New OOTS products from CafePress
New OOTS t-shirts, ornaments, mugs, bags, and more
Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 271
  1. - Top - End - #61
    Troll in the Playground
     
    HalflingPirate

    Join Date
    Nov 2011

    Default Re: Was Redcloak evil since the beginning?

    Quote Originally Posted by mjasghar View Post
    Depends on the birth rate - as seen with hobgobs when not engaged in constant conflict the population becomes massive
    In that situation it’s a valid way to get a lot of mid level followers who can act as force multipliers via spells or leadership feats (think of the PC game Populous)
    This is the lemming problem, and it is a major part of the goblin problem.

    Question: how many lemmings are there?
    Answer: as many as the food supply will sustain.

    Not, 'as many as predators don't eat', nor 'as many as can comfortably coexist', but literally as many as the food supply will sustain, and when the food supply runs low, the population crashes to meet the new maximum.

    Regardless of the quality of the lands goblins live on, due to their birth rate they will fill it up. Intelligent beings can try to control their birth rate, but when the first population crash occurs, other similar creatures encroach on the goblin lands because it is also suitable for their own steady growth. Thus, through repeated cycles, the goblin population crashes result in less and poorer quality lands over time.

    The fast growth pattern seen in the real world allows a handful of grasshoppers to become a locust swarm, but eventually the locusts have nothing to eat but each other. It can invert, however, as in the case of rodents in Australia, where their population growth rate overwhelms slower-breeding creatures. This results in boom-and-bust cycles which destroy the food supply of slower-growing species, leading to extinction.

    Since The Author's comic is not about the ecological impact of uncontrolled breeding, I doubt the point will ever come up. Larry Niven's "The Mote in God's Eye" says it a lot better than I could, and it should be required reading.
    Last edited by brian 333; 2022-05-13 at 08:21 AM.

  2. - Top - End - #62
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Metastachydium's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jul 2020

    Default Re: Was Redcloak evil since the beginning?

    Quote Originally Posted by mjasghar View Post
    Depends on the birth rate - as seen with hobgobs when not engaged in constant conflict the population becomes massive
    As Brian said, there are normally hard limits on how large a population can grow and that's hardly because of the Eugene Solution being commonplace.

    In that situation it’s a valid way to get a lot of mid level followers who can act as force multipliers via spells or leadership feats (think of the PC game Populous)
    1. As said,
    a. they don't have to kill each other to level up; and
    b. they might have more to lose than they can gain that way.
    2. What kind of cohorts or followers are you going to get if you slaughter the candidates for those positions?

  3. - Top - End - #63
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2009

    Default Re: Was Redcloak evil since the beginning?

    Quote Originally Posted by brian 333 View Post
    This is the lemming problem, and it is a major part of the goblin problem.

    Question: how many lemmings are there?
    Answer: as many as the food supply will sustain.

    Not, 'as many as predators don't eat', nor 'as many as can comfortably coexist', but literally as many as the food supply will sustain, and when the food supply runs low, the population crashes to meet the new maximum.

    Regardless of the quality of the lands goblins live on, due to their birth rate they will fill it up. Intelligent beings can try to control their birth rate, but when the first population crash occurs, other similar creatures encroach on the goblin lands because it is also suitable for their own steady growth. Thus, through repeated cycles, the goblin population crashes result in less and poorer quality lands over time.

    The fast growth pattern seen in the real world allows a handful of grasshoppers to become a locust swarm, but eventually the locusts have nothing to eat but each other. It can invert, however, as in the case of rodents in Australia, where their population growth rate overwhelms slower-breeding creatures. This results in boom-and-bust cycles which destroy the food supply of slower-growing species, leading to extinction.

    Since The Author's comic is not about the ecological impact of uncontrolled breeding, I doubt the point will ever come up. Larry Niven's "The Mote in God's Eye" says it a lot better than I could, and it should be required reading.
    See I don't think this quite applies first goblins like humans are opportunistic omnivores so the goblins potential population would only be capped by food limits if they were in a closed system like an island, here their population is capped by their ability to expand into new land. If their is no food for goblins then their is no food for anyone else They may fill up new land faster than humans but their not lemmings it still takes years to reach adult hood further they can choose to practice birth control or to allow the weakest members of their population starve to preserve the rest.

