How Redcloak is Lawful good motivation wise

[Grey_Wolf_c]

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.

Yep. This solution is a way for the gods to have their cake and eat it too: the only reason they want their clerics leveled up is to increase the number of followers. "Worship X and you get a discount in Cure Minor Wounds" is not as impressive as "Worship X and you can arrange for your loved one who died in an accident to be raised".

But if your cleric that can cast level 5 spells only got there by having to go out for months at a time into the wilderness to find animals so they can level, they can't be around to proclaim the greatness of you. So you want them to stay home, and for the danger to come to him, or be close enough (and repopulating enough) that a short hike to defeat the danger but be back in time for the week's Holy Day that they can still do the PR.

Creating intelligent races and putting them in a situation that forces them to raid is a better solution.

Grey Wolf

[Keltest]

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.

I mean, they avoid people because the people do things like make big walled cities and otherwise alter the environment to be unsuitable for them (and also kill them). You run out into the wilderness and I guarantee you the unnecessarily large spiders wont have any qualms about wrapping you up and eating you.

I don't know that the Dark One is lying, for sure (the gods as we have seen them are definitely stupid enough to do something like make a race destined to do nothing but get killed intelligent enough to understand their lot in life), but it doesn't make enough sense on its own to just take the Dark One at his word with no other supporting evidence.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

it doesn't make enough sense on its own to just take the Dark One at his word with no other supporting evidence.

I disagree. From a metanarrative PoV, it was an exposition scene. Generally, there are no lies in an exposition scene because it leads to reader confusion. Second, in-world, it does make sense that the gods would provide XP bags for adventurers, because this is a world that runs on D&D rules, and in D&D, the existence of races whose purpose is to be XP bags is a thing that exists in D&D, just as much as skill points and quantum gains in proficiency called "levels". Third, related to second but back to meta, I think it is quite obvious that the author wants to point this out and show there is a better way, and if it turned out that the Dark One is lying and it was never meant to be that way, the author's attempt at pointing it out would fall rather flat.

Grey Wolf

[zimmerwald1915]

I mean, they avoid people because the people do things like make big walled cities and otherwise alter the environment to be unsuitable for them (and also kill them). You run out into the wilderness and I guarantee you the unnecessarily large spiders wont have any qualms about wrapping you up and eating you.

But only one per day. "Unnecessarily large spiders" aren't really a plot-based quest, more of a random encounter, and random encounters are a waste of everyone's valuable time.

[Keltest]

But only one per day. "Unnecessarily large spiders" aren't really a plot-based quest, more of a random encounter, and random encounters are a waste of everyone's valuable time.

Its not random if you go out deliberately seeking them though. Not every adventure is "save the world". Sometimes you just go bounty hunting.

@Greywolf

I acknowledge the validity of your meta reasons for taking him at his word. I don't think theyre wrong, per se, but they aren't enough to convince me that the Dark One can be assumed to be totally correct with no ulterior motive, not the least reason being that his actions, like Redcloak's, don't seem to support the idea that goblinoids really just need their fair shot at natural resources too. If his goals were really based on the unfairness of the way goblins were treated, he would have told Redcloak to stop screwing around with the gates and figure out some way to ditch Xykon so Gobbotopia can go on without that threat hanging over it.

No, I think its more likely that TDO is/was just using it to motivate his minions and was, if not outright making it up, then at least exaggerating the actual events that occurred. And remember that, like Shojo's recounting of the tale of the gates, the exposition scene wasn't the Dark One speaking, but Redcloak. He was probably telling the truth as he knows it, but that doesn't mean he is correct.

And I for one would not be terribly impressed if the strongest way Rich can protest the unfairness of the way the game typically treats monster races is to complain that they were literally designed that way. Yes, of course they were, D&D was fundamentally envisioned as a game about fighting monsters, the monsters and the fighting were almost certainly the first things imagined for the system.

[Shulk]

Redcloak Dreams of a world where goblins aren't EXP fodder. However, He'll do pretty much anything to achieve that dream of a better world for goblins, including possibly genocide, or delcaring war on the gods. He's probably either evil, but with good intentions, or somewhere around neutral. Thats my piece

[factotum]

I disagree. From a metanarrative PoV, it was an exposition scene. Generally, there are no lies in an exposition scene because it leads to reader confusion.

Can you point me to the bit in either Redcloak's or Shojo's exposition scenes where they talk about a planet inside the planet? I suspect not, because that particular story was never told--so we know for a fact that these exposition scenes are at best incomplete. Them being inaccurate as well is not beyond the bounds of possibility.

