Why is Isamu's wight in the new comic?

[Renegade Paladin]

Isamu, a member of the resistance, was turned into a wight in 519 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0519.html) and the wight was destroyed by Belkar in 521 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0521.html). So why does his wight show up again in 700? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0700.html) :smallconfused:

[Raging Gene Ray]

Isamu isn't the only guy ever to wear a bandanna on his face, you know.

[Optimystik]

The consensus thus far is that we can't be sure if that's Isamu or not.

I mean, from a metaphysical standpoint it isn't him, but it could be his body, or perhaps be incorporating pieces of...

Well, the bottom line is - even Tsukiko can't keep undead straight - how can we?

[DaveMcW]

Of course it's Isamu, the art is exactly the same.

Tsukiko has the ability to create a wight from a corpse, and she just re-used the wight corpse.

[Ancalagon]

Of course it's Isamu, the art is exactly the same.

Tsukiko has the ability to create a wight from a corpse, and she just re-used the wight corpse.

Please check out the discussion before your say "of course". There are quite good reasons to assume it actually is NOT Isamu.

[Optimystik]

Tsukiko has the ability to create a wight from a corpse, and she just re-used the wight corpse.

Undead corpses are more difficult to "reuse" than regular ones.

It's possible, especially given her... inclinations... that she knows the spells necessary to recreate undead, or perhaps Rich simply judged Isamu's body not that badly damaged and houseruled away the "destruction" bit. Or it could be another wight wearing his stuff - her wights seem at least aware of fashion. Either way, we can't be sure.

[Conuly]

1. So that people with nothing to say would have something to talk about. Given the state of this forum, I'm not sure I mean that sarcastically, either.

2.
Of course it's Isamu, the art is exactly the same.

It's Isamu's secret twin, Umasi.

[Trixie]

You mean... Carth? :smalleek:

So, Bastila killed him after all? :smalltongue:

[salinan]

Please check out the discussion before your say "of course". There are quite good reasons to assume it actually is NOT Isamu.
Wight Isamu got killed/destroyed. Any other reason?

As far as I'm concerned, Rich forgot that he'd done that. The art is identical to the art previously drawn for Wight Isamu. Why on earth would Rich draw a random wight with exactly the same gear - bandanna, boots, armour, sash - to look exactly the same as a previously used character unless he meant it to actually be the previous character?

The logical gymnastics people go through here to avoid the possibility of admitting that Rich might have made a mistake is mind boggling. It being Wight Isamu is the simplest explanation, and the one that makes the most sense.

[BRC]

Wight Isamu got killed/destroyed. Any other reason?

As far as I'm concerned, Rich forgot that he'd done that. The art is identical to the art previously drawn for Wight Isamu. Why on earth would Rich draw a random wight with exactly the same gear - bandanna, boots, armour, sash - to look exactly the same as a previously used character unless he meant it to actually be the previous character?

The logical gymnastics people go through here to avoid the possibility of admitting that Rich might have made a mistake is mind boggling. It being Wight Isamu is the simplest explanation, and the one that makes the most sense.
I'm actually in agreement with this. He could have used the generic wight design, the fact that he used Isamuwight's artwork means he intended that to be Isamu.

That said, I'm not surprised he forgot that he killed a throwaway character in a non-significant manner many months ago.

[Optimystik]

The logical gymnastics people go through here to avoid the possibility of admitting that Rich might have made a mistake is mind boggling. It being Wight Isamu is the simplest explanation, and the one that makes the most sense.

While the simplest explanation is often the right one, it is not inviolable.

(Not without Word of God, anyway.)

[Conuly]

The logical gymnastics people go through here to avoid the possibility of admitting that Rich might have made a mistake is mind boggling. It being Wight Isamu is the simplest explanation, and the one that makes the most sense.

But that's no fun at all. And if all we did here was state the most obviously correct answer for everything it'd be a very, very, VERY quiet forum.

[t3h l3g1t m4g3]

Belkar's quote in the first panel may have the answer (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0521.html) (although being re-raised as a wight might not count...)

