OOTS #1208 - The Discussion Thread

[Anansiil]

ItÂ’s all about context in the end, some settings and campaigns a village of goblins is a threat like any other next of monsters to be wealth with. Others itÂ’s a place where relatively innocent people live with an entirely different story and plot to explore. IÂ’m betting in that game it was certainly the first.

Except that it's perception more than context, at least for the PCs. Red Cloak's argument stands regardless, because either way, they goblins are exterminated, the only thing that might save them is the perception of the PC races. Goblin lives depend of the perceptions of others is what Red Cloak is arguing. There isn't a equivalent scenario when you would consider if it is OK to wipe out a human city/village. Even if the leader was evil, 'maybe there are good people oppressed by the evil leader' is the way it usually goes.

Except it clearly doesn't work as well here, since it comes off more as "orcs are basically treated as equal" as opposed to "They're just not killed on sight" as print-story readers are indicating.

And sure, that could just be argued away as "Redcloak's bias towards those setting details", but it's not a great argument. The Durkon bit works well enough as is, just because it doesn't seem to me like the portrayal in the webcomic runs counter to the information provided in print-only stories.

Red Cloak is not serious about Orc's being seen as remotely equal. He's actually saying that Orcs are 'accepted' because they are useful. Human history has done the same with racism for centuries. People you can have kids with are 'more acceptable' than those you cannot... and I won't go into the horrid details of how that has played out... but if you look at genetic studies of Y chromosomes and admixture, you'll see how separation/segregation made temporary exceptions that resulted in children.

Having been on the receiving end of "you are a [blank] and led a privileged life, you wouldn't understand" a few times, it is both one of the best ways to completely negate someone's participation in your discussion and to ensure that they are your enemy forever. I suspect that Durkon is one of the few people who can nevertheless continue to negotiate. I also expect him at some point to have Elan show Red Cloak just how wrong about Durkon's life he is. Which is not to say that Red Cloak is wrong that Durkon's life was easier (since Durkon didn't watch his entire family get slaughtered in front of him), just that Red Cloak doesn't understand everything that went in to Durkon getting to where he is and might be singing a different tune if he did."

The danger here is this: Person A says "I have suffered in ways that you have not"
Person B says "You don't know me, I have suffered too"

The problem is that Person A *Never* said that Person B "never suffered", just that Person B did not suffer the ways Person A suffered.
Person B is turning it into a suffering competition (regardless of the intentions of Person A).

Person A could have meant "I suffered in ways that you have not, please understand how you were privileged not to suffer those injustices." or Person A could have been hurt and meant "I suffered in ways that you have not, and you're lucky to not have had to". Either way, there is no statement or indication or hint that Person A thinks that Person B has never suffered.

Saying "you wouldn't understand" feeds your point and does not work to fix anything. "You wouldn't understand" can often come from the above, attempts to compete and prove that they have suffered too, which often comes off as my suffering counts as much as your suffering, so why are you complaining...

At the end of it, people from disadvantaged backgrounds have THAT particular suffering AND can also have their individual suffering on top of that. They are additive, not exclusive. That's why terms like privilege exist, because while Durkon suffered as much as he has, if Durkon had the same life AND was a Goblin, it would have actually have been harder than having Durkon's life as a Dwarf. (PC's can't kill a dwarf for XP, just because, so what would have an exiled goblin have done, and how hard would it have been to be a cleric and join a party?)

Understanding someone's struggles is important, but try not to compare and equivocate or if you do, remember that suffering is additive and distinct; people will appreciate you more and won't have to worry about trying to justify and compare their suffering to someone else's suffering.

(I love how deep Rich's writing gets!!!)
*edited a wrong word out

[deltamire]

I made this table. How d'ye know I don't sit here all t'time?

Discussion on Macebook, removed after nearly 2000 messages of raw vitriol including both not limited to curses (both swearing and the magical kind), multiple separate theological arguments and an awful lot of general tomfoolery, entitled: If the same cleric uses mould stone to create the same exact size and form of table that is physically identical, made of the same exact stone make-up but in a completely different place, is it the same table?

[Onyavar]

And a great understanding was had!

I think this meeting is going reasonably well, from both Durkon's and Redcloak's end.

The only issue might that might complicate matters now is Xykon. I wonder if he comes up by himself in person and how Durkon and Redcloak will react.

