Miko - the real tragic Hero of OotS?

[Hardcore]

In the thread about Redcloak being a tragic hero I tried think of characters in OotS that Really suffered from Hubris. :miko: immideatly stood out in my mind as suffering from it. It also occured to me that she, too, could be considered a Tragic Hero!
Poster Katana used Wikis page on the Tragic hero (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragic_hero) when arguing for RC as TH. I will used that too and see how many of the examples apply to Miko:


Some common traits characteristic of a tragic protagonist:
The flaw is, most frequently (esp. in the Hellenic dramas) Hubris.
The hero discovers that he is a result of his own actions, not by things happening to him.
The hero sees and understands his doom, and that his fate was revealed by his own actions.
The hero's downfall is understood by Aristotle in his Poetics to arouse pity and fear that leads to an epiphany and a catharsis (for hero and audience.) It is not necessary by the Aristotelian standard that the downfall or suffering be death/total ruin, as in the myth of Herakles, who ultimately ascends to Mount Olympus and immortality. Since at least the time of William Shakespeare, however, the flaw of a tragic hero has generally been regarded to necessarily result in his death, or a fate worse than death. The Shakespearean tragic hero dies at some point in the story; one example is the eponymous protagonist of the play Macbeth. Shakespeare's characters show that tragic heroes are neither fully good nor fully evil.
A tragic hero is often of noble birth, or rises to noble standing (King Arthur, Okonkwo, the main character in Achebe's novel Things Fall Apart).
The hero learns something from his/her mistake.
The hero is faced with a serious decision.
The suffering of the hero is meaningful, because although the suffering is a result of the hero's own volition, it is not wholly deserved and may be cruelly disproportionate.
There may sometimes be supernatural involvement (in Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, Caesar is warned of his death via Calpurnia's vision and Brutus is warned of his impending death by the ghost of Caesar).
The archetypal hero of classical tragedies is, almost universally, male. Later tragedies (like Shakespeare's Antony and Cleopatra) introduced the female tragic hero. Portrayals of female tragic heroes are notable because they are rare.

*Mikos flaw is that think she is choosen by the gods. That is classic Hubris. Check
*Did Mikos downfall lead to fear and pity? Not sure. It did lead to...
*...Mikos DEATH. Check
*Miko rose to noble stature, being a Paladin (the best one). Check
*Miko also learns something at the very end when Soon speak to her. An indication of that is that she seemed to accept her fate. Check
*"The suffering of the hero..." Being rent in two parts was maybe more than she deserved. Check
*Supernatural involvement? Being stripped of your Paladin powers by the gods themselves should count! Check

Furthermore I think Miko was a hero because she did after all try to do what was good. She always got her conclusions wrong because of Hubris, of course, but that was not really her fault. IMO with a Hubris so strong it probably was caused by a psychological condition. She was an orphan, which could have something to do with that. (I shouldn't have to elaborate on that) Note that she could not even belive the gods stripped her of the paladin status.

So, IMO, Mikos tragedy was not the Hubris. It was that she was unable to shake off her mistaken belief, and change, because the pain that would have caused her would have been to great. :smallfrown:
(no healing for broken hearts...)

[Mystic Muse]

I'm going to assume this is a joke but just in case.

No. Miko is not anything even resembling a hero. She does not help anybody in a way other characters do not. In fact She is a cold blooded murderer of a harmless man and has the intent to murder our heroes because she believes them to be evil.

This doesn't fit the description of "hero."

[Forbiddenwar]

In order for Miko to be a Tragic protagonist, she would have to first be a protagonist. She is not.

[Omergideon]

I am not sure that I would use the Term tragic Hero, however accurate it may be. She does not seem to have been humbled enough by her experiences for that. By this I mean she did not learn humility or truly recognise the depth of her tradegy. She is, however, a wonderful study of a fallen Hero.

Now first I must say that I do not like Miko as a person, but as a character she is fascinating. It's much like the fact I do not like Javert from Les Miserables (the musical) much as a person, but I would absolutely love to play him in a production. There are probably deeper paralells between the characters but I have no time or patience to try to explore them. I will be brief.

Miko had enourmous potential at every stage to become good, and truly spectacular. If she posessed more humility she would probably have become a shining examplar of paldinhood. However due to many experiences she became abrasive, arrogant and somewhat blade happy. Where fault lies for that is not the issue (I personally say on all sides a bit but that's another question). by her own acts, in part, she chose to and became more arrogant, less humble, and harder to reason with. Step by step she came closer to an act of true evil (Shojo's murder) and fell. And she never attempted true redemption as a real tragic hero would. She attempted to bulldoze on until she was proven right, not humble herself and learn as, for instance, Roy and lately V have done. Her life was a tradegy, and she is tragic in that sense, but she is not a true tragic hero. I call her a fallen hero. Similar but with no redemption tried.

[NerfTW]

You forgot the part where they have to do something heroic. Miko did NOTHING heroic in the entire strip. In fact, almost every action she took hindered the heroes in some way. Her final act was to prevent the defeat of Xykon and Redcloak.

She is an antagonist, plain and simple.

[Cleverdan22]

Miko=not a tragic hero at all. For most of the reasons stated above.

[Eakin]

Tragic hero? Of course not.
Tragic FIGURE? Sure, absolutely.

You don't have to be a hero or even a protagonist to have a tragic character arc

[theinsulabot]

tragic heros often suffer from hubris. miko certainly did. generally speaking, they also have redeeming qualities as well though

[Sewblon]

Saying that believing her actions to be correct makes her a hero is like saying that Belkar is without sin because he never had a conscience. Miko always did what she thought was right, but only because she was unwilling to think anything that would lead her to a conclusion that didn't fit her whims. Slicing her benefactor in half only to be cut in half herself seems pretty proportionate to me.

[Blue Ghost]

I'm pretty sure the OP of the Redcloak thread stated many times over that a character does not have to be a hero to be a tragic hero. Miko was not a hero, but neither is Redcloak.

I would say that Miko is not a tragic hero, because, as the top of the Wikipedia page states, a tragic hero must be the main character in a tragedy. Besides that, I think that Miko fits all the criteria very well, so she is certainly a tragic figure.

@Omergideon: The Wikipedia page doesn't mention When she was dying, Miko did express a wish to be a paladin again. That may not qualify as a serious attempt at redemption, but I believe that many famous tragic heroes never even came that far.

@NerfTW: There is no part in the tragic hero definition where s/he has to do something heroic. While a tragic hero does often get heroic acts, in most tragedies they take place in the backstory rather than in the main story. As Miko was a paladin, I daresay she performed some heroic acts before we met her.

[DukeGod]

I think yes,she is more or less
like the Deva said what was important is that she was trying to be good
It's the same with Paladin from Holy Avenger(however that was not published in US I guess...)

[Skaven]

In order for Miko to be a tragic hero, she would have to not be a murderer of harmless old good men.

[David Argall]

In order for Miko to be a Tragic protagonist, she would have to first be a protagonist. She is not.
The suggestion is that she is a tragic hero, not a protagonist.



No. Miko is not anything even resembling a hero.

See the given definition. Recall too that murderous MacBeth is deemed a hero. Miko seems to qualify rather easily.

[quote=Kyuubi] She does not help anybody in a way other characters do not.

Now what does this mean? She is the one who leads the party to take out the ogres, and who takes the dangerous position when she does.


In fact She is a cold blooded murderer of a harmless man and has the intent to murder our heroes because she believes them to be evil.

That is the element that qualifies her as the tragic hero whose own folly leads to disaster.

[Mugen Nightgale]

No she is not.

You have to be heroic and care about something other than your psychotic ego.

[Kish]

In order for Miko to be a tragic hero, she would have to not be a murderer of harmless old good men.
I'm not saying anything about Miko, but I have to wonder where exactly people get the idea that the character who brazenly manipulated Azure City, the Sapphire Guard, and the Order of the Stick is accurately described as "harmless." That's certainly not what Roy had to say about him, at any point.

[Lvl45DM!]

She nearly killed redcloak and warned Azure City of its impending doom, thus helping save the civilians of the city at least
killed the evil bandits (dont tell me Samantha the kidnapping rapist mass murderer and the father who sucker punches his daughter arent evil)

Dont like her but shes as much a tragic hero as RC and probably alot more
Plus name 1 good thing Macbeth did during the story! all his goodness was off panel(so to speak) and so was Mikos, theres a reason shes the highest level paladin you know

[Shale]

I'm not saying anything about Miko, but I have to wonder where exactly people get the idea that the character who brazenly manipulated Azure City, the Sapphire Guard, and the Order of the Stick is accurately described as "harmless." That's certainly not what Roy had to say about him, at any point.

Physically harmless. Deprived of his legitimacy as a ruler, he was pretty much reduced to DC 50 Bluff checks.

[RMS Oceanic]

I'm not saying anything about Miko, but I have to wonder where exactly people get the idea that the character who brazenly manipulated Azure City, the Sapphire Guard, and the Order of the Stick is accurately described as "harmless." That's certainly not what Roy had to say about him, at any point.

Perhaps, but in the given context it's "harmless" enough to not warrant a sword in the gut.

[Klose_the_Sith]

I'm not saying anything about Miko, but I have to wonder where exactly people get the idea that the character who brazenly manipulated Azure City, the Sapphire Guard, and the Order of the Stick is accurately described as "harmless." That's certainly not what Roy had to say about him, at any point.

Alright, lets agree on a traditional compromise:

Mostly Harmless.
(Couldn't resist)
:smallbiggrin:

[Thanatosia]

I think Miko fits all the difinitions of a Tragic Hero as long as someone writes a story from her POV. The arguments against her being a Tragic hero seem to boil down to her not being the central protagonist of the story.

[Katana_Geldar]

The sticking point with me in thinking Miko along these lines is that unlike Redcloak, who could be argued that he is trying to do the best for his people, Miko only has her own narrow version of morality and that's it.

She does not have a special destiny except the made-up one she gave herself, Redcloak does.

She never considers for one minute that she might have been wrong (for as Soon sais to her before she dies, that is how redemption works, Redcloak does at one point but whether he continues to think so is debatable.

You could sort of see her similar to Ajax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajax_(Sophocles)), but it's a HUGE stretch.

To be honest, Miko has a lot of stuff as a fallen hero and there's too much meat there to be squabbling over bones that may or may not be there.

[Thanatosia]

She does not have a special destiny except the made-up one she gave herself, Redcloak does.
What constitutes a special destiny? Most tragic heros have rather ignoble ends... shot in the heel with a poisoned arrow? Blinding oneself ? Dying upon a poisoned Rapier? Indeed, such an end seems part of what defines a Tragic Hero - Tragic Heros don't save the world, they die in failure and fall to their tragic flaws.

The characters who go on to overcome their major flaws and go on to achieve some great destiny are not Tragic heroes - they are Heroes.

[Hardcore]

Katana, yes, all those points yuo bring up is what make people like Red Cloak, but not like poor Miko. I should perhaps have added not being like by the readers, as a second flaw of miko, in my starting point:smallsmile:

You mention that she never considered she was wrong. Actually I think she does right after Shojos execution. Hinjo ask her to surrender and she almost does that.
But then comes her moment of tragedy when she can't make herself take the last step. Her conviction, of being special, runs too deep in her soul.
So let me clarify: In my opinion Miko has as little capacity for changing herself as any schizophreniac that hear voices do.:smallfrown:

[Hardcore]

The characters who go on to overcome their major flaws and go on to achieve some great destiny are not Tragic heroes - they are Heroes.

Yes, and they are pretty uninteresting. Macbeth would never be played if it was just about a nice and good doing Hero.

[Katana_Geldar]

What constitutes a special destiny? This is a task that this character, and only this character, must do. Roy has a special destiny, as does Xykon and perhaps Haley and Elan. Miko does not, she merely thinks she has one and has only to find out what it is.

She has a sort of backwards logic to this, she is so powerful a paladin because she is so special when it's really the other way around.

Most tragic heroes have a special destiny or task that they do. This can be for noble reasons (Hamlet), selfless reasons, (Romeo and Juliet) selfish reasons (the Scottish gent), selfish reasons put forward as noble ones (Brutus) or simply pure and utter vengeance (Othello).

The only thing that could possibly be counted as Miko's special destiny is destroying the gate, and she did the wrong thing. If she had destroyed Xykon's phylactery however, then we could say yes, but then we wouldn't have a story now, would we?

[Thanatosia]

selfish reasons put forward as noble ones (Brutus)
How is Miko's assassination of Shojo any different then Brutus's assassination of Ceasar in terms of defining them as a Tragic Hero?

The only thing that could possibly be counted as Miko's special destiny is destroying the gate, and she did the wrong thing.
A Tragic Heroe's Special Destiny does not have to be 'the right thing'. Oedipus Rex is considered a tragic hero, and I don't think many people will agree that incest and patricide are 'the right thing' to do.

[Katana_Geldar]

Because Brutus was slowly convinced of it in a rather reasonable and believable manner by characters who had their own selfish (Cassius, Decius) as well as noble (Portia) agendas that we actually saw on stage in three and a bit acts and Miko had...how much time did she have?

Brutus was merely the front for the operation so the assassination of Julus Caesar would seem noble, Cassius even says this.

[Mystic Muse]

don't you have to be a hero in some respect in order to be a tragic hero? that's why redcloak is one.

I have yet to see anything that suggests Miko is a hero in any light. the one good thing that Rich ever shows her doing is possibly destroying the sapphire which was an extremely bad idea at the point she did so.

