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

[hamishspence]

The deva's "We generally don't consider childhood escapades" statement:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0488.html

seems pretty appropriate here- the presumption that dubious acts committed in childhood are "escapades" not having much bearing on afterlife destination- unless explicitly shown otherwise.

[The Giant]

But she's green! That's damning evidence right there!

I direct your attention to Wicked, by Gregory Maguire. (The novel, not the watered-down musical.)

[Quild]

EDIT: I should write "Ce n'est pas un jeu des cachots et des dragons" under every comic from now on.

When talking about D&D, we translate "dungeons" into "donjons", not "cachots" ;)
And D&D is a game (translate "un jeu"), but when you play a game of D&D, you have to translate "une partie" (totally unrelated with the english word "party").

"Ceci n'est pas une partie de Donjons et Dragons." would be the proper translation of "This is not a game of D&D".

But why would you wrote it in French ?

[The Giant]

When talking about D&D, we translate "dungeons" into "donjons", not "cachots" ;)
And D&D is a game (translate "un jeu"), but when you play a game of D&D, you have to translate "une partie" (totally unrelated with the english word "party").

"Ceci n'est pas une partie de Donjons et Dragons." would be the proper translation of "This is not a game of D&D".

I appreciate that; blame Babelfish for the hasty version I posted.

[Psyren]

I direct your attention to Wicked, by Gregory Maguire. (The novel, not the watered-down musical.)

Love that book

When talking about D&D, we translate "dungeons" into "donjons", not "cachots" ;)
...
But why would you wrote it in French ?

Huh, suddenly the Deck of Many Things makes a lot more sense to me.

I presume his use of french was to lend the disclaimer an air of sophistication (as the french language is wont to do) but I could be way out in left field.

[FlawedParadigm]

Also, Rich, you're going to start making the curator of the Giant Quotes thread work overtime soon.

[Yendor]

I believe he's referencing this.

[Quild]

I believe he's referencing this.

Now I understand. I studied that less than 15 years ago, I should have known! :D

[Psyren]

I believe he's referencing this.

*slaps forehead*

I'm an idiot.

[Crimsonmantle]

That is a pretty big assumption you spoilerd, I find nothing in the comic that gives the impression his little sister has committed any evil action.

Was it a paladin who killed her? And he didn't fall right after?

Because that'd be solid evidence that killing her was not an evil act... which means she must have deserved it somehow... right? Right?

Also... I was wondering... teh deva did point out that it matters to them that Roy is trying to be LG. When Redcloak refers to "those that call themselves good" who commit evil acts - and we all do irl - he's right. But he's also taking an easy out, no? And it's not as if gobbo culture as depicted in Oots were particularly non-evil. I mean, they're slaveholding, cruel, silly, cute buffoons. (And their architectural skills are not up to par. :D ) Gobbotopia will need all the help it can get.

[Crimsonmantle]

When talking about D&D, we translate "dungeons" into "donjons", not "cachots" ;)

Quite right!

[Juggling Goth]

I direct your attention to Wicked, by Gregory Maguire. (The novel, not the watered-down musical.)

Giant, I already adored you, but that just cemented it. The musical was fun and all (and my partner's sister had a baby the day I went to see it, and nearly ended up with a 'green babies rule' onesie), but the novels are amazing. Great worldbuilding.

[Xapi]

Was it a paladin who killed her? And he didn't fall right after?

Because that'd be solid evidence that killing her was not an evil act... which means she must have deserved it somehow... right? Right?

Wrong. Please read this: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showp...6&postcount=21

Here, The Giant explains why we don't know or see weather or not the paladins fall, and why the fact that we don't see it doesn't speak of the nature of the paladins' deed.

This post is brought to you by the Index of the Giant's comments.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=220195

[Conuly]

Was it a paladin who killed her? And he didn't fall right after?

Because that'd be solid evidence that killing her was not an evil act... which means she must have deserved it somehow... right? Right?

Either he didn't fall (in which case Redcloak has a case that the gods are capricious and unjust) or he DID and it just wasn't on-screen. I believe Rich said at one point that any or all of those paladins may have fallen, but he's not going to tell us who, if any, they were.

I'm inclined to think that if paladins regularly fell because they slaughtered infants, they'd wise up and stop slaughtering infants, but who knows?

Also... I was wondering... teh deva did point out that it matters to them that Roy is trying to be LG. When Redcloak refers to "those that call themselves good" who commit evil acts - and we all do irl - he's right. But he's also taking an easy out, no? And it's not as if gobbo culture as depicted in Oots were particularly non-evil. I mean, they're slaveholding, cruel, silly, cute buffoons. (And their architectural skills are not up to par. :D ) Gobbotopia will need all the help it can get.

In SoD we actually see a couple of other goblin villages (of course, Gobbotopia is majority hobgoblin, which may make a difference!) and there's no evidence that those villages engaged in slave-trading or random cruelty to humans. (Indeed, there's some evidence, though circumstantial, that they don't.)

At this point, RC may have decided that since, if his plan fails, he's ultimately going to get slaughtered for being a goblin (and also the bearer of the crimson mantle) anyway, he might as well live it up. He and the other residents of Gobbotopia.

It's also important to note that in the OotS world humans are implied to engage in slave-trading as well. And humans in the real world certainly have kept slaves! We don't say all humans are evil, nor even "all humans from that area" just because some of them do evil things.

[Nerd-o-rama]

When talking about D&D, we translate "dungeons" into "donjons", not "cachots" ;)
And D&D is a game (translate "un jeu"), but when you play a game of D&D, you have to translate "une partie" (totally unrelated with the english word "party").

"Ceci n'est pas une partie de Donjons et Dragons." would be the proper translation of "This is not a game of D&D".

But why would you wrote it in French ?

Because it's not a pipe, either.

Also I guess this is a successful thread, and one I'm probably not going to read, either, if it gained three and a half pages while I was sleeping.

[Jan Mattys]

I have read the whole thread so far.

I have very few things to say:
1- I think Nerd_Paladin's original post is a well thought, and well presented arguement that could be accepted or rejected, but that makes sense. Sadly, the back-and-forth discussion, as usual over the Net, gave birth to more and more bastard childs of the original point, but kudos to him nonetheless for trying to put down his thought in a non-confrontational and reasonable way in the first place. Personally, I am absolutely in love with Rich's work and Reddie is probably my favourite character bar none, but I can understand Nerd_Paladin's points.

2- The Giant replied with equally reasonable points, making interesting comments on the intents, goals and merits of his work. They are solid points, provide exceptional insight, and establish once and for all that Rich deserves all the praise everybody ever gave him. And more.

What saddens me just a bit, is that it seems unavoidable to slip from "I understand your point, I just see it different", to "well, you're wrong".
I see no need for people to tell Nerd_Paladin "Stop reading, then", when he's proven to be one of the few people who can be civil about his disagreement over an interesting aspect of the Order of the Stick (an aspect, might I add, that is there SPECIFICALLY to make people think about it)...

At the same time, seeing a reasonable poster fall in the "Your character is fael" trap is soul crushing.

Just my two cents.

[SaintRidley]

I have bookmarked this thread because of the Giant's posts. Both the posts about why we should take a closer look at the ugliness inherent in the alignment system and his points about the value of fantasy literature are spot on.

I don't know if there's anything else to add here, really.

[pjackson]

I CARE. I care, and every goddamn person in the world should care, because it's objectification of a sentient being. It doesn't matter that the sentient being in question is a fictional species, it's saying that it's OK for people who look funny to be labeled as Evil by default, because hey, like 60% of them do Evil things sometimes! That is racism. It is a short hop to real-world racism once we decide it is acceptable to make blanket negative statements about entire races of people.

Our fiction reflects who we are as a civilization, and it disgusts me that so many people think it's acceptable to label creatures with only cosmetic differences from us as inherently Evil.

I have to disagree somewhat. Labelling creatures in a fantasy world as evil is not racism, unless you are identifying them with one of the supposed races of humanity. There is a tradition of using non-human species in fantasy and science fiction as analogues for races. But that is not the only way to deal with them. I prefer my non-humans to be truely non-human with more than cosmetic differences.

I have met someone who I later learned was evil, but he looked perfectly normal to me at the time, so normal that I barely remember the meeting.

[Xapi]

Because it's not a pipe, either.

Also I guess this is a successful thread, and one I'm probably not going to read, either, if it gained three and a half pages while I was sleeping.

I'd incourage you to read it, The Giant's comments in this thread are extremely valuable.

[Nerd-o-rama]

Well, actually, I did end up reading it.

I CARE.

I knew I still read this comic for a reason. Thank you, Giant, not for being a good author - I've thanked you for that in the past - but for being a good person.

[hamishspence]

3rd ed has tended to move away from "evil monsters deserve only death"- at least in some sources:

Savage Species (late 3.0)

With Malice Toward None
(Chaotic/Accepting)

In this campaign model, the prevailing opinion holds that monsters, no matter how foul and evil they may look, are free sentient beings with all the inalienable rights that humans, elves, and every other humanoid species are heir to. The denizens of this campaign are not foolish- they know that many monsters are evil and nefarious. Just the same, they are loath to reject monsters simply because of their origins. The philosophical leaders of this land realize that no medusa or troll really had a choice in how it came into this world, and indeed as oppressed as its upbringing may have been, it is deserving of more sympathy and consideration, not less.

In this world, evil among monsters is largely perceived to be a psychological condition rather than an absolute or genetic one. Most monsters are thought to become creatures of evil or destruction not because of any infernal or diabolic tie, but because of a fear of rejection, loneliness, or some other understandable psychological condition. Even the foulest tanar'ri may in truth be the victim of its own psychoses, and the enlightened people of this world hold out hope that with openness, respect, and even love, the darkest of souls can be redeemed. And who knows? Perhaps they are right.

[Psyren]

Not to mention BoED. It dropped the ball in many other places, but it as at least an acknowledgement by WotC that they needed to go a bit deeper into this whole alignment business than Gygax thought it would be necessary to.

[pjackson]

1- I think Nerd_Paladin's original post is a well thought, and well presented arguement that could be accepted or rejected, but that makes sense.

It is an argument that relies on a narrow interpretation of what D&D is that excludes the perfectly valid one used in the strip. Since D&D is not that narrow the argument being based on a false premise does not make sense.

[pjackson]

3rd ed has tended to move away from "evil monsters deserve only death"- at least in some sources:

Savage Species (late 3.0)

It started before 3e - see the Complete Book of Humanoids for a 2e source.

[Morty]

3rd edition kind of... zig-zags in terms of its treatment of "monster species". It's a very much "Depending on the author" sort of thing, which is only logical since there were multiple authors working on it. But at the end of the day, some sapient species are still labeled as "Evil". The reason for which this is deeply disturbing have been elaborated on by people more eloquent than I am in this thread. It's really kind of interesting how persistent this idea is.
What's also strange is the double standard - noone minds evil or neutral elves and dwarves or non-neutral halflings, but non-evil orcs ad goblinoids provoke reactions such as the one in this thread.

[Elfich]

But there's the problem; if Redcloak and company are, indeed, completely evil, as the D&D rules generally require them to be for the game to function in the way you point out, then his "just" cause is not really just, and in fact wouldn't exist at all; his family's murder would not be senseless violence, it would in fact be quite sensible, and the Paladins would not be zealous bigots, they would be protecting innocent lives against a very real threat. Redcloak could still be motivated by it in the same way, still feel the same pain and anger over it, but the larger idea that he's "evil for a good cause" wouldn't hold water, because his cause wouldn't be (and couldn't be) good. So I suppose what we have here is a matter of rules conflicting with story; but in this case only because the storyteller has chosen to make the story conflict with the rules.

A couple of points:

That is one of the issues I think you are failing to grasp. PCs and NPCs can "Do evil for good ends" and "Do good for evil ends". The Black and White - Start of Darkness asked this question multiple ways. The Mongol Horde question touched upon it but you missed the allegory.

I think that is one of the themes that has been developing throughout this story: Is your assigned alignment the end-all and be-all of your existence?
Some characters think your assigned alignment is all that there is (Miko being the top of the list there, please don't flame me) while others take a more nuanced view (Roy's redirecting Belkar to more productive ends comes to mind).

Is the rules system that you are within so rigid and confining that you have to live within the confines of your assigned alignment? Which is more important - the rules or the story? There are plenty of stories out there of people overcoming their limitations. Can overcoming your assigned alignment count as overcoming an obstacle? Does being evil preclude you from doing good things?

[Elfich]

This is treading very close to real-world religion already, but suffice to say that if you have a means of verifying the non-existence of any given deity in the real world, there are a few billion people who might want to give it a spin.

But beyond that, no fiction is meaningful if its lessons cannot be applied to the world that we, real actual humans, live in. If you are going to dismiss any themes or subtext present in any fantasy story as simply not applying to our world because that world has dragons and ours doesn't, then you have largely missed the point of literature as a whole, and are likely rather poorer for it. Fantasy literature is ONLY worthwhile for what it can tell us about the real world; everything else is petty escapism. So if I can make even one person think about how we treat people of other races (or religions, or creeds, or what have you) by using the analogy of Redcloak, then it will have been time well spent on my part.

I applaud you.

[The Giant]

I have to disagree somewhat. Labelling creatures in a fantasy world as evil is not racism, unless you are identifying them with one of the supposed races of humanity.

The idea of racism does not need to directly correlate to an existing real-world race in order to still be racist. All that is required is that you evaluate a person based on your preconceptions about others of the same biological group rather than on their own merits.

There is a tradition of using non-human species in fantasy and science fiction as analogues for races. But that is not the only way to deal with them. I prefer my non-humans to be truely non-human with more than cosmetic differences.

Because all authors are human, it is exceedingly difficult for anyone to imagine a fully realized non-human intelligence. It has been done maybe a dozen times in the history of speculative fiction, and I would venture not at all in the annals of fantasy roleplaying games. (Certainly, goblins, dwarves, and elves don't qualify, being basically green short humans, bearded greedy humans, and pointy-eared magical humans.) Therefore, it's a moot distinction and one not worth making. Statistically speaking, ALL depictions of non-human intelligence—ever—are functionally human with cosmetic differences. Which is as it should be, because only by creating reflections of ourselves will we learn anything. There's precious little insight into the human condition to gain from a completely alien thought process.

And that's it for me, I need to go to sleep.

[Jan Mattys]

I wholeheartedly appalud at your ideals Giant.

Still I think that's unfair to corner Nerd_Paladin by invoking the usefulness of openmindedness and tolerance in a work that is a parody as well as a spawn of Fantasy Fiction.

Criticizing the idea of an "Always Evil" label over a certain race is one thing. Stating it is a clichee is fair. Stating it promotes racism, though, is unreasonable in my opinion.

That's "D&D will make you a satanist" way of thinking.

Personally (but I speak strictly for myself, in the hope I am not the horrible person I don't want to be) I don't think that happily butchering orcs without a second thought in my old d&d days made me any more prone to racism than playin an adventurer made me inherently fascinated by the idea of being a hobo, a thief or a vigilante when I grew up.

But that's me.

[Dr. Gamera]

Because all authors are human, it is exceedingly difficult for anyone to imagine a fully realized non-human intelligence. It has been done maybe a dozen times in the history of speculative fiction [...]

Ooh, ooh, where? The Mote in God's Eye is (justifiably) considered to be exceptional in its fully realized aliens (even though I didn't personally enjoy the story all that much), although I haven't thought too deeply about whether the intelligence of the Moties is itself fully realized. What are the (other?) dozen or so times?