Gobbotopia: Subjective or Objective? Alignment or Morality?

[Lord_Drayakir]

Before I go into the meat of this: I've read and re-read OotS at least 3 times. I've read SoD, which is unironically, a fantastic discussion on the nature of alignment and morality in D&D. Finally, I've been playing RPGs, specifically D&D for at least 25 years on and off, and have worked in collaboration on published RPGs. Another small disclaimer is that I will NOT be providing quotations, unless it is absolutely necessary. I will also point out before going into this: I absolutely hate the concept of objective morality/alignment in D&D, and prefer more narratively-fluid systems.

Having said this, I am trying to consider OotS as a narrative. From reading Mr Burlew's direct words, he wants to show that in D&D-like settings, you need to show, metaphorically, that goblins aren't just chunks of XP to be killed, and that they're people like the rest of the PC races. Thus, we can view OotS as a vehicle for the delivery of said message.

But the question then, is why choose D&D, which ties in the the thread title. D&D has an objective alignment and objective morality system. We can look at the 3E Book of Vile Darkness, where it says so explicitly. Miko would be able to Smite Evil against Belkar. She would not be able to against Roy, Durkon, Shojo (heh-heh), etc. And in the context of D&D, goblinoids are listed as being usually Evil, which off the top of my head, means that 75+% of them are Evil. As a consequence of this, if one was to kill a goblin completely at random, you would have a 75+% chance of killing an Evil creature.

Now, before I get accused of advocating genocide, I hasten to add that that's not what I want to talk about. I instead want to consider Gobbotopia. A city that uses slaves (Evil), murdered a bunch of Good-aligned combatants without trial (Evil-Neutral), allows for the creation of undead (Evil), and so on. It is an Evil-aligned city, almost definitely Lawful Evil.

Now, I understand that Mr Burlew said that the comic is not finished. But from both a writer's perspective and a logician's perspective, there are only two outcomes for Gobbotopia: it survives, or it doesn't. And here we come to the crux of my issue and confusion:

1 - Gobbotopia survives as an Evil city. Then, OotS will end up condoning all the Evil things that Gobbotopia does.
2 - Gobbotopia survives, but undergoes a change, and becomes a differently aligned city. Then, OotS will say that Evil is objectively wrong, and every single action taken by those Evil creatures was wrong, and that only Good-aligned goblins should be allowed to interface with greater civilization.
3 - Gobbotopia is destroyed. Like #2, but worse. Not only is Evil punished, but it is pushed back into the place where it was originally. No social mobility, no chance for redemption.
4 - Snarl has cosmic retcon powers. That's a cheap way out, but I suppose that there's a possibility to literally warp reality and say that Goblins are now not Evil-aligned.

Which goes into my next point. OotS is a D&D comic, or at least started out as one, and takes place in a world where certain aspects of D&D are true, including alignment (and alignment in general is a very big theme in the comic). How come we're trying to have our morality both objective and subjective at the same time?

[hamishspence]

And in the context of D&D, goblinoids are listed as being usually Evil, which off the top of my head, means that 75+% of them are Evil. As a consequence of this, if one was to kill a goblin completely at random, you would have a 75+% chance of killing an Evil creature.

To be exact - it's Usually Neutral Evil - which means that over 50% (exact number unknown) are NE, and the rest depends entirely on the DM and the game.

[Fyraltari]

From reading Mr Burlew's direct words, he wants to show that in D&D-like settings, you need to show, metaphorically, that goblins aren't just chunks of XP to be killed, and that they're people like the rest of the PC races. Thus, we can view OotS as a vehicle for the delivery of said message.

But the question then, is why choose D&D, which ties in the the thread title. D&D has an objective alignment and objective morality system. We can look at the 3E Book of Vile Darkness, where it says so explicitly. Miko would be able to Smite Evil against Belkar. She would not be able to against Roy, Durkon, Shojo (heh-heh), etc. And in the context of D&D, goblinoids are listed as being usually Evil, which off the top of my head, means that 75+% of them are Evil. As a consequence of this, if one was to kill a goblin completely at random, you would have a 75+% chance of killing an Evil creature.
[...]
OotS is a D&D comic, or at least started out as one, and takes place in a world where certain aspects of D&D are true, including alignment (and alignment in general is a very big theme in the comic). How come we're trying to have our morality both objective and subjective at the same time?

