OOTS #1233 - The Discussion Thread

[arimareiji]

having not read all 8 pages of posts yet, the possibility of Serini to overhear this conversation is moot as they were directly talking mind to mind and not out loud. There is now way for her to overhear this type of communication.

You kinda reminded me... I still have the crack theory that Serini was using a potion of ESP to read O-Chul's mind, and kept prompting him to think about the subject of whether it's right to destroy the gates (and promptly rubbed it in his face when he remembered that he was going to destroy one himself, then a different ex-adin actually did).

On a side note, and after seeing over 30 pages of commentary on the #1232, I am not sure why people tend to be so over analytical on the strip and the message. This is Mr Burlew's story to tell. How he relates it to us is his choice as any author of a story would do. We should not really be judging until the story is finished at least. Personally I think judging his story is just plain wrong in any case as it is the story he wants to relate to us and the world. It is his to tell as he sees fit to tell. Arguing back and forth over justice for goblins is just silly in my perception.

Just in case you want to see, I sounded off on a closely-related topic here. Arguing-by-proxy with the author... doesn't really do anyone much good.

---

_{Edit: Adding a reply}

It's not like he had no idea what he was doing, either. He clearly knew it was a self-destruct button.

Thank you for helping me bring this into sharper focus, though it makes me sad to realize: And to boot, the semipologies are an unfortunate habit. We also have his "I'm sorry you took offense at my wizard costume" (when what really upset V was that Elan wouldn't stop mocking wizards to their face), after V apologized for snapping at him.
(Your mileage may vary on whether that one sank to the level of a nonpology... it's hard to think someone is truly sorry at all, when in the same sentence they heavily imply the other person was just too sensitive.)

[Ganbatte]

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 "eternally 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.

100% this, every line of text.
I really hope this whole thing won't become mainstream in the events of the story because it's faulty by the premise, acting as if goblins have no responsibility or agency in shaping their own destiny.

C'mon Roy, you can do better!

[Worldsong]

A divine solution is flatly impossible, there is no perfect solution going to come down from on high to provide perfect equity of outcome to everyone because the gods have literally tied their own hands. The mortals getting it done is the only option left, whether it's short term or not.

Missed this the first time, but I wasn't thinking of 'gods magic the problem away'. More something along the lines with what others have suggested, that the Good-aligned gods at least put some more effort into making sure goblin settlements are treated like settlements and not adventuring hotspots.

I mean, there's probably examples of Good-aligned gods already doing that, but... The Sapphire Guard existed. In a world where goblins are treated fairly the Sapphire Guard as it was could not exist and count as a Good-aligned organization.

Bugsby's Sense-Inducing Hand!

I wish I could upvote you for that.

Heck, I'd argue that chaotic good should be the less likely to be murder hobos in some instances. Like if there's a law that all goblins should be killed on sight, they'd be, "screw that. I'll only kill goblins who I see are doing something evil. If the goblins aren't hurting anybody, why should I care?"

You, I like.

I love how tenaciously some posters in this forum still cling to their belief that Redclock is absolutely wrong and that there is no imbalance between the goblins and other races no matter how many comics the Giant posts confirming they are wrong.

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.

It's almost like there's a sunk cost involved in arguing that Redcloak is completely wrong and goblins deserve no sympathy.

[Clistenes]

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.

I'm not so sure. Keith Barker said that goblinoids have a strong tendency towards Law, and that before the Daelkyr corrupted them, they were innately lawful and their society was more similar to a bee hive than to a human kingdom...

Also, he has implied that orcs are naturally chaotic...

[Taevyr]

Personally I think judging his story is just plain wrong in any case as it is the story he wants to relate to us and the world. It is his to tell as he sees fit to tell. Arguing back and forth over justice for goblins is just silly in my perception.

But how could I possibly enjoy fiction without indulging in overly-analytical discussions about it, when so many fans hold badwrong opinions?

But seriously: It's fun to discuss fiction, especially fiction with strong worldbuilding and allegorical elements. Many would say it's the point of fantasy/sci-fi, if there's supposed to be any beyond "enjoyment". It's a bit disappointing to see many people ignore literal statements of the author, but I myself agree that he's dropped the ball in some cases, e.g. the lack of any fallen paladins in SoD's opening scene, which definitely leaves room for discussion; and we can't expect everyone on the forum to be familiar with all Rich's comments on the comic.

