Redcloak and the misattribution of blame

[The Pilgrim]

That's just how nations are made. There's hardly any modern nation (if at all) that did not experience that multiple times in the last millennia. Celts, Visgoths, Vandals, the list goes on and on until you get to modern nations such as Spain, France, Germany, etc. And on the other side of the atlantic it hasn't been any different.

I'm not interested in debating real-life issues here. Even less when your argument hardly has any relevance for the issue at hand.

If your argument is "that's just how nations are made", then you will see no problem in that the ending of this webcomic would see the Azurites taking back their land and then going up the hills and remove the Hobgoblins from there, to ensure they will never be a menace again. Because "that's just how nations are made".

[M1982]

I'm not interested in debating real-life issues here.

But the only argument that would label them as wrong is based on very recent RL morality which is still a blink of an eye in human history of conquest and might no longer be the standard in a mere 100 years (if it ever was, quite a view borders have been violently redrawn since WW2, as recent as 2020).

But if your argument is "that's just how nations are made", then you will see no problem in that the ending of this webcomic would see the Azurites taking back their land and exterminating all hobgoblins to ensure they would never be a menace ever again. Because "that's just how nations are made".

No, winner takes it all until he becomes loser. The latest winner is the current nation for as long as he can hold it together.

[hungrycrow]

I'm not interested in debating real-life issues here.

But if your argument is "that's just how nations are made", then you will see no problem in that the ending of this webcomic would see the Azurites taking back their land and then going up the hills and remove the Hobgoblins from there, to ensure they will never be a menace again. Because "that's just how nations are made".

Their point isn't that ethics don't matter at all when dealing with nations, it's that 'how we got here' isn't important. What matters is which path going forward will help or hurt the most people.

[The Pilgrim]

No, winner takes it all until he becomes loser. The latest winner is the current nation for as long as he can hold it together.

Therefore, you believe that Gobbotopia only has a right to exist as long as it can defend itself. And Azurites striking back and taking everything, including the former hobgoblin homelands, would be a perfecly ending to the hobgoblin-azurite conflict.

Ok. I agree to disagree, but I acknowledge that your position is coherent. Which is more than I can say about the position of other people here.

Their point isn't that ethics don't matter at all when dealing with nations, it's that 'how we got here' isn't important. What matters is which path going forward will help or hurt the most people.

And my amazement is that they think that letting 20.000 brutal slaver invaders keep the land and homes of the 500.000 humans they have brutalized, is the path forward that will help the most people.

It's like if I beat up my neighbour, evict him from his home, keep his wife and children kidnapped, and then tell him "Ok, I will release your wife and children if you let me keep you home and stuff. That's the path forward that will help the most people".

And they pretend to sound reasonable!

It's madness.

[Ionathus]

I dunno. He seems to be enjoying the show.
https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0541.html

Agreed, I think Jirix being openly entertained by O-Chul's predicament is an obvious Evil act. He's not as ambitious as Redcloak or Xykon, but he seems perfectly fine with torture as entertainment.

Redcloak refused. So right now, Gobbotopia holds no bargaining value for Durkon's side.

Of course Gobbotopia still has bargaining value for Durkon's side. Just because negotiations went south on Attempt #1 doesn't mean Durkon can never discuss Gobbotopia's status if Attempt #2 ever comes up.

And yes, I know you don't believe Attempt #2 will ever happen. I do. And if it does, Gobbotopia will still be just as big a bargaining chip. So establishing what it would look like is worthwhile.

Violence against the specific hobgoblins who commited those acts, will end slavery and restitute the property back to their rightfull owners. It will also prevent those brutal slavers from hurting anyone else again, on the account of being dead.

Peace with the Goblinoids without restitution will only encourage goblins to repeat the deed against other populations, since they have learnt that they can get away with invading, looting, killing, enslaving and stealing.

OR the Goblinoids will develop trade partners and form alliances, just like every other nation that has ever established itself through conquest. The remaining Azurites will want their land back and Gobbotopia will say "screw you suckers, it's our turn now!" and the Azurites will make do with their abandoned keep on an island off the coast of the Western Continent.

Everything doesn't always work out perfectly. The good guys don't always get everything they want. Not every wrong is always righted. Sometimes territory stays conquered. Sometimes people who have done evil things stick around, and the characters have to figure out a way to move forward...even if that means negotiating with the nation that drove them from their land.

I'm treating your side of the debate as people who don't seem to mind that 530.000 people got their homes, freedom and in some cases lives stolen from them by a gang of brutal and mostly evil slaver invaders.

The normal expectation would be to have the victims get restitution, rather than to have the agressors get rewarded.

Again, I never said I "don't mind." I do, in fact. War & XPs wrecked me -- I didn't expect The Order to lose, and the sacking of Azure City was a huge blow to me. It pissed me off, in fact. The villains weren't supposed to win, but they did - at least partially.

I understand your sense of justice, and the feeling that Gobbotopia has to "pay" for their attack. But that's just not how national diplomacy works, even in fiction. If every country maintained hostilities with every country that had ever wronged it, there wouldn't be any countries left.