Now, this scene here is the perfect cue for a cutaway to Gobbotopia where we witness the cruel opressive regime of Jirix who has by now slaughtered all non-Hobgoblins in the city, and also started to cut down on Hobbo dissidents as well who are now filling the "our city prison". Also, right before a coalition army of Southerner (demi+)humans arrives.

Or to the contrary, a united officially good Gobbotopia, which is a bit harder to imagine.

[silversaraph]

I hope that when it comes time to negotiate more specifics, O'chul is called up. I would pay good gp to watch he and Redcloak reconcile and engage in constructive diaologue. "You helped murder innocent goblins!" "Yes, well, as a result, I have it on good record that I was waterboarded every Thursday".

[Psyren]

I hope that when it comes time to negotiate more specifics, O'chul is called up. I would pay good gp to watch he and Redcloak reconcile and engage in constructive diaologue. "You helped murder innocent goblins!" "Yes, well, as a result, I have it on good record that I was waterboarded every Thursday".

Yes, both sides have done horrible things. The only way forward is for them both to stop, immediately. No giving/taking back Azure City, no conquering further human nations, no Plan, no more XP grinding goblins to level up other humanoids, just stop.

[Fyraltari]

When it comes to the Azurite giving up their claim ont heir ancestral lands (and changing their name I guess?) and definitely settling their tropical paradise islands, I can see Hinjo and the other named characters begrudgingly accepting it for the greater good and to end the bloodshed (provided the slaves are liberated and Xykon killed), but the other nobles (who control most of the remaining military forces) certainly won’t give up without a (perhaps metaphorical) fight.

Edit: Niu will probably insist that Redcloak be punished as well if he isn’t dead by the point the Azurite are brought in, too.

[RblDiver]

Worst case? Goblins cease to exist and all the Gods' efforts go to naught -- again, and possibly forever. RC may have his blind spots, but he's the one needing to be brought to the table, and all the cards are in his hands, because regardless of RC's issues, goblins at large are in a great position to go all Ahab on the gods.

Wrong. Sure, the gods would love to break the cycle, but remember, they are nothing if not persistent. As a matter of convenience, he has a decent amount of leverage, but if he pushes them too hard, well, then he and his god are gone forever, and the others just wait another million cycles for a new color to appear in the crayon box.

[Psychronia]

This is nice.

I mean, the negotiation isn't going perfectly, but considering where it could've gone, this is going very well. Durkon and Redcloak's world views and personalities are clashing a bit, but luckily Durkon's a patient man and Redcloak has a lot to vent to anyone willing to listen.

We're also starting to see Redcloak's...bias? Hypocrisy? We're seeing his ideals start to tear by seams as he actually feels and what he's saying start contradicting each other. Luckily, he's not just a teen that didn't grow up, he's a nerd who believes in rationale and logic, so he won't act on impulse alone.

[Dragonus45]

Except that it's perception more than context, at least for the PCs. Red Cloak's argument stands regardless, because either way, they goblins are exterminated, the only thing that might save them is the perception of the PC races. Goblin lives depend of the perceptions of others is what Red Cloak is arguing. There isn't a equivalent scenario when you would consider if it is OK to wipe out a human city/village. Even if the leader was evil, 'maybe there are good people oppressed by the evil leader' is the way it usually goes.

No I meant exactly what I said, context. Because sometimes when I’m running a game that isn’t about about complex issues like those, or like the ones brought in OOTS, the goblins a really are just all dumb evil creatures who’s lives bring no value to the world so my party can go do political intrigue or punch out mind flayers elsewhere. Not all fictional monstrous races or demihumans or goblinoids are created equal across all campaigns.

The danger here is this: Person A says "I have suffered in ways that you have not"
Person B says "You don't know me, I have suffered too"

The problem is that Person A *Never* said that Person B "never suffered", just that Person B did not suffer the ways Person A suffered.
Person B is turning it into a suffering competition (regardless of the intentions of Person A).

Sure sometimes, but more often then not in my experience it's framed as the "You don't know what its like to suffer X, and even if you did you still probably had an easier time of it then I did." kind of deal totally erasing who I am as a person.

[Rockphed]

The danger here is this: Person A says "I have suffered in ways that you have not"
Person B says "You don't know me, I have suffered too"

The problem is that Person A *Never* said that Person B "never suffered", just that Person B did not suffer the ways Person A suffered.
Person B is turning it into a suffering competition (regardless of the intentions of Person A).

The way what I was alluding to is normally thrown around the implication is, just as with Red Cloak, that Person B has never suffered. Saying "I suffered thus" is a good way to build your pathos. Saying "you [member of outgroup] haven't suffered" only undermines their pathos. Or is it ethos? The sides of the rhetorical triangle elude me.

