Results 361 to 390 of 669
-
2012-02-15, 07:07 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
Hmmm
i do not know about there being a consensus. However if a wight is a mere biological robot with no real sapience, only an imitation therof, AND is a present and actual danger to innocent people......then I would say destroying it is probably more justified. In that reasoning with it may be impossible. If however a non-violent option does present itself, such as with more intelligent undead, then killing them is likely much less justified. My own 2 cents really.
Though someone who delighted in the act of killing them (rather than seeing it more neutrally, or as an needed but undesireable act) would still be doing something wrong to my eyes.
Edit: And to add an addendum, in an FPS the other "characters" are often actively trying to kill you, and so your actions do not carry the same weight as if in the game you begun to gun down russian civilians because "hey, they are just russians, and so in universe are baddies right?" I think it adds a useful distinction. So if goblin parties are attacking villages for food, slaves and mayhem then killing them to protect people is probably right. Going on to the village and killing the women and children who did no fighting "cos Goblins is evil innit" would not be right.Last edited by Omergideon; 2012-02-15 at 07:12 PM.
If I cared about this, I would probably do something about it.
-
2012-02-15, 07:08 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2004
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
I don't know which "previous post" you're telling me to see, or which in-game character you're referring to.
What I do know--what I, and multiple other people including the comic's author, have pointed out, to have it roundly ignored by the OP and everyone arguing the same case as him--is that the game system, D&D, does not actually support "it is morally correct to kill goblins for being goblins." So the belief that it is correct to do so is not one Nerd Paladin or anyone else got from reading any D&D book.Orth Plays: Currently Baldur's Gate II
-
2012-02-15, 07:10 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
To me, it seems like the same logic behind locking people up for, say, partaking of an illegal substance. Once they're "evil" it's the same as being a "criminal" so people departmentalize in their minds that the subjects no longer "count."
-
2012-02-15, 07:10 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Gender
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
It does. If the game (whatever the game) dynamics revolves around killing (large numbers of) sentient beings an 'objectification' process must take place. Period.
D&D was not created to be always like that. But in such a setting, the players self-image would boil down to two choices:
a) I am hero / great warrior who killed many servants of evil;
b) I am a killer with no coscience. Oh, and a racist.
The 'Always Evil' ruleset allows us to indentify with a) when playing such a scenario. Because that is, in the Giant's own experience, the scenario of 9/10 of the D&D campaigns.
-
2012-02-15, 07:11 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2009
- Location
- Gotham City
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
"And yet, will we ever come to an end of discussion and talk if we think we must always reply to replies? For replies come from those who either cannot understand what is said to them, or are so stubborn and contentious that they refuse to give in even if they do understand." - St. Augustine
The Index of the Giant's Comments | Thanks, Bradakhan, for the avatar!
-
2012-02-15, 07:14 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
Thanks to Elrond for the Vash avatar.
-
2012-02-15, 07:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Gender
-
2012-02-15, 07:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
- Gender
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
But is it? Does the player's satisfaction at the end of the session come from having defeated evil or from having killed yea many mooks? The problem with claiming the first one is that most DMs don't know how to write in evil except in a manner befitting a cartoon supervillain. You didn't confront anything really evil evil, you just punched out Cobra Commander and called it a day.
-
2012-02-15, 07:16 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
Don't they do those things because they were made that way by the gods of the world?
It basically boils down to a big theological argument over the validity of free will, if nothing else-and we sure as !@#$ aren't going to solve THAT one in this thread...
Rick: Part of the problem is that those DMs that DO know how to write really evil people tend to be railroader Storyteller types (like me!), and players are notoriously wary of that style of gaming, so they all just go write novels instead.Last edited by TheyCallMeTomu; 2012-02-15 at 07:18 PM.
-
2012-02-15, 07:23 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Gender
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
-
2012-02-15, 07:24 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
- Gender
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
And this is WHY I decided to become a novelist: I always, always overthink these things.
And this is why Rich is making a comic instead of playing D&D, because he also overthinks these things.
