OOTS #1232 - The Discussion Thread

[Jason]

Thor couldn't even oppose Fenrir during the creation process. Because opposing other Gods during the creation process is what actually created the Snarl.

Exactly. Thor might feel bad now that it's been pointed out to him how the goblins got worked over by their creator, but if he had realized this at the creation, could he have done anything differently? The goblins were not his creation and he couldn't interfere in Fenris' plans for them or it would risk creating another Snarl.

The big thing we learned from this was confirmation that The Dark One is selling a lie to Redcloak. Some of us already stongly suspected this.

Whether The Dark One knows the truth or not is an interesting question, but if Thor is telling the truth then what TDO told Redcloak is false: There was no divine plan designed and supported by all the gods to make the goblins xp fodder for their clerics.

[hungrycrow]

But the world is set up so that there will be people who are disadvantaged - that they didn't set out specifically go "and those people have to be goblins" doesn't change the fact that it's a thing they did and that has had terrible consequences. When you create a horrible problem, youshould bear at least some responsibility in fixing it, regardless of anything else. Thor just sort of... sidesteps that part all together though by bringing up an argument Durkon wasn't making (taking land from others) and specifically says they can't/won't try and make the goblins' lands better.

To be fair, Thor really can't make the goblin lands better. The gods have a whole system of archaic rules governing how they can interfere in the material world. And if he wanted to get the gods to vote on changing the world, they'd never agree on what change to make.

[Rrmcklin]

Thor didn't make the problem. Fenris did. I don't believe in collective guilt or collective punishment, even when the gods are involved. Each of them had his or her own races to be responsible for, much like each mother and father (or single parents) are responsible for their own children, not those of everyone else. You don't blame a good father like Thor for the deeds of a bad one like Fenris. At best, there could be a case made for the gods having a system wherein if one does a bad job at caring for their race, they lose race-making privileges and are consigned to making landscapes or something for the next several worlds or until they show they can do a better job.

Thor admits they all knew how he was, and yet did nothing to address the actual issues that could come from it. And they are clearly issues, despite you trying to argue they actually aren't. The story is not trying to argue they aren't.

There's collective responsibility because even if Fenrir is the one who came up with the idea of goblins all the other clearly carried it out. Even aside from that, this story clearly doesn't work under "your creation, you you have responsibility and obligation to them." and I'm not sure why you're arguing it does.

[Aristocles22]

Exactly. Thor might feel bad now that it's been pointed out to him how the goblins got worked over by their creator, but if he had realized this at the creation, could he have done anything differently? The goblins were not his creation and he couldn't interfere in Fenris' plans for them or it would risk creating another Snarl.

The big thing we learned from this was confirmation that The Dark One is selling a lie to Redcloak. Some of us already stongly suspected this.

Whether The Dark One knows the truth or not is an interesting question, but if Thor is telling the truth then what TDO told Redcloak is false: There was no divine plan designed and supported by all the gods to make the goblins xp fodder for their clerics.

So Redcloak bought the victimhood narrative hook, line, and sinker. Self-identified victims who feel entitled to other people's lands are always the worst oppressors. In their minds, injustice becomes reparations and the ends justify the means. At least we know that "the gods made you for XP!" is a lie. There's a big difference between "your life sucks" and "your life sucks because of a conspiracy against you!"

[Aristocles22]

Thor admits they all knew how he was, and yet didn't nothing to address the actual issues that could come from it. And they are clearly issues, despite you trying to argue they actually aren't. The story is not trying to argue they aren't.

There's collective responsibility because even if Fenrir is the one who came up with the idea of goblins all the other clearly carried it out. Even aside from that, this story clearly doesn't work under "your creation, you you have responsibility and obligation to them." and I'm not sure why you're arguing it does.

Once again, I'm not saying that. While I still don't believe in collective responsibility and therefore collective guilt and punishment, I didn't say that there aren't issues. Just that you can't blame everyone for them. You blame the individuals responsible, which is Fenris in this case. Thor's hands were tied for a number of reasons both in-story (limited energy, the need to not risk making a new snarl, etc), and reasons relating to the theme of parenthood, how one parent can't take over for another parent when the neglectful parent's children suffer.

