Thor's plan may already have fulfilled it's narrative purpose [SPOILERS: SoD]

[dancrilis]

Good lord, people! Redcloak is a villain. Virtually nobody is arguing otherwise.

Some of us are arguing that there are degrees of villainy, including "well-intentioned but flawed", which is where we believe Redcloak belongs. He's not like Xykon (doing evil literally for the fun of it) or even Tarquin (doing evil in self-aware service to his own ego). He's doing evil things for what he truly believes are good reasons.

He still needs to be stopped. But the methods and the words that surround his story will by necessity be completely different.

I was merely stating what I understood to be The Pilgrim's point (which I might have been wrong on).

"Goblins don't count as people until they give up their slaves?" Who was making that argument? I certainly wasn't.

Here:

And that the resolution to that particular incident is to have whatever agreement the PC races sign with the goblinoids stipulate that Gobbotopia must ban slavery.

That can be read a few ways (and I should have perhaps clarified how it was meant).
1. The incident being claiming the terrority of Azure City can be resolved with the Goblins banning slavery.
2. The agreement with the races can be achieved with the Goblins banning slavery.
3+. others.

The question become 'what if the goblins don't want to ban slavery?' if that means no agreement for recognition of Gobbotopia - likely fine (assuming that the Azurites have similiar lack of recognition for other slave holding nations) if on the other hand it is the PC races will not agree to consider goblins equal to them unless they ban slavery that would seem to not be fine as it holds goblins to a higher standard then the PC races.

While that's definitely unfair the realistic take is that for goblinoids to be accepted they have to be a bit more careful than an Evil human empire.

Ok so it was a pragmatic point rather then a moral point - i.e the goblins should do this to help cement relations rather then the goblins should have to do this.

I am not sure I agree - presumedly Tarquin's Empire setup would have a seat at the table from controlling a third of a continent, and might see more reason to accept the new people of Gobbotopia if there are more trade opportunities, but I see where you are coming from.

[The Pilgrim]

Also by your logic the moment someone does one thing wrong or makes a mistake one time they're damned forever and liable to repeat that same mistake over and over.

The moment a character has been consistinly doing wrong for one prequel and six books, and at the beggining of the seventh he is given the choice to make things right and once agains rejects to modify his ways... yes, he is kinda damned to keep sinking himself deeper and deeper until he provokes his own demise.

That's kinda how the trope works. And The Giant has been pretty good this far at playing tropes straight.

I kind of lost my temper when he suggested that Redcloak should go murder his niece to prove that he's nothing more than a villain who does Evil because he's Evil.

If a conversation in a forum board about a fantasy stick figure comic may make you lose your temper, you should work on improving it.

Given that Rich has encountered this mischaracterization before by members of the fanbase, I understand where you're coming from. You seem to think (please tell me if I'm off-base) that we're wrong and Rich is writing a flawed irredeemable villain who is meant to show how "good cause for the wrong reasons" instantly turns you into a family-murdering fanatic. You seem to think that's the point of Redcloak's arc. If so, you're wrong.

My point is basically that villains can't be part of the solution of a problem. I fail to see how that comment by The Giant proves me wrong, as there he is just pointing out the existence of the problem.

[Ionathus]

...The Giant has been pretty good this far at playing tropes straight.

So we HAVE been reading different comics this whole time!

[The Pilgrim]

So we HAVE been reading different comics this whole time!

Here, one of the most glorious examples of The Giant playing a trope straight in a magnificient way:
https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0723.html

[Worldsong]

Ok so it was a pragmatic point rather then a moral point - i.e the goblins should do this to help cement relations rather then the goblins should have to do this.

I am not sure I agree - presumedly Tarquin's Empire setup would have a seat at the table from controlling a third of a continent, and might see more reason to accept the new people of Gobbotopia if there are more trade opportunities, but I see where you are coming from.

Yes, basically. Pragmatism is important in stories. And yes there might be PC communities which wouldn't be opposed to Gobbotopia legalizing slavery, I just figured that given that the heroes of the story are Good something like slavery would quickly get tossed out of the window by them.

The moment a character has been consistinly doing wrong for one prequel and six books, and at the beggining of the seventh he is given the choice to make things right and once agains rejects to modify his ways... yes, he is kinda damned to keep sinking himself deeper and deeper until he provokes his own demise.

That's kinda how the trope works. And The Giant has been pretty good this far at playing tropes straight.

God forbid that someone might actually be allowed to dig themselves out of a particularly deep hole. Only shallow holes are escapable.

There's an entire book left. Lots of things can happen. Also I think we're subscribing different tropes to Redcloak or disagree with the exact nature of the tropes.

If a conversation in a forum board about a fantasy stick figure comic may make you lose your temper, you should work on improving it.

Or maybe a hypothetical situation can still hold some importance, words on the internet can still have weight, and saying something offensive can still legitimately piss people off.

Or to summarize: don't blame me for not being happy with you saying something horrible.

My point is basically that villains can't be part of the solution of a problem. I fail to see how that comment by The Giant proves me wrong, as there he is just pointing out the existence of the problem.

Villains can't be part of the solution? That's so limiting to storytelling that you might as well dismiss the entire notion outright.

[dancrilis]

Villains can't be part of the solution?

Just to check something,
Imagine that Xykon had succeeded in getting Elan to unlock the gate in the Redmountain Gate and then Redcloak and him had undertook the ritual and The Plan worked exactly as Redcloak thinks it does - do you think the world of The OOTS would be a better place?

If if they had gotten any of the other Gates and completed the ritual I suppose.

[understatement]

Just to check something,
Imagine that Xykon had succeeded in getting Elan to unlock the gate in the Redmountain Gate and then Redcloak and him had undertook the ritual and The Plan worked exactly as Redcloak thinks it does - do you think the world of The OOTS would be a better place?

If if they had gotten any of the other Gates and completed the ritual I suppose.

Nowhere did Worldsong (or anyone, really) say villains have to be part of the solutions -- only that they can be. I'm not sure how you managed to draw that conclusion from that particular statement.

And counterpoint: are you saying Darth Vader couldn't willingly contribute to the Emperor's death because he was a villain?

[The Pilgrim]

Or maybe a hypothetical situation can still hold some importance, words on the internet can still have weight, and saying something offensive can still legitimately piss people off.

Or to summarize: don't blame me for not being happy with you saying something horrible.

Ok, I'm going to clarify my argument for the sake of you not feeling like having read something horrible.

I've never stated that one of the main themes of this webcomic is not a critique on how roleplayers think they can farm so called "monster races" as XP without any ethical concerns. That critique was first raised by The Giant in OtOoPCs with Roy's first adventuring party. It's also the kind of mentality that led V to cast Familicide. It was also featured in O-Chul backstory, where he managed to reach a solution without need of anyone trying to tear the very fabric of Reality.

In my OP, I pointed out that the "goblin issue" needs to be adressed.

Redcloak is a whole different question. He presents himself as the Saviour, but he is kinda the opposite. He is just a factor of perpetuation of the cycle of violence, not the one that is to stop it. He is like the Hobgoblin General in O-Chul's backstory.

That is made evident through Start of Darkness, and particulary through Right-Eye's character, who has suffered the same injustice than Redcloak but comes to very differents solutions for it. Redcloak, in the end, is at this point the character responsible for most goblin grief show in the comic, either directly or by his association with Xykon.

"How many goblin lifes have you snuffed out, personally?"
"Na as many as ye"

So, my whole point regarding the issue, is not denying than there is a conflict with the way goblinoids are treated (and not just the goblinoids) that needs to be adressed. It's that Redcloak isn't going to be part of the resolution. Because he is a source of conflict, not a source of solution. The heroes have already attempted parley, and will probably attempt it again towards the ending, and Redcloak will reject again.

After Redcloak has been removed from the table, then... both Roy and O-Chul have demonstrated in the prequels their willigness to resolve conflicts with words rather than killing.

[Worldsong]

Just to check something,
Imagine that Xykon had succeeded in getting Elan to unlock the gate in the Redmountain Gate and then Redcloak and him had undertook the ritual and The Plan worked exactly as Redcloak thinks it does - do you think the world of The OOTS would be a better place?

If if they had gotten any of the other Gates and completed the ritual I suppose.

Well, that highly depends.

If literally the only result of The Plan succeeding at that point was that the Dark One gets the other gods to be nicer to the goblinoids then yes that hypothetical world would be better than maintaining the status quo.

However that would be an unrealistic story since there'd be a lot of loose ends which would quickly cause things to go wrong horribly. One of the biggest threads being Xykon. I firmly believe that the only way for this story to have a happy ending is for Xykon to be permanently disposed of. The guy is simply too dangerous. Also I do think Redcloak needs to learn that his methods were wrong, which he wouldn't learn if The Plan had worked back then. In that scenario he'd probably become the villain that Pilgrim imagines him to be, where with even the slightest excuse he'll do horrible things because he's been validated in the belief that the end justifies the means, no exceptions.

Also as a story it would be very unsatisfying and have a twisted Aesop where letting the villains just do their thing sounds like a good idea.

So keeping in mind all the details my answer would be no.

Ok, I'm going to clarify my argument for the sake of you not feeling like having read something horrible.

I've never stated that one of the main themes of this webcomic is not a critique on how roleplayers think they can farm so called "monster races" as XP without any ethical concerns. That critique was first raised by The Giant in OtOoPCs with Roy's first adventuring party. It's also the kind of mentality that led V to cast Familicide. It was also featured in O-Chul backstory, in which he managed to reach a solution without need of anyone trying to tear the very fabric of Reality.

In my OP, I pointed out that the "goblin issue" needs to be adressed.

Redcloak is a whole different question. He presents himself as the Saviour, but he is kinda the opposite. He is just a factor of perpetuation of the cycle of violence, not the one that is to stop it. That is made evident through Start of Darkness, and particulary through Right-Eye's character, who has suffered the same injustice than Redcloak but comes to very differents solutions for it. Redcloak, in the end, is at this point the character responsible for most goblin grief show in the comic, either directly or by his association with Xykon.

"How many goblin lifes have you snuffed out, personally?"
"Na as many as ye"

So, my whole point regarding the issue, is not denying than there is a conflict with the goblinoids that needs to be adressed. It's that Redcloak isn't going to be part of it. Because he is a source of conflict, not a source of solution. The heroes have already attempted parley, and will probably attempt it again towards the ending, and Redcloak will reject again.

After Redcloak has been removed from the table, then... both Roy and O-Chul have demonstrated in the prequels their willigness to resolve conflicts with words rather than killing.

My anger was specifically towards the suggestion that Redcloak is just going to keep killing relatives as if it's no big deal.

I'm fully aware that Redcloak as he currently is is a problem, and a problem that needs to be addressed. However I think that the approach The Giant is going to take isn't to write Redcloak out of the story but to spend this entire book slowly working up to when the Order proposes a peace treaty or something similar again this time he'll say yes.

Partially because the idea that there's another quiddity is honestly stupid, and the idea that some other goblinoid will show up capable of casting 9th level spells is horribly contrived.

Also the problem with having people like Roy and O-Chul act like the voices of reason who fix everything is that it paints the image that the oppressed goblinoids need sensible PC people to solve their problems for them.

Of course what is theoretically possible is that The Giant is going to spend this entire book building up another goblinoid to replace Redcloak but it still sounds contrived to me. The simple fact is that as it currently stands Redcloak is irreplaceable and I've yet to read a suggestion of how the problem is resolved which doesn't involve the Dark One and Redcloak which doesn't sound forced or like the one thinking it up just really doesn't want Redcloak to 'win'.

[dancrilis]

Nowhere did Worldsong (or anyone, really) say villains have to be part of the solutions -- only that they can be. I'm not sure how you managed to draw that conclusion from that particular statement.

I don't think you understood my question or why I was asking it - I wanted to know Worldsong's thinking.

Well, that highly depends.

If literally the only result of The Plan succeeding at that point was that the Dark One gets the other gods to be nicer to the goblinoids then yes that hypothetical world would be better than maintaining the status quo.

Well the ritual doesn't force anything on The Dark One about how he acts.

So keeping in mind all the details my answer would be no.

So would your answer still be no now - i.e Xykon and Redcloak get to the gate first and complete the ritual then the Order ambush Xykon and with Redcloak's help defeat him, to you think that would be good for the world.

I guess my question is do you trust the Dark One and Redcloak assuming Xykon was not an issue?

[Worldsong]

Well the ritual doesn't force anything on The Dark One about how he acts.

So would your answer still be no now - i.e Xykon and Redcloak get to the gate first and complete the ritual then the Order ambush Xykon and with Redcloak's help defeat him, to you think that would be good for the world.

I guess my question is do you trust the Dark One and Redcloak assuming Xykon was not an issue?

An important factor for me is that the characters aren't static, and I think that includes Redcloak and the Dark One.

Redcloak has been through a lot and I think that in this last book we can reach a point where he can actually help save the world. Back then that just wouldn't have happened.

The Dark One also might not be quite the same as back then. Now that the issue of the purple quiddity is in play he might approach a different perspective on the entire situation.

Also another problem would be that back then I don't think the result of the ritual being completed would be that Redcloak and the Order suddenly work together to defeat Xykon. Most likely it would just devolve into a three-way brawl and Xykon would win.

But no I don't think it'd be good if Redcloak and Xykon completed the ritual before Redcloak's character progression has advanced a bit more.

I think that this last book will partially be about pushing Redcloak to the point where he can be trusted, and for the Dark One to realize he can achieve his objectives without the Snarl and thus doesn't need to be at odds with the other gods anymore because suddenly he's not just an upstart, he's as important as any of them and can deal with them on equal footing.

Basically I think the last six books and this last seventh book are all important for the story to achieve a good ending because the characters at the end of the story are not the same as they were at the beginning of the story.

[hungrycrow]

Nowhere did Worldsong (or anyone, really) say villains have to be part of the solutions -- only that they can be. I'm not sure how you managed to draw that conclusion from that particular statement.

And counterpoint: are you saying Darth Vader couldn't willingly contribute to the Emperor's death because he was a villain?

Vader would only contribute to the Emperor's death if it meant he got to become the Emperor. The moment he considered otherwise he stopped being a villain.

An important point of BRitF was that there was no such thing as polite and reasonable Evil. Villains only offer deals that help them commit more atrocities. The same goes with Redcloak. He's not going to make any deal unless it involves the suffering and domination of his enemies.

[The Pilgrim]

My anger was specifically towards the suggestion that Redcloak is just going to keep killing relatives as if it's no big deal.

Of course it's a big deal. That precisely why I suggested it as a means of proving

I'm fully aware that Redcloak as he currently is is a problem, and a problem that needs to be addressed. However I think that the approach The Giant is going to take isn't to write Redcloak out of the story but to spend this entire book slowly working up to when the Order proposes a peace treaty or something similar again this time he'll say yes.

Partially because the idea that there's another quiddity is honestly stupid, and the idea that some other goblinoid will show up capable of casting 9th level spells is horribly contrived.

Also the problem with having people like Roy and O-Chul act like the voices of reason who fix everything is that it paints the image that the oppressed goblinoids need sensible PC people to solve their problems for them.

Of course what is theoretically possible is that The Giant is going to spend this entire book building up another goblinoid to replace Redcloak but it still sounds contrived to me. The simple fact is that as it currently stands Redcloak is irreplaceable and I've yet to read a suggestion of how the problem is resolved which doesn't involve the Dark One and Redcloak which doesn't sound forced or like the one thinking it up just really doesn't want Redcloak to 'win'.

First of all, "the opressed goblinoids" of course need sensible PC people to solve problems. When there is a conflict between two parties, you need sensible people on both sides to solve it. O-Chul found sensible people on the hobgoblin part, and they worked together. Roy found sensible people on the Orc part, and they worked together. Redcloak, however, doesn't belongs to the "sensible people" lot. He belongs to the same lot than Roy's first adventuring party pals, or Gin-Jun and the Hobgoblin General in O-Chul's backstory, or the racist elf commander.

The Hobgoblins were happy in their hills until Redcloak and Xykon came and recruited them to fight the azurites. They are now happy in Azure City because they have human slaves to work for them. Remove the human slaves, and they have more land than they can farm, as Durkon stated. Hobgoblins don't need Azure City at all, they are perfectly happy in the Hills, perhaps keeping some of the conquered land, as Durkon suggested.

The bugbears, on the other hand, care nothing about The Dark One and his self-victimization doctrine. Oona stated out as much. They work with what they have, like the former hobgoblin leader did, like Right-Eye attempted to do.

A perfectly reasonable resolution may be achieved. But not with Redcloak and his delusions of grandeur around. Because what Redcloak needs is not what the goblinoids need. Redcloak needs to make his sacrificying of goblin people justified. And if he needs to blow up the World for it, so be it.

I don't think Oona's bugbears or the Hobgoblins at Gobbtopia feel like they need to get unmade by the Snarl for the theoretically wellfare of theoretically future goblins in a theoretically perfect future world. I think they feel much better with the idea of remaining in existence in the flawed world they already have.

Yeah, I dont' want Redcloak to win. I don't want that the character who pointless sacrificed hobgoblin warriors to feed the monster guarding Xykon's Tower, the character that casually wasted the lives of the hobgoblin polymorphed spy and the hobgoblin elder artisan (he explicitly said he would have murdered them both if the Resistance and Tsukiko hadn't killed them first), and that

Spoiler: SoD

Show

murdered his brother

comes out of this story with the slightlest validation for his actions.

[Worldsong]

Of course it's a big deal. That precisely why I suggested it as a means of proving

Might want to sound a tad less callous about it next time.

Spoiler: SoD

Show

Also the problem there is that, well... Killing your brother because you genuinely believe it's for the future of your people doesn't strike me as Evil. It's definitely on the far side of unpleasant but more so for the person who ends up having to do that.

I'm guessing the difference here is that you believe Redcloak did it because he can't accept the idea of having been wrong whereas I believe Redcloak did it because he actually believes that letting Right Eye attempt to kill Xykon would be ruinous for goblinkind in the long run. Either he succeeds, Xykon dies and Redcloak loses the high level arcane caster he needs to complete The Plan which will bring equality to goblinkind, or he fails, Xykon survives and the lich turns on the goblins and everything goes to hell even more so.

First of all, "the opressed goblinoids" of course need sensible PC people to solve problems. When there is a conflict between two parties, you need sensible people on both sides to solve it. O-Chul found sensible people on the other part. Roy found sensible people on the other part. Redcloak, however, doesn't belongs to the "sensible people" lot. He belongs to the same pool than the Hobgoblin General in O-Chul's backstory.

The Hobgoblins were happy in their hills until Redcloak and Xykon came and recruited them to fight the azurites. They are now happy in Azure City because they have human slaves to work for them. Remove the human slaves, and they have more land than they can farm, as Durkon stated. Hobgoblins don't need Azure City at all, they are perfectly happy in the Hills, perhaps keeping some of the conquered land, as Durkon suggested.

The bugbears, on the other hand, care nothing about The Dark One and his self-victimization doctrine. Oona stated out as much. They work with what they have, like the former hobgoblin leader did, like Right-Eye attempted to do.

A perfectly reasonable resolution may be achieved. But not with Redcloak and his delusions of grandeur around. Because what Redcloak needs is not what the goblinoids need. Redcloak needs to make his sacrificying of goblin people justified. And if he needs to blow up the World for it, so be it.

I don't think Oona's bugbears or the Hobgoblins at Gobbtopia feel like they need to get unmade by the Snarl for the theoretically wellfare of theoretically future goblins in a theoretically perfect future world. I think they feel much better with the idea of remaining in existence in this flawed world.

They need sensible PC people to cooperate with them yes, but the solution to their problems shouldn't be some PC people barging in and going 'hey we're going to solve your problems, hands up if you want to join'. It delegates goblinoids to being second-rate.

We can't use real life examples but I believe historically speaking abolishing slavery might have caused some disturbance but it doesn't routinely cause total collapse of the economy. Also as others have pointed out a city of 30,000 people might sound big but compared to an actual nation it's minimal. The goblinoids need some territory with good resources so they can build up into an actual complex civilization rather than the occasional settlement here and there which manages to get by.

The bugbears live out in the frozen wastes and only survive because they're next to a cave of constantly self-replenishing monsters. Redcloak wants to create a world where goblinoids don't have to live on the fringes of habitable lands to avoid being hunted down by the PC races.

And blowing up the world is still at best a last resort plan, in case everything else fails. I've seen no indication that Redcloak is looking forward to the end of the world, he just thinks that if it's functionally impossible to create equality in this world, then and only then is attempting to create equality in the next world the fallback plan.

EDIT:

Yeah, I dont' want Redcloak to win. I don't want that the character who pointless sacrificed hobgoblin warriors to feed the monster guarding Xykon's Tower, the character that casually wasted the lives of the hobgoblin polymorphed spy and the hobgoblin elder artisan (he explicitly said he would have murdered them both if the Resistance and Tsukiko hadn't killed them first), and that

Spoiler: SoD

Show

murdered his brother

comes out of this story with the slightlest validation for his actions.

I'm getting the impression you wouldn't be happy even if this last book did have him realize the many things he did wrong were actually wrong and then afterwards he wins by helping the heroes out.

Also he did actually realize that what he did to the hobgoblins was wrong. That was part of his character arc during the battle for Azure City.

[hungrycrow]

Spoiler: SoD

Show

Also the problem there is that, well... Killing your brother because you genuinely believe it's for the future of your people doesn't strike me as Evil. It's definitely on the far side of unpleasant but more so for the person who ends up having to do that.

I'm guessing the difference here is that you believe Redcloak did it because he can't accept the idea of having been wrong whereas I believe Redcloak did it because he actually believes that letting Right Eye attempt to kill Xykon would be ruinous for goblinkind in the long run. Either he succeeds, Xykon dies and Redcloak loses the high level arcane caster he needs to complete The Plan which will bring equality to goblinkind, or he fails, Xykon survives and the lich turns on the goblins and everything goes to hell even more so.

"Perhaps by some cold calculus... innocents sacrificed may prove beneficial to the world. I can never know. But that would in no way lift the burden of the deed from my conscience, nor should it. The judgement was never mine to make!"

[Wannes]

Vader would only contribute to the Emperor's death if it meant he got to become the Emperor. The moment he considered otherwise he stopped being a villain.

Well, If Vader can kill a whole school of defenceless children, help terrorize a galaxy and allows a planet to be blown up, but then stops being a villain because he killed the Emperor, there's hope for Redcloak yet

[Worldsong]

"Perhaps by some cold calculus... innocents sacrificed may prove beneficial to the world. I can never know. But that would in no way lift the burden of the deed from my conscience, nor should it. The judgement was never mine to make!"

This quote loses some of its impact when you realize Vaarsuvius could just have settled for killing the dragon and leaving it at that. Perhaps send a warning to their mentor that other black dragons might try to invade elven territory in the future.

The deed which everyone keeps holding over Redcloak's head as if it is the moment that he sold his soul was committed during a high stress situation where if he didn't decide quickly the decision would be made for him and the consequences could easily be disastrous. He was in a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' scenario.

But if you want a straight answer, the end cannot justify the means but it can necessitate the means.

It's unfair but nobody ever said life was going to be fair.

Well, If Vader can kill a whole school of defenceless children but stops being a villain because he killed the Emperor, there's hope for Redcloak yet

Honestly one of my bigger issues with the whole Darth Vader thing is that from how I remember it (it's been a while) he saw his son being tortured and was like 'wait a minute I don't like this'.

Which so far as epiphanies about good and evil go is rather weaksauce. Evil people can also be attached to their loved ones and even sacrifice themselves for them.

[hungrycrow]

Well, If Vader can kill a whole school of defenceless children, help terrorize a galaxy and allows a planet to be blown up, but then stops being a villain because he killed the Emperor, there's hope for Redcloak yet

Sure. V and Belkar were both able to turn around and start down the path of redemption. But in OotS world, character growth is a long and hard process. Redcloak hasn't even taken the first step, which is acknowledging the possibility that he could be wrong. We still have a whole book left, but i actually think that's a pretty tight timeframe for the total reversal Redcloak needs to make.

[The Pilgrim]

Might want to sound a tad less callous about it next time.

I don't know why it sounded callous at all. But whatever floats your boat. Let's move on.

They need sensible PC people to cooperate with them yes, but the solution to their problems shouldn't be some PC people barging in and going 'hey we're going to solve your problems, hands up if you want to join'. It delegates goblinoids to being second-rate.

I think that what delegates goblinoids as being second-rate, is forcing them to enlist in your army against their will.

Spoiler: SoD Spoilers

Show

Like Xykon did in SoD with Right-Eye's village, and Redcloak ended up endorsing by murdering Right-Eye instead of helping him kill Xykon.

The goblinoids need some territory with good resources so they can build up into an actual complex civilization rather than the occasional settlement here and there which manages to get by.

"We need to expand, taking over the land of other people, because we need more vital space and raw materials for our race".

That kind of narrative sounds familiar. But we aren't allowed to discuss real life historical events.

Don't be offended. I know it's not your narrative. It's Redcloak's. I suppose you can see what's wrong with it.

The bugbears live out in the frozen wastes and only survive because they're next to a cave of constantly self-replenishing monsters. Redcloak wants to create a world where goblinoids don't have to live on the fringes of habitable lands to avoid being hunted down by the PC races.

Oona doesn't looks like wanting to migrate to Gobbotoppia. Seems happy living in the snow and ice, next to Monster Hollow were she and her people have a steady supply of valuable monster hides.

The former hobgoblin leader kinda had a vision on how much he could accomplish just on the hills, if allowed to live in peace. And did a good work at it, multiplying the hobgoblin population until Redcloak came and provoked the death of one third of it in a pointless war.

People make a lot of assumptions about what the goblinoids need, without actually having cared to ask them.

And blowing up the world is still at best a last resort plan, in case everything else fails. I've seen no indication that Redcloak is looking forward to the end of the world, he just thinks that if it's functionally impossible to create equality in this world, then and only then is attempting to create equality in the next world the fallback plan.

Do I really need to explain why that's a rather poor idea for the well being of the current goblinoid population of the world?

"We are going to unmake you in order to liberate you" sounds like the preachings of a Death Cult leader. And Redcloak is just one step into it, and willing to take it.

I'm getting the impression you wouldn't be happy even if this last book did have him realize the many things he did wrong were actually wrong and then afterwards he wins by helping the heroes out.

He has refused that course of action. Why is he going to change his decission later? If he changes plans because Xykon bretrays him, or the Gate gets destroyed, or the Heroes destroy Xykon, he will do it because he doesn't feels strong enough to win, not because he has realized having done anything wrong.

I don't see his character development going there. Everything points it will keep firm course towards certain and well deserved doom.

[Worldsong]

I dunno. Maybe we should ask the goblins what they want instead of pretending that we knew it better than them?

Have you cared to ask them what they want? Not Redcloak, but the actual goblinoids.

Because the former hobgoblin leader kinda had a vision on how much he could accomplish just on the hills by living in peace. And did a good work at it, multiplying the hobgoblin population until Redcloak came and provoked the death of one third of it in a pointless war.

Oona also doesn't look like feeling like migrating to Gobbotoppia. Seems happy living in the snow and ice, next to Monster Hollow.

So we have anecdotal evidence that not every single goblinoid is unhappy with their life. I'm pretty sure if we researched real life cases of systematic oppression and discrimination we'd also find examples of people who just make the best of their situation.

Do I really need to explain why that's a rather poor idea for the well being of the current goblinoid population?

"We are going to unmake you in order to liberate you" sounds like the preachings of a Death Cult leader. And Redcloak is just one step into it, and willing to take it.

Well, apparently you missed the part where it's an absolute last resort, not something Redcloak is actively aiming for or giddy to implement.

The fact that he thinks destroying the world so there will be equality in the next world is of course not a good thing, but it's not a proper argument in favour of Redcloak being irredeemable because that's not what he's trying to achieve.

He has refused that course of action. Why is he going to change his decission later? If he changes plans because Xykon bretrays him, or the Gate gets destroyed, or the Heroes destroy Xykon, he will do it because he doesn't feels strong enough to win, not because he has realized having done anything wrong.

I don't see his character development going there. Everything points it will keep firm course towards certain and well deserved doom.

It's the beginning of the book, not a chapter. Entire stories can last one book and have a character change their mind over the course of the book.

Also, let's be realistic, this is the very first time he's been given an offer from the other side of the table. Up until now his options have boiled down to 'Go along with The Plan' or 'Accept your fate'.

You're acting like this is just one of many cases where the opposition brings him an offer and he turns it down.

Everything points towards Redcloak's character arc finally coming to a close with him realizing that there's a third option available, and together with the actual heroes, the Order of the Stick, save the world and achieve equality for goblinkind.

[understatement]

Is it not possible that Redcloak can cooperate with the order and remain unredeemed (redeemed is the definition of the way V's going)?

Belkar did it for a long time, after all. So did Hilgya. And hey, if RC gets more verbal dressings from Durkon, that's a bonus.

[Worldsong]

Is it not possible that Redcloak can cooperate with the order and remain unredeemed (redeemed is the definition of the way V's going)?

Belkar did it for a long time, after all. So did Hilgya. And hey, if RC gets more verbal dressings from Durkon, that's a bonus.

For the purpose of this conversation redeemed means that he accepts that The Plan is a bust (or just plain wrong) and accepts the plan of sealing the rifts.

EDIT: Reason being that the biggest reason why Redcloak is a villain rather than just a character with an Evil alignment is because he's married to The Plan. Once he's no longer trying to make The Plan work his role as villain is effectively over.

[The Pilgrim]

So we have anecdotal evidence that not every single goblinoid is unhappy with their life. I'm pretty sure if we researched real life cases of systematic oppression and discrimination we'd also find examples of people who just make the best of their situation.

So, basically, I'm here discussing a stick figure comic, and you are discussing real life things you are projecting into the stick figure comic.

If that's the case, I think I'm bailing out of this debate.

Well, apparently you missed the part where it's an absolute last resort, not something Redcloak is actively aiming for or giddy to implement.

The fact that he thinks destroying the world so there will be equality in the next world is of course not a good thing, but it's not a proper argument in favour of Redcloak being irredeemable because that's not what he's trying to achieve.

I dunno. If a guy breaks in my home with a shotgun and threatens to kill me and my family if I don't do what he wants, I kinda don't think "hey, what a nice guy, he's only going to kill me as a last resort".

Also, let's be realistic, this is the very first time he's been given an offer from the other side of the table. Up until now his options have boiled down to 'Go along with The Plan' or 'Accept your fate'.

Right Eye gave him an alternative. He refused.

Staying at Gobbotopia and giving up on the Plan was an alternative. He refused.

And if you are going yo justify him because "he had to keep up with The Plan or Xykon would have killed him and all the goblins if he didn't"... Yah, but now he has the opportunity to join forces with a party of heores and kill Xykon. And he burnt the bridges by attempting to murder the envoy.

So, no, I don't see him going to have a change of heart later. Because, refusing the offer, yeah, that was reasonable. But burning the bridges, shows exactly the opposite to having any predisposition to change his views.

[Worldsong]

So, basically, I'm here discussing a stick figure comic, and you are discussing real life things you are projecting into the stick figure comic.

If that's the case, I think I'm bailing out of this debate.

Well, The Giant has gone on record to state that he thinks one of the most important aspects of storytelling is commentating on real life issues, so if you think there's something wrong with that and just want to read a webcomic where the villains all die because 'Bad = Bad' then yes we might be approaching the story from such fundamentally different angles that further discussion is pointless.

I dunno. If a guy breaks in my home with a shotgun and threatens to kill me and my family if I don't do what he wants, I kinda don't think "hey, what a nice guy, he's only going to kill me as a last resort".

Yes, but you might think "This is definitely bad but at least he doesn't actually want us dead, so maybe he can be persuaded into not doing that."

Right Eye gave him an alternative. He refused.

Staying at Gobbotopia and giving up on the Plan was an alternative. He refused.

And if you are going yo justify him because "he had to keep up with The Plan or Xykon would have killed him and all the goblins if he didn't"... Yah, but now he has the opportunity to join forces with a party of heores and kill Xykon. And he burnt the bridges by attempting to murder the envoy.

So, no, I don't see him going to have a change of heart later. Because, refusing the offer, yeah, that was reasonable. But burning the bridges, shows exactly the opposite to having any predisposition to change his views.

Those weren't alternatives where he actually achieved his goal of equality on a level that the gods themselves help enforce it. The alternative Right Eye gave him was to accept his fate as a goblin.

He explained the issue with accepting Gobbotopia as the answer to Durkon.

Also this time around a new factor has joined the table that the Dark One himself might also be interested in. That's rather important.

Well, changing your mind is this thing people do. Burning bridges because you want to convince yourself you don't have to change your mind is also a thing people do. That doesn't mean you can't still change your mind later on.

[Ionathus]

So, basically, I'm here discussing a stick figure comic, and you are discussing real life things you are projecting into the stick figure comic.

You don't get to "call out" somebody else for projecting if you just made an allusion to real-world events earlier up the page yourself.

I dunno. If a guy breaks in my home with a shotgun and threatens to kill me and my family if I don't do what he wants, I kinda don't think "hey, what a nice guy, he's only going to kill me as a last resort".

Thanks for, once again, misrepresenting the point someone else is making. Redcloak isn't trying to blow up the world. He's not even using it as leverage. He sees it as an unfortunate risk of The Plan, not his explicit means to an end.

But even buying into your strawman comparison for a second...have you never seen a single hostage scenario depicted in media where the hostage-taker is desperate, thinks they're "too far gone" and "have nothing left to lose" but they're still capable of being talked-down? Or has every single hostage scene you've watched ended with the hostage-taker dead?

Staying at Gobbotopia and giving up on the Plan was an alternative. He refused.

"As long as the gods see us as second-class humanoids, Gobbotopia will be nothing but crusade bait!"

Redcloak has a point here. Sure maybe investing in Gobbotopia might've led to a stable goblinoid society and, eventually, improved race relations with surrounding races. But I wouldn't blame Redcloak for not trusting that, given his experience with other races' treatment of his family.

I've run out of angles to come at this argument. You flatly refuse to accept that a villain might participate in the resolution of this story, and you cite all the evil things Redcloak's done as proof that Rich is going to write him out of the story. I've tried to explain multiple times that nobody here idolizes Redcloak as a hero, that we're just arguing he still has a part to play in this story's resolution -- because of all that same stuff we saw him do and suffer through. But we're not going to convince you otherwise, because you want to write Redcloak off completely due to his fractured worldview and character flaws -- instead of seeing those things as groundwork that The Giant has been laying for most of the comic's run, and is just now starting to deliver on.

Thanks for the discussion.

[Goblin_Priest]

Thankfully it's the Giant's story. That was uncalled for. Sorry.

With all due respect, Banjo is also a puppet, and Jirix's narrative purpose was to receive Redcloak's exposition.

Also highlight that Redcloak is not in actual communion with his god. A pretty big point to emphasize, I think, which indeed just got mentioned anew. This insistence on the fact that Redcloak is not in direct contact with TDO is obviously deliberate.

Additionally, to emphasize that Gobbotopia is self-sufficient. It has a capable leader who succeeds at diplomacy. Another point that just got reiterated, though a bit less emphatically.

[The Pilgrim]

Well, The Giant has gone on record to state that he thinks one of the most important aspects of storytelling is commentating on real life issues, so if you think there's something wrong with that and just want to read a webcomic where the villains all die because 'Bad = Bad' then yes we might be approaching the story from such fundamentally different angles that further discussion is pointless.

"Characters die because they make the wrong choices" is kinda the standard outcome for all the minimally relevant characters who have died in this webcomic.

Yes, but you might think "This is definitely bad but at least he doesn't actually want us dead, so maybe he can be persuaded into not doing that."

The fact that Redcloak attempted to murder the guy trying to persuade him on not doing that, kinda undermines your point.

Those weren't alternatives where he actually achieved his goal of equality on a level that the gods themselves help enforce it. The alternative Right Eye gave him was to accept his fate as a goblin.

The alternative given by Right-Eye was to not trust the Gods to clean up the mess for you. He had a point.

Also this time around a new factor has joined the table that the Dark One himself might also be interested in. That's rather important.

If the Dark One makes Redcloak change his mind, it's still Redcloak not acknowledging to having done anything wrong. Also, it would be a literal deus ex machina and bad storytelling. So I'm not seeing The Giant taking that avenue.

Well, changing your mind is this thing people do. Burning bridges because you want to convince yourself you don't have to change your mind is also a thing people do. That doesn't mean you can't still change your mind later on.

It does mean the story isn't going in the direction of Redcloak going to change his mind.

Thanks for, once again, misrepresenting the point someone else is making. Redcloak isn't trying to blow up the world. He's not even using it as leverage. He sees it as an unfortunate risk of The Plan, not his explicit means to an end.

Yeah, and the guy taking me hostage doesn't wants me dead, that would only be an unfortunate risk of him not getting things his way. That doesn't makes him any less responsible for his action.

But even buying into your strawman comparison for a second...have you never seen a single hostage scenario depicted in media where the hostage-taker is desperate, thinks they're "too far gone" and "have nothing left to lose" but they're still capable of being talked-down? Or has every single hostage scene you've watched ended with the hostage-taker dead?

Definitely each hostage scene I've seen were the hostage takers start to shot at the negotiators, tend to end bad for the hostake takers.

I've run out of angles to come at this argument. You flatly refuse to accept that a villain might participate in the resolution of this story, and you cite all the evil things Redcloak's done as proof that Rich is going to write him out of the story. I've tried to explain multiple times that nobody here idolizes Redcloak as a hero, that we're just arguing he still has a part to play in this story's resolution -- because of all that same stuff we saw him do and suffer through. But we're not going to convince you otherwise, because you want to write Redcloak off completely due to his fractured worldview and character flaws -- instead of seeing those things as groundwork that The Giant has been laying for most of the comic's run, and is just now starting to deliver on.

Thanks for the discussion.

Don't go yet. Please explain to me how developing a character who constantly commits vile acts while pursuing an evil agenda and who violenty rejects any proposal on changing his views, is "groundwork that has been laying" towards a resolution in which that character makes a heel-face turn and collaborates with the heroes, as opposed to a resolution were that character is taken out of the board for good by the heroes.

The root of our disagreement lies in that you apparently are buying the Evil God's narrative about the goblins needing more land and raw materials to prosper as a race, and that somewhat justifies taking over other people's land and tearing the fabric of reality risking the destruction of the World for a chance to grab a nuke and take all the Gods hostage. While I don't.

Sorry, but I don't buy the narrative that the goblinoids need more raw materials to prosper, when the Hobgoblins had enough raw materials to actually build an army big enough to military defeat one of the most powerful bastions of Good in the planet.

The narrative that PC races see goblinoids, and "monster races" in general, as XP fodder? Yes, that one I buy. That's a theme in this webcomic. The resolution will probably involve the good guys coming to terms with the goblinoids and treating them as people. Something that has already happened before without need of Redcloak being around.

The idea that the Heroes will come to terms with the goblinoids because they have been forced to do so, kinda undermines the whole point of the "Heroes shouldn't behave like murder hobbos" theme. O-Chul didn't need any reason to come to terms with the hobgoblins in his backstory, beyond the basic respect for other people's life that he, as an heroic good-aligned character, already had. Redcloak doesn't holds that basic respect, not even for the lives of his own people. That's one of the many traits in his personality that makes him Evil.

Can Redcloak make a heel-face turn? Sure. But that's not were this story has been leading his character this far. People don't change in a sudden. It has taken Belkar two books and a half of character development to change his outlook. Redcloak had a prequel book devoted to his character development, and the outcome was that he went from square 0 in the scale of Good to square -100. His development in the main comic has consisted in turning him into a more threatening villain, not in making him a less evil one.

So, I think the heroes will keep trying to reason with Redcloak, and Redcloak will keep refusing, and will die, probably as a result of the expected fall out with Xykon, and after Team Evil has been destroyed the heroes will be able to come to terms with the goblinoids. Because Redcloak is not the saviour of the goblinoid people, but one of the principal factors who are bringing them grief.

[Worldsong]

"Characters die because they make the wrong choices" is kinda the standard outcome for all the minimally relevant characters who have died in this webcomic.

Yes, and they can avoid death by learning to make the right choice.

The fact that Redcloak attempted to murder the guy trying to persuade him on not doing that, kinda undermines your point.

Actually my point was that you can burn your bridges in an attempt to convince yourself that you don't need to change your mind and still end up changing your mind later.

The alternative given by Right-Eye was to not trust the Gods to clean up the mess for you. He had a point.

Did he actually come up with a way to enact change on such a scale that the gods themselves would have to acknowledge it? Or was he trying to convince Redcloak to leave the gods out of the entire business? Because one of those is a rather hard sell if you believe that the gods are the ones enforcing the status quo.

If the Dark One makes Redcloak change his mind, it's still Redcloak not acknowledging to having done anything wrong. Also, it would be a literal deus ex machina and bad storytelling. So I'm not seeing The Giant taking that avenue.

Actually the point would be that the Dark One is no longer pushing Redcloak to keep going with The Plan, which means that one of the factors preventing Redcloak from changing his mind is removed, which could help make him change his mind.

It does mean the story isn't going in the direction of Redcloak going to change his mind.

It means that the story is heading in the direction that changing Redcloak's mind is going to be difficult. It would be incredibly anticlimactic if the very first time the heroes actually try to parley with Redcloak he immediately loses all his conviction. It's going to take a book's worth of time, with revelations that shake Redcloak's conviction and make him reconsider what he believes in.

[BeerMug Paladin]

I'm surprised the discussion has gone on about Redcloak and his villainy without anyone bringing up the IFCC. I mean, if you want to talk about how in proper narratives villains must be thwarted, consider for a moment these respective underlying motivations.

Redcloak: Equality and justice for the goblinoid people.

IFCC: Pointless, unnecessary, destructive conflict forever.

It seems pretty clear to me that just removing Redcloak from the story would serve the IFCC's goals. The goal isn't going to be to only defeat Redcloak. It's also going to also be about thwarting the IFCC (and Xykon). It seems the absolute last thing the most evil, clever and irredeemable villains want is for purple quiddity to get used to seal away the snarl. Since the story takes place "now" and the only one who can provide that purple quiddity "now" is Redcloak, then it seems pretty clear to me that Redcloak must be a factor in the resolution.

To consider removing Redcloak and leaving the ultimate resolution to be achieved by someone else in an uncertain future leaves the various circumstances which produced Redcloak more or less intact. It seems likely that another Redcloak could be produced down the line. Even if the world lasts with re-sealed gates, that translates to a win for the IFCC. Because they will have prolonged the conflict to an uncertain future. Or maybe you agree with Belkar that some other hero popping out of nowhere to solve this snarl thing at the last minute would make a better story.

I think the IFCC's defeat is going to be more narratively important than Redcloak's defeat. Because what they actually want is fundamentally at odds with the goals of the heroes. What Redcloak wants is not. What places Redcloak squarely in the villain camp is when he clearly has a choice, he chooses to do evil things. Sure, I think Redcloak will likely lose in a big way as a result of those evil choices, but villains have lost conflicts before without being just outright killed or depowered. Nobody is even considering that Tarquin is the true big-bad. He's the true loser of this thread.

Huh, I just had a random thought you could add to my unresponded-to list of ideas for why Redcloak might change his mind and go along with Thor's/Durkon's proposal.

5) Xykon has access to a certain spell from Haerta's spell list, then upon learning/suspecting Redcloak's deception, threatens Redcloak with repeated castings of it on every random goblinoid he can find. (Starting with Gobbotopia.) We never explicitly saw Haerta recaptured.

[dancrilis]

But no I don't think it'd be good if Redcloak and Xykon completed the ritual before Redcloak's character progression has advanced a bit more.

I think that this last book will partially be about pushing Redcloak to the point where he can be trusted, and for the Dark One to realize he can achieve his objectives without the Snarl and thus doesn't need to be at odds with the other gods anymore because suddenly he's not just an upstart, he's as important as any of them and can deal with them on equal footing.

Then I think we just disagree and that one (at least) of us is very wrong on Redcloak's characterisation.

As I see it Redcloak's natural progression takes him away from being trusted and instead takes him further into The Plan - part of that is that I don't think The Dark One is a reasonable authority figure for the goblins, I think he is a dictator who either is the cause of their problems or at the least takes advantage of them (goblins are oppressed firstly by him, and secondly by other races who react to what they do in his name).

As such the way to get Redcloak on side is for something to shatter his world view a) The Dark One tortures the souls of goblins in the afterlife to extract more power from them quickly, b) Redcloak's entire equality movement is built on a lie The Dark One started it as propaganda and to focus his worship c) Redcloak's lifes work The Plan backfires spectacularly when Xykon kills him god via co-opting the ritual d) something on a similiar level.

I do see Redcloak as very likely having a hand in sealing the rifts but not because the character was moving in that direction all this time.