OOTS #1208 - The Discussion Thread

[Ruck]

Traits humans *can* have, not traits they absolutely *do* have. If you really wanted to, you could surgically alter your facial structure, thicken your body hair and go live out in the woods naked. Would that make you a chimpanzee? I don't think it would.

I feel like this makes my point rather than obscures it. Because if you made a human short with green skin and fangs and sent them to live in the marshes, you pretty much would have a goblin.

And the same couldn't be said for goblins/demons/whatever? Their entries clearly state that their natures are different; the background on Beholders even goes so far as to elaborate on their very different brain structures and how it effects their psychology (and therefore nature).

Going from goblins to beholders and demons also makes my point. What's fundamentally different about a goblin's sapience and ability to form social bonds and communities than a human, in such a way that goblins are inherently evil and should be killed on sight? We're not talking a creature animated by some pit of ultimate darkness' energy; we're talking a biological sapient creature whose biggest innate differences from humans are "short, green skin, and fangs."

[Worldsong]

Man. Been re-reading the comic for the last two weeks after having been away for years and years. Finally caught up... and this thread has already gone through like three different arguments I'd liked to have given my two cents on...

Come to think of it, do Redcloak's complaints even apply that much to the hobgoblins? Sure, the mountains they were living in didn't exactly look lush, but overall no less hospitable than the deserts being divvied up by the Vector Legion - you don't sustain an army that large on pebbles, after all. Conquering Azure City obviously put them on the map as a faction, but were they really suffering without it?

Spoiler: SoD spoiler

Show

Morally, is there any difference between what Redcloak did to the hobgoblins and what he did to Right-Eye's village?

I think hobgoblins still suffer from being attacked on sight within PC settlements. And while the deserts are definitely not the best place to live apparently they're still prosperous enough for kingdoms and empires to form, whereas with the goblinoids that isolated hobgoblin settlement certainly was big but it probably still wasn't big enough to be considered a nation.

[understatement]

Man. Been re-reading the comic for the last two weeks after having been away for years and years. Finally caught up... and this thread has already gone through like three different arguments I'd liked to have given my two cents on...

Come to think of it, do Redcloak's complaints even apply that much to the hobgoblins? Sure, the mountains they were living in didn't exactly look lush, but overall no less hospitable than the deserts being divvied up by the Vector Legion - you don't sustain an army that large on pebbles, after all. Conquering Azure City obviously put them on the map as a faction, but were they really suffering without it?

Spoiler: SoD spoiler

Show

Morally, is there any difference between what Redcloak did to the hobgoblins and what he did to Right-Eye's village?

Redcloak is cheesed off at the lands and resources and whatnot, but it's the racial part that's driving his point here.

Spoiler: SOD

Show

His village was killed by paladins, and from his point of view absolutely none of them were punished for it -- no one meted out justice for his village, nothing divine intervened, etc.

***

Referencing other previous posts brought up, calling Redcloak's point a "self-victimization" plot seems a bit unfair -- he has a very legitimate precedent for it, and it's something that hasn't been addressed in the comic proper either. Shojo doesn't brinng it up, many paladins of the Guard kept their status, etc.

(the usual addenum here that it doesn't justify Redcloak's actions, doesn't make him right, etc. etc)

[The_Weirdo]

Is Redcloak asking for things the gods are capable of giving the goblins?

Thor can’t even get *his own clerics* to stop attacking a *trees*.

How’s he going to make people who don’t listen to him at all stop attacking goblins?

You have a point. It's funny and it's horrible, so I'll say that's the worst good point I've ever seen.

Referencing other previous posts brought up, calling Redcloak's point a "self-victimization" plot seems a bit unfair -- he has a very legitimate precedent for it, and it's something that hasn't been addressed in the comic proper either. Shojo doesn't brinng it up, many paladins of the Guard kept their status, etc.

(the usual addenum here that it doesn't justify Redcloak's actions, doesn't make him right, etc. etc)

That's an understatement: it may well be that Durkon will be the first to know what was done to Redcloak. I have to wonder how he'll react.

[Ironsmith]

I feel like this makes my point rather than obscures it. Because if you made a human short with green skin and fangs and sent them to live in the marshes, you pretty much would have a goblin.

Going from goblins to beholders and demons also makes my point. What's fundamentally different about a goblin's sapience and ability to form social bonds and communities than a human, in such a way that goblins are inherently evil and should be killed on sight? We're not talking a creature animated by some pit of ultimate darkness' energy; we're talking a biological sapient creature whose biggest innate differences from humans are "short, green skin, and fangs."

Again, sapience is just the ability to think logically... You know, rhetorically go from premises and a current situation to arrive at a conclusion and action. If you run with different premises, you get different conclusions, as should be obvious just from this conversation.

For humans, some of these premises are inborn (or effectively inborn), i.e. "protect the children" or "stay away from that thing that smells bad". We may still choose against these instincts, but until we have a reason to do so, we generally don't.

It's not inconceivable that other forms of intelligent life might not share all the same instincts we have, and therefore would behave different from us just by being whatever they are. For instance, if goblins lack willingness to risk personal harm for each other, their society is going to look very different from ours. It's not impossible to get a goblin to behave like a human (or vice versa), but you'll still have a different starting point and that's still an intrinsic difference.

I think I should also point out that none of this means a goblin (demon, beholder, etc) should be slaughtered on sight; the argument is that they're not human, not that they're not people.

