OOTS #1232 - The Discussion Thread

[understatement]

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.

I don't think Dion created Africa's ecosystem or the issue of homelessness. Probably.

*

For the matter, Thor can actually stop/intervene with Fenrir. They have the same quiddity; there'd be no risk for a Snarl.

[Good Coyote]

Some concrete ideas for what the Good gods could have done... (Not arguing culpability for not doing it, but just brainstorming what could potentially be on the table here.)

1. Command their followers to proselytize and/or do missionary work at the goblins. Not a big fan of this one personally. Especially given how it's popular to equate to irl situations. But... clerics seem to be the main way that gods are able to interact with mortals once the world has booted on. Gods can't grant cleric spells to goblins until goblins worship them. People tend not to worship gods until clerics give them a reason to (as per Hel being disadvantaged by her lack of clerics). Adventurers aside, without specific motivation, most clerics obviously tend to their own communities, so no particular outreach program means goblins don't benefit from divine intervention.

2. Some sort of Sleeping Beauty situation where on the next turn someone goes "wow Fenslur great gifts you gave this race, anyway I'm gonna give them a gift of being great at diplomacy and poetry so they can endear themselves to their neighbors or whatever"

Any other ideas?

[Aristocles22]

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.

First, I don't think they had an early disadvantage. Fenris was neglectful, but other gods were outright abusive to their followers, including the ones which demanding human sacrifice. Or lizard sacrifice, in the case of Tiamat and/or Nergal. Or both. Harsh environments and evil gods did nothing to hinder the development of those who followed the gods of the Western Pantheon.

It also doesn't really matter if they are "fine" with the goblins being down or not. Did you want them to intervene every time a race is losing against the others? It would be like a referee awarding extra points to a losing team just because they are losing. Or did you not want to gods to make a diversity of races, with race being a cosmetic-only concept? Not all stat combinations are going to be equally viable, even when there's an effort to make it balanced. Not all strategies work in a given environment. Like it or not, there will be winners and losers. It's just a fact of life. Or will the gods fix things so that no one ever loses or is never behind? I can see the goblins making peace and getting more respect, but a complete overhaul isn't going to be feasible. Like it or not, there's always going to be someone wearing that loser hat. It could be the Azurites one day, the Hobgoblins another. If the story has anything to say about anything of value, it won't conclude that everyone can always be a winner. That said, there is something to be said about treating the losers with respect.

And by "bad land" I mean there is no such thing apart from completely uninhabitable areas. Island nations with few resources and frequent earthquakes can conceivably become economic powerhouses while resource-rich countries can wallow in poverty. Rocky little peninsulas can develop thriving city-states while rich forested lands can be divided into warring illiterate tribes. Strips of desert on the edge of the sea can become maritime giants while lands brimming with resources are run by corrupt barons who horde the natural riches for themselves as their people starve. Saying "our land doesn't grow food well so we're condemned to be poor" is just not a statement which holds water or even did. People can find a way to make a living, even if they have to extract purple dye from snails and sell it a thousand miles away.

[Personification]

"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.

This implies that every species has one patron god, and no other god has any input into the creation of that species. But we know that's not true. The dwarves worship the entire northern pantheon, with a special focus on Thor because he chose to look out for them after semi-accidentally ruining their afterlives with the bet.

All of the gods had a say in all of the features of the world. Some cared about certain features more than others and therefore spent their worldbuilding votes on those things, but nobody had exclusive say over anything. As I read it, and as I believe it is intended to be read, at any point after Fiddlefern introduced goblinoids into the world, any of the gods could have spent effort to helping them during the worldbuilding process. The only reason that they didn't is that they didn't care enough, and that makes them culpable. The parenting analogy only goes so far, because all of the gods are working together on everything. Sure, Fiddlefern was expected to be, and should have been, the one who made sure the species he proposed got good resources, but once it was clear that it wasn't going to happen, the other gods, especially the good ones, had a responsibility to make sure the goblinoids didn't fall through the cracks.

Thor isn't a Dwarven god either, he's a Northern god. The dwarves pray to him because he answers them, the goblins didn't pray to anybody because nobody was listening until TDO showed up.

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.

Filling in the blanks during worldbuilding is not interfering with other gods.

"Good" does not require "full of {Scrub the post, scrub the quote} charity towards all others".

Bolding mine.
שלום
ScrubbedGoodness might not require specifically what the bolded text says, I'm honestly not sure, as I have never been qualified to give it, it certainly requires charity of some kind, religious or otherwise.