I don't think Evil is presented as subjective in OOTS. Slavery, murder and torture are portrayed as Aways EvilTM while self-sacrifice, generosity and bravery are portrayed as Always GoodTM regardless of circumstances. If Miko tried to smite the good teenager goblins from Dorukan's Dungeon itwould not have worked either.
The Giant is, at least partially, commenting on the way D&D is often played and clearly has a bone to pick with the idea that killing sapient beings because they belong to a generally evil race is justified so it's only natural that this comes up a lot in the comic.

As for Gobbotopia, it is a lawful evil city, whatever that means, but it doesn't mean that it can't be reformed, especially since Redcloak and Xykon have left (likely forever).
A question for you "How many Goblins would still be evil if the Humans/Elves/Dwarves/... did not consider them killing fodder because a lot of goblins are evil ?".

[hroþila]

Most of those Evil traits are present e.g. in the Empire of Blood, a human-led human/reptilian society. Also, I don't think the survival of Gobbotopia in its current form would condone Evil - it would just acknowledge that things are complicated, that there's no cosmic justice and that there is no ideal world.

[Morquard]

1 - Gobbotopia survives as an Evil city. Then, OotS will end up condoning all the Evil things that Gobbotopia does.

I'm sorry, but I don't follow this logic. Why would OotS condone Evil just because the city wasn't destroyed?

[factotum]

I'm sorry, but I don't follow this logic. Why would OotS condone Evil just because the city wasn't destroyed?

I have to agree. Good winning out while Evil is downtrodden is a lovely fairly tale ending, but we already know OotS is not likely to get that kind of ending, because Elan asked the Oracle if the story would have a happy ending and the response was "Yes--for you at least.", pretty heavily implying that others might not have such a happy ending. That doesn't mean OotS is condoning the actions of any Evil folks who survive, any more than it condones the racist attitudes of the Elven commander who killed a helpless prisoner purely for being a goblin.

[Lacuna Caster]

Before I go into the meat of this: I've read and re-read OotS at least 3 times. I've read SoD, which is unironically, a fantastic discussion on the nature of alignment and morality in D&D.

SoD is a fine story, but given it opens with LG paladins butchering children I'm not sure it has much to do with D&D alignment and morality at all.

2 - Gobbotopia survives, but undergoes a change, and becomes a differently aligned city. Then, OotS will say that Evil is objectively wrong, and every single action taken by those Evil creatures was wrong, and that only Good-aligned goblins should be allowed to interface with greater civilization.

I don't have a particular problem with the idea that Evil creatures should not be allowed to interface with wider civilisation, given my understanding of what 'Evil' means. (I'd also question whether a 'mostly evil' society could even function, given that definition, but I guess that's a discussion for another day.)

As for whether Gobbotopia will survive, and/or whether that amounts to condoning Redcloak's actions, well... we'll see. My feeling is that in stories with a high degree of grey area, there's usually an equal and opposite interpretation for every viable moral conclusion.

That doesn't mean OotS is condoning the actions of any Evil folks who survive, any more than it condones the racist attitudes of the Elven commander who killed a helpless prisoner purely for being a goblin.

Yeah, but I do remember someone posting a quote from the author where he mentioned that he made the Elven commander racist specifically so he could have someone to subject to the grisly fate of an Implosion spell. Leaving aside that osmium elementals and ravening hellspawn don't seem any less grisly, I wonder if the author is falling into his own version of the 'Just World' hypothesis.

[hamishspence]

SoD is a fine story, but given it opens with LG paladins butchering children I'm not sure it has much to do with D&D alignment and morality at all.

The Giant did say that some of those paladins might have Fallen for their actions.

The point people bring up a lot in the main D&D threads, is that its very common, especially in older editions, for player solutions to "the orc baby dilemma" being "kill them all" with DMs condoning this.

Makes sense that The Giant show something similar, with a strong "this is not the right way" overtone.

[Euclidodese]

Gobbotopia will end up absorbed into the community of nations as a country with an evil history, but one that has the power to ensure it's future isn't evil.
Just like America, Japan, Britain, China, Germany, South Africa and countless other real world examples.

I think that story thread has been pretty clearly sign-posted.

I'm not sure anyone would disagree with the statement: "Redcloak will not survive this comic."

