OOTS #1233 - The Discussion Thread

[Rrmcklin]

There's a difference between communication of a theme and ham-fisted hammering of a theme into the reader's consciousness. The comic of late could benefit from a dose of subtly.

I mean, given the massive pushback to anything more subtle, I can understand the desire to be direct. Even being as direct as he is, you still have people arguing what's clearly going on isn't actually what is going on.

[RossN]

The comic has really taken a turn for the eye-rollingly preachy of late. I hope it can redeem itself before the end.

I think that's too strong a take, but I admit I am disappointed at the arc the story has been bending towards for a while now.

I don't agree with "always evil" races outside of actual demons or undead or the like but I don't think it's unfair to view goblin society in D&D as pretty evil. Yes there are plenty of reasons why such a state of affairs happens from bad land to evil patron deities (whether it be Fenris here or Maglubiyet in 'standard' D&D) but while it makes them understandable in background I don't think it should give goblins a free pass on doing evil to everyone else. Nor am I thrilled with the idea of goblins framed as eternal victims against human bullies when the single biggest act of conquest we've seen in the entire story is by (hob)goblins against humans.

I think my other problem with the narrative is that it seems to run with the idea of goblins as an isolated minority surrounded by more powerful 'PC races'... but how true is that really? As we've seen goblins share a world with orcs, kobolds, ogres and bugbears, all of whom are in similar straits to the goblins (kobolds indeed arguably have it considerably worse - they really are significantly weaker than goblins on an individual level.) Combined all those 'monster races' might well outnumber humanity, or even the 'PC races' combined. There are any numbers of potential allies for goblins out there to trade with, make pacts with, build cities with.

I mean, given the massive pushback to anything more subtle, I can understand the desire to be direct. Even being as direct as he is, you still have people arguing what's clearly going on isn't actually what is going on.

I think the number of people actually denying what is going on is fairly small. A larger minority (of which I'm one) accept that this is the direction the story is going in and intended to go but have expressed disappointment in that direction for various reasons.

[ebarde]

I honestly think that Thor's talk about how he had nothing to do with goblins' situation makes no sense. Didn't he make dwarves? Dwarves literally get racial bonuses against goblins, something we've seen happen in this comic with Durkon. So Thor literally made a race that is specifically suited to killing goblins, right?

[Rrmcklin]

I think that's too strong a take, but I admit I am disappointed at the arc the story has been bending towards for a while now.

I don't agree with "always evil" races outside of actual demons or undead or the like but I don't think it's unfair to view goblin society in D&D as pretty evil. Yes there are plenty of reasons why such a state of affairs happens from bad land to evil patron deities (whether it be Fenris here or Maglubiyet in 'standard' D&D) but while it makes them understandable in background I don't think it should give goblins a free pass on doing evil to everyone else. Nor am I thrilled with the idea of goblins framed as eternal victims against human bullies when the single biggest act of conquest we've seen in the entire story is by (hob)goblins against humans.

I think my other problem with the narrative is that it seems to run with the idea of goblins as an isolated minority surrounded by more powerful 'PC races'... but how true is that really? As we've seen goblins share a world with orcs, kobolds, ogres and bugbears, all of whom are in similar straits to the goblins (kobolds indeed arguably have it considerably worse - they really are significantly weaker than goblins on an individual level.) Combined all those 'monster races' might well outnumber humanity, or even the 'PC races' combined. There are any numbers of potential allies for goblins out there to trade with, make pacts with, build cities with.

The story hasn't said anything about giving a free pass about doing evil, though. I'm really not seeing where people are getting the idea that we're supposed to be okay with that, when even in this very same strip Durkon specifically outlines he's not okay with Redcloak is doing.

The story has also highlighted that the other "monsters"/"humanoids" face similar prejudices/issues so it's unlikely they're in any position to actual do what you say here.

I think there are ways you could criticize how the Giant has chosen to write this story, but ignoring things that have been both explicitly and implicitly shown or implied to us is not how you do it.