[The_Weirdo]

the argument is that they're not human, not that they're not people.

I must say, that's a very elegant way to put it.

[Larsaan]

Referencing other previous posts brought up, calling Redcloak's point a "self-victimization" plot seems a bit unfair -- he has a very legitimate precedent for it, and it's something that hasn't been addressed in the comic proper either. Shojo doesn't brinng it up, many paladins of the Guard kept their status, etc.

(the usual addenum here that it doesn't justify Redcloak's actions, doesn't make him right, etc. etc)

I mean, I hardly think it's a case of "Oh, everything would be just fine if not for these loudmouths making a fuss". But there's a strong case to be made that, as bad as the initial situation was, Redcloak is making things worse. He's got an alarming track record for destroying everything he cares about.

... Maybe he shouldn't have picked the Destruction domain.

[Ironsmith]

I must say, that's a very elegant way to put it.

Thanks. I have my moments.

[understatement]

I mean, I hardly think it's a case of "Oh, everything would be just fine if not for these loudmouths making a fuss". But there's a strong case to be made that, as bad as the initial situation was, Redcloak is making things worse. He's got an alarming track record for destroying everything he cares about.

... Maybe he shouldn't have picked the Destruction domain.

Yes, and? Categorizing his whole cause as "self-victimization" is -- let me amend this -- grossly unfair. His cause stems from a very valid source, and his personal flaws don't undermine it. That's ad hoc.

People better spoken than me have brought up the punitive and reparative sides of justice.

Spoiler: the usual sod

Show

As far as Redcloak knows, the Sapphire Guard came in, wiped out his whole village, and returned home happily. No consequences whatsoever.

Previously, dancrilis mentions that they wanted a source for Redcloak's claim that "a goblin would be attacked on sight entering a town." Is there an exact example in the comic? Probably not. But can a group of people enter a goblin's village and kill them on sight and still be lauded as paladins at the end of the day? They absolutely can. Nothing divine punished these paladins, and the Sapphire Guard did not return with reparations or any attempt at helping the goblins rebuild.

So yeah, I really don't think one could label this whole thing as "Redcloak self-pitying and victimizing his cause when he himself is Evil." That implies to me that Redcloak is making stuff up or exaggerating events, and as SOD shows, he has not. The crayon events are suspicious; the attack on the village certainly wasn't.

(Again, usual addendum that Redcloak isn't justified in mass murder and slavery, but if Durkon's next words are "oh, looks like you're trying to make us feel pity for you" then don't be surprised if Redcloak just straight-up attacks him right there, etc, etc.)

ETA: Hey, now, Disintegrate is a nifty spell. I'd pay good money to see V and RC try to zap each other with it.

[danielxcutter]

I mean, I hardly think it's a case of "Oh, everything would be just fine if not for these loudmouths making a fuss". But there's a strong case to be made that, as bad as the initial situation was, Redcloak is making things worse. He's got an alarming track record for destroying everything he cares about.

... Maybe he shouldn't have picked the Destruction domain.

I’d bet my left arsecheek that the other options besides Law and Destruction were Evil and War, so...*#

*Assuming TDO only has Core domains, of course.

#Also, 3.5e Clerics can pick two domains that influence the class far less than a domain does in 5e.

[The_Weirdo]

I’d bet my left arsecheek that the other options besides Law and Destruction were Evil and War, so...*#

*Assuming TDO only has Core domains, of course.

#Also, 3.5e Clerics can pick two domains that influence the class far less than a domain does in 5e.

I absolutely must know: does that expression exist in Korean? I mean, it can be translated into Korean, sure, but is it an actual, bona fide ready-made expression in what I would assume to be your mother tongue?

To be sure, it's hard to tell that he has Evil as another domain, if only because he did exactly what humans do: gather an army to try and get humans to at least negotiate on his demands.

[C-Dude]

Yes, and? Categorizing his whole cause as "self-victimization" is -- let me amend this -- grossly unfair. His cause stems from a very valid source, and his personal flaws don't undermine it. That's ad hoc.

People better spoken than me have brought up the punitive and reparative sides of justice.

Spoiler: the usual sod

Show

As far as Redcloak knows, the Sapphire Guard came in, wiped out his whole village, and returned home happily. No consequences whatsoever.

Previously, dancrilis mentions that they wanted a source for Redcloak's claim that "a goblin would be attacked on sight entering a town." Is there an exact example in the comic? Probably not. But can a group of people enter a goblin's village and kill them on sight and still be lauded as paladins at the end of the day? They absolutely can. Nothing divine punished these paladins, and the Sapphire Guard did not return with reparations or any attempt at helping the goblins rebuild.

So yeah, I really don't think one could label this whole thing as "Redcloak self-pitying and victimizing his cause when he himself is Evil." That implies to me that Redcloak is making stuff up or exaggerating events, and as SOD shows, he has not. The crayon events are suspicious; the attack on the village certainly wasn't.

(Again, usual addendum that Redcloak isn't justified in mass murder and slavery, but if Durkon's next words are "oh, looks like you're trying to make us feel pity for you" then don't be surprised if Redcloak just straight-up attacks him right there, etc, etc.)

ETA: Hey, now, Disintegrate is a nifty spell. I'd pay good money to see V and RC try to zap each other with it.

