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

[hamishspence]

As compared to Empire of Blood practicing slavery? Why the double standard?

What double standard? Nobody has any trouble saying "humans aren't inherently evil" despite the Empire of Blood practicing slavery - the evil there is usually regarded as cultural.

Treating the goblins/hobgoblins as "green/orange humans" is quite compatible with the Empire of Blood being regarded as having evil cultural practices rather than being mostly inhabited by inherently evil beings.

[Ionathus]

As compared to Empire of Blood practicing slavery? Why the double standard?

I've literally never seen a single person claim that the humans, kobolds, and lizardfolk that make up The Empire of Blood's citizens are all culpable in The Empire's slavery. I have seen that argument numerous, numerous times in regards to the goblinoids that make up Gobbotopia.

[Worldsong]

As compared to Empire of Blood practicing slavery? Why the double standard?

The Empire of Blood is, ironically enough, one of my arguments why slavery does not prove inherent Evil in races who practise it.

In #0717 we see what appears to be three human slavers, and yet I've yet to see anyone argue that this means humans are inherently predisposed towards Evil.

Which means that it would be a double standard to claim that goblins are inherently predisposed towards Evil on the basis that they practise slavery.

[KorvinStarmast]

I've literally never seen a single person claim that the humans, kobolds, and lizardfolk that make up The Empire of Blood's citizens are all culpable in The Empire's slavery. I have seen that argument numerous, numerous times in regards to the goblinoids that make up Gobbotopia.

Well since it isn't me who does that, so what?

Beyond that: can you tell me, from the perspective of an Azurite slave, where the distinction comes in during their daily labors and beatings?

In the near term (it is important to consider that the conquest is comparatively recent) slavery imposed on the losers is a kind of 'wars have consequences' deal; while their lot isn't likely to change in the nearer term it is possible that a more enlightened leadership style may arise in Gobbotopia as they settle into a more normal status. They are still in the transition phase from their recent conquest.

But that, more enlightened leadeship, is speculation (and perhaps beyond the scope of the seven books the author has chosen to write).

[Ionathus]

Well since it isn't me who does that, so what?

Beyond that: can you tell me, from the perspective of an Azurite slave, where the distinction comes in during their daily labors and beatings?

In the near term (it is important to consider that the conquest is comparatively recent) slavery imposed on the losers is a kind of 'wars have consequences' deal; while their lot isn't likely to change in the nearer term it is possible that a more enlightened leadership style may arise in Gobbotopia as they settle into a more normal status. They are still in the transition phase from their recent conquest.

But that, more enlightened leadeship, is speculation (and perhaps beyond the scope of the seven books the author has chosen to write).

Sorry, I'm not quite sure what you're asking.

You asked "isn't it a double standard to say The Empire of Blood is evil for practicing slavery, while saying Gobbotopia isn't?" and that was my response: in both cases, the government is evil for doing so, but the races who make up its people are not necessarily inherently evil because of it.

[Metastachydium]

But that, more enlightened leadeship, is speculation

There was an explicit hint that Gobbotopia might phase out slavery on the long run, out of sheer pragmatism.

[Shadowknight12]

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.

I respect the attempt to understand my viewpoints, so I will reply in kind and attempt to clarify where I may not have provided enough detail or may have shortened my explanation for brevity:

I do not consider Durkon's example to be manipulative at all, since I do not consider Roy trying to reason with vampire!Durkon to be a special case that he should be exempted from. Roy is not a neutral-aligned, whose first priority is his loved ones above all else, and strangers are a second priority to be judged on a case by case basis. He is good-aligned, and as such, he should be attempting to extend the kindness and opportunities that he extends to his loved ones to strangers as well. Again, this doesn't mean "use diplomacy in mid-combat" but "ask them what led them down this path so that perhaps you can prevent the *next* violent confrontation with goblins and help them as a race."

It's not manipulative to say "you tried to find out what was wrong with your best friend so that you could help him, but it never occurred to you to do the same towards other enemies we've been fighting" when Roy made the conscious choice to be good-aligned and hold himself to a higher standard of morality and behaviour. If he didn't want to be held to such a high standard, he could've simply been neutral and nobody would have faulted him (and his sister Julia did just that).

