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

[Empiar93]

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.

Better solution: in addition to this promise, ensure that he has proper influence and representation in the current world as long as he plays by the rules. Explain the nature and origin of the snarl in as certain terms as possible (whichever parts he already doesn’t know). This can be solved by the deities themselves even if the others don’t realize he has a 4th quiddity.

[Telenil]

Better solution: in addition to this promise, ensure that he has proper influence and representation in the current world as long as he plays by the rules. Explain the nature and origin of the snarl in as certain terms as possible (whichever parts he already doesn’t know). This can be solved by the deities themselves even if the others don’t realize he has a 4th quiddity.

I think the entire plot could have been solved if the Dark One had simply listened to Thor's emissaries. TDO is spinning a plan to use the Snarl to gain leverage against the other gods, but the purple essence already gives him far more leverage than he would gain with this plan. He just hasn't realised how much the other gods need him.

[Jason]

I think the entire plot could have been solved if the Dark One had simply listened to Thor's emissaries. TDO is spinning a plan to use the Snarl to gain leverage against the other gods, but the purple essence already gives him far more leverage than he would gain with this plan. He just hasn't realised how much the other gods need him.

Neither have most of the other gods.

[Kish]

Gonna do this piece by piece

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

Never said he was.

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.

Adding "in D&D" does change your original post, but the meta-commentary you're insisting on 1) is not actually necessary, and 2) doesn't pillory Rich if it is present.

To expand on 1), it can be--as it is presented--entirely internal to the world of the comic: the gods, characters in this story, did the specific callous things called out in the last few comics. Just as when reading Les Miserables, it's not a profound insight to say, "Javert doesn't choose to pursue Jean Valjean for stealing a loaf of bread! The author chooses for him to! If anyone deserves criticism for that action it's Victor Hugo!" it is not valid to suddenly deflect criticism of characters in OotS by saying "it's all Rich's fault" here.

As a parenthetical, translating that into a comment about D&D strikes me as a stretch actually; in Start of Darkness the Dark One did briefly mention the rules of D&D themselves giving "monster races" the shaft, but Rich hasn't chosen to bring that up in the online comic (yet anyway). But supposing your bedrock assumption here is right and it is about D&D, not about the OotS universe:

To expand on 2), if you're supposed to go outside the comic, you're not going far enough outside: it would be the responsibility of Gary Gygax, whoever made decisions about racial design and roles in 3.5ed D&D, or whoever currently makes them for the current (5ed) edition of D&D. From the one angle, it makes no sense to criticize the author for writing a story with injustices in it; from the other, it makes no sense to criticize the parodist for observing that someone else's story has unexamined and unintended injustices.

[Empiar93]

I think the entire plot could have been solved if the Dark One had simply listened to Thor's emissaries. TDO is spinning a plan to use the Snarl to gain leverage against the other gods, but the purple essence already gives him far more leverage than he would gain with this plan. He just hasn't realised how much the other gods need him.

I agree with this, but I can’t hold it against TDO considering the other gods conspired to conceal very pertinent information from him, including his only ally Loki, who had the MOST pertinent information which would have immediately given TDO reasons to cooperate. I might not have behaved too differently, myself.

A lot of blame can be placed on Thor, Loki, Fenris, and TDO himself for the mess that has occurred.

[Shadowknight12]

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

This is correct. I took the time to respond to the thread because I want others to be made aware that there is a specific reason why I don't think this merits engaging with, and I took special care in my post to explain that these were my personal views on the matter.

[masamune1]

I agree with this, but I can’t hold it against TDO considering the other gods conspired to conceal very pertinent information from him, including his only ally Loki, who had the MOST pertinent information which would have immediately given TDO reasons to cooperate. I might not have behaved too differently, myself.

A lot of blame can be placed on Thor, Loki, Fenris, and TDO himself for the mess that has occurred.

That's a little unfair. They were planning to tell him; they just wanted to vet him and establish better relations first.

It's entirely possible that if they had told him earlier, he would have reacted exactly the same way- broke off all contact and engage in divine terrorism. He is still an Evil god after all (who, if Right-Eye is right, doesn't even care about Goblins as much as he claims), so no reason to trust him with crucial information right away.

