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

[Spartan360]

Actually, I think Right-Eye and his Family were True Neutral, while he did act rather aggressively at the start of the prequel, he was mostly shown to be decent sort that actually prioritized having a simple good life for himself, his family and fellow goblins.

[Worldsong]

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. (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.

The problem here is that, while you do have a point that most of the goblins we've encountered in the main story are on the side of Evil, Rich has all but outright stated that, implausible as it is, the truth is that goblins do not have some kind of genetic or instinctive inclination towards Evil. Which means that they are fully independent and free-willed.

Basically, if a human and a goblin grew up under the same circumstances you wouldn't be able to predict which one ends up more Good or more Evil than the other. Sure, it might turn out that the Goblin is less Good than the human, but it could just as easily be the other way around.

If goblins consistently grow up to be Evil it's because of the culture and conditions they are raised in rather than some kind of innate disposition towards Evil.

I feel like by this point it'd be better to argue that Rich could have done a better job getting that idea across than trying to refute the idea itself, since OOC Rich couldn't have been blunter with his intentions unless he'd stamped them on everybody's forehead.

EDIT:

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.)

Malack wasn't Neutral. He was just a very civilized form of Evil. He was polite, respectful, rational, and was willing to compromise for the sake of someone he considered a friend of his despite their differences and opposition of each other.

However at the same time, Malack wanted to turn at least one-third of the Western Lands into a tyrannical regime where vampires would rule and thousands of living people would be sacrificed on a daily basis both to sustain the vampires and as offerings to his decidedly Evil god (important to note, Malack talked to Durkon about how death and destruction don't have to be innately evil but he never explicitly stated that his god wasn't Evil).

That's not Neutral by any margin.

[Some]

Actually, I think Right-Eye and his Family were True Neutral, while he did act rather aggressively at the start of the prequel, he was mostly shown to be decent sort that actually prioritized having a simple good life for himself, his family and fellow goblins.

Thanks for pointing that out! I edited the observation to clarify that I meant in the main-comic only. Haven't bought the other stories yet (can't seem to find a non-pirated electronic version).

[Dion]

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.

Exactly!

Saying "lions eat antelope" is the single least charitable way to put it.

It's an ecosystem. The antelopes eat the grass. The lions eat the antelopes. The worms eat the lions.

It's unnecessarily pejorative to say "the system where the lions usually eat the antelope seems designed to benefit the lions".

People really need to think a lot harder about the lion's feelings before saying something so cruel and hurtful.

[Some]

I feel like by this point it'd be better to argue that Rich could have done a better job getting that idea across than trying to refute the idea itself, since OOC Rich couldn't have been blunter with his intentions unless he'd stamped them on everybody's forehead.

My comments are based almost entirely on the main-comic. I did briefly skim a Wiki-summary for Start of Darkness, but besides that, I haven't been following the out-of-universe discussion on the comic nor the side-stories.

If the author (Rich?) did state that the goblins don't have any natural inclination toward an alignment, could you point me in the right direction for reading about that? It would be very difficult to reconcile that with what happens in the main-comic, but an author's direct claim would seem to win out if it's canon.

[Some]

Exactly!

Saying "lions eat antelope" is the single least charitable way to put it.

It's an ecosystem. The antelopes eat the grass. The lions eat the antelopes. The worms eat the lions.

It's unnecessarily pejorative to say "the system where the lions usually eat the antelope seems designed to benefit the lions".

People really need to think a lot harder about the lion's feelings before saying something so cruel and hurtful.

Just to note it: one of the reasons that it can feel so much easier to make a point through sarcasm, rather than direct statement, is that sarcasm makes it really easy to strawman opposing positions.

For example, Thor's comment about a position being "unnecessarily pejorative" was a reference to logical bias, not cruelty or emotional pain. The whole bit about hurt feelings misrepresents the actual point, instead attacking a position that no one's actually making (which is what we call a "strawman argument").

To make a clearer argument, it'd be best to clearly reference stuff and directly state a point. Often that's harder than making a strawman, though it enables productive discussion.

For example, if you feel that there's a point to be made in relation to Thor's comment with "unnecessarily pejorative", what point would that be?

[Worldsong]

My comments are based almost entirely on the main-comic. I did briefly skim a Wiki-summary for Start of Darkness, but besides that, I haven't been following the out-of-universe discussion on the comic nor the side-stories.

If the author (Rich?) did state that the goblins don't have any natural inclination toward an alignment, could you point me in the right direction for reading about that? It would be very difficult to reconcile that with what happens in the main-comic, but an author's direct claim would seem to win out if it's canon.

I don't have a link where Rich/the author literally states "goblins have no innate disposition towards evil". If I did I could have ended a couple of arguments very quickly.

However, this is what the second link in my signature leads to:

Sorry, I missed this in my earlier post:

the inapplicability as satire (again I have to wonder why anyone gives a crap about whether it's fair to depict monsters are evil in fantasy games),

I CARE. I care, and every goddamn person in the world should care, because it's objectification of a sentient being. It doesn't matter that the sentient being in question is a fictional species, it's saying that it's OK for people who look funny to be labeled as Evil by default, because hey, like 60% of them do Evil things sometimes! That is racism. It is a short hop to real-world racism once we decide it is acceptable to make blanket negative statements about entire races of people.

Our fiction reflects who we are as a civilization, and it disgusts me that so many people think it's acceptable to label creatures with only cosmetic differences from us as inherently Evil. I may like the alignment system overall, but that is its ugliest implication, and one that I think needs to be eliminated from the game. I will ALWAYS write against that idea until it has been eradicated from the lexicon of fantasy literature. If they called me up and asked me to help them work on 5th Edition, I would stamp it out from the very game itself. It is abhorrent to me in every way.

So, complaining that I am failing to uphold it is the best compliment you could give me.

