New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 10 of 30 FirstFirst 1234567891011121314151617181920 ... LastLast
Results 271 to 300 of 888
  1. - Top - End - #271
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GreataxeFighterGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2008

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSummoner View Post
    Again, you're coming at this from the standpoint that objective morality is a thing that exists and can be measured. I understand in D&D it very much is, but I'd argue that it's one of the biggest flaws in D&D's design and a rather black and white and childish way to put the world together.
    It's not a flaw as a game design, it worked perfectly well as a game mechanic way back in first edition D&D. As a game mechanic, it is only flawed if it doesn't work or causes problems in relation to other game mechanics. In first edition, as I said, it wasn't a problem. In later editions, using an system of objective morality doesn't mesh with other game mechanics as well, and it causes problems to varying degrees, depending on edition. It also caused potential problems once the game (very quickly) became popular enough that people started writing stories with settings based on D&D rules, because it was just a game rule and not something intended as part of the structure for creative writing.

    As a final point, if an audience/group of players can't distinguish between fictional monsters and real people to the point that they "start to associate "irredeemable evil" with skin color or certain cultural behaviors" that speaks far more about them than the author/DM. It requires the same sort of backwards "logic" people have used to blame metal music or video games for real world violence and such claims have been proven wrong time and time again.
    For the record, I pretty much agree with you on this point, but I also agree with the notion that, give the forum this isn't a good place for much exploration of this facet of the discussion.
    Last edited by dps; 2021-05-03 at 03:08 PM.

  2. - Top - End - #272
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    HalflingRogueGuy

    Join Date
    Jun 2008

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by Bootman View Post
    I think that’s inferring a lot from Xykon’s reaction. More than I assume from the material put in place.

    So should we believe Thor about this? If a character states something that to all appearances seems to be wrong is that enough to go off of? He agrees they have bad land, but I would have to see what he means by bad. Does that mean it grows %1 less food and has %1 less ore? Let’s say Thor said Durkon is not a dwarf. So we have a god telling us one thing, and the comic telling us something else. Which should we believe? The answer is that is doesn’t matter which because either way it’s a contradiction. Roy tells us in this most recent page that he never considered Goblin points of view when we saw him do that in the first 100 strips. Should we believe Roy or what the comic itself showed us?
    But... that is simply not true. The comic did not tell us, ever, that goblins have advantages. You are just supposing that because of one single victory they had, but everytime that the topic have been noticed by any character it have been described, literally or insinuated, as the contrary, that one victory was just an exception. There is not contradiction, not inconsistence.

  3. - Top - End - #273
    Titan in the Playground
     
    KorvinStarmast's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by hungrycrow View Post
    They were just minions acting as extensions of Xykon's will.
    At that point in the history of the strip, that's all that they were. Rich hadn't yet figured out the story he was telling. That came later.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason View Post
    You and I understand alignment very differently.
    Said no one, ever, on the internet. (Sorry, I could not help myself)
    Quote Originally Posted by Kilo24 View Post
    In Order of the Stick, the simple premise is "comedic D&D adventurer stereotypes in a dungeon". How the writer builds off of that simple initial premise to demonstrate that it's worthy of continued reader attention is something any writer of any story of any length has to struggle with.
    Are people allowed to make thoughtful points? Is that allowed by forum rules?
    Last edited by KorvinStarmast; 2021-05-03 at 09:26 PM.
    Avatar by linklele. How Teleport Works
    a. Malifice (paraphrased):
    Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
    b. greenstone (paraphrased):
    Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
    Gosh, 2D8HP, you are so very correct!
    Second known member of the Greyview Appreciation Society

  4. - Top - End - #274
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in Utah...
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast View Post
    At that point in the history of the strip, that's all that they were. Rich hadn't yet figured out the story he was telling. That came later.
    Yep.
    Read the intro to On the Origin of PCs that is written by Redcloak and you'll see a completely different character from the Redcloak we see today.

  5. - Top - End - #275
    Halfling in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowknight12 View Post
    Statistically speaking, given the amount of time it has passed since the comic's inception and the traffic of the forum, it is near-certain that subject has been raised before, so I won't bother searching for specific references because then it would be trivially easy for you to dismiss my efforts as "well that's not *enough*".

    As for the latter, it would be pure speculation on our parts. We have no real way of knowing how the story would've gone, because part of what the Giant has been exploring with Roy is that he is a character that has been consistently dismissing the thoughts and opinions of those around him, has been extremely single-minded in the pursuit of his goals, and it has been part of his character growth to recognize these flaws and attempt to change them.
    So we're blaming Roy for not doing something we're not sure anyone thought of at the time, that may not actually have mattered. That doesn't strike me as something he should feel particularly ashamed of.


    Quote Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast View Post
    At that point in the history of the strip, that's all that they were. Rich hadn't yet figured out the story he was telling. That came later.
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but this should mean Roy's alleged flaw is retroactive, not just a matter of hindsight. As in, the goblins were retconned into having deeper motivations, which the PCs couldn't have learned or noticed because they didn't exist yet.
    Last edited by Telenil; 2021-05-03 at 03:32 PM.

  6. - Top - End - #276
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by Telenil View Post
    So we're blaming Roy for not doing something we're not sure anyone thought of at the time, that may not actually have mattered. That doesn't strike me as something he should feel particularly ashamed of.
    I think you're taking Durkon's point as "shame on you, Roy!" when that's not really what it means, and you feel compelled to defend Roy from an attack that does not exist.

