OOTS #1233 - The Discussion Thread

[Emberlily]

As we saw at the Godmoot, Fenris, who created the goblins, is a pretty darn evil character. It then makes sense that the goblins inherited a lot of evil in their basic nature.

That people are looking at the most recent comics and becoming more convinced that goblins etc. are naturally evil in their core is really concerning to me.

[danielxcutter]

No, that's what Redcloak believes happened, and it would probably be a mistake to take that story at face value.

Redcloak also believes the Dark One was a merciful and just ruler to all goblinkind, and that he had no intention of using the massive hoard he gathered to actually fight anyone. "It was just so the humans would listen to reason."

Hmm, true. I suspect there's at least a grain of truth in that narrative, though.

Also even if Redcloak does survive this I really don't see him being the leader. Even at his best he is a wartime leader and revolutionary, and not someone particularly needed during peacetime.

Of course considering that very few mortal spellcasters come even close to his level he'd probably function as a nuclear deterrent on top of that.

[Spartan360]

To be fair, this is D&D and evil races are a thing.

[hroþila]

While Fenrir came up with and designed the goblinoids, that doesn't mean he was their sole creator or that they were infused with his essence or anything of the sort. The gods took turns to make design decisions, and all the gods in unison implemented them. There's no reason to believe the link goes any deeper than that, or for that matter, to believe that Therkla (a ninja) had some of Monkey's essence in her.

[danielxcutter]

To be fair, this is D&D and evil races are a thing.

This isn't strictly D&D. This is Order of the Stick, which is based on 3.5e.

Also 1. there's been settings where it's eminently clear that race and alignment have nothing to do with each other, and B) Rich has stated at least once(and probably more) that he hates the implications of Always Evil races and if he could he'd stamp that out for good.

[KorvinStarmast]

It was right for Durkon to raise the issue privately, with Roy, to avoid undermining him as leader. But if Roy then tells the rest of the party, aloud, it may let Serini have second thoughts if she's also able to hear too.

Yes and double yes.

Redcloak has a massive breakdown because of everything he's done, and after fixing the gates steps down to let Jirix take over.

While I'd like that outcome, I don't think Redcloak gets off that easy.

[Jason]

To be fair, this is D&D and evil races are a thing.

It's a thing in D&D, but it's becoming increasingly clear that it may not be a thing in Stickworld.

[Spartan360]

This isn't strictly D&D. This is Order of the Stick, which is based on 3.5e.

Also 1. there's been settings where it's eminently clear that race and alignment have nothing to do with each other, and B) Rich has stated at least once(and probably more) that he hates the implications of Always Evil races and if he could he'd stamp that out for good.

I actually think that evil races and monsters should have been expected when you have both divine beings and others interacting with the world.

[KorvinStarmast]

It's a thing in D&D, but it's becoming increasingly clear that it may not be a thing in Stickworld.

With Rich as the metaphorical DM, that's certainly within his remit - he's the world builder.
(see also Halflings, Dark Sun, 2e AD&D, and so on ...)

I have a current DM who has a completely different take on bgoth the Drow and Githyanki for his game world: it's refreshing!

[danielxcutter]

With Rich as the metaphorical DM, that's certainly within his remit - he's the world builder.
(see also Halflings, Dark Sun, 2e AD&D, and so on ...)

I have a current DM who has a completely different take on bgoth the Drow and Githyanki for his game world: it's refreshing!

I suspect you'd love Eberron.

[arimareiji]

My sympathies to the forum denizens who, for a long time, have been dancing around the fact they're arguing with the author.

My heartfelt kudos to any Sticksylvanian who manages to choke down the first bite of crow, which is a feat that personally I've too often paid the price for failing at. If it's any consolation, I think this comic draws a contrast between:

• Roy and Durkon as examples of the rare and admirable person who manages to throttle back on what he's "known" all his life to consider the viewpoint of The Enemy, and
• Redcloak as the much more common "No, I MUST be right and I will never back down because The Enemy did bad things for which I will never forgive them".