[arimareiji]

...Just as when reading Les Miserables, it's not a profound insight to say, "Javert doesn't choose to pursue Jean Valjean for stealing a loaf of bread! The author chooses for him to! If anyone deserves criticism for that action it's Victor Hugo!" it is not valid to suddenly deflect criticism of characters in OotS by saying "it's all Rich's fault" here....

Often but not always, the under-the-surface root of deflections in this family of reasoning is "I don't like the way the story is being told." Tug harder, and "Because it's not realistic" pops out from under the dirt. Tease it all the way out without breaking, and you find "Because I don't like thinking about the fact the themes represented do occur in real life."

Spoiler: how this applies to Les Miserables and The Jungle

Show

Look at Les Miserables, for example. The critics of his day savaged Victor Hugo for any perceived inaccuracy they could find, heavily implying that if he got this or that historical detail wrong (at least according to scholars of that day) that proved there was no deeper truth to the story.

Or, thinking about how many of the themes in The Jungle are representative of real life would depress the heck out of any sensitive person -- there were plenty of people in abject denial, who heavily implied or outright asserted it was a complete fabrication. And for me: Nowadays those themes are coming back with a vengeance, which leaves me more than a little heartsick. I myself subconsciously recoil from thinking about it, though I don't try to deny the underlying truth.

[Kish]

I agree with this, but I can’t hold it against TDO considering the other gods conspired to conceal very pertinent information from him, including his only ally Loki, who had the MOST pertinent information which would have immediately given TDO reasons to cooperate. I might not have behaved too differently, myself.

A lot of blame can be placed on Thor, Loki, Fenris, and TDO himself for the mess that has occurred.

Well, see, that's the thing. Start of Darkness

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

not only shows Loki telling the Dark One about the Snarl, it depicts that as the Dark One's only source of more information on the subject than "this weird rift in the woods ate one of my worshipers." The online comic claims the Dark One had partial, incriminating evidence from somewhere mysterious, and his other ally, Rat, stopped talking to him when his goblins sacked Azure City.

So I wonder.

If the Dark One, Loki, Tiamat, or Rat gave a completely honest accounting of what's going on, how much would it resemble what Thor told Durkon?

[Bootman]

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

Completely agreed. Everybody has different amounts of information and when we compare those pieces of information in an objective fashion we can reach something closer to the truth.

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.

In that situation though it would be the good gods putting their followers at risk by dealing with followers of evil gods. I don't think that's particularly good to do, but more importantly it wouldn't make sense to do. The Gods are always in a resource game with each other, and one world can make the difference between who leads the pantheons (I.E. Hel) because newer souls are worth more than old souls. If the good gods hamstring themselves even more they run the risk of letting the world fall into the control of nothing but evil gods. For instance, I'm sure Thor advocates for things like charity, kindness, forgiveness and justice. But there's a difference between those things and compelling people to act severely against their interests for the sake of a faction that would kill and enslave them if they had the chance.

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.

The issue isn't that he should have done a better job, he should have done a job (by this I mean he's done virtually nothing to show the goblins are disadvantaged and many things to show they have advantages). As far as we've heard and seen everything prior to the conversation with Redcloak contradicts what Redcloak says. However, I've gone into the contradictions heavily both in my first post and many ones after. If you want to see those arguments before agreeing I'll happily repost them, or you can go through my post history.

I'm just curious if you've ever found yourself in a position where you disagree with a story and feel it fails to support itself. For example, if at the start of Return of the Jedi it was explained that the Empire had fewer resources than the rebels this whole time would you still take the second position? The specific case here doesn't matter, the principle is what does. If a story fails to present it's ideas and contradicts itself in serious ways it cannot be ignored. Whether it drives you crazy or fills you with joy, the mistake must still be noted.

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).

