OOTS #1234 - The Discussion Thread

[Frozenstep]

Then you're just paving the way for a new oppressor to sit on the throne with nothing actually changing.
It's beyond naive to believe that an oppressed side that rises to power through immoral means will suddenly abandon their methods once they're in control.

That's an extremely simplified way to look at things. Large shifts in powers are kind of a mulligan. Maybe power shifts but it's just as bad as before. Maybe the threat is enough to get the oppressor talking with more peaceful groups (kind of like how Durkon would never be negotiating with Redcloak without the violence Redcloak has done). Maybe the violent group isn't the one that manages to take power. It's not so simple.

[The_Weirdo]

Having different rules is a big factor in power being concentrated in one direction, though.

Which is why the oppressed don't need to follow them.

If both sides are forbidden from illegal violence, but one side is oppressed, then the oppressed side is morally cleared to do illegal violence.

[Severance]

It is at least as naive to believe that the people with no power and the people with all the power should be made to play by the same rules.

I never said they have to play by the same rules I said you can't absolve one side from morality altogether as you're doing, because all that means is that you're abetting a newer immoral power to seize control and replace the old one.

History teaches that as soon as violent and immoral revolutions seize control the very first act is to purge their own ranks of all the idealistic fools who thought the world was happy rainbows and sunshines and that their side carried no risk in abandoning morality because they were "the good guys being oppressed". And then they got shot in the back.

[Worldsong]

So... Hold people responsible for their actions, but also take into consideration the reasons why those actions were taken, and judge whether fixing the reasons or punishing the actions is a better approach?

Sounds outrageous. Let's do it.

[bunsen_h]

Are we sure it was specifically Durkon's clan oh wait Rubyrock appeared in the part where Thor was explaining what gods need from their worshipers never mind.

The dwarf who was shown dying at the hands of a bugbear wasn't Rubyrock. This strip shows them both.

It is at least as naive to believe that the people with no power and the people with all the power should be made to play by the same rules.

Oh, they should play by the same rules, but the rules should be just.

[Fyraltari]

No one should have kind of obligation or debt placed on them for the circumstances of their birth, or any other reason short of a willing commitment to such or a direct need to rectify ones own bad actions or negligence.

I'm sorry, but yes, when someone witnesses something bad happening there is a duty to intervene in what capacity they can.

If I saw a small child holding for dear life off of a bridge and I just passed by without grabbing them and putting them on the ground again you'd call me a heartless monster even though I had no part in the child getting in that situation. In social cases, this holds true as well, even more because the privileged often reap the benefits of the oppression of the less fortunates. Closing one's eyes and saying "I did not set up the system this way" while still profiting of it is morally bankrupt.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that everybody who is priviledged in any way should cast their possessions off and feed only on whatever they can catch with their bare hands dressed in rags. I am saying they should use that very priviledged position to help in what little way they can, even if it's only increasing awereness of the issue.

Help however you can, one problem, one situation, one person at a time if you can.
And yes "well-ordered charity starts with yourself" don't beat yourself up about all the other people you did not help, after all

letting the perfect be the enemy of the good is always a problem.

Have they? Right Eye's village was doing fine, and wasn't being threatened at all, and was engaged in trade and commerce with the nearby humans.

We don't know the last part. We do know that they could go to the circus alongside nearby humans, nothing more. And then they got press-ganged by a human(-derived creature).

IIRC Eugene and Red Cloak sat down together at a bar once. No combat.

Right-Eye had to hide his face and skin for most of the conversation (and most likely, to get in and out of the settlement they were in), Eugene did not know he was sitting down with a goblin.

O'chul created peaceful relations with the hobgoblins, if they'd wanted trade and a military alliance I doubt that anyone would have refused, certainly there is no evidence in comic for that claim.

I think Kubota and his likes wiuld have.

Spoiler: GDGU

Show

Half of the command of the aristocratic sapphire guard resigned in protest of a commoner like O-Chul joining their ranks. Doubt they'd have been fine with trading with the goblins either.

I'm not seeing this oppression they've lived under for as long as they've lived. We have some people who try to oppress, and we have others who try to stop them, and we have O'chul CLEARLY establishing that there are people willing to risk their lives to help goblins even prior to knowing about any threat to destroy the world.

Basically, you state the point Rich seems to be trying to make, but the comic doesn't really support that point particularly well.

Just because not everyone is murder-happy about them doesn't mean they're treated way worse overall. Also you've confused O-Chul with his Irish cousin.

[Thermophille]

If both sides are forbidden from illegal violence, but one side is oppressed, then the oppressed side is morally cleared to do illegal violence.

