Redcloak and the misattribution of blame

[Saint-Just]

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.

You don't get to assume that they were unimportant, unknown to anyone etc. That it not shown. Nor "bad conditions" are the only possible cause of disparate population growth. All in all it sounds like you are presenting possible explanations and then demanding to be proven otherwise without showing that your explanations are probable.

Also about "civilizations based in mountains aren't exactly known for their successes" - what about Incas? What about Tibetans? Again, you may have a weak correlation on your side (not actually possible to calculate because criteria for "successful civilization" would be impossible to define), but even if it exists you go and treat it as if it proves your point instead of vaguely pointing in it's general direction.

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.

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.

There is no Gobbotopia other than one that exists. If you wanted to say "they needed to have a political recognition etc." you didn't need to say "Gobbotopia". There is very good reason to assume that words mean what they mean in history (or in the story) otherwise you are demanding that everything else should conform to your definition of the word, and that results in placing asymmetrical burden on your opponents during the discussion.

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.

Hm, let me ask you: once incursion have been launched by the Sapphire Guard, what exactly could happen in the story that wouldn't satisfy you as peace? Goblins defeating the incursion would mean that it's a cold war because they were only stopped by the force of arms, Azurites (random Captain? How about the heir to the throne - which should translate in significantly more power and responsibilities than nowadays or even in the 19th century - specifically investigating the case?) stopping the rogue commander (yes, the system was not set up to prevent that kind of behaviour, but neither did it demanded it) and killing him means it's a cold war because they were only decided to stop because they wanted to. The peace treaty is the peace treaty, someone saying that something is inevitable is incredibly weak evidence for that.

The rest of the post talks about a few things which in sum point in the direction of existing anti-"monster" prejudice, because while only the elven commando cannot be explained away by itself, other arguments are unlikely to be all wrong at the same time. We also for all intents in purposes know it from the Giant's mouth (while pointing out bias in the IRL idea of "savage species" can be done without it actually existing in the fictional universe, OotS doesn't seem to be going that way).

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

They could make a flag and a hymn where they were. Lack of international standing beyond the Azure City is not stated one way or the other; international recognition by Azurites existed. Note that seventeen nations recognized "our borders" specifically including the environs of the Azure City. There is no information available on international standing with other nations before that, nor what attempts were made on establishing the relations; and no, lack of recognition when attempt is made doesn't necessarily imply hostility in the pre-modern world (fantasy may or may not map precisely to the historical reality, but it definitely doesn't map to the modern reality), and recognition of borders is even less of an interest to someone far away than recognition of state as such unless they are given access to the vast wealth, trade routes, products of slave labour etc that Hobgoblins didn't have before.

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.

There was no violence between the Hobgoblin tribes and Azure City when Xykon came a-knocking. Or is it alright to start the violence but then the sceond party needs to stop it as soon as posssible?

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.

In the first part you seem to declare that we shouldn't look for individual states and persons and look for the races instead. Contentious position, but I'd want to know more if not for the fact that in the first post on this very page you were talking about history of violence between the Azure City-state and Hobgoblin tribes.

For the second part if we look for who is suffering right now then yes, among the people who we have seen Azurites are suffering significantly more on both per-capita basis and in absolute amount than Gobbotopians. And if we again look for races and grant it for the sake of argument than goblinoids (or should it be monster races in general?) are suffering more on per-capita basis than the PC races (or humans? Or weighted avearge of humans, half-elves and half-orcs suffering with weights of 90:5:5?) with aggregate suffering being meaningless because people who are more numerous are not directly disadvantaged because other people are less numerous (unlike the examples of Azurites and Gobbotopians) then how Gobbotopia is achieving it better than non-conquering non-slaveholding state of goblins?

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.

Depend on what you mean by "destruction". Would you call e.g. presenting them with absolutely overwhelming force and giving option to retreat to their previous borders as destruction? Do you object to killing or do you object to depriving them of Azurite land and wealth?

I do think that such situation is unlikely to come and you've seen my position on the "best way forward" but knowing what should be done gives a direction in which to go and then how closely you can go can then depend on the exact situation.

