Themes of OOTS

[Morgana]

I just wanted to write down my thoughts on what I feel is an overarching theme in OOTS, I'd like to start by going a few disclaimers. First that this stuff might be really obvious or maybe not I dunno, and the other is that Rich tried saying a lot of different things with his books, and I'm not saying this is the only or even the main theme of the comic, hell some of the stuff here might not even be intentional.

I'd first need to clarify that OOTS is not a world of gray morality, even the author has said so and if you look at the comic it's clear that while some of the bad guys have deep motivations, at the end of the day there's still evil and good, there's no "is it morally justified to throw a sword at a baby?" Here.

That being said, the comic is not reductionary, on the contrary. Making sweeping statements based on labels has caused a lot of problems on the book. The only reason why Redcloak even exists is that a group of paladins thought goblin=evil, basically cause the monster manual said so.

There's also the case of Miko, she was a Lawful Good paladin, and her downfall was a reductionist mentality much similar to that of the paladins that killed Redcloak's family. She was very much of a cautionary tale of judging people by labels and making assumptions.

O-Chul makes contrast with Miko in the way he treated the monster in the shadows, while Miko immediately tried to destroy him while O-Chul could see beyond the label of monster and treat him for what he really is.

Another place we see this theme is in Belkar's character development, but in his case he applied that kind of thought to himself. He saw himself as nothing more than his CE alignment, all he can do is hurt people, and there's no point trying to be better cause that's all he is. His character developmebt came whwn he started at least pretending he had more depth than that, and wasn't just an alignment.

And then there's Tarkin, which had his whole viewpoint based on labels. To him everybody should fill their role in the story, he's in his eyes the big bad, so all he can do is oppose the hero, and Elan is the main character, so he has to express heroic qualities such as leadership and strength, Tarkin doesn't see anyone as actual people, but rather just as a label and a tool in service of a story.

So do you think I'm actually making sense here?

[KorvinStarmast]

Close enough.

[hroþila]

O-Chul makes contrast with Miko in the way he treated the monster in the shadows, while Miko immediately tried to destroy him while O-Chul could see beyond the label of monster and treat him for what he really is.

I think this is unfair to Miko. She only attacked the MitD when he mentioned he worked for Xykon, just like Belkar and Haley did (Belkar attacked; Haley couldn't have, as she was carrying Roy, but she didn't show any sign of objecting to it). Before that, she was firm but exquisitely polite to the MitD.

[woweedd]

I just wanted to write down my thoughts on what I feel is an overarching theme in OOTS, I'd like to start by going a few disclaimers. First that this stuff might be really obvious or maybe not I dunno, and the other is that Rich tried saying a lot of different things with his books, and I'm not saying this is the only or even the main theme of the comic, hell some of the stuff here might not even be intentional.

I'd first need to clarify that OOTS is not a world of gray morality, even the author has said so and if you look at the comic it's clear that while some of the bad guys have deep motivations, at the end of the day there's still evil and good, there's no "is it morally justified to throw a sword at a baby?" Here.

That being said, the comic is not reductionary, on the contrary. Making sweeping statements based on labels has caused a lot of problems on the book. The only reason why Redcloak even exists is that a group of paladins thought goblin=evil, basically cause the monster manual said so.

There's also the case of Miko, she was a Lawful Good paladin, and her downfall was a reductionist mentality much similar to that of the paladins that killed Redcloak's family. She was very much of a cautionary tale of judging people by labels and making assumptions.

O-Chul makes contrast with Miko in the way he treated the monster in the shadows, while Miko immediately tried to destroy him while O-Chul could see beyond the label of monster and treat him for what he really is.

Another place we see this theme is in Belkar's character development, but in his case he applied that kind of thought to himself. He saw himself as nothing more than his CE alignment, all he can do is hurt people, and there's no point trying to be better cause that's all he is. His character developmebt came whwn he started at least pretending he had more depth than that, and wasn't just an alignment.

And then there's Tarkin, which had his whole viewpoint based on labels. To him everybody should fill their role in the story, he's in his eyes the big bad, so all he can do is oppose the hero, and Elan is the main character, so he has to express heroic qualities such as leadership and strength, Tarkin doesn't see anyone as actual people, but rather just as a label and a tool in service of a story.

