Redcloak and the misattribution of blame

[The Pilgrim]

If I understand Fyralti's position right, that doesn't actually satisfy his conditions.

He literally wrote that Gobbotopia is a necessity. And Gobbotopia is the sacked and ruined Azure City.

The point is, the goblins having a city-state (and the political power it came with) might be needed for peaceful coexistence. Destorying Azure City is not.

The Hobgoblins already had a full-on city:
https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0197.html

And they lived and prospered at peace with the azurites.

By destroying the Azurites, the Hobgoblins only obtained one third of their own killed, a lot of humans slaughtered, 500.000 displaced persons, a lot of loot and slaves, and placing a big shinning "crusade bait" target mark on their foreheads.

Stablishing Gobbotopia was not necessary, neither is the continuation of it's existence. The Hobgoblins have given proof of being able to prosper without it.

[Lord Raziere]

The Hobgoblins already had a full-on city:
https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0197.html

Gobbotopia was not necessary, neither is the continuation of it's existence.

An unnamed city, somewhere in the mountains, that no one knows about, that we have no clue what the living conditions are, when civilizations based in mountains aren't exactly known for their successes, given that most working civilizations have a similar need of access to certain things to thrive. what actual improvement is it over

Spoiler: Goods Deeds Gone Unpunished spoilers

Show

The town of twelve years ago under the GSL-1 as opposed to GSL-2?

Its not convincing to me. If this city was important to anything wouldn't we have more details on it to show what life is like there to clear this up? I don't think it proves anything. Quantity of life is not quality of life. it is OOTs canon that

Spoiler: Good Deeds Gone Unpunished spoilers

Show

hobgoblins reproduce faster and more numerously that humans

and living beings tend to reproduce more in BAD conditions than in good ones as ensuring as many progeny can potentially survive to offset the ones that are inevitably going to die. while life more well off can afford to reproduce LESS because their offspring is safer and thus can afford to spend more time on the quality of their child being raised.

[The Pilgrim]

A lot of things can happen, and yes, it depends, but I try to look for what can be expected. Given my understanding of the situation Azurites are not in position to attack by themselves (not only they have lost large chunk of population and larger chunk of their military but they are far away from the Azure Cirty itself - so they are safer from Hobgoblins but Hobgoblins also get a defensive advantage) and coordinating alliances will take time - while the slaves suffer and die and also invites other powers to take a bite - even if other potential occupiers are significantly more Azurite-friendly.

Narratively-wise, the conflict between the azurites and the hobgoblins has been frozed so it doesn't draw attention from the conflict for the Gates, which is the real story here. The Giant has commented this on a number of ocassions.

And just like some of the azurites got re-settled in a distant insland with a deus-ex-machina devils-ex-machina, The Giant can use similar devices to defrozen and resolve the conflict in the epilogue once the main story is over.

And I think that Durkon's offers show us at least the general direction what will happen if there is any negotiation between the Azurites and Gobbotopia. Hobgoblins will gain something, some recognition, not just whatever they can carry on their backs*. Now, there are other possible resolutions, of course, but Hobgoblins getting up and leaving is a bit too clean.

Well, my interpretation of Durkon's offer is that The Giant just made Durkon offer Redcloak exactly the kind of deal wanted by every forum member who roots for the goblinoids. And Redcloak rejected, strenously.

And that once again gives proof, in my opinion, that the ongoing theme with the Goblinoids is not a matter of goblinoids vs humanoids, but a matter of Xykon, Redcloak, and possibly The Dark One, oppresing the Goblinoids. As Right-Eye already pointed in SoD.

[Ionathus]

Well, my interpretation of Durkon's offer is that The Giant just made Durkon offer Redcloak exactly the kind of deal wanted by every forum member who roots for the goblinoids. And Redcloak rejected, strenously.

And that once again gives proof, in my opinion, that the ongoing theme with the Goblinoids is not a matter of goblinoids vs humanoids, but a matter of Xykon, Redcloak, and possibly The Dark One, oppresing the Goblinoids. As Right-Eye already pointed in SoD.

As I see it, Redcloak debated back-and-forth on the subject for multiple pages, seriously grappled with it in a moment of conflict, and then rejected Durkon's offer. Honestly, negotiations went a lot better than they could've, for a first meeting after 1200 pages of hostilities between the two sides. This negotiation (plus Minrah's verbal & physical beatdown) could've all just been planting the seeds of doubt in Redcloak's mind, to be paid off at a future moment of decision.

[Jason]

The Hobgoblins already had a full-on city:
https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0197.html

And they lived and prospered at peace with the azurites.

Not only that, but the hobgoblin priest in How The Paladin Got His Scar describes the hobgoblin city at that time as "one of the largest goblinoid settlements on the surface," (emphasis mine). That would seem to indicate that there are other goblinoid settlements comparable in size on the surface, and bigger goblinoid settlements underground.

[Fyraltari]

Challenge Accepted.



Done.

How many Quatloos have I won?

(As I replied back then to your argument, HtPGhS demonstrates humans have treated Hobgoblins diplomatically before, managing to stop the slaughters and co-exist with them in Peace. SoD also gives an example of goblins and humans co-existing and even attending public spectacles together. Therefore, Gobbotopia, and thus the previus destruction of Azure City, is not a necessity and has never been a necessity for peaceful coexistence of goblinoids with humans).

