The Four Corners of Redemption

[Naysmith]

As Soon told Miko, redemption is a rare and special thing. I see thus far four characters in need of serious redemption and desire some form of it (not counting Roy abandoning Elan that one time): Belkar, Miko, Redcloak, and Vaarsuvius. I also see two pairs of options: Lives and Dies, Redeemed and Not Redeemed.

I think we will see all four combinations.

Miko: Dead, not redeemed. Used to convey what's necessary for redemption.

Belkar: Prophecied to die. That leaves only Dead and Redeemed. I suspect that since he's trying to be better, a heroic sacrifice may tilt the scales just enough in his favor to barely redeem him out of the Lower Planes.

That leaves the two who'll live: V and Redcloak.

Redcloak keeps ALMOST seeing the error of his ways, but keeps falling for the Sunk Cost fallacy and claiming what he does is necessary. I saw on TV Tropes an analysis why he doesn't wield a weapon - a symbolic lack of (moral) strength. Well, his survival is necessary to mend the gates. Here's what I think: he'll be defeated and monitored. Controlling the gates is out, but fixing the holes in reality will prevent worse and let him think he'll get a gate eventually, once an Arcane caster shows up to help make one in the first place. He continues, necessarily living, but is unable to realize his mistakes are just that.

Meanwhile, V is actively seeking redemption. I think V will find redemption. Means unknown, though I'm personally hoping V will learn enough empathy and hope for helping others that V manages to surpass TN and go for NG when they eventually die after a lifetime of atoning. Or, my ideas include creating a pair of organizations to stop further mistakes: educating people on how monster =/= kill on sight like Roy and the music fans in On the Origin of PCs and an international tribunal so that Roy's legal confusion about jurisdictions won't happen. Thus becoming LG and meeting Roy on the mountain.

Thanks, and what do you think?

[Precure]

Out of those four, Miko would be most likely to redeem herself. Belkar won't care about atoning of his past misdeeds as long as he protect those he care about, and Redcloak wouldn't stop being evil aligned even if they made a deal. I can see Vaarsuvius returning ther family, but there is still too much to atone for therselves.

[KorvinStarmast]

Out of those four, Miko would be most likely to redeem herself.

Nope. Soon's Ghost closed that deal out on screen.

Belkar won't care about atoning of his past misdeeds as long as he protect those he care about,

I agree, but that may earn him an un asked for redemption, which I think is what the OP is getting at.

and Redcloak wouldn't stop being evil aligned even if they made a deal.

Dug his own road foundation he did: the road to hell/abyss/avernus/hades is paved with good intentions.

I can see Vaarsuvius returning their family, but there is still too much to atone for therselves.

I don't. I see V heading off at the end of Book 7 on a decades or centuries long quest to atone for Ffamilicide.
Lucky for V, elves live a long time, so there is hope but not certainty.
Blackwing will accompany...

[Psyren]

I actually don't think it's too late for Redcloak, for a few reasons:

Spoiler

Show

1) Thor's Plan doesn't actually need the Dark One; just his power, which Redcloak can channel. Provided he has a 9th-level slot available near the climax, Redcloak can actually turn against his deity to help save the planet. He probably won't be granted any new spells after that, if not lose his powers and status entirely - but he'd still be a hero.

2) Narratively, Redcloak's entire character is built around Sunk Cost Fallacy - feeling he has to stay the course because all the bad things he has caused for the goblin people (including his family) along the way would "be for nothing" otherwise. So for him to finally realize that, no actually, anyone can choose to change who they are and start being a better person at any time no matter what they did before, would be a satisfying direction to take his narrative arc and a good lesson for the fiction to impart.

3) The Dark One himself seems a bit more sinister than the comic is letting on; sure, his own dogma paints him as a champion of the oppressed goblinoids who ascended due to the world's sheer injustice, but we only have his word for it that that's how things actually went down. Moreover, his actions since then (including but not limited to his rather cold treatment of his own high priest, and not seeming to care very much about goblins sacrificed to the plan) have not exactly lined up with the supposedly benevolent image the goblins have of him. In a sense he reminds me of Shar, duping his worshipers into believing she has their best interests at heart more than every other deity while in reality, discarding them the moment they're no longer useful.

[Atomburster]

I see V as the most likely to be redeemed, as, of the four characters, V is the one actively seeking redemption and also acknowledges what they did as wrong, which is what Soon says is needed for redemption. Miko did not have the time to even really try for redemption, on top of her needing to be redeemed into Paladinhood (as opposed to 'just' Lawful Good), which is a far stricter subset of Lawful Good than the rest of the Lawful Good alignment. Remember, Paladins fall from a single Evil act - An LG character doing an Evil act would not necessarily fall out of the LG alignment.

Belkar is slightly ahead of Redcloak, since he's also trying. Redcloak is not only not trying, he's skipped like all the possible moral epiphanies and is working to actively end the world. The only thing really giving Redcloak a chance at redemption is the fact that everyone else needs him/The Dark One.

Honestly I would put TDO as an easier candidate to negotiate with than Redcloak. TDO even tried to negotiate in the past, even though he got burned for it, yes. Redcloak's on an unending warpath that basically no argument is really gonna convince at this point. I mean who could even convince Redcloak that everything he sacrificed for was wrong? That's a huge sell.

e: Also it just does not feel 'fair' to all of Redcloak's victims (not his enemies whom he would obviously kill, but more the people on his side who trusted him), whom he killed coldbloodedly, that he could just get redemption just so. So I don't think he'll get redemption.

[Kardwill]

TDO even tried to negotiate in the past, even though he got burned for it, yes.

Nowadays, TDO is the one who is melting the envoys of his former allies. And IIRC he did not really get burned by Rat or Loki, he just shut them off as soon as he learned about the Big Secret and saw a way to blackmail everyone. He doesn't feel like the "negociate things out" type when he can simply get something by force.

RC could be both irredeemable, AND the person who ends up saving the world. Those are not mutually exclusive.

(Although I think the world actually won't be saved by Thor's plan. Too many things going on with the Snarl for it to be simply solved by simply sealing up the rifts)

[Windscion]

Honestly I would put TDO as an easier candidate to negotiate with than Redcloak. TDO even tried to negotiate in the past, even though he got burned for it, yes. Redcloak's on an unending warpath that basically no argument is really gonna convince at this point. I mean who could even convince Redcloak that everything he sacrificed for was wrong? That's a huge sell.

You omit an important point: Who TDO *was* doesn't matter as much as who the goblins *think* TDO is. How that shakes out, I do not know exactly. But the goblinoids seem much more flexible than the gods. Basically, if the people lead, their gods must follow.
My point? TDO and RC are important parts of the plot, but they don't need to decide the resolution.

[KorvinStarmast]

For Psyren.
I find point 1 appealing, particularly this part.

Spoiler: but he might have to give up the red cloak in that case...

Show

Redcloak can actually turn against his deity to help save the planet. He probably won't be granted any new spells after that, if not lose his powers and status entirely - but he'd still be a hero.

Regarding point 2.

Spoiler: this is Belkar's situation, and I think the OP was trying to describe 4 separate ones

Show

2) So for him to finally realize that, no actually, anyone can choose to change who they are and start being a better person at any time no matter what they did before

[Naysmith]

I agree, but that may earn him an un asked for redemption, which I think is what the OP is getting at.

It is.

RC could be both irredeemable, AND the person who ends up saving the world. Those are not mutually exclusive.

Yeah, if the OOTS could tolerate Belkar for so long before he started behaving like Employee of the Month, then I figure the world can tolerate Redcloak being evil in a way that's pointed at keeping the world alive.

[LadyEowyn]

I think Redcloak’s got a decent shot a redemption, for narrative reasons.

1) Rich has established that the assistance of either TDO or Redcloak will be needed in order to end the continual sequence of worlds being devoured by the Snarl. This is integral to the themes of the comic around unjust treatment of the goblinoid and other “monster” species. Given his stated themes, Rich didn’t set up that narrative necessity in order to just come up with a cop-out.

2) The Dark One has not directly appeared on the comic as a character yet; his intervention on the side of the heroes and against Redcloak would be much less climactic, dramatic, and narratively satisfying than a hard-won change of heart on Redcloak’s part. However, it WILL be hard-won - the implosion scene with Durkon was aimed at making that very clear.

As for Belkar - I don’t think this is just about his friends any more. A lot of Book 6 was about him grapplimg with the fact that he’sca bad person who makes other people’s lives worse, and him gradually coming to disturbing comdition that he doesn’t like that - whereas previously he outright revelled in it. Does he think much about individual innocents whom he’s killed for fun, and regret it? Not really. And I think that kind of recognition and remorse for wrongdoing is important! But at the same time, he very clearly wants to be a different person than the person who did those things. And he is, stunningly, showing some willingness to be held responsible - when the paladin’s referred to him being imprisoned to serve out his term of sentence handed down in Azure City once all this is over, he didn’t respond with “fat chance of that, suckers” as we would have before; he accepted the idea of that happening and was outright grateful and their offers to make his sentence less onerous! That’s an extremely differentBelkar than in War and XPs or DSTP.

[brian 333]

V is on the path to redemption. Step 1: admit that you have a problem. Whether he makes it to Step 12 is as yet unanswered.

Belkar is poised to begin. He has realized that something better is possible. Whether he makes it to Step 1 is as yet unanswered.

Redcloak is not yet even on the website that talks about redemption. He will have to choose which side of the bridge he wants to be on before the dolphins eat it and render his choice moot.

Xykon... Are there any uneaten babies lying around that he can turn into some sort of undead?

[Kardwill]

As for Belkar - I don’t think this is just about his friends any more. A lot of Book 6 was about him grapplimg with the fact that he’sca bad person who makes other people’s lives worse, and him gradually coming to disturbing comdition that he doesn’t like that - whereas previously he outright revelled in it.

Yeah, his distressed look in when the nice gnomette he just lied to invited him to lunch in #969, his confusion afterward as to why taking further advantage of her (or even what he already did, i.e. lying to save face and get a discount, something CG Haley casually does) just felt wrong.

He feels guilt and shame about his actions, and some empathy toward a complete stranger, and he struggles to understand why. That's something that would never have occured to the Belkar who killed a man over a candy bar, or even to the "fake model citizen" Belkar of the Thieves Guild arc.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yeah, his distressed look in when the nice gnomette he just lied to invited him to lunch in #969, his confusion afterward as to why taking further advantage of her (or even what he already did, i.e. lying to save face and get a discount, something CG Haley casually does) just felt wrong.

He feels guilt and shame about his actions, and some empathy toward a complete stranger, and he struggles to understand why. That's something that would never have occured to the Belkar who killed a man over a candy bar, or even to the "fake model citizen" Belkar of the Thieves Guild arc.

It would fit better to say

that would never have occurred to the Belkar who killed a [I]gnome[I] over a candy bar,

I offer this up for two reasons:
1. The species / race of various characters often matters in the OotS narrative.
2. The artisan with whom he is speaking and choosing not to lunch with is a gnome.

[Tubercular Ox]

If Redcloak is redeemed, which afterlife does he end up in?

[gbaji]

I actually don't think it's too late for Redcloak, for a few reasons:

Spoiler

Show

3) The Dark One himself seems a bit more sinister than the comic is letting on; sure, his own dogma paints him as a champion of the oppressed goblinoids who ascended due to the world's sheer injustice, but we only have his word for it that that's how things actually went down. Moreover, his actions since then (including but not limited to his rather cold treatment of his own high priest, and not seeming to care very much about goblins sacrificed to the plan) have not exactly lined up with the supposedly benevolent image the goblins have of him. In a sense he reminds me of Shar, duping his worshipers into believing she has their best interests at heart more than every other deity while in reality, discarding them the moment they're no longer useful.

Honestly, I don't think there's anything at all mismatched about TDO. There's nothing inconsistent with being "a champion of the oppressed goblinoids" and *also* being "sinister" and "evil". I mean, he's literally called "The Dark One". He rose to godhood by being a violent warlord and leading his people in combat, not by leading hunger strikes or something. I don't think there's any deception at all going on between him and his followers. He's evil. His followers are evil.

Evil gods are certainly capable of taking actions that benefit and support their evil followers, without the label "benevolent" remotely applying to them.


I think that "redemption" means differerent things to different people. One can be evil and still make the right choice (which has nothing at all to do with "good/evil"). I don't think Redcloak will be "redeemed" in the sense that he'll somehow become "good". He may, however, come to his senses and figure out that sometimes, doing what is best for his "side" is also something that benefits "the other side" as well. Right now, he's so locked in this zero sum game assumption (battle between "us" vs "them"), that he can't see that sometimes, there are mutually beneficial solutions, in which both/all sides win.

This would seem to be a very important concept, given that this is literally a world where alignment exists and is represented via different sets of gods who are presumably not going to change, and yet also tend to want the whole universe thing to continue existing if at all possible. They all have to work together to some degree, despite whatever alignment differences there are. But in the same way that evil needs to realize that they can set aside conflict to achieve something that benefits everyone, good needs to realize that this is not only a feature reseved for good alone (ie: only by redeeming themselves and becoming "good" can we all work together, save the world, etc). IMO, that's not going to happen.

[yes]

I also think that Redcloak on the road to redemption. To channel Elan a bit, I think the structure of the final book so far is setting up for that.

If the point with redcloak was to show how unwilling he is to change course and accept the losses he's dealt with so far (sunk cost fallacy, as mentioned), then the conversation between him and Durkon could have come at a later, more tense and dramatic moment, when they are on the verge of wrapping everything up. Instead it happens almost immediately at the onset of the final installment of OotS, as if it's setting up the remainder of the narrative. And when setting up a narrative with a character showing a strong devotion to a specific goal, it's usually in the service of making us appreciate how much change they undergo by the end of the narrative.

His scene with Oona follows similar structure. If redcloak's story is about him refusing to change, that scene would have been better off happening first, as it emphasizes Redcloak's later choice to refuse to cooperate despite the guidance given to him. But when a character on Redcloak's own team is trying to broaden his perspective after he made a dramatic choice, that's likely in service of evolving his future choices, meaning cooperation and redemption (at least in one sense).

[brian 333]

I also think that Redcloak on the road to redemption. To channel Elan a bit, I think the structure of the final book so far is setting up for that.

If the point with redcloak was to show how unwilling he is to change course and accept the losses he's dealt with so far (sunk cost fallacy, as mentioned), then the conversation between him and Durkon could have come at a later, more tense and dramatic moment, when they are on the verge of wrapping everything up. Instead it happens almost immediately at the onset of the final installment of OotS, as if it's setting up the remainder of the narrative. And when setting up a narrative with a character showing a strong devotion to a specific goal, it's usually in the service of making us appreciate how much change they undergo by the end of the narrative.

His scene with Oona follows similar structure. If redcloak's story is about him refusing to change, that scene would have been better off happening first, as it emphasizes Redcloak's later choice to refuse to cooperate despite the guidance given to him. But when a character on Redcloak's own team is trying to broaden his perspective after he made a dramatic choice, that's likely in service of evolving his future choices, meaning cooperation and redemption (at least in one sense).

You demonstrate his opportunity very well. So far, Redcloak had not even marginally attempted any redemption-related actions. I agree that Redcloak does not need to become 'Good,' but he does have to put the benefit of the goblin race ahead of his sunk cost. So long as his goal is to prove, (or die trying,) to Right-Eye that his sacrifice was 'worth it,' there will be no redemption.

[KorvinStarmast]

Honestly, I don't think there's anything at all mismatched about TDO. There's nothing inconsistent with being "a champion of the oppressed goblinoids" and *also* being "sinister" and "evil". I mean, he's literally called "The Dark One". He rose to godhood by being a violent warlord and leading his people in combat, not by leading hunger strikes or something. I don't think there's any deception at all going on between him and his followers. He's evil. His followers are evil.

Evil gods are certainly capable of taking actions that benefit and support their evil followers, without the label "benevolent" remotely applying to them.

An internally consistent point.

As to redemption, Rich spelled out its nature in his OotSverse through the words of Ghost-Soon to Miko.

[brian 333]

Redemption, to Soon and Miko, would be vastly different from redemption for Belkar or Redcloak. For Belkar, choosing to not indiscriminately murder anymore is a significant step. Miko is beginning farther along the scale.

Also, redemption need not be absolute. Redcloak may never stop being Evil, yet he could have a measure of redemption by putting the needs of goblins ahead of his desire to prove himself right.

[Kardwill]

a world where alignment exists and is represented via different sets of gods who are presumably not going to change, and yet also tend to want the whole universe thing to continue existing if at all possible. They all have to work together to some degree, despite whatever alignment differences there are.

That coexistence/cooperation overcoming the alignment "wall" can be seen in the Southern gods : As far as I can tell, even if some people have their own favorites (Rooster for Songwaan, for example), the 12 gods work together, protecting their "pool" of believers, and are worshipped as a group. Even the paladins of the Sapphire Guard pray to "the 12 gods", which include Rat.

I also think that Redcloak on the road to redemption. To channel Elan a bit, I think the structure of the final book so far is setting up for that.

Nice analysis. I agree it looks like the setup for te moment when Redcloak will have to choose between the "2 villages". It could also be the setup for someone else stepping up to become the "Goblin savior" that Redcloak failed to be. Either way, Redcloak is probably going to face a tough decision in the near future.

[wilphe]

2) The Dark One has not directly appeared on the comic as a character yet; his intervention on the side of the heroes and against Redcloak would be much less climactic, dramatic, and narratively satisfying than a hard-won change of heart on Redcloak’s part.

I would disagree, consider the following scenario:

TDO wants to better the lot of his people, and The Plan is his way of doing that

Redcloak wants to fulfil The Plan, because that's what he is invested in; bettering the Goblinoid lot is an abstract justification and he has no compunctions and few regrets about killing lots of living goblins for the theoretical betterment of as yet unborn ones


Its entirely possible for TDO to decide that The Plan is no longer the best way to fulfil his agenda - like if he believes what Thor said about not surviving 'til the next cycle, if that happens Redcloak is not going to agree and he will try to release the snarl anyway.


That would be entirely consistent with his character so far; there isn't anyone he won't give up for The Plan, not his brother, not his patron deity.


RC is the true and final villain of OOTS because we get to see him follow a darker and darker path and reject every single opportunity to take an off-ramp


Xykon is just the same ******* he was when we first met him, just way more powerful and never with any greater motivation than "be evil for LOLs"

[KorvinStarmast]

That coexistence/cooperation overcoming the alignment "wall" can be seen in the Southern gods : As far as I can tell, even if some people have their own favorites (Rooster for Songwaan, for example), the 12 gods work together, protecting their "pool" of believers, and are worshipped as a group. Even the paladins of the Sapphire Guard pray to "the 12 gods", which include Rat.

Which makes sense, in terms of holding all of the pantheon in reverence. I wonder if the Northern Gods are dysfunctional due, in part, to its head being not on his A game this time around. (And perhaps the Northern pantheon's internal structure is sufficiently different from the Southern one that it tends toward 'dysfunctional family" as a habit pattern from world to world).

[Windscion]

Reminder that Rat, like all the 12 gods of the south, is canonically neutral per WoG.
Describing Rat as evil was Redcloak's slant.
There is nothing remarkable about a dozen neutral gods avoiding internal schisms.

[Ionathus]

I like the framing for this conversation.

Of the four, "dead, redeemed" gets the most attention. There's a TVTropes article about it, for instance.

"Dead, unredeemed" is less common, which makes it interesting. Miko's situation was compelling to me because she was seeking to do the "right" thing to undo her Fall, but she wasn't actually pursuing true atonement.

The most interesting one is "Alive, Unredeemed." Watching a character struggle with redemption and then reject it is a very powerful moment, but it's tough to do right. And it's even harder to sustain them as a meaningful character after that -- audiences might be more invested given the journey they've been through, but they could also just think "ugh, [Character] was a lot more interesting before they became just generic Evil." And in my experience, the clock is ticking on that character's life expectancy. I don't know if I can name a major character who sought redemption, didn't find it, and then survived past the end of the story. It would be interesting if Redcloak took that path.

I don't think Redcloak is going to go that way. We've spent so much time on his journey that I find redemption the most likely course, though with Belkar slated to die and Vaarsuvius having already pondered a lifetime of atonement after the Snarl threat is resolved, Redcloak is kind of competing with both of them for one of these four "corners," as defined here.

Not to say that two characters can't have similar arcs. I think I like the potential for Redcloak to keep living with his redemption best. For a zealot like him, dying feels too "easy" -- it's a single big dramatic act that you can use to justify a lot of your behavior and escape continuing consequences -- especially in a world with known afterlives where he thinks some version of paradise with TDO awaits him. If Redcloak instead had to keep on living, dedicating his life to the tough and messy business of improving the world for all goblinoids and the people he hurt...well, I think that meshes better with Redcloak's struggle against the sunk cost fallacy. "I've come too far to turn back now, so I might as well die (either as a final act of spite or a single big gesture to undo all my other wrongs)" is fine, but I like the potential of "I've come so far, and now that I see the light, I have to trudge back all the way I've come, fixing everything that I've done wrong along the way."

Spoiler: She-Ra and the Princesses of Power finale

Show

Reminds me of the discourse around Shadow Weaver's death: her "final sacrifice" was intentionally set up by the creator as inherently selfish. She's not actually sacrificing herself as a way to make amends for abusing Catra and Adora: she's using her sacrifice as a mic drop, a way to get the last word on the dialogue and prove herself "right." That's why she never actually apologizes to either of them before blowing herself up, and her last words are even "you're welcome."

[Tubercular Ox]

The most interesting one is "Alive, Unredeemed." Watching a character struggle with redemption and then reject it is a very powerful moment, but it's tough to do right. And it's even harder to sustain them as a meaningful character after that -- audiences might be more invested given the journey they've been through, but they could also just think "ugh, [Character] was a lot more interesting before they became just generic Evil." And in my experience, the clock is ticking on that character's life expectancy. I don't know if I can name a major character who sought redemption, didn't find it, and then survived past the end of the story.

I'm pretty sure Rich talks about this somewhere. IIRC, he says that, if he let Miko live, the only stories he would've written for her were either full redemption or a full commitment to evil, and he killed her off specifically to avoid her getting either of those endings.

[WanderingMist]

Nope. Soon's Ghost closed that deal out on screen.

Soon's ghost is simply wrong. Redemption is always open to anyone. Durkon says so himself. Good is equally as seductive as evil, but turning to it requires introspection and remorse for what you've done. Miko isn't the type to turn to evil. Her last act as a fallen paladin was to try to follow in O-chul's footsteps. Miko simply didn't have the time left afterward.

[KorvinStarmast]

Soon's ghost is simply wrong.

Soon is absolutely right about redemption - particularly as regards OotSworld - and your point about her no longer having the time to go through the steps is also correct. What I was replying to was the assertion that Miko (who can no longer do that) was still in the running, and Ghost Soon explained why she was no longer eligible.

[Naysmith]

I'm pretty sure Rich talks about this somewhere. IIRC, he says that, if he let Miko live, the only stories he would've written for her were either full redemption or a full commitment to evil, and he killed her off specifically to avoid her getting either of those endings.

Come to think of it, I may have missed embraces evil, both lives and dies. Six options instead of four.

[brian 333]

Come to think of it, I may have missed embraces evil, both lives and dies. Six options instead of four.

Try a cube instead of a hexagon. Four corners of Good, four corners of Evil.

Or a hypercube with... Lots of corners... Yeah.

The idea you expressed was clear, though. Rather than attempt to wrestle every possibility into a single theory, you limited the playing field to manageable size. If posters wish to step outside of those boundaries, they can. But infinite possibility invites infinite exceptions.

Your four corners works fine.

[Precure]

Nope. Soon's Ghost closed that deal out on screen.

Soon never said anything like that.