What Durkon is trying to convey is that it's easy to be kind and good and extend opportunities to those you love, and it's much harder to do so towards strangers, much less strangers trying to kill you and whom you've been taught all your life to see as simply enemies to defeat. But again, Roy chose to be Good. And being Good is hard work.

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.

My point is that it is, in fact, wrong, for the gods to prey on and exploit sentient beings for sustenance. The sentient beings did not agree to this. Simply because someone creates you and you depend on them to exist does not mean they have a right to exploit you however they see fit. I don't want to draw on real world comparisons too much, but if you recontextualize the gods as parents and the mortals as children, no justification for the gods' actions makes what they did okay.

[hroþila]

There was an explicit hint that Gobbotopia might phase out slavery on the long run, out of sheer pragmatism.

I think that was just a hint that Cliffport isn't going to let a little something like slavery get in the way of its profit.

[KorvinStarmast]

There was an explicit hint that Gobbotopia might phase out slavery on the long run, out of sheer pragmatism.

Speculation, but at least there is hope. My caveat would be that it looked more or less like a Cilffport overture, not a goblin-based initiative.

@Ionathus: that didn't answer my question, but no worries, there's enough noise in this thread that it hardly matters.

[Telenil]

I respect the attempt to understand my viewpoints, so I will reply in kind and attempt to clarify where I may not have provided enough detail or may have shortened my explanation for brevity:

I do not consider Durkon's example to be manipulative at all, since I do not consider Roy trying to reason with vampire!Durkon to be a special case that he should be exempted from. Roy is not a neutral-aligned, whose first priority is his loved ones above all else, and strangers are a second priority to be judged on a case by case basis. He is good-aligned, and as such, he should be attempting to extend the kindness and opportunities that he extends to his loved ones to strangers as well. Again, this doesn't mean "use diplomacy in mid-combat" but "ask them what led them down this path so that perhaps you can prevent the *next* violent confrontation with goblins and help them as a race."

It's not manipulative to say "you tried to find out what was wrong with your best friend so that you could help him, but it never occurred to you to do the same towards other enemies we've been fighting" when Roy made the conscious choice to be good-aligned and hold himself to a higher standard of morality and behaviour. If he didn't want to be held to such a high standard, he could've simply been neutral and nobody would have faulted him (and his sister Julia did just that).

What Durkon is trying to convey is that it's easy to be kind and good and extend opportunities to those you love, and it's much harder to do so towards strangers, much less strangers trying to kill you and whom you've been taught all your life to see as simply enemies to defeat. But again, Roy chose to be Good. And being Good is hard work.

This goes way beyond what could be expected from a Good person.

Being kind to people who are currently trying to kill you is not noble, it's borderline suicidal. Even if talking is a free action, even if stick people work in such a way that they can't get distracted by their own talking, it might cloud your judgement at a critical time, just like Durkon wrongly believed Redcloak would be interested in a peace deal and nearly killed his party. The time to wonder about your enemy motivations and what to do with his servants is after the defeat of the Evil Overlord, or at least when there are prisonners you can interrogate safely. Doing it in the middle of the battle is pointless at best, and a dangerous distraction at worst.

[CheesePirate]

Being kind to people who are currently trying to kill you is not noble, it's borderline suicidal. <snip> Doing it in the middle of the battle is pointless at best, and a dangerous distraction at worst.

Hmm, the way I read Shadowknight12's post he wasn't actually suggesting mid-combat kindness?

this doesn't mean "use diplomacy in mid-combat"

[Shadowknight12]

This goes way beyond what could be expected from a Good person.

Being kind to people who are currently trying to kill you is not noble, it's borderline suicidal. Even if talking is a free action, even if stick people work in such a way that they can't get distracted by their own talking, it might cloud your judgement at a critical time, just like Durkon wrongly believed Redcloak would be interested in a peace deal and nearly killed his party. The time to wonder about your enemy motivations and what to do with his servants is after the defeat of the Evil Overlord, or at least when there are prisonners you can interrogate safely. Doing it in the middle of the battle is pointless at best, and a dangerous distraction at worst.

