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

[Math_Mage]

I think it's not useful to bog down in discussions of biology vs. magic biology when the relevant factor is an inherently implanted predisposition towards certain behaviors.

Make me a cultural backstory that is so different that I can't possibly consider them a straw race for a past or current human culture. Not. Going. To. Happen.

Moties? Obviously it's impossible to make a culture that has NO similarities whatsoever to any historical or current culture, but I don't think that's a prerequisite for a truly alien culture.

[veti]

In order to set the stage for this not impossible or illogical creature to exist, you've had to do away with the process of evolution and posit beings that are made out of magic. How can you be logically talking about a biological creature when you aren't even talking about biology? You're talking about magic. Magic can certainly posit the existence of an "evil" race, but you can't posit a "biologically evil" race without -- I want to say "redefining" biology, but really you've just done away with it entirely.

I think there are serious flaws with the idea of defining a creature by its biological limitations and then pronouncing it "evil". Ponder an alien mind, ponder a magical mind -- sure, but I don't think you're going to get many insights into pondering a magical mind we're pretending ISN'T magical. It seems to just turn into a process of demonizing biological behaviors we don't understand and/or find creepy.

Have you read any H P Lovecraft? He's big on creatures that are so old, so powerful, so far outside our world that they don't really notice humans, except when we go out of our way to attract their attention. And when they appear, they tend to eat a few people, send everyone else present gibbering insane, then go away, completely indifferent to what they've done.

They're not exactly malevolent, just indifferent. They simply treat us as something like we treat rabbits - sometimes cute, sometimes amusing, sometimes delicious, but most of the time, really not worth much thought.

In D&D, a similar example would be the illithid - a creature so mentally advanced that it doesn't believe lesser creatures have real feelings at all. You certainly can't attribute its lack of empathy to stupidity. Rather, it's more like how (non-vegetarian) humans think of farm animals.

Is that "evil"?

I say "yes". And I have no issue with the fact that I'm only saying that because my race is one of those that gets victimised. I firmly believe that, for all the undigested garbage that 3e goes into about "absolute morality", there is always a perspective. I'm a human, I see morality from a human perspective.

It's not that I find the brain-eating thing "creepy", it's that I find it dangerous. Would you hand over your kid to a daycare centre run by a mindflayer?

[B. Dandelion]

Have you read any H P Lovecraft? He's big on creatures that are so old, so powerful, so far outside our world that they don't really notice humans, except when we go out of our way to attract their attention. And when they appear, they tend to eat a few people, send everyone else present gibbering insane, then go away, completely indifferent to what they've done.

They're not exactly malevolent, just indifferent. They simply treat us as something like we treat rabbits - sometimes cute, sometimes amusing, sometimes delicious, but most of the time, really not worth much thought.

In D&D, a similar example would be the illithid - a creature so mentally advanced that it doesn't believe lesser creatures have real feelings at all. You certainly can't attribute its lack of empathy to stupidity. Rather, it's more like how (non-vegetarian) humans think of farm animals.

Is that "evil"?

I think positing the existence of Lovecraftian deities rather fundamentally redefines the nature of the cosmos, which makes it a bit of an unfair question if all of my previous points had been made under a different premise. Would I say they are evil? ...not in the same sense I would call a human murderer-rapist evil. It's like trying to slot a third-dimensional point on a two-dimensional line. Or maybe the reverse -- if you are dealing with a creature that is as far above you as you yourself are to an insect, has reason to, is definitionally impossible to understand, and kills you without thought, do you actually need to phrase a conflict in terms of good and evil and not survival?

I say "yes". And I have no issue with the fact that I'm only saying that because my race is one of those that gets victimised. I firmly believe that, for all the undigested garbage that 3e goes into about "absolute morality", there is always a perspective. I'm a human, I see morality from a human perspective.

The whole problem is calling the human perspective the absolute perspective and writing creatures from the ground up as "evil" because they have a biological imperative to do "evil" which doesn't make sense. The basic biological imperative is to survive and to reproduce. This is done in different ways. An intelligent evolved creature with a radically different biology than ours would be very likely to have a different take on notions of morality than we do. THAT is an interesting thing to consider. Less interesting is to take our notions of evil, slap them on make-believe critters who do them JUST BECAUSE, add some creepy behavior from the animal or insect kingdom and hail adventurers as heroes whenever they kill one. If you think absolute morality is bunk, that other creatures would think themselves good and us evil, and there is no cosmic arbiter to make one or the other right, I'm not even sure what I'm supposed to arguing with you about.

