Redcloak and the misattribution of blame

[Dion]

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.

Justification? What an odd word. I have no idea what justification means in this context.

What does it mean to you when you say that someone used something for “justification”?

[RyuHimora]

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.

Justification? What an odd word. I have no idea what justification means in this context.

What does it mean to you when you say that someone used something for “justification”?

This attitude towards the current conversation is unhelpful at best and intentional derailing at worst.

Redcloak is doing what he is doing because he believes the goblinoid races deserve better than being xp fodder for the other races. He is using a perceived injustice (either being created by the gods specifically for this purpose, or the gods implicitly allowing this to happen, we aren't sure which is true or even if either are true) as his justification for his actions. That's all there is to read into it which is relevant to the conversation.

[Ionathus]

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.

I was not literally saying you must cite a source for every thought you have. I was objecting to your blanket descriptions of evil as incapable of cooperating, collaborating, and prospering, and saying that's not a claim you can prove.

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.

Emphasis mine: I'd argue that evil is perfectly capable of achieving its goals. Plenty of evil characters can and do live entirely happy and fulfilled lives. There is much to be gained through callous disregard of others -- as long as it's done carefully. Most of our fiction likes to give the villain their comeuppance, because that feels good and is narratively satisfying. But there are plenty of stories where the heroes don't defeat the villain, just survive them, and the villain goes on to live a happy and fulfilled life, despite being a heartless manipulative sadist.

I'm not saying that OotS is one of those stories: it's manifestly not, and I fully expect all the main villains to lose. But that doesn't mean Evil is always self-destructive. It can be, if the Evil character isn't self-aware enough to think through their self-serving actions. But then, the same is true for naive Good characters whose benevolence is taken advantage of. Are Evil characters more likely to be brought low by their own actions? Probably. But that's not exclusive to Evil, and shrewd Evil can do quite well for itself.

[Jason]

Emphasis mine: I'd argue that evil is perfectly capable of achieving its goals. Plenty of evil characters can and do live entirely happy and fulfilled lives. There is much to be gained through callous disregard of others -- as long as it's done carefully. Most of our fiction likes to give the villain their comeuppance, because that feels good and is narratively satisfying. But there are plenty of stories where the heroes don't defeat the villain, just survive them, and the villain goes on to live a happy and fulfilled life, despite being a heartless manipulative sadist.

We'll just have to agree to disagree there.
In my opinion such villains are never truly happy and fulfilled.
They can sometimes achieve their goals, but when they do they are usually the wrong goals - things that won't actually make them happy - or they have poisoned their goals with their methods to the point that they are no longer fulfilling.

I don't believe in a happy ending for evil, because I don't believe that's how it works in real life either. Our stories show that the villain never wins because in reality the villains never really win. To really win you have to be good.

Edit: So call me an idealist, I guess.

[Ionathus]

We'll just have to agree to disagree there.
In my opinion such villains are never truly happy and fulfilled.
They can sometimes achieve their goals, but when they do they are usually the wrong goals - things that won't actually make them happy - or they have poisoned their goals with their methods to the point that they are no longer fulfilling.

I don't believe in a happy ending for evil, because I don't believe that's how it works in real life either. Our stories show that the villain never wins because in reality the villains never really win. To really win you have to be good.

Edit: So call me an idealist, I guess.

I think we will. To me, the idea that Evil can still make you happy on some level is a compelling one - it means that Good has to be a choice made out of a moral conviction, rather than a self-serving one. If being Good was always the better choice for making yourself happy and achieving success, then does that mean Good characters choose Good out of a vested self-interest?

It's kind of like playing a "Good/Evil choice" video game like KotoR, Baldur's Gate, or even Bioshock's option to Harvest or Heal the little sisters. If the Good option always gives you better stuff (which it always seems to do), what story-based reason would there ever be for choosing the Evil option?

[brian 333]

Allow me to simplify:
Me first and I don't care about you is Neutral. Lions and wolves do this, and people can survive this way.

Evil is, me first and you are my toy to play with as I like. To be Evil one must have victims. If everyone is Evil, everyone is a victim. And when you run out of victims you turn on your allies who turn on you.

Evil can only thrive as a parasite on non-evil. When the host dies, so does the parasite.