  7. - Top - End - #277
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    massachusetts
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    You know, someone did suggest negotiating with the goblins earlier in the story: Kubota. It was portrayed as Kubota trying to undermine Hinjo, but it actually wasn't that bad of a suggestion. They risk one messenger, and possibly stall the invasion or get more information. It wouldn't have worked of course, but still.

  8. - Top - End - #278
    Halfling in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowknight12 View Post
    I think you're taking Durkon's point as "shame on you, Roy!" when that's not really what it means, and you feel compelled to defend Roy from an attack that does not exist.
    Someone said Roy should have done it because that's the difference between Good and Neutral. I understand this as the implication that not doing it is a moral flaw.

    Quote Originally Posted by hungrycrow View Post
    You know, someone did suggest negotiating with the goblins earlier in the story: Kubota. It was portrayed as Kubota trying to undermine Hinjo, but it actually wasn't that bad of a suggestion. They risk one messenger, and possibly stall the invasion or get more information. It wouldn't have worked of course, but still.
    Heh, I don't remember that. Thanks for bringing it up.
    Last edited by Telenil; 2021-05-03 at 03:42 PM.

  9. - Top - End - #279
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by Telenil View Post
    You said Roy should have done it because that's the difference between Good and Neutral. I understand this as the implication that not doing it is a moral flaw.
    We got an entire set of strips where a being of pure Good let us all know that Roy (specifically Roy!) is still a Good character despite his failings and that the important thing is that he tries. Pointing out that Roy is fallible and often fails to live up to the standards of his alignment is not an attack when the point is that he learns from it and keeps trying. His own reaction in the latest comic is a testament to his character. He acknowledges he didn't try as hard as he should've, and that's exactly what the deva saw in him.

  10. - Top - End - #280
    Halfling in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowknight12 View Post
    We got an entire set of strips where a being of pure Good let us all know that Roy (specifically Roy!) is still a Good character despite his failings and that the important thing is that he tries. Pointing out that Roy is fallible and often fails to live up to the standards of his alignment is not an attack when the point is that he learns from it and keeps trying. His own reaction in the latest comic is a testament to his character. He acknowledges he didn't try as hard as he should've, and that's exactly what the deva saw in him.
    Fair enough. Then I disagree that failing to interrogate the goblins in a specific way is a moral flaw in the sense abandoning Elan was, because nobody else apparently thought of it and it had no obvious consequence.
    Agree to disagree, I suppose.
    Last edited by Telenil; 2021-05-03 at 03:49 PM.

  11. - Top - End - #281
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Magrathea
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by hungrycrow View Post
    You know, someone did suggest negotiating with the goblins earlier in the story: Kubota. It was portrayed as Kubota trying to undermine Hinjo, but it actually wasn't that bad of a suggestion. They risk one messenger, and possibly stall the invasion or get more information. It wouldn't have worked of course, but still.
    There's probably an argument to be made about how they would be specifically negotiating with RC and Xykon, neither of whom would have had the same desires as, say, the Supreme Leader or the Hobgoblin General, and so it isn't quite the same as talking to the goblins.

    But it is ironic that Kubota of all people suggested what is, broadly speaking, the apparent solution.
    An explanation of why MitD being any larger than Huge is implausible.

    See my extended signature here! May contain wit, candor, and somewhere from 52 to 8127 walruses.

    Purple is humorous descriptions made up on the fly
    Green is serious talk about hypothetical
    Blue is irony and sarcasm


    "I think, therefore I am,
    I walk, therefore I stand,
    I sleep, therefore I dream;
    I joke, therefore I meme."
    -Squire Doodad

  12. - Top - End - #282
    Halfling in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2014

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Man this thread is going wild. It’s hard to keep up with, especially on a work day. I’ll do my best. You're lucky I love you guys.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ionathus View Post
    Again, I want to highlight The Bechdel Test because I think it's really valuable for its parallels to this discussion. Durkon is essentially saying that Roy's behavior didn't "pass the test". But the Bechdel Test isn't about whether or not a movie is sexist: it's about whether or not ALL movies tend to underrepresent women. Using it on an individual basis to judge the quality of a movie is - to use your word - manipulative. Many acclaimed works that highlight women fail to pass the test, too. That Roy's behavior "failed the test" isn't an accusation against Roy; it's an observation that even his behavior reflects the society in which he grew up. Sure, he had plenty of good reasons to not try talking (the only goblins they encountered have been in relation to Xykon & Redcloak), AND talking probably wouldn't have changed anything!
    So my comments in that response were about the term ‘manipulative’ and justifying how Durkon’s example really doesn’t work at all as a refutation. I think we spoke about this before or it’s been brought up, but a lot of people just consider it a fun joke and the important part is just the idea that he should be thinking about goblins more. I think it utterly fails if that’s the goal but I can believe that’s the goal. And when I say manipulative, I'm referring to the writing itself being manipulative.

    Roy makes a point, Durkon fails to counter it by using an example missing it’s context and Roy concedes his point was bested. If Rich didn’t want the implications of negotiation during battle to be a part of it, he shouldn’t have tried to defeat Roy’s argument about not interrogating during battle. If the story was saying what you’re saying then I could totally believe you but since it SPECIFICALLY brings up that argument and then ‘defeats’ it, it’s hard to draw it out to mean that he just should have thought about the Goblins more in his spare time. People who lean more towards your perspective in this thread have in fact argued it DOES mean Roy should have talked with the goblins while fighting, that he is somewhat racist and that he should nonlethally eliminate and then talk with every Goblin (or otherwise mook) that he fights.

    People are drawing these impressions because that’s what the text currently supports. That’s it for the new stuff I have. Anything else I say would be retreading water about what’s reasonable to expect from people in these situations and how it’s being narrowly applies to JUST the goblins when it should apply to all mooks in every story forever.

