Thoughts on the OOTS goblin predicament

[danielxcutter]

Also there are in-comic strips where Redcloak talks about his agenda even before this book, so yeah.

[Worldsong]

If you start out from the assumption that everything Redcloak says is wrong or made up then yeah I guess the only conclusion is that the goblinoids have nothing to complain about and he's just using false claims to justify his actions.

[arimareiji]

If you start out from the assumption that everything Redcloak says is wrong or made up then yeah I guess the only conclusion is that the goblinoids have nothing to complain about and he's just using false claims to justify his actions.

{scrubbed}

[danielxcutter]

Leeeeeeeeeeeeet's not go there now. Don't want to get the thread to get locked.

[Morty]

If you start out from the assumption that everything Redcloak says is wrong or made up then yeah I guess the only conclusion is that the goblinoids have nothing to complain about and he's just using false claims to justify his actions.

That does seem to sum up about 75% of arguments following recent strips.

[danielxcutter]

That does seem to sum up about 75% of arguments following recent strips.

Only 75% of them?

[elros]

Before I start, I just wanted to reiterate that I have read the posting rules, specifically that the following two topics are never allowed:
Real-world religions (including religious reactions to gaming)
Real-world politics (including political reactions to gaming)

With that in mind, I want my comments to be focused on OOTS, but to be universally applicable. I wasn't going to bring up religion or politics, but I have scrubbed my examples out of fear that they would spark a political or religious response.

1. You are not defined by your circumstance. Many people are dealt a bad hand. The goblins worse than most. The world was created long ago. It is not hard to think of examples on your own about people who have been dealt an awful hand, but were able to rise up and make something great. Within OOTS, it certainly seems like the goblins haven been able to thrive from looking at their numbers.

2. Most of our judgement is when we make a comparison. One comparison that we can all do is to compare our lives to the lives of our grandparents or great grandparents. My grandparents had it rough with none of the nice things in life I take for granted. On the other hand, they never felt oppressed. It is natural to look to others who have it better than you, so I don't fault the goblins one bit. Almost every other race within OOTS has an easier life than they have.

3. The best people in life and most of the heroes we look up to are able to overcome their base instincts and actually get out and do something with their lives, usually at great personal cost. The goblins have a problem. Everyone kills them on sight. However, unlike a race of animals with no language, the goblins all seem to know common (or whatever the OOTS language is), with many being able to read and write. If their goal is to not be killed on sight, they can find ways to overcome that. Starting with "don't be evil" and then they can accomplish other goals such as obtaining better land. There are ways to improve land on your own (look at the good races who lived in the desert), or you can expand into other better land (after accomplishing the "don't be evil")

4. I applaud Redcloak for wanting to better their plight. I have less sympathy to others who feel like the goblins are so inferior that it takes a human or a dwarf to solve their problems for them. If they are truly so inferior, they will fall back to their old way of living as soon as your are out of the picture. If they are truly as equal as you think they are, why can't they do things on their own after generations?

If the moderators feel like I still crossed over any line, feel free to delete this post.

There are many forms of these points going through the forums, and everyone seems to overlook one fact: the goblins enslaved a city of innocent people!!!! The Giant even has Roy casually mention that fact as an afterthought. I'm sorry, but the forums seem to be supporting the narrative that "the people of Azure City deserve to be enslaved" because: 1) they didn't give the Goblins advantages, and 2) the Sapphire Guard killed innocent Goblins in their attempt to stop an evil god that wanted to destroy creation.
Everyone seems to be downplaying the slavery part of Gobbotopia because the goblins were denied a fair chance from the beginning. But now the Goblins have so many resources that the human slaves are needed to farm the fertile land. The goblins even torture slaves as a form of entertainment. When given the option of peace in exchange for releasing the slaves, Redcloak rejects it because he regards Azure city as table scraps and he wants more.
In every other instance in the comic, slavery is regarded as an evil that must be stopped. Yet everyone downplays that Redcloak brutally murdered people who were trying to free slaves.
Nothing that Redcloak experienced in his life can justify slavery, and please do not pretend that slavery is not a defining feature of Gobbotopia, otherwise you sound just like Elan. Do people need 200-foot-tall flaming letters to understand that Gobbotopia is evil?

[Morty]

Only 75% of them?

I'm being generous and accounting for some reasonable objections.

[Worldsong]

As a follow-up to my previous post, I can understand wanting to see some more blatant mistreatment of the goblinoids in the webcomic instead of having it mostly narrated at you by one of the villains.

