The Gaming Den

So, what I want to know is:

1) How are the Goblins in Goblins any different from the adventurers?

and

2) What's the difference between Belkar and Xykon?

I mean, remember the bouncy ball incident? If Belkar had did that to a bunch of hobgoblins everyone would be cheering and oo'ing and aa'ing. But when Xykon does it it's 'omg what an evil bastard'.

So I say fuck it. Let's completely get rid of the hypocrisy of our standards of evil and condemn characters like Belkar as much as we do Xykon. Chewing through hordes of orcs makes you no better than the necromancer who keeps throwing forlorn hopes at the castle in order to make zombies.

The Goblins in Goblins aren't any different. Or, there wasn't when I was reading the comic.

And Belkar gets sympathy because, well, there's a possibility he could be something better--and he's funny. He's murdered a ton of people, but maybe he's finally getting past that.

To be honest, I'm pretty fond of Xykon as a character. Just when I think he's a total idiot, he does something that shows there's something in that skull of his.

Belkar is supposed to be evil. People deal with it because he's a PC.

Additionally, while Belkar is evil, he's working for Team Good. His methods are suspect outright evil, but his goals - enforced upon him to be sure, but still his goals - are good.

It's a case of the lesser evil opposing the greater...the Good Guys ally with the lesser evil because they need to beat the Big Bad, no matter what.

Yeah, what Carthaz said, 90% of the point of Belkar is to show how everyone accepts evil bastardity coming from PCs as okay, and highlight the hypocrisy.

If that's not his point as a character, then Burlew is a terrible storyteller, because that's all I ever got from him.

As for Goblins, it's not really a question of alignment, but the interaction of PC races with monstrous ones. In a way, it's a deconstruction of the iconic adventuring party (Goblin Slayer and Min Max in particular).

Kaelik wrote:Yeah, what Carthaz said, 90% of the point of Belkar is to show how everyone accepts evil bastardity coming from PCs as okay, and highlight the hypocrisy.

If that's not his point as a character, then Burlew is a terrible storyteller, because that's all I ever got from him.

Then what's with all of the sympathetic POV he's been getting?

As far as I can tell, Belkar is going to behave in the same murderous, sociopathic way it's just that he's going to get less in the way of the PCs.


And really, if that's the point to his character then I have to agree with Kaelik and say that Burlew really fucked up whatever point he's trying to make.

As usual for these types of characters, the author goes out of their way to make them magnificent bastards and give them all of the funny lines--and even worse, ties it to their godawful moral outlook, with the implication that if they somehow improved the so-called awesomeness would go away.

The goblins are actually only trying to ensure all of them survive AFAICT. In fact, it's hilarious that only one ever made a death oath on Minmax, when likely them should (before losing Fumbles).

The goblins are the heroes. They went from comic-relief "D&D from the monsters' point of view" to a band of adventurers risking death and worse to save one of their own (and incidentally, becoming quite badass in the process).

Big Ears rules.

Talisman wrote:The goblins are the heroes. They went from comic-relief "D&D from the monsters' point of view" to a band of adventurers risking death and worse to save one of their own (and incidentally, becoming quite badass in the process).

Big Ears rules.

Yeah, and then they end up chewing through a crowd of guards whose only crime was trying to protect the city. You know, role reversal.

The hypocrisy displayed is just hilarious in its ineptness--hopefully the comic will come around full circle, but since most people don't like thinking about it I bet it won't.

Talisman wrote:The goblins are the heroes. They went from comic-relief "D&D from the monsters' point of view" to a band of adventurers risking death and worse to save one of their own (and incidentally, becoming quite badass in the process).

Big Ears rules.

IIRC, the transition was planned from before the start. Despite some Stufying (Seriously, artifact found mid-lopsided-fight?), Ears does get the best line ever.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Yeah, and then they end up chewing through a crowd of guards whose only crime was trying to protect the city. You know, role reversal.

The hypocrisy displayed is just hilarious in its ineptness--hopefully the comic will come around full circle, but since most people don't like thinking about it I bet it won't.

Did they enter wanting a fight? Also, their crime list was specifically said (and known to the goblins themselves, though most likely they just thought about getting out alive ATM) to include "torturing pariahs to death" - while some might see even that as justifiable within the context of supposedly protecting the city, I wouldn't think that'd fit the morals you claim to have, at least. And while a full circle isn't something I'd be entirely dissatisfied with, I'm not sure I see the point - most people are pretty happy with just assuming goblins are fvckers, it's the humanoid side that tends to need to be shown as such.

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Yeah, and then they end up chewing through a crowd of guards whose only crime was trying to protect the city. You know, role reversal.

Not quite. Big Ears used his detect evil to reveal that all the guards with white headbands are, in fact, unrepentantly evil. Probably comes of having a psychotic, half-tree Captain.

It's kind of cheap, but there you go.

Talisman wrote:

Lago PARANOIA wrote:Yeah, and then they end up chewing through a crowd of guards whose only crime was trying to protect the city. You know, role reversal.

