New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 8 of 30 FirstFirst 123456789101112131415161718 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 240 of 888
  1. - Top - End - #211
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    RangerGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by Bootman View Post
    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.
    Eh, "extremely manipulative" is putting it strongly, I'd say. I still think you're reading too much into it. This feels like nothing more than somebody calling a close friend on their BS: Roy made an excuse, and Durkon pushed on it, maybe getting a little too snarky but hey, they're good friends, he's allowed to do that. Roy isn't on trial here: Durkon's just throwing shade because he had a crappy conversation with his god, he's had Implosion attempted on him today, and (most importantly) it's the final panel of the update and there needs to be a punchline!

    As someone else recently said, I also think this exchange won't feel so harsh when it has another strip coming after it. Gary Larson once talked about a controversial Far Side comic he drew called "Tethercat", where several dogs bat a cat around a tetherball pole. People got mad, and he wondered why, when Tom & Jerry cartoon violence has been on the air for decades. But the thing about Tom & Jerry is that it's transient: you watch Jerry crush Tom with an anvil, and then he walks it off and is back to chasing Jerry thirty seconds later. But if you set down the newspaper with "Tethercat" in it, go for a walk, and come back an hour later, those dogs are still playing Tethercat. There are also some good arguments to be made about punching down vs. punching up, but even in that regard you can argue that Durkon is almost always punching UP! (#shortjokes)

    Quote Originally Posted by Bootman View Post
    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.
    Much of which I'd credit to you. Thank you for your incredibly polite discourse throughout!
    Last edited by Ionathus; 2021-05-03 at 12:50 AM.

  2. - Top - End - #212
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Zombie

    Join Date
    Jul 2011

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by pyrefiend View Post
    What about this point:



    That seems pretty much decisive to me...
    Eh. Just because she made them it doesn't mean she has to protect them, doubly so if they don't worship her. She was mad her Black dragons got killed so she wants good dragons killed too.

    We're not sure how exactly the world creation process works, but it doesn't seem like every god makes things for the sole propose of making things that worship them. IT's possible she created all dragons, but wants them to be in balance, not overbalanced toward good.

  3. - Top - End - #213
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ionathus View Post
    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 "you must play either an orc, a goblin, a kobold, or a lizardfolk: you will be fighting the Evil Queen and her inherently evil Human army"?
    Well, to the first point I'd say that's on the DM. Not to say it's a bad thing, just that it was the way it was because of a choice they made in their portrayal of goblins.

    As for the second, let's step back a bit and look at things from a wider scale. What makes a "humanoid" a "humanoid"? What makes something "evil"? Not just from a D&D sense, but let's look at fiction as a whole. "Humanoid" is an arbitrary classification for human-like. Goblins are "humanoid" because they're more intelligent than animals and have a roughly human shape. That doesn't mean they are the same as humans in every way but physical. What defines a "humanoid" says nothing of what the eat or if they're predisposed to aggression or anything of the sort. What about "evil"? This is a big problem I have with D&D specifically in that good and evil are objective things. A dragon burns down a farmer's cottage and when the family flees, snatches up their son and flies off with him to devour. Is the dragon evil? From a human perspective, yes. From the dragon's perspective, maybe it was just hungry. In either case, if you're an adventurer passing through and willing to help or even just a foolhardy member of that village who doesn't want to it to happen again, the dragon is a threat and an antagonist to be dealt with. My point is that goblins, dragons and the like are fictional monsters. They are only as "human" as the person telling the story makes them. Maybe they're intelligent and able to converse with humans and understand morality or maybe they're more primal and see humans as little more than dinner. Or they could be something entirely more alien. At the end of the day, they're fictional monsters and the rules are what the author makes them.

    And as to why does it always have to be goblins? It doesn't. If you want to tell that story, then go ahead and tell it. People tend to like what is familiar, however, which is why the cliche evil army of goblins/orcs/whatever is a cliche in the first place. It's why most fantasy settings that have species other than human usually go with dwarf and elf first.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ionathus View Post
    This is no commentary on you or the types of games you like to play/run. But 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.
    Well, in the campaign I'm currently in, goblins are a caste of a species of semi-intelligent asexual bipedal fungus who enjoy violence above all else to the point that they'll gladly pick fights with each other if no one else is available and reproduce by dying. Warhammer is funny like that.

  4. - Top - End - #214
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in Utah...
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by Bootman View Post
    If he’s bringing in big questions, he should have big answers, and the questions should make sense.
    Yes the big questions should make sense, no they don't have to have big answers, or any answers. Sometimes raising the question and discarding some obviously wrong answers is enough for a work.

  5. - Top - End - #215
    Halfling in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2014

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jason View Post
    Yes the big questions should make sense, no they don't have to have big answers, or any answers. Sometimes raising the question and discarding some obviously wrong answers is enough for a work.
    You’re very right, I was getting a bit too piffy and cute here. What I mean to say is that if he’s asking big questions then the answers should make sense as well as the questions as you said. Some things don’t have answers. I think Star Trek TNG has lots of episodes with no clear right answer, but when all the characters tend to be true to their established skills and personalities the story can stand on it’s own AND we get to discuss these big issues ourselves.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ionathus View Post
    I think there's also a group of people who seemingly want to defend Roy or Durkon's moral fiber -- there's this idea that Roy & Durkon are the heroes, so them getting called out in any way, shape, or form somehow invalidates their heroics. It doesn't. Hell, the comic doesn't even really accuse either of them of a moral failing here. It just asks them to take a second and think about something (goblinoid history) in a new light, and maybe let that insight inform their behavior going forward.
    Before I address the other points you've presented, I'd just like the clarify if you were referring to a group including me here? I could understand if you were I just wanted to be clear. No hard feelings either way.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ionathus View Post
    Eh, "extremely manipulative" is putting it strongly, I'd say. I still think you're reading too much into it. This feels like nothing more than somebody calling a close friend on their BS: Roy made an excuse, and Durkon pushed on it, maybe getting a little too snarky but hey, they're good friends, he's allowed to do that. Roy isn't on trial here: Durkon's just throwing shade because he had a crappy conversation with his god, he's had Implosion attempted on him today, and (most importantly) it's the final panel of the update and there needs to be a punchline!