However, once the Peregrine Leader threw that hobgoblin prisoner from the building that should have been reason to take what Redcloak says more seriously. It's a single incident, sure, but it shows someone who ostensibly is on team Good treating a defenceless prisoner pretty horribly for no explained reason other than their species, which is exactly what Redcloak has been talking about.

Also, the fact that the bugbears live all the way out in the arctic is because they were driven away from milder territories by the dwarves. You could say "Okay but maybe the bugbears did something to deserve being chased out", but you don't know that and it once again could fit Redcloak's story that goblinoids have to live with the scraps because they're treated as less by everyone else.

To me, it just seems like there have been quite a few hints that goblinoids have it pretty rough, combined with Redcloak's input, that when a god who has been present since the creation of the world and has been spectating the world ever since says "Okay, kinda, but it wasn't intentional" it's not some kind of plot twist or an abrupt change. It's just that up until this point there was still some room for doubt in a topic which has very much been present in the story, with the most recent updates only serving to confirm "No, the villain isn't making stuff up, the situation is actually pretty bad."

Oh, and I will figuratively stab the first person to say "But that hobgoblin prisoner could have been assassin so the Peregrine Leader was just being cautious." Aside from the fact that there are much more merciful ways to kill someone who can't really fight back than pushing them off a building (Peregrine Leader literally has two swords on him), you can't just pull the "But they COULD be dangerous!" card every time someone on team Good does something bad to a character who appears harmless/innocent/defenceless. If your argument could be used to justify a party of (supposedly) Good-aligned adventurers burning down an orphanage with all the orphans still inside "They could have been trained as child soldiers, you don't know!" you should reconsider whether you aren't giving the Good Guys (i.e., the ones supposedly on your side) too much benefit of the doubt.

Lengthy post

I haven't seen a single person in these discussions say that the enslavement of the people of Azure City is acceptable. In fact, even those who think Gobbotopia should remain have made it clear that for this conclusion to be satisfactory they would have to let the slaves go.

Nobody is ignoring the fact that Gobbotopia, as it is, is an Evil nation. However, that doesn't somehow make how goblinoids are treated okay (and Thor pretty much acknowledges this, he just says the gods didn't intentionally design it this way).

The more I think about it the more obvious it seems to me that Rich did this on purpose. To avoid the idea that goblinoids should be treated like people rather than monsters, but only if they behave. You can oppose Gobbotopia because they practise slavery. You can oppose Redcloak because he's killing people left and right. But you can't just push an unarmed and chained up hobgoblin off a building because "The only good hobgoblin is a dead hobgoblin."

[Severance]

There are many forms of these points going through the forums, and everyone seems to overlook one fact: the goblins enslaved a city of innocent people!!!! The Giant even has Roy casually mention that fact as an afterthought. I'm sorry, but the forums seem to be supporting the narrative that "the people of Azure City deserve to be enslaved" because: 1) they didn't give the Goblins advantages, and 2) the Sapphire Guard killed innocent Goblins in their attempt to stop an evil god that wanted to destroy creation.
Everyone seems to be downplaying the slavery part of Gobbotopia because the goblins were denied a fair chance from the beginning. But now the Goblins have so many resources that the human slaves are needed to farm the fertile land. The goblins even torture slaves as a form of entertainment. When given the option of peace in exchange for releasing the slaves, Redcloak rejects it because he regards Azure city as table scraps and he wants more.
In every other instance in the comic, slavery is regarded as an evil that must be stopped. Yet everyone downplays that Redcloak brutally murdered people who were trying to free slaves.
Nothing that Redcloak experienced in his life can justify slavery, and please do not pretend that slavery is not a defining feature of Gobbotopia, otherwise you sound just like Elan. Do people need 200-foot-tall flaming letters to understand that Gobbotopia is evil?

Yeah but... that elf! Yeah, that one elf we saw with a grudge against goblins while freeing the slaves, that clearly means they're oppressed and thus poor victims!
Clearly that also shows how the gods and heroes should both feel bad and intervene as a whole to help giving them more land... and of course every previous prejudice and wariness of them was 100% unwarranted by the other races. /sarcasm

[danielxcutter]

As a follow-up to my previous post, I can understand wanting to see some more blatant mistreatment of the goblinoids in the webcomic instead of having it mostly narrated at you by one of the villains.

I do think that the impact is a lot less than SoD and GDGU at least.

