Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.

[Mellhurst]

The issues most people take with N_P's remarks are:
1. He criticizes the comic for not adhering to D&D's black-and-white morality, when a major theme of the comic is that D&D morality doesn't have to be black-and-white to work;
2. He often claims non-evil goblins don't work based on their Usually NE entry, when Usually NE doesn't imply no non-evil goblins;
3. He describes Redcloak's characterization as "failed," when most people consider it one of the best parts of the comic.

Oh I see. Well #2 is quite silly and I like RC too. He's gotten much better lately, I also understand his concern though, he didn't seem quite that deep to start with, but if the giant decided to give him more depth rather than have a set plan from the start then I think he made the right choice.

#1, yeah I think that's the problem here. I guess I was a bit defensive on his part because he was being criticized so much on page 1.
I think what he dislikes is that it wasn't (though we don't know the Giants plans from the start, plus there were those goblin children they had those arguments with) what it was about at the start and that it should stay true and exclusive to the original perspective.

Basically he's a purist who puts a premium on the structural integrity of his stories and hates Cerberus Syndrom (not that I'm saying OoTS has it, the expansion of plot has been done very smoothly here).

Personally I think the mismatch here between D&D reality and D&D reality deconstructed within a campaign setting is very small. Goblin basically takes your ethics textbook and rams it down your throat till you die of internal bleeding (I'm reading it again though, it does a lot of things so right), whereas the giant spreads a few grains of it over your dinner every day (... well, except in the case of Miko...).