    Now I could see this biological trait making the goblins more warlike because they have a strong desire/need for more land and when their is something like a plague that reduces population below their carrying capacity their going to not only bounce back faster they will see the unoccupied land as something to snatch up.

    Honestly I don't think d&d is a great medium to tell the kind of story this started edging towards because most goblins are objectively evil and worship an objectively evil god. The whole racism thing wobbles a bit when one side has apparently chosen objective evil en mass. Also Layering the vast differences in biology and birth rates complicates what seems to be an attempt at talking about humans. But the story doesn't want to talk about that,

    I was contemplating a thought if an elven nation allowed human, orc or goblins immigrants logically within a single elf generation it would be a human, orc or goblin nation with at best an elven upper class due to the exponentially faster birth rate. But if we try and map that unto humans it start looking like some of the stuff raciest are saying which is not the message most of us would want to send.
    Last edited by awa; 2022-05-13 at 08:04 PM.

  4. - Top - End - #64
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in Utah...
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Was Redcloak evil since the beginning?

    Quote Originally Posted by brian 333 View Post
    Larry Niven's "The Mote in God's Eye" says it a lot better than I could, and it should be required reading.
    The Moties are trapped in one solar system with only other Moties (until the humans show up). They are in a closed system.

    Goblins on Stickworld are not in a closed system. They can gain XP from fighting other races. It only makes sense for them to fight each other to gain experience for their troops if they aren't capable of fighting their neighbors instead.

  5. - Top - End - #65
    Troll in the Playground
     
    HalflingPirate

    Join Date
    Nov 2011

    Default Re: Was Redcloak evil since the beginning?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jason View Post
    The Moties are trapped in one solar system with only other Moties (until the humans show up). They are in a closed system.

    Goblins on Stickworld are not in a closed system. They can gain XP from fighting other races. It only makes sense for them to fight each other to gain experience for their troops if they aren't capable of fighting their neighbors instead.
    You are correct, except that I assumed the races around them had better land and resources, and were thus more protected from social instability while assuming the goblins became socially unstable when their numbers approached the limits of their resources. (As I read it that's how the author intends it to be in-univetse.)

    In this scenario, when goblin populations implode, the surrounding humanoids have available resources and room to grow, and in the next goblin population boom there is less room to grow and ever more marginal resources..

  6. - Top - End - #66
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2009

    Default Re: Was Redcloak evil since the beginning?

    Except
    1st the goblins can simply bleed off excess population with raiding and war.
    2nd much of the setting is depicted as unused, think how often you see anyone wandering around in farm land
    3rd the only hobgoblin community we see is extremely organized and militarily capable, with the help of another goblinoid they did the bulk of the work in besieging the place of power of a major human kingdom. Now you might argue the lich is what turned the tide but the goblins only needed to steal farmland not completely conquer the kingdom in one go (at least in this hypothetical).

    4th you could design a setting where goblins undergo this boom and bust cycle to their detriment, but humans moving into their lands because of it doesn't seem very probably because if their is no food for goblins then their is no food for humans either, and the goblins faster reproductive rate means they can reoccupy empty land faster.

    That said I'm unconvinced a boom and bust cycle would apply to something like a goblin yeah they breed fast compared to humans but their not rodents any boom and bust cycle would need to apply for years before it had an affect on their population. They are much closer in population growth and life cycle to humans then they are to a typical animal and the boom and bust cycle does not really apply to humans. Oh I'm certain you might be able to find a few examples but it is not the standard life pattern for civilizations.
    edit
    finally in the way d&d works quality of land doesn't matter that much, a level 1 fighter with metal weapons loses to a level 1 druid who then takes and sells the metal weapons and armor to another goblin. Secondly magic items are what matters so how strong your people are is dependent on what percentage of them are casters, basic items are so cheap in comparison that they practical don't matter.
    Last edited by awa; 2022-05-14 at 10:56 AM.

  7. - Top - End - #67
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jan 2015

    Default Re: Was Redcloak evil since the beginning?

