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

[Whiffet]

There's the interpretation that alignments like "Usually Neutral Evil" come from the environments those species commonly grow up in. Nurture instead of Nature, you know? Or maybe it is Nature and they're just genetically predisposed to have certain alignments. People have different interpretations.

But the thing is, however you interpret it, the way those alignments work is that there will be deviation. Sure, some of that deviation will be Lawful Evil or Chaotic Evil. But it's quite possible for a goblin to be Neutral or Good and be within D&D rules. And if it's possible for some goblins to be Good, then as far as the adventurer knows, any individual goblin might be Good. It's just that the Good goblins probably aren't the ones attacking the village in a D&D game.

As for Redcloak, he is unambiguously Evil. He's just a certain type of Evil. One of the things I really like about Rich's writing is the way he creates villains. In fact, didn't he write something on this site about creating villains? Let me check... Yeah, here it is. Now, if a game can have this much thought behind a villain, I certainly expect more from Rich when he's writing a story.

[Ashtagon]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...aysChaoticEvil

There's a nice long section there about how oots is a deconstruction of this very trope you seek to uphold.

[Nerd_Paladin]

Okay, lots to respond to and not enough time, so I'll try to hit the relevant points. Forgive me if I missed anything:

-I realize that it's a deconstruction of the concept. I just think deconstructing the concept is silly and kind of a waste of time, because it's not that complex of an idea, wasn't really designed to withstand intense moral scrutiny, and you don't get much out of going through all the trouble except to come to the same conclusion that almost anyone would after the minimal amount of thought.

-D&D alignment system does indeed allow you to be evil for a good cause...but in this case, the cause wouldn't be good under that alignment system. Redcloak's agenda to avenge his family and establish equity for the victimized goblins is only good if the goblins are indeed blameless victims, which in D&D terms is virtually impossible.

-Ah, but even in D&D, goblins aren't ALWAYS evil, right? What if RC and his family were some of those non-evil goblins? Well, in that case, the Paladins who killed them were reckless, stupid, and probably committed an evil act, and very likely would have been punished by the 12 Gods, possibly even losing their Paladin powers. Indeed, since these crusades are common, the gods would have almost to have stepped in to stop them a long time ago. Since that didn't happen, we have to assume that offing those goblins was a good thing...and therefore Redcloak's agenda is not a good cause after all. Here we again see how the technical foundations of the story undermine some of the events; we know that the gods are Good and so are there Paladins (and that when they're not, the gods do something about it), so therefore the goblins must really be Evil. Except the story expects us to regard that as not being so, despite having to affirm it as a matter of kind.

-As for the idea that "The Order of the Stick" is not about D&D...well, I"m afraid it is. See above. The comic cannot be completely divorced from that setting, and indeed, has never been despite the backseat that rules jokes have taken over the last few years. As already mentioned, these game concepts are part and parcel of the entire story; where else would the issue of Paladins crusading against goblins even be relevant except in tabletop gaming?

[suzaliscious]

{{scrubbed}}

[Nerd_Paladin]

Okay. I'm not quite sure what you're saying here. Are you saying that a neutral evil goblin's motives are categorically different from a neutral evil human's motives? (If so, where does it say so in which D&D sourcebook?)

I'm saying there are no Neutral Evil humans among the historical Mongol hordes; you can't apply D&D alignment to real life.

Just the reverse: there only isn't one if you choose to ignore the fundamental problems with it. For example, how does it make any sense for an intelligent race, capable of thinking for itself and making its own decisions, to always be one alignment, as D&D posits Dragons (to use just one of many examples) are? How does it make any sense for any race to be genetically predisposed to being an alignment at all, as many races in D&D are said to be? It doesn't. It's simply a convenient way to handwave the moral questions that monster-killing would otherwise raise, if you choose not to think about it.

Zevox

There are no moral conundrums about killing monsters in "Beowulf" (except in the lousy Zemeckis movie). There are no moral dilemmas about killing monsters in Tolkien. No one stops to wonder about the morality of Gretel pushing the witch into her own oven, nor to wonder whether all witches are evil, and what do we make of a world full of only-evil witches, and why isn't anyone standing up for witch rights?

