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

[Ninja Dragon]

Sorry, I missed this in my earlier post:



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 may like the alignment system overall, but that is its ugliest implication, and one that I think needs to be eliminated from the game. I will ALWAYS write against that idea until it has been eradicated from the lexicon of fantasy literature. If they called me up and asked me to help them work on 5th Edition, I would stamp it out from the very game itself. It is abhorrent to me in every way.

So, complaining that I am failing to uphold it is the best compliment you could give me.

This.

I was thinking about writing this post while I was reading the thread, but the Giant did it for me.

It doesn't matter whether the story has dragons, or gods, or aliens or wathever. It can have parallels to real life, and in fact it does. It has many parallels to real life, and they are all interesting. The OP is trying to divide storytelling in 2 types: completely realistic and completely unrealistic, but this is not a rule in any way. In fact, we have MANY stories that use unrealistic elements to analyse aspects of real life.

Stories like this make people think. They make people look at real life, and think about what they doing in it. This is awesome, and is always welcome. It makes us better humans, and makes stories better than just "hero kills dragon for treasure". They makes us think about politics, about religion, and about the stupid moralization that is everywhere in real life. This artificial moralization that labels people, countries, religions, ideologies, and races as good and evil, an that make our society worse as a whole. The OOTS gods, and paladins, represent this, and they are here to show how this is wrong.

Also, OOTS does an even better job at this: instead of going about the standard "vilain with good reasons" cliché, it subverts it, and shows that, in the end, it's not our reasons that makes us good or evil, it's our actions. It desconstructs the "evil" trope, and reconstructs it. I'm glad I read SoD. I've always thought this was the best webcomic in the web, but after I read it I was 100% sure.

Bravo, Giant. Your storytelling is outstanding.

[Math_Mage]

I have absolutely no clue what you consider the point to be. But I'm pretty sure your entire attitude toward writing in general is utterly incompatible with mine, so I don't expect ever to understand.

I think veti's point is that it's more important that anyone with an ounce of sense can see that killing Redcloak's six-year-old sister is an injustice than that Rich Burlew in particular has decreed it to be so. Word of God is supposed to settle ambiguous issues, but this clearly is not one of them. And for a work of literature to have meaning beyond, other than, or even contrary to authorial intent is not unheard of; just look at Kerouac's On The Road.

[Darilian]

The fundemental problem, inherent in this thread- and common whenever people try to talk about moral philosophy- is that people are confusing the terms 'morality' with 'ethics'.

Without going into 'real world' territory-

One can have a system of 'objective' morality, where 'Good' is good and 'Evil' is EVEEEEL, but yet have those people act in a manner that is Unethical. Personally, I'm a fan of the concept of the Categorical Imperative- or act in such a way that your actions would be taken to be a universal moral law.

What is key- and what I think that Rich Burlew is trying to demonstrate- is that in Dungeons and Dragons (and throughout the fantasy trope as a whole), it is taken for granted that the 'Good' guys are inherently, no matter how much they make behave like jerks, always assumed to also be Ethical. However, they aren't.

Take Miko, for instance- she might be on the side of the 12 Gods when she treats the Order of the Stick extremely shabbily (ie, she believes her actions to be 'objectively' Good), but the WAY she tries to achieve those goals is extremely unethical. She leaps to conclusions, she never shows doubt, she never acts towards others the way she expected others to treat her. Thus, while she might be on the side of 'Good', she is acting unethically.

Morals are touchstones for what we perceive as good or evil, but ethics is the process whereby we try and negotiate philosophical differences into actual practice. And the fact that most people don't get this distinction, I've found, is the root of most of the 'Is such a such a character in Order of the Stick' 'evil' or not?

As an aside, I want to applaud Mr. Burlew's attempt to 'deconstruct' the implicit conflation of racism and 'morality' that has been a hallmark not only of Dungeons and Dragons, but indeed, the entire fantasy trope ever since Tolkein.

Kudos to you, sir.

Darilian

[TheyCallMeTomu]

Honestly, Dungeons and Dragons should have just taken a Greek Mythology lesson to begin with and assume the heroes are heroes in the sense that they do badass things, not that they're actually good people. I mean, as a DM, I can NEVER get a party to ACTUALLY be heroic.

[Fish]

The OP is trying to divide storytelling in 2 types: completely realistic and completely unrealistic, but this is not a rule in any way. In fact, we have MANY stories that use unrealistic elements to analyse aspects of real life.

And the only time I can recall anybody telling a story solely based on black-and-white game mechanics, it was Arnold Rimmer recounting an epic Risk battle. :)

[Soylent Dave]

Not irredeemably Evil, but they certainly can be evil. Ever been bullied at school?

I think you might be confusing 'cruel' with evil there. Children are frequently cruel - you don't get to be an apex predator without producing some pretty ruthless offspring...

But genuinely evil children are pretty astronomically rare. You have to work at being evil, I reckon - it's not something people are it's something they become. Children usually haven't had the opportunity.

Real world racism isn't about biological groups, but superficial external differences.

Are you perhaps familiar with the word 'allegory'?

Stereotypes exist for a reason. There's nothing wrong with assuming a stereotype is correct in the absence of other evidence, assuming that it is reasonably grounded in fact.

You've had to use 'assuming' twice in that sentence - that's everything which is wrong with stereotypes right there.

Stereotyping exists for the reason that people are lazy; assuming that a stereotype is true without examining it is called 'prejudice'.

Acting on prejudice is called 'racism'.

That's what The Giant was getting at with this bit here:

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.

[Anarion]

One thing that I find troubling is not the issue of racism directly (although it relies on two groups seeing each other as distinct), but rather that of limited resources and anticipated populations over successive generations.

What do I mean by that? Let's take a hypothetical population of orcs and suggest that their average generation is about 15 years long (I don't care if this is right, it's just for the hypothetical). Let's also take a population of elves and take their average generation as 150 years long. Finally, for this problem, assume that each generation leads to a 10% increase in population.

If you start out with 1000 orcs and 1000 elves who live in peace with each other and never fight, then 150 years later there are 1100 elves, but ~2593 orcs. Each generation this disparity grows progressively larger, so that at some point the elves would be incapable of fighting against the orcs and the moment that a single evil orcish leader managed to unite his people, he could wipe out the population of elves.

Given that setup (which made a number of assumptions that probably don't apply to this comic), I have trouble explaining why it's wrong for the initial 1000 elves to kill the 1000 orcs, even though I still feel in my gut that it is wrong.

[daemonaetea]

Given that setup (which made a number of assumptions that probably don't apply to this comic), I have trouble explaining why it's wrong for the initial 1000 elves to kill the 1000 orcs, even though I still feel in my gut that it is wrong.

Why it's wrong is really pretty simple. You can't execute the orcs for something they might, at some point, do. If you follow that logic, why shouldn't the orcs go ahead and slaughter the elves now, before the elves become insufferable holier-than-thous and decide to go on some sort of crusade against the orcs?

[TheyCallMeTomu]

The orcs and elves SHOULD be at war in that situation. Sucks but it's true.

This, of course, assumes that the elves have a reasonable expectation that the orcs will move to wipe them out, and that the orcs have the reasonable expectation that the elves have a reasonable expectation that the orcs are going to wipe the elves out given the first chance.

The question, then, is from whence this reasonable expectation comes from-if, indeed, it comes from anywhere at all. If it's merely self-fulfilling, well, we have something of an artificially generated problem.

[androkguz]

I'm not reading this whole threat right now, but there are some things I would like to mention.

First, there ARE many morally ambigious villians in official DnD stories and settings. There are also morally ambigious (much more) historical events in the official DnD settings.

In eberron, lychatropes got wiped of Khorvaire by the Church or the Silver Flame's inquisition much like Redcloak's tribe.

[Rennard]

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 may like the alignment system overall, but that is its ugliest implication, and one that I think needs to be eliminated from the game. I will ALWAYS write against that idea until it has been eradicated from the lexicon of fantasy literature. If they called me up and asked me to help them work on 5th Edition, I would stamp it out from the very game itself. It is abhorrent to me in every way.

So, complaining that I am failing to uphold it is the best compliment you could give me.

I feel almost vulgar arguing with the creator of this fine comic, but I am having difficulty with this position regarding the OoTS world as it has been presented to us.

The difference between cosmetic differences and significant differences in fantasy races has never really been explored in depth, mostly because (as The Giant mentioned) all authors on earth are humans and have no way of ceasing to think like humans for the sake of their fiction. But let's look at the evidence given to us about this world from a political instead of a philosophical standpoint.

First, some assumptions: It seems safe to assume that this fantasy world is more than a few centuries old (the technology and existence of ancient cultures seem to affirm this) and that multiracial relations have been present for nearly as long as the races have been around (given the fact that they were created to interact with each other as we have seen in both the comic and in Start of Darkness).

Here's where the difficulty comes for me: In all that time, there has never been any sizeable peaceful interaction between PC races (elves, dwarves, humans, et al) and Goblinoids.

How do I know this?

Common sense.

Due to the centuries of conflict between the races, it seems logical to assume that one or the other racial group would have tried to make peace in the past. In the same way that we cannot assume people are evil due to their skin color, we can also not assume that racial hatreds are universal and eternal either. But none of these attempts seem to have borne any long-lasting or meaningful results.

There are two possible reasons for this:

1. The Humans (dwarves, elves, et al) don't want it.
2. The Goblins (hobgoblins, orcs, et al) don't want it.

If both sides wanted lasting peace, they could have it. Conflict comes from one side of the other deciding to instigate. So at every historical moment that peace was possible, one side or the other either refused or sabotaged it.

We can't assume that one side or the other is solely to blame for this chain of events, or that we can ever know the reasons why, but the fact remains. No peace.

So for all this time, the Sapphire Guild has been raiding and killing goblinoids, and for a roughly equivalent amount of time, the goblinoids have been doing the same thing.

Isn't it safe to assume, therefore, that this status quo will continue?

We can hope for different outcomes in the future, of course, but if the last several hundred goblin groups that came to your village attacked your people, killed as many of them as they could, and needed to be driven away by force, why would you assume that the hundred-and-first would be a peace offering?

THIS is how stereotypes reflect reality. The assumptions are made not through one or two instances of contact, but through extended interaction. The vast bulk of the people reading this comic come from the United States, a country that has been blessed with relatively few wars and has (from a global perspective) very little racial strife or tension. No matter how bad things get in this country, the neighboring tribe will not drive into your town and kill everyone you have ever known because you were the wrong race. You will not have all your friends and loved ones herded from the city they live in to be shot and buried. Whole cities are not depopulated due to race hatred here. Racism in this country is rather sedate compared to the rest of the world, and as a result, we tend to view such ideas as stereotyping to be backward or ignorant. We can afford to.

But for some, the stereotyping and prejudice are acts of self-defense. They are the result of generations of lost children, burned homes, tears, pain and blood. To expect them to wave it away because WE don't like it is ignorant. There's too much blood to wash it all away. And experience has taught them that there is no alternative - each new interaction reinforces the stereotype and deepens the hatred.

I propose that that is the situation between goblins and humans in this world. It does not seem to be predicated on what they look like (that's just an identifying set of features), but rather the result of centuries of blood. So much blood that neither side seems willing or able to even think of the other as anything but an adversary. Labeling all goblins as "evil" in this context is common sense, not meaningless racism. When have they ever been anything different? Even in the OoTS world (which contains much more nuance than a typical fantasy world), there is no evidence of the situation ever being anything than what it is now.

That's not "objectifying" a sentient being for cosmetic difference. It's showing proper concern in the face of prolonged experience.

I aplogize in advance if I offend anyone with this post. It was not my intention.

[Math_Mage]

Isn't it safe to assume, therefore, that this status quo will continue?

Your argument is fundamentally a grouping fallacy--which is only fitting, since that's exactly what stereotyping is. There are numerous examples, in fantasy and history and the literature in general, where there were individuals on both sides of a conflict that wanted to make peace, and yet both sides were stuck in the unending feud. Therefore, just because the feud between goblins and other races is unending does not make it safe to assume that at least one side has nobody who wants peace. The events of SoD in particular provide a good case study of how a peace-loving goblin faction might be violently suppressed by a more extremist faction.

(Also, I disagree with your point regarding US history, but don't want to discuss IRL affairs on here.)

[Dr._Demento]

I feel almost vulgar arguing with the creator of this fine comic, but I am having difficulty with this position regarding the OoTS world as it has been presented to us.

The difference between cosmetic differences and significant differences in fantasy races has never really been explored in depth, mostly because (as The Giant mentioned) all authors on earth are humans and have no way of ceasing to think like humans for the sake of their fiction. But let's look at the evidence given to us about this world from a political instead of a philosophical standpoint.

First, some assumptions: It seems safe to assume that this fantasy world is more than a few centuries old (the technology and existence of ancient cultures seem to affirm this) and that multiracial relations have been present for nearly as long as the races have been around (given the fact that they were created to interact with each other as we have seen in both the comic and in Start of Darkness).

Here's where the difficulty comes for me: In all that time, there has never been any sizeable peaceful interaction between PC races (elves, dwarves, humans, et al) and Goblinoids.

How do I know this?

Common sense.

Due to the centuries of conflict between the races, it seems logical to assume that one or the other racial group would have tried to make peace in the past. In the same way that we cannot assume people are evil due to their skin color, we can also not assume that racial hatreds are universal and eternal either. But none of these attempts seem to have borne any long-lasting or meaningful results.

There are two possible reasons for this:

1. The Humans (dwarves, elves, et al) don't want it.
2. The Goblins (hobgoblins, orcs, et al) don't want it.

If both sides wanted lasting peace, they could have it. Conflict comes from one side of the other deciding to instigate. So at every historical moment that peace was possible, one side or the other either refused or sabotaged it.

We can't assume that one side or the other is solely to blame for this chain of events, or that we can ever know the reasons why, but the fact remains. No peace.

So for all this time, the Sapphire Guild has been raiding and killing goblinoids, and for a roughly equivalent amount of time, the goblinoids have been doing the same thing.

Isn't it safe to assume, therefore, that this status quo will continue?

We can hope for different outcomes in the future, of course, but if the last several hundred goblin groups that came to your village attacked your people, killed as many of them as they could, and needed to be driven away by force, why would you assume that the hundred-and-first would be a peace offering?

THIS is how stereotypes reflect reality. The assumptions are made not through one or two instances of contact, but through extended interaction. The vast bulk of the people reading this comic come from the United States, a country that has been blessed with relatively few wars and has (from a global perspective) very little racial strife or tension. No matter how bad things get in this country, the neighboring tribe will not drive into your town and kill everyone you have ever known because you were the wrong race. You will not have all your friends and loved ones herded from the city they live in to be shot and buried. Whole cities are not depopulated due to race hatred here. Racism in this country is rather sedate compared to the rest of the world, and as a result, we tend to view such ideas as stereotyping to be backward or ignorant. We can afford to.

But for some, the stereotyping and prejudice are acts of self-defense. They are the result of generations of lost children, burned homes, tears, pain and blood. To expect them to wave it away because WE don't like it is ignorant. There's too much blood to wash it all away. And experience has taught them that there is no alternative - each new interaction reinforces the stereotype and deepens the hatred.

I propose that that is the situation between goblins and humans in this world. It does not seem to be predicated on what they look like (that's just an identifying set of features), but rather the result of centuries of blood. So much blood that neither side seems willing or able to even think of the other as anything but an adversary. Labeling all goblins as "evil" in this context is common sense, not meaningless racism. When have they ever been anything different? Even in the OoTS world (which contains much more nuance than a typical fantasy world), there is no evidence of the situation ever being anything than what it is now.

That's not "objectifying" a sentient being for cosmetic difference. It's showing proper concern in the face of prolonged experience.

I aplogize in advance if I offend anyone with this post. It was not my intention.

Except we have every right to condemn it and demand change. Ethnic conflicts have been practiced for centuries, but that doesn't make them right. Efforts to stop genocide in Africa, violence between religions or religious sects, and make peace between China and Japan are all internationally pursued goals (and the last one is even a pretty much achieved goal... to a point).

The answer to years of mistrust and betrayal is NOT pre-emptive strikes. If the paladins don't trust the goblins, then keep on eye on them, keep a standing army. Don't slaughter their women and children. It is a very human thing to let your hate and fear to blind your conscious, but that doesn't make it right.

[Nerd_Paladin]

Well, that was an adventure. Sorry I missed the discussion today. I'd like to address everyone individually but...well, you can see why that's not going to happen.

For the most part, I think the issue has been cleared up, and I have to say that I was wrong. Don't get excited, it's not in any way that's going to make the people who disagree with me happy.

I said that I felt that there was something wrong with the way Redcloak was written because, the way it boiled down in my mind, either his character didn't make sense, or the entire comic didn't. Turns out, it was the comic. Sobering.

The idea that the story, or at least one of the primary pillars of it, served as a deconstruction of black and white fantasy world morality seemed implausible to me because...well, why would anyone bother? I feel like we all know that black and white morality doesn't really work in practical terms and is, at best, a distortion that serves to make storytelling easier. But I was wrong; Mr. Burlew feels that this issue DOES merit this degree of attention. He is, in fact, remarkably passionate on the subject, even to the point of being "disgusted" over it. This clears up a lot of points. Sadly, it will lead me into further criticism on the subject, since I disagree with him in ways that leave me almost baffled. I'm sure he will not lose any sleep over it.

Mr. Burlew says:

I CARE. I care, and every goddamn person in the world should care, because it's objectification of a sentient being.

Which of course, it isn't. Goblins are not sentient beings, nor are they beings at all. You can't even objectify them, as they are already objects; ink and paper. It seems to me that Mr. Burlew may have committed one of the easiest but most grave of critical errors; mistaking characters for people and reacting to them as such. This is followed closely by the second most grave error, becoming so emotionally invested in fiction that you lose your sense of objectivity over it.

Of course, characters serve as abstract representations of people, but we'll touch on that in a minute.

Mr. Burlew continues:

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!

I would say that it matters quite a bit whether something is fantasy or reality. We may, for example, suppose the existence of entirely impossible creatures, such as great reptiles that fly and breathe fire. Why we may not also suppose that these creatures are inherently wicked by the same token is beyond me. True, this does not "make sense", but neither does a 5000 pound beast with the aerodynamic properties of a brick taking to the air. Somehow, we reconcile this.

I note that no one takes issue with inherently evil gods in fantasy worlds, despite this actually being a far more disturbing concept. Nor does anyone speak up on behalf of fiends or creatures with mystically evil natures. The idea of pure evil on a cosmic scale is something most folks seem to be accept, at least as far as fantasy goes.

But Mr. Burlew takes issue with the idea of inherently evil creatures on the grounds that the concept itself is morally offensive:

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.

And here's the major stumbling block for me. I would summarize my objections to this as follows: Goblins are not a race of people. They're not people at all. They're fictional monsters. A fictional monster may have any qualities we wish it to have, including a wicked nature if we think that's a handy thing for our story (said nature being the basis for conflict in most stories, rather than "looking funny"). It's true that if we applied this thinking to a real race of people, that would indeed be horribly offensive. But of course, we're not. To say that vilifying a fictional monster is the same as vilifying a real race of people is to say that there is no difference between fantasy and reality. We know that real races of people do not have inherently wicked natures, any more than they have spell-like abilities or breath weapons. These are all like elements of fiction.

And why the hell would we think about real people the way we think about fake monsters? Why would we EVER do that? Thinking about doing that for even a few minutes runs smack dab into the same problems that are rife in "The Order of the Stick". We're all adults here, we all know the difference fantasy and reality, we all know, generally from a very young age, that the black and white moral world of stories is not the way the world really works. Those that don't know that, and who do harbor very real prejudices, are beyond the help of mere RPGs to set straight.

It is interesting to note that the moral panic of the 80s that nearly killed off the hobby of tabletop RPGs employed some of these same notions; the claim that games taught players violence and bigotry (though the splashier claims about Satanism made the news more often).

But what if there are some latent qualities about this material, some overtones that speak of an ugly nature that we're not consciously aware of? This, too, is Mr. Burlew's concern:

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.

Once again I feel the need the need to point out that the differences with D&D monsters are not merely cosmetic. But the larger point remains; what if we're just using D&D monsters as symbolic stand-ins for real groups of people that we dislike? What if we're getting our ugly kicks this way because it's not acceptable to do it any other way?

I've said before and will again that I feel that this interpretation seems to me to be a product of projecting our own insecurities onto the largely blank canvas of the game. If we scrutinize it enough, we may see whatever we want, or are afraid, to see. And I think we are afraid of seeing prejudice in our lives and natures; we know about the history of institutional prejudice, how subtle it can be, how ingrained in a system it can be, how easy it is to look the other way from, and we are afraid. We're afraid of letting something terrible fester in our presence, and we're afraid of becoming the bad guy through laziness or ignorance.

So we become very vigilant in watching for society's moral ugliness. And sometimes in our zeal we may see it where it isn't, the same way we may see a shape or an image in a blob of paint. We experience a kind of moral Red Scare where the fear of a real threat produces phantoms composed only of that fear. And since feel helpless in the face of such huge and frightening problems it can even be comforting to "discover" them on a small scale, on the page, where we can take direct action against them.

I am not, mind you, railing against "PCism" or suggesting that we are "too sensitive" about social prejudices. Intense scrutiny of pop culture is a valuable tool for rooting out pressing problems. But we can be still be wrong. I don't see any way that these fantasy monsters serve as a symbol for real disenfranchised groups, unless we intentionally choose to interpret them as such. Further, it seems that the hundreds of people over the decades who have had a hand in designing just this one most relevant fantasy game see it either, unless of course they're all a bunch of psychotic *******s and just don't care. If fantasy monsters have any particularly great significance, it is probably in the same psychoanalytical sense that the mythical and folkloric creatures that they are based on had: as symbols of our primal fears about the dangers and unfairness of life, a way of distilling a world of senseless terrors into something that can be confronted directly and, through fiction, defeated, in a way that is therapeutic for us.

The final point is that, to paraphrase Mr. Burlew, the game may be designed one way, but it's often played another, and that other way is one that carries with it the morally offensive overtones that he so strongly objects to. Here is where personal experience can't help but prejudice our analyses, because I myself have never had this problem. I might question who the rest of you are gaming with, and why? Here we run afoul of another potential stumbling block, as Mr. Burlew asserts, correctly, that he is writing a comic, not an RPG. But his comic is a satire of RPG culture and one game in particular (and I think we have now quite definitely established that "The Order of the Stick" is still a comic about Dungeons & Dragons, albeit in a different way than it once was). Mr. Burlew is, of course, free to structure his story, his characters, his world, and his rules however he sees fit; he's a one-man operation, after all, and has worked very hard to achieve the success he enjoys. But to judge how effective the comic is as satire of gaming and gaming culture, we still must consider the qualities of that outside content. That is the curse of this sort of story.

If "The Order of the Stick" is a barb aimed at the way some people play the game (rather than the way it was designed to be played), then it it's a barb that misses its mark. There are no gamers present in the comic, not even in indirect ways. Rather, there is game material and, by a certain token, game developers. These would surely seem to be the targets, then, of the moral argument being made in the panels. If the true target is certain gamers, then it would seem that the writer has, for lack of a better analogy off the top of my head, shot the hostage to get to the gunman. Perhaps this is simply due to the comic's more humble origins; it started out as a smaller project without thought to the loftier heights it would eventually ascend to, so it could not be designed from the get-go with its eventual goals in mind. Such is life.

In my opinion, "The Order of the Stick" is an excellent piece of work, as it is consistently funny, entertaining and engaging, at times impressively dramatic, and sometimes even touching or frightening. It's incredibly diverse, has surprisingly few problems balancing its many conflicting tones and genres, and is a fascinating study in the degree that serialized story can grow and change over time. But I think that "The Order of the Stick" is flawed in the way that it employs its rhetorical agenda, as I disagree in very strong terms with the author's interpretation of the material being satirized, to the point that I would consider it a crusade against a problem that either doesn't exist or exists as a phenomena outside the frame of reference that the comic addresses.

That's my honest critical take on the work to date. Contrary opinions are eagerly solicited, though I suspect many are a-wearying of the subject by now.

[Math_Mage]

My basic problem with the above:

I would say that it matters quite a bit whether something is fantasy or reality. We may, for example, suppose the existence of entirely impossible creatures, such as great reptiles that fly and breathe fire. Why we may not also suppose that these creatures are inherently wicked by the same token is beyond me.

Because that makes for bloody lame storytelling.

In OotS we get a moving, compelling story of how a particular goblin came to be Evil...and your base criticism is that fantasy wickedness doesn't need a backstory, that he shouldn't have bothered, and that his story makes less sense because he bothered--as if "He's a goblin, just 'suppose' he's 'inherently wicked' and act accordingly, it's okay because it's fantasy" would have made MORE sense!

This is why Mr. Burlew is a famous storyteller, and you are commenting on his forum, rather than the other way around. I don't think I can be any more blunt.

[factotum]

I have to say, Nerd_Paladin, on the one hand complaining about how a character in a work of fiction is characterised, and on the other saying you can't really care about fictional characters because they're, well, fictional, is a bit of a contradiction to my mind. If we're not supposed to care about any of the characters in the story, why should we care what they do or why they do it? This is the fundamental flaw at the core of your argument.

[Porthos]

Why we may not also suppose that these creatures are inherently wicked by the same token is beyond me.

If you can point me to a source that says that non-fiends (or if we want to expand the playfield non-Always X Alignment) in D&D are "inherently wicked", I'd be much appreciated.

[SaintRidley]

Here's where the difficulty comes for me: In all that time, there has never been any sizeable peaceful interaction between PC races (elves, dwarves, humans, et al) and Goblinoids.

How do I know this?

Common sense.

Due to the centuries of conflict between the races, it seems logical to assume that one or the other racial group would have tried to make peace in the past. In the same way that we cannot assume people are evil due to their skin color, we can also not assume that racial hatreds are universal and eternal either. But none of these attempts seem to have borne any long-lasting or meaningful results.

There are two possible reasons for this:

1. The Humans (dwarves, elves, et al) don't want it.
2. The Goblins (hobgoblins, orcs, et al) don't want it.

3. The gods foment the conflict because it amuses them and allows their chosen, the "civilized" humanoids, to get high enough level to fight the really cool monsters.

[Nerd_Paladin]

Because that makes for bloody lame storytelling.

Two things:

1. Mr. Burlew's comments were that the concept was morally repugnant, not lame storytelling.

2. Depends on the story. Sometimes the simple approach is best. In D&D, the simple approach is almost the only one that works. For myriad examples of why that's so, see "The Order of the Stick."

In OotS we get a moving, compelling story of how a particular goblin came to be Evil...and your base criticism is that fantasy wickedness doesn't need a backstory, that he shouldn't have bothered,

I never said that, though it's a strawman popping up so frequently that it's doing a fine job of keeping the crows out of my cornfield.

And that his story makes less sense because he bothered--

I said that it created a schism between the times/ways that the comic reflects the principles of the game it's based on and the times/ways that it doesn't. On its own, the story is fine; I rather liked "Start of Darkness". But we may evaluate "The Order of the Stick" both as a story on its own terms (successful, for the most part) and as a work of satire of a wealth of outside content (less successful, in my opinion).

This is why Mr. Burlew is a famous storyteller, and you are commenting on his forum, rather than the other way around. I don't think I can be any more blunt.

So the artist is above the opinion of the public? Are we to suppose that the only valid point of view on art and media is that of the person who created it? Or are we to suppose that success and fame endow a person to such a degree that we may not take a critical eye to their work? I suppose you've never disliked a book, movie, play, song, painting, sculpture, or other work of art or media from an established artist? Or did you just suppress your opinion because you felt unworthy of speaking up?

[Porthos]

3. The gods foment the conflict because it amuses them and allows their chosen, the "civilized" humanoids, to get high enough level to fight the really cool monsters.

Let's not forget that the leading proponent of that theory was a tad biased of a source.

[SaintRidley]

Let's not forget that the leading proponent of that theory was a tad biased of a source.

True, however the question is not about biases in who presented the theories originally. The question is if there are other theories beyond "Civilized humanoids enjoy the conflict" and "Goblinoids enjoy the conflict."

Indeed, there is another possibility: "The gods enjoy the conflict and arrange to keep it up."

[Porthos]

True, however the question is not about biases in who presented the theories originally. The question is if there are other theories beyond "Civilized humanoids enjoy the conflict" and "Goblinoids enjoy the conflict."

Indeed, there is another possibility: "The gods enjoy the conflict and arrange to keep it up."

There's also a fourth possibility: The cycle of violence, no matter how it started in the first place, is a DAMN hard thing to break.

Even if there is an uneasy peace for years or a couple of decades, it only takes one spark to start it all up again.

ETA:::

BTW, to further my point, I have one thing to ask: How many "Redcloaks" (that is people who will grow up wishing revenge against the people who destroyed their lives) do people think were created when Azure City was sacked by the invading hobgoblins?

I don't know the exact number. But I doubt the answer is "zero".

[SaintRidley]

There's also a fourth possibility: The cycle of violence, no matter how it started in the first place, is a DAMN hard thing to break.

Even if there is an uneasy peace for years or a couple of decades, it only takes one spark to start it all up again.

So we have:

1. Humans like it
2. Goblins like it
3. The gods like it
4. Nobody likes it but they can't stop it.

Let's throw in:

5. Everybody likes it
6. Mindless destructive conflict needs no incentive; it simply happens, sparking #4
7. The violence is a construct as artificial as this list, the world in the comic, and the comic itself.


That about cover it?

Definitely way more than two, at any rate.

[Porthos]

That about cover it?

Definitely way more than two, at any rate.

Sounds about right. I'd probably throw in:

8) Just enough people like it on all sides to keep it going.

But, really, that's just a quibble.

[Charles Phipps]

People need to remember something.

Goblins were created to be disposable evil EXP sources.

Redcloak, by virtue of being a goblin, is evil.

he's trying to deny his fate but he's still what he's made as.

That's actually pretty cool I think.

[V'icternus]

Goblins are not sentient beings, nor are they beings at all. You can't even objectify them, as they are already objects; ink and paper. It seems to me that Mr. Burlew may have committed one of the easiest but most grave of critical errors; mistaking characters for people and reacting to them as such. This is followed closely by the second most grave error, becoming so emotionally invested in fiction that you lose your sense of objectivity over it.

...

Alright, listen. Fictional people are still people within the fictional universe.
If they are not, then there is no point to them.

Goblins have an INT score. They have a language. They are people. Sapient people with a culture.

Why read fiction if you cannot become invested? And why suddenly lose the ability to be objective?

I disagree with your views on how fiction is supposed to work. You should become invested, you should be able to imagine the characters as actual people and not cardboard cut-outs (that would be terrible character making), and the things that happen should make sense.

This particular piece of fiction assumes an imposed DnD morality (which is not as Black and White as you claim. Black and White is two options, there were nine last time I played DnD, and even within those there are choices to be made.) on a world with characters that act like people rather than the NPC cutouts and the stock characters used by certain DnD players and DMs.

In our world, no matter what any creature is, killing it for no reason is wrong. Some disagree, this comic and it's writer don't.
In our world, a sentient, sapient being has rights and it's life has value.
Killing serial killers or a gang of constantly violent muggers? That's defensible. Killing their wives/girlfriends/children/pets/whatever? That's not. Even if those children would almost certainly be brought up to be just as cruel and sinister.

The Goblins are a culture that has been oppressed by the very nature of the world, and Redcloak sees this as justification for risking the world itself to get a better lot for his people.
I can imagine feeling the same.

The world of the comic may have started as a humorous satire of a DnD world. But, like the characters, it has evolved, too. It's not a satire any more. It's a message about how it is wrong to attack members of a race or species based on the actions of the rest. It's a message about how good and evil are about intent. You can apply these messages at the very least to your DnD games, and hopefully to your views on life.

Judge the man, not the culture to which he belongs.

[TheyCallMeTomu]

People crave simplicity. However, the gods that make that simple world are malevolent towards those that suffer as a result of that simplicity.

[Porthos]

People need to remember something.

Goblins were created to be disposable evil EXP sources.

<nitpick>
According to whom, exactly? Because I haven't seen anything in any Order of the Stick book or comic that says that definitively.
</nitpick>

Redcloak, by virtue of being a goblin, is evil.

<nitpick again>
According to whom, exactly? Last time I checked, goblins are USUALLY (a flavor of) evil in DnD, not always. And, again last time I checked, I don't recall anything in OotS that says goblins are automatically evil by birth in OotSVerse.
</nitpick again>

[Math_Mage]

Two things:

1. Mr. Burlew's comments were that the concept was morally repugnant, not lame storytelling.

2. Depends on the story. Sometimes the simple approach is best. In D&D, the simple approach is almost the only one that works. For myriad examples of why that's so, see "The Order of the Stick."

Order of the Stick is absolutely chock full of strips showing exactly why the simple approach to alignment DOESN'T work, and how a more complex view is required. (See, for example, everything about Miko.) I'm not sure what myriad of examples you have that support a simple approach--for that matter, I can't see that you have ANY examples.

I never said that, though it's a strawman popping up so frequently that it's doing a fine job of keeping the crows out of my cornfield.

You have explicitly rejected the necessity of, in your words, having to "sit around and question whether it's right or makes any sense that monsters are always wicked in D&D." The implication (intended or otherwise) being that we have no reason to look into Redcloak's backstory to see if it makes any sense that he's Evil now, because he's a goblin, and goblins are always wicked.

More generally, you have consistently taken the position that there's nothing wrong with making D&D goblins into the Always Evil villains out to destroy humanity or commit whatever other evil they feel like committing, again with the implication that there's no need to generate a backstory for why they would want to do evil, because "They're goblins, it's a game, deal with it" is enough to satisfy you, and you think any more complicated alignment analysis falls apart.

So when I say you claim Rich has no need to delve into Redcloak's backstory because you think fantasy wickedness doesn't need to be explained, I am exactly on the mark.

I said that it created a schism between the times/ways that the comic reflects the principles of the game it's based on and the times/ways that it doesn't. On its own, the story is fine; I rather liked "Start of Darkness". But we may evaluate "The Order of the Stick" both as a story on its own terms (successful, for the most part) and as a work of satire of a wealth of outside content (less successful, in my opinion).

Since Rich is satirizing your own viewpoint (that fantasy wickedness doesn't need to be explained), I can see how you would have a negative evaluation of his satire. That's not a problem with his work, though; it's a problem with your viewpoint.

So the artist is above the opinion of the public? Are we to suppose that the only valid point of view on art and media is that of the person who created it? Or are we to suppose that success and fame endow a person to such a degree that we may not take a critical eye to their work? I suppose you've never disliked a book, movie, play, song, painting, sculpture, or other work of art or media from an established artist? Or did you just suppress your opinion because you felt unworthy of speaking up?

You've got cause and effect rather backwards here. I gave my opinion of his work first, then said that explained his fame. How you got from there to thinking I said he is above your (and by extension my) opinion due to his fame is...beyond me.

[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.

I'll just quote myself from page 6.
I, too, feel a bit embarassed in arguing with the author of my (by far) favourite piece of art on the net. But I really, really feel that his bold (pun intended) statements about "conforming to standard d&d conventions = racism" is over the top to say the least, and mighty disturbing for a lot of us gamers who, incidentally, happen to be quite nice people.

Nerd_Paladin, flawed as his argument might be, came across far less confrontational in his reasoning. :-/