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

[Worldsong]

Whether immortality is a curse or not is hard to say, but I agree that it's not a bad thing that those who feel like they've experienced all they want or need to experience have a way to peacefully fade away.

[Shieldheart]

It's concerning and disappointing to me that people are missing the entire point of what the Giant is trying to convey through the story and specifically with the goblins' plight, to the extent of justifying some pretty terrible things. There isn't any thematic degradation or character derailment going on. Quite the contrary; the threads are being brought together and affirmed. I, for one, hope the Giant firmly continues with his vision as it is, and doesn't deviate under pressure from fans claiming OotS is 'ruined' or anything of the sort.

[Spartan360]

Loss of Identity is very often seen as an even worse fate than death in a lot of fiction.

For example in one part of Jojo's Bizzare adventures, a character sacrifices themselves to save another, a character states that they will use the current part's McGuffin to revive them afterwards but is refused since the dying character knows in that universe that you can't actually bring someone back from the dead and instead creates a second same person and so rather wants to die as themselves instead of having their memories and existence being erased and taken over by a false one.

Though it is something that you have to fear about Vampires (Both the original and vampire personalities) in D&D.

[M1982]

For some versions of D&D, yes this is how it works. Not necessarily for all of them. It's always been a rather obscure part of lore and not really a hard and fast rule.

It's pretty clearly spelled out in On Hallowed Grounds. Once a soul has been purified enough it merges. Either with it's plane or with it's deity. The later can vary from being absorbed during a last loving embrace by your good deity to being literally devoured by your evil deity.

Considering that gods cannot intervene after a world is created (as per 1232), that Fenris abandoned the goblins when his strategy for them failed and they survived, and that there is a world inside the Snarl (who presumably unmade the Eastern Pantheon and therefore is a world with no gods), I would say that odds are extremely high that yes, mortals can live without gods just fine.

Just because Fenris stopped paying particular attention to them doesn't mean he's not still there to do his general job. Likewise we don't know whether there is life at all on the world inside the rift and if there is whether the Snarl fills in for the missing deities.

If the sun actually stops rising once the last deity of the sun has faded away, then mortals can't live without deities performing their divine routines

[Shadowknight12]

If the sun actually stops rising once the last deity of the sun has faded away, then mortals can't live without deities performing their divine routines

Since the Creed of Stone was gaining divine power from worshiping elemental earth, it's possible mortals could worship the sun itself rather than any gods of the sun, and avoid that fate altogether.

[Jason]

It's pretty clearly spelled out in On Hallowed Grounds. Once a soul has been purified enough it merges. Either with it's plane or with it's deity. The later can vary from being absorbed during a last loving embrace by your good deity to being literally devoured by your evil deity.

Which is a Planescape setting book, not a core book. It's also from 1996, late in 2nd edition's lifespan.
It also claims that spirits that merge with their god don't completely loose their identity.

[Bootman]

So, I stopped posting on this thread because it had gotten to the point where my arguments were being repeated and the other discussions weren't as directly relevant to the technical writing issues I wanted to discuss. With the new comic we can make a few more definitive statements and we've lost another chance to fix these writing issues while a whole new set came forward. I'll try and go by panel since it is a bit dense.

Panel 1 Durkon states the Thor's position was that since he didn't make the Goblins it wasn't his problem to fix it by correlating it with Roy's statement about the easy path. Thor's actual position was that he couldn't do anything because even if literally every God agreed to make the Goblin's lands better they would not be able to due to pre-established limitations. If Thor had the ability to snap his fingers and make the Goblins lands better it seems like he would have considered it, because he didn't say he wouldn't do it just that he couldn't do it.

Panel 2 I've already demonstrated in a very clear fashion that there is no proof of a meaningful disadvantage to the Goblin ancestors or even current Goblins. Even if we accept that they were disadvantaged we'd have no reason to assume it's worse than the Western Continent. Which, speaking of the buck stopping somewhere, they did nothing to resolve what's going on there. Personally I think resource shortages leading to generations of infighting, slavery and war would take precedence over anything going on with the Goblins.

The issue here isn't just saying "The Goblins are fine because other people have it bad too", the point is that there was no meaningful moral postulating and action from either of these characters back then, so what's the difference now? You need to establish why the Goblin situation is so much more impactful, unjust or character-driven for them to have this reaction.

Panel 3 So, is this really how morals work? Literally everything a God does during the creation of a world will have a knock-on effect on others. If a God does something that ends up harming one group and benefiting another, is the god who benefited morally at fault? If this isn't a moral judgement and just Durkon stating the facts of the case, fine. But that really doesn't seem to be the framing.

Panel 4 I think a lot of the discussion in the main thread centers around panel 4. One side is saying this is essentially Durkon imposing racial guilt on people who have just enjoyed their supposed natural advantages. The other side is saying Durkon and Roy really just end up talking about themselves specifically since they're such good people. So, in English, when we refer to somebody or a group using words like "She, he, we" etc those remain consistent until the context changes. Durkon establishes in the first part of his speech that 'we' are the races that benefited from the state of the world. Then he says 'we' need to take responsibility for our role in a bad set up. This is absolutely referring to the races as a whole since we have to remain consistent. So whether you agree with the message or not, that is what Durkon is saying there.

Panel 5 In panel 5, we get the context change I was referring to. "Now that we know". At this point Durkon is referring to Roy and himself since obviously every one of the aforementioned races is not aware of what they're discussing. Now, character wise, if you want to tell me Durkon is the type to correct any injustice whenever he sees it even at risk of the world being destroyed, I could potentially agree. But then it becomes a contradiction that he ignored so much injustice along the way. The typical argument here is that characters aren't perfect or they grow and change with time. If so I would ask you to point to the exact moment that Durkon became more concerned with injustice then he was before. Show me the definitive moment in his character arc that informs this sudden change.

Panel 7 This is what we would call a nitpick, but did Roy really get started being a hero just to save people who look like him? I know he's referring to his father her, but how about we consult comic #113. Roy became a fighter because he was inspired by the legends of his family, especially Horace Greenhilt. This is what we call a 'nitpick'. Roy states why he became a hero, we have a very mild contradiction, but to me it hurts the comedy of the joke because it is no longer character accurate as I have discussed previously.

Nothing I mentioned in my original post or included after has been addressed by this comic and it in fact doubled down on some of the worst things. I'm going to take a quick break from my usual focus on the technical writing of the scene and talk about themes real quick. It has characterized having any kind of systemic advantage as an injustice to be righted. Whether you agree with that or you disagree with it, what I really want to ask is something more basic.

Spoiler: Start of Darkness Spoiler

Show

Was Right-Eye wrong when he said life is not a contest (or something to that effect)? His village didn't need all the same things humans had to be happy and healthy, and in the book I would go so far as to say he was presented as correct, but now we see very clearly that life is a contest between the races and those that are winning, whether through resources or accomplishment, are morally compelled to 'take responsibility'

[Shadowknight12]

With the new comic we can make a few more definitive statements and we've lost another chance to fix these writing issues while a whole new set came forward.

[...]

Nothing I mentioned in my original post or included after has been addressed by this comic and it in fact doubled down on some of the worst things.

I can't speak for anybody other than myself, but I do not find myself compelled to read through your post or listen to your arguments when your default starting position is "the comic has Issues, which have not been Fixed" (as though they were mistakes that ought to be corrected). It does not communicate an approach on your part as someone interested in understanding, but rather in passing judgment, which discourages me personally from approaching your post with understanding in turn.

[Precure]

I still don't get an answer about "why do goblins live on poor land and who placed them there."

[Dion]

I still don't get an answer about "why do goblins live on poor land and who placed them there."

Hmm... they apparently live there because that’s what’s available, and the lands started poor because no god improved them during world creation.

And like that old decrepit dry cleaning shop downtown next to the burned out movie theater, there’s nobody willing to clean up the situation, so it seeps into the groundwater and eventually poisons everyone.

[4g3hq52tqeag]

The problem I see is that there isn't really a line of reasoning that damns the gods without also condemning the person behind them. Most of the lines and transgressions-
We didn't make the goblins, FenrisRich made the goblins.
Your conflicts and lives sustain usthe writer.
apply equally to the writer and profiteer of the plot.

When the reader accepts Durkon's view and follows the reasoning to the top, the gods are just as powerless as the mortals. And it's a fairly natural progression. The real creator is as responsible for the Goblin situation as the fictional ones. It's obviously commentary, but thanks to the uniqueness of the stick world it's not really applicable outside this comic. Which makes it a condemnation of the creator and audience.

[Kish]

That doesn't make any sense. Rich isn't a character in OotS. Saying that no one is responsible for anything because the only real person here is the author is utterly missing the point not only of these last few strips, not only the entire comic, but every fictional work ever, at a stroke.

[4g3hq52tqeag]

Gonna do this piece by piece

That doesn't make any sense.

Then ask for more information. Don't make assumptions.

Rich isn't a character in OotS.

Never said he was.

Saying that no one is responsible for anything because the only real person here is the author is utterly missing the point not only of these last few strips, not only the entire comic, but every fictional work ever, at a stroke.

And this is just insulting. The story has become commentary on racial inequality in D&D. If that commentary comes with it's own set of plot holes, it needs to be redressed or repaired.

[arimareiji]

Me, I just want to know when someone will address my deep insightful commentary on the similarity of Elan to Cosette from Les Miserables. Until someone does, I win the internet.

*looks sweet and innocent*

[The Patterner]

So, I stopped posting on this thread because it had gotten to the point where my arguments were being repeated and the other discussions weren't as directly relevant to the technical writing issues I wanted to discuss. With the new comic we can make a few more definitive statements and we've lost another chance to fix these writing issues while a whole new set came forward. I'll try and go by panel since it is a bit dense.

All writing have technical issues, however it's important to separate actual issues from perceived flaws because you don't agree with the choices.

Panel 1 Durkon states the Thor's position was that since he didn't make the Goblins it wasn't his problem to fix it by correlating it with Roy's statement about the easy path. Thor's actual position was that he couldn't do anything because even if literally every God agreed to make the Goblin's lands better they would not be able to due to pre-established limitations. If Thor had the ability to snap his fingers and make the Goblins lands better it seems like he would have considered it, because he didn't say he wouldn't do it just that he couldn't do it.

Either Thor is lying or he has never bothered to think about it, but fact is that what you said above is not really true. First off, if all the gods agreed they could change weather patterns, order their followers to stop killing goblins on sight or just have food delivered from the heavens. Sure, it will take time for the changes to stabilize, the goblins need to play nice and it's most likely hard. But if all the gods agreed they could do it.

If only the good gods agree they can still instruct their followers to try and make peace with the goblins (essentially treat goblins as they would treat humans, elves etc). If they can get the Dark one to agree to this he could tell the goblins the same. It wouldn't change everything overnight. But it would change it in the long run.

So no, the gods can do things, they have just never considered it.

Panel 2 I've already demonstrated in a very clear fashion that there is no proof of a meaningful disadvantage to the Goblin ancestors or even current Goblins. Even if we accept that they were disadvantaged we'd have no reason to assume it's worse than the Western Continent. Which, speaking of the buck stopping somewhere, they did nothing to resolve what's going on there. Personally I think resource shortages leading to generations of infighting, slavery and war would take precedence over anything going on with the Goblins.

The issue here isn't just saying "The Goblins are fine because other people have it bad too", the point is that there was no meaningful moral postulating and action from either of these characters back then, so what's the difference now? You need to establish why the Goblin situation is so much more impactful, unjust or character-driven for them to have this reaction.

This is one of the few technical issues I agree with. Rich could have done a better job in showing that the goblins have it as hard as Redcloak says. As it is however we as readers have two choices:

1. Accept that the reason Roy and Durkon find themselves agreeing with Redcloak on that specific point is becauce Redcloak is right.
2. Not accept it and set yourself up for disapointment, becuse Rich has decided that the goblins in his world has it worse than others because they are goblins. Humans on the western continent have it hard because they live on the western continent, goblins have it hard wherever they live (except Gobbtopia nowadays).

I'm going with the first alternative, I have seen insufficient evidence in the comic to contradict Redcloak, and that coupled with Roys and Durkons acceptence is enough.

Panel 3 So, is this really how morals work? Literally everything a God does during the creation of a world will have a knock-on effect on others. If a God does something that ends up harming one group and benefiting another, is the god who benefited morally at fault? If this isn't a moral judgement and just Durkon stating the facts of the case, fine. But that really doesn't seem to be the framing.

Being born rich isn't morally wrong, being born poor isn't morally wrong. Realizing that being born rich gives you a leg up on someone being born poor is just common sense.

If someone however use their wealth to deliberately make life harder for the poor, I'd call that immoral. Altough there are obviously levels in hell here (and some of them are not even in hell).

Panel 4 I think a lot of the discussion in the main thread centers around panel 4. One side is saying this is essentially Durkon imposing racial guilt on people who have just enjoyed their supposed natural advantages. The other side is saying Durkon and Roy really just end up talking about themselves specifically since they're such good people. So, in English, when we refer to somebody or a group using words like "She, he, we" etc those remain consistent until the context changes. Durkon establishes in the first part of his speech that 'we' are the races that benefited from the state of the world. Then he says 'we' need to take responsibility for our role in a bad set up. This is absolutely referring to the races as a whole since we have to remain consistent. So whether you agree with the message or not, that is what Durkon is saying there.

Yes.

Panel 5 In panel 5, we get the context change I was referring to. "Now that we know". At this point Durkon is referring to Roy and himself since obviously every one of the aforementioned races is not aware of what they're discussing. Now, character wise, if you want to tell me Durkon is the type to correct any injustice whenever he sees it even at risk of the world being destroyed, I could potentially agree. But then it becomes a contradiction that he ignored so much injustice along the way. The typical argument here is that characters aren't perfect or they grow and change with time. If so I would ask you to point to the exact moment that Durkon became more concerned with injustice then he was before. Show me the definitive moment in his character arc that informs this sudden change.

Name the exact point that blue stops being blue and turns purple and then red.

Panel 7 This is what we would call a nitpick, but did Roy really get started being a hero just to save people who look like him? I know he's referring to his father her, but how about we consult comic #113. Roy became a fighter because he was inspired by the legends of his family, especially Horace Greenhilt. This is what we call a 'nitpick'. Roy states why he became a hero, we have a very mild contradiction, but to me it hurts the comedy of the joke because it is no longer character accurate as I have discussed previously.

You did'nt find the joke funny, neither did I.
Moving on.

Nothing I mentioned in my original post or included after has been addressed by this comic and it in fact doubled down on some of the worst things. I'm going to take a quick break from my usual focus on the technical writing of the scene and talk about themes real quick. It has characterized having any kind of systemic advantage as an injustice to be righted. Whether you agree with that or you disagree with it, what I really want to ask is something more basic.

Spoiler: Start of Darkness Spoiler

Show

Was Right-Eye wrong when he said life is not a contest (or something to that effect)? His village didn't need all the same things humans had to be happy and healthy, and in the book I would go so far as to say he was presented as correct, but now we see very clearly that life is a contest between the races and those that are winning, whether through resources or accomplishment, are morally compelled to 'take responsibility'

With great power comes great responsibility.

[Telenil]

I've already said it in the discussion thread, but why are the heroes acting like what happened to the goblins' ancestors makes a difference? Let's say the original goblins had been given a great deal but ended up in the same position for some other reason (mistakes, a coalition against them, poor luck...). Would the heroes still care about the fates of the goblins today? I hope so, but in that case what happened to the goblins' ancestors is quite obviously irrelevant.

[Mechalich]

With great power comes great responsibility.

The writing issue I see is that the 'great power' in this case is that of the Gods, while Durkon is implying that responsibility for fixing the goblin's disadvantage lies with the mortals.

The goblins were created by Fenris, who is presumably CE. That an evil god created an evil thing in a world where gods of all alignments get their piece is normal. The goblins might not be inherently evil themselves, but the situation in which they were created was intended to turn them to the worship of a monstrously evil deity so that he would get their souls upon death. Their situation is therefore awful because it was intended to be so as part of the division of the world among the deities.

The world of OOTS was not created by a single benevolent deity. This is very important. It is not a world of 'good' it is a world with roughly equal amounts of good, neutral, and evil. This is a world where the Problem of Evil does not exist as a philosophical question because evil is simply understood to be a natural component of existence.

So the 'great responsibility' for the problem with the goblins rightly lies with Fenris, but, and this cannot be stressed enough: he's irredeemably evil and does not care.

And if the Dark One did not exist it would simply be that clear cut. However, the Dark One does exist, and that's what allows the current plot to even happen at all (regardless of whether or not its well justified). Essentially, through some inexplicable circumstance the current 'World Instance' that the gods created acquired a new admin while the game was running. And said admin is obligated to manage a group that started in a disadvantaged position that he is not responsible for creating. He's cheesed about this and thinks that the other gods have it out for him. They don't, it's just that Fenris CE and poisoned the well so it seems like that. If the Dark One had been the one to create the goblins and he'd managed them from the start then the whole situation would never have arisen at all.

This, actually, is something that could be addressed at the deity level, by promising the Dark One an appropriate share in creating a new world. In fact that's probably the most equitable solution from the divine perspective.

[The Patterner]

I've already said it in the discussion thread, but why are the heroes acting like what happened to the goblins' ancestors makes a difference? Let's say the original goblins had been given a great deal but ended up in the same position for some other reason (mistakes, a coalition against them, poor luck...). Would the heroes still care about the fates of the goblins today? I hope so, but in that case what happened to the goblins' ancestors is quite obviously irrelevant.

Partially agree, partially disagree.

A long history of oppression will create a negative cultural feedback loop. My ancestors failed because they were goblins, and that led to me having a worse starting position.

I do however feel that this question is reaaally hard having without getting into real life politics so I'll bow out of this one.

[The Patterner]

The writing issue I see is that the 'great power' in this case is that of the Gods, while Durkon is implying that responsibility for fixing the goblin's disadvantage lies with the mortals.

The goblins were created by Fenris, who is presumably CE. That an evil god created an evil thing in a world where gods of all alignments get their piece is normal. The goblins might not be inherently evil themselves, but the situation in which they were created was intended to turn them to the worship of a monstrously evil deity so that he would get their souls upon death. Their situation is therefore awful because it was intended to be so as part of the division of the world among the deities.

The world of OOTS was not created by a single benevolent deity. This is very important. It is not a world of 'good' it is a world with roughly equal amounts of good, neutral, and evil. This is a world where the Problem of Evil does not exist as a philosophical question because evil is simply understood to be a natural component of existence.

So the 'great responsibility' for the problem with the goblins rightly lies with Fenris, but, and this cannot be stressed enough: he's irredeemably evil and does not care.

And if the Dark One did not exist it would simply be that clear cut. However, the Dark One does exist, and that's what allows the current plot to even happen at all (regardless of whether or not its well justified). Essentially, through some inexplicable circumstance the current 'World Instance' that the gods created acquired a new admin while the game was running. And said admin is obligated to manage a group that started in a disadvantaged position that he is not responsible for creating. He's cheesed about this and thinks that the other gods have it out for him. They don't, it's just that Fenris CE and poisoned the well so it seems like that. If the Dark One had been the one to create the goblins and he'd managed them from the start then the whole situation would never have arisen at all.

This, actually, is something that could be addressed at the deity level, by promising the Dark One an appropriate share in creating a new world. In fact that's probably the most equitable solution from the divine perspective.

The great power in this case referred to the side that was winning. The original saying(s) that Stan Lee based it on refers to how people in stronger positions have an moral obligation to help those less fortunate.

[AdAstra]

The writing issue I see is that the 'great power' in this case is that of the Gods, while Durkon is implying that responsibility for fixing the goblin's disadvantage lies with the mortals.

The goblins were created by Fenris, who is presumably CE. That an evil god created an evil thing in a world where gods of all alignments get their piece is normal. The goblins might not be inherently evil themselves, but the situation in which they were created was intended to turn them to the worship of a monstrously evil deity so that he would get their souls upon death. Their situation is therefore awful because it was intended to be so as part of the division of the world among the deities.

The world of OOTS was not created by a single benevolent deity. This is very important. It is not a world of 'good' it is a world with roughly equal amounts of good, neutral, and evil. This is a world where the Problem of Evil does not exist as a philosophical question because evil is simply understood to be a natural component of existence.

So the 'great responsibility' for the problem with the goblins rightly lies with Fenris, but, and this cannot be stressed enough: he's irredeemably evil and does not care.