[Zevox]

What if RC and his family were some of those non-evil goblins? Well, in that case, the Paladins who killed them were reckless, stupid, and probably committed an evil act, and very likely would have been punished by the 12 Gods, possibly even losing their Paladin powers. [...] Since that didn't happen,

Read this.

There are no moral conundrums about killing monsters in "Beowulf" (except in the lousy Zemeckis movie).

Beowulf is an ancient folk tale which comes from a very different culture than ours.

There are no moral dilemmas about killing monsters in Tolkien.

In Tolkien the monsters are a product of a dark god magically twisting other creatures into becoming his servants. And even there you do get some serious questions if you think about it - Tolkien simply chose not ask such questions.

No one stops to wonder about the morality of Gretel pushing the witch into her own oven, nor to wonder whether all witches are evil, and what do we make of a world full of only-evil witches, and why isn't anyone standing up for witch rights?

Not sure what you're referring to with this one.

Zevox

[Nerd-o-rama]

Redcloak is evil. He's Evil. His entire goal is screwing over other people for the sake of revenge and a cause he thinks is just (but at this point, mostly revenge). I just plain don't get why that doesn't mean he can't also be a person, with parts of his personality and background that actually give a reason for that lust for revenge and a reason for the Dark One's insanely circuitous Plan. What about that is bad writing? What about that is bad Dungeons and Dragons writing?

[FujinAkari]

Indeed, since these crusades are common,

In addition to the above, The crusades aren't common, they have only occured 3-4 times since the mantle was created... what... several decades ago?

A huge point you seem to be overlooking / missing is tha the Sapphire Guard -didn't- go out and slaughter Goblins, they specifically hunted the Crimson Mantle, so anti-goblin crusades never occurred, at all.

[Nerd_Paladin]

{{scrubbed}}

Charming. I'm glad we can have an elevated discourse over this.

{{scrubbed}}

Indeed, so would I, sometimes at least. But I'd like for that "depth" to be handled in a way that makes sense rather than, in this case, being tacked on for its own sake in a way that detracts from the story and cheats at its own game.

{{scrubbed}}

Really? What other barometer do we employ to decide if something is good or bad? There is no objective measure of when art or media succeeds or fails.

You can say you don't like it, which is valid, but it doesn't mean that the work has 'failed' in any way. In fact, a very large number of people agree with and appreciate the thought put into and the beauty of the story.

So in their opinion it succeeds. Good for them. I disagree. Well, actually, on this particular point I disagree. On the whole, I admire the comic a lot. See original post.

{{scrubbed}}

-Actually, I think I said some very flattering things about the comic and its author. I also think that criticism can be a great tool for validating someone's work.

-It's nice that thousands of people like the comic. I'm one of them. I guess you mean that thousands of people disagree with my analysis of the comic; that's fine. They're entitled to their opinion. So am I.

-Is there a reason that I'm not allowed to posit that there's something in the comic that could be better executed? Doesn't everyone have something they dislike, no matter how ardent of a fan they are? Isn't every criticism an assertion that the critic has a better idea of how the story could have been executed?

{{scrubbed}}

I guess your problem is that this is a big criticism; it criticizes a lot of material, and some of the fundamental ideas about the story. Frankly, I don't see why that's a problem. I don't think criticizing someone's art is the same thing as insulting them. And after reading your reply, I think I know a thing or two about being insulted.

[B. Dandelion]

Okay, lots to respond to and not enough time, so I'll try to hit the relevant points. Forgive me if I missed anything:

-I realize that it's a deconstruction of the concept. I just think deconstructing the concept is silly and kind of a waste of time, because it's not that complex of an idea, wasn't really designed to withstand intense moral scrutiny, and you don't get much out of going through all the trouble except to come to the same conclusion that almost anyone would after the minimal amount of thought.

But it's not about getting to some right conclusion. It's not about "why this idea is wrong". It's telling a story that uses the idea, in a way that the reasons for using the idea are part of the story itself.

