OOTS #1262 - The Discussion Thread

[Peelee]

lReminds me of something a marriage counselor once shared with us:
"If you get to the point where being right is more important than being married, you may be the major cause of the problems in your marriage"

I remember a marriage counselor once told an allegorical story where one of the characters said, "I'd far rather be happy than right any day."

[Dame_Mechanus]

I remember a marriage counselor once told an allegorical story where one of the characters said, "I'd far rather be happy than right any day."

One of the things that my stepfather told me all the time - which my therapist loved so much she wrote it down and saved it for later - is that the purpose of an argument isn't winning but solving a problem. Full stop. If something my wife did upset me, however incidental it might have been, the goal of an argument should be figuring out why it bothered me, why she did it, explaining ourselves to one another, and figuring out steps that we can take to avoid it in the future while meeting both of our needs.

This is at odds with basically every human impulse. When someone hurts you, your instinct is to lash back out and make them hurt back. But years of experience have proven to me even beyond the theory that you can argue with all your might and "win" every single argument... and watch as your relationship with your friend/partner/spouse disintegrates into ash because you've decided that winning is more important than making sure you can both stand being in the same room with one another.

If someone I care about is upset about something I did, whatever it might be, it's more important to understand why, apologize for the pain inflicted, and figure out how to fix things in the future. It's not easy but it has resulted in me being in the same romantic relationship successfully for 16 years and have people still mistake us for a new couple in our energy with one another.

The parallels to the allegory under discussion should be obvious and are left as an exercise for the reader.

[No good @ names]

"It’s quite reasonable to be suspicious of a sudden offer of peace and friendship."

Sure it is

"Be suspicious" is different from "kill the person making the offer".

Redeye is once again in village 2, not village 1


I don't believe there was anything logical in Redclock's argument, it was pure emotion and "I was right" blindness

Precisely. He could have said "I need time to think about this." He could have said "I need to consult with my god." He could have asked to reconvene. He could have even cast Zone of Truth (presumably). The spell he chose to cast was Implosion.

Redcloak clearly was conflicted. Part of him wanted to find out the truth. But the decision he ultimately made was to double down.

Apologies for slow reply.


Is Redcloak evil just because of the impacts of going through with the plan, or is it just a smaller part in his overall evilness? I think the latter. Trying to kill Durkon is just good practical (evil) business, weighing various risks against each other just like killing Tusikko.

There’d have been tangible benefits to him (successfully) killing Durkon. He wasn’t just any random diplomat, he was a previous enemy directly trying to stop him. Waiting or reconvening if Durkon is the distraction to a trap is also a risk to the Goblins.
If he thinks that the old gods might be genuine about the offer, it’s reasonable for Redcloak to think they’ll send another messenger, as it’s too important to them to rescind the deal over one shot messenger. He probably doesn’t know that the old gods are restrained from discussing the Snarl with their followers, given that the Dark One doesn’t seem to be bound by that with him.


I think the quote below puts it more eloquently than I can, that Redcloak is a not one-dimensional character solely based on “the sunk cost fallacy”, and I think it’s a bit sad that he keeps getting reduced to that? IIRC Miko got a lot of hate, but similarly it’s the characters flaws that make it an interesting story. Sure if it was a game where players had to negotiate with Redcloak the NPC to get a victory, it’d be frustrating because it’s not in the player’s hands. Maybe that’s why I have’t not tried to pay too much attention to learning the D&D details, so apologies for not responding on appropriate spells he could have cast because I have no clue there, I’m just here for the story (probably a very small minority, I’m aware)

I think the comic is trying to say very hard that he does actually give a crap about goblins as a whole, just that's not the only thing and possibly not the biggest one either.

[Ruck]

Goblins are only an underclass to Hobgoblins and Bugbears.

With regards to humans, they are in a different society, so are not even in the same class system, let alone underclass.

This seems like a pedantically narrow definition of "society." Society, civilization, life, whatever you want to call it: The goblinoids got a raw deal, were denied the kind of resources they need to thrive that the humanoids got, and we have this confirmed on the page by one of the Good gods.

