Thoughts on the OOTS goblin predicament

[Shadowknight12]

Also deities have their own personalities and like different things, so it's not even that complex. Some deities are vain and find sacrifices boring, but singing their praises and giving them shiny valuable items as gifts is more enticing. Others are more serious and pragmatic, and they don't see the point in sacrifice when it doesn't accomplish anything of practical use (the Dark One seems to be this type).

[arimareiji]

To clarify my above post: I was responding to a train of thought that started with someone back in 2012 asserting that if you* attend a ceremony of an Evil religion, that makes you Evil (and the Giant utterly repudiating it).
_{* - "you" in this case being Redcloak's little sister}

Unless you're talking about a ceremony that's unequivocally an Evil act in which the attendee is a knowing participant, that assertion stems from the same root as tribalism. Replace "religion" with "tribe" in the following, and it's just as applicable. (YMMV on whether Evil/Good become synonymous with Them/Us.)

Religion X is Evil because [I can cite examples of Evil acts done by people who claim to or do belong to religion X]. Therefore every single member of religion X is just as Evil as my examples. Therefore anyone who so much as goes to a ceremony of religion X, or can be loosely associated in any fashion with religion X, is Evil. To oppose their Evil, we members of religion Y may have to commit a few Evil acts ourselves but that's Good because they're Evil and you have to fight fire with fire.

Even if the part in brackets is true, it doesn't keep the rest from being utter fallacy. It's not hard to imagine both X and Y using this justification, and both spiraling down into what outside observers would see as depraved Evil (because both will always perceive the other's Evil as worse than their own).

[brian 333]

A point could be made that a child is below the age of moral responsibility, and thus any moral responsibility for their participation in Evil religious rites lies with their parent/guardian.

[arimareiji]

A point could be made that a child is below the age of moral responsibility, and thus any moral responsibility for their participation in Evil religious rites lies with their parent/guardian.

A willful Evil act shades a person toward some inchoate sense of "being Evil". Alone it may place, or as a pattern it may place, "Is it right to harm this person to stop them from harming others?" into a grey area. Many people would call it "justified", and they may be right -- but it's completely dependent on the circumstances, and people have argued about the particulars for centuries.

If an "Evil religious rite" is an Evil act, then the above applies. No association with religion is necessary or helpful.

If an "Evil religious rite" is not an Evil act, then you're looking at thinly-veiled tribalism. And "This person socializes with or belongs in the same group, tribe, religion, etc as someone who willfully committed an Evil act" does not make the above apply, unless they were willfully, directly involved in facilitating the commission of an Evil act.

Not to mention: Tribalism is often itself the driving motive for an Evil act, and if you ask me, should be regarded with more suspicion than an "Evil religious rite" devoid of context that is not an Evil act.

[danielxcutter]

Link to the strip in which Redcloak talks about their little sister being killed?

You do know that scene was in SoD right? Though I think there was a part in-comic where he makes an offhand comment about the paladins saving their competence for slaughtering helpless innocents or something. I think it was after failing to break O-Chul?

[hamishspence]

Link to the strip in which Redcloak talks about their little sister being killed?

It's in the Start of Darkness prequel comic.

The Giant's comments on people's assumptions that she deserved to be killed are in the spoiler tags in the post of mine that you're quoting.

And even in the main strip, Redcloak comments on how the Sapphire Guard "reserved their efficiency for killing goblin women and children."

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0548.html

[danielxcutter]

It's in the Start of Darkness prequel comic.

The Giant's comments on people's assumptions that she deserved to be killed are in the spoiler tags in the post of mine that you're quoting.

And even in the main strip, Redcloak comments on how the Sapphire Guard "reserved their efficiency for killing goblin women and children."

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0548.html

That one, thank you.

[Dr.Zero]

A point could be made that a child is below the age of moral responsibility, and thus any moral responsibility for their participation in Evil religious rites lies with their parent/guardian.

Coff... Xykon... coff.