Overthinking =! purposelessness, but exceeding the circle of thought that most people give consideration to in a form of media. A work of fiction that has come about because of overthinking another work of fiction doesn't make it poorer; it makes it richer.
But it is a flaw in D&D and other RPGs that in order to work as intended you do pretty much need to be Gary Gygax, otherwise you trip over the system's flaws and tell a story with a bad premise, which ends up meaning that most goblins in D&D are killed because they're in the Monster Manual, not because they are evil.
-
2012-02-15, 07:27 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
Sort of, but not really. On a minor, but not irrelevant, opening note, we have the issue on whether or not the Redcloak's story from SoD is even true, he was told that by the Dark One, whose honesty is not established. Even if the story is true though, it doesn't say the goblins were made so they could only do evil, but they were given conditions that increased the likelyhood that they would. We've seen that goblins don't have to be evil, Right-eye's village seemed to be doing fine and living in harmony with nearby humans after all. So it seems that the goblins that are evil still have free will but they just, like Redcloak, decide to do evil.
Thanks to Elrond for the Vash avatar.
-
2012-02-15, 07:28 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
I tend to prefer Freeform Story Driven roleplaying to Dungeons and Dragons simply because it's more acceptable to do that kind of thing. In DnD... well, I can never make my players happy no matter what I do, so I just sort of stopped trying, and started trying to make myself happy.
Which has actually worked to a large extent, come to think of it.
-
2012-02-15, 07:29 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
I tend to prefer Freeform Story Driven roleplaying to Dungeons and Dragons simply because it's more acceptable to do that kind of thing. In DnD... well, I can never make my players happy no matter what I do, so I just sort of stopped trying, and started trying to make myself happy.
Which has actually worked to a large extent, come to think of it.
-
2012-02-15, 07:34 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
I tend to prefer Freeform Story Driven roleplaying to Dungeons and Dragons simply because it's more acceptable to do that kind of thing. In DnD... well, I can never make my players happy no matter what I do, so I just sort of stopped trying, and started trying to make myself happy.
Which has actually worked to a large extent, come to think of it.
-
2012-02-15, 07:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2010
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
I'm surprised how long this is gone, given how little effort it takes to establish the OP wrong. Not because of his claims about the comic failing to move him, those are personal opinion that will differ between people, but because of his repeated claims that Dungeons and Dragons is meant to be played a certain way and only that way, claims that are not born out by the material nor by the experiences of the majority of players, which serve as the foundation of his post. He views the comic as a cheat, because it differs from his ideas of what Dungeons and Dragons is. The problem is that he cannot wrap his mind around the concept that Dungeons and Dragons is designed to be flexible enough to accommodate different play styles.
Someone who says "goblins in Dungeons and Dragons are always a threat and never innocent" when the Monster Manual says "usually evil" does not have the right to accuse other people of playing fast and loose with the rules, because "usually" means "sometimes not". It's basic English comprehension. And that's just a microcosm of the way it's continued to play out over the discussion, with the OP essentially stuck on the idea that divergence from the way HE plays D&D means that you're not being true to the game, despite quotes such as those brought up by Hamishspence from the Book of Exalted Deeds:
Quote:
"Violence in the name of good must have just cause."
"Even launching a war on a nearby tribe of evil orcs is not necessarily good if the attack comes without provocation - the mere existence of evil orcs is not a just cause for war against them, if the orcs have been causing no harm"
and from 3.5 Eberron Campaign Setting:
Quote:
"In a world where characters have access to magic such as detect evil, it's important to keep in mind that evil people are not always killers, criminals, or demon worshippers. They mights be selfish and cruel, always putting their interests above those of others, but they don't necessarily deserve to be attacked by adventurers. The self-centered advocate is lawful evil, for example, and the cruel innkeeper is neutral evil."
which indicate that Dungeons and Dragons does discuss the very things he complains of the comic addressing. When pressed on this issue, the OP simply retreats behind the idea that because HE never plays with anyone who feels differently it means the RULES support his limited vision, in the worst kind of solipsism.
