OOTS #1234 - The Discussion Thread

[Fyraltari]

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?

It's the first time you've interacted with The_Weirdo, isn't it?

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.

Yes. Add Nale, Tsukiko, Bozzok and Crystal to the list. Hell, the last big villain we had was defeated changing into a better version of himself.

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

They can run longer that 50 pages but they're not supposed to.

[Dragonus45]

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 have no idea, sounds like she is probably not thinking through a great deal of complex issues involved in such an undertaking that likely could make the situation explode and get a lot of people hurt. Or it might work out, I doubt it though since generally speaking it's actually very difficult to punch the very concept of sexism in the face. Well, usually it's hard this is DC and I can't remember if Power Girl is still kryptonian anymore but if she is I bet she could manage that. Anyways, back to the question here. Do you honestly believe that right and wrong do not apply to "oppressed" groups in any way. Such as, the Goblins of Gobotopia having human chattel slaves. Yes or no?

It's the first time you've interacted with The_Weirdo, isn't it?

No, but The Weirdo also seems to take very extreme positions more as a rhetorical device then anything and I find I can't resist getting pulled in at times.

[The_Weirdo]

I have no idea, sounds like she is probably not thinking through a great deal of complex issues involved in such an undertaking that likely could make the situation explode and get a lot of people hurt. Or it might work out, I doubt it though since generally speaking it's actually very difficult to punch the very concept of sexism in the face. Well, usually it's hard this is DC and I can't remember if Power Girl is still kryptonian anymore but if she is I bet she could manage that. Anyways, back to the question here. Do you honestly believe that right and wrong do not apply to "oppressed" groups in any way. Such as, the Goblins of Gobotopia having human chattel slaves. Yes or no?

The goblins have a right to do anything at all to stop the oppression and get justice.
The slaves also have a right to do anything at all to stop the oppression and get justice.

Given the context, this justice should be wrestled from the gods or from the souls of the paladins that invaded Redcloak's village (and, to be sure, many others).

Basically, go back up the causal link until the issue is resolved on the backs of those that caused it. This being a fantasy comic, it can be done with strong enough magic.

[Severance]

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?

Absolutely. A capital houses how many people, men, women, children, businesses and shops, elderly, all sorts of lives depending and growing inside its walls that she would've been willing to destroy if the rulers of said capital didn't give in to their demands? Right and wrong don't cease to exist because you don the cape of the good oppressed victim and in your example she would've been a far worse villain than the ones refusing to let women vote.

[UnintensifiedFa]

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.

You posted a very genuine response that I wholeheartedly agree with, but I had to add this one, because it's too good to not bring up.

A dwarf.

A brain.

A beauty.

A jock.

A rebel.

And a bard.

Before this comic is over, they'll break the rules. Bare their souls. Take some chances. And touch each other in a way they never dreamed possible.

Spoiler

Show

[Elves]

This is kind of falling flat for me. One, I still don't get how the goblins are so disadvantaged. The main argument is they were given poor land, but the dwarves got literal mountain caves, which are a magnitude worse. Two, in RL discussions of ethnic and racial privilege, the disadvantaged people generally aren't about to cause the apocalypse.

[Dragonus45]

The goblins have a right to do anything at all to stop the oppression and get justice.
The slaves also have a right to do anything at all to stop the oppression and get justice.

Given the context, this justice should be wrestled from the gods or from the souls of the paladins that invaded Redcloak's village (and, to be sure, many others).

Basically, go back up the causal link until the issue is resolved on the backs of those that caused it. This being a fantasy comic, it can be done with strong enough magic.

Gotcha, so to make sure I have a clear understanding here, "At least as a short term method towards going up the causal link and punching the gods to gain long term solutions, slavery is just and right."

[The_Weirdo]

Gotcha, so to make sure I have a clear understanding here, "At least as a short term method towards going up the causal link and punching the gods to gain long term solutions, slavery is just and right."

Not really, not the least of it because that slavery is doing nothing to remedy any situation or even to sate a lust for revenge. There is a causal nexus between the prior genocide by the SG and the slavery, but the slaves don't have to care and are entitled to, if they at all are able to, destroy the entirety of Gobbotopia if it will free them.

The premise is as fillows: both sides can do whatever they need to stop the oppression and attain justice, but no more than that and preferably up the causal chain.

Absolutely. A capital houses how many people, men, women, children, businesses and shops, elderly, all sorts of lives depending and growing inside its walls that she would've been willing to destroy if the rulers of said capital didn't give in to their demands? Right and wrong don't cease to exist because you don the cape of the good oppressed victim and in your example she would've been a far worse villain than the ones refusing to let women vote.

