OOTS #1232 - The Discussion Thread

[Metastachydium]

Nice to see the debate answered in the comic - so word of a god is that goblins were not delibrately screwed over (wonder what this means on the whole no gods before the Dark One element).

On the other hand, now we also have Word of God that the goblinoids (et al.) are objectively worse off than the PC races, and that's the gods' fault (even though it is so owing to their stupidity and carelessness rather than to active malice).

[MirEgal]

Wow. The comic didn't shy away from moral dilemmas before, but this is larger than anything else.

Unequal starting conditions, repeated over multiple generations, leading to grave injustices. No evil plan behind it, just ignorance of the people in power. With no clear solution in sight. I'm kind of interested in seeing how this will be resolved.

[Shale]

Wow. The comic didn't shy away from moral dilemmas before, but this is larger than anything else.

Unequal starting conditions, repeated over multiple generations, leading to grave injustices. No evil plan behind it, just ignorance of the people in power. With no clear solution in sight. I'm kind of interested in seeing how this will be resolved.

Me too, and I also want to see how the comic turns out!

[Dragonus45]

Not necessarily? I don't think every personal creation of a god is set to worshiping them by default. Also it sounds like they've made fantasy goblins before.

It seems to be roughly the standard, although the more pantheonistic practices of the OOTS world muddy the waters a bit.

No, it means a god created them, which we already knew even though we didn't know it was Fenriʀ. It doesn't mean the goblinoids ever worshipped him.

The presentation from the Dark One described them as a patch to the system made by the gods in an offhand way, the idea a specific god had a real plan in mind for them to succeeded rather then being convenient EXP farms is news. Important news. It shows that that the god most invested in them wound up being the god least invested in any of his projects, and probably led to their resource issues in the first place.

[Reboot]

Eh, anyone who's played a modern game knows that publication is no longer the end of the matter, however firmly it once was*.

*And that still didn't stop, e.g., Tolkien from rewriting a whole chapter of The Hobbit years after original to fit with his Lord of the Rings retcons...

[Keltest]

I don't think Thor being truthful about the gods' motives/methods makes Redcloak wrong in any way that really matters. Whether or not they specifically created goblinoids as fodder races, the pantheons still made a universe whose fundamental laws provide material incentives for sapient beings to kill each other, and didn't see structural inequities as a problem worth balancing for. Somebody was almost assuredly going to get the short end of that stick, and whoever it was would have a valid grievance against the gods who set it up so that would happen, even if they left the exact outcome up to chance.

Yeah, but "the gods didnt create a post-scarcity society because doing so would deprive them of one of the few things they directly and specifically need from the world." is a substantially weaker reason to be doing what Redcloak is doing.

[RMS Oceanic]

Also this likely closes the door on the Gods "patching" the world to address the grievance. Honestly that makes the possible solution more interesting. How do flawed mortals deal with a flawed world?

[Windscion]

I love that Fenrir is wearing Gleipnir, the chain forged from:
The sound of a cat's footfall
The beard of a woman
The roots of a mountain
The sinews of a bear
The breath of a fish
and
The spittle of a bird.

Which makes sense since Tyr is missing a hand.

However, this reading of goblinoid creation does bolster the possibility that maybe the Rat/Tiamat/Loki axis is, in fact, deliberately manipulating TDO.

Also, Minrah continues to be awesome.

[Shining Wrath]

I don't think Thor being truthful about the gods' motives/methods makes Redcloak wrong in any way that really matters. Whether or not they specifically created goblinoids as fodder races, the pantheons still made a universe whose fundamental laws provide material incentives for sapient beings to kill each other, and didn't see structural inequities as a problem worth balancing for. Somebody was almost assuredly going to get the short end of that stick, and whoever it was would have a valid grievance against the gods who set it up so that would happen, even if they left the exact outcome up to chance.

Or: if evil gods don't really care if their worshipers prosper, but good gods do, the races created by good gods will, world after world, tend come out on top.
And if cooperation among sentient beings is more successful than every-creature-for-themselves, then good-tending cultures will be more successful than evil-tending cultures. In OOTS race and alignment are not coupled, so it's a matter of culture, not race - but the god that creates a people may have some influence on their culture.

