Kickstarter Discussion Thread - How the Paladin Got His Scar (SPOILERS!)

[Lacuna Caster]

The first is that the gods in the OOTS verse are not super-close to their subjects. Redcloak might be an exception as he is both high-priest and bearer of the Crimson Mantle, while this guy is a comparative small fry. The Paladins, supposed embodiments of Lawful Good, were running around like marauders casually slaughtering people and their leader was acting like a complete asshat.

Yeah, based on the gist I'm getting this point still bothers me. It's conceivable that Shojo might have been looking the other way and that O-Chul and/or Hinjo could reform a mortal institution, but did the the Gods suddenly revise and update their standards for what is and isn't Fall-worthy?

[Kish]

I...honestly don't. I think the only commentary is about sexism. Not really attached to one's thoughts on communism or anarchy or libertarianism or anything else. And we're veering too far into real world politics anyway.

I'm...not actually clear on whether you're disagreeing, except insofar as Huitzil has an implied "and that's terrible" that you don't. The only group I can figure out all this wink-wink nudge-nudge could be pointing to is sexists, or possibly members of a specific misogynist group of some kind, but the "politics" in question can only be "women don't belong in ____."

[SaintRidley]

And a further point, I would hardly say two and a half pages is some long, drawn out tragedy to endure, and hardly a burden in a 95 page story. We're talking slightly less than 3% of the whole thing, which if reduced to its barest minimum expression would take up maybe 1.5%? I'm sorry (no I'm not), but that's absurd.

[Aedilred]

And a further point, I would hardly say two and a half pages is some long, drawn out tragedy to endure, and hardly a burden in a 95 page story. We're talking slightly less than 3% of the whole thing, which if reduced to its barest minimum expression would take up maybe 1.5%? I'm sorry (no I'm not), but that's absurd.

I don't think anyone's saying it's terrible or unbearably long and it ruins the whole thing or anything like that. The Ettin was entertaining, although perhaps not quite as entertaining as it could have been. Rather that it's a discrete and memorable example of a scene that goes on a bit longer than necessary and is a bit heavy-handed in its expression, which I think is a relatively common theme throughout the story.

[MReav]

Something that has been bothering me:

The Sapphire Guard is supposed to be a secret organization, but in this, they run around declaring their organization's name and to an extent, purpose to randos like O-Chul and company.

I could understand it if the Sapphire Guard was a known organization with a secret agenda. We all know that the Masons exist, but only conspiracy nuts believed they're part of the Illuminati/New World Order. Obligatory insinuation of that being exactly as planned.

[Draconi Redfir]

yeah i can't say i understand why the ettin scene needed to be there. like, it was an okay scene, i'm not complaining. it just didn't seem to exist for any reason other then to talk about pseudo-political responsibility and ignorance for awhile.

[Lissou]

I very much enjoyed this story, and if it is ever released in print I will purchase it (I probably will not purchase a PDF of it since I already own one).

My favourite character was the hobgoblin cleric. It was clear from the start that he was smart and able to manipulate the ones around him, and I also enjoyed his more pacifistic stance. I enjoyed his appearance, although I was a bit disappointed that it was part of his ruse, because I enjoyed seeing a more diverse appearance within the hobgoblins. I understand however how it's essential for the ultimate reveal of who he turned out to be. I recognized the Supreme Leader accessories right away when he appeared, and realised he was not the one that Redcloak replaced due to his appearance, but I didn't realise who he would turn out to be.
I too wonder what happened to him since. I don't think he is Jirix, who would probably have recognized O-Chul (and I can imagine O-Chul would have recognized him too). He may never appear again, and it is likely he has died since, but... I do wonder about hm.

As for the person who was surprised that the Dark One could have clerics who wear pacific, I don't find it surprising. We saw some followers of the Dark One in SOD who focused on improving conditions for goblinoids, not hurting other races. It is probably not that rare. I'm glad we are getting to see more of that.

The story did a good job of exploring once again the question of why humans see other races as evil because they are different, and justify killing them. I was surprised that the former leader of the Saphire Guard didn't fall, too, when he attacked someone who had no weapons and did not want to fight. Did Miko only fall because the man in question was also her Lord and Father? Did that guy end up falling later on? Was it just harder to show in greyscale, or was it likely to make Miko's fall less impactful? Or indeed, was the fact that Miko was present and would have witnessed it a factor?