[elros]

Say your parents decide to invest your entire college fund and personal savings into a supposedly trustworthy and reputable company, with the intent of giving you an advantage over your siblings. But the company goes under, leaving you with nothing. They didn't do the same for your siblings, and as such they have quite a head start compared to you. When you complain about it to your parents, they say that they simply tried to help you in a way that didn't work out, can hardly be expected to create money for you out of thin air, and you should just take responsibility for your own life as it's out of their hands now. Kind of an injustice, no?


Fenrir "invested" the goblins' entire future into a plausibly successful strategy. However, the investment failed, leaving the goblins severely disadvantaged compared to the other species. And now that the goblins want fair compensation from the gods that played games with their conception, they get to hear that the gods can't intervene anymore, and thus they have to take responsibility for themselves. I don't think you can doubt that it's just as much an injustice as the above.

From the dictionary for injustice: "violation of right or of the rights of another." In the situation you described, it is not injustice that things ended up uneven.
The hardship of the goblins is bad, but it is not worse than the eternal suffering of the dwarves whose souls went to Hel because of a wager.

[Worldsong]

From the dictionary for injustice: "violation of right or of the rights of another." In the situation you described, it is not injustice that things ended up uneven.
The hardship of the goblins is bad, but it is not worse than the eternal suffering of the dwarves whose souls went to Hel because of a wager.

That is also a very bad situation which should be rectified as quickly as possible. Of course, it looks like there's no way to fix it but that doesn't mean it's not horrible.

[Rrmcklin]

From the dictionary for injustice: "violation of right or of the rights of another." In the situation you described, it is not injustice that things ended up uneven.
The hardship of the goblins is bad, but it is not worse than the eternal suffering of the dwarves whose souls went to Hel because of a wager.

"Other people also have it bad" is not a good argument for the status quo. It's just an argument that more people need help. I'm of the mind that the dwarves situation will also be rectified by the end of the comic, though I can't imagine how right now.

[WanderingMist]

Who are you trying to convince, me or yourself?
I mean even this link is another miss, not sure what it's supposed to prove, that prejudiced elven guys exist?
By the same token we have the hobgoblin doing equally prejudiced stuff, but does that prove all hobgoblins share the same "immigrants should be roughed for daring to be immigrants" sentiment?

Bet you wouldn't say that there, no? And yet you treat one elven sample as representative of the views of the entire race.

Weird.

Amazing you say that for elves, yet still believe somehow that random settlements of goblins that Redcloak happens to be leading are representative of the entirety of the goblin race. That level of doublethink is astounding.

[arimareiji]

Notably, in the discussion thread of that strip there were people trying to justify the elf commanders' murder even though the strip itself makes it clear that nothing besides racism/speciesism was going on there.

Years later, and the same defenses/justifications still keep being used.

Replace "10 hours" with "10 years".

I'd imagine that some of the people are still saying
"...and don't slam the--
door."

[SN137]

Look, I'm pretty sure the story is not done , but

1) Goblin's being kill on sight, is really weird, considering the comic expressly has redcloak state that orcs are not, flying Kobolds are not (in Elan's sperm donor's empire), lizardmen are not, half ogre dragons are not, drow are not, pretty much nothing supports the kill on site idea existing or being impossible to negotiate to kill if a violent murderer, except Redcloak stating it. Even if this was the case though, no Goblin anywhere has requested this be stopped, without also requesting to keep violent territorial conquests and slaves, and threatening and attacking the negotiator.
2) The Dark one, even though he asked for a fairer allotment of land, did not actually ask for this either, and apparently thought that attacking to get land, was a better strategy then threatening to attack if Goblin's rights are not protected. This is the equivalent of giving them no reason to give you rights, but every reason to kill you on site.
3) Redcloak's sole contribution has been to attack other countries and enslave them.

