OOTS #1141 - The Discussion Thread

[Skull the Troll]

You misunderstood my post. She definitely deserved to die and would have probably been summarily executed if the Azure Guard ever got her in custody again. But nobody deserves to go the way she did.

Of course she did. Her death was a near perfect karmic death. Every single one of those wights that ate her were themselves eaten at her command (or drained or whatever) She delighted in it. She was cruel, and vicious and she did it in the name of "love." Getting killed in the exact same way she killed others by those she thought loved her was perfect.

[Crisis21]

There isn't that implication though. There is an implication of being a thing, a non-person, a tool, something to be used as needed and then set aside and ignored until the next time its needed. Being a pawn has nothing to do with expendability, and indeed somebody who regularly disposes of his pawns is going to quickly find themselves unable to get anything done.

Expendable means that the resource is non-critical, meaning it can be sacrificed without irreparably damaging your ability to move forward with your plans. It doesn't mean it isn't valuable as a resource, just that it's not a resource of particularly high value. Rather, it is something you use to acquire resources of high value.

For example: in terms of survival, your pinky finger is expendable. This doesn't mean that most people are willing to cut theirs off, just that if you lose it the impact to your life is minimal.

Certain things are more expendable than others of course. A finger is more expendable than, say, a hand, and an arm is expendable compared to your head.

'Pawn' carries the implication of expendability because it is the most numerous piece in the game of Chess, comprising half of the total pieces in the game, and thus is the type of piece you are most likely to lose first and the most of over the course of a game. Thus displaying reluctance to lose pawns in general is not something a good chess player does. Any chess player worth playing expects to lose pawns over the course of a game.

In the same way, any resource - people included - that is referred to as 'pawns' is something that is expected to be lost in some capacity over the course of any given plan. Ergo, anything referred to as 'pawns' is a resource that can afford to be lost without compromising the plan too badly, and so is expendable.

[Kish]

Redcloak has always cared about the goblin people and their welfare. At the same time, he has always associated the Plan with the ultimate good of goblinkind, no matter the cost to actual goblins. And he is locked into that mindset because to think otherwise would be to admit that the sacrifices he's made weren't "worth it."

That much is clear. I honestly don't understand the significance of the present disagreement. Is this about whether Redcloak can/will be redeemed? Or are we just worrying at a sore tooth?

I think recent events (specifically the last panel of the comic) have made some people anticipate that Redcloak will now be treated substantially more sympathetically than previously--for different interpretations of "substantially more sympathetically than previously" running all the way from "redemption just got 10% more likely" to "the Order will recognize that they were wrong to ever oppose him and help him complete the Plan, exactly as he's been working toward it." Those people are also having widely varied reactions to this anticipation.

[Psychronia]

I can only get blown away by reveals so many times in a row.

I never knew my max was this high before these last few pages.

[B. Dandelion]

Redcloak has always cared about the goblin people and their welfare. At the same time, he has always associated the Plan with the ultimate good of goblinkind, no matter the cost to actual goblins. And he is locked into that mindset because to think otherwise would be to admit that the sacrifices he's made weren't "worth it."

Pretty much. I would say that he is basically terrified to own up to the number of deaths that he's responsible for, and uses the excuse of the Plan to push the blame off onto another entity. When stressed to the breaking point he gets into a petulant refrain of "it's not my fault!"

(I thought it was fitting that the motto of Acheron, the plane the Dark One is implied to reside on, is "I was just following orders". Yes, that's obviously a reference to the Nuremberg defense, but it really does fit with him. He has to think that it's ultimately somebody else's responsibility or else he'd have to own up to personally being a monster.)

I like to think redemption is possible for him, and certainly this update threw fuel on that fire, but I sure wouldn't bet the farm on it happening. It's just not completely impossible yet.

I think recent events (specifically the last panel of the comic) have made some people anticipate that Redcloak will now be treated substantially more sympathetically than previously--for different interpretations of "substantially more sympathetically than previously" running all the way from "redemption just got 10% more likely" to "the Order will recognize that they were wrong to ever oppose him and help him complete the Plan, exactly as he's been working toward it." Those people are also having widely varied reactions to this anticipation.

