Rich Morris' Comics - YAFGC and The ComixBlog

Well, guess a good deal of this comic is about how humans are often quite evil, even if hypocritically, and monsters not that bad after all. Some of my favorite strips deal with that, like when Gren is made prisoner at the human city, or when the Goblin shaman claims that the surface guys "outevil us"... or when the orcs are being lynched and one of them says that it's not so difficult to understand humans after all.

And while monsters are just something out of fantasy, humans like those, and probably even much worse, are way too real.

I note that YAFGC is pretty well balanced racially -- there are members of nearly every race that we're meant to like, and members of nearly every race that we're meant not to like, and plenty who are, regardless of their sort into "heroes" and "villains," at times sympathetic, at times groanworthy, and at times a bit of both. I never got the impression that YAFGC was down on humanity -- more that it demonstrated that "humanity" (in a pan-species sense of the word) was universal to sapient beings, and that with thinking minds and feeling hearts, one also inherits all the best and all the worst of the so-called "human" condition.

And so, I would more argue the this comic is about how every thinking being is remarkably similar, and how much how all have in common -- how much of so-called "humanity" truly is universal. Every bit as vivid as the familiarness of the monsters in human form is the familiarness of the peoplee in "monstrous" form, and the common themes in their thoughts and lives, and in ours.

Of course, I can't deny that the strip makes me want to slip into a metaphorical set of wolf pajamas like dear Max, and run off after dinner to the Black Mountain, where the Wild Things are.

I did not mean that either. Just that too often "they outevil us". They are "subtle" (in a Maula sense maybe) but can be as evil as any monster, just that they keep the forms.

Of course, we also see the good side of humans, of course, like the King of Drostardy, archetypical paladin. But there are plenty of human villains and also ambiguous characters like the village mayor.

And too good characters are often being poked at too (just think the wood elves). But nearly all the main characters, whether god or evil aligned, are in fact neutral enough to be interesting and not mere archetypes.

Moved it as it was too interesting a discussion to be cut in half .

What i like most as a storyline progresses is that most characters that matter will act in selfish, altruistic, mostrous or 'humane' fashion, without losing who they really are. Even Drostardy enjoyed taunting Arachne a bit, for example, and Tainley (his minister) while good acted without any regard for the King's happiness. The way i see it, humans are protrayed mostly realistically while the 'monsters' seem to use the "Evil" template to be as selfish as the humans would be capable of, if their society was formed differently.
Aldus Huxley said that what we call civilization was developed so we would be prevented from acting cruel. The humans in YAFGC, even the good ones, can remind you of this at the most unexpected time.

or as arachne put it...

good just pretends not to enjoy that kind of stuff

The truth is that while the monsters are hinted to be, well, monstrous, the worst behavior seems to come from the human side of YAFGC. Lucas was a meaner bully than any orc for example.

Sorry, I missed the split up.



I won't agree with Huxley, I'm more inclined to think that civilization is actually a process of rotting of a rather kind human nature caused by animal and plant domestication, ending up in also self-domestication of humans (think of slavery, hierarchies, crowding, etc.) I'm rather a Primitivist, though an open-minded one. To be honest, I was never convinced of the mastery of his Brave New World novel, which caused on me a mixture of feelings and some perplexity and the impression of reading a very pessimist author, who fails to understand human nature (though has a good understanding of hives maybe).

The fact that his hero ends up choosing a cold island exile instead of a tropical one also left me quite puzzled and with the impression that Huxley's mind and mine are totally different.



At least than the ones we have seen so far. His reformation, I'd even say transformation in a whole new person, was never well explained, IMO.

Actually, i felt it was well explained; i will not get into detail as this is not the right thread, but when he realized he stood to loose everything, that he was a smith's son, that Glon's lot was actually his own... this is when he changed. Forcibly at the beginning, then as he stopped being a spoiled princeling and began taking responsibility, it became more like a second skin. Humans are that way: we grow and learn. Monsters on the other hand are supposed to be monolithically evil, but what i see in YAFGC makes you feel that just as good comes in many flavors, so does evil.

As for Huxley, i was shocked by his approach and it made me think, but i do not know how much i agree. The Greek word for Human actually means 'the one who looks up' so i always assumed this is our natural course, becoming better. Then again, who knows? We can only guess, or at best pick a theory and live with it even though we will never know if we are in the right.
Unlike Orcs, who can always take a look at Gruumsh and know they are doing OK .

That sort of teleology (kind of a pre-determined course of history from humble beginnings to supposed epic finals) is also present in other belief systems. But, on the other hand, energy is not created nor destroyed, just transformed, so what we gain in some area, we lose in another. It happens with the usual economic concepts of "production" (mere transformation in fact) "growth", that have many hidden costs in ecological destruction and piles of residues, and it happens also with civilization, whose hidden costs are the need to submit to a larger and more complex social structure, where, even if we are treated as individuals, our individual expression is highly canalized and our social bonds hijacked by higher structures that are not nor probably can be fully participated by us.