So do you think I'm actually making sense here?

Judging people as good and evil BASED ON SOMETHING ARBITRARY is bad. But that doesn't mean good and evil don't exist. Also, there is Grey in-universe. What did you think Neutral means?

[CriticalFailure]

The story doesn’t actually endorse black and white morality. It looks at how that plays out in d&d, where black and white morality is part of the rules. But it definitely pokes fun and points out inconsistencies.

Also it doesn’t make sense to compare Miko and O-Chul interacting with MiTD. Mike was trying to escape to warn Azure City of an impending attack and the MiTD tells her he works for Xykon and can’t let her leave. While O-Chul is locked in a box with no one else to talk to for months on end.

[Darth Paul]

I'm going to add one that I think is present, and that's the futility of revenge.

Redcloak's entire arc is based on being stuck in a revenge plot, long past the point where the people who killed his mentor have themselves been killed. Now people want revenge on him, for taking revenge on those people, whom he wants preemptive revenge upon, so nobody can ever take revenge on him, but then someone will take revenge on... and it's an endless loop. The Gate maguffin plot is to get revenge on the world, on behalf of the goblinoids. RC has had no semblance of a normal life or healthy relationship, beyond his brother.

Spoiler: SoD

Show

And we know how that turned out.

Roy managed to break out of the revenge plot that his dad laid on him, but first by dying during the course of seeking revenge. He then chose to give up the revenge cycle; his mission to oppose Xykon now is based on saving the world, not fulfilling his father's quest. So it's possible to put revenge aside for a positive goal. Of the two, I think we could argue Roy has the more healthy relationships and outlook, and the more functional team.

[understatement]

Throwing in a basic one here:

teamwork.

It's about trusting each other no matter the circumstances.

It's what drove the Scribble apart and what will drive Team Evil apart, but it's what makes the Order the team it is.

[Gluteus_Maximus]

In the case of the Order, it's about trusting each other even though one of you is a CE murderer, another is an idiot, and a third is a greedy thief, so trusting them is kind if iffy but directing them towards evil is the way to go.

At least in the case of the Scribble they were all in the shallow or midpoint of the alignment pool. They just didn't trust each other because of their own stereotypes of each other: annoying (Serini), stick-up-ass (Soon), just wants to research spells (Dorukan), can't be trusted cause he's an illusionist (Girard), GRRR! (Kraagor) RIP, and neutral elf (Lirian).

And it's obvious that Team Evil is going to fall apart eventually, with two completely different viewpoints and even more different plans. Xykon started not trusting Redcloak when he got Tsukiko to be another set of hands and eyes, and Redcloak's never trusted Xykon.

[CriticalFailure]

Agree about teamwork. Team Evil is less a team and more two very evil people trying to use each other to get what they want, and one really oblivious guy who is actually good.

[martianmister]

There is a meta theme about how not to police other party members' actions.

[Ruck]

So do you think I'm actually making sense here?

I don't think anything you wrote is wrong, but I'm not totally clear as to what you've concluded about what the themes of the story are.

[Aveline]

I don't think anything you wrote is wrong, but I'm not totally clear as to what you've concluded about what the themes of the story are.

"Prejudice is bad"

[Sir_Norbert]

At least in the case of the Scribble they were all in the shallow or midpoint of the alignment pool.

Three out of six members were Good: Lirian and Dorukan by word of Giant, Soon because he was a Paladin.

I'm especially curious where you got "neutral elf" from. Is that a pre-existing stereotype of elves? (I haven't played D&D for years so there's a lot I don't know about the game.)

[Kish]

Three out of six members were Good: Lirian and Dorukan by word of Giant, Soon because he was a Paladin.

I'm especially curious where you got "neutral elf" from. Is that a pre-existing stereotype of elves? (I haven't played D&D for years so there's a lot I don't know about the game.)

Prior to 3ed, druids had to be True Neutral. A number of people seem to apply that assumption to Lirian, even though she's blatantly Neutral Good.

[understatement]

Good (capital G) people don't have to inherently trust each other. Alignment doesn't affect stuff like teamwork, friendship, or trust.

I mean, it could -- but that's the result of someone's personality, not the other way around.

[Wizard_Lizard]

It's like a campaign that I am currently playing in...
The DM keeps scowling atme because I keep trying to befriend the goblins!

[Gluteus_Maximus]

Three out of six members were Good: Lirian and Dorukan by word of Giant, Soon because he was a Paladin.

I'm especially curious where you got "neutral elf" from. Is that a pre-existing stereotype of elves? (I haven't played D&D for years so there's a lot I don't know about the game.)

It seems to be a stereotype of elves in the OOTSverse. After all, the IFCC themselves say it- "the only thing evil needs to triumph over good is for neutral elves to do nothing"

[Ruck]

It seems to be a stereotype of elves in the OOTSverse. After all, the IFCC themselves say it- "the only thing evil needs to triumph over good is for neutral elves to do nothing"

I think that was a jab at Vaarsuvius specifically.

[D.One]

Prior to 3ed, druids had to be True Neutral. A number of people seem to apply that assumption to Lirian, even though she's blatantly Neutral Good.

Druids still had to be at least partially Neutral by 3.5, IIRC. But yes, she's Neutral Good.

[Kish]

Druids need to have the word Neutral in their alignment in 3.xed; not a reason to think Lirian is other than Neutral Good.

I think that was a jab at Vaarsuvius specifically.

Yes, that. I'm puzzled by the idea that it's anything but a specific reference to them keeping Vaarsuvius from acting.

[Snails]

I'm going to add one that I think is present, and that's the futility of revenge.

A worthy mention. RC and Roy are the important examples.

I would suggest that Belkar and Hilgya are also on that road, right now.

[woweedd]

No one's mentioned Power. A recurring theme of the comic is seemingly-stronger opponents being undone by their own overconfidence/stupidity, while their weaker opponents use creativity to exploit their weaknesses. See: Roy defeating Thog through his knowledge of architecture, Xykon being dealt a major blow with nothing but a familler and a 3rd-level spell, Redcloak taking out Tsukiko with a single class ability, Durkon overwhelming the vampire, ETC.

[martianmister]

I would suggest that Belkar and Hilgya are also on that road, right now.

Au contraire, he is rewarded for his feelings of revenge against Durkula.

[zimmerwald1915]

even though she's blatantly Neutral Good.

Remind me, where was this established? I'm sure it was, somewhere and at some point, but for the life of me I can't remember.

Never mind, found it. Still, if it had to be spelled out on the forum, it was hardly "blatant" before that point.

[Sir_Norbert]

It was a topic on Neutral characters in general, and The Giant stepped in with a list of some Neutral characters in the comic. Lirian was mentioned exactly once before his post, when one person cited her as an example of NG, which no-one questioned.

So, no idea where this "had to be spelled out" is coming from.

[martianmister]

Never mind, found it.

Oh yes, who can forget the alignments of characters like Lirain and Dorkuan, enemies of Zycon and Radclock.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Remind me, where was this established? I'm sure it was, somewhere and at some point, but for the life of me I can't remember.

Never mind, found it. Still, if it had to be spelled out on the forum, it was hardly "blatant" before that point.

It has had to be routinely spelled out in this forum, even to this day, that Belkar and Thog are Chaotic Evil, so I don't see how anything is less blatant just because the forum need to be told.

Grey Wolf

[woweedd]

Oh yes, who can forget the alignments of characters like Lirain and Dorkuan, enemies of Zycon and Radclock.

...Radclock sounds like the worst supervillian. "Hey, i'm RadClock! I have gnarly time travel! Bodacious!"

[Wizard_Lizard]

It has had to be routinely spelled out in this forum, even to this day, that Belkar and Thog are Chaotic Evil, so I don't see how anything is less blatant just because the forum need to be told.

Grey Wolf

Belkar ain't CE!!!
lead sheet, remember?

[Kish]

Remind me, where was this established? I'm sure it was, somewhere and at some point, but for the life of me I can't remember.

Never mind, found it. Still, if it had to be spelled out on the forum, it was hardly "blatant" before that point.

As Grey Wolf said: first-order tosh. Just as blatant as Belkar's sizable Wisdom penalty was before he specifically mentioned having a Wisdom penalty: that forumites denied it doesn't say anything about the character or the writing.