Redcloak's problem is that he's blind to his own methods. He claims his cause is to better the lives of all goblinoids, but in actuality his cause is to acquire more power (much like Vaarsuvius claimed to want arcane power to protect, but actually sought magic for magic's sake). Because Redcloak does not see the rift between his reasoning and reality, he brings misery down on everything he's seeking to protect.

As for the paladins, they may not have been spanked by the Twelve Above, but they got divine retribution regardless. Their actions resulted in the loss of Azure City and the deaths of the ENTIRE Sapphire guard (well, all minus three): Redcloak was the divine implement of that consequence, even if it took years to slam down.

Expecting the gods to step in directly and drop a hammer is incongruous with the setting, as it's established that the gods aren't supposed to intervene in the regions of others and the goblinoids are already established as not falling under the purview of any of the three pantheons. Suppose Ox decided to revoke the paladin powers of that raid party... such action would risk creating a two-color snarl if say Marduk refuted the decision. The gods are paralyzed by that fear and thus do as little as possible when it comes to the affairs of mortals.
[Miko's fall was one of the ONLY instances in which they COULD directly intervene, it was an Azurite slaying her commander in direct violation of her oath, so both fell under the jurisdiction of the Southern Gods]

"An eye for an eye leaves the world blind". Ironic that Redcloak is half-blind, as he fits the idiom perfectly.

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

The paladins raided the goblin village explicitly because they were seeking the Redcloak (back before "Wrong Eye" became High Priest of the Dark One). This implies there's been an ongoing conflict between Azure City and the bearer of the mantle, even if our first glimpse of it is framed against the paladins. "Wrong Eye" is quick to swear revenge and plot the downfall of the paladins (and then, everybody that doesn't fit his world-view), but he is blind to the fact that the mantle brought that misery upon him, and has subsequently and exponentially brought it down on those around him. The Dark One doesn't care. After all, if one of his high priests dies, another one can just take up the mantle... plug in goblin here. THAT is what I mean when I say he's a curse on the goblinoids.

[Larsaan]

Yes, and? Categorizing his whole cause as "self-victimization" is -- let me amend this -- grossly unfair. His cause stems from a very valid source, and his personal flaws don't undermine it. That's ad hoc.

I should clarify, I don't think Redcloak is self-victimizing in that all his problems are self-created - they're clearly not. What I DO think is that Redcloak's methods, regardless of whether they're justified or not, are self-destructive and would just create more problems for goblins in the long run. The fact is that he lucked out BIG time with Gobbotopia. If it wasn't for Miko, then all his life's accomplishments would have been nothing but a string of leading his people into massacres.

And even then, Gobbotopia isn't out of the woods yet. Not with the rift hovering over it.

---

Oh hell, and then C-Dude goes ahead and makes my point while I'm typing. And to add to his point about the [SoD Spoilers], the Sapphire Guard clearly know the surface details of The Plan. Miko recognized Redcloak as someone "who seeks to undo creation" way back in 371, just because of the cloak.

[understatement]

Redcloak's problem is that he's blind to his own methods. He claims his cause is to better the lives of all goblinoids, but in actuality his cause is to acquire more power (much like Vaarsuvius claimed to want arcane power to protect, but actually sought magic for magic's sake). Because Redcloak does not see the rift between his reasoning and reality, he brings misery down on everything he's seeking to protect.

Yes. But right now he's saying "I want goblins to have equality." That, at least, is part of his cause (because a cause can have multiple parts...) and should not be labeled as "self-victimization" just because of his personal flaws. Durkon, as a high-WIS character, should probably be able to distinguish the valid parts of his cause and the ignorant part of his cause.

As for the paladins, they may not have been spanked by the Twelve Above, but they got divine retribution regardless. Their actions resulted in the loss of Azure City and the deaths of the ENTIRE Sapphire guard (well, all minus three): Redcloak was the divine implement of that consequence, even if it took years to slam down.

No...Redcloak wasn't the "divine implement"; he took actions into his own hands. If the paladins, right after they had spoilerkilled the village, were to all suddenly fall dead in a painful manner as a clear sign of divine punishment, I highly doubt he would've gone to the lengths he had.

Expecting the gods to step in directly and drop a hammer is incongruous with the setting, as it's established that the gods aren't supposed to intervene in the regions of others and the goblinoids are already established as not falling under the purview of any of the three pantheons. Suppose Ox decided to revoke the paladin powers of that raid party... such action would risk creating a two-color snarl if say Marduk refuted the decision. The gods are paralyzed by that fear and thus do as little as possible when it comes to the affairs of mortals.

And what genius divine idea was that that you can't revoke a paladin of killing innocents? If these paladins killed humans, none of these gods would have issue with revoking them.

[Miko's fall was one of the ONLY instances in which they COULD directly intervene, it was an Azurite slaying her commander in direct violation of her oath, so both fell under the jurisdiction of the Southern Gods]

Again, why? Why is the oath designed that paladins are revoked by killing their leader, and not by killing fleeing civilians? Hell, Shojo had a chance of resurrection readily available -- Redcloak's village does not.

"An eye for an eye leaves the world blind". Ironic that Redcloak is half-blind, as he fits the idiom perfectly.

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

The paladins raided the goblin village explicitly because they were seeking the Redcloak (back before "Wrong Eye" became High Priest of the Dark One). This implies there's been an ongoing conflict between Azure City and the bearer of the mantle, even if our first glimpse of it is framed against the paladins.

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

And? What do the villagers have anything to do with it?