I hardly see her as a villain in this scenario. She'd be teaching the world a valuable lesson: disenfranchisement is a capital crime. As in, a crime that costs a capital.

[Fyraltari]

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 two deep into that.

Very helpful, thanks.

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.

I mean, in this particular case, I disagree with you. But we're drifting into forbidden territory, so I'll leave it at that.

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.

Hold on, I never said anything about enforcing that. You can't force people to be moral, that's not how morality works.

[Dragonus45]

Not really, not the least of it because that slavery is doing nothing to remedy any situation or even to sate a lust for revenge. There is a causal nexus between the prior genocide by the SG and the slavery, but the slaves don't have to care and are entitled to, if they at all are able to, destroy the entirety of Gobbotopia if it will free them.

So I think the "Lust for revenge." bit is absolutely present in what we have seen but regardless. So I can grasp the standards a bit clearer here, if you could link the slavery directly to the long term success of the Gobotopian cause of justice against the gods then would be then become justified? Say if they had to wage war on the gods and needed the captured Azurites as fodder to able to win?

Very helpful, thanks.

And thank you for not mentioning the typo...

Hold on, I never said anything about enforcing that. You can't force people to be moral, that's not how morality works.

I agree, but when we get into the idea of people having an obligation to do a thing enforcement is part and parcel with the concept. It's the reason I get so twitchy when I hear people using the term.

[Severance]

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.

No I said that people are responsible for their actions not for the color of their skin or other characteristics they were born with, including the wealth they inherited from their parents.
Saddling people with some "privilege-guilt" to carry while also implying they need to atone for it in some way is beyond disgusting to me, it's essentially class and group guilt and as a history student it repulses me knowing what that's meant in the past.

You're only responsible for your actions as an individual, your being "cis-white-ablebodied whatever" is of no importance nor weight whatsoever and has nothing to do with your kid-falling-off-the-bridge example, that's why I said it was a false equivalence.

[Spartan360]

Again I'm not sure how the goblin's are described to have gotten a worse deal at the start. Cause it kind of sounds that they still just got a deal that was somehow countered by.... you know I'm not actually sure about that either since we still don't actually know anything else than a war was started and the Goblin's lost, in fact it's even possible that they might have gutted each other a bit considering how the goblin races used to dislike each other.

Durkon also says that, Humans, dwarves, elves and halflings got more? while some of them have good racial bonuses, we don't know most of their current situations and if they are in combat with other non-human races. Also where should we put the other races that have good racials but likely even worse land than the goblin's for example the Ice-Giants.

Also I'm pretty sure that most races in the OOTS setting would still be pretty pissed off at the mass-sacrifice for TDO since apparently only actual evil aligned spots were willing to host the goblins (prequel) for possibly some reason.

Though I have to also say, I love Roy's use of his high wisdom and intelligence score showing through, shame that his dad didn't do anything similar.

[Jason]

This is kind of falling flat for me. One, I still don't get how the goblins are so disadvantaged. The main argument is they were given poor land, but the dwarves got literal mountain caves, which are a magnitude worse. Two, in RL discussions of ethnic and racial privilege, the disadvantaged people generally aren't about to cause the apocalypse.

I think the problem is that the reported oppression has only been talked about rather than really shown in comic.
We have seen hobgoblins whipping human slaves, including the old and infirm, in Azure City/Gobbotopia.
We have not seen a goblin merchant try to peacefully enter a human town and then be mobbed and killed for having green skin and tusks.

[The_Weirdo]

So I think the "Lust for revenge." bit is absolutely present in what we have seen but regardless. So I can grasp the standards a bit clearer here, if you could link the slavery directly to the long term success of the Gobotopian cause of justice against the gods then would be then become justified? Say if they had to wage war on the gods and needed the captured Azurites as fodder to able to win?

Still not, because Azure City wasn't a democracy, so it's much harder to argue that they had responsibility for it.

That or yes, BUT the slaves have every right to resist and if that resistance somehow slaughters all goblinkind, so be it.

Basically: the oppressed can do whatever, no matter whose side they're on.

I think the problem is that the reported oppression has only been talked about rather than really shown in comic.
We have seen hobgoblins whipping human slaves, including the old and infirm, in Azure City/Gobbotopia.
We have not seen a goblin merchant try to peacefully enter a human town and then be mobbed and killed for having green skin and tusks.

I mean, there was that Inigo Montoya kobold that Belkar got killed?

[The Pilgrim]

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?

And the next day, the freed slaves beg Daenerys to legalize voluntary slavery.

[Severance]

Basically: the oppressed can do whatever, no matter whose side they're on.

