Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

[Shadowknight12]

The system was created by committee, and as has been pointed out multiple times, the good gods are outnumbered by the evil and neutral gods together.

Want a better system? Work to give more power to the gods who care about their creations and things like justice, or to diminish the power of the evil and neutral gods who don't care. That would seem to be easier than trying to eliminate all of the gods together.

Again, this is doing the same thing Redcloak is doing, prioritizing the wellbeing of theoretical future beings that do not yet exist while continuing to exploit those that do currently exist. Letting the gods die dooms future (non-existent) beings, yes, but it actually helps people being exploited right now.

[Jason]

Again, this is doing the same thing Redcloak is doing, prioritizing the wellbeing of theoretical future beings that do not yet exist while continuing to exploit those that do currently exist. Letting the gods die dooms future (non-existent) beings, yes, but it actually helps people being exploited right now.

You don't think the good gods could do more for the people who exist now if they had more power or made up more of the total pantheons (and therefore had more votes)? Or, alternately, that less evil would be done to the people living right now if you seriously hampered the power of the evil gods?

[Taevyr]

Since that appears to be goblin Dan as an older fellow in the foreground telling this story in the future, doesn't that mean the world will indeed be saved from the Snarl, and at least one goblin will have a prosperous and happy ending?

I've always liked that implication, personally.

[Shadowknight12]

You dont think the good gods could do more for the people who exist now if they had more power or made up more of the total pantheons (and therefore had more votes)? Or, alternately, that less evil would be done to the people living right now if you seriously hampered the power of the evil gods?

No, I don't. Good gods may be morally better than neutral or evil gods in many ways, but they are still complicit in an exploitative system that they benefit of, and "exploitation but with a smiley face" is still exploitation.

As for the second point, yes, less evil would be done to people right now by hampering evil gods, but empowering the good gods would also result in more evil being done to people, since a lot of good gods are of the "smite" variety and they have done some terrible things to monster races! Or did you think that the gods empowering the good-aligned clerics and lawful good paladins of the Sapphire Guard, and condoning their genocidal actions, were not good-aligned? Because they certainly had the power to punish Miko when she bisected an unarmed octogenarian, but not to punish any paladin or cleric that slaughtered unarmed goblin civilians in their name.

[Jason]

No, I don't. Good gods may be morally better than neutral or evil gods in many ways, but they are still complicit in an exploitative system that they benefit of, and "exploitation but with a smiley face" is still exploitation.

If they had not agreed to participate in the current system they might have doomed the world to a system with only evil and neutral gods. I daresay that more exploitation, evil, and suffering would be present in such a world, without any good-aligned gods to give aid.

As for the second point, yes, less evil would be done to people right now by hampering evil gods, but empowering the good gods would also result in more evil being done to people, since a lot of good gods are of the "smite" variety and they have done some terrible things to monster races! Or did you think that the gods empowering the good-aligned clerics and lawful good paladins of the Sapphire Guard, and condoning their genocidal actions, were not good-aligned? Because they certainly had the power to punish Miko when she bisected an unarmed octogenarian, but not to punish any paladin or cleric that slaughtered unarmed goblin civilians in their name.

Personally I think that using paladins in a mass slaughter of goblins and then not showing them all fall was a mistake on the author's part. Paladins simply should not be able to do that and get away with it.

Given that they apparently did get away with it in the narrative, well, the Southern Gods are a pantheon of 12 that includes good, neutral, and evil gods. If they all have a vote of when a paladin falls and the majority vote carries the day then, again, the good gods who care are outnumbered by the evil and neutral gods who don't. A solution is again to give the good gods more votes or the evil and neutral gods fewer.

[Shadowknight12]

If they had not agreed to participate in the current system they might have doomed the world to a system with only evil and neutral gods. I daresay that more exploitation, evil, and suffering would be present in such a world, without any good-aligned gods to give aid.

Doesn't change my "let them all die" opinion at all. "Somewhat less awful exploitation" is still exploitation. If we can't have gods without exploitation then hey, maybe it's okay to not have gods at all! After all, as I stated before, OOTS has non-godly sources of divine power (Creed of Stone), so mortals can still have all the benefits of divine magic with none of the exploitation.

