SOD debate between me and my friend. (spoilers I guess)

[Mystic Muse]

okay. me and my friend are debating whether SOD is actually a valid part of the story or a biased story told by redcloak. I personally think it's valid but he seems to think that redcloak is telling the story and therefore it's biased (particularly the part about the Paladins slaughtering Goblin women and children without mercy and without falling.)

what's the playground's opinion on this matter?

[Warren Dew]

Why not both?

[Da'Shain]

The Giant's been pretty clear so far on when something is actually happening and when it's simply a story being told, switching art styles in order to do that. SoD is in the same art style as the main comic, so therefore it's the same level of validity, at least by that particular yardstick.

Plus, if Redcloak was only telling the story there would be several portions that make no sense for him to have known about (Xykon's childhood, Roy and Eugene's talk at Bash U, Right-Eye's excursion to meet Eugene), and several more portions that he likely would have "embellished" if given the chance (his own part in Right-Eye's death and Xykon's subsequent speech springing immediately to mind).

[Nu]

Based on the commentary given in War and XPs, I say it's real. The 12 Gods did sanction that slaughter (by not stripping the paladins of their powers), and then Azure City got what was coming to them--I believe something to that effect was said. Perhaps I'm oversimplifying it, but I don't really see anything to indicate unreliable narration in OOTS, outside of flashbacks (in crayon).

[Mystic Muse]

Okay. my friend wants me to ask specifically about the Paladins. He believes that it's biased and being told by redcloak and that the Paladins aren't actually guilty of slaughtering innocent goblin women and children.

[Morthis]

Originally Posted by Kyuubi

Okay. my friend wants me to ask specifically about the Paladins. He believes that it's biased and being told by redcloak and that the Paladins aren't actually guilty of slaughtering innocent goblin women and children.

How would Right-Eye have sustained the injury that gave him that name? I mean it's of course possible it was sustained some other way, but it does appear that this is the true story.

[Mystic Muse]

Maybe he's a goblin eye of the Dark one? (Orc Eye of Gruumsh)

[Da'Shain]

Does he have any sort of actual argument for his position, aside from "Hey it could just be a story"?

[Kish]

Your friend is drowning in wishful thinking.

Ask him to prove anything that happened in the main comic is not a lie told by Roy. "Redcloak gets to draw the panels in Start of Darkness" is exactly as likely and supported as "Roy gets to draw the panels online."

[Warren Dew]

Originally Posted by Kyuubi

Okay. my friend wants me to ask specifically about the Paladins. He believes that it's biased and being told by redcloak and that the Paladins aren't actually guilty of slaughtering innocent goblin women and children.

All we see is paladins slaughtering goblins. Whether any of the goblins are innocent is never established.

I think the scene probably happened, but there may have been other scenes that showed that the goblins were not so innocent. Those scenes were left out of the story.

[Zevox]

The only part of Start of Darkness Redcloak is narrating is the crayons-of-time flashback sequence. The rest is still told from a 3rd-person perspective, like everything else in The Order of the Stick, and as such is as much unbiased story events as everything else.

As Kish indicates, if your friend seriously maintains that the story is being told by Redcloak throughout, he would also have to think that the main comic is being told by Roy or someone similar, as there is exactly as much evidence supporting that (i.e. that Roy is the main character of the strips, as Redcloak is in SoD).

There's also the matter that many parts of SoD focus on Xykon and parts of his life Redcloak couldn't know about (particularly those from before they met), so it'd be ridiculous to maintain that Redcloak is narrating everything in that book.

Zevox

[The Wanderer]

Originally Posted by Kyuubi

okay. me and my friend are debating whether SOD is actually a valid part of the story or a biased story told by redcloak. I personally think it's valid but he seems to think that redcloak is telling the story and therefore it's biased (particularly the part about the Paladins slaughtering Goblin women and children without mercy and without falling.)

what's the playground's opinion on this matter?

I think it's pretty obviously not a story told by Redcloak. There are multiple times where events happen that Redcloak is not a part of and would have no way of knowing about. Take the bits with Eugene Greenhilt for example, or do you think even a pre-lich Xykon told Redcloak about bringing his dog back to life, and then Redcloak would tell it to someone else?

Not to emntion that there's no framing device to suggest Redcloak as the narrator or anything else, so yeah... it's just as valid and impartial as our view of the OOTS world in the normal comic.

[derfenrirwolv]

Sorry, the paladins did it. Thats the problem with D&D morality, which is at least half the plot of start of darkness if not the entire comic.

Goblins are born evil. They have an innate tendency to do evil things. They were made that way specifically so it would be ok for low level paladins to massacre them without having to think about it to much.

In addition, these goblins are aiding, abbeting, and may BECOME the bearer of the crimson mantel. The bearer of the crimson mantel is a threat to the very soul of every living or dead creature thats ever existed. It NEEDS to be stopped at all costs.

[Zevox]

Originally Posted by derfenrirwolv

Goblins are born evil.