Given that Goblin foreign policy has been kill people, take their stuff, and enslave them, it doesn't seem like there's really an option as no one appears to actually want to peacefully negotiate.

[RossN]

The story hasn't said anything about giving a free pass about doing evil, though. I'm really not seeing where people are getting the idea that we're supposed to be okay with that, when even in this very same strip Durkon specifically outlines he's not okay with Redcloak is doing.

The story has also highlighted that the other "monsters"/"humanoids" face similar prejudices/issues so it's unlikely they're in any position to actual do what you say here.

I think there are ways you could criticize how the Giant has chosen to write this story, but ignoring things that have been both explicitly and implicitly shown or implied to us is not how you do it.

Yes Redcloak, but I think the very significance of Redcloak (both in story and in-universe) is part of my problem here. By presenting the 'generic' goblins as Redcloak's dupes the story really gives them a pass - the (hob)goblins didn't sack and conquer a human civilisation because their culture prioritises conquest and slavery, they did it because a charismatic teenager misled them.

And those other monsters/humanoids? If they face the 'same prejudices' then why haven't they united and stomped humans flat already? They are as strong as humans, as smart of humans. Yeah starting with bad land sucks but the Mongols lived in some of the least promising land on Earth and created a huge empire.

I don't think I'm ignoring anything we've been shown. I'm not thrilled with the direction the story is heading in or the attitudes of the characters and I'd quibble with the lessons to be drawn but I'm not disputing the Giant has shown plenty of good monsters and nuanced attitudes before now.

[Ganbatte]

Amazing you say that for elves, yet still believe somehow that random settlements of goblins that Redcloak happens to be leading are representative of the entirety of the goblin race. That level of doublethink is astounding.

Is it though?
I understand that throwing cool words like "doublethink" might sound like a valid substitute for making an actual argument (it isn't) but we've seen many various acts of appreciating cruelty against other races from goblin society - while we still only have one lone example of a single elf for elves.
If we're going by mere number of samples, as it seems to be your game, that does feel more representative than your... 1.

So the question now is why you would link to a strip that weakens your position.

I honestly think that Thor's talk about how he had nothing to do with goblins' situation makes no sense. Didn't he make dwarves? Dwarves literally get racial bonuses against goblins, something we've seen happen in this comic with Durkon. So Thor literally made a race that is specifically suited to killing goblins, right?

It might've been in response to their "fast breeding" strategy, so not a deliberate effort in putting goblins down but merely to give his creation some edge in fighting back.

[arimareiji]

It can be, but that kind of war is generally more frowned upon than "our nation need this, their nations have it and won't trade, so we'll make them give us some" wars.

One of the biggest purveyors of war porn (figurative, not literal) repeatedly described that type of war in his books as "armed robbery writ large". Your mileage may vary on how often that type of war puts on a funny hat or a costume and pretends to be some other kind.

And of course there are too many types of HOW to wage that war to count, under a variety of different euphemisms, but the end result always seems to be shades of the same thing. "You're in the way of me having what I want, so I'm going to pretend you're Pure Evil and deprive you of what you need^* until I get it."

_{* - food, water, medicine, safety from words too horrific to invoke, continued existence, etc}

[woweedd]

Yes Redcloak, but I think the very significance of Redcloak (both in story and in-universe) is part of my problem here. By presenting the 'generic' goblins as Redcloak's dupes the story really gives them a pass - the (hob)goblins didn't sack and conquer a human civilisation because their culture prioritises conquest and slavery, they did it because a charismatic teenager misled them.

And those other monsters/humanoids? If they face the 'same prejudices' then why haven't they united and stomped humans flat already? They are as strong as humans, as smart of humans. Yeah starting with bad land sucks but the Mongols lived in some of the least promising land on Earth and created a huge empire.

I don't think I'm ignoring anything we've been shown. I'm not thrilled with the direction the story is heading in or the attitudes of the characters and I'd quibble with the lessons to be drawn but I'm not disputing the Giant has shown plenty of good monsters and nuanced attitudes before now.

