OOTS #1232 - The Discussion Thread

[danielxcutter]

*takes note* I knew there was a snappy term I was forgetting! Thank you.

Eh, a lot of fallacies have snappier names like strawman fallacy. This is basically just using the shortest way to put it as the name.

I like the mention of the Kingdom of the Red Dragon (is that right?) from GDGU. Even though they're said to be on the brink of war against the Azurites, and even acknowledged as being ruled by an evil dragon, they don't seem to get the same vitriol as the goblinoids do for the same belligerency. Probably because they have lots of cultural ties, worship the same gods, share the same ancestral kingdom...and the goblinoids don't have much in common with the Azurites, so it's easier to "other" them.

The hockey analogy is good too. I do picture Redcloak saying "just let us play on the same field with everyone else. If we lose, then it's on us." I think he made a similar claim at the end of the Crayons in SoD. (YMMV on whether or not he'll move the goalposts if/when they achieve that goal. But taken on its own, it is a fair request.)

And also perhaps because the goblins were easier to smash than the KotRD.

[Jason]

With respect to 1), in the current strip, Durkon puts it to Thor that the goblins "start'd out wit less," and that their defeat by other races was therefore the expected outcome, and Thor's response is, "I mean...yes, that's true." And he goes on unprompted to identify reparations specifically with redistribution of good land, which offers a degree of confirmation that land was among the initial inequities.

Good points, thank you. Yes, I would agree that Thor seems to confirm in the current comic that the goblins started with worse land, although it's still a bit ambiguous as to why that is the case. Did Fenris make a trade of fast breeding for good starting land? We do not know.

However, points 2-5 only go so far as to say "the other races can justify their actions based on a history of conflict with the goblins." Which, as others have pointed out, can exist simultaneously with lots of injustice (to the extent that you have previously explicitly differentiated between justification and justice), including racism.

So which is it? Do you think some level of treating the goblins as a threat would be justified but the other races are going further than that out of racism? Or is it both justified and racism at the same time, with some people being prejudiced and some defending their borders out of necessity with no personal dislike of goblinoids?

[arimareiji]

If I may ask, what should the other races have done, were they not too merciful to, uh, steel themselves to the task?

Not attributing this to anyone here: One very regrettable post made elsewhere by Gary Gygax (who got the ball rolling on something great, but was as human as anyone else and shaped by his times) implied the logical conclusion is that if you don't want "lice", you shouldn't hesitate to kill the "nits".

The Pilgrim's post on how all this came about is really worth a read.

[Lethologica]

Good points, thank you. Yes, I would agree that Thor seems to confirm in the current comic that the goblins started with worse land, although it's still a bit ambiguous as to why that is the case. Did Fenris make a trade of fast breeding for good starting land? We do not know.

The hypothetical was not that the goblins started with worse land for a reason, it's that they didn't start out with worse land.

So which is it? Do you think some level of treating the goblins as a threat would be justified but the other races are going further than that out of racism? Or is it both justified and racism at the same time, with some people being prejudiced and some defending their borders out of necessity with no personal dislike of goblinoids?

I don't know why you think skipping over my questions to you would leave me well-disposed to answer your questions. At any rate, with questions about what dynamics could pertain in a massive collection of people or groups, the answer is usually all of the above and plenty more besides.

[Jason]

If I may ask, what should the other races have done, were they not too merciful to, uh, steel themselves to the task?

Well personally I feel the other races should give the goblins every chance to learn to play nice with their neighbors, only defending themselves from raids and breaking up goblin groups that are obviously about to start raids, even though this approach will cost the lives of innocent non-goblins in the raids they don't manage to defend against. Wiping out all goblins in a nation's territory, including the non-combatant women and children is not an option in my book. But I'm one of those idealistic believers in the basic dignity of life and the possibility of redemption.

