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

[Bootman]

Given he objected to walking the dominated Linear Guild kobold up the steps to check for traps over in 840, probably. And that was a guy whose crowning achievement was trying to murder a cat because it was there.

I think the potential for discrepancies like that is what the post is concerned about, though.

Exactly. If you try to make a point about his double standard you have to explain every situation that seems to contradict it or else your theme will fail and you'll be contradicting the character. I think that themes tend to sit safely outside of normal judgement (Subjective, if you will), but we can judge how they're conveyed. In this case though I only made my post because of the contradictions and narrative issues it is starting to cause. When a story makes a blatant mistake that's what we call 'objective'. I.E. if they made Vee really stupid for the sake of a joke. You can subjectively find it funny or find a theme in it, but on the technical writing side it would be deeply flawed.

[Rrmcklin]

Thor didn't say that. Instead, he said that the truth was complicated and that Redcloak's take was extremely biased.

Redcloak appears to argue that the gods, as the creators of the world, are responsible for everything that happens. And then Redcloak focuses on the goblins' grievances as the main thing that the gods caused.

The first problem with Redcloak's perspective is that it's absurd to claim that the gods actually had power to control everything. That's like faulting someone driving a car for not dodging a microscopic bacteria on the road when they could've turned the wheel.. while dodging may've seemed possible in principle, merely controlling the steering-wheel isn't actually sufficient to have had the power to choose otherwise.

The second problem with Redcloak's perspective is that, if Redcloak does take the absurd position that the gods are at-fault for everything by virtue of being creators, then Redcloak also has to fault the gods for everything Redcloak likes. Including the fact that the goblins exist in the first place; that Redcloak himself has become a high-level Cleric; that the Dark One ascended; that the goblins got Azure City; etc.. So if the gods created the Dark One and gave the goblins Azure City, aren't they helping the goblins?

Thor pointed out that Redcloak's arguments were extremely biased -- not that they were correct.

"Biased" and "inaccurate" are not synonyms. Thor denies that the injustices and inequalities that the goblinoids face were done intentionally, but he doesn't deny that they exist. He also doesn't deny the fact that the gods could have done something about them, but just didn't.

Yes, Redcloak is biased, but that doesn't mean he's wrong. And for that matter, Thor is also a biased perspective. He is one of the gods who made this system, he has an inherent interest in defending it. That's not even saying he's a bad guy, but it does mean that he isn't perfect and his perspective can be skewed. That's a thing that happens, in real-life, and often in this comic.

[Vikenlugaid]

I think it would be reasonable to accept a position in between Thor and Durkon's views - that the goblins had a poor hand but still could and can do a lot better with what they do have - but the last few strips definitely suggest to me that we are meant to see Durkon as entirely in the right and Thor entirely in the wrong.

But Thot himself admitted that Durkon is right, i see no doubt here.

And seriously, the conquering of Azure City is not a valid point to "Hobgoblins can beat humans". They got helped a lot by Xykon, Redcloack (he is not originally part of their community) and unintencionally by Miko. I mean, Xykon and Redcloak manage to bypass the azurite "invaders detection system", which is, in this kind of situations, really important, probably the most important thing in that war, couse then the azurites coudnt assemble his army (and allies) properly, so they just fight with the forces they had inside the city at the moment. Redcloak summoned elementals that broke the walls, 3 powerful undead warriors (or, at least, 2), and a good strategy both in direct combat and with that spies who opened the second gate. Xykon destroyed the entire shaphire ward. Miko killed the azurite leader causing a lot of chaos and nobles leaving the city (with their soldiers)... this all are things that hobgoblins couldnt do by theirselfs, without all of this they wouldnt had a chance vs Azure City, and that was the biggest goblin army since the Dark One's.
Hobgoblins are not crap, but they, at their best, are not a real threat.

And for dwarves vs goblins, if Durkon says that normally dwarves kill goblins and not the other way, i suppose is couse he have seen that a lot of times, and if Thor says "well, you are right" is couse that's true, that happened a lot of times.

[Bootman]

But Thot himself admitted that Durkon is right, i see no doubt here.

And seriously, the conquering of Azure City is not a valid point to "Hobgoblins can beat humans". They got helped a lot by Xykon, Redcloack (he is not originally part of their community) and unintencionally by Miko. I mean, Xykon and Redcloak manage to bypass the azurite "invaders detection system", which is, in this kind of situations, really important, probably the most important thing in that war, couse then the azurites coudnt assemble his army (and allies) properly, so they just fight with the forces they had inside the city at the moment. Redcloak summoned elementals that broke the walls, 3 powerful undead warriors (or, at least, 2), and a good strategy both in direct combat and with that spies who opened the second gate. Xykon destroyed the entire shaphire ward. Miko killed the azurite leader causing a lot of chaos and nobles leaving the city (with their soldiers)... this all are things that hobgoblins couldnt do by theirselfs, without all of this they wouldnt had a chance vs Azure City, and that was the biggest goblin army since the Dark One's.
Hobgoblins are not crap, but they, at their best, are not a real threat.

And for dwarves vs goblins, if Durkon says that normally dwarves kill goblins and not the other way, i suppose is couse he have seen that a lot of times, and if Thor says "well, you are right" is couse that's true, that happened a lot of times.

How is it not a valid point? It means they had an army that was comparative to Azure city. They had 30,000 troops. That is absolutely massive. This is in fact further supported by outside material involving the Dark One uniting the tribes, but we'll leave that aside. It's less important that they are better then the humans, which is arguable. It is more important that they had an army that big, armed and armored, laying around. 30,000 troops is a threat no matter what you say and it takes a lot of industry and resources to keep it going. Whether or not they are exactly on par with humans is irrelevant the fact that you can't have 'crappy land that makes you totally disadvantaged no matter what' and '30,000 armed and armored troops' without something else going on.

Azure city was only able to muster 10,000 for instance. How many troops should we assume they have that were unable to reach? If we assume they had 60,000 because human land is SOOOO much better than hobgoblin land, that they actually had double their troops overall and thus the hobgoblins were really not a threat, then they would have had a 2.5 times advantage when they remustered their outside armies to take the city back. If there were tens of thousands of troops left in other areas, wouldn't they have been mentioned at some point at least? Wouldn't Hinjo have wanted to meet with this vast army and its generals?

We can't just assume that Azure city has a massive advantage over the hobgoblins when to all appearances their army is weaker discounting PCs and villains on either side. And really, if one cleric and one sorcerer is enough to make that much of a difference, to raise something from 'non-threat' to 'easily destroying the enemy' that's a pretty big ask. Either way, if we're admitting they're not crappy then what's the complaint about from Redcloak? Their lands are better than others then, surely. Once you allow that the Hobgoblins could amass a force like that it becomes really hard to justify them as oppressed or severely disadvantaged just because maybe most of the time they can't just destroy another nation at a whim.