You said that you are not defending that Gobbotopia should keep existing with slavery. Therefore, it's moot that you discuss the specific numbers.

If you say that you don't endorse slavery, then it doesn't matters if the ratio of goblinoids-to-slaves is 1-1, 1-5, or 1-20, as you agree nonetheless that it has to stop.

I 100% agree that the number of slaves doesn't matter - it is always an evil act. But that's not what we were talking about when you brought the numbers up. You first referenced that (unfounded) ratio as an argument that Gobbotopia was unfeasible without slavery.

The numbers are not moot, because if goblinoids outnumber slaves 5 to 1, they could release the slaves and still have a viable society. If I misunderstood your original point, I apologize. I don't want to keep debating an unverified ratio anyway, I think that's a waste of everyone's time.

Well, since "that's what war is", then you'll have no problem if, after the Lich is vanquished and Redcloak is slain, the Order and the Azurites, together with many allies, call a Crusade to recover the Azurite lands, kill all the 20.000 hobgoblins currently there, and then ride up the Hills and kill every goblinoid there, to make sure they can't repeat the deed again.

Because "that's what war is", doesn't it?

Or "that's what war is" only applies when it suits the goblinoids?

Except, what your describing isn't war. every single goblinoid? Every civilian? every child? thats not war, thats genocide. the hobgoblins didn't go about exterminating humans out of existence even if they did enslave them and they didn't go pursuing after the Azure Fleet to kill them off. to respond with genocide is to be even worse than the goblins. you do not respond to something like this by being even worse. do it and your only proving Redcloak right.

Everything Raziere said here. Exaggerating my point unfairly does not prove your point.

And my amazement is that they think that letting 20.000 brutal slaver invaders keep the land and homes of the 500.000 humans they have brutalized, is the path forward that will help the most people.

It's like if I beat up my neighbour, evict him from his home, keep his wife and children kidnapped, and then tell him "Ok, I will release your wife and children if you let me keep you home and stuff. That's the path forward that will help the most people".

People and nations are not equivalent. Assault and theft are not the same as war and conquest. War is always brutal, messy, and a tragic loss of life. Nation-state diplomacy is too complex to be simplified down to a single glib example of one human attacking their neighbor and taking their stuff.

If you are expecting every fictional country to apologize and make restitution (or else be subsequently brutally conquered) for every hostile act it takes against another country, you are going to be sorely disappointed by everything that isn't Lord of the Rings.

[Lord Raziere]

And my amazement is that they think that letting 20.000 brutal slaver invaders keep the land and homes of the 500.000 humans they have brutalized, is the path forward that will help the most people.

It's like if I beat up my neighbour, evict him from his home, keep his wife and children kidnapped, and then tell him "Ok, I will release your wife and children if you let me keep you home and stuff. That's the path forward that will help the most people".

And they pretend to sound reasonable!

It's madness.

The situations are not comparable. your talking about being a criminal where some paladin or other guard is likely to distract you long enough to sneak up behind you to knock you out, rescue the hostages and arrest you, because the law is stronger than you, and thus enforces the rules. regardless of the victims feelings on the matter.

the situation of the Azurites and goblins is more comparable to say, two people out in the wilderness. one has a hut. the other kicks the first out of the hut because they are stronger, had a grudge against the hut-dweller and now owns the hut. the now hutless person can't get the hut back, and has no higher authority to appeal to, just other people in the wilderness who might not care about whom the hut belongs to, might want the hut for themselves, might like the current hut dweller better, or might want to do business with the new hut-dweller for whatever reason. so they decide to go and build a second hut despite being the person who spent a lot of time building the first hut and it being unfair that they got kicked out of their first hut, because they can't reasonably expect to get the first hut back, because there is no police, army or whatever around to enforce getting that hut back, just what the person can convince others to do for him, or the training he can do to get the hut back himself.

but even if he convinced someone else to help get the hut back, there is always the problem that the third person will use it as an opportunity to kill the first two people to get the hut for themselves, or to use the situation to make the first hut dweller owe the third person a debt, so getting the hut back may have a price to pay that they don't want to. thus the person has to either risk dying to get that first hut back or to acknowledge that its just a freaking hut man and that he will be happier if he makes a second hut which the second hut-dweller won't care about because he already has a hut, and maybe if the first hut dweller talks with him amicably enough the second hut-dweller will learn to be a better person who doesn't go around taking huts from other people.

Whereas if he chooses to fight and succeeds in driving off the second hut dweller, that teaches the second hut dweller only that the second hut dweller is not strong enough to keep the hut and thus get stronger and more allies to come back and keep the hut and how dare this first hut dweller who has already done something to him deny him a hut again after living so long without a hut! not everyone has a luxury of a hut y'know! which would only lead to them fighting until the hut is destroyed because they valued fighting over the hut too much.

the lesson being that huts aren't that valuable and one shouldn't put too much importance on the hut when they can both be happy instead, even if one hut being taken from the other is unfair. now getting back the family, noble, but the family might get killed in the fighting, best to make sure the guy gives the family up peacefully so they can live in the second hut, so that the family doesn't die fighting over the first hut. its just a freaking hut after all.

