Why it is impossible to dislike Roy

[Sunken Valley]

Although I first met him in a new comic posthomonously, I did not like Roy at first. He was always full of himself and rude to people like Elan who were trying to do their best. Rich knew that Roy had flaws and that some people would not like him. When fans do not like a character they make revenge fantasies for them. One of these is putting them on trial for their crimes. Roy has been put on trial in heaven where it is proved to all that he is Lawful Good. Another is to kill him. This was a major plot point and the OOTS without Roy collapses. Therefore with these two issues solved all of Roy's previously unlikeable elements have been pardoned by word of god (although for it to be fully complete I would like Roy to apologise to Elan directly for the Bandit thing.). What does everyone else think?

[FrankNorman]

Roy has been put on trial in heaven where it is proved to all that he is Lawful Good.

"Trying to be Lawful Good".

[Ancalagon]

"Trying to be Lawful Good".

No.

He is lawful good, even when he is not perfect. As he is a human and no celestial being. Roy was considered to be Lawful Good even when he was not a perfect follower - because he tries lawful good and the results were not too bad.

He was let in not because he was "NG but trying to be LG" but because he was actually and totally LG.

[hamishspence]

Yup- I think that, at the time of his death, he would have pinged as LG- and while he might have behaved dubiously on occasion (abandoning Elan) I don't think it would have been quite enough for him to cease to be Lawful, or cease to be Good, for more than the most minor period.

And given the general DMG principle that alignment change takes time, he might have been Lawful Good even during these periods of dubious behaviour.

[Carry2]

He was let in not because he was "NG but trying to be LG" but because he was actually and totally LG.
Though why, for the love of Gods, they can't just use Detect Alignment spells and be done with it is beyond me.

[Noir0]

I still dislike him.

He has grown as a character. That's just great. Doesn't mean i won't stop disliking his uppish behavior, his brash persistence on being right on all occasions and, of course, the fact that he has a huge ego.

But i don't hate him. Not like i used to. That's character progress for sure. Then again why should I like him? A great story has good guys and bad guys you can both love and hate. I like that. It's true that the Oots "needs" Roy much in the way that Xykon "needs" Redcloak, albeit begrudgingly.

I suppose that Oots wouldn't be as it is without him. I can concede to that, and look forward to seeing how this thog fight pans out. Maybe he'll redeem himself. Maybe he'll actually be useful against a main antagonist. Time will tell.

[Zevox]

Though why, for the love of Gods, they can't just use Detect Alignment spells and be done with it is beyond me.
There are means of magically fooling such spells. That was why Cliffport refused to use them in its legal system, remember?

Zevox

[Carry2]

There are means of magically fooling such spells. That was why Cliffport refused to use them in its legal system, remember?

Zevox
Presumably, there are also magical means of countering such fraud. The upper planes' access to epic-level magic let them scry freely on Xykon, remember?

[Burner28]

The title of this thread is kinda misleading as it is not theoretically impossible to dislike anyone within this webcomic.

[Ancalagon]

Though why, for the love of Gods, they can't just use Detect Alignment spells and be done with it is beyond me.

Because Alignment is apparently not as carved into stone as it seems when you read it on character sheets. There are shades. They are guidlines. People can live and the alignment hoovers a bit around, unclear in what form it manifests.

Miko had and used Detect Evil on a constant basis. Look where that lead her. Surely not to success and "valid solutions".

Apart from that, who and what determines alignment and to what afterlife you go in the end and in all questionable (see above) cases? Apparently, the "powers that are", in the case of Roy the Celestials.

As a sidenote: I think that "Detect Alignment" is the most lame thing at all. Instead of relying on RP and "the players have to make up their own mind", you simply can whip out some lame spell and "know".
Two examples for playing:
First the players encounter some baron and have to decide on his actions, what he says and does and what other people tell (or tell not) about him what that guy is, what he's up to, how to approach them.
Second, the players just throw some spell on a char and they (as well as their characters) act on that. Sure, this is possible... but I think it makes my roleplaying experience much less interesting.
Sure, it's a OOC restriction, but in all honesty: Wasn't Roy's trial much more interesting in the way we saw it instead of seeing a single comic in which the Deva casts some lame spell and says "Welcome to Celestia, Mr. Greenhilt" or "Well, go to the NG Afterlife, Mr. Greenhilt"?

Detect Alignment has it's uses but it should never replace actual roleplay. Simply going for "Wuh, this is hard to decide and probably also involves some deeper philosphical thinking that goes beyond pure Roleplaying" and whipping out a spell seems to be the less optimal choice.
If you roleplay for the sake of a fast-paced game full of fights and with less "tricky" questions, the spell is a valid solution.

