Redcloak opinion survey: "redeemable" or not?

[hamishspence]

Just for the record, we've seen no evidence that the hobgoblin legions or other new inhabitants of Gobbutopia have ever been oppressed by humans at any time in their lives.

The Giant did tell us though in War & XPs that there's been an ongoing pattern of warfare between the Azurites and the hobgoblins, though.

As well as:

Azure City was a nation dedicated to all that was good and holy...but in many ways failed to live up to its ideals.
...
Most damning, though, is a decades long history of paladins exterminating entire villages of goblins and other humanoids at the behest of their gods.

[Heksefatter]

Redcloak is redeemable.

By that I mean that I can see it happen narratively, as opposed to, say, Xykon or Tarquin. Redcloak does have conscience. He does have at least partly sympathetic motives. It wouldn't go against the gist of the story as I read it. He doesn't even have to go to the side of the angels:

Spoiler: SOD Spoiler

Show

Realizing his mistakes to the degree Right-Eye did in SOD would be at least partial redemption. Right-Eye didn't become a good guy, according to the Giant, just a true neutral guy.

That said, I do not think it will happen. I think Redcloak has already had his chances. I could see one more coming up, but

Spoiler: SOD Spoiler again

Show

it would be similar to what happened in SOD, maybe involving Right-Eyes daughter. But it would be too similar to the original screw-up with Right-Eye in SOD. It would only serve to show that Redcloak hadn't changed.

So, I think he's going down with Xykon. Maybe not so far down as Xykon - he may well end in the Dark One's afterlife, which wouldn't be so bad for Redcloak.

[Bulldog Psion]

I think Redcloak's real motives shine through the "motto" of Gobbotopia: "Screw you, suckers, now it's our turn". For all he's accomplished, there's still an undercurrent of petty revenge, and his first order of business after elevating his people is to get back at their former oppressors. There's a cycle of revenge there that needs to be broken, and Redcloak is only interested in making sure the humans are on the wrong side of it this time.

This is quite true. By fighting monsters, he has become a monster, and he has gazed too long into the abyss, so that the abyss has gazed into him, also. (With apologies to Herr Nietzsche.)

[Deliverance]

The Giant did tell us though in War & XPs that there's been an ongoing pattern of warfare between the Azurites and the hobgoblins, though.

Absolutely, and it is to be expected in such a case that plenty of atrocities are committed on both sides, but that's not the same as one party being oppressed by the other, that's war.

More generally, that we know of the paladins have been committing atrocities "because our gods told us", we know that some adventurers happily kill goblinoids in large numbers*, we also know that various bands of goblinoids and other humanoids have been committing atrocities for their own sweet reasons, anything from banditry up to Redcloak's assault on Lirian's forest.... There's a lot of conflict and possibilities for recrimination in the situation, but that's also not something that indicates that one side is being oppressed by the other.


* Though to be fair, adventurer's happily kill anybody that gets in their way in large numbers; That's part of the job requirement, so it is hard to say that it reflects oppressing of any particular people.

[kenlund]

I don't see why Redcloak would ever need, seek or embrace redemption in terms of his actions towards humanity or all non-goblins. It has been firmly established that he has the sanction of his god, The Dark One. Since the plan he actually following is in service of his God (not Xykon), his actions in a sense are already redeemed and even blessed.

[Bulldog Psion]

I don't see why Redcloak would ever need, seek or embrace redemption in terms of his actions towards humanity or all non-goblins. It has been firmly established that he has the sanction of his god, The Dark One. Since the plan he actually following is in service of his God (not Xykon), his actions in a sense are already redeemed and even blessed.

Another excellent point. The whole idea of "redemption" posits, pretty much, that being redeemed or falling must be viewed from within a particular religion. There is no OotS meta-religion that encompasses all others like the religion of Eru Iluvatar does in Middle Earth, say.

So he already is redeemed. A very interesting point.