-Ah, but even in D&D, goblins aren't ALWAYS evil, right? What if RC and his family were some of those non-evil goblins? Well, in that case, the Paladins who killed them were reckless, stupid, and probably committed an evil act, and very likely would have been punished by the 12 Gods, possibly even losing their Paladin powers. Indeed, since these crusades are common, the gods would have almost to have stepped in to stop them a long time ago. Since that didn't happen, we have to assume that offing those goblins was a good thing...and therefore Redcloak's agenda is not a good cause after all. Here we again see how the technical foundations of the story undermine some of the events; we know that the gods are Good and so are there Paladins (and that when they're not, the gods do something about it), so therefore the goblins must really be Evil. Except the story expects us to regard that as not being so, despite having to affirm it as a matter of kind.

We don't know that the gods are good. We know they have the power to dictate what is good. They have absolute power which is called objective but used in a way the reader can see is clearly subjective and flawed. Such is the discrepancy of a setting that takes objective morality as a matter of course, yet the setting was invented by people whose notions of morality simply cannot be considered objective.

[Zevox]

We don't know that the gods are good. We know they have the power to dictate what is good.

Actually, they don't. Gods in D&D are subject to the alignment system, just as everyone else is. They don't dictate it at all, it's simply assumed to be some universal constant - which is actually a bigger problem, for reasons you point out in the rest of that critique.

The Order of the Stick simply uses the gods' creation of the xp-fodder-races as a stand-in for the game creators, since it's the only way to do that in-world.

Zevox

[Idhan]

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...aysChaoticEvil

There's a nice long section there about how oots is a deconstruction of this very trope you seek to uphold.

See, I don't think that OotS is, for the most part, a deconstruction of D&D alignment (whether D&D alignment, the fact that it's the trope namer aside, really embraces Always Chaotic Evil as described in TVTropes is another issue). Naturally, in OotS, everything is treated as somewhat silly, and somewhat 4th-wall breaking (the same applies to the wealth-by-level system, XP, spell preparation, etc), but I think that its treatment of alignment is, humor aside, pretty much how I've always understood it to work. I mean, isn't Drizzt an official Forgotten Realms character -- an exile from a Usually Chaotic Evil race?

OotS strikes me as more the approach you see in D&D campaigns when you have a DM who doesn't really reject the alignment system, but also doesn't let the alignment system dictate characters' precise motivations (as Paladin_Nerd, unless I'm misunderstanding him, prefers), and wants to give characters depth, and is running a campaign with more roleplaying than The World's Largest Dungeon.

[FujinAkari]

Actually, they don't. Gods in D&D are subject to the alignment system, just as everyone else is.

While true, that isn't the point.

Miko fell because the Gods considered her action not to be good (or to be a gross violation, technically.)

She didn't get smote by the alignment system, she was smote by the Gods, they are the one's who decide when someone is being Evil.

While they do judge according to a universal alignment system, B. Dandilion was quite correct in saying that the Gods are the upholders of that Alignment System.

Why do you think the Deva bothered talking to Roy rather than simply casting Detect Good and Detect Law? :P

[Nerd_Paladin]

Read this.

Honestly, I think that glosses over the point. Mr. Burlew insists that the important thing in the story is that the Paladins did an injustice to Redcloak, but what the gods think of those Paladin's behavior would tell us an awful lot about whether it really was an injustice. Although his point about preserving the narrative is well taken.

Beowulf is an ancient folk tale which comes from a very different culture than ours.

But it's a huge influence on our modern storytelling tradition, especially fantasy and ESPECIALLY D&D. Besides, who's to say we can't tell a story in that style? I would assert that D&D is largely about doing just that. Of course, that's just one of the sources for the material that comprises the bulk of the game, but in few if any of those other sources will we find the hero sitting around debating whether it's right to kill a monster.

In Tolkien the monsters are a product of a dark god magically twisting other creatures into becoming his servants. And even there you do get some serious questions if you think about it - Tolkien simply chose not ask such questions.

Perhaps we should choose not to ask such questions about this game, which is even less well-suited to answering them than Tolkien's work was. Tolkien seemed to think that his work was stronger for leaving such matters alone; frankly, he was right.

Not sure what you're referring to with this one.

Zevox

"Hansel & Gretel", the fairy tale? I guess if you don't know it we may take the fate of any fairy tale villain; why must wolves always be depicted as evil in stories like "Little Red Riding Hood", what do we make of the moral picture painted of bridge trolls in stories like "Three Billy-Goats Gruff"? In most classical narratives, no one is bothered by the demise of the villain; nominally because they have it coming.