I can't agree with that. If the oppressed decided that the genocide of every child of x oppressor race was their way to solve it I would say no, you can't "do whatever".

And the next day, the freed slaves beg Daenerys to legalize voluntary slavery.

No the next day she burns down the capital anyway because bells are awful and she can do whatever since she was oppressed since she was a little child.

[BruceGee]

if your answer to not convincing people is taking up arms and resorting to violent uprisings to bypass that process then I'm not gonna look at you with a sympathetic eye.

You must really hate George Washington, then. Also Joan of Arc and all those French resistance fighters in World War II. When you watched Braveheart, did you cheer at the end when that disgusting rebel William Wallace met his well-deserved execution?

[The_Weirdo]

I can't agree with that. If the oppressed decided that the genocide of every child of x oppressor race was their way to solve it I would say no, you can't "do whatever".

I mean, at some point, people might decide it's a great idea not to oppress others, no?

No the next day she burns down the capital anyway because bells are awful and she can do whatever since she was oppressed since she was a little child.

Nope. Context matters. Bells aren't disenfranchisement.

And the next day, the freed slaves beg Daenerys to legalize voluntary slavery.

I didn't watch GoT, but if that's some sort of allegory, I'll stay away from RL politics...

[Jason]

I mean, there was that Inigo Montoya kobold that Belkar got killed?

Yokyok. He wasn't killed for entering a human town. In fact he seems to have had no trouble at all with walking around in a human town with a drawn rapier before He confronted Belkar.
Yokyok was killed because Belkar hired a bunch of clueless adventurers. They were also fine with having a kobold run around town chasing a halfling with a drawn rapier until the halfling offered them money.

[JT]

This strip though, this one finally put to words what it is that is sticking in my craw. "Don't we need to take responsibility for our part in a bad setup." No, because you have no responsibility there, as near as I can tell even in tis fantasy universe no one asks to be born and while it's certainly laudable and clearly Good for someone who was for example born to noble parents and rich compared to someone born in a small farming village, no one has a responsibility or obligation to anyone to just go and give them their property.

As one LG (Roy) to another LG (Durkon), yes, they do need to take responsibility for their part in the bad setup.

Saying that someone has a responsibility to give up their property presumes a zero-sum game. Not necessarily the case (esp with "magic") :)

[Spartan360]

Wasn't there a story where Superman did something similar and aside from the ones that believed in conquest and in "The Ends justify the means", every other hero, criminals, civilians and even politicians were against his rule since they were against those type of methods.

[The_Weirdo]

Yokyok. He wasn't killed for entering a human town. In fact he seems to have had no trouble at all with walking around in a human town with a drawn rapier before He confronted Belkar.
Yokyok was killed because Belkar hired a bunch of clueless adventurers. They were also fine with having a kobold run around town chasing a halfling with a drawn rapier until the halfling offered them money.

I mean, that's both a great point and a testament on just how weird the world is that people don't bat an eye at attempted murder until they get paid to slaughter someone.

Wasn't there a story where Superman did something similar and aside from the ones that believed in conquest and in "The Ends justify the means", every other hero, criminals, civilians and even politicians were against his rule since they were against those type of methods.

If you're talking about the alternate timelines in which he takes over, he's doing so to the democratic world in these. Not the same as toppling a dictatorship and saying "Be a democracy".

[Spartan360]

I mean, that's both a great point and a testament on just how weird the world is that people don't bat an eye at attempted murder until they get paid to slaughter someone.

Considering the massive monster manuals, I wouldn't be surprised.

[danielxcutter]

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.

Sounds legit. Though even if I do agree with the comic's message there's only so much standing around and talking that I derive enjoyment from, especially since these arguments have already been covered in the past few threads.

Yes. This is the strip Danielxcuttler 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.

That strip yes, but my username has nothing with cutlery or cuttlefish. :v

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.

You know, I actually read Twilight once. It... wasn't that bad? Mostly a solid "meh". It probably wasn't good by a long stretch, but I'm pretty sure some of the infamy it has is mostly a meme rather than it being objectively horrible.

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.?

Never read them, but if Drizzt's from FR I haven't really heard much good about their book series.

Aristocrat actually.

I think that was about Miko Falling. She was the highest-levelled member of the Guard after all.

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 and despite all that Gobbotopia only claims a rough half of Azure City's original territory.

Also two very high-level casters.

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?

Personally I don't think she should have started with that. Though frankly, I don't have the faintest idea who Power Girl is.

[The_Weirdo]

Personally I don't think she should have started with that. Though frankly, I don't have the faintest idea who Power Girl is.

Blonde, very attractive, female Superman.

[Frozenstep]

I think the problem is that the reported oppression has only been talked about rather than really shown in comic.
We have seen hobgoblins whipping human slaves, including the old and infirm, in Azure City/Gobbotopia.
We have not seen a goblin merchant try to peacefully enter a human town and then be mobbed and killed for having green skin and tusks.

I'm seeing quite a few of these opinions about being unsure how disadvantaged goblins are. The problem is, of course, we see the story from only a few perspectives. It can be really easy to miss the issues others are dealing with when we're not looking through the eyes of everyday people. But besides that, we've seen some serious stuff, even with that limited prespective.

Redcloak states a few of the issues that make them unequal in 1208, but we also see a bit of it in Good Deeds Gone Unpunished, with the sapphire guard just casually destroying a town full of hobgoblins, and being fully prepared to do it again without any remorse. And of course, the slaughter of Redcloak's village. Even Roy, usually the talker, just kills and kills in the first book without really questioning why. That kind of attitude towards goblins doesn't really fill me with confidence that they're treated well. Of course, a few of those examples come from books outside the main comic, but that's kind of what happens when you get to look at more perspectives, you see more of the problem.

This is kind of falling flat for me. One, I still don't get how the goblins are so disadvantaged. The main argument is they were given poor land, but the dwarves got literal mountain caves, which are a magnitude worse. Two, in RL discussions of ethnic and racial privilege, the disadvantaged people generally aren't about to cause the apocalypse.

Another race having hardships to deal with as well doesn't invalidate the goblin's issues. We also don't know exactly what the dwarves have, besides very good mining resources.

As for the apocalypse, it's taken quite a lot for it to get to this point, and it wouldn't have been possible without Xykon.

[danielxcutter]

I do think that Rich could have done a better job portraying goblins getting shafted throughout the comic, but come on. One of the most complex villains in the comic, two LG and wise members of the Order, and a literal god are saying that. I'd say that's good enough to assume that what they're saying is true enough.

[The_Weirdo]

I do think that Rich could have done a better job portraying goblins getting shafted throughout the comic, but come on. One of the most complex villains in the comic, two LG and wise members of the Order, and a literal god are saying that. I'd say that's good enough to assume that what they're saying is true enough.

Then there's the basic reading between the lines: if an army gets into a village and slaughters it and the reaction of the leaders of the place from which this army hails isn't You did what?!!! and trying their hardest to make amends, it sorta stands to reason that they don't view the goblins as people deserving of rights.

[Severance]

You must really hate George Washington, then. Also Joan of Arc and all those French resistance fighters in World War II. When you watched Braveheart, did you cheer at the end when that disgusting rebel William Wallace met his well-deserved execution?

George Washington acted when diplomacy was no longer an option, Joan of Arc intervened in a war that's been going for years, same for those French resistance fighters. None said "screw dialogue, let's kill" as a first measure before more peaceful options were exhausted.
And William Wallace (the movie guy not the real one which was quite a barbarian) didn't resort to immoral methods like his enemies did so he doesn't apply either in what we're talking about here.

I mean, at some point, people might decide it's a great idea not to oppress others, no?

No, they will merely decide that murdering children is acceptable since their enemies did it too and if you can choose it's better to be the murderous oppressor than the murdered oppressed. That's what happens when right and wrong are thrown out of the window and morality is abandoned on the service of who's on the "good" side at the moment.
Ever read Hunger Games? It's that exact scenario, with the oppressed rising to power but because they sacrificed all sense of morality in the process they merely turned out the next oppressor.

Wasn't there a story where Superman did something similar and aside from the ones that believed in conquest and in "The Ends justify the means", every other hero, criminals, civilians and even politicians were against his rule since they were against those type of methods.

Yes there was,

Spoiler

Show

with some superheroes going by his side and others fighting him with Batman forming an underground resistance. Also Flash starts by superman side then realizes that abandoning right or wrong punishes the very innocent he purported to protect so he defects to Batman.

It was essentially superman trying to force perfect democracy but because he'd lost all sense of right and wrong he just created a tyranny.

Hell the whole thing was called INJUSTICE and they made a series of videogames with the same name.

[Spartan360]

Then there's the basic reading between the lines: if an army gets into a village and slaughters it and the reaction of the leaders of the place from which this army hails isn't You did what?!!! and trying their hardest to make amends, it sorta stands to reason that they don't view the goblins as people deserving of rights.

Weren't the Hobgoblin leaders happy when their soldiers attempted to slaughter the village/town where O'Chuul was at. They say it was for revenge for what Gil'Jun (or something) but at the same time also state that they always wanted to attack the humans anyway.