    I don't think we can pinpoint the exact moment he became evil, but his point of no return is pretty obvious:
    Spoiler: Start Of Darkness
    Show
    He killed his younger brother all for the sake of The Plan. That right there is a, to use TV Tropes, a moral event horizon, the point past which there was no going back.

  8. - Top - End - #68
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DrowGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: Was Redcloak evil since the beginning?

    We can't be sure that he was evil since the beginning, but all signs point to it.

    He worships an evil god, and even if that doesn't guarantee evilness it presumable is an indicator of evil. He is a goblin, and although goblins in OotS aren't always evil, they usually are. He's evil now, and although not everyone in OotS has remained the same alignment as they had when younger, from what we've seen they usually do. The very first thing we see him doing is evil.

  9. - Top - End - #69
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Fyraltari's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    France
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Was Redcloak evil since the beginning?

    Quote Originally Posted by Liquor Box View Post
    The very first thing we see him doing is evil.
    It's evil to join the priesthood of the religion you were raised in?
    Forum Wisdom

    Mage avatar by smutmulch & linklele.

  10. - Top - End - #70
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2009

    Default Re: Was Redcloak evil since the beginning?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fyraltari View Post
    It's evil to join the priesthood of the religion you were raised in?
    It can be.

  11. - Top - End - #71
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Fyraltari's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    France
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Was Redcloak evil since the beginning?

    Quote Originally Posted by dancrilis View Post
    It can be.
    Okay. The whole point of the scene is to show that Redcloak used to be a normal teenager going through a normal life until the Sapphire Guard showed up out of nowhere (at least to his perspective) and destroyed almost everything he held dear. You guys see that, right?

    To read this scene and conclude that "tje very first thing we see him doing is evil" is wild to me.
    Forum Wisdom

    Mage avatar by smutmulch & linklele.

  12. - Top - End - #72
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2009

    Default Re: Was Redcloak evil since the beginning?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fyraltari View Post
    Okay. The whole point of the scene is to show that Redcloak used to be a normal teenager going through a normal life until the Sapphire Guard showed up out of nowhere (at least to his perspective) and destroyed almost everything he held dear. You guys see that, right?

    To read this scene and conclude that "tje very first thing we see him doing is evil" is wild to me.
    Alignment is DnD is not really a tightly controlled mechanic -
    It is easy to go: Raised in a culture that demonises other races for perceived ancestoral wrongs and worships a being whose priesthood propagates these view, these are xenophobes - thereby I say Evil.
    It is also easy to go: Isolated community with no obvious negative behaviour - these people are likely Neutral.
    Or even: Raised in what seems to be a tight knit community where everyone seems to care for each other - no reason to think they are anything but Good people.

    This is normally not an issue unless you happen to be at a table where all those views are held.

    Near the end of SOD:
    Spoiler: SOD
    Show

    Right-Eye (and son) don't actually kill anyone but they do take part in an attack on an innocent circus which leaves people dead - Right-Eye is neutral regardless (per word of Giant), but it wouldn't be hard to argue that he was engaged in evil behaviour when he did that.


    As I said earlier in the trend what alignment Redcloak had is unknown, if I had to put a name on it I would say 'evil' in the same way that I would say the average hobgoblin moving towards Azure City or the average human in Tarquin's forces might be guessed to be evil - but it would be easy to argue neutral also (in all three cases).

    For what my guess is worth The Giant does seem to hold that Evil is a special thing, not mere support for evil entities but instead casual murder and overt cruelty are required (i.e Tarquin is evil, Kilkil is not) - I suspect that he would have Redcloak (in his time as a whitecloak) as Neutral.

  13. - Top - End - #73
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DrowGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: Was Redcloak evil since the beginning?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fyraltari View Post
    It's evil to join the priesthood of the religion you were raised in?
    If the deity is evil I assume so, under the rules. Although admittedly I'm not sure.

    In comic, one thing the deva seemed to detract from Roy's goodness was his association with Belkar (although that was mitigated by him preventing Belkar from even more destruction). If being in a party with an evil character is evil, I presume worshipping an evil god would be.