Redcloak is evil. He's Evil. His entire goal is screwing over other people for the sake of revenge and a cause he thinks is just (but at this point, mostly revenge). I just plain don't get why that doesn't mean he can't also be a person, with parts of his personality and background that actually give a reason for that lust for revenge and a reason for the Dark One's insanely circuitous Plan. What about that is bad writing? What about that is bad Dungeons and Dragons writing?

I never said it was. Of course bad guys have motives, that's not the issue at all. The issue is that I think RC's characteristic "evil but for a good cause" concept is flawed (not the concept itself, but its execution in this particular instance) and at odds with much of the other material. For more on that see...the entire thread.

In addition to the above, The crusades aren't common, they have only occured 3-4 times since the mantle was created... what... several decades ago?

A huge point you seem to be overlooking / missing is tha the Sapphire Guard -didn't- go out and slaughter Goblins, they specifically hunted the Crimson Mantle, so anti-goblin crusades never occurred, at all.

I would personally characterize four crusades (anti-goblin or no) within a few decades as quite a lot. But the point was Mr. Burlew's comment in the designer notes "War and XPs" that the Azurites were being dealt a blow as fallout for their past behavior. Though I do not have the book in front of me as I write this, I'm afraid. As you may have heard, it's out of print...

But it's not about getting to some right conclusion. It's not about "why this idea is wrong". It's telling a story that uses the idea, in a way that the reasons for using the idea are part of the story itself.

Well, the suggestion that the story is satirical or a critical deconstruction would hinge on detailing why the idea is wrong or nonsensical.

[Cronos988]

I'm saying there are no Neutral Evil humans among the historical Mongol hordes; you can't apply D&D alignment to real life.

The comic does not apply D&D Morals do real life, it applies D&D Morals to a D&D world.
The D&D Alignment system is not as black&white as you claim it is. It is a very much simplified simulation, like attack rolls. You don't see Roy rolling dice in combat, is that inconsistent?

There are no moral conundrums about killing monsters in "Beowulf" (except in the lousy Zemeckis movie). There are no moral dilemmas about killing monsters in Tolkien. No one stops to wonder about the morality of Gretel pushing the witch into her own oven, nor to wonder whether all witches are evil, and what do we make of a world full of only-evil witches, and why isn't anyone standing up for witch rights?

See, that is the Problem. There ARE moral dilemmas in all of those cases, you just ignore them. The question of whether the witch of the children are evil in Hänsel & Gretel has been posed in quite a number of artistic works.

The fact that the story may not revolve about the moral dilemma does not mean it isn't there. How many action movies discuss the moral question of killing the "bad henchmen" even though they might just be family fathers trying to make a living? This is the case because its not the point the movie wants to make, but it does not follow that action movies that DO capitalize on these points are therefore inconsistent.

The same is true for D&D. You don't need to have moral conflict in your game worlds, but that does not mean its inconsistent if you do.

[Nerd_Paladin]

OotS strikes me as more the approach you see in D&D campaigns when you have a DM who doesn't really reject the alignment system, but also doesn't let the alignment system dictate characters' precise motivations (as Paladin_Nerd, unless I'm misunderstanding him, prefers), and wants to give characters depth, and is running a campaign with more roleplaying than The World's Largest Dungeon.

Motivations? No. I consider alignment more of a tag that puts on behavior. See previous comments. But the comic is very concerned with ideas about right and wrong, and that's obviously going to run afoul of Rules As Written alignment in a world that's rooted in these game concepts.

[FujinAkari]

I would personally characterize four crusades (anti-goblin or no) within a few decades as quite a lot. But the point was Mr. Burlew's comment in the designer notes "War and XPs" that the Azurites were being dealt a blow as fallout for their past behavior. Though I do not have the book in front of me as I write this, I'm afraid. As you may have heard, it's out of print...

But they weren't crusades, they were surgical strikes.

Four times (at most) Paladins went to a specific four villages, killed the Goblin Priest who was trying to unmake reality, and then withdrew. At no time was there any great "All Goblins must die!" campaign, which is what you seem to be implying.