Did you miss the part where I specifically said "this does not mean mid-combat diplomacy"? Because this is exactly the sort of strawman I grow tired of.

EDIT:

Hmm, the way I read Shadowknight12's post he wasn't actually suggesting mid-combat kindness?

Thank you. Durkon uses the verb "interrogate" rather than "persuade" or "dissuade" for a reason.

[Telenil]

Did Roy have any interaction with goblins out of combat? I don't remember one. If he didn't, what do you think he should have done differently that is not mid-combat interrogation?

[Worldsong]

Did Roy have any interaction with goblins out of combat? I don't remember one. If he didn't, what do you think he should have done differently that is not mid-combat interrogation?

Beat a goblin senseless without killing them, tie them up and ask questions once they're awake.

[Metastachydium]

Beat a goblin senseless without killing them, tie them up and ask questions once they're awake.

Not even that. Not coup-de-grace-ing the sleeping ones would have done the same without less hassle.

[Worldsong]

Not even that. Not coup-de-grace-ing the sleeping ones would have done the same without less hassle.

I wonder if a goblin would prefer being knocked out or having to listen to one of Vaarsuvius's tangents.

[Shadowknight12]

Did Roy have any interaction with goblins out of combat? I don't remember one. If he didn't, what do you think he should have done differently that is not mid-combat interrogation?

People have brought up that he treated the goblin teenagers working under Xykon decently and again, good for him. But let's follow Roy's journey with them:

In his first encounter with them, to his credit he seeks to protect them from further harm. However, at first he reacts with confusion but later rolls with the whole thing and makes no effort to inquire about them even after the teenager offers some information about their family. His final reaction is a pleased "yes, this will work in our favour."
Second page, he pays no attention to their words as they talk or actually make any attempt to learn more about them or their race, even though here would be the perfect opportunity to do so.
Third strip, no real interaction once again, distracted by a trap.
Fourth strip, uses intimidation and the threat of violence to get the truth out of a teenager instead of a gentler method, even when the teenager is visibly scared and presents no threat. Also, is told "my parents were right about you stinky humans" and does not pursue that as an attempt to understand them or their race better, even though this could have also been a way for him to establish rapport and get the information he needed. Also I know this is about Roy and not Elan but note how Elan's "charismatic" approach is first selfish ("Haley is important to us") and then switches right into intimidation.

And after that, there are no more direct interactions with the teenager goblins. I'm gonna go ahead and say that Roy did not act with due diligence as a good-aligned character. Not murdering a non-combatant on sight is not good enough for Good. He was overly focused on his goal, ignored plenty of chances to talk to them to find out more about their race and situation, and basically saw them as means to an end from start to finish.

You can defend Roy and say "well he did just fine" and we can agree to disagree. I (and Durkon, and Roy himself) think that he should've done more when he had the chance.

[Telenil]

Beat a goblin senseless without killing them, tie them up and ask questions once they're awake.

While the idea is not completely outlandish, I really don't think it's reasonable to expect the PCs to spend a night in the dungeon interrogating their prisoners on how the goblinoid society was doing. They could have done it, technically, but without the benefit of hindsight, where does that end? Should they also have asked the chimera how happy their kind were, while they were at it? Should every good people?

[TheSummoner]

The vast majority of D&D lore for the last 40 years.

Irrelevant. From my first reply to you I said to "step back a bit and look at things from a wider scale" and examine things "not just from a D&D sense, but let's look at fiction as a whole."

Even in the context of tabletop games and even in the context of D&D specifically, there is no universal standard for what a goblin is. The lore is what the author of the book or DM of the game says it is. If they want to use a pre-existing setting, they're welcome to and the world operates based on the rules of that setting. If they opt to do something more original, then the rules are what they say they they are. "According to who?" is rhetorical and there is no answer because the standard changes with each game and each setting.

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."