[Porthos]

Redcloak Dreams of a world where goblins aren't EXP fodder. However, He'll do pretty much anything to achieve that dream of a better world for goblins, including possibly genocide, or delcaring war on the gods. He's probably either evil, but with good intentions, or somewhere around neutral. Thats my piece

Something about "the road to hell" comes to mind here, for some reason.

===

This sets aside Redcloak's less than good motivations, FWIW, which have already been mentioned in the thread.

Simply pointing out that 'good intentions' is not necessarily a "Get Out of Jail Hell Free" card

[Darth Paul]

Just for comparison, Anakin Skywalker had supremely good motivations, too. He wanted order, peace and justice in the Galaxy... classic Lawful Good. Pretty hard to gainsay that.
Too bad the way he chose to achieve it in the end was by throwing his lot in with the revealed Sith Lord, aiding in the destruction of the Jedi Order (for all its flaws, still the main peacekeeping body in the galaxy), and becoming a prime enforcer for a Galactic Empire which dealt in wholesale oppression of populations and the destruction of entire planets who didn't fall in line. So, no matter what you say your motives are, it's your actions that you're going to be judged by.

[Heksefatter]

Honestly, I don't think there is much meaning to the original comment. What does it even mean to have a lawful good motivation, separate from the rest of your alignment?

To be evil is not necessarily to be completely selfish. You can genuinely follow an evil deity in D&D and be evil. IRL you can genuinely follow an evil ideology. In neither case would you be selfish - total selfishness precludes you genuinely committing to something else than yourself.

In short:

Principled selflessness is NOT the same as non-evil.

This ties directly into the next part: Having morals is not the same as being non-evil. Almost ALL the evil characters in OotS have morals. Xykon is completely evil, but even monsters like Tarquin, Malack or Nale do have limits to what they would do, and are able to - twistedly - care about others than themselves. Nale wouldn't just betray Sabine, nor Malack Tarquin. IRL almost no-one is willing to do everything, no matter how vile.

In short:

Having some moral compass of sorts is NOT the same as non-evil.

Overall, having a good goal is, in Dungeons and Dragons, not enough to make you non-evil either. I am not saying that it is wrong that Redcloak has one, but it is not all that pertinent to his alignment. Furthermore, I can't see how the goal could be considered lawful, as opposed to chaotic. A chaotic good person could share the goal of making the lives of goblinoids better.

[dps]

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.

Even if the Dark One is lying, being fooled into believing him wouldn't and therefore following his plan wouldn't make Redcloak Evil. It's not Redcloak's fault if the Dark One is lying to him. What makes Redcloak Evil is what he's willing to do to execute the plan.

FWIW, I do think that the Dark One is telling the truth about the Evil, lesser races being created to provide XP for the clerics of Good gods. I certainly will admit that I could be wrong.

I think it's also possible, in fact likely, that there are things involving the Gates and the Snarl that the Dark One doesn't know about. The gods in OotS have never been portrayed as omniscient, after all.

[brian 333]

Very few non- brain damaged people go around thinking or saying "I am Evil." In fact, the trouble with evil people is that they almost always claim to be doing good, or have good motivations, or are working toward a good result. You can judge what a person thinks about himself by what he says, but to actually determine if he is evil you must have another measure.

And that is what he does. Forget about what he says and examine Redcloak's actions. There is no goodness, there is self serving scheeming. There is no personal sacrifice but a lot of convincing others to die on his behalf. There is no trust among companions at arms, but there is betrayal of a comrade and a plot to hold another comrade in bondage.

Redcloak's actions clearly indicate he is evil. His words are simple justification along the lines of the hostage taker shooting a hostage then telling the cops, "Look what you made me do."

[Synesthesy]

If his goals were really based on the unfairness of the way goblins were treated, he would have told Redcloak to stop screwing around with the gates and figure out some way to ditch Xykon so Gobbotopia can go on without that threat hanging over it.

Isn't exactly what the Dark One told Redcloak?

[Fyraltari]

Isn't exactly what the Dark One told Redcloak?

I initially read it the same way that you did, but on another thread someone pointed out that Rich clarified that the intended meaning was the opposite, that Red wasn't "off the hook" i regards to the Dark One's Plan.

However since I can't find either the thread or The Giant's comment :

*lits candles in a pentagramm*
*Clears throat*

Ω

Y'AI'NG NGAH
YOG-SOTHOTH
H'EE - L'GEB
F'AI THRODOG
UAAAH

By the powers of ancient stars and sleepless gods,
From beyond the Eternal Gate, I bid thee, feytouched banana,
cast away the shroud of darkness that blinds my spirit,
By the the blood spilled and the victim burned,
From beyond the Eternal Gate, I bid thee, feytouched banana,
Come and quench my thirst for knowledge:

What's the bloody post that explained that?