He's outta town now, and the city is ruled by Jirix, who has been demonstrated doing things his own way, and in a way that Redcloak doesn't necessarily agree with.

At the same time as Redcloak leaving, Gobbotopia became rebel-free, meaning that at the exact moment Jirix took full control of the city's affairs, he has an excuse to switch from a hardline 'war policy' to a softer peace-time way of doing things.

The very last thing we've seen Jirix do is stamp on a Demon Roach. Symbolically distancing himself from Team Evil.

In my opinion, no member of Team Evil will ever step foot in Gobbotopia again (with the possible exception of the MitD) and Jirix stamping on that Roach all but confirms that.

[Lacuna Caster]

The Giant did say that some of those paladins might have Fallen for their actions.

Yeah, but even in the O-Chul story it's only treated as an incidental detail. It also sidesteps the problem that the Gods never stripped power from the commanders who gave these orders, or send down a sternly-worded memo dictating a change in policy. Which, thanks to subsequent plot points, we absolutely know they can do. It completely undermines the weight of judgement on, for example, Miko when the Gods allowed all this other nonsense to go unchallenged for decades.

[Lord_Drayakir]

To give two clarifications:

1) As Mr. Burlew said, his comic is his mouthpiece. So, by letting Gobbotopia stand, he is implicitly condoning that the existence of Gobbotopia, a Lawful Evil regime based on on doing evil things and by killing/enslaving a bunch of Good/Neutral aligned humanoids - despite arguing against the representation that goblins are always evil and deserve to die for it.

2) The SoD paladins losing their powers is not necessarily a can of worms I want to open up, because it reeks of the "goblin baby" argument. Furthermore, when I was discussing SoD as a fantastic discussion on alignment, I meant it so in the sense that somehow Redcloak's brand of evil is inherently superior to Xykon. That is false in the standard world of D&D, as D&D has an objective morality, and doesn't care if you callously kill people for a good cause or because you're bored - it's not Kantian, it's consequentialist - so both Redcloak and Xykon are equally evil (but Redcloak is a better person than Xykon (although I could make an argument against that, it's splitting hairs, and is irrelevant to this discussion)).

[Jasdoif]

But the question then, is why choose D&D....

Well that we have an answer to.

When I created this comic, I had no story, no goal, no nothing. I made this website as an attempt to launch a game design career because I had come in second place in that WOTC contest. I created the comic a few months later because I needed something to give people a reason to come back to the site and see my newest gaming article, so I decided to do a comic strip. I chose to do a gaming comic because I thought it would maximize interest among the people I was looking to draw to my site.

---

Yeah, but even in the O-Chul story it's only treated as an incidental detail. It also sidesteps the problem that the Gods never stripped power from the commanders who gave these orders, or send down a sternly-worded memo dictating a change in policy. Which, thanks to subsequent plot points, we absolutely know they can do. It completely undermines the weight of judgement on, for example, Miko when the Gods allowed all this other nonsense to go unchallenged for decades.

Given that book commentary does describe the fall of Azure City as karma kicking the Twelve Gods "in their divine asses" for the paladins' massacre, well before we see the utter detachment of the Northern Gods towards lives other than their own; I'm going to posit the gods in OotS are not exemplars of their alignment, as they tend towards being in other D&D settings.

[hroþila]

To give two clarifications:

1) As Mr. Burlew said, his comic is his mouthpiece. So, by letting Gobbotopia stand, he is implicitly condoning that the existence of Gobbotopia, a Lawful Evil regime based on on doing evil things and by killing/enslaving a bunch of Good/Neutral aligned humanoids - despite arguing against the representation that goblins are always evil and deserve to die for it.

You're just restating your point. Why does the survival of Gobbotopia mean the story condones its Lawful Evil regime? Does that also apply to, say, Greysky City? Not to mention the Empire of Blood?

[Reboot]

I can't help but think that Redcloak is doomed to find Gobbotopia has been eaten by the Snarl, and all his attempts to power through his compromises and sunk costs by saying it was for the good of goblinkind are going to end up utterly destroying them....

[Kish]

This thread strikes me as based on a fundamental misconception of alignment.