One: Just because two people have a common enemy doesn't mean they'll unite. Two, Goblins aren't as strong as humans, they have ****ty land and such. And, yes, the Mongols did it, but the mongols had Genghis Khan. Goblins haven't had a chance, one assumes. Well, that's a bit of a lie: The Dark ONe seems to have tried to be that, and then he was assassinated, because the pretty races can unite just as well. Redcloak's trying to do the same deal, and he seems to have been more successful.

[Rrmcklin]

Yes Redcloak, but I think the very significance of Redcloak (both in story and in-universe) is part of my problem here. By presenting the 'generic' goblins as Redcloak's dupes the story really gives them a pass - the (hob)goblins didn't sack and conquer a human civilisation because their culture prioritises conquest and slavery, they did it because a charismatic teenager misled them.

See, that's a valid criticism I think: we should get to see more from the goblinoids outside of the military or fighters. That's fair enough.

And those other monsters/humanoids? If they face the 'same prejudices' then why haven't they united and stomped humans flat already? They are as strong as humans, as smart of humans. Yeah starting with bad land sucks but the Mongols lived in some of the least promising land on Earth and created a huge empire.

Without going to deep into real life, you're taking a major exception and acting like it's the rule. Starting with the deck stacked against you can, and often does, end up keeping several generations down the line in or near the same place unless specifics steps are taken to address it. For this story, specifically, we're not just talking about humans being the "oppressors" and even if were the specific frame work is such that the "monsters" could hypothetically do that, in practice they can't because the circumstances of the actual lives largely prevent it. You need something to start with, and they have much less.

[SN137]

Without going to deep into real life, you're taking a major exception and acting like it's the rule.

No , steppe empires pretty much consistently raided, conquered, and demanded tribute from nations with "better" land , over a thousand years. It has essentially been the rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomadic_empire , until gunpowder could take down armoured horse at range, and outrange horseback archers.

[woweedd]

No , steppe empires pretty much consistently raided, conquered, and demanded tribute from nations with "better" land , over a thousand years. It has essentially been the rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomadic_empire , until gunpowder could take down armoured horse at range, and outrange horseback archers.

I mean, yes. By all indications, that's what Goblins have been doing. They've been doing it a lot less successfully then the Mongols, because, well, they live in a world where there is a sizeable subculture of OP meatheads who can lift boulders and shoot lightning out of their hands and have nothing better to do with their time but slaughter them to keep their skills sharp. A sixth-level Wizard can summon an explosion that makes the guns of those times look like firecrackers by comparison. Heck, even a 1st or 2nd level Wizard can summon cones of fire out of his hands. Your average level 1 goblin warrior is no match for a party of 4 level 6 adventurers. Or 4 level 2 adventurers. Heck, 1 level 1 adventurer has good odds of killing him.

[Larsaan]

I honestly think that Thor's talk about how he had nothing to do with goblins' situation makes no sense. Didn't he make dwarves? Dwarves literally get racial bonuses against goblins, something we've seen happen in this comic with Durkon. So Thor literally made a race that is specifically suited to killing goblins, right?

Not all racial abilities are tied to inherent physiology. Some are supposed to reflect widespread cultural/societal practices, and the lore reason for dwarves having bonuses against goblins, orcs and giants is because of mandatory martial training.

Basically, dwarves get Moria'd a lot, so now they teach every citizen what to do if it happens again.

[SN137]

I mean, yes. By all indications, that's what Goblins have been doing. They've been doing it a lot less successfully then the Mongols.

The dark ones horde murdered a million people . This puts him quite close to several ancient wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._by_death_toll
Additionally I'm not sure how big Azure City is meant to be, but it seems to have displaced many people. If it was meant to be equivalent to China , yeah the Goblins have been.