[brian 333]

The thing is, even if the leaders get together and hammer out a binding treaty, it won't matter. And the reason has nothing to do with anti-goblin bigotry. The Dark One must still be laughing about the perpetual war Redcloak has created here, and it is already beyond the control of any and every leader involved.

1) every mid level adventurer in the Stickverse has to be considering just how much wealth the Azurites left behind, not counting the ones hired by Azurites to retrieve family heirlooms.

2) every holy order, and a few unholy ones too, is very likely gearing up for a chance to punish those who offended their gods, robbed and profaned their holy sites.

3) neighboring nations, their border lands full of refugees, are looking forward to either a war or a perpetual series of reprisal raids as the goblins chase Azurite adventurer/raiders back across their borders. Even if the rulers of those lands forbid it, the adventurers will come, and border lords will ae found who are sympathetic to the cause.

4) even if none of these things happen, the goblins, bolstered by their success, will wonder if they can take even more territory by force.

As for judging Jirix by his policies rather than his personality:

A) he's in favor of abrogating treaties when he thinks it will be fun.

B) he's pro-slavery

C) he's in favor of the torture of prisoners of war.

D) he supports wars of aggression.

E) he advocates perpetual war as a lifestyle rather than as a means to an end.

Sounds like the kind of fellow we can trust to hammer out a lasting peace.

Or did you mean we should judge a politician by the policies he says he will support rather than the policies he has already enacted?

[Lord Raziere]

1) every mid level adventurer in the Stickverse has to be considering just how much wealth the Azurites left behind, not counting the ones hired by Azurites to retrieve family heirlooms.

Logical, but there is no evidence in the comic for this happening.

2) every holy order, and a few unholy ones too, is very likely gearing up for a chance to punish those who offended their gods, robbed and profaned their holy sites.

I don't know, you'd think this would be a topic of discussion at the Godsmoot given that Redcloak is directly connected to this whole Gate thing and thus Gobbotopia is to, but apparently the gods don't care about land- why would they? its all going to be destroyed by the Snarl sooner or later. therefore if the gods don't care, why should their holy orders?

3) neighboring nations, their border lands full of refugees, are looking forward to either a war or a perpetual series of reprisal raids as the goblins chase Azurite adventurer/raiders back across their borders. Even if the rulers of those lands forbid it, the adventurers will come, and border lords will ae found who are sympathetic to the cause.

again, reasonable to think in this world, but there is no evidence of this happening

4) even if none of these things happen, the goblins, bolstered by their success, will wonder if they can take even more territory by force.

Reasonable to assume again, but there is no evidence of it happening.

As for judging Jirix by his policies rather than his personality:

A) he's in favor of abrogating treaties when he thinks it will be fun.

B) he's pro-slavery

C) he's in favor of the torture of prisoners of war.

D) he supports wars of aggression.

E) he advocates perpetual war as a lifestyle rather than as a means to an end.

Sounds like the kind of fellow we can trust to hammer out a lasting peace.

Or did you mean we should judge a politician by the policies he says he will support rather than the policies he has already enacted?

Evidence for these claims, please? your making a lot of claims without being clear about where in the comic your getting them from. like I can see the torture and slavery parts because he attended those O-Chul torture sessions with Xykon but that might just be brown-nosing to get ahead, not an unknown thing in hobgoblin society. given the events of How the Paladin Got His Scar, I can see Jirix being like the first supreme leader being possible, but I'll need proof for this claim to be solidified in my mind.

also, by that measure, Shojo was in favor of keeping secrets, creating faked unlawful trials or even jailing people without trial, lying about his senility, manipulating paladins, and generally being a lying manipulative ruler who went against his nation's laws. do we discard him as an untrustworthy lying snake?

[Jason]

If you are expecting every fictional country to apologize and make restitution (or else be subsequently brutally conquered) for every hostile act it takes against another country, you are going to be sorely disappointed by everything that isn't Lord of the Rings.

You would be disappointed by the Lord of the Rings too. The Numenoreans, the people Aragorn is so proud to be a descdendent of, enslaved most of Middle-earth during the Second Age, and by the end were active devil worshippers who practiced human sacrifice.
Gondor had continual wars with the Haradrim and a brutal civil war over the royal succession.
The Rohirrim drove the Dunlanders out of their lands when Gondor gave them to them, and actively hunted the wild men of the woods.
The elves have all sorts of unsightly wars and kinslayings in the Silmarillion.
The hobbits are pretty much the only people who don't have a war of conquest in their history, and that's because they moved into a land where the former inhabitants had all been destroyed by war and plague already.

[Ionathus]

You would be disappointed by the Lord of the Rings too. The Numenoreans, the people Aragorn is so proud to be a descdendent of, enslaved most of Middle-earth during the Second Age, and by the end were active devil worshippers who practiced human sacrifice.
Gondor had continual wars with the Haradrim and a brutal civil war over the royal succession.
The Rohirrim drove the Dunlanders out of their lands when Gondor gave them to them, and actively hunted the wild men of the woods.
The elves have all sorts of unsightly wars and kinslayings in the Silmarillion.
The hobbits are pretty much the only people who don't have a war of conquest in their history, and that's because they moved into a land where the former inhabitants had all been destroyed by war and plague already.