I am often a nostalgic of the good old times at the East African savannah - but guess it's just because I've watched too many Serengeti documentaries. In any case, I know that humans have evolved for warm climates and daily exercise and hence probably crossing the tropics was a bad idea and so was assuming a sedentary lifestyle. One the other hand it is more comfortable once we have the sufficient devices, like heating and armchairs and very specially bathrooms and washing machines (that among the Mayans are thought as good not because they save work but because that way the young girls "don't waste all day chatting at the river", or so wrote Comandante Marcos in one of his books).

It's a complex balance and while we have achieved many things (I am particularly impressed by science and human rights), the path has been quite wavy, not straight at all, and everything has pros and cons.

Whatever the case the hive is not my ideal of human life, though it may work for robots or other species. I have said sometimes that I identify with Cadugan because of his misanthropy, rather than with the great concentrations of men, elves or orcs. I'd much like a quieter and simpler life, even if also get many benefits from this way of life, specially loads of general knowledge and some fun.

Lucas' change is fairly realistuc. Lucas was basically a spoiled brat, he behaved as he did because he thought he was better than normal people and could get away with it (which he later references when a bunch of nobles start showing up and his aide says they'll all be behaving themselves). When Lucas was knocked out of this mindset, when he realized he wasn't any better, he changed and became nicer. Plus the closest thing he seems to have to a mother figure is an orc, the same orc who knocked the special out of him, suffice to say his worldview has been changed and his behaviour along with it.


Now, humans have definitely been all over the map alignment wise. The best and worst the comic has had to offer have come from humanity and that makes sense because humans really are like that. What the comic has done with the other races is take the races that are traditionally leaning towards various sides of the spectrum and fleshed them out. The orcs and beholders and goblins are all partaking in definitely evil behaviour but in a believable way. The Elves and halflings and dwarves have all been behaving in traditionally good ways, but again in believable ways.

Heck, I'd be more likely to smack Glitterbranch than Wolf, and not just because one would be more likely to hurt me.

Well there was never anything straight or clean cut or exclusively beneficial in human history. And while it is comforting to think we are heading somewhere in the greater scheme of things, maybe this is just random chance. The best you can do is pick a path, set a goal and try to make things work. I am pretty much convinced there not anything subjectively Good and Evil outside the DnD universe.
Which brings me back to YAFGC: there is not a choice that is clean cut there either. But what i noticed is that Evil tends to be equated with Liberated. There is this sense that evil is what everyone would be doing if the law was not against it, that everyone can be naughty and possibly downright nasty, we just will not admit it. I mean, what Arachne does or what Charlotte is, somehow does make us jealous even if we would be horrifed if we met someone who kept people in cages.
Or stuck their arm up elven... ahem .

Rather is Chaotic what might be equated with that, IMO.

Evil is about selfishness, which has nothing to do. But Chaotic has a "progressive" equivalence, because one is not bound by law or tradition but makes up ones decisions and ethics on the way. Lawful on the other hand would approach to "conservative". While Good is about altruism.

I am kind of surprised to find that Orcs are Chaotic and Goblins instead Lawful. I'd expect the opposite, or at least such a military-oriented race as orcs to be more or less Lawful in fact (after all military is largely about discipline, norms, hierarchy and goose step, right?).

But anyhow I feel that D&D adscriptions in the lawful-chaotic axis are somewhat lacking. Elves don't seem that Chaotic either, right? More like neutral I'd say, except maybe the ones like Cadugan. Truly Chaotic are the satyrs or Charlotte, hehe, though maybe they are Extreme Chaotic and a Moderate Chaotic sub-faction should also exist.

In any case Arachne and Charlotte are Chaotic, though also Evil (specially Charlotte). On the other hand we have seen the Drow organize for fight in a way that I'd call Lawful, i.e. orderly, with uniforms, hierarchies, self-discipline, etc. Meanwhile the Beholders, who are Lawful, have not done anything of the like (not counting Bob).

Alignments in DnD are way too restrictive. If it wasn't for spells that utilize them i would have dispensed with them for good.

And i agree that in real life Evil has to do with being selfish, but in YAFGC it seems to be more a matter of freedom. Contrast Clover who is in a classic romance with Maula or Arachne or Karak who just have sex to enjoy it. Sure, the monsters will at times say something about torturing, sacrificing others or some such, but the ones we really like are shown to be liberated, not actually evil (though we have heard them talk about doing evil).

Evil isn't necessarily selfishness, it's a disregard for others, their needs, their safety, their value as people. It's perfectly possible to have a selfless evil person or someone fighting for the greater good but perfectly willing to sacrifice however many people it takes to do that. Evil is just more open about how selfish people are. Once you get into an evil society you're generally free to do as you please so people indulge themselves with whatever they like. And it's not just evil societies that do that, look at the forest elves, aside from the murder and turture, which they've shown no interest in, how are they any different from the drow? There's no sexual taboos, they're out having a good time, being carefree and generally enjoying themselves.

It all comes down to what the society has decided is acceptable behavior. Good and evil societies can lean equally towards open or restrictive behaviour, it's the motivations and how they treat each other that determines their alignment positions. And even then most members of a society will lean towards neutral for the most part.

I guess it is hard to pin down a definition. Same as in your everyday life: it is hard to label an action or person. Very few acts can be accurately described as pure Evil or Good if you take everything into account. If it would be easy we would be living in a cheap fantasy universe. Which would be somehow... comforting.