OOTS #1232 - The Discussion Thread

[Ganbatte]

Also, war is inherently unfair to the people who actually suffer for it. Most people who benefit from war aren't the people who fight in it, though in a world where a single being can defeat dozens if not hundreds of foot soldiers on their own that might get a bit muddled I suppose.

Assuming the war in question is the classic "invasion" scenario everyone benefits from repelling the foreign invader who's coming for their resources, or alternatively the succesfull invader who has now a lot more land to cultivate and grow as a nation, which produces stability which produces wellbeing which leads to a better quality of life in general.

I mean, even the lowliest footmen benefits from the enemy's lowliest footmen not reaching his hometown and razing it.

[Lethologica]

You are assuming that the goblins were peacefully sitting around when every other oppressor race came and attacked them, which is not what is said in the comic. Everything that was created in the world was put in competition, and the goblins were created by a god who thought they would win. They entered into a fight and then cried oppression when they were not winning.

The post you responded to actually said nothing about oppressor races coming and attacking the goblins, as it is beside the point. Ionathus' analogy was entirely concerned with the vertical relationship between god-parents and mortal-children.

You are also seriously overreaching in your interpretation of Thor's comments. A god designed a race with the intention of outcompeting other races, yes. But a competition is not necessarily a fight. A deliberate competition among the gods is not necessarily a deliberate competition among the mortals. As written, there is nothing implied (E: at the mortal level) beyond natural selection as people go about their lives.

Finally, the goblins that supposedly entered into a fight and lost are not the ones crying oppression now.

[woweedd]

Rich did say that some of the paladins who participated in the raid on Redcloak's village would probably have lost their paladinhood for their actions. "Off-screen", since that wasn't a factor he wanted to focus on at that point in the story-telling.

And also because Redcloak was narrating and he doesn't know or, I imagine, care ("The person who murdered my family can't summon his magic horsey anymore, but was otherwise given no punishment? Truly, their spirits can rest in peace now".)

[Telenil]

You are assuming that the goblins were peacefully sitting around when every other oppressor race came and attacked them, which is not what is said in the comic. Everything that was created in the world was put in competition, and the goblins were created by a god who thought they would win. They entered into a fight and then cried oppression when they were not winning.

I agree. I know Durkon is negotiating for the sake of more than the world, so he has to take his counterpart's perspective and make serious concessions. But good grief, I hope he never has to run a war. Goblins and dwarves are killing each other on sight, and that's where the comparison to societal issues breaks down.

Of course you don't want your enemy to have a fair chance. You want your wars to be as one-sided, as egregiously unfair as possible, and then to keep the enemy down until you feel pretty sure he won't start planning to attack you again. The solution to that is to negotiate a peace deal like Durkon offered, where we forget the past and the goblins keep whatever they have conquered by force of arms. This might have been more palatable to the goblins now that they have a decent kingdom with fertile lands, but Redcloak refused. True, the goblin city might become "crusader bait", but the other races, too, need to trust Redcloak's word that goblins will abandon all attempts at conquest and be content with farming the land. The only reason they should is that they need him to deal with a worlds-ending threat.

Being "unfair" to your enemies is not evil, it's practically the distinction between an enemy and an adversary. This doesn't mean you should slaughter everyone in your way or do anything under the pretext that it helps the war effort. It does mean that giving the enemy a chance to kill you for the sake of fairness would be monumental stupidity. You end the war, then you are fair. In that order.

[danielxcutter]

Committing war crimes on sentient beings is Evil.

[Nomen]

Some sense of fairness or dare I say generosity when negotiating a treaty is different than trying to be fair in combat itself.

[Vikenlugaid]

It's only inconsistent if you assume that employing bad methods means the mission itself is bad or unimportant. The Bearer of the Crimson Mantle is a threat to all of creation, that's just a fact so that doesn't mean the Sapphire Guard's mission was wrong. It just meant certain methods (indiscriminate murder) were. But there's nothing say all members of Sapphire Guard indiscriminately murdered.