Again, kudos to anyone who manages to be Roy and Durkon. And sympathies to anyone who can't break free of being Redcloak. He'd implode me for saying so, but this trait of his is painfully-human and dreadfully-common.

[Ionathus]

Better those frost giants, talkie man talked with them

That's actually a really good point, and part of why I appreciate the nuance in Stickworld: Roy tried to convince the Frost Giants that their plan was bad and they should stop, and it didn't work. They refused to listen to reason, and he had to kill them anyway. But, as the Deva said, that's no reason not to keep trying.

I've played a PC at tables where the (sentient, humanoid, non-brainwashed) enemies fight to the very last HP. Not a single one ever surrenders, or negotiates, or retreats, even when there's no reason for them to keep fighting, and it was terribly dull. A more fun approach was the DM who had most encounters be combat, but occasionally they could be reasoned with. However, you'll never know until you try, and it introduces a very compelling dynamic where you're bound to at least try in every fight...which makes the few times it pays off all the sweeter.

One thing I love about The Monsters Know What They're Doing is Keith's assessment that pretty much any mortal creature is going to turn and run, or surrender, at some point. When you start to think of the enemies like that, instead of as uniform dogmatic murder robots, non-lethal win conditions become possible.

I didn't say RC was right. I said he had a point. I don't think what RC is doing is good, and I know he is wrong and deluded. I don't understand how you took my statement as endorsement of RC's villainy.

There aren't a lot of TVTropes that I consider Recommended Reading, but there are certain ones that should be heavily encouraged if you want to debate character motivations on the internet. Villain Has A Point is absolutely one of them.

No, that's what Redcloak believes happened, and it would probably be a mistake to take that story at face value.

Redcloak also believes the Dark One was a merciful and just ruler to all goblinkind, and that he had no intention of using the massive hoard he gathered to actually fight anyone. "It was just so the humans would listen to reason."

In fairness, Redcloak does depict him as a warlord. He just...never mentions any of the fighting that the big army he gathered ever did. "Don't worry about it. It's not important to how diplomatic and peaceful he was, which is the point I'm making right now."

Given how we just learned the SoD Crayon Narrative was "only kinda" wrong about the XP Fodder situation, I wouldn't be surprised if we get a similar thing if TDO's death ever comes up. I don't believe he was a peaceful and perfectly-behaved diplomat...but was he still a wise and effective leader to the goblinoids? Did he still try to negotiate with the PC races? And did they kill him through trickery or deceit, or because they believed a goblinoid ruler to be "less than" them? I can believe that's still the story, even if the set dressing changes.

[KorvinStarmast]

I suspect you'd love Eberron.

If I ever get a DM who knows the lore and wants to run it in D&D 5e, I'd love to try it out. There's some really good stuff in there.

We'll see.

[Cicciograna]

While Fenrir came up with and designed the goblinoids, that doesn't mean he was their sole creator or that they were infused with his essence or anything of the sort. The gods took turns to make design decisions, and all the gods in unison implemented them. There's no reason to believe the link goes any deeper than that, or for that matter, to believe that Therkla (a ninja) had some of Monkey's essence in her.

To underline your point, we actually have Thor's word that it's like you say. Thor says that "most of them didn't have anything to do with the goblins", a statement that implies that, apart from Fenris, somebody else in fact did.

It would actually be interesting, at this point, to speculate on who else did have their hands in their creation, rearing and well-being (or lack thereof).

[arimareiji]

That people are looking at the most recent comics and becoming more convinced that goblins etc. are naturally evil in their core is really concerning to me.

Indeed, but it's dreadfully human.
https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06...ckfire-effect/

[Emberlily]

It would actually be interesting, at this point, to speculate on who else did have their hands in their creation, rearing and well-being (or lack thereof).