    Quote Originally Posted by Fyraltari View Post
    Okay. The whole point of the scene is to show that Redcloak used to be a normal teenager going through a normal life until the Sapphire Guard showed up out of nowhere (at least to his perspective) and destroyed almost everything he held dear. You guys see that, right?

    To read this scene and conclude that "tje very first thing we see him doing is evil" is wild to me.
    Well, the first thing we saw was before the SG showed up. The scene probably was meant to convey that he was a normalish goblin teenager (which usually is evil), and not intended to convey his evilness. But, whatever the intent of the scene, Reddy does appear to do something evil in the scene.

    Quote Originally Posted by dancrilis View Post
    For what my guess is worth The Giant does seem to hold that Evil is a special thing, not mere support for evil entities but instead casual murder and overt cruelty are required (i.e Tarquin is evil, Kilkil is not) - I suspect that he would have Redcloak (in his time as a whitecloak) as Neutral.
    I'm not suggesting the the minor evil act of worshipping an evil god was enough to make an otherwise neutral Redcloak suddenly evil. It probably wouldn't be if we knew he was neutral otherwise. But we don't know that. We don't have any other indication of his alignment at that time (other than being evil later, and being a goblin) so the worship of an evil god is all we have to go on. Worshipping an evil god is an indication of his existing evilness, not the things which turns him into evil.
    Last edited by Liquor Box; 2022-05-25 at 07:13 AM.

  14. - Top - End - #74
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    hroþila's Avatar

    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Was Redcloak evil since the beginning?

    The deva didn't argue that simply associating with an Evil character was Evil, she was talking about being the leader of an Evil character and therefore about Roy's responsibility for Belkar's Evil actions. And she wasn't looking into whether that made him Evil, but non-Good.
    ungelic is us

  15. - Top - End - #75
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DrowGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: Was Redcloak evil since the beginning?

    Quote Originally Posted by hroþila View Post
    The deva didn't argue that simply associating with an Evil character was Evil, she was talking about being the leader of an Evil character and therefore about Roy's responsibility for Belkar's Evil actions. And she wasn't looking into whether that made him Evil, but non-Good.
    True, it's not exactly the same thing. I would think that worshipping an evil god is worse than having an evil member in your team.

    So you think that evil<----->good is not a spectrum to which actions move you toward evil or good? You may be right, perhaps there are somethings that will only move you from good to neutral, and wont move you at all from neutral to evil.

  16. - Top - End - #76
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Fyraltari's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    France
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Was Redcloak evil since the beginning?

    Quote Originally Posted by Liquor Box View Post
    If the deity is evil I assume so, under the rules. Although admittedly I'm not sure.
    Morality is not a team game. It's about your choices and actions. The notion that joining a group lead by an evil person is evil in itself is very weird.

    In comic, one thing the deva seemed to detract from Roy's goodness was his association with Belkar (although that was mitigated by him preventing Belkar from even more destruction). If being in a party with an evil character is evil, I presume worshipping an evil god would be.
    As leader, Roy enables Belkar, even helped hil escape legal consequences for his misdeeds once. The action Redcloak took in service to his god are evil for the most part, but simply joining the church isn't.


    Well, the first thing we saw was before the SG showed up. The scene probably was meant to convey that he was a normalish goblin teenager (which usually is evil), and not intended to convey his evilness. But, whatever the intent of the scene, Reddy does appear to do something evil in the scene.
    I can't. Are you for real?
    The point of the scene is that he was a normal person until the Sapphire Guard drove him to evil. It's so obvious. The entire book is framing Redcloak as a tragic figure who loses himself into his desire for revenge and progressively abandons his morality because he's incapable of dealing with the traumatism he went through otherwise. He is a monster of the paladins' own making. Do you realize how the idea that he was already doing evil before undercuts that?

    Constrast with Xykon who isn't meant to be tragic at all. His first scene at first presnts the idea that he would be (when he's crying over his dead dog) and then immediately subverts that (he decides to feed live birds to his zombie dog for fun) because unlike Redcloak he isn't evil because of circumstances, he just is. Which is why his first scene shows him do something evil as a child. To establish that.