To answer this in short as conclusion: If the spell is a valid option depends on the playstyle of your group. There are groups where your question is answered with "Hmm... yeah, why not? Let's do it", but OotS apparently reflects the other approach outlined above.
And therefore, Detect X is not used, not even considered. The playstyle dicates the use of the spell here but in the end, it's a pure Out Of Character and no In-Universe descision so your question is actually not answerable with anything beyond "Because".

[Yuki Akuma]

Presumably, there are also magical means of countering such fraud. The upper planes' access to epic-level magic let them scry freely on Xykon, remember?

And there are magical ways to counter those counters...

And etc.

[Ancalagon]

And there are magical ways to counter those counters...

... and this is aside from the fact high-level (and even epic-level) magic is far from available to most people. Gulping a Potion of Undetectable Alignment? Sure, anyone with some cash can do that.
Having some constant thing available that burns through it with a rate of 100% is a much bigger gun. Having a gun that burns through even higher magic at a rate of 100% is probably in the region of (spell) level 8 or 9 and quickly can become even epic. It's getting beyond what is reasonable to pay - or even what is obtainable at all unless you can make it yourself (i.e. you are an epic spellcaster).

The OotS-world also seems to be some mid-power world, where most people are low, some chars (but enough to be relatively common) are in the mid to high mids, and you have fewer and fewer high level chars and only very few truely powerful (18 to low epic) ones.
Note there might not even be a single level 18 cleric in the entire world based on what the Order thinks - and some "barely epic" spellcasters (two of Vaarsuvius' soul splices) are "among the most powerful evil casters that ever have walked the earth".

[Carry2]

And there are magical ways to counter those counters...
Only if you have access to epic-level magic yourself. Which, as Ancalagon has pointed out, is unlikely to be a common occurance in the OOTSworld. By contrast, we already know the Celestial planes have reliable access to epic-level magic.

Because Alignment is apparently not as carved into stone as it seems when you read it on character sheets. There are shades. They are guidlines. People can live and the alignment hoovers a bit around, unclear in what form it manifests.
I'm not claiming that alignment can't change. But whatever your degree of good/evil/law/chaos may be at your time of death, it is what it is, and it either produces enough ticks on your kilonazi-calibrated karmic geiger counter or it doesn't. This is the basic premise of D&D's alignment system, and it's heavily integrated into the use of spells and class features. Smite Evil does not allow for shades of grey. It either does extra damage, or it doesn't. You're either Evil enough to qualify, or you're not. It's not a subjective quality open to negotiation and debate. Is that stupid? Maybe. But it's how D&D works.

Miko had and used Detect Evil on a constant basis.
Actually, she conspicuously neglected to cast it on, say, Lord Shojo. Strictly speaking, she went off the deep end once she stopped depending on alignment-readings.

[Klear]

I like to think that if you cast a detect alignment spell, some celestial goes through the same process we saw with Roy and then displays the results to the caster, all in an instant. I mean, it's the afterlife... time doesn't have to be the same there as on the mortal planes, right?
Yeah, I know there are probably many DnD references that would disprove that, but it works for me.

[hamishspence]

Main reason against that, are the aforementioned ways of detecting as the "wrong" alignment despite not-

having either done anything of that alignment.
holding attitudes consistant with that alignment.

[Kish]

Arguments like, "Why didn't they just cast Detect Alignment on him?" seem aimed at wanting alignment to be a meaningless entry on a character sheet, with as much to do with morality as Armor Class. They didn't cast Detect Alignment on him because they care about characters' actual alignment, and wouldn't want to let (say) the leader of Roy's first adventuring group into the Lawful Good afterlife.

[EndsBeginning]

Detect alignment is a useful spell, though what I find is that it's better to not be used when there's tricky questions. Case in point, evil sorcerer had an evil familiar that he was using to scry on and carry out evil acts in a nobility plot. Paladin detects evil around one of the main characters (a princess in this specific case), who doesn't show up as evil, but the dog next to her does... 9 times out of 10 kill the dog as it's the mages familiar or something else sinister like yet another plot in the game.

Also you're forgetting that just because they're evil doesn't mean they have a purpose. The executioner might be evil, but he's fulfilling a needed role. Alignment itself is not grounds to kill someone. A smart DM will have the actual antagonists undetectable, but shady chars that may be useful (or a bear trap if gone after) in the game as well.

I guess in short that detecting alignments might be useful, but if a party goes off just whether someone is evil or not, have them attack the leader of assassins guild on top of whatever they're doing.

[Klear]

BTW, a quick DnD noob question - are there spells that detect whether someone is lawful/chaotic, or just good/evil?