[Thanatosia]

Because Brutus was slowly convinced of it in a rather reasonable and believable manner by characters who had their own selfish (Cassius, Decius) as well as noble (Portia) agendas that we actually saw on stage in three and a bit acts and Miko had...how much time did she have?
I'm not sure how this distinguishes one case as a Tragic Hero and the other, not.

[hamishspence]

there was rescuing the dirt farmers.

Informing Azure City of the invading army might have counted, if it wasn't for what she did when she informed them.

Main difference between, for example, Miko and Anakin, was that Anakin had been manipulated and tempted by somebody else.

Whereas Miko made up her mind all on her own.

[Hardcore]

I am not sure a there is a special destiny a requirement. That the Tragic Heroes have a destiny is clear; it is the story of how they become TRAGIC Heroes. Think about Oidipus. He killed his father and married his mother. Nothing grand and dramatic like Red Cloaks plan to save the Goblin race, is it?

[Katana_Geldar]

I'm not sure how this distinguishes one case as a Tragic Hero and the other, not.

You were asking about the difference between Brutus and Miko, I answered you. And I may have to dig up my old essay as I did one on this in high school.

[Mystic Muse]

She nearly killed redcloak and warned Azure City of its impending doom, thus helping save the civilians of the city at least
killed the evil bandits (dont tell me Samantha the kidnapping rapist mass murderer and the father who sucker punches his daughter arent evil)


there was no way she could have killed Redcloak. He had plot armor on.

okay on Samantha. Where'd you get rapist from? Elan is the one who initiated that. Kidnapping I'll give you

The dad wanted to run his old gang which his daughter stole from him and probably beat him rather brutally for.

[Thanatosia]

You were asking about the difference between Brutus and Miko, I answered you. And I may have to dig up my old essay as I did one on this in high school.
Aye, but I was asking why one would qualify as a Tragic Hero and one would not. I dont think the fact that Brutus had more time to think about assassinating Ceasar before making his decision in any way beter qualifies him for Tragic Hero status in a way that excludes Miko from a similar status.

[LuisDantas]

A good comparison for Miko is Michael Douglas' character from "Falling Down", William Foster.

Not a hero by any means, but tragic all the way.

[Hardcore]

there was no way she could have killed Redcloak. He had plot armor on.

okay on Samantha. Where'd you get rapist from? Elan is the one who initiated that. Kidnapping I'll give you

The dad wanted to run his old gang which his daughter stole from him and probably beat him rather brutally for.

TRYING to kill Red cloak count (not her fault she fails.) Check
Escaping from the cage to try warn the city. Check
Fighting an evil monster in the process of doing so (MitD) Check
Warning the City Check
Tracking down a murder suspect that had escaped prison (Belkar) Check
Executing a traitor that threatened the city (Ok, she was wrong. But it is the intent that counts here) Check
Preventing the Gate get into the hands of Xykon Check
add to that all that she did as a good Paladin, off panel, before meeting OoTS the first time.

[Katana_Geldar]

No, but Brutus had a much more convincing scene of changing his mind about Caesar than Miko did. He had Cassius, Decius and his wife working on him as well as what he saw with his own eyes at the start of the play.

The only people who were surprised at Brutus being in the plot were Caesar himself and Antony.

Now, how many people were surprised at Miko killing Shojo? Even Belkar was!

Another point, Miko does not have a self-realisation, even before her death. Many, many tragic heroes realise that their own actions have brought about their own end and have not had the effect they desired.
This does not happen to Miko, she half expects Soon to pat her on the head for being such a good paladin (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0464.html). Rather than asking "Lord Soon, I did right, didn't I? Destroying the gate was the right thing to do, wasn't it?" she is fishing for compliments.

[Prowl]

We have more first-hand evidence of Belkar doing good deeds selflessly for others than we have of Miko.

If Miko is tragic, the real tragedy happened before she ever came on scene, whatever it was to have made her into, essentially, a raging egomaniac with a sword.

[Katana_Geldar]

Answer: she thinks she is so powerful because she is specially chosen by the gods for something which leads her to believe that because the gods chose her for some special destiny, everything she does is about doing their will.

I don't think I have come across a tragic hero with that degree of ego and self-delusion, people like that are usually villains. And as she's an antagonist...

[Mystic Muse]

also,it's been established that paladins in OOTS either A. Don't follow the rules of D&D or B. Are the normal rules for the GMs who think that killing monsters because anything in their alignment is evil counts as a good deed because they're evil. We actually have several cases where the strip doesn't follow the rules of D&D.

so no. Miko wasn't necesarrily a good person before the events in the strip. In fact from what we know of Miko she probably wasn't.

Now she did TRY to do good. I will give her that. In fact she's tried more than some "lawful good." Characters. I honestly wish that she had repented. The thing is she was so sure she was right she wasn't willing to listen to anybody when they kept telling her the way she did things was wrong.

One of Miko's main problems is she WASN'T lawful good. She was lawful neutral at best. she did not care for the life of other sentient beings , she treated her prisoners like slaves and she killed an old man without any proof he was evil. SHE DIDN'T EVEN DETECT EVIL ON HIM! She also did not believe in the spirit but the letter of the law. According to SoD from what I've heard. (I really need to get that sometime.) the gods she follows are sadistic dotards.

Miko's story was Tragic. a hero's tale it was not. Although I have to say. I'd much rather see her story played on stage than Macbeth.

[hamishspence]

She used Roy's crown as an excuse "Everyone in this room is an agent of evil, whatever their alignment."

[Freelance Henchman]

Belkar is 20 times the tragic hero that Miko could possibly be. He kills people for fun and doesn't afraid anything.

[Hardcore]

and she killed an old man without any proof he was evil. SHE DIDN'T EVEN DETECT EVIL ON HIM! .

WHy would she? She accused him of treason, not Evil alignment.Strip 406 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0406.html) is quite clear on her thoughts on the matter.

[Omergideon]

Hmmm.

I think that I was not wholly aware of the definition of a tragic hero, so having brushed up on it....I stand by what I said earlier. She is not a tragic hero for one major reason. She never really sought redemption.

As I explained earlier miko responded to falling by attempting to do things until her choices were proven right. For instance she prayed for guidance to the 12 Gods after they had pretty conclusively stated that she had gone off the rails, asking them to show her what plan they had. The thought that she was in the wrong DID cross her mind but it was ultimately rejected. Her "quest" to redeem herself was one lacking in humility and thus doomed to failure. She never once sought to actually make up for the sins she had committed, nor did she even acknowledge their sinfulness. This breaks one vital aspect of the tragic hero character type and disqualifies Miko.

Now one could argue that she finally learnt her lesson as she lay dying and Soon talked to her. In fact I feel that if Miko were ressurected she would have learnt humility after this point and become a better person all round. But she has not, and did not. Soon himself points out her errors and how she had not sought redemption in http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0464.html. It is an interesting speech I agree with in every particular, except that I say everyone is capable of redemption if they choose to seek it, and our will is often the deciding factor.

[Hardcore]

Not sure redemption is part of it. Macbeth certainly didn't seek it out. Oidipus blinded himself, but was that redemption?
Brutus didn't redeem himself either (and I wouldn't call him tragic hero myself).

[Haarkla]

Miko is very definitely a hero.

She helps save the dirt farmers from the Ogres.
She has killed a lot of evil monsters.
She attempts to kill Redcloak.
She warns Azure City of impending invasion.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0211.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0228.html
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0372.html

Even on those occasions she commits evil acts she always thinks she is doing good.

[Mystic Muse]

Why would she?

because treason and helping an evil Lich take over a lawful good city with the intent to destroy the world is definitely Evil.

[Blue Ghost]

because treason and helping an evil Lich take over a lawful good city with the intent to destroy the world is definitely Evil.

But you don't have to be evil to commit evil acts. Sure, she should have waited until the whole story came out before acting, but simply detecting Shojo as not evil wouldn't really have helped the case much.

And again, a tragic hero does not need to be a hero, or good-aligned for that matter. Macbeth was definitely LE, and far worse than Miko.

[Forbiddenwar]

Miko is clearly the antagonist of the story. Everything she did hindered the protagonists' goals. This is why she cannot be a tragic protagonist. Now with a few changes, should could have been cast as the protagonist . . . No, not with a few changes. Rich would have to rewrite her enitre being in order to cast her as a protagonist.

Redcloak is more of a protagonist than miko.

[David Argall]

okay on Samantha. Where'd you get rapist from? Elan is the one who initiated that. Kidnapping I'll give you

While woman raping man is rare enough that the phrase is used to cover cases of the woman merely taking the initiative, Samantha does qualify as a rapist, even if not many, or any, of her "victims" did any complaining. She has compelled them in a sexual manner.
Now that does not mean the charge is serious. One suspects that the majority of the boys would settle any suit for damages for a promise that she rape them again [technically impossible, but close enough for our purposes].
So we do not bother with listing rape among her crimes. But she does qualify as one, and under the right [rare] conditions, could be a genuinely deplorable one.



Miko is clearly the antagonist of the story. Everything she did hindered the protagonists' goals. This is why she cannot be a tragic protagonist.
Po-tae-toe Pa-ta-to. The camera focus doesn't define the tragic hero. Our tragic hero is still one even if he is a bit player, which is what everybody is in a massive cycle of stories. Now the story of the tragic hero focuses on that hero, but that does not make him a tragic hero, it merely makes him a visible one. But Shakespeare's Macbeth would still be a tragic hero even in a history that covered all the Scottish kings.



so no. Miko wasn't necesarrily a good person before the events in the strip. In fact from what we know of Miko she probably wasn't.
This is rather a denial of the facts. However it is irrelevant here. It is entirely possible to be a tragic hero and never have a good thought of any form. The story of the tragic hero is the story of the fall of the character, any character of any type. We have cases of the good guy who falls to evil because of some flaw or other, and we have cases of the bad guy who "falls" to good for some flaw or other. Either one usually ends up dead of course, but both are tragic heroes.

[Forbiddenwar]

For someone to be a tragic protagonist, as the OP suggests, they must first be the protagonist. Both Macbeth and Brutus pass this test. Miko does not.
For someone to be a tragic hero, they must first be a hero. Miko is not a hero either.

Miko:
Tragic: Yes
Protagonist: no
Hero: no

Ergo, Miko cannot be a tragic hero nor a tragic protagonist.

This isn't a potato problem, it is like saying a stop sign is an apple because they are both red.

[Larkspur]

Yeah, she qualifies. Tragic flaws- hubris, paranoia and leaping to insane conclusions. Of course, for her to be the tragic hero of OotS she'd have to be the protagonist, but the tragic hero of her own life? Sure.

[Mystic Muse]

While woman raping man is rare enough that the phrase is used to cover cases of the woman merely taking the initiative, Samantha does qualify as a rapist, even if not many, or any, of her "victims" did any complaining. She has compelled them in a sexual manner.
Now that does not mean the charge is serious. One suspects that the majority of the boys would settle any suit for damages for a promise that she rape them again [technically impossible, but close enough for our purposes].
So we do not bother with listing rape among her crimes. But she does qualify as one, and under the right [rare] conditions, could be a genuinely deplorable one.
.

Raping somebody and seducing them are nowhere near the same thing. Another thing, Elan is the one who initated it not Samantha. As far as we know Elan is the one who seduced Samantha!

No. Samantha is many things but a rapist is not one of them.

[Catch]

Miko is not a hero. Strike one.
Miko is an antagonist. Strike two.
Miko was destroyed by her antagonistic actions. Strike three, you're fallen.

This is like saying Xykon was a tragic character when Roy threw him into the gate, because his pride led to his destruction.

For those who aren't satisfied, let's consult the Greeks. Aristotle said in Poetics, speaking of the nature of a tragic hero, "The change to bad fortune which he undergoes is not due to any moral defect or flaw, but a mistake of some kind." Downfall because of a character flaw is comeuppance, not tragedy.

In short, a story is tragic when a character didn't earn their downfall.

[Kish]

Raping somebody and seducing them are nowhere near the same thing. Another thing, Elan is the one who initated it not Samantha. As far as we know Elan is the one who seduced Samantha!
Except that it was initiated earlier than they actually met, when she had her bandits grab Elan because she found him attractive, and they implied it wasn't the first time she'd had a man abducted, either.

...The mods are so totally going to look askance at this tangent...

[Platinius]

Perhaps Miko is a tragic antagonist:smalltongue:

Seriously, she is a tragic figure, on first reading she's funny, but on the second? And on the third? When I finally understood how her life was (the additional intel from Wars and XP helpd a lot) and I started to develop feelings (other than amusemend at her perpetual failing to do good), I sympathised with her a bit and I felt really sorry for her. Funny at first, but in the end acutally not at all.:smallfrown:

[Katana_Geldar]

Not sure redemption is part of it. Macbeth certainly didn't seek it out. Oidipus blinded himself, but was that redemption?
Brutus didn't redeem himself either (and I wouldn't call him tragic hero myself).

No, but all three of them had a self-realisation of how foolish they had been. ESPECIALLY Oedipus.

[Puns de León]

If we were to get a Start of Darkness-quality Miko backstory, we might be able to classify her as a tragic hero in light of her past, her influences and motivations, etc.
The knowledge we have of her is limited, but it is also perfectly satisfatory for the role she has heretofore played, that of an antagonist.