    I’m not even arguing against what you believe here, just how accurately it applies to the comic situation. Would you be open to admitting at least that the comic does a poor job of conveying what you believe the theme is?

    Quote Originally Posted by Telenil View Post
    I think this conversation is dangerously straying into real-world politics.
    I would prefer if it didn’t, but unfortunately the creator has outright stated the value of a work of fantasy is almost exclusively derived from how it applies to the real world. Not expecting politics to seep in at that point is a bit silly since that’s a part of the real world and he’s literally addressing things like politics, racial inequality, inherent bias, etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by hungrycrow View Post
    These threads keep getting locked for review, and the argument just jumps to three more threads.
    We all understand the state the moderators are in regarding this issue and how it’s being applied and what specific kind of comments trigger it. I would prefer if we could stay well and clear of those things as much as they may be worth discussing or may apply to the technical writing. I think overall the objective criticisms that have been brought forth are really valuable and I’d hate to lose them

    In the future if somebody wanted to tell a story about Goblins the way Rich does, they could avoid the mistakes he’s made in conveying the message so that people can appreciate the theme without the writing issues.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowknight12 View Post
    I respect the attempt to understand my viewpoints, so I will reply in kind and attempt to clarify where I may not have provided enough detail or may have shortened my explanation for brevity:

    I do not consider Durkon's example to be manipulative at all, since I do not consider Roy trying to reason with vampire!Durkon to be a special case that he should be exempted from. Roy is not a neutral-aligned, whose first priority is his loved ones above all else, and strangers are a second priority to be judged on a case by case basis. He is good-aligned, and as such, he should be attempting to extend the kindness and opportunities that he extends to his loved ones to strangers as well. Again, this doesn't mean "use diplomacy in mid-combat" but "ask them what led them down this path so that perhaps you can prevent the *next* violent confrontation with goblins and help them as a race."

    It's not manipulative to say "you tried to find out what was wrong with your best friend so that you could help him, but it never occurred to you to do the same towards other enemies we've been fighting" when Roy made the conscious choice to be good-aligned and hold himself to a higher standard of morality and behaviour. If he didn't want to be held to such a high standard, he could've simply been neutral and nobody would have faulted him (and his sister Julia did just that).

    What Durkon is trying to convey is that it's easy to be kind and good and extend opportunities to those you love, and it's much harder to do so towards strangers, much less strangers trying to kill you and whom you've been taught all your life to see as simply enemies to defeat. But again, Roy chose to be Good. And being Good is hard work.



    My point is that it is, in fact, wrong, for the gods to prey on and exploit sentient beings for sustenance. The sentient beings did not agree to this. Simply because someone creates you and you depend on them to exist does not mean they have a right to exploit you however they see fit. I don't want to draw on real world comparisons too much, but if you recontextualize the gods as parents and the mortals as children, no justification for the gods' actions makes what they did okay.
    So far as the Durkon-Roy stuff goes, my last few posts encompass my opinion on it as well as some from this post. It’s more about the argument being inaccurate and not defeating Roy, while also directly addressing that he should have used negotiation in fights with Goblins. The story simply doesn’t say what you say it says in those last three panels. If Durkon next page literally says “I’m not saying you should talk with every enemy that fights you or even the goblins while they’re attacking you” or something along those lines and nothing else contradicts it, then of course your interpretation will end up being correct, but with the material as it is now this theme is poorly conveyed.

    As far as the planet itself goes, the justification is simple. If the only way to save all your children and every child that has ever existed is to make the situation unfair for them, you have to do it. Regardless of whether they did it because they’re good or not, they simply have to or else they and everyone else dies and no existence can ever come about again. This is why the gods want to blow up the world because the snarl is an existential threat to them and all the souls, and if they don’t have enough souls they starve.

    You’d have to argue that it’s better to let yourself and everyone die and all existence end then to live in an equal society with strife. If you believe that then by all means remain consistent on it, but as far as the gods themselves I just don’t see the issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowknight12 View Post
    People have brought up that he treated the goblin teenagers working under Xykon decently and again, good for him. But let's follow Roy's journey with them:

    In his first encounter with them, to his credit he seeks to protect them from further harm. However, at first he reacts with confusion but later rolls with the whole thing and makes no effort to inquire about them even after the teenager offers some information about their family. His final reaction is a pleased "yes, this will work in our favour."
    Second page, he pays no attention to their words as they talk or actually make any attempt to learn more about them or their race, even though here would be the perfect opportunity to do so.
    Third strip, no real interaction once again, distracted by a trap.
    Fourth strip, uses intimidation and the threat of violence to get the truth out of a teenager instead of a gentler method, even when the teenager is visibly scared and presents no threat. Also, is told "my parents were right about you stinky humans" and does not pursue that as an attempt to understand them or their race better, even though this could have also been a way for him to establish rapport and get the information he needed. Also I know this is about Roy and not Elan but note how Elan's "charismatic" approach is first selfish ("Haley is important to us") and then switches right into intimidation.

    And after that, there are no more direct interactions with the teenager goblins. I'm gonna go ahead and say that Roy did not act with due diligence as a good-aligned character. Not murdering a non-combatant on sight is not good enough for Good. He was overly focused on his goal, ignored plenty of chances to talk to them to find out more about their race and situation, and basically saw them as means to an end from start to finish.

    You can defend Roy and say "well he did just fine" and we can agree to disagree. I (and Durkon, and Roy himself) think that he should've done more when he had the chance.
    Wow, so in a life or death situation he immediately takes the peaceful option and believes in the Goblins, while understanding their independent motives and alignment? He just takes it at their word? That’s pretty awesome of him. Or maybe it was all just so he could achieve his goals and he just hadn’t reached for his sword yet. His goal of preserving the life of his team, destroying an evil lich and saving his father’s immortal soul from purgatory.