[Gift Jeraff]

:redcloak: Which is more believable: that a wight with the exact same bandana, belt, pants, shoes, and lack of cape as Isamu is deliberately intended to NOT be the wight made from Isamu's corpse? Or that Rich simply made a mistake, bent the rules, or used a spell from some supplementary book? The latter requires only a single sourcebook that I haven't read...while the former implies that the author willfully placed a minor character from earlier without intending it to be said character. Do you honestly expect me to believe such a ridiculous story?!?

[Ancalagon]

Wight Isamu got killed/destroyed. Any other reason?

The logical gymnastics people go through here to avoid the possibility of admitting that Rich might have made a mistake is mind boggling. It being Wight Isamu is the simplest explanation, and the one that makes the most sense.

I find that reason to be a very valid one and can understand if people argue that it cannot be Isamu based on it. I also think people might differ on what the simplest explanation might be.
In fact, Rich has shown a very, very careful attention to detail in the past so I do not find your interpretation the most likely one.
A) Rich made a mistake.
B) Rich did not care.
C) It is not Isamu.

All three interpretations actually seem equally valid to me. Personal preference lets you pick one.

Apart from that: You assumed I meant something I did not say. There's no direct connection from my statement there are good reasons for it not being Isamu to me taking that position.

In fact I think it *is* Isamu and that Rich either made a mistake or just did not care for the sake of the (good!) joke.

[FabuVinny]

My take: Same clothes, different wight.

There is precedent for Tsukiko dressing her wights in clothes from her enemies. See the last panel of #516 ("http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0516.html) and the first panel of #517 ("http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0517.html). Based on what we know, it seems the simplest in-comic explanation.

[Optimystik]

A) Rich made a mistake.
B) Rich did not care.
C) It is not Isamu.


There is a 4th interpretation - Rich had Tsukiko revive Isamu-wight after all, and simply hasn't had her mention it yet. The spells to do so are well within her capabilities.

I will point this out - when Rich genuinely makes a mistake, he does tend to acknowledge it on the forums (like he did with Girard's illusion.) So I'm leaning away from this being a mistake. I'd believe it's a completely different wight that grabbed Isamu's garb first.

[Shhalahr Windrider]

See the last panel of #516 ("http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0516.html) and the first panel of #517 ("http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0517.html). Based on what we know, it seems the simplest in-comic explanation.
Uh, your links are busted. You didn’t close the quotes. (Of course, the quotes are not required anyway.)

To make it easier, here are correct links:
#516 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0516.html)
#517 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0517.html)

[FoE]

More importantly, why is the wight eating brains?

[DSCrankshaw]

I believe that the comic title joke implies that it is Isamu.

In short, the comic title usually refers to what someone says in the final panel. What was said in the final panel was MitD's "I guess she's not that bad." So the joke is that "Both Would Disagree with That Sentiment." Who's both? Most likely, the other two characters in that panel: Wight-Isamu and the head on which he's munching. The central idea is that both characters have reason to dislike Tsukiko. The head, since he's being eaten by a wight. Isamu, since he's been turned into a wight. The joke doesn't work as well if it's a generic wight (or if you count the "both" as being him and the other wight), since a generic wight's original personality wouldn't necessarily dislike Tsukiko. If she created a wight from some random body, the original personality has nothing against her. On the other hand, we know Isamu was killed by her wights and saw her as an enemy. Thus the joke.

[Ancalagon]

There is a 4th interpretation - Rich had Tsukiko revive Isamu-wight after all, and simply hasn't had her mention it yet. The spells to do so are well within her capabilities.

Ah, that interpreation, yes. Also quite valid. Sorry for forgetting it. I bet there might be even more, but those are also quite unlikely (yet not impossible), as E) that other wight just looks like Isamu, by pure coincidence. ;)


I will point this out - when Rich genuinely makes a mistake, he does tend to acknowledge it on the forums (like he did with Girard's illusion.) So I'm leaning away from this being a mistake. I'd believe it's a completely different wight that grabbed Isamu's garb first.