[danielxcutter]

Not attributing this to anyone here: One very regrettable post made elsewhere by Gary Gygax (who got the ball rolling on something great, but was as human as anyone else and shaped by his times) implied the logical conclusion is that if you don't want "lice", you shouldn't hesitate to kill the "nits".

The Pilgrim's post on how all this came about is really worth a read.

I believe D&D 5e is doing its best to move away from such implications - was that you who mentioned it or was that someone else?

But yeah. I heard through the grapevine that some people complained about that, but it also sounds like the general reaction is much more positive.

[arimareiji]

I believe D&D 5e is doing its best to move away from such implications - was that you who mentioned it or was that someone else?

But yeah. I heard through the grapevine that some people complained about that, but it also sounds like the general reaction is much more positive.

Not sure, answering both: Someone else mentioned Gygax; I haven't seen discussion of 5e moving away from that but wouldn't doubt it.

[Jason]

I don't know why you think skipping over my questions to you would leave me well-disposed to answer your questions.

I'm agreeing with your argument that the current comic disproves point 1 of the hypothetical, and that it wasn't important to the hypothetical anyway.

[Nomen]

My guess is part of why goblins ended up with the lot they did was because the gods worried about game balance not fairness when creating the world.
Fairness might say if goblins have twice the population as humans they should have twice the resources. Where game balance would say if team goblin gets twice the population they should have half the resources to make up for it.

[Cazero]

If I may ask, what should the other races have done, were they not too merciful to, uh, steel themselves to the task?

Ooooh ! Oooh ! I know that one ! Pick me !
The rational alternative to parking people in nature's death camps, is parking them in civilized death camps, with bladed tools and stuff.
And we don't really need to build the camps. We can just convert goblin camps into temporary death camps when the soldiers who would round up the goblins are passing by.
Wait, no, that's genocide. But like, a genocide we would be actively working for rather than one we would simply provoke and watch unfold while pretending our hands are clean. We can't do that, it might peg us a slightly darker taint of Evil.

How about prisons? Jail every goblin, let them live out their lives, but don't let them reproduce.
Wait, also genocide.


Sorry, it turns out I don't actualy know that one. I really tried my hardest, but once you've accepted the proposition that goblins will never reform as axiomatic, those three options really are all you get. And they're all genocide.

...Wait, I got a crazy hunch. Maybe, just maybe, that axiom was pulled out of someone's racist posterior and is actualy false? Wouldn't that open up all kind of new options that don't demand a "justified" genocide?

[Lethologica]

Well personally I feel the other races should give the goblins every chance to learn to play nice with their neighbors, only defending themselves from raids and breaking up goblin groups that are obviously about to start raids, even though this approach will cost the lives of innocent non-goblins in the raids they don't manage to defend against. Wiping out all goblins in a nation's territory, including the non-combatant women and children is not an option in my book. But I'm one of those idealistic believers in the basic dignity of life and the possibility of redemption.

All right. So when you said the other races were perhaps being too merciful, that was from the perspective of a non-idealistic actor in Stickworld solely concerned with eliminating all threats to innocent non-goblins? And such an actor would consider wiping out the goblins, including the women and children. But instead the idealistic option is to engage defensively and only conduct the occasional preemptive raid. Is that correct?

I'm agreeing with your argument that the current comic disproves point 1 of the hypothetical, and that it wasn't important to the hypothetical anyway.

Which leaves only the question of revisiting the intended conclusion of the hypothetical, based now on points 2-5.

[Ganbatte]

I do picture Redcloak saying "just let us play on the same field with everyone else. If we lose, then it's on us."

Then they lose, time passes, and the next Redcloak starts crying anew. Meh.

[Ionathus]

Good points, thank you. Yes, I would agree that Thor seems to confirm in the current comic that the goblins started with worse land, although it's still a bit ambiguous as to why that is the case. Did Fenris make a trade of fast breeding for good starting land? We do not know.