The goblin problem is insoluble. Any equity now dooms future generations. The goblins need eternal, unending war to prevent their overpopulation, and the peace the other races need to thrive cannot last when goblins are granted 'fair' distribution of wealth.

[citation needed]

The allegory of the goblin situation really does trigger people into defensive justification or outright denial.

I'm not sure what this means but it seems like it could be veering into the personal?

[Mic_128]

I mean, it’s not his plan he’s following, but The Plan of The Dark One.

The Dark One's plan was very much something akin to

Step 1 : Find a high level arcane spellcaster
Step 2 : ????
Step 3: Get control of a gate and cast the ritual.

It wasn't the Dark One's plan to use a psychotic sorcerer. It wasn't the Dark One's plan to turn him into a lich. It wasn't the Dark One's plan to kill his brother.

That was all Redcloak. We've seen him admit he'd rather the world end than be wrong.

[brian 333]

[citation needed]

Why? Mathematics should tell you all you need to know.

The Dark One managed, on the poor resources available, to raise an army large enough to simultaneously threaten multiple human kingdoms. Armies consume resources, they do not produce them.

Imagine if those resources had instead been spent on trade and food production? Given the goblins' capacity to fill boots with limited resources, how difficult would it be for them to multiply if they had invested in securing more and better resources?

Oh, but the goblins would be wiped out by humans! Except that long before they had an army suitable for threatening multiple kingdoms, they had an army capable of defending their own population. There was enough surplus to create an army five times as large as necessary. Regardless of the quality of their lands, there was surplus.

That this surplus was not used to improve the quality of life of goblins, and instead used to create an army capable of extorting neighboring civilizations says a lot. It may be that goblin leadership never conceived of the notion, or it may be that their focus was on revenge, or many other reasons may be applied.

The one thing that does not add up is that the goblins lack either the resources or ability to thrive using the resources they have. The hobgoblins did very well before attacking Azure City. It takes a lot of resources to maintain a legion. Redcloak's village was doing fine as well. Too bad they didn't know they were harboring a weapon of mass destruction.

Given their ability to produce masses of troops and equip them, it takes no leap of logic to realize they could create masses of farmers, miners, and industrial workers. Once they have those things, they can grow faster and rapidly create armies as needed. In fact, with an industrial base none of the other races could even keep up.

[Jasdoif]

The goblin problem is insoluble. Any equity now dooms future generations. The goblins need eternal, unending war to prevent their overpopulation, and the peace the other races need to thrive cannot last when goblins are granted 'fair' distribution of wealth.

[citation needed]

Yeah...

Spoiler: On the Origin of PCs

Show

Haley and Vaarsuvius talk about this sort of thing with regards to elves: The extensive (in comparison to humans) period it takes before an elf is an adult (and has their first class level) is naturally commiserate with their extensive (in comparison to humans) lifespan; because otherwise the elves would have accumulated power more rapidly than other species and be clearly dominant in the world, which of course isn't the case since the setting is presented with sort of an equilibrium.

This is probably as direct a reference to "you're going to make up your own numbers and factors to justify why the world is how it is, because 'agricultural anthropology' is so far out of typical RPG-inspired setting design that I couldn't pronounce it without pretending it was the verbal component to a spell" as we can expect.

And if we're deliberately overlooking that....


Goblins in OotS are Medium-sized, they need just as much food per day as humans (and other Medium creatures). Food production is going to be what sets the limit on how much population an area of land can sustain, and thus when population growth starts to slow; and it'll be the same point for goblins as it is for humans....And in this specific instance it seems the goblins are at a disadvantage; Redcloak is thinking Gobbotopia needs to get food through trade, while

Spoiler: War and XPs bonus content

Show

The Azure City nation's agriculture was sufficiently advanced to produce enough food for all its half-million-ish citizens and have a surplus...even with about half of the population living inside the city itself and thus not directly involved with farm work.

And of course, seeing goblins as an "insoluble problem" is a direct result of insisting there's irreconcilable differences. Brush that line back into the dirt it came from, and see that this can become an advantage: settlements able to recover from disasters more readily, or colonies that turn productive more quickly. It will almost certainly be a long-term proposition, but it's definitely viable.

[brian 333]

Yeah...