I enjoyed O-Chul's origin. I would enjoy learning more about his childhood, his genetic parents and how he changed. I enjoyed the message that people can change and that how they were raised makes a difference (sometimes. Doesn't seem to be the case with Xykon).

As for the Ettin, I have no clue what political group is being referred to. If I understand, the upset is that the right head is shown to be sexist, which must mean he's Evil, which must mean "mystery political group" is also evil? But the book clearly shows that not everyone with the same beliefs is the same, so I don't see how this could be the message here. Plus, the Ettin head said he was against violence, then proved that he obviously wasn't, and that's why O-Chul killed him. The fact that he was proving to be increasingly hypocritical is definitely a commentary on some kind of people but I honestly don't see how it relates to anything political, as those people exist everywhere.
I'd appreciate the answer through PM if you're interested in discussing ut. Or if that is also against the rule, I would like to exchange emails through PMs to do so. You seem very upset about it and I would like to understand that.

Something else I really enjoyed about the book is that even though it was released all at once, it has a very "webcomic" feel to it. The pages often end on a joke or a cliffhanger and I can absolutely see this story as being released as a webcomic. I disagree with the idea that some scenes would have been shorter had it been published as it went. I think the Giant writes the scenes to be as long as they need to be, and doesn't really care if people think it's too short or too long.

I really appreciated all the new characters, or the characters we had previously seen in very few panels. They have very clear personalities and are engaging. I think that while the story is obviously centered on O-Chul, it tells us a lot about the Azurites and hobgoblins in general, and the climate leading to the event in the main story. I really want to know more about what happened in those 12 years in the Hobgoblin city and territory, now. I don't know if this will ever be explored, as there were no clear threads that were left hanging, but the worldbuilding is so effective that I feel there could be a whole different webcomic just about this city and its inhabitants.

I was also impressed by the length of the story. Isn't it bigger than the first prequel? It seems almost as big as SoD, too (which remains my favourite story, by the way). It was definitely much more than we were led to expect during the kickstarter. It feels like we have been given much more than we have pledged for, and I am extremely grateful for that.

[Darth Paul]

Well, since I missed the Kickstarter campaign by... I don't even know by how long, here's looking forward to the not-too-distant future when I can kick in my share. (No pun intended.)

[hamishspence]

The story did a good job of exploring once again the question of why humans see other races as evil because they are different, and justify killing them. I was surprised that the former leader of the Saphire Guard didn't fall, too, when he attacked someone who had no weapons and did not want to fight. Did Miko only fall because the man in question was also her Lord and Father? Did that guy end up falling later on? Was it just harder to show in greyscale, or was it likely to make Miko's fall less impactful? Or indeed, was the fact that Miko was present and would have witnessed it a factor?

I'd suggest that the same principle applies as for SoD:

Everything you see happened.

However, everything that happened is not necessarily seen.

Suffice to say that the Twelve Gods are not beholden to put on the same visual display they did for Miko for every paladin who transgresses, and that all transgressions are not created equal. It is possible that some of the paladins who participated in the attack crossed the line. It is also possible that most did not. A paladin who slips up in the execution of their god-given orders does not warrant the same level of personal attention by the gods as one who executes the legal ruler of their nation on a glorified hunch. Think of Miko's Fall as being the equivalent of the CEO of your multinational company showing up in your cubicle to fire you, because you screwed up THAT much.

Of course, while Redcloak is not narrating the scene, it is shown mostly from his perspective; we don't see how many Detect Evils were used before the attack started, and we don't see how many paladins afterwards try to heal their wounds and can't, because these things are not important to Redcloak's story. Whether or not some of the paladins Fell does not bring Redcloak's family back to life. Indeed, if we transplant the scene to real life, he would think it cold comfort that some of the police officers who gunned down his family had to turn in their badge afterward (but were otherwise given no punishment by their bosses at City Hall).

Dramatically, showing no-name paladins Falling at that point in the story would confuse the narrative by making it unclear whether or not Redcloak had already earned a form of retribution against them. To be clear, he had not: Whether or not some of them lost a few class abilities does not change the fact that Redcloak suffered an injustice at their hands, one that shaped his entire adult life. That was the point of the scene. Showing them Fall or not simply was not important to Redcloak's story, so it was omitted.

Further, it would have cheapened Miko's fall to show the same thing over and over--and Miko, as a major character in the series, deserved the emotional weight that her Fall carried (or at least that I hope it carried).

I hope that clears this issue up. I hope in vain, largely, but there you have it.

(Oh, and I leave it up to the readers to form their own opinions on which paladins may have Fallen and which didn't.)

- that the guy may have "Fallen" without the same dramatic visual show Miko got.

[Lissou]

I'd suggest that the same principle applies as for SoD - that the guy may have "Fallen" without the same dramatic visual show Miko got.

I think that's probably it. Thanks for the quote, by the way, I had forgotten about it.

EDIT:

Something that has been bothering me:

The Sapphire Guard is supposed to be a secret organization, but in this, they run around declaring their organization's name and to an extent, purpose to randos like O-Chul and company.

Er, no? That's why they ask the general to leave. "Randos" can't know about it. O-Chul is told because he is joining the Guard, and Hinjo because he will be the heir.

EDIT 2: Oh, I see what you mean. You mean within the story. Well, they run around killing things, that's not discreet either. I don't think this commander was particularly effective at the "secret" part.

[Lacuna Caster]

I'd suggest that the same principle applies as for SoD...

This only holds up if falling is a rare an exceptional thing. If the old-school Guard paladins are doing fall-worthy things on as regular a basis as the text implies, then sooner or later they're going to notice a pattern behind when their powers are taken away. Either that, or the Gods aren't actually enforcing the normal code of conduct, and these aren't actually paladins.

And frankly, I'm not convinced that killing Shojo was a greater transgression than some of what we see paladins do in SoD. Shojo was legitimately guilty of some pretty shocking things that Miko had direct evidence for, and he had rigged the legal system in his favour. None of that can be said for random goblin toddlers.

[factotum]

Yet Hinjo assumes command after Shojo is killed - and Hinjo himself seemed to be outranked by Miko before that, as she was giving him orders in his first appearance.

I got the impression that Hinjo is the leader of the Sapphire Guard throughout the main strip. He assumes the leadership of the *city* after Shojo is killed, not the Guard. As for Miko giving him orders, she's more powerful than he is and so considers herself able to order him around, even if he is nominally her boss.

The other alternative is that Shojo took over direct control of the Guard after seeing what a mess Gin-jun made of things, and when he went "senile" Hinjo effectively became the leader of the Guard but without the actual title--so Miko could order him around because he isn't the actual leader in her eyes, but everyone else follows his instruction without question.

[Takver]

And frankly, I'm not convinced that killing Shojo was a greater transgression than some of what we see paladins do in SoD. Shojo was legitimately guilty of some pretty shocking things that Miko had direct evidence for, and he had rigged the legal system in his favour. None of that can be said for random goblin toddlers.

Certainly, as a victim, Shojo is less appealingly innocent than a village's worth of goblin children. By this reckoning we might despise the crime in SOD more.

But Shojo was Miko's lawful ruler. She didn't just strike at the man, she struck at the office. I think it's plain to see why a pantheon of gods would take special exception to the slaughter of a king by his sworn warrior. They seem rather hierarchical divinities.

[Purgatorius]

Amazing work!
96 pages – I've read books that were shorter than that. And as a retina screen user, I love that the vector art and actual text is used instead of raster art.

[Lacuna Caster]

Certainly, as a victim, Shojo is less appealingly innocent than a village's worth of goblin children. By this reckoning we might despise the crime in SOD more.

But Shojo was Miko's lawful ruler. She didn't just strike at the man, she struck at the office. I think it's plain to see why a pantheon of gods would take special exception to the slaughter of a king by his sworn warrior. They seem rather hierarchical divinities.

Whether Shojo was a lawful anything is questionable, and one can argue his rulership made the crime more serious. I can agree that Miko's actions were fall-worthy, but I don't think they were more fall-worthy than what the OG Guard were apparently doing over and over with minimal repercussions.

I would have to argue that deities which place that much emphasis on hierarchy over innocence are effectively agreeing with the commander, and not with O-Chul. If the former had rolled out of bed one day and found themselves conspicuously beige, that's not really a sign the organisation can ignore. In short, these Gods aren't really upholding the basic standards a D&D paladin would have to follow.

[ti'esar]

Yeah, this has always bugged me. "Miko at least thought she was doing the right thing" isn't really an actual defense, but it's really hard to see how what she did was so much spectacularly worse than slaughtering children. The only real thing I can think of is the idea that it's in some way particularly objectionable for a paladin to betray their own liege lord, but as Lacuna Caster says, that seems more appropriate to traditional feudalistic knights than paragons of Lawful Good.

[DavidBV]

I find it amusing how some people automatically links the ettin to their own political sensibilities and feels triggered, when the ettin himself never makes any claims outside the situation at hand that therefore can't be reasonably linked any particular ideology. Hypocrites that "understand" others' violent behavior and profit from it through inaction do exist everywhere on the political spectrum. If some particular reader feels "targeted" he has a lot to ponder about.

The comic was good. I thoroughly enjoyed it even if I found the humor didn't deliver this time, and I also admit it could get a bit too preachy sometimes. But I understand every story is different and this one required deep understanding of the motives behind the character; for instance the Belkar story required random violence and silly punchlines and we got that, while this comic was O'chul story and required us to know more and understand more complex motives. It is a nice addition to the OoTS universe and comic collection, and I am grateful to the Giant for delivering for free a 100 page comic, when he could have gotten away with 12 pages and save himself a lot of stress.

[hamishspence]

But Shojo was Miko's lawful ruler. She didn't just strike at the man, she struck at the office.

Or alternatively - she didn't just "kill one person who didn't deserve to die" - she put everyone on the planes in danger, if the Sapphire Guard are seen as "protecting all of reality" by the gods, and taking out their current leader unnecessarily, puts reality at risk.

[Lacuna Caster]

Or alternatively - she didn't just "kill one person who didn't deserve to die" - she put everyone on the planes in danger, if the Sapphire Guard are seen as "protecting all of reality" by the gods, and taking out their current leader unnecessarily, puts reality at risk.

I think this is missing the point. It was within the Gods' power to resolve the corruption of the Guard simply by doing their jobs and revoking powers from paladins who, in their estimation, didn't deserve them- including the commander. If, on the contrary, the commander genuinely was expressing their will and executing policy as they would have liked in the name of safeguarding reality, then isn't O-Chul, from their POV, endangering that mission?

EDIT: Look, I'm sure it's a neat story and all, but I think we might be overlooking the real villains of the piece. Unless you're going to argue that O-Chul's victory was the Gods expressing their will in Mysterious Ways, I really have to wonder what they're doing up there. Passing out popcorn? Taking bets?

[Lissou]

I think this is missing the point. It was within the Gods' power to resolve the corruption of the Guard simply by doing their jobs and revoking powers from paladins who, in their estimation, didn't deserve them- including the commander. If, on the contrary, the commander genuinely was expressing their will and executing policy as they would have liked in the name of safeguarding reality, then isn't O-Chul, from their POV, endangering that mission?

Well O-Chul couldn't really fall, not being a paladin and all. I hope the commander fell. It may not have been immediate but it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

[Huitzil]

I find it amusing how some people automatically links the ettin to their own political sensibilities and feels triggered, when the ettin himself never makes any claims outside the situation at hand that therefore can't be reasonably linked any particular ideology. Hypocrites that "understand" others' violent behavior and profit from it through inaction do exist everywhere on the political spectrum. If some particular reader feels "targeted" he has a lot to ponder about.

Thanks for being exactly the terrible thing that I was talking about!

"This ruined the comic for me because I am a person people enjoy telling this lie about, and it reminded me how people telling this lie about me means I am to be excluded from calls for empathy."

"The only reason you could think it was about you is if the lie was true of you. You are a bad person. We should feel contempt for you. It is impossible that you notice a pattern. The only explanation of anything that counts is that you are a bad, contemptible person who hates women."

I will never, ever forget that when people talk about empathy and about seeing the good or fundamental humanity in others and about not believing lies about others that motivate hatred of them, they aren't talking about me. If I ever forget it for a picosecond, you'll be there to remind me.

[King of Nowhere]

regarding the ettin, I think people are reading too much into it, for a specific single word he uttered. to me, it was clearly both a comedy relief - i found it incredibly funny to see the left head trying to kill everyone while the right head was arguing moral philosophy - and a stab at a certain kind of sophistry that can really be found at any level, in a "using some thin excuse to claim no responsability over something you were actually doing". and in the end the right head dropped the mask, it was evil all along too. I didn't found it preachy (though I found the giant has taken a turn towards preachy in later years) because it is not easily applied to the real world, which is often more complicated than this.
Say, for example, that your country is declaring a war and you claim no responsibility for it, despite working in said country for said country and paying taxes that will ultimately go to the war effort; you can easily accused of being the right head, claiming no responsibility but actually working towards it. but then again, maybe the other nation is being led by a dictator who is committing heinous crimes, with the support of enough population to keep on ruling, and if you call for peace then maybe you are the right head, taking no responsibility for what that dictator does and turning a blind eye on it for your self-serving convenience (no, this is not a thinly veiled reference to recent politics; this is a kind of argument that has been repeated since immemorable times, and can refer to pretty much anything, even robin hood's rebellion). Real life is complex and often there are no clear-cut decisions. the ettin was funny because he was clearly and undenaibly in the wrong, though, attacking people with no provocation.
putting so much context into it just because of a b-word seems needlessly complicated.
I also didn't got the "people like this should clealry be expemt from emphaty" vibe. I got more of a "there are genuinely bad people who are hiding under a facade of being genuinely conflicted" vibe.
this is also corroborated by something rich said in the commentary from blood runs in the family, regarding malak, and how he represents bad people who hide behind a mask of civility.

This is a concept that I think gets lost in today's world, where media has a tendency to ascribe equal weight to any viewpoint that makes its case through socially acceptable channels. But it's not true; there is no amount of politeness that will make up for an atrocity. At a certain point, that corteous tone becomes a shield being used by vile people to cleack themselvesin the air of legitimacy.

which is perfectly fine, but not that appliable to the real world because it is often difficult to figure out what exactly constitutes an "atrocity" in politics (was declaring the aforementioned was on the aforementioned dictator an atrocity? was the atrocity said dictator committed enough of an atrocity to justify going to war with him? was said atrocity justified by the need to restore order in a country that was maybe plagued by a civil war that killed thousands before said dictator established rule? is international isolation of said country an atrocity against the innocent part of the population, which is not responsible for the dictator's doing but will feel the effect of an embargo? but if you do not take actions, are you becoming an accomplice of the regime? I believe even o-chul would have troubles sorting through the moral and practical ramifications of real politics).

Regarding in general sexism/racism/other things that end in -ism, I feel there is too great a tendency in our society to look for it. It seems every time there is some wrongdoing committed by a member of an ethnicity against a member of another ethnicity, or by a person of a gender against a person of another gender, the -ism argument is called. Also, there is too much focus on the specific words used, rather than the concepts expressed. I find it very illogic that telling a woman "you're a b-" is unacceptable while "you're a bad person" is acceptable, when both phrases mean basically the same thing (because, regarding of any original meaning or use of the b-word, nowadays it is most often used as the female version of "jerk"). context should be used instead. "you're a bad person because you should stay in the kitchen" is clearly a sexist insult, while "you're a b- because you stole money" is clealry not sexist, but the media (and sometimes even the judges) would focus on the word being used, and not the context to which it is applied. I invite everyone to focus more on the context and less on the specific choice of words.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
regarding the fall of paladins, I always assumed from the crayons of start of darkness that the gods care less about the monster humanoids. they were made to be easy xp for adventurers, so the gods don't look too closely to what the paladins are doing there.
in the specific case of Gin-jun, I think he fell, if not after striking o-chul, certainly after striking Zhou bo after she was already down. but we only get the specific visual clue in the case of miko. another clue would be his mantle turning beige when worn by a paladin not in good standing, but he was barechested at the time. so he fell, but we have no way of seeing it, and his death made it all moot anyway.

[hamishspence]

Ultimately, it's about somebody with an incredibly nearsighted lack of accountability, and you can find examples of that pretty much anywhere, for any group of people.

Alternatively, it's about a character who is pretending "nearsighted lack of accountability" to protect themselves.

You have one, openly evil head, attacking O-Chul.

And you have the other head who keeps going "Don't attack me - I don't agree with what he's doing".

But 2nd Head clearly benefits from First Head's actions (they murder and eat people, and 2nd Head, just like 1st Head, is getting fed).

And 2nd Head clearly has the power to interfere with First Head's actions (each head is equally powerful), but keeps saying he doesn't.

Once 1st Head is slain, 2nd Head (with no excuse anymore) reveals their true nature openly.

In effect, 2nd Head is "pretending to be innocent hostage" in order to protect them both - by distracting people from defending themselves.

[DavidBV]

Thanks for being exactly the terrible thing that I was talking about!

"This ruined the comic for me because I am a person people enjoy telling this lie about, and it reminded me how people telling this lie about me means I am to be excluded from calls for empathy."

"The only reason you could think it was about you is if the lie was true of you. You are a bad person. We should feel contempt for you. It is impossible that you notice a pattern. The only explanation of anything that counts is that you are a bad, contemptible person who hates women."

I will never, ever forget that when people talk about empathy and about seeing the good or fundamental humanity in others and about not believing lies about others that motivate hatred of them, they aren't talking about me. If I ever forget it for a picosecond, you'll be there to remind me.

You are welcome.

Seriously, the world doesn't revolve around you. How could I (or the comic) be talking explicitly about someone completely anonymous to me, when I refer to an Ettin violent hypocrite, with no other recognizable traits? What is so obviously representing this Ettin, care to explain?

... unless you have two heads, that is. In that case I apologize for my monoheadist comments.

[hamishspence]

I could see a case being made that "First Head" represents any aggressor,

and 2nd head represents anybody who claims to not be an aggressor, but who actively opposes and protests any effort to protect oneself from aforesaid aggressor with the excuse "By harming them, you're harming me, and I don't deserve it."

[hagnat]

Certainly, as a victim, Shojo is less appealingly innocent than a village's worth of goblin children. By this reckoning we might despise the crime in SOD more.

But Shojo was Miko's lawful ruler. She didn't just strike at the man, she struck at the office. I think it's plain to see why a pantheon of gods would take special exception to the slaughter of a king by his sworn warrior. They seem rather hierarchical divinities.

you have to remember that the same Gods that removed Miko's paladin powers were the same who created the goblnoids for their Clerics to gain level. The Gods do not care about goblinoid lives, be them vile or innocent. If some humans decide to think about the orange/green skins, they are doing that on their own volition, and might not get any brownie points with their deities.

[MReav]

I think that's probably it. Thanks for the quote, by the way, I had forgotten about it.

EDIT:



Er, no? That's why they ask the general to leave. "Randos" can't know about it. O-Chul is told because he is joining the Guard, and Hinjo because he will be the heir.

EDIT 2: Oh, I see what you mean. You mean within the story. Well, they run around killing things, that's not discreet either. I don't think this commander was particularly effective at the "secret" part.

Hence my suggestion about the Sapphire Guard being a known organization with a secret agenda. In my hypothetical scenario, the Sapphire Guard would be a known organization, but the average Azurite thinks it's a knightly order where nobles send the kids not in line for inheritance to make something of their lives, they don't realize they (or at least the inner circle) are on literal missions from the gods to protect the universe.

[Lacuna Caster]

I could see a case being made that "First Head" represents any aggressor,

and 2nd head represents anybody who claims to not be an aggressor, but who actively opposes and protests any effort to protect oneself from aforesaid aggressor with the excuse "By harming them, you're harming me, and I don't deserve it."

Again, haven't seen the speech, but uh... couldn't any hypothetically pacifist goblin have made this argument to the paladins skewering their more aggressive relatives? Or, conversely, any azurite uninvolved in the crusades, when redcloak comes a-knockin'? It doesn't seem like a totally illegitimate point to me.

[Kish]

Spoiler: the ettin

Show

In the ettin's case, his bespectacled right head argues that any retaliation against his body for his left arm attempting to crush someone with a giant club while his left head screams threats is unfair to him; that the body's pursuing his victim with both legs is because he "just happened to feel like running that way"; that any suggestion he do anything to restrain his bloodthirsty left head, including simply "not run toward the person his left head is trying to crush" is an unacceptable restriction on his liberties.

And just in case it wasn't blatant enough from that that he's a lying hypocrite, someone cuts off his left head, giving him uncontested control of the entire body--and his reaction is to scream, "You bitch! I'll kill you for that!" and swing the club at her.

The goblin equivalent would be a nominally pacifist cleric who went on constantly about, "Goblins actually very rarely attack humans! What? I just felt like casting Bull's Strength on him just now! How dare you try to limit my right to cast whatever spells I please whenever I choose?"

[Estelindis]

I could see a case being made that "First Head" represents any aggressor,

and 2nd head represents anybody who claims to not be an aggressor, but who actively opposes and protests any effort to protect oneself from aforesaid aggressor with the excuse "By harming them, you're harming me, and I don't deserve it."

I think this is a good interpretation.

Another way of seeing it occurred to me today. The ettin could be an embodiment of various thought experiments from the field of ethics. You know, like the trolley problem. Such thought experiments are artificially restricted in their scope for the sake of examining a particular ethical issue. (In real life, there might easily be more than two possible solutions to the trolley problem, but for the sake of the thought experiment, there are only two.) The ettin sequence could be embodying various thought experiments, mirroing real-world ethical problems concerning how to handle crimes committed by one of two siamese twins. The comedy value in the ettin's case would come from the "peaceful" head having only the thinnest of pretexts for his arguments, and even those being swiftly exposed.