No, they're not. The only D&D creatures that can be argued to be born with an alignment are those with an "Always" alignment, and Goblins are only "Usually Neutral Evil."

Zevox

[factotum]

This entire argument seems to come back to the one that's been happening on and off since SoD came out--namely, why didn't the paladins Fall for wiping out that goblin village? The simple answer to which is, because their Gods didn't want them to! The commentary in one of the compilation books also mentions that the Sapphire Guard pretty much brought the sacking of Azure City on their own heads, which is additional evidence that the scene in SoD happened as shown.

[hamishspence]

Pretty much- the only things in SoD that might not have happened as written, are the crayon strips.

And those are consistant with the rest of the story- the gods in the crayon strips, don't seem to be acting out of character. Nor are the Order of the Scribble.

[DBJack]

Why would the gods care if their paladins, holy warriors fighting evil in their name, killed members of a race that they invented to be killed? And if these members of a cannon fodder race are being killed to stop the world from being destroyed and risking letting the snarl kill more gods, I'm sure that the gods would actively encourage the paladins to destroy any evidence of the crimson mantle

[KiwiImperator]

I'm of the opinion that we're getting a mixed message. I think everything we 'saw' did happen, but didn't necessarily mean what we thought it meant, for lack of context. I am also extremely wary of any of the crayon sections. I am determined to believe that the matter of the Paladins' apparently reprehensible actions during SoD will be addressed later, and everything will make sense once these final pieces fall into place.

[Snake-Aes]

Originally Posted by Zevox

The only part of Start of Darkness Redcloak is narrating is the crayons-of-time flashback sequence. The rest is still told from a 3rd-person perspective, like everything else in The Order of the Stick, and as such is as much unbiased story events as everything else.

As Kish indicates, if your friend seriously maintains that the story is being told by Redcloak throughout, he would also have to think that the main comic is being told by Roy or someone similar, as there is exactly as much evidence supporting that (i.e. that Roy is the main character of the strips, as Redcloak is in SoD).

There's also the matter that many parts of SoD focus on Xykon and parts of his life Redcloak couldn't know about (particularly those from before they met), so it'd be ridiculous to maintain that Redcloak is narrating everything in that book.

Zevox

Regardless, they're among the fodder species, which puts them within the "oh, we'll give them a stern look for putting bets on who gets an eye poked out first" area.

[factotum]

Originally Posted by KiwiImperator

I'm of the opinion that we're getting a mixed message. I think everything we 'saw' did happen, but didn't necessarily mean what we thought it meant, for lack of context. I am also extremely wary of any of the crayon sections. I am determined to believe that the matter of the Paladins' apparently reprehensible actions during SoD will be addressed later, and everything will make sense once these final pieces fall into place.

How do you explain the Giant's comment that the Sapphire Guard brought the attack on their own heads, then? And the attack on the goblin village didn't take place in crayon-o-vision, so I don't know why you even brought that up.

[The Giant]

Oooo! Oooo! I know this one!

The events of Start of Darkness are not a narrative being told by Redcloak, except for the crayon pages (which totally are). You are right, your friend is wrong. Everything you see happened.

However, everything that happened is not necessarily seen.

Suffice to say that the Twelve Gods are not beholden to put on the same visual display they did for Miko for every paladin who transgresses, and that all transgressions are not created equal. It is possible that some of the paladins who participated in the attack crossed the line. It is also possible that most did not. A paladin who slips up in the execution of their god-given orders does not warrant the same level of personal attention by the gods as one who executes the legal ruler of their nation on a glorified hunch. Think of Miko's Fall as being the equivalent of the CEO of your multinational company showing up in your cubicle to fire you, because you screwed up THAT much.

Of course, while Redcloak is not narrating the scene, it is shown mostly from his perspective; we don't see how many Detect Evils were used before the attack started, and we don't see how many paladins afterwards try to heal their wounds and can't, because these things are not important to Redcloak's story. Whether or not some of the paladins Fell does not bring Redcloak's family back to life. Indeed, if we transplant the scene to real life, he would think it cold comfort that some of the police officers who gunned down his family had to turn in their badge afterward (but were otherwise given no punishment by their bosses at City Hall).

Dramatically, showing no-name paladins Falling at that point in the story would confuse the narrative by making it unclear whether or not Redcloak had already earned a form of retribution against them. To be clear, he had not: Whether or not some of them lost a few class abilities does not change the fact that Redcloak suffered an injustice at their hands, one that shaped his entire adult life. That was the point of the scene. Showing them Fall or not simply was not important to Redcloak's story, so it was omitted.

Further, it would have cheapened Miko's fall to show the same thing over and over--and Miko, as a major character in the series, deserved the emotional weight that her Fall carried (or at least that I hope it carried).

I hope that clears this issue up. I hope in vain, largely, but there you have it.

(Oh, and I leave it up to the readers to form their own opinions on which paladins may have Fallen and which didn't.)