By words of powers from my masters learnt,
I release thee, feytouched banana,
Go back to whence you came.

U
OGTHROD AIF
GEB'L - EE'H
YOG-SOTHOTH
'NGAH'NG AI'Y
ZHRO

*snuff out candles*

[Keltest]

I thought it was in the book commentaries, not a post.

[Jasdoif]

I thought it was in the book commentaries, not a post.

It was. I think it's been cited before...ah yes.

Wait, really? I always read it at being clearly "don't screw [Gobbotopia] up" especially since he just told Jirix he was going to fight battles of trade and all. That's some poor wording.

Yeah, let me grab the book for the exact quote. Dang, BRitF is huge. I really need to invest in the PDFs one of these days.

Most importantly, the idea needed to be put forth that just because Redcloak had, in fact, established a goblin state on the grave of Azure City did not mean that he was being let off the hook for carrying out his god's evil plan for the Gates. If Redcloak was the hero of the story, he could probably rest on his laurels at this point, but as the villain, he needs to keep moving.

To me it always seemed like he was definitely talking about the Gates because again, "good job" is the extremely obvious thing to say if he cared primarily about the nation we'd just spent several strips establishing as a huge deal. "Don't screw this up," by contrast, is jarring, and shows a certain lack of respect for his high priest as anything but a subordinate. (Or "Fetching Boy," as Roy might put it.)

But a lot of people have pointed out the ambiguity of "this" in what he said, so I can't really say you're wrong that it's poorly worded. All I can do is point to the commentary which is seemingly much plainer about what is being said, whose Plan is being followed and who is "on the hook" for it.

[Fyraltari]

I thought it was in the book commentaries, not a post.

It was. I think it's been cited before...ah yes.

Thank you both.

[wumpus]

Something about "the road to hell" comes to mind here, for some reason.

===

This sets aside Redcloak's less than good motivations, FWIW, which have already been mentioned in the thread.

Simply pointing out that 'good intentions' is not necessarily a "Get Out of Jail Hell Free" card

It took a page and a half for someone to point this out?

If the 20th century proved anything, it was that "the ends doesn't justify the means" (and the failure of pacifism in the face of the Nazis certainly proves that on the other hand the means hardly justify the ends). Redcloak's actions and results needs to be taken together, and they all justify his continuing position of cleric of the "Dark One"). Even total success of "The Plan" would hardly raise him to neutral.

Of course, there is the possibility that thousands of years after complete success of "The Plan", you could have peaceful co-existance of greenskins and player races. Redcloak might even been seen as a hero in those days, who managed to single-handedly wrench the greenskin existence from "little bags of xp" to fully fledged members of civilization. Expect biographies to be mostly "lies to children" and when those children grow up and dig up more details of his life be told a meta-lie that "things were different in those days" (we all know he is near the bottom depths of the alignment pool). I expect this makes him one of the more interesting characters in OOTS, there exists a chance that he might someday be seen as the hero of the story (while admittedly remaining decidedly evil).

[Shulk]

I'm not saying he's a good person, or a nice person. I directly said he'd be somewhere south of neutral on the alignment grid, He has some Ideals, which aren't exactly 100% selfish, Heck, he's willing to get down and dirty, However, at the same time, He's brutal, He kills, Decieves, and does ANYTHING to achieve his goals, And is a leader of an oppressive society. That being said, His people are treated as EXP fodder....


It's complicated. He's got some good intentions on one hand, But he's not a good person. He's somewhere in the evil for certain, It's just... Alignments are objective, right? I'm not going to dissagree, some of the things he did are horrible, and his intentions in the long run don't justify them... Is he lawful evil?

[hamishspence]

We've got Word of Giant that he's Evil - in Start of Darkness he casts Hold Monster (a cleric needs the Law domain to cast that spell, and a cleric needs to be Lawful to take the Law domain.)

So, he's Lawful Evil.

[Lord_Drayakir]

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

gr8 b8 m8 i r8 8/8

In D&D, Evil is an objective force. Doing things that are Evil makes you Evil. Redcloak does things that are Evil. According to our premise that makes him Evil.

[Porthos]

I'm not saying he's a good person, or a nice person. I directly said he'd be somewhere south of neutral on the alignment grid, He has some Ideals, which aren't exactly 100% selfish, Heck, he's willing to get down and dirty, However, at the same time, He's brutal, He kills, Decieves, and does ANYTHING to achieve his goals, And is a leader of an oppressive society. That being said, His people are treated as EXP fodder....


It's complicated. He's got some good intentions on one hand, But he's not a good person. He's somewhere in the evil for certain, It's just... Alignments are objective, right? I'm not going to dissagree, some of the things he did are horrible, and his intentions in the long run don't justify them... Is he lawful evil?

He's not a moustache twirling villain, no. He is a rebel with a cause, yes. And, yes, SOME of his motivations might be seen as laud-worthy.

Problem is, he has just as many darker motivations that get tangled up with his laud-worthy motivations. So much so that it's hard to separate the 'good' ones from the 'bad' ones.

Take his overall goal for goblinkind. Does he just want goblins to have a fair shake in the world and stop being XP fodder? Or does he want to institute a system where goblins (and other disadvantaged humanoids) are on top, subjugating everyone else for a change?

Well the proof is in the pudding, as they say. He might have mouthed platitudes early in his life. Hell, he might have even believed them. But, ultimately, he founded a nation whose motto is, and I quote, "Screw you suckers, it's OUR turn now!".

---

Here we get to one of the problems with a webcomic. One really can't see facial cues or body language or a bunch of other things us humans use to try to suss whether or not someone is lying when they talk (intentionally or otherwise). It's all too easy to take Redcloak's statements about things at face value, especially as he doesn't seem to be the type to lie for ****s and giggles.

Problem is, much like a certain elf in the comic, Redcloak can be seen has having a habit of lying to himself.

So even if Redcloak tries to ignore all of the evidence that a prime motivation for his behavior is revenge (and not the pretty kind) that doesn't mean we have to when looking at his motivations.

The way I look at it is that, yes, Redcloak wants to make it so goblins aren't, in his mind, killed for being bags of xp. Problem is, that exact same motivation is also tied up in feelings of revenge, payback, and not being willing to come to terms with personal loss (both inflicted by others and himself).

What he wants isn't Justice (for the goblinkin), it's Revenge. Revenge for all the slights suffered in his life.

His problem is, he's been inflicting them on himself more and more as time goes on. Which just leads him into a spiral of even more recriminations and dark motivations as he tries to prove to himself that he's doing the necessary thing.

If he was just willing to 'go home and declare victory', that might mean his purer motivations were winning out. Unfortunately every time he has a setback, he throws even more chips into the pot, committing himself to darker and darker deeds.

" It'll all be worth it, you'll see" might be the most important line when trying to figure out exactly where Redcloak's head is presently at. And it's not a pretty picture, IMO.

[Shulk]

Let's see. He gets down and dirty, but isn't one to just MINDLESSLY slaughter. If he just killed for ****s and giggles, he'd be chaotic evil. Xykon is a good contrast, the litch being outstandingly chaotic, treating killing and war and all the horrors that he does like a game to him. He kills with no reason. Red cloak has a long term goal and plans, he manipulates, he doesn't go in slaughtering for no reason usually.

[Kish]

So...he's Lawful? Yes, no one's disputed that (recently; I do remember one poster who seemed to have the unstated premise that a nonhuman being different from their listed racial alignment was an extraordinary claim that required extraordinary evidence, regularly asserting that Redcloak was Neutral Evil and that Vaarsuvius was Chaotic Good).

[Fyraltari]

All of what Porthos said.

[Jasdoif]

He's not a moustache twirling villain, no. He is a rebel with a cause, yes. And, yes, SOME of his motivations might be seen as laud-worthy.

Problem is, he has just as many darker motivations that get tangled up with his laud-worthy motivations. So much so that it's hard to separate the 'good' ones from the 'bad' ones.

Take his overall goal for goblinkind. Does he just want goblins to have a fair shake in the world and stop being XP fodder? Or does he want to institute a system where goblins (and other disadvantaged humanoids) are on top, subjugating everyone else for a change?

Well the proof is in the pudding, as they say. He might have mouthed platitudes early in his life. Hell, he might have even believed them. But, ultimately, he founded a nation whose motto is, and I quote, "Screw you suckers, it's OUR turn now!".

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

Keep in mind: Redcloak had already decided the death of every goblin on the world would be an acceptable end result of the Plan, before murdering his little brother to protect Xykon (which kicked off the rationalization spiral you mentioned).

His "overall goal" for goblinkind is "means to an end": Every goblin is expendable to Redcloak, his to protect or execute as he sees fit in pursuit of the Plan (which happens to align with his selfish goals). He'd prefer to keep the existing actual goblin people alive, but that'd just be a bonus; he might feel an iota of guilt about murdering them, but he'll still do it.

[Porthos]

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

Keep in mind: Redcloak had already decided the death of every goblin on the world would be an acceptable end result of the Plan, before murdering his little brother to protect Xykon (which kicked off the rationalization spiral you mentioned).

His "overall goal" for goblinkind is "means to an end": Every goblin is expendable to Redcloak, his to protect or execute as he sees fit in pursuit of the Plan (which happens to align with his selfish goals). He'd prefer to keep the existing actual goblin people alive, but that'd just be a bonus; he might feel an iota of guilt about murdering them, but he'll still do it.

Oh, yes, absolutely. There's a reason why I said 'might believe' after all.

Still, I was more thinking about another thing he said at the same time which I look at with even a more jaundiced eye as time has passed:

Spoiler: Still spoilers about SoD

Show

He mouthed off some platitudes to Right-Eye about just wanting to give goblins (in this world or the next) an even playing field and then let the chips fall where they may. If goblins had control over their destiny and still failed, he allegedly would be 'okay' with that.

"Just give my people a fair chance, is all I ask" is what he seemed to be saying there. Which is a sentiment which is impossible to argue against.

Yet when reality met the dream some 30 years later, his idea of giving goblins a 'fair chance' was on the backs of other people. A detail that he conspicuously left out way back when. His imagined Goblin Utopia (admittedly only shown on one panel) bore little resemblance to what Gobbotopia turned out to be.

And, who knows? As I said maybe at the time he didn't think would happen that way. But 30 years of time has a way of changing people, sometimes for the worse.

[factotum]

Spoiler: Still spoilers about SoD

Show

He mouthed off some platitudes to Right-Eye about just wanting to give goblins (in this world or the next) an even playing field and then let the chips fall where they may. If goblins had control over their destiny and still failed, he allegedly would be 'okay' with that.

Spoiler: SOD again

Show

I think that was always codswallop, to be honest. Redcloak was justifying his actions to himself, even then--I think what he's always wanted is for goblins to be top of the tree and for humans etc. to be struggling to survive in the back end of nowhere. Considering he essentially has a good Goblin territory in the shape of Gobbotopia now, to continue with the Plan after that point (with all its attendant risks) is showing his true colours.

[Darth Paul]

Considering he essentially has a good Goblin territory in the shape of Gobbotopia now, to continue with the Plan after that point (with all its attendant risks) is showing his true colours.

RC is deeply stuck in the Sunk Cost Fallacy, even though he masks it as devotion to the Dark One and continuing The Plan in his name. Everything he's done up until now, the sacrifice of thousands of goblinoids

Spoiler: SOD of course

Show

and needlessly murdering his brother to protect Xykon

not to mention giving up on any kind of normal life in favor of being the prophet of his people's god, still isn't outweighed by the mere founding of a goblinoid nation. His guilt by this point is too heavy to be assuaged by anything but completing The Plan; anything less isn't enough. And honestly, completing The Plan might still turn to ashes for him. Murdering Xykon might be the only thing that can satisfy him at this point.

I think Redcloak truly blames Xykon for all the things he's done. This personality type usually refuses to accept responsibility for their own actions, no matter what, rationalizing to the bitter end.

[wumpus]

RC is deeply stuck in the Sunk Cost Fallacy, even though he masks it as devotion to the Dark One and continuing The Plan in his name. Everything he's done up until now, the sacrifice of thousands of goblinoids

Spoiler: SOD of course

Show

and needlessly murdering his brother to protect Xykon

not to mention giving up on any kind of normal life in favor of being the prophet of his people's god, still isn't outweighed by the mere founding of a goblinoid nation. His guilt by this point is too heavy to be assuaged by anything but completing The Plan; anything less isn't enough. And honestly, completing The Plan might still turn to ashes for him. Murdering Xykon might be the only thing that can satisfy him at this point.

I think Redcloak truly blames Xykon for all the things he's done. This personality type usually refuses to accept responsibility for their own actions, no matter what, rationalizing to the bitter end.

"The Plan" isn't just Redcloak's by now. Abandoning it would be a double betrayal of both the Dark One and Xykon. While betraying Xykon is part of the plan (and Redcloak can pretty much pull it off whenever he wants now), betraying the Dark One is much harder. Especially considering that a cleric without a deity is pretty much powerless and that an early move against Xykon would tip off the Dark One.

This isn't to say he wouldn't sabotage the plan if he put on a helm of alignment change and suddenly became good. Just that character-wise, it would be nearly impossible for Redcloak (as Redcloak, I'd assume that in Rich's world a helm of alignment change would produce a new soul to guide the character much like vampirism).