Wearing clothing, using language, living in created structures, forming massive groups, and trading currency are physical attributes? Reread what you quoted.

I also never used the word sentience so I'm not sure why you're bringing it up, but gorillas are definitely sentient.

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.

Who is they? I'm making generalized statements about goblins in fiction as a whole and saying that they can represent whatever the author wants them to in the context of the fictional uinverse. You're trying to make hard definitions that do not apply to the whole.

A goblin could be basically a human or it could be an inhuman monster driven by urges and instincts that your average human would find barbaric and terrifying. It could be of human or near-human intelligence and still have those same utterly inhuman urges and instincts. It could worship the same gods as humans do or it could worship the the gods of brutal cunning and cunning brutality or a giant maggot that they believe is a messianic figure that will lead them to conquer the surface world or nothing at all. It could be a mammal or a sentient bipedal mushroom or a magical being made of children's nightmares that exists only to snatch them from their beds at night. It is a goblin. It does not exist. The rules are what the writer says they are. There are no hard standards or definitions beyond that.

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?

What I genuinely believe is that alignment is a poor concept that tries to arbitrarily define an objective morality into 9 narrow definitions that eliminates nuance. That what defines the characters isn't an arbitrary alignment label, but their motivations and reactions to the events that surround them. People are nuanced and real morality has many different shades of gray. There are no paragons any more than there are moustache twirling villains committing evil acts for the sake of evil. If I'm in a game and a group of goblins raids a village, slaughtering most of them and rounding up the survivors to eat later, I do not care about the inherent dignity of the goblins. I do not care whether the goblins of this setting are basically human but short and green or utterly inhuman monsters. I care about rescuing the hostages and slaughtering the goblins to prevent the tragedy from happening again. Maybe the goblin attack was in retaliation for something the human kingdom's soldiers did first. I still don't care about the inherent dignity of the goblins because they kidnapped a bunch of innocent villagers to eat.

I've said it before, but I'll repeat it. Evil goblin army is a cliche, but it's a cliche because it's familiar and people like the familiar. An author can try to twist it and turn it upside down if they want and make the goblins the good guys or the humans evil, but it's not clever. It's the same exact thing, just with the roles reversed and the familiarity stripped from it. It's becoming a cliche in and of itself. Story is all about conflict and there's always a catalyst for that conflict.

[Jason]

The beginning pages of Dungeon Crawlin' Fools include the Order capturing two goblin prisoners with Elan interrogating them to find out the location of Dorukan's fortress. Elan uses a diplomacy check to alter their attitude to "simpering middle-management yes-men", so they would have answered anything he asked them. Apparently nobody in the Order thought to ask them "why are you taking orders from Xykon?" and their ultimate fate is not shown (on the next page the Order has the fortress in sight and the goblin prisoners are nowhere to be seen).
Roy did have sleeping goblins (bored into slumber by V) completely at his mercy in an early comic in the dungeon as well, and he chose to behead them all instead of taking them prisoner.

[Shadowknight12]

They could have done it, technically, but without the benefit of hindsight, where does that end? Should they also have asked the chimera how happy their kind were, while they were at it? Should every good people?

Yes! If you are Good, you should be trying to make the world around you a better place, not just for yourself, your loved ones and the people who look like you, but for everyone, because that's what makes you Good and not Neutral.

[Worldsong]

While the idea is not completely outlandish, I really don't think it's reasonable to expect the PCs to spend a night in the dungeon interrogating their prisoners on how the goblinoid society was doing. They could have done it, technically, but without the benefit of hindsight, where does that end? Should they also have asked the chimera how happy their kind were, while they were at it? Should every good people?

Personally I'd first ask for strategically important info and then move on to asking why they're serving some insane lich, yes.

[hungrycrow]

While the idea is not completely outlandish, I really don't think it's reasonable to expect the PCs to spend a night in the dungeon interrogating their prisoners on how the goblinoid society was doing. They could have done it, technically, but without the benefit of hindsight, where does that end? Should they also have asked the chimera how happy their kind were, while they were at it? Should every good people?

PCs have to think about how whatever conflict they're in is going to end. If the PCs are attacked by a single chimera, just killing the chimera is a reasonable end. But if the PC's are fighting a band of goblins, with civilians and children, just killing everyone isn't really an option. They need to know whether killing Xykon is going to end it, or if the goblins have some other reason to keep fighting.

Roy's problem isn't that he didn't accede to every goblin demand on the spot. It's that until now, he hasn't considered the possibility of them even having demands. They were just minions acting as extensions of Xykon's will.

[Jason]

What I genuinely believe is that alignment is a poor concept that tries to arbitrarily define an objective morality into 9 narrow definitions that eliminates nuance.

You and I understand alignment very differently.

There are no paragons any more than there are moustache twirling villains committing evil acts for the sake of evil.

Sure there are, especially in a game where the goal of a player is often "play a paragon of good fighting villains who are just plain evil so I can feel good about killing them."

If I'm in a game and a group of goblins raids a village, slaughtering most of them and rounding up the survivors to eat later, I do not care about the inherent dignity of the goblins. I do not care whether the goblins of this setting are basically human but short and green or utterly inhuman monsters. I care about rescuing the hostages and slaughtering the goblins to prevent the tragedy from happening again. Maybe the goblin attack was in retaliation for something the human kingdom's soldiers did first. I still don't care about the inherent dignity of the goblins because they kidnapped a bunch of innocent villagers to eat.

Well, my players do care, and I generally care when I'm playing, especially if rather than attacking the party and fighting to the death the goblins try to surrender or some of them run away after the first few are killed. I don't generally allow evil-aligned parties in my RPGs, so if the goblins surrender and my players capture them they aren't going to get away with torturing or killing the helpless goblin prisoners, regardless of what the goblins did to the villagers previously or what they were planning to do to the villagers.

[Telenil]

Yes! If you are Good, you should be trying to make the world around you a better place, not just for yourself, your loved ones and the people who look like you, but for everyone, because that's what makes you Good and not Neutral.

If Good people followed that standard, they would never accomplish anything. Can you imagine Luke Skywaler have one-on-one conversations with jawas and Tusken raiders? The adventurer who arrives in the Empire of Blood and tries to understand what ills might have pushed Tarquin's soldiers to join his legions? It's not that these things are necessarily bad in themselves, but you get a sense they wouldn't be the ones to overthrow the Evil Empire.

Did many people on this forum say "yeah Roy should have asked goblins in the first dungeon how their families were doing" before Thor explained about the Dark One? What I mean is, without the hindsight and from the same information, could some people here live up to what is expected of Roy?

[Shadowknight12]

If Good people followed that standard, they would never accomplish anything. Can you imagine Luke Skywaler have one-on-one conversations with jawas and Tusken raiders? The adventurer who arrives in the Empire of Blood and tries to understand what ills might have pushed the locals into joining Tarquin's legions? It's not that these things are necessarily bad in themselves, but you get a sense they wouldn't be the ones to overthrow the Evil Empire.

It's almost like simply killing a leader doesn't really solve the problem of the corrupt systems in place, but a lot of stories like to pretend they do because it's simpler, more expedient and lends itself to more spectacle.

Did many people on this forum say "yeah Roy should have asked goblins in the first dungeon how their families were doing" before Thor explained about the Dark One? What I mean is, could some people live up to what they expect of Roy?

As someone who has played Good-aligned characters for many years, I can tell you I have played characters whom I have held to this standard, yes. Some of them have even avoided killing animals and plant creatures needlessly, and redeemed undead.

[CheesePirate]

Can you imagine Luke Skywaler have one-on-one conversations with jawas and Tusken raiders?

Din Djarin did, so why not Luke.

[Telenil]

Din Djarin did, so why not Luke.

Should I draw the conclusion that Luke wasn't such a Good hero and needs to do better?...

As someone who has played Good-aligned characters for many years, I can tell you I have played characters whom I have held to this standard, yes. Some of them have even avoided killing animals and plant creatures needlessly, and redeemed undead.

That's not what I'm asking though. Did some people on this forum, with considerably more time to think about it and somewhat better information, say before the reveal that interrogating the goblins more would have been important?