"Redemption got 10% more likely" does accurately describe how I reacted to the update. (The previous number was <30%.)

[Rrmcklin]

Honestly, I feel like if Redcloak redemption was in the cards, the seeds would/should have been planted before this.

He's had amble opportunities to show something like that might be possible, and has never chosen not to. So at this point it feels like people are assuming it's more likely, or even guaranteed, just because they think the plot is saying it needs to happen.

And that doesn't strike me as very satisfying, or in line with how the Giant writes characters and their arcs.

[KorvinStarmast]

You misunderstood my post. She definitely deserved to die and would have probably been summarily executed if the Azure Guard ever got her in custody again. But nobody deserves to go the way she did.

Hmm, I think her demise was a good case of Karma coming into play. She did her share of ending people, and then turning them into undead rather than letting them rest in peace. Justice was served.
"She who lives by the ghoul, dies by the ghoul."

[Ash_Gazn]

I think possibly the original world was not destroyed, still exists, and is inside the Snarl. There is no life on it but the Snarl, though.

There's also the possibility that the world in the snarl is the original, and everything/everyone the snarl has ever "destroyed" is in there.

Or that we're in the snarl, looking out at the other worlds when we roleplay.

[Larre Gannd]

Hmm, I think her demise was a good case of Karma coming into play. She did her share of ending people, and then turning them into undead rather than letting them rest in peace. Justice was served.
"She who lives by the ghoul, dies by the ghoul."

Hm... In dnd, if you are turned into an undead, does that stop your soul from going on to the afterlife, or is it more like just animating an empty shell? Either way it’s bad.

[MaverickMopete]

Oh that is an immensely satisfying recontextualization of the stakes at hand. Now the quest becomes how to get Redcloak to read up on the sunk cost fallacy.

We're talking about the same Redcloak that willingly killed his own brother rather than admit he threw away goblin lives for nothing... right?

[Rrmcklin]

We're talking about the same Redcloak that willingly killed his own brother rather than admit he threw away goblin lives for nothing... right?

Killed his own brother and didn't bring him back because he couldn't bear to look him in the eye after realizing he killed him for no good reason, and would continue to perform such actions while pretending he didn't have any other options.

Edit: I've been wondering this for awhile, but how is discussing SOD content supposed to be handled? Because it seems like different people do different things, without attention really being brought to it.

[B. Dandelion]

Durkon managed to turn a VAMPIRE good for a while there; I'm not sure you can set up changing Redcloak's mind as completely beyond the reach of the heroes after a feat like that.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

New headcanon: Thor deliberately antagonised the Dark One because he needed him to not become part of any pantheon. That because ascended gods get the quiddity of the pantheon that embraced them, Thor figured that getting the pantheons to reject the Dark One (who was, after all, pretty ready to reject them all as it was), the DO might get his own quiddity separate from the existing ones.

Grey Wolf

[Rrmcklin]

Durkon managed to turn a VAMPIRE good for a while there; I'm not sure you can set up changing Redcloak's mind as completely beyond the reach of the heroes after a feat like that.

By "awhile" I assume you mean "a few moments, that he wasn't sure would last". I know you're not being entirely serious, but still.

[Rrmcklin]

New headcanon: Thor deliberately antagonised the Dark One because he needed him to not become part of any pantheon. That because ascended gods get the quiddity of the pantheon that embraced them, Thor figured that getting the pantheons to reject the Dark One (who was, after all, pretty ready to reject them all as it was), the DO might get his own quiddity separate from the existing ones.

Grey Wolf

So Thor did this, but never brought it up until right before the rifts of this world got so serious the gods were back to discussing destroying the world or not because....?

[CantRecoverOld]

Of course he will be redeemed. My signature says so since I can't remember when.

I like the sound of that (your sig).

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Your entire post seems to be assuming that Lawful Evil is somehow "less" evil than Chaotic Evil. If Redcloak is less evil than Xykon, it's not because Redcloak is lawful, but because it's hard to not be less evil than Xykon, whatever alignment a character is.