Yes, exactly. We do not know. We can certainly speculate, but it's unfair to then use those speculations as if they were evidence or a self-evident good on their own. We use speculations and hypotheticals to explore the facts in front of us, and puzzle out why our brains work a certain way. "If X was different, would I feel the same way?" and then the answer to that hypothetical can help you isolate your prejudices (in the broader sense, not necessarily the racial sense) and see if that solves the conundrum for you. I really like how Ursula K. Le Guin put it, in the intro to The Left Hand of Darkness:

Fortunately, though extrapolation is an element in science fiction, it isn’t the name of the game by any means. It is far too rationalist and simplistic to satisfy the imaginative mind, whether the writer’s or the reader’s. Variables are the spice of life.

This book is not extrapolative. If you like you can read it, and a lot of other science fiction, as a thought-experiment...The purpose of a thought-experiment, as the term was used by Schrodinger and other physicists, is not to predict the future—indeed Schrodinger’s most famous thought-experiment goes to show that the “future,” on the quantum level, cannot be predicted—but to describe reality, the present world.

That introduction is basically a short essay about sci-fi/fantasy writing, and is well worth a read for anyone who reads either, btw.

So which is it? Do you think some level of treating the goblins as a threat would be justified but the other races are going further than that out of racism? Or is it both justified and racism at the same time, with some people being prejudiced and some defending their borders out of necessity with no personal dislike of goblinoids?

Both justified and racism at the same time, with some people being prejudiced and some just defending their borders. Goblins who attack settlements are not off the hook for their actions, but neither are the settlements that would kill a goblin just for wandering into town.

Not sure, answering both: Someone else mentioned Gygax; I haven't seen discussion of 5e moving away from that but wouldn't doubt it.

I think they've made recent statements about wanting to undo some of the stereotypes about orcs and drow, specifically. Much of it echoes (probably not intentionally) the points that The Giant made about how Redcloak's story is important, because justifying the treatment of a humanoid as inherently different due to their different skin color (instead of their actions and goals) is a dangerously short jump to real-world racism.

ninja edit

Then they lose, time passes, and the next Redcloak starts crying anew. Meh.

Which I acknowledged, two sentences later. Come on, now.

[Quizatzhaderac]

I feel this level of intervention sacrifices "Free Will" too much.

It's fine for a God to tell their own clerics how to behave, but to meddle in the affairs of kings, town guards, normal mortals? Big nope.

Wouldn't that apply to the entire alignment system and afterlife judgement?

I guess the gods could keep it a secret what is "good" and "lawful", and have the rules be a surprise at the end of your life, but that seems really terrible.

If it's a matter of degree, two of those examples were paladins.

The other examples just require the general assertions "don't kill people without specific reason", "don't make war without a specific reason", and "Yes, the Goblinoids count as people."

[KorvinStarmast]

Fairness might say if goblins have twice the population as humans they should have twice the resources. Where game balance would say if team goblin gets twice the population they should have half the resources to make up for it.

And it is a game, after all.

Then they lose, time passes, and the next Redcloak starts crying anew. Meh.

Well, they do need to sell Game II, don't they? (I am thinking Warcraft, Warcraft II, Warcraft III, and so on)

Wouldn't that apply to the entire alignment system and afterlife judgement?

No; that isn't during life, that's after life. Two distinct states of being, if Roy's experience is anything to go by. (And for that matter, Durkon's and Minrah's)

[Ganbatte]

Wouldn't that apply to the entire alignment system and afterlife judgement?

I guess the gods could keep it a secret what is "good" and "lawful", and have the rules be a surprise at the end of your life, but that seems really terrible.

If it's a matter of degree, two of those examples were paladins.

The other examples just require the general assertions "don't kill people without specific reason", "don't make war without a specific reason", and "Yes, the Goblinoids count as people."

The key difference is directly telling something specific like "Leave the goblin lands alone!" putting one race specifically above the others.