[Jason]

I think we will. To me, the idea that Evil can still make you happy on some level is a compelling one - it means that Good has to be a choice made out of a moral conviction, rather than a self-serving one. If being Good was always the better choice for making yourself happy and achieving success, then does that mean Good characters choose Good out of a vested self-interest?

Good people make good choices because they feel better about themselves when they do, because they know they are doing good to others as well as for themselves.
You may call it self-serving, but there's nothing wrong with a choice where everybody truly wins.

It's kind of like playing a "Good/Evil choice" video game like KotoR, Baldur's Gate, or even Bioshock's option to Harvest or Heal the little sisters. If the Good option always gives you better stuff (which it always seems to do), what story-based reason would there ever be for choosing the Evil option?

The paradox of evil is that it is never a better option, yet people still choose it.

[hamishspence]

Evil can only thrive as a parasite on non-evil. When the host dies, so does the parasite.

The Western Continent would suggest otherwise. Constant turnover of evil nations - but those nations still exist - and new ones arise to replace the ones that fall.

It never gets to the point of "all evil nations implode and are destroyed, causing the extinction of evil on the continent."

[hroþila]

Evil doesn't pay.

I've never said that!

Edit: okay, I think you're teasing me because I typed Gobbotopia instead of Azure City.

Noooo, I mean, I've said that 0 times, and you've said it 50000x as many times, so also 0. Ok ok I'll see myself out.

[Jason]

The Western Continent would suggest otherwise. Constant turnover of evil nations - but those nations still exist - and new ones arise to replace the ones that fall.

It never gets to the point of "all evil nations implode and are destroyed, causing the extinction of evil on the continent."

Just because a system has not completely failed yet does not mean that it is not on a self-destructive course.
Edit: And plenty of destruction and suffering is being caused by the evil system.

[Ionathus]

Good people make good choices because they feel better about themselves when they do, because they know they are doing good to others as well as for themselves.
You may call it self-serving, but there's nothing wrong with a choice where everybody truly wins.

The paradox of evil is that it is never a better option, yet people still choose it.

Touche. I do agree that Evil is a Zero-Sum game, whereas Good in cooperation can build greater than the sum of its parts.

Just because a system has not completely failed yet does not mean that it is not on a self-destructive course.
Edit: And plenty of destruction and suffering is being caused by the evil system.

Agreed, destruction and suffering are rampant within every evil society portrayed in OotS. That doesn't necessarily mean they're going to fail anytime soon. I still maintain that groups of Evil characters can cooperate and prosper together without automatically turning on each other at some point -- there's a reason most people think Dirk Dastardly Stops to Cheat is such a silly convention. Tarquin's adventuring group, for instance, worked together for years despite all being some flavor of Evil. The fact that Malack was killed by Tarquin's badly-raised son several decades into that partnership doesn't take away from the fact that it was a successful partnership for several decades.

I referenced Baldur's Gate and KotoR for a reason: in those games, if you're playing an Evil character and have Evil party members, they'll rake you over the coals for doing ANY good act, even for self-serving reasons. An Evil person would have no reason to murder the beggar who approached them in a crowded city -- the murder would decrease their standing and reputation, and possibly result in either jail time or at least inconvenience. The game treats Evil as only Chaotic Evil, an insatiable bloodlust and desire to torment everyone in its path.

But the smooth-talking villain with great PR is still a villain, and they've learned to play very nicely with others to get where they are. Get enough of those together, and you can have a functioning society. Sure, there will be plenty of bribery and corruption, but the society will still function on all the important levels.

[Keltest]

The Western Continent would suggest otherwise. Constant turnover of evil nations - but those nations still exist - and new ones arise to replace the ones that fall.

It never gets to the point of "all evil nations implode and are destroyed, causing the extinction of evil on the continent."

I would hardly call anything on the Western Continent thriving either.

[Lord Raziere]

But the smooth-talking villain with great PR is still a villain, and they've learned to play very nicely with others to get where they are. Get enough of those together, and you can have a functioning society. Sure, there will be plenty of bribery and corruption, but the society will still function on all the important levels.