Wrong.
I said Gobbotopia, as in a goblin nation-state recognized by the stickworld's international community, was necessary, not that it be founded by violence. You are blatantly trying to move the golaposts here.

HtPghS did not demonstrate that hobgoblins and humans lived in peace before Redcloak came along, it demonstrated that a prt of the Azurite military (which the sapphire Guard is, secret society or not) could indiscriminately slaughter them without it raising much of a fuss until a random captain got involved. The Azurites decided by themselves to stop harassing the hobgoblins for a while and the new Supreme Leader assassinated his prdecessor and the resident warhawks because he felt that launching an attack on the Azurites would be too destructive to the hobgoblins. IF that's not peace, that's a cold war at best. It also shows that both the previous Supreme leader and the general considered war with the humans an inevitability.

The existence of one village who was left alone and whose population could go to human-run and attended circus is only evidence that there are places where the anti-goblin sentiment is less pronounced or even inexistant it certainly isn't proof that PC races and goblinoids are generally co-existing peacefully, just as Kilkil being an imporant member of the EoB's government doesn't invalidate the fact that Belkar could offer a bounty on indiscriminate kobold murder.

The evidence of the PC races generally treating the monster races, goblinoids included, as sword fodder is pretty overwhelming, from these guys, to Oona's tribe having fled the dwarves all the way to the freaking arctic (and the notion that heroic Kraagor killed thousands of goblins), to the elven supremacist commando, to the group of orcs in OtOoPCs who almost got murdered for wanting to attend a metal concert.

By the way, Jasdoif, I thpught I remembered a post of the Giant talking about humans and goblins being at war since basically forever but I can't find it in the index.

If I understand Fyralti's position right, that doesn't actually satisfy his conditions. Gobbotopia didn't *have* to be established in the ruins of Azure City. Hell, it didn't have to be established in any ruins at all: if Redcloak found that fortress of Hobgoblins and decided to develop it from a military base to a full-on city, we'd have both a Gobbotopia and Azure City, without any need for bloodshed.

The point is, the goblins having a city-state (and the political power it came with) might be needed for peaceful coexistence. Destriying Azure City is not.

Correct. Also, it's F-y-r-a-l-t-a-r-i.

Yes, it does. He said literally that Gobbotopia is a necessity. And Gobbotopia is nothing more than the sacked and ruined Azure City.

No, it's not. It's a nation-state with a flag, an hymn and international standing.

[Jason]

The evidence of the PC races generally treating the monster races, goblinoids included, as sword fodder is pretty overwhelming, from these guys, to Oona's tribe having fled the dwarves all the way to the freaking arctic (and the notion that heroic Kraagor killed thousands of goblins), to the elven supremacist commando, to the group of orcs in OtOoPCs who almost got murdered for wanting to attend a metal concert.

That is all evidence of the current state of PC vs. "monster" relations. In other words, it's all after the goblinoids fought a giant crusade that killed enough members of the PC races in a single year to raise the Dark One to deity status. Who knows what things were really like between the two sides before that crusade?
The Dark One's minions, including Redcloak, say that they were merely trying to get equality in land and resources with the other races to correct an injustice the gods created when they formed the world. But then they would hardly admit that "we were trying to conquer the world and either make slaves of you or exterminate you all, because goblins are a superior race," now would they?

[Fyraltari]

That is all evidence of the current state of PC vs. "monster" relations. In other words, it's all after the goblinoids fought a giant crusade that killed enough members of the PC races in a single year to raise the Dark One to deity status. Who knows what things were really like between the two sides before that crusade?
The Dark One's minions, including Redcloak, say that they were merely trying to get equality in land and resources with the other races to correct an injustice the gods created when they formed the world. But then they would hardly admit that "we were trying to conquer the world and either make slaves of you or exterminate you all, because goblins are a superior race," now would they?

I don't give a single **** about who started it and neither should anybody. What happened centuries ago is not more important than what is happening today. If the goal is to stop the violence, the question of who started the cycle of violence isn't nearly as important as how to stop it.

[Jasdoif]

it's entirely different thing if they end up with more resources by the end of negotiations than they had when negotiations have started.

That's the entire reason negotiations exist....

It's an ideal reason for negotiations.

Negotiating with the goal of losing less in the end than without negotiations is also common

Yes; losing less is still coming out in a better position than you had going in.

---

By the way, Jasdoif, I thpught I remembered a post of the Giant talking about humans and goblins being at war since basically forever but I can't find it in the index.

It's in the author commentary for War and XPs (thus ineligible for the Index, as it's not available for free online).

Spoiler: War and XPs commentary

Show

I had previously mentioned the idea that the Sapphire Guard conducted crusades against the goblins back during Shojo's "Crayons of Time" exposition. The immediate hatred displayed by Redcloak and Miko toward each other is part of the idea that these two groups--goblins and humans, particularly Southern humans--have been battling back and forth for centuries. At this point, it has become impossible to tell who started the hostilities; each side remembers nothing so much as their last defeat by the other. And so the cycle of violence continues, generation after generation. Did the humans start it by crusading against the goblins, or did the goblins start it by trying to harness the rifts? Or did the humans start it by putting the goblins into a position where they felt they had no recourse but to try to harness the rifts? Who can say? Well, I suppose I could, but I find it much more interesting to keep it ambiguous.

[Jason]

I don't give a single **** about who started it and neither should anybody. What happened centuries ago is not more important than what is happening today. If the goal is to stop the violence, the question of who started the cycle of violence isn't nearly as important as how to stop it.

Well if the history of the conflict is not important, then let's have no more talk about how the two sides "have been battling back and forth for centuries." Or how the gods creating the goblinoids as XP fodder is an injustice that requires the nations of the world to officially recognize Gobbotopia.

[Fyraltari]

Well if the history of the conflict is not important, then let's have no more talk about how the two sides "have been battling back and forth for centuries." Or how the gods creating the goblinoids as XP fodder is an injustice that requires the nations of the world to officially recognize Gobbotopia.

Exactly. Let's instead talk how about the i njsut treatment of the goblinoids by the PC races with the tacit approval of at least some of the gods needs to stop and how a nation-state such as Gobbotopia, recognized by the PC races' own nation-states is an imporant part of this process.

EDIT: To clarify my position, the history of a conflict is important, but only in the ways that relate to the present states of the conflict. ho threw the first stone or who killed the most people isn't as important as who is suffering right now, how and how it can be stopped.

[The Pilgrim]

Exactly. Let's instead talk how about the i njsut treatment of the goblinoids by the PC races with the tacit approval of at least some of the gods needs to stop and how a nation-state such as Gobbotopia, recognized by the PC races' own nation-states is an imporant part of this process.

And once again, you are justifying the sack and enslavement of Azure City as a necessity.

No matter how much time you invest in denying it, you end up there again anyway.

EDIT: To clarify my position, the history of a conflict is important, but only in the ways that relate to the present states of the conflict. ho threw the first stone or who killed the most people isn't as important as who is suffering right now, how and how it can be stopped.

Who is suffering now, are half a million azurites. And you don't get that fixed with just releasing those of them who are enslaved from their slavehood.

Who was suffering before, was no one, as the Hobgoblins had their own recognized territory, big city, and peace with the Azurites.

If Redcloak wanted to stablish a fancy nation-state with flag and athem, he didn't need to invade Azure City.

[Jason]

Exactly. Let's instead talk how about the i njsut treatment of the goblinoids by the PC races with the tacit approval of at least some of the gods needs to stop and how a nation-state such as Gobbotopia, recognized by the PC races' own nation-states is an imporant part of this process.

EDIT: To clarify my position, the history of a conflict is important, but only in the ways that relate to the present states of the conflict. ho threw the first stone or who killed the most people isn't as important as who is suffering right now, how and how it can be stopped.

How do we know the true history of the conflict isn't something like this: "the goblinoids were created on a parity with the other races, but their common culture seems to have a deep-seated legend that they were unjustly treated at their creation and that they therefore have a right to take what they need from other races, so anytime they gather in any numbers they become a danger to their neighbors. This led to skirmishes that only reinforced the goblin belief that they were getting a raw deal. It got much worse when a charismatic leader known as the Dark One seized on this legendary injustice and formed an army that tried to conquer the world and enslave or destroy all the other races. He died from overindulgence while celebrating a victory, but his generals quickly spread the false story that he had been killed while attempting peaceful negotiations with the human kingdoms. The resulting crusade slaughtered millions, and catapulted the Dark One to godhood. Finally the PC kingdoms banded together and destroyed the rampaging goblin army. From that point forward they have understandably never trusted goblinoids and have taken measures to nip any new crusade in the bud. An unfortunate result of this justified caution is anti-goblinoid prejudice, but until the goblins stop believing in their legendary injustice and have a wider pantheon than just one evil deity who is driving them to conquer all non-goblinoids they remain a real danger to everyone else."?

[The Pilgrim]

Not only that, but the hobgoblin priest in How The Paladin Got His Scar describes the hobgoblin city at that time as "one of the largest goblinoid settlements on the surface," (emphasis mine). That would seem to indicate that there are other goblinoid settlements comparable in size on the surface, and bigger goblinoid settlements underground.

Which also implies that goblinoids like to live underground more than on the surface.

[Jason]

Which also implies that goblinoids like to live underground more than on the surface.

Well, maybe. It might also mean that underground is the only place they've been able to build larger cities without harassment.
Edit: The hobgoblins in HtPGHS do mention that goblinoid eyesight is weaker in the day, but they also obviously want to have more surface settlements.

[Keltest]

Well, maybe. It might also mean that underground is the only place they've been able to build larger cities without harassment.
Edit: The hobgoblins in HtPGHS do mention that goblinoid eyesight is weaker in the day, but they also obviously want to have more surface settlements.

Given that dwarves exist, i kind of struggle to believe that being underground provides any sort of intrinsic shelter that being on the surface would not. At best you would be changing the type of enemies you face. This may actually be worse, given that dwarves get a racial bonus to fight goblinoids.

[Ionathus]

And once again, you are justifying the sack and enslavement of Azure City as a necessity.

No matter how much time you invest in denying it, you end up there again anyway.

...how a nation-state such as Gobbotopia...

Emphasis mine. Such as Gobbotopia. Fyraltari is saying it's necessary for goblinoids to have an established political territory. Fyraltari did not say it's necessary for that territory to replace Azure City. It's a significant distinction.

How do we know the true history of the conflict isn't something like this: "the goblinoids were created on a parity with the other races, but their common culture seems to have a deep-seated legend that they were unjustly treated at their creation and that they therefore have a right to take what they need from other races, so anytime they gather in any numbers they become a danger to their neighbors. This led to skirmishes that only reinforced the goblin belief that they were getting a raw deal. It got much worse when a charismatic leader known as the Dark One seized on this legendary injustice and formed an army that tried to conquer the world and enslave or destroy all the other races. He died from overindulgence while celebrating a victory, but his generals quickly spread the false story that he had been killed while attempting peaceful negotiations with the human kingdoms. The resulting crusade slaughtered millions, and catapulted the Dark One to godhood. Finally the PC kingdoms banded together and destroyed the rampaging goblin army. From that point forward they have understandably never trusted goblinoids and have taken measures to nip any new crusade in the bud. An unfortunate result of this justified caution is anti-goblinoid prejudice, but until the goblins stop believing in their legendary injustice and have a wider pantheon than just one evil deity who is driving them to conquer all non-goblinoids they remain a real danger to everyone else."?

How do we know it is? Do we have literally any evidence of this proposed history? Beyond Redcloak being an unreliable narrator?

Redcloak is a self-serving evil person, with a warped view of reality and a burning desire for revenge that stems from deep childhood trauma. That makes him an unreliable narrator. It does not mean that his crayon version of events in SoD is automatically 100% false on all counts.

My personal theory is that Redcloak's crayon narrative, similar to Shojo's & Thirden's, is factually correct on a large scale: the goblinoids started out scattered and at a disadvantage, The Dark One united them, the PC races were afraid, they assassinated him during negotiations, goblinoids went on a revenge crusade that caused his apotheosis. I expect it's casting TDO in a more favorable light (he's portrayed as charismatic and diplomatic with the PC diplomats before his assassination), possibly exaggerating the gods' reasons for creating "monstrous" humanoids, and justifying The Plan as the only possible way to fix these problems.

But I don't buy that it's 100% fabricated. Nobody has refuted the claims made in that crayon narrative. Thor's only reference was that TDO's followers had killed lots of Thor's followers -- which fits the narrative. Redcloak says the goblinoids were created as XP fodder and Durkon doesn't debate him on that point: in fact, he sympathizes with the idea, having just learned of Hel's plot himself. Right-Eye never once questions the narrative Redcloak tells, only Redcloak's methods for fixing the problem. Every narrative opportunity to refute Redcloak's version of events has passed by without a refutation.

I just don't think the story is building up to "Redcloak and TDO are lying about everything". It's likely, though, that the story is building up to "Redcloak and TDO, while not lying about the problem, are making things much worse with their attempted solution" or something similar.

[Fyraltari]

It's in the author commentary for War and XPs (thus ineligible for the Index, as it's not available for free online).

Thanks.

And once again, you are justifying the sack and enslavement of Azure City as a necessity.

No I have not. Stating that the continued existence of Gobbotopia is a better thing than its destruction is not the same as justifying the manner in which it was founded, no matter how much you want it to.

No matter how much time you invest in denying it, you end up there again anyway.

Because you keep claiming I say something I haven't.

Who is suffering now, are half a million azurites. And you don't get that fixed with just releasing those of them who are enslaved from their slavehood.

And the bugbears scrapping a living out of the arctic, and all the goblinoids routinely attacked by adventurers.

Who was suffering before, was no one

I guess all the goblins murdered by thr Sapphire Guard under Gin-Jun and his predecessors don't count, then?

as the Hobgoblins had their own recognized territory, big city, and peace with the Azurites.

The Azurites hadn't recognized squat, they didn't even know it was there until the SG found it.

If Redcloak wanted to stablish a fancy nation-state with flag and athem, he didn't need to invade Azure City.

That's true. It's possible that if he had worked on it he could have turned that one peaceful community into a city-state and so founded an alternate Gobbotopia on an healthier base. But the fact that Redcloak is an evil, kinslaying, racist, specist, hypocritical, murderous zealot, constantly teetering on the verge of insanity who has done terrible damage to his own cause because he cares more about assuaging his own guilt than the lives of the people who follow him does not retract from the fact that for the conflict to end, the PC races must regard the "monster" races as equals and partners with their own territory where they would be safe from external aggression and so far, Gobbotopia is on ots way to achieve that.

How do we know the true history of the conflict isn't something like this: "the goblinoids were created on a parity with the other races, but their common culture seems to have a deep-seated legend that they were unjustly treated at their creation and that they therefore have a right to take what they need from other races, so anytime they gather in any numbers they become a danger to their neighbors. This led to skirmishes that only reinforced the goblin belief that they were getting a raw deal. It got much worse when a charismatic leader known as the Dark One seized on this legendary injustice and formed an army that tried to conquer the world and enslave or destroy all the other races. He died from overindulgence while celebrating a victory, but his generals quickly spread the false story that he had been killed while attempting peaceful negotiations with the human kingdoms. The resulting crusade slaughtered millions, and catapulted the Dark One to godhood. Finally the PC kingdoms banded together and destroyed the rampaging goblin army. From that point forward they have understandably never trusted goblinoids and have taken measures to nip any new crusade in the bud.
An unfortunate result of this justified caution is anti-goblinoid prejudice

That might be true, but then the PC races need to realize that their behaviour is fueling the goblinoids' hatred of them. And that they cannot expect the goblinoids not to fight them if they don't stop attacking them. There are only two ways to end a conflict: peace of utter extermination of one side. The injsutice may have started as a myth but it is now very real and it needs to stop. As the currently most powerful side of the conflict, the onus is on them to de-escalate it.

but until the goblins stop believing in their legendary injustice and have a wider pantheon than just one evil deity who is driving them to conquer all non-goblinoids they remain a real danger to everyone else."?

But they're not. Until 60 years ago and the discovery of the Rift, the goblins haven't been a threat. Their rampage after. The death of the Dark One ultimately lead to their defeat in battle. The bugbears were driven away in the Arctic. The largest hobgoblin settlement on the surface nearly got wiped out by a fraction of the Azurite military acting without thz support of their government. They only conquered Azure City because they had an Epic lich on their side and the recent kingslaying resulted in the nobles withdrawing their forces. They just keep losing.

[Jason]

How do we know it is? Do we have literally any evidence of this proposed history? Beyond Redcloak being an unreliable narrator?

We don't. By presenting an alternate that fits what we know I'm pointing out that we don't know the true history. We have a one-sided account from Redcloak that merely "hasn't been refuted yet." That means it is impossible to make an informed judgement about whether the goblins are justified in any of their actions, or if the humans and other PC races are justified in theirs.

My personal theory is that Redcloak's crayon narrative, similar to Shojo's & Thirden's, is factually correct on a large scale: the goblinoids started out scattered and at a disadvantage, The Dark One united them, the PC races were afraid, they assassinated him during negotiations, goblinoids went on a revenge crusade that caused his apotheosis. I expect it's casting TDO in a more favorable light (he's portrayed as charismatic and diplomatic with the PC diplomats before his assassination), possibly exaggerating the gods' reasons for creating "monstrous" humanoids, and justifying The Plan as the only possible way to fix these problems.

I tend to believe along your lines. It was probably essentially accurate in the wider events but told with green glasses on. The notions that the Dark One gathered an army only because he wanted to address a real injustice, that he only wanted peaceful coexistence with the other races, that he was a wise and kind ruler, and that he was universally loved by goblinkind are particularly suspicious. It's exactly how any tyrant would like to have himself be described.

Redcloak says the goblinoids were created as XP fodder and Durkon doesn't debate him on that point: in fact, he sympathizes with the idea, having just learned of Hel's plot himself.

Durkon sympathizes, and says that from what he knows of the gods it may be correct, yes, but no one has yet confirmed the idea that goblins were created as XP fodder. Thor didn't address the subject.

Right-Eye never once questions the narrative Redcloak tells, only Redcloak's methods for fixing the problem.

Right-Eye was raised in the same culture that Redcloak was. He has no way of knowing if the story is true or not, and Right-Eye does have incentive not to contradict his brother while trying to recruit Xykon. In fact he points out to Redcloak that he was knowingly lying to Xykon about being able to control the Snarl immediately after the story is over. Xykon of course doesn't really care if the story is true or not and wouldn't have the historical knowledge to refute it if he did care.

Every narrative opportunity to refute Redcloak's version of events has passed by without a refutation.

There haven't been that many opportunities. Durkon makes it clear that this was the first time he'd heard of the idea when Redcloak mentions it to him. What other opportunity has there been?

[Ironsmith]

Who is suffering now, are half a million azurites. And you don't get that fixed with just releasing those of them who are enslaved from their slavehood.

No, but it does help. And it'd be a necessary step to repairing relations regardless. Plus, by the time these hypothetical negotiations finish, the Azurites will have an established presence elsewhere, so it's not like the freed slaves won't have anywhere to go or anyone waiting for them when they get there. It's a step in the right direction.

Who was suffering before, was no one, as the Hobgoblins had their own recognized territory, big city, and peace with the Azurites.

I'd characterize it as more indifference or ignorance than peace. The Azurites didn't seem to know about the fortress, and probably wouldn't until soneone decides to attack (i.e Redcloak).

If Redcloak wanted to stablish a fancy nation-state with flag and athem, he didn't need to invade Azure City.

Exactly. But he didn't, and now we have a diplomatic nightmare for all involved. Stuff like this is why very few people condone his methods.

[Ionathus]

We don't. By presenting an alternate that fits what we know I'm pointing out that we don't know the true history. We have a one-sided account from Redcloak that merely "hasn't been refuted yet." That means it is impossible to make an informed judgement about whether the goblins are justified in any of their actions, or if the humans and other PC races are justified in theirs.

I tend to believe along your lines. It was probably essentially accurate in the wider events but told with green glasses on. The notions that the Dark One gathered an army only because he wanted to address a real injustice, that he only wanted peaceful coexistence with the other races, that he was a wise and kind ruler, and that he was universally loved by goblinkind are particularly suspicious. It's exactly how any tyrant would like to have himself be described.

Durkon sympathizes, and says that from what he knows of the gods it may be correct, yes, but no one has yet confirmed the idea that goblins were created as XP fodder. Thor didn't address the subject.

Right-Eye was raised in the same culture that Redcloak was. He has no way of knowing if the story is true or not, and Right-Eye does have incentive not to contradict his brother while trying to recruit Xykon. In fact he points out to Redcloak that he was knowingly lying to Xykon about being able to control the Snarl immediately after the story is over. Xykon of course doesn't really care if the story is true or not and wouldn't have the historical knowledge to refute it if he did care.

There haven't been that many opportunities. Durkon makes it clear that this was the first time he'd heard of the idea when Redcloak mentions it to him. What other opportunity has there been?

Yeah, Redcloak kinda glosses over why TDO had gathered that big army in the first place. I think there are even some references to how good of a military leader he was -- I wouldn't be surprised if there were battles/wars with PC races that got glossed over to make TDO seem super reasonable and trusting and OH NO, the EVIL HUMANS KILLED HIM

The thing is, if the "XP Fodder" narrative is a falsehood, why did so much of the Durkon/Redcloak negotiation strips focus on Redcloak's tactics, instead of his claims? If Rich had wanted to refute that narrative, he could've had Thor tell Durkon the truth last book, and then question Redcloak's story during negotiations. Instead, the negotiations focus on Redcloak's behavior and establishing a way to move forward.

What characters talk about in a story is important, not just because those arguments often form the conflict, but because concepts need to exist and be stated in-story for readers to form any opinion about them. Rich has spent plenty of panel time exploring the idea that Redcloak's methods are evil, delusional, and dangerous, even if his goal is noble (or at least started out that way). Rich hasn't spent any panel time exploring the idea that Redcloak's "XP Fodder" narrative is false.

I don't have ironclad proof that the "XP Fodder" narrative is true, but I don't have a compelling reason to disbelieve it, and in fact would have to make several assumptions to do so. Going by a sort of narrative Occam's razor, "the narrative presented is, on some level, true" is a simpler explanation.

[The Pilgrim]

No I have not. Stating that the continued existence of Gobbotopia is a better thing than its destruction is not the same as justifying the manner in which it was founded, no matter how much you want it to.

And again you are changing what you said:

Exactly. Let's instead talk how about the i njsut treatment of the goblinoids by the PC races with the tacit approval of at least some of the gods needs to stop and how a nation-state such as Gobbotopia, recognized by the PC races' own nation-states is an imporant part of this process.

What you said is that stablishing Gobbotopia was a necessity.

Destroying Azure City was a necessity for stablishing Gobbotopia.

Therefore, destroying Azure City was a necessity.

And the bugbears scrapping a living out of the arctic, and all the goblinoids routinely attacked by adventurers.

The Bugbears are happy with their life. Oona has already stated what she thinks about the Dark One and about Redcloak's plan. She is accompanying Team Evil just to make sure they don't extingish the monsters in Monster Hollow.

And there are goblinoid attacked by adventurers, much like there are humanoids routinely attacked by goblinoids. You only see one half of the conflict, despite the fact that The Giant has kept showing goblinoids mostly as evil minions, while all attempts at resolving conflicts with monstruous races without violence have been either the initiative of humanoid heroes (Roy in Origins, O-Chul in GDGU, Durkon a few strips ago) or the initiative of goblinoids murdered by Redcloack or deposed by him.

I guess all the goblins murdered by thr Sapphire Guard under Gin-Jun and his predecessors don't count, then?

No, they don't count, because they belong to a conflict that was sucessfully settled by both parties 12 years ago.

So the Hobgoblin don't get to use those as justification for their war of agression, as much as azurites wouldn't have got either to use the human villagers murdered by Hobgbolins 12 years ago as justification for breaking the Peace.

The Azurites hadn't recognized squat, they didn't even know it was there until the SG found it.

The azurites made a peace agreement with the Hobgoblins 12 years ago. You don't make peace agreements with groups of people you don't recognize.

That's true. It's possible that if he had worked on it he could have turned that one peaceful community into a city-state and so founded an alternate Gobbotopia on an healthier base.

Then Gobbotopia isn't necessary. The Hobgoblins could keep working on their already sizeable city in the mountains.

Therefore, there is no need for Gobbotopia keeps existing in order to solve the "conflict".

But the fact that Redcloak is an evil, kinslaying, racist, specist, hypocritical, murderous zealot, constantly teetering on the verge of insanity who has done terrible damage to his own cause because he cares more about assuaging his own guilt than the lives of the people who follow him does not retract from the fact that for the conflict to end, the PC races must regard the "monster" races as equals and partners with their own territory where they would be safe from external aggression and so far, Gobbotopia is on ots way to achieve that..

Gobbotopia is on his way of becoming Crusading Free Buffet the next minute after Xykon and Redcloak are vanquished.

You don't get to be recognized as equal by killing, looting, enslaving and stealing the people you want to be recognized as equal by. Half a million azurites aren't right now thinking that the goblinoids who have killed, evicted and enslaved the azurite people are poor victims of specieist unequality.

The sole reason why Durkon negotiated with Redcloak was because Thor needs The Dark One. Gobbotopia is irrelevant, Durkon would have gone to negotiate with Redcloak all the same if Redcloak hadn't razed Azure City.

And in that negotiation, Durkon pointed out that getting PC races to acknowledge goblinoids as equals isn't going to happen just as fruit of a negotiation. It will take years of hard work, trade, mutual relations, and turning the other cheek. Just the kind of things that someone who was murdered by Redcloak attempted to do, and that someone who was ousted from power by Redcloak attempted also.

[Jason]

The thing is, if the "XP Fodder" narrative is a falsehood, why did so much of the Durkon/Redcloak negotiation strips focus on Redcloak's tactics, instead of his claims? If Rich had wanted to refute that narrative, he could've had Thor tell Durkon the truth last book, and then question Redcloak's story during negotiations. Instead, the negotiations focus on Redcloak's behavior and establishing a way to move forward.

Durkon didn't know the story until he spoke with Redcloak, so he didn't ask Thor about it.
There are any number of reasons why Thor didn't talk about it, starting with "Durkon didn't ask and he was focused on showing what's at stake," and ranging on to "Thor didn't talk about it because a 'dumb god rule' prevents him," and possibly "it's not true and Thor had no idea the Dark One was telling this particular lie to his high priests."

I don't have ironclad proof that the "XP Fodder" narrative is true, but I don't have a compelling reason to disbelieve it, and in fact would have to make several assumptions to do so. Going by a sort of narrative Occam's razor, "the narrative presented is, on some level, true" is a simpler explanation.

A point. But the fact that we have no confirmation means it's open to a sudden twist reveal, especially if it serves a plot point. "Your god has been lying to you all along," could be a very effective twist for Redcloak's story.

If the "XP fodder" story is true, I think it's likely that this isn't the first world with "XP fodder" races. And it doesn't seem likely that it would always have been the goblinoids (many of those past worlds don't seem to have goblinoids). Maybe there were worlds where the goblinoids were the PC races and the dwarves, elves, and humans were the XP fodder, and they reversed it for Stickworld because it just happened to be the goblinoid's turn.

[Ionathus]

What you said is that stablishing Gobbotopia was a necessity.

Destroying Azure City was a necessity for stablishing Gobbotopia.

Therefore, destroying Azure City was a necessity.

A nation-state such as Gobbotopia. That's what Fyraltari said. You quoted it yourself.

The distinction is important.

And in that negotiation, Durkon pointed out that getting PC races to acknowledge goblinoids as equals isn't going to happen just as fruit of a negotiation. It will take years of hard work, trade, mutual relations, and turning the other cheek. Just the kind of things that someone who was murdered by Redcloak attempted to do, and that someone who was ousted from power by Redcloak attempted also.

All things that would require political power to do. It doesn't sound like anyone even acknowledged the goblinoids as an official territory until Gobbotopia. The years of hard work, trade, mutual relations, and turning the other cheek have to start with an acknowledgement of sovereignty. Gobbotopia the literal location was not necessary, but some measure of sovereignty and political borders (wherever it sat) was. The narrative seems to imply hobgoblins weren't getting that in the mountains. But I accept I can't prove that.

Durkon didn't know the story until he spoke with Redcloak, so he didn't ask Thor about it.
There are any number of reasons why Thor didn't talk about it, starting with "Durkon didn't ask and he was focused on showing what's at stake," and ranging on to "Thor didn't talk about it because a 'dumb god rule' prevents him," and possibly "it's not true and Thor had no idea the Dark One was telling this particular lie to his high priests."

Those are all in-character reasons. Watsonian, if you will. I'm talking about narrative reasons, Doylist ones. Not "why did Thor do X or Y?" but "why did Rich have Thor do X or Y?". You've offered in-character reasons that explain why Thor did certain things, but the fact remains that Rich had an opportunity to refute Redcloak's ideals, and he instead took that time to address his methods. That seems to imply the methods are the focus of Redcloak's story.

A point. But the fact that we have no confirmation means it's open to a sudden twist reveal, especially if it serves a plot point. "Your god has been lying to you all along," could be a very effective twist for Redcloak's story.

If the "XP fodder" story is true, I think it's likely that this isn't the first world with "XP fodder" races. And it doesn't seem likely that it would always have been the goblinoids (many of those past worlds don't seem to have goblinoids). Maybe there were worlds where the goblinoids were the PC races and the dwarves, elves, and humans were the XP fodder, and they reversed it for Stickworld because it just happened to be the goblinoid's turn.

Yes, it's possible we'd have a twist reveal on that topic -- though I don't think it's very likely. The biggest twist we've had in the entire comic (IMO) was very similar in its cosmic scope: that the Stickworld wasn't the 2nd world or even the 100th, but the latest of literal billions. That twist was incredibly effective, but it didn't completely upend the entire narrative of the Snarl. It just added a new, gamechanging wrinkle to the situation. If we ever get a similar revelation on the "XP fodder" narrative, my guess is it'd have a similar effect: complicating the story instead of negating it.

[Jason]

A nation-state such as Gobbotopia. That's what Fyraltari said. You quoted it yourself.

The distinction is important.

I agree. Fyraltari is arguing that something like Gobbotopia is necessary for lasting peace between the races, not that Gobbotopia had to be built on the corpse of Azure City.

Those are all in-character reasons. Watsonian, if you will. I'm talking about narrative reasons, Doylist ones. Not "why did Thor do X or Y?" but "why did Rich have Thor do X or Y?". You've offered in-character reasons that explain why Thor did certain things, but the fact remains that Rich had an opportunity to refute Redcloak's ideals, and he instead took that time to address his methods. That seems to imply the methods are the focus of Redcloak's story.