To copy myself from another thread, killing Redcloak's mentor may or may not have been a morally poor choice; killing his sister absolutely was.

"Wrong Eye" is quick to swear revenge and plot the downfall of the paladins (and then, everybody that doesn't fit his world-view), but he is blind to the fact that the mantle brought that misery upon him, and has subsequently and exponentially brought it down on those around him. The Dark One doesn't care. After all, if one of his high priests dies, another one can just take up the mantle... plug in goblin here. THAT is what I mean when I say he's a curse on the goblinoids.[/spoiler]

Yes, he is. That's called his fatal flaws and not being representative of the goblin cause. I also mentioned that the crayon narrative is very suspicious. I'm not sure we have disagreements here.

[Larsaan]

And what genius divine idea was that that you can't revoke a paladin of killing innocents? If these paladins killed humans, none of these gods would have issue with revoking them.

Again, why? Why is the oath designed that paladins are revoked by killing their leader, and not by killing fleeing civilians? Hell, Shojo had a chance of resurrection readily available -- Redcloak's village does not.

Didn't Rich say that at least some of those paladins did fall? Just without the huge flash and fireworks as Miko's. Presumably the ones who kept their powers were the ones who exclusively went after "valid" combatants.

That's called his fatal flaws and not being representative of the goblin cause.

Problem is, he IS the goblin cause. He and TDO are the only ones who seem to care.

[The_Weirdo]

Problem is, he IS the goblin cause. He and TDO are the only ones who seem to care.

I mean, just because I don't continuously shout that I don't want a bunch of nutcase psycho soldiers that believe they have been sent by their gods to slaughter a bunch of people in my vicinity, doesn't mean I am not very much against that idea.

Heck, it doesn't mean I'd not try my best to turn their lives into a Lovecraft book and possibly attack whatever else they loved the most afterwards depending on whom they targeted.

So, you know, in all likelihood, the goblins do care, if only because they might want to set foot in a human city someday without being slaughtered.

Didn't Rich say that at least some of those paladins did fall? Just without the huge flash and fireworks as Miko's. Presumably the ones who kept their powers were the ones who exclusively went after "valid" combatants.

The length of the campaign as stated by Rich causes that to be questionable. After all, it wasn't only one village and it wasn't only one group of innocent civilians.

[Ironsmith]

Didn't Rich say that at least some of those paladins did fall? Just without the huge flash and fireworks as Miko's. Presumably the ones who kept their powers were the ones who exclusively went after "valid" combatants.

I never read SoD, but it seems fair to assume that the news of the falling wouldn't make it back to Redcloak.

Problem is, he IS the goblin cause. He and TDO are the only ones who seem to care.

Eh, I dunno. Redcloak's the only goblin we see taking action, but that doesn't mean he's the only one who cares; he's just the one we focus on, as his actions have repercussions on a global scale. The goblins holding a bake sale to raise money for a veteran's orphanage while "Why Can't We Be Friends" plays in the background don't really merit the same kind of attention.

[Ruck]

I think I should also point out that none of this means a goblin (demon, beholder, etc) should be slaughtered on sight; the argument is that they're not human, not that they're not people.

Then we agree! I never said goblins were exactly alike to humans; the entire premise of the argument is that it's okay to kill goblins because they're not really people, in some meaningful way.

[understatement]

Didn't Rich say that at least some of those paladins did fall? Just without the huge flash and fireworks as Miko's. Presumably the ones who kept their powers were the ones who exclusively went after "valid" combatants.

SOD spoilers: So if they didn't personally kill the children/non-combatants, but just watched, did nothing to stop their companions when they could have, actively killed goblins knowing it was in self-defense to protect the non-combatants...

That is definitely still a war crime. And it's telling that the Sapphire Guard offers not an iota of reparations. The village's "punishment" for housing the Bearer is complete slaughter; the paladins' is that they can't summon their horses and cool blue magic again. As Rich puts it (paraphrased), it's the equivalent of a cop turning in their badge to the city hall.

If Hinjo had calmly stood to the side and watched Miko cleave Shojo in half, he should've Fallen.

Maybe a stipulation from the Durkon-RC deal could be that the gods can revoke paladins of their powers for any war crimes against any sentient being, regardless of species.

Problem is, he IS the goblin cause. He and TDO are the only ones who seem to care.

Just because Redcloak conflates the goblin cause with the Plan does not mean Durkon has to.

[C-Dude]

No...Redcloak wasn't the "divine implement"; he took actions into his own hands.

He took actions into his own hands because he's the divine implement of the Dark One; it is his duty as a cleric to do this. This is well-established, the gods are not allowed to act directly, they have clerics to do that for them. As the goblinoids are 'unincorporated' with the other pantheons (unlike the elves, who likely suffered similarly until they were taken under the wing of the Western pantheon), there were no others than Redcloak {the immediately wronged} to take up the cause.

And what genius divine idea was that that you can't revoke a paladin of killing innocents? If these paladins killed humans, none of these gods would have issue with revoking them.

Whether they were innocent or not, they did not fall under a pantheon's domain. The gods are not allowed to make decisions about creations of variant quiddity, so there's nobody to make decisions about creatures that fall under no pantheon's domain. It's like the Wild West: more freedom, but some jerk can shoot you dead in the street.

Again, why? Why is the oath designed that paladins are revoked by killing their leader, and not by killing fleeing civilians? Hell, Shojo had a chance of resurrection readily available -- Redcloak's village does not.