Here Rich makes it very clear that he is completely opposed to the idea that you should just assume that, just because every goblin you've seen so far has been Evil, it's safe to treat the next goblin as Evil as well. I think that's about as straightforward an answer as we can get from him on the topic.

EDIT:
As for why this wouldn't apply to vampires and fiends, it's the Outsider Problem again. Outsiders (and vampires act a lot like fiends in the Stickverse so far as I understand them) are bound to an alignment. But you can't both be bound to an alignment and have free will, and the easiest way out of that conundrum is the conclusion that Outsiders, at least the ones who are bound to a specific alignment, don't have free will in the way that mortals do.

[Dion]

Just to note it: one of the reasons that it can feel so much easier to make a point through sarcasm, rather than direct statement, is that sarcasm makes it really easy to strawman opposing positions.

For example, Thor's comment about a position being "unnecessarily pejorative" was a reference to logical bias, not cruelty or emotional pain. The whole bit about hurt feelings misrepresents the actual point, instead attacking a position that no one's actually making (which is what we call a "strawman argument").

To make a clearer argument, it'd be best to clearly reference stuff and directly state a point. Often that's harder than making a strawman, though it enables productive discussion.

Ok. This isn’t sarcasm.

Pejorative does not mean “wrong”. Uncharitable does not mean “wrong”. Thor never says redcloak is wrong.

In fact, he confirms the gods intentionally created an ecosystem, and he admits goblins are not on top.

Now, he does make a weasel excuse and say not all the gods are equally responsibly, but I honestly seem to have something wrong with my brain where I can’t possibly see how that matters to the goblins.

No sarcasm take is that I think that people are reading words in the comic and making up their own meanings if they think Thor says redcloak is wrong.

(I do admit that Thor doesn’t say Redcloak is entirely right. But the whole point of the last two strips is that Durkon realizes Redcloak isnt entirely wrong, either.)

[hungrycrow]

I don't have a link where Rich/the author literally states "goblins have no innate disposition towards evil". If I did I could have ended a couple of arguments very quickly.

However, this is what the second link in my signature leads to:



Here Rich makes it very clear that he is completely opposed to the idea that you should just assume that, just because every goblin you've seen so far has been Evil, it's safe to treat the next goblin as Evil as well. I think that's about as straightforward an answer as we can get from him on the topic.

V's reflections on the familicide incident could also apply, even though they're talking about dragons instead of goblins. https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0866.html

[Some]

Here Rich makes it very clear that he is completely opposed to the idea that you should just assume that, just because every goblin you've seen so far has been Evil, it's safe to treat the next goblin as Evil as well. I think that's about as straightforward an answer as we can get from him on the topic.

In-comic, the best argument for goblins being inherently evil would be a combination of that being the case in the underlying D&D system the comic's based on plus the fact that the goblins were created by an Evil-god to do Evil-things.

Thor's revealed that they used to have creatures change their minds to reflect the beliefs of an attacker. That strongly suggests that the gods do have strong control over the mechanics of their creation's minds.

The comic's also pretty clear that behavior correlates with cosmetics. For example, color-coded dragons. For another example, things that look undead tend to behave in certain, stereotypical fashions. For another example, things that look like demons tend to be Evil.

This isn't because cosmetics actually matter -- for example, throwing paint on a dragon presumably wouldn't change it -- but rather because the cosmetics vary between things that vary. For example, demons both look different and act different, creating the correlation -- but merely putting someone in a demon-disguise or demon-illusion wouldn't.

[Worldsong]

In-comic, the best argument for goblins being inherently evil would be a combination of that being the case in the underlying D&D system the comic's based on plus the fact that the goblins were created by an Evil-god to do Evil-things.

The comic seems to leave the issue of how much control gods have over their creations' alignments unclear, but I'm not sure why some might have such confidence in the idea that an Evil-god would have literally zero ability to influence the behavior of his creations.

For example, Thor did recently point out that people used to be able to change others' minds by hitting them. This suggests that the gods do have the direct ability to influence how their creations' minds work, to a pretty extreme degree.

In that post I linked Rich makes it clear that he despises the fact that the underlying DnD system would just give an entire sapient race the Evil stamp like that, so that argument is effectively nullified.

Also, I don't agree with the idea that Fenrir made goblins with the intent of doing Evil things. As stated by Thor, Fenrir's goal was to have the goblinoids be the strongest competitors in the struggle for survival and supremacy. The same competition all other races, including those created by Good-aligned deities, were part of.

I have confidence in the idea that Fenrir did not give goblins an innate tendency towards Evil because the author has stated that he despises the idea that an entire sapient race can be written off as 'just Evil'.

As I said before, you could make the argument that Rich hasn't done a good job representing his ideas in-universe, but that doesn't refute his actual ideas. If you continue reading the story with the expectation that goblins are going to be revealed to be innately biased towards Evil then you're setting yourself up for disappointment because the story is decided by the author and the author has made it clear that he does not see it that way.

You can't counter this by giving in-story examples because so far as I'm concerned Word of God trumps any such examples when examining the intended meaning of the story and how it's going to develop.

EDIT:

V's reflections on the familicide incident could also apply, even though they're talking about dragons instead of goblins. https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0866.html

Also true. Vaarsuvius is currently on a path of redemption, and that speech could be interpreted as Rich using his character as a mouthpiece to get some of his ideas across on why assuming that all dragons related to the Ancient Black Dragon would be Evil and deserving of slaughter would be a bad thought to have.

[Some]

You can't counter this by giving in-story examples because so far as I'm concerned Word of God trumps any such examples when examining the intended meaning of the story and how it's going to develop.

Yeah, we may be having two different discussions then.

Not that I disagree with an author's insight into their own work, just, these seem to be your personal interpretations of the author's comments that I haven't seen. So while I certainly wouldn't mean disrespect, it's hard for me to just accept someone else's interpretations that seem contrary to the published work without at least seeing the comments myself.