Or he says "Can't those idiots, only ONCE!, simply accept and a good joke for what it is", shakes his head and does something else. ;)

[Dr.Epic]

Isamu isn't the only guy ever to wear a bandanna on his face, you know.

Are you trying to say that in a stick figure comic certain faces/people look very similar? Next thing you'll be saying is that Roy isn't the only dark-skinned person with a shaved and or bald head (bandit far left last pane (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0160.html)l).

[Optimystik]

I believe that the comic title joke implies that it is Isamu.

*snip*

This is a very good point - though I think the "Both" refers to Isamu and Tsukiko, rather than Isamu and his unnamed snack.

Meaning that Tsukiko would also disagree with the sentiment that she is "not that bad."

[Ancalagon]

This is a very good point - though I think the "Both" refers to Isamu and Tsukiko, rather than Isamu and his unnamed snack.

Meaning that Tsukiko would also disagree with the sentiment that she is "not that bad."

Actually, I think THAT is a mistake on Rich's side. The joke refers to Isamu and the Snack. On the other hand, if we go that way (everyone involved there counts), we also had to say that all the other wights probably would also disagree.

[Optimystik]

I don't see why it couldn't refer to Tsukiko.

Heck, it could even be referring to Tsukiko and the Snack (as the only humans left in the room, even if one of them is food); thus, not referring to the wight at all, who may or may not be Isamu.

[Zeful]

Are you trying to say that in a stick figure comic certain faces/people look very similar? Next thing you'll be saying is that Roy isn't the only dark-skinned person with a shaved and or bald head (bandit far left last pane (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0160.html)l).

Or that Crystal isnt's the only one with a bowl-cut and loop earrings. Far right, right behind O-chul (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0447.html)

[DSCrankshaw]

Actually, I think THAT is a mistake on Rich's side. The joke refers to Isamu and the Snack. On the other hand, if we go that way (everyone involved there counts), we also had to say that all the other wights probably would also disagree.

I already pointed out the problem with that. The wights don't think of her as bad--in fact, she's rather motherly toward them. Thus, it's not the wights themselves, it's who they had been. And we don't know who the previous personalities were for any except Isamu, and thus, we don't know that they would even know who Tsukiko was.

And I don't really think Tsukiko thinks of herself as bad. Sure, she's Evil, but to her mind, that just means misunderstood, not bad.

I really think the joke refers to the in-panel characters, not the off-panel ones, though.

[Dr.Epic]

Or that Crystal isnt's the only one with a bowl-cut and loop earrings. Far right, right behind O-chul (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0447.html)

I think you mean left. And also that Sabine is the only fairly dark sinned character with black curly hair (Jenny the bard/sorceress/rogue).

[Ancalagon]

I already pointed out the problem with that. The wights don't think of her as bad--

Therefore the WOULD... "if Mr. Snack was still alive"... "if the Wight was still alive"... "if Tsukiko would just hear it"... all - and more - would fit...

[Ancalagon]

I don't see why it couldn't refer to Tsukiko.

I'm not saying it can't do that. I just say I do not think it does.

I think it can refer to basically anyone (and not just to two arbitray persons/bodies that we pick from personal preference).

[DSCrankshaw]

I'm not saying it can't do that. I just say I do not think it does.

I think it can refer to basically anyone (and not just to two arbitray persons/bodies that we pick from personal preference).

Just the two arbitrary persons/bodies who happened to be on-panel when the words were said. I think it's the obvious reading of who the "both" are. I don't think Rich meant for us to have to guess who the "both" are, and I really have difficulty seeing anyone other than the ones who were there at the time the words were spoken.

[DarklingPerhaps]

I find it obvious that it is Isamu. I mean, we know Tsukiko cares about her undead in a near motherly way, so it makes sense for her to learn a spell like Revive Undead or something so she could 'save' them from death. Again.