It's definitely the Giant's story to tell: I won't pretend otherwise, and simply comparing between this thread and the one for #1232 is proof that we (or at least many of us) get it wrong regularly concerning where he's going/what he intends. But beyond mere enjoyment, there's little point to a story that serves as an allegory if it doesn't nudge its readers to consider and discuss said allegory. Discussion'll get heated, and you'll always have some cases of people seemingly "misreading" or blatantly cherrypicking from the story, but what matters is that it makes people consider the story and allegory. Which will inevitably involve multiple viewpoints.

And Rich does it a whole lot better/more nuanced than many who go full author tract, or those who end up making you think "what the hell where you smoking when you thought this'd be a good element/plot point for legitimizing your obvious author tract". He clearly put a lot of thought into how he would handle this, and it definitely shows: the last few comics are excellent in how nuanced they handle the entire situation of the goblins' plight, and the different viewpoints on that plight.

EDIT:

I wish I could upvote you for that.

Hey, only 17 wizard levels to go for that! You can do it!

It's almost like there's a sunk cost involved in arguing that Redcloak is completely wrong and goblins deserve no sympathy.

And thanks for the laugh, the irony is rather thick, isnt it?

[Spartan360]

Now that I think about it, Aside from the Lizardmen that seem to have managed to make at least decent relationships with other races, have we heard anything about other non-good races, I don't even think that we have seen a single named Orc for example.

[Metastachydium]

Now that I think about it, Aside from the Lizardmen that seem to have managed to make at least decent relationships with other races, have we heard anything about other non-good races, I don't even think that we have seen a single named Orc for example.

In actual fact, we have seen a whole island's worth of orcs, at least five of whom had names.

[Ganbatte]

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.

Indeed man, as a "Roy" type who considered the viewpoint of the enemy and realized it's bogus, I share the sentiment that people should stop blindly taking the bait of Redcloak's narrative of oppression without question - and instead put it through serious scrutiny, including the supposed "enemy" oppressors.

[Spartan360]

In actual fact, we have seen a whole island's worth of orcs, at least five of whom had a name.

Lol, yeah. I can't believe I forgot those, the true believers of Giggles the puppet god of slapstick.

But honestly aside from the island orcs, I think we don't have much information of many of the other races, aside from Dwarves, humans and Gnomes.

edit: and Hobgoblins. Also I'm not counting Thog and Therkla since I don't think they were raised with any orc culture in mind.

[Lethologica]

Indeed man, as a "Roy" type who considered the viewpoint of the enemy and realized it's bogus, I share the sentiment that people should stop blindly taking the bait of Redcloak's narrative of oppression without question - and instead put it through serious scrutiny, including the supposed "enemy" oppressors.

The 'haha, it' s very funny that I can reframe the perspective so that I am the reasonable Roy and everyone else is an uncritical strawman a Redcloak' bit falls flat when you were directly rejecting Roy's perspective further up the page. Arguing with the author, as it were.

[Doug Lampert]

Now that I think about it, Aside from the Lizardmen that seem to have managed to make at least decent relationships with other races, have we heard anything about other non-good races, I don't even think that we have seen a single named Orc for example.

Humans are not a good race (no tendency toward any alignment).
Halflings are usually neutral (same as lizardfolk).

[Spartan360]

Humans are not a good race (no tendency toward any alignment).
Halflings are usually neutral (same as lizardfolk).

That's true, so my mistake about not making my post detailed enough.

[Worldsong]

Humans are not a good race (no tendency toward any alignment).

Agreed. Lazy design, no creativity.

EDIT:

Hey, only 17 wizard levels to go for that! You can do it!

But I'm a Barbarian!

And thanks for the laugh, the irony is rather thick, isnt it?

You could cut and serve it like cheese.

[Spartan360]

Wizard and Barbarian Multi-class

[Ganbatte]

The 'haha, it' s very funny that I can reframe the perspective so that I am the reasonable Roy and everyone else is an uncritical strawman a Redcloak' bit falls flat when you were directly rejecting Roy's perspective further up the page. Arguing with the author, as it were.

Yes, arguing with the author. What's so terrible about it?
I thought the philosophy of that post was to prove how his side is the one who considers all perspectives... while refusing to argue with the author's one though, no, not that one! Are you crazy?

Heh.

While that post acts as if "I am the open minded Roy and you are the close minded Redcloak" I can very easily revert it to show that maybe you were the Redcloak all along.

[Robots]

Yes, arguing with the author. What's so terrible about it?
I thought the philosophy of that post was to prove how his side is the one who considers all perspectives... while refusing to argue with the author's one though, no, not that one! Are you crazy?

Heh.

While that post acts as if "I am the open minded Roy and you are the close minded Redcloak" I can very easily revert it to show that maybe you were the Redcloak all along.

What the everloving hell are you trying to say?

[Ganbatte]

What the everloving hell are you trying to say?