However, once the Peregrine Leader threw that hobgoblin prisoner from the building that should have been reason to take what Redcloak says more seriously. It's a single incident, sure, but it shows someone who ostensibly is on team Good treating a defenceless prisoner pretty horribly for no explained reason other than their species, which is exactly what Redcloak has been talking about.

When going back to the topic thread, it's a bit disturbing how many people thought the leader was cool for doing that. It's not like that particular hobgoblin did much to humans.

Also, the fact that the bugbears live all the way out in the arctic is because they were driven away from milder territories by the dwarves. You could say "Okay but maybe the bugbears did something to deserve being chased out", but you don't know that and it once again could fit Redcloak's story that goblinoids have to live with the scraps because they're treated as less by everyone else.

Maybe it's because I wasn't participating on the forums much around then(I honestly forget when I joined in the story), but I don't think that's been brought up much until recently.

To me, it just seems like there have been quite a few hints that goblinoids have it pretty rough, combined with Redcloak's input, that when a god who has been present since the creation of the world and has been spectating the world ever since says "Okay, kinda, but it wasn't intentional" it's not some kind of plot twist or an abrupt change. It's just that up until this point there was still some room for doubt in a topic which has very much been present in the story, with the most recent updates only serving to confirm "No, the villain isn't making stuff up, the situation is actually pretty bad."

I do suppose it'd be easier to miss that in like the thousand or so other strips, but I agree this isn't really new even without the bonus material.

Oh, and I will figuratively stab the first person to say "But that hobgoblin prisoner could have been assassin so the Peregrine Leader was just being cautious." Aside from the fact that there are much more merciful ways to kill someone who can't really fight back than pushing them off a building (Peregrine Leader literally has two swords on him), you can't just pull the "But they COULD be dangerous!" card every time someone on team Good does something bad to a character who appears harmless/innocent/defenceless. If your argument could be used to justify a party of (supposedly) Good-aligned adventurers burning down an orphanage with all the orphans still inside "They could have been trained as child soldiers, you don't know!" you should reconsider whether you aren't giving the Good Guys (i.e., the ones supposedly on your side) too much benefit of the doubt.

For real, if the prisoner was an assassin there's a chance the fall damage wouldn't have killed him. And the Peregrine Leader would probably do more damage with a full attack or something.

And that assumes the prisoner actually had to die. He still was a major *******, but getting help from native collaborators is a strategy used more than a few times in history.

Possibly dumb question: could they just have left him in jail? I suppose he could have been a witness. But if he's chained and unarmed, then a full attack would have been more than enough.

[hamishspence]

When given the option of peace in exchange for releasing the slaves, Redcloak rejects it because he regards Azure city as table scraps and he wants more.

Redcloak has no problem with having the presence of slavery in Gobbotopia be influenced by "Economic engagement" with states like Cliffport


https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0702.html


Presumably, he's willing to give up slavery completely in return for diplomatic deals, non-aggression pacts, and the like - ensuring that nevermore will goblins be attacked on sight for entering human cities.


https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1208.html


Since Durkon only says "maybe in future they won't treat you as monsters"

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1209.html

that's not enough - I think Redcloak wants that guaranteed in law, and Durkon can't do so the way states like Cliffport can.

[Morty]

I haven't seen a single person in these discussions say that the enslavement of the people of Azure City is acceptable. In fact, even those who think Gobbotopia should remain have made it clear that for this conclusion to be satisfactory they would have to let the slaves go.

Nobody is ignoring the fact that Gobbotopia, as it is, is an Evil nation. However, that doesn't somehow make how goblinoids are treated okay (and Thor pretty much acknowledges this, he just says the gods didn't intentionally design it this way).

The more I think about it the more obvious it seems to me that Rich did this on purpose. To avoid the idea that goblinoids should be treated like people rather than monsters, but only if they behave. You can oppose Gobbotopia because they practise slavery. You can oppose Redcloak because he's killing people left and right. But you can't just push an unarmed and chained up hobgoblin off a building because "The only good hobgoblin is a dead hobgoblin."

I feel as though more people defended the Empire of Blood's slavery, in that toppling it would only destabilize the region further, so it shouldn't be done. I'm not sure if Tarquin's "this is for everyone's own good" spiel was a deliberate contrast to how "monster races" aren't given any benefit of the doubt when they do the same thing, but it still works this way.

[arimareiji]

Leeeeeeeeeeeeet's not go there now. Don't want to get the thread to get locked.