And if the Dark One did not exist it would simply be that clear cut. However, the Dark One does exist, and that's what allows the current plot to even happen at all (regardless of whether or not its well justified). Essentially, through some inexplicable circumstance the current 'World Instance' that the gods created acquired a new admin while the game was running. And said admin is obligated to manage a group that started in a disadvantaged position that he is not responsible for creating. He's cheesed about this and thinks that the other gods have it out for him. They don't, it's just that Fenris CE and poisoned the well so it seems like that. If the Dark One had been the one to create the goblins and he'd managed them from the start then the whole situation would never have arisen at all.

This, actually, is something that could be addressed at the deity level, by promising the Dark One an appropriate share in creating a new world. In fact that's probably the most equitable solution from the divine perspective.

Durkon's obviously not going to agree with this solution barring the most extenuating circumstances, because it involves destroying the world he lives in. Which would result in most living dwarves getting sent to Hel. Roy would probably not look at the gods any more favorably even if that was their plan. Instead of fixing your mistake, you just kill everyone affected and start over? For someone more or less ambivalent to the gods, that would likely come off as shirking responsibility even more. Not helped that Roy enjoys being alive. And that was a major point raised in the strip. Not only is fixing the goblin's situation a reasonable thing to do, it's also a potential path to saving the entire world

Plus, while it's not really "fair" that mortals are responsible for the gods' failures, it's totally reasonable for a Good character to believe that people have responsibility to stop bad things even if the bad things aren't their fault. To say "well I didn't start it, so I have no responsibility" is to pass the buck yet again, and in this case passing the buck literally ends the world. Being a bystander to a pressing issue is very much not in the MO of most adventurers and Lawful Good individuals. Taking a stand is to be expected

[Worldsong]

The mindset that you should only feel motivated to fix problems you yourself caused seems like it's more suitable for Neutral characters.

[Wikimaster]

I can't speak for anybody other than myself, but I do not find myself compelled to read through your post or listen to your arguments when your default starting position is "the comic has Issues, which have not been Fixed" (as though they were mistakes that ought to be corrected). It does not communicate an approach on your part as someone interested in understanding, but rather in passing judgment, which discourages me personally from approaching your post with understanding in turn.

If I can give this post a like, I will.

Edit: Sorry for the short response.

[Telenil]

The mindset that you should only feel motivated to fix problems you yourself caused seems like it's more suitable for Neutral characters.

Yes, but there is always so much injustice in the world that you have to prioritize sooner than later. It's more complicated than "you are Good, why don't you care about MY particular problem?".

Any time spent dealing with the goblins is time not spent, say, stopping Tarquin and associates from conquering their continent. One can certainly argue goblins should come first and the Empire of Blood later, if only because they have to deal with Redcloak right now, but this has more to do with pragmatism than a moral imperative.

[SN137]

I quit now

[Worldsong]

Yes, but there is always so much injustice in the world that you have to prioritize sooner than later. It's more complicated than "you are Good, why don't you care about MY particular problem?".

Any time spent dealing with the goblins is time not spent, say, stopping Tarquin and associates from conquering their continent. One can certainly argue goblins should come first and the Empire of Blood later, if only because they have to deal with Redcloak right now, but this has more to do with pragmatism than a moral imperative.

Maybe, but my comment was made in response to people who seem to be taking the stance that responsibility is the same as guilt, or that there is no reason for the heroes to help the goblinoids at all.

The people who say "Helping the goblinoids is good, but we can't help everyone at the same time" are completely irrelevant to my comment.

[Wikimaster]

I don't like it at all. It takes something someone did and just tells them to go away. Like it's a free webcomic about fantasy stick figures, the stakes and personal investment can't get much lower.
Why is interacting with people causing me to lose the will to live? Can't we understand something and not like it, even if someone else understood it and liked it? Like why does someone have to be dumb?

-Deleted Content-

[Worldsong]

Executing self-scrub.

[Wikimaster]

I think it's against the rules to accuse people of arguing in bad faith.

Let me review the rules, then.

Edit: I deleted the accusation after reading the rules.

[Worldsong]

I don't like it at all. It takes something someone did and just tells them to go away. Like it's a free webcomic about fantasy stick figures, the stakes and personal investment can't get much lower.
Why is interacting with people causing me to lose the will to live? Can't we understand something and not like it, even if someone else understood it and liked it? Like why does someone have to be dumb?

Shadowknight didn't tell Bootman to go away, he just said that he personally doesn't find Bootman's perspective and consequent input engaging.

[SN137]

I quit now