Yup. the only reason the obvious Chaotic Evil villain is so popular is because superhero and fantasy stories are often action based and therefore are all about fighting. therefore to make sure people don't feel bad, people default to making the targets of fighting as morally obvious and evil as possible so that an awesome fight can happen, for the reader's enjoyment. Evil in mystery and crime stories however, tend to be smarter, more complex and the whole challenge is catching them with enough evidence in the first place. Just look at any villain from the Phoenix Wright series: the only reason any of them don't get away with their crimes is often because of small details that everyone but Phoenix overlooks and the fact that Phoenix has lie-detecting magic and thus can press people on things that no one else has any reason to think are lies.

[brian 333]

And yet those smooth talking, cooperative villains still exist as parasites on the non evil host society. Without someone to condemn to the arena or burn at the stake, how would The Vector Legion control a populace which appears ready to overthrow them? Without slaves to shackle and lash, would the slavers and overseers become traders and farmers?

Yes, Evil can thrive for a time, but that clock runs out when the victims run out.

How do vampires survive when they have drunk the last drop of mortal blood?

[Dion]

How do vampires survive when they have drunk the last drop of mortal blood?

Probably turn into space vampires or something, like in that one movie.

[Lord Raziere]

And yet those smooth talking, cooperative villains still exist as parasites on the non evil host society. Without someone to condemn to the arena or burn at the stake, how would The Vector Legion control a populace which appears ready to overthrow them? Without slaves to shackle and lash, would the slavers and overseers become traders and farmers?

Yes, Evil can thrive for a time, but that clock runs out when the victims run out.

How do vampires survive when they have drunk the last drop of mortal blood?

How do adventurers survive when they killed the last monster and looted the last gold coin?

when there are no more goblins, no more orcs or whatever other "evil" races to kill, they will be just lost. if Evil is all about profiting from victims, adventurers count among that number with the monstrous races being the victim. in that sense, adventurers are self-destructive if we're going by this insistence of the term, and doing evil upon the monstrous races.

[brian 333]

I don't disagree with that. What you describe is just another form of parasitism, and putting the 'adventurer' label on the perpetrators does not make it less destructive, self-defeating, or Evil.

[Lord Raziere]

I don't disagree with that. What you describe is just another form of parasitism, and putting the 'adventurer' label on the perpetrators does not make it less destructive, self-defeating, or Evil.

So you admit that Redcloak has a legitimate grievance against the good races and by extension since the gods set up the entire system so that adventurers would exist so that they would benefit, the gods are by extensions are the greater parasite above them and thus also evil by this definition because they get prayer from mortals suffering- when things go wrong, people pray to the gods to fix it or to prevent things from going wrong, or to help them in battle against their enemies, things like that.

because while its not clear whether the gods set up the system for the exact reasons that Redcloak states, its clear that the system was set up by them so that adventurers would exist and get exp for killing things and monstrous races are oddly lacking in PCs. furthermore its clear that TDO is a new god and the goblins didn't have one before that. so if the goblins didn't have a god before that....why were they created?

[hamishspence]

Without someone to condemn to the arena or burn at the stake, how would The Vector Legion control a populace which appears ready to overthrow them? Without slaves to shackle and lash, would the slavers and overseers become traders and farmers?

Yes, Evil can thrive for a time, but that clock runs out when the victims run out.

The idea is that the populace itself is corrupted - it isn't just "those at the top" - it goes right down to the school level:

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0755.html

This is consistent with Fiendish Codex 2's concept that in a sufficiently LE nation, 90% of the population end up in the Nine Hells after death.

[Martijn]

And yet those smooth talking, cooperative villains still exist as parasites on the non evil host society. Without someone to condemn to the arena or burn at the stake, how would The Vector Legion control a populace which appears ready to overthrow them? Without slaves to shackle and lash, would the slavers and overseers become traders and farmers?

Yes, Evil can thrive for a time, but that clock runs out when the victims run out.

How do vampires survive when they have drunk the last drop of mortal blood?

Evil can breed slaves to have an infinite supply to shackle and lash. There is no inherent reason why they'd run out.

[Jason]

How do adventurers survive when they killed the last monster and looted the last gold coin?