She qualifies as a tragic hero well enough if we look past the fact that Roy & Co. are the story's unquestionable protagonists and everyone who opposes them are therefore antagonists. There are many sides to any conflict; if Redcloak is a tragic hero - thereby qualifying as a protagonist in his own story - then a case could be made for Miko as well, we just don't have as much evidence to back that claim.

[David Argall]

Raping somebody and seducing them are nowhere near the same thing. Another thing, Elan is the one who initated it not Samantha. As far as we know Elan is the one who seduced Samantha!
1st initiation goes to Samantha, who had plans for Elan before Elan even knew she was a she. And Samantha considers Elan to have grossly insulted her by saying he had seduced her. Elan fell in with her plans, not started the relationship. Now Elan would have serious trouble in proving a charge of rape once he did fall in with her intentions, but having been kidnapped for the purpose of sex, he has a clear case of attempted rape.


No. Samantha is many things but a rapist is not one of them.
She has men kidnapped for her sexual purposes. His opinion on the matter is not consulted. That qualifies as rape. We lack the details to convict her in court, but even if most of her victims will thank her, we have genuine crimes here, at least some of the time.

[Hardcore]

Katana, no-one can escape a prophesy. It is like being framed by fate! No way you ever can avoid it, EVEN IF YOU ARE FORWARNED. So one reason to feel sorry for Oidipus IMO is that he in a way is a victim. Doomed from the start. (Quite typical of old tales from Greece IMO.)

But that is one of several types of tragic Hero imagineable, just not a modern one.
As I have said elsewhere Mikos tragedy is of another kind.

[Nimrod's Son]

She has men kidnapped for her sexual purposes. His opinion on the matter is not consulted. That qualifies as rape.
No it doesn't. Until the point she tries to force someone into sex against their will, it only qualifies as kidnapping.


Elan fell in with her plans, not started the relationship. Now Elan would have serious trouble in proving a charge of rape once he did fall in with her intentions, but having been kidnapped for the purpose of sex, he has a clear case of attempted rape.
Are you really suggesting that Elan had a stronger reason to cry rape if he'd sneaked away from the bandit camp and never returned, having never even set eyes on Samantha?

From what we see in the comic, we can safely say that Samantha is both a kidnapper and something of a sexual predator. But there is nothing whatsoever to suggest she is a rapist.

[Katana_Geldar]

Despite this, Oedipus does have a realisation that he has been foolish.

Persuade me not, nor counsel give to show
That what I did was not the best to do.
I know not how, on entering Hades dark,
To look for my own father or my mother,
Crimes worse than deadly done against them both.


and

Yea, if I could but stop the stream of sound, 1432
And dam mine ears against it, I would do it,
Closing each wretched sense that I might live
Both blind, and hearing nothing

from here (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Oedipus_the_King)

Sophocles play is really a dialogue between free will and fate as well as the folly of people who think they can change their own destiny.

[David Argall]

Miko is not a hero. Strike one.
Miko is not a hero, by certain definitions. By others, she qualifies easily enough.


Miko is an antagonist. Strike two.
Now again by certain definitions, this is at least partly true. It is a tragedy because someone we have positive feelings for falls, and many of the readers here are trying to book passage to Azure City for the purpose of dancing on Miko's grave. But again this is not a decisive point. In Julius Ceasar, Brutus was an antagonist. The heroes, who get very little screen time, are Mark Anthony and Augustus.


Miko was destroyed by her antagonistic actions. Strike three, you're fallen.

Quite the reverse. This is one of the elements that the tragic hero is centered on. Macbeth falls for killing the king, Hamlet for not killing the king, and Miko falling for her killing Shojo is entirely in line with this.
Now we might note that Macbeth, Brutus, and Hamlet all dither all over the place before making their unwise choices, whereas Miko charges right to hers. However, this is for the purpose of letting the viewer understand the decision. With Miko, we may be surprised when Miko attacks, but we are not nearly as surprised when we reread the facts. We agree [or are supposed to] with the rest of the party in 412 that Miko was likely to go off the rails like this.



This is like saying Xykon was a tragic character when Roy threw him into the gate, because his pride led to his destruction.
A major difference is that Xykon didn't fall all that far. He just hit a speed bump, not crashed into a wall.


For those who aren't satisfied, let's consult the Greeks. Aristotle said in Poetics, speaking of the nature of a tragic hero, "The change to bad fortune which he undergoes is not due to any moral defect or flaw, but a mistake of some kind." Downfall because of a character flaw is comeuppance, not tragedy.

In short, a story is tragic when a character didn't earn their downfall.
That seems entirely incorrect. Macbeth, Hamlet, Brutus, and Miko fall for definite actions [or lack of them in Hamlet's case] caused by their character.

[Malkar Grumbo]

I think she's just tragic. I mean she was raised to be nothing but a warrior, and to have nothing else about her. Redcloak was right when he said she was not human, because she was made that way. She was raised to be a robot, programed to certain rules, and that is the tragedy.

[Tiktakkat]

I think she's just tragic. I mean she was raised to be nothing but a warrior, and to have nothing else about her. Redcloak was right when he said she was not human, because she was made that way. She was raised to be a robot, programed to certain rules, and that is the tragedy.

If that were true, then all the other paladins would be just as obnoxious as she is.
Hinjo made it clear that the other paladins despise her, and they are anything but the kind of obnoxious she is.

As for what she did that was heroic, it was not.
She did absolutely nothing out of any sense of concern for anyone but herself, and her perceived obligations - that includes saving the dirt farmers and warning Azure City.

She was never any more than what Roy called her: "a men socially inept bully who hides behind a badge and her holier-than-thou morality as excuses to treat other people like crap."
Not by training, but by choice.
And add on top of that the hubris to believe that just because she was the best fighter in the Sapphire Guard, she was also the chosen agent for some super-secret, ultimately-to-be-revealed, divine purpose.

She achieved absolutely nothing that any more rational, albeit slightly less plot-immune, member of the Sapphire Guard could have done, and did way too much that the same would have avoided, to the benefit of all.
That makes her an element of Lord Shojo's tragedy, he picked the wrong person to retrieve the Order of the Stick, and so caused the downfall of his city.

[dps]

I agree that Miko is certainly a tragic figure, but I'm not sure she counts as a tragic hero. From a purely literary standpoint, she's not a hero because she's not the protagonist of the story.

[Lvl45DM!]

i withdraw my statement that samantha is a rapist...though im sure she wouldve pulled out the charm person every now and then which is borderline rape, but since there is no proof she is now labeled a sexual predator...still evil though, bullying and violent

Miko is a tragic figure not a tragic hero as hero in this context means protagonist

[veti]

Is Miko a tragic hero? Depends entirely on how you define the term. There is no simple cut-and-dried answer.

If you're an Aristotelian purist, then - no, she's not. Nobody in OOTS is - the term can only apply to dramatic productions, not books or other static media.

But if we start to unbend and broaden the definition a little, we can boil "tragedy" down to three key elements:

A dramatic reversal of fortune
Caused by the character's own mistake
Inspires fear and/or pity in the audience.


Based on this list, is she a tragic figure? Hell yes. A tragic hero? Well, for that - I'd agree with those who argue that she'd have to be a hero, in the sense of "protagonist", of the story, so - no. Nor is Redcloak, of course.

Vaarsuvius might well qualify, but not until her story arc completes.

[Forbiddenwar]

Now again by certain definitions, this is at least partly true. It is a tragedy because someone we have positive feelings for falls, and many of the readers here are trying to book passage to Azure City for the purpose of dancing on Miko's grave. But again this is not a decisive point. In Julius Ceasar, Brutus was an antagonist. The heroes, who get very little screen time, are Mark Anthony and Augustus.

Actually, there is only one major definition of protagonist: The main character of the story, "around whom the events of the narrative's plot revolve and with whom the audience is intended to share the most empathy." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagonist)

So, yes, Brutus is the Protagonist of the Play "Julius Caesar" Marc Antony is the antagonist.
And yes, Miko is also the antagonist. If OotS was soley the rise and fall of Miko, with her as the main character, then she would be the tragic protagonist. But OotS protagonists are Roy and his gang, ergo, she is the antagonist as she is a constant obstacle that Roy and the others must over come.
"the antagonist, who represents or creates obstacles that the protagonist(s) must overcome"
So she is a tragic antagonist.

[Malkar Grumbo]

If that were true, then all the other paladins would be just as obnoxious as she is.
Hinjo made it clear that the other paladins despise her, and they are anything but the kind of obnoxious she is.

As for what she did that was heroic, it was not.
She did absolutely nothing out of any sense of concern for anyone but herself, and her perceived obligations - that includes saving the dirt farmers and warning Azure City.

She was never any more than what Roy called her: "a men socially inept bully who hides behind a badge and her holier-than-thou morality as excuses to treat other people like crap."
Not by training, but by choice.
And add on top of that the hubris to believe that just because she was the best fighter in the Sapphire Guard, she was also the chosen agent for some super-secret, ultimately-to-be-revealed, divine purpose.

She achieved absolutely nothing that any more rational, albeit slightly less plot-immune, member of the Sapphire Guard could have done, and did way too much that the same would have avoided, to the benefit of all.
That makes her an element of Lord Shojo's tragedy, he picked the wrong person to retrieve the Order of the Stick, and so caused the downfall of his city.

I am not trying to justify her actions as being good, just saying she is in fact tragic.

First Point: I assume the most of the other Paladins had families that raised them, not Monks or other Paladins. Miko was not raised in a normal situation, that of a family. She was raised in two settings that bred strict, regimented behavior and that you are right because you are good. This leads to the belief that she is always right, most likely because no one ever told her she was not.

Point the Second: She was raised to believe that her actions were just because the Twelve Gods made it so. In the hands of a personality such as hers, raised in such a manner, that is a dangerous thing.

Lastly Shojo shares a deal of blame for this, because he raised her as a loyal Paladin first, and a person second. She was raised to do whatever was right for Azure City, and left to her own digression what that right thing was. Shojo could have made sure she was balanced, but he did not. The other Paladins did not help, because instead of trying to mello her out, they pushed her away, sending far from the city often.

So that is what I think, she is not a tragic hero, but a tragic figure. Who spent her life, regimented, indoctrinated, and isolated from other people. That, is what the tragedy is. Some can blame her, saying that she could have sought to better herself, but you can't better yourself if you have no clue something is wrong with you.

[Sholos]

Miko is not a hero, by certain definitions. By others, she qualifies easily enough.
Um, by exactly which definitions does she qualify as a hero?


Now again by certain definitions, this is at least partly true. It is a tragedy because someone we have positive feelings for falls, and many of the readers here are trying to book passage to Azure City for the purpose of dancing on Miko's grave. But again this is not a decisive point. In Julius Ceasar, Brutus was an antagonist. The heroes, who get very little screen time, are Mark Anthony and Augustus.
Um, no. Brutus is clearly the protagonist of Julius Caesar. Antony is the man responsible for rallying the mob to go kill Brutus. He is Brutus' antagonist, just like Macduff is Macbeth's antagonist. "Hero" does not necessarily equal "protagonist", nor does "villain" necessarily equal "antagonist".

Also, I'm not sure what "certain definitions" you are using, but it's pretty obvious that Miko is an antagonist. She's even called one in the Paladin Blues commentary. She works against the protagonists every single time they interact. I don't see how she could possibly be called anything less than 100% antagonist.

I'd also like to know exactly who had "positive" feelings for Miko, and also why you think this is a necessary part of a tragedy. Macbeth certainly isn't all that likeable, but is still a tragic hero. Besides, you contradict yourself in the same sentence, saying that it's a tragedy because someone we had positive feelings for (not true for the majority of readers, I'd assume), and then saying that many people want to dance on her grave (not a response most people have towards the death of a character they had positive feelings towards).


Quite the reverse. This is one of the elements that the tragic hero is centered on. Macbeth falls for killing the king, Hamlet for not killing the king, and Miko falling for her killing Shojo is entirely in line with this.
I'm not even sure what you're trying to argue here. Are you saying that Miko's actions were not antagonistic? Because they were, by pure fact of being against the interests of the protagonists. That's what antagonistic means, in the literary sense. Even then, I don't see where you support your claim. I mean, I guess you try to draw a comparison with Hamlet and Macbeth, but it doesn't work, because Hamlet and Macbeth were both protagonists, and Miko is an antagonist. By definition, everything she does is antagonistic. Besides, Miko "fell" a long time ago. Her murder of Shojo may have been the final straw, but the moment she became convinced that the gods had a special destiny for her which excused any actions she might take is the true moment that she fell.


Now we might note that Macbeth, Brutus, and Hamlet all dither all over the place before making their unwise choices, whereas Miko charges right to hers. However, this is for the purpose of letting the viewer understand the decision. With Miko, we may be surprised when Miko attacks, but we are not nearly as surprised when we reread the facts. We agree [or are supposed to] with the rest of the party in 412 that Miko was likely to go off the rails like this.
I don't understand this section either. What difference does the speed at which a decision was arrived at make? If someone falls in two seconds or over several days, they've still fallen. The point here isn't that she suddenly snapped; she didn't. This was the culmination of several years of Miko's arrogance. She makes Hamlet and Macbeth look like Indy 500 cars. The point is that she is an antagonist. Understandable, perhaps, but that only makes her a well executed antagonist.


A major difference is that Xykon didn't fall all that far. He just hit a speed bump, not crashed into a wall.
I think you missed the point of that argument. The point I read was that it's ridiculous to say that someone defeating another person is when a character "falls". A tragic fall is the start of a characters downhill slope. Xykon never really fell at all; he started at the bottom, and has been digging ever since. If Miko can be said to have fallen, it is when she became convinced that the gods' plans for her excused any action on her part.


That seems entirely incorrect. Macbeth, Hamlet, Brutus, and Miko fall for definite actions [or lack of them in Hamlet's case] caused by their character.
Do you realize that you are supporting the statement that you say is incorrect? "Definite actions" does not equate to "moral defect". It does, however, equate nicely to "mistake". The timing of Miko's mistake was just several years ago, when she became convinced that she was special and beyond reproof. Just because a character flaw led to the mistake doesn't change the fact that it was the mistake that caused them to fall.

[Lvl45DM!]

What evidence is there that miko was convinced of her destiny before the strip? of before that scene where she prays for that matter?

[Katana_Geldar]

Word of God says so.


It was critical for Miko's behaviour in the throne room to follow her previous characterisation while at the same time come as a complete shock, if possible. The way I attempted to do this was keep one key fact in how I concieved her character a secret from the audience, right from her very first appearance: Miko considered herself chosen by the Twelve Gods for something Special. As a result of being hand-picked from an orphanage and ushered to the very heights of her civilisation's power, she truly believed that she had a destinty that was grand and, more importantly, immutable. I was always concious of this fact when writing her dialogue, but it was never specifically mentioned--and for a good reason. Even Miko knew it was not the sort of thing you say in casual conversation, and certainly not to strangers. But it influences her behaviour from the beginning, bringing her to feel that she is inherantly right and those who oppose her are inherantly wrong.

[Catch]

Miko is not a hero, by certain definitions. By others, she qualifies easily enough.

We're not speaking in the logical-weasel-words of the Argallverse. By primary definition, Miko is an antagonist of the story.


Now again by certain definitions, this is at least partly true. It is a tragedy because someone we have positive feelings for falls, and many of the readers here are trying to book passage to Azure City for the purpose of dancing on Miko's grave. But again this is not a decisive point. In Julius Ceasar, Brutus was an antagonist. The heroes, who get very little screen time, are Mark Anthony and Augustus.

You're stretching, and making a tangential point about screen time. Stick to the subject. Miko, being logically and morally flawed, was a narrative device introduced to challenge and disrupt the main characters - an antagonist.


Quite the reverse. This is one of the elements that the tragic hero is centered on. Macbeth falls for killing the king, Hamlet for not killing the king, and Miko falling for her killing Shojo is entirely in line with this. Now we might note that Macbeth, Brutus, and Hamlet all dither all over the place before making their unwise choices, whereas Miko charges right to hers. However, this is for the purpose of letting the viewer understand the decision. With Miko, we may be surprised when Miko attacks, but we are not nearly as surprised when we reread the facts. We agree [or are supposed to] with the rest of the party in 412 that Miko was likely to go off the rails like this.

That seems entirely incorrect. Macbeth, Hamlet, Brutus, and Miko fall for definite actions [or lack of them in Hamlet's case] caused by their character.

Not so. In Greek tragedy, moral defects are not the same as mistakes, and only one is viable to destroy a character - that is, a story is tragic because the character did not deserve their downfall. Macbeth's tragedy was misinterpreting the prophecy which damned him from the beginning, Hamlet's was not taking the chance he had after being burdened with his father's vengeance.

But Miko? She earned her demise; it occurred directly and immediately as response to her moral flaws and complete denial of reason. In short, she did bad and got what was coming to her. That's not tragic, no matter how bad you personally feel for her. She wasn't set up, or manipulated or deceived, nor was there any excuse for her behavior -that's why she fell. Comeuppance is not tragedy.

[David Argall]

Actually, there is only one major definition of protagonist: The main character of the story, "around whom the events of the narrative's plot revolve and with whom the audience is intended to share the most empathy." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protagonist)
Now the problem here is that this linking of tragic hero with protagonist is too limiting. Only the lead character can be a tragic hero. If Macbeth, Shakespeare's shortest major work, was instead his longest and the excess centered on another character, why should we not still consider Macbeth a tragic hero? He still does the same acts and suffers the same results.
As with any other theme, there seems to be no good reason it can't at times be done by a secondary character.

[Hardcore]

No, Miko, did NOT earn her demise. It was not her fault she got orphaned, nor that she got into bad company (for a kid that is. It would have been best for her to have been adopted and raised by a real family.). We can compare Miko to Hinjo, and see what she could have become instead if things had been different.
Malkar Grumbo is right in this and said it better than me in his post (but then he probably speaks english):smallsmile:
Note that I don't consider the way she was raised as Mikos tragedy, but that it really left her unable to see she could be wrong. Even when the gods themselves expressed their disatisfaction with her actions!

[Katana_Geldar]

Burlew says you're wrong, Hardcore.

[Hardcore]

>snort< I don't think he says what you think he did.
He would probably also say you are wrong in saying that;
His intentions, and our perceptions, are not the same thing, which I am sure he understand very well.

[Malkar Grumbo]

@Katana_Geldar and others.

That does not mean she was raised in a way that facilitated her delusions. Miko was taken out of all others to be a Paladin, and to a child lacking family that could be a big validation of ones worth. She was raised in an organization were even some of the normal Paladins consider themselves better then others. This is evidenced by the fact no one questioned their jurisdiction to capture and put on trial the Order of the Stick, Shojo (Leader of the Sapphire Guard) said it was Ok, therefore it was. No one ever really made her question her rightness, because as long as she did what she was told it was Ok. There is a reason Paladins are considered arrogant by some, it is because their holier than thou attitude makes them that way. Shojo's biggest mistake was that he did not have her raised to be more of a critical thinker, to pause and consider the situation before acting. He made her into a solider to follow orders and that is all. All things considered it is not surprising that she would have no reason for self reflection, because no one ever bothered to make her look into herself and question what was there. She was ignored, and like a child ignored bad things can come of it.

[Sholos]

Now the problem here is that this linking of tragic hero with protagonist is too limiting. Only the lead character can be a tragic hero. If Macbeth, Shakespeare's shortest major work, was instead his longest and the excess centered on another character, why should we not still consider Macbeth a tragic hero? He still does the same acts and suffers the same results.
As with any other theme, there seems to be no good reason it can't at times be done by a secondary character.

In that case, we would look at the arc that was obviously centered on Macbeth, and he would be the tragic hero for that arc. There is no such thing in OOTS with regards to Miko. There is no arc centering on her. She is not a protagonist in any sense of the word.

[Catch]

No, Miko, did NOT earn her demise. It was not her fault she got orphaned, nor that she got into bad company (for a kid that is. It would have been best for her to have been adopted and raised by a real family.). We can compare Miko to Hinjo, and see what she could have become instead if things had been different.

That's her upbringing, not her demise. Miko's downfall came directly as a consequence to defying the Paladin's code and killing Lord Shojo. She wasn't forced into doing so, manipulated or deceived. Miko willingly shoved her values aside for petty vengeance against a conflict she was too stubborn to concede. The Twelve Gods stripped her powers, and there you have her failure. She deserved the loss of her paladinhood, because she broke the code.

Being a sad widdle orphan didn't make her kill the Lord of Azure City. Nobody picked up and pushed that sword into her hand. She made a choice because of moral defects - pride, selfishness, the inability to compromise - and paid the direct price. That is what she deserved.

But it ain't tragic.

[Malkar Grumbo]

That's her upbringing, not her demise. Miko's downfall came directly as a consequence to defying the Paladin's code and killing Lord Shojo. She wasn't forced into doing so, manipulated or deceived. Miko willingly shoved her values aside for petty vengeance against a conflict she was too stubborn to concede. The Twelve Gods stripped her powers, and there you have her failure. She deserved the loss of her paladinhood, because she broke the code.

Being a sad widdle orphan didn't make her kill the Lord of Azure City. Nobody picked pushed that sword into her hand. She made a choice because of moral defects - pride, selfishness, the inability to compromise - and paid the direct price. That is what she deserved.

But it ain't tragic.

Yes, but it is her upbringing that factored into that decision. The Paladin Code told her that all evil must be eliminated, and she viewed Shojo as evil because of his shady back door dealings, going behind the back of the Sapphire Guard. That mixed with her negative view of the Order and some misunderstanding led her to believe she was in the right. She acted first because that was how she was raised, to strike down evil without a second thought when ever she saw it. It is still Shojo's and the Saphhire Guards, fault, because they failed to raise her as a normal, balanced person. It also does not help that Roy could have been a little more... diplomatic after the Inn incident. She was still being unreasonable, but he could have handled it better then bringing the insult hammer down on her head. Insulting someone never solves any problems, it just makes things worse. In this case it made it so Miko could jump to the conclusion that Roy was evil a little easier. So in conclusion Miko, with her warped view of reality, was convinced Shojo was evil, and acted like the Paladin code told her, to smite evil.

[Tiktakkat]

I am not trying to justify her actions as being good, just saying she is in fact tragic.

I think Catch covered most of the relevant rebuttals.
Just in case though:


First Point: I assume the most of the other Paladins had families that raised them, not Monks or other Paladins. Miko was not raised in a normal situation, that of a family. She was raised in two settings that bred strict, regimented behavior and that you are right because you are good. This leads to the belief that she is always right, most likely because no one ever told her she was not.

Which is in no way inherently tragic, or any sort of character flaw.
Many people are raised in such environments without becoming so utterly distant from their inherent humanity that they murder an old man in cold blood, and in blatant opposition to the very law they claim to uphold.
Even if you grant her claim to justification, by that same standard she would be entitled to rampage through the streets of Azure City, slaughtering all those nobles, and likely their entire families, because of their crimes.


Point the Second: She was raised to believe that her actions were just because the Twelve Gods made it so. In the hands of a personality such as hers, raised in such a manner, that is a dangerous thing.

Which, as I noted, makes it dependent on her personality.
If she had a different personality, her upbringing would not have turned her into such a vicious bully who ended up committing cold-blooded murder.
If she had a different personality, believing she had a special purpose would not have turned her into such a vicious bully who ended up committing cold-blooded murder.
If she had not been such a vicious bully at her core, no amount of regimented training, teaching of divine backing, or belief in the same would have led her to commit cold-blooded murder.


Lastly Shojo shares a deal of blame for this, because he raised her as a loyal Paladin first, and a person second. She was raised to do whatever was right for Azure City, and left to her own digression what that right thing was. Shojo could have made sure she was balanced, but he did not. The other Paladins did not help, because instead of trying to mello her out, they pushed her away, sending far from the city often.

In which case she should have obeyed Hinjo, who was clearly the heir to Shojo, both as lord of Azure City and as leader of the Sapphire Guard.
Instead she chose to ignore her responsibilities as a loyal paladin first, and to do what she is told to be right for Azure City second, and chose to default to her personality as a vicious bully.


So that is what I think, she is not a tragic hero, but a tragic figure. Who spent her life, regimented, indoctrinated, and isolated from other people. That, is what the tragedy is. Some can blame her, saying that she could have sought to better herself, but you can't better yourself if you have no clue something is wrong with you.

While tragedy does require the actions of others to create an environment for the fall, it is always dependent on the inherent nature of the individual to create the fall.
Ultimately, Miko never had a noble nature to fall from. She remained a paladin for so long simply because she never found an opportunity to engage in a blatantly evil act before murdering Shojo. And having done so, she felt no remorse, only a greater desire to blame others for "stealing" her power, by "making" her commit said overtly evil act.
As for her having no clue something was wrong with her, that ignores the very simple evidence that she was told she had a problem, multiple times.
She was told by Roy, after the incident at the inn.
She was told by Hinjo, before she slaughtered Shojo.
There is a great suggestion she was told by others, by their constant disapproval of her attitude.
She simply did not care.
Her mind had created a justification for all of her actions, and nothing would convince her otherwise.

So again, the only thing tragic about Miko is that she caused so much death and destruction during her life, and was a contributing factor to the downfall of so many good and noble people. She was the corruption of nature that enabled the tragedy of others; she was never tragic in and of herself.
At most she was pitiable, but that is not the same as tragic.

[David Argall]

In which case she should have obeyed Hinjo, who was clearly the heir to Shojo, both as lord of Azure City and as leader of the Sapphire Guard.

While the legal situation is unclear, Miko consistently treats Hinjo as her subordinate, and Hinjo acts as the subordinate until Shojo is killed [after which she is no longer a paladin and thus any authority she has with the Sapphire Guard is void.] Even as Miko is about to kill Shojo, Hinjo is acting the worried subordinate, and Miko is treating him as a good-hearted, if not really competent, inferior.
This is not that unusual a situation for a prince. Until he is king, he is often in the military and under the command of various officers who may order him about in any and all ways. These officers fully expect to obey the prince when he becomes king, but until then, he is their subordinate and can not order them to do anything.



In that case, we would look at the arc that was obviously centered on Macbeth, and he would be the tragic hero for that arc.
But now we are fiddling with the definition of the story, and once we start that, just about any character becomes a potential tragic hero. We simply ignore those parts where he is not on stage.


There is no such thing in OOTS with regards to Miko. There is no arc centering on her. She is not a protagonist in any sense of the word.
I am not really seeing this. Miko seems to have the least scenery appearances of any major character. When she appears, she is an important part of the scene, and often dominates. And she appears quite often. That her parts are scattered does not seem a serious point.

[Hardcore]

Many people are raised in such environments without becoming so utterly distant from their inherent humanity that they murder an old man in cold blood, and in blatant opposition to the very law they claim to uphold.
Even if you grant her claim to justification, by that same standard she would be entitled to rampage through the streets of Azure City, slaughtering all those nobles, and likely their entire families, because of their crimes.

That is a common notion, and a false one. Or more correctly; being raised under difficult cirkumstances always leaves scars. The consequences of this will vary (and have the usual bell shape if mapped in a graph) going from the rare few that hardly is bothered by their past, to a few unfortunate that suffer serious psychical traumas.
To say, like you do, there are those who don't turn murderers is simply a way to disregard the suffering all these people (including those who don't turn murder) and think of them as objects, not fellow human beings.

[veti]

I'd also like to know exactly who had "positive" feelings for Miko, and also why you think this is a necessary part of a tragedy.

<hand style="position:up">Me! I had positive feelings for Miko!</hand> I liked her, I felt pity and horror at her downfall, I continued to feel sympathy for her right up to the end.

And that "liking" is important to the definition of tragedy, because the most important aspect of tragedy is the effect it has on the audience. Without sympathy for the character, we don't feel that dimension of pity and horror at her fate; and without that there is no emotional release, no "catharsis" in the end. If you looked at Miko's Fall and thought "Yeah! Take that, you stuck-up feminine dog!", then for you it wasn't a tragedy.


Macbeth certainly isn't all that likeable, but is still a tragic hero.

Macbeth also is only tragic if you sympathise with him. If you don't, then as far as you're concerned there's no tragedy there, whatever your English professor said.

[Menas]

In short, a story is tragic when a character didn't earn their downfall.

That's it in a nutshell. Anything suggesting the contrary is just muddying the water.

[Malkar Grumbo]

This oddly enough boils down to the Nature vs. Nurture argument. If you believe that she was naturally inclined to do the things she did, then you feel no sympathy for her. But if you believe the way she was raised was the problem and the way it shaped her personality, then there is sympathy.

I believe that a persons environment and the people who raise them are the largest factor in how a person develops. Miko was raised in a way that does not lead to a sane or balanced person. She was raised to believe she was special, because she was a Paladin, and that the Twelve Gods had chosen her to carry out their will. All her actions were right and just because she was chosen by the gods, and no one sought to dissuade her form that. This leaves no room for anything that deviates out of those parameters. One thing, such as thinking her surrogate father, Shojo, was evil and her fall, could cause her mind to snap.

Also, if you noticed when most people tried to tell her she had a problem, it was in a negative situation. Roy insulted her, which does not help convince people. Hinjo did not put up very much of an effort to stop her, he just let it roll off into nothing. Lastly most of the people who supposedly told her she had a problem most likely made off hand remarks about it, instead of actually confronting her in any manner. Most people, like Miko, are trapped in their problems, and can't escape them, or even see they need to. That's why they have psychiatrists, to help those with problems who can't help themselves.

[Tiktakkat]

While the legal situation is unclear, Miko consistently treats Hinjo as her subordinate, and Hinjo acts as the subordinate until Shojo is killed [after which she is no longer a paladin and thus any authority she has with the Sapphire Guard is void.] Even as Miko is about to kill Shojo, Hinjo is acting the worried subordinate, and Miko is treating him as a good-hearted, if not really competent, inferior.

The first, whether Miko was the military superior to Hinjo, is irrelevant to whether or not he told she was acting improperly.
The second, whether Miko accepted his orders as orders, just demonstrates further that she cared for the Sapphire Guard and Azure City only as far as they gave her sanction for her anti-social behavior.


That is a common notion, and a false one. Or more correctly; being raised under difficult cirkumstances always leaves scars. The consequences of this will vary (and have the usual bell shape if mapped in a graph) going from the rare few that hardly is bothered by their past, to a few unfortunate that suffer serious psychical traumas.

Which still neither automatically creates a bully or excuses the bullying behavior.
Nor does it create some automatic, external probability code, that forces a result absent individual choice.


To say, like you do, there are those who don't turn murderers is simply a way to disregard the suffering all these people (including those who don't turn murder) and think of them as objects, not fellow human beings.

No, it is way to hold those who inflict suffering on others responsible for the suffering they freely and willfully inflict on others.

To say, like you do, that their past somehow absolves them of the responsibility to make choices is to deny them the opportunity to ever be fellow human beings, condemning them to be nothing but wild beasts with no hope of ever becoming something better.
It likewise disregard's the choices of those who do not become predators, despite whatever obstacles or abuse they may have faced, but instead embrace their humanity, and indeed seek to make the world a better place.

Roy was treated poorly, to put it mildly, by his father. Mocked for wanting to become a fighter, ignored during his youth, left accountable for a brother dead because of an accident.
By excusing Miko you make his choices meaningless. You give him full sanction to be worse than Belkar, and dismiss any credit he deserves for choosing to fight the good fight against Xykon.

You likewise make a mockery of the choices of Hinjo to do anything but become another Kubota, slaughtering those nobles that oppose him, massacreing their followers if they do not obey him, sacrificing subordinates callously. He does not even give up on his ideals, becoming a Chaotic Good schemer like Shojo, taking the expedient way out of numerous troubles while still retaining his morality.

Heroes overcome.
Anti-Heroes at least serve.
Only Villains embrace to the extent that Miko did.

Shall we weep for poor Iago, caught in his destruction of Othello, done for his own aggrandizement?

[Katana_Geldar]

It's not an either/or thing, Malkar. :smallsigh:

Burlew has said in the commentaries on Miko that her fall directly stems from her lack of humility and her willingness to continually press the technicalities of her alignment. Lawful Good does not mean you are above the law or the law is how you personally interpret it. (Remember, part of following the law is knowing when the law no longer suits the purpose it once did and change it accordingly.)

Miko was not raised to believe she was special! She did that all on her own:


...Miko considered herself chosen by the Twelve Gods for something Special. As a result of being hand-picked from an orphanage and ushered to the very heights of her civilisation's power, she truly believed that she had a destiny that was grand and, more importantly, immutable.

She believed the reason she had these powers and the fact she was chosen meant she was special.

EDIT: You said it, Tiki! A very wise wizard once told me that we are defined by our choices, not the circumstances of our birth.

[Kish]

EDIT: You said it, Tiki! A very wise wizard once told me that we are defined by our choices, not the circumstances of our birth.
Indeed. He knew that we're properly defined by who we are at age eleven, as divined by a hat...

[Sholos]

But now we are fiddling with the definition of the story, and once we start that, just about any character becomes a potential tragic hero. We simply ignore those parts where he is not on stage.
What? I'm not "fiddling" with any definitions. If you don't know what a story arc is, I suggest you go and look it up. Not "just about any character" can be a tragic hero. There are very specific requirements, and Miko fails them completely.


I am not really seeing this. Miko seems to have the least scenery appearances of any major character. When she appears, she is an important part of the scene, and often dominates. And she appears quite often. That her parts are scattered does not seem a serious point.
"Miko seems to have the least scenery appearances" combined with "she appears quite often" has me scratching my head. Regardless, appearing often does not a protagonist make. Shredder appeared a heck of a lot in the TNMT cartoons. Are you going to argue that he is a protagonist? Villains often are an important part of the scenes that they are in. You know, because they're villains. They're what the heroes are overcoming. If they weren't important, we wouldn't think that they're a threat. We'd ignore them, and that doesn't really work for an antagonist. Your entire argument is completely useless for saying that Miko is anything other than a major character.

[Hardcore]

Which still neither automatically creates a bully or excuses the bullying behavior.
This is a simplification. Black and white. I thought you knew what a bell curve is, and what it means.



Nor does it create some automatic, external probability code, that forces a result absent individual choice.
Not quite. But IMO Miko was molded like clay by her experiences as child. That is something that can't be undone. If the scars are not too deep or severe, and with help (that she didn't get) she could have learned to live with them. Apparently she did not.
What happened instead was that she lived, made her choices, and died within the limits resulting from her experiences. They were quite extreme in all ways.



No, it is way to hold those who inflict suffering on others responsible for the suffering they freely and willfully inflict on others.
Heh, here you talk about Belkar, not Miko. :smallsmile:



To say, like you do, that their past somehow absolves them of the responsibility to make choices is to deny them the opportunity to ever be fellow human beings, condemning them to be nothing but wild beasts with no hope of ever becoming something better.
I will make an experiment. I am now a Stone.
Hm. Didn't work. Maybe there are limits to what we can do?
Apparantly I am restriced in my activity by what I am (like I just wrote above)

Miko, DID try. But was UNABLE to go through with it. The scene were she almost surrendered to Hinjo showed that.



Roy was treated poorly, to put it mildly, by his father. Mocked for wanting to become a fighter, ignored during his youth, left accountable for a brother dead because of an accident.
By excusing Miko you make his choices meaningless.
Roy was not accountable for his brothers death. But it did leave its mark. He was really glad to meet him again in heaven.
What choice? Becoming another Xykon or what? His childhood certainly affected him, but the result was he choose to become a fighter rather than a wizard.
But then he did have a family, even if his father was dysfunctional as father.



You likewise make a mockery of the choices of Hinjo to do anything but become another Kubota,
Hinjo made no choices. IF he had been power hungry and callous as Cobota but choose to be nice, THEN he would have made a choice. But just being himself is not making a choise.

[Conuly]

That's it in a nutshell. Anything suggesting the contrary is just muddying the water.

Not exactly. As Aristotle (I think?) put it, a tragedy is when somebody does earn their downfall, but through mistakes. A truly good and saintly person dying and gouging their eyes out would just repulse us. A truly wicked person dying and gouging their eyes out would make us happy. It needs to be an ordinary person making the sort of stupid mistakes WE might make to give us that satisfyingly tragic end.

[Mystic Muse]

just being himself is not making a choice.

This is inaccurate. Anything you do is making a choice. Indecision is also a choice. Choosing to be yourself is always a choice. Doing anything ever is a choice unless there's physically only one thing you can do.

[Malkar Grumbo]

This is inaccurate. Anything you do is making a choice. Indecision is also a choice. Choosing to be yourself is always a choice. Doing anything ever is a choice unless there's physically only one thing you can do.

Yes, and the choices we make are influenced by our experience and what we are taught by our parents, teachers, etc. The choices most people make are influenced by what their parents put into their minds when they are young, whether most people realize it or not. parental guidance is a very strong factor in how a person grows up and what sort of person they become.

[Mystic Muse]

Yes, and the choices we make are influenced by our experience and what we are taught by our parents, teachers, etc. The choices most people make are influenced by what their parents put into their minds when they are young, whether most people realize it or not. parental guidance is a very strong factor in how a person grows up and what sort of person they become.

I'm not disputing this. I'm just saying doing anything is a choice in response to Hardcore saying that being yourself is not a choice.

[Malkar Grumbo]

I'm not disputing this. I'm just saying doing anything is a choice in response to Hardcore saying that being yourself is not a choice.

My apologies, I went a little over board there.

[Catch]

That's it in a nutshell. Anything suggesting the contrary is just muddying the water.

Or deliberate self-deception.

Honestly, Miko has been dead for almost 300 strips. Can we, as a community, collectively move on? :smallannoyed:

[Mystic Muse]

Or deliberate self-deception.

Honestly, Miko has been dead for almost 300 strips. Can we, as a community, collectively move on? :smallannoyed:

Roy's attack on Miko after the murder of Shojo also has been almost 300 strips. Have we moved on from that? no? didn't think so.

[Raging Gene Ray]

Miko was not raised to believe she was special! She did that all on her own:

The quote from War and XPs actually seems to indicate Miko's lack of humility came from her environement (being chosen from the orphanage).

I wonder if Haley, if raised the right way, could have been a fine paladin?

Falling seems to be one of the most necessary things for Miko, most paladins developed a human side before taking on concepts like Shining Examples of Law and Good and Heroic Destinies (TM). Miko, having never developed proper ties with family and friends skipped a step in her psychological development.

If there's any justice, she'd be allowed into the LG afterlife (or a LG community in the TN afterlife) and left to learn the social skills that others take for granted. I think she'd find them more satisfying than her paladinhood.

I'm not sure if she qualifies as a Tragic Hero as defined by whoever defines those sorts of things, but she is a parody of one way paladins are played that turned into an interesting character study of the kind of person who would actually turn out that way.

[Tiktakkat]

EDIT: You said it, Tiki! A very wise wizard once told me that we are defined by our choices, not the circumstances of our birth.

I have been hesitating to start the stream of citations, particularly that one, but indeed, Harry Potter is a prime example.
He could have gone on being the miserable, self-involved, jerk he was growing into, blaming the atrocious abuse he received at home, the neglect masquerading as excessive concern he received at school, and the constant threats on his life, or he could man up and deal with it. (With "it" being way too much.)
But guess what, there is an even better example in those books: Ron Weasly and his brother Percy. Both had pretty well near the same exact life. One chose to be back the hero, one chose to go for power. Percy managed to find redemption when he remembered what "family" meant.

Or I could direct people to Ender's Game. "Abuse" barely scratches the surface of what was inflicted on him to turn him into a military genius capable of an unspeakable act. Rather than wallow in it, he sought redemption.

Or Kung Fu Panda. Yes, Tai Lung was an orphan. Yes, he was raised with incredible expectations. He was also raised with incredible love. He turned to darkness. Po was raised with disappointment and originally "trained" with scorn. Even after that trained, he still had to learn the final lesson. And when he did, his choice was to be the hero.


This is a simplification. Black and white. I thought you knew what a bell curve is, and what it means.

Knowing what a bell curve is and accepting quantum probability as a trump on free will are two completely different things.


Not quite. But IMO Miko was molded like clay by her experiences as child. That is something that can't be undone. If the scars are not too deep or severe, and with help (that she didn't get) she could have learned to live with them. Apparently she did not.
What happened instead was that she lived, made her choices, and died within the limits resulting from her experiences. They were quite extreme in all ways.

You assume she was trained to treat people like disposable objects, serving a mechanical whole, and not as thinking, feeling individuals.
You assume she was trained to promote the values of society by menace and threat, and not by a sincere concern.
You assume these things must, along with some forced probability, lead to her choosing to commit murder without her having any input.


Heh, here you talk about Belkar, not Miko. :smallsmile:

No, I am talking about Miko, however:


I will make an experiment. I am now a Stone.
Hm. Didn't work. Maybe there are limits to what we can do?
Apparantly I am restriced in my activity by what I am (like I just wrote above)

As I said, you reduce Miko to being incapable of humanity.
But let us contrast that with Belkar:
Belkar was able, with Shojo's intervention, to learn to pretend at humanity. Miko was apparently incapable of even that.
And Mr. Scruffy likes Belkar.


Miko, DID try. But was UNABLE to go through with it. The scene were she almost surrendered to Hinjo showed that.

No, in the end, she did not even try. All she cared about was her power, and if not that at least her pony, and she was satisfied with that.
She deliberately and willfully stepped away from redemption, just as she deliberately and willfully stepped away from not murdering Shojo.


Roy was not accountable for his brothers death. But it did leave its mark. He was really glad to meet him again in heaven.
What choice? Becoming another Xykon or what? His childhood certainly affected him, but the result was he choose to become a fighter rather than a wizard.
But then he did have a family, even if his father was dysfunctional as father.

So it is just being an orphan and being raised in a monastery that receives a Get Out of Moral Responsibility Free card?


Hinjo made no choices. IF he had been power hungry and callous as Cobota but choose to be nice, THEN he would have made a choice. But just being himself is not making a choise.

Hinjo made quite a few choices. Whether they were too much in support of the Law at the cost of Good might be debatable, but that is still far from the choices Miko made.

[Sholos]

The quote from War and XPs actually seems to indicate Miko's lack of humility came from her environement (being chosen from the orphanage).

(...)

It was more Miko's interpretation that she was special, rather than anything inherent in the act of taking a child from an orphanage. If anything, being raised in an orphanage would bend one towards being humble, if it's anything like the orphanages of old (and a lot of them today). As far as I can tell, no one ever told Miko that she was special beyond other paladins. That's something she came up with on her own.

[Catch]

Roy's attack on Miko after the murder of Shojo also has been almost 300 strips. Have we moved on from that? no? didn't think so.

Which is directly related to lingering feelings left by Miko. And the subject had been forcibly terminated by moderation, but certain parties felt obligated to dredge it up again, years later, as if rehashing the same arguments for dozens of pages would some how change galvanized opinions.

Charming to see that people are still just as passive aggressive about it too.

[Raging Gene Ray]

Which is directly related to lingering feelings left by Miko. And the subject had been forcibly terminated by moderation, but certain parties felt obligated to dredge it up again, years later, as if rehashing the same arguments for dozens of pages would some how change galvanized opinions.

The discussion of Miko seems to have mostly confined itself to that thread. And now this one...and I think another one...this may not bode well.

I think I remember hearing Rich saying something in War and XPs that Miko is to represent most people who make mistakes - they might be the type to correct them if possible, but realize them too late.

So I think Miko is a would be Tragic Hero who died before she could get the Hero part.


As far as I can tell, no one ever told Miko that she was special beyond other paladins. That's something she came up with on her own.

That seems mostly related to skipping the part of life involving growing up in social situations and going straight into military training with an elite, secret group. It wasn't simply being chosen from an orphanage.

It was about being chosen from an orphanage not by parents wanting to provide a loving home to a child, but by an organization looking for a martial arts prodigy to toughen their ranks.




So it is just being an orphan and being raised in a monastery that receives a Get Out of Moral Responsibility Free card?

No, but it can shape someone to try to do the right thing, and ending up failing because they can't "remember what family means" due to not having a family.



You assume she was trained to treat people like disposable objects, serving a mechanical whole, and not as thinking, feeling individuals.
You assume she was trained to promote the values of society by menace and threat, and not by a sincere concern.

That's what skipping childhood and adolescence and going straight to military training can do.


You assume these things must, along with some forced probability, lead to her choosing to commit murder without her having any input.

Miko did have some input, I'm not and I doubt Grumbo is trying to say she had no free will. However, it is possible that her environment had made her much more set in her actions than other characters and would have required more free will than is available to most characters to change.

I don't think Miko was fated or made a fully conscious decision to kill Shojo or Hinjo. I think she was temporarily driven insane by confusion after seeing her father figure for so long palling around with someone she knew wanted her dead.

[Jagos]

The discussion of Miko seems to have mostly confined itself to that thread. And now this one...and I think another one...this may not bode well.

I think I remember hearing Rich saying something in War and XPs that Miko is to represent most people who make mistakes - they might be the type to correct them if possible, but realize them too late.

So I think Miko is a would be Tragic Hero who died before she could get the Hero part.

TBH, if Miko had been able at least once to submit to being wrong on the big things such as Shojo's murder and destroying the gate because she saw her destiny in front of her, I could think she was a Tragic Hero.

Further, if she could admit to being wrong before someone had to point it out to her for the 50th time, I could accept her as a Tragic Hero.

What makes all the more difference between Macbeth and Miko is the fact that Macbeth eventually saw his downfall from the misread of the prophecy.

Even Brutus understood that what he had done was murder, but he was goaded and prodded into it by everyone around him.

Miko doesn't have that privilege. Even taking away the feeling of her as an antagonist, her downfall wasn't one chosen by fate. She chose to kill a man without conceding a point, as well as destroying a gate without looking at the bigger picture surrounding her. The explosion was caused by her actions, not the act of someone else.

Face it, nothing really says she is a Tragic Hero if she doesn't meet the qualifications.

[Tiktakkat]

No, but it can shape someone to try to do the right thing, and ending up failing because they can't "remember what family means" due to not having a family.

Or they can use it to appreciate family more, recognizing what they missed out on, and dedicating themselves to helping others attain it.


That's what skipping childhood and adolescence and going straight to military training can do.

Or it can instill a deep and abiding respect for those who sacrifice in such a way, along with a sincere desire to protect others so they do not have to make the same sacrifice.


Miko did have some input, I'm not and I doubt Grumbo is trying to say she had no free will. However, it is possible that her environment had made her much more set in her actions than other characters and would have required more free will than is available to most characters to change.

Not according to the bell curve results of growing up with a bad childhood model. By that, someone had to lose out on getting a choice to be a decent person.


I don't think Miko was fated or made a fully conscious decision to kill Shojo or Hinjo. I think she was temporarily driven insane by confusion after seeing her father figure for so long palling around with someone she knew wanted her dead.

Who wanted her dead because . . . of how Miko had abused Belkar, seeking his death at any cost, including her own status as a paladin.
Perhaps if Miko had risen above her own desire for self-aggrandizement and shown Belkar some consideration, he might not have wanted her dead. Perhaps he might have even become a better person, or at least less restrained in his evil, as he has under Roy's supervision.
Hmmm . . .

[Hardcore]

Tiktakkat, being able to make free choices, not being hindered by past experience, nor your own physics or psyche, is the definiton of GOD.
Miko OTOH is mere Human and can only act within her own limits.

BTW, you seem to fail understand the Bell curve. Completely.
In Swedish is is called Curve of Normal Distribution, which is perhaps a better name. It just shows how things are. How things are for all the individuals in the group can, however, be changed. No one would dispute children are better off today than the 19th century, but measure it on a graph and you still get the same curve...
It does not mean that because someone has it good someone must have it bad. This because the Curve is for measuring anything! To apply good or bad to, for example, the curve for number of pages in the OotS books would be stupid, wouldn't it?
So in the case Human it shows merely that if measuring the effects of unhappy childhood we will get results including extremes. Such as Miko. And that is not HER FAULT.

[Katana_Geldar]

How do we know Miko had an unhappy childhood? She actually cried when she left the orphanage, sounds to me as if it wasn't so bad there.

[hamishspence]

The claim that "Plenty of people have bad upbringing- they don't all grow up to be murderers" is not "insensitive" as is claimed. We know that bad upbringing leaves mental scars- but it isn't a "get out of responsibility free" card.

Saying that Miko was unlucky in being of the personality type that a bad upbringing can warp right out of shape, makes a bit more sense. But it may still concede a bit too much of the responsibility.

Regardless- Miko does bear some responsibility for her actions. No society takes the "all crimes are the result of bad upbringing- therefore nobody is truly responsible for their crimes" they always insist that the criminal did have choices- and the freedom to choose, means the freedom to take the consequences.

[Raging Gene Ray]

How do we know Miko had an unhappy childhood? She actually cried when she left the orphanage, sounds to me as if it wasn't so bad there.

I thought it was her subsequent adoption into the Sapphire Guard. This was followed by a well-meaning Shojo trying to comfort her by saying she didn't need to cry because even though she was separated from her friends at the orphanage, she now had the privilege of executing the will of the Twelve Gods.

Miko misinterpreted this as "friendship with imperfect humans is not as important as serving the Absolute and Pure Will of the Twelve Gods," and became unbalanced, thinking that this was the path to happiness.



Regardless- Miko does bear some responsibility for her actions. No society takes the "all crimes are the result of bad upbringing- therefore nobody is truly responsible for their crimes" they always insist that the criminal did have choices- and the freedom to choose, means the freedom to take the consequences.

Again, I never said that. I do think that Miko is the type that, given enough time and explanation, could have realized her error in killing Shojo and become a Tragic Hero.

[Katana_Geldar]

If Miko has had more humility, actually listened to people instead of bossing them around and paused once in a while to consider her actions, she never would have fell.

She took it for granted that whatever she did was right because the gods had made her special.

[hamishspence]

Again, I never said that. I do think that Miko is the type that, given enough time and explanation, could have realized her error in killing Shojo and become a Tragic Hero.

True- it's more a response to "Miko's actions are not Miko's fault"

Miko being raised the way she was isn't her fault.

But she is an adult- she knows the values of her society.

I've never liked the "All is predestined- so no-one bears blame" school of thinking.

[Mugen Nightgale]

Or deliberate self-deception.

Honestly, Miko has been dead for almost 300 strips. Can we, as a community, collectively move on? :smallannoyed:

Agreed, it's time to move on people. Move on from Miko and the alignment threads. The discussion has been the same since forever, personal feelings vs human morality. Both being totally inappropriate for the Oost world.

[Deme]

The important thing about the moment Miko became the Miko we know is that it had only so much to do with her upbringing, and everything to do with her internalized response to her upbringing. It depends entirely on her interpretation of her upbringing.

She didn't think to herself, in a way that was real or stayed with her, "The Sapphire Guard are good, generous people for giving an Orphan like me this lifestyle! I should live up to such standards of generosity!" Likewise, she didn't say "They have such faith in me, even though I've got no family. I need to work hard to prove their faith was well-chosen." Given her upbringing, which theoretically would have pushed humbleness, those would have been very reasonable reactions, and Miko would have been, I'd like to think, a better person for having those be what she felt about her circumstances.

No, what she said and never stopped saying to her own suffering as a person, and the suffering of the world around her, was "They chose me because I'm special. I'm right. Me. Me. Me." Shojo may have nudged her with that line about her purpose, but the way she seemed to have made that the entire guiding rule of her life means she made that choice to take that nudge, and those stimuli, and make it into fervor. She chose what feelings and events in her life were important and needed to be embraced wholeheartedly, and she chose the wrong one.

[Raging Gene Ray]

Agreed, it's time to move on people. Move on from Miko and the alignment threads. The discussion has been the same since forever, personal feelings vs human morality. Both being totally inappropriate for the Oost world.

The thing about Miko threads is they tend to bring up topics beyond Miko. Like this one bringing up the classic Nature vs. Nurture debate. That's why they tend to stay alive so long.

And I don't read David Argall's posts, but I'm pretty sure there's a treasure trove of obscure moral/legal philosophy in those things.


It depends entirely on her interpretation of her upbringing.

That's actually a very interesting way of putting it. It makes me want to actually read some of the neuroscience books I've been meaning to.

While currently set in her interpretation of herself, Miko had just received a powerful shock.

Anyone can choose to reinterpret their life and change their personality, and a shock like what Miko went through gave her good reason to, but it would have taken more time than what passed in the throne room...and later, the prison.

She went kamikaze before she could fully examine herself (if her cell hadn't been weakened by Tsukiko's Shout...), which is why I think she was headed towards being a Tragic Hero.

[Hardcore]

Deme, nothing new. It is basically what has allready been said here in this thread.
If you loose your legs in an accident the consequence is that you can't walk. But apparently this is because you choose not to do it!
I can't say I agree.

[Deme]

What makes you say, firmly and definitely, that she was mentally incapable of interpreting her circumstances in any other way? I'd like to see some evidence there. Because the moment you say that she could have responded in no other way, you take away the free will of everyone, thus making the question at hand -- whether or not she is accountable for her actions and therefore tragic, as a tragic hero or otherwise, completely a waste of time.