I do have the book in front of me, but I can't seem to find the passage you keep aluding too...

[Nerd_Paladin]

The comic does not apply D&D Morals do real life, it applies D&D Morals to a D&D world.

But it's not a D&D world; a D&D world doesn't have tribes of plucky goblins who mind their own business until accosted. See original comment.

EDIT: Also important to note is that this comment on my part was a reply to the attempt to cite a real historical group/incident as an analogy, not the comic itself.

See, that is the Problem. There ARE moral dilemmas in all of those cases, you just ignore them. The question of whether the witch of the children are evil in Hänsel & Gretel has been posed in quite a number of artistic works.

Well, I've never seen anyone suggest that the cannibalistic witch is not an evil figure. She is, after all, a cannibalistic witch. The motivations of the children are often offered up for scrutiny though, but usually as regards to eating the house, not in regards to their stubborn refusal to be eaten themselves.

The fact that the story may not revolve about the moral dilemma does not mean it isn't there. How many action movies discuss the moral question of killing the "bad henchmen" even though they might just be family fathers trying to make a living? This is the case because its not the point the movie wants to make, but it does not follow that action movies that DO capitalize on these points are therefore inconsistent.

The same is true for D&D. You don't need to have moral conflict in your game worlds, but that does not mean its inconsistent if you do.

There are two points that I think are relevant here, first being that when we go adding in a moral crisis where none was intended, very often we're projecting. D&D isn't about race relations any more than Pac-Man is about consumerism (see previous post), but some people want to find that context in it. This reflects more about our insecurities than on the material itself, though. The second point is that "The Order of the Stick" is tied down by not being an entirely original work; it's based, to a varying degree, on a huge volume of outside material.

If Mr. Burlew had created a fantasy world from the ground up, his work would only have to be considered on its own terms, but since "The Order of the Stick" has been chained since its inception to the game of Dungeons & Dragons (and since it can almost never be wholly divorced from that context even though it would probably be better now if it could; see previous comments), it can never be evaluated entirely independently.

[Emanick]

While I too disagree that Redcloak is a "failed" character or in any other way mishandled by Rich, I think I see where the OP is coming from. Unless you believe that goblins in OOTS are evil by nurture, rather than nature - a tenuous assumption at best, in my opinion, since they seem to have been created evil rather than forced into evil due to poverty and speciesism (whaaat? Safari recognizes "speciesism" as a word??) - it is necessary to conclude that goblins have an inherent tendency towards evil, and thus although it is not morally defensible to kill a goblin for being a goblin, it is very often morally defensible to kill goblins to prevent them from carrying out depraved plans, so often that a casual, uninformed observer might wonder why the "civilized races" were killing so many goblins if said races were most often "good" or "neutral." In a world where violence is the necessary response to the evil actions of other individuals, a Usually Evil race would tend to fall victim to frequent slaughter by other races.

Now, I think Redcloak is a magnificent character, beautifully drawn with a tragic backstory that induces makes me sympathize with him more than almost any other character. Yet here's the contradiction that I think Nerd Paladin is getting at: in order for goblins to be a Usually Evil race in accordance with D&D rules, they have to behave in a generally deplorable manner. But in order for them to be sympathetic characters that blur the lines of morality and evoke our pity, they have to seem as if they aren't some inherently evil society. Rich takes the latter route, and this is a good artistic decision. I applaud it. However, he does so without dropping the adherence to D&D morality, which implies the existence of inherent tendencies towards good, evil, law and chaos. Is this D&D morality realistic? I'd argue that, since only nonhumans have these inherent tendencies, it is not unrealistic. How can we complain that species that don't exist in real life aren't behaving like "real people", when they literally aren't human to begin with?

I don't have a problem with "shades of grey" morality, nor do I have a problem with "black-and-white" morality (which, if less "high art," is often more fun). I do, however, have a problem with a lack of internal consistency in terms of morality. In that sense, I agree with Nerd Paladin. Something doesn't really jive here.

[jere7my]

As I said, I've never played a D&D game where the villains were just minding their own business before getting run down by crusading heroes. No published adventure has ever depicted that, to my knowledge.

Try Keep on the Borderlands.

There are no moral dilemmas about killing monsters in Tolkien.