Holy crap that is wild. As a casual fan I had no idea Middle Earth was that hard-core.

Still not sure it's enough to finally get me into reading The Silmarillion...

[Saint-Just]

In general it almost entirely hinges on how true the Crayons of Time in SoD. If the Gods have created goblins to be fought by the PCs and placed them at a disadvantage it is a great offense against them. It doesn't justify his actions but his motivation is a righteous one. If situation came to be as it is by some other means Redcloak has done evil for no good reason. Dark One's personal experiences may (I'd bet do) color his understanding of the situation, but the existence of prosperous lizardfolk societies and clerics don't meant that they have not been at a disadvantage from the beginning. No sure way to know.

I have a little conspiracy theory - recently developed - that the goblins willingly rejected the gods that created the world, and Redcloak's Mantle vision is, as suggested, a lie.
...
It's bits and pieces and a lot of reading between the lines - I did call it a conspiracy theory, after all - but this suggests to me that Redcloak got a very biased (or potentially fraudulent) vision from a god who already had beef with the major pantheons by the time he donned the Mantle. It's still possible that goblins really were made as XP fodder, but considering the other holes in that vision, I find that increasingly unlikely.

Crayons may be false, but I do not see how that means that goblins somehow "rejected" the gods.

Tiamat - a Western god - "prefers" kobolds over lizardfolk, and the one kobold we know to be a cleric with god-given power is her Oracle.

He is explicitly an Expert, not a Cleric. No magic at all, but god-given prophetic powers which exist outside of normal magical and clerical hierarchies




Re: Gobbotopia's right to exist (too many posts to quote).

From any point of view concerned with order, international trade, peace and prosperity Gobbotopia has no right to exist. It's a naked aggression for no justifiable reason. Leaving it unopposed encourages other strong nations to engage in territorial grabs whenever possible, and the Southern Lands seemed to be less affected by the endemic warfare than Western Continent (extrapolation, not 100% proven).

That doesn't meant that it will not exist and that will not be allowed to exist even when other nations (including the Azurite Government-in-Exile) could technically win a war against it. As others have noted even if you are only concerned with the well-being of the enslaved and displaced Azurites there is no reason to suppose that winning war against the Hobgoblins will be better than trading some concessions and leaving the goblins where they are (and humans may or may not be welcome there heretofore).

It seems that at least in part it has been reduced to a semantic argument, whether you equate "right to exist" to "Hobgoblins' actions are justifiable", or to "the only acceptable resolution is the one where Hobgoblins leave the environs of the Azure City", but they are not mutually exclusive. I, for one, think that both are false, Hobgoblins are entirely in the wrong - even the aforementioned border wars do not excuse their actions, yet the best way forward is likely (though not guaranteed) is not another war - as long as goblins will be amenable to at least release every slave other conditions may be negotiable.

A couple of additional points:

At the same time, no matter the moral justification or lack thereof, its getting unreasonable to expect the goblins to just leave. the time to spin it as getting rid of an occupying force, is past. they have some form of political legitimacy in their sovereignty now and now they are starting to settle down as well.
...

Spoiler: Second part spoilered for compactness

Show

Hinjo is a paladin and not just any paladin but one who does things for the best as taught by O-chul, not just because something is right. would spending so many lives to retake a piece of land be worth it? I don't think it would. Asking them to leave is out of the question. to put it from probably Jirix's perspective:
"Uh no? Look human dude, I know you want it back, but this is best we ever got. and we got it by beating you. You don't have the forces or the power to get us out. Why should we listen to this when we don't need to? Your nothing but a leader of a bunch of refugees get out of here, you lost, take it with grace and we can all be peaceful. We're not going to hunt you down after all, your like what somewhere in the ocean? We don't time to find you we got a city to live in. get out of here dude."
No, Hinjo I bet will go after something different: the release of slaves and allowing them to be citizens in Gobbotopia with all the rights deserving of sapient beings, and open trade between the Azurite Islands and Gobbotopia-Coexistence. It may not be perfect, it may come up about from a great injustice, but where is it written that Hinjo must retaliate in kind? That the Azurites MUST have their land back for there to be a happy ending? Are paladins not supposed to hold themselves to higher standards? To insist on retaking Azure City's lands is to insist on potentially going to war over it, and if the Azurites go to war.....It may not end well, even with the OOTS's help. But if Hinjo negotiates the end of human slavery in Gobbotopia and establishes trade between them in returning for renouncing all claims to Azure City, that benefits everybody, not just the Azurite nobles who want their manors back.

Barely more than one year is too late? Dayum, now all territorial disputes turn into "capture the flag". And while some countries may recognize them others don't (elves in particular may be itching for rematch) and again, merely because a country recognize Gobbotopia doesn't mean that they un-recognized Azurites, so if the Azurites (and friends) come back they may be willing to sit on the sidelines trading with the highest bidder. In the end if conquests were allowed to stand doesn't mean they have been seen justifiable at the moment; equating a conquest which happened N centuries ago with one that happened N years ago is also not the most honest comparison.

