PDA

View Full Version : This is not Redcloak's big epiphany (Start of Darkness spoilers)



Kish
2012-01-13, 11:53 AM
Redcloak may very well plan to betray Xykon in some way, by keeping the phylactery from him or destroying it.

However, he's still sacrificing the lives of his loyal followers for his plan*, and he's still treating the hapless remnants of Azure City as the primary enemy, not Xykon. He hasn't changed as much as he apparently thinks he has.

*Edited since apparently this was really unclear: I do not mean "he is no longer treating hobgoblins like vermin who it is fun to see die." That would have been appropriate to post when #451 was the most recent strip...if it was appropriate to point out the screamingly obvious, that is. I mean that he is treating goblinoids, goblins and hobgoblins alike, the same way he treated his fellow goblins way, way back in Start of Darkness, which is, as his brother called him on, still very much not the correct attitude.

Cizak
2012-01-13, 12:07 PM
There's a difference between sending thousands of hobgoblins to their deaths because "meh the strategy works, we'll win eventually" and killing one to keep the grand scheme going smoothly.

He even says "I just thank the Dark One I didn't need to execute you myself", implying that he wouldn't be all too happy about doing it.

Kish
2012-01-13, 12:09 PM
Being unhappy rather than thrilled over hobgoblin deaths isn't even a new epiphany, just the one he had when that hobgoblin saved his life, oh, a long time ago now.

Cizak
2012-01-13, 12:13 PM
When did we come to a point that requires him to have a new epiphany? He learned that back then, what do you wnat him to learn now?

Kish
2012-01-13, 12:17 PM
When did we come to a point that requires him to have a new epiphany?

Halfway through Start of Darkness.

He learned that back then, what do you wnat him to learn now?
I would have thought my initial post in this thread made that clear by implication, but perhaps not.

That "throwing good lives after bad" for the Plan is a bad thing. That his brother was right and he was wrong about Xykon, about the Dark One, and about the Plan.

Souhiro
2012-01-13, 12:20 PM
I never saww Redcloak as a good person, but a irredeemable villain. He may have his point, but I don't believe about it.

He is a hateful being, he uses Gobbos, Hobbos and whatever he has to further his goals. And remember: He don't mind feeding people to the Snarl (And he's a cleric who not only believes, but have factual proof of an afterlife: He's doing an unspeakable crime just thinking about destroying souls!) but he even want to rick the whole world, and the souls of every ALIVE BEING.


Seriously, anybody with a positive INT would destroy the Crimsom Mantle, bury all the books about the Dark One, and never talk about it, ever.

Gift Jeraff
2012-01-13, 12:23 PM
Actually, Rich has said that Redcloak isn't evil enough to feed people to the Snarl for no reason. It was just a bluff.

Cizak
2012-01-13, 12:23 PM
Oh. Yeah, that's definately true. Hanging with Xykon will most certainly not end well. But saying he has learned nothing is wrong. He has definately learned to treat the hobgoblins as equally as all goblinoids and he establishes here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0548.html) that Xykon is "a valueable ally, but [...] that does NOT mean we should trust him".

Then you can start discussing if he actually does trust Xykon or not.

King of Nowere
2012-01-13, 12:27 PM
While I don't see today's strip as crossing the moral event horizon, it is certainly bad for redcloak, a villain who si generally uphelding some standards. Especially considering that it wasn't needed: Xykon would have never questioned that lone goblin, who would have been just one in a faceless horde. And if sworn to secrecy, he would have surely kept the secret. You know, hobbo discipline and that.
On the other hand, that particular hobbo had no strategical value at all, and redcloak don't want to take risks.
I see Redclaok's action as a step towards losing humanity, after several steps he's taken towards gaining it.