Further, he seems to labor under the misconception that having a sympathetic starting point means your actions aren't really truly Evil. This is also wrong, both in Dungeons and Dragons and the comic. As explored in many of the NPC villain write ups in published Dungeons and Dragons material, you can think you're doing the right thing and still be evil. Although, he did waffle on that one later.Last edited by ShikomeKidoMi; 2012-02-15 at 07:53 PM.
-
2012-02-15, 08:00 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2010
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
I once played a game with a newbie DM where the first bit of the adventure revolved around goblins. Without knowing that, I happened to make a diplomacy-heavy character who spoke several languages, including goblin. Standard stuff: the local priest sent us out to deal with a group of goblins in a nearby ruin that were harassing caravans.
We headed up to the ruin and the group let me have a go at talking the goblins down or starting some kind of peace talks. We didn't really roll the diplomacy out, the DM just said that my attempts at conversation were met with "Gnyaah, f--- you!" followed by combat. While we all got kind of a chuckle from it at the time (especially with the high pitched, beavis-esque voice he used to shriek the profanity), it really soured my experience when we later learned the surprise "twist" that the caravans these goblins had been attacking were human and goblin slave caravans sponsored by the aforementioned priest's church, and the chief goblin in that ruin (who we killed, along with everyone else) was a noted freedom fighter.
So the takeaway I got from that was that the concept of goblins = evil is so widespread that even when it is subverted people expect it to be played straight.
-
2012-02-15, 08:16 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2004
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
I would venture that a better takeaway would be that sometimes, particularly with an inexperienced DM, a DM will have a plan that involves you taking a nasty pratfall which s/he is sufficiently attached to to railroad it through even if a better/more experienced DM might be thinking, "Okay, this should actually lead to them finding out what's going on before they do something bad."
Orth Plays: Currently Baldur's Gate II
-
2012-02-15, 09:25 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2009
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
If that is your worry - and I'd agree, it's a real danger - surely the more salient issue in D&D is not "race", but "alignment". Once you label a creature - of any race - as "evil", a disturbing number of players think it's perfectly justified to kill it on sight, without any further trial or due process beyond the fact that it pinged some paladin's radar.
See? There's you doing it right there. You just implied that if an individual goblin were shown to be "evil", you would consider its execution "necessary" and non-evil. So no sooner have you got through explaining how it's wrong to judge people by placing them in groups (with which I wholeheartedly agree, by the way), than you've established a new criterion for placing people in groups in order to judge them.
Gary Gygax, in his later years, dropped the concept of "alignment" completely from his own games, citing the fact that "the concept caused so much misunderstanding and confusion". (Reference here, in case you want to know more.)"None of us likes to be hated, none of us likes to be shunned. A natural result of these conditions is, that we consciously or unconsciously pay more attention to tuning our opinions to our neighbor’s pitch and preserving his approval than we do to examining the opinions searchingly and seeing to it that they are right and sound." - Mark Twain
-
2012-02-15, 10:32 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
I tend to dislike alignment myself.
-
2012-02-16, 12:38 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2008
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
The D&D Digest: DM & Player guides. Product reviews & new releases. D&D Resources. Quick video tips.
Listen to the entertaining adventures of a real gaming group: Dungeons & Drogans.
-
2012-02-16, 03:56 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
I would agree that the labelling of "evil thus we slaughter" is as much an issue as doing it to races. It is the actions of individuals that determins how we should treat them.
Allthough I was certainly unclear in my quoted part here. It happens when you write a 1am in the morning I mean to say, and hopefully established it in other posts I have made, that execution is only to be called justified in very specific situations. The exact ones vary but an example would be "this thing is trying to kill me right now". Other options may be better, but when it's self defence or active defence of an innocent to kill may be necessary. That is my philosophy on the violence against evil things. I meant more to say that the specific critter needs to do something to require death before I would call it justifiable. However I would never, EVER, call it good. Never. Morally neutral at best. And to require death......for me means no other reasonable options exist.
I admit it means that I think even Roy fell below the mark back when he killed the sleeping Goblins who were then harmless. C'est la vie.If I cared about this, I would probably do something about it.