That concluding that the "poor goblin victims" narrative is bogus doesn't mean their perspective wasn't considered, as Arimareiji implied.

[Lethologica]

Yes, arguing with the author. What's so terrible about it?
I thought the philosophy of that post was to prove how his side is the one who considers all perspectives... while refusing to argue with the author's one though, no, not that one! Are you crazy?

Heh.

While that post acts as if "I am the open minded Roy and you are the close minded Redcloak" I can very easily revert it to show that maybe you were the Redcloak all along.

Right, except you ruined the mirroring by explicitly establishing that you are not, in fact, the Roy here.

Further, it's not inherently wrong to argue with the author, but the point was establishing how people react to the author providing new information that contradicts what they'd previously been arguing, and that is not symmetric in this case.

[Crusher]

I've read a few pages of the discussion but not all of them (so I may have missed someone making this point), but something I think has been missed. Not that Redcloak isn't wrong... or at least there's a justification for him being pissed off (and I'm sure in next strip Durkon will get into the "Yes, BUT" part).

Rather, my point is that Durkon is being unfair to Roy because even if Roy asked every single goblin he'd run into prior to Redcloak "Why are you attacking the humans?" (or whatever) he probably would have gotten answers like "Humans are evil and should die!" or "We come to take your food and your land!" Because the vast majority of the goblins don't know the backstory. And the very few village elders or whatever who do know the story only know it in a "myths and legends" kind of way and would be pleasantly surprised to find out its true. And literally zero of them have Thor's combination of perfect knowledge of what happened and the time and inclination to ruminate on the philosophical issues involved.

So, sure, Roy might have learned that the Goblins are hungry, and want food and land. But that's the same motivation human bandits have, or crocodiles, for that matter. Responding to every bandit attack by paying them off with food or gold is only a solution because of *massive* income inequality (the PCs are richer than Croesus and can trivially buy their way out of things that are life or death problems for normal people) and is only a short-term solution at that because the bandits will be hungry again in a few months. Maybe a long-term win/win can be worked out in which the town pays the bandits to protect them from other threats. But that only works if the town can afford it, there are other threats beyond the bandits the town is scared of, and even then its a gamble the bandits won't just decide to take *everything* and move on to terrorize the next town. Once the bandits have burned the town to the ground its a little late to realize the party should have just killed them in the first place.

But back to my earlier point, Durkon is probably in a better position to explain how the goblins got shafted than any goblin who has ever lived (except probably the Dark One and Redcloak). Because they are the only two current or former mortals who know it isn't just this or that group of goblins who were dealt a bad hand (plenty of groups of humans, like the dirt farmers, are also stuck trying to eek out a living in a crappy situation) its ALL of them as a race because none of the gods were looking out for them. That's the level of knowledge you need to realize Redcloak has a point, and there are probably like 2 goblins, ever, who even have that knowledge much less are able to articulate it. And Roy has had a chance to talk to neither of them.

[Ionathus]

Indeed man, as a "Roy" type who considered the viewpoint of the enemy and realized it's bogus, I share the sentiment that people should stop blindly taking the bait of Redcloak's narrative of oppression without question - and instead put it through serious scrutiny, including the supposed "enemy" oppressors.

Look, we linked all the examples of anti-goblin racism, and you said that didn't prove everything.

We linked Rich Burlew, the creator, and you declared "Death of the Author".

We linked Durkon & Redcloak's conversation, and you wrote it off as rhetoric from Redcloak.

Now we're seeing actual statements from the most-developed villain, a Good Northern God, and the two most mature and Good people on the heroes' team, all agreeing that goblinoids started at a disadvantage. And you claim they've all been somehow deceived or something.

At what point are you going to admit you just don't like this message? It's become clear it won't be going away any time soon.

[Jason]

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.

Step one is to eliminate Xykon and Redcloak.
Step two would be to give Jirix or whoever is ruling Gobbotopia basically the same offer that Durkon made to Redcloak, and hope that Jirix is more reasonable.

[Ganbatte]

Further, it's not inherently wrong to argue with the author, but the point was establishing how people react to the author providing new information that contradicts what they'd previously been arguing, and that is not symmetric in this case.

But no new information has been provided, even lesso so a contradicting one. What're you talking about?

[Rrmcklin]

Look, we linked all the examples of anti-goblin racism, and you said that didn't prove everything.

We linked Rich Burlew, the creator, and you declared "Death of the Author".

We linked Durkon & Redcloak's conversation, and you wrote it off as rhetoric from Redcloak.