That could be fun academically, but with the way some people have been fixated doggedly on Fenris since 1232, I worry that that might get people drawn too much into that in a way that isn't really relevant to either the plot of the story or its themes. Who made the goblins doesn't seem to be something Durkon or Thor seems is too important after the initial reveal of the fact.

[Spartan360]

Though a still rather important note that Thor and Odin made a while ago, with how many more evil and chaotic gods there are, I think it would far harder for the good/lawful gods to get anything through. In fact, If Hel also had ownership of goblin souls, I don't doubt that she would veto against any possible votes that thor and Odin would try to make for the goblins, so I think it might be like that for the other pantheons as well.

The bet between Hel and Thor, only went as it did because Hel was too shortsighted and Thor had enough experience with Loki how to play a rules lawyer. Considering that Tiamat demands the deaths of hundreds/thousands of good dragons after V's familicide, the issues of dealing with the divine beings might be quite a bit more difficult than both Redcloak and Durkon expect.

[Some]

Again, kudos to anyone who manages to be Roy and Durkon. And sympathies to anyone who can't break free of being Redcloak. He'd implode me for saying so, but this trait of his is painfully-human and dreadfully-common.

I feel bad for Durkon on this one. And maybe Roy, too, if he falls into it.

As far as I can tell, Redcloak's genuinely evil.. he's frequently delighted in killing and torturing many, including his own subordinates, Durkon, and O'Chul. Delighting in the torment and death of others, on such a consistent basis, is a level of evil unseen in real-life except in the very worst sadistic psychopaths, blunted only by the cartoonish drawing style of the comic.

That said, he's got a little bit of good in him. Enough to stop killing the hobgoblins for fun when one sacrifices their life for him, presumably after the novelty of killing and torturing them started to get stale anyway.

To be clear, that's a very small amount of good -- it really doesn't take a lot of good to avoid indulging in killing subordinates for giggles -- mixed in with an ocean of evil. But it's there, and.. that's something.

When he speaks, the internal conflict is apparent: most of his justifications are merely to sate his own ego, which itself is a lesser form of evil (I mean, bad, but at least he's not murdering innocent people when he's doing it), but then there seems to be some sincerity too.

And so it feels sorta like the question of when to sentence someone to jail: if we're 99.9% sure someone's guilty, then 1-in-1000 times, we might send an innocent to jail. Do we do that, or let 999-in-1000 guilty people go?

Redcloak feels like that 99.9%-evil with 0.1% goodness.. it's hard to condemn any goodness, no matter how slight. But it's still silly to pretend that the evil isn't there.

[danielxcutter]

That's actually a really good point, and part of why I appreciate the nuance in Stickworld: Roy tried to convince the Frost Giants that their plan was bad and they should stop, and it didn't work. They refused to listen to reason, and he had to kill them anyway. But, as the Deva said, that's no reason not to keep trying.

I've played a PC at tables where the (sentient, humanoid, non-brainwashed) enemies fight to the very last HP. Not a single one ever surrenders, or negotiates, or retreats, even when there's no reason for them to keep fighting, and it was terribly dull. A more fun approach was the DM who had most encounters be combat, but occasionally they could be reasoned with. However, you'll never know until you try, and it introduces a very compelling dynamic where you're bound to at least try in every fight...which makes the few times it pays off all the sweeter.

One thing I love about The Monsters Know What They're Doing is Keith's assessment that pretty much any mortal creature is going to turn and run, or surrender, at some point. When you start to think of the enemies like that, instead of as uniform dogmatic murder robots, non-lethal win conditions become possible.

I'm in a Red Hand of Doom campaign right now. We've only had two fights so far, but the first fight was an ambush where the remaining enemies committed suicide(they were fanatics of Tiamat, which is hardly representative of goblins in general for quite a few reasons), and the second was a random encounter of nasty little fey called thornclaws that ran when we killed half of them.