[veti]

Would I say they are evil? ...not in the same sense I would call a human murderer-rapist evil. It's like trying to slot a third-dimensional point on a two-dimensional line. Or maybe the reverse -- if you are dealing with a creature that is as far above you as you yourself are to an insect, has reason to, is definitionally impossible to understand, and kills you without thought, do you actually need to phrase a conflict in terms of good and evil and not survival?

Ah, thank you, now we're getting somewhere. Maybe the Lovecraftian analogy is unhelpful, so let's stick with the canonical D&D example of mindflayers. If I'm dealing with a creature that (I think) regards me in much the same terms I regard an insect, then - yes, killing is a matter of survival, not morality. I agree. And if I'm a D&D adventurer, I'll kill mindflayers on sight without stopping to ask them where they stand on the rights-for-humans controversy that, I'm sure, exists among the top illithid philosophers.

(Same applies to black dragons, by the way. Some creatures have such enormous natural advantages over humans that if we don't take the opportunity to kill them when we can, we pretty much deserve to be eaten.)

But the same logic can also be applied to any creature whose interests are antithetical to yours. If you're governing a country, and another group of humans sets up camp next to you, defines themselves as "not like you", and denies citizenship and basic rights to "your kind of people" - then it really doesn't matter what "alignment" the other side's rulers think they are. You've got to do something about them, either by negotiation or force, as a matter of survival.

And that's the state of human/goblin relations. Until one side is willing for their country to be fully multi-ethnic, so goblins can live on equal terms alongside humans, elves, dwarfs, bugbears, nagas, ogres, halflings, nymphs, gnomes, centaurs, hobgoblins, drow, trolls, giants, sphinxes, ettins, gnolls, lizardfolk, will-o'-wisps, kobolds, troglodytes, wererats, rakshasas, sylphs, harpies, dopplegangers, minotaurs, gargoyles, medusas, dryads, werewolves ... their interests will remain inimical to each other. As long as you define any of these creatures as "different", you're discriminating against intelligent beings, and you should reasonably expect them to be hostile.

It doesn't have to be that way. There's no reason, within D&D rules, why you can't have countries that embrace all the above ethnicities and more, and then the problem goes away. But we haven't seen any such in OOTS. (Unless it's the Empire of Blood, but even there we've only seen a handful of races).

[B. Dandelion]

I said you do not necessarily have to say something is "evil" for behaving in a certain way in order to make conflict with it justifiable. I didn't say the mere existence of a dangerous creature means you have carte blanche to open fire on sight.

[hamishspence]

If I'm dealing with a creature that (I think) regards me in much the same terms I regard an insect, then - yes, killing is a matter of survival, not morality. I agree. And if I'm a D&D adventurer, I'll kill mindflayers on sight without stopping to ask them where they stand on the rights-for-humans controversy that, I'm sure, exists among the top illithid philosophers.

Problem is- this is likely to lead to exactly the same mentality from other creatures.

If a creature "attacks you on sight" and a philosophy is spreading among that creature's social group to the extent that all of them, when armed, "attack you on sight"- why shouldn't you defend yourself?

By contrast, a "live and let live" philosophy is safer, since it's less likely to lead to massive warfare.

[martianmister]

"Indifference" is one of main pillars of evil alignment. I can't see them anything but evil.

[rbetieh]

"Indifference" is one of main pillars of evil alignment. I can't see them anything but evil.

Whats the indifference between indifference and Apathy?

[hamishspence]

I think the difference might be something like this.

A person who is apathetic gets upset when they see people suffering- but they lack the determination to do anything about it.

An indifferent person is not upset in any way by the sight of strangers suffering.

[Coat]

Apologies if this has already been said. I don't have the fortitude to read through 20 pages of discussion.

I do feel there is a conflict in the way morality is handled in OotS.