Personally I think that using paladins in a mass slaughter of goblins and then not showing them all fall was a mistake on the author's part. Paladins simply should not be able to do that and get away with it.

It's only a mistake if you think that the author isn't making a deliberate point here. To me, the whole point of that is to prove that, when the chips are down, the good gods are fundamentally just as bad as the rest (something that gets reinforced in the Godsmoot when alignment is completely irrelevant re: their votes).

Given that they apparently did get away with it in the narrative, well, the Southern Gods are a pantheon of 12 that includes good, neutral, and evil gods. If they all have a vote of when a paladin falls and the majority vote carries the day then, again, the good gods who care are outnumbered by the evil and neutral gods who don't. A solution is again to give the good gods more votes or the evil and neutral gods fewer.

Or just not have any at all! And then they don't have to live under the tyranny of a powerful being that exploits you for your soul-juice before you're even born and after you die, and doesn't care what happens to you so long as they get a steady stream of meals and are secure in their oligarchic power over mortals.

[hungrycrow]

It's only a mistake if you think that the author isn't making a deliberate point here. To me, the whole point of that is to prove that, when the chips are down, the good gods are fundamentally just as bad as the rest (something that gets reinforced in the Godsmoot when alignment is completely irrelevant re: their votes).

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the Giant's point isn't that everyone who doesn't sufficiently recognize and combat systemic oppression deserves to die.

[Shadowknight12]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that the Giant's point isn't that everyone who doesn't sufficiently recognize and combat systemic oppression deserves to die.

I completely agree, and if you trace back the conversation you will see this comes from being asked what I would do and how I would solve the situation with the current information available, and then being criticized over that.

As I said in the post where I answered: I do not expect the Giant to go that route. I expect some sort of third option we currently do not have enough information to speculate about.

[Ionathus]

Yeah, put me in the camp that says all the god stuff is just there to put the plot in motion: what truly matters will be how the mortals treat each other, not how the gods fix everything or whether the mortals should kill all the gods.

[Telenil]

Took longer than I expected for someone to react with that strip

Also, clear proof of universal goblin cruelty: they don't just enslave the Hydra to use its body for eternal sustenance, their lack of hygienic methods for butchering/transport of the meat and the fact that they exclusively sell it after it was barbecued inside a grubby hut clearly shows they have no care at all for their customers' wellbeing. And they spread that harmful indifference worldwide in their fame!

How can some doubt the Evilness of goblinkind? It's been decades, the owner of this bar is a celebrity, and not one goblin has considered the perspective of the hydra. Sapphire Guard did nothing wrong!

It's only a mistake if you think that the author isn't making a deliberate point here. To me, the whole point of that is to prove that, when the chips are down, the good gods are fundamentally just as bad as the rest (something that gets reinforced in the Godsmoot when alignment is completely irrelevant re: their votes).

I remember more Evil gods voting nuke, and more Good gods voting wait. Didn't they?

Or just not have any at all! And then they don't have to live under the tyranny of a powerful being that exploits you for your soul-juice before you're even born and after you die, and doesn't care what happens to you so long as they get a steady stream of meals and are secure in their oligarchic power over mortals.

Mortals have some leverage once they know the rules. "Do X or we will pray someone who will" would give the god pause. That's not democracy, but it would add something of a popular check on the "divine oligarchy".

[Jason]

Doesn't change my "let them all die" opinion at all. "Somewhat less awful exploitation" is still exploitation. If we can't have gods without exploitation then hey, maybe it's okay to not have gods at all! After all, as I stated before, OOTS has non-godly sources of divine power (Creed of Stone), so mortals can still have all the benefits of divine magic with none of the exploitation.

But without the gods there would have been no mortals or world created in the first place. So you can argue that the current world can go forward without gods, but answering the question of whether or not the good gods should have participated in its creation depends entirely on whether more good was done by their participation than evil. That would seem likely to me.

The gods could not ask the mortals for their permission before they created them, but I note that the good gods do not force mortals to worship them, despite very much needing that worship to survive.