Come to think of it, if Roy had interrogated the goblins, what would that have changed? What helpful thing would have come out of it, except that he couldn't be blamed for not doing it?

[Kilo24]

The issue isn’t whether or not he cuts it off, but how many are shown at all and how reasonable it is to feel guilty about the ones that Rich wants us to. The fact that it would be hard to tell a story with a bunch of fights while making the fights themselves typically have nuance to both sides is very difficult doesn’t impact whether or not he should do it. I, in fact, have zero sympathy for somebody who fails when trying to do something hard when it is their job. I am currently writing a very ambitious story and if I make genuine mistakes I won’t allow myself of the excuse that it was too hard.
...
As I said before, recontextualization is incredibly hard to do right. You run the risk of these mistakes when trying to subvert things. If you want the original goblins from the first dungeon to be misunderstood, by all means. But that means you’ve got to bridge the gap from comedy to tragedy and that is dangerous to do.

The strip did start off as a gag-a-day riff of the stereotypical D&D adventuring party; I'm not particularly concerned about making excuses for bad writing or establishing whether or not Rich made a mistake. I'm interested in seeing where he's been able to take it from there, what limitations that origin may have imposed, and how he's been able to work around them - and picking it apart so that other writers may figure out what they can use in their own writing.

After all, every writer has to start with a simple premise for the reader to start to care about the characters - Order of the Stick would not work if the plot had started at Kraagor's Tomb and with everything else explained as backstory. In Order of the Stick, the simple premise is "comedic D&D adventurer stereotypes in a dungeon". How the writer builds off of that simple initial premise to demonstrate that it's worthy of continued reader attention is something any writer of any story of any length has to struggle with.

If the early strips conflict with the later strips, that should be noted and dealt with by the author - and if it isn't dealt with it should be noted as an issue by the audience. A diagnosis of the malady is by no means an excuse to pretend the symptoms don't exist. (For the record, I'm of the opinion that he's done an incredibly good job at pre-empting such issues.)

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

I think it's quite likely Roy hasn't been presented with an opportunity to make a good faith attempt when it comes to seriously discussing Xykon's/Redcloak's minions' motivations with them directly. It's also possible that he's *never* had an opportunity at all. He's not seriously concerned that the Order of the Stick are really the bad guys here - what bothers Roy is that he's just realizing now that he's never considered that possibility in the slightest.

And that maybe because of never considering that, there might be something else that he missed related to his enemies' motivations that turns out to be very important. It might have been an opportunity for peaceful resolution, it might have been an opportunity to address wrongs that were done to or by the goblins, it might have been a tactical advantage he ceded by not realizing that there was internal strife among Team Evil that he could have exploited. He wasn't considering that at the time, and now he doesn't have the time to reflect and re-evaluate his memories for what he may have missed.

But I'm sure he won't leap to "WE'RE THE BADDIES!!! REDCLOAK WAS RIGHT!!!" and tell the whole Order to surrender themselves to Redcloak for execution - and not just because he ridicules that notion. The Giant is far too good of a writer for that.

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

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

I'm getting the feeling that there's a moral lesson coming up of "Some people have unequal access to resources from birth, and that is a serious issue that should be discussed". The same reason that that is a thorny issue in the real world is why it's a messy thing to tackle in stories: it's hard to get everyone to seriously acknowledge the problem in the first place, an order of magnitude harder to agree on a precise measurement for how big the actual problem is, and an order of magnitude harder than that to agree on what would effectively address that inequality. Durkon, in his negotiation with Redcloak, touches on a number of those issues. Thor, by presenting his opinion, complicates the "goblins-got-the-short-end-of-the-stick" claim further. It would take a good writer a lot of contextualization to work through a serious examination of those concerns, and Rich is a great writer.