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

Gobbotopia is the first goblinoid settlement to have standind amongst the other nations

As for why Gobbotopia is a necessity, it's because the goblins and humans have been at this for time immemorial and Gobbotopia is apparently the first time goblins have managed to get humans to treat with them diplomatically

Gobbotopia is a necessity

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

Nice. "What happened centuries ago is not more important than what is happening today" but what happened twelve years ago is.Also the history of a conflict is important, but only in the ways that relate to the present states of the conflict (no, dispossessed Azurrites are not a part of the present state).

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

And they recognized it afterwards, so your words, at least taken literally contradict the book.

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.

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.

Hm, so making progress on the front of the "monster" equality if not justifies breaking the peace, taking the land, enslaving people (and no, releasing the slaves doesn't quite settles the case), then at least should provide immunity to the perpetrators, who are, while guilty, is doing more important job.

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.

Goblins starting disadvantaged and gods having no particular callousness toward them is not mutually exclusive. One motif, present in IRL myths is randomly distributing traits/lands/resources. So they may actually got the short end of the stick and yet was not designed s fodder.

Agree on the last paragraph.

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.

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.

Seems like Fyraltari thinks it's irrelevant. It doesn't had to be built but it is and for Azurites should de-escalate if they don't want to go down in history as opposers to equality. And says that "Azurites recongized **** squat".

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).

I haven't read HtPGHS but unless you tell me how the wiki summation is wrong I present that they knew and made peace treaty with them (Raid immediately before is initiated by the Sapphire Guard, seems like there were goblin raids before that).

[The Pilgrim]

Also about "civilizations based in mountains aren't exactly known for their successes" - what about Incas? What about Tibetans?

What about dwarves?

Dwarven Lands are pure mountains and glaciers.

[Ionathus]

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.

No, I am not. That is not the logical conclusion of that line of reasoning.

My point: The hobgoblins weren't getting the recognition they needed in the mountains.
My point: They are getting it now that they aren't in the mountains.
Not my point: The only non-Mountain spot possible was Azure City.

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.

Point of fact: he said he "just saw another evil god". Implying he regrets dismissing TDO as "just another evil god."

I agree, I wish he'd said something about it, one way or another. Jason made a good point about that as well.

Goblins starting disadvantaged and gods having no particular callousness toward them is not mutually exclusive. One motif, present in IRL myths is randomly distributing traits/lands/resources. So they may actually got the short end of the stick and yet was not designed s fodder.

Agree on the last paragraph.

I can totally see that -- it's possible (and even common) for a disenfranchised group to experience hardship through a lack of support, rather than explicit sabotage or callousness. It's possible the gods just didn't consider the distribution...or that the PC races were their more favored creations, but they didn't actually set out to sabotage or brutalize the monstrous races.

[The Pilgrim]

No, I am not. That is not the logical conclusion of that line of reasoning.

My point: The hobgoblins weren't getting the recognition they needed in the mountains.
My point: They are getting it now that they aren't in the mountains.
Not my point: The only non-Mountain spot possible was Azure City.

Thank you for the clarification.

Now...

Weren't the hobgoblins getting the recognition they needed in the mountains? They were at peace, the azurites were not attacking them.

Are they getting now the recognition they deserve? I think most of the "recognition" was for the Lich and for Redcloak, not the Hobgoblins. And those two are gone.

Did the Hobgoblins really need more land? There has been no hint in the comic that the Hobgoblins suffered from lack of resources or overpopulation. In fact, azurite border defenses were rather relaxed becase of lack on incidents with the hobgoblins for the last 12 years. It doesn't looks like there was any hobgoblin demographic pressure over the border.

Is there a possible outcome where the Hobgoblins get land someplace else and the Azurites recover their lands? Maybe, if The Giant wants it.

[Jason]

Did the Hobgoblins really need more land? There has been no hint in the comic that the Hobgoblins suffered from lack of resources or overpopulation. In fact, azurite border defenses were rather relaxed becase of lack on incidents with the hobgoblins for the last 12 years. It doesn't looks like there was any hobgoblin demographic pressure over the border.

This is a valid point. HtPGHS reveals that Azure City and Shinjo knew very well that there was a large and growing hobgoblin city in the mountains and apparently did nothing to prepare for possible war with them for 12 years. It sounds rather like they were expecting the hobgoblin to keep their peace treaty.

[Dion]

Are they getting now the recognition they deserve?

This word - deserve - is alien to me. What does it mean to get something you deserve?

