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

[Math_Mage]

Har de har. Not most people here, judging from the disdainful tone displayed by some.

My argument stems from the OP - D&D goblins and OOTS goblins do not jell. I think I've showed that, using D&D sources. I'm not going to argue that point any more, because it's all laid out upthread.

You haven't shown that. You keep talking about this creature that was animated by its Evil creator God with an unwavering desire to do Evil in the world, but you haven't shown any substantial evidence that goblins are actually this way in D&D, or that they aren't the Giant's way in D&D (consider the many similarities between The Dark One and Maglubiyet, for example, even if they aren't an EXACT correspondence--which is fine, since sourcebooks state D&D pantheons may serve as a starting point for DMs to develop their own).

Meanwhile, you've neglected to address the numerous examples of Usually X creatures behaving in a Not-X manner.

Does that make OOTS less entertaining? Of course not. Does it make me a racist? Only to unreasonable, unthinking people. Does it my my D&D game shallow or boring? I'll ask my friends at the game tonight.

According to you, you've already gone through the trouble of developing a backstory for goblins that gives the players a logical consistent justification for considering goblins uniformly Evil...which is fine.

On the other hand, considering goblins uniformly Evil so that you don't HAVE to come up with their backstory would be lazy at best.

If you've been doing the former rather than the latter, there's no reason to be defensive.