But in any discussion, Redcloak just says "We need more than that!" with every offer presented. He hasn't seriously thought how to negotiate through those issues himself, how others might be able to deliver on those issues, and when he was forced to he broke off the attempted discourse and tried to kill Durkon. "Racial inequality effected through unequal resource distribution" is a real problem in the real world with really messy solutions, but Redcloak himself has demonstrated that not only does he not have a clear conception of what solving that problem entails, he has actively refused to consider the best possibility presented with which to do so. When he attacks Durkon and is involved in combat with Minrah, he doesn't voluntarily bring up the good of the goblin race as his reason why - he's arguing about ensuring The Plan succeeds, that "I'm willing - the goblins are willing to make sacrifices" to all die in pursuit of some better nebulous future, that his opponents are wrong and arguing in bad faith. But not that Durkon would be unable to deliver on his offer to smooth the road to negotiating an equitable resource distribution.

As such, while Redcloak's rallying cry of enforcing equitable resource distribution is a nice idea, it's self-evidently too ill-conceived to hold even Redcloak's attention. Durkon may agree with it in theory, but that's pretty meaningless when the person who promotes it demonstrates that he has no interest in actually pursuing it. He'd literally pick "Kill everyone in the world and let the gods sort it out" over abandoning The Plan, and despite his protests the wellbeing of the goblin race is self-evidently not what he's acting on. I'm willing to bet that this "Redcloak is right" discussion is part of proving that Roy, Durkon, and Thor are in practice more concerned with the goblin race's wellbeing than Redcloak is.

I mean, Rich could theoretically introduce a load of cartography, old violated peace treaties, diplomatic negotiations, careful Gobbotopia reparations and embassy laws in the very last book so that Redcloak and the Order of the Stick can work out precisely what "a fair distribution of resources" means - and if this were Xenogears, Neon Genesis Evangelion, or Metal Gear Solid, he might actually try it. But I expect that if Redcloak's ideal of equality was to be taken significantly more seriously than he himself takes it, Rich would have prepared us readers a hell of a lot more for it. Without any way of realistically achieving his goals, the Order thinking "Redcloak is right" is going to be of little more plot consequence than Redcloak himself thinking "Redcloak is right".

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

It's great to have a serious, polite discussion on this. I appreciate your post as well.

I'm personally reminded of how I felt right after strip 1130, where Durkon emotion-bombs Count Durkula into being a copy of him. I immediately balked, thinking "What the hell is this? Vampire Durkon's a good guy now because of a well-timed firehose of memories? I'm gonna pick up my grievances and whine to the forums!" But laziness won out, and I didn't.

And after reflecting on it a bit, I realized how much was carefully building up to this moment. Also very importantly, the next strip came out, framing it as a temporary distraction long enough for Belkar to stake Durkula instead of a Headspace of Opposite Alignment. And I was a lot more able to accept that possibility. With that in mind, I realized that the Giant may have seriously pulled off turning Durkon from being a passive stereotype into a passive developing character who actually believably persuades a vampire into halfling-assisted suicide via positive memories. But it did take the context of the next strip, and a decent bit of reflection to realize that my favorite serial narrative wasn't under threat of bad writing.

With The Giant being on record as saying that he's primarily writing for the audience who'll read all the strips together instead of the audience who is reading them one strip at a time as they come out, I'm willing to give him at least a few more strips of context before I seriously start to worry that he's writing himself into a hole.

[Shadowknight12]

That's not what I'm asking though. Did some people on this forum, with considerably more time to think about it and somewhat better information, said before the reveal that interrogating the goblins more would be important?

Come to think of it, if Roy had interrogated the goblins, what would that have changed? What helpful thing would have come out of it, except that he couldn't be blamed for not doing it?

Statistically speaking, given the amount of time it has passed since the comic's inception and the traffic of the forum, it is near-certain that subject has been raised before, so I won't bother searching for specific references because then it would be trivially easy for you to dismiss my efforts as "well that's not *enough*".

As for the latter, it would be pure speculation on our parts. We have no real way of knowing how the story would've gone, because part of what the Giant has been exploring with Roy is that he is a character that has been consistently dismissing the thoughts and opinions of those around him, has been extremely single-minded in the pursuit of his goals, and it has been part of his character growth to recognize these flaws and attempt to change them.