10th April 2017: Rough-housing with Care

Discuss the comic here!
BiggestBlackest
Mutters to Themself
Posts: 38

Re: 10th April 2017: Rough-housing with Care

Post by BiggestBlackest » Sun Apr 16, 2017 7:28 pm

brnforce wrote: "Goblins are small, black-hearted, selfish humanoids that
lair in caves, abandoned mines, despoiled dungeons,
and other dismal settings. Individually weak, goblins
gather in large- sometimes overwhelming- numbers.
They crave power and regularly abuse whatever
authority they obtain."

from http://d20.sabotender.com/5th/Source/Dn ... Manual.pdf

Goblins are inherently bad. It is not evil to kill them in D&D. Monsters are monsters.
1. This world isn't D&D so monster manuals seem like irrelevant citations.
2. We've met a whole lotta goblins in this comic, and while many of them seem like religio-nationalistic zealots with questionable moral commitments, none of them correspond to the description you've cited.

Moreover, I can't fathom how you've read the same comic I have and still believe that the vast majority of monsters correspond to their Monster Manual alignment descriptions. Undermining that assumption is literally one of the primary themes of the comic and every piece of evidence contradicts it.

User avatar
Arch Lich Burns
Will NOT Shut Up!
Posts: 17412
UStream Username: burnsbees
Location: Behind you
Contact:

Re: 10th April 2017: Rough-housing with Care

Post by Arch Lich Burns » Sun Apr 16, 2017 8:14 pm

BiggestBlackest: Please stop double and triple posting. You can keep all of that into one post, thanks.

User avatar
Wolfie
She Who Admins
She Who Admins
Posts: 3472
UStream Username: Wolfie213
Location: In a handbasket on a bus... and it's hot

Re: 10th April 2017: Rough-housing with Care

Post by Wolfie » Mon Apr 17, 2017 6:40 am

BiggestBlackest wrote:If Minmax grew up in a world where there was evidence all over the place that "monsters" could be good, yes, it is his sin to have either never bothered to observe that or to ignore it before starting a life of monster-killing. In the same way it would be my fault if I signed up for an army of Jew-hunters because I had avoided meeting Jews my whole life (you brought up the Nazis not meeeee).

On the other hand, if he suddenly appeared in this world as a character being puppeted by a player, then "he" isn't "really" in love with Kin, doesn't "really" feel "his" injuries, and the line we're now being asked to walk with "him" is very confusing.

It also occurs to me that a DM who created a story like this, where a bunch of starting gamers were shown a goblin war camp and understandably started killing people who later turned out to be Lawful Good nice folks without preparing them for the fact that this was a morally ambiguous universe, is kind of a dick. Herbert, shame on you, you've made your players feel bad.

To me, MM is the quintessential "first time player" character with a DM who likes to let his players have creative freedom... and then learn from their mistakes. Minmax has gone from a 2D flat character to something a bit more rounded out. His player is still learning and the character is slowly coming alive within the Thuntonian universe, much like the story of the Velveteen Rabbit. During a D&D campaign, when played correctly, the characters are real within that world. They live and breath, and die, according to the rules of the world. They learn, they laugh, they love, and most importantly, they grow. MinMax has grown since the beginning. Being a PC, his growth can be bumpy and happen faster than it may in reality, but it is happening. If you've* ever played a D&D campaign, then you've seen how the changes can occur. In reality, these changes happen over the course of months; in D&D the changes happen over a course of minutes, hours, or even days in real time, whereas play time could be weeks.

And shame on Herbert? No. Good on Herbert. Make the players work for it. Roleplay should become natural and seamless over the course of time; a player should become the character during play, melding the rolls of the die with reactions of the character.

It's a game, it's not always going to make logical sense in the real world.

*royal you, meaning anyone, not just BB.

Also, we've currently got two barbarians who have hurt feelings confronting someone who hurt them in some form. In the words of a movie I like..."let them fight".
"This is my therapy dragon, she's for my panic attacks. I attack, everyone panics." (Quote found on http://outofcontextdnd.tumblr.com/)

"If I have a +2 strength sword and I stab you, you won't get a +2 strength, you get wounds" ~Sir Butcher

"How few there are who have courage enough to own their faults, or resolution enough to mend them." ~Benjamin Franklin

User avatar
ForgetsOldName
Is Heard Often
Posts: 301
UStream Username: TwoCoo
Location: Ann Arbor, MI

Re: 10th April 2017: Rough-housing with Care

Post by ForgetsOldName » Mon Apr 17, 2017 6:49 am

Honestly the idea of "good" monsters in DnD is cliche. What's different about goblins is that the characters are players who expect the goblins to be evil and the paladins to be good, and are gobsmacked by the way it isn't making any sense.