You've missed my point. It wasn't that it was "A paladin killing her leader". It was "A southern gods paladin committing an atrocity against a southern gods creation".

Look at it this way: suppose a paladin kills a frost giant in the north. The paladin is contained under the purview of the southern gods, while the frost giant falls under the purview of the northern gods. In order to determine if the action was worthy of a fall, a godsmoot would have to be called. Every god in both pantheons would have to vote on the actions of the paladin, and if a majority in favor was reached THEN the paladin would lose their powers.
Miko got fast-tracked because both the aggressor and the victim were managed by the same gods. They were able to simply decide "Yep, that was wrong."

But the goblinoids don't have a pantheon to represent them in a godsmoot. They exist outside of the religious framework of the gods that created the world, and so (for good or ill) the gods are not allowed to act on them or against others who wronged them.

Spoiler: Involves stuff from Start of Darkness

Show

If Redcloak had instead been a worshipper of say Rat... the paladins would have fallen as soon as they struck the innocent. If Redcloak had been a worshipper of Loki, the paladins would have fallen a few weeks later when the godsmoot resolved their actions were wrong. Being that he was a worshipper of the Dark One, there was no way for the gods to directly punish the infraction (especially since TDO has refused all inter-pantheon communication for a very, VERY long time). Once more, it falls to TDO not doing right by his people.

And? What do the villagers have anything to do with it?

To copy myself from another thread,

Spoiler

Show

killing Redcloak's mentor may or may not have been a morally poor choice; killing his sister absolutely was.

Spoiler: Involves stuff from Start of Darkness

Show

From a paladin's perspective, they registered "Evil" on the alignment-o-meter. For many paladins, that's enough (it falls under Lawful Stupid).
For the paladins who knew about the cloak, it's possible it was a means of making sure there was not a successor. The paladins might not have known about the cloak's magical properties... it could have been a symbol to them, and any goblin survivor runs the risk of using that symbol to become a threat. There are hard decisions in war and sometimes taking prisoners isn't an option... especially if said prisoners can use magic.
And yes, for some of them the goblins were simply monsters and the age category didn't factor into their decisions. Like Belkar with Elan, all they saw was XP.

[Larsaan]

I mean, just because I don't continuously shout that I don't want a bunch of nutcase psycho soldiers that believe they have been sent by their gods to slaughter a bunch of people in my vicinity, doesn't mean I am not very much against that idea.

Well maybe they shouldn't give shelter to someone who's plotting to unravel the fabric of reality, then.

Don't get me wrong, attacking unarmed civillians (especially children) is a terrible war crime, but that's what the thing; the goblins and the Sapphire Guard are at war. The paladins weren't attacking those goblin villages just because goblins, but because they were trying to prevent the world's destruction.

Now, I'm not sure about the timeline here, but I'm guessing that TDO's ascension predates the founding of the Sapphire Guard. We don't actually know what the dynamic between goblins and PC races was like before he learned of and set his sights on the rifts/gates, making the SG duty-bound to stop his plans.

[hamishspence]

Spoiler: Involves stuff from Start of Darkness

Show

From a paladin's perspective, they registered "Evil" on the alignment-o-meter. For many paladins, that's enough (it falls under Lawful Stupid).
For the paladins who knew about the cloak, it's possible it was a means of making sure there was not a successor. The paladins might not have known about the cloak's magical properties... it could have been a symbol to them, and any goblin survivor runs the risk of using that symbol to become a threat. There are hard decisions in war and sometimes taking prisoners isn't an option... especially if said prisoners can use magic.
And yes, for some of them the goblins were simply monsters and the age category didn't factor into their decisions. Like Belkar with Elan, all they saw was XP.

Assuming that committing an evil alignment requires an evil act:

Spoiler

Show

Anyway, where in the comic is there evidence that she has not committed such an act.

She had not committed an Evil act.

And it's ridiculous to think that any given six-year-old may have committed a horrible act worthy of being executed unless the text says otherwise, just because that six-year-old has green skin and her parents bring her to their church services. That right there is enough reason for the story to be the way it is. No author should have to take the time to say, "This little girl ISN'T evil, folks!" in order for the reader to understand that. It should be assumed that no first graders are irredeemably Evil unless the text tells you they are.

I can believe that the paladins saying:

Spoiler

Show

"The Twelve Gods have judged your hearts and found them to be evil"

means that they scanned a few, but not the whole lot.

[C-Dude]

Assuming that committing an evil alignment requires an evil act:



I can believe that the paladins saying:

Spoiler

Show

"The Twelve Gods have judged your hearts and found them to be evil"

means that they scanned a few, but not the whole lot.

Again, this falls under "Lawful Stupid". Miko did the same thing, she couldn't comprehend anyone willingly associating with someone who registered "Evil" on the alignment chart.

I was unaware of the rule that children are neutral until they commit an alignment-adjusting act, but it was not my intention to imply that the little girl deserved it. Rather, I was trying to say that the Paladins' "Detect Evil" might have registered all the goblins as evil because of their monster manual alignment predilection, not that the children were committing atrocities. I retract the point, or rather refine it to align with what you said: the paladins saw that some were evil and didn't bother to check everybody.

[hamishspence]

I was unaware of the rule that children are neutral until they commit an alignment-adjusting act,

Not so much a rule, as a logical assumption based on the little that D&D says about alignment and acts:

Fiendish Codex 2:

Individuals raised in lawful evil societies typically take the decisive step toward damnation upon reaching the age of reason. However, one must actually commit evil acts to incur the torments of Baator; merely thinking bad thoughts does not incur damnation. Thus, lawful evil societies often have coming-of-age rituals designed to force their young men and women to commit evil deeds to win full adult status.

The implication here is that "To be LE enough to get into Baator, one must do acts, as an adult, rather than think thoughts, as a child".

And in OOTS:

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0488.html

we have a hint that childhood behaviour is not that important for alignment destination purposes.

The gist of The Giant's comment seemed to be that

"All children in-strip should be presumed to be Not Evil without strong evidence suggesting otherwise"

[B. Dandelion]

Expecting the gods to step in directly and drop a hammer is incongruous with the setting, as it's established that the gods aren't supposed to intervene in the regions of others and the goblinoids are already established as not falling under the purview of any of the three pantheons. Suppose Ox decided to revoke the paladin powers of that raid party... such action would risk creating a two-color snarl if say Marduk refuted the decision. The gods are paralyzed by that fear and thus do as little as possible when it comes to the affairs of mortals.
[Miko's fall was one of the ONLY instances in which they COULD directly intervene, it was an Azurite slaying her commander in direct violation of her oath, so both fell under the jurisdiction of the Southern Gods]

It's quite a leap to go from "goblins aren't covered by any of the original three pantheons" to "therefore, anyone who ATTACKS a goblin is considered potentially under the jurisdiction of all three pantheons". The whole point of divine casters and warriors is that they answer directly to their own gods and can thus be the instrument of their will even in lands they don't have dominion over. (Which was applicable here since Redcloak's village was implied to be in Northern lands, hence his shock at seeing Southerners so far from home.) The Sapphire Guard get their powers DIRECTLY from the Twelve, and keep that power for so long as the Twelve are satisfied with their service. The idea that Marduk would ever get a say in whether a Southern paladin kept being able to draw divine favor from the Twelve if they wanted to withhold said favor isn't supported by anything as far as I can tell.

Look at it this way: suppose a paladin kills a frost giant in the north. The paladin is contained under the purview of the southern gods, while the frost giant falls under the purview of the northern gods. In order to determine if the action was worthy of a fall, a godsmoot would have to be called. Every god in both pantheons would have to vote on the actions of the paladin, and if a majority in favor was reached THEN the paladin would lose their powers.

Where's the evidence for the "they'd need a godsmoot to determine whether or not a god could continue to bless their own follower" theory? Wouldn't the gods pretty much perpetually be in arguments with each other if this were the case?

[understatement]

long post incoming!

He took actions into his own hands because he's the divine implement of the Dark One; it is his duty as a cleric to do this. This is well-established, the gods are not allowed to act directly, they have clerics to do that for them. As the goblinoids are 'unincorporated' with the other pantheons (unlike the elves, who likely suffered similarly until they were taken under the wing of the Western pantheon), there were no others than Redcloak {the immediately wronged} to take up the cause.

The funny thing is, if Redcloak had been more 'rational' (aka realizing that Azure City civiliians aren't to be blamed for the SG's actions) then the Sapphire Guard would have gotten away scot-free.

Look at it this way: suppose a paladin kills a frost giant in the north. The paladin is contained under the purview of the southern gods, while the frost giant falls under the purview of the northern gods. In order to determine if the action was worthy of a fall, a godsmoot would have to be called. Every god in both pantheons would have to vote on the actions of the paladin, and if a majority in favor was reached THEN the paladin would lose their powers.
Miko got fast-tracked because both the aggressor and the victim were managed by the same gods. They were able to simply decide "Yep, that was wrong."

If this is true, (and I really can't deduce this from the comic main), then it's a stupid rule. Again, maybe an agreement here reached could be to change the rule so innocent lives won't be lost.

ETA: as B-Dandelionn said, I really don't think this is a feasible theory, mainly because the gods would be fighting 24/7 over level 1 paladins and clerics.

But the goblinoids don't have a pantheon to represent them in a godsmoot. They exist outside of the religious framework of the gods that created the world, and so (for good or ill) the gods are not allowed to act on them or against others who wronged them.

Spoiler: Involves stuff from Start of Darkness

Show

If Redcloak had instead been a worshipper of say Rat... the paladins would have fallen as soon as they struck the innocent. If Redcloak had been a worshipper of Loki, the paladins would have fallen a few weeks later when the godsmoot resolved their actions were wrong. Being that he was a worshipper of the Dark One, there was no way for the gods to directly punish the infraction (especially since TDO has refused all inter-pantheon communication for a very, VERY long time). Once more, it falls to TDO not doing right by his people.

So...it's the Dark One's fault that the goblin village got killed because he didn't join in the godsmoot talks.

He is a god of many faults, but this one's new.

Spoiler: Involves stuff from Start of Darkness

Show

From a paladin's perspective, they registered "Evil" on the alignment-o-meter. For many paladins, that's enough (it falls under Lawful Stupid).

Spoiler: Involves stuff from Start of Darkness

Show

Their "stupid" actions cost lives. Miko destroying the Gate doomed Azure City. Actions have consequences, but again, the Sapphire Guard wouldn't have faced any if Redcloak hadn't been so irrational.

For the paladins who knew about the cloak, it's possible it was a means of making sure there was not a successor. The paladins might not have known about the cloak's magical properties... it could have been a symbol to them, and any goblin survivor runs the risk of using that symbol to become a threat. There are hard decisions in war and sometimes taking prisoners isn't an option... especially if said prisoners can use magic.

Ah, yes, the threat of Redcloak's sister. Deadly powerful with her ten year-old fists. "Hard decisions" -- really? They couldn't try sneaking in or stealing it, or demanding it, or anything that doesn't require mowing down goblins? No -- this was the easiest solution to them, because they didn't comprehend that goblins were sentient beings.

The Giant has said that paladins didn't even know the cloak was the source of power; they thought the goblin himself was. Once he was dead, there is zero reason to kill other goblins.

And yes, for some of them the goblins were simply monsters and the age category didn't factor into their decisions. Like Belkar with Elan, all they saw was XP.

That's called an Evil alignment.

Well maybe they shouldn't give shelter to someone who's plotting to unravel the fabric of reality, then.

Oooh, so it's "their fault." Never mind that Redcloak didn't even know about the plan until he put on the mantle, and that it's been established in GDGU that even other clerics don't even know about the existence of the cloak. Civilians sure as hell don't. But hey, they should've known amiright??

Don't get me wrong, attacking unarmed civillians (especially children) is a terrible war crime, but that's what the thing; the goblins and the Sapphire Guard are at war. The paladins weren't attacking those goblin villages just because goblins, but because they were trying to prevent the world's destruction.

Spoiler: SOD

Show

So the "Sweet! I get to use my cleave feat 3 in a row!" is of a righteous warrior. Gotcha.

Now, I'm not sure about the timeline here, but I'm guessing that TDO's ascension predates the founding of the Sapphire Guard. We don't actually know what the dynamic between goblins and PC races was like before he learned of and set his sights on the rifts/gates, making the SG duty-bound to stop his plans.

"Killing Redcloak's mentor may or may not have been a morally poor choice; killing his sister absolutely was." I should put this somewhere...

These are not garden-variety adventurers; these are supposedly the shining beacon of Lawful Good.

Again, this falls under "Lawful Stupid". Miko did the same thing, she couldn't comprehend anyone willingly associating with someone who registered "Evil" on the alignment chart.

I was unaware of the rule that children are neutral until they commit an alignment-adjusting act, but it was not my intention to imply that the little girl deserved it. Rather, I was trying to say that the Paladins' "Detect Evil" might have registered all the goblins as evil because of their monster manual alignment predilection, not that the children were committing atrocities. I retract the point, or rather refine it to align with what you said: the paladins saw that some were evil and didn't bother to check everybody.

And once more, the selected small group is judged to determine the fate of the whole group. That doesn't excuse anything. They should've fallen, and apparently the 12 gods were fine with it enough that they didn't even remotely bring up any aforementioned godsmoot attempts.

Yay.

[Rrmcklin]

While Redcloak is very clearly meant to represent a lot of real issues both in comic and the real world (though I won't comment on the real world beyond this), and I'm sure by the comic's end those issues will be addressed, I feel like it's equally apparent we are not supposed to come away from the path he's taken as the correct or only one to change.

That comment he made during this strip? About how he did what he had to do? Yeah we're not supposed to agree with him on that, and I'd bet anything that by the time this is all over he's going to do more to make that apparent.

Which, incidentally, is largely why I don't think all of this quiddity business is going to be the end of things, at least not in the straightforward way people are talking about. And the story is certainly not going to end with something like "The Dark One refuses reason, but Redcloak ends up literally deified and saving all of creation." as gets suggested from time to time.

[bravelove]

In an ultimate plot twist im going to bring up something that happened in NOT start of darkness and instead bring up something that happened in the origin of pcs because I think it's important

Spoiler: Origin of Pcs

Show

While not goblins, in Roy and Durkon's backstories they had an encounter with a camp of orcs while in another party, that even had a paladin in it. Actually the paladin is a good example of that just because you're a horrible person doesn't mean you auto lose your paladin status as he was very specifically sending Durkon on suicide missions and only hadn't killed him himself was to keep his lawful good status as a paladin and tried to bribe Roy into making sure he didn't come back, what a jerk.
Now, these orcs aren't actually there to do any raiding or anything, they're camping out for tickets to a concert. The only reason people are attacking them was that they tried to buy snacks from a store and the store keep ran away screaming, causing the mayor to send out adventurers which then get killed by the orcs for a mix of reasons like the fact they were attacking them, the orcs having low blood sugar causing them to lash out, and trying to stop the orcs from seeing the concert. Roy upon realizing this pulls up a cease-fire where the orcs don't go into town and the group brings the orcs snacks until the concert then the orcs leave. The orcs agree and they get to have fun at their concert with no further issues. However afterward the party Roy is in is pretty unhappy with this, asking Roy why they had to waste their time with this, they could have killed them and gotten the same XP without wasting three weeks, that the orcs were listed as chaotic evil so they could have killed them with no problems. When Roy asks if they were supposed to kill them just because they like music the aforementioned lawful good paladin says "Um, YES! We're adventurers randomly killing things is what we do!" This pisses Roy off and he quits, all of this gained Durkon's respect and thus they team up.
The fact there are certain people being killed just for convenience over talking and how this disgusts Roy is specifically brought up through this. The issues redcloak are bringing up have been established for over a decade as a problem in this universe for at least one other race

[C-Dude]

Where's the evidence for the "they'd need a godsmoot to determine whether or not a god could continue to bless their own follower" theory? Wouldn't the gods pretty much perpetually be in arguments with each other if this were the case?

Aren't they, though? The gods are depicted as being perpetually swamped with paperwork. For instance, every soul in Hel's domain was subject to an appeal for their 'dwarven bravery'. They didn't get instant tribunals for it... their cases went into a stack the size of Odin and they were resolved at the speed of bureaucracy (that is, they were ignored until it was actually important to address them).

That's where I make the conclusion that paladins and clerics are handled in a similar fashion. That is, unless there's a fast-form to sort it all out, like the cut-and-dry case of Miko.

The funny thing is, if Redcloak had been more 'rational' (aka realizing that Azure City civiliians aren't to be blamed for the SG's actions) then the Sapphire Guard would have gotten away scot-free.

You're putting too much weight into the divine aspect of divine intervention. As I was saying to Dandelion, the case of the atrocity probably would have been added to a pile of cases awaiting decision, and would have been resolved eventually. The gods are swamped as it is... Thor had to use an answering service for prayers and he kept giving people colon tumors.

If this is true, (and I really can't deduce this from the comic main), then it's a stupid rule. Again, maybe an agreement here reached could be to change the rule so innocent lives won't be lost.

I came to this conclusion from two sources: Loki swamping Hel with paperwork for contested souls, and Thor explaining that even getting into an argument with a god of another pantheon could create a two-color snarl. This leads me to believe that the gods are overly cautious, especially when it comes to stepping on each others' toes. If they can't claim direct ownership of a creature (its soul in their afterlife purview) then they basically avoid getting involved at all.
Is it a bad rule? Yes. But these gods are basically making it up as they go along. It is something that could be revised, and that could be part of the resolution of Redcloak's and Durkon's negotiations.

So...it's the Dark One's fault that the goblin village got killed because he didn't join in the godsmoot talks.

He is a god of many faults, but this one's new.

He's not trying to negotiate with the other gods, that's my point. If he had maintained his relationship with Rat, he could have said "Hey, what the fudge, your pantheon's paladins just ripped through my settlements like paper!"
Then Rat could have gone to Dragon and gotten those paladins punished.
That wasn't an option because like Ian Starshine, the Dark One perceives EVERYONE as an enemy. This is detrimental to his people.

Ah, yes, the threat of Redcloak's sister. Deadly powerful with her ten year-old fists. "Hard decisions" -- really? They couldn't try sneaking in or stealing it, or demanding it, or anything that doesn't require mowing down goblins? No -- this was the easiest solution to them, because they didn't comprehend that goblins were sentient beings.

Cool down, okay? I did say that they might not have known the cloak was the source of the power. That doesn't change the fact that the Sapphire Guard has scuffled with "the Redcloak" several times. They've probably killed him several times too, only to see another 'Redcloak' rise to power. That makes--in their eyes--every goblin a potential Redcloak (like every cell in a liver can become cancerous). Yes, she was ten then. Had they left her alive, she could have grown up to become another Redcloak. THAT might have been their motivation.
I can't give you real examples of children who posed palpable military dangers (as that's against the rules here) and I can't give you another example from the comic (as the scene in Start of Darkness is the only instance of this), but that may have colored the actions of the paladins.
Plus, some of them were jerks. Some of them being jerks doesn't mean all of them are jerks, or that some of them weren't justified in their actions.

The Giant has said that paladins didn't even know the cloak was the source of power; they thought the goblin himself was. Once he was dead, there is zero reason to kill other goblins.

See the previous paragraph.

And once more, the selected small group is judged to determine the fate of the whole group. That doesn't excuse anything. They should've fallen, and apparently the 12 gods were fine with it enough that they didn't even remotely bring up any aforementioned godsmoot attempts.

Yay.

Pile of paperwork. We don't know what happened to the paladins who survived the encounter, because we only see it from Redcloak's perspective. They could have been punished later. Not everything is 'snap your fingers' instantaneous.

[hamishspence]

Yes, she was ten then. Had they left her alive, she could have grown up to become another Redcloak. THAT might have been their motivation.

The Giant's quote implies that she was six.

We don't know what happened to the paladins who survived the encounter, because we only see it from Redcloak's perspective. They could have been punished later. Not everything is 'snap your fingers' instantaneous.

Here, the implication is - no other punishment than Falling.

Spoiler

Show

Of course, while Redcloak is not narrating the scene, it is shown mostly from his perspective; we don't see how many Detect Evils were used before the attack started, and we don't see how many paladins afterwards try to heal their wounds and can't, because these things are not important to Redcloak's story. Whether or not some of the paladins Fell does not bring Redcloak's family back to life. Indeed, if we transplant the scene to real life, he would think it cold comfort that some of the police officers who gunned down his family had to turn in their badge afterward (but were otherwise given no punishment by their bosses at City Hall).

Dramatically, showing no-name paladins Falling at that point in the story would confuse the narrative by making it unclear whether or not Redcloak had already earned a form of retribution against them. To be clear, he had not: Whether or not some of them lost a few class abilities does not change the fact that Redcloak suffered an injustice at their hands, one that shaped his entire adult life. That was the point of the scene. Showing them Fall or not simply was not important to Redcloak's story, so it was omitted.