    He’s planning for a fight where it’s his job to keep people alive in the second strip. Seems fair. He doesn’t seem nervous at all being around goblins or like he’s being led into a trap.

    Third strip doesn’t matter as you say. It’d be unreasonable to expect anything else there.

    Fourth strip… so he’s mad when his ally, subordinate and friend is kidnapped and her life may be in mortal peril and every second counts.

    If this interaction is not considered ‘good’, well… How about Enor and Ganji? They’re neutral. Think they would have trusted the goblins in that situation? Ian Starshine is largely implied to be good and we know he would never trust in that scenario. Grubwigler who just wants to be left alone and is likely neutral?

    You might have answers for each individual one of these but my point is simply that a good person doesn’t have to do the best thing all of the time. They don’t have to be an angel in every situation. By this definition essentially nobody on earth and nobody in the story passes the test to be good.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jason View Post
    The beginning pages of Dungeon Crawlin' Fools include the Order capturing two goblin prisoners with Elan interrogating them to find out the location of Dorukan's fortress. Elan uses a diplomacy check to alter their attitude to "simpering middle-management yes-men", so they would have answered anything he asked them. Apparently nobody in the Order thought to ask them "why are you taking orders from Xykon?" and their ultimate fate is not shown (on the next page the Order has the fortress in sight and the goblin prisoners are nowhere to be seen).
    Roy did have sleeping goblins (bored into slumber by V) completely at his mercy in an early comic in the dungeon as well, and he chose to behead them all instead of taking them prisoner.

    So as established by Rich and multiple times in this thread, we are dealing with the online only comic.

    Do you think Roy killing the goblins was an intentional exploration of Roys character and bias, or Rich Burlew treating the Goblins as random evil enemies and shouting “wretched do-gooders” at them? I’m just curious which you would think.

    It isn’t viable to take the goblins prisoner in what amounts to a war zone. If you leave them tied up they can escape, starve or be eaten by wandering monsters. If you don’t tie them up they can pursue and kill you, and Roy believes Goblins enough of a threat that he persistently runs from them in the early comics. If Roy had a magical way to keep them safe and detained, sure. Otherwise killing them is the correct and in fact good choice to prevent potential death or injury to those under your command.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vikenlugaid View Post
    But... that is simply not true. The comic did not tell us, ever, that goblins have advantages. You are just supposing that because of one single victory they had, but everytime that the topic have been noticed by any character it have been described, literally or insinuated, as the contrary, that one victory was just an exception. There is not contradiction, not inconsistence.
    An exception is fine when it’s, say, gets heads on a coin flip a hundred times in a row or so. ‘Excepting’ your way into having a 30,000 man armed and armored army doesn’t happen. And then I used side evidence to justify how this army must be roughly competitive on the world stage so that it can’t be argued that 30,000 is actually really small in the stickverse.

    Quote Originally Posted by hungrycrow View Post
    You know, someone did suggest negotiating with the goblins earlier in the story: Kubota. It was portrayed as Kubota trying to undermine Hinjo, but it actually wasn't that bad of a suggestion. They risk one messenger, and possibly stall the invasion or get more information. It wouldn't have worked of course, but still.
    With what Kubato knew this was very reasonable.

    Alright Kilo, I saved you for last. I hope you guys appreciate me spending my lunch break on this hahaha.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kilo24 View Post
    The strip did start off as a gag-a-day riff of the stereotypical D&D adventuring party; I'm not particularly concerned about making excuses for bad writing or establishing whether or not Rich made a mistake. I'm interested in seeing where he's been able to take it from there, what limitations that origin may have imposed, and how he's been able to work around them - and picking it apart so that other writers may figure out what they can use in their own writing.

    If the early strips conflict with the later strips, that should be noted and dealt with by the author - and if it isn't dealt with it should be noted as an issue by the audience. A diagnosis of the malady is by no means an excuse to pretend the symptoms don't exist. (For the record, I'm of the opinion that he's done an incredibly good job at pre-empting such issues.)
    I could not agree with this sentiment more. Except to emphasize how amazing of a job Rich has done overall. “Incredibly good’ doesn’t even begin to describe it for me and it’s one of the things I respect him most for.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kilo24 View Post
    I think it's quite likely Roy hasn't been presented with an opportunity to make a good faith attempt when it comes to seriously discussing Xykon's/Redcloak's minions' motivations with them directly. It's also possible that he's *never* had an opportunity at all. He's not seriously concerned that the Order of the Stick are really the bad guys here - what bothers Roy is that he's just realizing now that he's never considered that possibility in the slightest.

    And that maybe because of never considering that, there might be something else that he missed related to his enemies' motivations that turns out to be very important. It might have been an opportunity for peaceful resolution, it might have been an opportunity to address wrongs that were done to or by the goblins, it might have been a tactical advantage he ceded by not realizing that there was internal strife among Team Evil that he could have exploited. He wasn't considering that at the time, and now he doesn't have the time to reflect and re-evaluate his memories for what he may have missed.