But the larger point is that we didn't see any of those paladins fall because it wasn't important for the story; it would mean nothing to Redcloak. That is not the same thing as saying all of those paladins definitely did not fall.

I am not saying Sapphire Guard motivation is bad, same for Redcloak's. The thing is both of them have wrong methods, but only Redcloak is "evil" for that.
And, don't forget, the Dark One (in his mortal form) tried to live in peace with other races and was murdered. He had an epic army of goblinoids and, instead of just conquering, he wanted peace... But is still an Evil god, why? I can only think in one reason: he is a monster, goblins are'nt a Player race.
And that's still the key here, goblins are not balanced couse they are not meant to be players, this Comic is always talking about metagame.

Also, we know about the lore of the Dark One mostly by the word of Redcloak to Xykon in SoD, and Redcloak did not have a reason to "edulcorate" that part of the story for a caotic evil man like Xykon, we should assume that part is true, i mean, TDO wanting peace, being murdered, learnimg about de fate of goblins... I mean, TDO could lie about that to Redcloak but again, why? They are both evil, they dont need "noble motivations".

Maybe Thor is the one lying, or "edulcorating" the truth, couse Durkon DOES need noble motivations, and i think Thor is not lawful.

EDIT:

Spoiler: how the paladin got his scar

Show

Btw, some paladin killed one harmless and unarmed goblin and he did'nt fall.

[Telenil]

Some sense of fairness or dare I say generosity when negotiating a treaty is different than trying to be fair in combat itself.

Yep. What feels really weird in this strip is that the examples of unfairness given by Durkon are combat-related, like dwarves having better steel or being stronger due to better food.

I think a decent comparison is the Germanic tribes at the borders of the Roman Empire. Can we imagine a Germanic leader complain that Roman steel and logistics are unfair? Of course not, they simply learned their lessons and avoided pitched battles, switching to raids and harassment instead.

[Lethologica]

Yep. What feels really weird in this strip is that the examples of unfairness given by Durkon are combat-related, like dwarves having better steel or being stronger due to better food.

I think a decent comparison is the Germanic tribes at the borders of the Roman Empire. Can we imagine a Germanic leader complain that Roman steel and logistics are unfair? Of course not, they simply learned their lessons and avoided pitched battles, switching to raids and harassment instead.

It's hard to assess whether the goblins are, or were designed as, XP fodder without bringing up combat. Obviously the dwarf does not need to answer for his unfair advantage, but the question was whether the gods did. And dollars to doughnuts plenty of Germanics cursed the gods for bringing such a calamitous foe to their doorstep, even as they turned to raiding...like the goblins did, at times.

[Fyraltari]

And dollars to doughnuts plenty of Germanics cursed the gods for bringing such a calamitous foe to their doorstep, even as they turned to raiding...

*Germananic fist shaking*

Damn those bloody Romans!

[Ganbatte]

Committing war crimes on sentient beings is Evil.

When they're actually war crimes, that is.

[arimareiji]

*Germananic fist shaking*

Damn those bloody Romans!

Yeah, what have the Romans ever done for us?!?

[WanderingMist]

When they're actually war crimes, that is.

Given your posts, I'm not sure you could actually define "war crime" in a way that's not inherently hypocritical and against the victims.

[danielxcutter]

I’m pretty sure slaughtering noncombatants counts as a war crime?

[Worldsong]

I’m pretty sure slaughtering noncombatants counts as a war crime?

Yes.

If your definition of war crimes doesn't result in slaughtering non-combatants being a war crime, your definition is wrong.

[RandomReader]

First, I'm starting to think less that I'm not completely onboard with this revelation because it goes against the idea that goblins are oppressed (and regardless of what you think, I think it's pretty obvious that the portrayal of goblins in this comic leans more towards being oppressed than not being oppressed or being the oppressors) than the notion that their take on events is unreliable and that they're too biased, and that the more reliable and unbiased take comes from the white guy who helped make the whole unjust system in the first place, upholds it, and benefits from it. If what Redcloak said it the single least charitable way to describe it, then this is the single most charitable way to describe it.