'Morally cleared to do violence' is a strong term. I prefer 'When we make peace, forgive both sides for what they did wrong. Neither oppression or violence were okay, but if we make a new start we can put that in the past.'

[The_Weirdo]

I never said they have to play by the same rules I said you can't absolve one side from morality altogether as you're doing, because all that means is that you're abetting a newer immoral power to seize control and replace the old one.

History teaches that as soon as violent and immoral revolutions seize control the very first act is to purge their own ranks of all the idealistic fools who thought the world was happy rainbows and sunshines and that their side carried no risk in abandoning morality because they were "the good guys being oppressed". And then they got shot in the back.

Then, by all means, let a set of rules be crafted about just when is it that people can resort to violence to see their basic rights respected.

'Morally cleared to do violence' is a strong term. I prefer 'When we make peace, forgive both sides for what they did wrong. Neither oppression or violence were okay, but if we make a new start we can put that in the past.'

The point at which that "forgiveness" can even be an option is the point after the oppression has ceased. And the means to cease the oppression will tend to involve, yes, quote-unquote immoral actions by the oppressed. It's a very rare oppression that can simply be "pretty please"d out of existence.

[UnintensifiedFa]

...we've seen they have the military might to conquer (and hold) Azure City...

I think someone may have said this, but the conquest of Azure city was a very extraordinary set of circumstances.

Shojo had just been killed, losing both a high-level Paladin and the support of the Majority of Noble houses.

They used the aid of numerous undead and summoned creatures. From zombies to ghouls and wights (Oh My!).

And most importantly Xykon (along with Redcloak but we know who holds the real power) whose accomplishments include: Disabling the early warning system (which would've allowed for much greater preparedness and a larger army present), tying down (and killing) the hundreds of paladins at Soon's gate, which could've drastically changed the course of the battle had they been present to buff, lead, and fight with the soldiers.

We can't be sure that the Goblins could've won without the support of Xykon and the circumstances present around the time, but I don't imagine it's a risk they could afford to take, the losses from such an endeavor would far outweigh the gains.

[Frozenstep]

So... Hold people responsible for their actions, but also take into consideration the reasons why those actions were taken, and judge whether fixing the reasons or punishing the actions is a better approach?

Basically. If I had to commit some crime to get some injustice in the world fixed, I'd be willing to take some jail time for it (as long as the punishment would fit the crime normally). If I'm not willing to put up with that much, then maybe the cause isn't worth committing a crime over. Of course, if it's a law that's injust in the first place, maybe that'd be different.

EDIT: And of course, the ones judging the crimes are probably going to be the ones who personally have something against my cause, so that doesn't make it much easier either.

[UnintensifiedFa]

'Morally cleared to do violence' is a strong term. I prefer 'When we make peace, forgive both sides for what they did wrong. Neither oppression or violence were okay, but if we make a new start we can put that in the past.'

Agreed, and that involves forgiveness of the violence that the oppressed used prior, and making amends, and most importantly, it doesn't mean that you struggle any less in ensuring the equality of the oppressed.

[Jasdoif]

This is further exacerbated by the the way the Giant insists Goblins have suffered from a "poor start" despite continuing to use them as dangerous opponents for our high-level heroes.

I'm willing to accept that there's more to life than mere fighting prowess, but I would very much like to have some idea of what *exactly* the Goblins are lacking. Because we've seen the a variety of stable goblinoid civilizations throughout the comic, we've seen they have the military might to conquer (and hold) Azure City, we've seen Redcloak cast 9th level spells, and now we've seen bugbears able to slug it out with high level adventurers/monsters.

Before we get too far down the rabbit hole of whether it's ethical to help the goblins at all, can we figure out what sort of help they actually *need*?

Personally, I would start with how Redcloak has been oppressing the hobgoblins for his own ends, more than we've seen anyone else oppress them, and then uses that oppression as justification for his own actions.

Which is why the oppressed don't need to follow them.

If both sides are forbidden from illegal violence, but one side is oppressed, then the oppressed side is morally cleared to do illegal violence.

No, see, you're still talking about unequal sets of rules; which are meant to allow one side to be oppressed but not the other.

[Thermophille]

Agreed, and that involves forgiveness of the violence that the oppressed used prior, and making amends, and most importantly, it doesn't mean that you struggle any less in ensuring the equality of the oppressed.

Forgiveness is the hardest part in any situation like this. If Hinjo gets his people back, I think he'll be willing to forgive the goblins, especially since he has new land, and while that's near-ideal, it's unfortunately not what happens a lot of the time in real life. People hold onto hatred and grudges long after they do anything useful.

