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

[Buckethead]

The problem I see with the goblin plot right now is that Thor in #1232 never states that the Goblins were given worse lands. Thor says Fenris created them as people who "age fast and breeds a lot".(1)

Durkon in #1233 states his belief that the Goblins were treated poorly at the creation of the world. And the implication of his statement is that being created as a fast-growing, fast-breeding race means to be treated poorly. Which implies Goblins are defective by nature.

So, either Durkon is wrong (2), or Rich is failing at delivering his point. Unless his point is "goblins were created defective", which bears very uncomfortable implications.

...

(1) Thor also said that Fenris lost interest in them, later. Not a word creation, but after the goblin-rush failed to provide the returns Fenris expected.

(2) Durkon is, in fact, already wrong: He says the goblins were "treated poorly" for no reason at all. Which is false, Fernis created them with a winning strategy in mind. Which failed, yes, but there was a reason.

This is an excellent point, I'd go on to state that Durkon actually completely ignored what Thor verbatim said and instead put it as Thor described "unnecessarily pejorative", Fenris is just as "valid" a god as Thor, why should "where he put his starting creations stat points" be bizarrely turned by Durkon (who you'd think would listen a little closer to his GOD) into the goblins living on poor quality lands? Suddenly the Zerg have been a disadvantaged race this whole time because the Protoss started on Aiur? (forgive me if you don't know starcraft)

Do you know why Roy never questioned a goblin before? Literally every single goblin Roy has encountered, any he ever fought would have said "because lord xykon said to kill you!" Now they are gonna retroactively act like Roy made a mistake? Puh-leeze. Being lawful good doesn't mean you need to have therapy sessions with every orc on the road to moria before you dispatch them. I am sick of people pretending orcs and goblins are equivalent to real life racism or something, everyone on Earth is a friggen Human! Goblins eat man flesh!

[Emberlily]

Do you know why Roy never questioned a goblin before? Literally every single goblin Roy has encountered, any he ever fought would have said "because lord xykon said to kill you!" Now they are gonna retroactively act like Roy made a mistake? Puh-leeze.

And Roy clearly had some way to know this to be true without even trying to ask them, right?

[Telenil]

And Roy clearly had some way to know this to be true without even trying to ask them, right?

Well, what do you think a random goblin soldier's anwser would be? From what we've seen, the best would be "because you have lands and we don't", which is not a particularly shocking answer - perhaps even a predictable one.

[Buckethead]

And Roy clearly had some way to know this to be true without even trying to ask them, right?

Well why didn't he question every beetle raider? Every tarquin goon? Why do we only apply this to goblins?

Edit: Let's take a look at this scene from https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0011.html
"Wretched do-gooders!"
Yeah, they seem like well adjusted morally complex villains!

[Lethologica]

I actually agree that I am interrupting the conversation mid stream, that is the entire point of my post. That if in the next page Durkon and Roy agree that he was explicitly doing something bad or wrong or operated with a double standard (Something I believe is established in this strip), that is where the damage will be unrepairable in addition to the other contradictions I've already pointed out. condemnation and criticism mean the same thing in this context, along with chided, punished, looked down on, etc. The only relevant factor here is whether Durkon, Roy and the story itself think what he's done is wrong. I am saying what he's done is not wrong in the slightest.

Just above 'did nothing wrong' is a substantial region with varying shades of 'could have done better' that a Good character often strives to cross.

On the first page fairly early on I go into why it is unrealistic to expect that, and in other areas on very post I've gone into how they only really do that with villains who are actual characters regardless of race.

You went into why it is unrealistic specifically to expect Roy to attempt dialogue with people swinging axes at him who aren't "villains who are actual characters". Apart from OtOoPCs providing an example of exactly that, I also broadened the conversation to Roy attempting to ascertain the motives of the people fighting them because that was what Roy claimed not to have done in panel 9. Not having asked any goblins while fighting is actually a narrower admission as it would also allow for a scenario where Roy had thought about it but never thought it was 'the right time to bring it up.' Another reason why I say panel 9 is the one that carries the relevant implications.

I believe the last few panels of the comic do treat it as a failure and double standard, and many other people who agree with that comic agree that it represents the double standard of Roy as well. In fact you seem to imply it here when you talk about how the Order has assessed other motives but not the Goblins.