    But I'm sure he won't leap to "WE'RE THE BADDIES!!! REDCLOAK WAS RIGHT!!!" and tell the whole Order to surrender themselves to Redcloak for execution - and not just because he ridicules that notion. The Giant is far too good of a writer for that.
    I don’t believe it will go that far either and I mostly agree with what you’ve said here. The only exception would be the evidence I presented earlier in this post and all over this thread about why the expectation from Durkon DOES come across like he was doing less then he should of when he simply fought back. If that gets back peddled soon then my post was at least partially pointless (Or very successful if Rich saw it and changed where he was going, but that’s unlikely)

    After this point you mostly address the thematic notes and once again I agree, I would never challenge these themes and I think you’re representing what the Giant is going for accurately. My only issue is with how effectively these themes are conveyed in the story. I think that if you tell somebody the goblins we see in the first 600 strips are representative of a real world group of people, they would be appalled by the racism that implies. I think if you want you goblins to be underprivileged and abused, you don’t give them 30,000 armed and armored men waiting around. I think you need to be really clear about HOW they were disadvantaged and what that means. The technical writing is complicating and failing a theme I see the value in and I could potentially agree with.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kilo24 View Post

    I mean, Rich could theoretically introduce a load of cartography, old violated peace treaties, diplomatic negotiations, careful Gobbotopia reparations and embassy laws in the very last book so that Redcloak and the Order of the Stick can work out precisely what "a fair distribution of resources" means - and if this were Xenogears, Neon Genesis Evangelion, or Metal Gear Solid, he might actually try it. But I expect that if Redcloak's ideal of equality was to be taken significantly more seriously than he himself takes it, Rich would have prepared us readers a hell of a lot more for it. Without any way of realistically achieving his goals, the Order thinking "Redcloak is right" is going to be of little more plot consequence than Redcloak himself thinking "Redcloak is right".
    Potentially, unless this feeds into the themes you were talking about. For example, I genuinely believe up to this point that if you strictly follow the text, the theme you would end up with is the opposite of what Rich wants. It involves evil, cartoonish Goblins being equated to real world people and Goblins who seem to have plenty more than lots of other people complaining about having less and doing horrible things to get it what they want. I believe this can be fixed, but it would be hard. I believe in Rich as a writer which is why I waited as long as I did to mention it, and as far as I’m concerned this is about the last possible second. But I’m not as good at writing as him so I could always be wrong.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kilo24 View Post
    It's great to have a serious, polite discussion on this. I appreciate your post as well.

    I'm personally reminded of how I felt right after strip 1130, where Durkon emotion-bombs Count Durkula into being a copy of him. I immediately balked, thinking "What the hell is this? Vampire Durkon's a good guy now because of a well-timed firehose of memories? I'm gonna pick up my grievances and whine to the forums!" But laziness won out, and I didn't.

    And after reflecting on it a bit, I realized how much was carefully building up to this moment. Also very importantly, the next strip came out, framing it as a temporary distraction long enough for Belkar to stake Durkula instead of a Headspace of Opposite Alignment. And I was a lot more able to accept that possibility. With that in mind, I realized that the Giant may have seriously pulled off turning Durkon from being a passive stereotype into a passive developing character who actually believably persuades a vampire into halfling-assisted suicide via positive memories. But it did take the context of the next strip, and a decent bit of reflection to realize that my favorite serial narrative wasn't under threat of bad writing.

    With The Giant being on record as saying that he's primarily writing for the audience who'll read all the strips together instead of the audience who is reading them one strip at a time as they come out, I'm willing to give him at least a few more strips of context before I seriously start to worry that he's writing himself into a hole.
    It’s certainly possible and this whole thread was started with the very likely outcome that many of my points would be addressed, countered or fixed upcoming.

    I think in the end me and you agree on a lot, we mostly just disagree if whether or not the story is conveying these ideas skillfully at this point. I would say that’s the primary difference between the two ‘sides’ on this debate as it were, although there’s of course lunies on both sides as well. Thankfully I don’t think I’ve seen any in my thread and after ten pages I am super proud of how this has ended up.
    Last edited by Bootman; 2021-05-03 at 04:27 PM.

  13. - Top - End - #283
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    Magrathea
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by Bootman View Post
    Man this thread is going wild. It’s hard to keep up with, especially on a work day. I’ll do my best. You're lucky I love you guys.
    Work and real life comes first, take as much time as you need :D
    An explanation of why MitD being any larger than Huge is implausible.

    See my extended signature here! May contain wit, candor, and somewhere from 52 to 8127 walruses.

    Purple is humorous descriptions made up on the fly
    Green is serious talk about hypothetical
    Blue is irony and sarcasm


    "I think, therefore I am,
    I walk, therefore I stand,
    I sleep, therefore I dream;
    I joke, therefore I meme."
    -Squire Doodad

  14. - Top - End - #284
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    HalflingRogueGuy

    Join Date
    May 2018

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by Telenil View Post
    Someone said Roy should have done it because that's the difference between Good and Neutral. I understand this as the implication that not doing it is a moral flaw.
    Serious question: why do you believe anyone would be ashamed of having a moral flaw?

    It’s as ridiculous as being ashamed when someone says your behavior is racist.

    Nobody is ashamed of moral flaws. It doesn’t make anyone a bad person. You just accept the feedback, consider how you’ll change in the future, and move on.
    Last edited by Dion; 2021-05-03 at 04:04 PM.

  15. - Top - End - #285
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GreataxeFighterGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2008

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by Dion View Post
    Serious question: why do you believe anyone would be ashamed of having a moral flaw?

    It’s as ridiculous as being ashamed when someone says your behavior is racist.

    Nobody is ashamed of moral flaws. It doesn’t make anyone a bad person. You just accept the feedback, consider how you’ll change in the future, and move on.
    Any decent person is is ashamed of their moral flaws. If you're not ashamed of them, then you don't think flaws and won't try to change them.

  16. - Top - End - #286
    Halfling in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by Dion View Post
    Serious question: why do you believe anyone would be ashamed of having a moral flaw?