Second part of your argument seems to rely on Hinjo acting in Good-ish ways and hobgoblins acting in ways which if not exactly Evil are at least realpolitik to the core. Except any ruler (manager, leader, whoever) will recognize that if there is a general rule to forgive aggressors (because punishing them will waste lives and money) aggressors will repeat their aggression whenever profitable. It is not a simple matter of "let's live in peace in the future forever". I am not saying that a continuation of war is inevitable or desirable, but to say in advance that it is undesirable or does not align with the paladin's honor is also not exactly reasonable. Given the message of the Giant's work I highly doubt that there will be a further war between the Azurites and Hobgoblins but that is narrative structure, not something that can be deduced from the actions and situation in-story. CoDominium with the full rights for the Azurites sounds very promising, but I doubt that Hobgoblins as presented in the story would agree to it - and it would take a great trust in the Goodness of the other side to agree to share full citizen rights with your former slaves (not merely former enemies) especially at such population proportions. And alternative of release of the slaves followed by their expulsion seems a bit too unjust to agree with - though that may be actually palatable to Hobgoblins and improvement (if not a just restoration of at least part of their pre-war livelihood) for the slaves.

These things happened, no amount of violence towards the goblins can make them unhappen. Making peace with the goblins, however, is the only way to make sure they don't happen again. And your numbers are still bunk.

Same as above. Making peace at whatever terms as soon (ha!) as possible means that aggression is rewarded and there will be another war. Accepting no terms other than unconditional surrender means fighting to the bitter end. There is no universal solution, and yes, solution which involves least suffering and deaths is probably not the one which would allow Azurite citizens to regain most of their pre-war lives. But to ignore things that happened because you can't make them unhappen means creating incentives for further aggression (not even necessary on the goblins' part).

by that measure, Shojo was in favor of keeping secrets, creating faked unlawful trials or even jailing people without trial, lying about his senility, manipulating paladins, and generally being a lying manipulative ruler who went against his nation's laws. do we discard him as an untrustworthy lying snake?

Depend on what you mean untrustworthy. If you are somehow sure that he has your interests in his heart? You can rely on him. But to trust words that come out of his mouth? Nah. He is an untrustworthy lying snake. Not "trickster", not "egoist", not "megalomaniac". He was doing his untrustworthy lying in service of the interests of Good (and also existence of the world). But if you have seen all he has done and want something else than just Good (maybe a trade deal or something)? No reason to trust him.

Presumably because it's a product of conquest? Territorial aggression is a tale as old as time, but it's often glossed over in fantasy stories: nobody wants the "Good" kingdom to rest on the ruins of another invaded & subjugated kingdom, so "Good" kingdoms are either millenia old, formed from an alliance of smaller kingdoms, or reclaimed from some dark obviously evil Sauron-type tyrant.

You don't often see a nation attacking another nation solely for territorial reasons in fantasy stories -- and when one does, it's almost never portrayed in a good light by the narrative.

Everyone has their own experience, of course, but in my experience I see territorial aggression left right and center in fantasy I read. Even when protagonist is on the defending side (what would you say about having protagonists on the both sides of the war, and neither of them presented as a villain?) aggressors may be portrayed as savage, cruel, or tyrannical but it's rare to see something that is openly presented as a Tolkien-grade Evil. Oh, and even when there is a mad tyrant desiring to become a god/destroy the world/kill every X - if he is killed by the Resistance, or by the last samurai of the conquered city there is no expectation that everything - including international borders - returns to the status quo ante bellum.

[Jason]

In general it almost entirely hinges on how true the Crayons of Time in SoD. If the Gods have created goblins to be fought by the PCs and placed them at a disadvantage it is a great offense against them. It doesn't justify his actions but his motivation is a righteous one.

That is the question. How much should we trust the story told by an evil diety's evil high priest while trying to recruit an evil sorcerer into his plan for magically controlling a god-slaying abomination? An account that a few panels later, when the evil sorcerer has left, the evil high priest admits to his brother was not entirely accurate?

[brian 333]

I trust Shojo to do and say whatever he thinks best at the time he does or says it, and if manipulating me into riding a blind horse at top speed into a canyon best serves his city's and his people's interest, I guess I should practice my best Slim Pickens 'Woo-hoo-hoo!'

Spoiler

Show

That means that no, I do not trust Shojo.

Ironically, I also distrust Hinjo. I don't think he would lie, but my best interests are way at the bottom of his priority list, and if sacrificing me somehow advantaged his people, I'm certain he would assuage his feelings of guilt by reflecting on the good my brave sacrifice accomplished.

[Keltest]

I trust Shojo to do and say whatever he thinks best at the time he does or says it, and if manipulating me into riding a blind horse at top speed into a canyon best serves his city's and his people's interest, I guess I should practice my best Slim Pickens 'Woo-hoo-hoo!'

Spoiler

Show

That means that no, I do not trust Shojo.

Ironically, I also distrust Hinjo. I don't think he would lie, but my best interests are way at the bottom of his priority list, and if sacrificing me somehow advantaged his people, I'm certain he would assuage his feelings of guilt by reflecting on the good my brave sacrifice accomplished.

Spoiler

Show

How are you defining trust at that point though? Yeah, if Hinjo is in a situation that directly puts him at odds with you, he probably isnt going to act against his own interests, but that isnt really a useful standard for trust in and of itself, because its going to hold true for a vast majority of people. Its such a specific circumstance its almost redundant.

[Lord Raziere]

Barely more than one year is too late? Dayum, now all territorial disputes turn into "capture the flag". And while some countries may recognize them others don't (elves in particular may be itching for rematch) and again, merely because a country recognize Gobbotopia doesn't mean that they un-recognized Azurites, so if the Azurites (and friends) come back they may be willing to sit on the sidelines trading with the highest bidder. In the end if conquests were allowed to stand doesn't mean they have been seen justifiable at the moment; equating a conquest which happened N centuries ago with one that happened N years ago is also not the most honest comparison.

Second part of your argument seems to rely on Hinjo acting in Good-ish ways and hobgoblins acting in ways which if not exactly Evil are at least realpolitik to the core. Except any ruler (manager, leader, whoever) will recognize that if there is a general rule to forgive aggressors (because punishing them will waste lives and money) aggressors will repeat their aggression whenever profitable. It is not a simple matter of "let's live in peace in the future forever". I am not saying that a continuation of war is inevitable or desirable, but to say in advance that it is undesirable or does not align with the paladin's honor is also not exactly reasonable. Given the message of the Giant's work I highly doubt that there will be a further war between the Azurites and Hobgoblins but that is narrative structure, but something that can be deduced from the actions and situation in-story. CoDominium with the full rights for the Azurites sounds very promising, but I doubt that Hobgoblins as presented in the story would agree to it - and it would take a great trust in the Goodness of the other side to agree to share full citizen rights with your former slaves (not merely former enemies) especially at such population proportions. And alternative of release of the slaves followed by their expulsion seems a bit too unjust to agree with - though that may be actually palatable to Hobgoblins and improvement (if not a just restoration of at least part of their pre-war livelihood) for the slaves.

It is not about length of time, its about the nations recognizing sovereignty. they have legitimacy in story now, no matter what you claim.

I've never claimed their actions were just. legal/political legitimacy is not moral legitimacy. I was just talking about Hinjo's position and what actions he is likely to take, based on the intended message and what has been written so far.

Sure, its possible that the hobgoblins could decide to aggress more. until we have evidence this is happening, it isn't happening, and might not even be a thing after Redcloak's Plan fails. He might return a redeemed goblin, see Jirix screwing things up and come back to kick him out and be the real good leader that the goblins finally deserve, or perhaps Second Supreme Leader will fulfill that role while Redcloak goes to some punishment for his crimes after helping them get rid of Xykon and fix the rifts.

and yet despite all that talk about them not agreeing to such thing, I highly doubt the ending of the story will be "the OOTS retake the city from those evil goblins and the goblins get absolutely nothing running back to their mountain, the injustices done upon them weren't real and nothing is wrong with how DnD portrays monster races at all". While at the same time the comic must maintain its light, comedic heroic tone, so there must be some form of happy ending involved, even if its not a perfect one. it may be idealistic, unrealistic and too much to expect, but we're talking about the comics direction, not how it would "actually" go.

any solution we propose has the detriment of detachment and ignorance, we do not know fully the minds of Hinjo and Jirix, (if Jirix will be the one negotiating at all, there are two possible alternate candidates with possibly better morals than him to do that with). Or the possible solutions of the political situation that the characters themselves are educated upon, what they find reasonable or whatever. I do not claim to be an expert on anything, I simply am going off the story itself, nothing more.

As for Shojo: we have evidence for him though. whats the evidence for Jirix of all the claims on him?

[Saint-Just]

It is not about length of time, its about the nations recognizing sovereignty. they have legitimacy in story now, no matter what you claim.

I've never claimed their actions were just. legal/political legitimacy is not moral legitimacy. I was just talking about Hinjo's position and what actions he is likely to take, based on the intended message and what has been written so far.

Political legitimacy is always a two-place function. Legitimate for whom? Recognized by whom? I bet there is significantly greater recognition of the Azure City and there are examples in the history where some foreign nation recognized both nations who did not recognize each other. It's not that there is some inherent superiority in being recognized by more nations, but there is no abstract legitimacy in the story to be had either. And I was not claiming that they were not legitimate, but pointing out that whatever recognition they have is unlikely to result in anything better than guarded neutrality (and still may result in supporting the intervention/liberation/whatever-you-name-it if it should happen).

and yet despite all that talk about them not agreeing to such thing, I highly doubt the ending of the story will be "the OOTS retake the city from those evil goblins and the goblins get absolutely nothing running back to their mountain, the injustices done upon them weren't real and nothing is wrong with how DnD portrays monster races at all". While at the same time the comic must maintain its light, comedic heroic tone, so there must be some form of happy ending involved, even if its not a perfect one. it may be idealistic, unrealistic and too much to expect, but we're talking about the comics direction, not how it would "actually" go.

any solution we propose has the detriment of detachment and ignorance, we do not know fully the minds of Hinjo and Jirix, (if Jirix will be the one negotiating at all, there are two possible alternate candidates with possibly better morals than him to do that with). Or the possible solutions of the political situation that the characters themselves are educated upon, what they find reasonable or whatever. I do not claim to be an expert on anything, I simply am going off the story itself, nothing more.