Spoiler: On the Origin of PCs

Show

Haley and Vaarsuvius talk about this sort of thing with regards to elves: The extensive (in comparison to humans) period it takes before an elf is an adult (and has their first class level) is naturally commiserate with their extensive (in comparison to humans) lifespan; because otherwise the elves would have accumulated power more rapidly than other species and be clearly dominant in the world, which of course isn't the case since the setting is presented with sort of an equilibrium.

This is probably as direct a reference to "you're going to make up your own numbers and factors to justify why the world is how it is, because 'agricultural anthropology' is so far out of typical RPG-inspired setting design that I couldn't pronounce it without pretending it was the verbal component to a spell" as we can expect.

And if we're deliberately overlooking that....


Goblins in OotS are Medium-sized, they need just as much food per day as humans (and other Medium creatures). Food production is going to be what sets the limit on how much population an area of land can sustain, and thus when population growth starts to slow; and it'll be the same point for goblins as it is for humans....And in this specific instance it seems the goblins are at a disadvantage; Redcloak is thinking Gobbotopia needs to get food through trade, while

Spoiler: War and XPs bonus content

Show

The Azure City nation's agriculture was sufficiently advanced to produce enough food for all its half-million-ish citizens and have a surplus...even with about half of the population living inside the city itself and thus not directly involved with farm work.

And of course, seeing goblins as an "insoluble problem" is a direct result of insisting there's irreconcilable differences. Brush that line back into the dirt it came from, and see that this can become an advantage: settlements able to recover from disasters more readily, or colonies that turn productive more quickly. It will almost certainly be a long-term proposition, but it's definitely viable.

I agree that goblins dedicated to peaceful pursuits can thrive. They have shown the ability to thrive in the marginal lands they do have.

The cited quote refers to the ability of humans to survive the population boom that would result from giving the goblins more resources. From the perspective of human kings, having peaceful goblin neighbors means that eventually, all the resources of their lands won't be enough, and the now much larger goblin population will once again demand wealth be redistributed.
The deal TDO offered was not war or peace. It was war now or suicide.

[The MunchKING]

Food production is going to be what sets the limit on how much population an area of land can sustain, and thus when population growth starts to slow; and it'll be the same point for goblins as it is for humans....And in this specific instance it seems the goblins are at a disadvantage; Redcloak is thinking Gobbotopia needs to get food through trade, while

Spoiler: War and XPs bonus content

Show

The Azure City nation's agriculture was sufficiently advanced to produce enough food for all its half-million-ish citizens and have a surplus...even with about half of the population living inside the city itself and thus not directly involved with farm work.

And of course, seeing goblins as an "insoluble problem" is a direct result of insisting there's irreconcilable differences. Brush that line back into the dirt it came from, and see that this can become an advantage: settlements able to recover from disasters more readily, or colonies that turn productive more quickly. It will almost certainly be a long-term proposition, but it's definitely viable.

Well that might be because the hobgoblins are so militarily minded with their warrior culture and military discipline and all. They think in terms of conquest and trade. but if they got a supreme leader that thought in terms of agriculture and sustainability, they could make a much better food supply for their people.

Spoiler: How the Paladin Got his Scar

Show

We see that in the one leader at the end of the book. The previous leader was focused on military might but the new leader was concerned with logistics and sustainability, so he could support a MUCH larger population if Azure City wouldn't attack him.

[Ionathus]

Well, I don't know, this is the part I don't quite agree with, and it's that Show versus Tell thing again. As far as we've been shown in this comic... goblin(oid)s actually seem to do pretty well for themselves when the conflict between the Sapphire Guard and the Crimson Mantle isn't around to ruin things for everyone. We've only been told that they live in uniquely poor conditions, and even then, only by Redcloak (who we all know has a myopic streak). We've never actually seen goblins suffer from their living conditions, only from armed conflict.

Except for the bugbears, I guess, they live in fairly harsh conditions. But considering they've been shown to do stuff like attack people for the purpose of feeding them to monsters, I can hardly blame the other races for not wanting them to hang around.

This was a big focus of the argument back when Durkon was talking to Thor about goblinoids' situation in the world: lots of people felt the same way, asking if the hobgoblins were *really* all that disadvantaged, etc.