    It’s as ridiculous as being ashamed when someone says your behavior is racist.

    Nobody is ashamed of moral flaws. It doesn’t make anyone a bad person. You just accept the feedback, consider how you’ll change in the future, and move on.
    Where I live, people you call that sort of name would never invite you to their homes again, and possibly ask you to leave if they can find a polite pretext. Trust me that if people around you simply nod when you enumerate their alledged moral flaws, there are big cultural differences between us.
    Last edited by Telenil; 2021-05-03 at 04:28 PM.

  17. - Top - End - #287
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    BardGuy

    Join Date
    May 2020
    Location
    Right behind you

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by hungrycrow View Post
    These threads keep getting locked for review, and the argument just jumps to three more threads.
    Goblins=Hydra members confirmed. Cut off one head and three will take its place!

  18. - Top - End - #288
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by Bootman View Post
    So far as the Durkon-Roy stuff goes, my last few posts encompass my opinion on it as well as some from this post. It’s more about the argument being inaccurate and not defeating Roy, while also directly addressing that he should have used negotiation in fights with Goblins. The story simply doesn’t say what you say it says in those last three panels. If Durkon next page literally says “I’m not saying you should talk with every enemy that fights you or even the goblins while they’re attacking you” or something along those lines and nothing else contradicts it, then of course your interpretation will end up being correct, but with the material as it is now this theme is poorly conveyed.
    The words you use to refer to this casual conversation between two friends are "defeating" and "bested" as though the conversation was some sort of intellectual duel between Roy and Durkon and there has to be a winner and a loser. I do not support this framing. I think Roy was improved by realizing something he had never questioned before. He wasn't defeated or bested in an argument, he was enlightened. Likewise, Durkon was aided by Roy, by having someone to articulate his thoughts to, and who helped him refine them into something coherent and not just a feeling of "something's wrong here" as it was in previous strips. My takeaway from the Roy/Durkon conversation is that both characters emerged victorious and better for having dialogued with each other about this matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bootman View Post
    As far as the planet itself goes, the justification is simple. If the only way to save all your children and every child that has ever existed is to make the situation unfair for them, you have to do it. Regardless of whether they did it because they’re good or not, they simply have to or else they and everyone else dies and no existence can ever come about again. This is why the gods want to blow up the world because the snarl is an existential threat to them and all the souls, and if they don’t have enough souls they starve.

    You’d have to argue that it’s better to let yourself and everyone die and all existence end then to live in an equal society with strife. If you believe that then by all means remain consistent on it, but as far as the gods themselves I just don’t see the issue.
    My point is that no matter the gods' justifications, what they did was wrong. And the fact that Durkon does not take Thor's explanations as "oh okay, I guess you're right" but instead specifically goes to tell Roy about how even though he just talked to Thor, he still thinks Redcloak is right (and even goes as far as to say it doesn't matter if it's malice or neglect that caused the problems), and then Roy agrees with him; it all communicates to me that the story as a whole seems to be supporting the belief that the gods are wrong.

    This isn't even the first time this is brought up in-comic. Roy specifically says "I do not think the gods have our best interests in mind" in the Godsmoot, and he doesn't even mean the gods voting to destroy the world. He passes that judgment on the gods as a whole, and then this is later reinforced again in his conversation with Julia post-Godsmoot.

    I think the comic is telling us repeatedly that the gods are not to be trusted and that their justifications do not matter.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bootman View Post
    Wow, so in a life or death situation he immediately takes the peaceful option and believes in the Goblins, while understanding their independent motives and alignment? He just takes it at their word? That’s pretty awesome of him. Or maybe it was all just so he could achieve his goals and he just hadn’t reached for his sword yet. His goal of preserving the life of his team, destroying an evil lich and saving his father’s immortal soul from purgatory.
    Do note that Roy doesn't take the goblins' word (his face when told that the goblins are good is doubt/confusion, and he immediately questions it), he needs Haley to explain things for him. He's not taking the goblins' words, he's taking Haley's.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bootman View Post
    He’s planning for a fight where it’s his job to keep people alive in the second strip. Seems fair. He doesn’t seem nervous at all being around goblins or like he’s being led into a trap.

    Third strip doesn’t matter as you say. It’d be unreasonable to expect anything else there.

    Fourth strip… so he’s mad when his ally, subordinate and friend is kidnapped and her life may be in mortal peril and every second counts.
    The point is not "were Roy's actions adequate"? Because they were, as per his evaluation with the deva. They were sufficient to qualify as Good. The point is "could they have been better?" and the answer is yes, yes they could have.

    Everyone has problems and goals and loved ones to care about and things distracting them. Roy is not exceptional in having his mind occupied with all sorts of important things to think about. If we want violence to end at some point, someone has to be willing to listen to the other side, to find out what's wrong and what has led them to this path, and then reach out to figure out some way to fix things. And that person will have, just like everyone else, all sorts of important things to think about, and on top of that, they will have to spare some time and energy aside towards trying to understand all these complicated systems and people's motivations.

    Is it fair for someone who didn't create the problem to solve it? No, no it is not.

    But it wasn't fair of Eugene to die and saddle Roy with the Blood Oath.
    It wasn't fair of Tarquin to be a generally awful person and try to manipulate his sons for his own gain.
    It wasn't fair of Ian to not listen to Haley, and then make her feel like she has to go and fix everything, including him.

    The comic has a very long history of making a commentary on children being saddled with the mistakes of their parents, down to the Order of the Stick as a whole inheriting the problems that the Order of the Scribble caused due to their dysfunctional relationships and personalities. That this is being extended to the gods themselves (the ultimate parental figures) and the world they created should come to no surprise.