[FujinAkari]

Though why, for the love of Gods, they can't just use Detect Alignment spells and be done with it is beyond me.

Because you can't cast Detect Alignment on a corpse, it requires a living target.

[Ancalagon]

Because you can't cast Detect Alignment on a corpse, it requires a living target.

... and here the old problem with the "planes" starts again... what means "alive" and "dead" if the only thing that changes is your current plane? The body can be replaced, there are tons of spells that let's you hop around planes... with this entire mess, "alive" and "dead" becomes pretty fuzzy.

Could you planeshift to Celestia and cast "Detect Alignment" on Roy? If no, why not? It's all there that is needed, person, character, soul, memory - minus the body, which in D&D is at best a minor inconvenience.
What happens if you are alive but leave your body behind in some strange magic ritual or some spell? You are not dead, so the spell should work? And it only starts here...

Point is... Celestials should be able to use Detect Alignment. But they know it's not such a hot tool as it seems - and I also very much like the idea in this thread that each time align is detected, some "powers that are" quickly evaluate the align based on the past deeds and motivations in zerotime, just as we saw it happening to Roy when his align was checked.

[hamishspence]

It would also occur every time the character travels to an antithetically aligned plane, or has a spell of the opposing alignment cast on them.

Perhaps simpler, to have this evaluation go on, on a continuing basis.

So it's not that the celestials are casting Detect X Alignment- it's that the Powers That Be are tracking the character's behaviour and attitudes, continuously, and that's why it works out.

Celestials with the spells, might be expected to be aware of their fallibility- and thus handle them with a certain caution.

Especially if the game is one where evil alignment is common and "Evil does not mean deserves to be attacked on sight."

[legomaster00156]

BTW, a quick DnD noob question - are there spells that detect whether someone is lawful/chaotic, or just good/evil?

Yes, there are, but there exist no non-homebrew classes that are capable of detecting Law/Chaos at-will (that I know of).

[137beth]

I like to think that if you cast a detect alignment spell, some celestial goes through the same process we saw with Roy and then displays the results to the caster, all in an instant. I mean, it's the afterlife... time doesn't have to be the same there as on the mortal planes, right?
Yeah, I know there are probably many DnD references that would disprove that, but it works for me.

Perfectly reasonable idea. I suppose celestials don't cast CoP to get answers from themselves:smallwink:

[veti]

As a sidenote: I think that "Detect Alignment" is the most lame thing at all. Instead of relying on RP and "the players have to make up their own mind", you simply can whip out some lame spell and "know".

I think that's the most insightful thing I've read in this thread. 'Lame' is the perfect word for it.

I'm a real crusty old type, old enough to remember a time before D&D was even invented. And when it first appeared, it was obvious where most of its ideas came from within the fantasy literature that had existed before. In the case of "Detect Evil", I thought it was a misguided way of modelling the effect characters often have of knowing something is Evil just by looking at it. (In LotR, for instance, speaking to a Nazgul leaves even neutral characters distinctly uneasy, and Frodo trusts Aragorn on first meeting him because he "feels fair".)

In campaigns I've played in (and run), the effect doesn't work. On the few occasions someone insists on casting it, they'll either find so much "background" evil (because of where they are) that it's impossible to see any kind of detail, or they'll find vague or muddled results. (Last time a paladin tried to use it, he spent the rest of the day at -2 to everything from nausea. That shut him up.)

If I want my players to know something is evil, I'll use words like 'menacing', 'terrible', 'hatred'. If I don't want them to know about it, then I'll find some reason to stop them from finding out until I think it's the right time. I can't be bothered to keep thinking up new excuses to thwart "Detect Evil" (although really it's easy enough to work around if you want to).

[Zevox]

Presumably, there are also magical means of countering such fraud. The upper planes' access to epic-level magic let them scry freely on Xykon, remember?
Sure, but for guaranteed countermeasures you'd be looking at something exceptionally powerful, like Disjunction, which would not be available in the kind of mass quantities they'd need on a regular basis. You might have plenty of outsiders with at-will Detect <Alignment> to go around, but you sure won't have enough capable of making absolutely sure that their Detect spells can't be fooled with any regularity.

Zevox

[Chess435]

Yes, there are, but there exist no non-homebrew classes that are capable of detecting Law/Chaos at-will (that I know of).

I think one of the Incarnum base classes can do it if they are diametrically opposed to it. I'd have to go check my rulebooks.

[Skavensrule]

I think that's the most insightful thing I've read in this thread. 'Lame' is the perfect word for it.