[Vikenlugaid]

This is why the recent strips are so damaging to Roy. People earlier have mocked me by saying that the comic isn't saying "ROY GREENHILT IS A RACIST", but here you are literally saying he would discriminate based on race in such a blatant way. That he literally values Goblin lives much less.

I believe he would do the same for Goblins if all the other factors were the same and if the Giant confirms the contrary then it's a pretty awful take on Roy's character that will contradict previous scenes where he's shown kindness, empathy, understanding and peaceful resolutions with 'monsters'.

1- But he did, not on purpose, he just didnt question that in the past. That is not RACIST, but "microracist"

2- Well, I believe he would do that NOW for sure, but he didnt do it earlier. And is not only with goblins, we had a big story arc about some elf having troubles couse he/she killed a young dragon without a second thought... I mean, this "monsters are people too" topic is not new at all in this comic, but characters mostly treated them as "things" everytime they have fought them. There are exceptions, but still no with goblins.
You know, they even throwed Nale and Thog in jail like three times, without killing them, but they never throwed a goblin in jail.

How is it not a valid point? It means they had an army that was comparative to Azure city. They had 30,000 troops. That is absolutely massive. This is in fact further supported by outside material involving the Dark One uniting the tribes, but we'll leave that aside. It's less important that they are better then the humans, which is arguable. It is more important that they had an army that big, armed and armored, laying around. 30,000 troops is a threat no matter what you say and it takes a lot of industry and resources to keep it going. Whether or not they are exactly on par with humans is irrelevant the fact that you can't have 'crappy land that makes you totally disadvantaged no matter what' and '30,000 armed and armored troops' without something else going on.

Still that army is an exception (that, by the way, started as a gag), and still, without Xykon and Redcloak they wouldnt have a chance to conquer Azure City anyway.

Humans, elfs, etc are supposed to have a lot of armies like that all over the world (unless this is a really weird world where none go to war ever). You can't make a valid point with one single exception.

And the fact that, in the comid, we have only seen that army, and no other army of humans, elfs, etc. and that was precisely a goblinoid army, and they won, and they are evil (or in the evil side) just make this topic about "goblins being right in their original motives" more interesting. If they were showed just like oppresed people and 100% victims, it would be simpler, less interesting and less original.

Azure city was only able to muster 10,000 for instance. How many troops should we assume they have that were unable to reach? If we assume they had 60,000 because human land is SOOOO much better than hobgoblin land, that they actually had double their troops overall and thus the hobgoblins were really not a threat, then they would have had a 2.5 times advantage when they remustered their outside armies to take the city back. If there were tens of thousands of troops left in other areas, wouldn't they have been mentioned at some point at least? Wouldn't Hinjo have wanted to meet with this vast army and its generals?

We just don't know, couse Rich just did not want to tell that part of the story, couse that is mostly irrelevant i think. But we know that Azure City had an "antiinvaders" system, and they couldn't use it, so, it is logical to think that they would have a bigger army, and allies and that.

But we know that goblins normally can'd do this kind of campaigns and succed, otherways there would be plenty of goblin states all over the oots world.

We can't just assume that Azure city has a massive advantage over the hobgoblins when to all appearances their army is weaker discounting PCs and villains on either side. And really, if one cleric and one sorcerer is enough to make that much of a difference, to raise something from 'non-threat' to 'easily destroying the enemy' that's a pretty big ask. Either way, if we're admitting they're not crappy then what's the complaint about from Redcloak? Their lands are better than others then, surely. Once you allow that the Hobgoblins could amass a force like that it becomes really hard to justify them as oppressed or severely disadvantaged just because maybe most of the time they can't just destroy another nation at a whim.

Man, i won't repeat myself on how the Azure city conquest is not a likely scenario.
But anyway, if your point is that goblins can't be opressed couse they manage to conquer one single human city... then, if we see the rest of the world, plenty of humans cities and without a single goblin city apart from that one... what do you think then? they are balanced but in all of these thousands of years they only manage to have ONE city and to win ONE siege? i don't see it.

[Larsaan]

I think all of this shows the difference between what an author wants to say, versus what is actually supported by their story. Which is one of the dangers of switching themes mid-telling.

We're being told that this is a story of oppression of inequality. However, what we're shown is a story about the cycle of revenge.

At no point in this comic have we seen goblins suffer from poverty or starvation. With the exception of the crayon flashback of TDO's origins (which are becoming more and more suspect), every single goblin-related conflict so far can be traced back to the feud between the Sapphire Guard and the Crimson Mantle. Not a single goblin we've seen has taken up arms because of poor living conditions, the ones who fight either do so for the sake of revenge (Redcloak, the hobs in HTPGHS), or just because they were ordered to. And that makes all this talk of bad land ring very hollow, since at no point has that actually been a factor in the storyline we've been following.

I suspect that Rich has changed his mind more than once about what the comic's theme really is. Back when it was just about examining the morality of PC races versus NPC races we didn't have these issues, because that message didn't require the goblins to be inherent underdogs. Now that we've switched over to a more real-life inspired oppression narrative, however, the cracks from shoving a square theme-peg through a round story-hole are starting to show.

[Kilo24]

I'd advise citing a strip since I don't recall that, and if it's from side material then I don't think it should be considered. Even if it is from the main material and that is the entire context for the quote, and Redcloak wants all the races to sit down together in brotherhood, then he doesn't bring it up nearly enough and his actions don't particularly indicated it either. I think the most valuable piece for analyzing Redcloak's motivations are when he sits down with Durkon. There he explains explicitly what he wants.

In fact in panel 8 of strip 1208 he just assumes Durkon is a greedy Dwarf surrounded by gold and gems, totally invalidating his perspective. Since Redcloak has never done anything to show he cares about humans or lizardfolk or dwarves, admits he's speciest against humans, etc. etc. shows more about him then one land which seems to have been given as some kind of propaganda perhaps?

Equality for Redcloak is exclusively focused on the Goblins having equality compared to other races in the fantasy world and the story seems to be agreeing with him that there's an issue with how Goblins have been treated. I counter this by showing other species have been mistreated just as bad if not worst but they are barely being addressed in the slightest. This will make the theme ineffective in the long term. Does Redcloak have the right to be exclusively concerned with his own race? Absolutely and I think that is totally fair. Should the story be agreeing with his assessment? I don't believe so given the philosophical and technical arguments regarding the world building that I presented above.

...

I understand the distinction about him never considering it, and I'm saying that if an army is marching on me, or I'm under an evil slave-state or I'm in a high stakes life or death struggle persisting over multiple days, not considering it in those moments is totally reasonable and it would be a LOT to ask of anybody to expect them to respond peacefully in those scenarios.

We don't expect our soldiers to even consider peaceful options in a war zone where they're being actively attacked. I agree that in a broad sense, yes Roy should have considered the Goblins as a society more if he interacted with Goblin society more. He's only interacted with evil armies and forces working for a dark lich in a situation I've explained multiple times so I'll not do it again here. I would answer it with a simple question. If Roy walked into a Goblin village and nobody attacked him, do you think he would attack them? He might be nervous as he reasonably should be. Hell in medieval times you were nervous about people who lived two towns over.

At the most basic level, this is a comic founded in Dungeons and Dragons: the expectation is that you have enough irredeemable evil around to kill to fill an adventuring party's schedule from levels 1-20, and - while Rich does subvert that *always* being the case - cutting off a steady stream of guilt-free monsters to fight would put traditional adventurers out of work and render most of their toys useless.

As such, presenting the default order of things as "Goblins bad, should be killed on sight" isn't an artistic statement, but attempts to subvert it (as Rich has been doing) are. I do agree with you that Roy has had good reasons as shown thus far to fight all the goblins without stopping to talk - but I do also agree that he should be worried that he hasn't even seriously tried to talk them out of violence at all. That doesn't mean he should drop his sword when they're trying to kill him, but that maybe he should have tried to *make* opportunities to talk with the goblins like Durkon just did. Maybe it would have been just as fruitless and as personally dangerous, but Roy could go to sleep knowing that he made a good faith attempt at a peaceful resolution. Or even if there was no possibility to attempt to negotiate for a peaceful resolution, he could console himself that he at the very least looked for one once. That bare-minimum good-faith attempt to avoid unnecessary death is something that he, I, and I would assume Rich would consider to be characteristic of a Good alignment (but not an absolute requirement).

As to whether the story considers Redcloak to be "right", I am willing to bet that "right idea, wrong execution" is going to be Redcloak-as-a-villain's epitaph: maybe he'll be redeemed, maybe he won't, but I do expect that the climax of his personal arc will be him being confronted with hard evidence that his actions have compromised instead of served the goblin race. And the thing is that there's a lot of leeway in how the line between where the "idea" and the "execution" is drawn: Redcloak's right idea as envisioned by Durkon might simply be that "Goblins have an unfair lot in life and there should have been some way to address that issue with the gods" - and to leave all the details about exactly how unfair the initial resource allocation was and what the ideal manner of correcting that disparity is in the problem-prone "execution" category.

Given how vague a "fair share" of "resources" is for a whole race, Thor's embarrassed, frustrated, and with-pertinent-additional-context "It's complicated" response, and Redcloak's demonstrated refusal to negotiate a compromise, I expect that the whether or not the story agrees with Redcloak's stated goals isn't going to be nearly as important as you worry it will be. Redcloak indeed has a lofty and noble goal of racial equality and harmony and brotherhood and whatnot, but - as evidenced in the negotiation with Durkon - when said goal might actually be within reach he doesn't know what to do and gets defensive. Moreover, Durkon, Thor, and now Roy are in a position that they can demonstrate that they care more about Redcloak's noble-goals-as-stated than Redcloak does. As such, I expect that that will be used to force Redcloak to face his own hypocrisy, and not that it will argue the inherent morality of forceful redistribution of land/wealth or that Roy had a moral imperative at any specific time to talk instead of fight.

And there's still a pretty good chance that Redcloak's goals are going to be demonstrated to be self-contradictory. While that option's still a major possibility, there's going to be any number of ways to interpret the story as supporting or refuting said goals; to agree on aspects of a hypothetical but impossible-to-achieve utopia is hardly a notable endorsement of the idea.

[Jason]

I just reread the actual comic very carefully to see if your assertion is true.

It is not.

Thor never says that redcloak is wrong.

In fact, the whole point of the last two comics is Durkon’s growing horror at discovering that Thor doesn’t deny anything Redcloak said.

It’s awful to say, but I don’t think you’re arguing about things that happen in the comic.

Well, let's look at it in more depth. What Redcloak said to Durkon was (among other things):
"If you and your friends raid a goblin camp, kill everyone and take all of their money, they call you adventurers. If me and my friends do the same to a human village, they call us monsters.
"And it's not by accident! This was done to us on purpose! Your gods made us to serve as fodder for you! We were put here so your 'heroes' could kill us and become more powerful!
"We were betrayed by our own creators from the moment we first drew breath - and that betrayal has led to goblin suffering ever since!!"

Durkon says to Thor: "Redcloak said... 'E said tha goblins were creat'd by the gods solely ta be fodder for other races, so heroes could kill 'em an' get more powerful."
Thor's response (paraphrasing) is "It's more complicated than that."
Thor: "My point is that we didn't put the goblins in a specific position to be anyone's targets, at least not more than we did everyone else in the whole world."

So Redcloak's idea that "Your gods made us to serve as fodder for you," is false. It's only true in the sense that the gods created a world where anyone can serve as fodder for anyone else - the goblins were not intended to be the victims of everyone else, not even by their careless creator who abandoned them.

Redcloak says it was done on purpose. Thor says "no, it wasn't done on purpose."

If Thor is telling the truth then yes, he is saying that Redcloak is wrong. He's not saying the exact words "Redcloak is wrong," but that is the clear meaning of what he is saying.

Durkon's horror is not that Redcloak was right, it's that he realizes his god Thor didn't consider the plight of the goblins earlier and act to prevent it.

[Bootman]

I think all of this shows the difference between what an author wants to say, versus what is actually supported by their story. Which is one of the dangers of switching themes mid-telling.

We're being told that this is a story of oppression of inequality. However, what we're shown is a story about the cycle of revenge.

At no point in this comic have we seen goblins suffer from poverty or starvation. With the exception of the crayon flashback of TDO's origins (which are becoming more and more suspect), every single goblin-related conflict so far can be traced back to the feud between the Sapphire Guard and the Crimson Mantle. Not a single goblin we've seen has taken up arms because of poor living conditions, the ones who fight either does so for the sake of revenge (Redcloak, the hobs in HTPGHS), or just because they were ordered to. And that makes all this talk of bad land ring very hollow, since at no point has that actually been a factor in the storyline we've been following.