  19. - Top - End - #289
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Location
    Chicago area
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by Telenil View Post
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but this should mean Roy's alleged flaw is retroactive, not just a matter of hindsight. As in, the goblins were retconned into having deeper motivations, which the PCs couldn't have learned or noticed because they didn't exist yet.
    I’ve been trying so hard to get this across to people and I’m glad somebody else has finally said it in such precise words.
    As a side note, I wouldn’t have complained about this strip at all if Durkon hadn’t decided to chastise Roy about it. Roy only looks bad and feels guilty as a consequence of a retcon.

  20. - Top - End - #290
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by Empiar93 View Post
    I’ve been trying so hard to get this across to people and I’m glad somebody else has finally said it in such precise words.
    As a side note, I wouldn’t have complained about this strip at all if Durkon hadn’t decided to chastise Roy about it. Roy only looks bad and feels guilty as a consequence of a retcon.
    In the Giant's own words:

    Now, if you want to rail on me because the first time Redcloak walked on screen, I didn't know everything I would later write in Start of Darkness, go right ahead. It would be a grossly unfair criticism being that it's common knowledge that I started this comic strip with no idea that it was going to last more than a dozen strips, but at least it would be an accurate one...

  21. - Top - End - #291
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    RangerGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by Telenil View Post
    Where I live, people you call that sort of name would never invite you to their homes again, and possibly ask you to leave if they can find a polite pretext. Trust me that if people around you simply nod when you enumerate their alledged moral flaws, there are big cultural differences between us.
    Emphasis mine.

    Please take a moment to pay attention to Dion's grammar. It is important to this discussion.

    There is a difference between calling someone racist and calling someone's behavior racist.

    It's like when your grandpa tells a sexist joke, and you say "I didn't find that funny, please don't tell jokes like that to me again." You're not calling your grandpa a sexist. You're telling him that specific behavior was objectionable, and asking him not to share it with you again.

    What I and several others have been trying to communicate is that nobody in the comic is calling Roy a goblin-racist for not trying diplomacy in the first 120 LolRandom pages of this comic. Durkon is merely making an observation about Roy's behavior, and pointing to how that behavior, carried out by everybody (whether through malice, neglect, or absentmindedness), could indicate a wider problem.
    Last edited by Ionathus; 2021-05-03 at 05:15 PM.

  22. - Top - End - #292
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Roy's penchant to kill rather than try any attempt to talk to goblins definitely is one of those things that is a product of what the comic used to be, but I don't understand why people would be upset at that behavior being referenced and brought up in parts of the comic where these themes have started to matter. Roy isn't a real life person and we don't need to feel bad for him having his past actions challenged by his own author. Especially now that the story is dealing with the humanity of goblins as a major theme, I'm personally very glad that the old material is being recontextualised. If it was outright ignored by the author and narrative, that would feel really out of place for me.

  23. - Top - End - #293
    Halfling in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ionathus View Post
    Emphasis mine.

    Please take a moment to pay attention to Dion's grammar. It is important to this discussion.

    There is a difference between calling someone racist and calling someone's behavior racist.

    It's like when your grandpa tells a sexist joke, and you say "I didn't find that funny, please don't tell jokes like that to me again." You're not calling your grandpa a sexist. You're telling him that specific behavior was objectionable, and asking him not to share it with you again.

    What I and several others have been trying to communicate is that nobody in the comic is calling Roy a goblin-racist for not trying diplomacy in the first 120 LolRandom pages of this comic. Durkon is merely making an observation about Roy's behavior, and pointing to how that behavior, carried out by everybody (whether through malice, neglect, or absentmindedness), could indicate a wider problem.
    I'm afraid the distinction would be lost in translation. Telling people that their joke is (for example) racist would be within the bounds of polite conversation, because it doesn't directly imply racism on the teller's part. But calling their behavior racist would be a serious accusation here, implying there are times where they cannot be distinguished from a racist person, that they behave like one.

  24. - Top - End - #294
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GreataxeFighterGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2008

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ionathus View Post
    There is a difference between calling someone racist and calling someone's behavior racist.
    I realize that there is a distinction there, but I still don't see why one wouldn't be ashamed of racist behavior. Unless one is a racist and proud of it.

    Now, I can see someone being called a racist and not being ashamed because they believe the charge is inaccurate, but if the charge is inaccurate, then there is no character flaw to be ashamed of.

    If someone told me that my behavior was racist, and upon reflection I realized that thy were right, I'd be very ashamed.

  25. - Top - End - #295
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    RangerGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by Telenil View Post
    I'm afraid the distinction would be lost in translation. Telling people that their joke is (for example) racist would be within the bounds of polite conversation, because it doesn't directly imply racism on the teller's part. But calling their behavior racist would be a serious accusation here, implying there are times where they cannot be distinguished from a racist person, that they behave like one.
    (Emphasis mine)

    The assumptions about language you're bringing into this conversation clearly do not match my own. Thank you for explaining how this turn of phrase sounds different to you.

    I'd encourage you to broaden your definition of "calling a behavior [something]." Because that's all it is - a behavior. It only determines who we are if we establish patterns of behavior over long periods of time. Or, as Minrah puts it: "You're not a type! You're a person! A person who does stuff! If you want to be different, do different stuff!"

    Quote Originally Posted by dps View Post
    I realize that there is a distinction there, but I still don't see why one wouldn't be ashamed of racist behavior. Unless one is a racist and proud of it.

    Now, I can see someone being called a racist and not being ashamed because they believe the charge is inaccurate, but if the charge is inaccurate, then there is no character flaw to be ashamed of.