[RandomReader]

I don't agree with "always evil" races outside of actual demons or undead or the like but I don't think it's unfair to view goblin society in D&D as pretty evil. Yes there are plenty of reasons why such a state of affairs happens from bad land to evil patron deities (whether it be Fenris here or Maglubiyet in 'standard' D&D) but while it makes them understandable in background I don't think it should give goblins a free pass on doing evil to everyone else. Nor am I thrilled with the idea of goblins framed as eternal victims against human bullies when the single biggest act of conquest we've seen in the entire story is by (hob)goblins against humans.

Goblins aren't getting a free pass to be evil, but I do think the story is putting a weird emphasis on how the other nations/races should have equitably distributed resources to the goblin nations/races after conflict settled, like the only two states of existence are sole access to plentiful resources, or no access, and that's the root of all troubles, and correcting that inequality is the only reasonable recourse. The bigger issue in my eyes is that after establishment of the various top dog nations, goblins stayed as an out-group, by whatever cruelties or negligence's responsible, instead of them being absorbed by one or more of the nations.

[tanonx]

Well, I guess it could go the way it's headed. Which, granted, would be kind of disappointing, given the moral implications.

But I'm curious if the narrative will take a few more twists.

[Ganbatte]

Basically, dwarves get Moria'd a lot, so now they teach every citizen what to do if it happens again.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LIwAaZWRqP0

[Jaxzan Proditor]

from Roy indeed. I am certain that the course of events of this comic would have been quite different had the Order really communicated with the goblins back in the first book. I am certainly interested to see how Roy will interact with Redcloak next time they meet up.

[Snails]

I agree. But another reason for their situation is their being put in poor lands and then being abandoned by their creator.

Careful. Until their recent seize of Azure City, they had poorer lands. But we have no idea if they were put in poor lands in the first place. Obviously those they were at war with prioritized seizing the richer lands the goblins might have had fall into their hands early on.

Fenris may have proven neglectful in the long run, but what Thor said does not imply they were worse off at the outset.

[Wraithfighter]

I think the key thing here, for the in-universe world as a whole, is to try to reach a place of stability and minimal harm. We're dealing with so, so many past sins and past crimes and past problems that finding a properly just and equitable arrangement is just about impossible. I mean, if you throw the Goblins out of their home, does that validate the actions of the bad members of the Sapphire Guard who did stuff that resembled genocide? The issues about the Goblins having their towns destroyed and sacked because they might eventually pose a threat to the world is a serious crime too, are there scales somewhere that can be used to figure out what the exact amount of justice and punishment should be?

That's why I like Durkon's suggestion in #1209. Is it fully just? No. Does it reward the goblins for invading and sacking Azure City? Absolutely.

But the dead are dead, and they're not coming back. Azurites have their own island now, presumably large enough to support the population of their refugees, and maybe even those that were imprisoned/enslaved in Gobbotopia. Gobbotopia gives up the prisoners and slaves, continues to engage with other nations in mercantile means, Azure Island goes on strong, there's a metric butt-ton of problems to sort out, devil's in the details, but it gets things to a place where peace, real peace, proper coexistence, might be possible.

Justice is good, justice is important, but things have been so off-kilter for so long that you got to start looking for good-enough solutions instead.

[Souju]

I don't know that either one should have fallen for this, had they been paladins, but taking a beat to let that sink in, rather than brushing it off reflexively, is probably appropriate.

I mean, given Miko didn't fall until killing her Lord (whom she DID ask why he was doing things, she just jumped to the wrong conclusion) and all of the other paladins aside from O-Chul that we've met behave this way, I don't think there would be a single paladin left if this thought process were criteria for falling.

[Jason]

Careful. Until their recent seize of Azure City, they had poorer lands. But we have no idea if they were put in poor lands in the first place. Obviously those they were at war with prioritized seizing the richer lands the goblins might have had fall into their hands early on.

Fenris may have proven neglectful in the long run, but what Thor said does not imply they were worse off at the outset.

