OOTS #1262 - The Discussion Thread

[hroþila]

I believe you are failing to understand the R vs K situation.

I understand it just fine, I don't think it's relevant here.

For starters, the god who cared about R vs K was Fenris, not the Dark One. There's little indication that goblinoids have ever actually followed that strategy, leaving aside the inescapable biological fact that they live less than humans and mature faster. The goblinoid families we've seen were in every way comparable to human families. Redcloak had three siblings. The hobgoblin mother from #703 had two sons, Hobgoblin Cleric #2 and Hobgoblin Warrior from Strip #433, Panel 3. There's been no indication that their reproductory habits are different. They're functionally identical to any humanoids.

Secondly, it doesn't follow that K species don't benefit from population growth, or more importantly, that their gods don't benefit from population growth. Excess population can spread, expand, conquer, resettle and colonize. Both strategies want and benefit from as many individuals as possible, within limits dictated by sustainability. There's no reason to believe the humanoid species are any closer to reaching their carrying capacity than the goblinoids.

So no, I don't see why the Dark One would be more or less willing than any other god to provide contraceptive magic. Honestly, to me this comes across simply as dehumanizing and otherizing.

[Ruck]

Well, took a couple days away from the thread and other people have made the points for my position better than I have, so I'll just touch on a couple of little things quickly.

The human monarchs have no obligation to make up for what the gods didn't give to the goblins

Altruism, by definition, is not obligatory. The reason Durkon is so impressive is that he's committed to this tall order anyway.

Right, so in terms of the moral position, you are describing the Neutral position. Which I suppose is preferable to the Evil position, but still isn't the Good position. And is also not the actual position the humans took at the time, anyway.

Or, to quote Genesis? This is the world we live in, and these are the hands we're given. Use them and let's start trying to make it a place worth living in.

And now we get to see if, in fact, my* generation will get it right.

(* - so to speak. I didn't want to alter the line.)

But what if another, better, option comes along? Let's say that he never closes the straight, but has a flush instead. Or three of a kind. Is he so fixated on the straight that he folds, never acknowledging that he could have won the hand?

How many cards are we dealt in this version of poker? I guess it could be pot-limit Omaha.

[Peelee]

And now we get to see if, in fact, my* generation will get it right.

(* - so to speak. I didn't want to alter the line.)

Talkin' 'bout my generation.

[Ruck]

Talkin' 'bout my generation.

Who?

(I had to do it)

Aside, I feel like the best thing you can say about Disturbed is that they had the good taste to cover "Land of Confusion." Either that or they managed to write a song that became one of Richard Cheese's best ("Down With the Sickness").

[Dame_Mechanus]

Aside, I feel like the best thing you can say about Disturbed is that they had the good taste to cover "Land of Confusion." Either that or they managed to write a song that became one of Richard Cheese's best ("Down With the Sickness").

Disturbed generally does amazing covers and fits well within their particular genre. Whether or not you like that genre comes down to personal taste. (It's not my favorite.)

And hey, their cover of "Land of Confusion" is up there with Placebo's "Running Up That Hill" or Johnny Cash's "Hurt" as one of those covers that can sit alongside the original without feeling derivative or lesser. (Which would be my most controversial cover opinion if not for my insistence that t.A.T.u.'s cover of "How Soon Is Now?" is better than the original by the Smiths.)

Durkon's solution was "cash out your winnings while you're ahead, and get an invitation to come back for the game next week"

The thing is that Durkon's offer sounding good entirely relies on you trusting Durkon and knowing Durkon is good and honest.

From Redcloak's perspective, a dwarf who already wants him to stop is telling him to stop what he's doing altogether and then afterwards everyone will stop trying to take back Redcloak's winning streak. Even if you assume Durkon is being totally honest about that, the fact is that "quit while you're ahead" is only good advice if you actually believe this is as far ahead as you're going to get. Redcloak believes that Durkon is a sign he's holding a strong hand and the gods are trying to get him to fold before he's ready to call... which, from his perspective, means that he'd be cashing out when he hasn't really played his strength yet.

The fact that we as readers know he's wrong doesn't factor into what he knows as a character.

[Jasdoif]

The human monarchs have no obligation to make up for what the gods didn't give to the goblins

Altruism, by definition, is not obligatory.