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.

Thor and Odin are also not Dwarves. They are gods, and as the creators of the world, which includes the goblins, and nominally good beings, they owe exactly as much to the goblins as to the dwarves, or at least they did at year 0.

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

True, the goblins have bought themselves a seat at the table. A table at which everyone else has been sitting, free of charge, for over 1000 years, thank you for illustrating the problem.

[Good Coyote]

First, I don't think they had an early disadvantage. Fenris was neglectful, but other gods were outright abusive to their followers, including the ones which demanding human sacrifice. Or lizard sacrifice, in the case of Tiamat and/or Nergal. Or both. Harsh environments and evil gods did nothing to hinder the development of those who followed the gods of the Western Pantheon.

It also doesn't really matter if they are "fine" with the goblins being down or not. Did you want them to intervene every time a race is losing against the others? It would be like a referee awarding extra points to a losing team just because they are losing. Or did you not want to gods to make a diversity of races, with race being a cosmetic-only concept? Not all stat combinations are going to be equally viable, even when there's an effort to make it balanced. Not all strategies work in a given environment. Like it or not, there will be winners and losers. It's just a fact of life. Or will the gods fix things so that no one ever loses or is never behind? I can see the goblins making peace and getting more respect, but a complete overhaul isn't going to be feasible. Like it or not, there's always going to be someone wearing that loser hat. It could be the Azurites one day, the Hobgoblins another. If the story has anything to say about anything of value, it won't conclude that everyone can always be a winner. That said, there is something to be said about treating the losers with respect.

And by "bad land" I mean there is no such thing apart from completely uninhabitable areas. Island nations with few resources and frequent earthquakes can conceivably become economic powerhouses while resource-rich countries can wallow in poverty. Rocky little peninsulas can develop thriving city-states while rich forested lands can be divided into warring illiterate tribes. Strips of desert on the edge of the sea can become maritime giants while lands brimming with resources are run by corrupt barons who horde the natural riches for themselves as their people starve. Saying "our land doesn't grow food well so we're condemned to be poor" is just not a statement which holds water or even did. People can find a way to make a living, even if they have to extract purple dye from snails and sell it a thousand miles away.

I don't think I'm arguing what you think that I'm arguing.

But yes I did find that point about "bad land" very interesting the first time you made it. Thing is, this is a fantasy world, and it's possible that land is bad in a fantasy way to which we have no irl analogies, so I am reserving judgment about if they are disadvantaged.

[ziproot]

Thor can actually stop/intervene with Fenrir. They have the same quiddity; there'd be no risk for a Snarl.

As I said earlier, Thor doesn't have to go through Fenri(r|s) anymore. Thor now has to go through TDO, who has a different quiddity.

EDIT: My personal opinion is that the Gods are tired. They've made billions of worlds and now they're doing another stick figure fantasy? They have effectively given up all hope of doing something and so why should it matter if the goblinoids succeed or not? The world will only last a few million years anyways. It wasn't until TDO showed up that the Gods actually started to have hope for the future, but now it's too late to fix their mistakes and they have to make the mortals do the work for them.

[danielxcutter]

I suspect part of the solution would be the gods being significantly more frowny face when it comes to “wantonly killing monster races”.

I mean, there’s always things like outsiders and constructs and dumb magical beasts and undead and whatnot. I’m just saying that the gods should at least start nudging their worshipers towards “killing monsters isn’t any better than killing PC races”.

Obviously killing evil monsters is probably more acceptable but that goes the same for evil humans or whatnot.

[Squire Doodad]

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 a snarl that would probably kill everyone (first the gods, then the mortals, then the dark one starves to death and nobody is left to make a new world).

I believe this was basically Durkon's argument to Redcloak. TDO has a low-risk winning move that lets him get what he wants from the literal powers that be, and it's awfully hard to get better than that. Redlocak's reply being Implosion instead of "hm, I like what I'm hearing, let me ask my god" reflects on both Redcloak's feelings about the treatment of goblins (as part of the "if they know the deck is stacked against them, they won't try to play" bit), and more importantly, on Redcloak's own sunk cost fallacy.

In essence, Redcloak has everything he needs to settle this without fighting - and he's known that at least since his meeting with Durkon.

[Aristocles22]

I don't think Dion created Africa's ecosystem or the issue of homelessness. Probably.