It's hard to tell, and it's the usual debate "nature vs nurture". And then "nurture vs nurture too late to count". And then again "you are what you do, who cares about your attempt to excuse yourself and what you might, maybe, be. only what you are now counts".
I won't link it here, because I got already a warning about the graphic violence of that movie, but let's take as example the little girl in The Wicker Man (the version with N. Cage).

The adults are responsible for her creepy, sadistic, without empathy behaviour? Probably. I don't know. Maybe she had already something wrong in her (nature vs nurture)
Is she redeemable? Maybe, with the right time and means. Maybe not. Who knows what will happen in her mind anyway, and if she can be brainwashed enough to cancel the first things she learnt (nurture vs nurture too late to count)
Is she not evil because all the above? Hell, no. She is completely evil. Tens of times more than X who likes to see little birds die. She lacks any decent amount of empathy, which means she is evil, and only needs the chance to prove it. (you are what you do, who cares about your attempt to excuse yourself and what you might, maybe, be. only what you are now counts)

[hamishspence]

She is completely evil. Tens of times more than X who likes to see little birds die.

Xykon didn't just "like to see little birds die" - he liked to kill little birds with zombies, and then he murdered his parents at the age of about 12 or so.

[Ionathus]

Xykon didn't just "like to see little birds die" - he liked to kill little birds with zombies, and then he murdered his parents at the age of about 12 or so.

Spoiler: EXTREME spoilers from literally page 1 of SoD

Show

I'm still baffled by the physical capabilities of that zombie dog. How could even a regular dog extract a bird's brain whole? Let alone a zombie dog with decreased mobility/dexterity? Plot hole, plz retcon

[pearl jam]

Spoiler: EXTREME spoilers from literally page 1 of SoD

Show

I'm still baffled by the physical capabilities of that zombie dog. How could even a regular dog extract a bird's brain whole? Let alone a zombie dog with decreased mobility/dexterity? Plot hole, plz retcon

A wizard sorceror did it.

[Ionathus]

Okay, so what do we have that isn't part of some kind of Expanded Universe, actually part of the comic, to show us that Goblin behavior is justified, vs unjustified? (Please note that I still maintain that even it isn't justified, that still doesn't mean they should stop. It just makes it not a "predicament".)

Interesting. Thats definitely a reference in the comic, and it's right after he's threatened but not actually followed through on killing a bunch of slaves. But his complete lack of understanding of humans and Paladins are being heavily highlighted in that comic and the proceeding ones. I guess I always figured it was a throwaway line to underscore how Redcloak complete and utter bias and obsession is blinding him.

Yeah, that's a pretty fair point that people have brought up before. The goblins' position is explored a lot more in the prequel comics, mostly because the main plot was already shaped around the non-goblin heroes by the time SoD's themes came out. I do think the main comic could've included more examples, but I also see how that would be tricky to do without muddying the waters of the smaller arcs. For instance, Rich is on record saying he intentionally made the hobgoblin army completely homogenous to make it seem like a scary overwhelming horde...because it was from the perspective of the heroes & Azure City and he wanted it to seem like a daunting threat to them.

[hamishspence]

Okay, so what do we have that isn't part of some kind of Expanded Universe, actually part of the comic, to show us that Goblin behavior is justified, vs unjustified?

Don't think of the prequel comics as "Expanded Universe" - since they are written by The Giant and not by other authors that The Giant has licenced to write them.


Instead, think of the free online comics as one big preview The Giant is providing for the complete OOTS saga.

[danielxcutter]

Don't think of the prequel comics as "Expanded Universe" - since they are written by The Giant and not by other authors that The Giant has licenced to write them.


Instead, think of the free online comics as one big preview The Giant is providing for the complete OOTS saga.

But that would mean it can't be ignored when something there inconveniently contradicts my argument!

Also when the Nine Hells did we start using blue text for sarcasm?

[Dr.Zero]

Spoiler: EXTREME spoilers from literally page 1 of SoD

Show

I'm still baffled by the physical capabilities of that zombie dog. How could even a regular dog extract a bird's brain whole? Let alone a zombie dog with decreased mobility/dexterity? Plot hole, plz retcon

While I understand your humor, for the sake of truth let me point out that zombies are supposed to eat flesh, not brain.
Apparently in OOTS they want brain (crf the granny and some ogres I think asked for the same), but we can suppose that is restricted to higher intellect creatures.