I'm a real crusty old type, old enough to remember a time before D&D was even invented. And when it first appeared, it was obvious where most of its ideas came from within the fantasy literature that had existed before. In the case of "Detect Evil", I thought it was a misguided way of modelling the effect characters often have of knowing something is Evil just by looking at it. (In LotR, for instance, speaking to a Nazgul leaves even neutral characters distinctly uneasy, and Frodo trusts Aragorn on first meeting him because he "feels fair".)

In campaigns I've played in (and run), the effect doesn't work. On the few occasions someone insists on casting it, they'll either find so much "background" evil (because of where they are) that it's impossible to see any kind of detail, or they'll find vague or muddled results. (Last time a paladin tried to use it, he spent the rest of the day at -2 to everything from nausea. That shut him up.)

If I want my players to know something is evil, I'll use words like 'menacing', 'terrible', 'hatred'. If I don't want them to know about it, then I'll find some reason to stop them from finding out until I think it's the right time. I can't be bothered to keep thinking up new excuses to thwart "Detect Evil" (although really it's easy enough to work around if you want to).

The few times that I was the GM I ran my campaigns along these lines. I had a list of spells that I would warn players about "I won't stop you from using these spells but I can tell you that they won't work the way you think they will" However I would not have the monsters/NPCs use those spells either (level playing field). As for the original topic of the thread, one reason I like Roy is that he is not perfect, and the character knows this. Yet he is always striving to be better than he is. Miko on the other hand thought she was perfect even when shown evidence to the contrary (ie. losing her paladin powers).

[Dr.Epic]

No.

He is lawful good, even when he is not perfect. As he is a human and no celestial being. Roy was considered to be Lawful Good even when he was not a perfect follower - because he tries lawful good and the results were not too bad.

He was let in not because he was "NG but trying to be LG" but because he was actually and totally LG.

Yeah, leaving your one loyal friend to be carried away by hostile thieves and lying to your two party members so they can risk their lives on a quest that only profits you as it gets you the material to make a new sword. The guy's extremely Lawful and Good. Oh, and let's not forget betraying your entire party in favor for a stranger you just met that wants to bring you back to their home for trial only because you think they're hot. Again, very Lawful and very Good. Oh that Roy, he makes the paladins look CE.:smallannoyed:

Back on subject, I can say I like Roy the least of any Order member. Not sure if I dislike, but he's nowhere near my favorite character. He's extremely overpowered in that he has no dump stats: yeah, a fighter with a decent int, wis, and cha. I can totally believe that. It wouldn't be so bad but the rest of the Order all seem to have only one good stat as if to say, yeah, Look at how weak these other characters are. Roy's even more powerful by comparison.

[Lesingnon]

Something similar to this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0202.html) is likely the reason why they don't just cast a detect alignment in the afterlife.

As for the possibility of people disliking Roy..well, since we're on the internet where Rule #34 is considered by almost everybody to be valid I hesitate to call any opinion impossible.

[Ancalagon]

Yeah, leaving your one loyal friend to be carried away by hostile thieves and lying to your two party members so they can risk their lives on a quest that only profits you as it gets you the material to make a new sword. The guy's extremely Lawful and Good. Oh, and let's not forget betraying your entire party in favor for a stranger you just met that wants to bring you back to their home for trial only because you think they're hot. Again, very Lawful and very Good. Oh that Roy, he makes the paladins look CE.:smallannoyed:

Last time I looked, this specific case was covered in the comic. Please read it.

The point was, I paraphrase: "This was the most nasty act you commited, but a) you came back quickly to fix it, you b) regret it, and c) it does not invalidate an entire lifetime of good deeds."
Really, the comic covers to 100% what you just tried to argue against.

How did you get your phd with working as sloppily as this with your source material? :smallbiggrin:

[Procyonpi]

He's Kinda sorta likable in the comic's serious moments, but he's sometimes far to serious even for a straight man in a lot of the comic gags. Even in the serious moments, I like Elan better as a character.

[Dvandemon]

I'm glad that the thread managed to get back on topic.

It's not impossible to dislike Roy, it's not impossible to dislike anyone. Here you just have to have a pretty good reason to dislike a character (if they weren't meant to be hated, specifically), expect disagreements.

[SPoD]

To the OP: It is entirely possible to dislike Roy, if you dislike Lawful Good characters. Your entire point seems to revolve around "LG = perfect" and that's deeply flawed logic. He could be the most LG character ever created, and I still would prefer Elan. Not that I don't like Roy, I do, but I like him in SPITE of his alignment, not because of it.

