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

[Baelzar]

And that's why they shouldn't be like that. Precisely because they have no reason to be hostile, and last time I checked, people were not attacking on sight everything that doesn't look like them. And if they do, they're horrible people I don't want to know.

Shouldn't? They shouldn't be like that? Says who? Not D&D. Not their deity. Just you.

I don't know what you were trying to prove with the point about "lazy human morality". It IS more lazy to have enemies attack you because they're enemies, no questions asked. It actually takes thinking to make up a motivation for your enemies. It doesn't take thinking to have them attack because they're not them. So yeah, human morality is less lazy.

The description I used for kobolds is straight from the 3.5 Monster Manual. It's intellectually lazy to treat D&D monsters like humans in different bodies, when the mythology disagrees.[/QUOTE]

That's all discounting the fact that, as I noticed earlier, inborn evil and sapience can't exist in the same being. Sapience implies free will and choice of morality, inborn evil forbids the same thing, thus a race of creatures can't be sapient and evil at the same time.

That is easily disprovable, even in our own human history. Your fact is made up.