Thoughts on the OOTS goblin predicament

[arimareiji]

I mean, I'm getting the feeling the "goblins are unfairly persecuted" is just a Redcloak-centric way of saying "plenty of monster races are unfairly persecuted", and that broader message is what Roy and Durkon are thinking about, even if the Goblin Problem is the specific matter at hand. Redcloak mentioned orcs in his discussion, and Serini talked about "kobolds, orcs, and trolls" not doing so well under the current setup, as well as O-Chul mentioning that her trading with the trolls is probably the nicest interaction they've had with a player class.

Maybe most of the examples of goblin unfairness were in the bonus content, but we have seen general comments about treatment of the monster races throughout the entire comic (heck, V had a whole subplot surrounding this). I think Rich's message is probably closer to "racism is bad" than "racism is bad when it's against this one particular race", and it just so happens that it's a member of that one particular race that is drawing attention to this. :P

From a story point of view, it makes perfect sense. The goblins are the most clearly-developed, and even they get a ton of "I bet they deserved it because they're Evil". The forums would not be a pretty sight if the Giant explicitly tried to make a general case (rather than what he's done, which is to present enough context and then let those who are willing draw their own conclusions).

Also -- although I don't have it in front of me, I think it's in keeping with what he said about Familicide. He was trying to illustrate that if killing a thousand black dragons for no reason other than "because they're black dragons" is wrong, so is killing one for no other reason. (But with goblins the illustration scales up, while with Familicide it scales down.)

[Severance]

So even though you know for a fact that OOTS world does not function the way ours does--

--but nature does and that's all that matters here.
That speech was no different than Thor revealing why gravity pulls stuff down, how fire combusts, or how day and night cycles.
Because that's how worlds work.

you simply accept Thor's explanation without any evidence from the text itself that what he's saying is right? Even though his own follower, and a protagonist of the story, does not agree with him that this is necessary or correct?

Evidence of what, that ecosystems work like that? Look out your window, you'll find all the evidence you need inside the nearest garden.
If Durkon doesn't agree or even believes that's not necessary it just means he's on flat-earthers level of crazy.

[Dion]

How do I know he's right and not trying to spin some biased wool over Durkon's eyes?
Because that's how our ecosystem works as well.

This seems suspect to me. I admit I’ve never tried, but I doubt I get XP for murdering goblins.

[Shadowknight12]

--but nature does and that's all that matters here.
That speech was no different than Thor revealing why gravity pulls stuff down, how fire combusts, or how day and night cycles.
Because that's how worlds work.

Nature does not actually work that way, since Haley says she once scrubbed mold from the Thieves' Guild showers and she got copper pieces and a fire resistance potion. That's not how *our* nature works. Furthermore, there's another strip where Haley and Belkar are eating V's tropical bird messengers and both tell Haley that encounters make no sense that one time Belkar fought dire camels in a swamp. That is also not how *our* nature works.

Evidence of what, that ecosystems work like that? Look out your window, you'll find all the evidence you need inside the nearest garden.
If Durkon doesn't agree or even believes that's not necessary it just means he's on flat-earthers level of crazy.

Or he knows the world he lives in better than you.

[Severance]

Also, even accepting the ecosystem explanation, any ecosystem built by sapient beings for the exploitation of other sapient beings is completely different (and morally abhorrent) compared to the real world.

First we're gonna need evidence there's exploitation going on.
The gods require souls and belief to exist but in exchange give out miracles and literally create the world in which people are given a chance to exist in the first place, not to mention the luxury of providing an afterlife.
The mortals gets to suffer (like we do) in life but can also rake XP and turn out growing into superhuman beings we can only dream of while they live.

Bottom line: if this is "exploitation" please kindly exploit me all the way, Thor-sama.

Real world nature has no conscious design or aims behind it. There's no moral considerations to be had. That cannot be said for the Stickverse. And while I don't fault the gods for wanting to continue their existence, am not especially sympathetic to the idea that sapient beings must suffer for it.

*giggle*
Who the heck doesn't suffer living? What a bizarre standard. The gods even said they mostly sit back after creation's done and let the dices roll where they may, even if it means stuff like Odin going crazy they still let mortals live their own lives in freedom, so nobody *must* suffer, they're in charge of their own fate.

[Rrmcklin]

From a story point of view, it makes perfect sense. The goblins are the most clearly-developed, and even they get a ton of "I bet they deserved it because they're Evil". The forums would not be a pretty sight if the Giant explicitly tried to make a general case (rather than what he's done, which is to present enough context and then let those who are willing draw their own conclusions).

Also -- although I don't have it in front of me, I think it's in keeping with what he said about Familicide. He was trying to illustrate that if killing a thousand black dragons for no reason other than "because they're black dragons" is wrong, so is killing one for no other reason. (But with goblins the illustration scales up, while with Familicide it scales down.)