So would you say that Thor goes out of his way to make life harder for groups that are worse off? I wouldn't know what to say to that because we haven't seen any proof of it. If it's just the opposition of PC races to non PC races that seems like a lot to throw at Thor's feet, and ignores that in the individual cases these things can be handled morally. Giving your followers power so they can defend themselves from people attacking them makes sense. Guiding them to be the strongest they can be makes sense. Just because he doesn't tell them to treat Goblins the same as everyone else doesn't warrant a black mark, I don't think. For example, going out of the main comic here (as much as I hate to do that), Rich has stated that the actions the Paladin's took at the start of SoD would have been condemned and many would have lost their paladin powers and what not. So at least the southern good Gods consider that you can commit warcrimes against Goblins.

Most of this is about morals though and not the technical writing.

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

So this is a good point, but the more specific point I was making is that you can chart characters based off their scenes and interactions to figure out when they changed. If I asked you "When does Walter White become evil" everybody would have different answers, but we could use the text to support those answers. You could point out scenes where he had to do something bad just to survive, and that made it easier to do bad things in the future. The point is that a character is measured by what we see of them, and I want to know what scenes justify this.

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

True, but I explained on a technical level why it might not work for people, like my previous examples of making a joke where V is stupid for no reason. It contradicts what we know. In this case though, in a very minor way.

Thanks for your response. I thought it was very well thought out and you approached things, for the most part, very similar to how I do. I enjoyed reading it and I hope you're having a good day.

[Mechalich]

Better solution: in addition to this promise, ensure that he has proper influence and representation in the current world as long as he plays by the rules. Explain the nature and origin of the snarl in as certain terms as possible (whichever parts he already doesn’t know). This can be solved by the deities themselves even if the others don’t realize he has a 4th quiddity.

Thor explicitly claimed that this sort of thing is impossible. The gods have imposed distinct limits on how much change they can perform on a world in operation. Effectively, they have limited ability to patch the game while it's still running. To properly give the Dark One his due requires a reboot.

Note that, under normal circumstances rebooting the world is a completely neutral action, and therefore rebooting the world so that the Dark One received a position of proper equity going forward would be good. Now, circumstances aren't normal because of the Hel bet which means that in this particular circumstance rebooting the world turns out to be benefit the side of evil.

This too, is absolutely the fault of the gods. A simple, perfectly ready solution to the problem exists, but the gods screwed it up and now it can't be used. This is a long-running issue with the comic ever since the godsmoot where agency has been taken from the mortal characters by drastically increasing divine involvement in the world.

I think a major part of the problem with the current plotline, and in fact one that actually traces back to the godsmoot is that this is basically a prolonged reveal that the world of OOTS is actually a Crapsack World because the gods are a bunch of morally-dubious-in-the-aggregate short-sighted overlords. That's not unreasonable given the typical arrangement of D&D style pseudo-polytheism in which evil holds at least as much power as good, but it's actually really grim and it feels out of line with a comic that was, until very recently, extremely light-hearted almost all the time.

Regardless of whether his specific interpretation of the plight of the goblins is correct, Durkon is not wrong to think that the gods screwed over the world, gave certain species a brutally raw deal, and then rigged the system so that fixes are impossible without mass genocide (and also they don't really care about mass genocide anyway). We've hit the point where Durkon is now a paragon of virtue above and beyond that the of the gods themselves - not because he's become some sort of once-in-a-millennium saint but because the gods have abrogated that position more or less completely. And then he goes and makes a claim that everyone should consider themselves obligated to walk the same road. Do this come off as sanctimonious and self-righteous, yes, yes it does, and its also rather ironic in a comic that spent so much time criticizing paladins.

[Lethologica]

For reference, the change for which justification is requested:

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.

I think before discussing what changed, there is a prior issue with your reading of Durkon's present state. This concern with injustice done to the goblins has arisen in the context of Durkon's divine mission from Thor to save the world by negotiating with The Dark One's high priest. That is to say, it's not the case that this shows Durkon as 'the type to correct any injustice whenever he sees it even at risk of the world being destroyed.' Rather, addressing this injustice pertains directly to preventing the world from being destroyed. So there is no need to find prior justification for Durkon becoming 'that type' as he has not become 'that type' in the first place, at least based on this portion of the text.

(It might also be instructive to go over the assertion that Durkon has 'ignored so much injustice along the way,' not only to establish that that is in fact the case, but also to seek out points where Durkon's attitude towards injustice may have changed, if such a change is shown to exist and require justification.)

