On The Creation of the Monster Races (SoD spoilers)

[hamishspence]

This thread will proceed on the assumption that people willing to read it have read SoD- and will therefore not spoiler references to events from it. Continue at your own risk.

Now- Redcloak's account has the main pantheons (East, West, and South) collaborating in the creation of various "monster races" to be XP fodder for their clerics.

But (if it's true in essentials) what does that mean for those races?

Were the first individuals of those races created evil- that is, with no inhibitions about harming others for personal gain?

Was this an inheritable condition?

If not, were their immediate descendants evil- and why?

Could it be that they were (most of them) evil not because of any "inherent nature" but because their parents raised them in "the values and ethical system of Evil"- and these values, and that behaviour, continued to be "passed on"?

How did the hostilities start? Did the "created evil" first members of the monstrous races, motivated by both a desire to survive their harsh environment, and jealousy of the "player races" sweep out of their grim lands, on raiding expeditions, and thus provoke adventuring parties to come after them in retaliation and to protect their own folk?

Or, did the first stroke in the war come from clerics who were told, in effect "There are now Evil creatures in those lands. Being naughty in Our sight, they must snuff it- and we're sending you to do the job."?

Thoughts?

[fergo]

I know it doesn't really answer your questions, but I wish we had more information (or another side of the story) than Redcloak's version.

It implies that as soon as the 'evil' races were created, they were instantly attacked for XP; which doesn't really seem that unlikely but I would be hesitant to accept it at its face value.

It goes without saying that Recloak's version may be a wee bit biased.

If I recall correctly, Rich mused on the topic in one of his recent interviews. I'm sure he said something that the origins of the Southern Human-Goblin conflict was lost in time and even he doesn't know who struck first--which doesn't really support Redcloak's version of events.*

It seems likely, looking at the (possibly) warlike nature of some of the 'evil' races and the disadvantaged situation they found themselves in, that they may have struck first. To what extent and how 'monstrous' this assault was is an important question (was it the sort of war for territory that humans engage in all the time, or was it something more vicious?).

So, basically, I don't know .

* I'm sure I've read or heard this somewhere, but it may have (when I think of it) been on this forum. Does anyone else know what I'm talking about?

[hamishspence]

If I recall correctly, Rich mused on the topic in one of his recent interviews. I'm sure he said something that the origins of the Southern Human-Goblin conflict was lost in time and even he doesn't know who struck first--which doesn't really support Redcloak's version of events.*

It seems likely, looking at the (possibly) warlike nature of some of the 'evil' races and the disadvantaged situation they found themselves in, that they may have struck first. To what extent and how 'monstrous' this assault was is an important question (was it the sort of war for territory that humans engage in all the time, or was it something more vicious?).

So, basically, I don't know .

* I'm sure I've read or heard this somewhere, but it may have (when I think of it) been on this forum. Does anyone else know what I'm talking about?

It might have been this quote from War & XPs you're thinking of, in the "LG & Goblin Villages" thread:

The immediate hatred displayed by Redcloak and Miko toward each other is part of the idea that the two groups- goblins and humans, particularly Southern humans- have been battling back and forth for centuries. At this point, it has become impossible to tell who started the hostilities; each side remembers nothing so much as their last defeat by the other.

And so the cycle of violence continues, generation after generation. Did the humans start it by crusading against the goblins, or did the goblins start it by trying to harness the rifts? Or did the humans start it by putting the goblins in a position where they felt they had no recourse but to harness the rifts? Who can say? Well, I suppose I could, but I find it much more interesting to keep it ambiguous.

EDIT:
Aside from by The Giant, the questions can't be answered definitively by anyone- but we can make a guess at what seems most likely, based on what The Giant has previously said- especially in the "Redcloak's failed characterization" thread- about what he's deconstructing.

[fergo]

That's the quote I was thinking of; I haven't got the book (yet!) so it must have been posted on the forum at some point.

As for my thoughts on the 'evil' races striking first, I would still argue that regardless of their evilness, the fact that they had much more to gain from conflict (and almost nothing to lose) points in the direction of them striking first.

Not that it matters in the slightest, of course. Just like a dozen real world examples I could name (but won't, because of forum rules ). It doesn't excuse either side's behaviour, and it doesn't really effect the story at this point. I wouldn't want it to be revealed and I don't think it's likely that it will be in any case.

[Grey Watcher]

That's the quote I was thinking of; I haven't got the book (yet!) so it must have been posted on the forum at some point.

As for my thoughts on the 'evil' races striking first, I would still argue that regardless of their evilness, the fact that they had much more to gain from conflict (and almost nothing to lose) points in the direction of them striking first.

Not that it matters in the slightest, of course. Just like a dozen real world examples I could name (but won't, because of forum rules ). It doesn't excuse either side's behaviour, and it doesn't really effect the story at this point. I wouldn't want it to be revealed and I don't think it's likely that it will be in any case.

In the same vein, I find it just as plausible that the humans, emboldened by a sense that they have the divine right (perhaps even duty ) to do so, decided to expand their borders into territory that happened to be occupied by goblinoids. I think both sides have a very plausible (if, especially in the humans' case, not especially noble) reason for striking first. I think it basically boils down to which learned of the other first and what did they know or suspect about their foe's intentions. Either way, I can see that the first group to learn about the other would take the attitude "We have to get them before they get us," setting into motion the vicious cycle that is so integral to Redcloak's backstory.

[B. Dandelion]

There was this one line in SoD I noticed right away:

They gave their new creations every geographic, economic, and even physical disadvantage they could think of to ensure that they would cling to the outskirts of other civilizations in their hovels and act as raiders and brigands [...]

Now in context, Redcloak has just been talking about how the gods feared the humanoid races might band together and conquer the humans and elves. So it's easy to read this as an extension of that thought. But I have wondered for some time if this could be interpreted to mean "they put the humanoids in such a disadvantaged position that any race would wind up with a higher-than-average incidence of evil-aligned individuals" -- if we can presume raiders and brigands are generally considered evil. This parallels a certain unfortunate truth in real life regarding correlations between violent crime and the economically disadvantaged, and race is often dragged into the mix as well.

So is it possible they were never created evil, as in an inborn evil, but put in a setup that was designed to favor evil?

[Morty]

Out of the two, I consider the monster races becoming largely evil due to being given the crappiest land with no resources more likely... of course, we've only heard this story from Redcloak who had got it from the Dark One, and neither are entirely reliable.
On that note, I wonder when and how - and perhaps most importantly, by whom - the whole reason for the Plan will be revealed in the online strip.

[hamishspence]

But I have wondered for some time if this could be interpreted to mean "they put the humanoids in such a disadvantaged position that any race would wind up with a higher-than-average incidence of evil-aligned individuals" -- if we can presume raiders and brigands are generally considered evil. This parallels a certain unfortunate truth in real life regarding correlations between violent crime and the economically disadvantaged, and race is often dragged into the mix as well.

So is it possible they were never created evil, as in an inborn evil, but put in a setup that was designed to favor evil?

It would not entirely surprise me if the guy saying "Nah, the humans got all the good dirt. Lucky (redacted)." started out Neutral.

I've seen the "The Azurites were put in exactly the same position as the goblinoids, and they didn't descend into becoming raiders and brigands" argument raised in connection with this before.

However, the Azurites were led by a paladin at the time. It's possible that the "ordinary citizenry" might have decided differently if it had been up to them.

[fergo]

There was this one line in SoD I noticed right away:



Now in context, Redcloak has just been talking about how the gods feared the humanoid races might band together and conquer the humans and elves. So it's easy to read this as an extension of that thought. But I have wondered for some time if this could be interpreted to mean "they put the humanoids in such a disadvantaged position that any race would wind up with a higher-than-average incidence of evil-aligned individuals" -- if we can presume raiders and brigands are generally considered evil. This parallels a certain unfortunate truth in real life regarding correlations between violent crime and the economically disadvantaged, and race is often dragged into the mix as well.

So is it possible they were never created evil, as in an inborn evil, but put in a setup that was designed to favor evil?

Good thinking .

I'd say it was some sort of mixture of the two, really. From what we've seen of the OotS gods, setting things up just so, leading inevitably to the races becoming evil 'naturally', would be a bit long-winded for them when they could easily just predispose them to being evil anyways.

Although, to be fair, the god we see most is Thor, so I have no idea how reliable this speculation is (and it'd be quite something if it was even less reliable than my normal speculation ).

[rbetieh]

It would not entirely surprise me if the guy saying "Nah, the humans got all the good dirt. Lucky (redacted)." started out Neutral.

I've seen the "The Azurites were put in exactly the same position as the goblinoids, and they didn't descend into becoming raiders and brigands" argument raised in connection with this before.

However, the Azurites were led by a paladin at the time. It's possible that the "ordinary citizenry" might have decided differently if it had been up to them.

Well, neither did the OOTS Orcs apparently. Stuck on some kind of tropical island using stone and wood implements, they took to having fun and learning grammar. But one of their core skills is still Rampaging, and the first chance they got they went for a rampage and ritualistic sacrifice double-header. Now, maybe in constant contact with Humans, they would have been more evil (not that these orcs werent evil, just not evil to the core hance Elan connected with them). But why would that be? I posit the following:

(1)Random Orc gets lost and ends up at small human village,
(2)hapless villager sees orc and seeing as he "looks scary" screams,
(3) this prompts village "hero" into action, killing the orc cuz he is "terrorizing" the villagers,
(4)Orcs find out and decide to exact retribution by using their skill of choice, Rampaging
(5)Kingdom of which village belongs makes a call to arms to eliminate the "Orc Menace"
(6) From then on Orcs and Humans hate each other

A good review, for Warcraft 2

Why would the Gods create "Monster" races in the first place? Well, either to thin the human herd (sadistic gods), or to provide a pathway for people to reach Godhood themselves, assuming that people just get to be gods if they reach a certain level. Either way, they exist to oppose people, and that means they must terrify the "innocent villagers" and be powerful enough such that said villagers are forced to "hold out for a hero". I mean why make them Look Scary if they arent supposed to scare people, right?

[B. Dandelion]

I've seen the "The Azurites were put in exactly the same position as the goblinoids, and they didn't descend into becoming raiders and brigands" argument raised in connection with this before.

However, the Azurites were led by a paladin at the time. It's possible that the "ordinary citizenry" might have decided differently if it had been up to them.

...does this refer to Hinjo and his refugees? I was thinking, if you're talking about the Resistance, some of them really weren't behaving all that great, and deliberately keeping stuff from the paladin in charge. Things were less dire for Hinjo and his group. Not to underplay the gravity of their loss, but for refugees it seemed like they were pretty well off. The first time we cut back to them after Roy climbs back down the mountain, they're celebrating a wedding in a fair amount of style, and Hinjo drops an infodump about how they've been to their various allies and been given supplies and had countries willing to take in refugees, he's just annoyed he can't get them to help oppose Xykon. They're pretty well-equipped, they have a decent fighting force and powerful allies both in the form of nations and in the Order of the Stick.

Goblins, meanwhile, start out at level one grubbing in the dirt with crude tools? While most things that see them want to kill them? I don't think the situations are close enough to make a meaningful comparison.

Good thinking .

I'd say it was some sort of mixture of the two, really. From what we've seen of the OotS gods, setting things up just so, leading inevitably to the races becoming evil 'naturally', would be a bit long-winded for them when they could easily just predispose them to being evil anyways.

Although, to be fair, the god we see most is Thor, so I have no idea how reliable this speculation is (and it'd be quite something if it was even less reliable than my normal speculation ).

Hey, thanks.

I don't think we know enough to say either way, by this point, it could be either or both. I am starting to lean more towards the "led to be evil" explanation over "made to be evil" in part because of the Giant's comments in the other thread.

.... well, also. It does occur to me that Redcloak/The Dark One's plan is less justifiable under the "led to be evil" scenario than the other. If goblins are mandated evil and can't help it, which makes killing them okay, there's (as of yet) no really apparent way to remedy the situation without going back up to the source. If the gods are guilty of giving the goblins a crappy starting position and encouraging humans to kill them, it's at least theoretically possible for the races to "bypass" their creators and come to an accord on their own.