I believe Thor confirmed that the goblins did start with poorer lands, though it is a little ambiguous.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Spoiler: Ganbatte

Show

Granted said strategy wasn't decided by them but for them, but if it worked they would've reaped a ton of benefits and likely ruled the world now.
They basically went all in - lost - and complained about the loss.

How can you say both that the goblins didn't decide their "strategy" and that they chose to go all in and lost? If they didn't decide their strategy, they didn't decide to go all in! These are mutually exclusive statements!

And guess what—if it had worked, basically everyone would go "The humans had a worse hand, they don't deserve to be hunted by the greenskins".

Starcraft units are living breathing thinking creatures. Play the game.

No, they are lines of code in a computer game.

Let's reverse this: why should the currently living humans, elves etc etc give up the advantages their ancestors rightfully won?

What if we don't agree that their victory was, in fact, righteous?

So if you win and get resources for more than your generation it's an injustice, but if you fail and lose the resources for more than your generation it's also an injustice?
We're kinda running out of options here, are we not?

"Wait. So one group having more resources than another is unjust, but one group having less resources than another is also unjust? What the heck would you consider just?"

{scrubbed}


I don't know if this is your intent, but you seem to be arguing from a position that whatever happened in the past and its effects on the present are, one way or another, just. The PC races won, the goblins lost, and everyone just has to deal with it. I disagree strongly with this! The world is not just unless we make it so, and the people in the past were not consistently concerned with justice. But if you think that the PC races winning a series of wars against goblins over the past centuries means that their descendants have the right to {scrubbed} over the descendants of those goblins—hell, if you think that the PC races winning a war against goblins today means they have the right to {scrubbed} over goblins today—then I guess I can't prove your ethical framework wrong. I just find the implications abhorrent.

Spoiler: All Mongol-related arguments grouped here

Show

Geez, a lot of people here think they know about how nomads live? Good thing I have links to someone who actually does!

That would make their closest analogs Steppe herders or desert peoples? If they engage in agriculture , it's probably closer to like Finns or Manchus? I don't know, in general those areas tend to consume more foods that are considered luxuries in the more sedentary areas (meat milk), have a more varied diet, and have lower labor requirements due to going to Swidden agriculture.

First off, while Steppe herders eat more foods that sedentary cultures often consider luxuries, they also eat less foods that sedentary cultures consider staple crops. Luxury is in the eye of the beholder, especially when it comes to food; if it's hard to obtain, it's luxurious. Well, that's not entirely true—sometimes food becomes luxury food for no reason at all! Look at lobster; it went from garbage that only a slave would eat to the luxury seafood in a matter of years because some rich people on vacation wanted to try local cuisine, and it caught on.
Second, the Finns and Manchus didn't practice swidden agriculture. That's more of a rainforesty kind of thing, because the defining part of swidden agriculture is cutting and burning the local trees (and other woody vegetation). Steppe nomads tended to live off of herding and hunting.
A Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry has a great series explaining how steppe nomads lived. Of course, it's focused on nomads who live on the steppes, not ones who live in tundra or desert, because you're conflating a whole bunch of cultures which don't have much in common beyond not building cities.

And, yes, the Mongols did it, but the mongols had Genghis Khan.

Mongols (and other steppe nomads) also have a method of subsistence which happens to line up perfectly with cavalry tactics that are extremely effective against the infantry-heavy armies of sedentary peoples. Again, ACOUP goes into a lot of detail on this. Genghis Khan was a pretty good general, but the enduring success of his conquests has more to do with his social engineering than his military prowess. (Though obviously the social stuff enhanced the military stuff.)

No , steppe empires pretty much consistently raided, conquered, and demanded tribute from nations with "better" land , over a thousand years. It has essentially been the rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nomadic_empire , until gunpowder could take down armoured horse at range, and outrange horseback archers.

Not really. ACOUP's "Fremen Mirage" series goes into this, but times when nomadic cultures dominated sedentary ones are extremely rare. The steppe nomads had a better track record than most, because (as I just mentioned) they fight the way they hunt.