I agree it's hard to show that kind of info meaningfully in the comic. But I also don't think "Tell" is the dirty word that some literary critics pretend it to be. Telling is necessary, quite often, especially in visual media. Sure, Telling might come from the mouth of an unreliable narrator, but I think people often abuse that leeway. If facts are stated and other characters hearing it don't dispute them, I don't see a reason to doubt it unless there's significant refuting evidence.

Also, the Giant answered this one directly in the most recent Patreon post, saying that yeah, the goblinoids really do have it bad, and that single wood-palisade fortress in the mountains was likely the pinnacle of goblinoid achievement and still paled in comparison to any of the half a dozen human cities we've seen.

[danielxcutter]

Would have been nicer to show it a bit more prominently before this point tbh, especially since not everyone will have read the print-only books.

[Liquor Box]

Also, the Giant answered this one directly in the most recent Patreon post, saying that yeah, the goblinoids really do have it bad, and that single wood-palisade fortress in the mountains was likely the pinnacle of goblinoid achievement and still paled in comparison to any of the half a dozen human cities we've seen.

Do he confirm why they are less rich? I know they have said elsewhere that at creation the goblins did not have the most resources, but in OotS, goblins are also implied to have an intelligence penalty..

[danielxcutter]

Nah, just a -2 to Str and Cha. It’s probably due to the lack of divine guidance and initial resources.

[Ruck]

Why? Mathematics should tell you all you need to know.

"Mathematics" does not explain your assumption that by their very existence goblins are a threat to humanoids.

[danielxcutter]

Also the use of "logic" and "rational" in a post is often inversely proportional to the actual amounts a post tends to contain.

[Gurgeh]

Unexamined Malthusian doomsaying is just BS, news at eleven.

[mjasghar]

Referring to intelligent beings as ‘the X problem’ doesn’t tend to end well
And the argument seems to be that peace with the goblinoids will inevitably lead to them killing everyone else. This seems to be gaslighting in favour of genocide - as seen by the reference to rabbits as if goblins are just animals to be exterminated.

[dancrilis]

From the perspective of human kings, having peaceful goblin neighbors means that eventually, all the resources of their lands won't be enough, and the now much larger goblin population will once again demand wealth be redistributed.

Not quite - create food and water (and other magic) allow to in theory bypass standard resource limitations, seperately other planes can act as land etc.

The problem was that the Dark One was not saying 'I have a powerful nation and wish to be friends on this land, can you provide us some clerics who might help us learn to worship the gods and gain access to the powers they grant, can you provide us with wizards so we can teach our people to be self sufficent' etc, he effectively said 'give me land' and that is not sustainable.

The problem is not with potentially peachful goblins it is with the Dark One deciding that wealth redistribution under the threat of violance was the way to go - and that would never be a long term solution that the humans could tolerate.

[Fyraltari]

Why? Mathematics should tell you all you need to know.

The Dark One managed, on the poor resources available, to raise an army large enough to simultaneously threaten multiple human kingdoms. Armies consume resources, they do not produce them.

Imagine if those resources had instead been spent on trade and food production? Given the goblins' capacity to fill boots with limited resources, how difficult would it be for them to multiply if they had invested in securing more and better resources?

Oh, but the goblins would be wiped out by humans! Except that long before they had an army suitable for threatening multiple kingdoms, they had an army capable of defending their own population. There was enough surplus to create an army five times as large as necessary. Regardless of the quality of their lands, there was surplus.

You seem to operate under the notion that the Dark One came to power within an united goblin nation-state and the threat he posed to the human kingdoms was due to increasing the size of the military. But that's not the story we're told. What we're told is that he united many tribes into one nation. It doesn't look like there was more goblinoids fighters than before, it looks more like for the first time in history, most of the goblin groups were able to co-operate rather than compete and that it was this newfound unity that gave them an edge over the still fragmented human kingdoms.