Right, so in terms of the moral position, you are describing the Neutral position. Which I suppose is preferable to the Evil position, but still isn't the Good position. And is also not the actual position the humans took at the time, anyway.

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

You know what? I'm going to say that the human monarchs giving the Dark One the lands of people under their rule, divesting their people of their lands/homes/livelihoods/lives, would be the Evil position. Whether or not they would have done so to be/feel/appear magnanimous, would not restore the lives they've upended or destroyed in order to feel good about themselves.

(putting this part outside the spoiler because the specifics of the Dark One scenario would be a distraction)

Altruism is not obligatory, because the whole point is that the other people have done nothing to deserve your help but you help them anyway. Conversely, you do have an obligation to your subordinates and other people who are explicitly empowering you, because they deserve to benefit from what they've entrusted to you instead of themselves; and the people in your direct care, because they will suffer if you shirk your duty to them. (I am specifically talking about ongoing open-ended relationships, because transactional relationships/phases are a very different topic; one I don't think I could do justice in this forum).

Giving away your own stuff, to help out people you barely know; great! Deliberately harming people you're obligated towards, to help out other people; not so great...

...well, I guess you and the recipient might find it great. Hopefully the recipient was chosen because of how much they're in need, and not because of how much they have to offer in return (ranging from appearances to status to wealth). You think Evil triumphing because Good does nothing is bad? Try Evil triumphing because Good can't do anything, because they've been convinced that giving all their agency away, where it'll be able to accomplish more collectively, is an acceptable idea; unaware that they've given it to Evil who'll use it for Evil means.

The corruption of compassion, turning altruism into a tool for greed via willfully blind devotion to the very ideal that it opposes; that's the real tragedy.

[Ruck]

Disturbed generally does amazing covers and fits well within their particular genre. Whether or not you like that genre comes down to personal taste. (It's not my favorite.)

And hey, their cover of "Land of Confusion" is up there with Placebo's "Running Up That Hill" or Johnny Cash's "Hurt" as one of those covers that can sit alongside the original without feeling derivative or lesser. (Which would be my most controversial cover opinion if not for my insistence that t.A.T.u.'s cover of "How Soon Is Now?" is better than the original by the Smiths.)

Not my genre either.

My controversial cover opinion-- perhaps more controversial with pop-culture events of the last month bringing her back into prominence-- is that I prefer The Futureheads' "Hounds of Love" to Kate Bush's. (Speaking of "Running Up That Hill," the Chromatics do a decent version, although I don't think it really stands apart from the original in any meaningful way.)

(Not quite as strong but possibly similarly controversial-- Mike Ness' "Don't Think Twice" stands alongside and possibly above Dylan's. With the energy he brings to the song, as a friend of mine said, when you listen to Ness you believe him when he says it's all right.)

One more thought about covers before I fully derail this conversation: There's a 1994 compilation called If I Were a Carpenter (warning: link goes to shameless self-promotion) where a bunch of different artists cover Carpenters songs. It's an interesting cross-section of artists who were in some way or another in or near the alt-rock or Gen-X "college rock" scene-- from indie kings like Sonic Youth to future stars like Sheryl Crow to lesser-known acts like American Music Club and Redd Kross. Anyway, there's a few versions I like on there quite a bit-- Crow's "Solitaire" and Dishwalla's "It's Going to Take Some Time" in particular.

[Peelee]

Disturbed generally does amazing covers and fits well within their particular genre. Whether or not you like that genre comes down to personal taste. (It's not my favorite.)

And hey, their cover of "Land of Confusion" is up there with Placebo's "Running Up That Hill" or Johnny Cash's "Hurt" as one of those covers that can sit alongside the original without feeling derivative or lesser. (Which would be my most controversial cover opinion if not for my insistence that t.A.T.u.'s cover of "How Soon Is Now?" is better than the original by the Smiths.)

Their cover of The Sound of Silence was a helluva thing. That's the kind of song you don't cover unless you damn well know you can knock it out of the park, and they managed to do just that.

Also, apropos of absolutely nothing, but despite that I dislike screamo/screamy metal, Sign's take on Iron Maiden's Run to the Hills was delightful. Really took that song in a different direction and it still worked.

[Ruck]

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

You know what? I'm going to say that the human monarchs giving the Dark One the lands of people under their rule, divesting their people of their lands/homes/livelihoods/lives, would be the Evil position. Whether or not they would have done so to be/feel/appear magnanimous, would not restore the lives they've upended or destroyed in order to feel good about themselves.

You've set up a false dichotomy here: The choice for the humans is not "give us everything" or "give us nothing."

Altruism is not obligatory, because the whole point is that the other people have done nothing to deserve your help but you help them anyway. Conversely, you do have an obligation to your subordinates and other people who are explicitly empowering you, because they deserve to benefit from what they've entrusted to you instead of themselves; and the people in your direct care, because they will suffer if you shirk your duty to them. (I am specifically talking about ongoing open-ended relationships, because transactional relationships/phases are a very different topic; one I don't think I could do justice in this forum).

I feel like "obligation" is a measure of one's outlook. To use D&D terms again, a Lawful Evil character might consider their obligations quite different from a Chaotic Good character. I do agree that leaders ought to have an obligation to serve and represent their followers. Where I don't agree is the idea that reaching some compromise with the goblins necessarily entails impoverishing those followers.

The corruption of compassion, turning altruism into a tool for greed via willfully blind devotion to the very ideal that it opposes; that's the real tragedy.

I think given the known inequities of OOTS-world, we were and are far away from that being a legitimate concern yet. (I won't dispute that Redcloak could go down that road, but again, we're not there yet because he hasn't been given anything.)

---

EDIT added so as not to double post:

Their cover of The Sound of Silence was a helluva thing. That's the kind of song you don't cover unless you damn well know you can knock it out of the park, and they managed to do just that.

Also, apropos of absolutely nothing, but despite that I dislike screamo/screamy metal, Sign's take on Iron Maiden's Run to the Hills was delightful. Really took that song in a different direction and it still worked.

Yeah, "The Sound of Silence" is pretty good too. Like I mentioned, not really a fan of Disturbed or their style, but they bring their own thing to that song in a way that works.

One trend I really hate, though, which that cover may have helped inspire, is the whole droning-maudlin vocal-heavy covers of songs that are good and would probably be good in a lot of cover styles except that one. (Often frequently found in film and video game trailers and commercials.)

[Dame_Mechanus]

Their cover of The Sound of Silence was a helluva thing. That's the kind of song you don't cover unless you damn well know you can knock it out of the park, and they managed to do just that.

I thought that was just polite not to mention. I don't know why I thought that. (Not because I think it's bad or something; it's an excellent cover. Not up to the "this stands wholly alongside the original" levels there, but very few Simon & Garfunkel covers get there. I really enjoy Mumford & Sons' take on "The Boxer," but it's not half a patch on the original song.)

I feel like "obligation" is a measure of one's outlook. To use D&D terms again, a Lawful Evil character might consider their obligations quite different from a Chaotic Good character. I do agree that leaders ought to have an obligation to serve and represent their followers. Where I don't agree is the idea that reaching some compromise with the goblins necessarily

One could just as easily make the argument that by ensuring another sentient species becomes an ally instead of an enemy to be wiped of the face of the planet, resulting in armed conflict and bitterness that leads to an army of hobgoblins deciding to just invade and ultimately take over, is the sort of thing that qualifies as "serving and representing their followers."

That's the thing, though. Ultimately, the point of the story has been very clear: the goblins are hard done by, and it is not because there is not enough to go around and thus giving them anything would be taking it from others, but because factors have converged to ensure that this remains the case. This is not subtext, it's text. All the handwringing over "but you'd be taking things from people who already had them" seems to ultimately be coming back to the fact that the goblins took Azure City from people who had been living there, which absolutely happened... but when you consider the history, it's not as cut-and-dry as just taking it because it happened to be there.

[dancrilis]

You've set up a false dichotomy here: The choice for the humans is not "give us everything" or "give us nothing."

Spoiler

Show

I think it is worth noting that from Redcloak's recounting that before his meeting with the human rulers the Dark One had a nation which he ruled and was capable of sustaining (or at least generating) a massive army.
Redcloak also stated that the human 'watched in fear' as the goblins began cooperating.