Lucid Inebriate
2012-01-13, 12:35 PM
This isn't such a good argument. Redcloak decided not to sacrifice lives when results could be attained with no (or less) casualties. This new perspective doesn't preclude the possibility that he would sacrifice one life in a situation (and I'm assuming, but it seems to be heavily implied by this strip) where the death was unavoidable for the fruition of the plan and/or was directly ordered by his god. Redcloak is still a general, and for that matter still Lawful Evil. Sacrificing a life to fulfill a divine mandate may be evil, either in DnD or in your personal opinion (which is irrelevant and shouldn't be discussed here), but nobody said Redcloak WASN'T Evil, and at any rate such an act is not the same as throwing thousands of soldiers at a problem for the lulz when less gruesome solutions are apparent and viable.

Edit: The above doesn't address his treatment of the Azurites, but as far as I know he never had an epiphany regarding them, and I'm not disputing that his actions toward them are evil, so I don't think it matters.

Fish
2012-01-13, 12:41 PM
It really depends what you believe Redcloak's secrecy is for. The jury is out on that bit of information.

Nevertheless, Redcloak isn't slaughtering thousands needlessly, he's making a strategic sacrifice. One soldier for the phylactery and the entire Resistance, that's shrewd. Kasparov would be proud.

Kish
2012-01-13, 12:43 PM
your personal opinion (which is irrelevant and shouldn't be discussed here),

:smallannoyed: Right. We're all machines.

but nobody said Redcloak WASN'T Evil, and at any rate such an act is not the same as throwing thousands of soldiers at a problem for the lulz when less gruesome solutions are apparent and viable.
That's the second person to have posted as though his lines about increased perspective are supposed to be referring to the epiphany he had three hundred and seventy-six strips ago.

Edited: And a third while I'm posting that. I apparently need to edit the starting post.

Lucid Inebriate
2012-01-13, 12:52 PM
I still don't see your point. You say he hasn't changed as much as he thinks, but I don't remember him ever having considered that individual lives are more important than the Plan (or having deluded himself into think he's 'changed' so that he now acts according to this maxim).

Edit: It's been a long time since I read SoD, is there perhaps a specific moment you're alluding to?

Lucid Inebriate
2012-01-13, 12:56 PM
[QUOTE=Kish;12524750]:smallannoyed: Right. We're all machines.

Real life morality discussions are, as far as I know, both officially frowned upon and tend to degenerate into barely related tangents. I just wanted to make it clear that I'm not disputing his being evil or DnD Evil and thus that point need not be discussed for our purposes.

Trixie
2012-01-13, 12:57 PM
However, he's still sacrificing the lives of his loyal followers for his plan, and he's still treating the hapless remnants of Azure City as the primary enemy, not Xykon. He hasn't changed as much as he apparently thinks he has.

Minor correction here - it's not his plan. He is just a pawn of his god (who just sent him a reminder he could do a better job, at that). Could he not sacrifice his life? Possibly, but we still don't know what exactly is the secret being protected here and from whom. Judging character actions on incomplete data isn't best thing to do.

And in short term, resistance (by simply fact of allying with and adopting methods of elven commandos) is the largest enemy, not Xykon. Especially seeing he is vital pawn to complete the plan, no?


I never saww Redcloak as a good person, but a irredeemable villain. He may have his point, but I don't believe about it.

He is a hateful being, he uses Gobbos, Hobbos and whatever he has to further his goals. And remember: He don't mind feeding people to the Snarl (And he's a cleric who not only believes, but have factual proof of an afterlife: He's doing an unspeakable crime just thinking about destroying souls!) but he even want to rick the whole world, and the souls of every ALIVE BEING.

Seriously, anybody with a positive INT would destroy the Crimsom Mantle, bury all the books about the Dark One, and never talk about it, ever.

You don't believe 'your race's very existence having only point to be genocidied at other's leisure' and trying to change it is valid point to make? Huh :smallconfused:

And yes, while he bluffed he will feed others to snarl, these others were members of a nation that did pretty much everything they could to Redcloak's life life to create enemy they have today. Redcloak would never try to fulfil the plan and was close to abandoning it when he lost all reasons that stopped him from pursuing it... And I don't fail him for being disillusioned about rebuilding again and again only to see everyone die and instead trying to fix what he sees a cause of the the problem.

Oh, and the easiest way to destroy Crimson Mantle was to not kill Dark One in underhanded and treacherous way, same as with Redcloak. Blaming someone for being a problem when you created that person/problem in the first place is... hypocritical at least for OotS humans. They could have simply taken Dark One's offer of peace and nothing of this would've happened.

Lucid Inebriate
2012-01-13, 01:03 PM
Minor correction here - it's not his plan. He is just a pawn of his god (who just sent him a reminder he could do a better job, at that). Could he not sacrifice his life? Possibly, but we still don't know what exactly is the secret being protected here and from whom. Judging character actions on incomplete data isn't best thing to do.

And in short term, resistance (by simply fact of allying with and adopting methods of elven commandos) is the largest enemy, not Xykon. Especially seeing he is vital pawn to complete the plan, no?



You don't believe 'your race's very existence having only point to be genocidied at other's leisure' and trying to change it is valid point to make? Huh :smallconfused:

And yes, while he bluffed he will feed others to snarl, these others were members of a nation that did pretty much everything they could to Redcloak's life life to create enemy they have today. Redcloak would never try to fulfil the plan and was close to abandoning it when he lost all reasons that stopped him from pursuing it... And I don't fail him for being disillusioned about rebuilding again and again only to see everyone die and instead trying to fix what he sees a cause of the the problem.

Oh, and the easiest way to destroy Crimson Mantle was to not kill Dark One in underhanded and treacherous way, same as with Redcloak. Blaming someone for being a problem when you created that person/problem in the first place is... hypocritical at least for OotS humans. They could have simply taken Dark One's offer of peace and nothing of this would've happened.

That's not how the world works. People aren't made problems, they become them, and need to be neutralized when they threaten the safety of others. This applies not only to Redcloak but the majority of generals and politicians.

factotum
2012-01-13, 01:08 PM
Nevertheless, Redcloak isn't slaughtering thousands needlessly, he's making a strategic sacrifice. One soldier for the phylactery and the entire Resistance, that's shrewd. Kasparov would be proud.

He could have done the same by laying a trap for the Resistance as they were on their way to pick up the phylactery, and that would have saved the lives of the goblinoids who found the thing...clearly, it suits Redcloak's current plan (whatever it is) that he and possibly Jirix are the only people who know the phylactery was found, and if a few dozen goblinoids had to die to ensure that was the case, so what?

Chronos
2012-01-13, 01:13 PM
He's evil. We all know that he's evil, and he's never even denied it himself. Letting one specific hobgoblin soldier die for the sake of the overall plan (or Plan, as the case may be) is only to be expected. And he even took measures to minimize the number of hobgoblins who needed to die, by using summons for his muscle instead of his army.

Trixie
2012-01-13, 01:25 PM
That's not how the world works. People aren't made problems, they become them, and need to be neutralized when they threaten the safety of others. This applies not only to Redcloak but the majority of generals and politicians.

I disagree, but... By that line of thinking: "humans become a problem for goblins when they agreed to the whole 'let's kill goblins for xp' plan and doubly so when they begun hunting their priests in particular. Redcloak simply choose to neutralize them for threatening safety of others". Isn't it correct in the light of the above, seeing as humans attacked first in both cases? :smallconfused:

jidasfire
2012-01-13, 01:59 PM
Redcloak is a character who has proven he is capable of learning, growing, and changing. None of that means he is ever going to become a nicer person. There's this odd notion which seems to circle internet fanbases that suggests every character in a story who isn't a 100% despicable monster must be "redeemed." Some authors even support it. However, I don't think that's the case with Redcloak. Early on in the comic, he seemed to be the conscientious objector in Xykon's army, trying to prevent his evil master's worst excesses and sighing resignedly at the lich's oblivious cruelty. Over time, we've seen him develop into a more capable villain, but we've also seen him drift away from being sympathetic. His arrogance and casual ruthlessness toward not only the Azurites, but also his own people in various forms have become defining character traits, and he is quite convinced that any terrible thing he does is someone else's fault, whether Xykon or the paladins or the hobgoblins. Eventually he decided not that it was wrong to sacrifice loving and trusting followers to his mad Plan, only that it was wrong to sacrifice them without purpose. Now, it seems, he has learned that it is foolish to take things said by people he hates personally, and to destroy them in the most efficient way possible. Not exactly a moral lesson so much as one in being a better villain.

I think Redcloak is making moves towards becoming a true player in the game while under Xykon's nose. He may hate the lich, but he still needs him, and knows he can't move against him yet. It seems that his failure against O-Chul and subsequent humbling by Xykon have hardened him, and probably eroded a few of the threads of decency he still had, but make no mistake. Redcloak has not been in any way sympathetic since he killed his brother, and he never will be again.

Fish
2012-01-13, 02:13 PM
He could have done the same by laying a trap for the Resistance as they were on their way to pick up the phylactery...
Again, this depends on the reason for Redcloak's secrecy. If his purpose is to keep anyone from knowing that the golden thingy is Xykon's soul-hidey place, it's possible the spy was always due to die.

We don't know whether it was possible for Redcloak to have set his trap in time. Possibly he could've snatched the phylactery and Word of Recall'd away, but maybe not. Rich says explicitly that characters don't always choose the best or most efficient course of action.

Dancing Cthulhu
2012-01-13, 07:24 PM
However, he's still sacrificing the lives of his loyal followers for his plan*, and he's still treating the hapless remnants of Azure City as the primary enemy, not Xykon. He hasn't changed as much as he apparently thinks he has.

On the "Azurites as the primary enemy" - they aren't being treated that way. They aren't being treated as Redcloak's primary or even secondary enemies (or so on down the order). They are an inconvenience. A thorn in the side of his "proof of theory" Goblinoid city. It just so happened Redcloak has finally be given the cause and opportunity to remove them.

Now theoretically one could say "but Redcloak could use them against Xykon, he isn't so he hasn't learnt much because he is still fighting the wrong battles!" but that, to my mind, would be playing with fire. Their name says it all - The Resistance. As long as they are alive they will continue to undermine the city, to kill Goblin kind and so forth. Redcloak really has no reason to act any differently with them. Certainly no side in this conflict appears open to negotiation for control of the city.

Or to say it another way - it is possible to be fighting two entirely separate battles at once, with differing degrees of importance. Maybe sometimes you can swing it so that your two enemies hurt each other making it easier for you, but that wont always be possible or worth the effort. The Resistance is a here and now enemy of Redcloak and Redcloak's desire to improve the lot of Goblinkind in the here and now. Xykon is a potential threat at some point down the road to Redcloak himself and Redcloaks big picture in general.

On Xykon - Redcloak is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Redcloak hasn't gotten past the belief the path he is on must be the path taken to free Goblin-kind from divine mandated adversary status. Events post V have shaken his confidence in being able to control Xykon, but he still needs him to complete the Dark One's plan (epic spell casters who can draw fire away from you and aid in muscling through defenses aren't that easy to come by). Or thinks he does at least. I'd say this strip shows he has changed, it looks like he is taking steps to get Xykon back on his leash, at least for a time, rather than just assuming Xykon is a bit of a fool he can out think when the time comes.


*Edited since apparently this was really unclear: I do not mean "he is no longer treating hobgoblins like vermin who it is fun to see die." That would have been appropriate to post when #451 was the most recent strip...if it was appropriate to point out the screamingly obvious, that is. I mean that he is treating goblinoids, goblins and hobgoblins alike, the same way he treated his fellow goblins way, way back in Start of Darkness, which is, as his brother called him on, still very much not the correct attitude.

Well killing an underling to keep a secret is a bigger thing than Redcloak and I don't think it really supports your argument that well. It is really, very context sensitive. And I don't know, it might not come off as "good guy" to us in reader land, but spies, even in the hands of "good guys nations" IRL don't necessarily have it easy (though probably not to the point of getting killed if they "learn to much").

I don't know if other pick it up from the strip but I kind of get a bit of "The Operative" vibe from Serenity when it comes to Redcloak.

Believes in some big ideal but doesn't believe he is a "good person" for doing bad things in the name of that big ideal. In fact has no illusions about what he is or has become, but accepts being such as person as necessary because the big ideal requires it.

Dancing Cthulhu
2012-01-13, 07:40 PM
He's evil. We all know that he's evil, and he's never even denied it himself. Letting one specific hobgoblin soldier die for the sake of the overall plan (or Plan, as the case may be) is only to be expected. And he even took measures to minimize the number of hobgoblins who needed to die, by using summons for his muscle instead of his army.

Indeed "for the greater good" as certainly ideal-motivated ideals might say.

In terms of Redcloak the biggest evolution/change he has gone through on this site isn't deciding Goblin life shouldn't be sacrificed "for the greater good" - certainly I think he is prepared to sacrifice himself should it be required when the time comes.

No, it is the fact he now appreciates and is affected by that sacrifice. Once he could send thousands of Hobgoblins to their deaths without a tinge of guilt and regardless of whether some other plan might be possible (it might be somewhat longer or more difficult than Hobogoblin waves). No more. He is still prepared to sacrifice if it is called for, but he feels something.

Dr.Epic
2012-01-13, 08:46 PM
Halfway through Start of Darkness.

What are you talking about?:smallconfused:

SPoD
2012-01-13, 11:24 PM
Maybe I'm missing something, Kish, but you seem to be arguing against a point that no one is making. Is there anyone who thinks this IS an epiphany for Redcloak? Or that he has in any way become less of the villain that he has been for some time?

The only perspective he gained by losing his eye, by his own admission, is not to take stupid risks—such as keeping a paladin captive for a year instead of just killing him when he had the chance. So given the chance again, he executes the paladin, even though there was the off-chance that Thanh could have given him useful information about the next Gate. That's the whole lesson: Be more brutal, be more efficient, be more ruthless. Do what you need to do to keep the Plan moving. Leaving the goblin spy dead (or executing him, if it had come to that) is entirely in line with that perspective.

So no, he hasn't had any sort of epiphany or realization that the way he has been treating goblins is wrong. And? So? Lots of characters don't have epiphanies. Almost all of them. I don't understand why we have a thread that amounts to, "This character is acting the same way this character has acted for a long time."

The Pilgrim
2012-01-14, 12:33 AM
After so many time out of the picture, and Tarquin getting so many screen time, Team Evil needed a big scene to remember everyone who are the Main Villains of the Comic.

The smashing of the Resistance basically served that narrative purpose. Redcloack is more badass than ever, has smashed the Resistance single handed, and has shown to have access to frigging Level 9 Spells.

With everyone guessing what will happen at Giriard's, Team Evil has remembered everyone that they are the main badasses, and Tarquin is small league in comparison.

In addition, Redcloak has remembered everyone that despite his efforts at building Gobbotopia, he is still as Lawful Evil as ever.

Kish
2012-01-14, 08:35 AM
Maybe I'm missing something, Kish, but you seem to be arguing against a point that no one is making.

If this was meant to be a reply to someone on the boards, it would be posted as a reply to that person.

Is there anyone who thinks this IS an epiphany for Redcloak?

Redcloak. Apparently.

"What I have lost in depth perception, I have gained in perspective." No, Redcloak, you're still wrong and your brother was still right.

Trixie
2012-01-14, 08:52 AM
Redcloak. Apparently.

"What I have lost in depth perception, I have gained in perspective." No, Redcloak, you're still wrong and your brother was still right.

Except, minor epiphany he had now wasn't tied to goblins, it was to his treatment of risks. At best you can make argument that he didn't raised the goblin because near failure of the plan with Darth V's attack made him far more cautious and unwilling to take risks than he was.

And while Red might be wrong, his brother wasn't right exactly either.

Firemeier
2012-01-14, 09:51 AM
No, Redcloak, you're still wrong and your brother was still right.

That seems to be popular belief around here but it's just not correct. True, Redcloak is a victim of the sunk cost fallacy, in that he doesn't want to abandon Xykon because that would mean admitting that he made a mistake in the first place. But even if we take that out of the equation and imagine a world where this is no issue for RC, what would he gain from standing up to Xykon? It's abundantly clear from SoD that Right Eye's attempt to assassinate Xykon would have failed miserably, even if RC hadn't killed his brother beforehand.

The same situation applies today:

Xykon definitely won't just let Redcloak walk away from him and the gates.
Redcloak can't beat Xykon in battle

Thus, taking Xykon out of the picture simply is not an option. And the results would be devastating:


Redcloak gets killed in the conflict --> no personal gain for him
Xykon proceeds to treat the goblin peoples as his minions. That is, if he doesn't kill them all as retribution.
Xykon gives the Crimson mantle to a significantly lower level goblin than RC was. --> The Plan(tm) continues, only with worse odds of actually succeeding

In summary, neither Redcloak nor goblinoids in general are any better off when Redcloak "grows balls/ a spine" as people frequently demand.

Right Eye's assessment of the situation was just as wrong as Redcloak's. They're just wrong in different ways. Right Eye did the wrong thing for the right reasons, while RC is doing the right thing for the wrong reason.

Anyway, we won't be able to judge the extent of Redcloak's gain in perspective until we know what he does with the phylactery. His secrecry about acquiring it seems to indicate that he has started to take precautions for the final fallout between Xykon and himself.

B. Dandelion
2012-01-14, 10:27 AM
I do not yet have the sense that Redcloak is claiming to have had a change of heart or anything like that. He believes he's gained a tactical perspective, a claim which may or may not have merit (personally, I suspect it's just what he has to tell himself to get through the day -- no, losing his eye wasn't yet another painful, humiliating reminder of just how far he's subordinated himself underneath the undead abomination who openly calls him his bitch, it was a lesson in tactical perspective. Right.)

Cizak
2012-01-14, 11:25 AM
Redcloak. Apparently.

"What I have lost in depth perception, I have gained in perspective." No, Redcloak, you're still wrong and your brother was still right.

Wait, that is what this whole thread is about? That has nothing to do with treatment of goblinoids, Righteye or Xykon. That line was about taking unnecessary risks.

Valyrian
2012-01-14, 11:56 AM
I agree that Right-Eye was right back in SoD, and Redcloak still hasn't seen this. The epiphany he had during the invasion of Azure City was only that he should better be as careless with the lives of hobgoblins as with those of goblins, as opposed to even more careless, in the pursuit of his plans. Which doesn't change all that much in the overall picture.

I don't think that RC had another epiphany related to goblins or his plan in the current strip, though.

PS: Whenever I read discussion about Redcloak, I still find it glaring to see how many people only consider relatibility when judging a characters morality. It's the only explanation why people would prefer a well intentioned extremist like Redcloak over a minor jerkass / bigot like the elven commander.

CarinTrenos
2012-01-14, 05:45 PM
Good, evil, whatever...

Redcloak is evil, compared to the protagonists of this story...ya.

As Xykon has said...."We are the villains - we play rough."

And why is Redlcoak playing with those "villains"?

Well, I understand that this question could be a little bit tricky without "start of darkness" but even without that great book there should have been enough hints about.....paladins, technically of course "good" guys, committing awul crimes against....whom? Goblins.

Even without the real reasons for those massacres it should be clear, that Redcloak and his brothers have every right to go to war against Azure City. and there have been even more hints about Redcloak's personal loss.....

Remember OotS is overall a very cruel story and many "good" guys don't have a problem with killing. Redcloak opposes the protagonists so, again technically, ya...he IS "evil". On the other side....he has finished the paladin menace for the goblin people and created the first free goblin state. In about 5 dozen stories he would be the GOOD guy, the hero, some kind of William Wallace, the champion against slavery and oppression.

He has done cruel things, he has killed many many innocents but also many murderers of innocent goblins. If we accept that goblins have the same right to exist like everyone else and if we take in mind that the goblin history is a story about blood, more blood and genocide...then i just say NO, he is not a monster. There is a high possibility that Redcloak opposes Xykon in a later part of the story or finds out that there is some kind of problem with his bigger plan - it would fit perfectly into the plot. But, and I say it again, Redcloak's actions against Azure City and the Resistance aren't "evil". They are cruel, they are tricky, maybe the are godless - and SURE - he is as cynical like Belkar. You don't need to like such a creature, you don't need to share his goals but, for the future of his people, his actions are logical, they are necessary and most important, out of a goblin's perspective, they are justified.

SPoD
2012-01-14, 06:29 PM
"What I have lost in depth perception, I have gained in perspective." No, Redcloak, you're still wrong and your brother was still right.

OK, well, I don't think Redcloak was claiming what you think he was claiming. I don't think that line of dialogue is meant to reflect in any way, shape or form on Redcloak's morality or difference in viewpoint with his brother. It refers solely to the risks he took keeping a paladin prisoner for a year. He has gained a new perspective on the value of taking unnecessary personal risks because he got stabbed in the eye; he did not change his view of the universe at large or his place in it. It has nothing to do with Start of Darkness at all, unless you know of a scene in SoD where Right-Eye argued that he should (or shouldn't) take paladins prisoner.

This thread is sort of like someone saying, "Hey, I think I was wrong about sweet potatoes, they're not half bad," and then someone else running up to them and yelling, "THAT DOESN'T MAKE YOU A GOOD PERSON!" That's true, of course, but so what? There's no real connection between the change of perspective claimed and the refutation that's being delivered. It is entirely possible to change one's perspective on one situation without changing it on another. Apples and oranges.

jidasfire
2012-01-14, 08:22 PM
He has done cruel things, he has killed many many innocents but also many murderers of innocent goblins. If we accept that goblins have the same right to exist like everyone else and if we take in mind that the goblin history is a story about blood, more blood and genocide...then i just say NO, he is not a monster. There is a high possibility that Redcloak opposes Xykon in a later part of the story or finds out that there is some kind of problem with his bigger plan - it would fit perfectly into the plot. But, and I say it again, Redcloak's actions against Azure City and the Resistance aren't "evil". They are cruel, they are tricky, maybe the are godless - and SURE - he is as cynical like Belkar. You don't need to like such a creature, you don't need to share his goals but, for the future of his people, his actions are logical, they are necessary and most important, out of a goblin's perspective, they are justified.

I would buy that if and only if Redcloak's actions didn't make things even worse for his people. But the fact is, since Redcloak's alliance with Xykon, waves and waves of goblins have died, and he's done little to help them. In fact, he inadvertently destroyed a village of goblins that lived in peace with their human neighbors by leading Xykon straight to it, and got every single one of them killed. Less than William Wallace, I see Redcloak as being like Demona from Gargoyles, a person who wants to help their people, but is so hateful and careless in how they do it, that they make matters infinitely worse, and never accept personal responsibility. I suspect that Redcloak smashing the Resistance and the elves will be a further nail in his coffin in this regard, though obviously I can't be sure yet.