The story it seems, is that there was always warfare between the goblinoids and PC races and that the goblinoids are the overall losers of that struggle due to worse starting conditions. The various goblin tribes have always allocated a part of their ressources to warfare because that was necessary for the survival of the tribe even if that means they didn't have enough to be comfortable in other areas. With the Dark One they were able to better use those specific resources for their purposes. No reason to imagine a surplus they somehow never thought to use in generations. But once an actual long-lasting peace is secure, they can allocate less resources to warfare, this and the better land they would have received would give them more resources to every other facet of life. Now, what do you think will happen, will they just make more children to raise in the living standards they "enjoy" now, or will have the same amount of children as before (probably fewer since there'll be less mortality to offset) in higher living standards.

[brian 333]

Referring to intelligent beings as ‘the X problem’ doesn’t tend to end well
And the argument seems to be that peace with the goblinoids will inevitably lead to them killing everyone else. This seems to be gaslighting in favour of genocide - as seen by the reference to rabbits as if goblins are just animals to be exterminated.

I'm not in favor of genocide. But other than, "Nuh-unh," I have not yet seen any rebuttal of the points I've made.

I will provide three real world examples of my point:

Neanderthal
Denisovan
Floresiensis

Three presumably intelligent human relatives who co-existed with modern humans, all three of them appeared to be thriving until modern humans moved into their territories.

There is no evidence of war. In two cases there is evidence of interbreeding. But in all three cases, the arrival of modern man in their territory results in precipitous declines in populations, resulting in their extinction.

This theory can be repeatedly verified by the extinctions of native animals of the Pacific Islands caused by the arrival of rodents. I have already mentioned the peaceful colonization of Australia by rabbits, and the devastation of the native populations that resulted.

When a faster breeding species that utilizes the same resources moves in, genocide is the result. It may not be intentional, and it does not require swords and armies.

So, please show me how hobgoblins, which can produce 26,400 soldiers and the infrastructure to support them in a single generation using marginal resources, are not going to continue to displace humans if granted better resources. The math says it all.

As I said before, The Giant isn't telling the story as I've presented it. He is using the goblinoids as a proxy for marginalized human societies, and has never extrapolated beyond the idea that they are just humans with different colored skins. That's okay. It is his story to tell.

My argument is directed at those posters who said those evil human kings had no excuse for assassinating The Dark One. From my perspective, the human kings had no choice. They could fight a war now, or give the enemy enough time and resources to become unbeatable. The second solution is also genocide, by the way; it is the genocide of the human population

[The MunchKING]

My argument is directed at those posters who said those evil human kings had no excuse for assassinating The Dark One. From my perspective, the human kings had no choice. They could fight a war now, or give the enemy enough time and resources to become unbeatable. The second solution is also genocide, by the way; it is the genocide of the human population

That's only if you assume Human or Goblin is the only option. What could have pushed it into a Cold War/Detente situation or maybe a WWII scenario would be for the Humans to get an alliance with the Elves and/or Dwarves, so they could be like "now our side has the firepower to defeat even you giant superarmy."

[brian 333]

That's only if you assume Human or Goblin is the only option. What could have pushed it into a Cold War/Detente situation or maybe a WWII scenario would be for the Humans to get an alliance with the Elves and/or Dwarves, so they could be like "now our side has the firepower to defeat even you giant superarmy."

But the whole argument was, the goblins wanted peace and the humans literally stabbed them in the back. If everyone agreed peace was best, why would there be a need for World War Stick?

[Liquor Box]

Nah, just a -2 to Str and Cha. It’s probably due to the lack of divine guidance and initial resources.

I know that's what it is in the rules, but there's a scene in Start of Darkness which I think makes it pretty clear that goblins in OotS have an intelligence penalty.

But even if it is only lower strength and charisma, those would also be the sorts of things that might make them less prosperous. Low charisma in particular might make trade harder.

I just don't think initial resources is a convincing reason, assuming that a long time has passed.

[danielxcutter]

I know that's what it is in the rules, but there's a scene in Start of Darkness which I think makes it pretty clear that goblins in OotS have an intelligence penalty.

But even if it is only lower strength and charisma, those would also be the sorts of things that might make them less prosperous. Low charisma in particular might make trade harder.

I just don't think initial resources is a convincing reason, assuming that a long time has passed.

You know how you can use money to make more money? Replace “money” with general resources and then give it several thousand years.