[Severance]

Victory over oppression (by the oppressed) through violence doesn't have to involve the destruction of the oppressors or the installation of the oppressed as the oppressors. The Goblins aren't trying to impose their will on the world, just carve out a space where they can exists as equals to the other races.

It doesn't have to but it most often does when "morality" no longer feels an obligation you have to keep in mind.
Redcloak's a test case on how slippery that slope is when you believe immoral and terrible actions become justified by virtue of being "oppressed", and we all know he wouldn't abandon them if he ever were to reach control of the world.

If I saw a small child holding for dear life off of a bridge and I just passed by without grabbing them and putting them on the ground again you'd call me a heartless monster even though I had no part in the child getting in that situation. In social cases, this holds true as well, even more because the privileged often reap the benefits of the oppression of the less fortunates. Closing one's eyes and saying "I did not set up the system this way" while still profiting of it is morally bankrupt.

A false equivalence. One is a case of clear cut imminent danger to someone's life the other is a murky unclear social difference in wealth and status with still no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing. They're not even remotely in the same ballpark.
Refusing to buy the notion of "I'm a victim! give me stuff! Because I say so!" doesn't make you morally bankrupt, it doesn't make you guillible.

[Fyraltari]

I'd say is more of a theme. If the Giant wants to keep on the path and make his characters mouth pieces for his personal philosophy like Ayn Rand and have the plot be an excuse for the message, well, it's been an enjoyable story.

But, I don't think the Giant is a bad Arthur like the above, so I doubt we'll have that issue

The heroes are discussing how to deal with the main villains, this is a very important part of the plot. For a work to have themes it needs moments like this, where charcaters discuss what is going on and make their positions clear.

But more importantly: it's only been two strips. It feels longer because we're getting each page one at a time and we're endlessly, endlessly discussing them on the forum but I assure you, when we re-read this part in two years, it'll go by like a breeze.

Large shifts in powers are kind of a mulligan.

I do not understand this sentence. What does "mulligan" mean?

The dwarf who was shown dying at the hands of a bugbear wasn't Rubyrock. This strip shows them both.

Yes. This is the strip danielxcutter and I are using to claim that Durkon's clan was the one who fought Oona's. Because it shows a dwarf soldier who died fighting bugbears being lead in prayer by Rubyrock, who is from Durkon's hometown.

[Dion]

I read the my first Drizz’t book yesterday (Crystal Shard). Two things stuck out to me:

1) wow, that book is twilight for 14 year old boys.

2) wow, the treatment of the “monster” races is not good in that book. All goblins, Orcs, giants, and ogres are described only as “it”, and all are slaughtered entirely without mercy.

The decision to dehumanize the non-PC races seemed ham-handed enough that I suspect it was done by a committee.

Are the rest of the books that terrible regarding the goblins, orcs, etc.?

[Teioh]

The heroes are discussing how to deal with the main villains, this is a very important part of the plot. For a work to have themes it needs moments like this, where charcaters discuss what is going on and make their positions clear.

But more importantly: it's only been two strips. It feels longer because we're getting each page one at a time and we're endlessly, endlessly discussing them on the forum but I assure you, when we re-read this part in two years, it'll go by like a breeze.

Oh, I agree entirely. Now, if the next 6 strip involves the rest of the order getting involved, each one taking some opinions we see here in the forums, I'd start to be worried

[UnintensifiedFa]

But more importantly: it's only been two strips. It feels longer because we're getting each page one at a time and we're endlessly, endlessly discussing them on the forum but I assure you, when we re-read this part in two years, it'll go by like a breeze.

Quoting for Truth and Agreement

This is why I really think we need to get to the ending of this story to truly determine our feelings. Don't get me wrong, I love discussion, and I've had a lot of fun discussing the themes and their executions in these threads, but until we see the ending and the full story, these discussions will always be incomplete lacking the context of the full story.

Reposting to Confirm.

[Jasdoif]

I do not understand this sentence. What does "mulligan" mean?

A second chance without repercussions, basically.

[Frozenstep]

I do not understand this sentence. What does "mulligan" mean?

Maybe I'm the one using it wrong, I think I thought it was more widespread then it was. In Magic the gathering, after drawing your initial hand of cards, you can decide whether to keep it or if you should mulligan (at least, in the informal games I've played), which means you discard all of those cards and draw a new hand (with 1 less card). I basically meant if you throw out an oppressing power, it's kind of a toss-up what happens. Things might get better, worse, or stay the same. It's the drawing of a new hand of cards, basically.