    As someone else recently said, I also think this exchange won't feel so harsh when it has another strip coming after it. Gary Larson once talked about a controversial Far Side comic he drew called "Tethercat", where several dogs bat a cat around a tetherball pole. People got mad, and he wondered why, when Tom & Jerry cartoon violence has been on the air for decades. But the thing about Tom & Jerry is that it's transient: you watch Jerry crush Tom with an anvil, and then he walks it off and is back to chasing Jerry thirty seconds later. But if you set down the newspaper with "Tethercat" in it, go for a walk, and come back an hour later, those dogs are still playing Tethercat. There are also some good arguments to be made about punching down vs. punching up, but even in that regard you can argue that Durkon is almost always punching UP! (#shortjokes)



    Much of which I'd credit to you. Thank you for your incredibly polite discourse throughout!
    I agree that most of the factors of Durkon’s response include what you said, I just feel it ends up coming across manipulative. For example if I told you “Elan saved a murderer”, without understanding the context of Nale and the situation at the time, this could be interpreted a lot of way and it certainly wouldn’t be evidence for why Elan should save every murderer, or that he’s somewhat biased if he doesn’t save a Goblin murderer.

    Similar things could be done with “Belkar apologized for hitting somebody”, “Varsuvius abandoned his lover for years”, “Haley attempted to break a known thief and rebel out of prison”. These all have varying degrees of applicability and their inaccuracy would be determined by the conclusion we’re trying to draw from them, like if you wanted to say “Belkar should be nice to Goblins because he was nice to Durkon that time” it would obviously be inaccurate.

    So when Roy says it’s hard to negotiate mid fight, and Durkon points out a fight against what he thought was his best friend, in a specific circumstance that could be resolved non-violently, where Roy was in fact losing and nearly died because he was trying to talk, it ceases to be a defense that defeats Roy’s argument, yet Roy admits defeat regardless.

    Could it also be that newspapers have different audiences, or that Farside has a different established tone and style to Tom and Jerry? I agree it’s possible it won’t seem as harsh as things move on, lots of people here seem to think it’s just a light nudge (others think it’s pointing out Roy’s racism / bias which they believe exists as well). Personally? I don’t know which way it will go, and you could absolutely be right on the money with it.

    I’d also like to point out that your short joke was both character accurate to Durkon and funny and that’s why it worked. Durkon punches up, and he’s short. Love it.

    And lastly thank you my friend for appreciating it. But everybody else, you included, is certainly worth crediting too. Keep up the excellent work and if you choose to continue discussing this with me, keep throwing things at me that require a page and a half to appropriately respond to hahaha.

  6. - Top - End - #216
    Bugbear in the Playground
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jason View Post
    Yes the big questions should make sense, no they don't have to have big answers, or any answers. Sometimes raising the question and discarding some obviously wrong answers is enough for a work.
    This is a good point. Just because a story tasks you with thinking about something, doesn't necessarily mean it's meant to give you an answer. Especially with things like this which, in the real world don't have obvious answers or quick fixes.

    And based on what Durkon said during his first attempts at negotiations, I imagine it's understand the larger societal problems in this story won't be having any of those either. That's a good thing, writing wise.
    I'd just like to point out that saying that something unsupported is the case unless someone else can prove that it is not is an utter failure of logic. - Kish

  7. - Top - End - #217
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    GreataxeFighterGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2008

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by Some View Post
    In real-life, creators have a lot of control over their creation's behaviors.
    Based on this comment , I'm guessing you don't have children, do you? 😁

    Just a joke, please don't read too much into it.

  8. - Top - End - #218
    Halfling in the Playground
    Join Date
    Sep 2020

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by Bootman View Post
    The issue is that without the bad land there is no argument for Goblin oppression in any way they don't already oppress others. Without it we get to cite the dwarves living in a frozen wasteland and having an awful afterlife set up, we get to cite the western continent, dirt farmers, grungy bandits, etc. It stops being about the Goblins being screwed and starts being about everyone being screwed to varying degrees.
    Yes, viewing oppression solely through the lens of race would leave us blind to other injustices, like the crushing poverty of the dirt farmers. Likewise, viewing oppression solely through the lens of class struggle would omit the systematic inequalities imposed on goblin kind, which are distinct from the general mistreatment of the poor. You're right to push for an intersectional view that acknowledges multiple injustices, but that doesn't cancel out the oppression of goblinfolk.

  9. - Top - End - #219
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    RangerGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSummoner View Post
    As for the second, let's step back a bit and look at things from a wider scale. What makes a "humanoid" a "humanoid"? What makes something "evil"? Not just from a D&D sense, but let's look at fiction as a whole. "Humanoid" is an arbitrary classification for human-like. Goblins are "humanoid" because they're more intelligent than animals and have a roughly human shape. That doesn't mean they are the same as humans in every way but physical. What defines a "humanoid" says nothing of what the eat or if they're predisposed to aggression or anything of the sort. What about "evil"? This is a big problem I have with D&D specifically in that good and evil are objective things. A dragon burns down a farmer's cottage and when the family flees, snatches up their son and flies off with him to devour. Is the dragon evil? From a human perspective, yes. From the dragon's perspective, maybe it was just hungry. In either case, if you're an adventurer passing through and willing to help or even just a foolhardy member of that village who doesn't want to it to happen again, the dragon is a threat and an antagonist to be dealt with. My point is that goblins, dragons and the like are fictional monsters. They are only as "human" as the person telling the story makes them. Maybe they're intelligent and able to converse with humans and understand morality or maybe they're more primal and see humans as little more than dinner. Or they could be something entirely more alien. At the end of the day, they're fictional monsters and the rules are what the author makes them.