Again, a fair point. But since he didn't take the opportunity to have Thor confirm the story and admit it was wrong for the gods to act this way either, some further twist seems possible, perhaps even likely.

[Ionathus]

Again, a fair point. But since he didn't take the opportunity to have Thor confirm the story and admit it was wrong for the gods to act this way either, some further twist seems possible, perhaps even likely.

Agreed. If it's true, I am curious why he didn't bring it up, or just say something like "the goblins got a raw deal this time." He did regret his hostility against TDO, but that was functional/strategic -- i.e. "I shouldn't have burned that bridge so early, we needed him for his quiddity."

I suspect, story-wise, it's because at this point the backstory doesn't change much about the current conundrum, and he wanted Durkon to focus on the task ahead of him. I wish so dearly that we'd gotten even just a little more exposition from the gods during Durkon & Minrah's stint in the afterlife - one way or the other, it would have answered so many questions!

Which, I'm sure, is exactly why we didn't

[The Pilgrim]

A nation-state such as Gobbotopia. That's what Fyraltari said. You quoted it yourself.

The distinction is important.

Gobbotopia is a nation-state built through bloody war, over stolen land, that uses a sizeable amount of the conquered people as slave workforce.

So either you believe that what the Hobgoblins did was necessary, or you mean that what the goblinoids need is a nation-state NOT like Gobbotopia.

All things that would require political power to do. It doesn't sound like anyone even acknowledged the goblinoids as an official territory until Gobbotopia. The years of hard work, trade, mutual relations, and turning the other cheek have to start with an acknowledgement of sovereignty. Gobbotopia the literal location was not necessary, but some measure of sovereignty and political borders (wherever it sat) was. The narrative seems to imply hobgoblins weren't getting that in the mountains. But I accept I can't prove that. .

If you say that the Hobgoblins weren't getting the recognition they needed in the Mountains, but they are getting it now, then you are saying that razing Azure City was necessary.

I know that you don't mean to say that, but that's the logical conclusion of that line of reasoning.

If Gobbotopia can be built someplace else, then there is no need for Gobbotopia to keep existing at it's current location, over stolen land. The Hobgoblins can return to their mountains and keep building Gobbotopia there, maybe even keeping some former azurite lands like the Blueriver valley (an outcome that already seems to me like a big concession, as it means rewarding the agressor).

After all, Gobbotopia has barely existed for a few weeks since it's declaration by Redcloak. Barely a year has passed since the Battle of Azure City. The Hobgoblins haven't really built much there, beyond brutalizing slaves, fighting the resistance, and looking for Xykon's lost phylactery.

[hungrycrow]

Durkon didn't know the story until he spoke with Redcloak, so he didn't ask Thor about it.
There are any number of reasons why Thor didn't talk about it, starting with "Durkon didn't ask and he was focused on showing what's at stake," and ranging on to "Thor didn't talk about it because a 'dumb god rule' prevents him," and possibly "it's not true and Thor had no idea the Dark One was telling this particular lie to his high priests."

I think this part is really important. Thor plotted Durkon's death just so he could talk about the Snarl, and broke the gag rule for Minrah at the slightest excuse. If Thor knew that TDO had a legitimate grievance, he would have done everything he could to let Durkon know about it, dumb god rule or no. Instead he suggests TDO is just another evil god, and that he thinks TDO is mad just because of his aggression when TDO ascended.

[hamishspence]

Yeah, Redcloak kinda glosses over why TDO had gathered that big army in the first place. I think there are even some references to how good of a military leader he was -- I wouldn't be surprised if there were battles/wars with PC races that got glossed over to make TDO seem super reasonable and trusting and OH NO, the EVIL HUMANS KILLED HIM

Thor does claim that, as a mortal, The Dark One had killed many of his followers:

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1143.html

though based on this:

Northern Pantheon:
There's no direct evidence in the comic to support this, but in 3E Deities and Demigods, I believe the Asgardian pantheon is divided into suggested race-based groups, with Thor, etc for Dwarves, and Frey, Freya, etc for Humans. Presumably, Dwarves like hammers and getting hammered, and Humans are into procreating like bunnies. Maybe Rich's world has a similar thing going on, where certain groups of worshippers are culturally predisposed towards particular deities' portfolios..

Pretty much this. A human can worship Thor if he wants, certainly, but he is much more popular among the dwarves.

those followers were likely to have been dwarves, not humans.

[The Pilgrim]

I agree. Fyraltari is arguing that something like Gobbotopia is necessary for lasting peace between the races, not that Gobbotopia had to be built on the corpse of Azure City.

Gobbotopia is built over the corpse of Azure City. That's the sole Gobbotopia that exists (in-comic).

As long as they defend the argument that it's necessary that Gobbotopia keeps existing, they will be defending that the destruction of Azure City was a necessity. Because the sole Gobbotopia that exists is the one built over the land and the suffering of the azurite people.

If they meant that the Hobgoblins need the ideal of Gobbotopia and all that, then ok, the Hobgoblins can grab the Ideal and stuff and go someplace else* to build it, were they will not be killing and enslaving people, stealing their lands, and destroying their achievments. That someplace else could be the Mountains they came from, for example.

*(no, not *that* Someplace Else)