Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

[dps]

I’m not railing on the Giant for changing his story. I’m annoyed that he’s having one character hold the changed story against another character.
When they were in Dorukan’s dungeon, those goblins (including Redcloak) were little more than employees of Xykon. Roy was also a different character. He called people “Dog” for Thor’s sake. That all changed by the time the next book came around and that’s *fine*. I’m not at all bothered by that. But why is he having one character give another crap for behaviors that were, by any meaningful metric, performed by an entirely different person?

And this isn’t even like we’re holding current Haley accountable for GothTeenHaley’s behavior (just as an example). This is almost like holding Haley-from-universe-A accountable for something Haley-from-universe-B did.

And since then, Roy has never interacted with a goblin or goblinoid outside of a literal war. This particular Roy has NEVER had a chance to be a better person. And Durkon literally needed his god to tell him to reach out, and it wasn’t out of altruism either. Stones and glass houses...

I simply can't see how anyone can read the latest update and feel that Durkon is holding anything against Roy.

He's not accusing Roy of doing anything morally wrong, he's telling Roy that he now has reason to believe that there are factors in play that they hadn't considered or even been aware of previously.

[KorvinStarmast]

As in, the goblins were retconned into having deeper motivations, which the PCs couldn't have learned or noticed because they didn't exist yet.

Right. There's some post hoc reasoning going on, or so it seems to me. As Tolkien said about his magnum opus: "the tale grew in telling." So too with OoTS.

Goblins=Hydra members confirmed. Cut off one head and three will take its place!

Which is how Goblin Dan made his first million, right?

[Shadowknight12]

I’m not railing on the Giant for changing his story. I’m annoyed that he’s having one character hold the changed story against another character.

What's the problem with the author deciding that, instead of his early work remaining a disconnected bit of early weirdness, it will be woven into the plot and become actually connected? From a purely technical perspective, it's good writing. The only bit of dissonance comes from the perception that this is an attack on Roy's morals and that it's not "fair" to hold this behaviour against him.

Another way to see this is an attempt to take the early comics as an example of an issue the comic is dealing with, and instead of it attacking a character about it, it's instead used to show how certain things are not even questioned in-universe but instead just taken for granted. Instead of it being an attack on Roy's character, it's using in-comic material to highlight an issue and tying up the early comics to the present storyline.

[Bootman]

What's the problem with the author deciding that, instead of his early work remaining a disconnected bit of early weirdness, it will be woven into the plot and become actually connected? From a purely technical perspective, it's good writing. The only bit of dissonance comes from the perception that this is an attack on Roy's morals and that it's not "fair" to hold this behaviour against him.

Another way to see this is an attempt to take the early comics as an example of an issue the comic is dealing with, and instead of it attacking a character about it, it's instead used to show how certain things are not even questioned in-universe but instead just taken for granted. Instead of it being an attack on Roy's character, it's using in-comic material to highlight an issue and tying up the early comics to the present storyline.

I can only speak for myself, but my issue is the dissonance creates a lot of issues and contradictions. If, for example, Rich decided he was going to hold every single action applicable and actually have Roy be a sorta care free soldier who never considers his enemies (which was a potentially viable interpretation at some point) I wouldn't be here. It's that it's only being mentioned now and it contradict other traits of Roy we know for a fact.

Another decent example would be that Belkar wasn't nearly as evil as he would later become in the first 100 pages. If Rich never pushed Belkar to the evil heights he would reach in Don't Split the Party and what not, then nobody would have bat an eye. But when he DID push it it was consistent with what we knew of Belkar and it was built up to with a meaningful arc for him and other characters.

One of the things Rich is best at is incorporating those early things into actual parts of the story later. Imagine actually making Nale an interesting character after the first two encounters with him! Rich is always improving and tends to try and make his story as consistent as possible with the early material that obviously contradicts his current values and goals. These recent pages regarding the Goblins have been the exception, where the contradictions are becoming too severe and need to be repaired quickly.

Also congrats on over 300 replies and 10,000 views everyone! What that shows is an insane level of engagement from the people viewing the thread and less just people passing through lurking.

[Shadowknight12]

I can only speak for myself, but my issue is the dissonance creates a lot of issues and contradictions.

I have yet to see any issues or contradictions with the Giant's incorporation of early work into the current storyline.

[Bootman]

I have yet to see any issues or contradictions with the Giant's incorporation of early work into the current storyline.

So I think the main one would be the nature of the Goblins and how they're treated in the vast majority of the story vs. how they're treated now. I've gone over the 'goblins have bad land' argument contradicting the huge armies and industry the hobgoblins have in every meaningful way. I've made my case for Roy's understanding of the teenage goblins motivations contradicting the most recent strip. Redcloak's entire character has made a lot of serious changes and he does a lot of things early on that seem out of character later, which Rich Burlew has actually addressed.

I could go over others that either aren't exaaactly contradictions just weird (I.E. the nature of Roy's sword as it was introduced by the Azurite blacksmith vs. now), but the point is that Rich, myself and other people in this thread believe that the early comics are somewhat incongruous with the new ones. I think Rich has done an amazing job incorporating what he could though.

[Shadowknight12]

So I think the main one would be the nature of the Goblins and how they're treated in the vast majority of the story vs. how they're treated now. I've gone over the 'goblins have bad land' argument contradicting the huge armies and industry the hobgoblins have in every meaningful way. I've made my case for Roy's understanding of the teenage goblins motivations contradicting the most recent strip. Redcloak's entire character has made a lot of serious changes and he does a lot of things early on that seem out of character later, which Rich Burlew has actually addressed.

The goblins having numbers and armies is not a contradiction as per literally the previous strip, which explained that they work differently from humans. Even before that strip, Redcloak has been assuming that the goblins were deliberately set up as an "EXP farm" for other races, which means they are needed in greater numbers (because the other races are also in great numbers). It's only a contradiction if you hold an incredibly rigid view that land quality equals population numbers, which was even refuted in-comic with the incredibly populous Western Continent, a massive desert chock-full of races in great numbers, which we also know textually are "fighting over scraps".

Again, Roy's understanding of the goblin teenagers' motivations is not the point that Durkon raised in the strip, he raised the point that Roy never tried to investigate further even when he had the chance (which is true). This is not a contradiction, as I have shown you Roy's behaviour in those strips and you can see that he presents zero curiosity for the goblins' background, racial history or deeper motivations, simply expressing initial doubt and then rolling with things afterwards.

[Bootman]

The goblins having numbers and armies is not a contradiction as per literally the previous strip, which explained that they work differently from humans. Even before that strip, Redcloak has been assuming that the goblins were deliberately set up as an "EXP farm" for other races, which means they are needed in greater numbers (because the other races are also in great numbers). It's only a contradiction if you hold an incredibly rigid view that land quality equals population numbers, which was even refuted in-comic with the incredibly populous Western Continent, a massive desert chock-full of races in great numbers, which we also know textually are "fighting over scraps".

Again, Roy's understanding of the goblin teenagers' motivations is not the point that Durkon raised in the strip, he raised the point that Roy never tried to investigate further even when he had the chance (which is true). This is not a contradiction, as I have shown you Roy's behaviour in those strips and you can see that he presents zero curiosity for the goblins' background, racial history or deeper motivations, simply expressing initial doubt and then rolling with things afterwards.

The army part is more important then the population part. 30,000 troops with swords, shields, armor and professional training (as explained by redcloak) living in one nation under one leader with the resources to immediately declare an attack when a new leader orders it? That says lot about their power and resources. And a lot of people requires a lot of food. They are medium sized after all. Not to mention Redcloak previously describing their lands as 'fertile'.

Do you feel the themes were well conveyed in that strip? Because on my side you have people who (I believe rightfully) understood it as a criticism of Roy not talking to them when he's being attacked since that is literally the defense Rou brings up and the thing that Durkon 'refutes' with a very bad example. Then you have people closer to your perspective who believe the last three panels don't matter, or that he should have dealt with every goblin non-lethally, or that Roy is somewhat racist. Of course that's all other people. I'm wondering if you personally believe that the theme and ideas you believe the comic holds was well conveyed.

Also I just noticed I missed a response of yours earlier so let me go grab it.

The words you use to refer to this casual conversation between two friends are "defeating" and "bested" as though the conversation was some sort of intellectual duel between Roy and Durkon and there has to be a winner and a loser. I do not support this framing. I think Roy was improved by realizing something he had never questioned before. He wasn't defeated or bested in an argument, he was enlightened. Likewise, Durkon was aided by Roy, by having someone to articulate his thoughts to, and who helped him refine them into something coherent and not just a feeling of "something's wrong here" as it was in previous strips. My takeaway from the Roy/Durkon conversation is that both characters emerged victorious and better for having dialogued with each other about this matter.

That’s only if we accept the realizations as legitimate, of course. Which I currently don’t but that could be changed literally next strip. Otherwise I do believe the comic supports the interpretation that he should be talking with Goblins while he fights them and I think that is a bad lesson and inaccurate to Roy’s character. Roy’s actions were as good as can reasonably be expected from anybody when it comes to his mook encounters, and that being treated as him doing something wrong in the past is the issue. Just because they learn a lesson doesn’t mean it’s a good lesson or that they’re better people for it.

And considering that Rich wants us to take this lessons to real life, I don’t think it’s far off from a debate. Remember, I’m less concerned with the fact that they’re talking about it or the broad strokes ideas they express, it’s a lot of specifics and unfair framing in the writing that I have an issue with. It’s what Rich is doing, not Durkon.

My point is that no matter the gods' justifications, what they did was wrong. And the fact that Durkon does not take Thor's explanations as "oh okay, I guess you're right" but instead specifically goes to tell Roy about how even though he just talked to Thor, he still thinks Redcloak is right (and even goes as far as to say it doesn't matter if it's malice or neglect that caused the problems), and then Roy agrees with him; it all communicates to me that the story as a whole seems to be supporting the belief that the gods are wrong.

This isn't even the first time this is brought up in-comic. Roy specifically says "I do not think the gods have our best interests in mind" in the Godsmoot, and he doesn't even mean the gods voting to destroy the world. He passes that judgment on the gods as a whole, and then this is later reinforced again in his conversation with Julia post-Godsmoot.

I think the comic is telling us repeatedly that the gods are not to be trusted and that their justifications do not matter.

I don’t think the gods have to have anybody’s best interests in mind other than their own. I don’t think anybody does. But if you believe they’re wrong then I would like to know what your alternative is to their system. They need the worlds and conflict to survive and continue propogating existence. So here’s the trap inlaid in this question. If the solution is something you can easily come up with and can’t explain why the Gods wouldn’t do it without just making them stupid, evil, or completely uncaring then that becomes a plot hole. Because if there was a better system that allowed them to live sustainably with happy mortals and didn’t make them have to conflict with eachother, there’s no reason they wouldn’t do it, right? They’re self interested so a win win is still good for them.

I just want to know what you think the alternative possibly could be.

Do note that Roy doesn't take the goblins' word (his face when told that the goblins are good is doubt/confusion, and he immediately questions it), he needs Haley to explain things for him. He's not taking the goblins' words, he's taking Haley's.

He’s absolutely surprised but I think it’s a fair question to ask. He is surprised to see goblins after just running for his life from them, he asks a clarifying question we they are non specific, and then he tells them to stay safe because he thinks they’re children. He takes her word that they’re teenagers, not that they’re good.

The point is not "were Roy's actions adequate"? Because they were, as per his evaluation with the deva. They were sufficient to qualify as Good. The point is "could they have been better?" and the answer is yes, yes they could have.

Everyone has problems and goals and loved ones to care about and things distracting them. Roy is not exceptional in having his mind occupied with all sorts of important things to think about. If we want violence to end at some point, someone has to be willing to listen to the other side, to find out what's wrong and what has led them to this path, and then reach out to figure out some way to fix things. And that person will have, just like everyone else, all sorts of important things to think about, and on top of that, they will have to spare some time and energy aside towards trying to understand all these complicated systems and people's motivations.

Is it fair for someone who didn't create the problem to solve it? No, no it is not.

Do you feel comfortable choosing who the martyr? I mean, even if I accept that it’s good to value the lives of potential enemies over a kidnapped ally, who gets to be the person? Who has to be? Maybe it’s good to be, maybe it’s better to be, for us in the long term. But who’s self interest are you going to undermine for the sake of potential peace? And if you’re going to ask it of Roy, why not ask it of the Goblins?

But it wasn't fair of Eugene to die and saddle Roy with the Blood Oath.
It wasn't fair of Tarquin to be a generally awful person and try to manipulate his sons for his own gain.
It wasn't fair of Ian to not listen to Haley, and then make her feel like she has to go and fix everything, including him.

The comic has a very long history of making a commentary on children being saddled with the mistakes of their parents, down to the Order of the Stick as a whole inheriting the problems that the Order of the Scribble caused due to their dysfunctional relationships and personalities. That this is being extended to the gods themselves (the ultimate parental figures) and the world they created should come to no surprise.

Yes, everybody has problems. I agree that the way the universe works causes problems for people. But that doesn’t mean that it should work any differently or that it could work any differently or that it’s realistic to expect it to work differently. Hell, if that’s the problem shouldn’t you be in favor of the world being destroyed that way the unjust system of this world can be replaced with a new potentially more just one?

As always I appreciate your response and if I’m coming across as more aggressive it’s just because I have to get really deep in in order to respond to your points.

[Shadowknight12]

The army part is more important then the population part. 30,000 troops with swords, shields, armor and professional training (as explained by redcloak) living in one nation under one leader with the resources to immediately declare an attack when a new leader orders it? That says lot about their power and resources. And a lot of people requires a lot of food. They are medium sized after all. Not to mention Redcloak previously describing their lands as 'fertile'.

Warrior cultures can muster those numbers by sacrificing other areas (like education/technological/healthcare advancements). We don't know what the quality of their equipment was, and we don't know how much of the well-organized military is a leftover from the influence of the Dark One when he was still alive, who united the goblin tribes and presumably improved their material conditions. We simply don't have all the information needed to be able to tell if it's a contradiction or not, so I am choosing to err on the side of it not being a contradiction because there's no evidence supporting it is (as of yet).

Do you feel the themes were well conveyed in that strip? Because on my side you have people who (I believe rightfully) understood it as a criticism of Roy not talking to them when he's being attacked since that is literally the defense Rou brings up and the thing that Durkon 'refutes' with a very bad example. Then you have people closer to your perspective who believe the last three panels don't matter, or that he should have dealt with every goblin non-lethally, or that Roy is somewhat racist. Of course that's all other people. I'm wondering if you personally believe that the theme and ideas you believe the comic holds was well conveyed.

As I stated in a previous response, I believe Roy wasn't being criticized, but instead his behaviour was used by Durkon to illustrate the point he was making earlier in the conversation with Roy. The point Durkon is trying to convey is "we as the privileged races have been taking our status and invisible advantages for granted and at no point did we stop to ask the people we were fighting why we were fighting them and what led them to this path". I think that comes across crystal-clear in the strip and I think people who are having a negative reaction to the comic have a strong emotional connection to Roy, are perceiving this as an attack on Roy's character and are understandably jumping to his defence (though I don't believe this is needed, since it's not an attack on Roy's character).

That’s only if we accept the realizations as legitimate, of course. Which I currently don’t but that could be changed literally next strip. Otherwise I do believe the comic supports the interpretation that he should be talking with Goblins while he fights them and I think that is a bad lesson and inaccurate to Roy’s character. Roy’s actions were as good as can reasonably be expected from anybody when it comes to his mook encounters, and that being treated as him doing something wrong in the past is the issue. Just because they learn a lesson doesn’t mean it’s a good lesson or that they’re better people for it.

Roy's actions being reasonable does not mean they couldn't have been better. As I stated before (perhaps in another thread), I do not believe Roy gave his due diligence to the situation as a Good-aligned character. And I think the entire point being called into question is precisely what you have stated: that they were "mook encounters". This is what the comic strip is drawing attention to, the dismissal of goblins as mere mooks to be encountered and defeated, and not as people with a history and reasons for doing what they do, and deserving of empathy, understanding and aid.

I don’t think the gods have to have anybody’s best interests in mind other than their own. I don’t think anybody does. But if you believe they’re wrong then I would like to know what your alternative is to their system. They need the worlds and conflict to survive and continue propogating existence. So here’s the trap inlaid in this question. If the solution is something you can easily come up with and can’t explain why the Gods wouldn’t do it without just making them stupid, evil, or completely uncaring then that becomes a plot hole. Because if there was a better system that allowed them to live sustainably with happy mortals and didn’t make them have to conflict with eachother, there’s no reason they wouldn’t do it, right? They’re self interested so a win win is still good for them.

I just want to know what you think the alternative possibly could be.

Personally, I don't actually want to speculate about what the solution to the gods issue might be. I am very interested and invested in what the Giant's proposed solution is, not mine. He knows his world better than I do and what the endgame is going to look like, so he's better equipped to come up with a better solution.

But if I had to put forth a solution only knowing what I know now, I would say the solution would be "let the gods perish and fade forever, and accept that this will be the final world for everyone. Let's try to fix what we can with what we have, and then make the most out of it for as long as it lasts."

I agree with Minrah when she calls out Redcloak for condemning the goblins that exist now for theoretical goblins that do not yet exist, so I see no problems letting the gods die and accepting that there will be no more worlds. After all, the existence of future worlds has no bearing on the people the exist now. We know that OOTS allows clerics to gain divine power from non-godly sources (as per the Creed of Stone, which had full clerics even though they worshiped elemental stone), so letting the gods perish does not mean no more clerics or paladins.

Do you feel comfortable choosing who the martyr? I mean, even if I accept that it’s good to value the lives of potential enemies over a kidnapped ally, who gets to be the person? Who has to be? Maybe it’s good to be, maybe it’s better to be, for us in the long term. But who’s self interest are you going to undermine for the sake of potential peace? And if you’re going to ask it of Roy, why not ask it of the Goblins?

These are questions Good characters struggle with daily, and oftentimes choosing the greater good over their own self-interest is precisely what makes them Good.

And yes, I do expect it from the goblins too, eventually, but given that they are the ones suffering under an exploitative system, I think it's fair to ask for the privileged ones benefiting to extend the olive branch first.

Yes, everybody has problems. I agree that the way the universe works causes problems for people. But that doesn’t mean that it should work any differently or that it could work any differently or that it’s realistic to expect it to work differently. Hell, if that’s the problem shouldn’t you be in favor of the world being destroyed that way the unjust system of this world can be replaced with a new potentially more just one?

As always I appreciate your response and if I’m coming across as more aggressive it’s just because I have to get really deep in in order to respond to your points.

No worries, I am trying my best to clarify with the hopes that it will reach some sort of understanding, even if not agreement.

As for the rest, as I stated above, I support aiding the people who are currently suffering, not theoretical ones, and I am of the opinion that just because things are doesn't mean that's how they should be, so if something is unfair, I support doing what can be done to make it fairer.

[Athas]

Thanks for pointing that out! I edited the observation to clarify that I meant in the main-comic only. Haven't bought the other stories yet (can't seem to find a non-pirated electronic version).

Are digital copies available for sale and where?

[pearl jam]

The digital pdfs for the main comic compilations, prequels and assorted other things are all available for purchase through Gumroad. The news post about the release of Utterly Dwarfed has a link to Gumroad.

[Athas]

The digital pdfs for the main comic compilations, prequels and assorted other things are all available for purchase through Gumroad. The news post about the release of Utterly Dwarfed has a link to Gumroad.

Great got it. I'm going to attempt to put a link in here but I assume the forum software will prevent it.

I found all the digital copies by going to the linked page from the news then by clicking on "Giant in the Playground"

I did put a link in here but as I suspected I'm not allowed post links.

[pearl jam]

Yeah. I was hesitant to try to post the link even though it was to the official source, so I went for describing where to find an officially posted one instead. Glad you found what you were looking for.

[RossN]

Personally, I don't actually want to speculate about what the solution to the gods issue might be. I am very interested and invested in what the Giant's proposed solution is, not mine. He knows his world better than I do and what the endgame is going to look like, so he's better equipped to come up with a better solution.

But if I had to put forth a solution only knowing what I know now, I would say the solution would be "let the gods perish and fade forever, and accept that this will be the final world for everyone. Let's try to fix what we can with what we have, and then make the most out of it for as long as it lasts."

I agree with Minrah when she calls out Redcloak for condemning the goblins that exist now for theoretical goblins that do not yet exist, so I see no problems letting the gods die and accepting that there will be no more worlds. After all, the existence of future worlds has no bearing on the people the exist now. We know that OOTS allows clerics to gain divine power from non-godly sources (as per the Creed of Stone, which had full clerics even though they worshiped elemental stone), so letting the gods perish does not mean no more clerics or paladins.

Why do you stress having empathy for the goblins yet seem au fait with outright murdering the gods?

[Precure]

If we're talking about inconsistent characterizations and plot, Roy is probably one of the most privileged characters. Looking at his past, he was coup de gracing sleeping goblins, put the order on a dangerous quest by lies and manipulation, abandoned Elan to bandits, treated Miko horribly, tolerated and protected Belkar, etc. Despite of all this, he did't face any serious consequences, and his actions were justified by a being of lawful goodness.

[Worldsong]

If we're talking about inconsistent characterizations and plot, Roy is probably one of the most privileged characters. Looking at his past, he was coup de gracing sleeping goblins, put the order on a dangerous quest by lies and manipulation, abandoned Elan to bandits, treated Miko horribly, tolerated and protected Belkar, etc. Despite of all this, he did't face any serious consequences, and his actions were justified by a being of lawful goodness.

Somewhat true, although the deva didn't so much justify Roy's actions as say that, because he was genuinely trying to be a Lawful Good person, she was willing to accept that as a mortal he's flawed and can also make mistakes without it forcing an immediate alignment check.

[Dion]

The army part is more important then the population part. 30,000 troops with swords, shields, armor and professional training (as explained by redcloak) living in one nation under one leader with the resources to immediately declare an attack when a new leader orders it? That says lot about their power and resources.

Since you brought this up first in your post, I’m going to assume it’s your most important point.

And since you’ve stated that you want to make technical adjustments, I assume this is a technical problem.

So, technically, what is the correct number of troops the goblins should have, knowing the amount of land area, technology level, social organization and reproduction rate as shown in the comic?

And, do you believe the author should edit these 15 year old strips to reflect the technically correct number?

[dps]

I can only speak for myself, but my issue is the dissonance creates a lot of issues and contradictions.

One of the things Rich is best at is incorporating those early things into actual parts of the story later. Imagine actually making Nale an interesting character after the first two encounters with him! Rich is always improving and tends to try and make his story as consistent as possible with the early material that obviously contradicts his current values and goals. These recent pages regarding the Goblins have been the exception, where the contradictions are becoming too severe and need to be repaired quickly.

The problem I have with what you are trying to say is that what you see as dissonance and contradictions I see as character growth and the incorporation of new information on into the story. While I also can only speak for myself, some of the other posters in this thread do seem to agree with me.

[Jason]

Isn't the fact that Roy hadn't yet gained his current characterization of talking to everything during battle when he last fought goblins part of the joke? I see it as the author winking at us and saying "yeah I know the last time Roy had a chance to talk to goblins he was basically an undeveloped character and the goblins wouldn't have had anything worthwhile to say anyway because I hadn't made up all of the goblin backstory yet - isn't it funny how character development works?"

[Ionathus]

Isn't the fact that Roy hadn't yet gained his current characterization of talking to everything during battle when he last fought goblins part of the joke? I see it as the author winking at us and saying "yeah I know the last time Roy had a chance to talk to goblins he was basically an undeveloped character and the goblins wouldn't have had anything worthwhile to say anyway because I hadn't made up all of the goblin backstory yet - isn't it funny how character development works?"

Seems like something he'd do! We've definitely seen him poke at his old material in plenty of other places, both art-wise and characterization-wise. I wouldn't be surprised if this was partially a lighthearted jab at how he portrayed the goblins as 'Evil Minions, Don't Think Any Harder About It' to start with, though I hadn't seen it that way to start with.

If you take that interpretation, it feels even less like a direct accusation of Roy, since the author is observing the mentality in himself as well.

[Shadowknight12]

Why do you stress having empathy for the goblins yet seem au fait with outright murdering the gods?

Because people keep pushing this black and white narrative where the gods have no other choice but to exploit intelligent races for sustenance? If it comes down to that and we have to choose between the lives of [those responsible for the conscious exploitation of innocents] and [the aforementioned innocents], I will pick the latter. That doesn't mean I don't feel bad for the gods, I do, but if it really comes down to "only one may live" then I pick the ones that did not create a corrupt, exploitative system for their own benefit.

[Jason]

Because people keep pushing this black and white narrative where the gods have no other choice but to exploit intelligent races for sustenance? If it comes down to that and we have to choose between the lives of [those responsible for the conscious exploitation of innocents] and [the aforementioned innocents], I will pick the latter. That doesn't mean I don't feel bad for the gods, I do, but if it really comes down to "only one may live" then I pick the ones that did not create a corrupt, exploitative system for their own benefit.

The system was created by committee, and as has been pointed out multiple times, the good gods are outnumbered by the evil and neutral gods together.

Want a better system? Work to give more power to the gods who care about their creations and things like justice, or to diminish the power of the evil and neutral gods who don't care. That would seem to be easier than trying to eliminate all of the gods together.

[KorvinStarmast]

Despite of all this, he did't face any serious consequences

Besides being killed in the battle for Azure City. Yeah, no consequences.
*eye roll*
Pay close attention to what I am about to type: the only two members of the party who have died are the two Lawful Good charcters: Roy and Durkon.

Are you sure that we are reading the same comic?

[Precure]

Somewhat true, although the deva didn't so much justify Roy's actions as say that, because he was genuinely trying to be a Lawful Good person, she was willing to accept that as a mortal he's flawed and can also make mistakes without it forcing an immediate alignment check.

Problem with this is that Deva's discussion with Roy is intentionally written that way to justify Roy's actions. For example, Roy's responsibility for Belkar is simply treated as a matter of Roy being his commander, even though there is more than that: not only he actively protected Belkar, he also makes deals with both Shojo and Hinjo to secure his freedom. Both Deva and Roy treated him killing Belkar in his sleep as something unacceptable, yet Roy was willing to do the same thing to goblins and ogres before.

Besides being killed in the battle for Azure City. Yeah, no consequences.
*eye roll*
Pay close attention to what I am about to type: the only two members of the party who have died are the two Lawful Good charcters: Roy and Durkon.

Are you sure that we are reading the same comic?

How is his death relevant in this topic?

[Ionathus]

Besides being killed in the battle for Azure City. Yeah, no consequences.
*eye roll*
Pay close attention to what I am about to type: the only two members of the party who have died are the two Lawful Good charcters: Roy and Durkon.

Are you sure that we are reading the same comic?

"Died in the Azure City battle" is not a consequence of any part of Roy's character except the fact that he was driven to fulfill the Blood Oath and wasn't going to let the incredibly bleak odds stop him. I don't really see any way you can relate that back to other behaviors of his.

Pay close attention to what I am about to type: the only two members of the party who have died are the two Lawful Good charcters: Roy and Durkon.

Well, yeah, because killing the leader or the emotionally mature character is a great way to catalyze character growth within characters like Haley, who now have to step up their game and become leaders, or Belkar, who has to grapple with a teammate sacrificing their life for a horrible little miscreant like himself.

Are you sure that we are reading the same comic?

Honest, non-rhetorical question: are you proposing a different reason for the two Lawful Good characters to be the ones who died? Possibly as some sort of retribution, or as proof that LG is futile/a death sentence? I'm trying to see the argument you're making but I think I'm missing a piece of it, maybe that you stated elsewhere.

[Telenil]

Because people keep pushing this black and white narrative where the gods have no other choice but to exploit intelligent races for sustenance? If it comes down to that and we have to choose between the lives of [those responsible for the conscious exploitation of innocents] and [the aforementioned innocents], I will pick the latter. That doesn't mean I don't feel bad for the gods, I do, but if it really comes down to "only one may live" then I pick the ones that did not create a corrupt, exploitative system for their own benefit.

Same, though we know new gods might appear even if you destroyed them all.

Gods vs mortals could make a great story under these rules. The mortals can defeat gods by collectively stop praying them, but that would wreck the balance of power in the Pantheon. Priests could be used to eliminate particular mortals, but not in a way that would alienate the worshippers. Lots of intrigue would ensue.

[TRH]

Same, though we know new gods might appear even if you destroyed them all.

Gods vs mortals could make a great story under these rules. The mortals can defeat gods by collectively stop praying them, but that would wreck the balance of power in the Pantheon. Priests could be used to eliminate particular mortals, but not in a way that would alienate the worshippers. Lots of intrigue would ensue.

It's also highly questionable whether the Snarl could still be contained without the help of the gods. At a minimum, you'd need a new Order of the Scribble to run around patching new rifts, and pray they never overlook any for too long. And pray even harder for an epic-level Druid or non-theistic Cleric to help with this.

[Telenil]

It's also highly questionable whether the Snarl could still be contained without the help of the gods. At a minimum, you'd need a new Order of the Scribble to run around patching new rifts, and pray they never overlook any for too long. And pray even harder for an epic-level Druid or non-theistic Cleric to help with this.

True. The gods *think* the Snarl can be sealed forever with a four-color lock, but we don't actually know that.

[Taevyr]

Which is how Goblin Dan made his first million, right?

Took longer than I expected for someone to react with that strip

Also, clear proof of universal goblin cruelty: they don't just enslave the Hydra to use its body for eternal sustenance, their lack of hygienic methods for butchering/transport of the meat and the fact that they exclusively sell it after it was barbecued inside a grubby hut clearly shows they have no care at all for their customers' wellbeing. And they spread that harmful indifference worldwide in their fame!

[Jason]

Since that appears to be goblin Dan as an older fellow in the foreground telling this story in the future, doesn't that mean the world will indeed be saved from the Snarl, and at least one goblin will have a prosperous and happy ending?