It raises the question as to whether or not a god can change alignment. Because it seems that good ought to defeat evil more often than not, and you'd think that after a hundred million billion trillion worlds Fenri would get a clue.

[dancrilis]

It means the statement is flat wrong, they did have a god before the Dark One, he just got bored of them and left them hanging.

Just because a god created them doesn't mean that they ever actually worshipped him - or that he began to deny them clerics etc.

To take this quote:

The goblins, on the other hand, worshipped no one before the Dark One.

It might mean: The Goblin's worshipped Fenris, he turned from them, they had no one and then The Dark One showed up.
But it could also mean: Fenris got bored on the idea even before the world was settled on and so The Goblins never even knew to worship him and so never had any god.

If the first then the question becomes why didn't they try to worship other gods to maintain clerics, if the second then did the early goblins never think to worship a god seeing them as for other races or did they try and get rejected.

[Keltest]

Just because a god created them doesn't mean that they ever actually worshipped him - or that he began to deny them clerics etc.

To take this quote:


It might mean: The Goblin's worshipped Fenris, he turned from them, they had no one and then The Dark One showed up.
But it could also mean: Fenris got bored on the idea even before the world was settled on and so The Goblins never even knew to worship him and so never had any god.

If the first then the question becomes why didn't they try to worship other gods to maintain clerics, if the second then did the early goblins never think to worship a god seeing them as for other races or did they try and get rejected.

Personally i read that as "the goblins, like humans, had no specific patron as a race, and chose a patron based on individual preference, and generally cast about thanks and curses based on whose portfolio is applicable for the situation."

[The Pilgrim]

It was about time that Thor debunked The Dark One's victimization narrative.

It's a dark day for Goblin Justice Warriors.

A much needed strip, Giant. Thank you.

[Hasric]

Could this be why the Dark One and Redcloak never speak to each other? If Redcloak called Fenris would he get an answer?

[Xihirli]

I mean "the goblins" worshipping no one before the Dark One is a cultural answer, not necessarily a scientific one. Like if I said "the Greeks" discovered... oh, I don't know, pi. It's imprecise verging on inaccurate, but to an acceptable degree where yes, there's wiggle room and Egypt was pretty close with 3.16 well before Archimedes's eureka moment.

Like Rich wasn't necessarily saying "there has never been a Goblin cleric or worshipper of any god except The Dark One," any more than saying "Northerners do not worship the Twelve Southern Gods" would mean that no single Northerner has ever done so. It's a cultural answer, with the implied "culture is messy and there are exceptions" going along with it.

[Dragonus45]

Just because a god created them doesn't mean that they ever actually worshipped him - or that he began to deny them clerics etc.

To take this quote:


It might mean: The Goblin's worshipped Fenris, he turned from them, they had no one and then The Dark One showed up.
But it could also mean: Fenris got bored on the idea even before the world was settled on and so The Goblins never even knew to worship him and so never had any god.

If the first then the question becomes why didn't they try to worship other gods to maintain clerics, if the second then did the early goblins never think to worship a god seeing them as for other races or did they try and get rejected.

Who said anything about worship? I totally believe that Fenris started his twelve more projects before he even got to the "establish goblin religion" phase of things. Just because their god abandoned them early on doesn't change that they had one who gave them a very poorly thought out game plan "age fast and breed a lot" and then wandered off to go do something else when it came time to talk over where to plant all the various races and resources.

[RMS Oceanic]

It was about time that Thor debunked The Dark One's victimization narrative.

It's a dark day for Goblin Justice Warriors.

A much needed strip, Giant. Thank you.

I think it's less "the Goblins' grievances are wrong" and more "Hanlon's razor applies to the goblins' grievances." It wasn't malice, it was neglect, and Thor acknowledges that.

[Linneris]

Holy social commentary (pun intended) I had not expect Durkon to be the one complaining about an injust system, our bearded boy has grown so much.

He's acting in accordance with the Giant's interpretation of his alignment: part of being Lawful Good is knowing when to change the law.

[RMS Oceanic]

Also I suspect individual goblins would have drifted to this or that deity, but the main community would have been left without one to rally around until the Dark One. I don't think Rich means no goblin ever worshiped anyone before him.

[Dragonus45]

I think it's less "the Goblins' grievances are wrong" and more "Hanlon's razor applies to the goblins' grievances." It wasn't malice, it was neglect, and Thor acknowledges that.

Pretty much that, although I still maintain that you underestimate the danger and long term health risks of the kind of mining focused lifestyle the dwarves live, even if they are more adapted to it, only if you are a fool.

[Xihirli]

It was about time that Thor debunked The Dark One's victimization narrative.

It's a dark day for Goblin Justice Warriors.

A much needed strip, Giant. Thank you.

Well, no not really. Goblins were created as monsters. This strip confirms that by both having Fenris make them and the line "[Fenris makes goblins] and then turns his attention to the more 'fun' monsters." Word of god (little g) confirming that yes, from the birth of their race goblins were monsters. And monsters do exist for the heroes to kill for xp.

It's a more complicated answer, but Redcloak and the Dark One's gripes agains the gods are accurate. They're true. They're just imprecise and missing context.

[Dion]

Nice to see the debate answered in the comic - so word of a god is that goblins were not delibrately screwed over (wonder what this means on the whole no gods before the Dark One element).

And it’s nice to see they are absolutely 100% screwed over, and TDO is 100% absolutely positively correct even if wasn’t technically “deliberate”.

So now we’re done with the debate forever and ever. The goblins were intentionally designed as XP fodder. They got the worse lands because literally none of the gods cared about them. The gods gave them a short brutal life intentionally. Word of god. Done.

Ha ha ha ha. No, just kidding. We should argue.

[ratfox]

So what's that about equity options?

[Roselily2006]

Ha ha ha ha. No, just kidding. We should argue.

The question is how to start an argument. Anyone know a controversial yet somewhat silly topic of debate?

[Dragonus45]

Well, no not really. Goblins were created as monsters. This strip confirms that by both having Fenris make them and the line "[Fenris makes goblins] and then turns his attention to the more 'fun' monsters." Word of god (little g) confirming that yes, from the birth of their race goblins were monsters. And monsters do exist for the heroes to kill for xp.

It's a more complicated answer, but Redcloak and the Dark One's gripes agains the gods are accurate. They're true. They're just imprecise and missing context.

Everyone was created as a monster, we are all in the manual after all and we all give exp when stabbed. The gods as a whole turn out not to be a giant finger on the scales of goblin life actively working to keep them down. That matters a lot.

So what's that about equity options?

It's a pun as both an investment term, for if you want the chance to buy a stock but want a bit and don't want to be obligated to buy it, and presumably also uses equity as it tends to be juxtaposed with equality when talking about how to handle issues of race. Very creative.

[understatement]

The question is how to start an argument. Anyone know a controversial yet somewhat silly topic of debate?

Star Wars, seafood, Lord of the Rings.

*

Think Durkon's side is stronger. Thor somewhat comes off a little like "well, we personally didn't do it ourselves, but we stood by and let the god who always did it do his thing per usual." It's not malice, but it's sort of like bystander syndrome.

[jidasfire]

I dunno, I just think the less right Redcloak is about the goblinoid question, the less of a compelling villain he is. And I'm not sure that's for the best.

I don't know if that's true. For one thing, the goblins are still to some degree victims of injustice. It's simply an unintentional injustice rather than an intentional one. From a certain point of view, i.e. The Dark One or Redcloak, what the gods intended is academic and the injustice remains. Redcloak himself also remains the victim of personal injustice at the hands of the old Sapphire Guard, so even if his cosmic motivations prove less than true, his personal ones are still fresh in his mind (even though he has more than paid them back at this point).

On top of all this, there's always been plenty of evidence to suggest that The Dark One is an unreliable narrator who's not merely misunderstood. Right Eye certainly had no respect for him, seeing him as petty, spiteful, and willing his own people as nothing more than weapons in his war against the other gods.

But for all that, Durkon still seems unconvinced by even his beloved Thor's explanation, so you're probably right that the matter is far from closed, and we can't just give the gods a full pass on this.