Behaving differently at different times does not automatically produce a double standard unless there is reasoning which is differentially applied.

But even before that, let's tease out the actual line of argument in the comic. Roy admits in panel 9 that he hasn't really thought about the position of the goblins. His defense in panel 10 is it's hard to discuss something like that in the middle of combat - that is, even if he had thought about it, there wasn't a good time to bring it up. The purpose of the last three panels, then, is to puncture that defense. Because Roy has a habit of talking while fighting, up to and including talking about more difficult topics under more challenging circumstances, if he had thought about the goblin position he probably would have brought it up. The fact that no one ever did reinforces that no one ever thought about it.

At what point in this line of argument is a double standard claimed or implied?

Aside from that I agree the conversation is far from over. The goal of my post is to intercept it in case these things were not planned.

I think the idea of having that kind of influence from here is pretty presumptuous, but hey, maybe you'll start a movement.

[Telenil]

But even before that, let's tease out the actual line of argument in the comic. Roy admits in panel 9 that he hasn't really thought about the position of the goblins. His defense in panel 10 is it's hard to discuss something like that in the middle of combat - that is, even if he had thought about it, there wasn't a good time to bring it up. The purpose of the last three panels, then, is to puncture that defense. Because Roy has a habit of talking while fighting, up to and including talking about more difficult topics under more challenging circumstances, if he had thought about the goblin position he probably would have brought it up. The fact that no one ever did reinforces that no one ever thought about it.

At what point in this line of argument is a double standard claimed or implied?

There is the implication that because Roy can and somtimes does talk to enemies during combat, he should also have done so when fighting goblins. I fail to see why this would follow.
It apparently blames Roy for not communicating with the enemy, even though the rest of the party (including Durkon himself) has been equally capable but even less willing to do so.

[Buckethead]

"Thar be no compromise! Thar be no parley an' thar be no resonable discussions! Yer a frickin' vampire, Malack! Yer a danger ta everyone livin' on this continent!"
-Durkon just 2 books ago, talking to a vampire (a stereotypically evil creature with free will who Durkon forces into battle because of his race) And don't give me that vampires prey on humans thing, goblins are perfectly happy to eat humans in basically all lore.

[hamishspence]

And don't give me that vampires prey on humans thing, goblins are perfectly happy to eat humans in basically all lore.

But not, as far as we know, in OOTS - there has never been a single reference to goblins or hobgoblins eating humans.

[Lethologica]

There is the implication that because Roy can and somtimes does talk to enemies during combat, he should also have done so when fighting goblins. I fail to see why this would follow.
It apparently blames Roy for not communicating with the enemy, even though the rest of the party (including Durkon himself) has been equally capable but even less willing to do so.

Both Roy and Durkon use 'we' in the last panel, so the second point is misaimed.

I can see why you would object to the implication, but you're shaving rather a lot off to reach that objectionable version. And I asked not just for an objection, but for the double standard which was claimed to exist.

[Some]

"Thar be no compromise! Thar be no parley an' thar be no resonable discussions! Yer a frickin' vampire, Malack! Yer a danger ta everyone livin' on this continent!"
-Durkon just 2 books ago, talking to a vampire (a stereotypically evil creature with free will who Durkon forces into battle because of his race)

That does get into a tricky issue of when to reject evil when it has a good component to it.

There seems to be a hierarchy of evil purity in the OotS/D&D world:

1. Evil-outsiders are literally made up of the concept of evil itself.
2. Undead are primarily driven by negative-energy, which seems closely connected to evil.
3. Evil divine-casters have both their personal evil and evil drawn from their connection to an evil deity.
4. Evil non-outsiders have some evil in them.
5. Non-[good/evil] non-outsiders have an even lesser amount of evil in them.

As a High Priest to an evil-deity who was already evil, then done many evil deeds, Redcloak's approaching the level of evil of an evil-outsider, but presumably not quite there yet as he's not literally made up of the very concept of evil (like an evil-outsider is).

The goblins are a different matter. They were designed-and-created by an evil-deity with a strong inclination to evil, and presumably have done a lot of evil. But they're still non-outsiders, so they're not exclusively composed of it, and.. there's an ambiguous amount of free-will.