For example:

1 - Gobbotopia survives as an Evil city. Then, OotS will end up condoning all the Evil things that Gobbotopia does.
2 - Gobbotopia survives, but undergoes a change, and becomes a differently aligned city. Then, OotS will say that Evil is objectively wrong, and every single action taken by those Evil creatures was wrong, and that only Good-aligned goblins should be allowed to interface with greater civilization.

The objection here seems to hinge on the idea that evil means what it would without the capital letter (and thus is clearly bad), and yet is also an inherently valid perspective. Whichever way you stand, that "Evil" needs to change or that "Evil" doesn't need to change, you imply that there is an obvious problem with it.

(There's also the detail that the Neutral alignment has disappeared; there are Evil goblins and Good goblins, and to discriminate against the former--obligatory in your 1. but bad in your 2.--is to demand the latter.)

As a consequence of this, if one was to kill a goblin completely at random, you would have a 75+% chance of killing an Evil creature.

Far more important, if one was to kill a goblin completely at random or based on statistics, one would have a 100% chance of being an evil creature. And thus, if one wished to claim that "killing evil is good!" that one would be obligated to immediately turn the blade on themself.

If you didn't look at it through the D&D gloss, would it still look like there was a problem to you? Redcloak is a well-intentioned extremist who has committed horrible crimes, including murdering the people he was allegedly trying to help. I don't see the logic to saying that adding "and he's Lawful Evil" to that suddenly wrecks the story's morals. This seems like it's based on wanting alignment to be something negative and restricting.

I also wonder where you see "subjective morality." I'm pretty clear about the moral standing of every major character in the story, for my part. There is no level on which the moral difference between Belkar and Roy is limited to Belkar finding the letter "E" more aesthetically pleasing than the letter "G"--Belkar is a worse person than Roy, Durkon, Elan, or Haley, and his moral journey consists of realizing that fact and starting to care.

To give two clarifications:

1) As Mr. Burlew said, his comic is his mouthpiece. So, by letting Gobbotopia stand, he is implicitly condoning that the existence of Gobbotopia, a Lawful Evil regime based on on doing evil things and by killing/enslaving a bunch of Good/Neutral aligned humanoids - despite arguing against the representation that goblins are always evil and deserve to die for it.

"Depiction is endorsement" may be the single most toxic idea in what passes for literary criticism these days. I have never seen an author come out with anything that wasn't utter dreck following that idea, and I'm glad to say I've very rarely seen an author make the slightest effort to follow it.

2) The SoD paladins losing their powers is not necessarily a can of worms I want to open up, because it reeks of the "goblin baby" argument.

I notice something of a trend here: You keep not wanting to address points because they go places you don't like. But that cripples everyone's ability to talk about what you posted, so...were you looking for only, "Yep, it doesn't work, Burlew should have gone with the D&D framework or the moral complexity, not both" rather than disagreement or discussion?

Furthermore, when I was discussing SoD as a fantastic discussion on alignment, I meant it so in the sense that somehow Redcloak's brand of evil is inherently superior to Xykon. That is false in the standard world of D&D, as D&D has an objective morality,

Again, I think you fundamentally misunderstand Start of Darkness and D&D. For D&D, I sure haven't ever read in a D&D book that there is no moral variation within an alignment, such that one Evil person cannot be substantially worse than another Evil person. For Start of Darkness, the question, "Is someone who openly and gleefully commits despicable acts worse than someone who commits despicable acts but makes sure everyone knows he feels really bad about it?" is a question, one worth thinking about, not the didactic lesson and particularly not the Take That to the alignment system you apparently thought it was.

[Morty]

Your view of alignment seems to be pretty exactly what the Giant has tried to disprove with this comic. OotS posits, time and again, that alignment is not incompatible with nuanced morality and that not every good or evil deed is created equal. Redcloak, Xykon and Tarquin are all evil, but they're each different.

More importantly, the comic directly challenges the idea that Gobbotopia is somehow worse than the Empire of Blood just because the slavers are hobgoblins. They're both oppressive regimes. And I'm not sure how the existence of one in a work is endorsement of it.

[Lacuna Caster]

Given that book commentary does describe the fall of Azure City as karma kicking the Twelve Gods "in their divine asses" for the paladins' massacre, well before we see the utter detachment of the Northern Gods towards lives other than their own; I'm going to posit the gods in OotS are not exemplars of their alignment, as they tend towards being in other D&D settings.