Tarquin is most certainly Lawful Evil, but I don't see a meaningful distinction in his level of depravity and malice compared to Xykon. It just takes a different form.

You misunderstand my post.

It's not that Redcloak is somehow less evil, it is that he is a more focused evil. Xykon can get distracted with torturing paladins, because lulz. Redcloak also find it lulzworthy, but has a list of priorities which come first, which are even more evil than simply torturing paladins. Founding Gobotopia is FAR more of an Evil act than simply killing the Azurites en masse and torturing paladins, because it will be the foundation of a source of continuing Evil. Long-term, Gobotopia can be a threat to the entire world. Xykon is only a threat to those who come into his sphere of observation.

It's not a matter of depravity, it is a matter of lack of conviction. Chaotic Evil do what they want when they want because it is what they want to do. They can plan, obviously, but they are also likely to be distracted by some other shiny that is dangled in front of them. Lawful Evil has the strength of conviction to see a larger picture and stick to it, and so is less likely to be distracted by fun things in order to achieve their longer-term goals.

Redcloak will be willing to work with the party if that means fulfilling The Dark One's goal, because that is more important to him than randomly attacking people because they happen to be there. And if that means punking Xykon? So be it. And with so many high-level clerics involved? That's a fight Xykon just can't win.

[Shoelessgdowar]

What about the God Banjo the Clown? So will Banjo bring balance to the Dark One?

Well, since Banjo has an Orange Aura, and Banjo's Brother/Rival Giggles has a Purple Aura, and Giggles is worshipped by Goblinoids, it is possible.

Banjo wanted to join the northern pantheon, right, then changed his mind. I think banjo was just foreshadowing for that there was a new God in town.

If Banjo joined, his Orange Aura might have become a Yellow Aura, but since he is still in his own, the Central to the Story Pantheon, and Giggles and the Dark One are the Anywhere Goblinoids are, Outside the limitations of a Compass, Pantheon... They may represent far more than we understand.

Nah. He's only got one worshiper, and he wanted to join the Northern Pantheon. Giggles could possibly play a role. No idea what his color is, but it might be violet, since it's orcs worshiping him.

Actually Banjo has 3+ Worshippers, in addition has rivalry worshippers (with a few possible underground worshippers, opposing his rival).

So I see the upcoming setup: The original Gods and Dark One team up to create another four-color creation that can take on the Snarl on an even footing.

However, if new colors can be created, what's to stop the Snarl from creating its own new color, and creating a FIVE-color creation?

Oh, because Wizards of the Coast would sue. Nevermind. ;)

Technically for WotC to sue, the colors would have to be Red, Blue, Green, Black, and White... Though Purple, Colorless, Gold, Brown, Hazel, Pink, Gray, and Silver also are used, but only Colorless is Tournament legal (which by its very definition is NOT a color), the others are all Un-Official.

This is perhaps a long shot, but is there any chance Roy's green glow (example here: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1128.html) has anything to do with the Eastern Gods? Having four colors in the crayon box would be one thing -- if somehow there's a way to have a remnant of the deceased gods' strength that could very well surpass the Snarl.

He's not the only Green Glow... There may be another.

Love the fact that Thor says "there's a new color in the crayon box." As a casual throw back to the crayon colored Snarl lesson.

"The problem is your world and all the other's but one..."
So does this mean the first world was created by the 4 colors? Is it still around or has it been destroyed?

What color would Banjo have it he was a real god?

Banjo AND Giggles are real. Odin and Thor acknowledge Banjo, Giggles is Banjo's rival, Giggles has an Island of Goblinoid Worshippers... Giggles has a Purple Aura like the Dark One, Banjo has an Orange Aura (a complimentary/contrast color for purple).

We saw the first world, via Blackwing's flashback.

Well, Banjo’s aura is orange... if that’s an aura.

And Giggles is Purple...

----------------

Perhaps Tiamat has hidden among the Red deities to conceal herself from the Snarl, as she like the Dark One, represents an ascended member of a species that is usually targets of adventurers and almost exclusively worshipped by members of that family of species (Draconic: Dragons, Wyverns, Troglodytes, Kobolds, Urds, and Lizardfolk).

This would mean we have 6 colors that could combine, a Gauntlet of Infinite Power for the Snarl to be snapped by, all time and space, mind and soul, the power to untangle the snarl from all reality.

[Sorator]

Or that we're in the snarl, looking out at the other worlds when we roleplay.

That, at least, we can rule out.

So no, it STILL isn't Earth in the Rift. It will never be Earth in the Rift. Earth will never show up.

[factotum]

He's had amble opportunities to show something like that might be possible, and has never chosen not to. So at this point it feels like people are assuming it's more likely, or even guaranteed, just because they think the plot is saying it needs to happen.

And that doesn't strike me as very satisfying, or in line with how the Giant writes characters and their arcs.

Absolutely 100% agreed. It's also worth noting that the being the plot requires them to get on side is The Dark One, not his high priest, and we've already seen that a god's high priest can do stuff the god themselves wouldn't necessarily approve of--to whit, when Durkula wasted time and effort trying to kill Roy at the Godsmoot, when that was neither required by Hel or her plan.

[goblin bard]

soo... does this page mean Tiamat is strongest of all since when we see her manifestation with the oracle it is in five colors?

[Jasdoif]

Sorry, I just don't follow how you connect "Redcloak losing his eye" to "Redcloak leaving Gobbotopia" in a way that leads to that conclusion without stretching. You said you realized the "significance" of it.

Yes, I did realize the significance.


I'd been under the impression they were purely external factors, means to narratively prod Redcloak along on what he'd been intending to do all along once he got Gobbotopia to the state he was happy with it; that Redcloak's epiphany during the battle for Azure City was mostly limited to actively realizing hobgoblins are goblins too. But things make way more sense if they were also character-altering moments for Redcloak; that he really did have a general change of heart during the battle of Azure City, and a general change of heart back after O-Chul's extraction.

Because seriously, leaving Gobbotopia was triggered by Xykon getting "his" phylactery...from Redcloak. And Redcloak's current operation relies on Xykon not knowing where his actual phylactery actually is. Redcloak certainly had the option to personally oversee Gobbotopia longer, if he wanted. That he didn't means there was definitely a change.

Why do I think that change involves bumping the Plan up above goblin lives (again)? The spy and the elder. Redcloak wanted them gone, explicitly willing to kill the spy himself if necessary. For doing what he wanted them to. Did Redcloak not realize this is what he'd do when he came to them? Or did he realize, and not care? Neither one really speaks to putting a lot of value on goblin lives when his goals are at stake.

What do I think the emotional impetus for that change was? Redcloak was harmed personally. It isn't overly different from back during the battle for Azure City; it took a hobgoblin saving Redcloak from getting splattered during the attack, where he thought was safe, before he realized that hobgoblins are his people too. Much later on...Redcloak thought he was safe, directing Gobbotopia's development while stringing Xykon along; O-Chul, Xykon, and the Dark One all firmly expressed their disagreement in different ways. And Redcloak backed off, deciding the prices he'd already paid for putting the Plan on hold were enough (or too much).


Because, ultimately, that's what Redcloak does. He runs on fear. What he's afraid he can't control, he destroys; what he's afraid he can't destroy, he avoids; what he's afraid he can't avoid, he serves. Redcloak is, of course, very proficient in controlling and destroying external threats, by planning if not by sheer magical force, so there's very little fear there; which is why he's really thrown when he's actually at risk. But it's the internal fears that are constantly there...chief among them, the fear that his pursuit of the Plan will all be for nothing; that he's really the self-serving monster that he is.

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

I believe Redcloak does care about every goblin he kills. Because for him, there's a giant tally of goblins he's killed in pursuit of the Plan...including his own brother, once the only other survivor of the massacre of the village where he grew up. He sees a debt owed to that vast swath of people, that he can compare any individual goblin against when deciding they're he's better off with adding another corpse. Conveniently, this puts him on the hook for repaying that debt; so he's the only mortal goblin in existence who he can't risk before the Plan is completed.