[Xihirli]

Everyone was created as a monster, we are all in the manual after all and we all give exp when stabbed. The gods as a whole turn out not to be a giant finger on the scales of goblin life actively working to keep them down. That matters a lot.

Cool. I'll go let Fenris know he's the god of all races, everywhere.

[Dragonus45]

Cool. I'll go let Fenris know he's the god of all races, everywhere.

Technically he is, since D&D never really defines "monsters". Shame he can't keep track of anything.

Think Durkon's side is stronger. Thor somewhat comes off a little like "well, we personally didn't do it ourselves, but we stood by and let the god who always did it do his thing per usual." It's not malice, but it's sort of like bystander syndrome.

I wonder how much actually interfering they are generally even allowed to do? Especially since the recurrence of goblins as a concept probably means they are a pet project of his and the "this changes everything" line probably means they have tried to talk to him about it at some point and he was defending the choices.

[Ionathus]

Very surprised that Redcloak is not essentially right on this. On the other hand, when the Dark One was raised the other gods attempted to convince him that everything was actually fair, and their arguments weren't very convincing. It's possible that Thor is kinda doing the same here, but the vibe I get from this comic is that Thor is being both truthful and accurate.

I dunno, I just think the less right Redcloak is about the goblinoid question, the less of a compelling villain he is. And I'm not sure that's for the best. But still, let's see how this goes - I doubt we've heard the last on this topic.

I know it's a personal perception thing, but this revelation doesn't take away from Redcloak's story for me. I like how it adds the wrinkle that injustice can happen, even when nobody intentionally decides to screw the marginalized groups over. People look for moustache-twirling villains all the time, and that fixation can make you miss the "unintentional injustices" that happen out of the spotlight, just because nobody cares all that much about the wronged party.

Durkon taking Thor to task over this was pretty satisfying. Really appreciate how he said "that's not really a no."

Wow. The comic didn't shy away from moral dilemmas before, but this is larger than anything else.

Unequal starting conditions, repeated over multiple generations, leading to grave injustices. No evil plan behind it, just ignorance of the people in power. With no clear solution in sight. I'm kind of interested in seeing how this will be resolved.

Agreed, this is really getting into some deep ethics stuff. And what's more, is handling it quite well.

And if cooperation among sentient beings is more successful than every-creature-for-themselves, then good-tending cultures will be more successful than evil-tending cultures. In OOTS race and alignment are not coupled, so it's a matter of culture, not race - but the god that creates a people may have some influence on their culture.

It raises the question as to whether or not a god can change alignment. Because it seems that good ought to defeat evil more often than not, and you'd think that after a hundred million billion trillion worlds Fenri would get a clue.

Worth noting that goblinoids are depicted as very cooperative groups, with rigid social structures and large settlements. Cooperation is not restricted to Good civilizations.

As for Evil always being the sub-optimal choice: Thor did mention last comic that there are worlds where being Evil has loads of advantages.

The question is how to start an argument. Anyone know a controversial yet somewhat silly topic of debate?

Oh, give it 5 seconds, I'm sure we'll think of something.

EDIT: Ninja -

I don't know if that's true. For one thing, the goblins are still to some degree victims of injustice. It's simply an unintentional injustice rather than an intentional one. From a certain point of view, i.e. The Dark One or Redcloak, what the gods intended is academic and the injustice remains. Redcloak himself also remains the victim of personal injustice at the hands of the old Sapphire Guard, so even if his cosmic motivations prove less than true, his personal ones are still fresh in his mind (even though he has more than paid them back at this point).

On top of all this, there's always been plenty of evidence to suggest that The Dark One is an unreliable narrator who's not merely misunderstood. Right Eye certainly had no respect for him, seeing him as petty, spiteful, and willing his own people as nothing more than weapons in his war against the other gods.

But for all that, Durkon still seems unconvinced by even his beloved Thor's explanation, so you're probably right that the matter is far from closed, and we can't just give the gods a full pass on this.

I agree with this completely! Whether or not oppression/injustice is intentional isn't particularly comforting from the viewpoint of the oppressed.

[TerrickTerran]

I realize it amuses me that most of the Dwarves have the Scottish accent but Thor and Odin none at all.