[Syncrogti]

Is the comic not still based on 3.5e? If so, are the stats on the d20srd not the official stats? Those list the following:

-2 Strength, +2 Dexterity, -2 Charisma.
Small size: +1 bonus to Armor Class, +1 bonus on attack rolls, +4 bonus on Hide checks, -4 penalty on grapple checks, lifting and carrying limits ¾ those of Medium characters.
A goblin’s base land speed is 30 feet.
Darkvision out to 60 feet.
+4 racial bonus on Move Silently and Ride checks.
Automatic Languages: Common, Goblin. Bonus Languages: Draconic, Elven, Giant, Gnoll, Orc.
Favored Class: Rogue.

Thank you so much, not sure how I missed it.

Looking at the numbers, I don't think the darkvision makes up for the -2 stat penalty (-2,+2,-2). Could we give them a favored weapon focus, or a feat that makes them a little tougher to kill? Fort Save bonus perhaps. Just a thought.

[Bartok]

Thank you so much, not sure how I missed it.

Looking at the numbers, I don't think the darkvision makes up for the -2 stat penalty (-2,+2,-2). Could we give them a favored weapon focus, or a feat that makes them a little tougher to kill? Fort Save bonus perhaps. Just a thought.

Getting a 30 ft move at size small was a huge bonus. Remember Halflings, Gnomes, and Dwarves only have a 20 ft move.

[SundaNZ]

Is this all leading up to Goblins being a primary playable race in the next edition of D&D?

[Psyren]

Is the comic not still based on 3.5e? If so, are the stats on the d20srd not the official stats? Those list the following:

-2 Strength, +2 Dexterity, -2 Charisma.
Small size: +1 bonus to Armor Class, +1 bonus on attack rolls, +4 bonus on Hide checks, -4 penalty on grapple checks, lifting and carrying limits ¾ those of Medium characters.
A goblin’s base land speed is 30 feet.
Darkvision out to 60 feet.
+4 racial bonus on Move Silently and Ride checks.
Automatic Languages: Common, Goblin. Bonus Languages: Draconic, Elven, Giant, Gnoll, Orc.
Favored Class: Rogue.

Given that OotS Goblins are Medium, we can't be sure the rest of these stats are accurate. For example, the Str penalty comes from their small size, which they no longer have in OotS.

He does seem to have kept the "Hobgoblins are more warlike" cultural aspect though.

[tanonev]

No, look at the very first comic strip! Wouldn't it be a nice bookend to start the comic with upgrading to 3.5, and end it with upgrading to 4(/5/6/whatever it gets called)th edition?

Also, despite the fact that this was clearly planned out years in advance, it's interesting to see the comic swing so much into feeling like commentary on current events, both of the BLM and the "D&D Races have inherent issues discourse" kind.

Where this gets uncomfortable/challenging is that we're in a setting with absolute alignments, and the group rising up against systemic (pun intended) oppression is also the Evil group.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

This is probably my favorite strip so far of the book. Lots of excellent points brought up (with of course no relevance outside of the comic) on both sides. I’m glad that Durkon steered the conversation back in a more productive direction, although I agree that he probably could have done well to reveal the fact that outcome 2 would definitely stop the Dark One forever. I also liked the discussion of equality, although Durkon‘s example may have stung a little, with the segue into what the goblins want and Redcloak‘s fairly reasonable demands. Finally, turning to Azure City, it will certainly be interesting to see how the other stakeholders react to what Redcloak wants. I feel I should point out taking it isn’t really what brought Durkon here, that’s mostly just the gates. Finally, Durkon‘s expressions throughout this strip are really what makes it so great.

[svankensen]

I suspect this will go wrong because the gods can't make up their collective minds. Xykon will find out some of this information, but not the whole picture. He will still be interested in casting the ritual, but demands some horrible sacrifice from Redcloak to prove his loyalty. Some other goblin massacre probably. Redcloak has decided to sacrifice goblins for the cause so many times, it is clear he will have to choose to sacrifice himself or others, and he will hopefully choose himself. But the gods need Redcloak, the only priest of the Dark One capable of casting 9th level spells, to seal the Snarl. So it will be a fight to save Redcloak, either from Xykon or himself. I expect the fiends to intervene at a crucial momment, turning Varsavius into an actual enemy. They have said they can't or won't, but I suspect that was to lull Varsavius into a false sense of security.