It comes down to this: you can imagine a non-human species with a value system that is non-human branded into their base biological makeup. The 'Foreigner' series by C J Cherryh is a fantastic examination of this. The aliens in that story are wonderful, appealing, likeable - but to them, in their language, their biology, 'like' is a word that can only be applied to salad. It's a cause of conflict. That gives you an objective rationale for presenting them as ethically different to humans.

You could also imagine a species that had a fundamental makeup with values that were in direct conflict with human values. A species that because of the way that it reproduces, because of the way it is geared to work socially, to pass knowledge - does NOT consider the murder of an infant of its own species to be a crime.

There would be grounds for branding such a species as 'always evil', or 'usually evil'. Personally, I would strongly object to that - and you could still build a great story about how an individual of that species and a human come to some level of understanding of the other species' value set.

It's also a bit hard to define what 'good' means in that context.

But the Giant has not done this. I think OotS goblins live by a set of values that are fairly consistent with human values. The way I read them, the act as if they care for each other, have compassion for each other, they place some value on lives of their own species. And then they disregard these values, and fail to extend them to other sentients.

That doesn't make them 'usually evil' in a way that presents and critiques a objective rule-book definition. It makes them funny-looking green humans that are 'usually evil' because they've been written to act in mostly act evil way - by their own standards. And there is only one entity that can be blamed for that, and it is the author.


That said, I really enjoy this comic, the Giant only seems to be getting started with this theme, and he has constantly surprised me so far. I'm really looking forward to see where he takes it. The above is not so much a criticism as an analysis of the first part of the picture that has been revealed. It's a bit harsh to judge a portrait when you can only see the foot. And I don't really have the right to judge in the first place.

[factotum]

But the Giant has not done this. I think OotS goblins live by a set of values that are fairly consistent with human values. The way I read them, the act as if they care for each other, have compassion for each other, they place some value on lives of their own species. And then they disregard these values, and fail to extend them to other sentients.

Why is that so unlikely? There are plenty of examples of real-life human populations that have generally been hostile to humans of other races, and in the case of goblins, we're talking about hostility to an entirely different species--something we haven't really had a chance to experience in real life due to the lack of non-human sapient beings on this planet. Plus, in the OotS universe, the goblinoids actually have a *reason* to hate non-goblinoids--they've been oppressed and put down by them for centuries!

So I'd have to disagree that goblinoids hating humans makes them some sort of moustache-twirling evil villain--it makes perfect sense within the framework set up by the Giant.

[Coat]

Why is that so unlikely? There are plenty of examples of real-life human populations that have generally been hostile to humans of other races, and in the case of goblins, we're talking about hostility to an entirely different species--something we haven't really had a chance to experience in real life due to the lack of non-human sapient beings on this planet.

Meh. It's nit-picking, but I wouldn't say there's anything about OotS goblins that makes them particularly non-human. They're funny-looking, but more funny-looking than a Tuareg tribesman would have looked to a Victorian merchant adventurer? Hell, you can have half-orcs, so they're not even sexually incompatible. By any decent definition they're a human subspecies.

Plus, in the OotS universe, the goblinoids actually have a *reason* to hate non-goblinoids--they've been oppressed and put down by them for centuries!

So I'd have to disagree that goblinoids hating humans makes them some sort of moustache-twirling evil villain--it makes perfect sense within the framework set up by the Giant.

But that's the point: the Goblins don't have to be 'Usually Evil' to behave the way they do towards the humans, so the comic is suggesting that the 'usually evil' label is descriptive of social condition, not base nature.

But then all the goblins we see act like tools towards each other, where human oppression doesn't apply, suggesting that there's something in the 'Usually Evil' label after all, and the goblins are in some way different to humans.

But then the goblins seem to aspire to vaguely human values, suggesting that there's nothing really different about them to justify that 'Usually Evil' label. They're just like humans except all, unaccountably, tools.

Or, at least, all the goblins we've seen have acted pretty much like tools. Who have mostly been the goblin leaders. So maybe 'usually evil' means not well led? Or something else? As I said the Giant's message is not very clear to me yet, but then he does tend to pull surprises out, so there's a possibility he's just getting started.

[Kish]

I don't actually remember goblins in the comic acting significantly worse to each other than humans in the comic act to each other.

(Redcloak sent hobgoblins off to die for fun until he realized what he was doing? Sure. Now I'd like to introduce you to a human named Xykon...)