It's still unclear how deeply rooted evil is. I mean, for an outsider that's literally composed of evil itself, it'd seem like they'd have trouble being anything but. Then again, Thor made a point (with Odin being a prime example) that deities (who're especially powerful outsiders) can change in response to beliefs about them, so... could beliefs flip an evil-deity?

Then mortals seem capable of changing. Belkar, who was previously extremely evil, now seems more neutral-ish.. though it's unclear how that'd actually work in-universe, since while he's more neutral-ish now, he's done a ton of evil before. Likewise, V was neutral, though after the epic-spell they cast, the demon-directors commented on V possibly being condemned anyway, despite V's earnest attempts at atonement and otherwise-[non-evil or good-ish] record.

As for the line between Evil and Neutral, V might our best in-universe metric, because the demon-directors (who're presumably experts on the topic of the line between Evil/Neutral) were apparently unsure about which side of the line V would fall on. So:

• presumably, anything more evil than V would be on the Evil side of things; while
• presumably, anything more good than V wouldn't be Evil.

Worth noting that this was the group opinion of 3 demon-directors, being Lawful-Evil, Neutral-Evil, and Chaotic-Evil, so that'd seem to be a pretty good spread with multiple expert opinions weighing in. Also, as these demon-directors have been spying on V and studying V and psycho-analyzing V, presumably their opinions were educated and informed. (Being why they'd seem like a relatively strong canon assessment.)

[Psyren]

I don't consider arguments from word of god or outside the material itself to be valid since I believe in death of the author and that all media must be able to stand on its own.

That's a valid perspective when the work is complete. But demanding that the work must stand on its own when the work is in progress, based on your fears of where it might go, is frankly unfair.

And yes, the pre-Cerebus strips are probably not going to stand up to full scrutiny with the benefit of hindsight, but if the impact of the work overall is positive I personally am willing to overlook that. Again, this will be dependent on how things will end up, not my own assumptions and predictions.

[dancrilis]

"Thar be no compromise! Thar be no parley an' thar be no resonable discussions! Yer a frickin' vampire, Malack! Yer a danger ta everyone livin' on this continent!"
-Durkon just 2 books ago, talking to a vampire (a stereotypically evil creature with free will who Durkon forces into battle because of his race) And don't give me that vampires prey on humans thing, goblins are perfectly happy to eat humans in basically all lore.

Durkon did not force Malack into battle because of his race, Malack forced Durkon into battle because Malack showed up to interfere with Durkon's quest - had Malack agreed to simply leave and let Durkon go about his business Durkon would have likely accepted that.

[Bootman]

Just above 'did nothing wrong' is a substantial region with varying shades of 'could have done better' that a Good character often strives to cross.


You went into why it is unrealistic specifically to expect Roy to attempt dialogue with people swinging axes at him who aren't "villains who are actual characters". Apart from OtOoPCs providing an example of exactly that, I also broadened the conversation to Roy attempting to ascertain the motives of the people fighting them because that was what Roy claimed not to have done in panel 9. Not having asked any goblins while fighting is actually a narrower admission as it would also allow for a scenario where Roy had thought about it but never thought it was 'the right time to bring it up.' Another reason why I say panel 9 is the one that carries the relevant implications.


Behaving differently at different times does not automatically produce a double standard unless there is reasoning which is differentially applied.

But even before that, let's tease out the actual line of argument in the comic. Roy admits in panel 9 that he hasn't really thought about the position of the goblins. His defense in panel 10 is it's hard to discuss something like that in the middle of combat - that is, even if he had thought about it, there wasn't a good time to bring it up. The purpose of the last three panels, then, is to puncture that defense. Because Roy has a habit of talking while fighting, up to and including talking about more difficult topics under more challenging circumstances, if he had thought about the goblin position he probably would have brought it up. The fact that no one ever did reinforces that no one ever thought about it.

At what point in this line of argument is a double standard claimed or implied?


I think the idea of having that kind of influence from here is pretty presumptuous, but hey, maybe you'll start a movement.

My argument is that I don't necessarily believe talking to every mook constitutes 'better' and that rather then 'could do better' the comic, Durkon and Roy seem to treat it as something actively bad he did.