I also wouldn't use the word inconsistent here. It's consistent in its use of inconsistent fictional material. It just frequently doesn't make any sense according to the rules of physics. What's problematic is t that this world uses DnD rules and that even the NPCs appear to have read the DM manual. Everyone knows the rules don't make any sense; they just accept it, the way the Star Trek universe accepts all the time travel and multiple universe where everyone looks like them except with different costumes. It's more as if Star Trek occasionally started forcing the Klingons to obey real biology, then turned around and let them continue to exist for a while. It's a new set of rules, based on disobeying the established rules.
The old name was Twocoo. The avatar is the scariest thing in Wizardry I, circa 1981.

Segev
Mumbles Incoherently
Posts: 13

Re: 10th April 2017: Rough-housing with Care

Post by Segev » Mon Apr 17, 2017 7:14 am

Regardless of whether the goblins' reasons for it were what the adventurers believed, the goblins did set up a war camp. They called it one, and they raised their banners of war.

If, say, a band of Germans set up an armed camp in your favorite outdoor park and raised a bunch of swastika banners while screaming "seig heil" a lot, and leveled weapons at anybody who approached, yes, even then the United States or Canada might try to give them the benefit of a doubt after surrounding them with overwhelming firepower to keep them contained so they couldn't break out and hurt anybody. But if all you had were special forces guys, and this was right after WWII, do you think the special forces guys are going to take a chance that these Germans are just putting on a show to sacrifice themselves on your special forces' bullets for a noble cause? Or do you think they'd assume the Germans had made their intentions very, very clear by setting up on the US/Canada border in that fashion and deal with them appropriately? Especially when, upon bursting in, the Germans fought back lethally (albeit not particularly adeptly).

So, no, I wouldn't say that adventurers who charge into a "goblin warcamp" where the warriors present fight back with lethal force rather than throwing up their hands and surrendering are evil just because they didn't call for surrender every time they engaged a new combatant. Even leaving the D&D assumptions aside, MinMax and crew saw a self-proclaimed warcamp of generally-hostile creatures that was willing to fight them to the death. Their assumptions may have been wrong, but they weren't unjustified.

User avatar
ForgetsOldName
Is Heard Often
Posts: 301
UStream Username: TwoCoo
Location: Ann Arbor, MI

Re: 10th April 2017: Rough-housing with Care

Post by ForgetsOldName » Mon Apr 17, 2017 9:54 am

Well the goblins set up their warcamp because they knew adventurers were coming and that they had a justified fear for their community. They put the poorly locked chest in the middle because that's how goblins do things. They didn't open the chest and take out the magic items because that's against goblin law.

What threw Forgath off was when someone (Complains--too lazy to check...) pointed out that the Cryptic Falls tribe was not in the habit of attacking adventurers. It threw Forgath because his player knows the rules of DnD. Then the goblins broke another rule by opening the poorly locked chest. Then they became player characters, which makes no sense--players become characters, not the other way around.

I find all this deliciously fun. If I didn't, I'd read something else.
The old name was Twocoo. The avatar is the scariest thing in Wizardry I, circa 1981.

Punzil504
Mumbles Incoherently
Posts: 20

Re: 10th April 2017: Rough-housing with Care

Post by Punzil504 » Mon Apr 17, 2017 10:03 am

Unless someone majorly fumbled recently, performing the ceremony is going to end poorly no matter what. The Crit Window was showing a "1." If Fumbles gets into a situation where he needs a "20," he's going to fail. Plus he's Fumbles.

User avatar
Liquidmark
Speaks Quietly
Posts: 110

Re: 10th April 2017: Rough-housing with Care

Post by Liquidmark » Mon Apr 17, 2017 1:46 pm

Wolfie wrote:
BiggestBlackest wrote:If Minmax grew up in a world where there was evidence all over the place that "monsters" could be good, yes, it is his sin to have either never bothered to observe that or to ignore it before starting a life of monster-killing. In the same way it would be my fault if I signed up for an army of Jew-hunters because I had avoided meeting Jews my whole life (you brought up the Nazis not meeeee).

On the other hand, if he suddenly appeared in this world as a character being puppeted by a player, then "he" isn't "really" in love with Kin, doesn't "really" feel "his" injuries, and the line we're now being asked to walk with "him" is very confusing.