Indeed. Thus the wording so vague and extreme that it doesn't matter, because if someone mistakenly thinks it's calling My Guy out specifically, I could say "snugglebunnies" and they would take it as an obscene personal attack. (^_~)

[Worldsong]

Since Durkon only says "maybe in future they won't treat you as monsters"

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1209.html

that's not enough - I think Redcloak wants that guaranteed in law, and Durkon can't do so the way states like Cliffport can.

Agreed. Durkon might have displayed a sincere intention to help, but with Gobbotopia involved this is a matter of diplomacy on an international scale.

Such matters require formal agreements and contracts between state leaders and/or representatives, not a single cleric saying he'll do his best and maybe he can get one state leader on board.

[Morty]

Agreed. Durkon might have displayed a sincere intention to help, but with Gobbotopia involved this is a matter of diplomacy on an international scale.

Such matters require formal agreements and contracts between state leaders and/or representatives, not a single cleric saying he'll do his best and maybe he can get one state leader on board.

I don't think this lets Redcloak off the hook, though. Durkon might not have much in terms of guarantees, but he was someone who sat down with Redcloak and was willing to accept his grievance as something to be addressed. Redcloak tried to implode him.

[Worldsong]

I don't think this lets Redcloak off the hook, though. Durkon might not have much in terms of guarantees, but he was someone who sat down with Redcloak and was willing to accept his grievance as something to be addressed. Redcloak tried to implode him.

Oh, no, the Implode was definitely unwarranted. Straight up Evil, clap his ass for it.

I was talking about Redcloak turning down the offer, which is not the same as Imploding Durkon even if the Implosion was Redcloak's signal that he's turning down the offer.

[Dion]

Hey guys, I’m pretty sure The Giant is tricking us.

I’m positive he’s going to show us that TDO is lying and oppressed goblins deserve anything they get.

And anyone who figures out the trick and posts about it in the forum will get a t-shirt.

[Jason]

As a follow-up to my previous post, I can understand wanting to see some more blatant mistreatment of the goblinoids in the webcomic instead of having it mostly narrated at you by one of the villains.

A villain who flat-out admits to having lied about some aspects of his story of oppression immediatly after he told it, no less.

However, once the Peregrine Leader threw that hobgoblin prisoner from the building that should have been reason to take what Redcloak says more seriously. It's a single incident, sure, but it shows someone who ostensibly is on team Good treating a defenceless prisoner pretty horribly for no explained reason other than their species, which is exactly what Redcloak has been talking about.

Sure, it was horrible, but t's not EXACTLY what Redcloak was talking about, because it wasn't a peaceful goblin merchant trying to enter a human village and being mobbed and killed by the villagers. It was a member of an occupying army in a city enslaved by that army facing professional soldiers. Still an example of prejudice, but rather a different scenario than the one Redcloak objects to so strongly.

Also, the fact that the bugbears live all the way out in the arctic is because they were driven away from milder territories by the dwarves.

Oona says.

You could say "Okay but maybe the bugbears did something to deserve being chased out", but you don't know that and it once again could fit Redcloak's story that goblinoids have to live with the scraps because they're treated as less by everyone else.

You don't know that the bugbears didn't do anything to warrant being driven away, or even that they actually were driven anywhere. You have an unsupported claim by an unreliable witness (someone who surprise attacks random strangers she finds out on the ice because they don't have green skin and tusks - a scenario much closer to what Redcloak decries, actually). It's not a point in support of either side of the debate because we don't know the facts. Any injustice to the bugbears is an informed attribute at this point.

To me, it just seems like there have been quite a few hints that goblinoids have it pretty rough, combined with Redcloak's input, that when a god who has been present since the creation of the world and has been spectating the world ever since says "Okay, kinda, but it wasn't intentional" it's not some kind of plot twist or an abrupt change. It's just that up until this point there was still some room for doubt in a topic which has very much been present in the story, with the most recent updates only serving to confirm "No, the villain isn't making stuff up, the situation is actually pretty bad."

Using a narrator the audience will trust is a more reliable way to say "yes this is really a problem," but it still isn't showing the problem.

[hamishspence]

A villain who flat-out admits to having lied about some aspects of his story of oppression immediatly after he told it, no less.

The only thing he admits to lying about is that the Snarl can be controlled.

[brian 333]

Assume the goblins are the victims and they have been dealt a crappy hand.

Now what?

It seems that every proposed solution is met with a comment about goblin victimhood and how the poster of the proposal is blaming the goblins.

