Results 91 to 120 of 120
-
2014-11-20, 03:55 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
Re: Redcloak opinion survey: "redeemable" or not?
According to Soon at least. As I've said on various redemption threads before, what constitutes redemption for someone who is (a) lawful good (paladin) might be different for some other group.
To put it another way, while Soon might have certainly thought what he said was the only path to redemption, it doesn't necessarily follow he was correct. See, in reference, the millions of electrons that have been sacrificed in the various debates about [CHARACTER DELETED BECAUSE NO WAY IN HELL AM I OPENING UP THAT BOX RIGHT NOW!!! ].Concluded: The Stick Awards II: Second Edition
Ongoing: OOTS by Page Count
Coming Soon: OOTS by Final Post Count II: The Post Counts Always Chart Twice
Coming Later: The Stick Awards III: The Search for More Votes
__________________________
No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style - Jhereg Proverb
-
2014-11-20, 04:00 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Gender
Re: Redcloak opinion survey: "redeemable" or not?
“Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”
-
2014-11-20, 04:03 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
Re: Redcloak opinion survey: "redeemable" or not?
It's fairly consistent for Good characters in general. BoED, FC2 and Champions of Valor pretty much say the same thing on that subject.
"Redemption" for someone who has lost their powers through doing an "act opposed to their class's moral code" probably works in a similar way in most cases. If a slaad has done something shockingly Lawful to another slaad, but is sorry for doing so - they'd probably have to apologise to the slaad they'd wronged, and do some penance that involves Chaotic deeds.Last edited by hamishspence; 2014-11-20 at 04:04 PM.
Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
New Marut Avatar by Linkele
-
2014-11-20, 04:32 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
Re: Redcloak opinion survey: "redeemable" or not?
In that case, the oft cited 451 would be a good example.
...
Pity it didn't take.
Thing is though, I wonder how many of us are using slightly different definitions of redemption, even when taking 3.X books into account. Are we talking mechanics here (LE ----> LN)? Story viewpoint (OMG, what have I done?)? Plot (Yeah, no, time for Xykon to go down)? Some mixture of the above? Something else entirely?
Pretty nebulous, actually. Which is why I mentioned "depends on what you mean by redemption" in the first place.
Moving beyond that, there's even another level of redemption that can be looked at: Will Redcloak stop lying to himself about his motivations?
That is, a personal redemption.
For me, and I alluded to this previously, the biggest block for Redcloak to stop acting like he is currently is for him to look himself in the mirror and be honest about what he is doing and why. In some respects, Redcloaks's biggest analogue in Team OOTS isn't the oft-cited Roy, but Vaarsuvius (damn - guess I am opening that box after all ).
Not quite in the way you might think, though.
One of the biggest debates about V centered around "all the wrong reasons". More specifically just how much did V want tosellrent his soul for the sake of the good and noble reasons of saving his family at great personal cost versus how much of it was due to the more base reasons of pride, guilt, and thirst for power. Uncountable electrons have been splatted against various screens on that debate, so I don't wish to dwell on it too much. But we at least have Word of Giant that V's guilt and desire for power were the prime motivators in his little decent into madness.
But what about Redcloak? His often stated desire is "Equality for gobinoids". At the very broadest read, he wants the so-called monstrous races to be treated as the PC races are.
Great. Laudable goal. Worthy of a great story. I think Rich might even be telling it.
I'm increasingly of the belief though that's not Redcloak's REAL motivation.
No, I am more and more convinced that his primary motivation is revenge. Revenge for what happened to his mother and sister. Revenge for all of the goblinoids killed in the past. Revenge for a thousand slights. He may coat it in the language of egalitarianism. But when push comes to shove the raison d'ętre for Redcloak isn't equality or even The Plan. It's to get back at a world who wronged him.
"Screw you suckers, it's OUR turn now", indeed.
It's this attitude, and not the seeking for equality, that makes him do his worst deeds. And it's an attitude that shapes his worldview like no other. Plenty of textev for it I think, including a famous "You Suck" speech given to him by a certain character in SoD.