    Well, in the campaign I'm currently in, goblins are a caste of a species of semi-intelligent asexual bipedal fungus who enjoy violence above all else to the point that they'll gladly pick fights with each other if no one else is available and reproduce by dying. Warhammer is funny like that.
    (Emphasis mine)

    Right, and my argument is that we then run the risk of making them too human in behavior and appearance (displayed attributes that are proven by the narrative), while only making them completely unhuman in morality (informed attributes that might only amount to a paragraph of flavor text from the DM, or throwaway statements from NPCs). That's the danger: that we'll arrive at "this thing is always deadly and you need to kill it to survive, don't try to reason with it" without doing any work to identify what makes it irredeemable. Without any other reasons to go off of, the mind might start to associate "irredeemable evil" with skin color or certain cultural behaviors, and that's the danger I see.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bootman View Post
    Before I address the other points you've presented, I'd just like the clarify if you were referring to a group including me here? I could understand if you were I just wanted to be clear. No hard feelings either way.
    At the start of this thread, it did seem like you were trying to defend Roy and felt like Durkon's "accusation" (really, I'd call it more of an "observation") was unfair. I'm not sure if your thoughts have changed in the ensuing pages.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bootman View Post
    I agree that most of the factors of Durkon’s response include what you said, I just feel it ends up coming across manipulative. For example if I told you “Elan saved a murderer”, without understanding the context of Nale and the situation at the time, this could be interpreted a lot of way and it certainly wouldn’t be evidence for why Elan should save every murderer, or that he’s somewhat biased if he doesn’t save a Goblin murderer.

    Similar things could be done with “Belkar apologized for hitting somebody”, “Varsuvius abandoned his lover for years”, “Haley attempted to break a known thief and rebel out of prison”. These all have varying degrees of applicability and their inaccuracy would be determined by the conclusion we’re trying to draw from them, like if you wanted to say “Belkar should be nice to Goblins because he was nice to Durkon that time” it would obviously be inaccurate.

    So when Roy says itÂ’s hard to negotiate mid fight, and Durkon points out a fight against what he thought was his best friend, in a specific circumstance that could be resolved non-violently, where Roy was in fact losing and nearly died because he was trying to talk, it ceases to be a defense that defeats RoyÂ’s argument, yet Roy admits defeat regardless.

    IÂ’d also like to point out that your short joke was both character accurate to Durkon and funny and thatÂ’s why it worked. Durkon punches up, and heÂ’s short. Love it.
    Again, I want to highlight The Bechdel Test because I think it's really valuable for its parallels to this discussion. Durkon is essentially saying that Roy's behavior didn't "pass the test". But the Bechdel Test isn't about whether or not a movie is sexist: it's about whether or not ALL movies tend to underrepresent women. Using it on an individual basis to judge the quality of a movie is - to use your word - manipulative. Many acclaimed works that highlight women fail to pass the test, too. That Roy's behavior "failed the test" isn't an accusation against Roy; it's an observation that even his behavior reflects the society in which he grew up. Sure, he had plenty of good reasons to not try talking (the only goblins they encountered have been in relation to Xykon & Redcloak), AND talking probably wouldn't have changed anything!

    The point is simply that he never tried. And if enough people don't try - for good reasons, bad reasons, or neutral ones - then it forms a pattern of behavior, and soon the goblins never get asked questions or spoken to like fellow sentient mortals.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rrmcklin View Post
    This is a good point. Just because a story tasks you with thinking about something, doesn't necessarily mean it's meant to give you an answer. Especially with things like this which, in the real world don't have obvious answers or quick fixes.

    And based on what Durkon said during his first attempts at negotiations, I imagine it's understand the larger societal problems in this story won't be having any of those either. That's a good thing, writing wise.
    I also like this point. "Sitting in your discomfort" is something I've run into a lot: sometimes it's not about figuring out the entire problem and identifying who's to blame or what we should do. Sometimes, the first step is to just acknowledge the problem and sit in it, and work through your feelings on it personally, before collaborating to fix things on a grander scale.

  10. - Top - End - #220
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Jul 2018

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jason View Post
    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.
    Okay, yes, if Word of God is flat out incompatible with what's in the actual story then Word of God can be erroneous. With that in mind I shall revise my statement:

    If there is ambiguity in the interpretation of the content of the story one should use Word of God at the time that such content was created as the guideline for filling in the blanks. Although now I expect someone to jump out and complain that this is too vague and easily twisted to always work the way I want it to.

    In the case of Han Solo there is no ambiguity. Han Solo shot first, Word of God is wrong if it claims otherwise.

    In the case of goblinoids being innately predisposed towards Evil there is ambiguity.

    - Fenrir creating the goblinoids is not conclusive evidence that goblinoids are inherently Evil.
    - Goblinoids being created with the idea that they'd use rapid proliferation to become one of the dominant races is not conclusive evidence that goblinoids are inherently Evil.
    - Goblins and hobgoblins going along with Redcloak to work for Xykon and do Evil things is not conclusive evidence that goblinoids are inherently Evil.
    - Gobbotopia practicing slavery is not conclusive evidence that goblinoids are inherently Evil.

    If this comes across as me setting very high standards for what counts as conclusive evidence that goblinoids are inherently Evil, then... well, yes. I'm not going to agree that goblinoids are inherently Evil just because only Evil goblinoids have been given screentime. You'd need to find me some evidence pointing in the direction that goblinoids will consistently be more inclined towards Evil than other races even if they're raised under the exact same circumstances.