[Ancalagon]

Just the two arbitrary persons/bodies who happened to be on-panel when the words were said. I think it's the obvious reading of who the "both" are.

I agree to that theory. But others are also quite possible.

[Optimystik]

I find it obvious that it is Isamu. I mean, we know Tsukiko cares about her undead in a near motherly way, so it makes sense for her to learn a spell like Revive Undead or something so she could 'save' them from death. Again.

This is my preferred theory as well - however, as the spell is not core, Rich might have to have her allude to knowing it.

Or he could have always houseruled away needing it to re-reanimate dead in the first place.

Either way, I hope he addresses the issue at some point.

[DarklingPerhaps]

But you could count that non-core orb she used against Haley as proof she uses non-core books.

[John Campbell]

This is my preferred theory as well - however, as the spell is not core, Rich might have to have her allude to knowing it.

We already know that Tsukiko dabbles in non-core magics (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0518.html), amongst her other perverse and unnatural behaviours.

(Bah, ninjaed by seconds. But I included a link!)

[SPoD]

Either way, I hope he addresses the issue at some point.

I hope he never does. I don't need to know some explanation of something that is clearly just part of a punchline (that Tsukiko really IS that bad after all) and not actually relevant to the story. Every panel that Rich wastes explaining some perceived mistake that doesn't actually alter the story at all is a panel that can't go to a joke or a bit of character or plot development.

[Optimystik]

But you could count that non-core orb she used against Haley as proof she uses non-core books.

Right, but as the two spells are in different books, a clarification would be handy.

Her use of orbs (not to mention the reference to "warlocks") has at least opened the door for Complete Arcane, and if you're willing to really stretch, the other Completes by extension. But Libris Mortis is not one of these.

LM is being hinted at - Xykon's extremely protective nature towards his phylactery suggests Rich might be using that rule - but this might clinch it.


I hope he never does. I don't need to know some explanation of something that is clearly just part of a punchline (that Tsukiko really IS that bad after all) and not actually relevant to the story. Every panel that Rich wastes explaining some perceived mistake that doesn't actually alter the story at all is a panel that can't go to a joke or a bit of character or plot development.

How odd. :smallconfused: It's possible to settle a debate without wasting a whole panel, you know.

Arguably, he's even used an entire strip to do the same thing, more than once. If so, the idea is not onerous to him, at least.

[SPoD]

How odd. :smallconfused: It's possible to settle a debate without wasting a whole panel, you know.

It's difficult, at best. But even a single speech balloon is too much to waste on something that has zero effect on the story.


Arguably, he's even used an entire strip to do the same thing, more than once. If so, the idea is not onerous to him, at least.

Yes, and they are usually some of the most tedious, unnecessarily wordy strips in the series. Whether or not it is onerous to him does not change the fact that it is onerous to me.

You were expressing your preference for him to explain this sort of thing, so therefore, I explained my preference for the opposite, so that on the (highly unlikely) chance that he should read this thread, he knows that your view is not unanimously held. I wouldn't presume to think that he should do as I want, but I would hope that, if he were to have any care for what his fans think at all, he would know that we were of a divided mind on the issue before choosing.

[Renegade Paladin]

Isamu isn't the only guy ever to wear a bandanna on his face, you know.
Are you trying to say that in a stick figure comic certain faces/people look very similar? Next thing you'll be saying is that Roy isn't the only dark-skinned person with a shaved and or bald head (bandit far left last pane (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0160.html)l).
:smallsigh: We're not discussing a superficial similarity of art. The two figures are exactly identical.

[Maximum Zersk]

Huh, people will make threads out of anything. I wonder what Sigmund Frued would say about this. Sigmund?

"They talking about it to keep their minds away from *******."

Huh.

Well, sometimes "a cigar is just a cigar", as Rich once said. There are only so many ways you can draw a stick figure.

[Optimystik]

Fair enough SPoD - you're entitled to your opinion, and I to mine.


Well, sometimes "a cigar is just a cigar", as Rich once said. There are only so many ways you can draw a stick figure.