What Gods seem to do right now is just impart teachings of general conduct, like "even if you're a caster, be able to smack evil in the face should need arise" or "if you wish to see someone's death, be the cause not the witness" in case of their own clergy and even much more vague "be good" "strive to be lawful" "killing for gain is evil" etc. etc. for non-worshippers.

They don't go interfering with how mortals decide to handle territories or enemy factions or their own cities.

[Fyraltari]

The key difference is directly telling something specific like "Leave the goblin lands alone!" putting one race specifically above the others.

What Gods seem to do right now is just impart teachings of general conduct, like "even if you're a caster, be able to smack evil in the face should need arise" or "if you wish to see someone's death, be the cause not the witness" in case of their own clergy and even much more vague "be good" "strive to be lawful" "killing for gain is evil" etc. etc. for non-worshippers.

They don't go interfering with how mortals decide to handle territories or enemy factions or their own cities.

We literally know of two divine commands: "Lo, undead are such gross, icky things" and "You should totally smash the followers of Loki."

[Ganbatte]

We literally know of two divine commands: "Lo, undead are such gross, icky things" and "You should totally smash the followers of Loki."

Right?
Which is why I said that they're more specific when dealing with their clergy, but not to kings and other non believers like that anon was advocating.

[Quizatzhaderac]

Taxation isn't inherently theft, though.

Yes, it is, by definition. Taking something you did not work for simply because you want it/need it.

You're using a bad definition of "taxation", both descriptively and prescriptively.

When taken literally those two words are (and have always been) mutually exclusive. These definitions match the expectations of 99.9% of people.

Even the definition of "theft" you just gave legitimizes tax, as even despotic regimes do some work to maintain and protect the productivity of their citizens.

You are, in fact, using the word "theft" metaphorically, just as much as the statement "All property is theft".

You are 100% free to disagree with any (or all) taxes, but you can't change the definition of "theft" to support your argument AND claim to make a linguistic argument.

[Ionathus]

We literally know of two divine commands: "Lo, undead are such gross, icky things" and "You should totally smash the followers of Loki."

Three, actually: "Don't screw this up. No pressure, though."

What, Jirix wasn't supposed to spread that commandment amongst the goblinoid faithful?

I mean, it's not the *worst* command for living your day-to-day life.

[Jason]

All right. So when you said the other races were perhaps being too merciful, that was from the perspective of a non-idealistic actor in Stickworld solely concerned with eliminating all threats to innocent non-goblins? And such an actor would consider wiping out the goblins, including the women and children. But instead the idealistic option is to engage defensively and only conduct the occasional preemptive raid. Is that correct?

Generally, yes.

Which leaves only the question of revisiting the intended conclusion of the hypothetical, based now on points 2-5.

I suppose I am trying to foster critical thinking about the victimhood narrative of the goblins, as voiced by Redcloak in Start of Darkness. It seems to me that many readers accepted it pretty much at face value despite the source of the story being a villain and his evil deity. The point of the hypothetical was to construct an alternate that also fit the known facts but did not involve racial animosity and then see if it is equally plausible.

[Fyraltari]

Right?
Which is why I said that they're more specific when dealing with their clergy, but not to kings and other non believers like that anon was advocating.

What makes you think these were only meant for the clergy and not to the faithful at large?

Three, actually: "Don't screw this up. No pressure, though."

What, Jirix wasn't supposed to spread that commandment amongst the goblinoid faithful?

I mean, it's not the *worst* command for living your day-to-day life.

Yeah, I kinda doubt they added it to their scripture.

[arimareiji]

Wouldn't that apply to the entire alignment system and afterlife judgement?

I guess the gods could keep it a secret what is "good" and "lawful", and have the rules be a surprise at the end of your life, but that seems really terrible.

If it's a matter of degree, two of those examples were paladins.

The other examples just require the general assertions "don't kill people without specific reason", "don't make war without a specific reason", and "Yes, the Goblinoids count as people."

