If Redcloak died, where would he go?

[a_flemish_guy]

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

I'd argue that selfishness is chaotic, selfishness doesn't mean that you'll never give anything to somebody else, it just means that you do things for your sake without regards to somebody else's thought of the matter

a chaotic good person can for example empty the storehouses to feed the poor without jusrisdiction or regard that they'd need those supplies later

[CriticalFailure]

that's not selfish

[a_flemish_guy]

that's not selfish

how would you call it then?

[CriticalFailure]

idk illegal charity?

[Vinyadan]

Now Redcloak is gone
Where the good Goblins go
And no more with Redcloak will I roam
But if Goblins have a heaven there is one thing i know
Redcloak has a wonderful home

[a_flemish_guy]

idk illegal charity?

the point is that you do something because you want to do something (in this case the something you want to do is a good act) and wether or not you're allowed to do that something or if other people want you to do that something isn't important to you, to me that's selfishness, only what you want to do matters and damn the rest

[CriticalFailure]

Selfishness is being self serving. This is a case for doing something to help others, but doing it outside of social structures and in opposition to authority.

Is a lawful evil character who uses the legal system to screw over people and get their money so they can be filthy rich not being selfish?

[RatElemental]

Evil is actually defined as selfishness in 3.5, at least partially. Breaking into the storehouse to give the food to everyone would be chaotic good or maybe chaotic neutral at worst. Long term planning doesn't tend to be chaos' strong suit, but stealing from the rich to give to the poor is one of the classic archetypes that define what chaotic goodness is.

But your definition of selfishness can apply to literally everyone. The only reason anyone does anything ever is because they wanted to do it, on some level. Well, except for duress.

[Squire Doodad]

Now Redcloak is gone
Where the good Goblins go
And no more with Redcloak will I roam
But if Goblins have a heaven there is one thing i know
Redcloak has a wonderful home

"Give me a home where the Redcloaks roam"?

[Mike Havran]

Evil is actually defined as selfishness in 3.5, at least partially. Breaking into the storehouse to give the food to everyone would be chaotic good or maybe chaotic neutral at worst. Long term planning doesn't tend to be chaos' strong suit, but stealing from the rich to give to the poor is one of the classic archetypes that define what chaotic goodness is.

But your definition of selfishness can apply to literally everyone. The only reason anyone does anything ever is because they wanted to do it, on some level. Well, except for duress.

I hope that archetype you mentioned is not official, because it's completely wrong. Wealth has nothing to do with morality, there might well be Good rich and Evil poor. Goodness is about reducing suffering and opposing Evil, not about stealing and violating personal property rights.

[RatElemental]

I hope that archetype you mentioned is not official, because it's completely wrong. Wealth has nothing to do with morality, there might well be Good rich and Evil poor. Goodness is about reducing suffering and opposing Evil, not about stealing and violating personal property rights.

I was alluding to Robin Hood, who very much is considered to be an archetypical chaotic good figure.

[Rogar Demonblud]

I don't know why, beyond PR. The lays make it clear his M.O. is a: take what I want, b: split with victim, c: let victim keep (mainly religious items) and lastly d: split three ways between myself, the victim and the poor (with a convenience fee for taking things to the poor). This does not scan as CG to me.

[Psyren]

The Dark One actively strived to improve the relations between Goblins and Humans, and even went out of his way for diplomatic negotiations. Okay, that's the sign of a great leader, not G/N/E, buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut eh. It strikes me as a more Good/Neutral thing to do than Evil though.

"Is the Dark One morally justified?"

The interesting thing about the Dark One is that, if he just took the time to talk with the other gods, he might be able to end this entire conflict right now; they all need his quiddity to reinforce the world long-term, and he could simply agree to provide it on the condition that goblins get a better deal.

I'm guessing though that he's as bound to his programming (as coded by his followers and high priest, who fundamentally distrust all non-goblins). And amusingly, his followers feel that way precisely because all the other gods made them to be fodder races for their non-goblin adventurers in the first place. What a tangle.

[deuterio12]

"Is the Dark One morally justified?"

The interesting thing about the Dark One is that, if he just took the time to talk with the other gods, he might be able to end this entire conflict right now; they all need his quiddity to reinforce the world long-term, and he could simply agree to provide it on the condition that goblins get a better deal.

I'm guessing though that he's as bound to his programming (as coded by his followers and high priest, who fundamentally distrust all non-goblins). And amusingly, his followers feel that way precisely because all the other gods made them to be fodder races for their non-goblin adventurers in the first place. What a tangle.

Yeah, the Dark one should totally talk to the gods, they sure look like a nice honest bunch that never told a lie to anyone, no sir! Which one should be first spoken to?

The Twelve gods that have been sponsoring an order of bloodthirsty psycopaths that constantly slaughter (goblinoid) women and children and live in a city that used to run in scheming and assassinations?

Senile Odin?

Loki the liar?

Thor "crossbow marriage or Hel(l), also I granted my followers a racial bonus to make them better at slaughtering goblinkind, because the only good gob is a dead gob, also you better die covered in blood or you still get Hel(l)" the drunk that tried to kill the Dark One first time they met?

Hel "I hate everything and everybody"?

Tiamat "I can see everything! Wait why did one fifth of black dragons suddenly died crapcrapcrap"?

Oh my, all of those surely look like completely trustworthy fellows, clearly it's 100% the Dark One's fault for not blindly following their orders while they reward their followers for butchering goblin women and children. Surely they wouldn't just backstab the Dark One once they consider they don't need him around anymore. Like how he died the first time before ascending.

[RatElemental]

Yeah, the Dark one should totally talk to the gods, they sure look like a nice honest bunch that never told a lie to anyone, no sir! Which one should be first spoken to?

The Twelve gods that have been sponsoring an order of bloodthirsty psycopaths that constantly slaughter (goblinoid) women and children and live in a city that used to run in scheming and assassinations?

Senile Odin?

Loki the liar?

...

Hel "I hate everything and everybody"?

Tiamat "I can see everything! Wait why did one fifth of black dragons suddenly died crapcrapcrap"?

Fair enough on these.

Thor "crossbow marriage or Hel(l), also I granted my followers a racial bonus to make them better at slaughtering goblinkind, because the only good gob is a dead gob, also you better die covered in blood or you still get Hel(l)" the drunk that tried to kill the Dark One first time they met?

We don't know Thor made dwarves, we have only circumstantial evidence he has anything to do with arranged marriages being a thing (but I'm doubtful of that), and you say the "die covered in blood" bit as if he likes this state of affairs. Fair enough on trying to kill the dark one though.

That said, there are gasp! Other Gods you didn't list! Besides, he can't be attacked now without risking another snarl. The problem is establishing a place for him in the framework to allow communication without that risk. Well, if he were willing to play ball. His unwillingness to do so is a second roadblock for that to happen.

[hroþila]

I like how deuterio's gripes with Thor are completely made up.

(Also, we don't know that Tiamat is all-seeing, even if her Oracle is and his power derives from her)

[Schroeswald]

I don't know why, beyond PR. The lays make it clear his M.O. is a: take what I want, b: split with victim, c: let victim keep (mainly religious items) and lastly d: split three ways between myself, the victim and the poor (with a convenience fee for taking things to the poor). This does not scan as CG to me.

Well the thing is, no one cares about the lays, the basics of Robin Hood in culture is steal from the rich, give to the poor, something that is generally considered Chaotic Good (cause no one likes the rich, and the rich are superior to the poor and earned it, and the rich are big meany-heads and should be punished {Scrubbed} ), and that is what is adapted time and time again, take from the wealthy who don’t deserve the money and don’t need it and use it to help the poor who do (basically involuntary taxation through Robin Hood).

[Psyren]

Oh my, all of those surely look like completely trustworthy fellows, clearly it's 100% the Dark One's fault for not blindly following their orders while they reward their followers for butchering goblin women and children. Surely they wouldn't just backstab the Dark One once they consider they don't need him around anymore. Like how he died the first time before ascending.

Preaching to the choir here; I was just acknowledging how this is yet another mess of the gods' own making.

With that said, figuring out the Snarl existed and then immediately planning to weaponize it was entirely his choice.

[DeliaP]

"Is the Dark One morally justified?"

The interesting thing about the Dark One is that, if he just took the time to talk with the other gods, he might be able to end this entire conflict right now; they all need his quiddity to reinforce the world long-term, and he could simply agree to provide it on the condition that goblins get a better deal.

I'm guessing though that he's as bound to his programming (as coded by his followers and high priest, who fundamentally distrust all non-goblins). And amusingly, his followers feel that way precisely because all the other gods made them to be fodder races for their non-goblin adventurers in the first place. What a tangle.

And there's also the likelihood that he doesn't even know that the strange purple-aura-thingy that's been floating around him since he ascended has any of the significance that we now know about... after all, the rest of the Gods, even Loki, Rat and Tiamat, didn't tell him about the Snarl, he had to find out about it on his own - and promptly stopped talking to even Loki, Rat & Tiamat. So how would he know about the significance of his unique quiddity being able to combine with the quiddity of the other Gods?

As far as he knows about the rest of the Gods they (a) are the jerks who created his race to be adventurer fodder in the first place; (b) encourage their races to slaughter his followers for XP; (c) contain some that tried to destroy him on sight; and (d) even the ones that tried to talk to him were lying and concealing stuff from him, probably still are*.

So he really has no reason to take the time to trust any of them, even to talk to, until he has leverage....

(*And if he does think this, he's probably right: it's quite possible that he isn't aware this isn't the second world...)

[CriticalFailure]

I highly doubt that the Dark One knows there's been more than 2 worlds. That would likely involve explaining how all those other worlds were destroyed, which the others clearly didn't do.

The point seems to be that this whole problem could've been avoided by actually communicating.

[Squire Doodad]

I highly doubt that the Dark One knows there's been more than 2 worlds. That would likely involve explaining how all those other worlds were destroyed, which the others clearly didn't do.

The point seems to be that this whole problem could've been avoided by actually communicating.

Of course, the whole "Evil god interactions are intentionally murky" thing comes into play. Had someone actually laid down the basic framework/guidebook for TDO, he'd probably be much more willing to help. Thor honestly screwed that one up.

[Schroeswald]

Of course, the whole "Evil god interactions are intentionally murky" thing comes into play. Had someone actually laid down the basic framework/guidebook for TDO, he'd probably be much more willing to help. Thor honestly screwed that one up.

I definitely can lay some of the blame on Loki too, he can't be honest (to anyone but Thor, who just discovered his physical inability) and so he really shouldn't be trying to lead anything thats end goal is honesty, Thor does trust Loki's self-preservation instincts and so trusting Loki to follow his "help yourself above all else" philosophy and tell TDO when the time is right is reasonable when you think he isn't physically unable to be honest.

[Squire Doodad]

I definitely can lay some of the blame on Loki too, he can't be honest (to anyone but Thor, who just discovered his physical inability) and so he really shouldn't be trying to lead anything thats end goal is honesty, Thor does trust Loki's self-preservation instincts and so trusting Loki to follow his "help yourself above all else" philosophy and tell TDO when the time is right is reasonable when you think he isn't physically unable to be honest.

Loki can't be honest for selfless reasons, but plausibly if he can tell the truth to exclusively improve his own self-interest (which wouldn't quite be the case for Hel; it'd be done for either Thor or for Hel) he will have no problem doing so.

[Schroeswald]

Loki can't be honest for selfless reasons, but plausibly if he can tell the truth to exclusively improve his own self-interest (which wouldn't quite be the case for Hel; it'd be done for either Thor or for Hel) he will have no problem doing so.

I'll be the Banana for once:

This is a misunderstanding of what Loki is saying.

He's not saying he can't say something because his followers would find out and be upset. He's saying that he is physically constructed from the beliefs of his followers (and the broader public), and thus because his followers believe he is incapable of honesty, he actually is incapable of honesty (except to Thor). Everything is made up of ideas, even him.

As far as Loki saying just six strips ago that he can do whatever he wants: he is incapable of honesty (except to Thor).

[Squire Doodad]

I'll be the Banana for once:

It's a question of how you define dishonesty: do you consider it to be the lack of truth, or the presence of lies? Or, do you see it as lying to someone or deceiving them, including through misuse of truth?

[Schroeswald]

It's a question of how you define dishonesty: do you consider it to be the lack of truth, or the presence of lies? Or, do you see it as lying to someone or deceiving them, including through misuse of truth?

I definite it as this, deceiving someone, if TDO is deceived it works, but if its for the purpose of enlightening him and not manipulating him, it doesn't work, I have another quote for this too:

"Honesty" is a broader concept than "not lying." If Loki tells the truth in the cause of trickery, he is still not being honest. Walking back in there and laying his cards on the table and coming clean requires more than just not lying, it requires total honesty. And thus he cannot do it.

In other words: Loki can tell the truth to deceive someone, but he wouldn't be wanting to deceive Hel in this instance—so he can't tell the truth. It also means that he couldn't find some way to lie for the purposes of genuinely enlightening her. His intent matters more than the truth value of the words coming out of his mouth.

[Squire Doodad]

I definite it as this, deceiving someone, if TDO is deceived it works, but if its for the purpose of enlightening him and not manipulating him, it doesn't work, I have another quote for this too:

I actually went looking for that one, just in the wrong area.

[Darkone]

Jumping in a bit late in the conversation here, but honestly, I have my own pet theory as to Redcloak's status after his demise. To wit, I feel it is very likely that he will become the second member of the new 'purple pantheon' when he dies. Though we don't know all the details of the transition from mortals to gods, we know it requires:
-a large amount of power on the mortal plane
-many believers/followers to carry on your legend after one dies
-either a ridiculously large amount of dedication to them OR sponsorship from previous deities of the same pantheon.

As it stands, Redcloak is more powerful than any goblin that ever existed except perhaps the dark one himself, he already is known more by a menacing moniker than his actual name, more than 10,000 goblin have died for him, and a nation has been created in his wake before he vanished once more as a martyr to the goblin cause. Honestly, I feel gods have been built on less than that. As for his actual plane, depending on whether he attempts some sort of redemption or not and what his final legacy looks like, he might either end up as pure Lawful or, more likely given all he's done, some sort of Hell/pure LE plane.

[woweedd]

Jumping in a bit late in the conversation here, but honestly, I have my own pet theory as to Redcloak's status after his demise. To wit, I feel it is very likely that he will become the second member of the new 'purple pantheon' when he dies. Though we don't know all the details of the transition from mortals to gods, we know it requires:
-a large amount of power on the mortal plane
-many believers/followers to carry on your legend after one dies
-either a ridiculously large amount of dedication to them OR sponsorship from previous deities of the same pantheon.

As it stands, Redcloak is more powerful than any goblin that ever existed except perhaps the dark one himself, he already is known more by a menacing moniker than his actual name, more than 10,000 goblin have died for him, and a nation has been created in his wake before he vanished once more as a martyr to the goblin cause. Honestly, I feel gods have been built on less than that. As for his actual plane, depending on whether he attempts some sort of redemption or not and what his final legacy looks like, he might either end up as pure Lawful or, more likely given all he's done, some sort of Hell/pure LE plane.

Again, I feel like Redcloak isn't gonna end up rewarded. He wants two things: Equality for goblins, and vindication for

Spoiler

Show

having murdered his little brother

. He'll get the first one, but he'll never get the second. It will not have ended up all having been "worth it", as he put it.

[Peelee]

Jumping in a bit late in the conversation here, but honestly, I have my own pet theory as to Redcloak's status after his demise. To wit, I feel it is very likely that he will become the second member of the new 'purple pantheon' when he dies.

Why? What substantially differentiates Redcloak from The Dark One? TDO is a Lawful Evil goblin who wants equality for all goblinoids and is willing to use any means at his disposal to achieve that. Redcloak is... well, a Lawful Evil goblin who wants equality for all goblinoids and is willing to use any means at his disposal to achieve that, and also is green.