[Bootman]

For reference, the change for which justification is requested:


I think before discussing what changed, there is a prior issue with your reading of Durkon's present state. This concern with injustice done to the goblins has arisen in the context of Durkon's divine mission from Thor to save the world by negotiating with The Dark One's high priest. That is to say, it's not the case that this shows Durkon as 'the type to correct any injustice whenever he sees it even at risk of the world being destroyed.' Rather, addressing this injustice pertains directly to preventing the world from being destroyed. So there is no need to find prior justification for Durkon becoming 'that type' as he has not become 'that type' in the first place, at least based on this portion of the text.

(It might also be instructive to go over the assertion that Durkon has 'ignored so much injustice along the way,' not only to establish that that is in fact the case, but also to seek out points where Durkon's attitude towards injustice may have changed, if such a change is shown to exist and require justification.)

So you believe that he's doing this because he believes it's the most effective way to save the world? I heartily disagree on the face of it but I would have to hear the argument. If I've misread your statement let me know.

You are absolutely correct that I should provide examples. So the main one would be 'literally everything on the western continent'. A place where resources are short, it's run by warlords and there's lots of slavery. Varsuvius and Haley both did more for the slaves then him. You could also argue about him letting the bandits go without seeking justice on them or reparations for the ones who had been robbed. He doesn't really try to convince Belkar to do good, that conflict has mostly been a Roy-Haley thing.

There could be reasons to explain away all these things but I would need sources in the text to justify them, since otherwise I could make just as many loose, interpretive arguments about why he wouldn't care about the Goblins.

Thanks for the comment and giving me the tip to elaborate further.

[Precure]

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.

I mean, either Fenris created and placed them on poor lands for some reason, or other races banished them to these lands. Either way, we need n explanation.

[Lethologica]

So you believe that he's doing this because he believes it's the most effective way to save the world? I heartily disagree on the face of it but I would have to hear the argument. If I've misread your statement let me know.

I believe that Durkon is doing this because this particular injustice was promoted to his attention by his divinely given mission to save the world; he thinks it's the right thing to do, but he's not doing this 'at the risk of destroying the world.' This is rather broader than "he believes it's the most effective way to save the world," but also, I'm not sure how you want him to be more effective at getting Redcloak's help with his divine mission.

You are absolutely correct that I should provide examples. So the main one would be 'literally everything on the western continent'. A place where resources are short, it's run by warlords and there's lots of slavery. Varsuvius and Haley both did more for the slaves then him. You could also argue about him letting the bandits go without seeking justice on them or reparations for the ones who had been robbed. He doesn't really try to convince Belkar to do good, that conflict has mostly been a Roy-Haley thing.

There could be reasons to explain away all these things but I would need sources in the text to justify them, since otherwise I could make just as many loose, interpretive arguments about why he wouldn't care about the Goblins.

Thanks for the comment and giving me the tip to elaborate further.

The Western Continent is a good place to start. Durkon does not do as much as Haley and V for the slaves because he is being deferential to Roy's instructions ('Don't rock the boat, be good guests') and not the initiative Haley didn't even tell him about. As a result of being given a higher mission (and possibly some of that character development from being a meat-puppet slave for a book and change), Durkon is no longer so deferential. He's willing to push back against his god (possibly partly as a result of being dramatically confronted with that god's limitations and errors), and now to do the same with his team leader. There you go, character arc.

[Dion]

we need n explanation.

Honestly? I l really dont really need an explanation. Fenris is a putz. Bad stuff happened. We saw it in story. Good enough for me.

We’ve already seen a heck of a lot more than some stories. We never see the mortgage documents in Grapes of Wrath, and yet I really don’t question that they’re evicted. I don’t see the bill of sale for Jim, yet I really don’t doubt that he’s a runaway slave. I never quite figure out how Gatsby made money, but I don’t doubt that he is a gangster.

I guess I just don’t need every detail filled in.

[Precure]

"Who put them there" is not some little detail, it's the whole point of goblins' poor life standards. Why do they live in those lands.

[Dion]

"Who put them there" is not some little detail, it's the whole point of goblins' poor life standards. Why do they live in those lands.

I apologize, but I simply don’t see how “who put them there” matters.

When I’m reading the story, how does it matter to me if Fenris was a jerk and put them there on purpose, or if Fenrir was lazy and put them there randomly, or if Freddy gave up on them and they were driven there because no god bothered to stand up for them?

It seems to me like it’s the same story all three ways. How would it improve my enjoyment if I knew with certainty which way the past happened, especially if it doesn’t have an impact on the character choices in story?

[Precure]

It does have an impact on characters whether they're given these poor lands by an evil god's whims or driven there by other races, ancestors of our protagonists. There is a whole lot of implications.

[Jasdoif]

It does have an impact on characters whether they're given these poor lands by an evil god's whims or driven there by other races, ancestors of our protagonists. There is a whole lot of implications.

Which of those implications matter? Which characters do you think would be like "Well if it was our ancestors, the goblins totally deserve to be where they are; but if it was just some god, they deserve better" or vice versa?

And wouldn't the simple act of devoting screen time paper to exploring minutiae like those implications, endorse the notion that the goblins are less important than whoever put them in their position?

[Rug & Tub]

Long time reader, first time commenter.

I havent long in this world, so I will be brief.
My issue with the comics direction is that it is mirroring the strife currently going on in the world. The best thing about fantasy is that it isn't real, and I can escape there. I get that Rich wants to have some kind of grand message here, but it's timing and theming is too close to the events outside the comic. I can no longer come here for a gaming related laugh, it's gone political.
Sad for me, but Im glad that Rich is doing what he loves.

I'm still going to read to the end, Im that invested, but I don't look forward to updates quite as much as I did before the getting-preachy arc happened.

Anyways, that's all. Sorry for intruding, I'll shuffle back off to the broom closet now.

[hamishspence]

He doesn't really try to convince Belkar to do good, that conflict has mostly been a Roy-Haley thing.

Since his resurrection, though, he's started to.

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1151.html

[DavidBV]

Long time reader, first time commenter.

I havent long in this world, so I will be brief.
My issue with the comics direction is that it is mirroring the strife currently going on in the world. The best thing about fantasy is that it isn't real, and I can escape there. I get that Rich wants to have some kind of grand message here, but it's timing and theming is too close to the events outside the comic. I can no longer come here for a gaming related laugh, it's gone political.
Sad for me, but Im glad that Rich is doing what he loves.

I'm still going to read to the end, Im that invested, but I don't look forward to updates quite as much as I did before the getting-preachy arc happened.

Anyways, that's all. Sorry for intruding, I'll shuffle back off to the broom closet now.

Pretty much my thoughts. I'm doubting wether moving my browser's OoTS bookmark from the "Webcomics" to the "News" folder at this point. Ironically I believe the more subtle way to handle the goblin conflict was far more interesting and effective in making people think about the real world.

Still love the comic and appreciate Rich's work. I guess he writes what he feels he must, like most creators.

[hroþila]

That "subtler" way was that the protagonists never realized there was an issue at all, but did you seriously expect them to never confront it? To me it was always obvious that they'd hear about Redcloak's motivations eventually, and that they'd agree he has a point. If this makes you think too much of current events, that's not on the author, that's on the instigators of those recurrent events.

[WindStruck]

I think I'm all with you, Bootman.

I think if it turned out that all of the order could hear their telepathic thoughts, even though Roy and Durkon thought it was a private conversation, and then Haley and V (and maybe even Belkar and Elan..? Eh, never mind...) talked some sense into them, that would make things much better.

[Teioh]

That "subtler" way was that the protagonists never realized there was an issue at all, but did you seriously expect them to never confront it? To me it was always obvious that they'd hear about Redcloak's motivations eventually, and that they'd agree he has a point. If this makes you think too much of current events, that's not on the author, that's on the instigators of those recurrent events.

I think, way back in 04 or something, it was more like how PCs treat Monster Races, as well, monsters, not people. A gaming trope criticism. Sometime down the road, 2011 or so, maybe as soon as 2007, thst changed more to a basically a reskin of modern political issues. (because the real life political issues have no 'monster' elements, it's not very satisfying allegory for either side of the debate in my opinion)

[ebarde]

Yeah, I feel that goblins as an allegory to real world politics doesn't work great. I feel that they worked better as a criticism of game design, with the gods serving as a stand-in for fantasy writers and such. Because as it stands now, I feel that the point that the Giant is trying to make get's extremely muddled due to how different his setting is to our real world, and in a lot of ways might even come off as saying the opposite of what I believe the Giant is going for. He basically created a setting where a lot of the ideas he is trying to criticize are literally hard baked into the universe by the gods themselves, when in our real world those notions are something we actively have to work towards debunking due to the dangers of letting them go by unchecked.

The existence of gods and a very literal sense of determinism, turns prejudice from something that people have agency over and make an active choice to promote into something that is literally how the world was designed to function. If this was still an allegory for game design this wouldn't be as bad, but when you try to see it as something meant to reflect our reality, the implications become pretty iffy and it ends up having the opposite result of what the giant seems to want his work to have.

[The Patterner]

Completely agreed. Everybody has different amounts of information and when we compare those pieces of information in an objective fashion we can reach something closer to the truth.

I'm of the school of thought that you can never actually achieve objectivity, the best we can hope for is some form of aware subjectivity

In that situation though it would be the good gods putting their followers at risk by dealing with followers of evil gods. I don't think that's particularly good to do, but more importantly it wouldn't make sense to do. The Gods are always in a resource game with each other, and one world can make the difference between who leads the pantheons (I.E. Hel) because newer souls are worth more than old souls.

Ok, so there are several arguments at once here that all deserve to be addressed. First of all let's separate the argument on good vs. evil from the argument of gods and their diets:

1. Let's say a human from Azure city killed a human from Cliffport, and the only reason for doing so is because they hate Cliffportians. So no other provocation. That would be evil.
2. Let's say the same Azurite killed the Cliffportian because the Cliffportian was being aggressive, and trying to hurt the Azurite first. That would be Neutral. Killing is never good in itself, but in this case it would be seen as justified.
3. The Azurite goes tries to calm the situation, when that fails they try to subdue their attacker. Only when it's obvious that they have no other choice do they go for the kill. That would be good behaviour. The difference between good and neutral lies in trying other paths before violence, even when violence is justified.

Also please remember that doing nothing to adress the current conflict with goblins will in the long run lead to a lot of dead innocents on both sides. So it's not a question of "Try diplomacy, some people might die vs don't try diplomacy, no one will die". But rather " Try diplomacy, some people might die vs. don't try diplomacy, people will absolutely die and it will never stop".

If the good gods hamstring themselves even more they run the risk of letting the world fall into the control of nothing but evil gods. For instance, I'm sure Thor advocates for things like charity, kindness, forgiveness and justice. But there's a difference between those things and compelling people to act severely against their interests for the sake of a faction that would kill and enslave them if they had the chance.

Now this one is really interesting.

This is what I said:

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.

Thor wouldn't tell people not to fight at all, but to try and find diplomatic solutions. The funny thing is that if it fails, then the good alliance (or whatever we call it) could go back to being at war footing. If it succeeds in reducing the conflicts something very interesting would happen.

What happens when a population who was previously losing a part of their population to armed conflict stop losing those people?
Population growth.

What is the primary food source for goods?
Worship.

What would a larger population generate more of?
Worship.

Thor wouldn't become weaker by this, he would become stronger.

Strictly speaking I'd call this a classic "Low risk - High reward" scenario.

The issue isn't that he should have done a better job, he should have done a job (by this I mean he's done virtually nothing to show the goblins are disadvantaged and many things to show they have advantages). As far as we've heard and seen everything prior to the conversation with Redcloak contradicts what Redcloak says. However, I've gone into the contradictions heavily both in my first post and many ones after. If you want to see those arguments before agreeing I'll happily repost them, or you can go through my post history.

I have seen them, but as I said in my point:

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.

None of (any) previous arguments has swayed me from that position.

I'm just curious if you've ever found yourself in a position where you disagree with a story and feel it fails to support itself. For example, if at the start of Return of the Jedi it was explained that the Empire had fewer resources than the rebels this whole time would you still take the second position? The specific case here doesn't matter, the principle is what does. If a story fails to present it's ideas and contradicts itself in serious ways it cannot be ignored. Whether it drives you crazy or fills you with joy, the mistake must still be noted.

I recently found myself in a similar scenario, I realized that a story I was reading was turning more and more into a political mouthpiece. I stopped reading it then.

I do however need to clarify something, I'm not surprised about the direction this comic is taking. Had I guessed several years ago this is something I would have guessed could happen. In the story I mentioned above, it was the same thing. The signs were always there, they just went from subtle to explicit.

So would you say that Thor goes out of his way to make life harder for groups that are worse off? I wouldn't know what to say to that because we haven't seen any proof of it. If it's just the opposition of PC races to non PC races that seems like a lot to throw at Thor's feet, and ignores that in the individual cases these things can be handled morally. Giving your followers power so they can defend themselves from people attacking them makes sense. Guiding them to be the strongest they can be makes sense. Just because he doesn't tell them to treat Goblins the same as everyone else doesn't warrant a black mark, I don't think. For example, going out of the main comic here (as much as I hate to do that), Rich has stated that the actions the Paladin's took at the start of SoD would have been condemned and many would have lost their paladin powers and what not. So at least the southern good Gods consider that you can commit warcrimes against Goblins.

Most of this is about morals though and not the technical writing.

Never said Thor goes out of his way making things worse, I would argue that since he could make things better if he tried this specific mark is neutral.

But having one neutral mark isn't the same as being evil. Don't conflate those two alignments. Neither does having one neutral mark make Thor neutral, he is very much a good god from what we have seen.

So this is a good point, but the more specific point I was making is that you can chart characters based off their scenes and interactions to figure out when they changed. If I asked you "When does Walter White become evil" everybody would have different answers, but we could use the text to support those answers. You could point out scenes where he had to do something bad just to survive, and that made it easier to do bad things in the future. The point is that a character is measured by what we see of them, and I want to know what scenes justify this.

When he was imprisoned in himself. That experience made Durkon reflect on his own inability to take action. When that wall of a personality trait came down he became more aware of what he as an individual could and should do.

[Ionathus]

I'm doubting wether moving my browser's OoTS bookmark from the "Webcomics" to the "News" folder at this point. Ironically I believe the more subtle way to handle the goblin conflict was far more interesting and effective in making people think about the real world.

Still love the comic and appreciate Rich's work. I guess he writes what he feels he must, like most creators.

Oh, come on. Three panels of characters who've never heard The Villain's side of the story suddenly realizing he has a point does not change what this comic has always been about.

Next panel will be Serini attacking. The other characters' arcs will come into focus again. The story is only partially about Redcloak, much as some commenters would like to claim this is the only story Rich is telling anymore.

Maybe it's not your favorite subplot, or maybe you don't feel the dialogue is executed convincingly, but that does not somehow change the tone of the entire story.

Yeah, I feel that goblins as an allegory to real world politics doesn't work great.

Here's the thing: they aren't. Rich is on record since Start of Darkness saying that his reason in exploring the Goblins' experience is to criticize gameplay in D&D that perpetuates racist "othering" thoughts that can bleed over into the real world. But it's explicitly tied to D&D. The way that the goblins just sort of fell into a crappy position during world creation mirrors how so many DMs run goblins by default: "oh, uh, there are 3d6 goblins in the cave when you invade. They attack, I guess? Yeah, you just have to kill them. Don't worry too much about it; they're just goblins after all."

The Order of the Stick is not some highbrow morality play, and the goblins are first and foremost goblins. The message Rich is trying to convey is specifically about how we treat sentient monsters in D&D.

This is not a new development.

They were always going to talk to Redcloak.

They were always going to acknowledge the situation wasn't fair.

This was always the message of Redcloak's arc.

[The Patterner]

I do however need to clarify something, I'm not surprised about the direction this comic is taking. Had I guessed several years ago this is something I would have guessed could happen. In the story I mentioned above, it was the same thing. The signs were always there, they just went from subtle to explicit.

This is not a new development.

They were always going to talk to Redcloak.

They were always going to acknowledge the situation wasn't fair.

This was always the message of Redcloak's arc.

Heh, I like that these came back to back.