It also occurs to me that a DM who created a story like this, where a bunch of starting gamers were shown a goblin war camp and understandably started killing people who later turned out to be Lawful Good nice folks without preparing them for the fact that this was a morally ambiguous universe, is kind of a dick. Herbert, shame on you, you've made your players feel bad.

To me, MM is the quintessential "first time player" character with a DM who likes to let his players have creative freedom... and then learn from their mistakes. Minmax has gone from a 2D flat character to something a bit more rounded out. His player is still learning and the character is slowly coming alive within the Thuntonian universe, much like the story of the Velveteen Rabbit. During a D&D campaign, when played correctly, the characters are real within that world. They live and breath, and die, according to the rules of the world. They learn, they laugh, they love, and most importantly, they grow. MinMax has grown since the beginning. Being a PC, his growth can be bumpy and happen faster than it may in reality, but it is happening. If you've* ever played a D&D campaign, then you've seen how the changes can occur. In reality, these changes happen over the course of months; in D&D the changes happen over a course of minutes, hours, or even days in real time, whereas play time could be weeks.

And shame on Herbert? No. Good on Herbert. Make the players work for it. Roleplay should become natural and seamless over the course of time; a player should become the character during play, melding the rolls of the die with reactions of the character.

It's a game, it's not always going to make logical sense in the real world.

*royal you, meaning anyone, not just BB.

Also, we've currently got two barbarians who have hurt feelings confronting someone who hurt them in some form. In the words of a movie I like..."let them fight".
I think Minmax is actually an expert player that knows what he can get away with with his GM
BiggestBlackest wrote:
Liquidmark wrote:
Is hunting an evil act? Is destroying your enemy in battle an evil act? Is it evil to unwittingly do something that some view as bad because you're ignorant or insane?

Minmax has demonstrated that he cannot just straight up murder a person that can't fight back because he has a code of honor as a warrior. He killed goblins at a known warcamp and viewed monsters as XP sacks with legs. He didn't know there was more to them at the time and was basically a lowbie adventurer getting as much easy XP as he can from mobs that exist solely to be harvested for their XP.

Yeah, they're good an innocent, but Minmax couldn't see that and had no way of knowing or learning they were good and innocent.
1. Not if you're hunting animals, no.
2. Depends on the war and which side you're on, but it's certainly possible.
3. Tough question, but I believe the American criminal justice system often says "yes," or if not "yes" then "no, but you have to be imprisoned for life anyway."

If Minmax grew up in a world where there was evidence all over the place that "monsters" could be good, yes, it is his sin to have either never bothered to observe that or to ignore it before starting a life of monster-killing. In the same way it would be my fault if I signed up for an army of Jew-hunters because I had avoided meeting Jews my whole life (you brought up the Nazis not meeeee).

On the other hand, if he suddenly appeared in this world as a character being puppeted by a player, then "he" isn't "really" in love with Kin, doesn't "really" feel "his" injuries, and the line we're now being asked to walk with "him" is very confusing.

It also occurs to me that a DM who created a story like this, where a bunch of starting gamers were shown a goblin war camp and understandably started killing people who later turned out to be Lawful Good nice folks without preparing them for the fact that this was a morally ambiguous universe, is kind of a dick. Herbert, shame on you, you've made your players feel bad.

1) goblins ARE basically animals to an adventurer.
2) whatever side you're on in a war, you're on the right side from your point of view.
3) in the American criminal justice system, people are generally not considered completely responsible for their actions if they aren't acting with knowledgeable intent. That's why 'temporary insanity' is a legal defense and you don't stand trial for a crime if you are considered incompetent. Also, accidents are not a crime if you didn't know better and it isn't simple negligence. For instance, a little girl killed a gun instructor with an SMG by accident because she wasn't strong enough to hold the gun while firing it. Another example is a woman that shot and killed her husband because she **thought** he was an intruder trying to break in.

In their world, there isn't readily available evidence that monsters are anything but monsters. In the case with Jews and other groups that the Nazis deemed fit for extermination, that took a lot of dehumanization and scientific racism to get people on board for looking the other way for that. They knew that Jews and others were human beings, but had to make excuses to justify what they wanted to do because they needed a scapegoat to blame for their problems. Nobody in this fantasy world has to justify killing monsters. It's clear that they exist to be killed for XP. THESE goblins are good, but this is a very dark world with unimaginable horrors that are usually monsters of some sort and it's asking a bit much for lvl 1 Minmax to run around giving out candy and hugs to creatures that he's been told are monsters and therefore evil. You wouldn't have a story or game at that point because there'd be no character development or growth. There wouldn't even be a point to having an adventure because now he's gotta soul search and give every bog monster he sees a chance. Also, it's important to note that, if the goblins didn't speak English, Forgath wouldn't have learned that there was more to the goblins. He would have brutally killed thaco, fumbles and ears and probably finished off names as well all while thinking nothing of it because as far as he knows, they're evil monsters and he hasn't seen anything to change that.

Morgaln
Likes to Contribute
Posts: 243

Re: 10th April 2017: Rough-housing with Care

Post by Morgaln » Mon Apr 17, 2017 3:26 pm

So basically what you're saying is that since everyone knows monsters are evil, it is a-okay to kill them. Just like it was a-okay to enslave Africans in the colonial era, because everyone knew they were inferior to white people. Clearly it was the Africans' fault that they kept their villages where Europeans could find them. Or that they didn't speak English (or German, or Dutch or French) to negotiate. If no one had ever questioned that, we would still be keeping slaves. Just because something is socially acceptable doesn't mean it isn't morally questionable.
The whole theme of the comic is how it is immoral to treat a whole race badly just because they are of that race. That is the definition of racism. Yes, if Minmax had not bought into the propaganda about monsters, we wouldn't have a story, or at least not this one. But if we decide that everything Minmax did was alright and he is not to blame for anything, we won't have character development and growth, because there is no need or reason for him to change.

User avatar
Liquidmark
Speaks Quietly
Posts: 110

Re: 10th April 2017: Rough-housing with Care

Post by Liquidmark » Mon Apr 17, 2017 5:29 pm

Morgaln wrote:So basically what you're saying is that since everyone knows monsters are evil, it is a-okay to kill them. Just like it was a-okay to enslave Africans in the colonial era, because everyone knew they were inferior to white people. Clearly it was the Africans' fault that they kept their villages where Europeans could find them. Or that they didn't speak English (or German, or Dutch or French) to negotiate. If no one had ever questioned that, we would still be keeping slaves. Just because something is socially acceptable doesn't mean it isn't morally questionable.
The whole theme of the comic is how it is immoral to treat a whole race badly just because they are of that race. That is the definition of racism. Yes, if Minmax had not bought into the propaganda about monsters, we wouldn't have a story, or at least not this one. But if we decide that everything Minmax did was alright and he is not to blame for anything, we won't have character development and growth, because there is no need or reason for him to change.
Hrm, well there have always been people that were against slavery in Europe since before the Atlantic slave trade (in fact, a few European nations didn't partake in slavery and even had laws against owning people through the duration of the trans-Atlantic slave trade) and the belief in racial inferiority/superiority came after the slave trade was well underway for a couple hundred years. In fact, a lot of effort was put into dehumanizing native peoples worldwide as a means of justifying all sorts of atrocities and convincing most of the populace to look the other way or be apathetic. There have been other forms of slavery in existence long before and after the practice of chattel slavery during the trans-atlantic slave trade continuing on to this day.

Also consider that Europeans DID buy slaves from African kingdoms that they had alliances with and those kingdoms sold individuals from conquered territories. Now, I'll make clear that both cultures had starkly different understandings of property, ownership and so on which ultimately meant different understandings of slavery or what it meant to sell/buy a person.

Anyhow, I don't believe in objective morality. For people that lived in those societies and those eras slavery, human sacrifice, cannibalism, rape and a whole host of things that we don't view as good were a way of life in many societies and accepted as normal and often good or acceptable behavior based on the rules of their society.

In Minmax's society, monsters are evil. He didn't make the 'propaganda' or belief and really didn't have a reason to change or challenge that belief until he actually got to know a monster (Kin). In our society, there is a sharp contrast in the general political viewpoints and feelings on race and other cultures based on where one lives. If one doesn't live around minorities and only sees negative things about them on TV, they'll likely have negative feelings toward minorities. A buddy of mine grew up in rural Florida and has a father that was/is VERY racist. He told me a story about his dad beating him because he liked a black girl when he was a teen in the early 80's. His viewpoint is different from his father's because he knew minorities that were both positive and negative and he had joined the army and was stationed overseas for a number of years. That granted him lots of exposure to see that it isn't black or white, but more grey or a host of different shades and colors. His father didn't have that luxury. He grew up in the Jim Crow south where it would be constantly beat into his head that blacks and other non-whites are bad, that they are not equals and that they must be ground under boot to keep them in their place.

All of this was done to maintain a power structure that came into play during the slave trade and continued long after the civil war. To me, his father is a victim of generations of conditioning, as are many others. If he lashes out with what he was conditioned by his culture to believe, then one has to consider his conditioning, his personal issues that cause him to continue to believe such things and whether or not he has actually had an opportunity to see something that would expand his understanding of the human condition.