None of which matters, because OotS goblins are not nomads! They have villages and farmers and huts, not herds and horsemen and yurts. They don't seem to be nomadic at all, except in the sense that some of their villages are razed and the survivors have to move elsewhere; they certainly aren't mounted archers like the famous Mongols. The only similarities between the two are that they live on land too unproductive for agriculture and that people paint them as warlike savages.

At the very least I'm unconvinced that the Good-aligned gods have done literally everything they can to help goblins be treated fairly and at this point are practically rattling the bars of their cages, screaming in frustration at how an entire race has been condemned to living a second-rate life compared to all the other sapient races.

Yeah. Some of the Good gods may be empathetic to the plight of the goblins, but they're definitely complicit.

I don't really get this. Like even in a medieval context, if your land is bad you have a lower carrying capacity, and you reach a lower maximum population, and your standard of living is about the same ? I don't understand what this is going for?

Shockingly, it's more complicated than that! You're assuming A. that nothing affects standard of living except the ratio of food to population and B. that everyone will have the same ratio of food to population. Hopefully spelling out the implicit assumptions in that statement makes it clear why it's ridiculous?

If goblins are going to prosper they are going to have to give up their cultural acceptance of taking what they want by force. In other words, they are going to have to change their cultural alignment to a non-evil one.

They're raiding other species because their homeland is barren and they expect to be raided in return. I don't think you're going to get a lot of people continuing to take things by force if those problems are resolved, not more than you get with other races. (Though we usually call those "bandits".)

A truly terrible idea. I hope you were joking.

I hope I don't have to explain to a 21st-century human being why I find hereditary nobility an immoral institution.

A part of the problem seems to me that the goblins lost the game of nations, for whatever unfair reasons it might have been, but still want an independent goblin nation instead of just, getting absorbed by bigger fish. Is the prejudice just too deep the whole world over for them to find some of them to find outlying villages that would accept a few new neighbors, or a city that won't kick them out on sight?

1. "The game of nations"? Politics, history, warfare—call it what you like, but it isn't a game. Not to the people living within the world. (It can make a pretty fun game to people gathered around a table, but that's a different matter entirely.)
2. It's not a matter of prejudice, it's a matter of finite resources.

Assuming he lives, yeah. If he doesnt it might be a few billion years before they get a chance to try again.

I think the idea is to change the world instead of destroying it, natch.

Not if they did the same thing for my siblings, but their companies didn't go under. I'd ask for what help any of them would give me, but if they didn't, then yeah, it's up to me to get my life in order.

I'd like to point out that neither you nor your siblings had any way to impact their fortunes. You're literally saying that people need to shut up and accept whatever **** life throws at them. Nobody's even allowed to complain about being ****ed over by circumstances outside their control, even if those circumstances are obviously the result of someone else taking actions at your expense?
I cannot express how much I hate that line of logic without violating the forum's profanity filter, and I cannot express why I hate it without violating the rules against political topics. Suffice to say that if we didn't have so many people who were so adamant that people who were metaphorically beaten and left to die in a ditch by fate had to bootstrap themselves up (regardless of if they still have bootstraps), the world would not be the rancid dumpster fire it is today.

There's a difference between communication of a theme and ham-fisted hammering of a theme into the reader's consciousness. The comic of late could benefit from a dose of subtly.

Despite the ham-fisted hammering of the themes, some people still think the comic isn't about those exact themes. Granted, there are always going to be some obtuse holdouts, but the fact that so many of them are active forum members should go a long way towards explaining why the comic is enunciating its themes as clearly as it is.

[Nephrahim]

Is this comic headed in the direction of the DND equivalent of Reparations?

I guess that makes sense, but boy... this will be interesting.

[Worldsong]

I hope I don't have to explain to a 21st-century human being why I find hereditary nobility an immoral institution.

Quite frankly I'm surprised how often players neglect to overthrow monarchies and institute more sensible forms of government.