*

For the matter, Thor can actually stop/intervene with Fenrir. They have the same quiddity; there'd be no risk for a Snarl.

That's just asking for trouble. It would likely degenerate into a free-for all among the Northern Gods, and if word got out that good and evil gods were going at it, other pantheons might get involved. If nothing else, wars between the gods can only result in mass destruction, waste of energy, and even if they aren't specifically risking the Snarl getting out (assuming the fight was confined to one pantheon or just those two gods), it would undermine countless years of cooperation and coexistence.

Going for the emotionally fulfilling move is rarely the smart one. It might be nice to stand up for the little people (notwithstanding that goblins here are medium-sized), but you have to think of the consequences. It would also open the door for Fenris to counterattack Thor one day.

[Aristocles22]

I don't think I'm arguing what you think that I'm arguing.

But yes I did find that point about "bad land" very interesting the first time you made it. Thing is, this is a fantasy world, and it's possible that land is bad in a fantasy way to which we have no irl analogies, so I am reserving judgment about if they are disadvantaged.

Nothing we have seen suggests that industry, trade, or other ventures besides agriculture and herding are invalid ways of making a living in the story. If food is the problem instead of money, there's always the possibility of trading goods for food. We have seen quite a few merchants, stores, even franchises. We even see a goblin make a living from selling hydra burgers. Yes, it's a fantasy world, but we have seen things which are associated with incomes from non-farming activities, including at least a few goblins engaging in said non-farm activities.

I apologize if I missed any points you made, and if I misrepresented your arguments, I apologize for that too. You seem like you are arguing in good faith either way.

[arimareiji]

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.

A human who's never been within a thousand miles of a goblin, or had any cause to think of goblins except as an abstraction, might make this argument and it would fit.

In your analogy, any given god is much more akin to a high government official in the country where people are starving.

Which could lead to "Why are you blaming me? I'm just the Minister of Taxation, go talk to the Minister of Agriculture!" But when you go to the Minister of Agriculture, he blames the Minister of Transportation (for not transporting the food), who blames the Minister of Manufacturing (for not making enough trucks), who blames the Minister of Taxation (for not collecting enough to make the trucks, and also for taxing the common people so much that they can't afford food).

(Never mind me. (^_^)° I'm just seriously disenchanted with how often -- with people in general, nothing to do with anyone here -- the buck stops over there. Down the street. Of the next city. Three states over.)

[ziproot]

I believe this was basically Durkon's argument to Redcloak. TDO has a low-risk winning move that lets him get what he wants from the literal powers that be, and it's awfully hard to get better than that. Redlocak's reply being Implosion instead of "hm, I like what I'm hearing, let me ask my god" reflects on both Redcloak's feelings about the treatment of goblins (as part of the "if they know the deck is stacked against them, they won't try to play" bit), and more importantly, on Redcloak's own sunk cost fallacy.

In essence, Redcloak has everything he needs to settle this without fighting - and he's known that at least since his meeting with Durkon.

The "low-risk winning move" is not The Plan™. A better idea would be to say "sure, I'll help you seal the snarl, if you listen to my demands, and if you don't, good luck finding another purple quiddity", instead of trying to wield said snarl that they barely know anything about.

[Aristocles22]

A human who's never been within a thousand miles of a goblin, or had any cause to think of goblins except as an abstraction, might make this argument and it would fit.

In your analogy, any given god is much more akin to a high government official in the country where people are starving.

Which could lead to "Why are you blaming me? I'm just the Minister of Taxation, go talk to the Minister of Agriculture!" But when you go to the Minister of Agriculture, he blames the Minister of Transportation (for not transporting the food), who blames the Minister of Manufacturing (for not making enough trucks), who blames the Minister of Taxation (for not collecting enough to make the trucks, and also for taxing the common people so much that they can't afford food).

(Never mind me. (^_^)° I'm just seriously disenchanted with how often -- with people in general, nothing to do with anyone here -- the buck stops over there. Down the street. Of the next city. Three states over.)

That also doesn't work. Each god has his or her own species, like a government for each one of them. Or set of species in some cases. Not sure why Fenris keeps doing the same thing over and over again if it doesn't work, then abandoning his creations. It's possible that he's playing a really, really long game and when he doesn't act neglectful, it will change everything. Bit of a stretch, I know.

Basically, country T's government is not responsible for the welfare of the citizens of country F, and country F would resent and probably violently resist any interference, even if country F's government is horribly negligent. It's like asking why doesn't country T intervene all the time for the sake of humanitarian (or goblinitarian?) causes. It would cause wars and too many other problems.