Second, the argument Thor makes on panel six is kind of uncomfortable. Part of it is that it definitely feels reminiscent of Social Darwinism as applied to race. That conflict between different racial or ethnic groups is just how the world works and how it's supposed to work. Adventurers are just goblin's natural predators~. Hey, here's an idea, Thor. Maybe the problem isn't just that the playing field isn't level, it's that different races shouldn't be fighting and killing each other on the basis of race. And they shouldn't be doing it just because you and the rest of the gods stand to benefit from it. Yeah, yeah, I know that people fighting each other and gaining xp is how you get the best souls to nom, circle of life and all that, but it's not really an antelope's concern if a lion is going hungry.

Gotta bring up Thor's whiteness, huh? The important thing you're choosing to ignore is that to the God's system, racial divides aren't the natural order, goal, or an inherent step in the process, it's the mortals deciding the best approach is to clump up by race. "Khorne cares not from whence the blood flows, only that it flows." He's also not defending racial conflict or that the system should continue as is, simply that saying the God's were being racist when they made the world isn't accurate.

[Ruck]

Gotta bring up Thor's whiteness, huh?

Yeah, it's not like the author of the comic has ever brought up a character's whiteness in commentary or anything.

[halfeye]

Yes.

If your definition of war crimes doesn't result in slaughtering non-combatants being a war crime, your definition is wrong.

It may be wrong, but it happens without punishment quite often. I am not saying it isn't wrong, but there's something odd that happens in wars, and I don't understand it.

[Dion]

I'm not completely onboard with [...] the notion that [the goblins] take on events is unreliable and that they're too biased, and that the more reliable and unbiased take comes from the white guy who helped make the whole unjust system in the first place, upholds it, and benefits from it.

This is the most insightful comment I’ve read in this board in a while.

I’m going to have to think about that for a while.

Thank you.

[RandomReader]

This is the most insightful comment I’ve read in this board in a while.

I’m going to have to think about that for a while.

Thank you.

Only insofar as the guy who says everything wrong with his life is the result of a conspiracy from the moment of his species birth to make them nothing but hero fodder is supposed to be more trustworthy than the guy who designed the system that even allowed goblin reprisal to happen. The gods have designed untold millions of world, and their best plan to create a race of designated targets is one capable of thought, emotions, creativity, communication, social cohesion, the ability to use tools, weapons, magic, to actually elevate themselves by the same system that the none fodder species use, all of that, for a species who's sole purpose isn't be killed? That's the more reliable and unbiased stance than "Fenrir's just kind of a terrible god/father like that, and none of the rest of us really cared to protect them"?

The argument isn't about whether goblins are victims of predjudice (they are), whether they were dealt a crap hand from the start (they were), if Thor and the other gods are entirely innocent from what happened to the Goblins (they aren't), or if the Gods have any biases (they do), the argument is whether or not the gods specifically tried to **** over the goblins, and I trust the guy who the story tries to portray as generally sympathetic, was actually there, and chalks it up to neglicence over the guy who had a character arc about "maybe green goblins aren't the only species with value", hasn't actually talked to his own god, never mind any other pantheons deities, and says the only reason this could have happened was malice from the getgo, and a subsequent campaign enforcing it for the rest of time, fully aware of what they were doing and hurting goblins specifically.

[Rrmcklin]

Only insofar as the guy who says everything wrong with his life is the result of a conspiracy from the moment of his species birth to make them nothing but hero fodder is supposed to be more trustworthy than the guy who designed the system that even allowed goblin reprisal to happen. The gods have designed untold millions of world, and their best plan to create a race of designated targets is one capable of thought, emotions, creativity, communication, social cohesion, the ability to use tools, weapons, magic, to actually elevate themselves by the same system that the none fodder species use, all of that, for a species who's sole purpose isn't be killed? That's the more reliable and unbiased stance than "Fenrir's just kind of a terrible god/father like that, and none of the rest of us really cared to protect them"?

The argument isn't about whether goblins are victims of predjudice (they are), whether they were dealt a crap hand from the start (they were), if Thor and the other gods are entirely innocent from what happened to the Goblins (they aren't), or if the Gods have any biases (they do), the argument is whether or not the gods specifically tried to **** over the goblins, and I trust the guy who the story tries to portray as generally sympathetic, was actually there, and chalks it up to neglicence over the guy who had a character arc about "maybe green goblins aren't the only species with value", hasn't actually talked to his own god, never mind any other pantheons deities, and says the only reason this could have happened was malice from the getgo, and a subsequent campaign enforcing it for the rest of time, fully aware of what they were doing and hurting goblins specifically.

...I think that's only the argument for you, honestly. If you can admit that all of those problems actually exist, then whether they were done intentionally or not because much less important. Especially when Durkon has specifically noted he does not agree with Redcloak's methods at all. Redcloak is a villain is supposed to be seen as such. There is no debate about that.

[RandomReader]

...I think that's only the argument for you, honestly. If you can admit that all of those problems actually exist, then whether they were done intentionally or not because much less important. Especially when Durkon has specifically noted he does not agree with Redcloak's methods at all. Redcloak is a villain is supposed to be seen as such. There is no debate about that.

It's the only thing that's actually being disagreed on between the poor victim and the mean white oppressor though. "Goblin's can't walk into town," not being debated; "goblins are fair game as targets and can't retaliate in kind," not being debated; "goblins got **** land from the start," not being debated; "the gods did all this to goblins intentionally," now slow your roll partner.

[arimareiji]

Just a thought, for anyone who might both 1) equate "the right of goblins to exist" with "whether Redcloak does evil things" and 2) be offended by the notion that equality and justice apply to goblins... Minrah's burn on Redcloak is worth considering.
"You're just a… a big phony, talking about stuff like equality and and justice to make yourself feel better about shoving them off a cliff!

If Minrah's right, it's grossly unfair to judge all goblins by Redcloak's behavior. To him, they're just the means to an end of satisfying his martyr complex no matter who gets hurt.
And even if Minrah's wrong and he's truly doing his best to make goblins' lives better, the baby of "fairness" towards goblins still shouldn't be thrown out with the bathwater of "Redcloak screws over everyone, goblins and PC races alike".

[Dion]

"the gods did all this to goblins intentionally," now slow your roll partner.

Exactly! The white guy is like “Oh, wait a second partner! I admit I knew it would happen, and I knew I would benefit from it, and I did nothing to stop it.”

“But it’s just so pejorative for you to say I share in the responsibility. And let’s try keep the focus on what’s important here. What’s important is the rude way you phrased it. “

“I mean, it’s really me that’s the victim now. Let’s keep the focus on how rude the phrasing is to me for the next 50 pages of comments. ”

“I’m glad we came to this understanding that the real oppression is the way I’ve been treated by your mean words. It’s just so terribly sad what has happened to me.”

[arimareiji]

Exactly! The white guy is like “Oh, wait a second partner! I admit I knew it would happen, and I knew I would benefit from it, and I did nothing to stop it.”

“But it’s just so pejorative for you to say I share in the responsibility. And let’s try keep the focus on what’s important here. What’s important is the rude way you phrased it. “

“I mean, it’s really me that’s the victim now. Let’s keep the focus on how rude the phrasing is to me for the next 50 pages of comments. ”

“I’m glad we came to this understanding that the real oppression is the way I’ve been treated by your mean words. It’s just so terribly sad what has happened to me.”

Come and see the violence inherent in the mean words?

[Telenil]

Just a thought, for anyone who might both 1) equate "the right of goblins to exist" with "whether Redcloak does evil things" and 2) be offended by the notion that equality and justice apply to goblins... Minrah's burn on Redcloak is worth considering.
"You're just a… a big phony, talking about stuff like equality and and justice to make yourself feel better about shoving them off a cliff!

If Minrah's right, it's grossly unfair to judge all goblins by Redcloak's behavior. To him, they're just the means to an end of satisfying his martyr complex no matter who gets hurt.
And even if Minrah's wrong and he's truly doing his best to make goblins' lives better, the baby of "fairness" towards goblins still shouldn't be thrown out with the bathwater of "Redcloak screws over everyone, goblins and PC races alike".

Correct. The thing is, the goblins the heroes have fought so far were virtually all Redcloak's soldiers and minions. These aren't innocents in the sense goblins defending their village would be, so it feels really weird to have the PCs discuss how they should have listened to their enemies more. It would have made sense if the PCs had been shown raiding goblin settlements to disrupt Redcloak's preparations, or similar neutral-leaning actions. As it is, I don't think they have met a goblin who didn't mostly share Redcloak's goals, even the teenagers in book 1 turned against them in the end.

[arimareiji]

Correct. The thing is, the goblins the heroes have fought so far were virtually all Redcloak's soldiers and minions. These aren't innocents in the sense goblins defending their village would be, so it feels really weird to have the PCs discuss how they should have listened to their enemies more. It would have made sense if the PCs had been shown raiding goblin settlements to disrupt Redcloak's preparations, or similar neutral-leaning actions. As it is, I don't think they have met a goblin who didn't mostly share Redcloak's goals, even the teenagers in book 1 turned against them in the end.

Indeed -- but people were saying the things I was responding to, in this thread. That is to say, before Roy and Durkon's convo in 1233.

Also, strictly speaking only one teenager turned against them. Two others disappeared after their group first rescued the Order, and a third left after giving them directions. There's no in-strip evidence any of them survived when Elan destroyed the dungeon.

[Quizatzhaderac]

Even if they have nothing else to offer, the goblins can always offer cheap labor. Unskilled labor is quite valuable in medeival agrarian societies.

This is a recipe for civil war if done poorly.

If Goblin labor can be used, then the price of unskilled labor drops significantly.

The human commoners' economic value plummets. This will create frictional unemployment. To armchair economics, this looks like a harmless accounting where everyone shifts to a different job, often one they're more deserving of. To more advanced economists, this is a process that, if done sloppily, will cause huge expenses, displacements and instabilities in markets. To the commoners, this will look like "goblins took my job, I'll may never get another, and my family might starve"

The human commoners will want certain remedies, some reasonable, some selfish but sensible, and some just plain destructive.

The nobles and bourgeois will realize that the are vastly out numbered and that the united commoners are a huge threat to their power.

The upper classes will have basically three options:

1) Given in to the commoners: forbid the goblins from holding the vast majority of unskilled jobs.
2) Replace the commoners: Use goblins to replace striking workers, or anyone who is resisting the new order. This path has the problem than anyone near the line will be sympathetic to the people below it and scared that the line will move above them.
3) Some kind fantasy only solution where wizards control what the commoners think or something.

Which isn't to say that it can't be done well, it can. But it is ridiculous to assume that the Ootsverse is an idealized free market economy. We've seen clear signs of feudalism, mercantilism, monopolism, and also a major dose of speciesism.

For goblins to sell their labor at anything like it's fair market value you've firmly travelled into "perfect an' tied up with a pretty li'l bow" territory.

[Jason]

This is a recipe for civil war if done poorly.

So don't do it poorly. Once the goblins have a steady income from hiring out their people as unskilled laborers they invest in education and start creating skilled laborers. Goods created by skilled craftsgoblins become marketable, and soon humans have even more incentive to trade.

[KorvinStarmast]

So don't do it poorly. Once the goblins have a steady income from hiring out their people as unskilled laborers they invest in education and start creating skilled laborers. Goods created by skilled craftsgoblins become marketable, and soon humans have even more incentive to trade.

Which will attract dragons (who are attracted by wealth). A blue dragon version of Smaug will show up, torch Gobbotpia, kill every one in it, and settle in to wallow around on their new hoard. (Reference/Allusion: The Hobbit, JRR Tolkien)
And then, since Adventurers apparently are all horrible people, seeing as to how they might kill somebody, there will be NO party of adventurers who sneaks into the dragon's lair to slay the dragon and thus there will be no happy ending to this fairy tale.

Spoiler: Happy Ending Loophole

Show

Unless you are the dragon