[Elifia]

Given that OotS Goblins are Medium, we can't be sure the rest of these stats are accurate. For example, the Str penalty comes from their small size, which they no longer have in OotS.

He does seem to have kept the "Hobgoblins are more warlike" cultural aspect though.

True. In this case, I'd remove the "small" part and turn the Str penalty into a bonus. That's pretty much identical to the stats the "oversized goblin" variant has in Pathfinder aka D&D 3.75e, too.

[RedSand]

At some point this comic is going to have to reckon with the idea that not all violence is an equally sinful act.

Redcloak toppling a nation that is part of a literal divine plan to oppress him is not the same thing as if, say, Azure City had decided to wipe out the hobgoblin camp, in the same way that {scrubbed}. The "there are only two kinds of people: those who want peace and those who don't" line ignores the fact that The Lack of Conflict Is Not Peace. Redcloak could absolutely just go start up a village somewhere like the comic often purports he should and wouldn't resolve the fact that the gods themselves have condemned him, his family, his children, his entire community to the face of non-human cannon fodder, grist for the lives of the people who the gods decided were actually important.

Painting Redcloak as ignorant of the struggles that Durkon has gone through is also frankly meaningless within the larger context of the conflict they're embroiled in. Yes, Durkon grew up poor. Durkon also grew up safe and loved in a community that wasn't threatened by every other nation under the sun. Durkon is poor because of his mother's decision to be moral-give Redcloak's mom could be given the same sack of diamonds and y'know what that would give her? A more favorable roll on the treasure table when some fighter is looting her corpse. Durkon has a ****ing racial bonus to attack Redcloak's entire race for {scrubbed} sake. Redcloak assumptions that Durkon grew up in a safer, richer environment then his entire village is correct and the fact that this comic tries to paint that as Redcloak "not understanding Durkon" is hilarious. It's a false equivalency of massive proportions and in the time that this comic is being written it's frankly inexcusable.

[dancrilis]

Redcloak toppling a nation that is part of a literal divine plan to oppress him is not the same thing as if, say, Azure City had decided to wipe out the hobgoblin camp ....

Spoiler: SOD

Show

If you accept the word of Redcloak based on the reported word of the Dark One - neither of whom were around when such a plan may or may not have been concocted.

Painting Redcloak as ignorant of the struggles that Durkon has gone through is also frankly meaningless within the larger context of the conflict they're embroiled in.

When the Dwarves die they face an eternity of torment as the default position for them - the world was built that way.
Before the Dark One the goblins went to whereever there alignment took them and now (for those that presumedly worship the Dark One) they go to their gods domain.

There has been no hard evidence (we do have the words of people who may be biased) presented in the comic or the prequel books that show Goblinoids having a harder time then Dwarves - who live one step away from being crushed in a cave-in and sentenced to eternal torment (and less of any evidence of the starting position of any race).

You see to be accepting Redcloak's story - which even Redcloak and his God cannot know for sure - as absolute truth where it might not be.

[Kharannos]

I *LOVE* how Redcloak BELIEVES Gobbotopia is very well without his strict supervision. How he thinks that now that he conquered and gave it to his people, it will prosper, create itself rules, an echonomical system and honest politics.

I'm pretty sure that when he dies, in the end of the book, the last thing he'll see is that not every goblinoid is as thoughtful as he is.

His regret will be his last feeling on this plane.

[Snails]

No I meant exactly what I said, context. Because sometimes when I’m running a game that isn’t about about complex issues like those, or like the ones brought in OOTS, the goblins a really are just all dumb evil creatures who’s lives bring no value to the world so my party can go do political intrigue or punch out mind flayers elsewhere. Not all fictional monstrous races or demihumans or goblinoids are created equal across all campaigns.

My main criticism of The Giant's moral argument is not that it is wrong, but it is not developed to its logical end. There is a place in this genre for fighting Demons, where we understand the bar for choosing violence to resolve the situation is set quite low.

For our games, there should be more clarity about whether these are Demons who are truly impractical to negotiation with because of their goals/values, or People who are never inherently evil but we might reluctantly be forced to destroy due to the political choices of their leaders (e.g. the men who fought under the banner of Sauron), or Beasts that probably will need to be killed but can be safely ignored if only scooted away from civilization.

In this picture, there really should never be Always Evil or similarly statted Humanoids. Gnolls (to cite a real example that WotC agrees should be changed) are either Demons and almost always evil because the nature of their magically powerful blood ties or they are Humanoids who so happen to often worship Demons in a particular region (but some particular tribe of Gnolls could very easily be mostly Neutral or Good).

We should also recognize that this is a little game that JRR Tolkien himself was playing when he created his orcs, and the moral implications of how he wrote them did bother the man.

[Mobius Twist]

Durkon has two cards to in his favor he has yet to play. One is obvious: The Dark One not having sufficient fuel in the tank to get him to the next iteration of the world.

The other I don't see anyone mention: The only goblin city is currently right next to a massive hellmouth leading directly to the Snarl. It's not a controllable gate, and as things inevitably get worse the goblins will have to abandon their bastion. Unless, of course, The Dark One joins forces with other gods to make a four-color seal for all the open tears in reality.

If Goblin-kind are to live in safety, this one is kinda a non-negotiable perk of the whole deal.

[Frozenstep]

At some point this comic is going to have to reckon with the idea that not all violence is an equally sinful act.

Redcloak toppling a nation that is part of a literal divine plan to oppress him is not the same thing as if, say, Azure City had decided to wipe out the hobgoblin camp, in the same way that {scrubbed}. The "there are only two kinds of people: those who want peace and those who don't" line ignores the fact that The Lack of Conflict Is Not Peace. Redcloak could absolutely just go start up a village somewhere like the comic often purports he should and wouldn't resolve the fact that the gods themselves have condemned him, his family, his children, his entire community to the face of non-human cannon fodder, grist for the lives of the people who the gods decided were actually important.

Painting Redcloak as ignorant of the struggles that Durkon has gone through is also frankly meaningless within the larger context of the conflict they're embroiled in. Yes, Durkon grew up poor. Durkon also grew up safe and loved in a community that wasn't threatened by every other nation under the sun. Durkon is poor because of his mother's decision to be moral-give Redcloak's mom could be given the same sack of diamonds and y'know what that would give her? A more favorable roll on the treasure table when some fighter is looting her corpse. Durkon has a ****ing racial bonus to attack Redcloak's entire race for {scrubbed} sake. Redcloak assumptions that Durkon grew up in a safer, richer environment then his entire village is correct and the fact that this comic tries to paint that as Redcloak "not understanding Durkon" is hilarious. It's a false equivalency of massive proportions and in the time that this comic is being written it's frankly inexcusable.

The comic already reckons with violence being an acceptable solution, given the main characters often use it when talking has failed.

Redcloak makes an assumption that Durkon hasn't gone through struggle and hardship at all. While it's true Redcloak has gone through more then Durkon, it was an unneeded attack on his character that doesn't really help explain anything. But...Durkon, and by extension the comic, doesn't treat that as something that invalidates the argument, he takes it and doesn't even comment, and goes on to listen and understand.

[Snails]

[SPOILER=SOD]
There has been no hard evidence (we do have the words of people who may be biased) presented in the comic or the prequel books that show Goblinoids having a harder time then Dwarves - who live one step away from being crushed in a cave-in and sentenced to eternal torment (and less of any evidence of the starting position of any race).

That Thor (and Loki and Hel) screwed over the dwarves is not going to garner much sympathy if Redcloak were informed, for good reason. Not only would it play into his (probable) suspicion that nominally Good gods are manipulative in a creepy kind of way, but it is not clear the Deal was intended to screw over the dwarves in general, even as it screws over some particular dwarves. The status quo seems to support the idea the gods, for the most part, intended to screw over the goblins.

Redcloak having very incomplete information about the status of the dwarves does not diminish his argument. Sub in humans and/or elves and/or halflings and/or gnomes and/or half-orcs and/or tielflings and/or aasimar...

[Peelee]

I *LOVE* how Redcloak BELIEVES Gobbotopia is very well without his strict supervision. How he thinks that now that he conquered and gave it to his people, it will prosper, create itself rules, an echonomical system and honest politics.

I'm pretty sure that when he dies, in the end of the book, the last thing he'll see is that not every goblinoid is as thoughtful as he is.

His regret will be his last feeling on this plane.

Given that most of the inhabitants lived in a settlement that prospered, created itself rules, an economical system, and honest politics (I assume), I don't really think it's that much of a stretch.

Where's the assumption they could not sustain it coming from?

[Ruck]

What Redcloak really wants is for Goblin souls to be accepted into other afterlives according to alignment, not just the Dark One. Once the other Gods take Goblin souls, they will automatically value them.

I'm not sure where you're getting this, since he's never said anything like it in the strip and has been pretty explicit about wanting better conditions for Goblins on the Material Plane, not the afterlife.

They don't have military allies, at the moment. but they have plenty of nations sympathetic to them and happy to trade with them and assist their efforts to rebuild or harass the goblins. As shown by the Elven strike squad assisting the resistance. And why wouldn't it make sense for people to want to regain their stolen homeland and free their enslaved kinsman to take vengeance on the people who conquered them? Sure it's probably not the best idea overall but it is a reasonable one. And yes they could still populate the city... unless the goblins got a lot more into the whole genocide thing on their captured slaves and started hunting down all the escaping refugees they could find then I thought they did. In which case all bets are off anyways and I don't even want to pretend to hear arguments about them having a moral let to stand on keeping the place.

The war's over. Azure City lost. Starting another war would be a poor way to open a broader peace settlement.

When it comes to the Azurite giving up their claim ont heir ancestral lands (and changing their name I guess?) and definitely settling their tropical paradise islands, I can see Hinjo and the other named characters begrudgingly accepting it for the greater good and to end the bloodshed (provided the slaves are liberated and Xykon killed), but the other nobles (who control most of the remaining military forces) certainly won’t give up without a (perhaps metaphorical) fight.

Edit: Niu will probably insist that Redcloak be punished as well if he isn’t dead by the point the Azurite are brought in, too.

And similar to the above, I think there's going to be a response along the lines of "tough [censored], but we're trying to save existence" toward any Azurites who demand some kind of retribution.

So, here's how I'm betting things go down:

Durkon and Redcloak hash things out, with a fair amount of sparks flying, but ultimately they work out a deal that is fair to all sides.

Then they discover that neither of their gods will accept the deal they've made: Thor because he can't get the other gods on board, and the Dark One because TDO is not actually a benevolent deity in any sense.

Interesting. Not certain by any means, but a plausible complication for sure.

[dancrilis]

For our games, there should be more clarity about whether these are Demons who are truly impractical to negotiation with because of their goals/values, or People who are never inherently evil ....

Demons are people - they can be reasoned with, form relationships with other creatures etc.

The status quo seems to support the idea the gods, for the most part, intended to screw over the goblins.

Redcloak seems to firmly believe that and it seems likely that it is within the dogma of The Dark One.
But why does it seem that way to you?

[johnbragg]

Have I missed something or has Durkon failed to mention that the Dark One won't survive long enough to be part of the next world building?

That's relevant information, but Durkon is negotiating right now with Redcloak. "There's a new universe born, with The Dark One as an OG god" is not really a win condition for Redcloak.

For Redcloak, the gods resetting the universe means that all of his goblinoids die, here and now.

Well one assumes when an enemy government is in exile, still has politics allies, and a sizable military that they are going to want their homeland back. Arguably rightly so. Tis a complicated issue for sure, but I took now it now it’s mine traditionally only lasts for as long as you can keep it no matter where you fall in the monster manual.

Because conquered peoples don’t tend to just roll over and give up what’s theirs without a fight, Hinjo’s know kingdom has explicit intentions to retake the city, and the likely aren’t going to stop trying ever. Also with Red Cloak and X gone they have a real chance at success.

Actually, rhetoric aside, "reconquer the ancestral homeland" is not the norm after you've been displaced. Plenty of peoples got ethnically cleansed at the end of World War II and resettled pretty-much against their will, and none of them are going back. Many of them now could if they wanted to, and they don't. (Not all, obviously).

New Azure City is where it is now, and that's where they're staying.

This really makes me wonder something... All the gods created goblins just to be abused and have a hard life?

Goblins had no gods to worship, protect, or guide them before the Dark One?

I think this has to be false... I'm not certain, but I am starting to suspect a dark theme with some evil gods goblins may have worshipped before. More souls = more power and sustenance right? So the evil gods goblins worshiped probably just engineered them into leading violent, short lives all for the sake of garnering more souls.

No, in the OOTSverse it is canon that this world was created as a D&D kitchen-sink fantasy world, with goblins as XP-fodder for adventurers to sharpen their swords on.

[Peelee]

That's relevant information, but Durkon is negotiating right now with Redcloak. "There's a new universe born, with The Dark One as an OG god" is not really a win condition for Redcloak.

For Redcloak, the gods resetting the universe means that all of his goblinoids die, here and now.

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

That is absolutely a win condition for Redcloak. It even has a name: "Plan B".