    So in my eyes there's ambiguity, and Word of God says that he despises the idea of writing goblins off as just inherently Evil, so if I want to actually understand the narrative that Rich is writing I have to go along with that idea unless Rich actually writes something which I just cannot reconcile with the idea that goblinoids are not inherently Evil. So far that hasn't happened and I really doubt it's going to happen.

  11. - Top - End - #221
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in Utah...
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by Worldsong View Post
    If there is ambiguity in the interpretation of the content of the story one should use Word of God at the time that such content was created as the guideline for filling in the blanks. Although now I expect someone to jump out and complain that this is too vague and easily twisted to always work the way I want it to.
    Hmm. I would say that Word of God can be useful for determining author intent, but not necessarily for filling in the blanks. This is especially true in an unfinished work, where the author still has an opportunity to put in important points. If an author never gets around to filling in an important point before finishing a work and has to supply out-of-work explanations after the fact to patch the holes the readers spot then he didn't really do his job properly.

    In the case of goblinoids being innately predisposed towards Evil there is ambiguity.
    I agree. Even though nearly every goblin we've seen on stage has been evil, no, that doesn't prove that they're all evil. And since we have seen some goblins who are at least neutral (especially in Start of Darkness and How the Paladin Got His Scar), we would have to conclude that no, they're not all evil. Ogres, on the other hand...

    But the reason many people are questioning whether goblins are really oppressed is that we haven't seen a lot of oppression of the goblins on stage - rather the reverse. Redcloak says "If I went into any human settlement I would be attacked as a monster" and the heroes don't disagree with him, but we've never seen an incident like this. We have no way of knowing if this is really true, and really due to racism if it is.
    Likewise Thor and Durkon and Roy can agree that goblins are all stuck on bad land and don't have the resources other races do, but we haven't really seen this. It's a case of telling rather than showing, when the writer's rule is generally "show, don't tell".
    There are good excuses for not having done this - the goblin rights subplot is not the focus of the comic - but the fact remains that it hasn't been done, and so readers can be excused for finding it questionable.
    Last edited by Jason; 2021-05-03 at 10:48 AM.

  12. - Top - End - #222
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jason View Post
    Redcloak says "If I went into any human settlement I would be attacked as a monster" and the heroes don't disagree with him, but we've never seen an incident like this.
    We saw something very much like this in Origin of PCs, with Orcs.

    Spoiler
    Show
    Not so much "attack" (since the people in the settlement were commoners) as "flee in terror and alert adventurers, requesting that they help, by hunting down and slaying them, with the adventurers happy to oblige, without considering the possibility of panicked overreaction being in play."


    And in the main strip, when a kobold chases a halfling in town, intent on "delivering justice" all that it takes to have the kobold be attacked without any "who's the wronged party" questions being asked, is an advert:

    https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0357.html
    Last edited by hamishspence; 2021-05-03 at 10:52 AM.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  13. - Top - End - #223
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jason View Post
    Redcloak says "If I went into any human settlement I would be attacked as a monster" and the heroes don't disagree with him, but we've never seen an incident like this. Likewise Thor and Durkon and Roy can agree that goblins are all stuck on bad land and don't have the resources other races do, but we haven't really seen this. It's a case of telling rather than showing, when the writer's rule is generally "show, don't tell".
    There are good excuses for not having done this - the goblin rights subplot is not the focus of the comic - but the fact remains that it hasn't been done, and so readers can be excused for finding it questionable.
    I can definitely see this criticism. I wonder if you can look for examples of it by negation, though. For example,
    Spoiler: vague SoD plot element spoilers
    Show
    the remnants of Redcloak and Right Eye's first village didn't seem to consider becoming refugees in a humanoid settlement even an option, preferring to hide in the swamp and continue fleeing Azurite forces alone. Also, they had to go to an explicitly Evil diner. The latter might have just been a joke but it could also be a reflection of even the neutral goblin Right Eye not being welcome in a typical anachronistic meeting establishment.


    edit: added spoiler tag
    Last edited by Emberlily; 2021-05-03 at 11:11 AM.

  14. - Top - End - #224
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in Utah...
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    We saw something very much like this in Origin of PCs, with Orcs.

    Spoiler
    Show
    Not so much "attack" (since the people in the settlement were commoners) as "flee in terror and alert adventurers, requesting that they help, by hunting down and slaying them, with the adventurers happy to oblige, without considering the possibility of panicked overreaction being in play."


    And in the main strip, when a kobold chases a halfling in town, intent on "delivering justice" all that it takes to have the kobold be attacked without any "who's the wronged party" questions being asked, is an advert:

    https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0357.html
    Both of those incidents are really more about how Adventurers are willing to kill first and ask questions later than they are demonstrations of anti-humanoid prejudice by the "civilian" population. The townspeople in the orc incident might have had exactly the same reaction to a group of strange humans carrying their battle axes into town.

  15. - Top - End - #225
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    RangerGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jason View Post
    Hmm. I would say that Word of God can be useful for determining author intent, but not necessarily for filling in the blanks. This is especially true in an unfinished work, where the author still has an opportunity to put in important points. If an author never gets around to filling in an important point before finishing a work and has to supply out-of-work explanations after the fact to patch the holes the readers spot then he didn't really do his job properly.

    I agree. Even though nearly every goblin we've seen on stage has been evil, no, that doesn't prove that they're all evil. And since we have seen some goblins who are at least neutral (especially in Start of Darkness and How the Paladin Got His Scar), we would have to conclude that no, they're not all evil. Ogres, on the other hand...