    I'm not suggesting the the minor evil act of worshipping an evil god was enough to make an otherwise neutral Redcloak suddenly evil. It probably wouldn't be if we knew he was neutral otherwise. But we don't know that. We don't have any other indication of his alignment at that time (other than being evil later, and being a goblin) so the worship of an evil god is all we have to go on. Worshipping an evil god is an indication of his existing evilness, not the things which turns him into evil.
    Or you could try to understand what the story is trying to say and not judge characters based on their race and team.
    Forum Wisdom

    Mage avatar by smutmulch & linklele.

  17. - Top - End - #77
    Ettin in the Playground
    Join Date
    May 2009

    Default Re: Was Redcloak evil since the beginning?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fyraltari View Post
    The notion that joining a group lead by an evil person is evil in itself is very weird.
    Redcloak's worshipping the Dark One does benefit evil at a cosmic level, and Redcloak (even when a whitecloak) might very well have known this.

    If you join 'The Good Guys' because you think they are good guys and they happen to be evil people you are likely not evil just for joining - but if you join 'The Evil Guys' thinking they are evil guys then joining might be an indicator that you are evil.

    What alignment Redcloak was at the story of SOD doesn't really matter - the paladins were still out of line for slaughtering people (regardless of moral alignment) on what amounted to a hunch that said slaughter would protect the world, whether Redcloak would have sacrificed a human in a bloody ritual to his god or not doesn't change that.

    Even if Redcloak was willing to commit such a sacrifice I am not sure it would make him evil (though I suspect that more would argue for it), I am not sure that the Orcs were evil either despite them being willing to undertake such a sacrifice for instance.

  18. - Top - End - #78
    Titan in the Playground
     
    Fyraltari's Avatar

    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    France
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Was Redcloak evil since the beginning?

    Quote Originally Posted by dancrilis View Post
    Redcloak's worshipping the Dark One does benefit evil at a cosmic level
    How so?


    Quote Originally Posted by dancrilis View Post
    If you join 'The Good Guys' because you think they are good guys and they happen to be evil people you are likely not evil just for joining - but if you join 'The Evil Guys' thinking they are evil guys then joining might be an indicator that you are evil.
    You do realize that Redcloak's entire rhetoric is that he and the Dark One are in the right? At one point he defines himself as Evil but only in the sense that opposes those who call themselves "Good". But at no point in his life has he thought that the Dark One, or his Church were morally bankrupt.

    Quote Originally Posted by dancrilis View Post
    What alignment Redcloak was at the story of SOD doesn't really matter - the paladins were still out of line for slaughtering people (regardless of moral alignment) on what amounted to a hunch that said slaughter would protect the world, whether Redcloak would have sacrificed a human in a bloody ritual to his god or not doesn't change that.
    His story in SoD is that of the (pertially self-inflicted) corruption of the Innocent. His tradegy is that, had things been different, he would not have become who he is, that he was not always on this path. So, if we are going to ascribe any value to the Alignment System (which I am granting for the sake of discussion) then, yes it absolutely does, because the story doesn't have the smae impact if he starts out already willing to murder people.
    Forum Wisdom

    Mage avatar by smutmulch & linklele.

  19. - Top - End - #79
    Troll in the Playground
     
    HalflingPirate

    Join Date
    Nov 2011

    Default Re: Was Redcloak evil since the beginning?

    There is a long road between 'innocent child in a village full of evil people' and 'evil child'. It is possible to be a good child in such circumstances, mirroring Xykon's 'evil child' phase.

    However, in my opinion, the active worship of an Evil deity requires evil acts, much as the active worship of a Good deity requires good acts. Again, in my opinion, it is possible for Neutral lay worshippers to worship an Evil deity, but the acts required to become a priest of an Evil deity reduce dramatically the possibility of a Neutral worshipper remaining non-evil. It is not impossible, simply less likely.

    The Author may choose to throw D&D conventions out of the window, but so far every investigation has shown that his understanding and application of the game rules has been spot on. He doesn't violate them. As an acolyte cleric of a LE deity that sits on the line between LN and LE, there are three possible alignments for Redcloak: LN, LE, and NE.