[danielxcutter]

Team TDO just heard about it right now basically.

[hungrycrow]

I believe this was basically Durkon's argument to Redcloak. TDO has a low-risk winning move that lets him get what he wants from the literal powers that be, and it's awfully hard to get better than that. Redlocak's reply being Implosion instead of "hm, I like what I'm hearing, let me ask my god" reflects on both Redcloak's feelings about the treatment of goblins (as part of the "if they know the deck is stacked against them, they won't try to play" bit), and more importantly, on Redcloak's own sunk cost fallacy.

In essence, Redcloak has everything he needs to settle this without fighting - and he's known that at least since his meeting with Durkon.

Redcloak prefers unconditional surrender to negotiation. I'm not sure he realizes it but it's actually very hard for the gods to collectively negotiate, they might not agree to all of his demands even with his leverage.

I would say that him using the moment before killing Durkon to try to dehumanize him(for lack of a better word) rather than send demands to Thor says something about his character.

[Squire Doodad]

The "low-risk winning move" is not The Plan™. A better idea would be to say "sure, I'll help you seal the snarl, if you listen to my demands, and if you don't, good luck finding another purple quiddity", instead of trying to wield said snarl that they barely know anything about.

Redcloak is now aware of the better idea you mentioned, which is the "low-risk winning move" I mentioned. The Plan is incredibly dangerous and most likely fruitless.

[danielxcutter]

I should note that Redcloak came very close to accepting Durkon’s offer.

[Good Coyote]

Nothing we have seen suggests that industry, trade, or other ventures besides agriculture and herding are invalid ways of making a living in the story. If food is the problem instead of money, there's always the possibility of trading goods for food. We have seen quite a few merchants, stores, even franchises. We even see a goblin make a living from selling hydra burgers. Yes, it's a fantasy world, but we have seen things which are associated with incomes from non-farming activities, including at least a few goblins engaging in said non-farm activities.

I apologize if I missed any points you made, and if I misrepresented your arguments, I apologize for that too. You seem like you are arguing in good faith either way.

That is a good point and I think it's really interesting even aside from what it means for OotS goblins. Humans are very prone to taking our subjective view of circumstances and assuming that it's objectively good or bad, when in fact it's just not what we'd prefer. Or it's good for something specific, bad for something else.

In the real world, settlements frequently cluster in disaster zones, because hurricanes off the ocean couple with the bounty of the ocean and the ease of trade by water, and volcanoes mean rich fertile soil.

That said, in a world with magic, it's quite possible that land can be more literally barren, or even cursed, or something like that. Now someone could still be ingenious, could profit off their own labor, or something like that. But someone from different land could be ingenious, sell their labor (dependent on willing buyers), and farm, and fish, and crush snailshells.

We do know, and I believe it was meant to be clearly established by Redcloak's brother, that the goblins are not currently contained to lands that are so unlivable. (In fact if those lands were indeed completely unlivable then leaving would have to be the first thing that they did.) They do have the ability to cast off their (potentially disadvantaged) history and work peacefully for future generations to have it better. Redcloak's brother was trying.

Loads of people overcome disadvantaged pasts every day. But it doesn't make the disadvantage never have existed. And if the story needs there to be one, then [handwave] there's a magic reason why their starting land disadvantaged them. So I'm reserving judgment until Fenrock comes along to tell us all "Nuh-uh, I made sure they had a whole stockload of supersteel ore, they just never figured out what it was for!" or "Ugh I hate terraining, so there's literally nothing there. Not even dirt. It's just a brown comic background to stand on. If they were more fun they would have killed the elves early and taken all their stuff instead." Either way.

So my point wasn't that the goblins are disadvantaged, my point was that the gods do not need a designated loser race (as the poster I replied to was saying). So if the goblins are a designated loser race and it isn't just hindsight bias, then it isn't because some race needed to be one. Dwarves are perfectly capable of leveling up vs elves, and humans are perfectly capable of leveling up vs each other.

Here's the post where I started making this point originally, for reference.

[Forikroder]

I believe this was basically Durkon's argument to Redcloak. TDO has a low-risk winning move that lets him get what he wants from the literal powers that be, and it's awfully hard to get better than that. Redlocak's reply being Implosion instead of "hm, I like what I'm hearing, let me ask my god" reflects on both Redcloak's feelings about the treatment of goblins (as part of the "if they know the deck is stacked against them, they won't try to play" bit), and more importantly, on Redcloak's own sunk cost fallacy.

In essence, Redcloak has everything he needs to settle this without fighting - and he's known that at least since his meeting with Durkon.

TDO has even more reason to refuse it then Redlcoak does, Durkons plan didnt even offer anything god wise, he tried to settle things out purely from one mortal to the next, if Redcloak didnt think he was offering enough, as the person who was getting EVERYTHING Durkon offered, why would TDO, who gets nothing out of the deal, accept it?

I would say that him using the moment before killing Durkon to try to dehumanize him(for lack of a better word) rather than send demands to Thor says something about his character.

he told Durkon what he wanted, and was sending Durkon to Thor, what else do ya want?

[hungrycrow]

I should note that Redcloak came very close to accepting Durkon’s offer.

I think that moment of hesitation is a little ambiguous. It could be a moment of doubt in The Plan, or it could be him considering that the dwarf he regrettably has to murder might be sincere.

[Squire Doodad]

I should note that Redcloak came very close to accepting Durkon’s offer.

I'll take a "40 page bonus story where Redcloak accepts Durkon's offer and they go blast Xykon to bits" deal stapled on to the print version if it means the same to you

[Grey Watcher]

Interesting. I would've preferred something more specific as to why the goblins seem to be in a poorer position compared even to other "monstrous" races (orcs seem to do ok-ish, kobolds and lizardfolk are pretty fully integrated into Western society).

Or are they even doing that much worse? On the one hand, Thor presents the system as being a cruel-but-fair (everyone's a potential target to somebody), on the other hand, he doesn't refute that goblinoids seem to have had a worse starting position. Was that because they thought that Fenrir's plan to have his creation outperform the others by sheer numbers needed to be "compensated for"?

It feels a bit... facile that the Dark One is more-or-less imagining willful injustice when what's actually happened is essentially a string of bad luck.

This just makes me feel all the more strongly like I'm missing information, even if I technically have more than I did before.

[Squire Doodad]

Interesting. I would've preferred something more specific as to why the goblins seem to be in a poorer position compared even to other "monstrous" races (orcs seem to do ok-ish, kobolds and lizardfolk are pretty fully integrated into Western society).

Or are they even doing that much worse? On the one hand, Thor presents the system as being a cruel-but-fair (everyone's a potential target to somebody), on the other hand, he doesn't refute that goblinoids seem to have had a worse starting position. Was that because they thought that Fenrir's plan to have his creation outperform the others by sheer numbers needed to be "compensated for"?

It feels a bit... facile that the Dark One is more-or-less imagining willful injustice when what's actually happened is essentially a string of bad luck.

This just makes me feel all the more strongly like I'm missing information, even if I technically have more than I did before.

I think the crux of this is that there is injustice happening, but it's not intentional. However, TDO and Redcloak are operating under the assumption that it was all done on purpose for the sake of having an easy XP source. And just because the gods didn't mean to put the goblins in a worse position doesn't mean it never happened, nor does it mean it's unimportant.

As for the other monster races, I'm not really sure. Kobolds and Lizardfolk could be grouped with humans and demihumans since they have gods meant to guide them and are part of at least Western and possibly Northern cultures. Orcs too, in the north, if you count that. Meanwhile, we haven't seen much about Trolls and the like, so in some ways it's hard to say how "deity-less races" (because godless has a different meaning) are doing. Trolls do seem to be fought and hunted. But then again, maybe they're just really isolationist from day 1, and despite most of the historical interactions with other races being violent they have a thriving culture and civilization in a different part of the woods.

EDIT: I should point out that this is assuming Trolls have no gods like the goblins did, as opposed to being a race without any specific gods for them in particular.

[Personification]

That also doesn't work. Each god has his or her own species, like a government for each one of them. Or set of species in some cases. Not sure why Fenris keeps doing the same thing over and over again if it doesn't work, then abandoning his creations. It's possible that he's playing a really, really long game and when he doesn't act neglectful, it will change everything. Bit of a stretch, I know.

Basically, country T's government is not responsible for the welfare of the citizens of country F, and country F would resent and probably violently resist any interference, even if country F's government is horribly negligent. It's like asking why doesn't country T intervene all the time for the sake of humanitarian (or goblinitarian?) causes. It would cause wars and too many other problems.