Needless to say, this is much more fun than dragging it out.

There aren't a lot of TVTropes that I consider Recommended Reading, but there are certain ones that should be heavily encouraged if you want to debate character motivations on the internet. Villain Has A Point is absolutely one of them.

There is of course the itty bitty eensy weensy problem that TV Tropes Will Ruin Your Life, but otherwise that's a pretty good one.

In fairness, Redcloak does depict him as a warlord. He just...never mentions any of the fighting that the big army he gathered ever did. "Don't worry about it. It's not important to how diplomatic and peaceful he was, which is the point I'm making right now."

Given how we just learned the SoD Crayon Narrative was "only kinda" wrong about the XP Fodder situation, I wouldn't be surprised if we get a similar thing if TDO's death ever comes up. I don't believe he was a peaceful and perfectly-behaved diplomat...but was he still a wise and effective leader to the goblinoids? Did he still try to negotiate with the PC races? And did they kill him through trickery or deceit, or because they believed a goblinoid ruler to be "less than" them? I can believe that's still the story, even if the set dressing changes.

Basically this.

If I ever get a DM who knows the lore and wants to run it in D&D 5e, I'd love to try it out. There's some really good stuff in there.

We'll see.

Eberron's quite refreshing, yes, and is also one of my favorite settings by the mere fact that all non-supernaturally influenced mortals are not innately inclined to any alignment outside of culture at all, period.

Indeed, but it's dreadfully human.
https://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06...ckfire-effect/

Seems about right.

[StragaSevera]

Sorry, but I really cannot empathise with this message.

It seems like the main philosophy of this strip is: "If you are dealt a bad land, then you are free to take the stuff from more rich lands".

You are quick to shame Roy for not attempting the parley, but why are you not shaming the goblins who did not attempt to parley with him?

There are no such thing as "eternaly bad land" in our world - some nations managed to transform a desert into a garden. But it is easy to blame the external circumstances instead of trying to improve them.

[Dragonus45]

To be fair, this is D&D and evil races are a thing.

No actually, even in 3.5 where this comic is based there are adjectives added onto like Usually or Always or the like alongside descriptions of what that actually means that help breakdown that actually races of people aren't evil. Cultures are, and even a Usually Neutral Evil race like goblins has significant share of individuals in a different spot in the law-chaos axis, a fairly large number of neutrals and a smattering of goods on the other axis. Most of which in normal D&D can be blamed on the literal evil gods who have control of said cultures. In this I think its better blamed on Fafnflarfnriz making them a desperately resource hungry race and not helping them to get properly set up leading to a culture heavily dependent on raiding violence to get said resources, also leading to a long running cycle of violence. Whatever really happened with the Dark One is also I think going to shed a lot of light on the issue. Because I believe his story less and less as time goes on, and I already didn't exactly think it held a lot of water.

Outsiders or Golems and actual non thinking animals also exist and are generally where the Always bit comes in, but I argue they often don't qualify as "people", and even then the Always bit is more of a 99.9 type of deal.

[Telenil]

I still have to see an answer to that question: does anyone think the PCs could realistically have acted any differently? Is there any point when they could have sat down with someone who knew Redcloak's motivations and get a straight answer out of them?

Let's say they had interrogated a random goblin and learned they were doing all this to find better lands. Then what? Do they hand Azure City out to Xykon so goblins can live there? Do they come talk to Redcloak until he casts Implosion on them? Maybe Roy could have questioned the goblin as a general principle, but even in hindsight, it hasn't mattered very much so far.

[danielxcutter]

I still have to see an answer to that question: does anyone think the PCs could realistically have acted any differently? Is there any point when they could have sat down with someone who knew Redcloak's motivations and get a straight answer out of them?

Let's say they had interrogated a random goblin and learned they were doing all this to find better lands. Then what? Do they hand Azure City out to Xykon so goblins can live there? Do they come talk to Redcloak until he casts Implosion on them? Maybe Roy could have questioned the goblin as a general principle, but even in hindsight, it hasn't mattered very much so far.