The Plan is supposed to help the goblin people indefinitely going forward, so Redcloak has flexibility on accomplishing it; for example, if he wanted to first establish a nation that'll more quickly capitalize on the gains from it...or perhaps, believed that establishing a stable and recognized goblin nation could suffice as alternate end for the Plan. Xykon and the Dark One have demonstrated less patience, though; and whether or not Redcloak honestly believes he can control Xykon, he's screwed if the Dark One finds him unfit.

[Kantaki]

soo... does this page mean Tiamat is strongest of all since when we see her manifestation with the oracle it is in five colors?

Err... no?
Her quiddity is still one single colour.
Red. Like the other Western Gods.
Seems to come with the whole being a divine being thing.

[jwhouk]

Jasdoif, you got it spot-on. Redcloak's entire life is based on fear. You could say that it's a racial trait as well, but he's got it in an exceptionally high dose, thanks probably to the crimson mantle he wears.

I still believe that the only way the OotS can truly save the world is to get someone else in the red cloak of the Dark One. Because fear will cause the current Goblin Known as Redcloak to freeze up when it comes to doing what needs to be done.

[B. Dandelion]

Honestly, I feel like if Redcloak redemption was in the cards, the seeds would/should have been planted before this.

I mean, I would have said I saw potential "seeds" earlier, like in 451, where he did at least manage to recognize wrongdoing on his own behalf and to change course. He realized he had a responsibility to a greater scope of people.

It's interesting to think about that and then to flash forward to 702, which sets up the city that he built as a result of the hobgoblin sacrifices as being open to all manner of "disenfranchised humanoids" in a list of species that goes on for so long it runs off the page, suggesting he's expanded his scope even further. If he were to keep going? Well, eventually that path could lead to actual enlightenment where he considered all sapient races ones that he had a responsibility toward.

Or, say, 547, which illustrates that he's deeply conflicted but ultimately unable to go through with a particularly cruel threat -- "can't bring himself to banish a bunch of humans to oblivion when it won't even help his cause" is the commentary for the scene. You could certainly argue that it's more... flavor to his character than a setup for something in the future, but I can't tell you the palpable relief I felt when we got to the end of that sequence with nobody being Snarl'd, and having that not be indication of anything actually would be a bit of a letdown for me.

I could go on, but I think my point is that some of that is in the eye of the beholder. Obviously I'm not the only person who has the impression it's possible.

He's had amble opportunities to show something like that might be possible, and has never chosen not to. So at this point it feels like people are assuming it's more likely, or even guaranteed, just because they think the plot is saying it needs to happen.

And that doesn't strike me as very satisfying, or in line with how the Giant writes characters and their arcs.

The plot saying it's more likely to happen does add fuel to the fire of an existing belief, really.

Absolutely 100% agreed. It's also worth noting that the being the plot requires them to get on side is The Dark One, not his high priest, and we've already seen that a god's high priest can do stuff the god themselves wouldn't necessarily approve of--to whit, when Durkula wasted time and effort trying to kill Roy at the Godsmoot, when that was neither required by Hel or her plan.

UGH to any idea that the Dark One is going to come out of this looking less guilty than the person he brainwashed as a teenager. Right-Eye called him a petty, spiteful god and noted that he could have stopped Redcloak at any time. Greg was a minion of Hel for a matter of weeks at most, and barely deviated from any of her orders at all. Redcloak's been high priest for decades and the Dark One apparently hasn't said boo to him. He used Jirix's sojourn in the afterlife to tell Redcloak to get back to work on the Plan, without word one about the lives he'd sacrificed or the nation he'd built.

[Angelalex242]

Well, that's going to be a very interesting conversation with RedCloak.

"Knock off all that evil and listen, we need you...more specifically, your god...to save the world. The Snarl is a 4 color being, that's why it can tear gods apart. So only a 4 color opposition has any hope of winning. The Dark One has the 4th color the other 3 pantheons need to save the world."

"Wait, what?"

[Fnordius]

That moment when you realize the OOTS metaphysical backstory is an extended RGB vs. CMYK joke.

I see it as two conflicting systems, the RYB that we were taught in grade school, and then RGB that you later learn when first learning physics. The colours of finger paints versus the colours of monitors, televisions and so on.

Seen that way, the tension of having R(Y/G)B was also a factor in the creation of the Snarl. An allegory that should not be examined too closely, lest we also begin to accuse the Norse pantheon of letting the Hellenistic panthe– I mean, the Gods of the East – take the brunt of the attack in a sort of "this town ain't big enough for the both of us" mentality. It's fun to think that, but it's Rich's call.

I feel the Dark One fills a gap that the Gods of the East did not:

1. Weird Alien Type Gods: Gods of the West (Marduk's clan)
2. Animal Metaphor Gods: Gods of the South
3. Gods who Look Like People: Gods of the North, but also the dead Gods of the East

Who is missing from the list? A monotheistic religion, a role the Dark One can fill. And if you look at the speech he gave Jirix about fighting battles of bureaucracy and diplomacy, he does seem to be wiser than he's letting on. I would not be surprised if it turns out he was expected to form his own pantheon and was "rejected" for that purpose.

[hamishspence]

Just focus on the goblins if you have a problem with talking about Vampires, all the goblins in this world are evil. They live in a world that has quantifiable measurable evil, and thats what they are. Even the likable goblins like Redcloak are evil.

The Giant has made it crystal clear that Redcloak's little sister was not evil when she was killed. And neither was Right Eye.

She had not committed an Evil act.

And it's ridiculous to think that any given six-year-old may have committed a horrible act worthy of being executed unless the text says otherwise, just because that six-year-old has green skin and her parents bring her to their church services. That right there is enough reason for the story to be the way it is. No author should have to take the time to say, "This little girl ISN'T evil, folks!" in order for the reader to understand that. It should be assumed that no first graders are irredeemably Evil unless the text tells you they are.

Lawful Neutral: Mr. Jones, The CPPD, Kilkil.
Chaotic Neutral: Julio Scoundrél, Jenny, Ian Starshine.
True Neutral: Gannji, Enor, Julia Greenhilt, Vaarsuvius, Mr. Scruffy, Therkla, Right-eye, The Oracle, Hank.
Neutral Evil: Tsukikko, Leeky Windstaff, Pompey, Zz'dtri, Bozzok, Crystal, Grubwiggler, the Snail.
Neutral Good: Lirain, Dorkuan, Kazumi & Daigo.

Also, as The Giant puts it, goblins are basically short green humans in D&D:

Because all authors are human, it is exceedingly difficult for anyone to imagine a fully realized non-human intelligence. It has been done maybe a dozen times in the history of speculative fiction, and I would venture not at all in the annals of fantasy roleplaying games. (Certainly, goblins, dwarves, and elves don't qualify, being basically green short humans, bearded greedy humans, and pointy-eared magical humans.) Therefore, it's a moot distinction and one not worth making. Statistically speaking, ALL depictions of non-human intelligence—ever—are functionally human with cosmetic differences.

So, in OOTS, no, goblins aren't "all evil".

Goblins are evil creatures in oots-verse, as evidenced by "you will drink the blood of the innocent and LIKE IT!" line from the goblin dad to his teenage son.

That's a cultural thing, not an innate thing, though. That particular dad was one of the goblin spellcasters working for Redcloak and Xykon.

[renovator]

I am still not sure what colour model (s) the story is using and whether orange is important as people have mentioned.on the thread.

So options.
1/ RGB is the additive model

2/ CMYK is the subtractive model, but that doesnt work with crayons , but colours exactly opposite each other cancel each other out so that's sort of cool. But we now that the gods are sentient black hole thingies. If Thor gives off yellow then he might be sucking in all the other colours . ???

3/ Red Blue yellow.
and the mixes orange purple.and green which together form the colour wheel.
Colours opposite each other are called complementary because they work well together. :-)

4/ standard original.crayon colours from wiki
"The Eagle Pencil Company, New York, NY, featured a line of wax crayons offered up in 6 and 12 count boxes with a color line that included White, Pink, Violet, Terrasienna, Yellow, Blue, Brick Red, Brown, Orange, Red, Green and Black.'

[danielxcutter]

Oh so maybe *that's* why mortals stand up better to the Snarl than gods: they're made of three colors as opposed to the single color of deities.