While I agree in general, there's too much detail on this wight to be a sheer coincidence. I find it hard to believe that Rich sat down and drew one with Isamu's bandana, Isamu's sash, Isamu's boots, and Isamu's lack of a cape... without once thinking of Isamu.

He may have forgot that he died (and thus drew him again), or it may be another wight wearing his old clothing, or he may have brought Isamu back to unlife off-panel, but making a brand new wight with all those trappings that has nothing to do with Isamu at all is the least likely event, I think.

[salinan]

While the simplest explanation is often the right one, it is not inviolable.

(Not without Word of God, anyway.)
My take is that if it looks like a banana, and smells like a banana, it probably is a banana. People here are doing the equivalent of trying to argue it's really an apple which has been squeezed into a banana shape and painted yellow.

If the banana happens to be in a place I wouldn't expect one to be, I'd generally look for alternative explanations about why it's there, rather than argue it isn't a banana.

[Optimystik]

My take is that if it looks like a banana, and smells like a banana, it probably is a banana. People here are doing the equivalent of trying to argue it's really an apple which has been squeezed into a banana shape and painted yellow.

If the banana happens to be in a place I wouldn't expect one to be, I'd generally look for alternative explanations about why it's there, rather than argue it isn't a banana.

The problem is, we've already exhausted the alternative explanations as to how the banana - excuse me, Isamu - could have been destroyed in one comic and reappear in this one. So the next step is to speculate whether it really is him or not.

I do think it's him - I've said so multiple times - but I'm leaning on the "Tsukiko brought him back" theory.

And technically, if it is another wight wearing Isamu's garb, that would simply be "a new banana put into the old peel" - still improbable, but less so than outright turning an apple (i.e. something completely unrelated to a wight) into a banana. So to speak.

Incidentally, that post left me hankering for fresh fruit.

[salinan]

The problem is, we've already exhausted the alternative explanations as to how the banana - excuse me, Isamu - could have been destroyed in one comic and reappear in this one. So the next step is to speculate whether it really is him or not.
I'm basically saying that the next step isn't necessary. There's no need to trot out all the wackiest possible theories as to what's happened here, when there are much more likely possibilities to consider. Otherwise, you might as well add 'They've all stepped into a parallel dimension where Wight Isamu wasn't destroyed' to the mix, or any number of (increasingly) absurd theories. I'm sure I can come up with a few hundred all by myself if I really tried.


And technically, if it is another wight wearing Isamu's garb, that would simply be "a new banana put into the old peel" - still improbable, but less so than outright turning an apple (i.e. something completely unrelated to a wight) into a banana. So to speak.
I'd agree with you if a) he wasn't drawn in exactly the same way (i.e. if there was some small difference, like him having a cloak) and b)
if the rest of Tsukikos wights weren't all drawn from a template (except for wight-in-boots, which has a comic reference to explain it.) That makes the other wights different enough from Isamu to compare apples and bananas. :smallwink:


Incidentally, that post left me hankering for fresh fruit.
:smallbiggrin: So, which are you going to have, an apple or a banana?

[JoshuaZ]

There's a spell in Libris Mortis which will resurrect an undead being. However the being needs to be willing to be resurrected. Exactly when that will occur if the person was unwillingly turned into an undead being isn't clear. But we know that Tsukiko has explicitly looked at spells from other books (Haley explicitly noted that the Orb spell Tsukiko used wasn't in Core (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0518.html)).

[Optimystik]

I'm basically saying that the next step isn't necessary. There's no need to trot out all the wackiest possible theories as to what's happened here, when there are much more likely possibilities to consider. Otherwise, you might as well add 'They've all stepped into a parallel dimension where Wight Isamu wasn't destroyed' to the mix, or any number of (increasingly) absurd theories. I'm sure I can come up with a few hundred all by myself if I really tried.

None of the theories here are "absurd" or "wacky." Just because a given possibility is less likely than the others, does not make it unworthy of consideration.