Hmm

Given the message of the Giant's work I highly doubt that there will be a further war between the Azurites and Hobgoblins but that is narrative structure, but not something that can be deduced from the actions and situation in-story. CoDominium with the full rights for the Azurites sounds very promising...

Sorry, made a mistake while typing my previous post which lead to the ambiguity I did not intend. Full agree that given what we know about Giant's work and ideas war as a resolution is extremely unlikely. Then I just try to analyze possible decisions without benefit of meta-knowledge (so detached, but treating it as a situation which exists on its own merits, not as a conflict within the story). And later I also say that decision can be unjust and still the least harmful of all available.

[The Pilgrim]

Of course Gobbotopia still has bargaining value for Durkon's side. Just because negotiations went south on Attempt #1 doesn't mean Durkon can never discuss Gobbotopia's status if Attempt #2 ever comes up.

And yes, I know you don't believe Attempt #2 will ever happen. I do. And if it does, Gobbotopia will still be just as big a bargaining chip. So establishing what it would look like is worthwhile.

Perhaps Attempt #2 will happen. I'm not the author of this webcomic. But the point is, Gobbotopia only holds a right to exist in Durkon's view because Thor needs The Dark One to seal the Rifts. Not because the Hobgoblins have any right to the land.

What does that mean? That if, for example, The Dark One realizes He will dissapear if the World is Undone, and thus submits to help sealing the Rifts because he has no other option to survive, the Heroes will have no reason to respect the continuation of existence of Gobbotopia.

What I'm saying is that the Heroes doesn't have any moral obligation to respect the continuation of Gobbotopia. Much on the contrary, they have a moral obligation of helping the Azurites destroy it and reclaim their lands.

OR the Goblinoids will develop trade partners and form alliances, just like every other nation that has ever established itself through conquest. The remaining Azurites will want their land back and Gobbotopia will say "screw you suckers, it's our turn now!" and the Azurites will make do with their abandoned keep on an island off the coast of the Western Continent.

Everything doesn't always work out perfectly. The good guys don't always get everything they want. Not every wrong is always righted. Sometimes territory stays conquered. Sometimes people who have done evil things stick around, and the characters have to figure out a way to move forward...even if that means negotiating with the nation that drove them from their land.

Perhaps. Or perhaps the Hobgoblins will realize that stealing land from other people is not the best way to live in peace with other races. Or they will realize they don't like growing crops that much if they don't have a herd of slaves to sow and harvest them.

Again, I never said I "don't mind." I do, in fact. War & XPs wrecked me -- I didn't expect The Order to lose, and the sacking of Azure City was a huge blow to me. It pissed me off, in fact. The villains weren't supposed to win, but they did - at least partially.

I understand your sense of justice, and the feeling that Gobbotopia has to "pay" for their attack. But that's just not how national diplomacy works, even in fiction. If every country maintained hostilities with every country that had ever wronged it, there wouldn't be any countries left.

You still have around 500.000 people deprived of their homes and means of substenance. People that the Giant has mostly displayed sympathetically, in opposition to the Hobgoblins, who have mostly been displayed by the Giant as evil and unsympathetic.

If the Giant intends to let the Hobgoblins keep Azure City in the end, I find it odd that he has persisted in presenting the Azurites as good people that work hard and prosper even when stranded in a tiny island, and the Hobgoblins as evil minions who can't do better than resort to brutal slavery even with all the vast resources of the Azurite Nation under they possession.

I 100% agree that the number of slaves doesn't matter - it is always an evil act. But that's not what we were talking about when you brought the numbers up. You first referenced that (unfounded) ratio as an argument that Gobbotopia was unfeasible without slavery.

The numbers are not moot, because if goblinoids outnumber slaves 5 to 1, they could release the slaves and still have a viable society. If I misunderstood your original point, I apologize. I don't want to keep debating an unverified ratio anyway, I think that's a waste of everyone's time.

When I talked about the number of slaves, my primary intent was to make people realize that the slavery issue is no small thing. The number of slaves in Gobbotopia is likely hugue and, if we attend to pre-war population figures, it's likely to exceed the number of goblinoids.

On the other hand, I really think that 20.000 hobgoblins (plus 1.400 other goblinoids) can't defend and farm the amount of land that used to support 530.000 people, without extensive use of slavery. But I acknowledge that there is little point on that line of debate.

Everything Raziere said here. Exaggerating my point unfairly does not prove your point.

I'm not exaggerating your point. Right of conquest works for both ways. That is why nations try to justify their right to exist with something a lot more substantiated than right of conquest.