As such the humans did not try to conquer his nation nor distrupt its founding and only opposed him when he showed up at their door with his army and said 'give me stuff and we can part as friends, hint hint' (I am paraphrasing), I do wonder if this was his first meeting with the human rulers or if his initial nation was founded after just such a discussion.

Redcloak also mentions that the Dark One's skill in battle was unmatched but he never stated who tried to match it.

I would have to wonder what a version of events from a neutral observers would be - perhaps the closest we have to that is Thor who claims that the Dark One killed many of his followers.

[Jasdoif]

You've set up a false dichotomy here: The choice for the humans is not "give us everything" or "give us nothing."
....
Where I don't agree is the idea that reaching some compromise with the goblins necessarily entails impoverishing those followers.

Spoiler: Start of Darkness, since we're apparently back here

Show

What, exactly, did you expect the Dark One to do with that army if his demands weren't met? I can easily buy that the monarchs were too trigger-happy, but at the same time I can't really fault them for not doing the equivalent of waiting for a bomb to go off while they tried to make a counter-offer.

I feel like "obligation" is a measure of one's outlook.

I don't. Admittedly it could just be personal connotation, but I feel that "obligation", a stronger form of "commitment", loses all meaning if you can decide you're not accountable to one (instead of "just" failing to meet one).

[Ruck]

One could just as easily make the argument that by ensuring another sentient species becomes an ally instead of an enemy to be wiped of the face of the planet, resulting in armed conflict and bitterness that leads to an army of hobgoblins deciding to just invade and ultimately take over, is the sort of thing that qualifies as "serving and representing their followers."

Yes-- peace generally benefits the ordinary people much more than war. (George R.R. Martin spent an entire book on minor side characters making this point.) The humans might well have more the outlook of the gods as Belkar and Haley described them-- less concerned about what's best for their own followers and more concerned about not giving up a share of their power.

That's the thing, though. Ultimately, the point of the story has been very clear: the goblins are hard done by, and it is not because there is not enough to go around and thus giving them anything would be taking it from others, but because factors have converged to ensure that this remains the case. This is not subtext, it's text.

Yeah, we've talked about it already but I think this is important to reemphasize. This isn't a situation where the goblins could be trying to pull one over; this is objective fact about OOTS-world, as confirmed by Thor.

(And while I'm sure the origin story of The Dark One as told by Redcloak is favorable to TDO's perspective, he did become a god, so I think the basic outline is true-- TDO met to negotiate with human leaders, they killed him, the goblins rose up and killed enough humans in response to raise him to godhood. And if the humans did kill TDO in this manner, it stands to reason he was there for a negotiation, since by all evidence from his army and his war prowess he would've been more prepared for a violent confrontation with the human leaders if he had planned to use violence or thought it might go that way.)

Edit for more responses:

Spoiler: Start of Darkness, since we're apparently back here

Show

What, exactly, did you expect the Dark One to do with that army if his demands weren't met? I can easily buy that the monarchs were too trigger-happy, but at the same time I can't really fault them for not doing the equivalent of waiting for a bomb to go off while they tried to make a counter-offer.

From what we know they didn't even attempt negotiations, so it's kind of a moot point, isn't it? Maybe if negotiations had broken down and TDO threatened to invade, a strike there would've been a necessary means to fend off war. But they didn't even try to negotiate.

I don't. Admittedly it could just be personal connotation, but I feel that "obligation", a stronger form of "commitment", loses all meaning if you can decide you're not accountable to one (instead of "just" failing to meet one).

I don't mean in what an obligation is, so much as what their specific obligations are, even in positions of power. A Chaotic Good leader might decide that the welfare of his people is most important, traditions and laws be damned. A Lawful Good leader might decide that the welfare of his people is important, but so is maintaining the rules and traditions, and a standard of personal conduct, that give his position and the state legitimacy. A Lawful Evil leader might believe his obligation is to use and manipulate the system to enrich himself and gain personal power. (Reference for examples Shojo, Hinjo, and Tarquin, respectively.)

Spoiler

Show

I think it is worth noting that from Redcloak's recounting that before his meeting with the human rulers the Dark One had a nation which he ruled and was capable of sustaining (or at least generating) a massive army.
Redcloak also stated that the human 'watched in fear' as the goblins began cooperating.

Aye, those in power often fear when the underclass unites to rise up. That doesn't make the underclass wrong.