    But the reason many people are questioning whether goblins are really oppressed is that we haven't seen a lot of oppression of the goblins on stage - rather the reverse. Redcloak says "If I went into any human settlement I would be attacked as a monster" and the heroes don't disagree with him, but we've never seen an incident like this. We have no way of knowing if this is really true, and really due to racism if it is.
    Likewise Thor and Durkon and Roy can agree that goblins are all stuck on bad land and don't have the resources other races do, but we haven't really seen this. It's a case of telling rather than showing, when the writer's rule is generally "show, don't tell".
    There are good excuses for not having done this - the goblin rights subplot is not the focus of the comic - but the fact remains that it hasn't been done, and so readers can be excused for finding it questionable.
    Speaking as somebody who has done quite a bit of writing, both for D&D and for prose fiction, "show, don't tell" has limits. Sometimes you do need to provide exposition.

    I agree that we don't have numerous examples of goblinoid oppression in the main free online comic. In that regard, it is an "informed" situation rather than a "displayed" one. But whenever it comes up as exposition, nobody refutes it. Narratively speaking, there needs to be a certain level of buy-in from the reader: if a character states a non-outlandish opinion, and nobody in-story dismisses it or questions it, the reader is meant to give that statement the benefit of the doubt.

    I'm reminded of people saying "Hel's math on dwarf souls doesn't add up" - not because anyone in the comic disagreed, but just because "hey, that doesn't sound right to me, the reader, and there's no proof that it would work," when Hel's statement (and the lack of a refutation) was the intended proof.

  16. - Top - End - #226
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ionathus View Post
    Right, and my argument is that we then run the risk of making them too human in behavior and appearance (displayed attributes that are proven by the narrative), while only making them completely unhuman in morality (informed attributes that might only amount to a paragraph of flavor text from the DM, or throwaway statements from NPCs). That's the danger: that we'll arrive at "this thing is always deadly and you need to kill it to survive, don't try to reason with it" without doing any work to identify what makes it irredeemable. Without any other reasons to go off of, the mind might start to associate "irredeemable evil" with skin color or certain cultural behaviors, and that's the danger I see.
    Again, you're coming at this from the standpoint that objective morality is a thing that exists and can be measured. I understand in D&D it very much is, but I'd argue that it's one of the biggest flaws in D&D's design and a rather black and white and childish way to put the world together. Is the dragon "irredeemable evil" or is it a hungry superpredator that has the same biological need to eat that a human does and cares about as much that humans very much want to not be eaten as a human would that a cow very much does not want to be eaten. A goblin is a fictional monster no different than a dragon, it just happens to be smaller and roughly human shaped. Unless the indicated by the author of the specific universe, why would the automatic assumption that being roughly human-shaped makes a fictional monster the equivalent of a human. In the real world, gorillas, chimpanzees or any of the other great apes are bipedal, roughly human shaped, and even capable of learning and limited communication with humans, but we don't morally equate them with humans. The question shouldn't be "is this creature evil as defined by some sort of objective cosmic standard?" but "is this creature dangerous to me/my family/my community?" Being highly aggressive or territorial by nature or seeing humans as prey are enough for conflict to exist and there's no reason that traits that exist in real animals couldn't apply to fictional monsters. Whatever the author decides serves the plot best.

    To give another example, one youtube channel I watch portrays goblins as mutated degenerate humans, the result of exposure to high levels of magical basically-radiation. Despite specifically being mutated humans, they're still aggressive opportunistic raiders who are individually weak, but always move and attack in large swarms. They have their own language, religion and even currency and are intelligent enough to communicate with humans - there's even an insane human scholar (who they do not realize is human due to his face being covered) living among them and they trade with bandits. They attack caravans and travelers, find torture entertaining and eat human flesh. Is this a cultural thing or is it just part of their nature as a result of the same mutation that made them what they are? Well, the channel doesn't elaborate on that and doesn't really have to. They goblins are a threat and in the end, that's what makes them relevant to the plot.

    As a final point, if an audience/group of players can't distinguish between fictional monsters and real people to the point that they "start to associate "irredeemable evil" with skin color or certain cultural behaviors" that speaks far more about them than the author/DM. It requires the same sort of backwards "logic" people have used to blame metal music or video games for real world violence and such claims have been proven wrong time and time again.

  17. - Top - End - #227
    Dwarf in the Playground
    Join Date
    Mar 2021
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSummoner View Post
    As a final point, if an audience/group of players can't distinguish between fictional monsters and real people to the point that they "start to associate "irredeemable evil" with skin color or certain cultural behaviors" that speaks far more about them than the author/DM. It requires the same sort of backwards "logic" people have used to blame metal music or video games for real world violence and such claims have been proven wrong time and time again.
    That fiction has a way to affect people's beliefs through subtext, the assumptions it says or leaves unspoken, its overt messaging, and all that is something that is both documented and something I think the Giant seems to believe with his regrets over past messaging elements and his desire to show new better ones. It's not a matter of being unable to distinguish fiction or fantasy from reality so much as we as malleable biological creatures are vulnerable to having our beliefs shifted, changed, or reinforced by fiction and fantasy. As the meme goes, you are not immune to propaganda.

  18. - Top - End - #228
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jason View Post
    The townspeople in the orc incident might have had exactly the same reaction to a group of strange humans carrying their battle axes into town.
    I think this more typifies the "standard townspeople reaction to armed, PC-race adventurers"

    https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0122.html

    Not "flee" but "put up adverts and raise prices".
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  19. - Top - End - #229
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in Utah...
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ionathus View Post
    Speaking as somebody who has done quite a bit of writing, both for D&D and for prose fiction, "show, don't tell" has limits. Sometimes you do need to provide exposition.
    Of course. The Lord of the Rings did it all the time, with major events like Saruman's capture of Gandalf or the Ent's assault on Isenguard being told after the fact from one character to another rather than being "shown directly" to the reader. The film rightly showed these events directly, because film is a visual medium and it worked better in that medium to show it.

