed with it.

Honestly, I can't really say that Redcloak was right, but I can't say that all the crap he's been through was entirely his fault either. There's just so many ifs... if the Sapphire Guard hadn't slaughtered his entire village just because they were goblinoids, if he'd never met Xykon, if Dorukan had ended up winning... You get the idea.

[CriticalFailure]

I think this is a "no it's not morally justified, it's war, but at the same time it's the only way at this point that goblinoids can actually manage to get to the point where it's no longer socially acceptable for adventurers to waltz in and slaughter them" argument, in which case I agree.

I wouldn't say that Redcloak doesn't care about Gobbotopia either; maybe he cares about the Plan and not being wrong more but I don't think that means it's all just a load of gorgon manure either.

Yeah, agree. I was addding that because some people seem to like to ignore that this conquest lets the goblins play at a level they have never had access to before and saying that Redcloak only cares about revenge and conquering AC accomplished nothing but revenge is pointless oversimplification. Just because he’s evil doesn’t mean that he has no motivations outside revenge.

I don't think it's particularly the actual killing her that's the problem, it's more about feeding her to her own wights. I would argue Redcloak killing her with Destruction or Disintegrate would have been less Evil than that.

If she’d been eaten alive by wights I’d agree but I didn’t get the impression that being level drained by wights was a worse death that other spells or bleeding out from swords or arrows or being bludgeoned to death with a club or mace. Maybe I was missing the point. Having the wights eat her to dispose of her corpse was gross but she was already dead, so I guess I didn’t see the difference between that and simply disintegrating her besides the gross out factor. I can see the argument that forcing her to confront the fact that her wights didn’t love her as she died was unnecessarily cruel but I guess ironic final realizations are enough of a trope that I don’t think of it as out of bounds when a character shows another they were wrong all along in their final confrontation. Maybe I am just missing the point or being overly cold and analytical though.

Hmm, I wouldn't say this. I think part of the reason Redcloak is still with Xykon is because Xykon's too powerful to ditch and partly because ditching him would mean that Redcloak's been wrong all along - Start of Darkness handles this well I believe.

Overall I agree with this, I was more arguing about the effect that being around Xykon was having on him.

But I think the "moral decay" factor isn't entirely without merit either; I've heard a very good theory that Redcloak's passiveness and callousness towards hobgoblins in the early strips was due to his spirits being crushed by the events of SoD and the hobgoblin soldier saving him is what snapped him out of it.

I think that’s a good theory about why Redcloak has that attitude. I think they merge together in that by working with Xykon Redcloak has had to become numb to the horrible things Xykon dies and he gets used to them. I think the events at the end of SOD exacerbated this effect because Redcloak was broken down and his response to this disempowerment was to be more compliant to Xykon since he saw himself as unable to escape that subordination. And to become more like Xykon as sort of an adaption to being under his thumb, the path of least resistance. Whereas I think that choosing to stop allowing himself to turn into Xykon was a big moment in Redcloak’s path to claiming his own agency back and rejecting the idea that he’s stuck being a slave to Xykon (not that he’s actually been able to escape his subordination). However, I think Redcloak sees it as a choice to be subordinate to and a tool of the the Dark One.

I don't think the "following the Dark One" is as big of a factor as you're saying, but you're right that the only thing Redcloak really has left is the Plan and that's why he's so obsessed with it.

I think he’s obsessed with following the Plan because it’s the only thing left, but also because he is able to rationalize that everything he does following the plan is simply following the Dark One and that it’s ultimately the Dark One who is responsible rather than him. A big part of his attachment to following the plan/following the dark one is that it lets him defer responsibility for his actions to the Dark One. He’s obsessed with being able to tell himself that right-eye/xykon’s lichification/the death of all those he’s ordered into battle were demanded by The Plan and are the will of the Dark One because accepting that they were his choice and his responsibility is terrifying and he has no idea how to process that or move forward from it. I think that when he finally can’t maintain the denial any more and has to accept responsibility for it all he’ll have a hell of a mental break down.

Honestly, I can't really say that Redcloak was right, but I can't say that all the crap he's been through was entirely his fault either. There's just so many ifs... if the Sapphire Guard hadn't slaughtered his entire village just because they were goblinoids, if he'd never met Xykon, if Dorukan had ended up winning... You get the idea.

Yeah I completely agree, there are so many points especially in SOD where you can see could’ve been a better and happier person if things had been different. I think it’s particularly tragic because he tried to rise to the occasion when he became high priest but he completely lacked the emotional maturity and insight he needed to do so and he didn’t really have any resources to learn that or figure it out. So he just kept running away from responsibility and his moral cowardice spun more and more out of control and things got worse and worse.

[danielxcutter]

Yeah, agree. I was addding that because some people seem to like to ignore that this conquest lets the goblins play at a level they have never had access to before and saying that Redcloak only cares about revenge and conquering AC accomplished nothing but revenge is pointless oversimplification. Just because he’s evil doesn’t mean that he has no motivations outside revenge.

Precisely. I'm reminded of Nale and Sabine; both are unquestionably Evil but it's not hard to see that they do genuinely love each other.

If she’d been eaten alive by wights I’d agree but I didn’t get the impression that being level drained by wights was a worse death that other spells or bleeding out from swords or arrows or being bludgeoned to death with a club or mace. Maybe I was missing the point. Having the wights eat her to dispose of her corpse was gross but she was already dead, so I guess I didn’t see the difference between that and simply disintegrating her besides the gross out factor. I can see the argument that forcing her to confront the fact that her wights didn’t love her as she died was unnecessarily cruel but I guess ironic final realizations are enough of a trope that I don’t think of it as out of bounds when a character shows another they were wrong all along in their final confrontation. Maybe I am just missing the point or being overly cold and analytical though.

Let me rephrase that; the really Evil part was feeding her to her wights; Tsukiko was a delusional necrophilic bitch but it kinda seemed to me that she clung to being loved by the undead because she didn't feel loved by the living.

Overall I agree with this, I was more arguing about the effect that being around Xykon was having on him.

Fair.

I think that’s a good theory about why Redcloak has that attitude. I think they merge together in that by working with Xykon Redcloak has had to become numb to the horrible things Xykon dies and he gets used to them. I think the events at the end of SOD exacerbated this effect because Redcloak was broken down and his response to this disempowerment was to be more compliant to Xykon since he saw himself as unable to escape that subordination. And to become more like Xykon as sort of an adaption to being under his thumb, the path of least resistance. Whereas I think that choosing to stop allowing himself to turn into Xykon was a big moment in Redcloak’s path to claiming his own agency back and rejecting the idea that he’s stuck being a slave to Xykon (not that he’s actually been able to escape his subordination). However, I think Redcloak sees it as a choice to be subordinate to and a tool of the the Dark One.

Hmm... I guess that kinda makes sense.

I think he’s obsessed with following the Plan because it’s the only thing left, but also because he is able to rationalize that everything he does following the plan is simply following the Dark One and that it’s ultimately the Dark One who is responsible rather than him. A big part of his attachment to following the plan/following the dark one is that it lets him defer responsibility for his actions to the Dark One. He’s obsessed with being able to tell himself that right-eye/xykon’s lichification/the death of all those he’s ordered into battle were demanded by The Plan and are the will of the Dark One because accepting that they were his choice and his responsibility is terrifying and he has no idea how to process that or move forward from it. I think that when he finally can’t maintain the denial any more and has to accept responsibility for it all he’ll have a hell of a mental break down.

Probably, yeah.

Yeah I completely agree, there are so many points especially in SOD where you can see could’ve been a better and happier person if things had been different. I think it’s particularly tragic because he tried to rise to the occasion when he became high priest but he completely lacked the emotional maturity and insight he needed to do so and he didn’t really have any resources to learn that or figure it out. So he just kept running away from responsibility and his moral cowardice spun more and more out of control and things got worse and worse.

It's a shame, isn't it?

[Darth Paul]

However, I think Redcloak sees it as a choice to be subordinate to and a tool of the the Dark One.

Exactly. He's made a choice. And now he's chosen not to present his god with an option that might preserve all the presently existing goblins, along with the rest of the world, and end the cycle of destruction... because he is committed to The Plan and only The Plan. He's so far into the sunk costs that he won't even think of any other option.

I'm not talking about Good or Evil here, now we're getting into Lawful Stupid. When your determination to follow The Plan, despite the known flaws and possibility of world destruction, makes you reject all other options, well, maybe you have a 20 Wisdom but you're not using it to its potential.

A High Priest is a little more than just a subordinate. The HP is the right hand to their god, the first officer, and should be living up to that- especially in advising the Big Guy when the ship is metaphorically on a collission course with an iceberg. Blindly following orders when you're at that level does a disservice to the god and your followers alike.

[quinron]

Exactly. He's made a choice. And now he's chosen not to present his god with an option that might preserve all the presently existing goblins, along with the rest of the world, and end the cycle of destruction... because he is committed to The Plan and only The Plan. He's so far into the sunk costs that he won't even think of any other option.

...

A High Priest is a little more than just a subordinate. The HP is the right hand to their god, the first officer, and should be living up to that- especially in advising the Big Guy when the ship is metaphorically on a collission course with an iceberg. Blindly following orders when you're at that level does a disservice to the god and your followers alike.

I think it's pretty clear from Start of Darkness that this underpins Redcloak's entire personality. He spends the entire back half of that book abdicating responsibility for his actions because he's following the Plan, but he also balks at the idea of giving the Mantle to another goblin and walking away. His consistent pattern is to reject his obligations to others because he's the High Priest and knows best, then deny his culpability in the fallout of those actions.

This kind of thinking is pretty clear in his discussion with Durkon. If the Dark One and the greater pantheons can negotiate more-or-less peacefully, then Redcloak's not in charge; what's more, all the horrible things he's done in accordance with the Plan will no longer be justified, and he'll be forced to confront his complicity in them.

[JDMSJR]

I don't understand what people think Redcloak's options are. The Plan isn't just something he came up with after the massacre of his village, it is something that he was commanded to do by the god of his people, something that the god of his people had been working on for generations. Sure, if he stopped he would have to face the fact that everything he had done and sacrificed for the Plan had been meaningless, but he would have also had to face an angry Dark One when he died who then has his soul tortured for eternity for disregarding what he was told to do. Gods aren't very understanding when you just ignore their express commands.
Why should he listen to Durkon who is a representative of the gods who supported his people being slaughtered for the benefit of their own followers and now that the balance of power is about to shift, NOW they want to make a deal, let them talk to the Dark One themselves if they want to make a deal. What's that? My god will not speak to them? Then why should I have anything to do with them?