It's only a mistake if you think that the author isn't making a deliberate point here. To me, the whole point of that is to prove that, when the chips are down, the good gods are fundamentally just as bad as the rest (something that gets reinforced in the Godsmoot when alignment is completely irrelevant re: their votes).

Which again is sort of breaking the suspension of disbelief. Literally godlike intellects devoted to good should not In the end be as fundamentally bad as the evil gods.

Re the godsmoot: some of the good votes to destroy the world were I'm sure really motivated by a desire to spare mortal souls from being devoured by the Snarl. Genuine concern for their welfare, in other words.

Or just not have any at all! And then they don't have to live under the tyranny of a powerful being that exploits you for your soul-juice before you're even born and after you die, and doesn't care what happens to you so long as they get a steady stream of meals and are secure in their oligarchic power over mortals.

But some of them do seem to care, and are not tyrants. The exploitation in the system is a direct result of having a system set up by a majority of gods who didn't care, not a necessary feature of the existence of gods. A system set up by a majority of gods who did care would be different. A world created by a majority of good gods could be a very pleasant place to live indeed.
You are advocating throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

[masamune1]

Because people keep pushing this black and white narrative where the gods have no other choice but to exploit intelligent races for sustenance? If it comes down to that and we have to choose between the lives of [those responsible for the conscious exploitation of innocents] and [the aforementioned innocents], I will pick the latter. That doesn't mean I don't feel bad for the gods, I do, but if it really comes down to "only one may live" then I pick the ones that did not create a corrupt, exploitative system for their own benefit.

Pretty sure that both groups have created corrupt, exploitative systems for their own benefit though.

[Shadowknight12]

I remember more Evil gods voting nuke, and more Good gods voting wait. Didn't they?

Given that we don't know the canonical alignment of most of the gods that voted in the godsmoot, it's hard to tell if there was an actual lean, but we do know that Roy specifically says a lot of supposedly benevolent deities opted to throw them under the bus. That's as much as we get from an actual textual source.

Mortals have some leverage once they know the rules. "Do X or we will pray someone who will" would give the god pause. That's not democracy, but it would add something of a popular check on the "divine oligarchy".

The goblins abandoning Fenris for the Dark One didn't seem to affect him in any way, and we know that Hel is not actually worshiped by anyone but she still exists because she gets an (unbalanced) diet of souls. Odin got the same treatment last world and, even if he was mentally affected by that, he survived just fine.

Not that great of a bargaining chip.

But without the gods there would have been no mortals or world created in the first place. So you can argue that the current world can go forward without gods, but answering the question of whether or not the good gods should have participated in its creation depends entirely on whether more good was done by their participation than evil. That would seem likely to me.

Yes, I was asked what my solution would be for the current problem with the current information we have, and that's what I think best benefits the current people being exploited.

Also, "the exploitative system would have had more good if more good gods would have been allowed to participate" doesn't change the fact that it would have still been an exploitative system and this is like the fourth time I am typing this sentence so I genuinely don't know how to explain it in any other way. It literally doesn't matter how much "good" you put into a system that oppresses and exploits others, it doesn't matter how gentle and painless it is, it doesn't matter how sugarcoated or smiley-faced it is, it is still fundamentally, at its core, a system that exploits and oppresses others and if it can be stopped, then it should be stopped.

Which again is sort of breaking the suspension of disbelief. Literally godlike intellects devoted to good should not In the end be as fundamentally bad as the evil gods.

Re the godsmoot: some of the good votes to destroy the world were I'm sure really motivated by a desire to spare mortal souls from being devoured by the Snarl. Genuine concern for their welfare, in other words.

You're projecting a sense of what you think Good gods/paladins should be, and then saying the Giant made a mistake for not portraying them that way, or assuming intentions where none have been stated in the text.

But some of them do seem to care, and are not tyrants. The exploitation in the system is a direct result of having a system set up by a majority of gods who didn't care, not a necessary feature of the existence of gods. A system set up by a majority of gods who did care would be different. A world created by a majority of good gods could be a very pleasant place to live indeed.
You are advocating throwing out the baby with the bathwater.

Again, you are assuming that the good gods are helpless victims that were simply outvoted and that they were against the whole system and exploitation from the start, when no such thing has been presented to us in the text. If anything, Durkon himself says "I really didn't like how much that was not a firm no" when he presents Redcloak's grievances to Thor.