    None of those alignments prevents a person from loving a family, having friends, being a dedicated member of the community, etc. Those are not indicators of goodness. They are indicators of social traits, which could be best described as Lawful traits in alignment terms. At best, they may indicate Redcloak is not NE, but maybe not. NE is allowed to have Lawful traits too.

    So, in my opinion, it is entirely possible that when we first meet Redcloak he is LN. It is my opinion that this is unlikely, but possible. We don't have enough information at that point to say. Very shortly thereafter he makes choices, (for reasons,) which firmly plant him in LE soil. Whether he was Evil before or not hardly matters, he was on the cusp of Evil already to have fallen so easily.

    By DCF, Redcloak is firmly and unrelentingly Evil. The only real question is, from how high up the graph did he fall? In my opinion, not very. There is no hockey stick, just a minor dip.

  20. - Top - End - #80
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: Was Redcloak evil since the beginning?

    Quote Originally Posted by dancrilis View Post

    Near the end of SOD:
    Spoiler: SOD
    Show

    Right-Eye (and son) don't actually kill anyone but they do take part in an attack on an innocent circus which leaves people dead - Right-Eye is neutral regardless (per word of Giant), but it wouldn't be hard to argue that he was engaged in evil behaviour when he did that.
    Not necessarily innocent:

    Spoiler
    Show
    they were participating in the imprisonment and, effectively, the enslavement, of a sapient being - the Creature in the Darkness. It seems likely from the context, that the Creature had been bought from the Big Game Hunters.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  21. - Top - End - #81
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    PaladinGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Somewhere in Utah...
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Was Redcloak evil since the beginning?

    Redcloak seems to know the Dark One's teachings when he is ordained. We don't know what most of those teachings are, but one thing we do know is that they are racist against humans. "He always advised his people to avoid dealing with humans, as they are a cowardly, dishonest, and morally bankrupt race."

    I think most of us will agree that racism is evil.
    Is knowingly becoming a priest of a racist god therefore an evil act?

  22. - Top - End - #82
    Colossus in the Playground
     
    hamishspence's Avatar

    Join Date
    Feb 2007

    Default Re: Was Redcloak evil since the beginning?

    Considering that there are many good-aligned racist gods (Corellon is racist towards goblinoids, orcs, and drow, Moradin is racist toward giants, Bahamut is racist toward chromatic dragons, and so on) it may be evil but not especially alignment-defining in D&D.

    "Avoid dealings with" is a lot less malevolent than "wage genocidal war against" - yet Shevarash the Black Archer, whose teachings demand genocidal war against drow, is CN.
    Last edited by hamishspence; 2022-05-25 at 03:03 PM.
    Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
    New Marut Avatar by Linkele

  23. - Top - End - #83
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    Flumph

    Join Date
    Dec 2019
    Gender
    Female

    Default Re: Was Redcloak evil since the beginning?

    Redcloak also said that:

    Quote Originally Posted by Start of Darkness
    The Dark One has given me a vision. A vision that someday, all PC and NPC races will sit down together at the table of brotherhood.

  24. - Top - End - #84
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DrowGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: Was Redcloak evil since the beginning?

    Quote Originally Posted by Fyraltari View Post
    Morality is not a team game. It's about your choices and actions. The notion that joining a group lead by an evil person is evil in itself is very weird.
    Sure, and Redcloak knowingly chose to worship an evil god.

    As leader, Roy enables Belkar, even helped hil escape legal consequences for his misdeeds once. The action Redcloak took in service to his god are evil for the most part, but simply joining the church isn't.
    As a worshipper, Redcloak enabled the Dark One - worshippers increase his power. As a priest (so more than a mere worshipper) Redcloak was committing to not just worship but also serve this evil god, which he must have known would require him to carry out evil deeds.

    I can't. Are you for real?
    The point of the scene is that he was a normal person until the Sapphire Guard drove him to evil. It's so obvious. The entire book is framing Redcloak as a tragic figure who loses himself into his desire for revenge and progressively abandons his morality because he's incapable of dealing with the traumatism he went through otherwise. He is a monster of the paladins' own making. Do you realize how the idea that he was already doing evil before undercuts that?

    Constrast with Xykon who isn't meant to be tragic at all. His first scene at first presnts the idea that he would be (when he's crying over his dead dog) and then immediately subverts that (he decides to feed live birds to his zombie dog for fun) because unlike Redcloak he isn't evil because of circumstances, he just is. Which is why his first scene shows him do something evil as a child. To establish that.
    Or you could try to understand what the story is trying to say and not judge characters based on their race and team.
    I agree that the story casts Redcloak's beginnings as tragic, but that doesn't necessarily mean not evil. You say he loses his morality, but we see almost no signs of it. I think you are taking a doylist perspective to this rather than judging Redcloak on what he actually does. based on what we actually see him do (and putting aside that goblins are usually evil), the only actual indications we have of alignment suggest (but admittedly are non-conclusive of) evil.

    Quote Originally Posted by hamishspence View Post
    Considering that there are many good-aligned racist gods (Corellon is racist towards goblinoids, orcs, and drow, Moradin is racist toward giants, Bahamut is racist toward chromatic dragons, and so on) it may be evil but not especially alignment-defining in D&D.

    "Avoid dealings with" is a lot less malevolent than "wage genocidal war against" - yet Shevarash the Black Archer, whose teachings demand genocidal war against drow, is CN.
    Agree. Not just in the rules but in the comic as well, there are some characters who are specieist but canonically good. Being specieist toward humans is not evil of Redcloak.
    Last edited by Liquor Box; 2022-05-25 at 07:07 PM.

  25. - Top - End - #85
    Dragon in the Playground Moderator
     
    Peelee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Washington D.C.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Was Redcloak evil since the beginning?

    Quote Originally Posted by Liquor Box View Post
    Sure, and Redcloak knowingly chose to worship an evil god.
    Which is a perfectly valid choice for a neutral cleric.
    Cuthalion's art is the prettiest art of all the art. Like my avatar.

    Number of times Roland St. Jude has sworn revenge upon me: 2

  26. - Top - End - #86
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DrowGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: Was Redcloak evil since the beginning?

    Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
    Which is a perfectly valid choice for a neutral cleric.
    Why do you say its valid? Because is allowed under the rules? Widespread genocide is also allowed under the rules (see V) but is still an evil act.

  27. - Top - End - #87
    Dragon in the Playground Moderator
     
    Peelee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Washington D.C.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Was Redcloak evil since the beginning?

    Quote Originally Posted by Liquor Box View Post
    Why do you say its valid? Because is allowed under the rules? Widespread genocide is also allowed under the rules (see V) but is still an evil act.
    It's allowed under the rules without requiring one to be Evil, yes.
    Cuthalion's art is the prettiest art of all the art. Like my avatar.

    Number of times Roland St. Jude has sworn revenge upon me: 2

  28. - Top - End - #88
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DrowGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: Was Redcloak evil since the beginning?

    Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
    It's allowed under the rules without requiring one to be Evil, yes.
    So is genocide, again V is an example. Again, it doesn't mean the act itself isn't an evil one.
    Last edited by Liquor Box; 2022-05-25 at 08:30 PM.

  29. - Top - End - #89
    Dragon in the Playground Moderator
     
    Peelee's Avatar

    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Washington D.C.
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: Was Redcloak evil since the beginning?

    Quote Originally Posted by Liquor Box View Post
    So is genocide, again V is an example. Again, it doesn't mean the act itself isn't an evil one.
    What bearing does that have on whether Redcloak was Evil since the beginning? The thread isn't titled "did Redcloak do Evil acts since the beginning?"
    Cuthalion's art is the prettiest art of all the art. Like my avatar.

    Number of times Roland St. Jude has sworn revenge upon me: 2

  30. - Top - End - #90
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    DrowGirl

    Join Date
    Mar 2016

    Default Re: Was Redcloak evil since the beginning?

    Quote Originally Posted by Peelee View Post
    What bearing does that have on whether Redcloak was Evil since the beginning? The thread isn't titled "did Redcloak do Evil acts since the beginning?"
    Doing an evil act is an indicator of being evil. It's not conclusive - we have absolutely nothing conclusive. But, taken alongside other things we know, that he did an evil act early on is more consistent with him being evil at the the time than not evil.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •