If Redcloak died, where would he go?

[deuterio12]

Or is it more like how Red Cloak "protected" the 10,000 hobgoblins that he DELIBERATELY got killed, or the entirety of his brother's peaceful village which was ALSO living in peace with the neighboring humans or the way he "protected" his "beloved" little brother by murdering him.

To be fair, the alternative was "Xykon will murder my little brother in some horrific painful way, and then probably kill a bunch of other goblins since one of us just tried to backstab him."

Giving his little brother a swift clean death was pretty mercyful all in all, there were no good options left when little brother thought he could take on the epic lich on his own.

Plus last time I checked dwarven families consider it perfectly fine to murderize their own family members as long as it's a "honorable death", dying peacefully in bed is heresy of the highest degree in Thor's eyes, and the Oots is perfectly fine teaming up with people who repeatedly put poison in their marriage partner's meals.

I would not care to count on the Dark One's good will in the afterlife when a tool is no longer of significant use to him. This is a god whose alleged GOOD deed was to try extortion rather than murder.

Compared to the good deities that created goblins to be murderized by their own pet races and then tried to kill the Dark one when he ascenced? Extortion is a plain step up.

[woweedd]

Being evil doesn't mean you're evil

...After consulting with the Lusician Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge, I can confirm that is, quite literally, ass-backwards logic.

To be fair, the alternative was "Xykon will murder my little brother in some horrific painful way, and then probably kill a bunch of other goblins since one of us just tried to backstab him."

Giving his little brother a swift clean death was pretty mercyful all in all, there were no good options left when little brother thought he could take on the epic lich on his own.

Plus last time I checked dwarven families consider it perfectly fine to murderize their own family members as long as it's a "honorable death", dying peacefully in bed is heresy of the highest degree in Thor's eyes, and the Oots is perfectly fine teaming up with people who repeatedly put poison in their marriage partner's meals.



Compared to the good deities that created goblins to be murderized by their own pet races and then tried to kill the Dark one when he ascenced? Extortion is a plain step up.

Teaming up with Xykon at all was a bad move, and i'm pretty sure it's completely unambiguous that killing his little brother in cold blood was not the right decision. The fact that Dwarves think that is an adaptation to the godly restrictions they live under, and, as for H...I think it's pretty clear the Order WOULD totally kill her if it weren't for that fact that Durkon doesn't want to, and, ya know, she has his kid strapped around her neck.

[CriticalFailure]

If you want to be really pedantic, you could argue that committing a small number of evil acts is not enough to actually get shunted into the evil alignment bin - so you can be evil for brief periods without actually being Evil. Technically.

Spoiler

Show

It seems like Redcloak's choice to murder his brother was a poor decision that had enough surrounding context to rationalize it. It was the wrong thing to do, because there will never be a perfect time to stand up to the epic sorcerer lich who is many levels above you and Xykon was clearly a problem, but it was still very obviously a big risk and thus something that could be rationalized.

[RatElemental]

dying peacefully in bed is heresy of the highest degree in Thor's eyes

Citation needed.

and the Oots is perfectly fine teaming up with people who repeatedly put poison in their marriage partner's meals.

Well they don't know she did that, but murdering Durkon right in front of them should have been enough anyway. Would've put a damper on her raising him again if they did though, I'm honestly not sure why nobody's proposed turning her in to the authorities yet now that she's done that however.

Compared to the good deities that created goblins to be murderized by their own pet races and then tried to kill the Dark one when he ascenced? Extortion is a plain step up.

Do we know which god created goblins? This is a genuine question, I haven't read the prequels.

[Wizard_Lizard]

Being evil doesn't mean you're evil

makes... ..sense?

[hroþila]

Redcloak gets a pass for accepting Xykon's yoke back at the goblin village, for the same reason Right-Eye did: it was under extreme duress.
He does not get a pass for accepting Xykon's yoke after he had been destroyed, or really at any point after

Spoiler

Show

Right-Eye's death.

The reason for that is that Redcloak never works towards Xykon's destruction and he's consistently put protecting his fellow goblinoids below the continuation of the Plan and ensuring Xykon's continued cooperation.

Spoiler

Show

As for his mercifully granting Right-Eye a quick death, well, I'm not convinced, mostly because that didn't enter Redcloak's calculations at all (he was quite open about his motives, and "I want to save you from being tortured by Xykon" didn't enter the picture at all), but also because Redcloak let Right-Eye suffer for a bit because he thought he could have a little heartwarming farewell conversation with him before he died (that Right-Eye wouldn't have any of it made for a super powerful scene, by the way. "Goodbye, Redcloak". Damn that's good).

Also, the attempt to exonerate Redcloak fails to take into account that he thought

Spoiler

Show

Right-Eye's plan could actually work and yet he refused to take the risk for the greater good.

[mjasghar]

Hmmn. Is selfishness evil? I think not. The Dark One could be Neutral yeah.

Well you may think that but in d&d selfishness is evil
Evil is keeping all your food
Good is actually giving up some of what you need for others
Neutral is taking care of yourself first and then maybe give excess to others
That’s consistent across d&d
And before you raise the issue of good characters not doing that all the time - it’s an ideal, which explains why most people stay in the lower reaches of their planes
The goblins were seemingly created by all the pantheons - most likely the northern pantheon had the first pick on their nature as they seem to be standard western fantasy as opposed to eastern oni types etc

[RatElemental]

Well you may think that but in d&d selfishness is evil
Evil is keeping all your food
Good is actually giving up some of what you need for others
Neutral is taking care of yourself first and then maybe give excess to others
That’s consistent across d&d
And before you raise the issue of good characters not doing that all the time - it’s an ideal, which explains why most people stay in the lower reaches of their planes
The goblins were seemingly created by all the pantheons - most likely the northern pantheon had the first pick on their nature as they seem to be standard western fantasy as opposed to eastern oni types etc

Good encompasses respect for the dignity of sentient creatures for its own sake (among other things). So like, being repulsed by the concept of slavery, genuine concern for the wellbeing of others, stuff like that. You can live up to Goodness (in D&D) without sacrificing your own needs. In fact, your definition of Neutral can be Good by D&D standards. A Neutral character is averse to Evil things (wanton slaughter, banditry, slavery, etc) but what separates them from Good people is whether they're willing to sacrifice at all, and if so, who they're willing to sacrifice for.

Remember even evil people have friends, and can make sacrifices for them too. Even if they'll expect a favor in return.

[Morgana]

Wow, I didn't knew people were over analyze my joke that much gdhmgxv

[MountainTiger]

Is there anything functionally separating "Neutral with strong Evil tendencies" and "Evil but kind of low-level Evil" other than the words? It seems like a distinction without a difference.

A Paladin can't smite the first one

[Elfey]

The reason for that is that Redcloak never works towards Xykon's destruction and he's consistently put protecting his fellow goblinoids below the continuation of the Plan and ensuring Xykon's continued cooperation.
[/spoiler]

Otoh, Redcloak is still communing with The Dark One, and is still on the Plan. The Plan is important to TDO, and if Redcloak dies while furthering the Plan, then the Dark One will be pleased.

[woweedd]

Otoh, Redcloak is still communing with The Dark One, and is still on the Plan. The Plan is important to TDO, and if Redcloak dies while furthering the Plan, then the Dark One will be pleased.

It's not TDO's satisfaction i'm complaining about. It's the part where he chose to willingly ally with a Lich Sorcerer who murders his own soldiers for giggles. Even if you accept The Plan as a good idea, and that's questionable at best, this is NOT the best way to go about it.

[HorizonWalker]

It's not TDO's satisfaction i'm complaining about. It's the part where he chose to willingly ally with a Lich Sorcerer who murders his own soldiers for giggles. Even if you accept The Plan as a good idea, and that's questionable at best, this is NOT the best way to go about it.

On the one hand, the Angels themselves say they don't judge effectiveness in the afterlife, only intent.

On the other hand, it's the Angels who say that.

[woweedd]

On the one hand, the Angels themselves say they don't judge effectiveness in the afterlife, only intent.

On the other hand, it's the Angels who say that.

Plus, i'm pretty sure using Evil MEANS would still count, and willingly sacrificing thousands of your countrymen's lives for the slim chance of improving the world for their decedents, and another chance to kill them all down to the soul?...Yeah.

[CriticalFailure]

The Dark One is Lawful Evil... I doubt he would reject someone from his domain for being or doing Evil. The Plan was also his idea - he was willing to risk the entire world being destroyed, he can't care all that much about individual goblin lives.

Now, failing badly in enacting his will? That seems a more likely thing to get rejected for. Evil types often view strength as inherently valuable and failure as a sign of personal inferiority. Though, on the other hand, The Dark One is the god of goblins so he must be used to his followers being thwarted by more powerful characters left, right, center, backwards, forwards, up, and down. If he were going to reject goblinoids for failure he wouldn't be getting many. On the other hand being the High Priest and personally messing up the Dark One's own personal plan might be enough to do it.

[archon_huskie]

Being evil doesn't mean you're evil

makes... ..sense?

Capitalization is needed here for clarification.

"Being evil doesn't mean you're [ooc=EVIL]PURE EVIL! THE EMBODIMENT OF ALL THAT IS AGAINST GOOD![/ooc]."

[Rogar Demonblud]

Put another way, "Just because you're a Bad Guy doesn't mean you have to be a bad guy."

[CriticalFailure]

yeah the amount of evil actions required to actually be considered Evil is GM fiat, just look at all those "Chaotic Neutral" murder hobos out there

[Fish]

*is tempted to make godchild pun*

You mean like in Baldur’s Gate?

What gate?

[mjasghar]

Evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient or if it can be set up. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some malevolent deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.
That’s from the 3rd edition
And that puts redcloak firmly in the evil camp as he kills when it’s convenient and his compassion is limited and only for other self of his race
Interestingly this has implications for Belkar

[Schroeswald]

Evil implies harming, oppressing, and killing others. Some evil creatures simply have no compassion for others and kill without qualms if doing so is convenient or if it can be set up. Others actively pursue evil, killing for sport or out of duty to some malevolent deity or master.

People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent but lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others. Neutral people are committed to others by personal relationships.
That’s from the 3rd edition
And that puts redcloak firmly in the evil camp as he kills when it’s convenient and his compassion is limited and only for other self of his race
Interestingly this has implications for Belkar

Is the implication that he's Evil? Because if so I agree with you, he is in fact Evil.

[CriticalFailure]

I don't think anyone is arguing that Redcloak or Belkar are anything other than Evil. At least on the Good-Neutral-Evil alignment axis. that is.

[Peelee]

I don't think anyone is arguing that Redcloak or Belkar are anything other than Evil. At least on the Good-Neutral-Evil alignment axis. that is.

I think you'd be surprised at how many people think Belkar is already Neutral.

[Schroeswald]

I think you'd be surprised at how many people think Belkar is already Neutral.

Like for example the person I was responding to, they very clearly implied they thought Belkar was Neutral (which he isn't, not for another few real-life years).

EDIT: At least, Belkar won't be Neutral for at least another few years in real life.

[CriticalFailure]

I thought they were implying that he was still evil because he only has empathy for his cat and Durkon. And perhaps his mini dinosaur.

[Squire Doodad]

Brief reply to the OP:

If Redcloak died, he would go to the domain of the Dark One. He is the High Priest of the Dark One. He's going to be to going to his god's realm for the afterlife.

We can have any given High Priest of Loki be Chaotic Neutral or Chaotic Evil, both versions of them are going to go to the same place.

If we assume that RC is suddenly not affiliated with TDO, that's a different question I don't quite want to bother with at the moment.

[CriticalFailure]

I mean going to his God’s domain is by far the most likely scenario but if he manages to really piss off his patron while getting killed he’s going straight to Hell.

[The Pilgrim]

I mean going to his God’s domain is by far the most likely scenario but if he manages to really piss off his patron while getting killed he’s going straight to Hell.

If TDO rejects him, he would go to Baator, aka The Nine Hells, on account of his LE alignment.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Maybe. If he's LE shading to LN, he'd go to Acheron. If he's LE shading to NE he'd go someplace else (I forget).

[CriticalFailure]

I could see Archeron but honestly I think Redcloak is evil enough to go to Hell. Sure, his evil is of what Xykon classes as the whiny b*tch variety but that doesn't make all the evil he's done any less horrible.