To clarify on this point, I actually think if he believes it is a moral responsibility to resolve everything peacefully if possible and communicate with everyone, he SHOULD do it with everyone. At which point we're dealing with things like narrative stakes involving villains (I.E. when heroes kill all the minions but take the villain alive) among other things. If we hold that he should have communicated with Goblins it should apply to everything. I understand On the Origins of PCs, but once again that material is outside the comic itself and Rich has expressed he wants it to stand on its own. Even if we were to include it, it just further shows Roy's ability to excellent morality in these situations and that it shouldn't be considered wrong or bad that he didn't do that for every mook up to this point.

It's possible that it does not imply a double standard, but I don't think so because of the intense focus on the Goblins themselves and pointing out that Roy has talked with other people. Per my main post and many others Roy's defense holds up very well. Once again we don't know what's going on with the goblins as far as online only people go. We see them being all 'wretched do gooders' and worshipping demon princes for online only people. So for online only people it is fair game to assume they're just evil. But if we're saying even when they appear that way Roy should still have thought about their position and then he might have resolve things peacefully, I would point out the same thing for literally every villain. Every mook could have a special context that could cause them to change sides easily or allow for a peaceful resolution if at all possible. If we expect it for Goblins, we have to expect it for everybody. Which seems to be what the comic is implying, that Roy will talk and consider other people but not Goblins.

It's not presumptuous because I don't expect to succeed, I don't know if I'm even needed, I don't want to start a movement and in fact I expect if Rich ever saw or responded to this I would simply lose the respect of somebody I admire. I just had to try in case it was needed.

That's a valid perspective when the work is complete. But demanding that the work must stand on its own when the work is in progress, based on your fears of where it might go, is frankly unfair.

And yes, the pre-Cerebus strips are probably not going to stand up to full scrutiny with the benefit of hindsight, but if the impact of the work overall is positive I personally am willing to overlook that. Again, this will be dependent on how things will end up, not my own assumptions and predictions.

I'm not, I'm simply pointing out issues that if not addressed will cause problems. These issues currently exist, and they may be fixed or it may go a direction I haven't predicted. In case it doesn't, I wanted to have a chance to convince Rich of it and do a technical breakdown of a small facet of the writing for other people. An example would be an ongoing TV show that ends with a cliffhanger reveal of a previously thought dead character being alive and you say something like "They better have a good explanation for this". It's not quite the same and is actually a bit worse than that in my perspective, but it's a similar scenario.

The impact of a work has nothing to do with the technical writing or whether or not the themes are effectively conveyed. I think it has muddled and messed up any kind of real world allegory this could have and thus the theming is quickly becoming botched. It won't convey the theme he wants to convey if the facts of the story contradict it.

[Rrmcklin]

On that I agree, but Durkon's angle seem to be moral, not strategic. He was sympathetic to the notion that goblin should have better steal so they could beat the dwarves a bit more often, for example.

This is a misrepresentation of what he said. Thor claimed that the system is fair because if a goblin beats a dwarf they get XP just like if a dwarf beats a goblin. Durkon responded that in practice one of those is much more likely to happen than the other, because of circumstances they were born into and largely have no control over. It's not about wanting more dwarfs beaten by goblins, it's pointing out it unreasonable to call a system like that "fair".

[Robots]

Durkon did not force Malack into battle because of his race, Malack forced Durkon into battle because Malack showed up to interfere with Durkon's quest - had Malack agreed to simply leave and let Durkon go about his business Durkon would have likely accepted that.

Well, they couldn't even do that. Malack is working with Tarquin to prevent the Order's quest. And even then, they couldn't have been friends after Malack attempted to vampirize Belkar. Durkon's too noble to just be like "okay you can kill my traveling companion see you bye". Even if Malack and Durkon hadn't crossed paths at this point, Malack is still complicit in the Empire of Blood's dirty dealings. One way or another, the two would probably have had to fight each other.

It's not (just) about Malack being a vampire.

[Telenil]

This is a misrepresentation of what he said. Thor claimed that the system is fair because if a goblin beats a dwarf they get XP just like if a dwarf beats a goblin. Durkon responded that in practice one of those is much more likely to happen than the other, because of circumstances they were born into and largely have no control over. It's not about wanting more dwarfs beaten by goblins, it's pointing out it unreasonable to call a system like that "fair".