[Morty]

This is quite true. By fighting monsters, he has become a monster, and he has gazed too long into the abyss, so that the abyss has gazed into him, also. (With apologies to Herr Nietzsche.)

He's also got elements of a monster who destroys the people that created him. Too bad he also destroys an entire civilization of people who never hurt a goblin in their lives.

Absolutely, and it is to be expected in such a case that plenty of atrocities are committed on both sides, but that's not the same as one party being oppressed by the other, that's war.

More generally, that we know of the paladins have been committing atrocities "because our gods told us", we know that some adventurers happily kill goblinoids in large numbers*, we also know that various bands of goblinoids and other humanoids have been committing atrocities for their own sweet reasons, anything from banditry up to Redcloak's assault on Lirian's forest.... There's a lot of conflict and possibilities for recrimination in the situation, but that's also not something that indicates that one side is being oppressed by the other.


* Though to be fair, adventurer's happily kill anybody that gets in their way in large numbers; That's part of the job requirement, so it is hard to say that it reflects oppressing of any particular people.

We're told that monster races were purposefully created by the gods to be conveniently evil XP fodder for adventurers. While it's being told entirely from the Dark One's perspective, I don't think it's entirely false, either. When it comes to the crayon sections, I assume that they're more or less generally true - but the devil is in the details and they're either biased, omit something or are based on incomplete information. Especially since we can see Haley or Belkar quite directly value hobgoblin or kobold lives less than those of PC races - well, even less than normal, in Belkar's case.

[Emanick]

Another excellent point. The whole idea of "redemption" posits, pretty much, that being redeemed or falling must be viewed from within a particular religion. There is no OotS meta-religion that encompasses all others like the religion of Eru Iluvatar does in Middle Earth, say.

So he already is redeemed. A very interesting point.

Of course, if you define redemption as Evil becoming Good (or even Neutral), it's still completely possible for Redcloak to be redeemed in those terms, as Good and Evil exist as objective forces in the OOTSverse.

[NihhusHuotAliro]

In my opinion, Redcloack's needless sacrifice of so many hobgoblins makes him irredeemable.

[Deliverance]

We're told that monster races were purposefully created by the gods to be conveniently evil XP fodder for adventurers. While it's being told entirely from the Dark One's perspective, I don't think it's entirely false, either.

And I simply cannot judge. So long as we only have the Dark One's claim of how things happened (as presented by Redcloak), which Redcloak uses to justify atrocities up to and including the destruction of the world and the slaughter of gods, and when Redcloak actually pursues a policy of dominance over non-goblinoids all the time claiming while that what the plan is about justice, equality, and living at peace with other races, while Redcloak also spurns peace with other races that doesn't occur on the terms he'd prefer as incompatible with the plan (as seen in the prequels with Right-eye's village), I have no faith that the Dark One's viewpoint as presented by Redcloak should be accepted as the truth.

I find more likely that Redcloak's actual actions in pursing the plan reflects his god's true viewpoint and goals - but I don't have enough knowledge to conclude that this is the case either.

Normally in fiction, when a person whose humanity seems in good shape, as Redcloak's did at the start of Start of Darkness, puts on an evil artefact that grants him knowledge and rearranges his thinking, leaving him stumbling away stating "the plan must continue" several times, after which his life is devoted to pursuing the plan that was implanted monomaniacally, sacrificing his humanity in the pursuit of the plan, it is advisable for the reader to suspect that the knowledge is suspect, biased, incomplete, or false.

I see no reason not to consider this the case in OOTS. Was Redcloak illuminated or was he reprogrammed? And just how much of the knowledge he got was not self-serving justifications or outright lies? Everything? Nothing?

(Beyond that, if we strip the story of the Dark One of gods, snarls, and magic, we are left with a story of an extortion scheme by a warlord backed by a huge army that went wrong because his victims didn't agree that he deserved some of their stuff in return for living at peace with him, killed him rather than give in to blackmail, after which his army went on a roaring rampage of revenge killing a million people.)