    If someone told me that my behavior was racist, and upon reflection I realized that thy were right, I'd be very ashamed.
    Well, yes. That can be embarrassing. I've been told that my behaviors are hurtful, by people who are a different race or gender or sexuality than me, and it is a tough pill to swallow. But it's never been portrayed as an indictment of my character. It's just "hey, Ionathus, we love you, but you messed up this time."

    I grew up in a very homogenous community, so I didn't really have to learn that skill for a long time. It does take practice. But it has really helped me to become a more respectful, empathic person, and I'm richer for it.

  26. - Top - End - #296
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    arimareiji's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2017

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by Dion View Post
    Serious question: why do you believe anyone would be ashamed of having a moral flaw?

    It’s as ridiculous as being ashamed when someone says your behavior is racist.

    Nobody is ashamed of moral flaws. It doesn’t make anyone a bad person. You just accept the feedback, consider how you’ll change in the future, and move on.
    As a child, and a young adult, and even to some degree now, I was dreadfully afraid of failure. I thought of it as horribly shameful. Now, I try to keep in mind that failing at something is GOOD. It means that you're pushing your boundaries, and if you learn from it you can do/be better. When you look at the end result, the true opposite of "failure" isn't "success" -- it's "stagnation" (which I've come to think of as death-as-a-process-rather-than-as-a-moment-in-time).

    But nowadays it seems like it's painfully common for even adults to be so convinced that failure is shameful, they even think admitting to having failed is shameful -- with the result being people developing scores of defenses against ever admitting it. Just look at the average internet argument for examples.

    Personally, I believe a moral failure (like any other kind) has immense potential for good. That even includes refusing to admit (to one's self or anyone else) to a moral failure, despite it being a dangerous step towards it becoming an ingrained pattern.

    If it does become an ingrained pattern that someone defends tooth-and-nail, that's when it becomes fair to call someone a failure-ist. And that truly is cause for shame.
    "Just a Sec Mate" avatar courtesy of Gengy. I'm often somewhere between it, and this gif. (^_~)
    Founding (and so far, only) member of the Greyview Appreciation Society
    "Only certainty in life: When icy jaws of death come, you will not have had enough treats. Nod. Get treat."

  27. - Top - End - #297
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Also, not sure how important this is but regarding how Durkon talked to Roy about the Vampire: he was the one who literally died and was held hostage in his own body. It was more traumatic for him than anyone else; he's allowed to talk about it, and even be snarky about it.
    I'd just like to point out that saying that something unsupported is the case unless someone else can prove that it is not is an utter failure of logic. - Kish

  28. - Top - End - #298
    Banned
     
    BardGirl

    Join Date
    May 2015

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by Empiar93 View Post
    I’ve been trying so hard to get this across to people and I’m glad somebody else has finally said it in such precise words.
    As a side note, I wouldn’t have complained about this strip at all if Durkon hadn’t decided to chastise Roy about it. Roy only looks bad and feels guilty as a consequence of a retcon.
    Even if that retcon hadn't been there he had no reason to feel guilty, you can't expect to parley with every enemy, and they knew perfectly well that those were Xykon's goblin followers.

  29. - Top - End - #299
    Halfling in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Location
    Chicago area
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by Shadowknight12 View Post
    I’m not railing on the Giant for changing his story. I’m annoyed that he’s having one character hold the changed story against another character.
    When they were in Dorukan’s dungeon, those goblins (including Redcloak) were little more than employees of Xykon. Roy was also a different character. He called people “Dog” for Thor’s sake. That all changed by the time the next book came around and that’s *fine*. I’m not at all bothered by that. But why is he having one character give another crap for behaviors that were, by any meaningful metric, performed by an entirely different person?

    And this isn’t even like we’re holding current Haley accountable for GothTeenHaley’s behavior (just as an example). This is almost like holding Haley-from-universe-A accountable for something Haley-from-universe-B did.

    And since then, Roy has never interacted with a goblin or goblinoid outside of a literal war. This particular Roy has NEVER had a chance to be a better person. And Durkon literally needed his god to tell him to reach out, and it wasn’t out of altruism either. Stones and glass houses...

  30. - Top - End - #300
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by Empiar93 View Post
    I’m not railing on the Giant for changing his story. I’m annoyed that he’s having one character hold the changed story against another character.
    When they were in Dorukan’s dungeon, those goblins (including Redcloak) were little more than employees of Xykon. Roy was also a different character. He called people “Dog” for Thor’s sake. That all changed by the time the next book came around and that’s *fine*. I’m not at all bothered by that. But why is he having one character give another crap for behaviors that were, by any meaningful metric, performed by an entirely different person?

    And this isn’t even like we’re holding current Haley accountable for GothTeenHaley’s behavior (just as an example). This is almost like holding Haley-from-universe-A accountable for something Haley-from-universe-B did.

    And since then, Roy has never interacted with a goblin or goblinoid outside of a literal war. This particular Roy has NEVER had a chance to be a better person. And Durkon literally needed his god to tell him to reach out, and it wasn’t out of altruism either. Stones and glass houses...
    Because stories have to be continuative? Yes, the writing has evolved but that doesn't mean the events for the characters didn't happen, and that they can't reflect on them (or, in meta-sense, he as a writer can't reflect on them via the characters). Writers do it all the time, so this response is very bewildering.

    Durkon's hardly calling Roy a bad person, he's pointing out a slightly failing on his (and everyone else's in the Order's) part. That's it.
    Last edited by Rrmcklin; 2021-05-03 at 09:01 PM.
    I'd just like to point out that saying that something unsupported is the case unless someone else can prove that it is not is an utter failure of logic. - Kish

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •