I'm finding it hard to care anymore about these characters

[Blackrook]

I'm finding it hard to care anymore about these characters. Things should have been wrapped up by now, but the story drags on and on.

Also, the Giant keeps killing off my favorite villains.

Also, I think Miko should have been allowed to redeem herself. Her death, without redemption, left a bad taste in my mouth.

Anyway, the there's no chance that the main six characters are going to die, so the comic lacks any sense of danger. Durkon's death lacks any meaning, because even as a vampire, he's the same lawful good dwarf.

I don't know, I might keep reading, but I may lose interest and do something else.

[Mutant Sheep]

The same Lawful Good dwarf, snapping Drow Necks and stuff. Old Durkon did that to people he didn't like, remember how Leeky Windstaff died? Wait, no, Durkon didn't kill named characters back then.

Miko being redeemed would have taken every comic the Giant has written, and then a few more books, just to get her back in the Twelve God's "Ok, Maybe" file of paladinhood.

[Forikroder]

I'm finding it hard to care anymore about these characters. Things should have been wrapped up by now, but the story drags on and on.

Also, the Giant keeps killing off my favorite villains.

Also, I think Miko should have been allowed to redeem herself. Her death, without redemption, left a bad taste in my mouth.

Anyway, the there's no chance that the main six characters are going to die, so the comic lacks any sense of danger. Durkon's death lacks any meaning, because even as a vampire, he's the same lawful good dwarf.

I don't know, I might keep reading, but I may lose interest and do something else.
sounds like you jsut dont like fiction that isnt tragedy

also i cant imagine how the story could possibly have been wrapped up by now, the story hasnt even been taht long

[Tetsujin-28]

But m8, Belkar's death is confirmed to happen, and Vaarsuvius and Durkon's safeties aren't guaranteed. The only people who are confirmed not to die are Elan, Haley, and most likely Roy.

Durkon isn't Lawful Good anymore, either. His alignment is now Lawful Evil and he was merciless to Nale and Z. Plus, we haven't had that much time with him yet. Give him some time and I'm sure he'll kick a dog or ten.

Miko not getting redemption was the whole point. It's not for everyone. She was unwilling to change her mind.

I can't really dispute on the villains point, but have you read Start of Darkness? I thought the Xykon/Redclock duo made for a pretty uninteresting villain lead until I read that, and then I became a lot more fond of them.

[Tetsujin-28]

sounds like you jsut dont like fiction that isnt tragedy

also i cant imagine how the story could possibly have been wrapped up by now, the story hasnt even been taht long

By webcomic standards it is very, very long. Especially for one with a one, big continuous story.

You might try taking a break for a month or two or come back and see if your interest in the story is re-ignited. With the webcomic format, the story feels like it goes a glacial pace and it can get rather irritating. Imagine a page of a book every three or so days. It'd get quite annoying. That could be OP's problem.

[Forikroder]

By webcomic standards it is very, very long. Especially for one with a one, big continuous story.

You might try taking a break for a month or two or come back and see if your interest in the story is re-ignited. With the webcomic format, the story feels like it goes a glacial pace and it can get rather irritating. Imagine a page of a book every three or so days. It'd get quite annoying. That could be OP's problem.

by webcomic standards makes no sense, and even then the story is moving nicely even if you compare it to mangas that come out monthly and have less story progression *cough* Berserk *cough*

[Bulldog Psion]

I'm hoping it continues for a long, long time.

Belkar is doomed, V may be doomed, Durkon is an undead abomination who is probably going to return to his homeland in bitter mood for kicking him out to go get turned into a vampire ...

... and you complain it's boring?

Well, if it gives you any satisfaction, feel free to leave. Or stick around if you want. It's no skin off our nose either way, and there are plenty of other webcomics if you really want to betake yourself off.

[DaggerPen]

With all due respect... why are you posting about this? You're finding it hard to care about the characters anymore, but you care about people knowing how little you care about the characters? Are you here because you want people to convince you otherwise?

[Boogastreehouse]

I think it looks better with a little space here


I'm not quite sure what the point of this thread is.

While you're certainly entitled to your opinions, I don't see what you might gain here.

Expressing the opinion that "everything about the story is wrong" in this way is also your prerogative, to be sure, but to what end?

I'm sure you'll get a lot of attention from people who disagree with you, but you can't expect the Giant to change even a single detail of his plot for the .01% of the readers who are dissatisfied so completely, and think that they could tell a better story.

So please help me to understand; What's the point of this thread?

(Edit: Ninja'd by someone with a Ninja Avatar)


I think it looks better with a little space here

[Forikroder]

I'm hoping it continues for a long, long time.

Belkar is doomed, V may be doomed, Durkon is an undead abomination who is probably going to return to his homeland in bitter mood for kicking him out to go get turned into a vampire ...

... and you complain it's boring?

Well, if it gives you any satisfaction, feel free to leave. Or stick around if you want. It's no skin off our nose either way, and there are plenty of other webcomics if you really want to betake yourself off.
why on earth do people think Durkon will be bitter at getting kicked out?

[Mordokai]

why on earth do people think Durkon will be bitter at getting kicked out?

Why wouldn't he be? Or was that sarcasm? Little hard to tell like this.

[Gift Jeraff]

My favorite scene with the living Durkon was when he expressed disappointment at not getting to drink someone's blood.

[Breccia]

If you're leaving the party, can my character have your stuff?

Seriously, this is art, and people are allowed to have differing opinions on the subject. I, for example, and looking forward to the next comic. I also happen to think that Miko, and some people in general, are just...wrong, until they do something stupid that ends their life, and therefore, chance at redemption. I just think that, based on the nature of this particular forum, you'll find yourself in the minority with your opinion.

[Irenaeus]

Take a break, then check back on it in a few months.

I fell off the comic a few years ago, and ended up binge-reading the parts I missed when I found my way back to it after about a year. When I look at the archives now, I can't actualy remember what caused me to drop off. Side plots you don't care that much for feel smaller when you read strips back-to-back.


Also, I think Miko should have been allowed to redeem herself. Her death, without redemption, left a bad taste in my mouth.
That was quality writing. Definitely among my favourite parts of the series.

[FlawedParadigm]

Remember the part where Roy never died and it's not like any member of the Order has each, individually or as a group, been in life-or-death situations? No? Me neither.

Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if Elan and Haley are the only party members to survive the strip.

[Porthos]

I'm finding it hard to care anymore about these characters. Things should have been wrapped up by now, but the story drags on and on.

It's all very simple. What you thought the story was (finish off Xykon, Fix/Save the Gates) isn't the story.

The story is in fact the trials and travails of The Order of the Stick.

To put it another way, you are getting the MacGuffin (what every one is chasing after) mixed up with the actual story (the characters who are chasing the MacGuffin).

Now if you don't find the protagonists very compelling, well, that's just a matter of taste. :smallsmile: And in a character driven story such as this one, perhaps a fatal one.

And, really, it's not a bad opinion to hold. Not everything will appeal to everyone. But, let's be clear here, this story still has years left in it.

As for Miko? That was six years ago. Might be time to let go. :smallwink:

[Starbuck_II]

As for Miko? That was six years ago. Might be time to let go. :smallwink:

Oh, she is coming back. Just you wait. :miko:

[Kuroshima]

by webcomic standards makes no sense, and even then the story is moving nicely even if you compare it to mangas that come out monthly and have less story progression *cough* Berserk *cough*

Berserk? Monthly? Where?

The author is known to take 6 month breaks in between 16 page issues that barely advance the plot (if they advance it at all, see the flashback issues that explore things everyone already knew).

Order of the Stick proceeds at a much brisker pace. I know it's rare to have a webcomic that keeps a consistent and continuous storyline over almost 1k issues, but that's a reason to praise it, not condemn it.

[Lombard]

Nobody's gotten a good Belkaring in a while, the natives are restless
:roach:

[Ceaon]

I'm finding it hard to care anymore about these characters. Things should have been wrapped up by now, but the story drags on and on.

Also, the Giant keeps killing off my favorite villains.

Also, I think Miko should have been allowed to redeem herself. Her death, without redemption, left a bad taste in my mouth.

Anyway, the there's no chance that the main six characters are going to die, so the comic lacks any sense of danger. Durkon's death lacks any meaning, because even as a vampire, he's the same lawful good dwarf.

You have my sympathies. It must be hard to lose interest in something you've been following for 900+ comics.


I don't know, I might keep reading, but I may lose interest and do something else.

Thank you for keeping us up to date.

[Cizak]

[Miko's] death, without redemption, left a bad taste in my mouth.

Author's goal achieved, then.

[Chuikov]

Allowing Miko a redemption would have actually been the generic way to go about it. Miko's entire persona was about complete blindness to her own failings and unwillingness to accept her understanding of good and evil isn't infallible. If someone wants to be redeemed, they generally have to acknowledge their failings and work to make amends for them.

In other words, for Miko to be redeemed, she would have had to stop being Miko. That really isn't anything that could be done outside of a very extended story arc devoted to just her.

[coineineagh]

The comic is too *long*, and that makes you lose interest? HAHAHAHAHA:smallbiggrin:
{SCRUBBED}

[jogiff]

{SCRUBBED}

[Irenaeus]

The comic is too *long*, and that makes you lose interest? HAHAHAHAHA:smallbiggrin:
{SCRUBBED}
{SCRUBBED} Length-to-payoff ratio is a valid and relevant factor when you chose how to spend your time.

I like the length of OOTS fine myself, and think it's a quality piece of work, but it's not a story told with focus on brevity, and a lot of the strip is only interesting if you feel invested in the characters.

[coineineagh]

The Giant has made it clear that this story arc will be long but finite. Were definitely in the last or second-to-last chapter. I will be sad when the story eventually does end, but as they say: All good things must come to an end.

Of course we're invested in the characters, because that's what a good story does to you. And this is a very good story, with the most memorable stick figures in history, if you ask me. {SCRUBBED}

[factotum]

Wow. If you haven't really been happy about the strip since Miko died, why on earth have you waited this long to stop reading? There have been more strips *since* Miko died than existed before that point!

As for villains dying--that's kind of what villains *do*. If you want the villains to win, you might want to read some other story.

[Torrasque]

[Post removed]

[Tundar]

I don't know, I might keep reading, but I may lose interest and do something else.

That's the beauty of teh intrawebs. You are free to go do something else.
Besides that, I disagree on all your topics. In fact OotS is one of the few webcomics that keeps me nailed to the screen and to the printed versions.
All because Rich Burlew is a brilliant story teller and a talented comedian.

[The Kind Knido]

8-Bit Theater was longer than this currently is and was only based off of one particular game, and that comic was awesome. I still need to re-read it. Dungeons and Dragons has a ton of material for parody and we've already seen a Moogle, Locke, Terra, and even Sephiroth in this comic too so the material that could be parodied is nigh-boundless. If you don't like the supposed big bads of this comic, which I sort of don't that much either since they barely exist anymore, just wait; I don't think those two will prove to be the big bads anyways.

Comic-wise, OotS isn't long compared to some others. Homestuck (which I can't stand) is well over 10,000+ strips I believe and no one seems to be getting sick of reading about grey people who wear candy corn horns.

I do agree with you on the grounds that the villains aren't particularly interesting, and also that we should probably move on, but what's being written is being written. As one said above "just come back later". Even so, you shouldn't leave permanently. Your speculations are not things set in stone like Belkar's Death, which I still don't quite see as being what we think it will be.

Whatever. That was my two cents; it's up to you to leave, I just don't think you should since it's actually starting to pick back up.

EDIT: I just remember your Miko opinion. Here's my say on that topic -

I consider Miko to have been a villain since she appeared and at the time of her death. Nothing about Miko indicated that she was really even Lawful Good. I know she upheld it, but the way she viewed things was never going to change. Her true nature finally showed up when she was given a good "chance" to kill her Lord, but while she thought she was doing well, she was performing a Chaotic Evil act. I don't consider Miko to have ever truly been Lawful Good but Chaotic Evil. She just confused herself for Lawful good and only performed under her true alignment in a specific way.

From the point when Miko fell, she was full-on Chaotic Evil. You can't dispute that. Miko was never going to change in any way no matter what was said. The sad thing is she was totally blind as to what alignment she was really classified as the whole time and never knew it.

I see where you're coming from when you say you were dissatisfied when Miko died and nothing about her was resolved, but that was the point. Besides, I was satisfied when Roy slammed her in the face with his greatsword and when she exploded. Great times.

Miko was a character who bordered on completely unlikeable, but she was fun to hate. She was just a side-quest villain like Tarquin, so don't expect Tarquin to change either.

As far as villains go, Redcloak is easily the one who shows the most change. He freaked out when I realized he was sending hobgoblins to their death and went in in a very heroic way on a summoned mount. Xykon? No. He will never change at all. He's just a weapon with some witty things to say. Not exactly BBEG material, which goes back to what I say about Reddy and Xykon not being the main villains... Xykon is just a witty weapon and Redcloak is too weak to be the main villain.

[coineineagh]

Also, I think Miko should have been allowed to redeem herself. Her death, without redemption, left a bad taste in my mouth.
I think you're still hung up on Roy's intention to go there with the hot asian Azure City chick. Which would indicate that you're mixing up beauty and righteousness. It happens to be an underlying theme in the OotS comic, where goblins, dragons and whatnot are pre-judged based on their race, and slain as evil XP fodder.

Conversely, you've pre-judged Miko as innately good based on her class and appearance, and are hung up on her redemption because it isn't clear to you that she's not a good person. She was convoluted, believed the gods relied on her alone to effect their plans, and her actions amounted to murder (regicide affects a lot of people) to sate her egotistical desire to be a pivotal figure. Even within narrative conventions, there was no unfinished business when Miko was written out of the story 6 years ago.

There is some merit to beauty being likened with goodness, because attractive people tend to get luckier in life than unattractive ones. But this is merely the result of biases within humanity playing themselves out. I live and work in China myself, and I can tell you first hand that not all of those attractive girls are kind and good. Although a lot of them are, you should guard yourself from making fatal pre-judgements, or you'll end up paying for them dearly.

[nephilia]

Plus, we haven't had that much time with him yet. Give him some time and I'm sure he'll kick a dog or ten.


More likely he'll kick a cincillà in the face of the bunny that Tarquin will punch in the face of Elan :P

[HeeJay]

I consider Miko to have been a villain since she appeared and at the time of her death. Nothing about Miko indicated that she was really even Lawful Good. I know she upheld it, but the way she viewed things was never going to change. Her true nature finally showed up when she was given a good "chance" to kill her Lord, but while she thought she was doing well, she was performing a Chaotic Evil act. I don't consider Miko to have ever truly been Lawful Good but Chaotic Evil. She just confused herself for Lawful good and only performed under her true alignment in a specific way.

From the point when Miko fell, she was full-on Chaotic Evil. You can't dispute that.

Well, I dispute that.

I think Miko was Lawful Good to the end - unfortunately she was a LG paranoid lunatic with delusions of grandeur.

She thought Shojo and the Order were evil and in league with Xykon. Of course she was totally wrong, but her actions were Lawful Good in the paranoid fantasyland she was inhabiting.

Just compare her with Belkar, who fully accepts and acknowledges he's an evil person doing evil deeds.


As for Miko being a villain - well, that's just very good writing: to have a paladin as a villain! My hat's off to Rich.

[ChristianSt]

The Giant has made it clear that this story arc will be long but finite. Were definitely in the last or second-to-last chapter. I will be sad when the story eventually does end, but as they say: All good things must come to an end.

From how I read the post you are quite underestimating how long OotS probably will go. (If you wanted only to say that book 5 will end soon, you are probably right.)
The Giant recently confirmed there will be seven books [Source] (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=15827621&postcount=19), and with his tendency to run long (which he hinted there), I wouldn't be really surprised if the final strip will be somewhere around #1500-2000.

[dric_dolphin]

This is quite a thread... regarding personal taste, I'm not really that fond of Roy, but Ellan and Belkar amuses me very much. So, albeit I would really, REALLY like to read a new strip every day or every other day, the story is progressing quite nicely. As had been said, this is a long story, and I don't see any resolution on the forseable future.

Now, if you {SCRUBBED} would like to stop reading... that's up to him. I've stopped reading this comic for a while, but I always returned on a monthly basis just to catch up. It's that going into giantitp.com every day and not seeing any update just makes me anxious, so sometimes it's better to not come at all for a while and reading everything at once! :smallwink:

[The Kind Knido]

Well, I dispute that.

I think Miko was Lawful Good to the end - unfortunately she was a LG paranoid lunatic with delusions of grandeur.

She thought Shojo and the Order were evil and in league with Xykon. Of course she was totally wrong, but her actions were Lawful Good in the paranoid fantasyland she was inhabiting.

Just compare her with Belkar, who fully accepts and acknowledges he's an evil person doing evil deeds.


As for Miko being a villain - well, that's just very good writing: to have a paladin as a villain! My hat's off to Rich.

I strongly disagree. her alignment could be seen as Chaotic Good, but the way she acted was easily Chaotic Evil from how I see it. Her fight with Hinjo very well displayed her personality in the open. Her intensely hateful expression mixed with the relentless swinging of her swords solidifies what she really is - evil. She would have made a great Death Knight. In fact, it could explore her mind a little more in a pretty interesting way.

:miko: - I'm a Death Knight!? My gods will never trust me now! *murderous rampage with conflicting thoughts to the extreme*

[Souhiro]

sounds like you jsut dont like fiction that isnt tragedy

also i cant imagine how the story could possibly have been wrapped up by now, the story hasnt even been taht long

Somehow, I can relate the OP. I still like the characters and find the comic too interesting to give up. But the actual situation is just like that old film: "The Last Action Hero": They're surrounded by an army, they have beaten the mace, I think they took some traps, fought the linear guild (Twice? thrice?) even the first ones were a losing battle. Then, then Xykon, the hated Redcloak and his minions, the elemental, and Malak's demon and Durkula's devil. And now, while Belkar is still Drained, they have to fight an army.

Seriously, against those odds, most of our PCs would be more than dead. But the Order of the Stick? We know that they will survive. They will WIN (Altough maybe Belkar will kick the bucket in the process) We know that it will happen. So, the situation fails to be percieved as "Dangerous" to viewers.

Also, about Miko's redemption, making her a better, nicer character would have been possible (And I would be glad to see Miko smiling for once, and not being the Trigger-Happy executioner that she is) but it would have been too much a "Self-discovery travel", too Miko-Centric, and very hard to shoehorn some jokes (And man, every strip of this comic has a moment for humor) so RIP, Miko Miyazaki. Maybe you'll be able to smite evil on Redcloak in the afterlike, and slice his guts, and behean it and use his head to paint your room red.

[The Kind Knido]

Seriously, against those odds, most of our PCs would be more than dead. But the Order of the Stick? We know that they will survive. They will WIN (Altough maybe Belkar will kick the bucket in the process) We know that it will happen. So, the situation fails to be percieved as "Dangerous" to viewers.

It's not entirely predictable. Belkar's prophecy will more than likely be fulfilled here one way or another, but other things could definitely happen -


If Tarquin is to die soon, we don't know who will do it.

We don't know how Belkar will die if he does here. Simply being killed by a mook would be anti-climactic.

Xykon could re-appear.

Tarquin could join the fight.

The Snarl could jump out of the rift at some point (unlikely, but still somewhat possible).

Vaarsuvius could die.

[Souhiro]

Well, I dispute that.

I think Miko was Lawful Good to the end - unfortunately she was a LG paranoid lunatic with delusions of grandeur.

She thought Shojo and the Order were evil and in league with Xykon. Of course she was totally wrong, but her actions were Lawful Good in the paranoid fantasyland she was inhabiting.

Just compare her with Belkar, who fully accepts and acknowledges he's an evil person doing evil deeds.


As for Miko being a villain - well, that's just very good writing: to have a paladin as a villain! My hat's off to Rich.

I agree with you here: Miko was Lawful Good: She adhered to the codes, the laws, the norms and customs of paladinhood. She followed all those rules to the letter; but she failed to follow them to the spirit.

A Chaotic person don't give anything for laws. and laws were Miko's life! But her goodness was more akin to "Defeat the Evil" than "Do the good, and don't look at whom", so she was in the thin line between Lawful Good and Lawful Neutral. And she fell.

Do you know what is Chaotic Evil? To kill your brother when he's about to kill the evil lich that has slaved you and your people.



t's not entirely predictable. Belkar's prophecy will more than likely be fulfilled here one way or another, but other things could definitely happen -

If Tarquin is to die soon, we don't know who will do it.
We don't know how Belkar will die if he does here. Simply being killed by a mook would be anti-climactic.
Xykon could re-appear.
Tarquin could join the fight.
The Snarl could jump out of the rift at some point (unlikely, but still somewhat possible).
Vaarsuvius could die.
I'm not saying that Belkar is going to die due a stray arrow, or maybe by stepping on a hard rock and taking his last 1-2 HP, only for someone would say "Oh, look. Belkar is dead" "Oh Bugger... Okay, let's keep going"

I was meant that we know that they won't die against 1000 mooks, because those are... well, mooks. It would be anticlimatic. The 300 died were executed in the climatic final scene, but... well, to be killed like this, is would be too anticlimatic, don't you think? Since then, it's a "Dangerous scenario, 100% danger-free"

[hamishspence]

Do you know what is Chaotic Evil? To kill your brother when he's about to kill the evil lich that has slaved you and your people.

Xykon said he was in no danger at that point because he'd already taken precautions, but, as the saying goes: "he would say that, wouldn't he?"

[factotum]

Do you know what is Chaotic Evil? To kill your brother when he's about to kill the evil lich that has slaved you and your people.


Put like that, the act is plain old Evil--there's no Lawful or Chaotic component to it. However, if you add the *reason* for the act--namely, that you are trying to continue a plan that you've been spending pretty much your entire life following--I reckon it becomes Lawful; Lawful Evil types are definitely those who will steamroller all opposition in pursuit of a single goal. A Chaotic person might well let their feelings for their brother over-ride a plan they don't care much about.

[Killer Angel]

by webcomic standards makes no sense, and even then the story is moving nicely even if you compare it to mangas that come out monthly yearly and have less story progression *cough* Berserk *cough*

Sorry, but I had to. :smallwink:

[Kish]

Do you know what is Chaotic Evil? To kill your brother when he's about to kill the evil lich that has slaved you and your people.
I am glad to see you are still finding it easy to care very much about these characters, specifically the one named Redcloak.

[Solse]

I also happen to think that Miko, and some people in general, are just...wrong, until they do something stupid that ends their life, and therefore, chance at redemption.

I agree. If you want to see a show where every villain becomes good, either watch Dragon Ball Z or Friendship is Magic. (Note that I'm not trying to insult FiM's fans or the show itself, I was just citing it as a well-known example of a show where most/all of its villains turn good.)

[Irenaeus]

Of course we're invested in the characters
That's not a given, and the investment might not be large enough to justify the length of a given characters screen time.


{SCRUBBED}
{SCRUBBED}


{SCRUBBED}

{SCRUBBED}
{SCRUBBED}

[Storm_Of_Snow]

I consider Miko to have been a villain since she appeared and at the time of her death. Nothing about Miko indicated that she was really even Lawful Good. I know she upheld it, but the way she viewed things was never going to change. Her true nature finally showed up when she was given a good "chance" to kill her Lord, but while she thought she was doing well, she was performing a Chaotic Evil act. I don't consider Miko to have ever truly been Lawful Good but Chaotic Evil. She just confused herself for Lawful good and only performed under her true alignment in a specific way.

From the point when Miko fell, she was full-on Chaotic Evil. You can't dispute that. Miko was never going to change in any way no matter what was said. The sad thing is she was totally blind as to what alignment she was really classified as the whole time and never knew it.

Nope, sorry, we can dispute it. Miko was Lawful Good when she fell - she fell because she broke the vows of the Sapphire Guard, she didn't change her alignment and then fall. Plus the 12 gods would know the alignments, and there's no way they'd all let someone who was chaotic evil take the vows of a lawful good organisation. And presumably at some time before she entered the Sapphire Guard, someone used detect evil on her, just to make sure she was suitable to even take the vows in the first place. And just to add a little extra mechanical sauce, Monks have to be lawful, so there's absolutely no way she was ever chaotic prior to entering the Sapphire Guard, even with a detect chaotic spell.

However, she was only just good enough to maintain that alignment, but what she really was, was Lawful. Capital-L Lawful to a point that even beings of pure law would look at her and go "hang on a minute...". Remember that alignments cover a range of views and behaviours - for example, Roy's much more good than lawful, whilst pre-vamp Durkon was capital-L Lawful, but also capital-G Good. Heck, compare Hinjo and O-Chul to Miko - all three are lawful good and all three are bound by the vows of the Sapphire Guard. And there's three very different personalities there.

So Miko was Lawful Good, but she was also insane - a massive superiority complex coupled with a messianic complex certainly (whether she was to start with as a reaction to her parents dying, or whether Shojo basically put that idea into her mind after he took her out of the orphanage/monastary is for the Giant to know, and maybe release in a prequel book if he ever feels like officially reopening the Miko can of worms and explaining her past), and probably megalomania too - in her eyes, no one else measured up, either to her, or her views on what everyone else should be, so she made it her goal to make everyone measure up to them, for their own good, whether they like it or not.

The thing is though, is that she had her role in the Sapphire Guard to both conceal her mental state from others (and herself), and to help her control it. And her personality was so abrasive that people at best tolerated her, and most actively avoided her, for instance, sending her off on long missions away from Azure City. Had she been even slightly likable, she'd have had a support network of people around her that would have recognised that she was ill and helped her. But most of the time, she only had herself and Windstriker, which allowed her mental state to feedback on itself, making her personality more abrasive and making her ever more dislikable.

I'm reminded of an instance in the first Sherlock episode where a police officer calls him a psychopath behind his back - he turns round and says "No, I'm a high functioning Sociopath, do your research." That's Miko in a nutshell IMO - dangerously insane, but so tightly controlled that she can function to a certain level in normal society.

Whilst her continuing self-reinforcing spiral of psychosis made her eventual fall inevitable, the moment she overheard Shojo's plot with Roy, coupled with her recent encounter with Xykon and the presence of Belkar in the throne room, her world view came crashing down - to her, everything she'd been told was a lie - and her control mechanisms went with it. At that point, I'd have said that due to her psychotic break, she was no longer really responsible for her actions, so her alignment would never have changed with Shojo's execution. Others might say that would push her straight into animal-neutral (not even true neutral), as matters of morality and ethics need concious decisions.

But she still broke her vows by failing to uphold the laws of Azure City (whether Shojo would have got a fair trial or fixed the result wasn't really for her to decide at that moment in time, she should have arrested him and let justice play itself out, then decided what to do if she thought Shojo had fixed the trial), which is why the twelve gods punished her, and Miko the Paladin became Miko the Fighter without bonus feats.

IMO, ultimately she's a tragic figure - I see her afterlife as sitting on the clouds outside the southern gods' part of Celestia, barred from passing through the gates (I'm assuming they have something like a Torii gate rather than the metal railings of the northern gods we saw with Roy :smallwink:) until she understands what she did that's keeping her from being admitted, why she did it, and seeks forgiveness for her actions. But she'll never understand, and so will never, ever be forgiven, not even by herself - a lawful good soul trapped forever in a limbo of her own making, watching others she sees as flawed and much less deserving than herself walk past and into their reward.



I strongly disagree. her alignment could be seen as Chaotic Good, but the way she acted was easily Chaotic Evil from how I see it. Her fight with Hinjo very well displayed her personality in the open. Her intensely hateful expression mixed with the relentless swinging of her swords solidifies what she really is - evil. She would have made a great Death Knight. In fact, it could explore her mind a little more in a pretty interesting way.

If anything, at that point, she still thought of herself as upholding the law, and Hinjo, by opposing her (especially as he was protecting Belkar at the time from what she saw as the righteous execution of an evil murderer), was nothing more that a criminal who needed to be defeated.

And maybe if she does defeat him, the gods will re-elevate her back to Paladin-hood.

Again, not evil - insane (hence the expression on her face) and no longer totally responsible for her actions.

:miko: "The gods have a plan for me, I know it! I am special, the most powerful paladin in the Sapphire Guard. They wouldn't do this to ME without a reason, I just need to figure out what it is!!" (409, page 2, panel 7).

If that doesn't show that Miko was completely insane by this point - she's almost calling out the gods for daring to remove the powers she has, rather than viewing it as them taking back what they've granted her - then frankly, nothing will.

[Torrasque]

[Post removed]

[F.Harr]

I'm finding it hard to care anymore about these characters. Things should have been wrapped up by now, but the story drags on and on.

Also, the Giant keeps killing off my favorite villains.

Also, I think Miko should have been allowed to redeem herself. Her death, without redemption, left a bad taste in my mouth.

Anyway, the there's no chance that the main six characters are going to die, so the comic lacks any sense of danger. Durkon's death lacks any meaning, because even as a vampire, he's the same lawful good dwarf.

I don't know, I might keep reading, but I may lose interest and do something else.

Well, that's up to you. I still like it.

[Forikroder]

Why wouldn't he be? Or was that sarcasm? Little hard to tell like this.

he doesnt seem that bitter now

the ay i see it either A) his intense love of doing his duty continues and he has no problem being exiled (because of the great opportunity it brought) or B) he loses his love of duty and has the high priest to thank for getting him out of the stuffy dwarf society (like Hilgya)

and even if he does for some reason hate the high priest for banishing him hes not going to pull a Xykon and just start slaughtering people willy nilly hed at least talk to someone and find out that the high priest is both dead and banished him at his own volition and noone else had anything to do with it

[Sir_Leorik]

I'm finding it hard to care anymore about these characters. Things should have been wrapped up by now, but the story drags on and on.

Also, the Giant keeps killing off my favorite villains.

Also, I think Miko should have been allowed to redeem herself. Her death, without redemption, left a bad taste in my mouth.

Anyway, the there's no chance that the main six characters are going to die, so the comic lacks any sense of danger. Durkon's death lacks any meaning, because even as a vampire, he's the same lawful good dwarf.

I don't know, I might keep reading, but I may lose interest and do something else.

You are fully entitled to lose interest in "OotS" and stop reading it.

EDIT:

The Giant has made it clear that this story arc will be long but finite. Were definitely in the last or second-to-last chapter. I will be sad when the story eventually does end, but as they say: All good things must come to an end.

Of course we're invested in the characters, because that's what a good story does to you. And this is a very good story, with the most memorable stick figures in history, if you ask me. {SCRUBBED}

{SCRUBBED} It was an example of a reader expressing his disinterest with the pace of the plot. Blackrook is entitled to not like something, or to lose interest in something.

[coineineagh]

{SCRUBBED}
Fair enough. But let's turn it around for a moment. You say I didn't back up why too-long isn't a valid critique point. I say you should back up why it is.

I did make a small mention of why good stories are generally long: The story and characters are deepened, making people fond of it all. Perhaps reluctant to let go, because good entertainment is always addictive. I'm not saddened when ChristianSt mentioned that the story arc might be another 500-1000 strips long, though somehow I feel it will be less than 300.

"Too long" is a statement that sounds loaded with subjective assumptions. What is blackrook comparing it with? Why should it end within the timeframe he wants?

Rich has written a masterpiece here, and I'm glad if he can stretch the story a bit, as long as the quality is not diminished. He has always been able to supply us with a good dose of humour, thought-provoking take-home messages, and story progression. Once it ends, he could try to recapture some of the success of this comic, but any similar work will suffer from the '2nd season' curse. It will be measured to this story, and won't succeed in being better due to the forced comparison.

Blackrook is doing the same. This comic doesn't measure up to whatever the heck he's comparing it with, and fails in the 'brevity' category. From what I can tell about his longing for a Miko-happy-ending, he's probably a very different person from the rest of us who enjoy the provocative storyline. I'm guessing he's more into reality shows, soaps and other superficial stuff, and not so much into scifi and D&D. I'll stop myself before this rant goes on a tangent.

{SCRUBBED} It was an example of a reader expressing his disinterest with the pace of the plot. Blackrook is entitled to not like something, or to lose interest in something.
{SCRUBBED}

[Forikroder]

You are fully entitled to lose interest in "OotS" and stop reading it.

EDIT:


{SCRUBBED} It was an example of a reader expressing his disinterest with the pace of the plot. Blackrook is entitled to not like something, or to lose interest in something.

{SCRUBBED}

[Spoomeister]

I'm not quite sure what the point of this thread is.

I think the point of this thread is to obliquely refer to something that's been expressly forbidden to discuss, namely the pace of updates. It's very understandable that that's on the verboten list because most of the time it quickly devolves into pretty pointless, mean-spirited complaining. Or at the very least, not-actionable feedback.

I think it's also a natural response and a legitimate reaction, though, for the casual reader. (Even the occasional diehard reader and frequent forum reader...) I know I've had to remind myself several times over the last couple months that parts of this story will likely 'flow' better in the compilation books, and lo and behold about a half dozen comics after each time I think that, it turns out that yes, seeing a few more comics really does make earlier parts of the story hang together better.

The rest of his quibbles about favorite characters and their actions and motivations, well, different people get different things out of stories and it's hard to read much into a 3 or 4 line drive-by post. So really, the rest of his post - the Miko stuff especially - can likely be nodded at with a hearty "eh, to each their own".

Tetsujin probably summed it up best earlier.


You might try taking a break for a month or two or come back and see if your interest in the story is re-ignited. With the webcomic format, the story feels like it goes a glacial pace and it can get rather irritating. Imagine a page of a book every three or so days. It'd get quite annoying. That could be OP's problem.

[Mordokai]

he doesnt seem that bitter now

the ay i see it either A) his intense love of doing his duty continues and he has no problem being exiled (because of the great opportunity it brought) or B) he loses his love of duty and has the high priest to thank for getting him out of the stuffy dwarf society (like Hilgya)

and even if he does for some reason hate the high priest for banishing him hes not going to pull a Xykon and just start slaughtering people willy nilly hed at least talk to someone and find out that the high priest is both dead and banished him at his own volition and noone else had anything to do with it

I remember that time during the Azure City arc(incidentally, I can never again take the name of the city seriously again after playing LotSB DLC for ME2), where he writes a letter to the high priest of Thor, saying something along the lines he would like to come back after being thrown out so long ago, without even given a reason or a chance to say goodbye to his family. I don't know about you, but to me, that sounds at least a little bitter.

Then there's the On the origins of the PC's(spoilers follow, beware), where we see him immediately after his exile. He's one bitter dwarf there, after the whole tankard of moose urine incident. He's pretty much as suicidal as it gets without him taking the knife to himself and ending everything. It took Roy to pull him out of that misery. Now that he's a vampire he is evil, even if he is so far holding it in check. But when he gets back to his homeland, he might remember what happened, found WHY it happened... coupled with everything that happened since, that might push him over the edge. After all, if the high priest hadn't exiled him, he would never be turned vampire, never losing the connection to his god he values very highly. That may be enough for Durkon to snap.

[Forikroder]

I remember that time during the Azure City arc(incidentally, I can never again take the name of the city seriously again after playing LotSB DLC for ME2), where he writes a letter to the high priest of Thor, saying something along the lines he would like to come back after being thrown out so long ago, without even given a reason or a chance to say goodbye to his family. I don't know about you, but to me, that sounds at least a little bitter.

Then there's the On the origins of the PC's(spoilers follow, beware), where we see him immediately after his exile. He's one bitter dwarf there, after the whole tankard of moose urine incident. He's pretty much as suicidal as it gets without him taking the knife to himself and ending everything. It took Roy to pull him out of that misery. Now that he's a vampire he is evil, even if he is so far holding it in check. But when he gets back to his homeland, he might remember what happened, found WHY it happened... coupled with everything that happened since, that might push him over the edge. After all, if the high priest hadn't exiled him, he would never be turned vampire, never losing the connection to his god he values very highly. That may be enough for Durkon to snap.
if that happened then the only response would be "boy that escalated quickly"

regardless of how depressed he may have been at the very very very very beggining of the story (technically before the begining of the story) that does not mean that hes going to start a murder spree the second he sees a dwarf, the world is still at stake

also Durkons pretty heavily religious so he may see it all as Thor making sure he was in the right place at the right time to ensure he was where he needed to be to ensure the world remains safe

even if he got the High Priests return letter he would ahve stuck with the OoTS long enough to ensure they won

just look at his reaction to the Oracls knews, he doesnt care that hes been banished so much as hes afraid he wont get his proper burial

random massacring of people is not Durkon even if hes evil now thats way too Chaotic for Durkon to consider

if anything Durkon would raise the old high priest then vampire him and force him to live with the curse Durkon now has

[hamishspence]

I remember that time during the Azure City arc(incidentally, I can never again take the name of the city seriously again after playing LotSB DLC for ME2), where he writes a letter to the high priest of Thor, saying something along the lines he would like to come back after being thrown out so long ago, without even given a reason or a chance to say goodbye to his family. I don't know about you, but to me, that sounds at least a little bitter.

This was the strip in question:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0305.html

[Sloanzilla]

I thought the Miko arc was handled perfectly.

She was a stock fan favorite "Asian girlpower dualwielding monk!" who turned out to be a jerk.

Redeeming her or turning her into a blackguard/undead would have felt trite, IMO, but a plot somewhere in the middle felt perfect.

[King of Nowhere]

{SCRUBBED} on the other hand, I don't know if there was a better way to express those feelings.
Still, those are just personal opinions. To most of us, the pace is right, the plot is intersting, we care about the characters, and the deaths are meaningful. Whoever don't like the comic is free to go away.

[ReaderAt2046]

I consider Miko to have been a villain since she appeared and at the time of her death. Nothing about Miko indicated that she was really even Lawful Good. I know she upheld it, but the way she viewed things was never going to change. Her true nature finally showed up when she was given a good "chance" to kill her Lord, but while she thought she was doing well, she was performing a Chaotic Evil act. I don't consider Miko to have ever truly been Lawful Good but Chaotic Evil. She just confused herself for Lawful good and only performed under her true alignment in a specific way.

From the point when Miko fell, she was full-on Chaotic Evil. You can't dispute that. Miko was never going to change in any way no matter what was said. The sad thing is she was totally blind as to what alignment she was really classified as the whole time and never knew it.

I see where you're coming from when you say you were dissatisfied when Miko died and nothing about her was resolved, but that was the point. Besides, I was satisfied when Roy slammed her in the face with his greatsword and when she exploded. Great times.

Miko was a character who bordered on completely unlikeable, but she was fun to hate. She was just a side-quest villain like Tarquin, so don't expect Tarquin to change either.

.

Actually, it is physically impossible for Miko not to have been Lawful Good before her fall, simply because if she ever ceased to be Lawful Good, she would have fallen.

Also, it is perfectly possible to dispute your claim that Miko was CE after her fall. Personally, I peg her as True Neutral by reason of diminished sapience. (i.e. she's True Neutral because she can no longer tell the difference between right and wrong, like an animal).

[Sir_Leorik]

{SCRUBBED}

When I read the OP I detected a note of impatience combined with resignation. To me, Blackrook feels like a fan who no longer cares about the webcomic's direction. He's entitled to state that. {SCRUBBED}

After reading Blackrook's post, I realized that there was no way I could convince him that the webcomic is worth sticking with, so I wished him well. That is the only position any of us should take when someone announces they are quitting the comic. They have the right to do so if they don't like it, and we shouldn't accuse them of trying to stir up ill will because they no longer enjoy the comic.

[jidasfire]

{SCRUBBED} While most of the readers, as people inclined to pop up on a forum, are not likely to feel that way, that doesn't mean any opposition must be regarded with antagonism or paranoia.

That said, I respectfully take issue with some of the original points. The idea that the only way a story is worthwhile is if members of the core ensemble must be killed off is a somewhat frustrating disease of modern fiction. The fact that Rich still has the core six around in one form or another is not a bad thing. He has stories he wants to tell with them, in which they grow, and change, and quite often suffer massive setbacks. Let's not forget, death is not the only bad thing that can happen to a protagonist. Haley's voice was gone a long time. Belkar had the Mark of Justice awhile too. Roy was dead for a whole book. These were major setbacks which heavily impacted the story, perhaps positively in the long run. Just because we're only seeing the beginning of Dukon's change doesn't mean there won't be ramifications. I expect there will. It's just that the team's a little busy for that right now.

Perhaps we know the heroes will win in the end, but why is that a bad thing? Do you really want to read a story where everything is for nothing? I hear people say this a lot and I will never understand it. Given how stacked the deck is against the Order, between an unbeatable army and their leaders, a teamup of an epic sorceror lich and a goblin high priest, a fiendish conspiracy, and a god-killing eldtrich being, I am of the mind that if Mr. Burlew can pull off making their victory seem believable, then he's done just fine.

Anyway, if, despite all that, the story's not working for you, just remember that the world is full of other stuff, and you'll probably enjoy something out there. So don't stress too much.

[Sloanzilla]

{SCRUBBED}

PRESS RELEASE! FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE!

I've become sort of tired of the show "Modern Family" and may or may not be watching this season. I'm sure this is very important information to you and please stay tuned for future developments.

[Forikroder]

Actually, it is physically impossible for Miko not to have been Lawful Good before her fall, simply because if she ever ceased to be Lawful Good, she would have fallen.

Also, it is perfectly possible to dispute your claim that Miko was CE after her fall. Personally, I peg her as True Neutral by reason of diminished sapience. (i.e. she's True Neutral because she can no longer tell the difference between right and wrong, like an animal).

theres no way she ever took a step away from lawful, lawful neutral at the most extreme

[Dwy]

Happens to me occasionally too. Last time either in Bleedingham or that town with the cart of gophers. My strategy is tuning out for a time, then reading until some development in the story gets me hooked again.

[sengmeng]

theres no way she ever took a step away from lawful, lawful neutral at the most extreme

Executing someone without a trial is lawful? Or did she kill Shojo in self-defense?

[marq]

{SCRUBBED}

PRESS RELEASE! FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE!

I've become sort of tired of the show "Modern Family" and may or may not be watching this season. I'm sure this is very important information to you and please stay tuned for future developments.

PRESS RELEASE! FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE!

Don't like what he posted? Don't read it or respond to it. The power is yours!

(Not fun when someone dismisses your POV, is it?)

[FlawedParadigm]

{SCRUBBED}

[Elanorea]

I strongly disagree. her alignment could be seen as Chaotic Good, but the way she acted was easily Chaotic Evil from how I see it. Her fight with Hinjo very well displayed her personality in the open. Her intensely hateful expression mixed with the relentless swinging of her swords solidifies what she really is - evil. She would have made a great Death Knight. In fact, it could explore her mind a little more in a pretty interesting way.

:miko: - I'm a Death Knight!? My gods will never trust me now! *murderous rampage with conflicting thoughts to the extreme*
Yeah, I'm not seeing it. The comic doesn't always follow D&D rules to the letter but the possibility of non-LG paladins is a pretty damn big departure that I would expect to be explicitly stated at some point if it were true.

So I'd say she was definitely LG before her fall, and possibly up until her death - falling from paladinhood (again, assuming that we're following D&D rules here) requires a lot less than changing alignment.

And I have no idea at all where you're getting Chaotic from. Swinging her weapon too wildly? Come on. Miko was far more strongly Lawful than Good, in my opinion.

[Kish]

{SCRUBBED}
{SCRUBBED}

[luc258]

Well, there are two more books, which supposedly will be larger than the first few. So it is not over for a couple of years.
I'm very curious how the snarl turns out, what the planet in the rift is and what the IFCC really wants.

[zimmerwald1915]

which supposedly will be larger than the first few
What makes you think that? Just because this book has been longer than any previous book doesn't mean the next book will be just as long.

[marq]

What makes you think that? Just because this book has been longer than any previous book doesn't mean the next book will be just as long.

Rich said something to the effect of the last book would resolve everything even if it was as big as a doorstop, if I recall (there's a thread you can check for it and everything!).

Doesn't mean it WILL be long, but it's a safer bet than it being the shortest book of all.

[Sloanzilla]

PRESS RELEASE! FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE!

Don't like what he posted? Don't read it or respond to it. The power is yours!

(Not fun when someone dismisses your POV, is it?)

Actually, it would be irrelevant.
Also, your post makes no sense, as you imply someone should not respond to a point that he or she does not like. Making an out of the blue declaration that you may or may not be viewing something is always worth a measure of scorn.

That's the second time someone has attempted to turn my snark back on my with the same type of response. I sincerely appreciate the attempts, but you guys should come up with your own snark.

[factotum]

Executing someone without a trial is lawful? Or did she kill Shojo in self-defense?

Not this old argument. Comes up *every* time the issue of lawfulness is raised. Lawfulness does *not* mean "obeys the law". Someone who spends all their life living by a rigid code that just so happens to be opposed in every element to the law of the country they live in is still Lawful--Lawful to the extreme, in fact, because they're probably holding to their code despite persecution from the local authorities because of it.

In this case, Miko's personal code is to smite evil in all its forms, and her "revelation" from the Gods showed her that Shojo was pretty much the centre of the Evil afflicting Azure City. We know she was a misguided nutjob in believing that, but to Miko's mind, it made perfect sense--Shojo was Evil, so she killed him. She never became the slightest bit less Lawful by so doing, although her Good credentials (which were shaky to start with) probably took a beating.

[littlebum2002]

Let me try and get this straight:

You're mad that your favorite villains are dying, and

You're mad that the main characters aren't.

So basically what you're saying is, to fix this strip, the villains need to kill off the main characters?

[hamishspence]

In this case, Miko's personal code is to smite evil in all its forms, and her "revelation" from the Gods showed her that Shojo was pretty much the centre of the Evil afflicting Azure City. We know she was a misguided nutjob in believing that, but to Miko's mind, it made perfect sense--Shojo was Evil, so she killed him. She never became the slightest bit less Lawful by so doing, although her Good credentials (which were shaky to start with) probably took a beating.

The Giant has discussed "personal code" Lawfulness: and explains that such characters are held to a much higher standard if they wish to stay Lawful:



In my personal interpretation of Lawfulness in D&D, I believe that yes, it is possible to be Lawful using a personal code rather than the societal definitions of law and order. However, I believe that the burden of upholding that code has to be much stricter than that of the average person in order to actually qualify as Lawful. You must be willing to suffer personal detriment through adhesion to your code, without wavering, if you want to wear the Lawful hat.

Because almost everyone has a personal code of some sort; Robin Hood had a personal code, and he's the poster child for Chaotic Good. The reason his code doesn't rise to the level of Lawful is that he would be willing to bend it in a pinch. And since he's already bucking all the societal traditions of his civilization, there are no additional penalties or punishments for him breaking his own code. He's unlikely to beat himself up if he needs to violate his own principles for the Greater Good; he'll justify it to himself as doing what needed to be done, maybe sigh wistfully once, and then get on with his next adventure.

Conversely, a Lawful character who obeys society's traditions has a ready-made source of punishment should he break those standards. If such a character does stray, she can maintain her Lawfulness by submitting to the proper authorities for judgment. Turning yourself in effectively atones for the breaking of the code, undoing (or at least mitigating) the non-Lawful act.

A Lawful character who operates strictly by a personal code, on the other hand, is responsible for punishing herself in the event of a breach of that code. If she waves it off as doing what needed to be done, then she is not Lawful, she's Neutral at the least. If she does it enough, she may even become Chaotic. A truly Lawful character operating on a personal code will suffer through deeply unpleasant situations in order to uphold it, and will take steps to punish themselves if they don't (possibly going as far as to commit honorable suicide).

People think that using the "personal code" option makes life as a Lawful character easier. It shouldn't. It should be harder to maintain an entirely self-directed personal code than it is to subscribe to the code of an existing country or organization. This is one of the reasons that most Lawful characters follow an external code. It is not required, no, but it is much, much easier. Exceptions should be unusual and noteworthy. It should be an exceptional roleplaying challenge to take on the burden of holding yourself to a strict code even when there are no external penalties for failing.

So as far as vigilantism goes, if a character has a specific pre-established personal code that involves personally punishing those who commit offenses, then yes, they could still be Lawful. Most characters do not have such a code; most characters simply follow general ideas of their alignment on a case-by-case basis. Certainly none of the characters in OOTS have such a code except perhaps for Miko. And we all saw what a slippery slope that turned out to be.

[ReaderAt2046]

Executing someone without a trial is lawful? Or did she kill Shojo in self-defense?


Not this old argument. Comes up *every* time the issue of lawfulness is raised. Lawfulness does *not* mean "obeys the law". Someone who spends all their life living by a rigid code that just so happens to be opposed in every element to the law of the country they live in is still Lawful--Lawful to the extreme, in fact, because they're probably holding to their code despite persecution from the local authorities because of it.

In this case, Miko's personal code is to smite evil in all its forms, and her "revelation" from the Gods showed her that Shojo was pretty much the centre of the Evil afflicting Azure City. We know she was a misguided nutjob in believing that, but to Miko's mind, it made perfect sense--Shojo was Evil, so she killed him. She never became the slightest bit less Lawful by so doing, although her Good credentials (which were shaky to start with) probably took a beating.

Also, even more importantly, it is extremely rare that one action is sufficient to change a character's alignment. Alignment is determined by the average of a character's actions, and the average of a thousand Lawful actions and one Chaotic action is still lawful.

[hamishspence]

True for normal Lawful characters- but maybe not for ones who believe themselves "above the law" and are all about their own personal code:


A Lawful character who operates strictly by a personal code, on the other hand, is responsible for punishing herself in the event of a breach of that code. If she waves it off as doing what needed to be done, then she is not Lawful, she's Neutral at the least. If she does it enough, she may even become Chaotic. A truly Lawful character operating on a personal code will suffer through deeply unpleasant situations in order to uphold it, and will take steps to punish themselves if they don't (possibly going as far as to commit honorable suicide).

[Cizak]

Godwin's Law, Giant in the Playground Forum Variant: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a derailment involving Miko approaches 1."

[hamishspence]

Godwin's Law, Giant in the Playground Forum Variant: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a derailment involving Miko approaches 1."

Miko was part of the OP's first post:



Also, I think Miko should have been allowed to redeem herself. Her death, without redemption, left a bad taste in my mouth.

so it's not exactly a derailment.

[zimmerwald1915]

Godwin's Law, Giant in the Playground Forum Variant: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a derailment involving Miko approaches 1."
Godwin's Law, recursive variant:
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of someone characterizing some development of said discussion as a manifestation of Godwin's Law approaches 1."

[137beth]

Godwin's Law, variation variant:
"As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of someone defining a new variation of Godwin's Law approaches 1."

[Fearabbit]

I remember reading threads like these back when the OotS was lost in the desert and didn't know where Girard's pyramid was (before they met Tarquin).
People thought the Giant didn't know where to go with this comic after the big Azure City thing and the aftermath of it.

It's funny because I recently re-read the comic, and that part people complained about is only like 5 or 6 strips long. It goes by in less than a minute, and it's funny. It's not bad quality at all. It takes very few strips from arriving at the Western Continent to getting to the Empire of Blood, and they're full of funny and awesome stuff.

All I want to say is... if you feel bored, it's probably because you don't get new reading material as fast as you'd like, and you kind of forget what a fast-paced story this is.
And right now, things are getting more and more exciting. So do stick around, re-read the comics, remember how awesome they are and how much you love these characters. :smallwink:

[zimmerwald1915]

And right now, things are getting more and more exciting. So do stick around, re-read the comics, remember how awesome they are and how much you love these characters. :smallwink:
Eh, the comic is perfectly enjoyable even if one finds the characters variously indifferent or abhorrent.

[marq]

Actually, it would be irrelevant.
Also, your post makes no sense, as you imply someone should not respond to a point that he or she does not like. Making an out of the blue declaration that you may or may not be viewing something is always worth a measure of scorn.

{SCRUBBED}
Personally, I think he makes some good points, though I completely disagree. I haven't been this engaged in the story in a long while. It is definitely picking up the plot pace, though if this plotline will resolve before the end of the story, I'm going to be quite happy, since there's a lot of things that I want to see the characters react to, which won't really happen in the middle of a climactic battle.

ESPECIALLY because I have a really good idea of where the story is going, and I want to know if I'm right!


{SCRUBBED}

{SCRUBBED}

[FlawedParadigm]

{SCRUBBED}

[Knaight]

I did make a small mention of why good stories are generally long: The story and characters are deepened, making people fond of it all. Perhaps reluctant to let go, because good entertainment is always addictive. I'm not saddened when ChristianSt mentioned that the story arc might be another 500-1000 strips long, though somehow I feel it will be less than 300.

However, there are also plenty of examples where a story drags on for far longer than it needs to, where an editor would have been highly helpful (e.g. Wheel of Time), and plenty of examples of short stories that are nonetheless extremely good (e.g. Flowers for Algernon). The "too long" criticism makes perfect sense, as it obviously refers to the excessive stretching of content beyond where it fits or the inclusion of content that is detrimental to the work as a whole.

I wouldn't put OotS in that category, but dismissing the entire concept of "too long" seems questionable.

[MtlGuy]

There's no accounting for taste, so I'm not going to argue that one is right or wrong for having an interest or not in OOTS. What you are describing is the idea of OOTS "jumping the shark" (Happy Days reference meaning the point in which a show has hit its creative peak and will only decline in quality thereafter). I do not believe OOTS has jumped the Shark. I fully expect more 'omg!' moments like Xykon's bouncy ball w/ symbol of insanity or Malack's vampire identity.

I think the art and story have really hit their stride. There's been some great character growth all around lately. The beach party wallpaper makes me feel that the characters are well defined enough that they can be transposed into other themes and settings with positive results.

When the story is being delivered at a rate of 1-3 pages a week, accompanied by a lot of rampant speculation as to the direction it may then take it becomes difficult to grasp the bigger picture. There was an interview with Mr. Burlew where he described the challenge of writing and delivering a story in such a way.

Let's say you do stop reading, so what? It's not like you couldn't start reading it again, and bonus for you, every week in between those decisions only heaps a greater horde of comics to peruse.

As for Durkon, there has been too much action without pause for anyone to seriously reflect or discuss his transformation beyond "can we work with him in this crisis". I'd welcom an examination on the Durkon that was and now is.

[Fish]

Blackrook shouldn't read this if he doesn't enjoy it. It isn't homework.

On the other hand, if he feels compelled to tell us he doesn't enjoy it, I can only wonder why. I shan't convince him to enjoy it, if he doesn't. I shan't talk him out of taking a break, if he chooses. It is not my place to tell him he's wrong for not liking something. And Rich is very unlikely to rewrite the story so Miko and Nale are brought back (if that was not already the plan).

[Kish]

I find myself wondering if the name Blackrook refers to the normal feather color of a certain species of bird, or a specific chess piece.

[Bulldog Psion]

Skipping it for a while and coming back seems like the possibly best option. Of course, it's entirely up to the OP, though.

[TriForce]

gotta love those people who only make 1 post, make it a very dissaproving one with flimsy reasoning, and then are never heard from again, not even in their own thread :P makes me wonder if people actually take this seriously. i for one, find it hard to do so

[snikrept]

gotta love those people who only make 1 post, make it a very dissaproving one with flimsy reasoning, and then are never heard from again, not even in their own thread :P makes me wonder if people actually take this seriously. i for one, find it hard to do so

Posting that one is leaving and then actually leaving seems to me more sincere than posting that one is leaving and then hanging around to argue about it.

[Blackrook]

I've read all your responses, and I have to say, the reason I posted is because I felt some honest criticism was a fair balance to all the fanboy squeals I see every time the Giant puts up a new comic. The thing is, its only a fictional story and people are acting like these are real people, and getting angry at them.

For example, there was this one person who was going on about how we all had a duty to hate Tarquin because he's a meta-character and he WANTS us to like him despite the fact that he's a villain. And this person was being totally serious.

To explain myself, I just discovered this comic a few weeks ago. I read the first 900 comics over a weekend, and now I'm stuck reading them one at a time like the rest of you. So the death of Miko is not six years ago for me, it JUST HAPPENED.

Miko, to me, represents a person that I relate to, stuck in a world that doesn't meet up to her ideals, so she feels out of place, and the world makes no sense to her. She is not a villain, she is a good person who can't cope with the evil in the world that overwhelms her. But she is still good. She believed she was saving her people from an evil conspirator when she killed Shojo, she did not kill him because she was evil, she killed him because she is good. But she was wrong on her facts, and for her mistake, the gods punished her. And I didn't think that was fair. And to make things worse, she died and they didn't forgive her.

When I referred to the death of villains I like, I'm referring to the cute little thaumaturgist who used to hang out with Xykon. She was such a tragic character, thinking she could get love from undead, because the world of the living had done nothing but reject her. Here's another character that all she needed was love, and she could have been redeemed. Instead she was killed off and all hope is lost.

I understand that the author is doing this on purpose, avoiding the normal tropes, but I don't have to like it when a sympathetic character dies without redemption. I am a very big believer in redemption. I'm not saying all characters deserve redemption, but Miko and the thamaturgist did. That's all I'm saying.

Finally, I don't understand the hostility I've gotten from some of you. Is there a rule on this forum that only fanboy slobbering over the comic and how great it is can be posted here? My words of criticism were very mild. Overall, I enjoy the strip. All I'm saying is I'd like to see some wrap-up, sooner rather than later.

[Poppatomus]

Miko, to me, represents a person that I relate to, stuck in a world that doesn't meet up to her ideals, so she feels out of place, and the world makes no sense to her. She is not a villain, she is a good person who can't cope with the evil in the world that overwhelms her. But she is still good. She believed she was saving her people from an evil conspirator when she killed Shojo, she did not kill him because she was evil, she killed him because she is good. But she was wrong on her facts, and for her mistake, the gods punished her. And I didn't think that was fair. And to make things worse, she died and they didn't forgive her.


One thing I would note, that I think the story is trying to highlight, is the difference between an evil person and an evil action. Allowing her rage to get the better of her, ignoring the advice of those around her, even those she had no reason not to trust, and giving in to the base instinct to "solve" her problems through murder, even though other options were available, was an evil action. The D&D rule, when it comes to paladins, is that one evil action ends your time as a Paladin.

Likewise, I think that her death is meant to evoke exactly that feeling. It did for me. I expected her to either become a villain or be redeemed, likely through actions off-screen. I think her death was meant, in part, to symbolize for the audience the cost of the battle, which wasn't just in lives, but in opportunities to live.



I am a very big believer in redemption. I'm not saying all characters deserve redemption, but Miko and the thamaturgist did. That's all I'm saying.


I am interested in why you think that the thaumaturgist deserved redemption. I agree that her last seen showed a potential for redemption, but I don't think she'd done anything to earn it, or even indicate that she wanted it. She wanted love, yes, but she seems to have wanted it only on her terms, and regardless of the harm to others.

It reminds me of something that the Giant once said about Belkar, (or at least that the forum says he said) explaining why he hadn't provided a backstory for the character. He said, if I recall correctly, that part of the issue was that he wanted the character to be evil, rather than broken, to make it harder for people to excuse his casual murder and generally uncaring attitude by saying it wasn't his fault.



Finally, I don't understand the hostility I've gotten from some of you. Is there a rule on this forum that only fanboy slobbering over the comic and how great it is can be posted here? My words of criticism were very mild. Overall, I enjoy the strip. All I'm saying is I'd like to see some wrap-up, sooner rather than later.

I will admit, I had a similar reaction at first. I think it's because me, and many of the other old fogies around here (whether in real years or comic years), assume that everyone has been reading for so long and thus has the same largely revereant and obsessive approach to the strip. This leads to forgetting that people hit these kinds of walls, and genuinely want to discuss issues like this. (that and the fact that the internet is just a suspicious kind of place)

The transition from reading the archives to reading the updates is a rough one, especially if it happens at a more transitional time like this. others here have said that the Giant primarily plots things out for books, rather than for the weekly comic. It may be that, given your tastes, you'd be better off waiting for the stories in complete chunks, as some others have suggested.

[Jasdoif]

When I referred to the death of villains I like, I'm referring to the cute little thaumaturgist who used to hang out with Xykon. She was such a tragic character, thinking she could get love from undead, because the world of the living had done nothing but reject her. Here's another character that all she needed was love, and she could have been redeemed. Instead she was killed off and all hope is lost.I have to ask, how were you expecting a redemption arc for Tsukiko to have gone? I mean, among her very first actions in the strip (if not the first action of hers in the strip) was to ask to join Xykon's side (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0446.html) to "be evil"; so it seems she was happy enough to get there. What kind of person/events do you think would inspire her to reverse that decision and ultimately be redeemed?

[Haluesen]

I've read all your responses, and I have to say, the reason I posted is because I felt some honest criticism was a fair balance to all the fanboy squeals I see every time the Giant puts up a new comic. The thing is, its only a fictional story and people are acting like these are real people, and getting angry at them.

I gotta admit, I've been lurking in this thread for a while and wondering if you were going to be back. And now that you have, I gotta say I am very glad you wrote this. I didn't know at first why you were writing what you were writing. It seemed like a direct notice of displeasure with the comic and then nothing else. But now with a bit more explanation I can see what you mean, and I really don't blame you. I admit that I am a fanboyish person for all this, but mostly because I have seen so many complaints about the comic and bickering about this and that, that it seems there are more people here with issues than with just gratitude to the work the Giant puts into this. I was ready to write you off as just another person whining. I'm very glad I didn't.


For example, there was this one person who was going on about how we all had a duty to hate Tarquin because he's a meta-character and he WANTS us to like him despite the fact that he's a villain. And this person was being totally serious.

Yeah, people here can be a little obsessive. I like the characters, or hate this or that one, and experience emotion toward them. But I believe that it should be tempered. Some people just go a little too crazy with it.


To explain myself, I just discovered this comic a few weeks ago. I read the first 900 comics over a weekend, and now I'm stuck reading them one at a time like the rest of you. So the death of Miko is not six years ago for me, it JUST HAPPENED.

I went through it a bit similarly, suddenly discovering the comic and reading it all at once. But yeah Miko around here seems to be more a sore spot than anything else. Even after six years talking about her is always controversial. I wish I could say something better, but that's just how people in the Playground always are I guess.


Miko, to me, represents a person that I relate to, stuck in a world that doesn't meet up to her ideals, so she feels out of place, and the world makes no sense to her. She is not a villain, she is a good person who can't cope with the evil in the world that overwhelms her. But she is still good. She believed she was saving her people from an evil conspirator when she killed Shojo, she did not kill him because she was evil, she killed him because she is good. But she was wrong on her facts, and for her mistake, the gods punished her. And I didn't think that was fair. And to make things worse, she died and they didn't forgive her.

When I referred to the death of villains I like, I'm referring to the cute little thaumaturgist who used to hang out with Xykon. She was such a tragic character, thinking she could get love from undead, because the world of the living had done nothing but reject her. Here's another character that all she needed was love, and she could have been redeemed. Instead she was killed off and all hope is lost.

Hmm I don't think I can give my full views on these two, but in the hopes of polite and direct discussion I shall try a bit.

On some level I feel you are correct about Miko. She was honestly someone who tried to be Good, it's just that she was in some ways very flawed, and in the end too flawed to sustain herself. I don't really have any fervent hate in her or any real liking either. She was an interesting character, and a good device for portraying a certain (rather annoying) type of player in D&D. Maybe she could have earned redemption, but Soon's last words pretty much hit the nail on the head. She never acknowledged that she could be wrong, that what she did was wrong, and killing her benevolent lord was, no matter what he had done. After that, it goes too much into speculation and moral debate, which I shall not engage in here.

And Tsukiko...well yeah what she wanted was to be loved, and who doesn't? It is a desire that is easy to sympathize with. But she also wasn't a good person. She had no problems with murdering and tormenting others and desecrating their bodies. These are bad things, and she showed no remorse for them. Maybe I could see as a best case scenario her going off to just live happily ever after with her undead, leaving the living alone and them not bothering her in return, but a redemption arc for her wouldn't have made much sense, because she never showed any signs of thinking she had to be redeemed.


Finally, I don't understand the hostility I've gotten from some of you. Is there a rule on this forum that only fanboy slobbering over the comic and how great it is can be posted here? My words of criticism were very mild. Overall, I enjoy the strip. All I'm saying is I'd like to see some wrap-up, sooner rather than later.

It isn't that, but I will say you put your first post a little crudely, and it did seem more like a direct attack at the comic because you didn't like it rather than an entreaty for conversing. I at first did think it was just someone looking to stir up trouble. And I will say I am deeply sorry for assuming that way immediately. I agree with the others that maybe you should take some time from the comic and come back later, see what happens. But if you are waiting for a conclusion, you have a long while to wait. That's just how that is. Though I do hope you will keep reading, and not take what some people say too much to heart.

[ti'esar]

While I can agree that Tarquin thing was beyond absurd, it's hard to understand why you're arguing that people should take the characters less seriously when this entire thread is about your intention to quit the comic because you don't like what's happened to some of the characters.

[BroomGuys]

I understand that the author is doing this on purpose, avoiding the normal tropes, but I don't have to like it when a sympathetic character dies without redemption. I am a very big believer in redemption. I'm not saying all characters deserve redemption, but Miko and the thamaturgist did. That's all I'm saying.

This is kind of a tricky thing. You wanted Miko to be redeemed, but then before she got the chance, she died. Perhaps if she had more time... But then again, perhaps not. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0464.html) Sometimes life just ain't fair, and it's really sad.

So the tricky part is, when you say you don't like that Miko died before she could be redeemed, it could (and probably does) mean two things: one, that what you wanted to happen didn't happen, and two, that it makes you dislike the story because it didn't happen. The first is part of what makes the scene work so well, while the second is heavily tied to your personal reaction to it. I gather that you want a critical discussion of the comic to result from this, so let me ask you: why do you think that Miko's lack of redemption is not only disappointing to you, but also hurts the story? I hope this question gets to the crux of what you wanted to talk about.


Finally, I don't understand the hostility I've gotten from some of you. Is there a rule on this forum that only fanboy slobbering over the comic and how great it is can be posted here? My words of criticism were very mild. Overall, I enjoy the strip. All I'm saying is I'd like to see some wrap-up, sooner rather than later.

I agree that hostility toward your original post is a bit of an overreaction, but the sentence in bold (my emphasis) is really unfair. It should come as no surprise that a lot of people disagree with you here--people typically register for accounts precisely because they're huge fans of the comic--but people near-categorically disagreeing with you is not tantamount to disallowing you from expressing your opinion. Lighten up a bit; even if you're met with unfair hostility, it will pretty much never help your case to be hostile back, and the phrase "fanboy slobbering" has a modicum of hostility embedded in it, eh?

[coineineagh]

{SCRUBBED}

[allenw]

This is kind of a tricky thing. You wanted Miko to be redeemed, but then before she got the chance, she died. Perhaps if she had more time... But then again, perhaps not. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0464.html) Sometimes life just ain't fair, and it's really sad.

I kind of think that, in her very last moments, Miko *was* redeemed. Not as a Paladin, maybe not even as "Good", but as a person. Enough to coax a brief smile out of Soon, in any case.

[BroomGuys]

I kind of think that, in her very last moments, Miko *was* redeemed. Not as a Paladin, maybe not even as "Good", but as a person. Enough to coax a brief smile out of Soon, in any case.

I heartily agree with this interpretation.

[Scowling Dragon]

I agree that this dogpiling is wrong. Its NEVER right too dogpile until the person is upset and then get angry at him for that. People overreacted.

However I disagree with all of your reasoning for the reasons mentioned above.

[KillianHawkeye]

Dungeons and Dragons has a ton of material for parody and we've already seen a Moogle, Locke, Terra, and even Sephiroth in this comic too so the material that could be parodied is nigh-boundless.

Not to change the subject or anything, but when was Sephiroth ever in the comic? Do you mean Setzer?

[Nachoman_Randy]

8-Bit Theater was longer than this currently is and was only based off of one particular game, and that comic was awesome. I still need to re-read it. Dungeons and Dragons has a ton of material for parody and we've already seen a Moogle, Locke, Terra, and even Sephiroth in this comic too so the material that could be parodied is nigh-boundless. If you don't like the supposed big bads of this comic, which I sort of don't that much either since they barely exist anymore, just wait; I don't think those two will prove to be the big bads anyways.

Comic-wise, OotS isn't long compared to some others. Homestuck (which I can't stand) is well over 10,000+ strips I believe and no one seems to be getting sick of reading about grey people who wear candy corn horns.

I do agree with you on the grounds that the villains aren't particularly interesting, and also that we should probably move on, but what's being written is being written. As one said above "just come back later". Even so, you shouldn't leave permanently. Your speculations are not things set in stone like Belkar's Death, which I still don't quite see as being what we think it will be.

Whatever. That was my two cents; it's up to you to leave, I just don't think you should since it's actually starting to pick back up.

EDIT: I just remember your Miko opinion. Here's my say on that topic -

I consider Miko to have been a villain since she appeared and at the time of her death. Nothing about Miko indicated that she was really even Lawful Good. I know she upheld it, but the way she viewed things was never going to change. Her true nature finally showed up when she was given a good "chance" to kill her Lord, but while she thought she was doing well, she was performing a Chaotic Evil act. I don't consider Miko to have ever truly been Lawful Good but Chaotic Evil. She just confused herself for Lawful good and only performed under her true alignment in a specific way.

From the point when Miko fell, she was full-on Chaotic Evil. You can't dispute that. Miko was never going to change in any way no matter what was said. The sad thing is she was totally blind as to what alignment she was really classified as the whole time and never knew it.

I see where you're coming from when you say you were dissatisfied when Miko died and nothing about her was resolved, but that was the point. Besides, I was satisfied when Roy slammed her in the face with his greatsword and when she exploded. Great times.

Miko was a character who bordered on completely unlikeable, but she was fun to hate. She was just a side-quest villain like Tarquin, so don't expect Tarquin to change either.

As far as villains go, Redcloak is easily the one who shows the most change. He freaked out when I realized he was sending hobgoblins to their death and went in in a very heroic way on a summoned mount. Xykon? No. He will never change at all. He's just a weapon with some witty things to say. Not exactly BBEG material, which goes back to what I say about Reddy and Xykon not being the main villains... Xykon is just a witty weapon and Redcloak is too weak to be the main villain.

Miko was never chaotic evil, she went to the lawful good plane. Remember Soon said her paladin mount was waiting for her.

She was a problematic person, to be sure. But she made only one evil act and died soon afther. You don't become evil just like that, Is a whole process.

[Zerter]

I like the Order of the Stick a lot as compared to other webcomics. But I do not read any other webcomic because they suck a lot.

I get what you mean, for me it is not so much the pacing as The Giant coming on this forum and explaining every little thing that happens. At first I thought it was interesting, but now it really kills any tension to have read his views and know that the story will end well (in general), bad guys will be punished or how to look at Tarquin. Obviously I can (and do at times) stay away from the forums, but when no comic goes up for a week it is fun to troll people about stuff instead.

I would not get bothered by people being hostile to you. If they have this intense reaction to any critical thinking, just imagine their lives and pity them.

[tomandtish]

I've read all your responses, and I have to say, the reason I posted is because I felt some honest criticism was a fair balance to all the fanboy squeals I see every time the Giant puts up a new comic. The thing is, it's only a fictional story and people are acting like these are real people, and getting angry at them.

For example, there was this one person who was going on about how we all had a duty to hate Tarquin because he's a meta-character and he WANTS us to like him despite the fact that he's a villain. And this person was being totally serious.

To explain myself, I just discovered this comic a few weeks ago. I read the first 900 comics over a weekend, and now I'm stuck reading them one at a time like the rest of you. So the death of Miko is not six years ago for me, it JUST HAPPENED.

Unfortunately, it seems that two of your favorites were supporting characters. Major supporting characters for their arcs, but supporting characters nevertheless. As a result, exploring redemption for them was never really in the cards. You complained about the pacing of the story, but a redemption arc for either of them would make this story even longer. And that assumes either of these characters even recognizes the possibility of redemption.


Miko, to me, represents a person that I relate to, stuck in a world that doesn't meet up to her ideals, so she feels out of place, and the world makes no sense to her. She is not a villain, she is a good person who can't cope with the evil in the world that overwhelms her. But she is still good. She believed she was saving her people from an evil conspirator when she killed Shojo, she did not kill him because she was evil, she killed him because she is good. But she was wrong on her facts, and for her mistake, the gods punished her. And I didn't think that was fair. And to make things worse, she died and they didn't forgive her.

Miko's always struck me as someone who was always on the verge of falling anyway. She was supremely convinced of her own righteousness regardless of any other viewpoint. Then she killed Shojo. An old defenseless man offering no violence or resistance when there was a legal system in place that she was supposed to uphold as well. In addition, he is her leader and Hinjo (next in line for leader) is telling her to stand down. In short, she breaks her Paladin's code and falls. And as Hinjo says, that might not be the end of her world. Her falling is as clear a wakeup call as anyone could ask for that she's gone too far. The atonement spell exists, and if she's willing to realize she made a bad call and atone, she can redeem herself.

Except Miko is either unable or unwilling to do this. Throughout the rest of her life we never get any recognition that she's made a mistake. Some say she's so mentally ill at this point that she can't be held liable, but it's still perfectly in character for her, so that can't be taken as a given. Even at the very end there's no acknowledgement of the possibility that she made an error. To be redeemed you first have to be able to admit that you've done something you need to be redeemed for. She can't, so redemption isn't an option for her.

It's always fascinating how people can draw such different interpretations of a character. You're upset that they didn't forgive her and accept her back. I can't understand how they accepted her (as a Paladin) in the first place.


When I referred to the death of villains I like, I'm referring to the cute little thaumaturgist who used to hang out with Xykon. She was such a tragic character, thinking she could get love from undead, because the world of the living had done nothing but reject her. Here's another character that all she needed was love, and she could have been redeemed. Instead she was killed off and all hope is lost.

We seem to have different interpretations here, because to me it seems you are confusing cause and effect. My impression was that the living world has always rejected her because she "loves" the undead, not that she loves the undead because the living world rejects her. But more importantly, like Miko there's no acknowledgement that she ever made the wrong choice. Even at the end she's confused and doesn't understand, but still tries to reason with them. She has a blind spot the size of Xykon's ego when it comes to the undead and as long as she refused to recognize what they really were, she was never going to have a chance to really be loved. I do agree that in some ways her story is a little more tragic because she was looking for love, but it was doomed from the start and she couldn't see it. Redemption would require her to admit that, and I don't think she was capable of that.

Interestingly, why those two particular characters? There are three main characters with the potential for redemption arcs:

V: Looking for redemption for Familicide. Will he get it? Unknown. Of the three he's the one most likely to actively seek it.

Redcloak: May end up deciding that the plan is no longer worth the cost to the goblin people, especially if he comes to believe that they are operating from a false premise. Goblintopia is created, so a possible sacrifice to protect his new nation?

Belkar: Not necessarily redemption as such, but he's trying to play the game. Does he play it so well that he shifts into CN alignment, esp. if he goes out in a blaze a heroic glory at the end?

I don't know if some, all, or none of these would happen, but the possibilities are there. So why do those two particularly draw you in and not the others? I really am curious.

[Paseo H]

I kind of felt that Miko redeemed herself ever so slightly at the end.

Not enough to make her a paladin again or even be properly Lawful Good again, but enough that she was finally beginning to realize that her mindset and everything she had done was extremely wrong.

After all, the Miko we'd seen before? She would have accused Soon of being some sort of baatezu/tanar'ri imposter pretending to be a ghost paladin and trying to divert her from her holy cause.

But at the end, she was finally beginning to surrender to reality.

That counts for something, in my book.

[The Giant]

OK, first, like half of you are violating the rules by calling the OP a troll or various other insults. The fact that it hasn't been dealt with before now in no way changes the rules, we're just a little short-staffed on the moderation team right now. Expect infractions.

Second, if anyone doesn't like the current direction of the comic, they have every right to express that. Here, even. It's a discussion forum for the comic, they can discuss the comic. Telling them not to do so is also against our rules.

But third, to Blackrook: I'm sorry you don't care for the comic, but I'm not exactly going to give your opinion very much weight. Not because you're a new reader, per se; new readers are important to me and the health of the comic. But the fact that you just discovered it and that your main points of contention occurred so far in the comic's past means that I have very little reason to believe that you ever actually liked my comic, really. You may have just powered through the archive because it was there. If you can't keep interest in my characters for a few weeks, then I think maybe my writing style just isn't for you. And there's nothing wrong with that. I'm just not about to actually do anything about it. People discover, read, and decide they don't like my comic probably every day, and I can't waste time chasing their approval.

So, again: Sorry you didn't like it, but that's the way it is. I'm sure there are other comics out there that you will enjoy better.

[The Giant]

I'm temporarily locking this thread to deal with the infractions so that people don't self-delete their posts. I will re-open it when I'm done.

[The Giant]

OK, I've done a lot of scrubbing. I'm going to tentatively re-open this, but if anyone says the word "troll" again, they're getting banned. And if the whole thread doesn't get more productive in terms of an actual conversation, I'll re-lock it.

[orrion]

I'm finding it hard to care anymore about these characters. Things should have been wrapped up by now, but the story drags on and on.

Also, the Giant keeps killing off my favorite villains.

Also, I think Miko should have been allowed to redeem herself. Her death, without redemption, left a bad taste in my mouth.

Anyway, the there's no chance that the main six characters are going to die, so the comic lacks any sense of danger. Durkon's death lacks any meaning, because even as a vampire, he's the same lawful good dwarf.

I don't know, I might keep reading, but I may lose interest and do something else.

2 questions for you -

1) How can you call the comic predictable (in that you think the 6 main characters have immunity) and then in the same breath berate the comic for not going the predictable route with Miko?

2) What do you say to the long established and highly anticipated death of Belkar?

And for the heck of it, a 3rd question:

3) How is the (supposed) lack of danger different from any other fantasy story you've ever read? Don't tell me you picked up Harry Potter with the slightest expectation of Harry ever dying.

[Leirus]

Lol. You say you read the nine hundred first strips over one weekend?

I think you are just getting impatient. Wait a couple of months and come back then.

The good thing about the Giant is how he makes you care about the characters. Tsukiko, Miko, Therkla... in the long run, they are very minor characters, and the story is not about them.

[hamishspence]

Miko was never chaotic evil, she went to the lawful good plane. Remember Soon said her paladin mount was waiting for her.

She was a problematic person, to be sure. But she made only one evil act and died soon afther. You don't become evil just like that, Is a whole process.

Soon said "He will visit you as much as he is able" - the Outer Planes do have gates linking them, through which inhabitants can travel unless specifically said otherwise.

That said- they're not usually between Evil and Good planes.

The True Neutral afterlife (the Outlands) has in Manual of the Planes (and possibly the 3.5 Dungeon Master's Guide) 16 towns on it (one for every other Outer Plane) and in each town is a permanent gate leading to that plane. As a result a "True Neutral with mildly Lawful Good tendencies" Miko could reside in Celestia's Outlands town, and receive regular visitors from Celestia.

As for alignment change- while it's usually a process- there are exceptions- and the DMG does say it's possible to have a massive change of outlook and go straight from Evil to Good- so the reverse should also be possible. Still, I don't see Miko as having changed outlook quite that much- but a Good to Neutral change isn't so implausible, especially if she's only been at the "bottom edge" of Good alignment for a long time.

The Giant's take on alignment (with "inborn alignment biases" for most nonsupernatural creatures being one of the things he most dislikes about standard alignment, as I recall from earlier posts) reminds me very much of the Eberron take on alignment- which basically dumps all those.

And in Eberron, it's very easy to be Evil without being an especially horrible person:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ebds/20041122a

In a crowd of ten commoners, odds are good that three will be evil. But that doesn't mean they are monsters or even killers -- each is just a greedy, selfish person who willingly watches others suffer.

The most common form of corruption is when zealous devotion causes a priest to set aside mercy and compassion. Such a priest may be a pillar of his community and an admirable man who has absolute dedication to the Church. But if he must sacrifice the innocent in pursuit of the greater good, he will. He will torture and kill without remorse. He will not glorify these actions, and will not torture needlessly -- but he will not shirk from using dark methods to win the battle against evil.

[davidbofinger]

I'm finding it hard to care anymore about these characters. Things should have been wrapped up by now, but the story drags on and on.

There's a bunch of things have to appear in a story - arc plot, episodic plot, character development, exposition, etc. - and to some extent there's always a tradeoff: if the writer spends more time on, say, twisty plots then he spends less time on character development. Not always, because single lines can do both, but from time to time there's a choice so they can be enemies.

In recent strips, very roughly since they found the pyramid, OOTS has had more plot twists (people showing up, characters getting killed, sudden betrayals and changes of allegiance, etc.) than it usually does per strip. It's also had a lot of expositional material - finding out about the Draketooths took space, ditto Team Tarquin, ditto Malack's vampirism, ditto IFCC. (This isn't intended to be a comprehensive list.)

It would not be surprising if, as a result, OOTS is having a little less arc plot and character development than it usually does, at least on a per strip basis. And to a person who wants characters they care about and wants things to be wrapped up (as Blackrook seems to say) that could be interpreted as a decline in quality. But really it's swings and roundabouts.

That said, Belkar's had quite a lot of development, and there's been some arc plot even if it's taking more strips than we might have expected.

I'm not sure what the consequence of this slowdown is likely to be. I suspect it means OOTS is bigger and better than it otherwise would have been (more complex, more incidental material) and the price tag for that is a delay in whatever The Giant's next project after OOTS will be. I could be wrong.

[Kilo24]

Miko, to me, represents a person that I relate to, stuck in a world that doesn't meet up to her ideals, so she feels out of place, and the world makes no sense to her. She is not a villain, she is a good person who can't cope with the evil in the world that overwhelms her. But she is still good. She believed she was saving her people from an evil conspirator when she killed Shojo, she did not kill him because she was evil, she killed him because she is good. But she was wrong on her facts, and for her mistake, the gods punished her. And I didn't think that was fair. And to make things worse, she died and they didn't forgive her.

...

I understand that the author is doing this on purpose, avoiding the normal tropes, but I don't have to like it when a sympathetic character dies without redemption. I am a very big believer in redemption. I'm not saying all characters deserve redemption, but Miko and the thamaturgist did. That's all I'm saying.

Miko considered herself a good person and couched everything she did in all of those terms, but when her own view of herself and the views of everyone else around her clashed, she would always assume that she was correct without any introspection. She lacked a critical - perhaps the most critical - character trait for a good alignment: respect for other people.

For redemption to happen, she would have had to overcome that. That would have to be a central plot element for a long time for it to be believable, and it would have reinforced this narrative idea that people always either achieve their goals or reject them entirely. That narrative idea is an excellent way to wrap up a character arc, but it's highly unrealistic.

Tsukiko, the mystic theurge, is a much less conflicted character. Partially, it's because she was never set up as anything but a villain, but mostly she also lacks that central character trait of respect for other people. Her doting affection towards the undead never approached that; her affection towards her undead minions was very much akin to one of the cat ladies you occasionally hear about on the news as they claim that they're the only ones who understand and truly care about their cats while it's painfully evident that her hordes of pets live in squalor. Noble intentions, yes, but they've become perverted into something destructive instead of a honest respect. And her affection towards Xykon is far more of a frenzied crush (wholly unreciprocated) than anything resembling love. And she certainly didn't show anything positive towards any living creatures. Perhaps if she consistently demonstrated sincere mutually respecting relationships with intelligent undead, she could be argued to be a good and yet severely... alivist? girl instead of a wholesale villain with a perverted adulation of undead... but even then, perhaps not.

In any case, both of them demonstrate that, no matter how noble they believe their own intentions are, being able to recognize how their actions affect other people is also a critical factor in morality. It is much easier to consider yourself a noble crusader when everyone who would challenge that conception is automatically wrong, or to be a champion of an oppressed minority when all the evil that said minority does is the fault of the oppressors. You could devise similar morally myopic statements for Tarquin's order or Redcloak's revolution. If you're a moral person who cannot reconcile your moral views with anyone else, you're probably not a moral person.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

Miko, to me, represents a person that I relate to, stuck in a world that doesn't meet up to her ideals, so she feels out of place, and the world makes no sense to her. She is not a villain, she is a good person who can't cope with the evil in the world that overwhelms her. But she is still good. She believed she was saving her people from an evil conspirator when she killed Shojo, she did not kill him because she was evil, she killed him because she is good. But she was wrong on her facts, and for her mistake, the gods punished her. And I didn't think that was fair. And to make things worse, she died and they didn't forgive her.

Actually, Miko was a villain. Just because she was good (although only just IMO), rather than a moustache twirling guy in a black cape tying the heroine to a railway line, doesn't make her any less of a villain. In places, it actually makes her more of a villain, because she could conceivably work with the heroes, but for whatever reason, chooses to stand against them.



When I referred to the death of villains I like, I'm referring to the cute little thaumaturgist who used to hang out with Xykon. She was such a tragic character, thinking she could get love from undead, because the world of the living had done nothing but reject her. Here's another character that all she needed was love, and she could have been redeemed. Instead she was killed off and all hope is lost.

I understand that the author is doing this on purpose, avoiding the normal tropes, but I don't have to like it when a sympathetic character dies without redemption. I am a very big believer in redemption. I'm not saying all characters deserve redemption, but Miko and the thamaturgist did. That's all I'm saying.

I'd say that Tsukiko was another tragic character, rather than a sympathetic one. And like Miko, she's basically saying the people can make really, really stupid mistakes, and be unable to ever redress the balance.

I'd also ask whether the world of the living rejected her, or whether she rejected the world of the living - my personal opinion would come down quite heavily on the side of the latter.

But could she have been redeemed? Yes.

Did she need to be redeemed? No, and frankly, I think it becomes a very poor story if every character gets their happy ending, no matter what they do.

Did she in any way deserve redemption? Well, I think that's where we'll have to agree to disagree.

[multilis]

Actually, Miko was a villain.
If Superman thinks batman is using too nasty of methods and opposes him does that mean superman or batman is villain? Flawed logic to say opposes hero at times=villain, imo.

If tricked into doing wrong thing makes for a villain then OOTS may all be villains in this story. They destroyed a gate. IIFC spent a very expensive 1/3 of a 100 year deal to make sure they destroyed it, so they may have been tricked to help evil side.

I think Miko was a side character that was neither hero or villain of story, but helped move plot along. Miko following orders brought OOTS to the main quest of story, knowing about gates and knowing X was still alive.

[Sunken Valley]

Miko was unquestionably an antagonist. Regardless of which side she was on, she was unpleasant and hindered the OOTS.

[Domino Quartz]

Miko was unquestionably an antagonist. Regardless of which side she was on, she was unpleasant and hindered the OOTS.

Antagonist != villain

[Sunken Valley]

Antagonist != villain

Not so. Sometimes an antagonist is an obstructive authority figure who obstructs the heroes from getting the true villain. Like ****-less in Ghostbusters.

[Domino Quartz]

Not so. Sometimes an antagonist is an obstructive authority figure who obstructs the heroes from getting the true villain. Like ****-less in Ghostbusters.

Umm...just in case you don't know, "!=" in most programming languages (that I know of, anyway) means "is not equal to." Sorry if I caused confusion. I assumed that you would know what that meant, but I guess I shouldn't assume that everyone knows what that means. I suppose that that most people are more familiar with "=/=". Anyway, I probably shouldn't have been replying to you - it's just that you mentioned "antagonist" in your post. I was just saying that "Antagonist" doesn't have to mean "villain."

[ChristianSt]

I understand that the author is doing this on purpose, avoiding the normal tropes, but I don't have to like it when a sympathetic character dies without redemption. I am a very big believer in redemption. I'm not saying all characters deserve redemption, but Miko and the thamaturgist did. That's all I'm saying.

I don't think that Miko was introduced to be sympathetic (but it is certainly not your fault if you do find her sympathetic) - and the Giant said (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=14397598&postcount=38) Miko's story did last exactly as long as planned.

As for Tsukiko. I'm too think she wasn't in search for redemption (I would even say she didn't think she needed redemption and didn't want to be redeemed).
The better question: Did she deserve a happy end?: I would say maybe - but I think that a happy end for Tsukiko would have not suited the story the Giant tells us.

Comparing that to TV-shows, Miko was a one/two-Seasons spanning antagonist, while Tsukiko was a guest star for one or two seasons. Sure some guest stars will promote to regular cast, but you shouldn't count on that to happen. (And imo the main cast consist of 9 characters: The 6 members of the Order of the Stick (Roy, Haley, Durkon, Belkar, Elan, V) and the 3 members of team Evil (Xykon, Redcloak, MitD) - and the latter only have 1-2 scenes per episode)), all other characters are more or less various sorts of guest stars (some larger, some smaller), but not all will stay to the end.


To explain myself, I just discovered this comic a few weeks ago. I read the first 900 comics over a weekend, and now I'm stuck reading them one at a time like the rest of you. So the death of Miko is not six years ago for me, it JUST HAPPENED.
...<snip>...
Finally, I don't understand the hostility I've gotten from some of you. Is there a rule on this forum that only fanboy slobbering over the comic and how great it is can be posted here? My words of criticism were very mild. Overall, I enjoy the strip. All I'm saying is I'd like to see some wrap-up, sooner rather than later.

I don't know why your post has gotten such negative feedback (normally the Playground is quite nice) - I don't find your post insulting in any way.


But from the rest of your post it seems the normal pacing of the strip doesn't do it for you.
The comic runs for 10 years now, and it doesn't find an end soon (and I can't imagine that the Giant will try to find that end faster than before. After that time it would be just wrong to rush it). So I think the best option would be just to step back a bit, and maybe come back later.


As for Durkon's death doesn't matter: We haven't seen that much of him yet, after the battle I think we will see how much he changed (but killing Z is a good hint that he changed more than you think).

And for an epic fantasy setting, I think the main protagonists doesn't have that much character shield - heck, the main protagonist was dead for a whole book. Depending on how Vampire!Durkon behaves, I will probably count that as death, too. (And then there is Belkar, which we know something dramatic is about to happen - I really hope he will stay in some way in the comic, because he is my favourite character)

[theNater]

Miko, to me, represents a person that I relate to, stuck in a world that doesn't meet up to her ideals, so she feels out of place, and the world makes no sense to her. She is not a villain, she is a good person who can't cope with the evil in the world that overwhelms her. But she is still good. She believed she was saving her people from an evil conspirator when she killed Shojo, she did not kill him because she was evil, she killed him because she is good. But she was wrong on her facts, and for her mistake, the gods punished her. And I didn't think that was fair. And to make things worse, she died and they didn't forgive her.
You and I agree, at least, that killing Shojo was a mistake on Miko's part. The one person who doesn't agree that Miko screwed up is Miko herself, and her unwillingness to do so is why she missed out on redemption. Hinjo explicitly offers her the opportunity (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0409.html), and all it requires on her part is an admission that there is even the possibility that it was a mistake. But she'll believe anything-Shojo really was a villain, the Order orchestrated a plot to trick her, even that the gods themselves have erred-as long as she isn't wrong. Miko had her chance, and rather than take it, she decided to try to kill the guy offering it to her. And it's worth noticing that going straight for the slashy solution rather than checking her facts is precisely what led to her dying before she got another chance. She could have asked Soon for direction, and doing so would have permanently ended the threat of Xykon, but instead assumed that the first idea that occurred to her must have been correct.

When you compare yourself to Miko, it's worth asking whether one of the traits you share is this flaw. When you make a mistake, do you admit it, take responsibility for it, and work to avoid making that mistake again? Or, like Miko, do you try to blame others, refuse responsibility, and attack those who try to help you improve? Her great failure isn't that she made a mistake-we all do that-it's how she reacts to making a mistake; that reaction is her ultimate downfall.

[hamishspence]

And indeed, while the closing statements of Roy's "afterlife trial" say that trying is what's important to them,

earlier in the trial, the Deva points out that the abandonment of Elan, on its own, would have been enough to have him sent straight to the Neutral afterlife (possibly for further evaluation there?) if he hadn't gone back and rescued Elan:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0488.html

If we compare the killing of Shojo to the abandonment of Elan: Miko, unlike Roy, didn't repent that action, and didn't make any effort to "undo the damage" so to speak.

[Storm_Of_Snow]

If Superman thinks batman is using too nasty of methods and opposes him does that mean superman or batman is villain? Flawed logic to say opposes hero at times=villain, imo.

Whose story is it? Then the person on the other side is the villain, thanks to protagonist centred morality. :smallbiggrin:

But in that case, it'd probably be Batman, assuming the behaviour goes beyond a single part of the story (has Bruce basically said stuff it and is becoming The Punisher?), and without a big reveal that Superman's actually wrong and Batman's get a very good reason to do whatever he's doing.

And yes, Miko is a villain (ok, technically she's an anti-villain, same as Belkar's an anti-hero). She almost constantly opposes the Order - the only time Miko and the Order are allied is the fight with the ogres, and while Durkon and Roy at least would likely willingly get involved anyway at that stage, she's pretty much forcing them all to do so, and on her terms.

Want another example? Gul Dukat in DS9 works with Sisko and the rest of the crew at times - but that certainly doesn't stop him from blasting Dax into the middle of Ezri. He's the villain of the entire series.

Or there's Magneto in X-Men (in fact, you can pretty much say any of the characters in X-Men has been both a villain and a hero at some point or another, including Professor X), Catwoman in Batman (especially more recently), Spike in Buffy (prior to mid-season 5 certainly), and I'm sure there's stories where Moriarty and Sherlock Holmes are allied...

But I will agree with Domino Quartz that antagonist doesn't automatically equal villain. Antagonists are people that just get in the heroes way, and either slow them down or cost them in relatively minor ways - the previously mentioned Walter Peck from Ghostbusters is a good example of such. The Dulles airport cops in Die Hard 2 that John McClane keeps butting heads with until near the end of the film, the guy robbing the liquor store in Robocop who stands absolutely no chance and is really there to show off what Murphy can do post upgrades, any agent who's not Smith in the 2nd and 3rd Matrix films - they're all antagonists. I'd even put a supposed villain who isn't really that threatening like Elliot Carver from Tomorrow Never Dies (a total mess of a film IMO) in this category.

Villains are those antagonists that actually threaten the heroes. And I doubt anyone can say Miko doesn't fall into that category.

[BroomGuys]

Villains are those antagonists that actually threaten the heroes.

I simply disagree with your definition, and I largely think it's a mistake to state a definition so simple for such a widely used word and then stick to it rigorously. If I had to guess, I doubt most people would consider Inspector Javert a villain in Les Miserables, but he fits your definition to a T, does he not? If a bunch of people speak up and say they do think he's a villain, then my argument's more or less disproven, but the meaning of a word is, by definition, what people tend to think it means when they hear/read it, and the nuanced spirit of the word "villain" does not seem to include him as I understand it.

Misguided antagonists certainly can be villains, but they don't have to be. In the case of OotS, "villain" is clearly occupied by characters like Xykon, Redcloak, Nale, and now Tarquin--characters who are actively trying to do something Evil. Were Miko still alive and knew about all of them, she would want to do everything in her power to stop them (and kill them). When you have a clear group of villains and and a misguided antagonist who would want to stop them just as much as the heroes do, I think it makes little sense to call that misguided antagonist a villain as well.

[Kish]

If a bunch of people speak up and say they do think he's a villain, then my argument's more or less disproven,
Shall we start?

I am rather boggled to learn of the existence of anyone who does not consider Javert a villain.

[BroomGuys]

Shall we start?

I am rather boggled to learn of the existence of anyone who does not consider Javert a villain.

Drat. Well, we don't have a full poll yet on this one, but how 'bout Lt. Gerard in The Fugitive?

[SavageWombat]

Doesn't sound like we have complete agreement on the meaning of the term "villain" in this context. Certainly Javert and Lt. Gerard are antagonists.

I'm no Les Mis expert, but what I understand of Javert is that he is blindly loyal to a terrible system of justice - and blind loyalty isn't necessary a villainous (i.e. evil, malevolent) trait. I guess I'd say it's important whether his pursuit of his prisoner is out of blind loyalty or personal obsession.

So (Kish), do you make a distinction between "villain" and "antagonist" in your comment?

[Kish]

So (Kish), do you make a distinction between "villain" and "antagonist" in your comment?
...Maybe? I'd know it if I saw it?

What I can say for certain, is that I consider Miko to be more ambiguously a villain in OotS than I consider Javert in Les Miserables. And Rich, at least, is on record as considering Miko an actual villain.

[Emanick]

Shall we start?

I am rather boggled to learn of the existence of anyone who does not consider Javert a villain.

The majority of my friends whom I've discussed this aspect of Les Mis with (and I've had this conversation with an alarmingly large proportion of my friends, to be honest :smalltongue: ) actually do consider him to be an antagonist but not an actual villain. I tend to agree with them. It's not a particularly rare opinion to have.

Of course, I haven't read the book yet; I've only ever seen the musical and the recent movie. Perhaps the book portrays him less sympathetically.

A villain, in my book, is a character driven by destructive motives whose narrative purpose is to be opposed, and possibly defeated, by an opposite heroic force. Random House Unabridged Dictionary, which has the best literary definition of the term I could find in 1-2 minutes, defines a villain as "a cruelly malicious person who is involved in or devoted to wickedness or crime; scoundrel; or a character in a play, novel, or the like, who constitutes an important evil agency in the plot." An antagonist is merely a character who opposes the protagonist - and as Wikipedia notes, in some cases the antagonist is the hero and the protagonist is the villain (as in Macbeth, arguably). I don't think Javert fits either of the above definitions; he isn't malicious or evil (or I wouldn't describe him as such, anyway), and Jean Valjean doesn't need to defeat him, merely evade him.

The same goes for Miko, probably. She isn't evil, merely misguided; she opposes the Order without necessarily requiring their opposition in return. The fight in Shojo's throne room is an exception, but I have trouble labeling somebody a villain when they are only actively combated by the protagonists during a single scene. Feel free to disagree, of course.

[hamishspence]

A villain, in my book, is a character driven by destructive motives whose narrative purpose is to be opposed, and possibly defeated, by an opposite heroic force. Random House Unabridged Dictionary, which has the best literary definition of the term I could find in 1-2 minutes, defines a villain as "a cruelly malicious person who is involved in or devoted to wickedness or crime; scoundrel; or a character in a play, novel, or the like, who constitutes an important evil agency in the plot." An antagonist is merely a character who opposes the protagonist - and as Wikipedia notes, in some cases the antagonist is the hero and the protagonist is the villain (as in Macbeth, arguably). I don't think Javert fits either of the above definitions; he isn't malicious or evil (or I wouldn't describe him as such, anyway), and Jean Valjean doesn't need to defeat him, merely evade him.

The same goes for Miko, probably. She isn't evil, merely misguided; she opposes the Order without necessarily requiring their opposition in return.

There are plenty of antagonists that can shade into outright villainy with what could be said to be "good motives". As the old saying goes- "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".

"Knight Templar" (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KnightTemplar) seems to be one of the most common terms TV Tropes uses for this type of character.

[King of Nowhere]

I've read all your responses, and I have to say, the reason I posted is because I felt some honest criticism was a fair balance to all the fanboy squeals I see every time the Giant puts up a new comic. The thing is, its only a fictional story and people are acting like these are real people, and getting angry at them.

[...]

Miko, to me, represents a person that I relate to, stuck in a world that doesn't meet up to her ideals, so she feels out of place, and the world makes no sense to her. She is not a villain, she is a good person who can't cope with the evil in the world that overwhelms her. But she is still good. She believed she was saving her people from an evil conspirator when she killed Shojo, she did not kill him because she was evil, she killed him because she is good. But she was wrong on her facts, and for her mistake, the gods punished her. And I didn't think that was fair. And to make things worse, she died and they didn't forgive her.

When I referred to the death of villains I like, I'm referring to the cute little thaumaturgist who used to hang out with Xykon. She was such a tragic character, thinking she could get love from undead, because the world of the living had done nothing but reject her. Here's another character that all she needed was love, and she could have been redeemed. Instead she was killed off and all hope is lost.

I understand that the author is doing this on purpose, avoiding the normal tropes, but I don't have to like it when a sympathetic character dies without redemption. I am a very big believer in redemption. I'm not saying all characters deserve redemption, but Miko and the thamaturgist did. That's all I'm saying.

Finally, I don't understand the hostility I've gotten from some of you. Is there a rule on this forum that only fanboy slobbering over the comic and how great it is can be posted here? My words of criticism were very mild. Overall, I enjoy the strip. All I'm saying is I'd like to see some wrap-up, sooner rather than later.

Well, your words of criticism may have seemed mild to you, but to me they sounded strong, aggressive, and with a my-opinion-is-more-worthy-than-yours attitude. That's why I suspected you were trolling. On the other hand, I understand that with written words it is difficult to communicate the tone. Sometimes we mean something to be lighthearted or casual, but it reads as arrogant or offensive. I've had that falling myself at times (when sending a mail to a professor, no less!). So I will say most of the hostility was just a misinterpretation of the non-verbal content of your message. At least it was in my case.

For the rest, what's there to say? you didn't like the plot twists, you didn't like some of the choices of the author. We do. However, you are not argumenting that the plot is poorly written, or the characters aren't well defined or act inconsistently. You aren't accusing rich of bad writing, just of not matching your tastes. So, it just becomes a matter of taste, and there's not much to discuss about tastes.

A couple other points. First, about miko. You found her symphatetic and worthy of redemption. You're not the only one. However, you are choosing to ignore her incredible arrogance and holier-than-thou mindset. Redemption requires people to acknowledge they did wrong, and miko just could not conceive the idea. When I realized that she wasn't going to change that, I stopped sympathizing with her. In the end she didn't deserve redemption; it was offered to her, first by hinjo and then by soon, but she rejected it, sure that she was always right. Sure, I could have liked seeing miko realizing her failings and seeking forgivness. But then, she wouldn't have been miko anymore.
As for tsukiko, even worse. She has a certain innocent naiveness about undead, but she knew that and decided to keep a totally blind spot on it. I don't think there was much to redeem there. She "needed love", but she killed people by the scores. The living rejected her: are we sure it's because they were mean to her, and not because her only interest was in undeads in the first place? It's pretty clear to me she's always had been a cold killer without emotions for anything with a constitution score.

And last

The thing is, its only a fictional story and people are acting like these are real people, and getting angry at them.
this is the mark of a well written story. Or at least, a story that can get to some reader. If a book don't make me feel emotions for the characters it depicts, then it is not a book I'm liking. Same with a movie or any other media. If I don't react to the events depicted at least a bit like they were real, then I didn't appreciate it.

[Emanick]

There are plenty of antagonists that can shade into outright villainy with what could be said to be "good motives". As the old saying goes- "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".

"Knight Templar" (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KnightTemplar) seems to be one of the most common terms TV Tropes uses for this type of character.

Yeah, that's why I chose the phrase "destructive motives" rather than specifying "evil" ones. Plenty of villains genuinely believe that they're working towards the greater good - but precious few, if any, actually are. I can't think of any whose motives aren't ultimately destructive in some sense.

[hamishspence]

Motive- "Make a population, as a whole, happier, and safer" is pretty common- it's the method rather than the motive that tends to be problematic.

[Fish]

...fanboy squeals ... fanboy slobbering ...
You lost me here. I hate, hate, HATE this word.

A mythical creature is the "fanboy." He is a person who has no opinion of his own, who praises out of duty or reflex, rather than for any aesthetic appreciation or personal conviction of his own, and never wavers. I have not met a fanboy, nor am I likely to. No such person exists.

You see, like every artist with a fan base, the fan base of OOTS has a large proportion of people who like the latest strip, a largish portion who are ambivalent, and a small minority who dislike it. The mistake is to think that it's always the same people in each group. Every so often, the roles change; for one section of the story you find yourself in the "meh" camp, and for another you're in the "this sucks!" camp. (People make this same generalization with words like "those liberals," or "those conservatives.")

The "fanboy" is the mythical person who is always in the "effusively happy" category, no matter what happens. I have yet to meet one.

I didn't like the story with Celia and Haley, but I do happen to like these recent strips with Tarquin. I really like the way Miko and Tsukiko didn't get redemption or closure (although, to be honest, at first I expected that Miko's story wasn't finished). To each his own. If every character got a redemption, it would cease to have much emotional weight, and if a character really needed redemption (like V) there would be no tension. You could say that Miko and Tsukiko died to give V's story some weight; we know Rich is capable of giving his characters horrifying, haunting deaths without a lick of forgiveness.

To circle back to "fanboy," there is a class of person with whom you might instead be taking exception, and that is the forum veterans. Many of us (some more than others) have watched the comic unfold in real time, day by day. We know it's difficult to predict what will happen next, by long experience. We know that what appears obvious in one comic may be inverted in another 10 or 100 strips, weeks or months later.

Don't get me wrong; I'm not saying forum veterans are "better" than someone who read the comic in a weekend. We just have a different perspective: slower to criticize until the facts are in, waiting for a strip that might illuminate a contentious point. That doesn't make us mindless, drooling, squealing fanboys.

[Spoomeister]

A mythical creature is the "fanboy." He is a person who has no opinion of his own, who praises out of duty or reflex, rather than for any aesthetic appreciation or personal conviction of his own, and never wavers. I have not met a fanboy, nor am I likely to. No such person exists.

In OOTS fandom? Perhaps not.
In say, fandom for Firefly / Buffy / every-***ing thing Joss Whedon does? There absolutely are. Plenty of fandoms have fanboys.

[Fish]

I disagree. To use the word "fanboy" is to dismiss the possibility that the person has a reason for liking something other than, I don't know ... peer pressure? Habit? It's incredibly insulting.

I liked "Firefly" but I don't care enough about Whedon to watch "Buffy." And even Firefly has a clunker episode (Heart of Gold).

[factotum]

The problem with "fanboy" is that it's usually used in a purely pejorative way in order to try and shut down the opposing arguments--e.g. "you don't understand why this is bad because you're so invested in this work that you don't see its flaws". It is entirely possible to like something while realising it has flaws. Heck, it's even possible for one person to like something and for another person to dislike it, both for reasons that seem entirely reasonable to them, and both without being either a fanboy or a troll--it's weird how humans are all different like that, isn't it? :smallsmile:

[Fish]

Exactly. "I don't want to talk to you because you're a fanboy" = "I don't want to talk to to because you like something I don't, and I regard as trivial any reasons you might have."

[JessmanCA]

Funny because I think Miko's story dragged on and on and I wish she would have died sooner.

Also, this story is getting better all the time. Right now is maybe the most interested I've ever been in it. I can't wait to see what happens at each update.

[Spoomeister]

I disagree. To use the word "fanboy" is to dismiss the possibility that the person has a reason for liking something other than, I don't know ... peer pressure? Habit? It's incredibly insulting.

I liked "Firefly" but I don't care enough about Whedon to watch "Buffy." And even Firefly has a clunker episode (Heart of Gold).

Fanboy is generally an insulting term, yes. Deservedly so in my opinion. There's a rampaging amount of fanboy peer-pressured-groupthink around Firefly. Check the comments section of sites like io9 or reddit whenever they have a topic even somewhat close to being able to mention it in.

Anyway. Sorry for tangent. Back to OOTS: I think the number of people who can find a reason to like every single strip and bonus art about OOTS is probably vanishingly small, so it's hard to apply the fanboy pejorative to most anyone here.

[Blackrook]

Someone mentioned Javert in Les Miserables and that character is definitely not the villain. The book made it clear that Javert represented the "evil side of good." He is blindly loyal to the law, and will track a criminal down no matter what it takes. He doesn't consider it his job to worry about whether it is fair to send a man to prison for stealing a loaf of bread for starving children.

I would argue that Javert is not even the antagonist, he is the main character. The book ends when he is redeemed and dies to save the hero. And I think the story would not have been any good if Javert had died without being redeemed.

[Fish]

But even in that book, you don't see the redemption of every minor character along the way.

[ti'esar]

I liked "Firefly" but I don't care enough about Whedon to watch "Buffy." And even Firefly has a clunker episode (Heart of Gold).

Your personal opinion is one thing, but you can't speak for everyone out there. In my experience Joss Whedon has more knee-jerk haters than knee-jerk fans, but the latter do exist.

"Fanboyism" is a thought-terminating cliche, and really shouldn't be brought up in any discussion here. But it's very silly to say that there's no such thing.

[Mordokai]

3) How is the (supposed) lack of danger different from any other fantasy story you've ever read? Don't tell me you picked up Harry Potter with the slightest expectation of Harry ever dying.

Harry did die. Sure, it didn't lasted for very long and sure, it wasn't really expected, but that doesn't change the fact.

[orrion]

Harry did die. Sure, it didn't lasted for very long and sure, it wasn't really expected, but that doesn't change the fact.

No, he had the choice to die (go on) and he turned it down.

You're missing the point, anyway. Even if Harry had been killed off, the point was that you wouldn't have expected it to happen.

What I am saying is that it's very questionable to criticize a fantasy story simply because the main character doesn't die.

[theNater]

He is blindly loyal to the law, and will track a criminal down no matter what it takes. He doesn't consider it his job to worry about whether it is fair to send a man to prison for stealing a loaf of bread for starving children.
This is the Javert I know, even though my only experience is with the musical.

I would argue that Javert is not even the antagonist, he is the main character. The book ends when he is redeemed and dies to save the hero.
But this Javert is unfamiliar with me. My understanding is that Javert committed suicide by throwing himself into the river, and then the story continued until Valjean's death, some time later. Is the musical that different from the book?