[hamishspence]

If we see animal zombies specifically "going for the brains" it's reasonable to presume that in the OOTS-verse, all zombies "go for the brains".

[Worldsong]

But that would mean it can't be ignored when something there inconveniently contradicts my argument!

Also when the Nine Hells did we start using blue text for sarcasm?

Don't know about anyone else, but I started doing it because I've had one too many experiences where apparently my sarcasm wasn't obvious enough. And I couldn't think of any other colour which would be appropriate.

And I do feel like Rich could have done better in getting across the plight of the goblinoids in the online comic. When part of the story is free it's a bit of a nuisance when vital information, which can have a significant impact on how one reads the free story, is hidden behind a paywall.

On the other hand, it's also unrealistic to expect those who do have access to said vital information to just pretend it doesn't exist. Imagine what kind of headache that would be:

"Because I bought and read the books I know X is true, but because the free story doesn't provide the same evidence I must concede that Y is also possible, even though I know that X is definitely the correct answer."

[dancrilis]

Also when the Nine Hells did we start using blue text for sarcasm?

I don't, I kindof regard it as the text equivalent of saying out loud 'I'm being sarcastic' after or before a sarcastic statement - in which case people might as well just type 'I'm being sarcastic' rather then introduce the confusion to people who don't know the colour scheme they are using.

You however seemed to start using it on this forum November 13th 2016.

Don't know about anyone else, but I started doing it because I've had one too many experiences where apparently my sarcasm wasn't obvious enough. And I couldn't think of any other colour which would be appropriate.

And I do feel like Rich could have done better in getting across the plight of the goblinoids in the online comic. When part of the story is free it's a bit of a nuisance when vital information, which can have a significant impact on how one reads the free story, is hidden behind a paywall.

On the other hand, it's also unrealistic to expect those who do have access to said vital information to just pretend it doesn't exist. Imagine what kind of headache that would be:

"Because I bought and read the books I know X is true, but because the free story doesn't provide the same evidence I must concede that Y is also possible, even though I know that X is definitely the correct answer."

I can't find the quote but I believe that the Giant has gone on record (and I could be wrong on that) as saying that only the online information is needed for the story and anything that he doesn't introduce to it is not - he does not expect everyone to purchase the books so they cannot be important for his overall message (no matter what it ultimately turns out to be).

[danielxcutter]

I don't, I kindof regard it as the text equivalent of saying out loud 'I'm being sarcastic' after or before a sarcastic statement - in which case people might as well just type 'I'm being sarcastic' rather then introduce the confusion to people who don't know the colour scheme they are using.

Mostly I just saw people using it for sarcasm and I joined in.

You however seemed to start using it on this forum November 13th 2016.

Also how the bloody hell did you find that post?

I can't find the quote but I believe that the Giant has gone on record (and I could be wrong on that) as saying that only the online information is needed for the story and anything that he doesn't introduce to it is not - he does not expect everyone to purchase the books so they cannot be important for his overall message (no matter what it ultimately turns out to be).

Well, none of the points Redcloak's been bringing up are really being disputed in-comic. The only real things he's wrong about are his methods and the technical reason his species got shafted.

And now that I think of it, the Bet could be considered very good foreshadowing that in the grand scheme of things some races can and have been absolutely screwed over for no good reason. Which was like, most of the plot last book.

So it might not have been too jarring for people who've been reading the online comic only then.

[Fyraltari]

While I understand your humor, for the sake of truth let me point out that zombies are supposed to eat flesh, not brain.
Apparently in OOTS they want brain (crf the granny and some ogres I think asked for the same), but we can suppose that is restricted to higher intellect creatures.

Doesn't brain count as flesh? I mean both muscle and fat count as flesh and brain matter certainly isn't bone, fluid, skin, nail or hair.