It wouldn't be the first time (or likely, the last) that Rich caught us off guard, after all.



I'd agree with you if a) he wasn't drawn in exactly the same way (i.e. if there was some small difference, like him having a cloak) and b)
if the rest of Tsukikos wights weren't all drawn from a template (except for wight-in-boots, which has a comic reference to explain it.) That makes the other wights different enough from Isamu to compare apples and bananas. :smallwink:

You're neglecting something - the fact that this Wight looks different does not rule out the possibility of it not being Isamu, because the only real difference is its clothing.

Again, I do not think this is the case, but it isn't absurd for one of the other wights to have grabbed Isamu's snazzy clothing after the battle either.



:smallbiggrin: So, which are you going to have, an apple or a banana?

What do you mean, "or?" :smallsmile:

EDIT:


There's a spell in Libris Mortis which will resurrect an undead being. However the being needs to be willing to be resurrected. Exactly when that will occur if the person was unwillingly turned into an undead being isn't clear. But we know that Tsukiko has explicitly looked at spells from other books (Haley explicitly noted that the Orb spell Tsukiko used wasn't in Core (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0518.html)).

The "being" that has to be willing in this case, refers to the intelligent undead being brought back, not to the soul of the humanoid it used to be (which has long since passed on.) Her wights seem more than willing to remain in her service, hence this one would probably come back.

[JoshuaZ]

The "being" that has to be willing in this case, refers to the intelligent undead being brought back, not to the soul of the humanoid it used to be (which has long since passed on.) Her wights seem more than willing to remain in her service, hence this one would probably come back.

I think you are correct here but I've heard it argued otherwise. The issue gets especially complicated given that you can't resurrect someone when their body is around as an undead being, even with true resurrection. So the soul does get tied up in some way. *shrug*

[Optimystik]

I think you are correct here but I've heard it argued otherwise. The issue gets especially complicated given that you can't resurrect someone when their body is around as an undead being, even with true resurrection. So the soul does get tied up in some way. *shrug*

I look at it more as - the soul is in the afterlife, but as long as its body is being used (read: animated), it doesn't know which "call" to answer. Thus even TR fails.

The soul is not actually tied up, unless the undead in question is a Corpse Creature, which does trap the soul inside - Your body capering around as a wight/ghoul/zombie etc. does not keep you out of the afterlife.

[AceOfFools]

...
Yes, and they are usually some of the most tedious, unnecessarily wordy strips in the series. Whether or not it is onerous to him does not change the fact that it is onerous to me.

You were expressing your preference for him to explain this sort of thing, so therefore, I explained my preference for the opposite, so that on the (highly unlikely) chance that he should read this thread, he knows that your view is not unanimously held. I wouldn't presume to think that he should do as I want, but I would hope that, if he were to have any care for what his fans think at all, he would know that we were of a divided mind on the issue before choosing.

While I share your opinion to the resolving minor quibles, I'll it out there that the most natural way to introduce this is to say something like "Isamu, get her, the rest go for that halfling." which would help establish the action at the same time.

In addition, have you considered the possibilities that open up if Tsukiko can unraise the undead? The order could kill Xykon, destroy his pylactory, and Xykon could still come back!!Granted, I haven't read the spell in question, so maybe it doesn't work that way, but even it can be used to trivialize destruction of the undead to the same extent that Raise Dead et. al trivialize death of the living.

[salinan]

None of the theories here are "absurd" or "wacky." Just because a given possibility is less likely than the others, does not make it unworthy of consideration.
Call it my low tolerance for illogical discussion. :smalltongue:


You're neglecting something - the fact that this Wight looks different does not rule out the possibility of it not being Isamu, because the only real difference is its clothing.
I'll accept this if you can point out any time in the comic where a character has been drawn exactly the same as another character (except genericised chars like the Azure City soldiers) or even if a character has changed appearance in a non superficial way where it hasn't been explained in comic.

[JoshuaZ]

While I share your opinion to the resolving minor quibles, I'll it out there that the most natural way to introduce this is to say something like "Isamu, get her, the rest go for that halfling." which would help establish the action at the same time.

In addition, have you considered the possibilities that open up if Tsukiko can unraise the undead? The order could kill Xykon, destroy his pylactory, and Xykon could still come back!!Granted, I haven't read the spell in question, so maybe it doesn't work that way, but even it can be used to trivialize destruction of the undead to the same extent that Raise Dead et. al trivialize death of the living.

I'm not looking at it right now, but the spell is higher level than Raise Dead. If I recall, it only works on the remains of corporeal undead with a fairly intact corpse that hasn't been gone for a while. (Can someone with access to LM confirm this?). So you just would need to also make sure to smash Xykon up well.

[Conuly]

It was the comment about boots that got me thinking - maybe the wights are drawn to a template because they all used to be goblins before they got wightified, that being what Tsukiko has to work with.

However, the few humans to be wightified tend to be dressed with face concealing fashions because they're resistance, and that's why this goblin looks different from the standard wights - because he was a human before death, and the others were all goblins.

Maybe?

[Pyron]

It was the comment about boots that got me thinking - maybe the wights are drawn to a template because they all used to be goblins before they got wightified, that being what Tsukiko has to work with.

That's interesting and I haven't thought about it before. But, I've noticed with the wights is that they lack the goblin ears but they have the goblin's clawed feet (as opposed to the human 'L' feet).

So, it's kind of a toss-up right now but you might be on to something.

[Gift Jeraff]

That's interesting and I haven't thought about it before. But, I've noticed with the wights is that they lack the goblin ears but they have the goblin's clawed feet (as opposed to the human 'L' feet).

So, it's kind of a toss-up right now but you might be on to something.

Well, wights are shown with more monstrous feet here (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/images/MM35_gallery/MM35_PG255a.jpg).

[Nimrod's Son]

Well, sometimes "a cigar is just a cigar", as Rich once said. There are only so many ways you can draw a stick figure.
The way people twist that statement amazes me. Yes, he said it to try and stop people speculating that two characters who look superficially similar are actually the same person. He didn't mean it to be used as a reason why "two" characters who are drawn with exactly the same art cannot be the same person, however.

Rich has shown us what his generic wights look like. He has also shown us what Isamu looks like as a wight, and now used that EXACT template for this character.

If he intended it to be a generic wight, he would have drawn it accordingly.

If he was continuing his joke about wights wanting to take clothes from people, then likely he'd have shown several wights wearing a single item of Isamu's wardrobe each.

If he wanted it to be Isamu (which, as DSCrankshaw has been arguing, fits the title joke so much better than any other interpretation), then he'd have drawn him as Isamu. :smallwink:

So yeah, as far as I'm concerned it's Isamu. A non-core spell is quite enough explanation for me, whether it's addressed in a future strip or not.


However, the few humans to be wightified tend to be dressed with face concealing fashions because they're resistance, and that's why this goblin looks different from the standard wights - because he was a human before death, and the others were all goblins.

Maybe?
That would be plausible, even likely, if it weren't for the fact that we've seen quite a few resistance members and Isamu is the only one who dresses anything like that at all. Rich has said before that the primary goal of his art is communication. That image communicates "Isamu", and Rich would be well aware of that.

[Conuly]

But, I've noticed with the wights is that they lack the goblin ears but they have the goblin's clawed feet (as opposed to the human 'L' feet).

They also have tusks, like goblins. I can't see if the oddly-dressed wight has tusks or not, he's eating.

[Nimrod's Son]

They also have tusks, like goblins. I can't see if the oddly-dressed wight has tusks or not, he's eating.
Doesn't make much difference either way, since we never saw Isamu's mouth before and so don't know if he developed tusks when he became a wight, or if the tusks are a result of goblin raw materials. And I doubt we'll see his mouth again in the future either, should he remain a recurring character, so it's unlikely we'll be able to use him as evidence for whether the tusks are a trait shared by ALL wights.