So many crazy assumptions and prejudices are wrapped up tightly in that word “deserve”. I never have the slightest clue what ideas people hope they’re communicating when they use it.

[Saint-Just]

My point: The hobgoblins weren't getting the recognition they needed in the mountains.
My point: They are getting it now that they aren't in the mountains.
Not my point: The only non-Mountain spot possible was Azure City.

I am afraid I am going on the tangent, but there remains a distinct possibility that the Azure City lands (if not the city itself) was the only available non-mountainous territory here. It is not really necessary for the main discussion but I would like to tell your ideas what to do in such least convenient possible situation.

In general I do believe that actual situation is likely close enough; other nations are interesting in interacting with hobgoblins because they now hold significantly greater wealth, lands, trade routes + they have made a display of military might. They wouldn't be able to get the current degree of interaction with other governments unless they have deprived someone of something, even though I also do not see how it is possible to deny that hey were recognized by the Azure City, and any lack of interest on the part of others may be also driven by the self-interest, not the desire to screw the goblins (though that is a conjecture).

This is a valid point. HtPGHS reveals that Azure City and Shinjo knew very well that there was a large and growing hobgoblin city in the mountains and apparently did nothing to prepare for possible war with them for 12 years. It sounds rather like they were expecting the hobgoblin to keep their peace treaty.

That is also too far: they had border forts with long-range warning system. #368 and the following comics. They did not expected to be another war, thay did not had huge army, nor they maintained a constant readiness state, yet they were making reasonable precautions expected of practically any country during the most of human history. Early warning system was bypassed by Xykon (I am not sure that even RC by himself could do that) and without undead in huge numbers, elemental borbardment and Xykon himself I think that even if early warning system was somehow disabled (spies/assassins?) 30000 Hobgoblins could have razed the countryside but would not be able to take the Azure City and allies would react before the population could be starved into submission.

[quinron]

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)

I've largely stopped participating in this, but I'd like you to examine your previous statement compared to this one:

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.

Just because Gin-Jun's crusades were stopped and there wasn't an outright war doesn't mean that human adventurers/soldiers in the South stopped raiding goblinoid settlements, killing goblinoid people, stealing goblinoid land, and destroying goblinoid achievements. And just because the goblins have declared themselves an autonomous, sovereign state doesn't mean they aren't exploiting human slaves.

But if the change in leadership 12 years ago constitutes "settling" that conflict, then the hobgoblin army's successful capture and continuing occupation of the territory of former Azure City constitutes "settling" the dispute over who owns this land. The Azurites don't get to use the hobgoblins' aggressive expansionism as an excuse to wipe out Gobbotopia; any further conquest will be just another war of territorial conquest like the one that got the goblins into the city in the first place.

[Saint-Just]

But if the change in leadership 12 years ago constitutes "settling" that conflict, then the hobgoblin army's successful capture and continuing occupation of the territory of former Azure City constitutes "settling" the dispute over who owns this land. The Azurites don't get to use the hobgoblins' aggressive expansionism as an excuse to wipe out Gobbotopia; any further conquest will be just another war of territorial conquest like the one that got the goblins into the city in the first place.

Wait, what? Conflict was settled by the mutual agreement. It's that simple. You can go to elaborate how the Azurites executed the man directly responsible and who was taking his actions without sanction from his superior but in general I think that peace treaty is sufficient (and lest you go this way it was not an effective "surrender" of Hobgoblins like some peace treaties IRL).

But then you go to the extremes of illogic. You first refuse to recognize a peace treaty as a resolution and then say that if peace treaty is a resolution (which you don't recognize) then occupation is a resolution and attempts to reclaim the land is a territorial aggression.

IRL there is no Universal Law, it all based on agreements. But if you recognize some Universal Law would you please state why Hobgoblins marching on the Azure City after 12 years of peace do not break that Law but Azure Islands (or whatever you want to call them) marching on Gobbotopia would?

[quinron]

[edited & self-scrubbed]

I had a response, but I've decided I'd rather not be involved in this argument anymore.

[Saint-Just]

I'm not arguing that at all. I am in fact arguing that if there is a Universal Law regarding the sovereign control of territory, then the hobgoblins broke that law by attacking Azure City. But I'm also saying that any Azurite re-conquest of Gobbotopia would be just as much in violation of that law, regardless of whether we were to see reforms in Gobbotopia.