Spoiler

Show

As such the humans did not try to conquer his nation nor distrupt its founding and only opposed him when he showed up at their door with his army and said 'give me stuff and we can part as friends, hint hint' (I am paraphrasing), I do wonder if this was his first meeting with the human rulers or if his initial nation was founded after just such a discussion.

Redcloak also mentions that the Dark One's skill in battle was unmatched but he never stated who tried to match it.

Yeah, you are paraphrasing, because your paraphrase makes TDO's negotiation attempt sound like extortion, which betters your case.

Second paragraph-- I don't know either, but given that the humanoids seem to have been encouraged to treat goblins as XP fodder, it could've easily been simply against the frequent human raids of goblin settlements, that TDO proved his combat prowess before more goblins started following him and he became the leader who united the goblinoid races.

I would have to wonder what a version of events from a neutral observers would be - perhaps the closest we have to that is Thor who claims that the Dark One killed many of his followers.

I do too, but I don't know if we'll get one-- or perhaps not until very late in the story. That said, for what Thor has told us about the gods' interactions with TDO since he ascended, he hasn't disputed any parts of Redcloak's story about TDO, and he has fully acknowledged the goblins got a raw deal.

[Peelee]

I thought that was just polite not to mention. I don't know why I thought that. (Not because I think it's bad or something; it's an excellent cover. Not up to the "this stands wholly alongside the original" levels there, but very few Simon & Garfunkel covers get there. I really enjoy Mumford & Sons' take on "The Boxer," but it's not half a patch on the original song.)

Imean, that's (arguably, obviously) one of the greatest songs ever written. It's going to be nearly impossible to actually match it, and turning in anything other than excellence as a cover will just make you wish you'd listened to the original. They avoided that, so I give them their fair dues. Especially since, like Ruck apparently, I'm not a Disturbed fan in general.

Althohgh speaking of metal bands covering 60s rock, Judas Priest managed to do two different covers of Joan Baez's Diamonds and Rust, which is amazing because of how personal a song that is for her. But they do a great job (especially in the later, more acoustic version) of just taking the lyrics that are relatable enough that you can imagine Rob Halford could feel exactly that pain and memory, even if the specifics weren't his, and that really came through.

[Ruck]

Especially since, like Ruck apparently, I'm not a Disturbed fan in general.

I was not at all a fan of the nu-metal and rap-rock that started taking over in the late 90s-- especially since with the rise of teen pop around the same time, it was taking up all the rock space on air. My beloved alt-rock was completely crowded out. Fortunately, I went to college not long after this started, and between people I knew there, the campus radio station, and an ethernet connection, I was able to expand my musical palate into much more classic, independent, and off-beat stuff (some of which was all three).

[GregTD]

The thing is that Durkon's offer sounding good entirely relies on you trusting Durkon and knowing Durkon is good and honest.

From Redcloak's perspective, a dwarf who already wants him to stop is telling him to stop what he's doing altogether and then afterwards everyone will stop trying to take back Redcloak's winning streak. Even if you assume Durkon is being totally honest about that, the fact is that "quit while you're ahead" is only good advice if you actually believe this is as far ahead as you're going to get. Redcloak believes that Durkon is a sign he's holding a strong hand and the gods are trying to get him to fold before he's ready to call... which, from his perspective, means that he'd be cashing out when he hasn't really played his strength yet.

The fact that we as readers know he's wrong doesn't factor into what he knows as a character.

1: The Goblinoids are not going to release the human slaves until they have a treaty. They have something to bargain with, that is far more valuable to their opponents than it is to them

2: Comic 1211: RC: And second, even if the gods do destroy the world then the Dark One will be in the perfect position to dictate terms for the goblins of the next world
Comic 1212: Minrah: How can you call it winning if all the goblins are dead?
RC: I understand that not everyone sees the big picture...
M: You-you're putting a bunch of imaginary goblins in the future ahead of the ones alive right now
That and everything else she says in those panels after that is entirely and completely on target

The conversation w/ Serini in 1256 is what happens when you confront a rational person with the reality of the situation: given a choice between letting you extort the Gods, and the Gods simply destroying the whole world and starting again, the Gods are going to go with Plan B.

Redcloak's refusal to consider that is stupid, no matter what position you're looking at it from

[Jasdoif]

From what we know they didn't even attempt negotiations, so it's kind of a moot point, isn't it? Maybe if negotiations had broken down and TDO threatened to invade, a strike there would've been a necessary means to fend off war. But they didn't even try to negotiate.

As I said earlier (I think), I don't believe we'd be having a conversation about this if the timing was different.

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

He was killed a sentence fragment after a veiled threat...rather than waiting for a more overt threat, or waiting for a counteroffer, or waiting for him to get back to his army, or waiting for him to disband his army (and lose an opportunity to recreate The Rock)....

It is, however, critically important to realize that neither side was specifically wrong in that instance. Each made the best use of their resources to deal with the potentially-existential problem they saw; unfortunately, the key part of one's solution was what the other saw as the problem.

It's critically important because ultimately, it does not matter. Humans and goblins have spent so much time in this world looking at the bidirectional finger of blame of their own conflicts, ignoring or eliding the pointy thing in their own face, and continuing the status quo. To actually get to solving their issue they both need to quit looking for blame to lay, stop looking for reparations to claim, accept that there's more been than enough *******ry between the two of them already, resolve to move on together, and then move on. Far easier said than done, to be sure; which is why trying to frame specific instances as one-sided is so exacerbatory it's dangerous.

If the allure of feeling justified is too strong for them to suppress for long, "move on together" could involve turning their scopes godsward. Even if they're not in position to realistically claim anything, at least they'll be looking at the actual source of the underlying problem, and looking at it together.

I don't mean in what an obligation is, so much as what their specific obligations are, even in positions of power. A Chaotic Good leader might decide that the welfare of his people is most important, traditions and laws be damned. A Lawful Good leader might decide that the welfare of his people is important, but so is maintaining the rules and traditions, and a standard of personal conduct, that give his position and the state legitimacy. A Lawful Evil leader might believe his obligation is to use and manipulate the system to enrich himself and gain personal power. (Reference for examples Shojo, Hinjo, and Tarquin, respectively.)

I suppose; but I feel like attaching a qualifier like "moral" or "ethical" to the word "obligation" waters it down, especially when the topic naturally drifts to a setting that literally uses the words "moral" and "ethical" to describe spectrums. Redcloak and Tarquin are perfectly happy to dismiss good and evil as simply intensional*; I am perfectly happy to say those two are failures when they fail to uphold the obligations they don't think they (should) have.


* Not a word I get to use every day! Hope I'm using it right....

[CountDVB]

Alot of people seem to be having Redcloak's number. Honestly, I think for Redcloak, he doens't see either option as being mutually exclusive, especially given how he figures that if there was a problem, he would figure The Dark One would tell him, or at least hope. This may explain why Redcloak is so determined. He's an angsty teenager who has nothing left except the mission left by the only figure prominent in his prior life, The Dark One.

It wouldn't be a matter of just admitting he was wrong, but also pretty breaking his faith in The Dark One. And I imagine for Clerics, that's gotta be a pretty big deal. It would mean that Righteye was correct that The Dark One is just a "petty spiteful god".

[Larsaan]

Ultimately, the point of the story has been very clear: the goblins are hard done by, and it is not because there is not enough to go around and thus giving them anything would be taking it from others, but because factors have converged to ensure that this remains the case. This is not subtext, it's text.

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

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

[hungrycrow]

I'm not sure the whole "can't give to the goblins without taking away from someone else" thing is true. V just casually gives the Azurites elven land without apparent issue.

[brian 333]

We're being quite goblin-centric in our thoughts, and that's okay. I've mentioned before that the author is writing allegory, and we are supposed to infer from it how humans in the real world are supposed to treat other real world humans.

But let's be human-centric for a moment. King-centric, if you will. You are a monarch invited to treat with The Dark One:

Goblins have, from the dawn of time, raided and murdered humans. Why this happens is not material, nor is the chickenegg issue of who started it. It is just the way it is.

Along comes a goblin charismatic enough to amass a huge army. He demands land and recognition in return for which, if you give it to him, he promises not to use the huge army against you.

But that army is still there. Who is to say that this goblin leader is honest in his dealings, and even if he is, will his successor abide by that agreement? Isn't it more likely that, given time and resources, the goblin army will grow and become an even larger threat? Is a concession in this generation simply a prelude to war in the next? A war against a larger, stronger goblin horde? Even worse, what if another human kingdom uses any of several dozen strategies to point that goblin army at you?

Altruism is great, but giving your children to the enemy to murder, enslave, or whatever else is not. And that is the choice those greedy, selfish human kings faced. Essentially, their choice was between fighting a war now, or giving their enemy more power and weakening themselves prior to a war later.

The chance that the goblin army would simply go away was nil. When was the last time a bully was satisfied with only one day's lunch money?

Here is an option not taken:
The goblins make use of their resources, however meagre, to better the lives of their children rather than to make soldiers of their children. The choice is between making a pie or demanding a share of someone elses' pie with the threat of violence. And once they can make a pie, even a crappy wild berry tart, they can feed their children and teach them to make pies, some of which they can sell to their neighbors. They might eventually save enough pie money to buy a milk cow so they can have whipped cream too.

Defending one's family and tribe is one thing, and The Dark One certainly had the means to do that. Instead, he used that strength for extortion. By his own act he showed he was not a trustworthy neighbor asking for help, but a neighborhood bully demanding to be paid with the threat of beating up the neighbors if they did not comply.

[GeoffWatson]

Aye, those in power often fear when the underclass unites to rise up. That doesn't make the underclass wrong.

Goblins are only an underclass to Hobgoblins and Bugbears.

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

[InvisibleBison]

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

I'm not sure about that. We've seen very little of peaceful goblinoid settlements, but there is one piece of evidence that does suggest they are less prosperous than humanoid settlements: The nature of their construction. The big hobgoblin city is made entirely of wood, unlike the stone and brick used in the various human cities the comic has visited. It's hardly knock-out evidence, but it does imply that the hobgoblins can afford to spend less resources on construction than the humans can.

[CountDVB]

We're being quite goblin-centric in our thoughts, and that's okay. I've mentioned before that the author is writing allegory, and we are supposed to infer from it how humans in the real world are supposed to treat other real world humans.

But let's be human-centric for a moment. King-centric, if you will. You are a monarch invited to treat with The Dark One:

Goblins have, from the dawn of time, raided and murdered humans. Why this happens is not material, nor is the chickenegg issue of who started it. It is just the way it is.

Along comes a goblin charismatic enough to amass a huge army. He demands land and recognition in return for which, if you give it to him, he promises not to use the huge army against you.

But that army is still there. Who is to say that this goblin leader is honest in his dealings, and even if he is, will his successor abide by that agreement? Isn't it more likely that, given time and resources, the goblin army will grow and become an even larger threat? Is a concession in this generation simply a prelude to war in the next? A war against a larger, stronger goblin horde? Even worse, what if another human kingdom uses any of several dozen strategies to point that goblin army at you?

Altruism is great, but giving your children to the enemy to murder, enslave, or whatever else is not. And that is the choice those greedy, selfish human kings faced. Essentially, their choice was between fighting a war now, or giving their enemy more power and weakening themselves prior to a war later.

The chance that the goblin army would simply go away was nil. When was the last time a bully was satisfied with only one day's lunch money?

Here is an option not taken:
The goblins make use of their resources, however meagre, to better the lives of their children rather than to make soldiers of their children. The choice is between making a pie or demanding a share of someone elses' pie with the threat of violence. And once they can make a pie, even a crappy wild berry tart, they can feed their children and teach them to make pies, some of which they can sell to their neighbors. They might eventually save enough pie money to buy a milk cow so they can have whipped cream too.

Defending one's family and tribe is one thing, and The Dark One certainly had the means to do that. Instead, he used that strength for extortion. By his own act he showed he was not a trustworthy neighbor asking for help, but a neighborhood bully demanding to be paid with the threat of beating up the neighbors if they did not comply.

Yeah, that's the thing. Politics are a major hassle when you have to do the nitty-gritty negotiating to find an optimal answers and alot of times, people disregard or ignore that. Heck, alot of the characters still make broad sweeping statements of the goads as if they are a homogenous group rather than it being an alliance of three factions with each factions having their own groups defined by the Alignment System and cross-pantheon alliances.

I imagine Roy and Haley would definitely understand this talking to Thor, Haley likely remembering how much of a hassle it was for the group and resistance and Roy with the difficulties of running the place with people often unwilling to listen or change. Though would be intriguing while Roy learned from his mistakes, gods can't really grow past their station because they are intrinstic forces of existence or pillars of it. Others can certainly grow and change, but well, deities really can't, at least of their own volition. They are shaped and influenced by the thoughts of mortals after all.

[Mic_128]

It wouldn't be a matter of just admitting he was wrong, but also pretty breaking his faith in The Dark One. And I imagine for Clerics, that's gotta be a pretty big deal. It would mean that Righteye was correct that The Dark One is just a "petty spiteful god".

It's nothing at all about his faith in the Dark One. It's entirely about his faith in himself. "Everything I did I had to do and was correct. No other decision would be successful."

[Vikenlugaid]

No.

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

The monarchs have an obligation to the people they represent; the ones who would be deprived of things if the Dark One got his way...and the ones who are far more likely to be victims if the Dark One's army attacked. Even if the monarchs made their decision on their ego or for their own possessions rather than the welfare of their subjects, would not change how it works out for those people.

Altruism, by definition, is not obligatory. The reason Durkon is so impressive is that he's committed to this tall order anyway.

Altruism is, of course not obligatory... Except for good alligned people. Of couse those monarchs were evil, or neutral at most.

[CountDVB]

It's nothing at all about his faith in the Dark One. It's entirely about his faith in himself. "Everything I did I had to do and was correct. No other decision would be successful."

I mean, it’s not his plan he’s following, but The Plan of The Dark One. He is still a Cleric and has shown troubles/lamentation over the lack of real communication. Hence why The Dark One needs to be considered.

[mjasghar]

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

[KorvinStarmast]

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

In North America, when the wolf population got decimated, the deer population went up.

What I have certainly said is that "zerg rush", though not a tactic I like to use, is an often successful tactic.

Yep.

As the Goblins appear to be a "zerg rush" species, the claim that the were just evilly screwed over by the Gods is not, IMO, correct. "It didnt' work this time" != "it can never work"

I think they got screwed over by their original creator deity, whose sheer indifference to his creation led to a faith/belief gap, which TDO eventually filled.

The Goblins, right now, have a chance to negotiate a better situation than their current situation. But Redcloak is more interested in "winning his way" than in "winning".

That's him; Durkon gave him another path forward and he rejected it.

Comic 1212: Minrah: How can you call it winning if all the goblins are dead?
RC: I understand that not everyone sees the big picture...
M: You-you're putting a bunch of imaginary goblins in the future ahead of the ones alive right now
That and everything else she says in those panels after that is entirely and completely on target

And is rejected by RC.

given a choice between letting you extort the Gods, and the Gods simply destroying the whole world and starting again, the Gods are going to go with Plan B.

A rational choice.

It wouldn't be a matter of just admitting he was wrong, but also pretty breaking his faith in The Dark One. And I imagine for Clerics, that's gotta be a pretty big deal. It would mean that Righteye was correct that The Dark One is just a "petty spiteful god".

That all tracks. (I have read SoD).

I'm not sure the whole "can't give to the goblins without taking away from someone else" thing is true. V just casually gives the Azurites elven land without apparent issue.

While I agree, wasn't it abandoned elven land that nobody had lived in for a long time?

It's nothing at all about his faith in the Dark One. It's entirely about his faith in himself. "Everything I did I had to do and was correct. No other decision would be successful."

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

[Jason]

There's been no indication that their reproductory habits are different. They're functionally identical to any humanoids.

The hobgoblins in How the Paladin Got His Scar confirm that goblinoids have larger families much more quickly than humans.

"We may not live as long as you, but we are extra A+ at making babies fast."
"My mom used to always say that she didn’t spend three months pregnant and twenty minutes in labor so that I could talk back to her."

That comic also says that the settlement shown is the largest hobgoblin settlement above ground. It's size surprises O-Chul, but the Sapphire Guard seems to think they can destroy it entirely, and they seem to be no more than about 30 or so paladins, monks, and clerics; so the settlement is not gigantic.

When Xykon and Redcloak get there in the main comic 12 years later it has expanded to support "87 legions" of hobgoblins of about 300 soldiers each. That is population growth far beyond what humans can accomplish.