See, the big problem with these last few strips is that war cannot be fair. If a general gives the enemy a fair chance, he is terrible at his job and should be replaced by someone who will not waste an opportunity the enemy might have seized if the roles were reversed. If the goblins lose more due to circumstances they have no control over and cannot change, that means the dwarves are winning.

So it very much comes down to whether or not you want more dwarves beaten by goblins. "Unfair to the goblins" simply dodges the issue, which is that either the dwarves defeat the goblins as completely as they can, to the point goblins are no longer able to pose a threat to their nation, or they willingly create a situation where more of their kind will die. If you want that to stop, you need peace, not a "fairness" that would boil down to generals on the winning side sacrificing their own men. The gods expected the races to fight, surely they also expected some races to win, sometimes decisively. That's what happened, and that's as "fair" as war can ever be.

[Dion]

I believe you should right wrongs when the war is over and Evil has been checked.

I agree that’s true in the sort of romantic fantasy story where it’s true.

But it’s not true anywhere else.

[Bootman]

I agree that’s true in the sort of romantic fantasy story where it’s true.

But it’s not true anywhere else.

I think the idea being expressed is that when good people are at risk, you should defend them and not risk their lives one bit for the sake of evil people, or even good people that happen to be your enemies if their actions are hurting good people that are your friends and allies.

When troops are being attacked, we worry about them before we consider the socio-economic circumstances that led to them back attacked or whether or not the attacks had a reason. The 'human' cost of reversing that order has not been addressed.

[Dion]

I think the idea being expressed is that when good people are at risk, you should defend them and not risk their lives one bit for the sake of evil people,.

Yes. I fully agree that there exist fantasy romance stories with “good people” and “evil people”, and that in subset of those stories the way to solve conflicts is for the good people to kill the evil people.

The point is that this isn’t that specific type of fantasy romance story.

Which is nice, because I find those types of stories so completely unrealistic.

[Psyren]

I'm not, I'm simply pointing out issues that if not addressed will cause problems. These issues currently exist, and they may be fixed or it may go a direction I haven't predicted. In case it doesn't, I wanted to have a chance to convince Rich of it and do a technical breakdown of a small facet of the writing for other people. An example would be an ongoing TV show that ends with a cliffhanger reveal of a previously thought dead character being alive and you say something like "They better have a good explanation for this". It's not quite the same and is actually a bit worse than that in my perspective, but it's a similar scenario.

The impact of a work has nothing to do with the technical writing or whether or not the themes are effectively conveyed. I think it has muddled and messed up any kind of real world allegory this could have and thus the theming is quickly becoming botched. It won't convey the theme he wants to convey if the facts of the story contradict it.

I get that you're expressing a concern about potential direction, but you can't have it both ways. Either you're judging the whole work on its own without seeing the end (unfair) or you're allowing that things can end up in a spot you like, in which case authorial statements of intent are germane to that unseen future state. My issue is with your statement that authorial commentary is irrelevant to the final product, when currently there IS no final product.

[Rrmcklin]

See, the big problem with these last few strips is that war cannot be fair. If a general gives the enemy a fair chance, he is terrible at his job and should be replaced by someone who will not waste an opportunity the enemy might have seized if the roles were reversed. If the goblins lose more due to circumstances they have no control over and cannot change, that means the dwarves are winning.

So it very much comes down to whether or not you want more dwarves beaten by goblins. "Unfair to the goblins" simply dodges the issue, which is that either the dwarves defeat the goblins as completely as they can, to the point goblins are no longer able to pose a threat to their nation, or they willingly create a situation where more of their kind will die. If you want that to stop, you need peace, not a "fairness" that would boil down to generals on the winning side sacrificing their own men. The gods expected the races to fight, surely they also expected some races to win, sometimes decisively. That's what happened, and that's as "fair" as war can ever be.

You're focusing too much on the details of that specific hypothetical to realize the larger part being made in general. Durkon is not just talking about war, he is talking about every facet of life, and how (in general) dwarfs (and humans, elves, etc.) have advantages that goblins (or orcs, trolls, etc) don't have through no fault of their own.

The things that Durkon (and the story) are focusing on go beyond this conflict, and tunnel vision won't help with it.

[Telenil]

I agree that’s true in the sort of romantic fantasy story where it’s true.

But it’s not true anywhere else.

I would have said the opposite. It is only in fantasy stories (like OOTS) that people can be in life-or-death situations and still take time to ponder the morality of their actions. In most cases, you simply do what you must and try to survive.

You're focusing too much on the details of that specific hypothetical to realize the larger part being made in general. Durkon is not just talking about war, he is talking about every facet of life, and how (in general) dwarfs (and humans, elves, etc.) have advantages that goblins (or orcs, trolls, etc) don't have through no fault of their own.

The things that Durkon (and the story) are focusing on go beyond this conflict, and tunnel vision won't help with it.

Durkon gives the examples of dwarves winning due to having better steel, or having better food. Then he said he didn't want the dwarves to lose more, but that he understands why the goblins would find it unfair. That was literally his argument.

[Bootman]

Yes. I fully agree that there exist fantasy romance stories with “good people” and “evil people”, and that in subset of those stories the way to solve conflicts is for the good people to kill the evil people.

The point is that this isn’t type of fantasy romance story.

Which is nice, because I find those stories so completely unrealistic.

Even if we don't believe in good and evil people, what about the right to defend yourself and the ones you love? It doesn't matter how bad somebody needs it, I'm not going to let them kill me for their own sake even if they have all the reasons and justification in the world. Even removing good and evil, sometimes there are violent situations that are extremely difficult and unrealistic to resolve without violence, and even if they could be resolved without violence if pursuing that resolution would be a risk to you or those you love you are within your right to take the safer route. It would be expecting a lot for individual people being attacked to always consider what other people are going through and then be like "Well they're in a really bad spot so maybe I can resolve this peacefully even if I'm at risk of dying (or the entire world is at risk of being destroyed and the souls consumed forever)"

I get that you're expressing a concern about potential direction, but you can't have it both ways. Either you're judging the whole work on its own without seeing the end (unfair) or you're allowing that things can end up in a spot you like, in which case authorial statements of intent are germane to that unseen future state. My issue is with your statement that authorial commentary is irrelevant to the final product, when currently there IS no final product.

I'm saying that I don't have to judge the whole work to say "the work up to this point has an issue that should be addressed". If the story goes the whole time and never accounts for certain things, or continues progressing in the way it appears to, that will cause technical writing issues. As I've said many times, almost all of the things I've mentioned can be fixed with a bit of crafty writing, expository scenes and throwaway lines. The authorial intent is completely irrelevant to 'Has the online comic shown enough Goblins in other situations to counteract the cartoonishly evil ones?' or 'How did the hobgoblins have 30,000 armed and armored soldiers but somehow are stated to be lacking in resources?' These things can be fixed but they are issues with the work as it stands. It's not the same as say, an unresolved mystery that will surely get explained at some point. These are plot holes or writing failing the themes. There is no expectation that they will be corrected, but they very well might be.

[Rrmcklin]

I would have said the opposite. It is only in fantasy stories (like OOTS) that people can be in life-or-death situations and still take time to ponder the morality of their actions. In most cases, you simply do what you must and try to survive.

Even if you're working from that frame of reference, that's separate from declaring "all these people are definitively good" and "all these people are definitively evil and okay to kill". Your take here strikes me as much more amoral than any sort of black-and-white morality.

Though I question the notion people can't be interested in survival and actual care about why the fighting is happening and the morality of actions taken before and later.

Durkon gives the examples of dwarves winning due to having better steel, or having better food. Then he said he didn't want the dwarves to lose more, but that he understands why the goblins would find it unfair. That's literally what he said.

I know what he said. I also know you're ignoring the actual context and broader implications of why he said it.

[dps]

Just above 'did nothing wrong' is a substantial region with varying shades of 'could have done better' that a Good character often strives to cross.

I think that this gets to the crux of where I disagree with Bootman. My understanding of what he is trying to convey might be faulty, but it seems to me that he is conflating Roy making a possibly less than optimal choice with a moral failing on Roy's part. I don't think that Roy has done anything morally wrong vis-a-vis the Goblins (at least not to the extent that it damages his character or breaks the story--he's not perfect after all, and has never been portrayed as such), the current arc is simply about Durkon becoming aware that there is more going on than the party had been aware of, and now making Roy aware of it, too.