[hamishspence]

I believe that the Giant has gone on record (and I could be wrong on that) as saying that only the online information is needed for the story and anything that he doesn't introduce to it is not - he does not expect everyone to purchase the books so they cannot be important for his overall message (no matter what it ultimately turns out to be).

In Origin of PCs commentary:

Spoiler

Show

Which is not to imply that the events in this book "didn't happen" or will not impact the characters and plots of the main strip. Quite the opposite. It's just that should the readers ever NEED to know something contained in these backstories, it will probably be summarized in the strip in question.

In Start of Darkness commentary:

Spoiler

Show

Technically, you don't need to know any of what is contained here to enjoy the main story, insofar as you'll never be left after reading a new update going, "Huh, I didn't get that," because of anything in this book. That's not to say that this book doesn't contain crucial context for these characters, explaining why they do what they do. It does. But ultimately, most people aren't going to enjoy the main comic less if they never understand the exact reasons that, say, Xykon feels he can trust Redcloak with this phylactery, just as an example. If you want to know the whole story, here it is. If you only care about what is needed to get to the resolution of the main plot, then consider this ancillary material. Sort of like bonus material on a DVD.

[dancrilis]

Also how the bloody hell did you find that post?

While looking for Giant quotes to support my statement regarding what he I believe he has said (and failing) I decided to test the search tool against formatting (wasn't expecting it to work).
Searching using your name and the string '#0000FF' was enough to find it - filtering oldest to newest brought that up.

Well, none of the points Redcloak's been bringing up are really being disputed in-comic. The only real things he's wrong about are his methods and the technical reason his species got shafted.

And now that I think of it, the Bet could be considered very good foreshadowing that in the grand scheme of things some races can and have been absolutely screwed over for no good reason. Which was like, most of the plot last book.

So it might not have been too jarring for people who've been reading the online comic only then.

Personal theory is that the comic will eventually show that the goblins are oppressed but not by divine forces at the start of the world, and not by other races holding them back - instead they are oppressed by an evil dictator (The Dark One) who has convinced them that everyone else is there enemies and that all other gods are the problem.
There is limited support for this and limited against it - and I could easily be wrong (or right but only to an extent etc).

I do have some limited concerns about if those who have bought fully into the goblin oppression story and passionatly advocate it on the forum might have a very hard time dealing with that, and might see it less as a message of 'evil dictators can be presuasive and convince people to do evil things and support evil structures - but that doesn't mean the people that follow them are wholely evil' and more as a message of 'it was all the goblins fault' (I could see a lot of the 'goblins are evil' missing it also).

But the story isn't over so I am not going to commit to assuming any final message before it is.

EDIT:

In Origin of PCs commentary:

Spoiler

Show

Which is not to imply that the events in this book "didn't happen" or will not impact the characters and plots of the main strip. Quite the opposite. It's just that should the readers ever NEED to know something contained in these backstories, it will probably be summarized in the strip in question.

In Start of Darkness commentary:

Spoiler

Show

Technically, you don't need to know any of what is contained here to enjoy the main story, insofar as you'll never be left after reading a new update going, "Huh, I didn't get that," because of anything in this book. That's not to say that this book doesn't contain crucial context for these characters, explaining why they do what they do. It does. But ultimately, most people aren't going to enjoy the main comic less if they never understand the exact reasons that, say, Xykon feels he can trust Redcloak with this phylactery, just as an example. If you want to know the whole story, here it is. If you only care about what is needed to get to the resolution of the main plot, then consider this ancillary material. Sort of like bonus material on a DVD.

Thank you - I wasn't just imagining things.

[Worldsong]

I can't find the quote but I believe that the Giant has gone on record (and I could be wrong on that) as saying that only the online information is needed for the story and anything that he doesn't introduce to it is not - he does not expect everyone to purchase the books so they cannot be important for his overall message (no matter what it ultimately turns out to be).

True, and personally I feel like the free online content already has provided sufficient reason to believe the goblinoid problem is genuine. However, there clearly are people who find what's available online unconvincing, which results in the same set of topics being discussed over and over while those who've read the books can be pretty confident about the answers.