People who choose to ignore the deity could call themselves Orthodox [deity]-ists (panel 6), but they might get an unpleasant surprise in the afterlife. Banjo doesn't seem to have as much ego invested as you might expect from a deity. (^_~)

It baffles me that in a world where they could chuck someone into what the Giant has described as a really depressing afterlife, for the single act of not risking their team's lives on a rescue mission (for an ally who kinda brought it on himself, by continuing a habit of doing what he wanted without considering who else might have to pay the price^*)... it baffles me that in such a world, deities would be forbidden from giving such general guidance as "No, you can't pretend that what you do to another sentient species is exempt from alignment considerations".

_{* - Despite being able to escape, he decides to stick around to seduce the hot chick as a matter of bardly principle and almost gets everyone killed in the process. I'm not saying Roy was right to abandon him, but you can make a good-faith argument for "Let's not get more people killed trying to save someone who's likely to get us killed"... i.e. it may not be right, but it's not as clear-cut of a wrong as would be forbidden by "Don't stab babies in the face, no matter how much you think they deserve it".}

Wrt whether deities are somehow forbidden from giving their worshipers guidance: Hel may not like it, but she couldn't do anything about a pretty explicit case of it. Well, other than (perhaps rightly, in the technical sense) complain that Thor had made a bet and then rigged the conditions afterward.

[Ionathus]

for the single act of not risking their team's lives on a rescue mission (for an ally who kinda brought it on himself, by continuing a habit of doing what he wanted without considering who else might have to pay the price^*)...

_{* - Despite being able to escape, he decides to stick around to seduce the hot chick as a matter of bardly principle and almost gets everyone killed in the process. I'm not saying Roy was right to abandon him, but you can make a good-faith argument for "Let's not get more people killed trying to save someone who's likely to get us killed"}

To be fair, I think the accusation against Roy was more about his callousness and near-glee about Elan's capture, rather than the actual delay in rescuing him. If Roy had tried in good faith to put together a rescue plan, or scoped out the situation, or talked it through more fully with the team, and then finally concluded that the odds were against them, I don't know if he'd have been taken to task so harshly by the deva. Hinjo didn't lose his paladin powers when he retreated from his own city-state, despite the many people who were taken as slaves, because the OotS gods don't seem to equate Lawful Good with "stay and fight, no matter the odds or tactical considerations, until the last innocent is saved."

But Roy's immediate reaction to Elan's capture wasn't a tactical one: it was essentially "wow, that childish idiot was such a pain in the ass, and I'm glad he's gone forever. Let's go get ice cream!" and I think that's the part that the deva was criticizing. Intent matters.

[Ganbatte]

What makes you think these were only meant for the clergy and not to the faithful at large?

Why are you now making a distinction between clergy and believers when I clearly said non-believers?
I don't get why or what you're trying to argue here.

You're using a bad definition of "taxation", both descriptively and prescriptively.

When taken literally those two words are (and have always been) mutually exclusive. These definitions match the expectations of 99.9% of people.

Even the definition of "theft" you just gave legitimizes tax, as even despotic regimes do some work to maintain and protect the productivity of their citizens.

You are, in fact, using the word "theft" metaphorically, just as much as the statement "All property is theft".

You are 100% free to disagree with any (or all) taxes, but you can't change the definition of "theft" to support your argument AND claim to make a linguistic argument.

Very well put, forgot to say this when I read it.

[Nomen]

Why are you making a useless distinction between clergy and believers?
I don't get what or why you're trying to argue this.

Gods have more control over what their clerics do than their other followers.
My understanding is
There is an argument that good gods should explicily inform their followers that taking a goblin life should be treated with the same weight as taking a human life.
Then there is an argument of whether gods can make these declarations.
Turns out that there is examples of that suggest gods can tell their priests what to do.
Now the argument is whether they can tell their other followers.
Its silly because they can tell their priests stuff their priests can tell their followers.
Now if their priests and other followers will actually listen or look for a god who doesn't make such ridiculous demands is another question.