[Kornaki]

See, the big problem with these last few strips is that war cannot be fair. If a general gives the enemy a fair chance, he is terrible at his job and should be replaced by someone who will not waste an opportunity the enemy might have seized if the roles were reversed. If the goblins lose more due to circumstances they have no control over and cannot change, that means the dwarves are winning.

Goblins and dwarves are not in a state of perpetual total warfare, so this seems probably wrong. If dwarf adventurers keep heading into goblin lands for free xp, and then goblin fights are made tougher, they will probably stop going into goblin lands. The total number of fights are reduced, fewer people die.

[Bootman]

Even if you're working from that frame of reference, that's separate from declaring "all these people are definitively good" and "all these people are definitively evil and okay to kill". Your take here strikes me as much more amoral than any sort of black-and-white morality.

Though I question the notion people can't be interested in survival and actual care about why the fighting is happening and the morality of actions taken before and later.

They certainly can. My point is just that it is difficult to do so and saying a character did something wrong by not doing doing it is going too far. It's a bad message and it contradicts all the times he did consider the point of view of his enemies Goblin or otherwise.

I think that this gets to the crux of where I disagree with Bootman. My understanding of what he is trying to convey might be faulty, but it seems to me that he is conflating Roy making a possibly less than optimal choice with a moral failing on Roy's part. I don't think that Roy has done anything morally wrong vis-a-vis the Goblins (at least not to the extent that it damages his character or breaks the story--he's not perfect after all, and has never been portrayed as such), the current arc is simply about Durkon becoming aware that there is more going on than the party had been aware of, and now making Roy aware of it, too.

If that's the case, if they just go 'aw gee shucks that wasn't perfect', it will be pretty weak sauce as a revelation to bring up to Roy and lack a lot of power. The issue is that Roy gives a very good reason why he wouldn't have done it (even though he has in the past), and Durkon gives a very manipulatively framed snide example to counteract it and make it seem like Roy's defense is flawed. After which Roy agrees that he was wrong to have treated the Goblins the way he did. Is it possible this is amounting to the weak little slap of 'maybe we should consider our enemies point of view more but I was still right to do what I did in the moment'? Absolutely. But if next page Roy gives a speech to his team about how they did wrong in the first dungeon or something along those lines? Then that becomes really messed up.

Also if it really is 'we didn't do perfectly but we still did really really good' that further weakens the presentation of Goblins being oppressed in some way, and the Goblin plot REALLY needs to be strengthened in that regard to work, not weakened. Also it needs to be applied universally, not just to Goblins, if it's going to work as a character revelation or theme.

[Dion]

See, the big problem with these last few strips is that war cannot be fair.

Well then, it’s a very good thing that nobody is currently at war in the strip.

[Telenil]

Even if you're working from that frame of reference, that's separate from declaring "all these people are definitively good" and "all these people are definitively evil and okay to kill". Your take here strikes me as much more amoral than any sort of black-and-white morality.

Pretty much. Which is why I can't fathom why Durkon and Thor speak of "fairness" in a system designed around people being rewarded for killing each other. This isn't a game or a match.

Well then, it’s a very good thing that nobody is currently at war in the strip.

The goblins and Azure City are at war. The word was written multiple times in that book.
The OOTS and Redcloak and Xykon are enemies and try to kill the other side. If that's not technically war, that's close enough.

[woweedd]

Pretty much. Which is why I can't fathom why Durkon and Thor speak of "fairness" in a system designed around people being rewarded for killing each other. This isn't a game or a match.


The goblins and Azure City are at war. The word was written multiple times in that book.
The OOTS and Redcloak and Xykon are enemies and try to kill the other side. If that's not technically war, that's close enough.

So, what? The strong do what they will, and the weak suffer? That’s not what being Good is about. Being Good means being held to a higher standard.If war can not lead to a good outcome, that is a problem with war. It can, but not always. Not every problem can or should be solved by the sword. Durkon is advocating for fairness, and, if there is no fairness in war, that’s war’s problem.