As Fyraltari and others have been arguing: Gobbotopia clearly isn't a pure and virtuous civilization, but neither was Azure City; it's simply a civilization. If the Azurites were to re-conquer the territory, then fine. But they wouldn't be righteously justified in doing so any more than the goblinoids were righteously justified in conquering the territory in recompense for the crusades carried out by the Sapphire Guard. I'm pushing back against The Pilgrim's assertion that the peace treaty being created means the crusades were no longer a valid grievance.

If the Azurites want to invade or sue to free their people, great. I'm all for that. But that doesn't mean they automatically get the land back.

It seems that I misinterpreted your statement then.

Still your ideas are not easy to parse. I can think of at least three possible interpretations: question of guilt and justification is meaningless, everybody does what they do OR extreme pacifism - everybody who engages in war for any reason is guilty OR some weird universal law when defending your land is fine but if fighting stops for some unspecified period of time then everyone gets the right to keep what they hold and not their pre-existing borders. Please can you elaborate on what is closer to your actual opinion and what is your attempt to demonstrate wired conclusions following in your opinion from The Pilgrim's premises.

Additional note: "crusades" (armed forces sent into territory not inhabited by your people and inhabited by the other side which engage in violence there) are not the Sapphire's Guard preserve, Hobgoblins were just calling them "raids".

Edit: or maybe I didn't and there is actually no underlying system, and there is just a desire to say that situation is somehow symmetrical while avoiding explaining how exactly.

[brian 333]

The assertion that the 'monster races' were given a raw deal at creation is used as a weird kind of justification for their current hostility. But the fact is that even if they had been given garden paradises, (like the island orcs, for example,) they would long since have lost them.

Why? Because they are usually Evil. This means they are usually untrustworthy, and civilizations are built on trust. You don't trade with someone likely to steal your wares, you don't work for someone likely to cheat you of your pay, and you don't produce surplus if it will most likely be taken from you by threat of force.

Because they are usually Evil, they will not cooperate in groups larger than the local strong man can control, which means the greatest danger to a monster race village is raids by other monsters.

Because they are usually evil they will tend to prey on the weaker monster groups, thus weakening their overall population even if a more successeul subset of the population prospers.

The 'Good Races' have advantages which breed success.

Because they are usually good, they tend to honor trade, or at least they don't raid them and take their stuff. The same goes for the surplus generated by farmers and craftsmen. This surplus allows better armed and fed defenders, and fosters the expansion of knowledge which leads to greater efficiency and greater surplus.

Because they are usually good they will generally cooperate, which will usually include cooperation with other Good races. If famine or foe should afflict your group, the other Good groups will help. Perhaps they won't help as much as you want, but at least they won't be plotting how best to take advantage of your temporary weakness.

Because the Evil races will tend to be predatory, the Good races will tend to band together againrt them, and as they grow weaker from constant predation against their monster kin, the Good races will grow stronger. Eventually, having grown tired of the constant predation, the Good races will drive them into places the Good races can't reach.

So, while I have no evidence that the monster races were not intentionally marginalized by the gods, it really would not matter. By this point in the Stickverse history they would have marginalized themselves. There are consequences for being Evil which cannot be mitigated by demands for political recognition.

That's why I say TDO is laughing his head off about Gobbotopia. So long as it exists there will be war, and it's a war that ultimately the hobgoblins can't win.

Unless they stop being Evil.

[Ironsmith]

The assertion that the 'monster races' were given a raw deal at creation is used as a weird kind of justification for their current hostility. But the fact is that even if they had been given garden paradises, (like the island orcs, for example,) they would long since have lost them.

Why? Because they are usually Evil. This means they are usually untrustworthy, and civilizations are built on trust. You don't trade with someone likely to steal your wares, you don't work for someone likely to cheat you of your pay, and you don't produce surplus if it will most likely be taken from you by threat of force.

Because they are usually Evil, they will not cooperate in groups larger than the local strong man can control, which means the greatest danger to a monster race village is raids by other monsters.

Because they are usually evil they will tend to prey on the weaker monster groups, thus weakening their overall population even if a more successeul subset of the population prospers.

The 'Good Races' have advantages which breed success.