I don't think this is supposed to be a "you did a bad, we're going to burn you at the stake for that" thing.

It's a relatively minor oopsie; the problem is that there's been many, many oopsies over history(plus some much bigger oopsies by the Guard) and that's all added up.

[Jason]

Sorry, but I really cannot empathise with this message.

It seems like the main philosophy of this strip is: "If you are dealt a bad land, then you are free to take the stuff from more rich lands".

I disagree. I think the philosophy is "if an entire sentient race has been forced into poverty that is a wrong that should be righted, regardless of how evil they and their leaders are."

Thor, Durkon, and now Roy all agree that an injustice has been done without agreeing with Redcloak's ideas of how that injustice should be rectified.

[Emberlily]

I still have to see an answer to that question: does anyone think the PCs could realistically have acted any differently? Is there any point when they could have sat down with someone who knew Redcloak's motivations and get a straight answer out of them?

Let's say they had interrogated a random goblin and learned they were doing all this to find better lands. Then what? Do they hand Azure City out to Xykon so goblins can live there? Do they come talk to Redcloak until he casts Implosion on them? Maybe Roy could have questioned the goblin as a general principle, but even in hindsight, it hasn't mattered very much so far.

It doesn't even have to be a way to find out/solve the Plan Situation. This is one of those situations where the later writing is at the whim of the very early stuff, but with what we the audience know now about the situation of the goblin forces of Xykon in book 1, there's still a lot that could've been talked about. If Roy had found out that the goblins were only nominally under Xykon's hire and were roped into his command under threat of death to themselves and their entire families, that may have changed the level of lethal force the Order brought to the goblins then. It wouldn't have saved the world or fixed the broader social situation, but it could've helped save the lives of dozens of people who didn't have much choice in being involved.

[CountDVB]

I recall what Snowtwo said from the thread of the previous thread:

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.

Fenris created the goblinoids and expected them to act in a certain manner, expecting to succeed despite his plan failing the last several thousands of times. Given how he's a wolf, I suspect he created the goblinoids to act like pack hunters and thrive as such. However, that's not how things work; they are mortals who make their own decisions and their own choices. That's what makes them different from the gods.

When matters didn't go like Fenris intended, he ditched and none of the other gods were willing or more likely unable to take them under their sponsorship (given how there is a vast and complicated system in creating worlds, it's likely that this was part of it). This means when the world is presented its allotment of resources, the goblins get the scraps because they lack any divine patron to speak up on their behalf.

Hence why Redcloak is banking on the Dark One; if he survives, he could speak for goblinoids. But it's extensively unlikely he will last that long and even if he does, he'd have to deal with the fact that there are worlds that didn't have goblins in them because there were no humans or fantastical elements. And even if they did do another world of fantasy, he'd be having to deal with Fenris, which would be a fustercluck.

The goblinoids did get screwed over and that has to be fixed, but the how is problematic. Fenris will still be trying to make goblins his way unless he's forced not to or someone takes over their well-being and tells Fenris someone else will make the goblins. Problem is, only Thor, Odin and maybe Loki would consider that priority enough to make an attempt. This leaves it to the mortals to fix it though they could still try appealing to the gods. After all, the Twelve Gods are the only other pantheon that really interacted with goblins in this iteration of the world as far as we have seen and questions on with their paladins or clerics should be addressed.

Back to the mortals, only leadership goblins have is Redcloak and to a lesser extent Jirix. Redcloak is motivated more and more by personal vendetta and is at his core, an angry teenager who is in way over his head and too much of a moral coward to own up to his mistakes and failings, especially since he remains with Xykon. The only reason he's considered still viable is because he's a cleric of a high-enough level to help actually make a difference in maintaining the world.