I suspect that Rich has changed his mind more than once about what the comic's theme really is. Back when it was just about examining the morality of PC races versus NPC races we didn't have these issues, because that message didn't require the goblins to be inherent underdogs. Now that we've switched over to a more real-life inspired oppression narrative, however, the cracks from shoving a square theme-peg through a round story-hole are starting to show.

Very well put my friend. And on a side note I'm very happy with the discourse in this thread.

1- But he did, not on purpose, he just didnt question that in the past. That is not RACIST, but "microracist"

2- Well, I believe he would do that NOW for sure, but he didnt do it earlier. And is not only with goblins, we had a big story arc about some elf having troubles couse he/she killed a young dragon without a second thought... I mean, this "monsters are people too" topic is not new at all in this comic, but characters mostly treated them as "things" everytime they have fought them. There are exceptions, but still no with goblins.
You know, they even throwed Nale and Thog in jail like three times, without killing them, but they never throwed a goblin in jail.


Still that army is an exception (that, by the way, started as a gag), and still, without Xykon and Redcloak they wouldnt have a chance to conquer Azure City anyway.

Humans, elfs, etc are supposed to have a lot of armies like that all over the world (unless this is a really weird world where none go to war ever). You can't make a valid point with one single exception.

And the fact that, in the comid, we have only seen that army, and no other army of humans, elfs, etc. and that was precisely a goblinoid army, and they won, and they are evil (or in the evil side) just make this topic about "goblins being right in their original motives" more interesting. If they were showed just like oppresed people and 100% victims, it would be simpler, less interesting and less original.


We just don't know, couse Rich just did not want to tell that part of the story, couse that is mostly irrelevant i think. But we know that Azure City had an "antiinvaders" system, and they couldn't use it, so, it is logical to think that they would have a bigger army, and allies and that.

But we know that goblins normally can'd do this kind of campaigns and succed, otherways there would be plenty of goblin states all over the oots world.



Man, i won't repeat myself on how the Azure city conquest is not a likely scenario.
But anyway, if your point is that goblins can't be opressed couse they manage to conquer one single human city... then, if we see the rest of the world, plenty of humans cities and without a single goblin city apart from that one... what do you think then? they are balanced but in all of these thousands of years they only manage to have ONE city and to win ONE siege? i don't see it.

I actually appreciate this since you're going through and giving lots of points and a complete argument.

Microracist is still racist, and if it's being presented as a character revelation in the story even if it is 'microracist' it is still given narrative and thematic weight.

I believe this would be because dragons and goblins are not citizens of any northern nations nor criminals that can strictly break the law. At the same time one was a character's brother and that person's friends so it would be natural to expect them to be a bit more merciful. Nale was also captured in a pause in the battle by Elan and was no longer any kind of a threat in that scenario. I think the unique relationship that they have and the citizen status is a lot more important. Would a Goblin take a human soldier to Goblin-jail? That sounds very very silly to me.

As established in an edit to my first post in this thread, gags are indicative of character and worldbuilding as much as anything else. As an exception it is still bigger and stronger than anybody else's army that we've seen.

If they do have bigger armies we should have seen them and they should have been stated to exist, and they would have to be a LOT bigger then 30,000 to uphold the narrative that the hobgoblins have very little.

Even if it does add texture to the theme as you say, I.E. it presents some goblins that are not oppressed, we need to see some that are. We need to see the majority or a significant amount are oppressed. We have literally seen more appressed humans then goblins in the online comic.

My point was that if the army was just that much bigger then it would have been mentioned. If they had even a few thousand more troops in the countryside, that should have been mentioned. Instead Hinjo functionally abandons them because I certainly didn't see a bunch of extra ships added or mention of the professional soldiers when he was talking about raising a new army. Without being told this force that dwarfs the hobgoblins exists we should not assume it does.

It doesn't matter whether it was likely, just the fact that it's possible and the hobgoblin state had a good chance of doing so and an army like that undermines the oppression narrative. We've seen two significant hobgoblin cities for a start. For a second point, the heroes have been going to human areas because I doubt they're accepted in goblin areas and they've never had to go there for plot reasons. We don't know how many there are, just that they have at least one nation able to muster a 30,000 man army with swords, shields and armor. So once again from what we're shown on screen, goblins are both nearly always evil and doing pretty well for themselves (as far as the online comic goes).

[Nephrahim]

I'll say this about Azure City and Gobbotopia, as it relates to this question. I don't think you can really say the hobgoblins conquered it. I think Xykon did, and I think everyone in the universe thinks that too.

While the hobgoblins ended up doing most of the work, without Xykon and team sabotaging the beacons, the city would have had a ton more warning, been able to call in allies, and fortify the city. If the nobles hadn't left (Technically not Xykon's direct doing, but it was a factor.) the forces would be even stronger. Without Xykon, frankly, I don't think redcloak ever gets that high level, to be honest (Considering the last bearer of the crimson mantle didn't seem too impressive.) and his help would have been much less.

Even after the city was taken, when Hinjo asks for support in taking it back, nobody is worried about the hobgoblins, they tell him "We don't want to be the lich's next target." Nobody is afraid of the horde of hobgoblins, they're worried about him.

Without Xykon's intervention, then yes, that hobgoblin "Encampment" does exists, but I think it ends the way Redcloak alleges all such endeavors do. A bunch of humans, with maybe some elves and dwarves get together and push them back the moment they start marching. Because that's what everyone in these strips, Redcloak, Durkon, even Thor, take for granted. The humans have the levels, the equipment, the everything, to make any battle they have with hobgoblins (without huge intervention) 9/10 in their favor.

[dps]

Much of the stuff I pointed out and others have as well are technical writing issues that have existed for awhile. If they aren't addressed, it doesn't matter whether or not we love it or hate it.

Well, I'd turn that last part completely around--how much readers enjoy the story is what matters, not whether and how what you perceive to be technical writing issues are addressed. It's a work of fiction, not an instruction manual or rulebook, so technical writing aren't the big a deal as they would be otherwise, even if I agreed that the things you express concern about are problems--what you see as contradictions, I see as nuance.

[Bootman]

At the most basic level, this is a comic founded in Dungeons and Dragons: the expectation is that you have enough irredeemable evil around to kill to fill an adventuring party's schedule from levels 1-20, and - while Rich does subvert that *always* being the case - cutting off a steady stream of guilt-free monsters to fight would put traditional adventurers out of work and render most of their toys useless.

The issue isn’t whether or not he cuts it off, but how many are shown at all and how reasonable it is to feel guilty about the ones that Rich wants us to. The fact that it would be hard to tell a story with a bunch of fights while making the fights themselves typically have nuance to both sides is very difficult doesn’t impact whether or not he should do it. I, in fact, have zero sympathy for somebody who fails when trying to do something hard when it is their job. I am currently writing a very ambitious story and if I make genuine mistakes I won’t allow myself of the excuse that it was too hard.