Thor does not say "we were outvoted, the was nothing we could do, we were helpless" but instead tries to justify the actions of the gods as a whole as simply doing what is necessary. In fact, Thor, a good god, defends the exploitation by comparing it to an ecosystem where some things consume others. This is a good god justifying his exploitation of the weak by saying "everyone has to get consumed in the end, sorry" and then getting upset when Durkon dismisses the rationalizations and accurately identifies what he said as being an exploitative system.

Pretty sure that both groups have created corrupt, exploitative systems for their own benefit though.

And? Those exploitative systems should be dismantled, too.

[masamune1]

And? Those exploitative systems should be dismantled, too.

You said if only the gods or the goblins got to live, you would choose the goblins to live and the gods to die because the gods created a corrupt and exploitative system.

Except that the goblins did the same thing, so by that logic they should be killed too, or it doesn't matter which one dies.

You weren't talking about which system should be dismantled; you were saying if a crooked system couldn't be dismantled then the ones who built it should be genocided in the hope of ending it.

[Dion]

Which again is sort of breaking the suspension of disbelief. Literally godlike intellects devoted to good should not In the end be as fundamentally bad as the evil gods.

Hmm. Yes, that is very odd. The story does seem to imply that even the godlike intellects devoted to good don’t care about the goblins enough to punish paladins when they slaughter goblins.

And the goblins in the story keeps complaining that nobody cares about the goblins.

And the main point of the book seems to be that nobody cares about goblins.

Hmmm... it seems like their are two options:

1) it really is true. Nobody cares about goblins,

or

2) some sort of twist ending will soon be revealed, where we find out that all the goblins were really just John Malkovich in a costume.

[Shadowknight12]

You weren't talking about which system should be dismantled; you were saying if a crooked system couldn't be dismantled then the ones who built it should be genocided in the hope of ending it.

This is a straight up fabrication. What I actually said was:

Because people keep pushing this black and white narrative where the gods have no other choice but to exploit intelligent races for sustenance? If it comes down to that and we have to choose between the lives of [those responsible for the conscious exploitation of innocents] and [the aforementioned innocents], I will pick the latter. That doesn't mean I don't feel bad for the gods, I do, but if it really comes down to "only one may live" then I pick the ones that did not create a corrupt, exploitative system for their own benefit.

Please note the first sentence, which says "they have no other choice". Mortals have other choices, they can live just fine without creating exploitative systems, and dismantling exploitative systems does not mean they have no other choice but die.

You frame my point as me advocating the gods should die as punishment for creating an exploitative system, which is incorrect. My point is that if dismantling oppressive systems should be the utmost priority and if the gods cannot survive without relying on an oppressive system, then that's unfortunate and I am sorry for them, but it is what it is.

[Jason]

Also, "the exploitative system would have had more good if more good gods would have been allowed to participate" doesn't change the fact that it would have still been an exploitative system and this is like the fourth time I am typing this sentence so I genuinely don't know how to explain it in any other way. It literally doesn't matter how much "good" you put into a system that oppresses and exploits others, it doesn't matter how gentle and painless it is, it doesn't matter how sugarcoated or smiley-faced it is, it is still fundamentally, at its core, a system that exploits and oppresses others and if it can be stopped, then it should be stopped.

Let me put it this way: The gods got together and decided to create Stickworld. They decided that the XP system would be in place, and that mortals would therefore be able to defeat other mortals to become more powerful. At this point the good gods were saying "this system is going to lead to a lot of mortals killing other mortals for the XP. What do we do?"
1) They could have said "We will have no part in this." At that point the Neutral and Evil gods would go on to create the world without any input from the good gods. Without the moderating influence of the Good gods this world would have been much more terrible than Stickworld. The good gods would grow weaker because they didn't have any belief or devotion coming their way and the cycle would continue to spiral downward with each new world they didn't participate in until there were no good gods left to object.
2) They could say "We don't like it, but we will accept it in order to help the lot of the mortals you're about to create." They compromised, and as a result Stickworld is exploitive at its base, but a much better world than it would have been had they not participated.