[rbetieh]

I don't actually remember goblins in the comic acting significantly worse to each other than humans in the comic act to each other.

(Redcloak sent hobgoblins off to die for fun until he realized what he was doing? Sure. Now I'd like to introduce you to a human named Xykon...)

I liked the Hobgoblin explanation on why they whip slaves. It's even funnier when you find out that there is such a thing as Evil Food, but it turns out Humans in EoB eat it. For now, all we know of hobbo diet is Hyrda-Burgers and pineapples. Fantastic

[ti'esar]

I don't actually remember goblins in the comic acting significantly worse to each other than humans in the comic act to each other.

(Redcloak sent hobgoblins off to die for fun until he realized what he was doing? Sure. Now I'd like to introduce you to a human named Xykon...)

I'm not seeing this either. We've seen some unquestionably evil goblins, but we've seen evil humans too.

[veti]

For now, all we know of hobbo diet is Hyrda-Burgers and pineapples.

And gouda. And the elderly slave is carrying what look like limes.

I have no idea why any of that counts as evil, but there you go.

[ti'esar]

And gouda. And the elderly slave is carrying what look like limes.

I have no idea why any of that counts as evil, but there you go.

Actually, I'd say liking limes does indicate there's something seriously wrong with them... but that's just me.

[Lyx]

So, the thread creator is basically saying: "Either you fully subscribe to D&D without any contradictions, or you do not create a D&D comic.... "basing" a comic on D&D yet making adjustments to the setting, even if inside the comic the adjustment is consistent.... is inconsistent".

If such black-or-white hairsplitting were OOTS's biggest flaw, it would be the most consistent comic in the world.

Unfortunatelly, it isn't. As awesome a writer giant may be, he is not immune to making big-ass mistakes.... and none of them as trivial as "either you're DnD, or you're something else, nothing in-between".... latest example: Tsuikiko anti deus ex machina, wiping her from the comic out of the blue, with the original intention of T actually being lampshaded! (So, giant didn't even try to obscure what he was doing (except of perhaps for hardcore OOTS regulars, who'd ignore a "mea culpa"-lampshade even if it slaps them in the face) but outrightly honestly implied "look, originally i wanted to do this, but it just didn't work out, so i plainly executed a major char deus ex style").

There are more examples of such "i wanted to do this, but then i decided otherwise" in the comic. So if you want to find any flaws with the comic, there are more severe ones, than not blindly subscribing to D&D.

[Leliel]

So, the thread creator is basically saying: "Either you fully subscribe to D&D without any contradictions, or you do not create a D&D comic.... "basing" a comic on D&D yet making adjustments to the setting, even if inside the comic the adjustment is consistent.... is inconsistent".

If such black-or-white hairsplitting were OOTS's biggest flaw, it would be the most consistent comic in the world.

Unfortunatelly, it isn't. As awesome a writer giant may be, he is not immune to making big-ass mistakes.... and none of them as trivial as "either you're DnD, or you're something else, nothing in-between".... latest example: Tsuikiko anti deus ex machina, wiping her from the comic out of the blue, with the original intention of T actually being lampshaded! (So, giant didn't even try to obscure what he was doing (except of perhaps for hardcore OOTS regulars, who'd ignore a "mea culpa"-lampshade even if it slaps them in the face) but outrightly honestly implied "look, originally i wanted to do this, but it just didn't work out, so i plainly executed a major char deus ex style").

There are more examples of such "i wanted to do this, but then i decided otherwise" in the comic. So if you want to find any flaws with the comic, there are more severe ones, than not blindly subscribing to D&D.

And if you knew what "Deus Ex Machina" actually is, you'd probably be better at your Literature classes.

Along with your lack of capitalization....

[ti'esar]

I'd like to make a motion that all uses of the term "Deus ex Machina" be banned from these forums until such time as everyone can avoid misusing them. As an English minor, this has become deeply annoying.

[Math_Mage]

Tsukiko's death was probably THE most narratively satisfying outcome possible. A sensible consequence of everyone's motives, a tragic aspect added to T's naivete, a major plot point tied into her demise, and setting up the tragic villain of the strip for his own major fall. As much as you want to have seen more of Tsukiko (and what more could she have contributed to the story, exactly?), that doesn't make the Giant's decision a "big-ass mistake."