As such, presenting the default order of things as "Goblins bad, should be killed on sight" isn't an artistic statement, but attempts to subvert it (as Rich has been doing) are. I do agree with you that Roy has had good reasons as shown thus far to fight all the goblins without stopping to talk - but I do also agree that he should be worried that he hasn't even seriously tried to talk them out of violence at all. That doesn't mean he should drop his sword when they're trying to kill him, but that maybe he should have tried to *make* opportunities to talk with the goblins like Durkon just did. Maybe it would have been just as fruitless and as personally dangerous, but Roy could go to sleep knowing that he made a good faith attempt at a peaceful resolution. Or even if there was no possibility to attempt to negotiate for a peaceful resolution, he could console himself that he at the very least looked for one once. That bare-minimum good-faith attempt to avoid unnecessary death is something that he, I, and I would assume Rich would consider to be characteristic of a Good alignment (but not an absolute requirement).

As I said before, recontextualization is incredibly hard to do right. You run the risk of these mistakes when trying to subvert things. If you want the original goblins from the first dungeon to be misunderstood, by all means. But that means you’ve got to bridge the gap from comedy to tragedy and that is dangerous to do.

Right and I would argue that Roy has made the good faith attempt when reasonable. Any definition of the ‘good faith’ as it would apply to Goblins would have to include basically every mook in the story forever. And once again that makes it lose the Goblin edge. I actually agree with your overall assessment there, but the implications on every other minion and whether or not it fits with Roy or the goblins as a whole is a lot more tricky. The real trick is going to be how this sort of thing progresses from here. Say the next chapter Roy starts crying because of what he did, or gives a big speech to everybody about how they treated just the goblins wrong. Then that will come across a lot worse than just ‘it’s okay to try and be a bit better’ and contradict things when we bring up similar situations with non-goblins.

As to whether the story considers Redcloak to be "right", I am willing to bet that "right idea, wrong execution" is going to be Redcloak-as-a-villain's epitaph: maybe he'll be redeemed, maybe he won't, but I do expect that the climax of his personal arc will be him being confronted with hard evidence that his actions have compromised instead of served the goblin race. And the thing is that there's a lot of leeway in how the line between where the "idea" and the "execution" is drawn: Redcloak's right idea as envisioned by Durkon might simply be that "Goblins have an unfair lot in life and there should have been some way to address that issue with the gods" - and to leave all the details about exactly how unfair the initial resource allocation was and what the ideal manner of correcting that disparity is in the problem-prone "execution" category.

I completely agree with this statement but I think it also applies to the story itself, not just Redcloaks “right problem wrong treatment” thing. I think the idea of what Rich is doing is fantastic, but the execution and details need to be addressed for me to believe in it. I don’t recall if I said the story agrees with Redcloak and if I did I apologize.

Given how vague a "fair share" of "resources" is for a whole race, Thor's embarrassed, frustrated, and with-pertinent-additional-context "It's complicated" response, and Redcloak's demonstrated refusal to negotiate a compromise, I expect that the whether or not the story agrees with Redcloak's stated goals isn't going to be nearly as important as you worry it will be. Redcloak indeed has a lofty and noble goal of racial equality and harmony and brotherhood and whatnot, but - as evidenced in the negotiation with Durkon - when said goal might actually be within reach he doesn't know what to do and gets defensive. Moreover, Durkon, Thor, and now Roy are in a position that they can demonstrate that they care more about Redcloak's noble-goals-as-stated than Redcloak does. As such, I expect that that will be used to force Redcloak to face his own hypocrisy, and not that it will argue the inherent morality of forceful redistribution of land/wealth or that Roy had a moral imperative at any specific time to talk instead of fight.

If you’re correct (and I’m properly understanding you), and I hope you are, then many of my stated problems vanish. My only concern was that if it doesn’t go that way, and fast, then the problems in this most recent strip could fester let alone if they go in the direction I feared they might which would lead to outright ruining the themes and contradicting previous things in the narrative. So I agree, most of my statements so far could be fixed or may already be intended to be fixed (and so they wouldn’t actually be problems). I’m mentioning it just in case they weren’t and I have some small power to influence one of my favorite stories.

And there's still a pretty good chance that Redcloak's goals are going to be demonstrated to be self-contradictory. While that option's still a major possibility, there's going to be any number of ways to interpret the story as supporting or refuting said goals; to agree on aspects of a hypothetical but impossible-to-achieve utopia is hardly a notable endorsement of the idea.

There will be many ways that’s true. But unless certain things are addressed they will be, as I label, objective issues within the writing. Contradictions and the like. For example, in the first introduction the monster god with Fenris. In 1232 it was Fenrir. This is a nano issue. You could interpret it a bunch of ways (Maybe it’s a nickname! Maybe he recently changed his name! Maybe it’s a different god!) but without hard and fast stuff in the story addressing why the name is different, it will forever remain an issue. An objective mistake in the writing and one that, if never addressed, won’t impact my personal opinion of the work in the slightest.

Thank you very much for your well thought out and extremely reasonable response. I really enjoyed responding to it and it’s posts like yours that make me happy I started this thread.

I'll say this about Azure City and Gobbotopia, as it relates to this question. I don't think you can really say the hobgoblins conquered it. I think Xykon did, and I think everyone in the universe thinks that too.

While the hobgoblins ended up doing most of the work, without Xykon and team sabotaging the beacons, the city would have had a ton more warning, been able to call in allies, and fortify the city. If the nobles hadn't left (Technically not Xykon's direct doing, but it was a factor.) the forces would be even stronger. Without Xykon, frankly, I don't think redcloak ever gets that high level, to be honest (Considering the last bearer of the crimson mantle didn't seem too impressive.) and his help would have been much less.

Even after the city was taken, when Hinjo asks for support in taking it back, nobody is worried about the hobgoblins, they tell him "We don't want to be the lich's next target." Nobody is afraid of the horde of hobgoblins, they're worried about him.

Without Xykon's intervention, then yes, that hobgoblin "Encampment" does exists, but I think it ends the way Redcloak alleges all such endeavors do. A bunch of humans, with maybe some elves and dwarves get together and push them back the moment they start marching. Because that's what everyone in these strips, Redcloak, Durkon, even Thor, take for granted. The humans have the levels, the equipment, the everything, to make any battle they have with hobgoblins (without huge intervention) 9/10 in their favor.

The issue I'm bringing up is not whether or not they could conquer Azure city easily on their own. And it's not based off other things or guesses like how big other armies are or whether or not Hobgoblins attack a lot or whether they have a 9/10 chance of losing. My reasoning is simply this. Based off what we've seen, the hobgoblins have the biggest army in the story and there is no reason to assume anyone has an army that is bigger or able to equip so many in the first place. Whether or not there are other factors involving strategy, leadership or individual powerful beings on either side, the Hobgoblins despite having 'bad land' according to Redcloak mustered this force and kept it trained, equipped and ready for war at a moments notice. That's a lot of resources for 'bad land' to handle.

Well, I'd turn that last part completely around--how much readers enjoy the story is what matters, not whether and how what you perceive to be technical writing issues are addressed. It's a work of fiction, not an instruction manual or rulebook, so technical writing aren't the big a deal as they would be otherwise, even if I agreed that the things you express concern about are problems--what you see as contradictions, I see as nuance.

Okay so let's get really extreme here then. Next page Durkon converts to Loki because he thinks it would be funny. Minrah confesses her love to Roy. Mr. Scruff reveals he was a celestial wizard this whole time. Elan solves a complicated math problem. etc. etc. And everybody loves it. Would you still say whether or not readers enjoy the story is the only thing that matters? In that case, is there even such a thing as 'bad' stories out there? Can a story be bad if the only thing that matters is whether or not the audience enjoys it?

[Nephrahim]

But I mean, the question isn't if the Hobgoblins can have a BIG army. Nobody doubts they can have a lot of guys. The question is, can they accomplish anything with that, against the "Civilized" nations, and the answer seems to be "no."

I do agree it's a bit of a contradiction that they live in what is described as a "Fertile valley." despite complaints about the land. But is just having that food enough? I'm not sure about that.

[Bootman]

But I mean, the question isn't if the Hobgoblins can have a BIG army. Nobody doubts they can have a lot of guys. The question is, can they accomplish anything with that, against the "Civilized" nations, and the answer seems to be "no."

I do agree it's a bit of a contradiction that they live in what is described as a "Fertile valley." despite complaints about the land. But is just having that food enough? I'm not sure about that.

I think those are very good questions to ask and they should be explored in the story, but if they aren't we're forced to just go with what we can see. And if it was a bunch of small warring tribes with clubs and leather that Redcloak united I actually wouldn't be bringing this up. It's that they had ONE nation ruled by one person with an orderly, disciplined, metal clad, fully equipped, professionally trained army of 30,000.

If food isn't enough, numbers aren't enough, your own cities aren't enough, your own god isn't enough, and ores to equip your giant armies isn't enough, I wonder what is enough. What is it that the goblins are missing, exactly? And why is it so much of a big deal that it's considered oppressive or intensely disadvantageous to them?

[Nephrahim]

I really want to see what's happening in Gobotopia for that reason, to be honest. Maybe nothing (I assume Redcloak would stay in contact?) but without him and Xykon I really want to know what's the rest of the nation is doing.

[Bootman]

I really want to see what's happening in Gobotopia for that reason, to be honest. Maybe nothing (I assume Redcloak would stay in contact?) but without him and Xykon I really want to know what's the rest of the nation is doing.

Me too! And if Rich found a really great way to show that without slowing down the story and started fixing the issues I've laid out and explaining things, guess what? I'd be super happy. I believe Rich could do it. But if he doesn't, or does it poorly, these issues are going to exist forever.

Thanks for the comments, friend. Here's hoping we get to learn more as this book goes on.

[Telenil]

I think all of this shows the difference between what an author wants to say, versus what is actually supported by their story. Which is one of the dangers of switching themes mid-telling.

We're being told that this is a story of oppression of inequality. However, what we're shown is a story about the cycle of revenge.

At no point in this comic have we seen goblins suffer from poverty or starvation. With the exception of the crayon flashback of TDO's origins (which are becoming more and more suspect), every single goblin-related conflict so far can be traced back to the feud between the Sapphire Guard and the Crimson Mantle. Not a single goblin we've seen has taken up arms because of poor living conditions, the ones who fight either do so for the sake of revenge (Redcloak, the hobs in HTPGHS), or just because they were ordered to. And that makes all this talk of bad land ring very hollow, since at no point has that actually been a factor in the storyline we've been following.

I agree. I remember that strip when we were specifically told that the goblin army was dangerous, not something to joke about, and a threat even for high level characters. It feels weird to read it under the assumption that the PCs should have spent more time wondering about goblin motivations and goblins can't get more because they started with less.
As Bootman said, if they can do that in a system unfair to them, then what exactly would fair be?

[pearl jam]

There will be many ways that’s true. But unless certain things are addressed they will be, as I label, objective issues within the writing. Contradictions and the like. For example, in the first introduction the monster god with Fenris. In 1232 it was Fenrir. This is a nano issue. You could interpret it a bunch of ways (Maybe it’s a nickname! Maybe he recently changed his name! Maybe it’s a different god!) but without hard and fast stuff in the story addressing why the name is different, it will forever remain an issue. An objective mistake in the writing and one that, if never addressed, won’t impact my personal opinion of the work in the slightest.

It's been noted in the discussion thread and other places that Fenrir and Fenris are grammatical inflections of the same name in the original Old Norse, and as such are actually the same name. I suspect that, even had Rich been intentionally referencing that in modern English that doesn't have the same kind of grammar, that the uses in comic probably call for the same inflection, but it's a fairly small issue, as you have said.

[Bootman]

It's been noted in the discussion thread and other places that Fenrir and Fenris are grammatical inflections of the same name in the original Old Norse, and as such are actually the same name. I suspect that, even had Rich been intentionally referencing that in modern English that doesn't have the same kind of grammar, that the uses in comic probably call for the same inflection, but it's a fairly small issue, as you have said.

Yeah it was just an example to illustrate a point that there are things that are objective issues with a piece of art, but we are allowed to feel whatever we want about them. If I had been beaten up by a massive Norwegian kid named Fenris growing up I may have gotten really upset for instance hahaha. I appreciate the information though and that does make me understand why it swaps between the two in different pieces of media, though normally not within the same one.

[Vikenlugaid]

Very well put my friend. And on a side note I'm very happy with the discourse in this thread.




I actually appreciate this since you're going through and giving lots of points and a complete argument.

Microracist is still racist, and if it's being presented as a character revelation in the story even if it is 'microracist' it is still given narrative and thematic weight.

I believe this would be because dragons and goblins are not citizens of any northern nations nor criminals that can strictly break the law. At the same time one was a character's brother and that person's friends so it would be natural to expect them to be a bit more merciful. Nale was also captured in a pause in the battle by Elan and was no longer any kind of a threat in that scenario. I think the unique relationship that they have and the citizen status is a lot more important. Would a Goblin take a human soldier to Goblin-jail? That sounds very very silly to me.

As established in an edit to my first post in this thread, gags are indicative of character and worldbuilding as much as anything else. As an exception it is still bigger and stronger than anybody else's army that we've seen.

If they do have bigger armies we should have seen them and they should have been stated to exist, and they would have to be a LOT bigger then 30,000 to uphold the narrative that the hobgoblins have very little.

Even if it does add texture to the theme as you say, I.E. it presents some goblins that are not oppressed, we need to see some that are. We need to see the majority or a significant amount are oppressed. We have literally seen more appressed humans then goblins in the online comic.

My point was that if the army was just that much bigger then it would have been mentioned. If they had even a few thousand more troops in the countryside, that should have been mentioned. Instead Hinjo functionally abandons them because I certainly didn't see a bunch of extra ships added or mention of the professional soldiers when he was talking about raising a new army. Without being told this force that dwarfs the hobgoblins exists we should not assume it does.

It doesn't matter whether it was likely, just the fact that it's possible and the hobgoblin state had a good chance of doing so and an army like that undermines the oppression narrative. We've seen two significant hobgoblin cities for a start. For a second point, the heroes have been going to human areas because I doubt they're accepted in goblin areas and they've never had to go there for plot reasons. We don't know how many there are, just that they have at least one nation able to muster a 30,000 man army with swords, shields and armor. So once again from what we're shown on screen, goblins are both nearly always evil and doing pretty well for themselves (as far as the online comic goes).

The gag of the hobgoblin legions is marking that fact as an exception, both Redcloak and Kykon assumed that was just "another goblin village with a bunch of soldiers in it", and both of them have lived a lot of time and we need to assume that they have been recruiting every goblin they could for the Plan... and even so they are surprised, like mad, when they heard about so many legions, they obviously NEVER expected that number.

And the rest... we have seen a lot of human cities, and we have been told about reings, empires, wars between them... we don't need the exact numbers. With that info, if the comic tell us that goblins have less, we should believe it.

And the most important thing, when Durkon said to Thor that goblins are in disadvantage compared to dwarves, Thor answer is "you are right", and obviously Thor knows how the world is, so we have absolutely no reason to think that goblins have as many cities an armies as humans/elfs/dwarves, because if that was the case, Thor wouldn't had said "you are right" there.

[RossN]

Well, let's look at it in more depth. What Redcloak said to Durkon was (among other things):
"If you and your friends raid a goblin camp, kill everyone and take all of their money, they call you adventurers. If me and my friends do the same to a human village, they call us monsters.

Even accounting for Redcloak's bias I just don't understand that line at all. It only makes sense if Redcloak means that goblins shun their own people who raid human villages.

[Some]

"Biased" and "inaccurate" are not synonyms.

Yup. Nor are they antonyms.

Someone else claimed that Thor said Redcloak was correct. My point is that Thor didn't say that Redcloak was correct, just that Redcloak was extremely biased.

Thor denies that the injustices and inequalities that the goblinoids face were done intentionally, but he doesn't deny that they exist. He also doesn't deny the fact that the gods could have done something about them, but just didn't.

"but just didn't" is the extremely biased part. It makes it sound like there was some sort of check-box for "goblinoid equality" that the gods could've clicked. The whole notion of "just didn't" minimizes the scope and difficulty of both foreseeing and addressing the perceived issue.

Part of the thing is lumping them together. The gods don't all want the same things -- 1/3 of them are Good, 1/3 are Evil, and 1/3 are neither.

At least some of the Evil-gods want racism, because, ya know, Evil -- so far, we only have canon-confirmation that Fenris is pro-racism, though presumably other Evil-gods are also pro-racism (since they're literally made out of Evil). Presumably they're also pro-murder, pro-rape, pro-sexism, pro-slavery, pro-inequality, pro-supremacism, etc., because, again, Evil: that's literally what being Evil is all about. And the goblins were created as a tool of such Evil, with Fenris having created them as supremacists who'd kill and enslave other races, which is exactly what the goblins are now doing.

So how can the 1/3 of Good-gods stop it?

That said, the Good-gods aren't powerless. For example, Thor got help from Loki in getting fewer of his followers to go to Hel. Apparently Thor prioritized keeping his faithful from eternal damnation. By focusing on that particular goal, he's failed to focus on all sorts of other Good-causes, e.g. ending poverty, promoting happiness, or ensuring peace. In fact, Thor has his followers engage in violent conflicts even when violence wouldn't otherwise be necessary, because that's how Thor's keeping them out of Hel.

Thor's ability to plan and get what he wants appears to be limited. He's not omniscient -- in fact, part of his lore is that he's often duped by Loki. Apparently Thor's well aware of his limitations, and he's been focusing what abilities he does have on keeping people from going to Hel. This has come at the expense of other Good-causes Thor could've focused on.

Of course, there might be a better solution. A better solution that might involve defeating Evil forever -- ending suffering, murder, rape, and all of these horrible things for good. And maybe it's just a matter of Thor thinking hard enough to figure out how to do it. And so it's great that Thor's willing to consider and keep trying.

That said, if you were in Thor's shoes, what would you be doing?

Finally, just to reiterate: it's still unclear exactly what the goblins are. This is, Fenris made the goblins to carry out his Evil agenda.. can the goblins break free of it, or did Fenris encode racial-supremacism and violence into their very nature? How much free-will is there? And can the goblins change, or do the mechanics of the world bind them to their creator's original intent?

[Larsaan]

Not to suggest that there's not a better solution. In fact, there may be some clever trick where the Good-gods can defeat the Evil-gods once-and-for-all, permanently ending suffering, racism, murder, rape, and all of those other horrible things forever. Just, what is it?

Kill all their followers and starve them of faith?

Disclaimer edit: Obviously I don't think they'd still qualify as Good by the time they'd finished.

Actually, wasn't there an incident in Planescape where the Harmonium faction started massacring everyone who wasn't Lawful Good, and it ended up causing their entire stronghold to drop out of Celestia and crash into Mechanus?

[masamune1]

Even accounting for Redcloak's bias I just don't understand that line at all. It only makes sense if Redcloak means that goblins shun their own people who raid human villages.

He means that he sees it as a double standard- he thinks that the gods have made a world where it is okay for humans and other races to raid goblin villages, but not okay for goblins to do the same, according to the gods and their mortal followers.

Of course, he is evidently unaware that goblins were created by the literal god of monsters to be the ultimate dominant monster race....

[Some]

Kill all their followers and starve them of faith?

Disclaimer edit: Obviously I don't think they'd still qualify as Good by the time they'd finished.

Yeah.. there's a sad irony to the Dark One's plan with the Snarl. By which I mean, in a way, the Dark One's already won, and he doesn't even know it.

As Thor explained, he originally tried to end the Dark One when the Dark One ascended, in part because he could do so "safely". But now the Dark One's presumably a full god (rather than being in a weird, still-ascending transitional state).

And gods can't fight. If they do, it creates tangles that can form another Snarl. Heck, they can't even argue; they have to have their clerics come together and communicate indirectly between them, because if they do communicate directly and even just start disagreeing, it might make another Snarl.

So the Dark One may not realize this yet, but if he merely engaged in direct conflict or even argumentation with the other gods, he could summon a new Snarl without needing a complex ritual to contain the first one. He could just focus on arguing and conflicting with the other gods while constantly running away from them, like a "kiting"-strategy in an MMORPG, to build up a new Snarl.

And even though the Dark One doesn't know this, the other gods do. So all of the gods can already threaten each other with the Snarl. I think that's the canon-explanation for why even Good and Evil gods have to get along.. because they've all got a mutually-assured-destruction (MAD) weapon pointed at each other, where if anyone gets too upset, they can take out everyone else too.

Anyway, my point's that I dunno if gods can actually directly campaign to starve each other, because if any of them feels too victimized by the others, they can just go MAD by releasing the Snarl or/and creating new ones.

And the worst part? The Dark One's a *fifth* color. So if he created a new Snarl that combined with the old one, it'd have a total of 5 colors.. presumably that'd make it even harder for the 3-colors of the other pantheons to contain it, as they already have trouble with the 4-color Snarl.

[Some]

To clarify what Thor said of Redcloak's position (because a lot of posts seem to claim that Thor validated it): Thor didn't.

Thor only validated one of Durkon's points, specifically:

DURKON: But tha goblins start'd out wit less, so ths's na usu'lly wha happens. Wha happens, tha drawf wins cuz `e's gotta better axe an' better armor an's been eatin' better food `is whole life! I dunno. I mean, I dinnae want tha dwarf ta lose, but I can see how it's na `xactly fair fer tha goblin.

THOR: I mean... yes, that's true. We didn't really plan it that way on purpose...but I guess we didn't really prevent it, either.

This is, Thor agreed that, in one-on-one conflicts, Dwarves tended to have an advantage over Goblins. Thor wasn't agreeing to anything else; claims to the contrary are misstating what actually happened.

Further, Redcloak wasn't even upset about 1-on-1 combat odds. Nor could he be; there're 3 kinds of goblinoids, and only the green ones are weaker -- hobgoblins are about equal, and bugbears are stronger. Rather, Redcloak was complaining that all goblinoids -- even the stronger bugbears -- were created as EXP-fodder.

[TRH]

Yeah it was just an example to illustrate a point that there are things that are objective issues with a piece of art, but we are allowed to feel whatever we want about them. If I had been beaten up by a massive Norwegian kid named Fenris growing up I may have gotten really upset for instance hahaha. I appreciate the information though and that does make me understand why it swaps between the two in different pieces of media, though normally not within the same one.

If you want a more clear-cut example of a micro-error that is inconsequential but undeniably real, Andi was first referred to as "Sally" in an early scene in the last book, and Rich seemingly forgot he'd established her with that name and went back and edited the earlier instance accordingly.

[Worldsong]

Also to note it, it's unclear to what extent that that problem's actually a problem. For example, if Dwarves always beat Vampires, then would that be a problem? And if it's a problem with Goblins, why?

The difference between vampires and goblins is that goblins are a fully sapient and independent race, whereas vampirism is more of an affliction where a parasite-soul formed of all the worst parts of the original soul takes control of the body and then either does horrible things or, at best, lives in isolation but is still a huge threat to anyone they might come across.

In the Stickverse it'd make more sense to compare vampires to fiends than to mortal races. Including the common issue with Alignment-focused Outsiders where you have to wonder if they're truly free-willed individuals if their very being is tied to a certain alignment. Beyond that vampires have no culture, no independent form of reproduction, nothing else which would establish them as being an actual race and not an extremely unusual disease.

Durkon managed to temporarily override the parasite-soul that had taken over his body but that seemed less like a case of full-blown conversion and more Durkon using the fact that the parasite-soul is a twisted echo of his own self to seize control and self-destruct before the vampire could recover.

[Spartan360]

Yeah as Thor said it's an Ecosystem, if the well fed lions manage to slaughter the starving hyenas that charge into their lands, no one is going to feel bad on the lions side. And if a hunter noticed that the hyenas were losing so much and decided to either shoot the strongest lion or give the hyenas enough food that they manage to massively outnumber the lions. I would rather call that unfair.

[Some]

The difference between vampires and goblins is that goblins are a fully sapient and independent race, whereas vampirism is more of an affliction where a parasite-soul formed of all the worst parts of the original soul takes control of the body and then either does horrible things or, at best, lives in isolation but is still a huge threat to anyone they might come across.

The goblins don't appear to be fully independent. While non-outsiders seem to have a weaker propensity to have a pre-determined alignment, they still have very strong, obvious tenancies.

For example, we've seen a lot of goblins that we can confirm to be Evil, but none that're confirmed to be Neutral or Good in the main-comic. (Yeah, some teenaged-goblins claimed to be Good in an early strip, but quickly revealed that they weren't actually Good, just faking it to stick it to their parents -- they quickly gave up the ruse the very moment it stopped amusing them.)

Which I think is what makes racial-ethics so tricky in this setting: there's extremely powerful evidence that goblins are innately predisposed toward Evil. The empirical evidence in their behavior is overwhelming, and it makes perfect sense given that they were created by an Evil-deity to do Evil things. The idea that all of that is a coincidence, and that goblins are actually completely free-willed without additional inclination to Evil, seems implausible.

That said, I think the characterization of Vampires may've undersold their own merits. Mallock, for example, seemed genuinely Neutral-leaning.. he wasn't pure Evil. Which, given that he was a being made of negative-energy and connected to an Evil-god and required a vampiric-diet, was actually quite incredible. It seems like some part of Mallock really had an inclination toward Good, to shift such an Evil-predisposition toward Neutral. (Of course, he was still quite Evil overall, just he's evidence that the mechanics don't completely bind even a vampire cleric of an Evil-god, suggesting some level of free-will even under such constraints.)