Yeah, it makes sense to me: focus the narrative on this one particular facet, while also mentioning that there are others. Several people have acted like other problems existing makes the focus on this one in particularly illogical, but I imagine it's much easier to form a coherent story on that basis than trying to tackle a million different injustices at once. Not to go too into real life again, but "I'm an ally to many causes, but my specialization is one in particular" is a very common thing for a reason.

[Severance]

Nature does not actually work that way, since Haley says she once scrubbed mold from the Thieves' Guild showers and she got copper pieces and a fire resistance potion. That's not how *our* nature works. Furthermore, there's another strip where Haley and Belkar are eating V's tropical bird messengers and both tell Haley that encounters make no sense that one time Belkar fought dire camels in a swamp. That is also not how *our* nature works.

You're confusing gag jokes for world setting, careful.

Or he knows the world he lives on better than you.

Nah, he's just dumb assuming he knows better than the gods who created countless working worlds before.

[Shadowknight12]

You're confusing gag jokes for world setting, careful.

In a comedy-based comic, you should not assume gags have nothing to say about the setting.

[Squire Doodad]

In a comedy-based comic, you should not assume gags have nothing to say about the setting.

Maybe, but that's no reason to assume they define the setting.

[Shadowknight12]

Maybe, but that's no reason to assume they define the setting.

No reason to dismiss them either.

[Rhyvurg]

I'm just astounded at how people are having issues with two Good aligned characters seeing an unfair situation and saying "hey, that's unfair, we should do our best to help once we're done saving the world, because we're Good people."

Because they're acting like that because they and their peoples benefitted from the situation, they're obligated to try to change it. At most, they're obligated to tell Redcloak which god is responsible and leave it at that.

[Rhyvurg]

Nobody is talking about this because this isn't the point. Did you skip the entirety of Blood Runs In The Family, where we see an entire nation of oppressive, tyrannical people that enslave others, just like Gobbotopia? Nobody is arguing that because the Western continent is mostly an awful place with evil nations and slavery, that humans, lizardfolk and whatever other races live in the desert area of the Western continent should be oppressed. It is understood that the actions of some members of those races do not reflect the entire group.

Therefore, we can apply the same to Gobbotopia and say that just because a group of goblins conquered a city and enslaved part of its population, does not mean all goblins deserve oppression.

So forcing invading slavers out to save innocent people from them is now oppression? I don't think so.

[Shadowknight12]

So forcing invading slavers out to save innocent people from them is now oppression? I don't think so.

I don't know where you got that from my post, but let me assure you there are ways to liberate slaves from a nation without taking it out on the whole of the race that the nation belongs to. We don't take it out on all humans because the Empire of Blood is a mostly-human nation of slavers that needs to be stopped.

[Lemarc]

Because they're acting like that because they and their peoples benefitted from the situation, they're obligated to try to change it. At most, they're obligated to tell Redcloak which god is responsible and leave it at that.

They're obligated to try to change it because they're lawful good characters who perceive an injustice. It happens not to be their most pressing obligation at this time.

[Dion]

At most, they're obligated to tell Redcloak which god is responsible and leave it at that.

I’m uncomfortable with the idea that the way to solve a problem is to first direct your anger at someone.

It’s an idea that I find difficult to understand, but it a something I’ve seen suggested on this message board numerous times.

Is there some measure or metric for this - the tendency to look at a situation and try to define it by asking “who’s fault is this” or something similar?

[danielxcutter]

I’m uncomfortable with the idea that the way to solve a problem is to first direct your anger at someone.

It’s an idea that I find difficult to understand, but it a something I’ve seen suggested on this message board numerous times.

Is there some measure or metric for this - the tendency to look at a situation and try to define it by asking “who’s fault is this” or something similar?

It also conveniently lets the heroes stop caring about the problem so no I don't think this is what Rich is going to go with.

[Dr.Zero]

I’m uncomfortable with the idea that the way to solve a problem is to first direct your anger at someone.

It’s an idea that I find difficult to understand, but it a something I’ve seen suggested on this message board numerous times.

Is there some measure or metric for this - the tendency to look at a situation and try to define it by asking “who’s fault is this” or something similar?

I used to hear that metric being called "sense of justice", back in the days.

[Jason]

Now, partly this is the nature of a D&D based world, with all the bizarre moral strictures attached to alignment, something the comic leans into by having one of the major factions being comprised of paladins, which according to standard D&D parlance are definitionally good (you can have jerkface paladins, self-righteous paladins, and absurdly uncompromising paladins, but you can't have evil or even neutral paladins, because paladins who stop being good aren't paladins anymore).

Yes, having evil paladins is a departure from the rules of D&D on The Giant's part, apparently to make a point about how some players and accommodating DMs try to dance the line of the paladin rules while playing essentially evil characters.

The moral system of D&D was generated expressly for the purpose of providing cover for exactly the sort of action the goblin plotline is attempting to criticize. 'Good' characters are supposed to be able to go out and murder whole villages full of 'evil' beings and still count that as doing good.

I disagree. That is not why D&D has alignment. That is how some players have abused the alignment system.

In fact, OOTS, with its iterative worlds scenario, actually takes things further. If, by some miraculous chain of events, good triumphed utterly over evil, the neutral and evil gods would be deprived of souls, so they would gather together and immediately vote to destroy the world and build a new one before their power collapsed (and vice versa, the same thing would happen if evil triumphed). Therefore a prolonged victory by one moral faction is impossible. There is a distinct ceiling on how much better the world can become. To paraphrase Game of Thrones, the Giant has created a world where it is impossible to 'break the wheel' because the instant the wheel is broken the gods will reboot a new one into existence.

That is indeed the problem with having a group of gods ruled by majority vote, with each receiving an equal vote. Most D&D worlds do not have such a system, at least not explicitly.

[Dion]

I used to hear that metric being called "sense of justice", back in the days.

Ah! The Superman Justice method!

1) find a person who needs a beating
2) beat them
3) justice!

I admit that does solve most problems in most comic books before 1990 or so (probably changing around Watchmen, though I’m not a comic book historian).

[danielxcutter]

While violence can help solve problems, it’s really best used as a last resort rather than jumping to it as soon as possible.

[hamishspence]

Yes, having evil paladins is a departure from the rules of D&D on The Giant's part, apparently to make a point about how some players and accommodating DMs try to dance the line of the paladin rules while playing essentially evil characters.

Those characters are not "evil by D&D rules" - they are "LG by the letter of D&D rules, but arguably not by the spirit".

That is not why D&D has alignment. That is how some players have abused the alignment system.

According to The Giant, it's his experience that 9 times out of 10 the game is played that way.

Considering that even Gygax, the inventor of the D&D alignment system, has argued "Nits make lice" - the point The Giant is making is IMO that the alignment system itself, right from the very beginning, has been biased in favour of the players and against everything that the players have their characters fight.

[Dr.Zero]

Ah! The Superman Justice method!

1) find a person who needs a beating
2) beat them
3) justice!

I admit that does solve most problems in most comic books before 1990 or so (probably changing around Watchmen, though I’m not a comic book historian).

Ah, I've a news for you.
Every people jailed in the world? Didn't go there by their own will, they were dragged by force (or threat of use of force): violence.
You writing from a pc/phone without someone robbing it from you and bashing your head for good measure? Threat the aforementioned jail time.
You surviving to the germs you inhale with every breath? Microscopic violence of your immune system against germs.

Justice (and is more trivial form: revenge) is a fruit of evolution: if you take revenge on someone who hurt you, they are less likely to do so again, if they are sentient. Zero probabilities, if you outright kill them (in that case that they are sentient or not doesn't matter). And if who saw what you've done when angered is sentient too, they will try to not anger you.

(Mind you, even some will to avoid violence if a fruit of evolution: avoiding bloody conflict when it is not worth the cost)

While violence can help solve problems, it’s really best used as a last resort rather than jumping to it as soon as possible.

I remember a quote from Asimov's stories with a similar opinion (as far as I remember it was Hari Seldon, saying that violence is the last resort used by idiots, or something like that). I always missed the logic about it: if violence reaches the desired result, with minor costs, only an idiot would leave it as last resort or, worse, refuse to use it.

Personally I don't find any reason to define something as "last resort", being it violence or kindness, if not a comparison between costs and results.
And that cannot be done generally, without knowing the specifics of the problem, if not defining the use of violence itself as a (quite high) cost. Which removes the interest in the debate: one doesn't want to use the violence because one doesn't. Fair. But who cares?

[Ionathus]

So forcing invading slavers out to save innocent people from them is now oppression? I don't think so.

Nice strawman, but there is a distinction between "all goblins" and "the goblins who rule/live in Gobbotopia."

Ah, I've a news for you.
Every people jailed in the world? Didn't go there by their own will, they were dragged by force (or threat of use of force): violence.
You writing from a pc/phone without someone robbing it from you and bashing your head for good measure? Threat the aforementioned jail time.
You surviving to the germs you inhale with every breath? Microscopic violence of your immune system against germs.

Justice (and is more trivial form: revenge) is a fruit of evolution: if you take revenge on someone who hurt you, they are less likely to do so again, if they are sentient. Zero probabilities, if you outright kill them (in that case that they are sentient or not doesn't matter). And if who saw what you've done when angered is sentient too, they will try to not anger you.

(Mind you, even some will to avoid violence if a fruit of evolution: avoiding bloody conflict when it is not worth the cost)

You have a very different sense of "justice" than me. It is not the same concept as "revenge." One is about preventing someone from continuing to do harm to innocents. The other is specifically about harming someone because they have harmed you, and is generally not considered a good enough reason in most societies to justify premeditated acts of aggression.

"The only reason we don't all murder each other at each moment is because then we'd be murdered"? What a dark world. I'm glad we don't live there.

[Dr.Zero]

"The only reason we don't all murder each other at each moment is because then we'd be murdered"? What a dark world. I'm glad we don't live there.

If you change "all murder each other" to "you can safely move around with a low probability to be murdered by a random stranger", yeah, pretty much.

It is the world you live on, though. If you don't notice it, it is because, well, the threat to be dragged to a jail works quite well. But it's not that you are defended by your good will, you're defended by people paid (by you, too) to keep the order and force respect of the law. You're just delegating the violence needed to defend your life. As Celia was willing to delegate the "proper punishment" over Belkar to Haley, as long as she might think of herself being not involved in his death.

[Fyraltari]

Ah, I've a news for you.
Every people jailed in the world? Didn't go there by their own will, they were dragged by force (or threat of use of force): violence.
You writing from a pc/phone without someone robbing it from you and bashing your head for good measure? Threat the aforementioned jail time.
You surviving to the germs you inhale with every breath? Microscopic violence of your immune system against germs.

Justice (and is more trivial form: revenge) is a fruit of evolution: if you take revenge on someone who hurt you, they are less likely to do so again, if they are sentient. Zero probabilities, if you outright kill them (in that case that they are sentient or not doesn't matter). And if who saw what you've done when angered is sentient too, they will try to not anger you.

(Mind you, even some will to avoid violence if a fruit of evolution: avoiding bloody conflict when it is not worth the cost)



I remember a quote from Asimov's stories with a similar opinion (as far as I remember it was Hari Seldon, saying that violence is the last resort used by idiots, or something like that). I always missed the logic about it: if violence reaches the desired result, with minor costs, only an idiot would leave it as last resort or, worse, refuse to use it.

Personally I don't find any reason to define something as "last resort", being it violence or kindness, if not a comparison between costs and results.
And that cannot be done generally, without knowing the specifics of the problem, if not defining the use of violence itself as a (quite high) cost. Which removes the interest in the debate: one doesn't want to use the violence because one doesn't. Fair. But who cares?

[Worldsong]

I'm pretty sure Dr. Zero just described why sensible Evil characters don't go around stabbing people at random and then tried to claim that Neutral and Good characters are the same.

EDIT:
Or Neutral and Good characters are fake.

[danielxcutter]

Er, image doesn’t work. At least on mobile.

Edit: never mind just took a while to load.

[pearl jam]

Those characters are not "evil by D&D rules" - they are "LG by the letter of D&D rules, but arguably not by the spirit".





According to The Giant, it's his experience that 9 times out of 10 the game is played that way.

Considering that even Gygax, the inventor of the D&D alignment system, has argued "Nits make lice" - the point The Giant is making is IMO that the alignment system itself, right from the very beginning, has been biased in favour of the players and against everything that the players have their characters fight.

Yeah, to me being a paladin is more about the spirit than the letter. The problem is probably baked into making it a class. To me it's not really a job as much as a mindset, so such paladins in name only aren't paladins to me in the first place. (I know this has been discussed extensively in several other threads as well.) lol

[hamishspence]

Yeah, to me being a paladin is more about the spirit than the letter. The problem is probably baked into making it a class. To me it's not really a job as much as a mindset, so such paladins in name only aren't paladins to me in the first place. (I know this has been discussed extensively in several other threads as well.) lol

A lot of D&D fluff (both novels and splatbooks) has emphasised the ruthlessness of certain paladins.

What deity the paladin worships, and what culture the paladin's in, may also play a part. Paladins of Helm (LN god of Guardians) while technically LG, tend to be much less "interested in helping others in need" than the average paladin. Their schtick is "guard" not "help".

Paladins of Horus in the Forgotten Realms, may have minimal interest in rescuing slaves or fighting slavery - because their culture, an Expy of Ancient Egypt, has slavery built in.

And so forth.


So The Giant's handling of paladins has plenty of precedent.

[pearl jam]

Again, that's at least partly attributable to making it a class in the first place. If it's a job, then you can have people who do it well, people who do it poorly, people who go about it earnestly and people who do the bare minimum.

The archetype role that is being filled by all these bad paladin characters could just as easily be represented by clerics with no really material difference, other than I guess the fact that there are weapon restrictions on clerics that paladins don't have, if I recall correctly.

Obviously, as you have shown here and in the other threads, these kinds of paladins are not unprecedented, but for me and at least some of the others who have issues with these depictions it's because the spirit is what makes the paladin for us.