Worse than that, it sends all kinds of mixed messages to mortals. One might forgive certain acolytes for concluding, just as an example... "Gin-Jun did not fall for his crusades. Those had persisted for decades, and the Gods could have striped him of his powers and title at any point, had this been to their displeasure. Gin-Jun fell because he lost a duel."

...when I was discussing SoD as a fantastic discussion on alignment, I meant it so in the sense that somehow Redcloak's brand of evil is inherently superior to Xykon. That is false in the standard world of D&D, as D&D has an objective morality, and doesn't care if you callously kill people for a good cause or because you're bored - it's not Kantian, it's consequentialist - so both Redcloak and Xykon are equally evil (but Redcloak is a better person than Xykon (although I could make an argument against that, it's splitting hairs, and is irrelevant to this discussion)).

I don't think D&D having objective standards of morality necessarily rules out either deontological or consequentialist methods for determining that morality, but the game itself has no particularly lucid or consistent rulings on this point. I will just say that if good/evil lie along a continuum, it's entirely possible for Xykon to ping more strongly on that map than Redcloak would.

I agree that SoD is excellent as an exploration of a particular character's motives and background, and how distinctive and nuanced forms of evil can originate. But when it comes to depictions of acceptable good behaviour, it kinda fell out of the crazy tree.

[brian 333]

Knowing something exists is not implicit agreement with that something.

For example, I know many tobacco smokers. I do not agree with their decision to smoke, I do not condone smoking, and if I had the power to end smoking I would. But being aware of this fact of existence on Earth is not the same as being in agreement that it should be done.

Similarly, in any world which is not Utopia there is Evil because people have the same potential for evil as they do for good. Presenting a fact of existence in OotS is not to say the author condones evil, nor does it say the author believes a world cannot exist without evil. It is a statement of a fact of that setting: that evil exists there.

The D&D alignment system was devised to simplify things. The complications come from attempts to force an arbitrary a game mechanic to conform to real world ethics and morality. This results in a problem similar to forcing a fencing match to conform to turn-based combat system.

The much maligned Alignment System works fine for its intended purpose, but is simply horrible when compared to the real world, and I strongly encourage my players to not attempt to justify game mechanics with real world examples.

Gobbotopia exists in OotS. It is a story, not a plan applicable to the real world. One must ask 'why' in story terms rather than assert that its existence argues in favor of evil regimes in the real world.

In story terms, as has been said, the fall of Azure City was the result of cumulative wrongs perpetrated by the leadership and citizens of Azure City. Now it is up to the Good refugees to correct the flaws in their society if they are to have hope of restoration of their city.

This may bring up questions of real world morality which may even be intentional by the author, but it creates a framework for discussion and reflection on these points. It does not create or imply that the author advocates the creation or existence of evil regimes which maintain their power through murder, conquest, repression, and reprisal. In fact, an open minded reader would invariably presume the opposite: that Good societies which abandon their goodness in favor of pragmatic evil which they can only perpetrate due to their disproportionate relative power inevitably become what they claim to hate.

Hmm, that can't apply to any real world situation, so it must be wrong.

[Lord_Drayakir]

This thread strikes me as based on a fundamental misconception of alignment.

Far more important, if one was to kill a goblin completely at random or based on statistics, one would have a 100% chance of being an evil creature. And thus, if one wished to claim that "killing evil is good!" that one would be obligated to immediately turn the blade on themself.

If you didn't look at it through the D&D gloss, would it still look like there was a problem to you? Redcloak is a well-intentioned extremist who has committed horrible crimes, including murdering the people he was allegedly trying to help. I don't see the logic to saying that adding "and he's Lawful Evil" to that suddenly wrecks the story's morals. This seems like it's based on wanting alignment to be something negative and restricting.

"Depiction is endorsement" may be the single most toxic idea in what passes for literary criticism these days. I have never seen an author come out with anything that wasn't utter dreck following that idea, and I'm glad to say I've very rarely seen an author make the slightest effort to follow it.

I notice something of a trend here: You keep not wanting to address points because they go places you don't like. But that cripples everyone's ability to talk about what you posted, so...were you looking for only, "Yep, it doesn't work, Burlew should have gone with the D&D framework or the moral complexity, not both" rather than disagreement or discussion?

Again, I think you fundamentally misunderstand Start of Darkness and D&D. For D&D, I sure haven't ever read in a D&D book that there is no moral variation within an alignment, such that one Evil person cannot be substantially worse than another Evil person. For Start of Darkness, the question, "Is someone who openly and gleefully commits despicable acts worse than someone who commits despicable acts but makes sure everyone knows he feels really bad about it?" is a question, one worth thinking about, not the didactic lesson and particularly not the Take That to the alignment system you apparently thought it was.

I edited your thing to address the points that I can address, since some of those are subjective. If you want me to go back and address them, point them out, and I will.

1 - Incorrect. It would make you a Chaotic being sure, but as SoD and the comic itself have demonstrated, killing non-evil people doesn't really ding your alignment all that much. Hell, if Vaarsuvius was able to get a 50/50 on an alignment drop after the Genocide spell... yeah, killing non-evil people isn't a big deal.

2 - But it does. Alignment is (unfortunately) a strong influence on the consequentalist nature of D&D. SoD could've been resolved completely differently had Redcloak and Xykon been LG and CG respectively (Redcloak gaining enough power where he would've been able to increase his diplomacy score to the point where he would've been able to convince the other races to let the goblins have a fair share of the pie; Xykon proving that he's the best by reaching Epic Levels as a sorcerer and creating a spell effect that no other wizard can comprehend. Just as an example)

3 - I'm not even sure why that's a problem. It's been a staple of literary criticism for literally centuries, and the idea is simple: if you dislike a thing, clearly indicate that it is Bad and show the protagonists dealing with the Bad thing. It's why back in the 50s-80s, being a gay character meant you were a Bad person (or you didn't exist). But yes, if you write a complete story, and in your world you still have things that you consider Bad, then it means that you either support them; or you agree that they need to exist as a type of compromise.

4 - The reason I don't want to touch the goblin baby argument is because it's one of those where you can't actively have a correct outcome? Do you kill it? Congrats, you're Evil for killing a baby. Do you save it? Congrats, you're endangering a community with your reckless actions, congrats, you're Evil. Leave it? Congrats, you're Evil for letting a baby die. There is no good answer (according to D&D).

5 - I disagree. D&D IS consequentalist, and as such, your alignment beyond "Evil" doesn't matter - the actions you do are still Evil.

You're just restating your point. Why does the survival of Gobbotopia mean the story condones its Lawful Evil regime? Does that also apply to, say, Greysky City? Not to mention the Empire of Blood?

If the comic is stated to be a mouthpiece for the opinions, philosophical proof of concepts, or ideals that the author is trying to convey, then yes, the existence of such a regime, is an implicit approval of such a regime or entity.

Your view of alignment seems to be pretty exactly what the Giant has tried to disprove with this comic. OotS posits, time and again, that alignment is not incompatible with nuanced morality and that not every good or evil deed is created equal. Redcloak, Xykon and Tarquin are all evil, but they're each different.

More importantly, the comic directly challenges the idea that Gobbotopia is somehow worse than the Empire of Blood just because the slavers are hobgoblins. They're both oppressive regimes. And I'm not sure how the existence of one in a work is endorsement of it.

See above. Existence = endorsement OR compromise when your comic is a mouthpiece. Also, no, Tarquin, Xykon, and Redcloak are all equivalent, because they directly cause more Evil in the world. Remember, I'm NOT talking about the comic. I'm talking about D&D now.

[Jasdoif]

Worse than that, it sends all kinds of mixed messages to mortals. One might forgive certain acolytes for concluding, just as an example... "Gin-Jun did not fall for his crusades. Those had persisted for decades, and the Gods could have striped him of his powers and title at any point, had this been to their displeasure. Gin-Jun fell because he lost a duel."

First,

Spoiler: How the Paladin Got His Scar

Show

We didn't see Gin-Jun fall, unless you mean falling to the ground as a corpse after Miko snapped his neck (while Gin-Jun was in the process of murdering Zhou). It's hardly unprecedented to be a paladin outside an order of paladins; being expelled from the Sapphire Guard wouldn't remove Gin-Jun's paladin-dom.

Second...acolytes, as thinking creatures, are responsible for their actions and their decisions to act. Including their decision of which mixed signal to act on.

[Keltest]

See above. Existence = endorsement OR compromise when your comic is a mouthpiece. Also, no, Tarquin, Xykon, and Redcloak are all equivalent, because they directly cause more Evil in the world. Remember, I'm NOT talking about the comic. I'm talking about D&D now.

I just want to chime in here for a moment and say I take issue with this. No, the fact that something exists in an author's work does not automatically mean they condone it in the real world. You need to actually examine the work at more than a cursory level if you want to establish that kind of takeaway. I cant possibly imagine any legitimate analysis of any media concluding anything other than that all content creators need to be locked away for their own mental health because of extreme schizophrenia if the mere presence of something was taken to be approval of that something.

The Empire of Blood, for example, is unequivocally portrayed as a bad thing, and thus we can assume that Rich does not approve of tyrants like Tarquin. Ditto with Xykon the mass murderer. He's the bad guy of the story. when V went Darth V, that was portrayed as a bad thing, and thus we can assume Rich doesn't approve of indiscriminate murder as a solution to problems.

The only reason Gobbotopia is any different is because Rich made a couple comments to the effect of "yeah the Azurites probably earned this" which are IMO being taken somewhat out of context.

[Kish]

What's your opinion on the "Goblin baby" issue, Rich? Do you agree with Lord_Drakayir's conclusions here? Take it away.

Beyond that, Lord_Drayakir, everything you said amounted to telling me I'm wrong and that your complaints and the assertions you base them on are right, so...I'll just leave it at it probablydefinitely being a good thing that neither of us is playing at the other's gaming table.

[zimmerwald1915]

The only reason Gobbotopia is any different is because Rich made a couple comments to the effect of "yeah the Azurites probably earned this" which are IMO being taken somewhat out of context.

I can confirm those quotes were taken out of context. At one point I tried using them to argue that Mr. Burlew said that the Azurites deserved to be ethnically cleansed, and was told point-blank that this was the wrong takeaway.

[Euclidodese]

I can't help but think that Redcloak is doomed to find Gobbotopia has been eaten by the Snarl, and all his attempts to power through his compromises and sunk costs by saying it was for the good of goblinkind are going to end up utterly destroying them....

I don't think we'll see that at all. But I do think that Redcloak is so blinded by his plan to better goblinkind that he's oblivious to the fact that all of his goals are being completed without it.

When The Dark One said to Jirix: "Don't screw this up." Both Jirix and Redcloak assumed he was talking about Redcloak's plan... But he may very well have meant that Gobbotopia was what Redcloak wanted, goblins being on an equal footing, failing or succeeding on their own merits.

[Fyraltari]

I edited your thing to address the points that I can address, since some of those are subjective. If you want me to go back and address them, point them out, and I will.

1 - Incorrect. It would make you a Chaotic being sure, but as SoD and the comic itself have demonstrated, killing non-evil people doesn't really ding your alignment all that much. Hell, if Vaarsuvius was able to get a 50/50 on an alignment drop after the Genocide spell... yeah, killing non-evil people isn't a big deal.

Neither V nor (presumably) the IFCC was aware of the dead Draketooth & relatives at the time. Killing the Black Dragons was an evil act and it made V's position on the G-E axis drop considerably. The 50/50 chance is because he still has a good chance to reform. He could, as a completely random example sacrifice himself to save the world. Or dedicate the rest of his century-long lifespan to Good.

2 - But it does. Alignment is (unfortunately) a strong influence on the consequentalist nature of D&D. SoD could've been resolved completely differently had Redcloak and Xykon been LG and CG respectively (Redcloak gaining enough power where he would've been able to increase his diplomacy score to the point where he would've been able to convince the other races to let the goblins have a fair share of the pie; Xykon proving that he's the best by reaching Epic Levels as a sorcerer and creating a spell effect that no other wizard can comprehend. Just as an example)

Are you telling us that if the bad guys were good people the story woiuld be different!? I'm all for insane guesswork and theorizing but try to dial it down, there, pal.

In all seriousness though you have it backwards: Xykon and Red are not doing horrible things because their alignments register as Evil, their alignments register at Evil because they are doing horrible things.

3 - I'm not even sure why that's a problem. It's been a staple of literary criticism for literally centuries, and the idea is simple: if you dislike a thing, clearly indicate that it is Bad and show the protagonists dealing with the Bad thing. It's why back in the 50s-80s, being a gay character meant you were a Bad person (or you didn't exist). But yes, if you write a complete story, and in your world you still have things that you consider Bad, then it means that you either support them; or you agree that they need to exist as a type of compromise.

Woah. I never knew Georges Orwell, author of 1984, believed that autocratic governments that endlessely rewrite history, torture, kill and starve their subjects as well as brainwash them into self inflicted mental rape in the name of insane solipsism and for power's sake are the way to go.
I had that book all wrong, thanks for setting me straight! Next on the list, why Georges R. R. Martin believes that monarchies are the best way to organize your nation!

4 - The reason I don't want to touch the goblin baby argument is because it's one of those where you can't actively have a correct outcome? Do you kill it? Congrats, you're Evil for killing a baby. Do you save it? Congrats, you're endangering a community with your reckless actions, congrats, you're Evil. Leave it? Congrats, you're Evil for letting a baby die. There is no good answer (according to D&D).

"it"? Nice.
Or you know you could raise them to be good people. Since you kinda murdered their parents that is sort of your responsability. Or at the very least drop them in an orphanage kept by good people.

5 - I disagree. D&D IS consequentalist, and as such, your alignment beyond "Evil" doesn't matter - the actions you do are still Evil.

What actions are and are not evil is up to the DM though. If the DM and his friends are Kantian then the Paladin lying to save a child is evil. If they are not, it may not be.

If the comic is stated to be a mouthpiece for the opinions, philosophical proof of concepts, or ideals that the author is trying to convey, then yes, the existence of such a regime, is an implicit approval of such a regime or entity.

Gotta wait for the story to be over, you know. Or does Georges Lucas approve of the existence of the Empire since itisn't destroyed by the end of A New Hope ?

See above. Existence = endorsement OR compromise when your comic is a mouthpiece. Also, no, Tarquin, Xykon, and Redcloak are all equivalent, because they directly cause more Evil in the world. Remember, I'm NOT talking about the comic. I'm talking about D&D now.

See above. ALso I really doubt D&D considers all evil acts to be of equal worth, because of the simple fact that their is a Neutral Alignment.

[zimmerwald1915]

I don't think we'll see that at all.

I do. Really undermine that "it'll all be worth it, you'll see" line he's been feeding himself.

[Kish]

First,

Spoiler: How the Paladin Got His Scar

Show

We didn't see Gin-Jun fall, unless you mean falling to the ground as a corpse after Miko snapped his neck (while Gin-Jun was in the process of murdering Zhou). It's hardly unprecedented to be a paladin outside an order of paladins; being expelled from the Sapphire Guard wouldn't remove Gin-Jun's paladin-dom.

Spoiler: How the Paladin Got His Scar

Show

He did say "If I cannot be a paladin."

It is unfortunately hard to tell if he went beige at some point in black-and-white.

[Keltest]

I think "Gobbotopia gets mostly eaten by the snarl, and the Azurite and Goblin refugees are then forced to cooperate for mutual survival" is probably the mostly likely direction this story will take. I cant Imagine Rich just letting them have Gobbotopia with no strings attached (that really would be condoning the evil society) but I also cant imagine them just returning to the former status quo of "Azurites have the good land, goblins get shafted" either.

[Fyraltari]

I think "Gobbotopia gets mostly eaten by the snarl, and the Azurite and Goblin refugees are then forced to cooperate for mutual survival" is probably the mostly likely direction this story will take. I cant Imagine Rich just letting them have Gobbotopia with no strings attached (that really would be condoning the evil society) but I also cant imagine them just returning to the former status quo of "Azurites have the good land, goblins get shafted" either.

They could sign a peace treaty with the slaves being freed (and maybe reparations). They could have to share ground.
One can dream.

I'll say that that the Azurites got a convieniently empty island to settle on strikes me as a strong sign that the Blues won't get their Old City back at the end of the day.

[Keltest]

They could sign a peace treaty with the slaves being freed (and maybe reparations). They could have to share ground.
One can dream.

I'll say that that the Azurites got a convieniently empty island to settle on strikes me as a strong sign that the Blues won't get their Old City back at the end of the day.

The idea that the goblins would just suddenly become non-evil without any external pressures strains my suspension of disbelief to the breaking point. Among other things, it really undermines the "goblins are still an evil society in general and their victory is not desirable) point that was going on during W&XP.