And we do see a theme of responsibility creep into the story from time to time, especially when the gods are concerned. It was their irresponsibility and inability to get along which caused the Snarl in the first place, which is why they had to take measures to contain it and prevent a new Snarl from being created. Parental obligations actually come up a lot in the story, if you followed the story arcs of Roy and his father, Elan and his father, Haley and her father (a lot of fathers), and family as a whole is mentioned again with V and his family, Durkon and his mother in those flashbacks, and the black dragon and her son and so on and so forth. One totally gets the sense that if one has children or creates someone or something, one is responsible for their creations and/or children. It's not society who has to raise them, it's not other people's responsibility, it's all on the parents.

We never get a sense that any collective or community is ever supposed to be responsible for this at any point, and we see the consequences of bad parenting on a micro and macro level. I'd say that you got it backwards. YES, the story does emphasize- repeatedly- that people have a responsibility and obligation to their creation (or adopted children). Even dragons are shown to feel a level of responsibility for their offspring in this one. If it was a one-time thing I'd dismiss it, but it keeps coming up over and over again.

[understatement]

Can someone please explain the huge, gaping difference between

"We created goblins to be fodder for other races"

versus

"We needed a race to be fodder and the goblins were it and we were okay with that."

Sure, there's somehow a difference. It's most definitely not the takeaway here -- hell, Thor doesn't even say it's wrong, just uncharitable. Could be phrased better. Could be more nicely put. It's table dressing.

[Jason]

Thor admits they all knew how he was, and yet didn't nothing to address the actual issues that could come from it. And they are clearly issues, despite you trying to argue they actually aren't. The story is not trying to argue they aren't.

Could Thor have done anything, or were his hands tied by the "stupid god rules" that prevent the creation of another Snarl?

[Aristocles22]

Can someone please explain the huge, gaping difference between

"We created goblins to be fodder for other races"

versus

"We needed a race to be fodder and the goblins were it and we were okay with that."

Sure, there's somehow a difference. It's most definitely not the takeaway here -- hell, Thor doesn't even say it's wrong, just uncharitable. Could be phrased better. Could be more nicely put. It's table dressing.

Neither is actually the case. Not only didn't the gods create goblins to be fodder, they didn't need a race to be fodder either. What happened was that Fenris employed a high-quantity strategy which increased the numbers of goblins while reducing their individual quality as opponents to some extent. How much so isn't clear, and we get the sense that many goblinoids are in fact good fighters, such as the hobgoblins. It didn't work out as Fenris had hoped and he lost interest in them. Basically, they just weren't very strong or tough, so adventurers could handle them easily. One could say the same for any species smaller than a human, even though goblins are medium-sized here. Not sure what that means for them physically. Human-sized but just weak? For what its worth, most of the goblins don't seem to see themselves as fodder; it's really just Redcloak and those inclined to agree with him who use that sort of language, and even then, he's probably just being manipulated by The Dark One.

Quantity strategies are actually quite common in nature and many of the most successful species use them, and that would include species in the story, if insects are present. And they are.

[Jason]

Can someone please explain the huge, gaping difference between

"We created goblins to be fodder for other races"

versus

"We needed a race to be fodder and the goblins were it and we were okay with that."

Thor didn't say that. He said "we created all of you with the ability to gain XP from defeating each other, different gods used different strategies to try to let their favored creations gain the upper hand, and Fenris always tries the same 'zerg rush' strategy with goblins when the gods choose a fantasy world but it never works."

He didn't say he was okay with it, just that he hadn't acted to stop it, and it seems obvious he hadn't thought through all the implications for the goblins before now.

[Rrmcklin]

Can someone please explain the huge, gaping difference between

"We created goblins to be fodder for other races"

versus

"We needed a race to be fodder and the goblins were it and we were okay with that."

Sure, there's somehow a difference. It's most definitely not the takeaway here -- hell, Thor doesn't even say it's wrong, just uncharitable. Could be phrased better. Could be more nicely put. It's table dressing.