This leaves communicating with Jirix. The likely thing would be to communicate with Jirix and he acting as the main political voice of leadership. But this would require Redcloak backing down and he may not, given well everything. Heck, we know little of the Dark One's agenda since he doesn't even speak to his own high priest for some reason. This definitely makes things further difficult.

[arimareiji]

That seemed apt.

Redcloak's kinda tragic in that there are hints of concern for goodness in him, but he's mostly just really evil. When he reaches for a justification, there's a weird mix of his dominant evil nature just rationalizing to service his own ego, tinged with what seems like a bit of genuine truth.

As we saw at the Godmoot, Fenris, who created the goblins, is a pretty darn evil character. It then makes sense that the goblins inherited a lot of evil in their basic nature. Though some part of Redcloak seems to be trying to push him toward doing some good.. I kinda wonder if this might be a story where a deeply evil character ends up finding a new path?

Though we probably ought to remember that, in-universe, other characters have hoped for the same only to be proven horribly wrong.

You might love Guy Gavriel Kay's trilogy, The Fionavar Tapestry. Someone who has committed horrific wrongs in the name of misguided revenge, even joining forces with Ultimate Evil, is offered one final chance for redemption.

Spoiler: if you might read it without this description, don't click -- it's even more spoilery than the above

Show

“It need not be over, [name]. You heard Owein’s Horn. Nothing truly evil can hear the horn. Will you not let that truth lead you back?” There was a murmur of sound, quickly stilled. [name] had suddenly gone white. “I heard the horn,” he admitted, as if against his will. “I know not why. How should I come back, [other name]? Where could I go?”
...
“I can grant you the ending you seek, and I will, if you ask me again. But hear me first, [honorific].”
[recaps the grief that started it all]
“They are gone. But you live yet, and for all that you have done in bitterness and pride, you still heard the sound of Light in Owein’s Horn. Will you not surrender your pain, [honorific]? Give it over. Today has marked the very ending of that tale of sorrow. Will you not let it end?”
...
Something moved in [name]’s face, a spasm of ancient, unspeakable, never-spoken pain. His hands came up, as if of their own will, from his sides, and he cried aloud, “If only [the grief that started it all]!” Then he covered his face with his fingers and wept for the first and only time in a thousand years of loss.

[danielxcutter]

I disagree. I think the philosophy is "if an entire sentient race has been forced into poverty that is a wrong that should be righted, regardless of how evil they and their leaders are."

Thor, Durkon, and now Roy all agree that an injustice has been done without agreeing with Redcloak's ideas of how that injustice should be rectified.

Hey, weren't you leaning against Redcloak and TDO around the last comic or so? I thought people changing their mind on the Internet was metaphysically impossible!

[StragaSevera]

I disagree. I think the philosophy is "if an entire sentient race has been forced into poverty that is a wrong that should be righted, regardless of how evil they and their leaders are."

Thor, Durkon, and now Roy all agree that an injustice has been done without agreeing with Redcloak's ideas of how that injustice should be rectified.

No-no-no. There are many wrongs that can be righted. But - let's see two villages, a goblin one and a human one. They both have bad lands, and they both resort to robbing and slavery. Why do goblin village get a pass about it and human village does not?

If we just count amount of persons living in bad lands, then goblins would be outnumbered by non-goblins (because, for example, Western Continent exists). But you make a big deal of specific goblin suffering and not of suffering of other sentinent beings. Why?

[Dragonus45]

I disagree. I think the philosophy is "if an entire sentient race has been forced into poverty that is a wrong that should be righted, regardless of how evil they and their leaders are."

But what do you even give them at this point? Redcloack agreed that they had their own territory and rules and clerics and god and cities. Sure you can argue they had a harder road getting there and relations are still really tense with the rest of the world even if you don't take sacking a city and enslaving its populace into account, but that's a rather mundane problem on a national level and nothing Redcloak is trying to do would fix it anyways. So honestly, what does righting this wrong even mean right now.