[pendell]

I read the my first Drizz’t book yesterday (Crystal Shard). Two things stuck out to me:

1) wow, that book is twilight for 14 year old boys.

2) wow, the treatment of the “monster” races is not good in that book. All goblins, Orcs, giants, and ogres are described only as “it”, and all are slaughtered entirely without mercy.

The decision to dehumanize the non-PC races seemed ham-handed enough that I suspect it was done by a committee.

Are the rest of the books that terrible regarding the goblins, orcs, etc.?

You did notice that one of the protagonists is a monster himself, right? Drow are considered monsters and there's nowhere he can go without having people scream "Drow" and instantly go murder happy.

The lens through which Salvatore treats monster relations is through the character of Drizzt, and the Homeland trilogy does a much better job of it than the original Crystal Shard trilogy does.

But in all the stories, you get subtlety and nuance when looking at the Dark Elves, such as Jarlaxle and Drizzt. The goblins, orcs, and other goblinoid creatures are essentially walking targets. They're killed by the "good" nations on sight while the evil ones such as Menzoberranzan use them as cannon fodder. Goblins in Drow society are slave labor, test subjects for magical experimentation, used as the first combat wave to trigger all the enemy traps and soak up enemy arrows while the real troops are outflanking or teleporting in.

I'll stand up for Salvatore in that he does address many of the themes of treating someone as inherently evil because of his skin color, many of the same issues that Rich does. The difference is that where Salvatore treated Drow as the objects of prejudice and left goblinoids as fodder, Rich embraces drow and goblins while leaving zombies and other undead as fodder.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Dragonus45]

Nope. I will demand morality from the side that has the power and misuses it, thank you very much. Morality requires a level playing field, otherwise it's just a convenient excuse for the oppression to keep going:

"See? They're reacting to our oppression with violence! The barbarians!".

So, just to be clear here so I make sure I'm not misrepresenting you. You honestly believe right and wrong don't have meaning so long as the people acting are disadvantaged enough? Is there a line here, or is this an all the way to the wall type deal?

[Vinsae]

The last three steps are the thematic heart of OOTS.

(...)

It's also about looking at the racism and sexism at the core of much epic fantasy and TTRPGs, and attempting to do better.

I'll disagree superficially in order to agree deeply: I think the actual thematic heart of OOTS is character growth and redemption. We have seen so many characters grow into stronger, more loving, more thoughtful versions of themselves; consequently, it makes sense at this stage of the comic (and DnD fandom, and the world) to extend that same opportunity to society as a whole.

We do have a chance to change how we function in the world: to improve upon our past mistakes, and to create a wiser, more generous path forward.

Part of why Xykon (and Tarquin, and maybe some others) are such effective villains in the context of this story is that they show no interest in personal or societal improvement; they believe their power and/or methods to be unimpeachable, and they don't care about their effect on others. By contrast, out heroes are heroes because they are willing to examine tactics, methods, habits, feelings, systems, then dismantle them and build them back better. It'd wild, it's scary, it takes them one Gate away from annihilation -- but, presumably, there's a better world waiting on the other side.

[gatemansgc]

Couldn't have come at a better time, we were just about to run out of pages on the last discussion thread.

Very much like that Durkon is actively thinking of a solution, and that Roy also recognizes this as both a problem (as an injustice) and a potential route to the solution, (by negotiating with redcloak).

run out of pages? are threads using this forum backend hard-capped at 50?

[Fyraltari]

A false equivalence.

An analogy. You were, as I understood you, stating that people are only morally obligated to correct the wrongd they are directly responsible for. I provided a case where there is a clear responsability to act on a situation one did not create.

One is a case of clear cut imminent danger to someone's life the other is a murky unclear social difference in wealth and status with still no conclusive evidence of wrongdoing. They're not even remotely in the same ballpark.

But we've seen goblins and orcs being killed simply because they were goblins and orcs. Your "the other" statement, does not match the situation shown in comic.

Refusing to buy the notion of "I'm a victim! give me stuff! Because I say so!" doesn't make you morally bankrupt, it doesn't make you guillible.

Arguing against strawmen doesn't make you convincing, it makes you harder to be polite with.

I read the my first Drizz’t book yesterday (Crystal Shard). Two things stuck out to me:

1) wow, that book is twilight for 14 year old boys.

2) wow, the treatment of the “monster” races is not good in that book. All goblins, Orcs, giants, and ogres are described only as “it”, and all are slaughtered entirely without mercy.

That reminds me, I read the first Gotrek and Felix anthology recently (a series of books set in the Warhammer Fantasy world) and I noticed that the human characters describe mutants, orcs and skavens (ratmen and a clear example of an "always evil race" if I ever saw one) with "it" but the skaven themselves use "he" and "she" for the humans even though they consider them "man-things".

Shojo had just been killed, losing both a high-level Paladin

Aristocrat actually.

They used the aid of numerous undead and summoned creatures. From zombies to ghouls and wights (Oh My!).

Also the city's siege engines were disabled by Julio znd despite all that Gobbotopia only claims a rough half of Azure City's original territory.

Maybe I'm the one using it wrong, I think I thought it was more widespread then it was. In Magic the gathering, after drawing your initial hand of cards, you can decide whether to keep it or if you should mulligan (at least, in the informal games I've played), which means you discard all of those cards and draw a new hand (with 1 less card). I basically meant if you throw out an oppressing power, it's kind of a toss-up what happens. Things might get better, worse, or stay the same. It's the drawing of a new hand of cards, basically.

Hey, I'm not talking in my native tongue here. Me not recognizing an idiom doesn't mean it's uncommon.
With that said, thank you and the others who answered me as well.

[The_Weirdo]

So, just to be clear here so I make sure I'm not misrepresenting you. You honestly believe right and wrong don't have meaning so long as the people acting are disadvantaged enough? Is there a line here, or is this an all the way to the wall type deal?

Let me put it this way: let's take a fictional third-world country in the DC Universe in which women do not get to vote.

Then Power Girl for some reason moves there.

She says: "I will begin the destruction with your capital if you do not let women vote".

Now women can vote.

Was Power Girl wrong?

[hroþila]

Let me put it this way: let's take a fictional third-world country in the DC Universe in which women do not get to vote.

Then Power Girl for some reason moves there.

She says: "I will begin the destruction with your capital if you do not let women vote".

Now women can vote.

Was Power Girl wrong?

I mean, Power Girl didn't even discuss it with any of those women first. Power Girl should get her saviour complex looked at.

[Dragonus45]

I'm sorry, but yes, when someone witnesses something bad happening there is a duty to intervene in what capacity they can.

If I saw a small child holding for dear life off of a bridge and I just passed by without grabbing them and putting them on the ground again you'd call me a heartless monster even though I had no part in the child getting in that situation. In social cases, this holds true as well, even more because the privileged often reap the benefits of the oppression of the less fortunates. Closing one's eyes and saying "I did not set up the system this way" while still profiting of it is morally bankrupt.

So first off I just wan't to say that I find there to be a deep false equivalence between your two examples here, but I'm not going to dig toodeep into that. Instead let me say that I agree, if you see a small child dangling from a ledge in need of help you should help them, and would have to be a real @W#%!@#$!$%!@#$!@#!@#$%@@&^&^#@$%@ to not help them. But... there should never be an OBLIGATION to do so. I realize it's a fine line I'm drawing here but it's an important distinction. Because I can say a person should do a thing all day, but an obligation comes with a lot of implication about things like punishment for noncompliance that I am generally not about.

And don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that everybody who is priviledged in any way should cast their possessions off and feed only on whatever they can catch with their bare hands dressed in rags. I am saying they should use that very priviledged position to help in what little way they can, even if it's only increasing awereness of the issue.

That sounds great, but I see no reasonable way to say such a person should be obligated to do so nor a reasonable way to enforce such a thing that doesn't also cross some terrible lines.

[Noodz]

This is obviously a topic of great discussion, so I'll be brief and give my own viewpoint here:

In the grand scheme of things, there might be a perfect hierarchy of moral conundrums where we can properly measure the moral weight of the goblin issue against the moral weight of the multitude of other issues. But the only benefit of discussing this is winning an argument on this forum. Coming up with the perfect method to measure the "ethicality" of our heroes' actions would not solve any problem

Whereas our heroes, right here right now, are empathizing with a sworn enemy to understand its reasoning and motivations. Heroism is not about philosophical arguments on what should or what shouldn't. It's about understanding that behind the threat of every mortal enemy, there might be a shred of compassion and goodness smothered by decades of suffering.

It is truly incredible how the Giant managed to convey such extraordinarily nuanced points through what is still essentially a stick figures webcomic. I've been reading a variety of webcomics for about 20 years now, but OotS is the only one I never dropped.

[Jason]

Let me put it this way: let's take a fictional third-world country in the DC Universe in which women do not get to vote.

Then Power Girl for some reason moves there.

She says: "I will begin the destruction with your capital if you do not let women vote".

Now women can vote.

Was Power Girl wrong?

Yes. What right does Power Girl have to force her moral views on a sovereign nation?