[Ganbatte]

Gods have more control over what their clerics do than their other followers.
My understanding is
There is an argument that good gods should explicily inform their followers that taking a goblin life should be treated with the same weight as taking a human life.
Then there is an argument of whether gods can make these declarations.
Turns out that there is examples of that suggest gods can tell their priests what to do.
Now the argument is whether they can tell their other followers.
Its silly because they can tell their priests stuff their priests can tell their followers.
Now if their priests and other followers will actually listen or look for a god who doesn't make such ridiculous demands is another question.

No, this doesn't address the point and spirit of that argument: gods telling this stuff to kings and rulers in general, now giving indications to secular society as well while also treating goblins as special cases.

[NeoVid]

My first question after reading the latest strip: Does Fenrir have any idea that the race he created managed to raise one of their number to godhood?

[Fyraltari]

My first question after reading the latest strip: Does Fenrir have any idea that the race he created managed to raise one of their number to godhood?

I'd be surprised if he doesn't. Even if hasn't met him in person, the Northern Gods have apparently discussed the subject extensively.

I really wish we get to see them interact at some point.

[Snowtwo]

Something I want to add.

IRL a species with both a high birthrate and low life expectancy is typically considered to be a prey animal. At best it might become a pack hunter but rarely do they become true apex predators. Even among the apex they usually have the chance to live longer than their relative counterparts. This is because the high birthrate allows for the species to survive when being preyed upon and there's little need for longterm investment since they can't compete with the higher predators. Better to 'put it all upfront' as it were and have 1-3 years of fruitfulness before you get killed by something you can't fight against.

Intelligent species benefit immensely from a lower birthrate and longer lifespan however. This is because they can focus the resources more towards individual members, including education, and then live long enough to pass on their knowledge to future generations. You don't want to be competing against your own after all. An elven child won't need to compete against their siblings for attention or resources, will be able to receive a focus in education, able to leverage their education for longer, and then pass off that education + accumulated knowledge to future generations with ease. Meanwhile a goblin has to compete for both resources and educational attention, won't be able to leverage their education for as long, and even if they do survive to old age won't have much accumulated knowledge to pass on.

To make it worse, in a society with a high population innovation tends to stagnate as solutions can be 'solved' with manpower. For example, a knight is EASILY superior to a peasant in combat. They have superior armor, weapons, and so-forth. However armies are made up of peasants. This is because while knights are powerful and, when deployed properly, highly effective they are expensive and outfitting a peasant is as simple as handing them a spear and maybe a shield or cheap armor. When knights clash there's a contest of weapons, armor, and training in which any improvement can be a deciding edge. When armies clash while tactics and equipment factor in the defining factors are things like manpower and supply lines (which is dependent on manpower). Even out of combat there's no need to innovate when you simply can throw more people at an issue especially when social cohesion and stability matters more that innovation. There's a reason why many major technological innovations happened in places with high individuality and low population and places with more population tend to lag behind. Higher resource competition, solutions solvable through manpower application instead of innovation, and a desire for a stable society instead of an innovative one.

To finally 'cap it off', in an intelligent society you want your geniuses to live as long as possible. That way they can develop new innovations and pass them on to later generations. You don't get that in a society in which there's high competition (which typically rewards physical capabilities; though intelligence can impact) and with a high birthrate (where fertility can have a massive impact instead of intellect).

In other words: Fenris basically made a race of sentient rabbits incapable of actually leveraging the advantages they have in the long term or creating the type of society capable of out-competing the normal races since their biology is effectively trapping them in a society that doesn't allow them to leverage their own intellect. The best they can hope for is leveraging their numbers as a labor force and leech off of the innovations of others... who they opt to pillage and raid from instead of working with. It's likely that Gobtopia or w/e will last only as long as Redcloak does regardless of any outside activity before devolving into a tribalistic raiding nation. It will be highly interesting to see how well they stack up against the refugees in a year or three.