Edit: Unless you're referring exclusively to the thing you quoted above; if it's just that, we can definitely have a discussion (or anything else linked). I'm just getting the gist that you've read a lot of author commentary over the years and are basing your comments on a broad survey rather than a specific point.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think you're severely overreacting.

I'd like to welcome you to internet discussion forums.
Here's a nice cold beer.
Over there's the hors d' ouvres tray: I think that you'll find the bacon wrapped jalapeños delicious.

There's a bit of a plot meta problem, which is a blood oath.
There's Roy, obligated to take out Xykon due to the blood oath.
Goblins could, ya know, get out of the way and let him kill that non goblin dude. But they don't, and two core reasons that they don't is that (a) they are minions of an evil lich and (b) the most powerful goblin cleric in the region, possibly in the world, has convinced them not to, but instead to serve this undead abomination: the lich Xykon. While in one way this becomes a case of "it's not easy being green" those minions could be lizard folk, dwarves, human bandits, beserkers, drow, or pretty much any of the MM humanoids and still be in Roy's way (and hence at risk for slicing and dicing with that greatsword) since evil lich needs minions is, as Elan might observe, an unavoidable narrative imperative.

It's an imbedded problem in the entire narrative arc.

I'll get the popcorn.

[Worldsong]

Yeah, we may be having two different discussions then.

Not that I disagree with an author's insight into their own work, just, these seem to be your personal interpretations of the author's comments that I haven't seen. So while I certainly wouldn't mean disrespect, it's hard for me to just accept someone else's interpretations that seem contrary to the published work without at least seeing the comments myself.

...I actually linked you a quote from the author where he literally says that he thinks it's wrong to apply blanket negative statements to an entire race in a story, fictional as that race might be.

If that isn't clear enough in the message that this story isn't about goblins unfortunately just being Evil by nature I can't really say much other than that you should set yourself up for disappointment if you think this story is going to go in any direction other than goblins deserving better treatment than just being written of as Evil.

EDIT:
I've got two other links in my signature to things said by the author on the issue. I would've had more but eventually decided that if anyone read all three of those links and still wasn't convinced then I wouldn't be able to convince them anyway.

[Edric O]

This is a story about characters. Those characters are not perfect. They're not perfectly good (not even the Good ones), or perfectly rational, or perfectly knowledgeable about every aspect of their world. They're also not moral philosophers discussing the question of "how can we eliminate or minimize injustice in our world?"

They are all flawed people on a quest to save the world, who are only just now starting to discover that the villains are not just doing evil for the lulz (well, one of the main villains isn't doing evil for the lulz; the other one totally is).

So what exactly would you have expected to happen, once they start seeing Redcloak's point of view? An elaborate philosophical dialogue about the nature of justice? The Giant is asking Big Questions in his story, yes, but he's also keeping the characters in character. This is a story, not an essay. You're not expected to necessarily agree with ANY individual character's opinions, and I'm pretty sure The Giant does not personally agree 100% with any one of his characters, either.

[Dion]

In-comic, the best argument for goblins being inherently evil would be a combination of that being the case in the underlying D&D system the comic's based on plus the fact that the goblins were created by an Evil-god to do Evil-things.

I’m not sure if either of those two things are actually in the comic?

For example, I’m not sure if the MM entry for goblins is in the comic, and I’m rather doubtful anybody said in comic that fenris created the goblins to be evil?

And if your hypothesis is “creatures match the alignment of the god that created them”, then your hypothesis is disproven by the existence of gold, green, black, and brass dragons..

[Shadowknight12]

I have no intentions of getting dragged into a long discussion, so I'll just throw in my interpretation, feel free to take it or leave it.

Re: Roy: I don't think the comic is criticizing any of Roy's specific past actions (if it were it would've referenced them), but instead criticize the mindset that Roy never bothered to ask why goblins were joining Xykon. This is not about Roy trying to find a peaceful resolution to a violent situation (by that point it's too late) but to try and find out what led the goblins to end up in that situation.

That's why Durkon says "interrogate the inner motivations" rather than "try to dissuade". Durkon's point is not "you should have tried to use diplomacy mid-combat" but "you should have tried to find out why goblins were attacking humans/serving liches and then tried to do something about it after you resolved the violent situation."

Re: the lands. Again, I don't think the issue here is that the goblins were given bad lands, but a criticism of the unfair system the gods created, because if it wasn't bad land or the neglect of a parent god, it would have been some other form of disadvantage and if it wasn't the goblins it would've been a different race.

The comic as a whole has been presenting good-/neutral-aligned characters that are actively critical/dismissive of the gods (Roy, Julia and Eugene) and has been building up to have Durkon now actively disagree with his own party leader and with his own deity on how to approach the Redcloak matter, leading to him agreeing with Redcloak's principles, if not his methods.

To me, the point that the comic is building up to is a criticism of systemic exploitation, and it doesn't matter that the gods need things to be a certain way to subsist, it's still exploitation and it's still wrong.

[Some]

...I actually linked you a quote from the author where he literally says that he thinks it's wrong to apply blanket negative statements to an entire race in a story, fictional as that race might be.

To clarify, what's a "race" in this case? Like, do demons/devils/angels/devas/zombies/vampires/dragons/deities/etc. count? Or are we talking just native demi-humans?

I ask because, from my perspective, there's little that's particularly special about being humanoid. For example, I'd consider someone hurting a dolphin/whale to be on-par with hurting a human.. the fact that dolphins/whales swim and don't speak English means very little to me. Likewise, I tend to believe that primates (including monkeys and such) should have human-like rights; ditto for cats/dogs/etc.. I also dislike the beef industry, and generally anything that hurts mammals, and I think human-like AI, human-like aliens, etc., would also deserve full human rights.

[EDIT: It may've been easier to just say that I care about sapient-rights and perceive many non-human things to have significant degrees of sapience.]

That said, while I respect other forms of life, I also don't mistake them for being behaviorally indistinguishable from humans.

So, in this discussion, it's weird to me to hear someone argue that cross-species respect ought to imply a lack of behavioral distinguishability, especially in light of overwhelming canon evidence to the contrary. Given that you seem well-researched on the author's comments, but still hold such an odd position, I'm trying to make sense of exactly what you're trying to say.

So, for example, are you saying that traditionally Evil-aligned races (like goblins) and Good-aligned races (like dwarves) shouldn't be assumed to have any predisposition toward those alignments? If so, then does this same claim hold with respect to different species of dragons, outsiders, undead, etc.? Or, basically, could you specify where this perspective does and doesn't apply?

Finally (and sorry for asking so much!), but how do you reconcile this with the knowledge that gods of differing alignments made different creatures? For example, how do you reconcile Thor and Fenris as having had no difference in bestowing behavioral tenancies? Or, are you of the position that the gods lack the ability to influence the behavior of their creations?

I've got two other links in my signature to things said by the author on the issue.

Awesome, I can try reading 'em! (Didn't notice them before because my eyes filter out signatures like ads.)

[Teioh]

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.

I think you're on the ball here. I doubt the story Rich wanted to tell back in 2003 (or Rich himself) is the same as the one he wants to tell today. However, the weakness of the web comic meduim means you can't toss the old out, and you're stuck with what's out there influencing the story going forward.

To be fair, I think Rich has done a good job making the story he told the first 10 years or so mesh with the one he's wanted to tell since, without retconning excessively or undermining characters. Roy, who hasn't faught a Goblin since Book 1, having some sort of 'epiphany' here, based on his other behaviors, stretches it.

[Worldsong]

To clarify, what's a "race" in this case? Like, do demons/devils/angels/devas/zombies/vampires/dragons/deities/etc. count? Or are we talking just native demi-humans?

I ask because, from my perspective, there's little that's particularly special about being humanoid. For example, I'd consider someone hurting a dolphin/whale to be on-par with hurting a human.. the fact that dolphins/whales swim and don't speak English means very little to me. Likewise, I tend to believe that primates (including monkeys and such) should have human-like rights; ditto for cats/dogs/etc.. I also dislike the beef industry, and generally anything that hurts mammals, and I think human-like AI, human-like aliens, etc., would also deserve full human rights.

That said, while I respect other forms of life, I also don't mistake them for being behaviorally indistinguishable from humans.

So, in this discussion, it's weird to me to hear someone argue that cross-species respect ought to imply a lack of behavior distinguishability, especially in light of overwhelming canon evidence to the contrary. Given that you seem well-researched on the author's comments, but still hold such an odd position, I'm trying to make sense of exactly what you're trying to say.

So, for example, are you saying that traditionally Evil-aligned races (like goblins) and Good-aligned races (like dwarves) shouldn't be assumed to have any predisposition toward those alignments? If so, then does this same claim hold with respect to different species of dragons, outsiders, undead, etc.? Or, basically, could you specify where this perspective does and doesn't apply?

Part of the problem here is that some of the questions you're asking don't have a definite answer so far as I'm aware. People kind of just agree on a common interpretation and then go with it.

For example, the definition of race is a group of individuals who are considered connected through shared physical traits and/or ancestry.

Quite frankly, covering this topic in its entirety is a mammoth of a task. For now I'll keep it short and say that humans, elves, dwarves, gnomes and similar creatures count as races. And, according to the author, goblins as well.

If I had to make a short list of traits that a group of creatures needs to have to be treated as a race in the context of this discussion, it would boil down to sapience, free will, similar physical attributes/biology, and the ability to reproduce without relying on a parasitical mechanism (this last one is in part there to make sure vampires are kicked out of the discussion).

Sapience is difficult to define, but in DnD terms it would mean an intelligence score higher than 3. In less game-y terms, it means a level of awareness and intelligence that allows for technological progress and philosophical thought. We can't ascertain whether apes ever think about the meaning of life but we're pretty certain they've never gotten much further with technology than the idea that sticks help them reach hard to reach places.

Free will in this context boils down to the ability to move across the alignment chart. Goblins have been shown to be capable of being various types of Evil, as well as at the very least True Neutral. That they can move both in the Good-Evil axis and in the Lawful-Chaotic axis means they're free-willed. Demons, angels, and other Alignment-focused Outsiders are bound to a certain alignment or a very strict subset of alignments (Slaad, the closest thing to Chaotic-focused Outsiders, can be both Chaotic Evil and Chaotic Neutral, but nothing else).

Goblins also have the very specific advantage of the author himself using them as an example of a race just being dismissed as Evil in a way which is essentially racism smuggled into a story.

You're correct that you can't just assume that all races are similar enough to humans to be treated the same, and honestly a story about truly alien sapient individuals would be interesting. That said, the third link in my signature makes it clear that Rich considers his writing commentary on our reality, which means that when Rich writes about goblins and elves and dwarves it's safe to assume they're all similar enough to humans that how they act and how they are treated reflects on human society. This means that assuming a certain alignment for any of these races is bad, as they all have the capability to be either Good or Evil and should not be judged for the behaviour of their kin.

In the context of the Stickverse yes, goblins shouldn't be treated as predisposed towards Evil, and dwarves shouldn't be treated as predisposed towards Good. Because so far as I'm concerned the author has been pretty clear on his views on that sort of thing, and his views are rather negative towards the idea of stereotyping. In the Stickverse goblins tend to turn Evil because of culture and circumstances, and dwarves tend to turn Good for the same reasons.

This also applies to dragons, as pointed out earlier in this thread. Vaarsuvius points out to Blackwing that it was actually pretty horrible to just assume that anyone related to the Ancient Black Dragon is a villain, with even the dragons having the capability to be Good.

Demons and undead are trickier because these are arguably not individuals but complex machines, specifically lacking free will. I believe I remember Rich once saying that he wished he hadn't used DnD as the base template for his story specifically because stuff like DnD having an afterlife and alignment-bound entities is very frustrating for him.

For the record, I'm all in favour of assigning basic human rights to sapient artificial intelligences and any other type of entity which can show itself to be sapient, but I do believe that so far humans have been the only ones to reach that point.

Awesome, I can try reading 'em! (Didn't notice them before because my eyes filter out signatures like ads.)

You know what, fair enough, I often glance over signatures as well.

[Some]

I’m not sure if either of those two things are actually in the comic?

For example, I’m not sure if the MM entry for goblins is in the comic, and I’m rather doubtful anybody said in comic that fenris created the goblins to be evil?

I'm going off Thor describing Fenris's plan for the goblins.

In real-life, creators have a lot of control over their creation's behaviors. AI-designers can heavily influence how AI think, and breeders can breed animals to have certain personalities. (It's easier for AI-designers than breeders since AI-designers have more direct control, but in both cases there's a very high degree of behavioral influence.)

Likewise, in the comic, Thor and Odin talk about how they were able to have creatures' thinking change in response to being hit. And gods' creatures' alignments often match their own. These seem like extremely strong evidence that the gods both have-and-use the ability to select behavioral tenancies.

Which leads me to the presumption that Fenris would've bestowed goblins with the tenancies desired to enact his plan. Which they actually do have, and matches their stereotypical behavior from D&D settings.

And if your hypothesis is “creatures match the alignment of the god that created them”, then your hypothesis is disproven by the existence of gold, green, black, and brass dragons..

In normal D&D, an Evil-god (Tiamat) makes the Evil-dragons, while a Good-god (Bahamut) makes the Good-dragons. And they're rivals.

After V cast that epic-spell on the Black-dragons, Tiamat demanded that the demon-directors slaughter like 5 times as many Good-dragons for each Evil-dragon that was slain.

So I don't think that Tiamat made the Good-dragons.. or else it'd be weird that she made them only to demand that they be slaughtered. Instead, it seems more likely that Bahamut made the Good-dragons and just hasn't been mentioned yet.

[Nephrahim]

See, I feel like you're assuming a lot of facts without evidence here. For example, you point to the link between Thor and his followers, but we have no idea WHO created the dwarves. It could have been Thor, or Odin, or literally any of the other pantheons. Also, Thor is widely regarded as Chaotic good, while his (Dwarven, at least) followers tend to lean Lawful Good, so that's another mismatch.

Also, while I suppose it's POSSIBLE we've never seem Bahamut... it'd be pretty hard to have hid him this entire time. We can be pretty sure he's not a remember of the northern or Sothern pantheons, since we've seen them all. With Western we know they compose of Marduk's clan, who are all based on Babylonian gods, and the Elven ones, who one must assume are elves. I do agree it's possible a good god created the chrome dragons in this world, and not Tiamat, but there's just no way to know.

[Dion]

I'm going off Thor describing Fenris's plan for the goblins.

In real-life...

Let me point you to one of my favorite words: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia
.
And let me poiint you to one of my favorite comic authors: Daniel Clowes.

He’s best known for Ghost World, but I thought David Boring was an absolute masterpiece.

And David Boring is full of hundreds of hooks where the author basically comes right out and asks you to let your imagination run wild.

Interpret all the car keys and row boats and butts in David Boring any way you want, and nobody, least of all the author, is ever going to tell you you’re wrong.

It seems like the kind of thing you might enjoy.

[pyrefiend]

Also, while I suppose it's POSSIBLE we've never seem Bahamut... it'd be pretty hard to have hid him this entire time. We can be pretty sure he's not a remember of the northern or Sothern pantheons, since we've seen them all. With Western we know they compose of Marduk's clan, who are all based on Babylonian gods, and the Elven ones, who one must assume are elves. I do agree it's possible a good god created the chrome dragons in this world, and not Tiamat, but there's just no way to know.

What about this point:

So I don't think that Tiamat made the Good-dragons.. or else it'd be weird that she made them only to demand that they be slaughtered. Instead, it seems more likely that Bahamut made the Good-dragons and just hasn't been mentioned yet.

That seems pretty much decisive to me...

[Jason]

If the author (Rich?) did state that the goblins don't have any natural inclination toward an alignment, could you point me in the right direction for reading about that? It would be very difficult to reconcile that with what happens in the main-comic, but an author's direct claim would seem to win out if it's canon.

Nonesense. An author can claim anything they like about what they intended, or what's really going on, but what's canon is what's in the actual work. Authors change their minds all the time between when they write a comment and when they finish a work. Or sometimes they even misdirect fans in an attempt to keep their coming big reveals secret. Or sometimes they aren't a good enough author to tell what they intended.

Word of God never trumps what is in the actual story. If something isn't in the story but the author says it was, it still isn't in the story.
The Special Edition of Star Wars did not change what I saw on the screen in the '70s - not only did Han shoot first, but Greedo didn't shoot at all.

I've seen that particular quote by the Giant before, and much as I like the comic, I have a few problems with this quote:

[Everybody] in the world should care, because it's objectification of a sentient being. It doesn't matter that the sentient being in question is a fictional species, it's saying that it's OK for people who look funny to be labeled as Evil by default, because hey, like 60% of them do Evil things sometimes! That is racism. It is a short hop to real-world racism once we decide it is acceptable to make blanket negative statements about entire races of people.

A game supplement saying goblins are "usually neutral evil" is not the same thing as lableing a group of humans "evil". Goblins don't really exist, so no harm is being done to the "real" non-evil goblins. The game world has no reality outside of what's in the manuals and in your individual game. It's not a biased label intended to forward oppression of an innocent people, it's an accurate description of the game world, as far as the DM doesn't change it. And anyway, the game doesn't say that all goblins are evil, and any player that assumes that the monster manual entry gives him free reign to kill any goblin he sees on sight, or torture or otherwise abuse them "because they're evil," at my table will pay for their foolishness.

If labelling goblins "usually neutral evil" is a short hop to real-world racism, what message is being taught by all the violence in Order of the Stick? Why isn't watching Belkar and Roy kill monsters and take their treasure a short hop to the readers going out and murdering people and taking their stuff? Will showing that magic works and gods exist in the comic mean its readers will start to believe magic really works or cause them all to get religion?

Our fiction reflects who we are as a civilization, and it disgusts me that so many people think it's acceptable to label creatures with only cosmetic differences from us as inherently Evil.

The Giant is the one who has decided that the differences between his goblins and humans are only cosmetic. In a D&D game this may or may not be the case, again depending on your DM. The written material for the game doesn't really say whether goblins are usually evil because they have an evil culture or because they have an inherent disposition towards evil, or some other reason, and it's therefore up to the DMs to decide how it works in his or her world.

DMs who decide that in their world goblins are inherently evil are not closeted racists who really hate goblins just because they are green and have fangs. In their worlds the goblins really are inherently evil. Perhaps they were created by an evil god who wanted them to outbreed everyone else and conquer the world, so he designed them with a strong predisposition towards evil. Maybe orcs aren't a natural race at all, but were corrupted by the Dark Lord from elves, and that corruption is irreversible by mortal efforts. Perhaps gnolls are really the result of a demon lord's curse, rather like vampires or lycanthropes. Some of these examples may sound a little familiar.

[Ionathus]

If labelling goblins "usually neutral evil" is a short hop to real-world racism, what message is being taught by all the violence in Order of the Stick? Why isn't watching Belkar and Roy kill monsters and take their treasure a short hop to the readers going out and murdering people and taking their stuff? Will showing that magic works and gods exist in the comic mean its readers will start to believe magic really works or cause them all to get religion?

The Giant is the one who has decided that the differences between his goblins and humans are only cosmetic. In a D&D game this may or may not be the case, again depending on your DM. The written material for the game doesn't really say whether goblins are usually evil because they have an evil culture or because they have an inherent disposition towards evil, or some other reason, and it's therefore up to the DMs to decide how it works in his or her world.

DMs who decide that in their world goblins are inherently evil are not closeted racists who really hate goblins just because they are green and have fangs. In their worlds the goblins really are inherently evil. Perhaps they were created by an evil god who wanted them to outbreed everyone else and conquer the world, so he designed them with a strong predisposition towards evil. Maybe orcs aren't a natural race at all, but were corrupted by the Dark Lord from elves, and that corruption is irreversible by mortal efforts. Perhaps gnolls are really the result of a demon lord's curse, rather like vampires or lycanthropes. Some of these examples may sound a little familiar.

I think one thing that's worth noting in this discussion is whether the DM is making those blanket worldbuilding statements intentionally or not.

In my games, I always try to run all humanoids as mortal, sentient, free-willed, and mostly-rational actors (with some prejudices/dogma thrown in for flavor). I save the "inherently X" for outsiders -- celestials, fiends, undead, fey, etc. I do this because I want the variety & flavor that different types of humanoids provide, but I'm uncomfortable with making anything that's "human, except ______" irredeemable or automatically evil. If a humanoid *is* evil, it's either due to their own choices or the environment in which they were raised. And even then, they will always be relatable on some level to the players.

Meanwhile, I can see some interesting games & exploration coming from the kinds of games you've described in your last paragraph...exploring the corruption of a Dark Lord, holding the defensive line against the Inherently Evil zerg rush of an evil god, or the byproducts of a demon lord's curse can lead to a very different type of game, and open up new roleplaying opportunities, as long as you're interested in asking those questions and exploring that corruption effect.

My biggest concern comes when somebody applies something like that corruption without thinking for a second about it, or having it affect how they run the monsters. If the irredeemable monsters are something utterly alien, like The Borg, it can be a very interesting interaction. But if those "irredeemable monsters" are just acting like "humans, except _______", then that gets trickier for me. If you don't develop that corruption effect or similar factor, what you wind up with is something that still acts very human, but just looks different than you, but is okay to kill for [reasons]. And that sort of "evil by default, but we're not going to think about it too much" is more of the slippery slope that I think Rich was talking about.

He had another quote from a debate over baby dragon statistics being printed in the Monster Manual, which I really liked. He essentially said that his biggest concern on the matter isn't that adults will decide to build & run a nuanced, thoughtful exploration of how we treat dangerous fantasy monsters when they're even dangerous in infancy -- his biggest concern is that a bunch of 14-year-olds will pick up D&D for the first time, and the inexperienced DM will roll on a random encounter table and say "oh, looks like you're fighting a baby dragon. Ok, roll initiative" without ever thinking any harder about why that baby dragon is there, or whether it should be a moral quandary at all.

That's what I'm personally talking about when I argue "evil by default" is a concerning mentality for mortals in fantasy RPGs, and I hope it's not too presumptuous to think Rich was saying something similar in his quote about Redcloak.

[TheSummoner]

The Giant is the one who has decided that the differences between his goblins and humans are only cosmetic. In a D&D game this may or may not be the case, again depending on your DM. The written material for the game doesn't really say whether goblins are usually evil because they have an evil culture or because they have an inherent disposition towards evil, or some other reason, and it's therefore up to the DMs to decide how it works in his or her world.

DMs who decide that in their world goblins are inherently evil are not closeted racists who really hate goblins just because they are green and have fangs. In their worlds the goblins really are inherently evil. Perhaps they were created by an evil god who wanted them to outbreed everyone else and conquer the world, so he designed them with a strong predisposition towards evil. Maybe orcs aren't a natural race at all, but were corrupted by the Dark Lord from elves, and that corruption is irreversible by mortal efforts. Perhaps gnolls are really the result of a demon lord's curse, rather like vampires or lycanthropes. Some of these examples may sound a little familiar.

As someone whose found the growing tendency to repaint every traditionally monstrous antagonist species in new fantasy settings as funny looking people who just have a different culture a bit tiresome and stale, thank you for saying that better than I ever could. I'm also in strong disagreement with the second Giant quote you quoted. The goal if fiction is to tell a good story. No more, no less. If it serves the story better for the goblins to be funny looking people with a different culture, so be it. But if it serves the story better for them to be completely inhuman monsters whose brains and biology make them utterly incompatible with human (dwarven, elven, etc) civilization, then that is no less valid. That's sort of the wonderful thing about telling stories about things that don't really exist - the rules are what you make them. It is not the responsibility of an author to worry about to reflect on who we are as a civilization in a fictional universe strongly divorced from the real world as your typical fantasy setting is. That's not to say that an author can't go that route if they choose to, but they aren't obligated.

Regarding the main topic, it's an issue of show, don't tell. You can say that goblin are only "evil" because they've been dealt a worse position in-universe than humans, but the story hasn't shown that. Trying to drop it in now and act like it was there the entire time was always going to raise some eyebrows.

[dps]

This is a story about characters. Those characters are not perfect. They're not perfectly good (not even the Good ones), or perfectly rational, or perfectly knowledgeable about every aspect of their world. They're also not moral philosophers discussing the question of "how can we eliminate or minimize injustice in our world?"

They are all flawed people on a quest to save the world, who are only just now starting to discover that the villains are not just doing evil for the lulz (well, one of the main villains isn't doing evil for the lulz; the other one totally is).

So what exactly would you have expected to happen, once they start seeing Redcloak's point of view? An elaborate philosophical dialogue about the nature of justice? The Giant is asking Big Questions in his story, yes, but he's also keeping the characters in character. This is a story, not an essay. You're not expected to necessarily agree with ANY individual character's opinions, and I'm pretty sure The Giant does not personally agree 100% with any one of his characters, either.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I was beginning to think I was the only one who understands this.

[Ionathus]

As someone whose found the growing tendency to repaint every traditionally monstrous antagonist species in new fantasy settings as funny looking people who just have a different culture a bit tiresome and stale, thank you for saying that better than I ever could. I'm also in strong disagreement with the second Giant quote you quoted. The goal if fiction is to tell a good story. No more, no less. If it serves the story better for the goblins to be funny looking people with a different culture, so be it. But if it serves the story better for them to be completely inhuman monsters whose brains and biology make them utterly incompatible with human (dwarven, elven, etc) civilization, then that is no less valid. That's sort of the wonderful thing about telling stories about things that don't really exist - the rules are what you make them. It is not the responsibility of an author to worry about to reflect on who we are as a civilization in a fictional universe strongly divorced from the real world as your typical fantasy setting is. That's not to say that an author can't go that route if they choose to, but they aren't obligated.

Regarding the main topic, it's an issue of show, don't tell. You can say that goblin are only "evil" because they've been dealt a worse position in-universe than humans, but the story hasn't shown that. Trying to drop it in now and act like it was there the entire time was always going to raise some eyebrows.

The issue is that I've never seen a DM run goblins, even ones that they believed were inherently evil, as anything more than funny looking people. I've never seen a goblin behave like, say, an aberration: utterly alien, completely unfathomable, impossible to reason with. I feel like that's what you're describing...and if that *is* what you're looking for in a monster, then why not just remove the "funny looking people" sections of the Monster Manual entirely, and replace them all with skeletons and demons and mind flayers and giants?

And if you absolutely must have a fantasy army of humanoids, why does it have to be all goblins? Why doesn't the Evil Overlord ever have a goblin/elf/human/halfling/orc/lizardfolk hybrid army, all of them irredeemably evil? Why don't any fantasy modules open with "the standard races are orc, a goblin, a kobold, or a lizardfolk: you must choose one of these races unless you have special permission from your DM. You will be fighting the Evil Queen and her inherently evil Human army: 'Humans' are a bizarre, pale, Evil race with the terrifying ability to adapt quickly to any challenge..."?

This is no commentary on you, or the types of games you like to play/run. It's all just hypotheticals. Like you said, the rules are what you make them: you can do literally anything with your fantasy world. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest thinking further outside the box than "mostly human behavior, but green skin and stronger/dumber/faster/more numerous" when a game designer or DM is inventing something they want to act wholly inhuman.

edit:

Thank you, thank you, thank you. I was beginning to think I was the only one who understands this.

You aren't: some of us have just decided to pick up the slack from Roy & Co. If they're not gonna have an elaborate philosophical dialogue about the nature of justice, somebody has to. All jokes aside, this is an excellent point. I think people are taking Roy & Durkon's comments with too much weight, simply because they're loitering in the latest comic slot and a new one hasn't come out yet. Once you're able to read this entire arc all at once, their comments will be able to show up as they were meant to be: individual thoughts from individual characters, which taken as a whole can form the full story.

[Bootman]

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.

I think that’s inferring a lot from Xykon’s reaction. More than I assume from the material put in place.

So should we believe Thor about this? If a character states something that to all appearances seems to be wrong is that enough to go off of? He agrees they have bad land, but I would have to see what he means by bad. Does that mean it grows %1 less food and has %1 less ore? Let’s say Thor said Durkon is not a dwarf. So we have a god telling us one thing, and the comic telling us something else. Which should we believe? The answer is that is doesn’t matter which because either way it’s a contradiction. Roy tells us in this most recent page that he never considered Goblin points of view when we saw him do that in the first 100 strips. Should we believe Roy or what the comic itself showed us?

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.

Thank you for that. I could have also used this example. At the time, was her name Andi or Sally? Which time her name was spoken should we believe? Either way it’s an error.

I'd like to welcome you to internet discussion forums.
Here's a nice cold beer.
Over there's the hors d' ouvres tray: I think that you'll find the bacon wrapped jalapeños delicious.

There's a bit of a plot meta problem, which is a blood oath.
There's Roy, obligated to take out Xykon due to the blood oath.
Goblins could, ya know, get out of the way and let him kill that non goblin dude. But they don't, and two core reasons that they don't is that (a) they are minions of an evil lich and (b) the most powerful goblin cleric in the region, possibly in the world, has convinced them not to, but instead to serve this undead abomination: the lich Xykon. While in one way this becomes a case of "it's not easy being green" those minions could be lizard folk, dwarves, human bandits, beserkers, drow, or pretty much any of the MM humanoids and still be in Roy's way (and hence at risk for slicing and dicing with that greatsword) since evil lich needs minions is, as Elan might observe, an unavoidable narrative imperative.

It's an imbedded problem in the entire narrative arc.

I'll get the popcorn.

This is an incredibly good point and makes you wonder why the Goblins never negotiated with Roy or considered his point of view, eh?

This is a story about characters. Those characters are not perfect. They're not perfectly good (not even the Good ones), or perfectly rational, or perfectly knowledgeable about every aspect of their world. They're also not moral philosophers discussing the question of "how can we eliminate or minimize injustice in our world?"

They are all flawed people on a quest to save the world, who are only just now starting to discover that the villains are not just doing evil for the lulz (well, one of the main villains isn't doing evil for the lulz; the other one totally is).

So what exactly would you have expected to happen, once they start seeing Redcloak's point of view? An elaborate philosophical dialogue about the nature of justice? The Giant is asking Big Questions in his story, yes, but he's also keeping the characters in character. This is a story, not an essay. You're not expected to necessarily agree with ANY individual character's opinions, and I'm pretty sure The Giant does not personally agree 100% with any one of his characters, either.

If he’s bringing in big questions, he should have big answers, and the questions should make sense. And I agree, they don’t have be perfect and they don’t have to moral philosophers. But they do have to be in character and the comic does have to be accurate to get across the themes he wants to get across. If you want to ask the question ‘how to minimize injustice’ then I think expecting an answer discussing the nature of justice is pretty reasonable though. The reason why I’ve brought this thread up is because I feel Roy is now somewhat out of character or contradicting his own past actions with these new statements and that is damaging to both the story and the theme.

Rich can ask whatever big questions he wants but if the comic doesn’t support it he’ll not only fail but he’ll potentially sabotage his own work.

I have no intentions of getting dragged into a long discussion, so I'll just throw in my interpretation, feel free to take it or leave it.

Re: Roy: I don't think the comic is criticizing any of Roy's specific past actions (if it were it would've referenced them), but instead criticize the mindset that Roy never bothered to ask why goblins were joining Xykon. This is not about Roy trying to find a peaceful resolution to a violent situation (by that point it's too late) but to try and find out what led the goblins to end up in that situation.

That's why Durkon says "interrogate the inner motivations" rather than "try to dissuade". Durkon's point is not "you should have tried to use diplomacy mid-combat" but "you should have tried to find out why goblins were attacking humans/serving liches and then tried to do something about it after you resolved the violent situation."

Re: the lands. Again, I don't think the issue here is that the goblins were given bad lands, but a criticism of the unfair system the gods created, because if it wasn't bad land or the neglect of a parent god, it would have been some other form of disadvantage and if it wasn't the goblins it would've been a different race.

The comic as a whole has been presenting good-/neutral-aligned characters that are actively critical/dismissive of the gods (Roy, Julia and Eugene) and has been building up to have Durkon now actively disagree with his own party leader and with his own deity on how to approach the Redcloak matter, leading to him agreeing with Redcloak's principles, if not his methods.

To me, the point that the comic is building up to is a criticism of systemic exploitation, and it doesn't matter that the gods need things to be a certain way to subsist, it's still exploitation and it's still wrong.

I understand and respect that you do not want to be involved in a long discussion, but I respect the points you’ve brought forth and will respond to them in kind.

If that is all it’s saying, and it’s just a minor nudge, then I would agree with you. I’ll state again, a lot of my comments could be addressed and fixed with reasonable ease. The issue I have is the specific counter to Roy saying it’s hard to interrogate inner reasons while you’re fighting, and then Durkon brings up an EXTREMELY manipulative example of when he did just that but which doesn’t disprove Roy as I’ve explained before. The comic would have been served better by being more clear and avoiding Durkon’s snide insults if that really is what Rich is going for.

So I actually like this part about the lands, but I did address it in my original post. It is not wrong for the Gods to create unequal land. The Gods have established they need conflict and souls to survive, because conflict makes stronger souls. The requirement of souls is so intense that very few gods (relatively) have arisen and stayed stable since they started like a billion years ago. If they ever fail to generate enough souls, they die forever. If enough gods die forever then existence is gone forever. And even if they get enough souls to survive, the wrong DIET of souls can make them crazy.

Thank you for your points. They were some of the better put and formulated of the ones I’ve seen.

And thank you everybody else in the comments. I feel many of you who lean towards my side have addressed critical points and issues with the comic as a whole have been arguing very reasonably, putting a lot of effort into evidence and explanation. I haven’t been chipping in because I’m trying to keep my comments directly related to my post as much as I can but I think your dialogue is going fantastically. Thank you all, both people who agree and those who don’t, for making this the most reasonable thread discussing this topic I’ve seen on this forum.