They retire and become rulers over settled lands if they're warrior types, or go on to do magical research if they're mages, or run their own urban thieves guilds if they're rogues. 1st and 2nd edition D&D had this built into the rules.

when there are no more goblins, no more orcs or whatever other "evil" races to kill, they will be just lost. if Evil is all about profiting from victims, adventurers count among that number with the monstrous races being the victim. in that sense, adventurers are self-destructive if we're going by this insistence of the term, and doing evil upon the monstrous races.

That's a cynic's view. The original assumptions of D&D are that the monstrous races didn't mint those coins themselves - it's all plunder from the non-monstrous peaceful settlers they have raided and destroyed. The monstrous races by their culture or nature are a threat to all around them, and killing or driving them off to more remote areas makes the world a safer and more civilized place. Adventurers are the defenders of civilization in the border lands, and all the treasures they recover were wrongfully taken from the non-monsters in the first place.

[brian 333]

Lord Raziere, I agree with almost none of what you posted.

Redcloak's grievance is with specific adventurers, (the murderhobos described in the post to which I was replying,) and to extrapolate from those actions a culpability for populations, races, and deities who did not participate in the murderhobo activity is quite simply bigotry.

At what point did it become OK to blame a group for the actions of a few? Defining oneself as a victim, regardless of the merit of the claim, does not justify retribution against a race, nation, region, city, organization, village, or family. It entitles the victim to seek justice from the perpetrators of the crime.

Attacking a city because of a superficial similarity of appearance between its inhabitants and the criminals is racism. The only result of such an act would be to create bigotry against the attackers by the new victims who then justify new crimes against those who superfhcially resemble the attackers.

Your argument boils down to, "It's okay to be racist if you pesceive yourself to be a victim of racism, and the perception of victimhood entitles you to commit crimes against those who look like the criminals who you believe harmed you."

[Ionathus]

Attacking a city because of a superficial similarity of appearance between its inhabitants and the criminals is racism. The only result of such an act would be to create bigotry against the attackers by the new victims who then justify new crimes against those who superfhcially resemble the attackers.

Interesting - we've looped back around to a literal description of what happened to Redcloak's village, and Redcloak as a result.

[Jason]

Redcloak's grievance is with specific adventurers, (the murderhobos described in the post to which I was replying,) and to extrapolate from those actions a culpability for populations, races, and deities who did not participate in the murderhobo activity is quite simply bigotry.

Not precisely. The group that destroyed Redcloak's village was not a random adventuring party, but the Sapphire Guard, a secret order of Paladins who attacked Redcloak's village because they were trying to kill the high priest of the Dark One, who was in the village.

Attacking a city because of a superficial similarity of appearance between its inhabitants and the criminals is racism.

And again, that's not quite Redcloak's situation. He knew that the Sapphire Guard were from Azure City, under the command of the leaders of Azure City, and received most of their recruits and their financial support from Azure City. He knew that the leaders of Azure City were ultimately the people who were responsible for the destruction of his village and slaughter of most of his family.

[Lord Raziere]

and above that, that, the gods could've prevented this whole situation with the Snarl from ever occurring.

how? Simple. If they were less concerned about treating each world a fun campaign to play and more about what making a good world, they'd have solved this by now.

sure they couldn't have done this in more early iterations of creating a Snarl prison, but as worlds legnthened into lasting for centuries, and now a thousand years they could've come up with a setting where no suffering happened, therefore giving no one any reason to to call upon the Snarl to solve any of their problems. Then simply instructed the populace and try and worship up a new god that wouldn't be a part of any of the existing pantheons so that a fourth quiddity may be formed. as they were experienced enough at remaking worlds at that point, they could try this as many times as they like, gods not being quitters. Instead of trying to actively solve their problem however they instead just act like its all a game with mortals as the pieces. they could've made a better world and solved this but they didn't.

after all, letting a cycle of destroying worlds go on while amusing themselves at making worlds to play with and parasitically get prayer from people they know will die anyways until a new god comes along to try and kill the rest with a new plan is quite self-destructive of the gods, yes? By being so negligent they have allowed their downfall to come about, and sloth is just a valid a sin as any other.

[brian 333]

Not precisely. The group that destroyed Redcloak's village was not a random adventuring party, but the Sapphire Guard, a secret order of Paladins who attacked Redcloak's village because they were trying to kill the high priest of the Dark One, who was in the village.

And again, that's not quite Redcloak's situation. He knew that the Sapphire Guard were from Azure City, under the command of the leaders of Azure City, and received most of their recruits and their financial support from Azure City. He knew that the leaders of Azure City were ultimately the people who were responsible for the destruction of his village and slaughter of most of his family.

So we justify assaulting hundreds of thousands of otherwise uninvolved people because of the actions of a few dozen?

Does that make sense?

Now add to that the fact that the perpetrators had already been caught and punished for crimes the leadership of Azure City did not condone or even know about until after they were committed.

The only remaining justification for the attack was that the Azurites had something Team Evil wanted, and their preferred method of obtaining it was to make war and to kill and enslave as many of the inhabitants as possible.

All of the justifications based on racism are BS, and any honest analysis of the situation would have to include the fact that the assumption of racist motives on the part of Party A in no way justifies a racist response on the part of Party O.

Racism cannot excuse racism. In other words, if we take an eye for an eye we shall all be blind.

[Jason]

So we justify assaulting hundreds of thousands of otherwise uninvolved people because of the actions of a few dozen?

Not at all. I'm just saying that the situation is more complex than what you had outlined there.

Now add to that the fact that the perpetrators had already been caught and punished for crimes the leadership of Azure City did not condone or even know about until after they were committed.

We don't know the fate of the commander of the Sapphire Guard at the time of the raid on Redcloak's village, but since the Guard are still raiding goblin settlements in HtPGHS and the leader of the Guard there speaks of his predecessor in glowing terms it would seem unlikely that he was ever punished for leading the raid. And Shinjo does seem to have had at least some knowledge of the Guard's activities, but he did not put any restraint on the raids until the incident in HtPGHS, which is also when O-Chul joined the Guard.

All of the justifications based on racism are BS, and any honest analysis of the situation would have to include the fact that the assumption of racist motives on the part of Party A in no way justifies a racist response on the part of Party O.

Racism cannot excuse racism. In other words, if we take an eye for an eye we shall all be blind.

I generally agree, and Redcloak certainly is a racist, but he has more justification for hating Azure City and its leaders than just anti-human racism. Likewise even if some of the Guard were anti-goblin racists, the goblin high priest really was a threat to the existence of the world.

[Dion]

So we justify assaulting hundreds of thousands of otherwise uninvolved people because of the actions of a few dozen?

I don’t believe anyone has tried to “justify” anything on this thread.

Nobody has said that the actions of the goblins were morally right (i.e. justified).

People say that the goblins had reasons for doing it. Saying there are reasons is not the same as justification.

People say that Redcloak believes he’s justified. Saying that someone believes they’re justified is not saying they are justified.

Look, I’m going to say this: the goblins attacking the azure city was wrong. Gobbotopia is founded in sin. Redcloak is a racist.

And yet... I still believe that goblins are probably the victims of bigotry that was built into the world by the gods. And I believe a lot of terrible, inexcusable, awful things are likely to result from that bigotry.

I believe the actions that formed gobbotopia was a terrible thing.

And I believe actions to destroy gobbotopia would also be a terrible thing.

I believe both of those things at the same time, because I think they’re both true.

There’s no simple answer where you divide the world up into a “good” bucket and a “evil” bucket, and fix all the problems by smashing the stuff in the evil bucket with the stuff you find in the good bucket. There are plenty of stories where things work like that, but this hasn’t been one of those stories so far, and I doubt it’s going to turn into one.

[brian 333]

While I believe some posters have indeed defended the attack on Azure City as a legithmate response to anti-goblin bigotry, I otherwise agree in general with the above post by Dion.

Having said about all I can say on the topic, I will leave this conversation with one final thought:

Good and Evil, Chaotic and Lawful are not arbitrary titles imposed upon a character which thereafter determine his available choices. They are the cumulative result of his moral choices. Even if the alignment is imposed at the creation the Good character can do bad things and when the weight of those choices tip the balance the character becomes Neutral or even, eventually, Evil. Redcloak, and goblinkind in general, is not Evil by the act of any deity or group of deities. Redcloak is Evil by his own choice.

[M1982]

I would hardly call anything on the Western Continent thriving either.

I woudl also argue that those evil nations still consist of neutral rank-and-file citiizens with only the leading positions held by evil people.