...I mean, more than it already is.

[Hardcore]

Well, her background, and the fact she couldn't accept being wrong even when the gods told her she was. (even an atheist would have got THAT message, lol)
I am not saying she lacked free will, but I think she was so twisted, psychologically speaking that her being the the gods champion and always right etc, was literally a part of her.
This meant she would look at the world with those eyes always. It worked as long it was all about killing goblins and otherwise being a paladin.

[Murdim]

Deme, nothing new. It is basically what has allready been said here in this thread.
If you loose your legs in an accident the consequence is that you can't walk. But apparently this is because you choose not to do it!
I can't say I agree.
I fail to see what makes this message a sensible answer to Deme's. If anything, it would be more logical for Deme's message to be an answer to this one, since she essentially explained why the reasoning you just exposed doesn't work. Two persons put in the exact same situation can get completely different outcomes. Someone losing one's legs in an accident doesn't mean this accident is absolutely and inherently leg-destroying for everyone who exists, has existed or will ever came into existence. Same thing for Miko becoming a prideful, self-righteous bitch as a result of being adopted in the Sapphire Guard.

How would Alice be able to survive a terrible accident without any irreparable damage to her legs while her friend Bob lost them in the exact same situation ? Maybe because A has better reflexes than B. Or, ironically, it could be because she has worse reflexes than him, and haven't had the time to do the same wrong move. Perhaps B's thicker legs has something to do with it. Or A could just be tougher. And so on, ad nauseam. Anyway, all those reasons why A can walk while B can't are themselves the consequences of other factors. And since these factors didn't came out of nowhere, there must be deeper causes. Causes which have themselves causes. Which have causes. Which have causes. Which have causes. Which...

This is called an infinite regression, and is more or less inevitable when you try to explain why the reality happens to be this way and not otherwise. Meaning of course that it also happens if you try to explain why Miko happened to become this way and not otherwise (i.e humble and grateful) in circumstances where both are sensible outcomes, since the first answer is Miko's initial personality with all its range of aspects, and the following ones are the causes of this personality, the causes of these causes, the causes of THESE causes... well, I won't make the whole thing again.

In other words, if anyone can be exonerated of anything as long as there's a logical explanation to it which is outside one's responsibility, then Miko isn't responsible of anything at all in her mind, in her life and in the world. Additionally, if something can't be a choice as long as there's deeper reasons to it, then Miko died without having made a single choice since her birth. And of course, what is valid for Miko is also valid for anyone, fictional characters as well as real persons.

The moral of this story is that you need to define choice and responsability somewhere at the expense of freudian excuses (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FreudianExcuse), or fall into complete nonsense. And the moral of this moral is that Miko deserved what she got. Well, arguably. Some people could find the karmic punishment a bit too harsh for what she's done anyway. And in any case, that doesn't mean she doesn't deserve to be pitied rather than hated, either.

[David Argall]

I'm not "fiddling" with any definitions. If you don't know what a story arc is, I suggest you go and look it up.
Irrelevant. What we have for our purposes is that a given story may be part of a larger story, or may be broken up into smaller stories. Which means a protagonist at a given level may be only a bit player in a larger view. That means that for any given character, his story can be extracted into a separate story where he is the protagonist, and thus meet this requirement for tragic hero.


Not "just about any character" can be a tragic hero.
Any. Now a great many will fail/avoid the other standards, but we are concerned here with his rank in the list of characters and even character with only a couple of lines can qualify.


There are very specific requirements, and Miko fails them completely.

Now whether she meets them in full is a debatable question, but the very fact of her fall means she does not fail them completely.



"Miko seems to have the least scenery appearances" combined with "she appears quite often" has me scratching my head.
This relates to the point of protagonist. Joe appears in one scene, and is promptly killed. He could be a tragic hero, but we may have to read far closer than we will to even catch a hint of that. So for practical purposes, we do need a fair amount of material to call someone a tragic hero. Miko meets this standard. We can extract the 70 pages of Miko from the larger story and we have enough to move on to the other parts of the definition.


Regardless, appearing often does not a protagonist make. Shredder appeared a heck of a lot in the TNMT cartoons. Are you going to argue that he is a protagonist? Villains often are an important part of the scenes that they are in. You know, because they're villains. They're what the heroes are overcoming.
You are too camera-view centered here. Sam is an antagonist because he opposes Max. But if we just shift the camera to behind Sam, we make him the protagonist and Max the antagonist. So, with the proper development, just about any role can appear anywhere on the stage. Being the villain in no way stops one from being the tragic hero or any other role the hero might take.



The first, whether Miko was the military superior to Hinjo, is irrelevant to whether or not he told she was acting improperly.
The contention was that Miko was disobeying orders. The superior ignoring the subordinate is a sharply lesser crime, to the extent that one can question whether it is a crime at all.


The second, whether Miko accepted his orders as orders, just demonstrates further that she cared for the Sapphire Guard and Azure City only as far as they gave her sanction for her anti-social behavior.

But Hinjo did not give orders to Miko [until after she fell]. He locked his heels every time he talked with her. And the rest of the statement is entirely speculative.

[Porthos]

Did people fail Miko as she grew up? Probably.
Did her upbringing help influence Miko's personality? Probably.
Does Miko bear the majority of the responsibility for her actions? Absolutely.

Let me use Start of Darkness as a launching off point:

Compare and Contrast Redcloak and Right-Eye. Without getting into spoilers, they had nearly identical upbringings. And they had (at least for a time) near identical life experiences. Yet, when the chips were down, and ultimate decisions had to be made, they reacted in very different ways.

There must be a reason for that.

Back to Miko.

Yes, Miko had a hard life. Yes, she was dogmatic. Yes, she viewed the world in a very strange light. But it is wrong to say that people didn't try to break through to her. Roy, perhaps clumsily, perhaps not, initially tried to break through to her. Only to be repulsed when he figured out what she "really" was like. And in a bonus strip in WaXP we see how Miko reacts when her own fellow guardsmen try to loosen her up and befriend her (HINT: It didn't go well :smallwink:).

So Miko was undoubtedly shaped to a degree by her environment. But she wasn't defined by it. Through her own actions and interpretations of the world around her, she shaped her world view.

That's how you can have two different people come from very similar backgrounds, and yet act in radically different ways. Heck, that phenomenon is practically a trope in and of itself in fiction.

So while Miko can point to her upbringing as one of the reasons for why she acted the way she did, she can not use it as an excuse. Anymore than we can use it as an excuse in Real Life when some Troubled Kid does something reprehensible.

Miko has Free Will (in as much as any character in a work of fiction has Free Will). Ultimately she is the one who has to take responsibility for her own actions. That's kinda the definition of the word "responsibility" after all.

[Tiktakkat]

Let me use Start of Darkness as a launching off point:

Indeed.

And thus Miko chose to be a villain.

[dps]

How would Alice be able to survive a terrible accident without any irreparable damage to her legs while her friend Bob lost them in the exact same situation ? Maybe because A has better reflexes than B. Or, ironically, it could be because she has worse reflexes than him, and haven't had the time to do the same wrong move. Perhaps B's thicker legs has something to do with it. Or A could just be tougher. And so on, ad nauseam. Anyway, all those reasons why A can walk while B can't are themselves the consequences of other factors. And since these factors didn't came out of nowhere, there must be deeper causes. Causes which have themselves causes. Which have causes. Which have causes. Which have causes. Which...


This post completely misses the point. In the first place, no one who is evenly remotely sane loses their legs in an accident because that choose to do so, but that's not what we're discussing anyway. We're talking about what happens after someone loses their legs--do they learn to get around in a wheelchair and find a job in which not being able to walk isn't any particular drawback; or do they become a helpless invalid, pretty much dependent on someone else to take care of them? Or something in between? Yes, hardcore, if we graphed out how well the person dealt with the situation, we'd get an approximation of a bell-shaped cure, but that doesn't mean that we can't put the blame for dealing poorly with the situation on the people who don't even try to overcome their handicap.

[Menas]

Roy's attack on Miko after the murder of Shojo also has been almost 300 strips. Have we moved on from that? no? didn't think so.

I think the main reason for this is because there's a poster that always seems willing to defend Miko regardless of what her actions might have been. The debates from this person appear to me to have the purpose of protecting Miko more than addressing any real points made by people accusing her of something.

And before said poster responds to this saying my accusation is baseless I suggest they answer my previous challenge to produce one single statement within their myriads of posts where they ever admitted Miko was in the wrong for anything she's done.

[Hardcore]

Dps, thanks for understanding what Murdim didn't:smallsmile:
As for trying to overcome ones handicap ("Disability" I think they called it in English speaking countries)... Well, first it could be such a severe one that it is not possible to overcome.
Second you also need to realise you got a disability, which I am not so sure Miko did. The easy ones to spot are lost arms, legs, or other body parts. The disabilities of the mind and brain, on the other hand, are invisible.
(I have some personal experience of all this above to base my way of thinking on)


Menas, heh, I thought you talked about me:smallsmile:

[Raging Gene Ray]

Second you also need to realise you got a disability, which I am not so sure Miko did. The easy ones to spot are lost arms, legs, or other body parts. The disabilities of the mind and brain, on the other hand, are invisible.
(I have some personal experience of all this above to base my way of thinking on)

I fully agree with this. I like to believe something in between Hardcore and Tiktakkat's views. Miko did have free will, she could have re-evaluated herself at any point and changed. However, it's not so simple as saying "she chose to be a villain."

Choices that involve remaking behavior patterns that have settled in for years involves seeing things from new and different viewpoints, a motivation to do (she had to want to change, and considering how miserable she seemed, she could have been convinced to do so), and if someone else wants to help, they have to put more effort than giving up at the first roadblock and saying "Oh well, I tried to get her to change, let's send her off somewhere nice and isolated."

I agree with Tiktakkat's "Heroes overcome," but we can't fault Miko for not having a superheroic ability to understand how others felt towards her, why they felt that way, and how she and they could change.

Now that brings me back to the main question: "Is Miko a Tragic Hero?" From the definition of a Tragic Hero, she did make the bad decisions (In Tiktak's words, "choosing to be a villain"), but didn't survive long enough to - well, I think I've said it all before.

Oh, and Menas? Who ARE you talking about:smallconfused:?

[Jagos]

I think the main reason for this is because there's a poster that always seems willing to defend Miko regardless of what her actions might have been. The debates from this person appear to me to have the purpose of protecting Miko more than addressing any real points made by people accusing her of something.

And before said poster responds to this saying my accusation is baseless I suggest they answer my previous challenge to produce one single statement within their myriads of posts where they ever admitted Miko was in the wrong for anything she's done.

You should look at the "other" Miko thread. ;p

[Murdim]

This post completely misses the point. In the first place, no one who is evenly remotely sane loses their legs in an accident because that choose to do so, but that's not what we're discussing anyway. We're talking about what happens after someone loses their legs--do they learn to get around in a wheelchair and find a job in which not being able to walk isn't any particular drawback; or do they become a helpless invalid, pretty much dependent on someone else to take care of them? Or something in between? Yes, hardcore, if we graphed out how well the person dealt with the situation, we'd get an approximation of a bell-shaped cure, but that doesn't mean that we can't put the blame for dealing poorly with the situation on the people who don't even try to overcome their handicap.
I don't think I'm the one who misses a point here. I didn't say that someone who loses their legs in an accident loses them by their own free will. It's quite the opposite, since every reason why A kept her legs while B lost them can be explained by other factors, and so on. In fact, that's the whole point of the paragraph you quoted.

What I say then is that it works the exact same way if we try to explain how being adopted by the Sapphire Guard made Miko what she was, rather than a nicer person. Or, say, why two people afflicted with the exact same handicap can live with it in totally different ways. Those things can also be explained by deeper causes in an infinite regression. Does that make them less of a responsible choice ? I don't think so.

[Hardcore]

Murdim, yes, they have resposibility, as far as is possible for them take responsibility for their actions.
Problem is that
as far as is possible for them varies between individuals. We cannot measure Miko to the same yardstock as Roy, for example.

Raging Gene Ray; Miko may have been miserable, but to become less so she would have to give up the comforting idea of being the champion of her gods.
A big obstacle that one!

[Menas]

Oh, and Menas? Who ARE you talking about:smallconfused:?

Check out the 'Was Roy's attack against Miko justified thread'... it should become obvious very quickly ;-).

[Mugen Nightgale]

About Miko's childhood:
It doesn't matter what the world did to you it doesn't define you as person. Life is about choices. Read Kish's signature for references.

[hamishspence]

I think the main reason for this is because there's a poster that always seems willing to defend Miko regardless of what her actions might have been. The debates from this person appear to me to have the purpose of protecting Miko more than addressing any real points made by people accusing her of something.

I believe there was a statement somewhere to the effect of

"While a case can be made that Miko's killing of Shojo was a gross breach of the code, or an act that caused her alignment to change to NG, rather than an evil act, I do actually think it was an evil act."

Quite frankly I can't spare the time to wade through 2 or 3 threads to pick out the precise wording, though.

[Raging Gene Ray]

Raging Gene Ray; Miko may have been miserable, but to become less so she would have to give up the comforting idea of being the champion of her gods.
A big obstacle that one!