Because they are usually good, they tend to honor trade, or at least they don't raid them and take their stuff. The same goes for the surplus generated by farmers and craftsmen. This surplus allows better armed and fed defenders, and fosters the expansion of knowledge which leads to greater efficiency and greater surplus.

Because they are usually good they will generally cooperate, which will usually include cooperation with other Good races. If famine or foe should afflict your group, the other Good groups will help. Perhaps they won't help as much as you want, but at least they won't be plotting how best to take advantage of your temporary weakness.

Because the Evil races will tend to be predatory, the Good races will tend to band together againrt them, and as they grow weaker from constant predation against their monster kin, the Good races will grow stronger. Eventually, having grown tired of the constant predation, the Good races will drive them into places the Good races can't reach.

So, while I have no evidence that the monster races were not intentionally marginalized by the gods, it really would not matter. By this point in the Stickverse history they would have marginalized themselves. There are consequences for being Evil which cannot be mitigated by demands for political recognition.

That's why I say TDO is laughing his head off about Gobbotopia. So long as it exists there will be war, and it's a war that ultimately the hobgoblins can't win.

Unless they stop being Evil.

For your consideration: the Drow and the Duergar.

According to the lore, both of these races were more or less forced into Evil by an external force; Lolth for the Drow, Laduguar for the Duergar. Physically and neurologically, they're more or less identical to their Good/Neutral counterparts. If the same holds true in this setting for goblins (and other Evil races), then in a sense, the gods did screw them over... in the sense that the Evil gods responsible for guiding them gave them a bad blueprint for society.

(Suddenly, Giggles just got a lot more frightening.)

[Keltest]

For your consideration: the Drow and the Duergar.

According to the lore, both of these races were more or less forced into Evil by an external force; Lolth for the Drow, Laduguar for the Duergar. Physically and neurologically, they're more or less identical to their Good/Neutral counterparts. If the same holds true in this setting for goblins (and other Evil races), then in a sense, the gods did screw them over... in the sense that the Evil gods responsible for guiding them gave them a bad blueprint for society.

(Suddenly, Giggles just got a lot more frightening.)

I mean, Lolth screwing over the Drow for her own amusement is more or less canon in regular D&D.

[Lord Raziere]

Unless they stop being Evil.

I mean your basically making an assumption that "successful evil civilizations can't exist, that'd be bad!" and asserting that "its good therefore it must be a successful civilization!".

and I think those an incredibly flawed assumptions. Humans aren't inherently good and nor are their nations in Stickverse, and we have examples of evil versions of all the "good" races existing. furthermore successful civilizations are often built upon tearing down and destroying less successful ones. goodness is in no way a requirement for a successful society, only Lawfulness. Examples of this include

Spoiler: Goods Deeds Gone Unpunished spoiler

Show

the Realm of the Dragon

and the Empire of Blood.

[Keltest]

I mean your basically making an assumption that "successful evil civilizations can't exist, that'd be bad!" and asserting that "its good therefore it must be a successful civilization!".

and I think those an incredibly flawed assumptions. Humans aren't inherently good and nor are their nations in Stickverse, and we have examples of evil versions of all the "good" races existing. furthermore successful civilizations are often built upon tearing down and destroying less successful ones. goodness is in no way a requirement for a successful society, only Lawfulness.

I would argue that evil is fundamentally self destructive. An evil society is inherently going to collapse because it is definitionally made up of people who say "i want yours!" and are willing to act on it. You might come up with a strongman who can hold things together for a generation, but as soon as he's gone, either because he got old or because somebody else didnt like him, then things just fall apart. You dont necessarily have to be good to have a society, but you cant be evil.

Honestly, this is something of a tautology, because a lot of the things we consider to be evil are things that destabilize society in some form, which is why we consider them evil.

[Lord Raziere]

I would argue that evil is fundamentally self destructive. An evil society is inherently going to collapse because it is definitionally made up of people who say "i want yours!" and are willing to act on it. You might come up with a strongman who can hold things together for a generation, but as soon as he's gone, either because he got old or because somebody else didnt like him, then things just fall apart. You dont necessarily have to be good to have a society, but you cant be evil.

Honestly, this is something of a tautology, because a lot of the things we consider to be evil are things that destabilize society in some form, which is why we consider them evil.

