How Redcloak is Lawful good motivation wise

[Goblinwarrior57]

HALT please actually read this before commenting

Now before anyone gets triggered I'd like to say that one, action wise Redcloak is still lawful evil, two, by saying lawful good, I mean princabled selflessness, having morals and being selfless in your actions to help others

Lawful wise:Redcloak serves his deity the dark one with all his effort, following a strict moral code to help all goblins, sure he's screwed it up, several times, but at least he's trying, that's what counts

Good:This is where things get a bit weird so please remember, this is based on Redcloak's motivation, not his actions, Redcloak selflessly devotes his life to helping goblins everywhere, Redcloak does this, to yes get revenge for his fallen, friends and family, but more then that he wants to make sure that the goblin species is no longer slaughtered as basic dungeon enemies to just die by random adventuring parties

And this, is how Redcloak is lawful good, Motivation wise

[Grey_Wolf_c]

And this, is how Redcloak is lawful good, Motivation wise

Evil: the alignment for those who don't have a problem in using others around them as means to pursue of their own goals.

Redcloak: the guy willing to kill a fellow goblinoid, if it means cutting a slightly ridiculous but not otherwise difficult process short.

Having grand ambitions to improve the world does not make you Good. Its the methods employed in reaching said objective - and how willing you are to use others in the process - that determines if you are Good.

Redcloak is willing to spill as much blood as required, and more importantly, a lot of innocent blood that is not required, in pursuit of his goals. He ain't Good.

Grey Wolf

[Kish]

Not in terms of motivations either. He mouths devotion to the abstract ideal of "the goblin people," but his actions show that he's perfectly willing to slaughter as many actual goblins as necessary to avoid admitting he was wrong to commit to Xykon.

[hroþila]

Most villains that are even slightly nuanced (so not the most cartoony ones like Xykon) have something like "good intentions", and more often than not they don't stand up to closer scrutiny.

[Goblinwarrior57]

Evil: the alignment for those who don't have a problem in using others around them as means to pursue of their own goals.

Redcloak: the guy willing to kill a fellow goblinoid[/URL], if it means cutting a slightly ridiculous but not otherwise difficult process short.

Having grand ambitions to improve the world does not make you Good. Its the methods employed in reaching said objective - and how willing you are to use others in the process - that determines if you are Good.

Redcloak is willing to spill as much blood as required, and more importantly, a lot of innocent blood that is not required, in pursuit of his goals. He ain't Good.

Grey Wolf

And hear we have early Redcloak, his desire for killing goblinoids ends in the war and XP arc, one when he releases a big mistake he made and two, when he chooses to go one on one with Azuras high priest to prevent more deaths

[Synesthesy]

And also, doing evil actions to seek for the good screams "neutrality" to me. At most. There is no way Redcloak can be good, you can at most argue it's neutral.

Oh, and he is not. While he is acting (or at least, we can think that he is) for the greater good of goblinoids people and their deity, he do evil actions, like killing other goblinoids, sending troops to suicidal attack in war, approving slavery of other persons just because their skill is not green or yellow and they don't have fangs, not stopping Tsukiko from killing goblinoids at will, torturing prisoners of war, ... and, IMHO, the most evil of it all, killing goblins who believe in him, like the undercover agent that made possible the defeat of Azure City rebellion.

No, Redcloak is evil, you can only argue if he is right about goblinoids or not and, if he's right, if his way is really the only way to help goblionoid people.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

And hear we have early Redcloak, his desire for killing goblinoids ends in the war and XP arc, one when he releases a big mistake he made and two, when he chooses to go one on one with Azuras high priest to prevent more deaths

Pulling back, as was suggested to him, might have been considered a Good move. Pushing forwards is just trading goblin lives for human. Only a racist thinks one is lesser than the other (and, hint: being a racist does not make you Good).

RC commissioned his best smith to make a duplicate holy symbol in the knowledge he would kill said goblin the moment he was done to preserve The Plan. He has not changed one bit.

Grey Wolf

[hroþila]

RC commissioned his best smith to make a duplicate holy symbol in the knowledge he would kill said goblin the moment he was done to preserve The Plan. He has not changed one bit.

He also planned on killing the polymorphed hobgoblin spy. But I would argue that's very different from just ordering hobgoblins to go up a mountain to trigger an avalanche that would get them killed. Probably still Evil, but very different.

[Morquard]

And hear we have early Redcloak, his desire for killing goblinoids ends in the war and XP arc, one when he releases a big mistake he made and two, when he chooses to go one on one with Azuras high priest to prevent more deaths

He then goes on to build a society that relies on slavery, repeatedly and meticulously tortures a human for the crime of being a Paladin, even though he admitted that O-chul doesn't know anything, callously threatens to throw a bunch of innocent prisoners into the soul-destroying rift, without a second thought murders and ally and feeds her to her own ghouls.

Yes, the guy's really turned over a new leaf.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

He also planned on killing the polymorphed hobgoblin spy. But I would argue that's very different from just ordering hobgoblins to go up a mountain to trigger an avalanche that would get them killed. Probably still Evil, but very different.

To be absolutely clear, I selected the smith rather than the spy, because spies are a tricky bunch to trust. Once someone has been amongst your enemies, you can never really trust them fully again. There is a lot more nuance and PoVs at play in that situation. I still think it was unnecessary (and therefore Evil), but as examples go, it is far more clear cut that the Smith didn't need to die - it was just convenient for RC that he did. And when you chose convenience over a person's life, you are Evil.

Grey Wolf

[Mando Knight]

Good:This is where things get a bit weird so please remember, this is based on Redcloak's motivation, not his actions, Redcloak selflessly devotes his life to helping goblins everywhere, Redcloak does this, to yes get revenge for his fallen, friends and family, but more then that he wants to make sure that the goblin species is no longer slaughtered as basic dungeon enemies to just die by random adventuring parties

And this, is how Redcloak is lawful good, Motivation wise

He states his goals are "For the good of goblinkind", but we know his actual goal is "Achieve the Dark One's Plan" and that "The Greater Good" is simply the self-serving rationalization that it always is. His singular obsession with The Plan has seen him discard every alternative path available for promoting his people--even Gobbotopia was just a side project. On top of that, it's clear that Redcloak's idea of "Good for goblinkind" also means "Goblinoids only, all others trampled underfoot", a racial-supremacist ideology that is generally considered Evil.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

He states his goals are "For the good of goblinkind", but we know his actual goal is "Achieve the Dark One's Plan" and that "The Greater Good" is simply the self-serving rationalization that it always is. His singular obsession with The Plan has seen him discard every alternative path available for promoting his people--even Gobbotopia was just a side project. On top of that, it's clear that Redcloak's idea of "Good for goblinkind" also means "Goblinoids only, all others trampled underfoot", a racial-supremacist ideology that is generally considered Evil.

And not even all goblinoids. Not when he needs to come up with a promise of "some kind of trading network" on the fly.

GW

[Mando Knight]

And not even all goblinoids. Not when he needs to come up with a promise of "some kind of trading network" on the fly.

GW

Like I said, it's just a self-serving rationalization. If name-dropping bugbears is only used as "an appealing but ultimately specius pan-goblinoid narrative that probably arose to elide historic sectarian divisions between goblins and hobgoblins" then it's further evidence that his goal is not actually racial equality but rather just "Do what the Dark One has planned, regardless of all other costs", which is consistent with his actions.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Like I said, it's just a self-serving rationalization. If name-dropping bugbears is only used as "an appealing but ultimately specius pan-goblinoid narrative that probably arose to elide historic sectarian divisions between goblins and hobgoblins" then it's further evidence that his goal is not actually racial equality but rather just "Do what the Dark One has planned, regardless of all other costs", which is consistent with his actions.

Indeed (I was, in fact, agreeing with you and providing extra evidence, BTW, in case it wasn't clear). If RC really wanted to improve the lives of all goblinoids - and he defines this as "not restricted to living in the poorest lands with the least food" - then his Plan would include relocating the bugbears, instead of promising to maybe send a trading ship once in a while.