So, what can the other races give the goblins that will allow them to move on from being victims to becoming participants in a better future?

I started a thread on that topic and I'm still waiting for an answer. But there is a solution.

The goblins have to start living like full participants in society. Nobody can give them equality, they have to live it. After a few generations their enemies will have died off and their children and the children of their enemies will live and work together.

This does not absolve the PC races. They have to accept goblin participation and seek out and punish those who persecute goblins for being goblins. But there is no gift they can offer to absolve the crimes of the gods or of mortals long dead.

Revenge, or JUSTICE!, traps one in the bitterness of the past. So long as one lives in the past one can never change the present. To achieve RC's dream the goblins must put the past behind them and live for the future.

Nothing the PC races can do will amount to more than token gestures. If the goblins want equality the goblins must choose it and do it themselves.

[dancrilis]

A villain who flat-out admits to having lied about some aspects of his story of oppression immediatly after he told it, no less.

I think it might be more reasonable to point out that Redcloak might have no idea what he is talking about - he wasn't there at the beginning of the world, his god wasn't there at the beginning of the world, his version is at odds with Thor's version i.e goblins were not created as experience fodder to level up clerics etc.

Redcloak's version of events is likely to be what is taught in the dogma of The Dark One, as such from Redcloak prespective he is likely telling what he understands to be a true story (he had no reason to lie because he wasn't trying to get Xykon's sympathy, and unneeded lying would have been a bad idea in case Xykon makes his sense motive check on one of them) - just how true it is was unknown until recently, and signs point to grain of truth to it but not much more then that.

[danielxcutter]

I think it might be more reasonable to point out that Redcloak might have no idea what he is talking about - he wasn't there at the beginning of the world, his god wasn't there at the beginning of the world, his version is at odds with Thor's version i.e goblins were not created as experience fodder to level up clerics etc.

Redcloak's version of events is likely to be what is taught in the dogma of The Dark One, as such from Redcloak prespective he is likely telling what he understands to be a true story (he had no reason to lie because he wasn't trying to get Xykon's sympathy, and unneeded lying would have been a bad idea in case Xykon makes his sense motive check on one of them) - just how true it is was unknown until recently, and signs point to grain of truth to it but not much more then that.

Also TDO may have not known the technical details either considering that one of the guys who told him was friggin' Loki, the literal god of BS.

[Last_Riot]

Feels like all of a sudden every "good guy" is suddenly 100% in agreement that the goblins are poor victims that are owed reparations from everyone else.

This is extremely sudden, and does not feel earned, either in terms of character attitude or in-comic depictions.

For the characters, sure it's not completely out of place to realize "yea maybe we never tried". But they should also very well remember that the goblins have always attacked them without second thought. They have also observed the goblins commit various crimes against humanity. It's not merely a "oh but the opponents have equally valid moral standings as we do and we should give them a chance", when these opponents are self-proclaimed followers of an evil god, and employ slavery, public executions, and invasions. The Order has even been tricked by the young goblins in the early comics, where they had granted mercy and it bit them in the ass.

And as a tie-in to the next point, the order, Roy in particular, has already expressed intent to confront similarly evil /human/ empires (Empire of Blood). So it's not like they were just realizing they had a double-standard, they were already coherently anti-slavery and anti-evil, and thus, if anything, giving a free pass to Gobbotopia now creates actual incoherence.

Which brings us to just how bad the goblins have had it. And it is.... honestly, not that bad. A ton of humans are living on terrible land, just look at the western continent. We've seen goblins in a number of way more hospitable locations that what humans have on the western continent. We also know that goblins have on multiple occasions have the resources necessary to rise huge armies, huge enough to threaten and conquer "good" humanoid lands. You can't just invent these resources. Weapons, armor, food... there's a huge ton of logistics and equipment involved. Infrastructure. And we have seen multiple depictions of just that. Goblin towns. Some small, such as Redcloak's initial village, others larger, such as where his brother had retired to, and actual nation-sized such as the hobgoblins Redcloak took command of. Big enough to just steamroll Azure City. And while yea, Azure City had a few defenses knocked down, and lacked the advanced warning... it's still a fortified location that easily broke, whereas in RL storming a fortified location like that is practically impossible, you need to siege it to surrender. Xykon barely contributed anything to the battle, arguably he contributed nothing at all.