Sounds more CHAOTIC EVIL than just Evil. Lawful Evil thrives in society all the time, and so does Neutral Evil.

Evil is not fundamentally self-destructive. If it was, it'd be destroyed. self-destructive things tend not to exist long, nor be very competent at surviving long enough to keep fighting against something that isn't self destructive. DnD Evil is still around, and has ways of continuing to exist, therefore not self-destructive.

Edit: going deeper, various Evil gods have been living through this just as much as good gods have, and despite numerous eons have never attempted some self-destructive plan to hijack the Snarl for greater power and gotten killed for it. if the self destructiveness was true, you'd think there would be more good gods around than evil ones.

also you can say Good has self destructive tendencies in its tendency towards martyrdom, numerous people sacrificing their lives to try and fight the hobgoblins at the battle of Azure City and none of it meaning a thing in the end as the city was taken over anyways. Roy and all those soldiers who stayed behind Evil for getting killed?

Spoiler: Start of Darkness spoilers

Show

Heck, the Sapphire Guard pretty much played the usual "unknowingly leave an orphan alive to avenge the slaughtered village" trope to its hilt when they slaughtered Redcloak's village, with Redcloak fulfilling the usual role of a humble hero vowing revenge and successfully paying them back just from the perspective of the goblin. From that point of view, the Sapphire Guard knowing they live in a narrative trope-like universe, was completely self-destructive in that they allowed such a set up to happen, ensuring their own demise.

[RyuHimora]

I mean your basically making an assumption that "successful evil civilizations can't exist, that'd be bad!" and asserting that "its good therefore it must be a successful civilization!".

and I think those an incredibly flawed assumptions. Humans aren't inherently good and nor are their nations in Stickverse, and we have examples of evil versions of all the "good" races existing. furthermore successful civilizations are often built upon tearing down and destroying less successful ones. goodness is in no way a requirement for a successful society, only Lawfulness. Examples of this include

Spoiler: Goods Deeds Gone Unpunished spoiler

Show

the Realm of the Dragon

and the Empire of Blood.

Isn't one of those examples explicitly held together by entirely one person pulling all of the strings possible to manipulate everyone he can and can't see into doing exactly what's required to keep said evil society together?

[Ironsmith]

Sounds more CHAOTIC EVIL than just Evil. Lawful Evil thrives in society all the time, and so does Neutral Evil.

Evil is not fundamentally self-destructive. If it was, it'd be destroyed. self-destructive things tend not to exist long, nor be very competent at surviving long enough to keep fighting against something that isn't self destructive. DnD Evil is still around, and has ways of continuing to exist, therefore not self-destructive.

Not really. It just has to propagate faster than it's destroyed; very feasible, if Evil individuals turn several others toward Evil before eventually undoing themselves.

That aside, the chief distinction of Evil creatures is that it's relentlessly self-serving, without regard for the welfare of other creatures. That sort of behavior is foolhardy for any creature that's not self-sustaining; anything that relies on something else to stay alive would be stupid to not ensure that something's continued existence. Consider also that Evil creatures would happily slaughter each other if it would benefit them, and the end result is that none but the strongest Evils are "self-sustaining" (and possibly not even them, since they can be ganged up on).

[Lord Raziere]

Isn't one of those examples explicitly held together by entirely one person pulling all of the strings possible to manipulate everyone he can and can't see into doing exactly what's required to keep said evil society together?

I think your overestimating the amount of control he has, especially since he explicitly has 5 other people to help him do that for starters, as well as all the other people in that society.

Not really. It just has to propagate faster than it's destroyed; very feasible, if Evil individuals turn several others toward Evil before eventually undoing themselves.

That aside, the chief distinction of Evil creatures is that it's relentlessly self-serving, without regard for the welfare of other creatures. That sort of behavior is foolhardy for any creature that's not self-sustaining; anything that relies on something else to stay alive would be stupid to not ensure that something's continued existence. Consider also that Evil creatures would happily slaughter each other if it would benefit them, and the end result is that none but the strongest Evils are "self-sustaining" (and possibly not even them, since they can be ganged up on).

So....not self-destructive then. because it propagates faster than its destroyed. thats still a net gain for creating evil there. if we regard all such sacrifices for a greater number of beings/cause, good is self-destructive as well. But intentionally, since they make self-sacrifice an explicit ideal.