People and nations are not equivalent. Assault and theft are not the same as war and conquest. War is always brutal, messy, and a tragic loss of life. Nation-state diplomacy is too complex to be simplified down to a single glib example of one human attacking their neighbor and taking their stuff.

I'm failing to see your point here. Waging a war of agression is a Crime against Peace. Wars of agression stopped being considered a legitimate means of diplomacy a long time ago.

If you are expecting every fictional country to apologize and make restitution (or else be subsequently brutally conquered) for every hostile act it takes against another country, you are going to be sorely disappointed by everything that isn't Lord of the Rings.

I'm expecting the good guys to win and the bad guys to lose. Which is a reasonable expectation in a work of fantasy fiction from an author that has stated to loathe "gritty realism" and to like heroes being heroic.

[brian 333]

I do not expect a resolution of the Gobbotopia issue unless there is a sequel devoted to that issue. The story is about The OotS, not the Orange versus Blue conflict.

I believe the author has us just where he wants us: discussing the morality and consequences of bigotry and territorial expansion through military force. To resolve the issue wnuld be to show that these things can lead to happy endings, which they never do in real life.

[Ionathus]

I do not expect a resolution of the Gobbotopia issue unless there is a sequel devoted to that issue. The story is about The OotS, not the Orange versus Blue conflict.

I believe the author has us just where he wants us: discussing the morality and consequences of bigotry and territorial expansion through military force. To resolve the issue wnuld be to show that these things can lead to happy endings, which they never do in real life.

I really like this way of looking at it. I agree that we won't see an easy or quick resolution, one way or another - whether or not Hinjo even wants to retake Azure City, he simply won't have the strength to do so for a long time...if ever.

[Jason]

I really like this way of looking at it. I agree that we won't see an easy or quick resolution, one way or another - whether or not Hinjo even wants to retake Azure City, he simply won't have the strength to do so for a long time...if ever.

If the Snarl comes out of the rift and kills all the hobgoblins that will be a pretty definitive resolution.

[Dion]

If the Snarl comes out of the rift and kills all the hobgoblins that will be a pretty definitive resolution.

Will it? I mean, the snarl doesn’t seem to have any agency, much less any type or moral or ethical framework...

So I am not sure that we’re going to be able to say “letting snarl killed tens of thousands of people solved the moral and ethical quandary”

[Keltest]

Will it? I mean, the snarl doesn’t seem to have any agency, much less any type or moral or ethical framework...

So I am not sure that we’re going to be able to say “letting snarl killed tens of thousands of people solved the moral and ethical quandary”

Blowing things to hell is not a particularly good or satisfying resolution, but it is indeed a resolution.

[The Pilgrim]

If the Snarl comes out of the rift and kills all the hobgoblins that will be a pretty definitive resolution.

If the Snarl begins to manifest through the Rift at Azure City, the Hobgoblins may become scared and abandon the forsaken place, fleeing back to their hills. The Order could then move in an seal the Rift, then the Azurites could return and begin rebuilding their nation.

It could be a possible resolution.

[hroþila]

The statu quo ante bellum is only a satisfactory solution if you posit there was nothing wrong with it, though.

[Jason]

I'm half expecting a scene where Redcloak will discover that the Snarl has devoured Gobbotopia, and that it will be the final straw that breaks him out if his sunken cost deal with Xykon and turns him firmly against the lich. We'll see.

[Ionathus]

I'm half expecting a scene where Redcloak will discover that the Snarl has devoured Gobbotopia, and that it will be the final straw that breaks him out if his sunken cost deal with Xykon and turns him firmly against the lich. We'll see.

I'd probably bet against that scenario happening -- feels a little too grim for the tone of OotS.

Sure we've had countless worlds destroyed in the past, but that has the feel of an ancient apocalypse.

I can foresee The Snarl manifesting in the world or causing some sort of dimensional/spatial distortion (maybe everyone winds up on the world within the Rift?) but I don't really think we're going to see wholesale slaughter of entire nation-states from the Snarl.

[hungrycrow]

If the Snarl manifests through the rifts, it will be in Monster Hollow where it can ratchet up the tension. If the Snarl actually gets through a rift, that's just the end of the story; it would still be on OOTSworld if they sealed the rifts afterwards and there wouldn't be time to fight it even if the Order plausibly could.

[Fyraltari]

The statu quo ante bellum is only a satisfactory solution if you posit there was nothing wrong with it, though.

It seems to me that it is the foundation of The Pilgrim's position: everything was fine and the goblinoids are the only aggressors.

If the Snarl manifests through the Rifts

It has.

[hungrycrow]

It has.

True, but this already revealed what the Snarl is capable of. If this kind of scene happens again, it has to escalate the main conflict somehow. Appearing thousands of miles away from all the major players doesn't really do that.

[Jason]

True, but this already revealed what the Snarl is capable of. If this kind of scene happens again, it has to escalate the main conflict somehow. Appearing thousands of miles away from all the major players doesn't really do that.

I would think that the news that everything he tried to build in Gobbotopia is gone, to the point that the souls of all those hobgoblins were consumed and won't even get to spend their afterlife with the Dark One would be a game-changer for Redcloak.