    I suspect that a web comic similarly needs to be more careful about telling rather than showing, like a film.

    Narratively speaking, there needs to be a certain level of buy-in from the reader: if a character states a non-outlandish opinion, and nobody in-story dismisses it or questions it, the reader is meant to give that statement the benefit of the doubt.
    Agreed, but if a significant portion of your readers are not willing to make that buy-in then that's a sign that more "showing" may be needed.
    Last edited by Jason; 2021-05-03 at 11:29 AM.

  20. - Top - End - #230
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    RangerGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSummoner View Post
    Again, you're coming at this from the standpoint that objective morality is a thing that exists and can be measured. I understand in D&D it very much is, but I'd argue that it's one of the biggest flaws in D&D's design and a rather black and white and childish way to put the world together.
    I am doing nothing of the sort. In fact, I agree with you when it comes to D&D morality.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSummoner View Post
    Is the dragon "irredeemable evil" or is it a hungry superpredator that has the same biological need to eat that a human does and cares about as much that humans very much want to not be eaten as a human would that a cow very much does not want to be eaten. A goblin is a fictional monster no different than a dragon, it just happens to be smaller and roughly human shaped. Unless the indicated by the author of the specific universe, why would the automatic assumption that being roughly human-shaped makes a fictional monster the equivalent of a human. In the real world, gorillas, chimpanzees or any of the other great apes are bipedal, roughly human shaped, and even capable of learning and limited communication with humans, but we don't morally equate them with humans. The question shouldn't be "is this creature evil as defined by some sort of objective cosmic standard?" but "is this creature dangerous to me/my family/my community?" Being highly aggressive or territorial by nature or seeing humans as prey are enough for conflict to exist and there's no reason that traits that exist in real animals couldn't apply to fictional monsters. Whatever the author decides serves the plot best.
    You're preaching to the choir. I agree that predators are not inherently evil. I agree that great apes are not human. But fantasy goblins, as typically presented, aren't like dragons or gorillas: they don't have drastic physiology differences, and they don't fill a different role in the ecology/food chain. They are slightly shorter, colored green/yellow, they speak a different language, and they worship a different god. They are quite simply "funny looking humans".

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSummoner View Post
    To give another example, one youtube channel I watch portrays goblins as mutated degenerate humans, the result of exposure to high levels of magical basically-radiation. Despite specifically being mutated humans, they're still aggressive opportunistic raiders who are individually weak, but always move and attack in large swarms. They have their own language, religion and even currency and are intelligent enough to communicate with humans - there's even an insane human scholar (who they do not realize is human due to his face being covered) living among them and they trade with bandits. They attack caravans and travelers, find torture entertaining and eat human flesh. Is this a cultural thing or is it just part of their nature as a result of the same mutation that made them what they are? Well, the channel doesn't elaborate on that and doesn't really have to. They goblins are a threat and in the end, that's what makes them relevant to the plot.
    This sounds like a very compelling approach to the subject, but it essentially proves my point. In order to make these goblins an objective threat with no elaboration required, it has to mutate them with magical radiation. Regardless of this youtube channel's portrayal, you have to admit that goblins are not by and large portrayed with that degree of "difference."

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSummoner View Post
    As a final point, if an audience/group of players can't distinguish between fictional monsters and real people to the point that they "start to associate "irredeemable evil" with skin color or certain cultural behaviors" that speaks far more about them than the author/DM. It requires the same sort of backwards "logic" people have used to blame metal music or video games for real world violence and such claims have been proven wrong time and time again.
    I've taken your other statements with a pretty light heart, and I hope my tone has been conversational and easygoing thus far. However, I'm going to come out very strongly against this point.

    The things we say and write matter. Don't tell me propaganda doesn't affect the culture it pervades. Don't tell me that decades of sexist jokes haven't affected how men treat women, and how women treat themselves. Don't tell me that prejudiced attitudes can't fester and worsen when the people in power support (either intentionally or subconsciously) certain narratives while discouraging (either intentionally or subconsciously) others.

    It's unfair to characterize this with the same brush as overreactions to heavy metal and video games. The things we say and write will almost never inspire someone to go out and Do A Murder. But they will inform our attitudes, our opinions, and whether or not we look at the person who's a different gender/race/culture and see a fellow human with differences or an Other to be (subconsciously) opposed, distrusted, exploited, or disregarded.
    Last edited by Ionathus; 2021-05-03 at 11:45 AM. Reason: edited to remove a (technically) religion-related phrase

  21. - Top - End - #231
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in Utah...
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ionathus View Post
    The things we say and write matter. Don't tell me propaganda doesn't affect the culture it pervades. Don't tell me that decades of sexist jokes haven't affected how men treat women, and how women treat themselves. Don't tell me that prejudiced attitudes can't fester and worsen when the people in power support (either intentionally or subconsciously) certain narratives while discouraging (either intentionally or subconsciously) others.
    So what is your take on the effect that seeing Belkar really enjoy stabbing people all the time and basically getting away with it or having it played for laughs has had on the average reader of this comic?
    Is your attitude towards racism in comics significantly different than your attitude towards violence in comics?
    Last edited by Jason; 2021-05-03 at 12:00 PM.

  22. - Top - End - #232
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    RangerGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jason View Post
    So what is your take on the effect that seeing Belkar really enjoy stabbing people all the time and basically getting away with it or having it played for laughs has had on the average reader of this comic?
    Is your attitude towards racism in comics significantly different than your attitude towards violence in comics?
    No, I don't think it is.

    Belkar's evil and sociopathy is an established element in the comic. Characters talk about it, and it's lampshaded constantly. Heck, even a divine judgment from the Deva shows that Roy has essentially been redeeming an evildoer, at least in the way he mitigates & prevents further murders from Belkar. You can't really say that the narrative supports Belkar's behavior, either explicitly or implicitly, and in fact the narrative itself forces him to "Evolve or Die" into a much more traditional protagonist: personally, my money is on Redemption=Death by the end for him.