[Ironsmith]

So....not self-destructive then. because it propagates faster than its destroyed. thats still a net gain for creating evil there. if we regard all such sacrifices for a greater number of beings/cause, good is self-destructive as well. But intentionally, since they make self-sacrifice an explicit ideal.

As is Neutral, for engaging in both behaviors alternatively. The big distinction, then, would be Good's tendency toward mutual bolstering; a behavior for which an Evil mindset is not well suited.

[Lord Raziere]

As is Neutral, for engaging in both behaviors alternatively. The big distinction, then, would be Good's tendency toward mutual bolstering; a behavior for which an Evil mindset is not well suited.

If that mindset is as cartoonish as a sith lord maybe.

for everyone smarter than that, there is servants and minions of various kinds.

also I cannot help but feel as if such "evil is self destructive" trope is partly a product of people watching various things where people wrote evil to be self-destructive for who knows how long and thus people assume it is just because everyone keeps saying so. just because stories are written to be karmically satisfying doesn't mean the karmic satisfaction is true.

[Ionathus]

Why? Because they are usually Evil. This means they are usually untrustworthy

Because they are usually Evil, they will not cooperate in groups larger than the local strong man can control

Because they are usually evil they will tend to prey on the weaker monster groups

Because they are usually good, they tend to honor trade

Because they are usually good they will generally cooperate

Because the Evil races will tend to be predatory

[CITATION NEEDED]

Evil as D&D understands it does not ONLY exist as Chaotic Evil sadist robots. There are schemers. There are charismatic warlords. There are religious fanatics. Hell, there are regular, unambitious civilians who will let someone else die when the chips are down.

Evil characters are capable of complex thought, delayed gratification, and higher-order planning. They are capable of participating in society.

Just because this hobby is infamous for murderhoboing does not mean that well-written Evil people cannot function and prosper in a team, an organization, or an entire nation.

And don't even get me started on "Good societies are automatically more cooperative". Fiction is bloated with examples of Good Government dithering about, stuck in red tape and bickering, while Team Hero takes the world's destiny into their own hands.

It just has to propagate faster than it's destroyed

That's not really unique to Evil, given that "just propagate faster than you die" is the single core concept that motivates all biological activity.

[Lord Raziere]

And don't even get me started on "Good societies are automatically more cooperative". Fiction is bloated with examples of Good Government dithering about, stuck in red tape and bickering, while Team Hero takes the world's destiny into their own hands.

Yeah, some forms of good can take the form of argumentative freedom where people are more concerned about arguing over what is right than actually doing it. the reason this is good is because they are actually being open, honest in this discussion and intend to try and figure it out at some point, but aren't having much success, because not even good people can agree on what the goodest thing to do and you can't always take a third option or do multiple things.

and how many times in fiction do you see a hero having to unite a bunch of bickering but good factions against a united evil in fiction? a lot. Its practically the go-to stock plot for saying diversity is a good thing because it also acknowledges the downside of having it and thus when creates a natural logical obstacle to overcome so that when they finally do all cooperate then they can show the benefits of such cooperation in contrast to earlier failure, and it feels like the protagonist earned it and not just because they fought the evil coming to kill them all.

[brian 333]

First: I don't need to cite an authority to support a thought. I am fully capable of thinking for myself, and the fact that someone more famous than me had a similar thought in no way increases the value of the thought. Reliance upon authority is quite simply mental laziness.
Source: Robert A. Heinlein. A man should be able to change a diaper, ckean a fish, write a book, etc.

Next: in every example given of Evil prospering, what has been ignored is that Evil was living a parasitic existence on the backs of non-evil. When there is only Evil you end up with a Highlander scenario in which, in the end, there can omly be one.

[Jason]

Evil is not a biological organism that "wins" if it reproduces. Evil is a descriptor of flawed ideas and methods that have certain immoral characteristics in common: among them selfishness, a lack of empathy, a willingness to harm others to achieve goals, hate, fear, and pride. It is rightly described as self-destructive because it is addictive and harmful to the person using evil methods. It is also flawed in the sense that it cannot achieve its promised goals: lasting happiness cannot be gained through callous disregard of others.