-
2012-02-16, 04:48 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
- Location
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
This is in chronological order, with longer answers condensed into spoiler tags just for the sake of taking up (slightly) less room. If I overlooked anyone, or did not do a thorough enough job addressing everyone's arguments...shoot me, I guess, there's not much more to be done.
Off to a rousing start I see. <further commentary under spoiler tag.>
SpoilerLook NP, if you don't like what The Giant's doin', there's no reason to get up in a fuss about it. It's your choice to continue reading even when you disagree with things.
But The Giant's right - sentient beings have souls - that is, they experience empathy, love, hate, greed, and all those other emotions that humans share. Though they may have different cultures, different upbringings, different interests, different beliefs, etc. they are similar in their thought process.
They're written that way so we can better familiarize with them, but also because it's the more likely scenario.
Now racism is the wrong term, here - since, as you said, goblins and humans aren't technically of the same race. The term "prejudice" applies, however, and that's exactly the point The Giant's been getting across.
See, it's things like that that gives the story humanity. Why does a story need humanity? To connect with the audience. You don't become invested in characters that are cardboard cut-outs, one dimensional, nor direct representations of the author's beliefs and only those beliefs. It's more interesting to see a mix of characters, a mix of beliefs, clashing, bouncing off each other, arguing, and generally driving the characters bonkers - just like real life. :D
This silly troll will show himself out now.
That's a misquote and a mischaracterization. What I said was that you should not become so emotionally invested that you lose your objectivity. And you shouldn't.
I do like Brecht though. <continues under spoilers>
Spoiler[quote]Point #2 - D&D is purely about black-and-white morality, and cannot and should not be anything else.
Also a misquote. What I said was that it works best that way and was written with that in mind; it's a game about noble heroes, despicable villains, vile monsters, and amazing feats. The most recent PHB says as much in almost those same terms. The more "moral ambiguity" you put into the game, the harder and harder it is to keep it on the rails. "The Order of the Stick" actually demonstrates this very well. There are other games that do better with exploring moral complexities, but D&D has never lent itself well to that.
A game in which the players have to figure out who the villain is can be a ton of fun. A game in which the players have to stop a war from breaking out when some jerk starts faking attacks is awesome.
As a corollary, your belief that in the D&D that everyone plays, goblins exist solely to be slaughtered, and therefore the comic is wrong is absurd. I have played in games where my party was confronted with an orcish civil war, and helped the orcs who would coexist with the nearby human settlements defeat their rivals. I've stopped a war between elves and gnolls by catching the rogue who stole the gnolls' war trophies. I've helped a group of goblins who were being enslaved by a cruel dragon. I've run a game in which local orcs entered into a deal with nearby human kingdoms to become mercenaries, safeguarding local populations while still getting to have the conflict that they craved. I have played games with friends, with strangers, online and on tabletops, and no one has ever said, "Oh, these goblins aren't evil? Well, that's a flawed game."
[b]Point #3 - OotS is flawed and wrong for not being exactly like your conception of D&D[/b]
Indeed. But what he wants to change, among other things, is the way that fantasy gaming works, based on his rather profound moral outrage over what he perceives as some kind of fantasy literary fascism. Which i think is...curious, to say the least. <continues in spoiler.>
SpoilerI can empathize with you - I have been angry at an author outright ignoring world conventions in glorified fanfic and being smug about it being the Right Way to Write Stories (Kirill Yeskov, I'm looking at you). But D&D has so much more... Diverse conventions than Tolkien has (and, as people have mentioned, Tolkien isn't black and white either). It is possible to choose an interpretation that fits the story and design, and I think the author has done so admirably. This is why I like The Giant's story, and deplore Yeskov's work.
Lay it on me. <continues in spoiler.>
SpoilerNerd_Paladin is arguing from a perspective of a story being a story - a self-contained, just-so thing that is subject to specific rules and conventions and has no bearing and indeed, should have no bearing on or reflection of reality, because that simply confuses the line between fiction and reality.
Art does not just imitate life, art holds a mirror up to life and reflects both its flaws and high points.
While the Giant isn't self-centered enough to use a webcomic as some kind of sociopolitical soapbox,
The central disagreement seems to be on this point, of whether or not a piece of genre fiction set in a fictional world can or should relate to reality, or if it should rather stick to the preconceptions of its stated setting lest it "muddy the waters" or, in the more common words of literary critics, "be pretentious".
The issue is that this story is not just this story, this story is also a commentary on a game, and that commentary strikes me as unpalatable. For more on this, see comments since page 8.
Not really an accurate summary, no, you've garbled several different points together. This is understandable, given the size of the thread and the many different fronts that the discussion is working on.
To whit, the argument is that Redcloak's story represents Mr. Burlew's take on what he feels are the morally repugnant qualities of fantasy gaming and D&D in particular; he feels that D&D is a racist game (or at least, contains a great degree of racist content), and that it is a "short jump" from depicting monsters as evil to employing hateful stereotypes against real people. I contend that that is not only not a short jump, that it's such a profound leap that you would need the diminished gravity of the moon to get it done.
Somewhat off-topic, but "Gilgamesh" is an INCREDIBLY complex story. <folklore geekery under spoiler tab.>
SpoilerGilgamesh's abuse of power and lesson in humility, the depth of his (almost homoerotic) relationship with Enkidu, the paradigm between gods, humans, and beasts, the depth of Gilgamesh's crisis of mortality, these are PHENOMENALLY complex issues. Now, the hero's conflict with various monsters, THAT's straightforward.
A stock villain doesn't sustain much scrutiny. The evil witch in Snow White doesn't need a reason to poison the apple; she's just jealous and eeeeeeeeevil. But she also gets virtually no screen time. Sooner or later the audience will ask, "Holy cow, what a stupid idea. An apple, are you kidding me? To put her to sleep? It makes no sense. Stab her! Or if you're jealous of her beauty, give her an apple that makes her ugly! Sleeping apple, sheesh."
Irrational Evil is just unsatisfying. To paint all goblins in the story as irredeemably evil reduces the complexity of the narrative to that of a first-person shooter. I've already got a nephew who tries to tell me stories of his virtual battles, and they're even less interesting than Herakles.
Well, it's a good subject of discussion. Don't you think? There's some really insightful stuff in this thread. Even the author weighed in. Oftentimes what we don't like makes the best subject for analysis. And the urge to share negative opinions about media is a VERY strong motivator.
Seriously - analyzing and debating about something with your key argument being "it's not worth of debate" is flawed in itself.
Because "The Order of the Stick" is not just about its own world. And Mr. Burlew feels that the interpretation presented in fantasy games (that it's possible for a fake monster to be inherently, irredeemably evil, at least in the context of the game world) is NOT valid at all, and is, in his words, "disgusting." <continues under spoiler.>
SpoilerThen there's the fact that Nerd-Paladin doesn't actually seem to be arguing his own view of simplistic alignment, but rather that one should judge the actual actions of another creature.
I find that indefensible in the face of how many people have come into this thread and debated the point. That kind of point (i.e. that there is only one workable approach) is disproven by the mere fact that it's debated at all, much less debated with the fervor that this thread has inspired.
"Flawed" would have been a better word, yes, or maybe just doing it your way.
Perhaps it's a feistier argument than you give it credit for. <continues under spoiler.>
SpoilerNot because of his claims about the comic failing to move him, those are personal opinion that will differ between people, but because of his repeated claims that Dungeons and Dragons is meant to be played a certain way and only that way, claims that are not born out by the material nor by the experiences of the majority of players, which serve as the foundation of his post.
Indeed. It seems to me that you almost MUST have a conflict with the enemy in order for him to even be the enemy, and for there to be any kind of plot at all. Of all the published adventures I have read, run, or played in, none instructed the heroes to go kill monsters "just because." I suppose someone COULD structure their game in this rather flimsy way, but that then is the fault of the gamer, not the game.
-
2012-02-16, 05:38 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2009
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
There's an Order of the Stick strip where Rich Burlew points out something absurd about D&D?
I'm shocked! Shocked, I say!
[Set's monocle pops out as he drops his crumpet into his tea]
-
2012-02-16, 06:10 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2010
- Gender
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
Gotta applaud N_P's endurance. I do agree that giving fantasy races inherent alignments is not racist on the part of the players, DMs, or game creators (though characters often act on those traits in a racist fashion, e.g. the Paladin who detect-smites every goblin he runs across because hey, Usually Neutral Evil, right?).
However, I disagree on basically every point related to the actual comic. Here are the points where you have been mistaken from the original post right up to your most recent one:
-Having sympathetic portrayals of the Usually Neutral Evil goblin race is not a departure from D&D. Not only is it nonsensical to claim that evil can never be portrayed sympathetically, not only is it nonsensical to claim that any departure from the sourcebooks' portrayal of fantasy races damages the comic, but the sourcebooks don't actually say goblins are always evil. Nor does OotS say goblins are NOT Usually Neutral Evil--only that they are such as a result of divine action, which Redcloak seeks to reverse. This is not a wishy-washy view of racial alignment, it's a DEEPER view. Feature, not bug.
-OotS may spend plenty of time parodying the in-world implications of game rules even now, but the comic hasn't been about that since before Strip 100--hell, that was even lampshaded in comic 242. Your dismay that RC does not still fit the early tone of the comic is entirely misguided, and your contention that RC's characterization represents a jarring turning point of the comic is flat-out wrong, because the comic made that turn long before RC was significantly characterized.
-D&D morality is neither black & white, nor incapable of describing a complex and nuanced world/story. Indeed, much of OotS is devoted to showing how D&D can support complex worldbuilding and storytelling, and the comic spends plenty of time mocking the black & white paradigm--not to show that tabletop rules cannot be applied to complex situations, but rather to show that D&D morality doesn't have to be, SHOULDN'T be, simplistic black & white absolutes. (Bolded because this point irritates me most--when you make such arguments as "By reading Order of the Stick, we can see how the conventions of the game fare poorly in a more realistic setting," it shows the extent to which you misunderstand the comic.) As such, the complex issues raised in OotS in no way undermine its relationship with D&D in general or alignment in particular. OotS is about the complex, nuanced world of tabletop gaming, silly bits and all. It's also about the complex and nuanced story being told in that world. THERE IS NO CONFLICT THERE.
-Redcloak's characterization is among OotS' most compelling features, and to claim it undermines the comic is frankly nuts.Last edited by Math_Mage; 2012-02-16 at 06:20 AM.
-
2012-02-16, 06:36 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
- Location
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
I still don't see how D&D has ever been a game about racist Paladins skewering helpless goblin children. Have you played that game? I've never played that game.
Your dismay that RC does not still fit the early tone of the comic is entirely misguided, and your contention that RC's characterization represents a jarring turning point of the comic is flat-out wrong, because the comic made that turn long before RC was significantly characterized.
not to show that tabletop rules cannot be applied to complex situations, but rather to show that D&D morality doesn't have to be, SHOULDN'T be, simplistic black & white absolutes.
But D&D IS a game that breaks morality down to a simple system; alignment. Nine options, they all have a definition, and everything, EVERYthing, fits into one category or the other. Even the concept of Neutral does not really reflect a vast continuum, it's as concrete an idea as Good or Evil (albeit it annoying hard to understand and implement much of the time). Good, Evil, or Neutral, that's the world we're looking at. Doesn't look much like the real world to me. If ONLY things were that simple, right?
And the mechanical elements of the game that are tied to alignment only push us even further into artificial abstraction. I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe that anyone trying to simulate a reasonably plausible moral system would include Detect Evil and Protection Against Good features. Here's where the goblin massacre in SoD really trips us up; Paladins who go around offing kids really oughtn't stay Paladins long. There's a triggered effect when they do that, and we've seen it happen. Now, I know Mr. Burlew made the point that, for the sake of story, we will never know the full ramifications of what happened that day, but we may presume that if the Sapphire Guard habitually burned down goblin villages and massacred the inhabitants (as Mr. Burlew says they did) that there must be an awful lot of Falling Paladins that shake out of that. And yet they continued with the practice, really?
Here the attempt to create a moral inversion where the "good guys" are acting evil and the "bad guys" are largely hapless falls apart because, given the context of the game materials that we know are relevant to this story, it doesn't work. This sort of thing could (and does) happen in the real world, but not in D&D, with its watchful gods and defined alignment categories. When some Marines go off their rockers and say, "Let's do the whole ****ing village!" none of them visibly fall from grace right after.Last edited by Nerd_Paladin; 2012-02-16 at 06:39 AM.
-
2012-02-16, 07:22 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2010
- Gender
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
Some time in the last couple pages, a poster related a story of an adventure where his DM railroaded him into helping human slavers kill the goblins who were attacking the caravan for righteous purposes. That has basically the same moral overtones. Subverting the "usually" alignments is a fairly popular pursuit, and I'm surprised you continue to maintain it doesn't happen. Heck, even the "always" alignments are fair game in some sourcebooks, never mind some actual adventures (I read a particularly lengthy dramatization of one online adventure that centered around the conversion of a devil--a pity I don't have the link on hand).
So yes, I have played that game. It's called D&D.
In the original post, you lamented that Redcloak's characterization represented an unnatural shift away from OotS' early tone, which was primarily about rules jokes. However, a cursory perusal of the comic shows that its tone changed no later than the end of Dungeon Crawling Fools, that this change was lampshaded in No Cure for the Paladin Blues (I even provided the link, for heaven's sake), and that Redcloak's dark characterization is therefore merely the topping on a healthy helping of Cerebus Syndrome.
And you know what happens when players treat the game that simplistically?
You get Miko.
This was lampshaded here. You should probably archive crawl everything related to Miko to see why it is FUNDAMENTALLY AN ERROR to treat the alignment system as black & white boxes.
You mean, it's implausible that an organization would continue performing wrong actions despite clear evidence of bad outcomes? I find that entirely plausible. The fallen paladins may not understand or accept the idea that those particular actions caused their fall (just look at Miko again). The Sapphire Guard may not be aware of their fellows' falls--as noted by the Giant, Miko's fall was exceptionally visible and should not be taken as the norm. The Sapphire Guard may not accept the explanation offered by the fallen paladins, out of racism or devotion to Soon's directive or lack of corroborating evidence (after all, most OotS paladins who kill evil goblins probably do not fall). At every step there is a possible or likely explanation for how this deleterious practice could have persisted--for generations, even--despite the existence of hard evidence that it was a BAD IDEA.
None of the paladins visibly fell from grace in the comic, and yet it was an emotionally repugnant scene. You could try to make a case that the paladins were entirely justified in slaughtering those goblins down to the children (knowing, of course, that D&D and the author both disagree with you), and it wouldn't make the scene any less impactful, or Redcloak's motivations any less meaningful. Of course, I've already provided a number of points showing why the likely (though hypothetical) falling paladins don't break the comic, so this is just a little something extra.
(EDIT: Also, factotum brings up a good point about how the comic's events may not actually represent a constant stream of paladins lining up to behead children and fall, which might actually call into question their continued practice.)
And to return to the fundamental point, this discussion itself shows how the tabletop gaming rules can handle complex and nuanced situations. So again, we can see how OotS' complex and nuanced world, story, and view of alignment do not represent a departure from D&D. For yet another example of this, refer to Roy's afterlife trial.Last edited by Math_Mage; 2012-02-16 at 07:37 AM.
-
2012-02-16, 07:28 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
- Location
- Manchester, UK
- Gender
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
But that doesn't mean that there are only nine possible types of characters, one for each alignment. In this strip we have two characters who are known to be Chaotic Evil (Xykon and Belkar) who, despite having the same alignment, are not the same character in any way. (Just to highlight one difference between them: Xykon tends to prefer watching death and chaos, even if it's caused by someone else, whereas Belkar is only really happy when he's personally stabbing someone).
So, since characterisation is only partially related to alignment, where's the issue?
As for the Sapphire Guard thing, I mentioned earlier that they probably didn't start out wiping out entire villages, but gradually pushed and pushed the boundaries of what was acceptable until they went over it and started Falling, at which point they stopped. We have no evidence that the Sapphire Guard ever mounted a raid like the one on Redcloak's village again, for example.
-
2012-02-16, 09:02 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
- Location
- Kiev, Ukraine
- Gender
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
If I understood Mr. Burlew's comments correctly, he wants to change the way people in general look at the world, which will, in turn, naturally change how they game. Or, failing that, have them enjoy a good and complex story. If the man feels he's grown out of the simple stuff, hey, kudos! I personally like that - he's been spinning a fine tale, and I prefer shades of gray.
He does have a point - we are what we read, watch, and all. Fictional violence and bias is not equivalent to real violence, not at all. But water does wear away at stone; i.e. there's a reason military training programs use vaguely human-shaped targets rather than simpler bulls-eyes. It is not equivalent, but the portrayal does make a difference in the long run. The author is making a difference. And find me a writer who'd rather not make a difference the way he wants to rather than go by some "general convention of fantasy literature!"
Slight off-topic in spoiler:
SpoilerI'm somehow led to remember another author tract that doesn't read or watch like one. Cardcaptor Sakura, by Clamp, is an admitted attempt to insert as many untraditional familial relations into the story as the authors could manage. It's still a very good children's story, enjoyable even for adults. Seriously, as long as the author tract doesn't make the story less - why not go for it? Mr. Burlew has been wonderful at pulling this off, I think.
Spoilered for Tolkien stuff:
SpoilerBy "monsters" do you mean Ungoliant, Shelob, the Barlog and their ilk? Because even the orcs and a similarly-corrupted hobbit (Gollum) have been shown to be quite ordinary living creatures, if rather unlucky in nurture. Those are, indeed, shown more as forces of nature than as creatures with morals. But everything on a smaller scale has more than two sides.
What I'm trying to get at is that there's more than one fantasy tradition. Some of it likely sprang from people enjoying a little moral debate with their D&D. The game's a fairly loose framework: the moral debate fits it quite well.
What I don't get where you think he's been misinterpreting it - there is more than one way to play the game. Did I understand correctly that you feel as if he's saying that people who play the game a certain way as 'racist'?
And to reply to a few other points down the thread...
When did I say "The Order of the Stick" is not worth debating? I said that it's not worth the time to craft an elaborate story whose primary rhetorical agenda is to explain the already-obvious point that black and white fantasy morality doesn't make sense in a more complex setting. And it's not.
When you're under duress, moral qualities fail. Not in everyone, mind you, but in most people. Conditioning takes over. We get our conditioning, unless specially trained, from our everyday environment - including well-crafted tales. What Mr. Burlew is doing here, I believe, is creating an additional stimulus for us, the readers, when under duress not to succumb to the very primordial, instinctive "they are our opponents, which means they must be evil" (another long topic we can take to PM, if you want) - but rather to keep a more complex moral view for a little longer.
Tl;dr: of course black-and-white morality doesn't make sense if you're in a complex situation. Problem is, a conflict situation is rarely seen as complex from the inside. When you start seeing things in black and white - and be stressed enough, and you will - you can use the reminder that it isn't. This story is a good reminder, and it doesn't suffer for it - what else could you want?There are thousands of good reasons magic doesn't rule the world. They're called mages. - Slightly misquoted Pratchett
-
2012-02-16, 09:50 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Location
- San Francisco
- Gender
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
I have. My best friend played a ranger in our previous campaign who did not want to kill any of the kobolds we fought. He was forced to kill two of them when the party accidentally fell into a mine and a powerful group of kobolds threatened his character's life. However, the party then incapacitated two others, his wizard friend shapeshifted into a kobold to make negotiations possible, they healed the unconscious kobolds and then negotiated a settlement between the nearby mining town and the kobolds.
Throughout the entire campaign, his ranger insisted that killing the kobolds was wrong unless his own life was physically threatened and that the lives of kobolds and humans were of equal value.
Edit: There was no breakdown of the rules, the game functioned perfectly, and the outcome was unexpected and satisfactory. So, basically, you're just wrong.