Bolding mine.
That's... not true. While we have seen several species specific gods, almost all of them have been explicitly stated to be mortals of that species who ascended. All of the North follows the Northern Pantheon and all of its gods are available for all Northerners. The Southern Pantheon doesn't even individualize clerics between the gods, let alone species, and everyone is involved in worldbuilding. Monkey was the one who suggested ninjas be added to Ootsworld, but not all ninjas are followers of Monkey (we know because we've had goblin ninjas). If what you are saying was the case, only one god would be allowed to do anything involving dwarves, and we know that both Hel and Thor were involved with them at the worldbuilding stage and that the Dwarves' highest religious authority is the high priest of Odin.

[Squire Doodad]

Bolding mine.
That's... not true. While we have seen several species specific gods, almost all of them have been explicitly stated to be mortals of that species who ascended. All of the North follows the Northern Pantheon and all of its gods are available for all Northerners. The Southern Pantheon doesn't even individualize clerics between the gods, let alone species, and everyone is involved in worldbuilding. Monkey was the one who suggested ninjas be added to Ootsworld, but not all ninjas are followers of Monkey (we know because we've had goblin ninjas). If what you are saying was the case, only one god would be allowed to do anything involving dwarves, and we know that both Hel and Thor were involved with them at the worldbuilding stage and that the Dwarves' highest religious authority is the high priest of Odin.

Are you suggesting ninjas are a separate species from goblins?

[Personification]

Are you suggesting ninjas are a separate species from goblins?

Yes. Clearly we saw half-ninjas.

In all seriousness, my point is that a suggested worldbuilding element doesn't belong to the god that suggested it, and other gods can affect it and it can be used by the followers of other gods.

[ziproot]

Redcloak is now aware of the better idea you mentioned, which is the "low-risk winning move" I mentioned. The Plan is incredibly dangerous and most likely fruitless.

Ah, I see. I thought you were referring to The Plan™. Glad we're on the same page.

[Blue Dragon]

Another great update! So Fenris did the goblinoids, and the green ones Medium - because why not? This comic is the best!

[GregTD]

(Never mind me. (^_^)° I'm just seriously disenchanted with how often -- with people in general, nothing to do with anyone here -- the buck stops over there. Down the street. Of the next city. Three states over.)

As the song says "Here I Am". So, when's the last time you volunteered at a homeless shelter? You can find one far closer than 1,000 miles away, or 3 cities over.

You don't get to be "disenchanted" with other people who are simply doing the exact same thing that you're doing

[danielxcutter]

I think that moment of hesitation is a little ambiguous. It could be a moment of doubt in The Plan, or it could be him considering that the dwarf he regrettably has to murder might be sincere.

Either way, it's pretty clear that he seriously considered it for a moment. Otherwise he'd have skipped straight to blasting.

I'll take a "40 page bonus story where Redcloak accepts Durkon's offer and they go blast Xykon to bits" deal stapled on to the print version if it means the same to you

Would be interesting I admit. To be honest though... Xykon's ridiculously overleveled compared to the rest of the non-divine cast. Action economy is a thing, but I suspect the only thing that'll put him down is shoving him through a Rift so the Snarl eats him.

Bolding mine.
That's... not true. While we have seen several species specific gods, almost all of them have been explicitly stated to be mortals of that species who ascended. All of the North follows the Northern Pantheon and all of its gods are available for all Northerners. The Southern Pantheon doesn't even individualize clerics between the gods, let alone species, and everyone is involved in worldbuilding. Monkey was the one who suggested ninjas be added to Ootsworld, but not all ninjas are followers of Monkey (we know because we've had goblin ninjas). If what you are saying was the case, only one god would be allowed to do anything involving dwarves, and we know that both Hel and Thor were involved with them at the worldbuilding stage and that the Dwarves' highest religious authority is the high priest of Odin.

I believe Rich said that Thor is not specifically a dwarven god, just that he's mostly popular with them.

Yes. Clearly we saw half-ninjas.

Goblins have favored class: Rogue so it's certainly possible for them to multiclass.

As the song says "Here I Am". So, when's the last time you volunteered at a homeless shelter? You can find one far closer than 1,000 miles away, or 3 cities over.

You don't get to be "disenchanted" with other people who are simply doing the exact same thing that you're doing

I think arimareiji's metaphor works well - if some of them had stepped in before it got this bad it'd be okay... but they didn't, so there's a bit of blame at everyone's feet at this point.

(By "everyone" here I mean the gods, incidentally.)