OOTS #1234 - The Discussion Thread

[Ionathus]

Dunno, I mean having three whole strips taking us out of the "Xykon is approaching! Serini's coming! Showdown!" to delve into nothing but preachy {scrub the post, scrub the quote} moral justifications I can see why people are seeing their immersion devastated.

Talking in OotSverse has always been, and still is, a free action, even when you don't like the words the characters are saying. Having the characters talk about the central plot, especially to process a significant complication for the heroes' goals & motivations, is an important part of that development.

[Pax_Chi]

I'm honestly not sure how to feel about this strip.

On the one hand, Roy and Durkon feeling empathy for the goblins and their plight is not only wonderful, but completely in character. These are two Lawful Good individuals who want to try to make the world a better place. They were ignorant of the goblin situation before, but now that they know the motivation for the goblins actions, the bad hand they got dealt early on, they want to help.

On the other hand, I find the idea that Roy and Durkon, and by extension every elf, dwarf, human, gnome, halfling and the like, need to take responsibility for "our part in this bad set up" . . . that's just insane to me.

The goblins had a rougher start compared to a lot of other races due to their creator essentially being a flake. He created those races and moved on, while other races, even other evil races, were watched over by gods that tended to take a more active involvement in the lives of their creations. It's comparable to the real world where children who are raised in a loving household by two good parents have a much better start in life than those raised by neglectful or absent parents. It's a bad situation for the neglected child, but is that the responsibility of the child with good parents?

It comes off as a kind of mandated charity. You have it good in life so you MUST take responsibility for those less fortunate than yourself, especially if they didn't have as good a start as you did. Your resources and efforts MUST be used to address this imbalance and fix this situation that you had no part in.

That kind of enforced charity through collective guilt isn't healthy. People SHOULD want to help others in a bad situation. That's a Good thing to do. Compassion and empathy are good things, and working together, they can build a better world. But that has to be a choice. A responsibility is something you HAVE to do, and that isn't what this situation is.

For another thing, this kind denies the goblins any kind of agency and sweeps any evil they've done under the rug. The goblins got a raw deal, but so have a lot of races. The species living in the Western Continent are all collectively worse off compared to the other lands, and often have to fight tooth and nail for whatever resources they can. Heck, even the dwarves, who have a more comfortable life, live with a constant existential threat of dying before achieving sufficient honor to enter Valhalla thanks to a deal they had no say in. there are plenty of humans, elves, dwarves and the like whose situation is just as bad the goblins, possibly worse.

Likewise, unless there's something I'm missing, it's entirely within the goblin's ability to choose to worship any of the Good pantheons or gods, the same way the Dwarves worship non-dwarven gods. And the Hobgoblin City demonstrates that it's entirely possible for goblin societies to exist. It's possible the discovery of said existence might have led to humans uniting against them to wipe them out, but depending on the location, their resources and possible benefits from things like trade, the goblins could have the starting point of their own civilization WITHOUT taking over another city.

Also . . .

Spoiler: Start of Darkness / How the Paladin Got His Scar

Show

When Red Cloak and Right-Eye debate the merits of living peacefully with their own land, Red Cloak comments that the other races still have it better. And Right-Eye responds with, "Why does it have to be a competition?" If the humans, elves and dwarves had an advantage growing up, then that sucks, but that does nothing to stop the goblins from building their own civilization and perhaps being able to take more pride in what they've built due to their circumstances.

Basically, wanting things to be better for the goblins does not mean taking the whole of the goblins suffering upon themselves and deciding that it's everyone's duty to fix the goblins issues. It's not like everyone has decided that it's the duty of the people outside of the Western Continent to go in and help those people suffering from lack of food, water, livable terrain, etc.

Helping others is good. But being good is a choice, not a responsibility.

I mean, compare this situation to the Marvel film The Black Panther. We can equate Wakanda having access to Vibranium to the help the Player Character Races got from the gods starting out. They got a big head start in life, but they chose to isolate themselves, build a wall around their territory, not share their resources and actively ignore the suffering of everyone around them. And as a result of their inactivity, the surrounding tribes warred with each other, with the winners enslaving the losers. This led to the development of the African slave trade where the more powerful tribes sold people within their continent and then expanded to other continents. Then several European powers came in and spent a couple hundred years colonizing chunks of the continent. All while Wakanda stayed safe in their little utopia. To say nothing of the suffering across the entire world that Wakandan technology could have alleviated.

Is now all of Wakanda collectively responsible for the suffering of every African they could have helped, and thus any potential suffering their descendants are now suffering as a result? Does it go beyond that, and they are now guilty of the suffering of anyone their technology could have helped? T'Challa definitely wants to use his technology to help the world, but is that supposed to be a matter of altruism or him finally being responsible and acknowledging Wakanda's role in the bad set up of the world? Are all Wakandans guilty of the bad situation everyone on Earth in a bad situation now finds themselves in? Or was the problem caused by a small, elite minority within the Wakandan community, and how much help an individual Wakandan should feel responsibility for giving should depend on said Wakandan?

Roy and Durkon feel bad about the goblin's situation, and they want to do something to make it better. And that's really where the whole matter should stop. There doesn't need to be any guilt over their part in a system they didn't create and which only benefits them thanks largely through the efforts they put in. Durkon and Roy were ignorant of the goblins problems, and now that they're aware of them, they want to help. Because they're heroes. That's the only justification they need.

[Spartan360]

I apologize then, though now I'm not sure what you were trying to say by pointing out the hobgoblins weren't fan of humans, then, to the comment you replied too.

Spoiler: How Paladin Got His Scar

Show

Also, they weren't at war, the Hobgoblins hadn't encroached on Azurite Territory in almost a decade at that point, the attacks were retaliations to attacks on them.

That's why I said "Some Kind" of a war, cause yeah, they hadn't attacked each other for a while but there seems to have been some hostile mindsets against each other and they clearly mostly hated each other and no actual peace treaty was made and in the prequel the most they managed to make was "A non-written agreement that the goblin's and paladins wouldn't attack each other for a while", with the Hobgoblin leader stating that he was more interesting in stocking up instead of attacking at the moment.

To the former was simply to the statement about "leaders that didn't react apology for their people slaughtering a different faction's village", where I was trying to hint that both Azure City and Hobgoblin's leaderships would likely not react that way if their men did commit those atrocities.

[Severance]

Fair. However, I trust you will agree that stopping an oppression often does require that the oppressed get more leeway with regards to their means. Maybe not "any and all", but certainly not "You can only ask politely".

Yeah I can agree with that naturally, if you're oppressed like for example Spartacus (the tv show) having a violent uprising massacring your jailers is fine given how there's no other way for you to escape and it would be death sentence trying any other attempt.
But to use that to postulate a vague "oppressed people gets free out of jail cards for being immoral" is a huge no as far as I'm concerned, especially if you go harming innocents instead of the actual oppressors.

[danielxcutter]

If you're looking for something (somewhat) analytical, Film Crit Hulk's Twilight review talks a lot about the books, as well as the films.

---

Well, without the exaggeration.

Interesting.

Also man, I love Rich's opinions about these things.

[SleeplessEntity]

The real world isn’t a zero sum game. In the real world, ther’s no reason to expect one person to have less when someone else has more.

(No, really. I’m very serious about that. I do not receive fewer rights if I give you rights. I do not receive less kindness if I give you kindness. I do not have less opportunity if I give you opportunity. Only in some very narrow definitions is the world zero sun, and often it’s not how we’ve been trained to believe.

The only place where the world is truly zero sum is in social comparison, where you count the number of people who have more than you do.)

I don’t think there’s any reason to expect that OotS-verse is zero sum either.

I agree with the zero sum part. I wouldn't say that the Oots-verse is anywhere near zero sum since the world keeps getting blown up by the snarl escaping his prison. Nobody gets any of the cake in the end. And then there's the fact that the material plane is inconsequential, and the main focus of people seems to be dying to follow their god's commandments, thereby getting into a cushy eternal afterlife where resources are infinite.

To your other point though, I'd have to disagree with the details. If I give someone kindness, the cost I'm incurring isn't less kindness but my time and resources. If I give rights, I could increase the chances that I'm the next one to be oppressed, or lose the rights to discriminate/cheat in the game of life against others. If I give others opportunity, I'm decreasing my own odds. I think that these things are usually long term investments (granted there are exceptions, like in the case of Durkon's mom, but how often to you get the opportunity to save people from certain eternal torture?). If I croak before my investment pays off, then I've just made my life harder without being able to enjoy the reward of a nicer stable community (assuming I don't care about any dumb would-be descendants).

[Severance]

Talking in OotSverse has always been, and still is, a free action, even when you don't like the words the characters are saying. Having the characters talk about the central plot, especially to process a significant complication for the heroes' goals & motivations, is an important part of that development.

And as for the cry of "reparations!" I keep seeing: show me anywhere in the last three pages where the characters suggest actual reparations instead of somehow working together to fix the problem in a non-zero-sum way.

You are reading an extreme version of the actual message into it, and of course that strawman is breaking your immersion.

No, I believe what's breaking immersion is the preachy 3-strips-long argument that just keeps on going and going and going at a point where the story left us at the edge of our seats for some critical imminent action and thus feels the less appropriate time to go for a {scrubbed} (which despite your claim is clearly what's inspiring this whole dialogue between Durkon and Roy).

[Teioh]

Seriously? {scrub the post, scrub the quote}

I guess I'll check back in a month or so to see if the comic has gone completely insane.

But, for now, this book has gone from "must buy" to "I'll read the strips online, when I get around to it."

I't your strip. You want to push {scrub the post, scrub the quote}, that's your choice.

it's my money, {scrub the post, scrub the quote}

If you're surprised this is where the story was going, you haven't been paying full attention. (Maybe if just reading the online stripes, you'd have a nagging thought in the back of your head a few years)

[Doug Lampert]

Hey, didn't Rich say something about D&D nerds not being able to suspend their disbelief about bisexual people when they do that just fine with dragons? Maybe not on this forum though.

The thing is, fiction is about people.

Dragons can be monsters that people fight, or they can be people that are shaped differently, but it doesn't matter as long as the story is about people, either the people fighting the dragons or the dragons themselves, somewhere there need to be people, and the story needs to be about them.

If the story is not about people, then it's not about anything. So having the people act like people is far and away the most important thing for suspension of disbelief. Nothing else is even close to being as important, and internal consistency is probably the only thing that even belongs on the same list in terms of importance (and yet, you can still get away with inconsistencies as long as the characters behave like real people and REACT to those inconsistencies and show an appropriate degree of bafflement, this is why hanging a lampshade on it works for inconsistencies, because it shows that the characters are still acting like people and observing their environment and expecting it to make sense).

If for some reason, your idea of how people act doesn't include the possibility of someone being bi, then a bi character will break your suspension of disbelief. I'd argue that since there are actually bi people out there, that disbelieving in them in fiction is more than a bit odd, but it plainly happens to some people.

[Dion]

preachy {scrub the post, scrub the quote} moral justifications

I haven’t seen anyone mention reparations, though perhaps you’re using it in a different sense than I’m used to.

What do you mean by reparations when you say this?

[pendell]

Yeah I can agree with that naturally, if you're oppressed like for example Spartacus (the tv show) having a violent uprising massacring your jailers is fine given how there's no other way for you to escape and it would be death sentence trying any other attempt.

But to use that to postulate a vague "oppressed people gets free out of jail cards for being immoral" is a huge no as far as I'm concerned, especially if you go harming innocents instead of the actual oppressors.

I agree with your point ; being the victim of evil does not give a license to be evil in return. All THAT does is continue the cycle of repression and violence. The world is full of feuds going back centuries , all of it motivated by payback, going back so many centuries that sometimes we've forgotten why it all started in the first place.

Peacemaking is hard work. It means that the oppressor needs to back off their overwhelming advantage and the oppressed have to agree to a certain level of restraint in fighting against it. It means that, at some point, someone has to agree to accept and forgive past evil rather than insisting on payback, carrying the war on to the next generation. It takes decades of work by leaders like O-chul and his hobgoblin counterpart in HTPGHS. It takes a willingness to accept what is possible by compromise rather than trying to push for all the chips by violence. And every generation there are young hotheads just itching to fight who need to be restrained.

It's very hard work , but I believe necessary. As I believe I've made clear, violence as a means of solving problems is overrated. In the world today there are several dozens armed conflicts ongoing which have lasted years, decades, centuries. There isn't a lot of justice visible in the places experiencing these wars; just a lot of bloodshed and misery. That's why we invented a mechanism by which people could settle their disputes through a formal process rather than trying to murder each other over quarrels: We call it Civilization, or the Rule of Law. It's what allows us to live in something resembling peace rather than being in a constant state of Max Max style warfare.

It seems to me such things can look romantic on a TV screen or a gaming table; those who have actually lived through it are far less pleased about the idea of fighting for justice. Not when it's your village that's been burned and your sons and daughters you're having to bury for an abstraction.

As for Spartacus? It's a TV series, but it's also a historical fact. And in that historical fact, the Romans crucified their prisoners every 60 yards along the entire Appian Way after they crushed their revolt.

Freedom would come to the gladiators and slaves of Rome, and it did NOT come because a slave led a successful revolt. Exactly why that is is out of scope on this forum, but it still bears study.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Crusher]

Interesting.

Also man, I love Rich's opinions about these things.

The Giant kinda crushes it when it comes to telling a story.

Which is probably why most of us are here.

[Ionathus]

No, I believe what's breaking immersion is the preachy 3-strips-long argument <snip>

The position of the goblins has been central to the plot of OotS since 2007-ish. Rich has been very open about his feeling on the treatment of "monstrous humanoids" for a number of years.

Roy and Durkon were always going to have this discussion. Heck, some people in the future will probably complain that it's ONLY two pages long, and Roy's mind was changed way too easily! That's sooo unbelievable!

[bunsen_h]

Well, without the exaggeration.

Regarding those comments about verisimilitude, and what throws someone out of a story... If Superman is shown flying, and the only justification for it is that "he's from Krypton, he flies", I'm more likely to accept that than if I'm given a gibble-gabble of pseudo-physics. The former is obviously fiction, just part of the story. The latter appears to be trying to give a real-world justification, and failing badly.

I'm much more comfortable watching super-characters in animation than in a highly realistic presentation. When I see an un-super human fall a long distance and hit something hard, or smashed through a concrete barrier, etc., it doesn't matter if they're wearing a super-suit (unless it cancels intertia...), they aren't walking away. And the wrongness of it gets my attention more if it's live-action than if it's animation.

[pyrefiend]

It's comparable to the real world where children who are raised in a loving household by two good parents have a much better start in life than those raised by neglectful or absent parents. It's a bad situation for the neglected child, but is that the responsibility of the child with good parents?

It comes off as a kind of mandated charity. You have it good in life so you MUST take responsibility for those less fortunate than yourself, especially if they didn't have as good a start as you did. Your resources and efforts MUST be used to address this imbalance and fix this situation that you had no part in.

That kind of enforced charity through collective guilt isn't healthy. People SHOULD want to help others in a bad situation. That's a Good thing to do. Compassion and empathy are good things, and working together, they can build a better world. But that has to be a choice. A responsibility is something you HAVE to do, and that isn't what this situation is.

The example you gave is tricky, because presumably parents have special obligations to their children. If I had a kid then I would have a special responsibility to raise them right, and part of what that means is that my responsibility to them is weightier than my responsibility to other parents' children.

But consider a different kind of case with the same structure. Suppose that we're shipwrecked, and you and I are the only survivors. We wash ashore on a desert island, and by sheer chance, I end up on the part of the island that's rich with fish and coconuts. By sheer chance, you end up on the part that's only got a few old coconuts and small fish.

Suppose I were to say "Well, it's not my fault you ended up over there. I didn't put you in that position. So I'm not going to share—I'll keep all of my nice fish and coconuts, thank you very much." I think that would be seriously wrong of me! It's unjust that I have so much better stuff than you—and by refusing to share, I'm intentionally perpetuating that injustice. I don't think it's at all crazy to say that I am in fact obligated to share with you. I'm obligated to at least take some minimal steps to make our situation more just.

I think this is the relevant metaphor here. The goblins and the humans "washed ashore" on different parts of the world. The goblins got the bad parts, the humans got the good parts. The situation is unjust. But, plausibly, there are some minimal steps the humans can take to make things more just. It seems like they are obligated to do that, for the same reason that I'm obligated to share my coconuts and fish with you.

[Ruck]

"Privilege" is just another reframing for "sin"

[citation needed]

People did listen to that but then also used their own minds to evaluate the complaint and then judged it bogus and unconvincing, then proceeding to complain about injecting bogus unconvincing political arguments into sports events that should be all about entertainment and fun and unity... hence why the olympics if I remember right have now decided to ban such stuff.

"People"? What people? Because this sounds like you're trying to launder your opinion as some vast consensus, which, to the limit we can discuss real-world events here, it is most certainly not.