Not quite. Big Ears used his detect evil to reveal that all the guards with white headbands are, in fact, unrepentantly evil. Probably comes of having a psychotic, half-tree Captain.

It's kind of cheap, but there you go.

Hmm. This copout feels kind of familiar, brutha... I could've sworn that...

Nah. Like D&D would be that perfunctory!

In fact, detect evil didn't particularly help (maybe it was a nod to expected average reader reaction, and we know average people suck). But are you gonna dismiss the actual crimes, committed for a reason even comprehensible (as opposed to acceptable, for many people) - thus not merely "a plot device fabrication" - and revealed way before said detect evil?

Lago PARANOIA wrote:

Kaelik wrote:Yeah, what Carthaz said, 90% of the point of Belkar is to show how everyone accepts evil bastardity coming from PCs as okay, and highlight the hypocrisy.

If that's not his point as a character, then Burlew is a terrible storyteller, because that's all I ever got from him.

Then what's with all of the sympathetic POV he's been getting?

As far as I can tell, Belkar is going to behave in the same murderous, sociopathic way it's just that he's going to get less in the way of the PCs.


And really, if that's the point to his character then I have to agree with Kaelik and say that Burlew really fucked up whatever point he's trying to make.

Not at all. He's stressing the point (perhaps too hard), that the player with the Ebil PC gets away with a lot. But when the player finally goes over the line (in the opinion of the rest of the group), this is his one option: play according to their rules, but don't really change.

The problem is, *you* are trying to derive some deep philosophical meaning out of cheap entertainment. And by cheap, I mean a comedy that is done solely for the lulz, poking fun at the habits and stereotypes that would result from an RPG world that would actually result from RPG rules, and is also free.

He gets the 'sympathy' POV, because its something familiar to the majority of the audience. They get the subtext, and can laugh at it, because for most of them, they understand how absurd it would actually be.

I'm very unsure about a significant part of the fanbase not actually wanting to be Belkar ...

I like Xykon a lot better then Belkar.

A LOT.

Even new Belkar is just very... un-relatable. Xykon is big, bad, and does it with a grin on his face and a smile in his heart. Beyond his "For this comic, I'm going to be dumb.", he's pretty smart. The ball example is good. I liked that.

Is there really a huge following that likes Belkar, but hates Xykon? That's soo... narrow minded.

Also, keeping in line with OOTS, theres the whole stupid Miko "Smite makes right" thing. Like Voss said, a huge part of the characters is the stereotype they where created around.

I think morality is in the hands of the character that you have created. You could have a necromancer who's zombies and skellies are no more then undead constructs. Just some silly programming as opposed to the writhing spirit of the cadavers former owner. You could make it black and white, or relative.

Also, did Fumbles really die? I stopped reading that comic because he pissed me off so much, not too mention the stupid "have artifact weapons/armor at level nothing"

Please tell me Fumbles died. Horribly.

Fumbles has been tortured into a persistent stupor.

The part about smiling applies equally well to Belkar in either phase, actually. But I don't think there's really too many people liking Belkar who dislike Xykon - I'm almost sure Lago means that the setting treats them differently without that much reason, as opposed to the readers. As for Goblins, neither Fumbles nor Dies Horribly have been hit by similar prophecy so far.

I liked Dies Horribly though... Mostly because the girl goblin said that prophecy names are a crock of shit.

Heh... killed a fox with her bare hands...

So you are saying that there is a morality line, lined up based on the setting, that people can and cannot cross. And being a PC shouldn't magically move the line.

This is a problem in games for people who aren't stupid? My brain is refusing to believe the other option. The one that involves stupid people.

Off the top of my head, Belkar slaughtering hundreds (thousands?) of Hobgoblins mere meters from the Big Blue City is just as horrendous as Xykon insanity balling the throne room. Except one makes the character look like a big strong badass, and the other shows just how awesome and ingenious the character is.

Belkar killing random gnome? Equal to Xykon making a "Get it? Because you're DEAD!" joke.

Xykon and Belkar do evil because it's their character (stereotype). And yes, they should be condemned on the same level. Belkar going "I'll follow the rules now" shouldn't absolve him from his previous monstrosities. And if Xykon suddenly repents, same deal.

It's almost becoming a maturity == morality kind of deal, but that just seems so.. pathetic to say. And think.

Even in a comedy webcomic, it's weird when you notice big things like this. They just jump out at you and make you think.

Fumbles

I believe you are in fact referring to Senor Vorpal Kickasso.

Actually, if you notice, Detect Evil shows anyone in the town who would or could work for the betterment of the the city (as opposed to the Goblins) as Evil; whereas when one of the city casts it, they get the exact opposite result.

In other words, there's Team A and Team B. When you're on Team A, Team B signs Evil (whether they're evil or not, only whether they're not neutral or not) and Team A signs Good. And vice-versa.

-Crissa

So we actually call it "Detect Enemies", "Detect Other Team" or "Detect People I Don't/Won't Like"?

"Detect targets for Smite"?

"Detect Antithesis", maybe.