[Lord Raziere]

First: I don't need to cite an authority to support a thought. I am fully capable of thinking for myself, and the fact that someone more famous than me had a similar thought in no way increases the value of the thought. Reliance upon authority is quite simply mental laziness.
Source: Robert A. Heinlein. A man should be able to change a diaper, clean a fish, write a book, etc.

You contradicted yourself immediately by acknowledging that as a quote.

Next: in every example given of Evil prospering, what has been ignored is that Evil was living a parasitic existence on the backs of non-evil. When there is only Evil you end up with a Highlander scenario in which, in the end, there can only be one.

again, can we stop with the sith lord logic here? Not all Evil twirls their mustache and kicks every puppy walking down the street.

But really your logic about evil reminds me of a speech from...

Spoiler: How the Paladin Got his Scar spoilers:

Show

Miko: I have a question. I am not a paladin yet, so I cannot call upon the blessed power of the Twelve Gods to determine which hobgolbins are evil. How shall I know which are fair to attack?
Gin-Jun: An excellent question, and I am glad you are giving these concerns the weight they deserve. It is important to remember simply that hobgoblins are usually evil, and even those that may not be so still worship an evil god, or defend an evil social order, or grow food for evil warriors, or give birth to evil children. It is enough for us to destroy their evil society, and let any who survive reflect on the path of wickedness. Never hesitate to punish evil or support for evil, or tolerance for evil.
Miko: Thank you, Master. You are wise, and I will do my best to follow your example.

It is quite telling that this logic is probably what helped contribute to Miko Miyazaki being the incredibly bad paladin she got to be.

This whole "Good prospers, Evil doesn't" reasoning is just that logic but applied to civilizations to make any successful civilization inherently good, because if its powerful and prosperous, it can't possibly have done anything wrong, could it? While any civilization that isn't successful clearly deserved it, going by this reasoning. Therefore it is a Just World Fallacy. Just because good people do good things, doesn't mean they get rewarded with success for it and just because evil do evil things doesn't mean they get punished for it.

Furthermore, Evil people are completely capable of forming "in groups" and being complete hypocrites where they treat anyone in the "in group" as a person and and on the "outside" as not a person. Then making that in group the elite of that society. mostly because raging hypocrisy is kind of what evil is all about. Evil is completely capable of extending their parasitic mindset beyond one person without collapsing into a murderous cabal of paranoid lunatics with chronic backstabbing disorder.

[Emanick]

You contradicted yourself immediately by acknowledging that as a quote.

I'd assumed that was conscious irony; I don't know how anyone can say "I don't need to rely on citations in order to make a point" and then unironically follow that up with a citation.

There's oodles of other points being made that I'd love to address, but I don't really have the time to give this discussion the attention it deserves, so I'll leave it at that.

[Ironsmith]

Furthermore, Evil people are completely capable of forming "in groups" and being complete hypocrites where they treat anyone in the "in group" as a person and and on the "outside" as not a person. Then making that in group the elite of that society. mostly because raging hypocrisy is kind of what evil is all about. Evil is completely capable of extending their parasitic mindset beyond one person without collapsing into a murderous cabal of paranoid lunatics with chronic backstabbing disorder.

And being marginally more effective in the process, but still self-destructive.

As an example, take Tarquin. Sure, he can cooperate with other Evil people to run an empire, but he still does so in a way that is self-destructive. Putting aside his attempts at engineering his son to be the Hero to his Villain, his indulgences into dog-kicking territory result in people who hate him and have the will and means to destroy his empire(s). Had he just manipulated the continent into three unified empires, he'd probably be fine (such an action is morally ambiguous, but concievably possible to do "right").

(And no, I'm not talking about the Order. I'm talking about the resistance faction we watched form as the Order left the EoB.)

[Keltest]

And being marginally more effective in the process, but still self-destructive.

As an example, take Tarquin. Sure, he can cooperate with other Evil people to run an empire, but he still does so in a way that is self-destructive. Putting aside his attempts at engineering his son to be the Hero to his Villain, his indulgences into dog-kicking territory result in people who hate him and have the will and means to destroy his empire(s). Had he just manipulated the continent into three unified empires, he'd probably be fine (such an action is morally ambiguous, but concievably possible to do "right").

(And no, I'm not talking about the Order. I'm talking about the resistance faction we watched form as the Order left the EoB.)

Dont forget all the other petty warlords who banded together to dethrone him when he tried it on his own.