Minmax hadn't even had an opportunity to even consider that his beliefs would be wrong before meeting Kin. What if he were fighting Thaco and heard Thaco make a plea to the other goblins to save his son instead if Forgath? He probably would have pulled a similar 180 and HELPED Thaco. But he didn't get that opportunity.

Consider the Maze of Many, I recall at least one group that had Minmax and Names teamed up. How did that happen? Maybe something was drastically different in that world or maybe something minor changed at the warcamp raid. We'll never know.

Yeah, Minmax may have "bought into the propaganda", but what other message did he get to hear? I'm guessing nothing else. Propaganda that is unchallenged becomes a fact. Every year we get fed the propaganda that Columbus was an explorer that discovered America when that wasn't true. However, it isn't challenged at the dinner table, so it is a fact. We hear the propaganda of our religions if we are religious and that forms our entire belief system concerning what our god(s) want and how to please our god(s) or how we should live our lives. Usually those beliefs go unchallenged. However, it's important to note that many atheists once were very religious or raised in religious households. If one only gets to hear ONE message, they really don't have a choice in what they believe.

brnforce
Speaks Quietly
Posts: 125

Re: 10th April 2017: Rough-housing with Care

Post by brnforce » Mon Apr 17, 2017 6:04 pm

BiggestBlackest wrote:
1. This world isn't D&D so monster manuals seem like irrelevant citations.
2. We've met a whole lotta goblins in this comic, and while many of them seem like religio-nationalistic zealots with questionable moral commitments, none of them correspond to the description you've cited.

Moreover, I can't fathom how you've read the same comic I have and still believe that the vast majority of monsters correspond to their Monster Manual alignment descriptions. Undermining that assumption is literally one of the primary themes of the comic and every piece of evidence contradicts it.


Yes. It is. Minmax is a guy playing D&D with Forgath (who's being played by a girl). Their Dungeon Master's name is Herbert. The comic is the story of what goes on in that "imaginary" world that was (from the players' view) created by them in their game.

Segev
Mumbles Incoherently
Posts: 13

Re: 10th April 2017: Rough-housing with Care

Post by Segev » Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:30 am

Punzil504 wrote:Unless someone majorly fumbled recently, performing the ceremony is going to end poorly no matter what. The Crit Window was showing a "1." If Fumbles gets into a situation where he needs a "20," he's going to fail. Plus he's Fumbles.
Wait, "crit window?" Is there some mechanic on the goblins comic site that I'm unaware of?

User avatar
Krulle
Transcribes Goblins
Posts: 8119
Contact:

Re: 10th April 2017: Rough-housing with Care

Post by Krulle » Tue Apr 18, 2017 7:41 am

No. One of the items of loot coming from this room was the "crit Window", which showed a "one".
So, the next critical someone in this group throws, will be a one. There will be no "20" until someone of this party throws a "1".
That's all.
http://www.goblinscomic.org/01092017-2/ wrote:Information: The Crit Window
Information: This staff predicts whether the next crit in the party will be a success or failure. A 1 means a critical fumble while a 20 means it will be a critical success.
IMHO, this page shows Fumbles having already thrown a critical fail when detecting Minmax' lie....
Would be nice, but we haven't seen the Crit Window again, so we do not know whether Fumbles did throw a dice, or whether the Crit Window is still showing a "one".
Goblinscomic transcriptions
Collection of G:AR cards

User avatar
Davis8488
Enjoys Chitchat
Posts: 266
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: 10th April 2017: Rough-housing with Care

Post by Davis8488 » Tue Apr 18, 2017 10:59 pm

I assumed the critical fail was picking up the LOL pearl.
CarvesAPumpkin, Level 3 Defender in Capture the Flag

If anything I say offends you I am sorry. It is likely late and I am tired, or I'm upset and I am not thinking straight, and though I sincerely wish I could, I can't express myself in such a way that helps you be less of a crybaby.
► Show Spoiler

User avatar
Krulle
Transcribes Goblins
Posts: 8119
Contact:

Re: 10th April 2017: Rough-housing with Care

Post by Krulle » Wed Apr 19, 2017 1:25 am

Possibly, but I fear Minmax' greed would never have allowed MM to throw a dice to check for traps.
He just grabbed all potential loot available, without considering whether something might be booby trapped.
And since no-one dies during the explosion, I presume no crit had been thrown in the saves.
Goblinscomic transcriptions
Collection of G:AR cards

Post Reply