[Ionathus]

Relative to the elves, humans are goblins.

They breed way faster and live way shorter lives. In fact, the difference between elves and humans is bigger by many more orders of magnitude than the difference between humans and goblins.

Yet they seem to have somehow managed to work out peaceful coexistence between their races. The elves haven't exterminated the humans, and the humans haven't crowded the elves out.

I really have no idea why you think goblinoids would be any different.

[danielxcutter]

Presumably because we’re human and our monkey brains like arbitrarily dividing people into Us and Them.

[Liquor Box]

There is no evidence of war. In two cases there is evidence of interbreeding

There is evidence of armed conflict between neanderthals and early humans. I don't think it's clear whether the warfare or simply being outcompeted was the primary cause of neanderthal extinction.

As for the interbreeding, well that implies a very ugly backstory.

You know how you can use money to make more money? Replace “money” with general resources and then give it several thousand years.

That's not how it works at all. It's not like a videogame where you snowball off your early position and get richer faster and faster. Civilisations and societies rise and fall, and who is richest changes from time to time. It is widely regarded that Africa is the most resource rich continent in the world - google it.

Why so resistant to the possibility that beings that have inherently worse abilities than other beings might end up worse off?

[Fyraltari]

Relative to the elves, humans are goblins.

They breed way faster and live way shorter lives. In fact, the difference between elves and humans is bigger by many more orders of magnitude than the difference between humans and goblins.

Yet they seem to have somehow managed to work out peaceful coexistence between their races. The elves haven't exterminated the humans, and the humans haven't crowded the elves out.

I really have no idea why you think goblinoids would be any different.

Ah but see, the goblins have green skin and fangs and the humans don't.

It's also worth pointing out that thinking purely in terms of humans on one side and goblins on the other is kind of fallacious. Once there is an actual peace mixed societies would probably emerge all over, give it a generation or two and the goblins and humans of, say, Cliffport, will find themselves having more in common with each other than with those of, say, Nowhere.

And once the interbreeding* and cross-species adoption happens, it's basically a guarantee that the two will meld into the same culture.

*This is D&D, I assume that goblin-human couples are fertile. They are much closer than humans and dragons at any rate.

[Liquor Box]

Ah but see, the goblins have green skin and fangs and the humans don't.

It's also worth pointing out that thinking purely in terms of humans on one side and goblins on the other is kind of fallacious. Once there is an actual peace mixed societies would probably emerge all over, give it a generation or two and the goblins and humans of, say, Cliffport, will find themselves having more in common with each other than with those of, say, Nowhere.

And once the interbreeding* and cross-species adoption happens, it's basically a guarantee that the two will meld into the same culture.

*This D&D, I assume that goblin-human couples are fertile. They are much closer than humans and dragons at any rate.

I wonder if the different conclusions are due to different assumptions as to whether peace between humans/goblins/elves is possible. However long of trying (in world) they don't seem to have found the formula yet between humans lands let alone between creature types that are more obviously different from one another.

As for elves/humans, perhaps elves wanted to keep the lid on humans, and simply failed to do so.

The elves haven't exterminated the humans, and the humans haven't crowded the elves out.

I really have no idea why you think goblinoids would be any different.

Have the humans not crowded the elves out. We have seen human nations all over the place on both continents. We have seen very few elves. It does seem that elves are confined to a corner of the world, and if their population grows they have nowhere to expand to without seizing it from humans.

So if humans/goblins are no different, then that would be a pretty poor outcome for goblins. Would they be different? Well we know that the comic has applied the rules stating that goblins are 'usually evil', so they may be.

* I'm not sure half goblins are possible under the rules. It's probably something that would vary in interpretation from DM to DM. In OotS, we have seen a lot more of goblins than we have of orcs or elves. But we have seen half orcs and half elves, but not half goblins. That seems to me to indicate that they probably can't cross-breed.

[Fyraltari]

I wonder if the different conclusions are due to different assumptions as to whether peace between humans/goblins/elves is possible. However long of trying (in world) they don't seem to have found the formula yet between humans lands let alone between creature types that are more obviously different from one another.

I don't think there's been much trying yet.