(Also, the argument about "keeping politics out of sports" assumes that the Loyalty Song being played before every match is somehow apolitical, which is part of the point.)

Also "racist white man" feels like a contradictory term, singling out a specific skincolor when complaining about racism kinda shows the evil you claimed to be against.



And thanks.
This whole mentality is just so abhorrent, group guilt at its finest. Sorry for the lenght.

Ah, I see. You registered so you could loudly declare how much you find acknowledging the very concepts of privilege, discrimination, and racism abhorrent.

I will demand moral behaviour from all, thank you very much, and you should too, if only for the fact that absent doing so means that once the immoral oppressed win they'll instantly turn into the next oppressor. History teaches that all too well.

But you aren't demanding moral behavior from the people who have the power to engage in systemic racism and injustice. In fact, you deny that such a thing even exists.

Seriously? Now we're, I mean you're, doing reparations?

I guess I'll check back in a month or so to see if the comic has gone completely insane.

But, for now, this book has gone from "must buy" to "I'll read the strips online, when I get around to it."

I't your strip. You want to push your personal politics, that's your choice.

it's my money, and I don't spend it on other people's politics

You'll be missed!

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

I'm fond of the old line that "the law prohibits the rich and the poor alike from sleeping under bridges."

Spoiler: How The Paladin Got His Scar

Show

One of them literally says he couldn't care less about a bunch of humanoids. Maybe they won't take pleasure in it, but they're totally ready to slaughter a town of humanoids, again, and only stop because their main goal is shown to be unsure and the war would hurt their own people. They don't seem to be losing sleep over the idea of attacking and slaughtering another village, just the consequences.

Like, I get it, they think they're chasing down a real threat to the multiverse, but the attitude towards attacking a city of hobgoblins doesn't fill me with confidence over how they're usually treated.

Spoiler: How the Paladin Got His Scar

Show

Plus, the leader of the Sapphire Guard at the time is not only pretty clearly hungry for war, but also offers a justification that amounts to "any hobgoblins can be presumed evil and thus worthy of a death sentence by virtue of being hobgoblins."

And the fact that so many members of the Guard quit when the man who prevented a war joined them doesn't speak well for their motivations, in my opinion.

There is a third option, and that is nonviolent resistance.

A wise man once said, "In order for nonviolence to work, your opponent must have a conscience."

If your opponent has none and is willing to resort to violence in the face of nonviolence, you're just left with a bunch of dead peaceful protesters.

More generally, not specifically addressed to anyone here: The discussion about whether or how much violence is acceptable to right a systematic injustice often overlooks that the status quo is already and inherently violent in the process of maintaining that injustice. That violence is often tacitly accepted because it has some kind of legitimate imprimatur and/or because its victims are at best "out of sight, out of mind" to and at worst actively despised by those who benefit from said injustice.

[Severance]

I'm honestly not sure how to feel about this strip.

On the one hand, Roy and Durkon feeling empathy for the goblins and their plight is not only wonderful, but completely in character. These are two Lawful Good individuals who want to try to make the world a better place. They were ignorant of the goblin situation before, but now that they know the motivation for the goblins actions, the bad hand they got dealt early on, they want to help.

On the other hand, I find the idea that Roy and Durkon, and by extension every elf, dwarf, human, gnome, halfling and the like, need to take responsibility for "our part in this bad set up" . . . that's just insane to me.

The goblins had a rougher start compared to a lot of other races due to their creator essentially being a flake. He created those races and moved on, while other races, even other evil races, were watched over by gods that tended to take a more active involvement in the lives of their creations. It's comparable to the real world where children who are raised in a loving household by two good parents have a much better start in life than those raised by neglectful or absent parents. It's a bad situation for the neglected child, but is that the responsibility of the child with good parents?

It comes off as a kind of mandated charity. You have it good in life so you MUST take responsibility for those less fortunate than yourself, especially if they didn't have as good a start as you did. Your resources and efforts MUST be used to address this imbalance and fix this situation that you had no part in.

That kind of enforced charity through collective guilt isn't healthy. People SHOULD want to help others in a bad situation. That's a Good thing to do. Compassion and empathy are good things, and working together, they can build a better world. But that has to be a choice. A responsibility is something you HAVE to do, and that isn't what this situation is.