When it comes to the crayon sections, I assume that they're more or less generally true - but the devil is in the details and they're either biased, omit something or are based on incomplete information. Especially since we can see Haley or Belkar quite directly value hobgoblin or kobold lives less than those of PC races - well, even less than normal, in Belkar's case.

It is entirely natural for groups of people to consider their own groups' lives worth more than those of other groups', and moreso if the groups are frequently hostile to each other.

That doesn't make it pretty, but it is certainly nothing surprising that Haley considers the lives of goblinoids to be of less worth or that Redcloak considers the lives of everybody else less valuable than the lives of goblins (and later expanded to all the goblinoids that support his god).

Going beyond simple prejudices, racism, or specicism if you want, is well and alive in the OOTS world. (Belkar and Redcloak are two prominent examples of this.) It is ugly and it is something we see from all the races, whether they are the ones traditionally considered good or evil in fantasy, undoubtedly because that's one of the points the Giant goes to some lengths to point out repeatedly: thinking creatures are all people and should be judged by their actions.

[LuisDantas]

I will be sorely disappointed if Recloak does not find redemption, particularly in a story that gives so much leeway to Belkar, Shojo and Miko.

[Reddish Mage]

Normally in fiction, when a person whose humanity seems in good shape, as Redcloak's did at the start of Start of Darkness, puts on an evil artefact that grants him knowledge and rearranges his thinking, leaving him stumbling away stating "the plan must continue" several times, after which his life is devoted to pursuing the plan that was implanted monomaniacally, sacrificing his humanity in the pursuit of the plan, it is advisable for the reader to suspect that the knowledge is suspect, biased, incomplete, or false.

I see no reason not to consider this the case in OOTS. Was Redcloak illuminated or was he reprogrammed? And just how much of the knowledge he got was not self-serving justifications or outright lies? Everything? Nothing?

Oh no. Don't go there. Redcloak is fully responsible for his actions. It is quite clear he is capable and has engaged in considering alternatives to The Plan, but that Redcloak, after taking a good cold hard look at things, made a choice. He choose the plan over his brother, over the lives of thousands upon thousands of goblins, and did so time and time and time again.

I will be sorely disappointed if Recloak does not find redemption, particularly in a story that gives so much leeway to Belkar, Shojo and Miko.

None of whom were given redemption.

Your tone is all wrong however. Shojo is the saint of the group, Miko was overzealous to the point of being a villain, and Belkar is a psychopath that's getting better.

Redcloak is the big bad and by far the worst, most evil, character of the story. Xykon simply finds amusement in senseless violence and finds the fantasy he's been fed of ruling the world mildly entertaining. His is a simple, childish mind. Redcloak knows the score, knows the risks, fully well knows the sacrifices he is making, and coldly continues along a very dark path indeed.

There is no character with the sheer amounts of rage, zealotry, and willingness to go to the lengths that Redcloak is to achieve his goal.

[hamishspence]

Xykon simply finds amusement in senseless violence and finds the fantasy he's been fed of ruling the world mildly entertaining. His is a simple, childish mind.

Personally I thought the end of SOD made it clear that there was more to Xykon than that.

[oppyu]

Well, there is and there isn't. He's a senseless thrillkiller who finds the idea of ruling the world mildly amusing. It's just that he happens to be a senseless thrillkiller who finds the idea of ruling the world mildly amusing who is also much smarter than he lets on.

[Deliverance]

Oh no. Don't go there. Redcloak is fully responsible for his actions. It is quite clear he is capable and has engaged in considering alternatives to The Plan, but that Redcloak, after taking a good cold hard look at things, made a choice. He choose the plan over his brother, over the lives of thousands upon thousands of goblins, and did so time and time and time again.

I quite agree. I did not mean to imply that he was not responsible for his actions. Regardless of whether his thinking was rearranged or not, and regardless of whether the information he acts on is true or not, he is the one making decisions, and he clearly has the possibility of choosing otherwise as seen in SOD:

Spoiler

Show

First when the failure at Lirian's gate has him ready to give give up the whole thing until he's told that there are other gates and second, and perhaps more pertently, we see him waver in his determination in Right-eye's village, when dejected over the repeated failures, he starts contemplating that perhaps living in peace and building a better life for goblins is a better way, and eventually chooses that option. His change of heart is quickly snuffed out by Xykon's arrival, and later on he explicitly chooses the plan over Right-eye, but it doesn't change that fact that at a point in time where the plan was still theoretically possible, Redcloak was capable of choosing otherwise - and did.[/quote]

If he didn't have the option of choosing otherwise, i.e. if his thinking truly was dominated by somebody else/acting under an enchantment, a case could be made that he wasn't responsible for his actions, being a tool rather than an actor. But, as demonstrated, he does have that choice, so he is fully responsible his his actions.

What I wanted to point out is how little reason I have for trusting that we got the straight dope when Redcloak described history and the Dark One's plan.

[hamishspence]

It's worth noting that, according to The Giant (from the index of The Giant's comments) - part of the comic's subtext is a criticism of the way goblins are usually treated in D&D games:

The comic is criticizing not how the game is intended to be played, but how the game is actually played and has been for 35+ years. And how it is actually played 9 times out of 10 is that goblins are slaughtered because they are goblins, and the book says that goblins are Evil so it's OK. If you've never played in a game with people like that, then congratulations! You've had an exceptionally lucky D&D career, and that whole portion of the comic's subtext is Not For You. But there are plenty of people who maybe have never given it a second thought. Just because you've already learned some of the lessons of a work of fiction does not mean that there's no point to including them.

Which may apply to goblinoids as a whole - and The Dark One's claims.

[Killer Angel]

He gave (and sacrificed) too much. He won't deviate from this path.

[Deliverance]

It's worth noting that, according to The Giant (from the index of The Giant's comments) - part of the comic's subtext is a criticism of the way goblins are usually treated in D&D games:

Absolutely. He consistently treats all thinking creatures as people, including those that in many D&D games are not.

It is entirely possible that the Dark One's presentation of how the world came to be arranged where the goblinoid races are concerned is correct in the OOTSverse.

However, one of the things that go hand in hand with accepting all thinking creatures as people is that they are responsible for their actions, another is accepting that they are just as capable as any other people we can think of of lying or misleading others for self-serving purposes and of lying to themselves creating self-justifications for their actions.

Which is why I will not accept the solitary viewpoint of Redcloak presenting the Dark One's story as conclusive evidence that that viewpoint is right, and which is why I note that there's a significant divergence between what Redcloak claims his goal to be and the actions he has taken to date.

The point being, regardless of whether the Dark One is telling Redcloak the truth or lying through his teeth, it doesn't change the validity of the Giant's criticism or how it is addressed by treating them all as people one whit.

[littlebum2002]

The MitD, however, I would say is redeemable and could potentially end up as the ultimate hero of the comic.

Just curious....what exactly has the MitD done that requires redemption?

Oh no. Don't go there. Redcloak is fully responsible for his actions. It is quite clear he is capable and has engaged in considering alternatives to The Plan, but that Redcloak, after taking a good cold hard look at things, made a choice. He choose the plan over his brother, over the lives of thousands upon thousands of goblins, and did so time and time and time again.

Unless, of course, he is under a Geas which requires him to follow the plan at all costs.

[hamishspence]

Unless, of course, he is under a Geas which requires him to follow the plan at all costs.

The problem is that SOD:

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

he does give up on the Plan to join his brother's village- for a moment, before Xykon arrives.

[Keltest]

Unless, of course, he is under a Geas which requires him to follow the plan at all costs.

Victims of that type of spell are generally aware of it on some level, are they not?

[Windscion]

Redcloak ... has had a change of heart when he realised he was being racist against hobgoblins, so it's not like he was completely ideologically blinded ...

This. As many have said, it depends upon what you mean by redemption. But he's not comitted to atrocity for its own sake, only as a means to an end. That said, he can be pretty casual about it. The closest parallel to Redcloak that I can see is Magneto. Magneto wants, truly wants, the best for mutants. He just doesn't much care who suffers along the way, especially non-mutants.

TL;DR -- Redeemable, which is not to say it will happen.

Hamish:

Spoiler

Show

At that point, Redcloak suspected the plan had stalled.

[cybishop]

I'm expecting Redcloak to actually cause Xykon's death at some point. When that particular tool is no longer useful. It may be as simple as not saving him, but I think this is pretty well foreshadowed.

There will be no redeeming him.

The MitD, however, I would say is redeemable and could potentially end up as the ultimate hero of the comic.

I was thinking something similar - if Redcloak's plan actually succeeds, suddenly Xykon would want to ally with the OotS against Redcloak, both for revenge and for his own safety.

[littlebum2002]

The problem is that SOD:

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

he does give up on the Plan to join his brother's village- for a moment, before Xykon arrives.

Victims of that type of spell are generally aware of it on some level, are they not?

My point being that we, as outsiders to his mind, cannot say for sure that his mind is not being controlled in some fashion. In a regular world, yes, we could say with 100% certainty he is responsible for his own actions. In a world with magic, and in which he wears a cape which directly connects him to a Deity with who knows what levels of magic at his disposal? Anything is possible.

[DaggerPen]

I find it unlikely that Redcloak is under a geas, because if so it makes the ending of SOD and basically his whole character arc much, much less poignant.

[littlebum2002]

I don't think he is, either. I just don't think we can say for certain that he isn't.

[multilis]

Just for the record, we've seen no evidence that the hobgoblin legions or other new inhabitants of Gobbutopia have ever been oppressed by humans at any time in their lives.

He is not pursuing justice in any sort - he is and has always been pursuing personal vengeance and racial dominance, justifying it to himself in a way that is very familiar to any student of history: claiming that his people are worse off than they deserve to be and blaming those that are better off for it.

Evil biased bloodthirsty and XP hungry humans! So blind to their own slaughter of innocent goblins, invading their homes to kill them in their sleep #0011, killing them for XP whenever they can!

Redcloak does not need to be redeemed, Redcloak is the messiah, the chosen one, the savoir of the goblin race. You fear and disparage him because you fear that goblins will finally escape being tread underfoot by all the so called superior races!

But as for redemption... what acts could redeem OOTS from all their goblin slaughter for kicks and XP and gold?

[random_guy]

I find it unlikely that Redcloak would have a change of heart and see humans as fellow humanoids who deserve fair treatment. Look at the examples of humans that he have to deal with for prolonged periods of time. Xykon and Tsukiko. These aren't exactly the kinds of people who would restore his faith in humanity.

Considering that

Spoiler: SOD Spoilers

Show

humans killed his entire family in front of him.

He did not have any faith in humanity to begin with.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Evil biased bloodthirsty and XP hungry humans! So blind to their own slaughter of innocent goblins, invading their homes to kill them in their sleep #0011, killing them for XP whenever they can!

Redcloak does not need to be redeemed, Redcloak is the messiah, the chosen one, the savoir of the goblin race. You fear and disparage him because you fear that goblins will finally escape being tread underfoot by all the so called superior races!

But as for redemption... what acts could redeem OOTS from all their goblin slaughter for kicks and XP and gold?

What I find hilarious is that this is from a Bugbear in the Playground.

[Lord Torath]

What I find hilarious is that this is from a Bugbear in the Playground.

Just be glad there's no "Troll in the Playground" rank.

Ti'esar, you might consider keeping a running tally of the "yes, redeemable" and "no, not redeemable" in your first post. That way you'll get a better idea of the overall opinion. Incidentally, you can put my vote for "no."