    The difference, and I think it's a crucial one, is that Belkar's behavior is constantly commented on. There's no blanket ban on showing bad stuff: it's whether or not the narrative addresses the bad stuff that matters. If goblins are just "funny looking humans who are never worth redeeming," and the narrative never explores that further or even comments on it, then yeah -- I have more of a problem with a complacent "evil by default" assumption lounging around in the background of a story than I do with Belkar's behavior being brought to the forefront and dissected.

    Haley's sexist comments are another good example. Rich is on record saying he just threw them in without thinking about it, and because the narrative never called her out for her language until much later, that behavior essentially went unchallenged. As a result, The Order of the Stick unintentionally endorsed that kind of gender-charged insult until Rich made a conscious effort to stamp it out going forward.
    Last edited by Ionathus; 2021-05-03 at 12:17 PM.

  23. - Top - End - #233
    Halfling in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ionathus View Post
    I agree that we don't have numerous examples of goblinoid oppression in the main free online comic. In that regard, it is an "informed" situation rather than a "displayed" one. But whenever it comes up as exposition, nobody refutes it. Narratively speaking, there needs to be a certain level of buy-in from the reader: if a character states a non-outlandish opinion, and nobody in-story dismisses it or questions it, the reader is meant to give that statement the benefit of the doubt.
    True, but there is evidence that the goblin are not a race of powerless people living on bad land they can't get out. The most obvious is that Xykon and Redcloak stumbled upon an army they could immediately use to take Azure City. Sure, the goblins needed someone like them to offset the power of the high-level paladins, but that's not the same as 'goblins can't possibly stand their own against the other races'. They simply needed a strong leader to succeed.

  24. - Top - End - #234
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in Utah...
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ionathus View Post
    No, I don't think it is.

    Belkar's evil and sociopathy is an established element in the comic. Characters talk about it, and it's lampshaded constantly. Heck, even a divine judgment from the Deva shows that Roy has essentially been redeeming an evildoer, at least in the way he mitigates & prevents further murders from Belkar. You can't really say that the narrative supports Belkar's behavior, either explicitly or implicitly, and in fact the narrative itself forces him to "Evolve or Die" into a much more traditional protagonist: personally, my money is on Redemption=Death by the end for him.
    A pretty safe bet when the Oracle has said Belkar is going to die before the end of the comic.

    So if D&D games feature even the protagonists occasionally engaging in racism but regularly portray it as bad then they're good to go, right?

  25. - Top - End - #235
    Titan in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by Ionathus View Post
    You're preaching to the choir. I agree that predators are not inherently evil. I agree that great apes are not human. But fantasy goblins, as typically presented, aren't like dragons or gorillas: they don't have drastic physiology differences, and they don't fill a different role in the ecology/food chain. They are slightly shorter, colored green/yellow, they speak a different language, and they worship a different god. They are quite simply "funny looking humans".
    According to who?

    In one story what you say might be the case. In another, it might be entirely wrong. I'd argue that a gorilla is as close or closer to a human than your standard fantasy goblin is physically. Mentally, they can be anything ranging from savage, cruel, stupid and aggressive to basically human. These are fictional monsters and the rules are what the author says they are.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ionathus View Post
    This sounds like a very compelling approach to the subject, but it essentially proves my point. In order to make these goblins an objective threat with no elaboration required, it has to mutate them with magical radiation. Regardless of this youtube channel's portrayal, you have to admit that goblins are not by and large portrayed with that degree of "difference."
    I disagree. The average human in this channel's setting doesn't know that the goblins (and most other humanoid monsters for that matter) are more or less mutated humans. The mutation happened long ago when humanity was an assortment of primitive hunter-gatherer tribes. As far as the most people know, they're a natural species. In fact, if you removed the magical nature of the catalyst for their original mutation, they would be. The only thing it takes for them to be an objective threat is the fact that they abduct humans as a source of food and that's hardly unique.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ionathus View Post
    I've taken your other statements with a pretty light heart, and I hope my tone has been conversational and easygoing thus far. However, I'm going to come out very strongly against this point.

    The things we say and write matter. Don't tell me propaganda doesn't affect the culture it pervades. Don't tell me that decades of sexist jokes haven't affected how men treat women, and how women treat themselves. Don't tell me that prejudiced attitudes can't fester and worsen when the people in power support (either intentionally or subconsciously) certain narratives while discouraging (either intentionally or subconsciously) others.

    It's unfair to characterize this with the same brush as overreactions to heavy metal and video games. The things we say and write will almost never inspire someone to go out and Do A Murder. But they will inform our attitudes, our opinions, and whether or not we look at the person who's a different gender/race/culture and see a fellow human with differences or an Other to be (subconsciously) opposed, distrusted, exploited, or disregarded.
    Quote Originally Posted by Emberlily View Post
    That fiction has a way to affect people's beliefs through subtext, the assumptions it says or leaves unspoken, its overt messaging, and all that is something that is both documented and something I think the Giant seems to believe with his regrets over past messaging elements and his desire to show new better ones. It's not a matter of being unable to distinguish fiction or fantasy from reality so much as we as malleable biological creatures are vulnerable to having our beliefs shifted, changed, or reinforced by fiction and fantasy. As the meme goes, you are not immune to propaganda.
    And people also have a tendency of reading into subtext and creating their own meanings when none exists. I'll only go into it lightly to avoid potentially skewing into the political, but there was a rather noteworthy example in 1985 about the Twisted Sister song "Under the Blade" in which it was claimed that the song encouraged violence towards women. According to the band itself:
    Quote Originally Posted by Dee Snider
    The lyrics she quoted have absolutely nothing to do with these topics. On the contrary, the words in question are about surgery and the fear that it instills in people.
    Quote Originally Posted by Dee Snider
    People can interpret it in many ways. [She] was looking for sadomasochism and bondage and she found it. Someone looking for surgical references would have found it as well.
    For more examples, you could look into the various shootings associated with Catcher in the Rye or every middle school book report ever written.