However this:

He's extremely overpowered in that he has no dump stats: yeah, a fighter with a decent int, wis, and cha. I can totally believe that. It wouldn't be so bad but the rest of the Order all seem to have only one good stat as if to say, yeah, Look at how weak these other characters are. Roy's even more powerful by comparison.

makes no sense as a reason to dislike him. What do his listed stats have to do with anything? He's certainly not flawless as a character, his flaws are just things that don't get measured in D&D: ego, overconfidence, etc. Haley doesn't really seem to have any low mental stats, either; she's smart, perceptive, and charismatic, and since she uses a composite bow, there's reason to think she has a Strength bonus as well. Given that we know she has high Dex, that's 5 out of 6, and I don't remember any scene that implied that she has a crippling Constitution.

This is just gamer mentality speaking, thinking that somehow a fictional character can "cheat" at their existence in a story. Batman doesn't have any low stats, either, you know.

[Ancalagon]

I'd like to throw in it's even "worse": Batman even does not have any medium stats. He even does not have any "above average". Batman only has top stats, all 18s and above.

Are that six massive reasons to hate Batman? I doubt it.

Let's not get started on Superman who even has the most evil cheat-template on top of it and that guy is even such a horrible munchkin that he took the dreaded and often ridiculed "Kryptonite Allergy" to make up for his mega-char.

[Andre]

I still believe him to be NG through and through but it is stated otherwise and it was probably easier to send him to the LG afterlife with the rest of his peers.

He sure talks a lot. Sometimes to Often he doesn't know what he says. He rarely listens to others. He would make an excellent politician. :smallbiggrin:

[LuPuWei]

Though why, for the love of Gods, they can't just use Detect Alignment spells and be done with it is beyond me.

Well, detect alignment is a spell used by mortals. The way I see it, it would make sense if, when invoking detect alignment, it was really a request sent to the celestial planes, where they'd do the background check and send you back the results in the for of brightly coloured bold letters that flash over the character's visage :smallbiggrin:

[Valley]

I do not dislike Roy...he is just not on the top ten of characters I DO like. Belkar is on the top...well, maybe Mr Scruffy.

Roy seems like a very realistic character....maybe that is why he is not as well liked as Girls-Gone-Wild Haley...the cute and has-to-be-a-Virgin Elan..and the God of War, slightly over the top, Belkar.

[Beacon80]

But i don't hate him. Not like i used to. That's character progress for sure. Then again why should I like him? A great story has good guys and bad guys you can both love and hate. I like that. It's true that the Oots "needs" Roy much in the way that Xykon "needs" Redcloak, albeit begrudgingly.
I just want to give you props for this mentality. I've run in to far too many people who think "I don't like X, so the story would be so much better without him!" and insist on yelling it at whoever they can, so I make it a point to acknowledge people with the sense to say "I don't like X, but I accept that he contributes to the story."

I personally like Roy, but I seem drawn to LG characters. And as been pointed out, Roy (like all of the OotS cast) is so much more than an archetype. If Roy was pure lawful good, he wouldn't be nearly as interesting. I had observed, long before his trial, that while trying to be lawful, Roy was decidedly chaotic in how he went about trying to be lawful. I think his turning point was his trial, where he saw people using lawful means chaotically. It's shortly after this that he tears up the contracts rather than use the letter of the law to violate the spirit.

On the debate of Detect Evil, I'd like to throw in my two CP. I think the spirit of this spell/ability was the idea of sensing things that reek of evil. Giving paladins the innate ability to sense the undead, the demons, and the evil cleric that sacrifices a box full of puppies every full moon makes a certain amount of sense.
Breaking it down into a three-round court system is breaking the spirit of that spell, but I have a very simple house rule that should prevent it in most situations. Simply put, you limit what the spell reveals by a number of rounds equal to the severity of the evil it's detecting.
Example 1: A paladin finds a low-level cut-throat. He's evil, but since he's not level 11, he comes across as "faint." The paladin uses Detect Evil. On the first round, it tells him that there is indeed evil in the area. On the second round, however, since there is no "moderate" evil, he cannot tell how many evil presences in the area. Even if he spends a third round, he cannot determine who in the area is the source of the presence.
Example 2: A level 15 crime boss happens to be standing nearby the cut-throat. He's also evil and is considered "moderate." On the second round, the paladin can now determine that someone nearby is moderately evil. He can also tell that there is at least one source of evil (by this house rule, you can never tell how many "faint" evil sources are nearby). He spends a third round, but since there's no "strong" evil in the area, he cannot tell who in the area possesses the "moderate" evil aura.
The beauty of this system is that unless you're dealing undead, outsiders, clerics, or magic items (i.e.things that use actual evil energy), the spell cannot be used for determining an average person's guilt unless the paladin can be absolutely sure that no one else in the area is evil*.