[warmachine]

I am surprised this friend thinks the paladins didn't act that way considering Miko. Her behaviour makes it clear that paladins aren't always exemplars of compassion. In On the Origin of PCs, a paladin expresses anger at not killing orcs who've done nothing wrong and that story is written from Roy's perspective.

[hamishspence]

Originally Posted by The Giant

It is possible that some of the paladins who participated in the attack crossed the line. It is also possible that most did not. A paladin who slips up in the execution of their god-given orders does not warrant the same level of personal attention by the gods as one who executes the legal ruler of their nation on a glorified hunch.

Originally Posted by The Giant

Of course, while Redcloak is not narrating the scene, it is shown mostly from his perspective; we don't see how many Detect Evils were used before the attack started, and we don't see how many paladins afterwards try to heal their wounds and can't, because these things are not important to Redcloak's story.

Originally Posted by The Giant

Whether or not some of them lost a few class abilities does not change the fact that Redcloak suffered an injustice at their hands, one that shaped his entire adult life. That was the point of the scene. Showing them Fall or not simply was not important to Redcloak's story, so it was omitted.

These are very interesting. And do clear up the "why didn't they fall?" question, with "we can't actually be sure that they didn't"- answer.

Originally Posted by The Giant

(Oh, and I leave it up to the readers to form their own opinions on which paladins may have Fallen and which didn't.)

My current best guesses are- the ones that killed, or tried to kill, young goblins that were not a threat (Right Eye, and his sister) and possibly the leader of the force, after "Exterminate the rest and let us be done here."

[Ancalagon]

Originally Posted by The Giant

I hope that clears this issue up. I hope in vain, largely, but there you have it.

You really have my gratitude for providing this explanation.

This finally is the nail in the coffin of the arguments that "what the paladins did was not evil because the gods did not care". I somehow disliked the fact that obviously evil deeds in this story here were deemed to be ok by quite a few people...

Actually, the paladins that crossed the line behaved more like some players ("awesome, three NPCs in a row, I get to use great cleave on those goblin children") and not like some paladins...

[hamishspence]

The Origin of PCs paladin also sounded a bit like a player-

"they're listed as CE, so we can kill them without alignment penalties"

"I'd kill him myself, but I have to keep a LG alignment to keep my powers"

[Mystic Muse]

well, word of God itself.

Guess this thread is over.

[Ancalagon]

Originally Posted by hamishspence

The Origin of PCs paladin also sounded a bit like a player-

"they're listed as CE, so we can kill them without alignment penalties"

"I'd kill him myself, but I have to keep a LG alignment to keep my powers"

Yes, but in his case the commentary explicitly stated he was there to show how paladins are not to be played/how people misconcept what a paladin is or by what rules they operate. So far, it was obvious (to me) it was the same for the paladins in SoD, but it was not explicitly stated.

[hamishspence]

It did? I don't recall there being that much of a commentary in Origin of PCs- though maybe I missed it.

[TriForce]

i find it interesting that rich gave such a detailed and clear responce on this. especially since he normally doenst mingle much on the forum.

im guessing that that event carries much weight with him, as its more or less the start of the entire comic, and one of the most dramatic events he has written

[hamishspence]

Probably. Of all the antagonists in the comic, Redcloak seems like one of the most "filled out" so to speak.

And after Miko, he's probably one of the ones who generates the strongest disagreements.

A summary of the two most common viewpoints on him (from TV Tropes- sorry about that ):


Depending on how the viewer chooses to read things, there are two possible ways to see Redcloak, The Dragon and resident Well Intentioned Extremist from Order of the Stick. The first is that Redcloak and his entire species (goblins) are the victims of Jerkass Gods who declared that they are Always Chaotic Evil for the sole reason that the followers of those gods then could slaughter goblins as XP fodder guilt free. Redcloak himself is the survivor of a raid by Knights Templar paladins that slaughtered most of his family and community, and is intelligent, well intentioned, has kept his standards, is repulsed by acts of Card Carrying Villainy and as the spiritual leader of all goblins, is trying to improve their lot. (By committing an act of Black Mail against the gods by threatening to unleash a world destroying, god killing Eldritch Abomination). In this view, Redcloak may be misguided, but his sole aim is to improve the lot of his people and allow them to build a civilization on equal terms with the other races. (Also regarding this view, they seem to have Word Of God on their side, as Rich Burlew himself once noted that some people are evil, and others are "driven to it by what life has forced them to endure". And that Redcloak may be one of the latter cases).

The second view is that Redcloak is a speciest who has perpetrated just as much Fantastic Racism as he has been victim to, is a kin slayer who, however regretfully, passed the Moral Event Horizon during his Start Of Darkness, is threatening to unleash an Apocalypse on innocent people and his own followers while empowering his Evil Overlord boss Xykon, a sociopathic undead lich of epic power whose sole pleasure in the world is killing. (And, even if Redcloak would succeed, he could never topple Xykon or stop Xykon from simply slaughtering whoever he wanted, however he wanted). In this view Redcloak may end up committing genocide on the entire world, and is merely deluded about both the goodness of his intentions and the depths to which he has fallen.