So not only have we seen a bunch of examples of goblins actually holding vast amounts of resources, not only have we seen the "lucky good races" hold a ton of terrible lands, but we've also often seen depictions of the goblinoids just being terrible evil people. In the main comic, in Good Deeds Gone Unpunished, for example. They are racist, content to blindly follow evil masters, pro-slavery, unconcerned with the welfare of other races or even their own.

The goblins are holding themselves back. They embrace militaristic evil autocrats, and no nothing to help themselves out, canonically even oppressing each other (see Redcloak's rants about Hobgoblins, and Oona's rants about treatment of Bugbears). The only goblin who ever displayed a will to actually improve the quality of life of the goblinoids, the former Supreme Leader, was still overtly evil and treacherous and a latent warmonger, having poisoned the prior leadership and pinned it on the humans.

This new and sudden "we owe the goblins reparations" narrative is really incoherent with the rest of the story and sticks out as overt political preachiness. And while it's fine to want to add messages to one's story in later phases, even if they weren't planned to begin with, this last comic really strikes me as a botched attempt at it that fails to respect the story as told up to this point. And having been signaled on a few occasions prior does not suffice to erase the different narrative the rest of the story has been telling for so many years. It also summons a whole lot of issues, as it feels like a heavy handed attempt to make RL parallels, but doing so would imply a whole lot of pretty nasty ones as well. Because if you start pushing that the goblin oppression are a stand-in for some sort of RL oppression, then... well... ick... because the goblins have not been showcased to be good people, not one bit.

[hroþila]

No one has talked about reparations or about giving a free pass for slavery in the comic, and Roy literally brought up that the goblins have always attacked without second thought. You're tilting at windmills.

[Dancingdeath]

{Scrubbed]

[mjasghar]

So on the one hand you’re arguing the goblins don’t have it bad because a minority of humans live that way as well through choice (there’s plenty of fertile land). Then you gaslight at the end by insinuating the goblins deserve to have it bad because they’ve not be seen as anything but evil 🤔 (ignoring Goblin Dan)

[Last_Riot]

No one has talked about reparations or about giving a free pass for slavery in the comic, and Roy literally brought up that the goblins have always attacked without second thought. You're tilting at windmills.

They keep talking about letting the goblins keep Azure City, with the mention of their poor starting locations being mentioned very near.

Sounds like reparations to me.

[elros]

The more I think about it the more obvious it seems to me that Rich did this on purpose. To avoid the idea that goblinoids should be treated like people rather than monsters, but only if they behave. You can oppose Gobbotopia because they practise slavery. You can oppose Redcloak because he's killing people left and right. But you can't just push an unarmed and chained up hobgoblin off a building because "The only good hobgoblin is a dead hobgoblin."

I agree with you there. The Giant has made the point that in most D&D campaigns, creatures like goblins are treated as fodder for the PCs. I was guilty of doing that when my friends and I were in our munchkin phase of gaming (I used ogres).
But I do sense that some of the posts suggest that Redcloak is the way he is because of the trauma he experienced. Yes, the goblins have a bad lot in life. Yes, Redcloak's family was slaughtered. Those facts should not be minimized, but the evil of Gobbotopia shout not be minimized, either.

[Last_Riot]

So on the one hand you’re arguing the goblins don’t have it bad because a minority of humans live that way as well through choice (there’s plenty of fertile land). Then you gaslight at the end by insinuating the goblins deserve to have it bad because they’ve not be seen as anything but evil 🤔 (ignoring Goblin Dan)

Pretty much? One's an argument about their starting condition, and the other's an argument about their development.

They are depicted as having it bad because:

1) they were given scraps, but if that was so then they'd never have been able to amass the resources required to invade human settlements. Can't give RL examples, but try to think of how many times a colonized nation invaded a colonizer nation in RL. It just doesn't happen, it's impossible. You need resources to extract resources, growth is exponential.

2) they keep having it bad because they are the victims of constant persecution from the "good races", depicting it as a simple dichotomous oppressor vs oppressed narrative, except that no such simple relation exists, with the goblin settlements not all being victims of harassment and the human settlements not all reaping the benefits of great lands to go and raid goblins. That one faction (the Saphire Guard) does it doesn't make the supposed rule of "goblins are XP fodder to PC races" any more true. PC races kill all races, including their own, pretty indiscriminately, as a whole. And goblins are victims of each other possibly moreso than they are victims of PC races.

So the two underlying arguments of goblin oppression are pretty weak, and relies on ignoring all evidence seen thus far, with putting the whole focus on the sole exception of the genocidal cult that was the Saphire Order (which has arguably reformed a good while prior to the start of the main comic).