* A paladin could, in theory, make sure no one else is in his 60' cone, or other extremely meta-game things like that, but if you have a player like that, I strongly recommend finding some way to mess with him.

[Sunken Valley]

I think I did not make my point clear. Roy is not my favourite character: I like Elan and his family and amongst the order Roy ranks as favourite number 5. What I am saying is that it is impossible to disapprove of him. Rich likely knows that Roy's early behaviour would cause many to dislike him and make tons of hate threads and probably before his trial and demise many did. Instead Rich has made it clear that Roy's minor bad deeds have all been removed by his numerous good ones (although he still has not apologised to Elan directly about the bandit thing). Rich has shown us the two scenario's of which people who dislike certain characters create for them: the on trial for his crimes scenario and world without Roy. Thus you cannot truly hate Roy once these scenario's are taken into account. Roy cannot even be accused of being a mary sue because he is flawed (for example, a certain winning of initiative that lead to a certain thread which created a certain meme in the forums). That is what I meant.

[Morph Bark]

Though why, for the love of Gods, they can't just use Detect Alignment spells and be done with it is beyond me.

Because they are the ones who decide if you detect as Lawful Good or not.

[Kish]

I think I did not make my point clear. Roy is not my favourite character: I like Elan and his family and amongst the order Roy ranks as favourite number 5. What I am saying is that it is impossible to disapprove of him.
It's entirely possible to disapprove of, dislike, or even hate Roy. What is impossible, is to argue convincingly that Roy's writer dislikes or hates him. But that's not terribly surprising, is it? Few authors dislike their protagonists.

[veti]

It's entirely possible to disapprove of, dislike, or even hate Roy. What is impossible, is to argue convincingly that Roy's writer dislikes or hates him. But that's not terribly surprising, is it? Few authors dislike their protagonists.

Interesting question. Who is/are "protagonists" in OOTS?

All members of the Order? You could argue that, certainly, and it's the most logically coherent position to take. But given Durkon's lack of screen time or focus, it's hard to think of him as a protagonist. And Belkar's alignment, to say nothing of his impending doooom, also seem to mark him out differently from the others.

If I had to pick the "most sympathetic" member of the OOTS, I think I'd say Elan. He's the one who's experienced the most character growth, and as far as I can recall we've never seen him do anything nasty or mean-spirited, even momentarily.

One thing I like about the OOTS is that the party's stats are obviously rolled, rather than picked. Roy has good stats all around. Haley, Elan and Belkar each have two or three good stats. Durkon and Vaarsuvius only seem to have one each.

[Zevox]

Interesting question. Who is/are "protagonists" in OOTS?

[...]

If I had to pick the "most sympathetic" member of the OOTS,
Since when did "protagonist" change definition to mean "most sympathetic character?"


pro·tag·o·nist   [proh-tag-uh-nist]
–noun
1. the leading character, hero, or heroine of a drama or other literary work.
The correct answers here would be either the entire Order, who are all the lead characters of the story collectively, or if you want to get more specific Roy, who as an individual is the leader of the group and the most directly connected to the main plot and main antagonists.

Zevox

[veti]

Since when did "protagonist" change definition to mean "most sympathetic character?"

The correct answers here would be either the entire Order, who are all the lead characters of the story collectively, or if you want to get more specific Roy, who as an individual is the leader of the group and the most directly connected to the main plot and main antagonists.

Meh, if by "leader" you mean "most invested, originator of the plot", then Eugene has a better claim.

To say that "protagonist means leading character" doesn't really help, unless you go on to say how to identify a "leading character". I think such an identification might take account of who's been the focus of most plot arcs, who's had the strongest on-screen presence, who's appeared in the most strips. And, yes, who's the most sympathetic character.

[Zevox]

Meh, if by "leader" you mean "most invested, originator of the plot", then Eugene has a better claim.
Hardly. He's important only as the motivation that originally got Roy involved in all of this.

And by "leader" I mean the guy leading the group of heroes. Roy. That isn't even debatable, it's explicit in the strip.


To say that "protagonist means leading character" doesn't really help, unless you go on to say how to identify a "leading character". I think such an identification might take account of who's been the focus of most plot arcs, who's had the strongest on-screen presence, who's appeared in the most strips.
Roy has appeared in the most strips, and "strongest on-screen presence" is an extremely vague description I don't know how to define.

Focus of most plot arcs I don't know - you'd have to define what each plot arc was first (good luck, with how many sub-plots there are in this). Certainly though it's impossible to argue that any other member of the group has been more important to the main plot, since Roy is the one who formed the team, set their goals, got them involved in the main plot, and leads the group.


And, yes, who's the most sympathetic character.
Not at all, because then you'd run into the ridiculous idea that you can't have an unsympathetic protagonist.

Zevox

[veti]

Roy has appeared in the most strips, and "strongest on-screen presence" is an extremely vague description I don't know how to define.

Focus of most plot arcs I don't know - you'd have to define what each plot arc was first (good luck, with how many sub-plots there are in this). Certainly though it's impossible to argue that any other member of the group has been more important to the main plot, since Roy is the one who formed the team, set their goals, got them involved in the main plot, and leads the group.

If you don't know how to define it (nor do I), all that means is that we can't make definitive statements based on that metric. It doesn't mean that "whatever other metric you specify must axiomatically be The One True Correct Definition".

All I'm saying is that the definition of "protagonist" is not as simple as you're making it out to be.


Not at all, because then you'd run into the ridiculous idea that you can't have an unsympathetic protagonist.

Not "can't", but "don't". I think we can agree that OOTS is not the kind of story that has an anti-hero. That doesn't mean that such stories can't exist, but we can say with some confidence that this isn't one of them.

[Zevox]

If you don't know how to define it (nor do I), all that means is that we can't make definitive statements based on that metric. It doesn't mean that "whatever other metric you specify must axiomatically be The One True Correct Definition".
No, but I never said that. I argued that Roy is easily the most important of the Order to the main plot, which I would certainly say is an important metric in establishing who the protagonist is. Much more important, for that matter, than the ones you gave.


All I'm saying is that the definition of "protagonist" is not as simple as you're making it out to be.
And I disagree and think your attempts to make it seem a complex matter are ludicrous. Take any given story and it's almost always easy to identify the protagonist. This one is no exception from where I'm sitting.


Not "can't", but "don't". I think we can agree that OOTS is not the kind of story that has an anti-hero. That doesn't mean that such stories can't exist, but we can say with some confidence that this isn't one of them.
Just because the main characters aren't anti-heroes doesn't mean that the main protagonist is defined by being the most sympathetic character. Again, that simply has nothing to do with the matter at all. The protagonist of a story can be anywhere from completely sympathetic to completely unsympathetic, and there can always be other characters that are more (or less) sympathetic than the main protagonist.

Zevox

[Kish]

Not "can't", but "don't". I think we can agree that OOTS is not the kind of story that has an anti-hero.
That "we" better be you and Zevox, not "everyone on this website." Not that I actually expect it to get past Zevox if it's only him, either. :belkar::vaarsuvius:

Beyond that, he's right. You're trying to make something very simple in OotS complicated for reasons I can't understand.

[Procyonpi]

And Belkar's alignment, to say nothing of his impending doooom, also seem to mark him out differently from the others.

There's such a thing (http://www.traileraddict.com/clip/dr-horribles-sing-along-blog/act-i) as a villain (http://www.traileraddict.com/clip/dr-horribles-sing-along-blog/act-i) protaganist (http://www.traileraddict.com/clip/dr-horribles-sing-along-blog/act-i).



One thing I like about the OOTS is that the party's stats are obviously rolled, rather than picked. Roy has good stats all around. Haley, Elan and Belkar each have two or three good stats. Durkon and Vaarsuvius only seem to have one each.

Actually, I'm pretty sure that not only are the party's stats not rolled, Rich has stated that they don't exist in any sort of specific way. This isn't Goblins, where Thunt has character sheets for pretty much any named character, regardless how minor. Rich just (for the most part) portrays "realistic" characters.

[veti]

Beyond that, he's right. You're trying to make something very simple in OotS complicated for reasons I can't understand.

I'm questioning it because OOTS isn't a typical story of the sort that the ancient Greeks envisaged when they coined the word "protagonist". The idea of a "protagonist" in a D&D campaign is problematic, because of the curiously interactive, inherently non-linear nature of the medium. And while I realise that OOTS isn't really a D&D campaign, it is a story in the form of one, and I'm interested in how that conceit affects it.

What's a protagonist? Not necessarily the same thing as a main character. In 'The Shawshank Redemption', Andy is the protagonist, but Red is the main character (through whose eyes the story is told). Also not necessarily the one who takes the lead in driving the plot forward; in 'The Terminator', Sarah Conner is almost completely passive until the very last reel. Or the protagonist can change in mid-story ('Psycho' would be the textbook example, where the established protagonist, Marion, is killed in a moment that completely changes the direction of the story).

Okay, I accept that you and Zevox consider Roy to be the protagonist. That's a perfectly reasonable assessment and I'm not really trying to talk you out of it. What I disagree with is the assertion that it's a simple and unambiguous question.