That's what I was trying to say. A difficult obstacle, but not an insurmountable one. Yes, she was responsible for killing Shojo and (almost) Hinjo in the end, all Tragic Heroes first make mistakes and THEN acknowledge they were responsible for them. I still think, ultimately, she was TRYING to serve the greater good and deserves a place in Celestia (definitely not the Paladin's Quarter, of course)...or maybe the gateway city to Celestia from the Outlands.


Check out the 'Was Roy's attack against Miko justified thread'... it should become obvious very quickly ;-).

You mean Jagos?

[hamishspence]

He said "Poster willing to defend Miko no matter what she did": I hardly think Jagos qualifies.

[Raging Gene Ray]

He said "Poster willing to defend Miko no matter what she did": I hardly think Jagos qualifies.

Hmmm...you think he's talking about you, then?

[hamishspence]

Amusing.

Now if the statement had been "defend Roy no matter what he did."- there might be an element of truth in that.

A small element :smallwink:

[Hardcore]

I wonder were Miko ended up. Apparently not the same place as her Horse. But I don't know enough about D&D to figure it out.

[hamishspence]

Opinion is divided on the subject.

From:

"still Celestia- but paladins and their horses reside in a different part of Celestia, and ordinary Lawful Good mortals have to wait to be visited"

to

"Bytopia- she was still Good, but she wasn't exactly Lawful any more"

to

"Arcadia- She's still Lawful, but not quite good enough to qualify for Celestia any more"

to "One of the Lower Planes"

(which has the problem of needing an explanation as to why the horse is making visits.)

Acheron and Pandemonium, while technically Lower planes, are not even "mildly evil aligned"

If she did get Sent Down, these are as "low" as is plausible- I can't imagine Windstriker making periodic visits to the Nine Hells to visit Miko the Soul Shell, or to the Abyss to visit Miko the Mane.

[Kish]

I wonder were Miko ended up. Apparently not the same place as her Horse. But I don't know enough about D&D to figure it out.
No amount of D&D knowledge would tell you for sure based on the information we have. She's not in the same place as Windstriker, but she wouldn't be in any case, since he's not dead, and is probably another paladin's mount now. If she was still Lawful Good, she's somewhere in Celestia, just not as high on the mountain as she would be if she'd died a true paladin. If she was any other alignment then...etc. People will say that "she was obviously X alignment and therefore she is in Y." People will say that what Soon said about Windstriker visiting her as much as he is able proves she's in an upper plane (because Windstriker couldn't visit her in the Nine Hells) and that it proves that she's not in an upper plane (because there would be no limits on Windstriker visiting her in Celestia). At the end of the day, the information the comic's given us is simply not sufficient for anyone to know where she is.

[hamishspence]

Pretty much, yes- though it may be possible to weigh the possibilities and decide (still opinion, but maybe well founded opinion) which is more likely.

Even if we won't know for sure unless the Giant tells us.

I'm inclined to say Not Celestia- and that (if Windstriker isn't immediately getting another companion) the limits are a hint that he has to go to one of the other Upper Planes to see her.

However, the "Celestia, but Windstriker will spend most of his time as the steed of another paladin" idea is still not implausible.

[Shale]

Arcadia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcadia_%28Dungeons_&_Dragons%29) seems like the logical place for her to go. Lawfulness is both mandatory and emphasized, while it accepts both good and neutral on the moral axis.

[hamishspence]

Unless Miko's action of killing Shojo turns out to be an extremely Chaotic act causing a shift to NG, rather than an extremely Evil one causing a shift to LN.

Which I find implausible- and think there is better evidence for Miko no longer being Good, than no longer being Lawful.

[spargel]

Unless Miko's action of killing Shojo turns out to be an extremely Chaotic act causing a shift to NG, rather than an extremely Evil one causing a shift to LN.

Which I find implausible- and think there is better evidence for Miko no longer being Good, than no longer being Lawful.

She thought Shojo was an evil dictator who was manipulating everyone and conspiring with an evil lich and hobgoblins to destroy the city.

Stupid, but not really evil.

Trying to kill Hinjo, on the other hand...

[hamishspence]

The general rule is that acts of Murder (basically, killing someone without justification) are seriously evil acts in D&D- BoVD, BoED, Fiendish Codex 2, all confirm this.

The closest thing to a confirmation in Core is "Evil implies hurting, oppressing, and killing others"

As War & XPs pointed out, Hinjo's reaction "turn him over to the law" was the rational reaction.

Miko did not test her deductions- killing based on a few extremely shaky deductions fits with it being deemed Murder.

Hinjo: "I'll stand between any two murderers I want, thanks"

Belkar: "Lets welcome paladin-turned-murderer Miko Miyazaki! She's committed her very first evil act- give her a round of applause!"

While "being wrong about the necessity of lethal violence" doesn't make this lethal violence an evil act, the general rule for this is:

that the belief that violence is necessary must be a reasonable belief.

[Porthos]

Stupid, but not really evil.

While I realize the inherent problem in the following sentence, I'm going to say it anyway. :smallwink:

Belkar sure seemed to believe that Miko comitted an Evil Act.

EDIT:: Ninja'ed. Oh well. :smalltongue:

[hamishspence]

It could be the attack on Hinjo, though this seemed doubtful.

There is also the:

"Belkar does not understand what acts are evil and what aren't" theory- again, not supported by the evidence.

[Porthos]

It could be the attack on Hinjo, though this seemed doubtful.

There is also the:

"Belkar does not understand what acts are evil and what aren't" theory- again, not supported by the evidence.

Belkar seems to be something of an expert on Evil, actually. He may not be the sharpest tool in the drawer, but he seems to know what things can send you to the Deep End of the Alignment Pool.

I guess it comes down to: Do What You Know. :smalltongue:

===

Back to the Miko Thing. IMO, some actions are so "Just No" and so beyond the pale, that no matter what your justificiation is, it's an evil act. If you really felt you had no choice, go out and Atone. As Hinjo said, that's what the spell is for. :smallwink:

More importantly though, there needs to be a distinction drawn bewteen what people claim their motivations are and that their motivations really are. Many people have claimed to do things for all sorts of reasons. But when you dig down into their psyche, one can find that in fact other things were at play.

How much of Miko wigging out was a reaction to the (percieved) betrayals of both Roy (harsh rebuff of romantic feelings) and Shojo (father figure)? How much of it is a supposed realization that "they're all corrupt and only I can stop them before they can corrupt again"? And how much of it is just plain self-delusion?

All of these questions, and more, need to be thought about before we can just blithly say, "Well, Miko thought she was doing the right thing".

===

Or for the tl;dr version: Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. :smalltongue:

[hamishspence]

Given the sheer surprise Miko appears to exhibit after Falling, I'm guessing she was pretty certain.

But being certain that what you are doing is right, is not enough.

[Kish]

Belkar seems to be something of an expert on Evil, actually.
He certainly didn't appear to be when (OtOoPCs spoiler)he was arguing that it was ridiculous and unfair to expect anyone to refrain from murdering up to fifteen people, more in the absence of a posted sign.

[hamishspence]

That might be a failure of his knowledge of Law.

He knows that Miko has a risk of Falling if she associates with him.

When Haley finally decides "no slavery" his reaction is "so close"

He defines risking his life for another (with some selfish motivations) as "a quasi-Good act"

And in general, seems pretty genre-savvy about Evil.

[Raging Gene Ray]

However, the "Celestia, but Windstriker will spend most of his time as the steed of another paladin" idea is still not implausible.

That, I think, all depends on if Celestia accepts pleas of temporary insanity...and if Miko would be willing to make one.

[Porthos]

He certainly didn't appear to be when (OtOoPCs spoiler)he was arguing that it was ridiculous and unfair to expect anyone to refrain from murdering up to fifteen people, more in the absence of a posted sign.


Yeah, I'm aware of that situation. So if one presumes that Belkar wasn't just messing with people in that situation, perhaps I should amend my statement to, "Belkar is something of an expert on Evil when Rich wants him to be." :smallwink:

That is, Rich will use Belkar in a meta sense. Having Belkar say, "Dude, that was some serious evil.... Good work" packs a strong punch with the audience. As is his statement, "this is for forcing me to do a quasi-good act". :smalltongue:

Put it under the theory of, "If someone that clueless can see that it's an evil act, then it must be evil".

There is another way to look at this, though. Perhaps Belkar is becoming more self-aware of the nature of Evil over time during the strip (which would explain the Origins bit). Maybe this is his character growth. Such as it is. Or maybe it's just Rich slightly breaking the Fourth Wall/makin' a funny by having Belkar, of all people, be a Voice of Wisdom when it comes to evil acts.


Could work either way, I suppose. Maybe even both ways, now that I come to think of it. :smalltongue:

[hamishspence]

That, I think, all depends on if Celestia accepts pleas of temporary insanity...and if Miko would be willing to make one.

Problem with making that kind of plea is that Miko tends to go crazier after what she's done.

Not sure of "temporary insanity" is the best term, maybe "not of sound mind" or "under the influence of a delusion" or some other factor.

Even then, it would be closer to Manslaughter than "not Guilty by reason of insanity"- I wonder what the moral weighting of Manslaughter is?

[Tiktakkat]

I agree with Tiktakkat's "Heroes overcome," but we can't fault Miko for not having a superheroic ability to understand how others felt towards her, why they felt that way, and how she and they could change.

By what standard does it require a "superheroic" ability to not be a bully? (Messianic self-image optional.)
Even Kirk could convince people to make the decision to . . . just not . . . kill . . . . . . today. With that much inspiration, it cannot require all that much self-discipline to examine ones self and make a few changes. When someone has the self-discipline presumed inherent to a monk AND a paladin?
Superhoic ability to self-delude perhaps; Miko certainly had that!

Oh, and indeed, heroes do overcome. Ordinary people just muddle on through. Miko did not choose to muddle on through. She could not even manage ordinary restraint and understanding. That drops her down to villainous embracing.

As for this repeated insistence on a bell curve:
First - demonstrate it. I have never heard of any such thing as established psychological science and an actual citation would be nice. If anything, research into responses generally show a distinct bias towards a particular behavior rather than a bell curve distribution.
Second - justify it in the face of the numerous people who become obnoxious bullies who are not orphans chosen for special training, blah, blah, blah.

[veti]

Problem with making that kind of plea is that Miko tends to go crazier after what she's done.

Miko goes crazier, as you put it, the further she is driven from her Destiny. Everything that seems to make it more difficult for her to fulfil her Special Divinely Appointed Role causes her to react more extremely as she tries to get back on track. After all, the Twelve Gods wouldn't be putting these obstacles in her way if they didn't know she could get past them, so it's up to her to do it. Whatever it takes.

There's no reason why the insanity would have to be "temporary", though. From her current perspective, her whole life was just a temporary state anyway. Her insanity might have been lifelong, but still completely gone now.


Even then, it would be closer to Manslaughter than "not Guilty by reason of insanity"- I wonder what the moral weighting of Manslaughter is?

I don't think it makes sense to attach a specific "moral weighting" to specific "crimes". The only thing that matters, from the Afterlife's point of view, is what sort of person you are - do you have the right sort of soul, do you belong in this Afterlife?

If you killed people left and right without compassion or compunction, and you look back after death and say "Yeah? So?", then I don't care if you were a paladin your whole life - you're still not getting into Celestia. But if you're the sort of person who is driven by compassion, who does try to do the right thing for the right reasons, even if you never actually get it right because you've got the WIS stat of an empty bean tin... then welcome home.

[hamishspence]

that's one way of looking at it.

Miko appeared to seriously lack remorse for her actions regarding Shojo though. No "what have I done" but "why have I fallen"

Even when Soon talks to her, it's clear that she hadn't (at the time) accepted that what she did was wrong.

Main reason for the "moral weighting" comment is, according to Fiendish Codex 2, if you've done enough evil acts, and haven't even tried to fix them, you're going to the Nine Hells regardless of why you did them, or whether you are actually Evil or not (if you are Lawful).

One murder won't get you "sent down" but two will.

[veti]

that's one way of looking at it.

Miko appeared to seriously lack remorse for her actions regarding Shojo though. No "what have I done" but "why have I fallen"

True. I don't know if that continues, but I'd have to concede that if we're judging her by what we see of her last moments, it's hard to make a claim that she's genuinely contrite...


Main reason for the "moral weighting" comment is, according to Fiendish Codex 2, if you've done enough evil acts, and haven't even tried to fix them, you're going to the Nine Hells regardless of why you did them, or whether you are actually Evil or not (if you are Lawful).

One murder won't get you "sent down" but two will.

The important thing about the D&D rules - all of them - is that they're designed to manage interactions between players (including DMs) - between different people, who are communicating with each other using all the methods people use. Relationships where there'll be all sorts of human elements in play - misunderstandings, lies, personal feelings.

That's the environment the D&D rules are designed to operate in. And that's why they try to frame as much as possible in quantifiable terms: attach cold, hard numbers to the things that it's hardest to dispute. That's why there's so much emphasis on actions, rather than thoughts or beliefs - because it's hardest to dispute those.

But OOTS, or any other book for that matter, is a very different kind of environment. All these characters exist and act only in Rich's brain. They can't lie to him, they can't try to weasel and evade and pretend they had different reasons for what they did, because he knows. Therefore, the whole "slap numbers on actions" ethic is irrelevant here.

[hamishspence]

true- the problem is, that we don't have access to Rich's brain:smallamused: we can only judge, by what we see.

[Jagos]

You mean Jagos?

EMPHATIC No...