EDIT:
And knowing the answer (or thinking you know the answer) but not being able to actually settle the debate because of stuff such as "You shouldn't need the books to understand the webcomic" can get kind of exasperating.

[Ionathus]

Well, none of the points Redcloak's been bringing up are really being disputed in-comic. The only real things he's wrong about are his methods and the technical reason his species got shafted.

And now that I think of it, the Bet could be considered very good foreshadowing that in the grand scheme of things some races can and have been absolutely screwed over for no good reason. Which was like, most of the plot last book.

So it might not have been too jarring for people who've been reading the online comic only then.

Yep, add me to that list too. I read the entire online comic multiple times through before I picked up any of the prequels, and by then I already thought Redcloak had a point and certain races had the short end of the stick.

[Jason]

While I understand your humor, for the sake of truth let me point out that zombies are supposed to eat flesh, not brain.

Depends on your zombie type.
Standard D&D zombies don't eat anything - it's ghouls that do that.
Zombies from the horror/comedy Return of the Living Dead (1985) were the origin of zombies wanting to eat brains, and that's what's been carried over into the comic.

[danielxcutter]

Yep, add me to that list too. I read the entire online comic multiple times through before I picked up any of the prequels, and by then I already thought Redcloak had a point and certain races had the short end of the stick.

Not to mention DStP and BRItF both make it quite clear what Redcloak's agenda is, just not his specific backstory. It helps show his motivations, but the online comic's already shown what he was working for.

Also I found it disturbing when the Peregrine leader killed the hobgoblin prisoner like that. If the hobgoblin had to die, why give him false hope like that? If he really was an undercover spy, the fall damage might not have killed him and a full attack would probably have done more damage anyways.

Yet there were quite a few people cheering for the leader specifically because of that. Despite that being a paraphrase of a real-life racist statement and the Giant intentionally making the leader unsympathetic so people wouldn't be sorry when Redcloak Imploded him.

[Shadowknight12]

If the Sapphire Paladins in the EU are goblin-baby-killers, that's a significant difference from the online comic

So you don't take Redcloak's word, as a victim of the Sapphire Paladins, that they kill children?

[Jason]

No, that's an EU.

It doesn't have other authors involved, and it's pretty clear the events are part of the same continuity (except the comics in Snips, Snaps, and Dragon Tails), and there have been clear references to events that occurred in them in the main comic, so it's not what I think of when I think "EU".

Apparently the Giant's EU has many Paladins that subscribe to "nits make lice".

I created a whole thread about it and why it's a problem.

[dancrilis]

There's nothing that indicates he was a victim.

In 300 Redcloak makes it clear that Azure City is a nice target for reasons other then simply being only one nation "the best part if WHICH nation we get to conquer", in 422 he mentions that 'this one is for you, Mom', in 480 he mentions that he figures that the paladin "owes him one village plus 35 years interest" and then in 548 he mentions that they "reserved their efficiency for killing goblin women and children".

You can choose to ignore it but the main comic does paint a narrative that paladins from Azure City attacked his village when he was young and killed women and children - any justification for the paladins doing that is (largely) unexplored in the main comic - but that Redcloak somehow escaped this attack and holds it against them is fairly clear.

[Shadowknight12]

In 300 Redcloak make special it clear that Azure City is a nice target for reasons other then simply being only one nation "the best part if WHICH nation we get to conquer", in 422 he mentions that 'this one is for you, Mom', in 480 he mentions that he figures that the paladin "owes him one village plus 35 years interest" and then in 548 he mentions that they "reserved their efficiency for killing goblin women and children".

You can choose to ignore it but the main comic does paint a narrative that paladins from Azure City attacked his village when he was young and killed women and children - any justification for the paladins doing that is (largely) unexplored in the main comic - but that Redcloak somehow escaped this attack and holds it against them is fairly clear.

I was going to head down to the archive to find these threads, but thank you dancrilis for beating me to it.

It's been stated in the story. Regardless what you may think of Redcloak, there's no reason to believe he's being inaccurate.