The question facing the good gods was between "a world without any good influences" and "a world that is fundamentally exploitive, but with us moderating things as best we can".
There was no option for the good gods to create a world that was not fundamentally exploitive, because they had to cooperate with the other gods in order to create a world at all. The choice by the good gods to participate then seems to have been a good one, as far as mortals are concerned.

You're projecting a sense of what you think Good gods/paladins should be, and then saying the Giant made a mistake for not portraying them that way, or assuming intentions where none have been stated in the text.

More like what the D&D rules say paladins are supposed to be (or did say, before the latest editions). But the Giant has made it clear he's not always following the rules. This is clear with his treatment of goblins as well (wrong size and color, to begin with).

Again, you are assuming that the good gods are helpless victims that were simply outvoted and that they were against the whole system and exploitation from the start, when no such thing has been presented to us in the text.

Maybe it will be addressed in a future comic. It seems clear that the good gods had to cooperate with the neutral and evil gods in order to create a world at all. Compromises therefore had to be made. Ninjas got thrown in with all the Western European pseudo-medieval stuff, and the XP system was accepted as the way for mortals to progress in power.

[masamune1]

This is a straight up fabrication. What I actually said was:



Please note the first sentence, which says "they have no other choice". Mortals have other choices, they can live just fine without creating exploitative systems, and dismantling exploitative systems does not mean they have no other choice but die.

You frame my point as me advocating the gods should die as punishment for creating an exploitative system, which is incorrect. My point is that if dismantling oppressive systems should be the utmost priority and if the gods cannot survive without relying on an oppressive system, then that's unfortunate and I am sorry for them, but it is what it is.

I'm not sure what mortal society has ever managed to create a wholly non-exploitative system.

If the gods went, then the goblins or some other group might be just as bad or worse- and not necessarily because they "have" to. The victims won't have a choice.

Whether it is a matter of punishment or not (which was not my intention) is irrelevant- you are advocating genocide as a solution to the problem (even if it is a "final" solution that you don't want to take). You actually think that exploitative systems are so bad that an entire race should die to get rid of them- and even though a new one will very likely take it's place.

[Shadowknight12]

There was no option for the good gods to create a world that was not fundamentally exploitive, because they had to cooperate with the other gods in order to create a world at all.

I fully understand and my opinions do not change.

You actually think that exploitative systems are so bad that an entire race should die to get rid of them- and even though a new one will very likely take it's place.

I do not agree with "letting them die" as being the literal same as actively murdering them, and I do not like the idea that gods can say "if you stop us from exploiting you, then we will die and you will all be guilty of genocide." I find the implications of that to be revolting.

[masamune1]

I do not agree with "letting them die" as being the literal same as actively murdering them, and I do not like the idea that gods can say "if you stop us from exploiting you, then we will die and you will all be guilty of genocide." I find the implications of that to be revolting.

Well, it is indeed genocide. Whether you like it or not.

and I do not like the idea that gods can say "if you stop us from exploiting you, then we will die and you will all be guilty of genocide."

I suppose you prefer it if they don't complain when they are starving to death.

[hamishspence]

Just as there's a difference between "murder" and "letting die" so there can be a difference between "genociding a species" and "allowing a species to die".

And "self-defence" is never murder - so a case can be made that "blocking a parasitic being from preying on you" is never murder too. The question is whether the gods' absorption of belief from mortal souls could be compared to parasitism.

[Shadowknight12]

Just as there's a difference between "murder" and "letting die" so there can be a difference between "genociding a species" and "allowing a species to die".

And "self-defence" is never murder - so a case can be made that "blocking a parasitic being from preying on you" is never murder too.

This is a better explanation of my earlier point, thank you.

[masamune1]

Just as there's a difference between "murder" and "letting die" so there can be a difference between "genociding a species" and "allowing a species to die".

And "self-defence" is never murder - so a case can be made that "blocking a parasitic being from preying on you" is never murder too. The question is whether the gods' absorption of belief from mortal souls could be compared to parasitism.

It is murder or genocide if you are intentionally engineering circumstances where said person or species will die.

