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

[Teioh]

I'll just add while it's been evident for years, it hasn't from the start. (we are 18 years in, after all) The Giant has spoken of a political epiphany he had, in regards to his comic's content as well. The tonal 'issues' of the comic is that it's welded to the the early comic. The Giant has done a great job so far over the past 2 books to bridge that, but I understand folks getting put off by it.

Also, while the Goblins plight was always going to be addressed, I highly doubt it would be from the perspective and using language of a modern political issue that doesn't track very well with God's and Goblins. And honestly makes me uncomfortable trying to draw those parallel, as no one in real life is like 'goblins'

[Verappo]

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.

I agree with this!

If anything, I see this current arc as a sublimation of the comic's original mission statement, from way before it even had a solid plot or well-defined themes. It was always about holding a lens to the cliches and tropes in tabletop rpg, and how absurd they are when scrutinized. The main difference is that now that lens is pointed to actual flaws within the medium, rather than the more nitpicky dungeon humor.

I remember reading Start of Darkness and having no idea how Redcloak's whole backstory might collide with the main characters', but I think the last book expanded on the lore (with the godsmoot and all) to a degree where this turn of events didn't feel forced at all to me.

[woweedd]

To be honest, I don't know why people are surprised. Maybe it's because i've been reading the forums for a while, and, so, know lots of Rich's paratextual stuff about his work, but a recurring theme throughout the comic (ESPESCIALLY Start of Darkness, but also the main strip) has been D&D, how we play it, and, specifically, how players treat the idea of "monster races", and the troubling real-world parreals thereof to some of the ways we've historically treated people for having a different coloration then us. Redcloak's whole character arc is about his people being designated by divine fiat (IE the designers) as cannon fodder. And, while he's an evil son-of-a-gun, the comic does frame the goal of liberation as noble, even if Redcloak has long since lost the plot. Heck, that whole arc with V and the Black Dragon, where V doing what is a fairly typical adventure/monster interaction (going into a dragon's house and murdering it so you can steal its stuff) comes back to bite them. That's something not even regular D&D does mostly. Seriously, even though dragons don't really have any reason to be more evil then orcs or drow, both of whom have had their good characters over the years, and far less then, say, undead or demons who at least have the excuse of literally needing to hurt people to live, i'm pretty sure i've seen more actual Demons who are good guys in D&D then Chromatic Dragons. Even the Demons and intelligent undead who are fully evil in OOTS, by all appearances, are more complex then what you'd expect from pure evil. Vampires are pure evil, but the why behind it is explored. The IFCC are evil, but they're pragmatists who can actually co-operate for the greater evil, and Sabine genuinely loves Nale, and is INFURIATED by his death. Even the Evil Gods aren't PURE evil: Loki genuinely cares for Hel to some extent, and, even though Rat is implied to be evil, he's still pissed about what the Dark One did to Azure City. But I digress. Rich has been very clear on one of his goals with the comic being to criticize the way D&D and its players treat the idea of "evil" races, by putting that in contrast with a more realistic racial conflict. Which, considered we're talking about a game that literally has mechanical boosts from the power of racism, is pretty hardcore. (Ranger favored enemies, anyone? Or how dwarves receive bonuses when attacking orcs and goblins, while gnomes get an attack bonus against kobolds and goblins. OK, that latter one is justified by it being a long-running racial conflict in-universe...Except, wait, if it is, then why doesn't that work the other way around? Orcs and Goblins don't get bonuses when fighting Dwarves. It's almost as if the way the universe, or game, is set up fa vores certain races over others because they look more like us...Nah, can't be.)

[Precure]

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?

If there is a crime, the one who commit that act must be held responsible for it, whether it's Fenris, the gods as a whole or other races. Only after establishing that we can talk about a peace with Redcloak.

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?

No.

[Dion]

If there is a crime, the one who commit that act must be held responsible for it, whether it's Fenris, the gods as a whole or other races. Only after establishing that we can talk about a peace with Redcloak.

In my experience the people who fix things are almost never the people responsible for breaking them.

And this is a story about fixing things. When you make a decision to fix something, who broke it ultimately doesn’t matter, because the people who broke it aren’t ever going to fix it.

[Jasdoif]

If there is a crime, the one who commit that act must be held responsible for it, whether it's Fenris, the gods as a whole or other races. Only after establishing that we can talk about a peace with Redcloak.

I'm curious how you expect the characters to hold a god responsible. Or their ancestors, unless they all happen to still be alive. Or are you saying that precluding "a peace with Redcloak" is the point?

No, seriously. I certainly understand wanting justice before moving forward; but refusing to move forward without compensation no one can provide, doesn't seem like justice at all.

[Dion]

I'm curious how you expect the characters to hold a god responsible. Or their ancestors, unless they all happen to still be alive.

Yeah; suppose some long dead people made some unfortunate choices 750 years ago, dooming their descendants to an inhospitable existence.

I’m not sure how you would hold some people who have been dead for 750 years responsible for anything, and I’m quite sure they’re not going to help fix anything.

[Precure]

I'm curious how you expect the characters to hold a god responsible. Or their ancestors, unless they all happen to still be alive. Or are you saying that precluding "a peace with Redcloak" is the point?

Our heroes are basically tasked with making a deal on gods behalf. If Fenris or the gods as a whole are responsible, their victims, goblins, must face their abusers to set the record straight. If the ancestors are to blame, same could be done with the people still exist on the afterworlds. But first of all, someone has to apologize. Only then we can talk about peace.

[Dion]

. But first of all, someone has to apologize. Only then we can talk about peace.

Maybe there’s a language barrier, but I don’t personally believe anyone “has to” apologize.

In story, I believe the humans and goblins can start working on fixing the problem without any negligent gods or long dead ancestors issuing an apology.

Out of story, I believe my personal enjoyment of the work won’t be impacted if there’s never on screen apology from fenrir or a bunch of dead ancestors.

[MoiMagnus]

Our heroes are basically tasked with making a deal on gods behalf. If Fenris or the gods as a whole are responsible, their victims, goblins, must face their abusers to set the record straight. If the ancestors are to blame, same could be done with the people still exist on the afterworlds. But first of all, someone has to apologize. Only then we can talk about peace.

Honestly, I don't see that happening, at least not easily. We didn't get to see a lot about Fenris, but the few we saw didn't indicate any possibility of repentance from Fenrir. He'd probably rather have the world destroyed and reset than having to fix his mistakes and amend.

Some gods could try to apologise on behalf of the pantheon, but if the main responsible doesn't apologize, is it any meaningful? It's like the father of the criminal apologizing for his son's behaviour while the son is still roaming lose, does it really counts as an apology?

And I'm unsure on what the gods are capable to do against Fenrir without risking to create a second Snarl, which they will definitely not take the risk to do. At most, I could see an action taken by the gods against Fenrir after peace with TDO, as the gods witness than the Snarl can be dealt with.

As for the ancestors (like the ones that backstab TDO when he was still alive), they might already be rotting in hell for their sins, as far as we know. And their souls are probably already fully consumed by the gods anyway.

[Jasdoif]

Our heroes are basically tasked with making a deal on gods behalf. If Fenris or the gods as a whole are responsible, their victims, goblins, must face their abusers to set the record straight. If the ancestors are to blame, same could be done with the people still exist on the afterworlds. But first of all, someone has to apologize. Only then we can talk about peace.

If all you want is empty platitudes, it doesn't matter who's responsible; someone else will be the one apologizing.

If you want sincere apologies, you're empowering whoever was responsible for the bad situation in the first place, at the expense of all the people who are still in the situation. Fenris, in particular, was already onboard with killing all of them; is that the kind of person you want deciding whether goblins are "allowed" to even talk about peace?

[arimareiji]

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

In my experience the people who fix things are almost never the people responsible for breaking them.

And this is a story about fixing things. When you make a decision to fix something, who broke it ultimately doesn’t matter, because the people who broke it aren’t ever going to fix it.

Color me satisfied with the story being told, whether or not others would prefer to read a different story.

[Mechalich]

It's important to differentiate between what obligation and charity. One of the problems of this plot is that it is conflating the two.

In many legal systems a person who causes a harm has an obligation to either fix the harm or pay recompense to the victim (in our modern world this is often securitized in some way, as in the case of car insurance, but the underlying principle still remains). By contrast if someone who fixes a harm or offers material support to a third party when they were not responsible they are giving voluntarily - they are not compelled by any legal structure.

Now, a number of religious moral systems have as their teaching an obligation to provide charity, including the historically dominant one in the English-speaking west that implicitly informs the thought processes of both the author and the overwhelming majority of the commenters here even if they are not active adherents to said system.

However, regardless of the philosophical validity of that stance in the real world - which forum rules prohibit discussing anyway - we can say that this approach absolutely does not hold in the world of OOTS, or at least it only holds for the 'Good' alignments and the world is, at best, Neutral-aligned on balance.

This is why the technical language issues @Bootman mentioned in the OP are so important. Durkon (and later Roy) may believe that those who consider themselves righteous should feel it necessary to offer charity to the goblins because they are disadvantaged, but they way Durkon and Roy speak, especially in comic 1234, utilizes terms that imply a belief that legal obligation exists for all the advantaged races to help the goblins. This is extremely problematic because we know that those races were not responsible for the goblins disadvantage, Fenris was. It therefore implies that those in a position of pre-established advantage ('privilege' if you will) inherently have an obligation to to those in a position of disadvantage. That is an extremely fraught statement, especially when applied to resources such as land that are zero sum.

[hroþila]

I don't see any talk about a legal obligation. To me it's very clear that they're talking about what they consider a moral obligation.

[ebarde]

None of what they said imply a legal obligation. They literally said pretty much the opposite really, as it's pretty well documented that no legal or divine authority really cares to how the goblin are treated, and they are doing what their doing due to a moral obligation not a legal one.

[Worldsong]

Thirding the idea that Roy and Durkon weren't talking about legal obligations. They clearly consider it a moral obligation for Good-aligned people, especially Lawful Good people, to try and fix instances of injustice regardless of whether they caused said injustice.

[Dion]

Here’s a fourth vote that the strip isn’t discussing legal obligations. First, because “fenrir did it” is pretty much textbook definition of “act of god”. Second, because even if there were some legal mechanism to hold a god accountable, fenrir isn’t going to fix it anyhow.

Look at it this way: if a wolf huffs and puffs and blows your house down, you might be able sue the wolf in court for the replacement cost. But even if you somehow win, the wolf is never going to pay up. You’re still stuck fixing the problem yourself.

Now, don’t misunderstand! I think another trial scene is exactly what this comic needs right now

But ultimately, the obligations the comic talking is talking about are moral obligations.

(Btw, is this where we bring up the “great white savior” trope? Because I feel like it’s time for an argument from the other side of the spectrum.)

[Mechalich]

The thing is, talking about 'the humans' or 'the dwarves' or 'the goblins' can only refer to an obligation in the legal sense, because collective groups of this nature are inherently amoral entities (this remains true if you drill down to the level of nations or city states, governments, like corporations, have no morality, they only have interests).

[Worldsong]

The thing is, talking about 'the humans' or 'the dwarves' or 'the goblins' can only refer to an obligation in the legal sense, because collective groups of this nature are inherently amoral entities (this remains true if you drill down to the level of nations or city states, governments, like corporations, have no morality, they only have interests).

I don't agree with the assessment that one can't talk about moral obligations of groups. If every member or the vast majority of a group has a moral obligation then that group as a whole holds that moral obligation.

[pearl jam]

some problems require collective solutions. of course reaching that solution requires the action of many individuals, but dealing with some issues only on an individual basis is unlikely to result in meaningful solutions.

[woweedd]

The whole issue with the goblins isn’t Roy and Durkon, or human and dwarven kinds’, fault, but, as the beneficiaries of it, you could make a very good argument it’s their responsibility. In the same way it’s not my fault it snowed this morning, but it is still my responsibility to shovel the driveway.

[Mechalich]

I don't agree with the assessment that one can't talk about moral obligations of groups. If every member or the vast majority of a group has a moral obligation then that group as a whole holds that moral obligation.

So the Human Azurites have a moral obligation to the Goblins of Gobbotoppia, the ones who stole their homes, killed their families, and drove them into exile? That's the implication of saying 'the humans have a moral obligation to the goblins.'

[Worldsong]

So the Human Azurites have a moral obligation to the Goblins of Gobbotoppia, the ones who stole their homes, killed their families, and drove them into exile? That's the implication of saying 'the humans have a moral obligation to the goblins.'

The humans have a moral obligation to goblinoids in general. At the same time the army that conquered Azure City, primarily consisting of Hobgoblins and led by Redcloak and Xykon, has a moral obligation to the Azurites.

The two don't cancel each other out, at least not automatically. Ideally, the remnants of that army would do their best to make up for their invasion while at the same time the Azurites aid the heroes in establishing the goblinoids as people rather than monsters or walking XP bags.