Now we're seeing actual statements from the most-developed villain, a Good Northern God, and the two most mature and Good people on the heroes' team, all agreeing that goblinoids started at a disadvantage. And you claim they've all been somehow deceived or something.

At what point are you going to admit you just don't like this message? It's become clear it won't be going away any time soon.

Especially since this comic specifically went out of it's way to say that just because Redcloak is right about a problem that does not at all mean he's right about the solution or methods to achieve it.

It really feels like Ganbatte and some others just find the idea of systemic or institutional problems, or villain's actually having points worth considering inherently distasteful, and all of their arguments work back from that conclusion, rather than the other way around.

[Empiar93]

I've read a few pages of the discussion but not all of them (so I may have missed someone making this point), but something I think has been missed. Not that Redcloak isn't wrong... or at least there's a justification for him being pissed off (and I'm sure in next strip Durkon will get into the "Yes, BUT" part).

Rather, my point is that Durkon is being unfair to Roy because even if Roy asked every single goblin he'd run into prior to Redcloak "Why are you attacking the humans?" (or whatever) he probably would have gotten answers like "Humans are evil and should die!" or "We come to take your food and your land!" Because the vast majority of the goblins don't know the backstory. And the very few village elders or whatever who do know the story only know it in a "myths and legends" kind of way and would be pleasantly surprised to find out its true. And literally zero of them have Thor's combination of perfect knowledge of what happened and the time and inclination to ruminate on the philosophical issues involved.

So, sure, Roy might have learned that the Goblins are hungry, and want food and land. But that's the same motivation human bandits have, or crocodiles, for that matter. Responding to every bandit attack by paying them off with food or gold is only a solution because of *massive* income inequality (the PCs are richer than Croesus and can trivially buy their way out of things that are life or death problems for normal people) and is only a short-term solution at that because the bandits will be hungry again in a few months. Maybe a long-term win/win can be worked out in which the town pays the bandits to protect them from other threats. But that only works if the town can afford it, there are other threats beyond the bandits the town is scared of, and even then its a gamble the bandits won't just decide to take *everything* and move on to terrorize the next town. Once the bandits have burned the town to the ground its a little late to realize the party should have just killed them in the first place.

But back to my earlier point, Durkon is probably in a better position to explain how the goblins got shafted than any goblin who has ever lived (except probably the Dark One and Redcloak). Because they are the only two current or former mortals who know it isn't just this or that group of goblins who were dealt a bad hand (plenty of groups of humans, like the dirt farmers, are also stuck trying to eek out a living in a crappy situation) its ALL of them as a race because none of the gods were looking out for them. That's the level of knowledge you need to realize Redcloak has a point, and there are probably like 2 goblins, ever, who even have that knowledge much less are able to articulate it. And Roy has had a chance to talk to neither of them.

Thank you, this is exactly the point I was trying to make. The one time they had even an inkling of a reasonable chance was when they encountered the (hob)goblins... as an invading army. Other than that, the only chance they got was before the plot was fully developed and therefore was no meaningful chance at all.

[Robots]

[...] just because redcloak is right about a problem that does not at all mean he's right about the solution or methods to achieve it.

This. All of this.

[Jasdoif]

I've read a few pages of the discussion but not all of them (so I may have missed someone making this point), but something I think has been missed. Not that Redcloak isn't wrong... or at least there's a justification for him being pissed off (and I'm sure in next strip Durkon will get into the "Yes, BUT" part).

Rather, my point is that Durkon is being unfair to Roy because even if Roy asked every single goblin he'd run into prior to Redcloak "Why are you attacking the humans?" (or whatever) he probably would have gotten answers like "Humans are evil and should die!" or "We come to take your food and your land!" Because the vast majority of the goblins don't know the backstory. And the very few village elders or whatever who do know the story only know it in a "myths and legends" kind of way and would be pleasantly surprised to find out its true. And literally zero of them have Thor's combination of perfect knowledge of what happened and the time and inclination to ruminate on the philosophical issues involved.

Suppose Durkon's point is that Roy instinctively justified not thinking about the position of the goblins, and Durkon was able to trivially break that justification because Roy put as little thought into it (the whole "instinct" thing) as he did the position of the goblins. Which is why the last panel is Roy actually thinking about the whole thing.

[Ionathus]

Step one is to eliminate Xykon and Redcloak.
Step two would be to give Jirix or whoever is ruling Gobbotopia basically the same offer that Durkon made to Redcloak, and hope that Jirix is more reasonable.

Unfortunately I don't think Jirix has the mojo to contribute 9th level spells, now or any time soon -- I still suspect Redcloak will be instrumental to the resolution here, even if he's unfit to lead the goblin peoples.

snip

I didn't feel like the strip was shaming Roy or saying he could've fixed everything by talking - more so that he's never actually talked to a goblin, to even find out what it wants.