Lots of cases of murder have been justified (by the perp) as a kind of self-defence, like shooting someone that you think is plotting to kill you or is exploiting you.

As to the gods, Skadi at least believes that new life is actively dependant on the gods.

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0999.html

Overall, I think this is more of a "circle of life" kind of deal. Gods need mortals, but mortals need them. Gods are influenced by mortals too, and many mortals would be much WORSE off if the gods weren't there to help them, not to mention the gods actually created them in the first place.

[hamishspence]

The concept of the gods as a race is also a bit questionable, given that mortals can transform into gods.

They're more of a template. Like vampires in that respect. The Dark one is a goblin with the God template, Dvalin is a Dwarf with the God template, the elven gods are Elves with the God template, and so forth.

[Jason]

Just as there's a difference between "murder" and "letting die" so there can be a difference between "genociding a species" and "allowing a species to die".

And "self-defence" is never murder - so a case can be made that "blocking a parasitic being from preying on you" is never murder too. The question is whether the gods' absorption of belief from mortal souls could be compared to parasitism.

If it does the mortal soul no damage and is not compelled in any way, both of which seem to be the case with the good gods at least,then I don't see it as parasitism. Symbiosis might be a better term.

Aren't "refusing to give the gods any worship so they all die out," and "confining the goblins to land that can't support them so they all die out," basically the same thing?

[RossN]

It is murder or genocide if you are intentionally engineering circumstances where said person or species will die.

Lots of cases of murder have been justified (by the perp) as a kind of self-defence, like shooting someone that you think is plotting to kill you or is exploiting you.

As to the gods, Skadi at least believes that new life is actively dependant on the gods.

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0999.html

Overall, I think this is more of a "circle of life" kind of deal. Gods need mortals, but mortals need them. Gods are influenced by mortals too, and many mortals would be much WORSE off if the gods weren't there to help them, not to mention the gods actually created them in the first place.

Indeed.

The way I see it the gods of the Stickverse are essentially the parents of the sapient races therein and I don't see providing them sustenance as any more 'exploitative' than supporting aged and infirm parents. indeed I find the concept of murdering them - and it is hard to see deliberately starving them as anything other than murder - horrifying.

[masamune1]

The concept of the gods as a race is also a bit questionable, given that mortals can transform into gods.

They're more of a template. Like vampires in that respect. The Dark one is a goblin with the God template, Dvalin is a Dwarf with the God template, the elven gods are Elves with the God template, and so forth.

Genocide does not only cover races, it covers the destruction of any group of people (and not just by killing them, mind)- ethnic groups, national groups, religious groups, gender groups etc can all be victims of genocide.

Also, the gods came before mortals, so if anything it is the mortals that are the template. They only look like elves, humans, goblins, dwarves etc because of the influence of the mortals they created- their true form is probably colour, but they are a separate race.

[hamishspence]

"Make the system non-exploitative" doesn't necessarily guarantee that the gods will starve.

The argument is that if the gods starving is an unavoidable byproduct of changing the system to remove the exploitative component, then that's acceptable.

Also, the gods came before mortals, so if anything it is the mortals that are the template. They only look like elves, humans, goblins, dwarves etc because of the influence of the mortals they created.

Not in the case of Dvalin, elven gods, and the Dark One - all of those are ascended mortals.

[RossN]

"Make the system non-exploitative" doesn't necessarily guarantee that the gods will starve.

The argument is that if the gods starving is an unavoidable byproduct of changing the system to remove the exploitative component, then that's acceptable.

If your 'answer' to solving a problem is "acceptable" mass murder I think you might have taken a wrong turn somewhere.

[masamune1]

"Make the system non-exploitative" doesn't necessarily guarantee that the gods will starve.

The argument is that if the gods starving is an unavoidable byproduct of changing the system to remove the exploitative component, then that's acceptable.

And the counter-argument is "no, it's not".

Not in the case of Dvalin, elven gods, and the Dark One - all of those are ascended mortals.

No, even those are shaped by their beliefs to some extent. The Dark One could hypothetically become an Elf if enough of his worshippers believed it to be so.

Regardless of that, genocide does not only cover races, and the ability to join a group does not mean that the group cannot be genocided.