[Klear]

These are clearly the protagonists:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/ootscast.html

[Kish]

What's a protagonist? Not necessarily the same thing as a main character. In 'The Shawshank Redemption', Andy is the protagonist, but Red is the main character (through whose eyes the story is told).
You appear to have interchanged "main character" with "narrator," here.

[theinsulabot]

You know, the theory that gods or whatever can't use detect evil because they are the one's controlling the spell is wrong you know, because of the way Xykon's crown screwed up Miko's spell detection, so it has to be an innate sense of evil as opposed to a carefully handed down divine revelation.

[Klear]

You know, the theory that gods or whatever can't use detect evil because they are the one's controlling the spell is wrong you know, because of the way Xykon's crown screwed up Miko's spell detection, so it has to be an innate sense of evil as opposed to a carefully handed down divine revelation.

Hey, look... that crazy paladin is casting another detect evil spell. Let's screw with her a little and make her detect evil from that crown he's got with him.

But nah, I don't see the lawful good people above doing that.

[Zevox]

That "we" better be you and Zevox, not "everyone on this website." Not that I actually expect it to get past Zevox if it's only him, either. :belkar::vaarsuvius:
Belkar's basically a villain protagonist, not an anti-hero. He's a sociopath who only recently even started pretending to care about anything other than his own amusement, and even his pretending isn't fooling anyone.

V doesn't really fit any category of hero, anti-hero, etc that I can think of - she's just kind of along for the ride as far as the main story goes, and her issues and sub-plots have so far been her own. Not sure what kind of label you could use for her.


I'm questioning it because OOTS isn't a typical story of the sort that the ancient Greeks envisaged when they coined the word "protagonist". The idea of a "protagonist" in a D&D campaign is problematic, because of the curiously interactive, inherently non-linear nature of the medium.
But the Order of the Stick isn't a D&D campaign in any sense. It's a story. It may be modeled after and make fun of D&D's rules, but it doesn't operate on D&D's interactive level, nor is it non-linear and changing to suit multiple peoples' actions. It's a pre-planned story like any book or movie.

Besides, even in D&D the question of "who are the protagonists?" is a simple one: the PCs are. That's the entire point of the game (at least when played in a story-heavy manner): the players take the role of the main protagonists of whatever story they're playing through. This true broadly for the Order of the Stick as well, insofar as the Order are considered "PCs." It's just that, examining it as a story, if you want a more specific protagonist than the entirety of the Order, the obvious answer would be Roy.

Zevox

[G-Man Graves]

In regards to the story telling roles of the Order, ie who is the "Protagonist":

Roy would be the obvious choice for the "main character", as the over arching plot was sparked by his conflict, he is the one who seems most likely to try and take down the villain, and he is the leader of the party. On top of that, he has the most time on screen, though this is because Rich choice to follow him into the afterlife, whereas the other characters were sharing screen time with their compatriots. Other than that, Roy takes on the role of the straight man in the more comedic strips

Elan would be the second best choice for main character, with a dabble of comic relief. He is also the spark of much conflict, on account of his family and his willingness to dive head first into the Kuboto subplot. He has developed substantially, but is not yet mature by a long shot (but this is okay, the comic isn't done yet).

Haley is definitely a more secondary character, however, Rich gives secondary characters their own little subplots anyway, so she still remains important. During the part of the comic where the order was split up, she was the "Main character" of her half of the story. She is occasionally comic relief, and is the romantic interest of one of the more obvious main characters.

V is an interesting case. He has the potential to become much more important than he is, but is currently firmly secondary. This is visible in how she has less time on stage than the other, more prevalent characters, and even when given her own little arc, it was essentially to be used as a pawn.

Belkar is straight up comic relief. And firmly secondary. And going to die soon. Permanently.

Durkon is also firmly support. Which is good, because "Durkon Murders Every Obstacle With His God Powers" seems like it would get boring the third or fourth time it happens.

[Shadic]

I still believe him to be NG through and through but it is stated otherwise and it was probably easier to send him to the LG afterlife with the rest of his peers.
You don't believe his listed alignment in the comic because you think that the afterlife is "too lazy" to just a man properly? That's stubborn.

[cheesecake]

I can not possibly dislike Roy any more than I do now.

He is full of himself.

Go back to being a big dumb door opener.

[hamishspence]

Roy has always been a little full of himself- and he's never really been stupid. Even as far back as their first encounter with the Linear Guild, Thog's "opposite" trait to Roy's, is that.

[Prowl]

You don't believe his listed alignment in the comic because you think that the afterlife is "too lazy" to just a man properly? That's stubborn.

Lawful does mean there are bureaucrats, and bureaucrats are nothing if not lazy...