GW

[Shulk]

I mean, Redcloak , from what I understand, Probably averages out either a bit eviler than neutral for the good evil thing, or he's evil but with his personal desires being rather... noble, honestly. I mean, He'd gladly start a cold war with the gods using the snarl, but that's because goblins are regarded as EXP fodder by "Heroes", and he wants goblins to be better off in the universe. He wants to end the title of "Monster", just something with stats and EXP, Just something to be killed for the heroes to move on, And he's willing to do almost anything to do so, even, as I said, start a cold war with the gods. Or am I misunderstanding

[Fyraltari]

Indeed (I was, in fact, agreeing with you and providing extra evidence, BTW, in case it wasn't clear). If RC really wanted to improve the lives of all goblinoids - and he defines this as "not restricted to living in the poorest lands with the least food" - then his Plan would include relocating the bugbears, instead of promising to maybe send a trading ship once in a while.

GW

To be fair with Redcloak all his plan amounts to is "Give the Dark One the leverage to negotiate us a better deal" what exactly this deal is supposed to be is not his to decide. Gobbotopia was never part of the plan he just did it because he had the opportunity. I have no doubt that he is sincere in his expressed desire of helping the bugbears... after he is done risking all of their (after)lives that is.

[Goblinwarrior57]

I'll admin I was wrong, Redcloak doesn't really meet up to good, but the truth with his actions is fact they do lead better for Gobloinds and he does it from a selfless ambition, yes he's doing the dark ones deed but he also cares about goblonoids throught several changes, yes he completely screwed up with the goblinoinds even now, but he's trying, he's trying to give the goblinoids a better future, yes he's evil in almost every sense we consider evil, sacrificing his own kind, but the other thing about Redcloak that really defines his care is the fact he's put his own life on the line several times, 1v1ing another high priest, battling the Azura underground head on, and basically playing a game of puppet master with a lich sorcerer capable of epic spells

[Kish]

I'll admin I was wrong, Redcloak doesn't really meet up to good, but the truth with his actions is fact they do lead better for Gobloinds

I'm guessing you mean "other than the ones Xykon kills."

[Synesthesy]

I'll admin I was wrong, Redcloak doesn't really meet up to good, but the truth with his actions is fact they do lead better for Gobloinds and he does it from a selfless ambition, yes he's doing the dark ones deed but he also cares about goblonoids throught several changes, yes he completely screwed up with the goblinoinds even now, but he's trying, he's trying to give the goblinoids a better future, yes he's evil in almost every sense we consider evil, sacrificing his own kind, but the other thing about Redcloak that really defines his care is the fact he's put his own life on the line several times, 1v1ing another high priest, battling the Azura underground head on, and basically playing a game of puppet master with a lich sorcerer capable of epic spells

You can be an evil person and care for someone.

And obviously, Recloak is lots of kilonazis less evil then Xykon, of course. Maybe he's even less evil then Tarquin. But this is not a race to the deepest of the nine hell :)

[Peelee]

You can be an evil person and care for someone.

One of my favorite stories from The Giant:

Consider the following example: In an old campaign, I had introduced two completely evil villains. Both had plans to conquer the world, and I had let the PCs know that they had known each other a century earlier. When the players discovered that they were working together, they couldn't understand it. "Why help each other?" they asked themselves, "It would make more sense to go it alone."

"Wait," said one player, "I bet that one is planning on helping the other up to a point, and then turning on him." They all agreed that this must be the reason for their alliance, and even formulated a plan to "warn" the lesser of the two evils about the other's presumed treachery. This was a solution that was arrived at by a fairly logical process, but it was completely and utterly incorrect. What the players had failed to consider was that the two villains were simply friends. They had grown up together, and trusted each other implicitly despite having every logical reason to not trust one another at all. The fact was that the villains were letting their emotional attachment to each other override strict logic; they had made an agreement to share control of the world, and both were intending to follow through. Further, by contacting the "lesser" villain, the PCs had accidentally tipped their hand that they knew the two were working together, allowing the villains to set up an ambush for the players in a future session. By relying on logic and logic alone, the players had gravely miscalculated their foes.

[Jasdoif]

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

"Retroactively justify, to myself, murdering my little brother in cold blood" does not seem like a particularly LG motivation to me.

[Peelee]

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

"Retroactively justify, to myself, murdering my little brother in cold blood" does not seem like a particularly LG motivation to me.

That was one helluva moral event horizon.

[zimmerwald1915]

That was one helluva moral event horizon.

Downright tame for this comic, though.

[Peelee]

Downright tame for this comic, though.

More personal than anything else in the online comic, though, unless I'm forgetting something.

[factotum]

I mean, Redcloak , from what I understand, Probably averages out either a bit eviler than neutral for the good evil thing, or he's evil but with his personal desires being rather... noble, honestly. I mean, He'd gladly start a cold war with the gods using the snarl, but that's because goblins are regarded as EXP fodder by "Heroes", and he wants goblins to be better off in the universe. He wants to end the title of "Monster", just something with stats and EXP, Just something to be killed for the heroes to move on, And he's willing to do almost anything to do so, even, as I said, start a cold war with the gods. Or am I misunderstanding

That's his stated intention, but his actions don't show the same thing. In Gobbotopia he already *has* a proper goblinoid city that's setting up actual trading links with settlements of other races--if he was to put his efforts into making that work he'd already have the goblin-friendly home he's always wanted. Instead, he's doubling down on trying to carry out a Plan that, if all goes badly, could end up with the world destroyed or even the souls of every goblinoid in it annihilated (since the Snarl supposedly destroys the soul as well as the physical form of the person).

There's also the point that the only person who's said the goblins were created as XP fodder is the Dark One, who is an Evil god and thus not necessarily to be trusted. He could have made all that up...in fact, I'd argue he definitely *did* make it up, because there are plenty of low-level critters that exist in the D&D monster manual who are not goblinoids.

[brian 333]

How do you recruit people to sacrifice their lives? You promise them their grandchildren will benefit.

I may be wrong, but I've always read Redcloak's ambition as the betterment of goblinkind with me in charge. Not, I'll sacrifice myself to accomplish this end, but I'll sacrifice as many of you as I have to, and a few more if it's going to make this less inconvenient for me.

No, I would buy the theory if RC was willing to die for his cause. Instead he has it conveniently set up so that his survival is a requirement for success.

He demonstrates no Good, either in intent or in action. Jirix has a better claim to good intentions.

[hamishspence]

There's also the point that the only person who's said the goblins were created as XP fodder is the Dark One, who is an Evil god and thus not necessarily to be trusted. He could have made all that up...in fact, I'd argue he definitely *did* make it up, because there are plenty of low-level critters that exist in the D&D monster manual who are not goblinoids.

I think lizardfolk were pictured as well- with The Dark One's claim being that every "monster race" of the "intelligent, builds civilizations at the tribal level at least, gets slaughtered a lot by adventurers" type, was created specifically to ensure clerics would have low-level beings to kill in order to level up.

He may be stretching things a bit - but it seems like, out of universe, the Dark One's claims are intended to be a calling out of the "D&D designers" and DMs who support "murderhoboism" - players killing "humanoid monsters" on sight.

[factotum]

I think lizardfolk were pictured as well- with The Dark One's claim being that every "monster race" of the "intelligent, builds civilizations at the tribal level at least, gets slaughtered a lot by adventurers" type, was created specifically to ensure clerics would have low-level beings to kill in order to level up.

When I said there were plenty of low-level critters in the Monster Manual who aren't goblinoids, I suppose I should have said "not sentient". There are a plethora of toads, bats, wolves, spiders, and what-have-you that can be used as low level XP fodder, there's no need for goblinoids to have been created with that in mind.

[hamishspence]

problem is, most of these tend to avoid people - whereas the setup for the humanoids is that, due to the barrenness of the regions they start out in, they have to venture beyond them to survive for any length of time - hence clashes and raiding.

[Fyraltari]

When I said there were plenty of low-level critters in the Monster Manual who aren't goblinoids, I suppose I should have said "not sentient". There are a plethora of toads, bats, wolves, spiders, and what-have-you that can be used as low level XP fodder, there's no need for goblinoids to have been created with that in mind.

I dream of a world where no-one makes more damage than needed.