This. Thor is not saying these things didn't happen or denying their effects. He just takes issue with the specific motives given to them, but even the way he describes it isn't much better.

Could Thor have done anything, or were his hands tied by the "stupid god rules" that prevent the creation of another Snarl?

They wouldn't need to prevent goblins from existing, just put in a little effort to make it so they aren't so disadvantaged compared to the more popular races. Thor admits they did nothing to prevent the situation. Apparently some people don't hold that against the other gods because the goblinoids aren't "their children". Which, I have to say, is actually a very depressing view.

[Good Coyote]

Can someone please explain the huge, gaping difference between

"We created goblins to be fodder for other races"

versus

"We needed a race to be fodder and the goblins were it and we were okay with that."

Sure, there's somehow a difference. It's most definitely not the takeaway here -- hell, Thor doesn't even say it's wrong, just uncharitable. Could be phrased better. Could be more nicely put. It's table dressing.

I don't think that's the distinction being made at all. Thor isn't saying "we wanted one (1) fodder and were fine with the goblins being it." He's saying "we wanted fodder and we made every single race for the same purpose of creating and refining soul power."

Thor finds the terms "fodder" and "soul farm" uncharitable, but they're all equally applicable to everyone in the world. All of the races are equally fodder for each other (including for each other within the same fantasy race - defeating Nale made him fodder for his own father).

When all of the races are fighting each other for fodder, and the goblins are disadvantaged (in whatever ways they may be disadvantaged) then they will fodder others more often than they are foddered. But the gods did not actually need to single out one race that would generally lose.

edit: ninja'd twice... doggone

[Aristocles22]

Thor didn't say that. He said "we created all of you with the ability to gain XP from defeating each other, different gods used different strategies to try to let their favored creations gain the upper hand, and Fenris always tries the same 'zerg rush' strategy with goblins when the gods choose a fantasy world but it never works."

He didn't say he was okay with it, just that he hadn't acted to stop it, and it seems obvious he hadn't thought through all the implications for the goblins before now.

Good points, although even if Thor had thought it through, it wasn't his place to intervene. Even if he had said to Odin "Hey, Fenris is trying the Zerg rush again!", there's no evidence that Odin would have been able to change Fenris' mind or take him off the race-making job. Ideally, Odin might have said "What?! Again?! Bad dog! You're just gonna get those poor little goblins killed!" And Fenris might protest with "But THIS time, it'll work! I'm making them medium now!" Outside of a scenario like that, I don't see what Thor could have done. There's also the fact that having stronger/better-off goblins might have put his own Dwarves at a serious disadvantage (or less of an advantage), so it was in his interest not to say or do anything about it. Besides, he and Fenris are likely on opposite sides of the good-evil spectrum. Never interrupt your opponent when he's making a mistake, even if he does it over and over again.

It may also be like choosing someone else's children over the welfare of one's own children. If you knew that someone else was making a mistake and that said mistake would put their children at a disadvantage relative to yours, would you really be able to pass up a chance for your kids to get ahead? It's a bit of an ethical dilemma. Like if a parent was giving bad advice to his kids in a sports game with your kids and his, would you say something to correct them, even though doing so would make it more likely for your kids not to win, and he probably wouldn't even listen to you at all?

[GregTD]

"It's okay that the god who created the goblins neglected them, because the goblins were eventually able to raise their own god" is not the rebuttal to "the gods neglected and disadvantaged the goblins from the start" that you seem to think it is.

"The Gods", plural, did not neglect and / or disadvantage the Goblins.

Fenris, the God who created the Goblins, neglected them.

So, would they prefer he'd just not created them at all? If so, they can all just commit suicide, and the problem is solved.

If not, then they have a legitimate beef with one God, and no legitimate beef with the rest.

Thor is not a God of the Goblins. None of them worship him, they have created no temples for him. Just as he has no call on them, they have no legitimate call on him.

And no legitimate grounds for complaining that he treated his people better than Fenris treated them. That's not Thor's fault.

Leaving aside the whole R strategy vs K strategy question, there are strict limits on Gods interfering with other Gods, for reasons I'm pretty sure we all agree are good and proper.

"Good" does not require "full of {Scrubbed} charity towards all others". The Goblins and the Dwarves are not members of the same clan, they are not cousins, Thor and Odin owe the Goblins nothing more than TDO owes the Dwarves.

The Goblins have something of value that the Gods of the other races want. They've bought themselves a seat at the table.

It would do themselves good to cut the whining, avoid over playing their hand, and winning themselves a better deal.

Sadly, Redcloak currently doesn't appear intelligent enough to do this. Here's hoping he can improve himself

[Aristocles22]

"the gods", plural, did not neglect and / or disadvantage the goblins.

Fenris, the god who created the goblins, neglected them.

So, would they prefer he'd just not created them at all? If so, they can all just commit suicide, and the problem is solved.

If not, then they have a legitimate beef with one god, and no legitimate beef with the rest.

Thor is not a god of the goblins. None of them worship him, they have created no temples for him. Just as he has no call on them, they have no legitimate call on him.

And no legitimate grounds for complaining that he treated his people better than fenris treated them. That's not thor's fault.

Leaving aside the whole r strategy vs k strategy question, there are strict limits on gods interfering with other gods, for reasons i'm pretty sure we all agree are good and proper.

"good" does not require "full of christian charity towards all others". The goblins and the dwarves are not members of the same clan, they are not cousins, thor and odin owe the goblins nothing more than tdo owes the dwarves.

The goblins have something of value that the gods of the other races want. They've bought themselves a seat at the table.

It would do themselves good to cut the whining, avoid over playing their hand, and winning themselves a better deal.

Sadly, redcloak currently doesn't appear intelligent enough to do this. Here's hoping he can improve himself

Thank You. You said it very well.

[Dion]

"The Gods", plural, did not neglect and / or disadvantage the Goblins.

Which gods, specifically, are *NOT* neglecting them?

When Durkon goes back to tell RedCloak which gods are on his side, what are those gods names?

[Rrmcklin]

I don't think that's the distinction being made at all. Thor isn't saying "we wanted one (1) fodder and were fine with the goblins being it." He's saying "we wanted fodder and we made every single race for the same purpose of creating and refining soul power."

Thor finds the terms "fodder" and "soul farm" uncharitable, but they're all equally applicable to everyone in the world. All of the races are equally fodder for each other (including for each other within the same fantasy race - defeating Nale made him fodder for his own father).

When all of the races are fighting each other for fodder, and the goblins are disadvantaged (in whatever ways they may be disadvantaged) then they will fodder others more often than they are foddered. But the gods did not actually need to single out one race that would generally lose.

edit: ninja'd twice... doggone

I mean, it's probably highly predictable that the more disadvantaged races will become fodder more often though. In theory it's equal, but in practice it's not when it demonstratively happens to some people more often than others, for entirely predictable reasons, that they could have done something about, but just didn't.

I don't think we're supposed to think that Thor is a bad guy or anything, but he is making some excuses that I don't think we're intended to agree with, at least not fully.

[Aristocles22]

Which gods, specifically, are *NOT* neglecting them?

The ones who don't have a responsibility for them. It's like saying every parent is negligent because one is. If you extend responsibility to others who don't rightfully have it, the entire pantheon would be guilty, or maybe ALL the pantheons are to blame. But that's not how moral responsibility works. The one who has a duty to care is the one who is responsible, and at most, the one overseeing him. I can see Odin as having some share of the blame if he delegated the responsibility to Fenris, but most of it would fall on Fenris's lap.

And before you ask, it's just not possible for every god to be responsible for every race. If it was, there wouldn't be a need to divide things up between members of a pantheon or between pantheons.

Also, just because the goblins were losers most of the time doesn't mean they were disadvantaged. Redcloak's take isn't the only one or even the right one. I know it's all meant to be a metaphor, but it doesn't come out very neatly. Once again, there may be more information we haven't heard yet. The Fenris thing wasn't mentioned until today, and that alone has changed the situation quite a bit.

[Good Coyote]

I mean, it's probably highly predictable that the more disadvantaged races will become fodder more often though. In theory it's equal, but in practice it's not when it demonstratively happens to some people more often than others, for entirely predictable reasons, that they could have done something about, but just didn't.

I don't think we're supposed to think that Thor is a bad guy or anything, but he is making some excuses that I don't think we're intended to agree with, at least not fully.

I mean I think it actually makes the gods look quite a bit worse that they had literally zero need to designate a fodder race or more precisely a loser race (if in fact it is true that the goblins were set up as one by way of being disadvantaged in some ways), which is what I was disagreeing with.

[Dion]

I'm still not seeing what the confusion about this is...

Well, sure. People who read the comic and try to make a good faith effort to interpret the words as the author intended aren’t going to have much to argue about.

That’s why I never read the comic before I start to argue.

It looks like about half the people on here agree with my methods..

[GregTD]

Which gods, specifically, are *NOT* neglecting them?

For you to be guilty of "neglect", you must first have a duty of care.

I have never once watered the roses in my neighbor's back yard. This is not because I'm "neglecting" them, it's because they aren't mine to take care of.

Of all the Gods, only Fenris had a duty of care for the Goblins. He failed that duty.

As no one else has a duty to them, none of the others are reasonably described as "neglecting" them

They wouldn't need to prevent goblins from existing, just put in a little effort to make it so they aren't so disadvantaged compared to the more popular races. Thor admits they did nothing to prevent the situation.

Really.

Please, tell us exactly what Thor could and should have done.

Should he have started a fight with Fenris when Fenris was creating the goblinoids, and tried to force Fenris to do it differently?

Pretty sure the Gods have rules against that.

Should he have taken over and changed things after Fenris got bored?

We know that Gods have rules against that.

Should he have told all his worshipers "you're not allowed to fight against the Goblins" once Fenris abandoned them? I'm sure that no Goblin would ever go after a Thor worshiper if Thor did that. (Yes, that's sarcasm)

So, no hand waving: what is it that Thor was supposed to do, that you find it unconscionable that he didn't do?

[hungrycrow]

The OotS world is inherently unjust in the sense that having to fight for resources to survive inevitably leads to suffering and inequalities. However, the good gods couldn't make a utopian world. They had to settle for a hands-off world in order to work with the evil and neutral gods.

There's probably more Thor could have done for the goblins, if he had realized the implications beforehand. But it isn't a simple problem to fix, because of all the limitations he has. He's spent the entire history of the world trying to help the dwarves, and their society is still pretty messed up.

[Noodz]

Ironically, this strip will hit differently to anyone who's ever played Dwarf Fortress. You might think Thor is being neglectful, but I can barely even remember a single dwarf of the hundreds (maybe thousands?) of worlds I generated on DF. Most of those worldgens were experiments to create as much warfare as possible, because my concept of fun is playing dwarves as a dwindling race of heroes that refuse to die against overwhelming odds. Only my onedrive knows how many billions of virtual lives I condemned to eternal suffering because I thought how funny it would be to mod in a race of giants with the eternal life of the elves, the moral flexibility of goblins and the breeding speed of kobolds. And don't get me started on the stuff that the more dedicated players do to flex on the forums.

PS: while the concept of Dwarf Fortress is certainly amazing, the actual gameplay is journey which very few will enjoy. I would say it's not as hard as learning how to compile your own linux kernel, but that's not saying a lot really.

[danielxcutter]

I like Starcraft references more than Star Wars references. Well Played, GG, etc.

Man, Starcraft... never really got into it myself, but my dad used to play it a LOT and I watched over his shoulder for countless hours. He mostly did single-player on infinite maps though.

As someone whose zergling rushes were often unsuccessful, I can empathize with OoTS-Fenris.

I suspect you still need a certain amount of quality(or enough quantity to ignore that)?

The deities have made millions of worlds. They don't fix anything; they just try something different the next time.

They weren’t even expecting to have to fix the world, it just happened that this one has the pieces to solve the problem. It’s why goblins got stuck with crappy lands and pretty much everyone loses the Bet.

With all of the 'half' races, humans are the 'do anything that moves' race.

I think there was this bard comic related to that actually. Don’t remember where though.

I think it would double his appreciation for TDO, who does (at least seem to) care about goblins.

I somehow doubt that there will be a “oh no TDO doesn’t care about goblins at ALL, Redcloak is wrong and dumb and needs to die in a dumpster fire” reveal.

Yeah; they just try something else next world. That's their habit pattern. However, a few of the gods (Thor and Loki for sure) see a chance to break the cycle, and TDO is the catalyst. He's the missing piece of their divine puzzle.

I do wonder why that didn’t happen earlier, but I guess there’s a first time for everything.

[Dion]

The ones who don't have a responsibility for them. It's like saying every parent is negligent because one is.

No. I’m saying that a child is neglected if a child is neglected.

You’re saying the child isn’t *really* being neglected, because it’s nobody’s job not to neglect it because reasons.

I have no idea why you imagine those reasons would matter to the child.

[Aristocles22]

I mean I think it actually makes the gods look quite a bit worse that they had literally zero need to designate a fodder race or more precisely a loser race (if in fact it is true that the goblins were set up as one by way of being disadvantaged in some ways), which is what I was disagreeing with.

One race didn't turn out as intended and as such, was neglected by the one god who had a responsibility to look after them. That's not evidence of a divine conspiracy to make a race of xp-farm victims, but of a very bad dog (or wolf) asleep at the wheel when he shouldn't have been. Very bad daddy doggie. The literal meaning of it has limited applicability to anything involving real humans for reasons I won't get into, but the point about victimhood is also not quite right. Simply being on a losing streak (one which the goblins just broke in a very big way) doesn't mean the rules or the referee are corrupt. Other races besides the goblins are weaker than humans, live in harsh environments, and don't have fully developed civilizations. No one is singling out goblins or goblinoids.

[ziproot]

Which gods, specifically, are *NOT* neglecting them?

When Durkon goes back to tell RedCloak which gods are on his side, what are those gods names?

So the Dark One is also neglecting the goblins?

In seriousness, at this point, any other god making dealings with goblins would risk conflict with the Dark One, and since the Dark One is in their own pantheon, this means there is a risk of another snarl. Also, the Dark One already has an advantage. They can require certain conditions to be met in order for them to help seal the snarl for good, without having to worry about unleashing said snarl, probably killing everyone (first the gods, then the mortals, then the dark one starves to death and nobody is left to make a new world). I guess there is the world in the rift, but I doubt TDO knows about that, and even if they do, there is no way of knowing whether or not there even are goblinoids there. All in all, strategically speaking, it is way more feasible to just issue your ultimatum now or threaten to not seal the snarl. Then again, I'm pretty sure there is more going on with the Dark One that we don't know about.

EDIT: Made a few changes so it (hopefully) flows better.

[arimareiji]

The goblins do appear to have a numbers advantage, we saw that in action in Azure city, where the average guardsman can take approximately three hobgoblins...so they brought four, and squashed them even with a deliberately wasteful strategy.

Pretty much true for the first part of the battle, where they let the Azurites narrow the field of battle to make it straight-up attrition within that area. When one guard sacrifices himself to save Redcloak, he switches to using overwhelming force.

Theoretically 30 soldiers could win a battle against 100 if

Spoiler: collapsed for space

Show

• they've narrowed it to 10-on-10 at a time
• under those conditions they only lose 1:3
• until the point that the 10 who are left watch the 40 break and run.

(Armies are very likely to fail their morale checks due to high or even moderate casualties, even when they're on the verge of winning -- look up Drachinifel's entertaining video on the battle of Samar. Armies are made up of individuals. If an individual sees "The people in front of me are dropping like flies, it's my turn next, and ~I~ am very likely to die", the importance of "But my army will win" drops fast.)

The same 30 soldiers would be slaughtered if

• they're on a wide-open field, outnumbered >3:1, and
• under those conditions they lose 1:1 (they take 3 hits for every 1 they can give)
• until the 10 who are left flee from 80.

---

Can someone please explain the huge, gaping difference between

"We created goblins to be fodder for other races"

versus

"We needed a race to be fodder and the goblins were it and we were okay with that."

Sure, there's somehow a difference. It's most definitely not the takeaway here -- hell, Thor doesn't even say it's wrong, just uncharitable. Could be phrased better. Could be more nicely put. It's table dressing.

Table dressing is a nice turn of phrase.

On the bright side, at least Thor doesn't explicitly say "The worlds are farms, and I'm a farmer. Microbes don't like working until they die to produce fertilizer for grass, grass doesn't like being eaten by cows, cows don't like being eaten by humans, and humans don't like dying to make food for microbes. It's the system, so if you don't like it then figure out how to be something other than a microbe or a blade of grass (so that we'll prioritize you for being tastier)."

---

Which gods, specifically, are *NOT* neglecting them?

When Durkon goes back to tell RedCloak which gods are on his side, what are those gods names?

Indeed. Also "I'm part of the group that has power over this problem, but tough cookies since (according to me) someone else in my group caused the problem" is much less persuasive than people think.

[Good Coyote]

One race didn't turn out as intended and as such, was neglected by the one god who had a responsibility to look after them. That's not evidence of a divine conspiracy to make a race of xp-farm victims, but of a very bad dog (or wolf) asleep at the wheel when he shouldn't have been. Very bad daddy doggie. The literal meaning of it has limited applicability to anything involving real humans for reasons I won't get into, but the point about victimhood is also not quite right. Simply being on a losing streak (one which the goblins just broke in a very big way) doesn't mean the rules or the referee are corrupt. Other races besides the goblins are weaker than humans, live in harsh environments, and don't have fully developed civilizations. No one is singling out goblins or goblinoids.

As I said, if in fact it is true that they had this loser race status due to early disadvantage. We frankly don't know what is meant by "bad land" although I thought your point about the subjectivity of "bad land" was very interesting.

I am also not arguing on the side of "divine conspiracy." There is no divine conspiracy against goblins because the gods would get nothing out of it. They do not need to keep goblins or "any group and it just happened to be goblins and they are fine with it being goblins" down. That's the idea that I was responding to.

The setup of the world is not such that someone needed to be wearing the loser hat. So if someone did end up branded a loser from the beginning, then it's not because it had to be somebody and it just happened to be them.

I don't know what point about victimhood you're referring to.

[Aristocles22]

No. I’m saying that a child is neglected if a child is neglected.

You’re saying the child isn’t *really* being neglected, because it’s nobody’s job not to neglect it because reasons.

I have no idea why you imagine those reasons would matter to the child.

That's a tautology.

But once again, that's not what I'm saying. I have said that Fenris is neglecting the goblins. I have said this over and over. I also said that the other gods- apart from maybe Odin- don't have a duty to care for the goblins. Odin's duty, if there is any, would only be as Fenris' superior and if he assigned Fenris to the task knowing he'd just neglect his mortals. You can't just dismiss that as "because reasons." You can disagree with me, but please take the time to represent my arguments correctly.

As for the child's understanding, that doesn't matter as much as the adults' understanding of the situation. A child can believe whatever he or she wants to, but at the end of the day, it's up to parents to be responsible for the care of a minor. Taking the analogy into the story, the goblins can believe whatever they wish, but it won't change the truth about the situation. If they play into the victimhood narrative, it would make them more likely to be violent and not feel responsible for said violence. If they know the truth and are led by someone who can act on it (not Redcloak), they might turn things around and make peace. They're not powerless, as Azure City found out.

[GregTD]

No. I’m saying that a child is neglected if a child is neglected.

You’re saying the child isn’t *really* being neglected, because it’s nobody’s job not to neglect it because reasons.

I have no idea why you imagine those reasons would matter to the child.

1: I added a reply to your previous question, to my previous comment. Just in case you are interested. :-)

2: There are at least 1,000 children starving to death in Africa right now. Do you feel that you, personally, are "neglecting" all those children?

For that matter, why are you on here? Why aren't you down at your local soup kitchen / homeless shelter helping the people there? Why are you neglecting all of them?

I'm being neither snide nor sarcastic here. I'm simply pointing out that words have meanings, and those meanings have consequences.

And I don't believe you, or anyone else, could live up to the standard you are demanding that the OOTS Gods should live up to.