[hamishspence]

The whole issue with the goblins isn’t Roy and Durkon, or human and dwarven kinds’, fault, but, as the beneficiaries of it, you could make a very good argument it’s their responsibility. In the same way it’s not my fault it snowed this morning, but it is still my responsibility to shovel the driveway.

Yup. If "creating an injustice" is a moral crime like "stealing goods",

then choosing to retain the benefits of that injustice and not seek to change it is not a million miles away from "receiving stolen goods".

[Sir_Norbert]

I'll just add while it's been evident for years, it hasn't from the start.

Except... it totally was there. Right from the start.

[Teioh]

Yes, the Monster Races thing. A gaming trope. It's quite different from what is currently going on, which is clearly about real life situations...which I'm personally uncomfortable using Goblins to associate with, as the real life parallel don't have any 'monster' quality

[woweedd]

Yes, the Monster Races thing. A gaming trope. It's quite different from what is currently going on, which is clearly about real life situations...which I'm personally uncomfortable using Goblins to associate with, as the real life parallel don't have any 'monster' quality

Neither do goblins in OOTS, not really. They’re people with funny skin tones. And, either way, while there are definite parraeals to racial conflicts of the real world, I wouldn’t say it’s directly allegorical or anything.

[mjasghar]

These issues have been rising up in RL every 5-10 years so I can bet you that if these current strips had come out 5 years ago you’d get the same objections related to other events. Rich has had this sketched out for years - arguably since he planned out SoD.

[arimareiji]

Crazy idea:

Imo, the Giant has been doing well at expressing his views and drawing parallels to the extent that he feels comfortable, and to the extent that he wants people to think about how they apply to real life... but without trying to force anyone to reach the same conclusions, which would be You Can Lead A Horse To Water bitten by a radioactive spider on steroids.

Maybe it would be a good idea to leave expressing his views up to him.

We can and should draw our own conclusions about how they apply to real life, and no one has a right to gainsay what we want to conclude. But the more time I spend here, the more I think it's ideal to talk about the strip and the symbols therein as if they existed completely independent of the real world. If we drag our own parallels and/or conclusions about real life into it, whether literally or by proxy, it does a signal disservice to discussion of the story per se.

[Mechalich]

We can and should draw our own conclusions about how they apply to real life, and no one has a right to gainsay what we want to conclude. But the more time I spend here, the more I think it's ideal to talk about the strip and the symbols therein as if they existed completely independent of the real world. If we drag our own parallels and/or conclusions about real life into it, whether literally or by proxy, it does a signal disservice to discussion of the story per se.

Well, a big part of the problem is that we can't do that, because The Giant has designed OOTS such that it is impossible to do so.

OOTS is a character-driven comedic parody of traditional D&D campaigns. It's world-building, insofar as it exists at all, is a bunch of incoherent meta-commentary built upon a framework - 3.5e D&D - that already tended to produce absurd and nonsensical settings to begin with. The Giant is on record as saying that 'the setting is not a character.' As a result, the actual setting of OOTS simply is not sufficiently robust to support a storyline that operates at the scale of social policy.

That's not a criticism by the way, there's no reason for a comedic parody with extensive meta-elements to prioritize world-building verisimilitude and every reason for it not to do so. Things like the circumstances of the Western Continent not making any sense or the Hobgoblins just having a huge army ready and willing to immediately bow do to the dude who killed the last guy who was in charge are extremely useful to the comedic story even though they are, from a setting perspective, utterly ridiculous.

Thinking about this has actually helped to reframe my thinking on the trouble with the current plot, which is that the current plot focuses on elements of the setting, particularly the actions of the gods, and not the agency of the characters. The ability of Durkon, Roy, and the other characters to personally enact any sort of society-level change regarding goblin/human relations is functionally nil (at the very least there's nothing Durkon could do with spellcasting that Redcloak can't do himself), nor are they political figures capable of negotiating any kind of agreement. Honestly, I'm not even sure in what capacity exactly Durkon's negotiating on Thor's behalf, since Thor doesn't appear to have control over any states that could make an agreement with the goblins.

Zoom out further and the only there's only five states in the whole world whose politics we can look at all: Azure City, Gobbotopia, and the three states of the Western Continent ruled by Tarquin and his pals.

It's just a big time mismatch between the story and the allegory, one that turns the allegory into an impediment to the story irrespective of whether or not one agrees with the thrust of it because it moves the reader's attention away from the characters and onto setting elements that don't actually function.