And I think it is this attitude that he has to overcome if he is going to, lets not use the malliable word 'redemption' and instead use the phrase 'change from his current path'. With the possible exception of throwing Xykon down the nearest bottomless pit (the SW analogue ), this attitude is going to stop him from the personal reflection that is, IMO, absolutely necessary for him to even possibly deviate from the current path he is on.
Sunk cost fallacy? Just another symptom of Redcloak not realizing why he's really doing what he is.
If we want a compare and contrast, V at least is in the process of facing up to what he did. And while Redcloak had a momentary flash of insight it doesn't look like it took at all. Or, rather, he only had a partial insight into his motivations. He rightly realized that he wanted revenge on hobgoblins as a whole, and was acting in a not at all proper way toward them. And with that insight, he changed his behavor.
Sadly, it didn't take as his even deeper motivation for revenge against the world at large is overriding that revelation and causing him to, well, act in the current way he is.
...
But I'm sure he feels really bad about it all.
=====
To tie all of the above into a bow and to try to get it a bit more in focus with the current thread, there is a rather close Real World analgoue to Redcloak in respects to motivations (if not deeds). Not really sure if I can go too deeply into this, but if people are at all familiar with the US Civil Rights movement, there is a classic case of a famous civil rights activist who was wandering very deeply into one path for most of his life but then veered away from it later on and went along another one after a life changing event.
On the other hand, there are countless revolutionaries with fairly dark motivations who never had a similar life changing event in their lives.
Is Redcloak destined to be the latter rather than the former? Time will tell. But if I had to place a bet, I ain't putting it one the first one at the moment.Last edited by Porthos; 2014-11-20 at 04:42 PM.
Concluded: The Stick Awards II: Second Edition
Ongoing: OOTS by Page Count
Coming Soon: OOTS by Final Post Count II: The Post Counts Always Chart Twice
Coming Later: The Stick Awards III: The Search for More Votes
__________________________
No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style - Jhereg Proverb
-
2014-11-21, 06:09 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2013
Re: Redcloak opinion survey: "redeemable" or not?
I guess it a matter of technicalities. The blade and the tang are the core of the sword, they are made from one piece of metal (usually). The hilt is the decorative but functional stuff you add to it. And no you would definitely not enjoy using a sword without it. The hilt is eminently replaceable and parts often wear out and are, the grip mainly, replaced. But sometimes fashions change and you could replace the hilt of a sword. I'd wager you'd describe it as the same sword even with a different type/shape of hilt, especially if it was an heirloom. If you took the same hilt and placed it on another blade I'd would not consider it the same sword anymore. The blade is after all normally the focus of the "mysticism" of a sword. Japanese swords being displayed often disassemble the hilt to better show the entire blade including the tang and maker's marks.
And Roy's sword is a sword with a green hilt not a green sword with a hilt
-
2014-12-07, 06:43 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2013
- Location
- Land of Desire and Masks
- Gender
Re: Redcloak opinion survey: "redeemable" or not?
Redemption from what? I can interpret the question as turning from Evil to Good. But is Good really better than Evil? After all, in D&D-land, both are objective forces that exists as the two sides of the same coin. They are equal. To turn from Evil would be simply a form of spiritual collapse (to quote Kreia / Chris Avellone). I don't think Redcloak will just throw away his entire belief system and ideals to satisfy the Upper Planes' arbitary definition of Good.
So, he is 'irredeemable', imo. I would be very disappointed if he gets redeemed. Some minor remorse would be perfectly acceptable, but no redemption. I hate the very concept, since it implies that morality exists and it is possible to breach it.
-
2014-12-10, 11:53 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2012
- Location
- Ottawa, Canada
- Gender
Re: Redcloak opinion survey: "redeemable" or not?
I think the chances of Redcloak making a complete turnaround and being sorry for conquering Azure City and apologizing to everyone and seeking to atone is approximately zero. But it's also not something I'd want to see, because it undermines the existence of legitimate grievances on his part and makes the Azurites the 'good guys'. It's not inherently illegitimate for him to fight against a city/nation that destroyed his village and killed his family.
A key theme in The Order of the Stick is that the supposed 'good guys' are not entirely right and have treated the goblins and other like them wrongly; Rich has been pretty clear on this. It's been shown with the Azurite paladins in Start of Darkness, and in the elves' attitudes towards the goblins, and in both cases those groups faced some very nasty karmic backlash delivered by Redcloak. Redcloak's not going to decide he was wrong and they were right because that's not true.
I can see Redcloak realizing he was wrong about The Plan and about allying with Xykon, and that Gobbotopia was sufficient as an objective that enabled the goblins to have a place to live where they'd be safe and could establish functional diplomatic relations with other groups. In terms of story and character arcs, though, it seems like it would be most effective if he realized that after Gobbotopia's destruction as a result of the plan, making him an even more tragic villain than he is.
He's definitely going to turn on Xykon at some point - he's outright stated that he intends to, during his lecture to Tsukiko before he killed her - but he's not going to do so on behalf of the protagonists.
-
2014-12-11, 12:04 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2012
Re: Redcloak opinion survey: "redeemable" or not?
Assumptions: (1) "redeemable" means can become not-evil, (2) Redcloak's redemption, if any, must be undertaken through his own actions (i.e. not because, to pull an example not entirely out of an SoD hat, he attuned to a powerful ancient artifact which had things to say about his alignment thenceforth)
My initial response is a rather simple and unambiguous yes.
If Redcloak is evil then the he must be so as an act of free will. If there is no free will in alignment, then we get to be monster-type racists, like Darth V, because redemption is by definition not available. On the other hand if there is free will in alignment, if the choice always exists to become good or evil, then by definition he must be redeemable.
-
2014-12-11, 12:36 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2012
Re: Redcloak opinion survey: "redeemable" or not?
Speaking as the OP, I think it's pretty obvious that when most people are talking about whether Redcloak is "redeemable", they aren't talking about whether it's technically possible. Xykon could technically choose to stop committing acts of evil and attempt to become a good person in the very next strip, but we all know he won't. The question for Redcloak is not whether he has free will, but whether it's a reasonable possibility that he'll choose to exercise it and attempt to pursue a different path from the one he's on.
-
2014-12-11, 01:57 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2014
Re: Redcloak opinion survey: "redeemable" or not?
Redcloak isn't going to be redeemed because really, he doesn't need it. He's going down the only path that could really make sense for him, considering his goals and the tools at his disposal.
He's on a righteous, divinely ordained quest. Most of his actions have been on some level justifiable means to the end of making the world a less crappy place for goblins. He's repented of any that weren't.
He'll probably never be redeemed in the eyes of the human characters, but he almost certainly couldn't care less about that anyway. He's a hero to goblinkind, and probably just about assured a place in the Dark One's army in the afterlife.
-
2015-01-05, 06:24 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2013
- Location
- New Zealand
- Gender
Re: Redcloak opinion survey: "redeemable" or not?
What I want to happen is for Redcloak to betray Xykon, survive, and live out his days as an advisor for gobbotopia
"We can curse it or nurse it and give it a name"
"And you run and you run to catch up with the sun but it's sinking
Racing around to come up behind you again.
The sun is the same in a relative way but you're older,
Shorter of breath and one day closer to death."
-
2015-01-05, 10:29 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2014
-
2015-01-05, 10:42 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
Re: Redcloak opinion survey: "redeemable" or not?
-
2015-01-05, 01:08 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2012
Re: Redcloak opinion survey: "redeemable" or not?
Redemption means admitting you made a mistake and then attempt to atone for it. That is well within the realm of possibility and also within Redcloak's character since we have seen him do this in the last (at the end of the war)
-
2015-01-05, 03:10 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2012
Re: Redcloak opinion survey: "redeemable" or not?
I'd say that, as humans, we're naturally biased to see the Azurites as the "good guys", because they're humans. And since the audience is human, we're unlikely to ever totally accept Redcloak's position, so he won't have redemption in our eyes.
But imagine the same story was told with owlbears or umberhulks cast as the opposing force that was an existential threat to the goblins until they were recently defeated and scattered. Would you say Redcloak needs redemption then? Or do his actions make him almost heroic in that case?
-
2015-01-05, 03:18 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Gender
Re: Redcloak opinion survey: "redeemable" or not?
No, I don't really think so. "They did it to us first" does not make attempted genocide less bad. Redcloak is not evil because he is fighting the Azurites, he is evil because he does things like send people to their deaths over childhood grudges, and kills people because theyre the same race as other people he dislikes. He is not because he is a goblin.
Last edited by Keltest; 2015-01-05 at 03:18 PM.
“Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”
-
2015-01-05, 03:24 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2012
Re: Redcloak opinion survey: "redeemable" or not?
True, but turnabout is fair play. The Azurites wouldn't let the goblins settle anywhere for long without riding in and running off the ones they don't kill. It seems only fair that the paladins experience being displaced from their capital city for a while. The real question is, why are the Azurites inherently more redeemable despite everything they've done?
-
2015-01-05, 03:32 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Gender
Re: Redcloak opinion survey: "redeemable" or not?
I think you and I are going to have to disagree here. Turnabout is not inherently fair play. it may be ironic, but Redcloak isn't automatically in the right just because it happened to him once. As far as the Azurites are concerned, the Sapphire Guard doesn't even exist. The Paladins themselves are acting to protect their city and all of reality (as far as they know).
“Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”
-
2015-01-05, 03:34 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2012
Re: Redcloak opinion survey: "redeemable" or not?
I'd add that it's also not like the Azurites' crusade against the goblins had no reason behind it - while it hardly justifies the purges of entire villages, the Bearers of the Crimson Mantle were an existential threat to the entire world.
-
2015-01-05, 03:43 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2012
Re: Redcloak opinion survey: "redeemable" or not?
In the Azurites' opinion, they were an existential threat, but the audience knows better. Whatever pretext the Azurites invented for killing "Evil" humanoids on sight is necessary to obscure the fact that the gods put those humanoids there for the purpose of giving humans more XP and the humans are availing themselves of that gift.
-
2015-01-05, 04:01 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Location
- Poland
- Gender
Re: Redcloak opinion survey: "redeemable" or not?
The majority of Azurites had never harmed a goblin in their lives. They didn't even know about the crusade against goblinoids, given the Sapphire Guard's general secrecy. Redcloak might have been entitled to his revenge against the paladins, but not the innocent people who happened to share a nationality with them. Which is suspiciously similar to wiping out a goblin village because their priest happens to be wearing the Crimson Mantle and following a potentially disastrous plan.
My FFRP characters. Avatar by Ashen Lilies. Sigatars by Ashen Lilies, Gullara and Purple Eagle.
Interested in the Nexus FFRP setting? See our Discord server.
-
2015-01-05, 04:02 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2012
Re: Redcloak opinion survey: "redeemable" or not?
The audience explicitly knows that the Dark One's Plan - which the Bearers are charged with carrying out - has the unmaking of all living things considered an acceptable risk. It's not purely a pretext.
Edit: Also, now that I think about it, the question of whether Redcloak can be "redeemed" isn't even purely about his hatred of humans. It's also a question of whether he will continue to delude himself into following Xykon and a plan that endangers the success he's already had at carving out a place for goblins. So this whole digression is kind of irrelevant.Last edited by ti'esar; 2015-01-05 at 04:04 PM.
-
2015-01-07, 11:20 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2014
- Location
- Corneria
- Gender
Re: Redcloak opinion survey: "redeemable" or not?
Only if Xykon dies and he has time afterward to reflect properly on all he has done, he DID try to stop at one point in SoD...
But, well, Xykon. That should cover it.
Think about it, if the only two people you have consistent dealings with are a innocent creature cloaked in shadow and a nigh omnicidal lich, how are you going to feel about the evils you commit in their presence (or out of it)? My guess is that perhaps MitD will have an effect on his "redemption", perhaps he jumps in to save a certain someone's niece because he remembers her from the circus. Not trying to justify his actions by any means, but I look at Redcloak in a sympathetic light and consider his perspective.
I also find it hilarious that Xykon ordered the MitD to (if you read SoD, you know). Which might end up inadvertently destroying his precious bauble if he is unable to resist.
Oh and there is always the possibility Right-Eye was just plain wrong about Redcloak continuing the plan to cover up his mistakes and actually still believes in the Dark One's vision and was honestly trying to carry it out (remember we also don't know exactly WHAT happened in his mind when he donned the cloak), although I am sure in either case that was a pretty good slap upside the head to Redcloak about the nature of his actions in any case, which may rebound again if a certain niece shows up...
And there is always the fact that people can change, the absolute depths to which a character (or hell, any actual person) may sink just indicate how unlikely it is for that to happen, not if it will happen, and sadly in Redcloaks case do not appear as if it's going to be pre-mortem, but while we can argue if he is ever truly redeemable all day, we can bring up every single facet of his character and his actions. He can still change to be a better person, and even if that is just a slight change, that in it's own way is a small redemption, maybe not the total vindication of his actions, but the effort to improve might determine whether this character goes down in the books as a hypocritical fanatic, or just an imperfect, possibly deluded goblin who just wants the plan to succeed and be over with.
Just depends on Rich's take on this, but I don't think that Rich will shoot the shaggy dog and leave it at that, I think there will be something of a change for the better in Redcloak's character before the end, maybe not this absolving redemption being thrown around, but I hope that atleast something Redcloak can take as a win. (and he already has something, Gobbatopia, even if he is not redeemed, the inhabitants of that city can be, many of them are likely completely innocent anyways.)
-
2015-01-08, 03:37 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
Re: Redcloak opinion survey: "redeemable" or not?
Well, according to Redcloak's propaganda, at least.
How absolutely true that is and how much it is shaded in truth, is very much open to debate.
====
As tiresome as Yet Another "Goblins Are Real Heroes Here" debate might be, lets not sugarcoat things. Redcloak had the somewhat unique chance to create a brand new society from scratch. That he chose to form a society with slavery at its core speaks volumes.
As does, once again, "Screw you suckers, it's OUR turn now."Last edited by Porthos; 2015-01-08 at 03:38 PM.
Concluded: The Stick Awards II: Second Edition
Ongoing: OOTS by Page Count
Coming Soon: OOTS by Final Post Count II: The Post Counts Always Chart Twice
Coming Later: The Stick Awards III: The Search for More Votes
__________________________
No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style - Jhereg Proverb
-
2015-01-08, 05:02 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2012
Re: Redcloak opinion survey: "redeemable" or not?
I completely agree, but I would also say, that from a READER'S perspective, I personally think "enslaving the people who were killing you" is more moral than "killing people". So in my mind, the goblins are more moral than the Paladins.
Of course, in the OOTS world, killing evil creatures is a completely moral thing to do, so that's irrelevant. But I, personally, think Redcloak's main issue he needs to be redeemed over is his association with Xykon. The Plan is an entirely reasonable way to act when you're being treated the way goblins are, and the slavery is, too. In my opinion.
As Lyndon Johnson once said:
"When you put your foot on a man's neck and hold him down for three hundred years, and then you let him up, what's he going to do? He's going to knock your block off."Last edited by littlebum2002; 2015-01-08 at 05:05 PM.
-
2015-01-08, 05:19 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Gender
Re: Redcloak opinion survey: "redeemable" or not?
“Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”
-
2015-01-09, 11:40 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2012
Re: Redcloak opinion survey: "redeemable" or not?
I don't think "eye for an eye" is a Good philosophy, but I certainly don't find it Evil, either. I would consider it Neutral. Good would mean "turn the other cheek" which is why pretty much every philosophy IRL embraces some form of it. But that doesn't mean you're Evil if you don't adopt it, I think Evil would be attacking innocent people for no reason.
-
2015-01-09, 11:43 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Gender
Re: Redcloak opinion survey: "redeemable" or not?
“Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”
-
2015-01-12, 11:47 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Location
- Valencia, Spain
- Gender
-
2015-01-14, 01:00 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2014
- Location
- Somewhere eh?
Re: Redcloak opinion survey: "redeemable" or not?
Wellwhat did the azurites do they werent paladins they didnt know about the goblin killings also the slavery thing is just practical i think if they had too many slaves there or if they didnt need them for labour goblintopia would have a lot more zombie soldiers (i dont think zombies are that good at labour especially near food though evil i doubt hobgoblins like dead rotting flesh on thier food) also the hobgoblins were killing everyone who was a threat ( the ones with class levels) and to the paladins every goblin was technically a threat okay probably not the newborns and toddlers but those ones probally fell offscreen.
On the lyndon jhonson quote is it natural to go to the town hes visiting kill him then take over the town.