If he'd fought several and they all referenced land or food or humans attacking their settlements, that would be something to go on.

Spoiler: GDGU

Show

That's what O-Chul did in the opening scene of How The Paladin Got His Scar: he got attacked by a wounded hobhoblin, and instead of killing it outright said "WHY did you do that?! You could've run away!" That simple questioning of the single combatant's motive leads O-Chul to prevent a whole war with the hobgoblins!

So I don't think it's a matter of "you'd have known about the plan by now", it's more of "wow, I never even thought to ask. I just assumed they were all Evil, The End."

[Ganbatte]

Look, we linked all the examples of anti-goblin racism, and you said that didn't prove everything.

We linked Rich Burlew, the creator, and you declared "Death of the Author".

We linked Durkon & Redcloak's conversation, and you wrote it off as rhetoric from Redcloak.

Now we're seeing actual statements from the most-developed villain, a Good Northern God, and the two most mature and Good people on the heroes' team, all agreeing that goblinoids started at a disadvantage. And you claim they've all been somehow deceived or something.

At what point are you going to admit you just don't like this message? It's become clear it won't be going away any time soon.

Admit I don't like this message? Of course I don't like this message, it was never a secret.
What's there to "admit"?

I don't like this "oppressor-oppressed" narrative where the second is immediately exculpated of having had free will and agency in leading their own lives and to this situation during all the years this world's existed - because they got slighted centuries or millennias before.
An event whose actual consequences in relation to present times we know *nothing* about I'd like to add, something multiple people pointed out and that gets routinely ignored.

Nothing of what you cited above changes this, and in fact has been already throughly discussed and rebutted in the previous thread.

I've read a few pages of the discussion but not all of them (so I may have missed someone making this point), but something I think has been missed. Not that Redcloak isn't wrong... or at least there's a justification for him being pissed off (and I'm sure in next strip Durkon will get into the "Yes, BUT" part).

Rather, my point is that Durkon is being unfair to Roy because even if Roy asked every single goblin he'd run into prior to Redcloak "Why are you attacking the humans?" (or whatever) he probably would have gotten answers like "Humans are evil and should die!" or "We come to take your food and your land!" Because the vast majority of the goblins don't know the backstory. And the very few village elders or whatever who do know the story only know it in a "myths and legends" kind of way and would be pleasantly surprised to find out its true. And literally zero of them have Thor's combination of perfect knowledge of what happened and the time and inclination to ruminate on the philosophical issues involved.

So, sure, Roy might have learned that the Goblins are hungry, and want food and land. But that's the same motivation human bandits have, or crocodiles, for that matter. Responding to every bandit attack by paying them off with food or gold is only a solution because of *massive* income inequality (the PCs are richer than Croesus and can trivially buy their way out of things that are life or death problems for normal people) and is only a short-term solution at that because the bandits will be hungry again in a few months. Maybe a long-term win/win can be worked out in which the town pays the bandits to protect them from other threats. But that only works if the town can afford it, there are other threats beyond the bandits the town is scared of, and even then its a gamble the bandits won't just decide to take *everything* and move on to terrorize the next town. Once the bandits have burned the town to the ground its a little late to realize the party should have just killed them in the first place.

But back to my earlier point, Durkon is probably in a better position to explain how the goblins got shafted than any goblin who has ever lived (except probably the Dark One and Redcloak). Because they are the only two current or former mortals who know it isn't just this or that group of goblins who were dealt a bad hand (plenty of groups of humans, like the dirt farmers, are also stuck trying to eek out a living in a crappy situation) its ALL of them as a race because none of the gods were looking out for them. That's the level of knowledge you need to realize Redcloak has a point, and there are probably like 2 goblins, ever, who even have that knowledge much less are able to articulate it. And Roy has had a chance to talk to neither of them.

Well said. Durkon's shaming Roy here was extremely unwarranted and ridiculous imho.

Even if we're talking of a guy who thinks trees are out to get his race I'd expect a little more Wisdom and skeptcism in dealing with this narrative, especially after Thor just revealed to him that a good chunk of Redcloak's version of it was pure nonsense.

[Dion]

I don't think the idea is that when you keep fighting the same villain over and over again you need to question their motives and try to work out a peaceful solution every single time.

Which goblins have they fought multiple times?

[Robots]

Thor just revealed to him that a good chunk of Redcloak's version of it was pure nonsense.

He was right about the fact that the gods (or to be more specific, the god who made his species) didn't care enough about the goblins to improve on their lives.