For another thing, this kind denies the goblins any kind of agency and sweeps any evil they've done under the rug. The goblins got a raw deal, but so have a lot of races. The species living in the Western Continent are all collectively worse off compared to the other lands, and often have to fight tooth and nail for whatever resources they can. Heck, even the dwarves, who have a more comfortable life, live with a constant existential threat of dying before achieving sufficient honor to enter Valhalla thanks to a deal they had no say in. there are plenty of humans, elves, dwarves and the like whose situation is just as bad the goblins, possibly worse.

Likewise, unless there's something I'm missing, it's entirely within the goblin's ability to choose to worship any of the Good pantheons or gods, the same way the Dwarves worship non-dwarven gods. And the Hobgoblin City demonstrates that it's entirely possible for goblin societies to exist. It's possible the discovery of said existence might have led to humans uniting against them to wipe them out, but depending on the location, their resources and possible benefits from things like trade, the goblins could have the starting point of their own civilization WITHOUT taking over another city.

Also . . .

Spoiler: Start of Darkness / How the Paladin Got His Scar

Show

When Red Cloak and Right-Eye debate the merits of living peacefully with their own land, Red Cloak comments that the other races still have it better. And Right-Eye responds with, "Why does it have to be a competition?" If the humans, elves and dwarves had an advantage growing up, then that sucks, but that does nothing to stop the goblins from building their own civilization and perhaps being able to take more pride in what they've built due to their circumstances.

Basically, wanting things to be better for the goblins does not mean taking the whole of the goblins suffering upon themselves and deciding that it's everyone's duty to fix the goblins issues. It's not like everyone has decided that it's the duty of the people outside of the Western Continent to go in and help those people suffering from lack of food, water, livable terrain, etc.

Helping others is good. But being good is a choice, not a responsibility.

I mean, compare this situation to the Marvel film The Black Panther. We can equate Wakanda having access to Vibranium to the help the Player Character Races got from the gods starting out. They got a big head start in life, but they chose to isolate themselves, build a wall around their territory, not share their resources and actively ignore the suffering of everyone around them. And as a result of their inactivity, the surrounding tribes warred with each other, with the winners enslaving the losers. This led to the development of the African slave trade where the more powerful tribes sold people within their continent and then expanded to other continents. Then several European powers came in and spent a couple hundred years colonizing chunks of the continent. All while Wakanda stayed safe in their little utopia. To say nothing of the suffering across the entire world that Wakandan technology could have alleviated.

Is now all of Wakanda collectively responsible for the suffering of every African they could have helped, and thus any potential suffering their descendants are now suffering as a result? Does it go beyond that, and they are now guilty of the suffering of anyone their technology could have helped? T'Challa definitely wants to use his technology to help the world, but is that supposed to be a matter of altruism or him finally being responsible and acknowledging Wakanda's role in the bad set up of the world? Are all Wakandans guilty of the bad situation everyone on Earth in a bad situation now finds themselves in? Or was the problem caused by a small, elite minority within the Wakandan community, and how much help an individual Wakandan should feel responsibility for giving should depend on said Wakandan?

Roy and Durkon feel bad about the goblin's situation, and they want to do something to make it better. And that's really where the whole matter should stop. There doesn't need to be any guilt over their part in a system they didn't create and which only benefits them thanks largely through the efforts they put in. Durkon and Roy were ignorant of the goblins problems, and now that they're aware of them, they want to help. Because they're heroes. That's the only justification they need.

Beautifully said.
I couldn't quite put my mind on it but this is exactly why this whole strip falls flat on me, because Durkon seems to believe they're responsible(guilty) of something merely because they benefitted from it in some unclarified way and thus needs to "make amends" somehow. That's just nonsense and casually pinning this blame on all races up to the halflings makes me dislike Durkon in a way I never imagined possible before this strip.

"Roy and Durkon feel bad about the goblin's situation, and they want to do something to make it better. And that's really where the whole matter should stop. There doesn't need to be any guilt over their part in a system they didn't create and which only benefits them thanks largely through the efforts they put in."

This is what they actually should've come to agree to, not that stupid "passing the bucket" they were never holding to begin with. Maybe if they were paladins, but not them.
Durkon's buying into a guilt that's not real.

[WindStruck]

All this talk about privilege, reparations, and responsibility... Why don't the gods take responsibility?

At least in this story, we clearly have the Gods to blame. They're the ones that have created billions and billions of worlds. They are the ones that made the myriad of races, all with their distinct qualities and starting conditions. They are the ones who neglected their mortal creations.

Durkon's buying into a guilt that's not real.

Of course, with Redcloak being evil and all, when your enemies fail to succumb to your 9th level implosion spell, still having them wracked with guilt is a big plus.

[JSSheridan]

Thanks Giant!

[Teioh]

Beautifully said.
I couldn't quite put my mind on it but this is exactly why this whole strip falls flat on me, because Durkon seems to believe they're responsible(guilty) of something merely because they benefitted from it in some unclarified way and thus needs to "make amends" somehow. That's just nonsense and casually pinning this blame on all races up to the halflings makes me dislike Durkon in a way I never imagined possible before this strip.

"Roy and Durkon feel bad about the goblin's situation, and they want to do something to make it better. And that's really where the whole matter should stop. There doesn't need to be any guilt over their part in a system they didn't create and which only benefits them thanks largely through the efforts they put in."

This is what they actually should've come to agree to, not that stupid "passing the bucket" they were never holding to begin with. Maybe if they were paladins, but not them.
Durkon's buying into a guilt that's not real.

I agree, but this isn't supposed to be about Durkon and Roy. It's why some folks feel uncomfortable in here.

[The_Weirdo]

All this talk about privilege, reparations, and responsibility... Why don't the gods take responsibility?

At least in this story, we clearly have the Gods to blame. They're the ones that have created billions and billions of worlds. They are the ones that made the myriad of races, all with their distinct qualities and starting conditions. They are the ones who neglected their mortal creations.

They won't agree among themselves to, pretty much.

I'm fond of the old line that "the law prohibits the rich and the poor alike from sleeping under bridges."

Did you just agree with me?

[CountDVB]

All this talk about privilege, reparations, and responsibility... Why don't the gods take responsibility?

At least in this story, we clearly have the Gods to blame. They're the ones that have created billions and billions of worlds. They are the ones that made the myriad of races, all with their distinct qualities and starting conditions. They are the ones who neglected their mortal creations.

Because the gods aren't one homogenous group. They come in a variety of moral alignments and opinions, divdied already into three territories. Tiamat only cares about the chromatic dragons and little else while Fenris basically ditched his creations because his idea didn't work.

Odin made it clear regarding there are various arrangements so the gods just don't bicker and quarrel and create another Snarl. Good deities feeling bad doesn't mean much if everyone else really doesn't.

As for the mortals, well, that's on them. However, if anyone is surprised by how Roy and Durkon on taking this, I think Roy alluded to this back in Azure City against Xykon: https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0442.html

Roy: I'll be the first to admit that I got into this quest for all the wrong reasons, but none of that matters now. You're a threat to the entire world, not just me and my family. But like it or not, you're still MY responsibility. Because I'm the only one here who's willing to be responsible. If I don't beat you here and now, then soon this screwed-up nonsensical world won't exist anymore. You might not be out to destroy the physical planet, but living under the heel of a walking villain cliché like you will destroy its soul.There won't be any place left for introverted dwarves. Or androgynous elves. Or idiotic bards or greedy rogues... or sexy sylphs. Or hell, even raging narcissistic paladins.Bloodthirsty halflings will probably get along fine, though. So, in summary, it's a dirty job, but some PC has to do it. Enough with the speeches. Let's get down to brass tacks.

The fact is what makes characters like Roy, Durkon and the other good is that they go beyond the minimum and beyond what is just needed. That selflessness and willingness to try and be proactive is what makes them, well, good. I heard someone say that the Good, Neutral and Evil axis could be defined as "moral, amoral and immoral" respectively.

There are no end to arguments people will make to justify why something isn't their fault and why it isn't in their hands, but our heroes aren't like that. As noted, someone has to be willing to be responsible and do something about it instead of saying "not my fault so I don't have to do anything to fix it."

Meanwhile, we have Redcloak, who is defined by his inabiltiy to own up to his mistakes and negligance in trusting stuff, instead digging deeper into a bad plan.

[The Pilgrim]

Seriously? {scrubbed}

I guess I'll check back in a month or so to see if the comic has gone completely insane.

But, for now, this book has gone from "must buy" to "I'll read the strips online, when I get around to it."

I't your strip. You want to push your personal politics, that's your choice.

it's my money, and I don't spend it on {scrubbed}

I'd wait until the endgame. This far, Rich has always portrayed positively those goblins that decide to give up on violence and decide to work with what they have and keep pacifical co-existence with humans (Right-Eye, Former Hobgoblin Chief). Ironically, both of those projects got twarted by Xykon and Redcloak.

The lastest strips may (emphasis on *may*) be just Rich stripping Redcloak of any justification for when the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle decides to go on with the destruction of the World instead of coming to an agreement.

The final outcome for the "Goblin Question" may go more on the lines of what happened in Paladin's Scar, with Redcloak going the path of Gin-Jun. Or maybe not.

[theNater]

I don't want to derrail this thread into RL issues, but...

Someone must explain me by which magic a white cisgender heterosexual man born into a middle-class family belongs to the privileged now, while a non-white transgender homosexual woman born into a billonaire family belongs to the oppressed.

Ultimately, the descriptor that really matters is how much money and power your family had when you were born. All others are derivative from it. Yeah, there are other things too, but you can't really label a person with no wealth or political power as part of the "privileged" just because he or she happens to have been born with certain traits.

Key note: privilege is not a binary yes/no. Think of it as a collection of situational bonuses that can stack with each other.

Saying someone is privileged we might mean that they have one broadly-applicable bonus, or a bonus relevant to the current discussion, or a lot of bonuses, depending on context.

[bunsen_h]

This is what they actually should've come to agree to, not that stupid "passing the bucket" they were never holding to begin with. Maybe if they were paladins, but not them.
Durkon's buying into a guilt that's not real.

People who are not paladins, but who try with self-awareness to be LG, can feel morally obligated to try to repair an injustice when it's pointed out. Even if they themselves didn't initiate it.

[Peelee]

Can you be more specific?

The Mod on the Silver Mountain: No.

[Jason]

Spoiler: How the Paladin Got His Scar

Show

Plus, the leader of the Sapphire Guard at the time is not only pretty clearly hungry for war, but also offers a justification that amounts to "any hobgoblins can be presumed evil and thus worthy of a death sentence by virtue of being hobgoblins."

And the fact that so many members of the Guard quit when the man who prevented a war joined them doesn't speak well for their motivations, in my opinion.

Spoiler

Show

When Sato asks for support to expell Gin-Jun from the Guard she immediately receives it. Sure there's one Paladin who says he doesn't care about the hobgoblins, but the majority of the Guard are not interested in killing hobgoblins just because they're hobgoblins. Gin-Jun is the problem, not the Guard as a whole.

With regards to many quitting when O-Chul joined, they didn't quit because he kept them from fighting the hobgoblins. They quit because Shojo was forcing them to start accepting non-nobles as members. So they are classist, but that doesn't make them racist.

All spoilers all the time!

[Severance]

People who are not paladins, but who try with self-awareness to be LG, can feel morally obligated to try to repair an injustice when it's pointed out. Even if they themselves didn't initiate it.

Yes but that's still a choice. Paladins have a class-based obligation to rectify injustice, they're the ones with a "bucket" to pass.
Claiming that refusing to act to help the goblins is just "passing the bucket" was just another odious way of pinning blame on anyone who doesn't. I found that detestable.

Key note: privilege is not a binary yes/no. Think of it as a collection of situational bonuses that can stack with each other.

Saying someone is privileged we might mean that they have one broadly-applicable bonus, or a bonus relevant to the current discussion, or a lot of bonuses, depending on context.

Well everyone has that...

[bunsen_h]

I'm reminded of Fiddlers' Green telling someone (Daniel? It's been a long time) that the Dreaming has more than one heart.

I always felt that that was a cheat, when it had been described as "the heart of the dreaming". Singular.

[Ionathus]

Yes but that's still a choice. Paladins have a class-based obligation to rectify injustice, they're the ones with a "bucket" to pass.
Claiming that refusing to move to help the goblins is just "passing the bucket" was just another odious way of pinning blame on anyone who doesn't. I found that detestable.

I'm pretty sure the point of Roy & Durkon's discussion was less "it's everyone's fault and therefore anyone who doesn't help is a Bad Person" and more "I consider myself Lawful Good, so 'someone else will fix it' isn't enough for me, personally, to sleep at night."

Remember, this is the same Roy who said "if I have the ability to stop something and I don't, that's my responsibility." The audience didn't really seem to balk at that, and that was in reference to stopping the End of the World -- a far more momentous & weighty task!