    We are not talking about propaganda, we are talking about stories. Stories in which there are protagonists and antagonists who are by their very nature opposed and create the conflict that drives the plot in the first place. There's no reason that every story should have to be a morality play or a reflection of the real world. No reason that every monster should have to be the equivalent of a human. It's not clever, if anything it's becoming overdone and trite. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes a goblin is just a goblin and if the author wanted them to represent humans, they could've just as easily used a different group of humans.
    Last edited by TheSummoner; 2021-05-03 at 01:00 PM.

  26. - Top - End - #236
    Halfling in the Playground
    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    I think this conversation is dangerously straying into real-world politics.

  27. - Top - End - #237
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Lizardfolk

    Join Date
    Jul 2018

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by Telenil View Post
    I think this conversation is dangerously straying into real-world politics.
    That's how you know it's a conversation about goblinoids in the Stickverse.

  28. - Top - End - #238
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    SwashbucklerGuy

    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Location
    massachusetts
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by Worldsong View Post
    That's how you know it's a conversation about goblinoids in the Stickverse.
    These threads keep getting locked for review, and the argument just jumps to three more threads.

  29. - Top - End - #239
    Titan in the Playground
     
    KorvinStarmast's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by Worldsong View Post
    In the case of Han Solo there is no ambiguity. Han Solo shot first, Word of God is wrong if it claims otherwise.
    Amen. Preach it!
    - Gobbotopia practicing slavery is not conclusive evidence that goblinoids are inherently Evil.
    As compared to Empire of Blood practicing slavery? Why the double standard?
    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    I think this more typifies the "standard townspeople reaction to armed, PC-race adventurers" {snip}
    Not "flee" but "put up adverts and raise prices".
    Depends on the setting. I've been in campaigns where news of our party arriving induced hiding in barns and such.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jason View Post
    So what is your take on the effect that seeing Belkar really enjoy stabbing people all the time and basically getting away with it or having it played for laughs has had on the average reader of this comic? {snip}
    Is your attitude towards racism in comics significantly different than your attitude towards violence in comics?
    Violence in comics has a long history (Sergeant Rock comes to mind, The Haunted Tank) and every super hero in the Marvel and DC universes. FWIW Belkar's violence seems to be comic relief, in the main ~ making fun of murderhobos and munchkins. Folks who don't play D&D may not get the joke.
    Quote Originally Posted by TheSummoner View Post
    And people also have a tendency of reading into subtext and creating their own meanings when none exists.
    True with a lot of art.
    Sometimes a goblin is just a goblin and if the author wanted them to represent humans, they could've just as easily used a different group of humans.
    And sometimes, a banana is just a banana. (Dan Akroyd, SNL, in a parody of Sigmund Freud)
    Last edited by KorvinStarmast; 2021-05-03 at 01:00 PM.
    Avatar by linklele. How Teleport Works
    a. Malifice (paraphrased):
    Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
    b. greenstone (paraphrased):
    Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
    Gosh, 2D8HP, you are so very correct!
    Second known member of the Greyview Appreciation Society

  30. - Top - End - #240
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    RangerGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

    Quote Originally Posted by Jason View Post
    A pretty safe bet when the Oracle has said Belkar is going to die before the end of the comic.

    So if D&D games feature even the protagonists occasionally engaging in racism but regularly portray it as bad then they're good to go, right?
    I mean, "good to go" depends on the context, but essentially yes. I would far prefer a storyline/setting where people's cosmetic differences and prejudices are acknowledged to a setting where the cosmetic differences are glossed over and never addressed...but are still subconsciously used to identify "combatant" from "ally."

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSummoner View Post
    According to who?
    The vast majority of D&D lore for the last 40 years.

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSummoner View Post
    I'd argue that a gorilla is as close or closer to a human than your standard fantasy goblin is physically.
    On almost every level except physical size, this is blatantly, factually wrong.

    Gorillas have a lot in common with humans in comparison to other animals, but they don't wear clothing, use complex spoken languages, live in created structures, form massive groups numbering in the thousands, trade currency, or do one of a billion other things that make humans wholly unique. Every humanoid in the Monster Manual does those things or a version of them. If you want to argue that goblins are essentially gorillas in your setting, go ahead, but if they're using metal armor and yelling out full sentences in a spoken language, be prepared for people to completely disregard your definition of "sentience."

    Quote Originally Posted by TheSummoner View Post
    We are not talking about propaganda, we are talking about stories. Stories in which there are protagonists and antagonists who are by their very nature opposed and create the conflict that drives the plot in the first place. There's no reason that every story should have to be a morality play or a reflection of the real world. No reason that every monster should have to be the equivalent of a human. It's not clever, if anything it's becoming overdone and trite. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes a goblin is just a goblin and if the author wanted them to represent humans, they could've just as easily used a different group of humans.
    First off: they DID use a different group of humans, they just colored them green and gave them a slightly different backstory. You could literally take every hobgoblin in standard D&D, swap their token for a human, and everything they do would make sense, even if it seemed weird that they were speaking a different language and worshipping a different fantasy god. They still form armies, use weapons, speak languages, and display human emotions to varying degrees. They are not an alien intelligence, nor are they nonsentient animals.

    Second: Do you genuinely believe that, in order to treat monstrous humanoids with inherent dignity, the entire story has to become a morality play? Do you really think a story is incapable of addressing something and then moving on, or not dipping its toes in that water to start with?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •