Results 211 to 240 of 888
-
2021-05-03, 12:49 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2013
- Gender
Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)
Eh, "extremely manipulative" is putting it strongly, I'd say. I still think you're reading too much into it. This feels like nothing more than somebody calling a close friend on their BS: Roy made an excuse, and Durkon pushed on it, maybe getting a little too snarky but hey, they're good friends, he's allowed to do that. Roy isn't on trial here: Durkon's just throwing shade because he had a crappy conversation with his god, he's had Implosion attempted on him today, and (most importantly) it's the final panel of the update and there needs to be a punchline!
As someone else recently said, I also think this exchange won't feel so harsh when it has another strip coming after it. Gary Larson once talked about a controversial Far Side comic he drew called "Tethercat", where several dogs bat a cat around a tetherball pole. People got mad, and he wondered why, when Tom & Jerry cartoon violence has been on the air for decades. But the thing about Tom & Jerry is that it's transient: you watch Jerry crush Tom with an anvil, and then he walks it off and is back to chasing Jerry thirty seconds later. But if you set down the newspaper with "Tethercat" in it, go for a walk, and come back an hour later, those dogs are still playing Tethercat. There are also some good arguments to be made about punching down vs. punching up, but even in that regard you can argue that Durkon is almost always punching UP! (#shortjokes)
Much of which I'd credit to you. Thank you for your incredibly polite discourse throughout!Last edited by Ionathus; 2021-05-03 at 12:50 AM.
-
2021-05-03, 12:54 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2011
Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)
Eh. Just because she made them it doesn't mean she has to protect them, doubly so if they don't worship her. She was mad her Black dragons got killed so she wants good dragons killed too.
We're not sure how exactly the world creation process works, but it doesn't seem like every god makes things for the sole propose of making things that worship them. IT's possible she created all dragons, but wants them to be in balance, not overbalanced toward good.
-
2021-05-03, 01:09 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2008
- Gender
Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)
Well, to the first point I'd say that's on the DM. Not to say it's a bad thing, just that it was the way it was because of a choice they made in their portrayal of goblins.
As for the second, let's step back a bit and look at things from a wider scale. What makes a "humanoid" a "humanoid"? What makes something "evil"? Not just from a D&D sense, but let's look at fiction as a whole. "Humanoid" is an arbitrary classification for human-like. Goblins are "humanoid" because they're more intelligent than animals and have a roughly human shape. That doesn't mean they are the same as humans in every way but physical. What defines a "humanoid" says nothing of what the eat or if they're predisposed to aggression or anything of the sort. What about "evil"? This is a big problem I have with D&D specifically in that good and evil are objective things. A dragon burns down a farmer's cottage and when the family flees, snatches up their son and flies off with him to devour. Is the dragon evil? From a human perspective, yes. From the dragon's perspective, maybe it was just hungry. In either case, if you're an adventurer passing through and willing to help or even just a foolhardy member of that village who doesn't want to it to happen again, the dragon is a threat and an antagonist to be dealt with. My point is that goblins, dragons and the like are fictional monsters. They are only as "human" as the person telling the story makes them. Maybe they're intelligent and able to converse with humans and understand morality or maybe they're more primal and see humans as little more than dinner. Or they could be something entirely more alien. At the end of the day, they're fictional monsters and the rules are what the author makes them.
And as to why does it always have to be goblins? It doesn't. If you want to tell that story, then go ahead and tell it. People tend to like what is familiar, however, which is why the cliche evil army of goblins/orcs/whatever is a cliche in the first place. It's why most fantasy settings that have species other than human usually go with dwarf and elf first.
Well, in the campaign I'm currently in, goblins are a caste of a species of semi-intelligent asexual bipedal fungus who enjoy violence above all else to the point that they'll gladly pick fights with each other if no one else is available and reproduce by dying. Warhammer is funny like that.
-
2021-05-03, 01:21 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Location
- Somewhere in Utah...
- Gender
-
2021-05-03, 01:24 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2014
Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)
You’re very right, I was getting a bit too piffy and cute here. What I mean to say is that if he’s asking big questions then the answers should make sense as well as the questions as you said. Some things don’t have answers. I think Star Trek TNG has lots of episodes with no clear right answer, but when all the characters tend to be true to their established skills and personalities the story can stand on it’s own AND we get to discuss these big issues ourselves.
Before I address the other points you've presented, I'd just like the clarify if you were referring to a group including me here? I could understand if you were I just wanted to be clear. No hard feelings either way.
I agree that most of the factors of Durkon’s response include what you said, I just feel it ends up coming across manipulative. For example if I told you “Elan saved a murderer”, without understanding the context of Nale and the situation at the time, this could be interpreted a lot of way and it certainly wouldn’t be evidence for why Elan should save every murderer, or that he’s somewhat biased if he doesn’t save a Goblin murderer.
Similar things could be done with “Belkar apologized for hitting somebody”, “Varsuvius abandoned his lover for years”, “Haley attempted to break a known thief and rebel out of prison”. These all have varying degrees of applicability and their inaccuracy would be determined by the conclusion we’re trying to draw from them, like if you wanted to say “Belkar should be nice to Goblins because he was nice to Durkon that time” it would obviously be inaccurate.
So when Roy says it’s hard to negotiate mid fight, and Durkon points out a fight against what he thought was his best friend, in a specific circumstance that could be resolved non-violently, where Roy was in fact losing and nearly died because he was trying to talk, it ceases to be a defense that defeats Roy’s argument, yet Roy admits defeat regardless.
Could it also be that newspapers have different audiences, or that Farside has a different established tone and style to Tom and Jerry? I agree it’s possible it won’t seem as harsh as things move on, lots of people here seem to think it’s just a light nudge (others think it’s pointing out Roy’s racism / bias which they believe exists as well). Personally? I don’t know which way it will go, and you could absolutely be right on the money with it.
I’d also like to point out that your short joke was both character accurate to Durkon and funny and that’s why it worked. Durkon punches up, and he’s short. Love it.
And lastly thank you my friend for appreciating it. But everybody else, you included, is certainly worth crediting too. Keep up the excellent work and if you choose to continue discussing this with me, keep throwing things at me that require a page and a half to appropriately respond to hahaha.
-
2021-05-03, 01:24 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2018
- Gender
Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)
This is a good point. Just because a story tasks you with thinking about something, doesn't necessarily mean it's meant to give you an answer. Especially with things like this which, in the real world don't have obvious answers or quick fixes.
And based on what Durkon said during his first attempts at negotiations, I imagine it's understand the larger societal problems in this story won't be having any of those either. That's a good thing, writing wise.I'd just like to point out that saying that something unsupported is the case unless someone else can prove that it is not is an utter failure of logic. - Kish
-
2021-05-03, 01:57 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
-
2021-05-03, 02:42 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2020
Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)
Yes, viewing oppression solely through the lens of race would leave us blind to other injustices, like the crushing poverty of the dirt farmers. Likewise, viewing oppression solely through the lens of class struggle would omit the systematic inequalities imposed on goblin kind, which are distinct from the general mistreatment of the poor. You're right to push for an intersectional view that acknowledges multiple injustices, but that doesn't cancel out the oppression of goblinfolk.
-
2021-05-03, 09:04 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2013
- Gender
Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)
(Emphasis mine)
Right, and my argument is that we then run the risk of making them too human in behavior and appearance (displayed attributes that are proven by the narrative), while only making them completely unhuman in morality (informed attributes that might only amount to a paragraph of flavor text from the DM, or throwaway statements from NPCs). That's the danger: that we'll arrive at "this thing is always deadly and you need to kill it to survive, don't try to reason with it" without doing any work to identify what makes it irredeemable. Without any other reasons to go off of, the mind might start to associate "irredeemable evil" with skin color or certain cultural behaviors, and that's the danger I see.
At the start of this thread, it did seem like you were trying to defend Roy and felt like Durkon's "accusation" (really, I'd call it more of an "observation") was unfair. I'm not sure if your thoughts have changed in the ensuing pages.
Again, I want to highlight The Bechdel Test because I think it's really valuable for its parallels to this discussion. Durkon is essentially saying that Roy's behavior didn't "pass the test". But the Bechdel Test isn't about whether or not a movie is sexist: it's about whether or not ALL movies tend to underrepresent women. Using it on an individual basis to judge the quality of a movie is - to use your word - manipulative. Many acclaimed works that highlight women fail to pass the test, too. That Roy's behavior "failed the test" isn't an accusation against Roy; it's an observation that even his behavior reflects the society in which he grew up. Sure, he had plenty of good reasons to not try talking (the only goblins they encountered have been in relation to Xykon & Redcloak), AND talking probably wouldn't have changed anything!
The point is simply that he never tried. And if enough people don't try - for good reasons, bad reasons, or neutral ones - then it forms a pattern of behavior, and soon the goblins never get asked questions or spoken to like fellow sentient mortals.
I also like this point. "Sitting in your discomfort" is something I've run into a lot: sometimes it's not about figuring out the entire problem and identifying who's to blame or what we should do. Sometimes, the first step is to just acknowledge the problem and sit in it, and work through your feelings on it personally, before collaborating to fix things on a grander scale.
-
2021-05-03, 10:19 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2018
Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)
Okay, yes, if Word of God is flat out incompatible with what's in the actual story then Word of God can be erroneous. With that in mind I shall revise my statement:
If there is ambiguity in the interpretation of the content of the story one should use Word of God at the time that such content was created as the guideline for filling in the blanks. Although now I expect someone to jump out and complain that this is too vague and easily twisted to always work the way I want it to.
In the case of Han Solo there is no ambiguity. Han Solo shot first, Word of God is wrong if it claims otherwise.
In the case of goblinoids being innately predisposed towards Evil there is ambiguity.
- Fenrir creating the goblinoids is not conclusive evidence that goblinoids are inherently Evil.
- Goblinoids being created with the idea that they'd use rapid proliferation to become one of the dominant races is not conclusive evidence that goblinoids are inherently Evil.
- Goblins and hobgoblins going along with Redcloak to work for Xykon and do Evil things is not conclusive evidence that goblinoids are inherently Evil.
- Gobbotopia practicing slavery is not conclusive evidence that goblinoids are inherently Evil.
If this comes across as me setting very high standards for what counts as conclusive evidence that goblinoids are inherently Evil, then... well, yes. I'm not going to agree that goblinoids are inherently Evil just because only Evil goblinoids have been given screentime. You'd need to find me some evidence pointing in the direction that goblinoids will consistently be more inclined towards Evil than other races even if they're raised under the exact same circumstances.
So in my eyes there's ambiguity, and Word of God says that he despises the idea of writing goblins off as just inherently Evil, so if I want to actually understand the narrative that Rich is writing I have to go along with that idea unless Rich actually writes something which I just cannot reconcile with the idea that goblinoids are not inherently Evil. So far that hasn't happened and I really doubt it's going to happen.
-
2021-05-03, 10:44 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Location
- Somewhere in Utah...
- Gender
Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)
Hmm. I would say that Word of God can be useful for determining author intent, but not necessarily for filling in the blanks. This is especially true in an unfinished work, where the author still has an opportunity to put in important points. If an author never gets around to filling in an important point before finishing a work and has to supply out-of-work explanations after the fact to patch the holes the readers spot then he didn't really do his job properly.
In the case of goblinoids being innately predisposed towards Evil there is ambiguity.
But the reason many people are questioning whether goblins are really oppressed is that we haven't seen a lot of oppression of the goblins on stage - rather the reverse. Redcloak says "If I went into any human settlement I would be attacked as a monster" and the heroes don't disagree with him, but we've never seen an incident like this. We have no way of knowing if this is really true, and really due to racism if it is.
Likewise Thor and Durkon and Roy can agree that goblins are all stuck on bad land and don't have the resources other races do, but we haven't really seen this. It's a case of telling rather than showing, when the writer's rule is generally "show, don't tell".
There are good excuses for not having done this - the goblin rights subplot is not the focus of the comic - but the fact remains that it hasn't been done, and so readers can be excused for finding it questionable.Last edited by Jason; 2021-05-03 at 10:48 AM.
-
2021-05-03, 10:52 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)
We saw something very much like this in Origin of PCs, with Orcs.
SpoilerNot so much "attack" (since the people in the settlement were commoners) as "flee in terror and alert adventurers, requesting that they help, by hunting down and slaying them, with the adventurers happy to oblige, without considering the possibility of panicked overreaction being in play."
And in the main strip, when a kobold chases a halfling in town, intent on "delivering justice" all that it takes to have the kobold be attacked without any "who's the wronged party" questions being asked, is an advert:
https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0357.htmlLast edited by hamishspence; 2021-05-03 at 10:52 AM.
Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
New Marut Avatar by Linkele
-
2021-05-03, 10:53 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2021
- Gender
Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)
I can definitely see this criticism. I wonder if you can look for examples of it by negation, though. For example,
Spoiler: vague SoD plot element spoilersthe remnants of Redcloak and Right Eye's first village didn't seem to consider becoming refugees in a humanoid settlement even an option, preferring to hide in the swamp and continue fleeing Azurite forces alone. Also, they had to go to an explicitly Evil diner. The latter might have just been a joke but it could also be a reflection of even the neutral goblin Right Eye not being welcome in a typical anachronistic meeting establishment.
edit: added spoiler tagLast edited by Emberlily; 2021-05-03 at 11:11 AM.
-
2021-05-03, 11:07 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Location
- Somewhere in Utah...
- Gender
Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)
Both of those incidents are really more about how Adventurers are willing to kill first and ask questions later than they are demonstrations of anti-humanoid prejudice by the "civilian" population. The townspeople in the orc incident might have had exactly the same reaction to a group of strange humans carrying their battle axes into town.
-
2021-05-03, 11:11 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2013
- Gender
Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)
Speaking as somebody who has done quite a bit of writing, both for D&D and for prose fiction, "show, don't tell" has limits. Sometimes you do need to provide exposition.
I agree that we don't have numerous examples of goblinoid oppression in the main free online comic. In that regard, it is an "informed" situation rather than a "displayed" one. But whenever it comes up as exposition, nobody refutes it. Narratively speaking, there needs to be a certain level of buy-in from the reader: if a character states a non-outlandish opinion, and nobody in-story dismisses it or questions it, the reader is meant to give that statement the benefit of the doubt.
I'm reminded of people saying "Hel's math on dwarf souls doesn't add up" - not because anyone in the comic disagreed, but just because "hey, that doesn't sound right to me, the reader, and there's no proof that it would work," when Hel's statement (and the lack of a refutation) was the intended proof.
-
2021-05-03, 11:11 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2008
- Gender
Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)
Again, you're coming at this from the standpoint that objective morality is a thing that exists and can be measured. I understand in D&D it very much is, but I'd argue that it's one of the biggest flaws in D&D's design and a rather black and white and childish way to put the world together. Is the dragon "irredeemable evil" or is it a hungry superpredator that has the same biological need to eat that a human does and cares about as much that humans very much want to not be eaten as a human would that a cow very much does not want to be eaten. A goblin is a fictional monster no different than a dragon, it just happens to be smaller and roughly human shaped. Unless the indicated by the author of the specific universe, why would the automatic assumption that being roughly human-shaped makes a fictional monster the equivalent of a human. In the real world, gorillas, chimpanzees or any of the other great apes are bipedal, roughly human shaped, and even capable of learning and limited communication with humans, but we don't morally equate them with humans. The question shouldn't be "is this creature evil as defined by some sort of objective cosmic standard?" but "is this creature dangerous to me/my family/my community?" Being highly aggressive or territorial by nature or seeing humans as prey are enough for conflict to exist and there's no reason that traits that exist in real animals couldn't apply to fictional monsters. Whatever the author decides serves the plot best.
To give another example, one youtube channel I watch portrays goblins as mutated degenerate humans, the result of exposure to high levels of magical basically-radiation. Despite specifically being mutated humans, they're still aggressive opportunistic raiders who are individually weak, but always move and attack in large swarms. They have their own language, religion and even currency and are intelligent enough to communicate with humans - there's even an insane human scholar (who they do not realize is human due to his face being covered) living among them and they trade with bandits. They attack caravans and travelers, find torture entertaining and eat human flesh. Is this a cultural thing or is it just part of their nature as a result of the same mutation that made them what they are? Well, the channel doesn't elaborate on that and doesn't really have to. They goblins are a threat and in the end, that's what makes them relevant to the plot.
As a final point, if an audience/group of players can't distinguish between fictional monsters and real people to the point that they "start to associate "irredeemable evil" with skin color or certain cultural behaviors" that speaks far more about them than the author/DM. It requires the same sort of backwards "logic" people have used to blame metal music or video games for real world violence and such claims have been proven wrong time and time again.
-
2021-05-03, 11:16 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2021
- Gender
Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)
That fiction has a way to affect people's beliefs through subtext, the assumptions it says or leaves unspoken, its overt messaging, and all that is something that is both documented and something I think the Giant seems to believe with his regrets over past messaging elements and his desire to show new better ones. It's not a matter of being unable to distinguish fiction or fantasy from reality so much as we as malleable biological creatures are vulnerable to having our beliefs shifted, changed, or reinforced by fiction and fantasy. As the meme goes, you are not immune to propaganda.
-
2021-05-03, 11:21 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)
I think this more typifies the "standard townspeople reaction to armed, PC-race adventurers"
https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0122.html
Not "flee" but "put up adverts and raise prices".Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
New Marut Avatar by Linkele
-
2021-05-03, 11:26 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Location
- Somewhere in Utah...
- Gender
Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)
Of course. The Lord of the Rings did it all the time, with major events like Saruman's capture of Gandalf or the Ent's assault on Isenguard being told after the fact from one character to another rather than being "shown directly" to the reader. The film rightly showed these events directly, because film is a visual medium and it worked better in that medium to show it.
I suspect that a web comic similarly needs to be more careful about telling rather than showing, like a film.
Narratively speaking, there needs to be a certain level of buy-in from the reader: if a character states a non-outlandish opinion, and nobody in-story dismisses it or questions it, the reader is meant to give that statement the benefit of the doubt.Last edited by Jason; 2021-05-03 at 11:29 AM.
-
2021-05-03, 11:40 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2013
- Gender
Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)
I am doing nothing of the sort. In fact, I agree with you when it comes to D&D morality.
You're preaching to the choir. I agree that predators are not inherently evil. I agree that great apes are not human. But fantasy goblins, as typically presented, aren't like dragons or gorillas: they don't have drastic physiology differences, and they don't fill a different role in the ecology/food chain. They are slightly shorter, colored green/yellow, they speak a different language, and they worship a different god. They are quite simply "funny looking humans".
This sounds like a very compelling approach to the subject, but it essentially proves my point. In order to make these goblins an objective threat with no elaboration required, it has to mutate them with magical radiation. Regardless of this youtube channel's portrayal, you have to admit that goblins are not by and large portrayed with that degree of "difference."
I've taken your other statements with a pretty light heart, and I hope my tone has been conversational and easygoing thus far. However, I'm going to come out very strongly against this point.
The things we say and write matter. Don't tell me propaganda doesn't affect the culture it pervades. Don't tell me that decades of sexist jokes haven't affected how men treat women, and how women treat themselves. Don't tell me that prejudiced attitudes can't fester and worsen when the people in power support (either intentionally or subconsciously) certain narratives while discouraging (either intentionally or subconsciously) others.
It's unfair to characterize this with the same brush as overreactions to heavy metal and video games. The things we say and write will almost never inspire someone to go out and Do A Murder. But they will inform our attitudes, our opinions, and whether or not we look at the person who's a different gender/race/culture and see a fellow human with differences or an Other to be (subconsciously) opposed, distrusted, exploited, or disregarded.Last edited by Ionathus; 2021-05-03 at 11:45 AM. Reason: edited to remove a (technically) religion-related phrase
-
2021-05-03, 11:59 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Location
- Somewhere in Utah...
- Gender
Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)
So what is your take on the effect that seeing Belkar really enjoy stabbing people all the time and basically getting away with it or having it played for laughs has had on the average reader of this comic?
Is your attitude towards racism in comics significantly different than your attitude towards violence in comics?Last edited by Jason; 2021-05-03 at 12:00 PM.
-
2021-05-03, 12:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2013
- Gender
Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)
No, I don't think it is.
Belkar's evil and sociopathy is an established element in the comic. Characters talk about it, and it's lampshaded constantly. Heck, even a divine judgment from the Deva shows that Roy has essentially been redeeming an evildoer, at least in the way he mitigates & prevents further murders from Belkar. You can't really say that the narrative supports Belkar's behavior, either explicitly or implicitly, and in fact the narrative itself forces him to "Evolve or Die" into a much more traditional protagonist: personally, my money is on Redemption=Death by the end for him.
The difference, and I think it's a crucial one, is that Belkar's behavior is constantly commented on. There's no blanket ban on showing bad stuff: it's whether or not the narrative addresses the bad stuff that matters. If goblins are just "funny looking humans who are never worth redeeming," and the narrative never explores that further or even comments on it, then yeah -- I have more of a problem with a complacent "evil by default" assumption lounging around in the background of a story than I do with Belkar's behavior being brought to the forefront and dissected.
Haley's sexist comments are another good example. Rich is on record saying he just threw them in without thinking about it, and because the narrative never called her out for her language until much later, that behavior essentially went unchallenged. As a result, The Order of the Stick unintentionally endorsed that kind of gender-charged insult until Rich made a conscious effort to stamp it out going forward.Last edited by Ionathus; 2021-05-03 at 12:17 PM.
-
2021-05-03, 12:23 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2013
Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)
True, but there is evidence that the goblin are not a race of powerless people living on bad land they can't get out. The most obvious is that Xykon and Redcloak stumbled upon an army they could immediately use to take Azure City. Sure, the goblins needed someone like them to offset the power of the high-level paladins, but that's not the same as 'goblins can't possibly stand their own against the other races'. They simply needed a strong leader to succeed.
-
2021-05-03, 12:28 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Location
- Somewhere in Utah...
- Gender
Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)
-
2021-05-03, 12:30 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2008
- Gender
Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)
According to who?
In one story what you say might be the case. In another, it might be entirely wrong. I'd argue that a gorilla is as close or closer to a human than your standard fantasy goblin is physically. Mentally, they can be anything ranging from savage, cruel, stupid and aggressive to basically human. These are fictional monsters and the rules are what the author says they are.
I disagree. The average human in this channel's setting doesn't know that the goblins (and most other humanoid monsters for that matter) are more or less mutated humans. The mutation happened long ago when humanity was an assortment of primitive hunter-gatherer tribes. As far as the most people know, they're a natural species. In fact, if you removed the magical nature of the catalyst for their original mutation, they would be. The only thing it takes for them to be an objective threat is the fact that they abduct humans as a source of food and that's hardly unique.
And people also have a tendency of reading into subtext and creating their own meanings when none exists. I'll only go into it lightly to avoid potentially skewing into the political, but there was a rather noteworthy example in 1985 about the Twisted Sister song "Under the Blade" in which it was claimed that the song encouraged violence towards women. According to the band itself:
Originally Posted by Dee SniderOriginally Posted by Dee Snider
We are not talking about propaganda, we are talking about stories. Stories in which there are protagonists and antagonists who are by their very nature opposed and create the conflict that drives the plot in the first place. There's no reason that every story should have to be a morality play or a reflection of the real world. No reason that every monster should have to be the equivalent of a human. It's not clever, if anything it's becoming overdone and trite. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. Sometimes a goblin is just a goblin and if the author wanted them to represent humans, they could've just as easily used a different group of humans.Last edited by TheSummoner; 2021-05-03 at 01:00 PM.
-
2021-05-03, 12:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2013
Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)
I think this conversation is dangerously straying into real-world politics.
-
2021-05-03, 12:36 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2018
Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)
-
2021-05-03, 12:56 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2020
- Location
- massachusetts
- Gender
-
2021-05-03, 12:57 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2015
- Location
- Texas
- Gender
Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)
Amen. Preach it!
- Gobbotopia practicing slavery is not conclusive evidence that goblinoids are inherently Evil.
Depends on the setting. I've been in campaigns where news of our party arriving induced hiding in barns and such. Violence in comics has a long history (Sergeant Rock comes to mind, The Haunted Tank) and every super hero in the Marvel and DC universes. FWIW Belkar's violence seems to be comic relief, in the main ~ making fun of murderhobos and munchkins. Folks who don't play D&D may not get the joke. True with a lot of art.
Sometimes a goblin is just a goblin and if the author wanted them to represent humans, they could've just as easily used a different group of humans.Last edited by KorvinStarmast; 2021-05-03 at 01:00 PM.
Avatar by linklele. How Teleport Worksa. Malifice (paraphrased):
Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
b. greenstone (paraphrased):
Agency means that they {players} control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
Second known member of the Greyview Appreciation Society
-
2021-05-03, 01:01 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2013
- Gender
Re: Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)
I mean, "good to go" depends on the context, but essentially yes. I would far prefer a storyline/setting where people's cosmetic differences and prejudices are acknowledged to a setting where the cosmetic differences are glossed over and never addressed...but are still subconsciously used to identify "combatant" from "ally."
The vast majority of D&D lore for the last 40 years.
On almost every level except physical size, this is blatantly, factually wrong.
Gorillas have a lot in common with humans in comparison to other animals, but they don't wear clothing, use complex spoken languages, live in created structures, form massive groups numbering in the thousands, trade currency, or do one of a billion other things that make humans wholly unique. Every humanoid in the Monster Manual does those things or a version of them. If you want to argue that goblins are essentially gorillas in your setting, go ahead, but if they're using metal armor and yelling out full sentences in a spoken language, be prepared for people to completely disregard your definition of "sentience."
First off: they DID use a different group of humans, they just colored them green and gave them a slightly different backstory. You could literally take every hobgoblin in standard D&D, swap their token for a human, and everything they do would make sense, even if it seemed weird that they were speaking a different language and worshipping a different fantasy god. They still form armies, use weapons, speak languages, and display human emotions to varying degrees. They are not an alien intelligence, nor are they nonsentient animals.
Second: Do you genuinely believe that, in order to treat monstrous humanoids with inherent dignity, the entire story has to become a morality play? Do you really think a story is incapable of addressing something and then moving on, or not dipping its toes in that water to start with?