[Lyx]

And if you knew what "Deus Ex Machina" actually is, you'd probably be better at your Literature classes.

Along with your lack of capitalization....

"I wrote an intelligent post on the giantitp forums, and all i got, was a grammar nazi."

And bye..... back to what these forums are best for: perma-lurking.

[Math_Mage]

"I wrote an intelligent post on the giantitp forums, and all i got, was a grammar nazi."

And bye..... back to what these forums are best for: perma-lurking.

What am I, chopped liver?

[ti'esar]

"I wrote an intelligent post on the giantitp forums, and all i got, was a grammar nazi."

And bye..... back to what these forums are best for: perma-lurking.

More importantly, you misused a critical term that has already seen enormous amounts of misuse on these forums. You can have whatever opinion you want of the writing quality of Tsukiko's death, but it was not in any way a deus ex machina, "anti" or otherwise.

[ti'esar]

"I wrote an intelligent post on the giantitp forums, and all i got, was a grammar nazi."

And bye..... back to what these forums are best for: perma-lurking.

More importantly, you misused a critical term that has already seen enormous amounts of misuse on these forums. You can have whatever opinion you want of the writing quality of Tsukiko's death, but it was not in any way a deus ex machina, "anti" or otherwise.

[rbetieh]

More importantly, you misused a critical term that has already seen enormous amounts of misuse on these forums. You can have whatever opinion you want of the writing quality of Tsukiko's death, but it was not in any way a deus ex machina, "anti" or otherwise.

Well.....to be fair, it was the Dark Ones power, granted to Redcloak, that got the undead to change sides...there certainly was a Deus(god) involved. Problem is we expect that from clerics in this comic....We should note that God-given magic in this comic is a bit unreliable too.

[B. Dandelion]

latest example: Tsuikiko anti deus ex machina, wiping her from the comic out of the blue, with the original intention of T actually being lampshaded! (So, giant didn't even try to obscure what he was doing (except of perhaps for hardcore OOTS regulars, who'd ignore a "mea culpa"-lampshade even if it slaps them in the face) but outrightly honestly implied "look, originally i wanted to do this, but it just didn't work out, so i plainly executed a major char deus ex style").

What "original intention" are you referring to?

I can guess, but if you mean she was actually meant to successfully replace Xykon and/or Redcloak in the ritual... you don't mean that, do you? Seriously?

[Math_Mage]

Well.....to be fair, it was the Dark Ones power, granted to Redcloak, that got the undead to change sides...there certainly was a Deus(god) involved. Problem is we expect that from clerics in this comic....We should note that God-given magic in this comic is a bit unreliable too.

"Deus ex machina" does not refer merely to the involvement of a god. It refers to an implausible plot device that is handwaved away by Word of Author (I'm hesitant to say "god" here for fear Lyx will get the wrong impression) that resolves some apparently irresolvable situation.

There is no possible interpretation of OotS where Command Undead could be considered a deus ex machina. Can I be more blunt?

EDIT: Forgive my aggressive wording in the second person, I mistook you for Lyx. Derp.

[jere7my]

There are more examples of such "i wanted to do this, but then i decided otherwise" in the comic. So if you want to find any flaws with the comic, there are more severe ones, than not blindly subscribing to D&D.

I disagree that a writer changing horses in mid-stream necessarily results in a flawed work, whether or not Rich did so in any particular case. Sometimes the best path to follow doesn't reveal itself until you're deep into the story.

[B. Dandelion]

I disagree that a writer changing horses in mid-stream necessarily results in a flawed work, whether or not Rich did so in any particular case. Sometimes the best path to follow doesn't reveal itself until you're deep into the story.

The Giant's said he mostly sticks to the formula he worked out way back when he first started seriously plotting out the story, at least as far as the major plot points go.

A lot of people leapt to the conclusion that he killed off Kubota for getting sick of the related plotline, but in the commentary he says it was meant for to be as shocking as possible, as part of the setup for Vaarsuvius' decent into darkness -- which he couldn't complain about, since it meant he had indeed succeeded in catching people off guard, he just did it so thoroughly people assumed he outright changed his mind.