Are there moral dilemmas about killing Easterlings in Tolkien? How does Tolkien differentiate between orcs and "evil" humans?

I realize that it's a deconstruction of the concept. I just think deconstructing the concept is silly and kind of a waste of time, because it's not that complex of an idea, wasn't really designed to withstand intense moral scrutiny, and you don't get much out of going through all the trouble except to come to the same conclusion that almost anyone would after the minimal amount of thought.

If you consider it to be a settled issue in your mind, that's all well and good, but millions of people have had millions of heated arguments about D&D alignments since 1979. Clearly they think there's meat there, and clearly Rich agrees.

[B. Dandelion]

Well, the suggestion that the story is satirical or a critical deconstruction would hinge on detailing why the idea is wrong or nonsensical.

It is not really either satirical or critical. You seem to want to insist it must be critical, because of the fact that it has led to negative consequences for Redcloak, but the story is not "why evil races do not work as a device", but a tale of fallible beings who created evil races for the purposes of game mechanics, in the process screwing them over. To directly apply that lesson you would have to conclude that game designers who make evil races are reckless and cruel, and they should worry about their creations spontaneously coming to life and threatening them with oblivion unless they rewrite the rules.

[Nerd_Paladin]

Try Keep on the Borderlands.

Never played it, actually. Assuming that's the case, I would say a villain who commits no villainy is probably an example of poor writing in itself (at least as far as game modules are concerned). Certainly it's not the standard in the game.

Are there moral dilemmas about killing Easterlings in Tolkien? How does Tolkien differentiate between orcs and "evil" humans?

You know, I don't recall, but I seem to remember that the crux of the issue was not whether the Easterlings were evil by nature but that they were in the habit of joining up with orcs to stave in people's heads.

The point, however, is that the assertion that we MUST sit around and question whether it's right or makes sense that monsters are always wicked in D&D doesn't really seem valid to me, since D&D is just an expression of many hundreds of years of storytelling, most of which never once bothers with the issue, not even in relatively recent examples like Tolkien.

It is not really either satirical or critical. You seem to want to insist it must be critical, because of the fact that it has led to negative consequences for Redcloak, but the story is not "why evil races do not work as a device", but a tale of fallible beings who created evil races for the purposes of game mechanics, in the process screwing them over. To directly apply that lesson you would have to conclude that game designers who make evil races are reckless and cruel, and they should worry about their creations spontaneously coming to life and threatening them with oblivion unless they rewrite the rules.

Well, this is getting a little complicated because many of those comments are a reply to various individual arguments put forth throughout the thread. One defense of the work was that it's intended to be a satire on the rules; that's not my inherent assertion, it's an argument that's been put forth. To clarify; I'M not insisting that the work is critical, I'm just responding to that idea.

As far as the gods go, this is one of the points where it gets really tricky; if the evil races are indeed wholly evil, then it's hard to paint them in any kind of sympathetic light (said light being crucial to this part of the story). If they're not, then it would seem that the gods created them imperfectly (as far as their intended purpose is concerned)...which seems odd, given that they are, after all, gods, and you'd think they could stop that kind of thing from happening.

The third branch this argument may take is the idea that the goblins MAY be wholly evil (although, again, this in itself punctures the balloon of RC's origin story), but are ALSO victims of the gods by that very tokien. Leading us to the weird question of whether a creature can be the victim of its own creation and whether, if the gods are the root cause of evil, then can evil beings really be considered responsible for their own actions (anyone else a "Jesus Christ Superstar" fan? Anyone, anyone at all? Hello?)? At which point it becomes one of those unanswerable cosmic questions about free will. Which I would posit is also a bad basis for in-story conflict, at least in this case. Possibly the worst of all, actually.

Although before anybody has my head over it, I should emphasize that "in this case" part; obviously it's a better fit in other stories. See the aforementioned "Jesus Christ Superstar." Seriously, see it, it was awesome.

[Zevox]

While true, that isn't the point.

I am aware. I pointed it out because I'm nitpicky that way. And because I don't like allowing misinformation of that sort to spread.

Honestly, I think that glosses over the point. Mr. Burlew insists that the important thing in the story is that the Paladins did an injustice to Redcloak, but what the gods think of those Paladin's behavior would tell us an awful lot about whether it really was an injustice.

No, it wouldn't, because the gods in D&D and OotS aren't infallible, nor do they even determine how the alignment system works.

And really, I don't see how any realistic look at that scene comes to any conclusion besides that it was an injustice. The Paladins targeting the bearer of the Crimson Mantle could easily be argued to be perfectly justified. Them killing any other Goblins that might have attacked them when they did in self-defense could be argued to be justified. Them slaughtering that entire village, include defenseless women and children? Not possible to justify, at least not from any moral perspective I'd acknowledge as valid personally.

Perhaps we should choose not to ask such questions about this game, which is even less well-suited to answering them than Tolkien's work was. Tolkien seemed to think that his work was stronger for leaving such matters alone; frankly, he was right.

If you believe that, then a lot of The Order of the Stick will not be for you.

I do not agree with that. While some simple and enjoyable stories could be crafted by doing so (see Tolkien again), it's not capable of anything more than that. On the flip side exposing the problems with attempts at creating such objective morality systems can make for quite good humor, important points about the actual nature of morality, and as this comic shows, good storytelling.

"Hansel & Gretel", the fairy tale?

Ah, that? Why even bring that up? It's a simple fairy tale with a single, clearly-evil villain. It has no bearing on a discussion of this sort, which involves entire systems of morality and entire races of creatures.

In most classical narratives, no one is bothered by the demise of the villain; nominally because they have it coming.

That is because those display individual villains that are shown doing terrible things. That is quite different from what D&D does, or from what we see in how Goblins are treated in The Order of the Stick.

As far as the gods go, this is one of the points where it gets really tricky; if the evil races are indeed wholly evil, then it's hard to paint them in any kind of sympathetic light (said light being crucial to this part of the story). If they're not, then it would seem that the gods created them imperfectly (as far as their intended purpose is concerned)...which seems odd, given that they are, after all, gods, and you'd think they could stop that kind of thing from happening.

Oh, you're running under some very incorrect assumptions there. First off, not even in D&D are evil races wholly evil - not even Fiends, since the very rare possibility of Risen Fiends (the opposite of a Fallen Angel/Celestial) exists. Even the "always <alignment>" category in 3.5 contains a caveat that one-in-a-million exceptions exist. Second, the gods are very much so not infallible in D&D or OotS - they're really just very powerful outsiders when you get right down to it. They can and do make mistakes.

Zevox

[B. Dandelion]

As far as the gods go, this is one of the points where it gets really tricky; if the evil races are indeed wholly evil, then it's hard to paint them in any kind of sympathetic light (said light being crucial to this part of the story). If they're not, then it would seem that the gods created them imperfectly (as far as their intended purpose is concerned)...which seems odd, given that they are, after all, gods, and you'd think they could stop that kind of thing from happening.

You would think they would also be able to stop something like the Snarl from happening.

[Idhan]

If they're not, then it would seem that the gods created them imperfectly (as far as their intended purpose is concerned)...which seems odd, given that they are, after all, gods, and you'd think they could stop that kind of thing from happening.

Are there any OotS strips where Thor is shown acting wise, competent, and mature?

The Crayons of Time series is all about how much the gods screwed up.

[FujinAkari]

Oh, you're running under some very incorrect assumptions there.

Not to be rude to them OP, but this really hits at the crux of the issue... at several points in this thread expansive assumptions which are the foundation of the OP have been shown to be wrong, such as "The Paladins routinely go on crusades against goblinkind," "Paladins are not punished for slaughtering goblins," "The Gods in D&D are infallible," and "D&D depicts races as being wholly good or wholly evil," just to name the few that come to my mind immediately.

This is very likely the reason so many of us have substancial issues with his assertions, just because so much of it is founded on premises that range from "Shakey" to "What? That was condemned as unsafe years ago!" :P

[Oakianus]

Honestly, I don't think that there's any contradiction at all and would like to go ahead and strike at something that I think hasn't really been said.

Redcloak is Evil. Goblins are usually Evil. Redcloak remains sympathetic because even if a race is Evil, that doesn't mean that they can't also be sympathetic if they're the constant butt-monkeys of the rest of the world.

It's pretty obvious that Redcloak and his Gobbotopians are evil. They have slaves, for instance, which is pretty widely recognized throughout D&D as being a giant sign of Evilosity. They even outwardly admit that they're usually Evil. Which is fine. They're definitely, on the whole, total bad guys who ought to be stopped.

But does that automatically mean that they are unsympathetic? That when their children are slaughtered, despite not having taken any Evil actions yet, that we don't feel a natural slap in the face from our mirror neurons that tell us "Hey, another sentient being is in pain and that sucks for them?"

Of course not. Having a tendency toward Evil actions doesn't instantly make someone unsympathetic. Look at several other examples within the OotS - Belkar, Thog and Tarquin have all been explicitly called Evil by themselves or someone else in the strip, but they're clearly interesting characters that have lots of fans, mostly because they're capable of kicking lots of butt and fans tend to like that sort of thing.

Redcloak is willing to torture people and lead a slave-holding society, among a dozen other outright Evil acts that he's taken throughout the strip. He is, without a doubt, unabashedly Evil and makes no qualms about it. But he is the hero of a race that is rather put upon, and he's managed to twist quite a few of his ideas about humans and paladins in order to fit his narrative about THEM being the bad guys. And from his own point of view, he's not terribly far off, of course.

Being put upon as a race and having a natural tendency to kill, conquer and enslave others are NOT mutually exclusive traits. A world ruled by Goblinkind would be a horrible, horrible world. No one denies it, and the OotS would not change a single action if they knew the extent of Redcloak's actions (except maybe to tell Xykon and have a laugh when he attacked RC, of course!) His plan is ultimately Evil and will have dire consequences for anyone who isn't Evil.

But that doesn't mean it's any less sympathetic. Because being the buttmonkey of every other race in your world must suck.

[Math_Mage]

OP, you fundamentally disagree with the Giant about what alignment is supposed to be.

You want alignment to be a binary straitjacket with no application to complex real-world situations, so that you can pretend Redcloak's complexity violates D&D principles.

The Giant's position, as he has repeatedly and explicitly expressed, is that alignment is not a straitjacket, that you CAN roleplay complex characters and situations while taking the alignment system into account.

I vastly prefer the Giant's interpretation both for playing D&D and for telling a story. So your contention that the Giant has failed to fulfill your inferior criterion is actually a good thing, to my view.

[Nerd_Paladin]

Not to be rude to them OP, but this really hits at the crux of the issue... at several points in this thread expansive assumptions which are the foundation of the OP have been shown to be wrong, such as "The Paladins routinely go on crusades against goblinkind,"

Well, look, it's right here, SoD page 28: "'There is not one among you who has not lost family to the so-called "crusade" of the Sapphire Guard. I say, enough! No more crusades, no more death, no more orphaned goblin children.'" Looked pretty unambiguous to me.

"Paladins are not punished for slaughtering goblins,"

Well, I don't see that in any panel, do you?

"The Gods in D&D are infallible,"

I never said that. The gods make bad decisions, clearly. What I'm skeptical about is the suggestion that the gods are inept; that they would exercise their divine power to create one type of creature but somehow screw it up and create something that doesn't match the concept.

"D&D depicts races as being wholly good or wholly evil," just to name the few that come to my mind immediately.

Really? We're going to dispute the evilness of D&D goblins here? For that matter, even the evilness of OOTS goblins isn't up in the air.

But that doesn't mean it's any less sympathetic. Because being the buttmonkey of every other race in your world must suck.

Well, if monsters are really evil, in the D&D sense of being profoundly sadistic and wicked in literally inhuman ways...yeah, I'm not really feeling that bad for them.

But evilness was never the issue here; the schism is about the basic characterization of Redcloak as "evil but for a good cause." It's the "good cause" part that doesn't add up, for me.

[Nerd_Paladin]

OP, you fundamentally disagree with the Giant about what alignment is supposed to be.

You want alignment to be a binary straitjacket with no application to complex real-world situations, so that you can pretend Redcloak's complexity violates D&D principles.

Still not quite right; the argument is that the comic sometimes treats alignment in a by-the-book fashion and sometimes throws it out the window entirely. The comic wants to have things both ways. See original post.