[Storm_Of_Snow]

The majority of my friends whom I've discussed this aspect of Les Mis with (and I've had this conversation with an alarmingly large proportion of my friends, to be honest ) actually do consider him to be an antagonist but not an actual villain. I tend to agree with them. It's not a particularly rare opinion to have.

Of course, I haven't read the book yet; I've only ever seen the musical and the recent movie. Perhaps the book portrays him less sympathetically.

A villain, in my book, is a character driven by destructive motives whose narrative purpose is to be opposed, and possibly defeated, by an opposite heroic force. Random House Unabridged Dictionary, which has the best literary definition of the term I could find in 1-2 minutes, defines a villain as "a cruelly malicious person who is involved in or devoted to wickedness or crime; scoundrel; or a character in a play, novel, or the like, who constitutes an important evil agency in the plot." An antagonist is merely a character who opposes the protagonist - and as Wikipedia notes, in some cases the antagonist is the hero and the protagonist is the villain (as in Macbeth, arguably). I don't think Javert fits either of the above definitions; he isn't malicious or evil (or I wouldn't describe him as such, anyway), and Jean Valjean doesn't need to defeat him, merely evade him.

The same goes for Miko, probably. She isn't evil, merely misguided; she opposes the Order without necessarily requiring their opposition in return. The fight in Shojo's throne room is an exception, but I have trouble labeling somebody a villain when they are only actively combated by the protagonists during a single scene. Feel free to disagree, of course.

I'll bet that if you looked up the dictionary definition of hero, you'd get something that would kick a large number of protagonists from the last 30-40 years out of that group - Jack Bauer, Kerr Avon from Blake's Seven, Han Solo and so on. Which is why the term anti-hero came into being as a sub-set.

Javert? I'm not totally familiar with The Glums :smallwink:, but from what I've gleaned, I would put him into the villain category, but only just - he is obsessed with catching Valjean, rather than simply enforcing the law. Whereas, simply by evading him, Valjean is defeating Javert - defeat doesn't necessarily mean a climactic fight to the death on a rooftop with lightning flashing in the background.

As I clarified, Miko is a villain, but an anti-villain - and you're right, she isn't evil. But just like evil isn't one happy family, neither's good (nor are law or chaos, and certainly neutrality isn't). Good people can have negative traits - they can be selfish, they can be arrogant, they can focus on their goals and miss the wider picture, they can have antipathy for certain groups that aren't the villains (if we have a hero who's, say, an Oakland Raiders fan, he probably hates the 49ers, but that doesn't make him any less good than if he wasn't an NFL fan at all) and so on.

Sherlock Holmes was a drug addict - admittedly in a time when such things weren't seen as negative.

Most writers would probably have come up with some loophole to allow Miko to be evil to fit the traditional villain role - I'm thinking of someone like Poison Ivy from Batman, who has what is esentially a good ideal at heart, but is utterly evil in how she goes about it, and I must express my admiration to The Giant for keeping Miko good.

Maybe The Operative from Serenity is the closest to a good villain.

But that's at least one reason why, IMO, she's still a controversial figure - she doesn't fit the "villains are evil" mould. People see she's good, and think she can't be a villain, but then don't have a niche to put her in. Other people see that she's a villain, but don't have any evil acts to hang her villainy on, so they exaggerate the effects of the acts she does perform.

[pendell]

I'm finding it hard to care anymore about these characters. Things should have been wrapped up by now, but the story drags on and on.

Also, the Giant keeps killing off my favorite villains.

Also, I think Miko should have been allowed to redeem herself. Her death, without redemption, left a bad taste in my mouth.

Anyway, the there's no chance that the main six characters are going to die, so the comic lacks any sense of danger. Durkon's death lacks any meaning, because even as a vampire, he's the same lawful good dwarf.

I don't know, I might keep reading, but I may lose interest and do something else.

I'm very sorry to hear that.

So .. why are you telling me? Is this a cry for help? Some encouragement to keep reading even though it's hard going?

I would say with others in the thread that it may be OOTS will be more interesting if read on a monthly basis rather than constantly F5ing. There's a part of me that's tempted to wait for the books to come out, but then I'd miss out on these discussions, which are a big part of my enjoyment of the strip.

OOTS isn't the only webcomic I read. Homestuck, for example, updates much more frequently. But I actually look forward to OOTS when it updates. Homestuck -- I'm just having a harder time making sense or caring about any of it. OOTS at least makes a certain amount of sense and the characters are those I can plausibly identify with.

So I think there is a payoff to OOTS. If you're starting to burn out, feel free to take a break for awhile! There's still multiple real-time years left to run before the strip is complete. It'll keep for a few weeks while you recharge your batteries.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[BroomGuys]

Javert? I'm not totally familiar with The Glums :smallwink:, but from what I've gleaned, I would put him into the villain category, but only just - he is obsessed with catching Valjean, rather than simply enforcing the law. Whereas, simply by evading him, Valjean is defeating Javert - defeat doesn't necessarily mean a climactic fight to the death on a rooftop with lightning flashing in the background.

Yeah, it seems you just understand the word "villain" differently than some of us do, which is totally fine! Words do that sometimes. :smallsmile:


As I clarified, Miko is a villain, but an anti-villain - and you're right, she isn't evil. But just like evil isn't one happy family, neither's good (nor are law or chaos, and certainly neutrality isn't). Good people can have negative traits - they can be selfish, they can be arrogant, they can focus on their goals and miss the wider picture, they can have antipathy for certain groups that aren't the villains (if we have a hero who's, say, an Oakland Raiders fan, he probably hates the 49ers, but that doesn't make him any less good than if he wasn't an NFL fan at all) and so on.

The way I see it, though, a villain's main goal must be something that the heroes' job is to prevent. Miko's main goal was not to kill the OotS (and they did try--and succeed--to prevent that) but to fight the forces of Evil and bring them to justice (i.e. kill the crap out of them because Evil must DIE). The OotS were mostly cool with the whole "fight against Evil" thing (except Belkar and perhaps V), and there are other characters who are really definitely villains in this story, so I see Miko as a non-villain antagonist. Again, though, it seems you just have a different definition of "villain," and that's perfectly fine.


Maybe The Operative from Serenity is the closest to a good villain.

I would still say Sam Gerard from The Fugitive is one of the best examples of a good-guy main antagonist, and I don't think of him as a villain at all.


But that's at least one reason why, IMO, she's still a controversial figure - she doesn't fit the "villains are evil" mould. People see she's good, and think she can't be a villain, but then don't have a niche to put her in. Other people see that she's a villain, but don't have any evil acts to hang her villainy on, so they exaggerate the effects of the acts she does perform.

She did kill her unarmed king. Pretty sure there are at least 12 gods that considered that to be an Evil act. But I agree that it didn't make her change from the Good alignment (unless I'm misunderstanding D&D mechanics) and that it was good writing that she was that way.

It's just like how people still think Belkar's Chaotic Evil when he's clearly Chaotic Neutral.

*ducks*

[Storm_Of_Snow]

The way I see it, though, a villain's main goal must be something that the heroes' job is to prevent. Miko's main goal was not to kill the OotS (and they did try--and succeed--to prevent that) but to fight the forces of Evil and bring them to justice (i.e. kill the crap out of them because Evil must DIE). The OotS were mostly cool with the whole "fight against Evil" thing (except Belkar and perhaps V), and there are other characters who are really definitely villains in this story, so I see Miko as a non-villain antagonist. Again, though, it seems you just have a different definition of "villain," and that's perfectly fine.

In terms of her character, her main goal was to protect the gates as part of the Sapphire Guard. In order to do that, she handed out the Smite Evil's pretty much as she saw fit.

In terms of the story, her main goal was to bring the Order to Azure City - she chose to try and kill them (simply because Roy detected as evil thanks to the crown - which does then raise the question of why, when she obviously scanned Roy before engaging the Order in melee combat, she didn't scan Belkar as part of the whole group, without giving him the chance to get his lead sheet in the way) despite the bonus strip in NCftPB where Shojo explicitly told her not to.

Would you say Jaws in The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker was a villain? He's basically brought into both stories by the main villain to stop Bond and his ally (Agent XXX in the first, Dr Goodhead in the second), and that's what makes him a villain (before becoming an ally at the end when he realises exactly what Hugo Drax's plan means for him and his girlfriend). Whether he does what he does for his own villainous goals, or whether it's to earn money to support a local orphanage is just background on the character.

In the same way, it's Miko's story role that makes her a villain. Her character just makes her a complete, well, insert the adjective of your choice here. :smallwink:



She did kill her unarmed king. Pretty sure there are at least 12 gods that considered that to be an Evil act. But I agree that it didn't make her change from the Good alignment (unless I'm misunderstanding D&D mechanics) and that it was good writing that she was that way.

Again, her actions broke her vows as a member of the Sapphire Guard and that's what she was punished for. It was not necessarily an evil act - after all, she was, in her mind at least, executing someone for treason, when a war was about to arrive on their doorstep.



It's just like how people still think Belkar's Chaotic Evil when he's clearly Chaotic Neutral.

*ducks*
What? Surely instead than dying in a few weeks time, he'll travel back in time, go under his middle name of Tony, and become the being of law and good that Shojo summoned, and Eugene tied up and replaced for the Order's trial?

Hey, it must be about the only view on Belkar's alignment that's not come up yet. :smallbiggrin:

[hamishspence]

In terms of the story, her main goal was to bring the Order to Azure City - she chose to try and kill them (simply because Roy detected as evil thanks to the crown - which does then raise the question of why, when she obviously scanned Roy before engaging the Order in melee combat, she didn't scan Belkar as part of the whole group, without giving him the chance to get his lead sheet in the way) despite the bonus strip in NCftPB where Shojo explicitly told her not to.

Bonus strip? It was in the main online comic in which he said "try hard to bring them back alive":

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0290.html

[BroomGuys]

I
In terms of the story, her main goal was to bring the Order to Azure City - she chose to try and kill them (simply because Roy detected as evil thanks to the crown - which does then raise the question of why, when she obviously scanned Roy before engaging the Order in melee combat, she didn't scan Belkar as part of the whole group, without giving him the chance to get his lead sheet in the way) despite the bonus strip in NCftPB where Shojo explicitly told her not to.

Her story purpose is not her goal, though. Her goal is what she wants to do, whereas her story purpose is why the author created the character.


Would you say Jaws in The Spy Who Loved Me and Moonraker was a villain? He's basically brought into both stories by the main villain to stop Bond and his ally (Agent XXX in the first, Dr Goodhead in the second), and that's what makes him a villain (before becoming an ally at the end when he realises exactly what Hugo Drax's plan means for him and his girlfriend). Whether he does what he does for his own villainous goals, or whether it's to earn money to support a local orphanage is just background on the character.

In the same way, it's Miko's story role that makes her a villain. Her character just makes her a complete, well, insert the adjective of your choice here. :smallwink:

He's the villain's henchman, which puts him in the villainous entourage, whereas Miko is most certainly not in the villainous entourage. This kind of gets at why I don't consider Miko a villain: there are well-established bad guys, and she's directly working against all of them that she knows about. She's just really, really terrible at getting along with the people "on her side."


Again, her actions broke her vows as a member of the Sapphire Guard and that's what she was punished for. It was not necessarily an evil act - after all, she was, in her mind at least, executing someone for treason, when a war was about to arrive on their doorstep.

It's heavily implied that killing Belkar would've made her fall, so I really don't think this interpretation is correct. There's a reason Hinjo called Miko "murderer" and not "overly hasty executioner." The story gives every impression that killing an unarmed enemy in cold blood will make a paladin Fall, independent of whether that killing violates any oaths.

[The MunchKING]

3) How is the (supposed) lack of danger different from any other fantasy story you've ever read? Don't tell me you picked up Harry Potter with the slightest expectation of Harry ever dying.

Actually when the "last book" was coming out, there were a lot of people speculating on whether she really WOULD kill Harry off in a semi-permanent manner. And every other protagonist certainly wasn't out of the question to get killed. Especially given how much of the supporting cast she DID kill off.

[Nordom]

It's heavily implied that killing Belkar would've made her fall, so I really don't think this interpretation is correct. There's a reason Hinjo called Miko "murderer" and not "overly hasty executioner." The story gives every impression that killing an unarmed enemy in cold blood will make a paladin Fall, independent of whether that killing violates any oaths.

Belkar's perhaps a borderline case being a nominal ally, but if it had been Xykon or Tarquin in that throne, I doubt she would have fallen even if you assume they were, in that particular moment, helpless. If it had turned out that Shojo really were a villain about to betray the city, she might also have been in the clear. Vow-breaking and execution without trial are chaotic acts, which are technically okay in small doses. The problem was that:

A. He wasn't a traitor.
B. Her reason for believing him to be a traitor was incredibly flimsy and taking even a few minutes to figure out what was actually going on would have caused her to realize this.

Murdering a good aligned individual based on faulty assumptions when you had ample opportunity to discover the truth is an evil act, whether the intent was evil or not.

[dancrilis]

Murdering a good aligned individual based on faulty assumptions when you had ample opportunity to discover the truth is an evil act, whether the intent was evil or not.

It could be argued that:
Murdering an individual based on faulty assumptions when you had ample opportunity to discover the truth is an evil act, whether the intent was evil or not.

Edit:
It could also be argued that Murder is wrong.

[hamishspence]

Murder certainly defaults to Evil in BoVD and Fiendish Codex 2.

EDIT: a case could be made that not all killings that would get a murder conviction, qualify as murder in the "moral" sense in D&D- but it probably requires that the victim be exceptionally deserving of death, and for capturing them for trial to be unfeasible.

For this sort of situation, there's an Exalted assassin-type prestige class dedicated to taking out villains that way.

[Reddish Mage]

Murder certainly defaults to Evil in BoVD and Fiendish Codex 2.

EDIT: a case could be made that not all killings that would get a murder conviction, qualify as murder in the "moral" sense in D&D- but it probably requires that the victim be exceptionally deserving of death, and for capturing them for trial to be unfeasible.

For this sort of situation, there's an Exalted assassin-type prestige class dedicated to taking out villains that way.

I think if we are talking forcing alignment changes or loss of class-abilities onto characters a DM should be very lenient and flexible with how players choose to play their alignments.

If they are killing a clearly villainous character, say a Kobuta, I would say that is at best a chaotic act

[The Giant]

OK, well, I think I've found the root of why you don't like my treatment of Miko.


Someone mentioned Javert in Les Miserables and that character is definitely not the villain. The book made it clear that Javert represented the "evil side of good." He is blindly loyal to the law, and will track a criminal down no matter what it takes. He doesn't consider it his job to worry about whether it is fair to send a man to prison for stealing a loaf of bread for starving children.

I would argue that Javert is not even the antagonist, he is the main character. The book ends when he is redeemed and dies to save the hero. And I think the story would not have been any good if Javert had died without being redeemed.

I absolutely consider Javert a villain, full stop. And not in a weak, "All antagonists are villains," sort of way. I mean I find Javert's actions (and especially his inactions) over the course of the novel to be villainous. I'm not going to really go into more detail, though, because we have rules about discussing personal moral convictions and/or politics, and this would run smack into both of those.

The point is, Miko was intended as a direct criticism of the way in which players play the paladin class, and many do so in either conscious or subconscious imitation of Javert. Therefore, you could extrapolate that Miko is a criticism of people who find Javert admirable.

Thus, if you find Javert especially admirable or respectable, then Miko was written as an express criticism of you.

So rather than being upset that you don't like her portrayal, I am actually now quite pleased that her ending rubs you the wrong way. It means I succeeded in my artistic goal for her.

[Kish]

It's heavily implied that killing Belkar would've made her fall
I disagree. Utterly.

It's spelled out that Belkar thinks killing him--killing the only entity in the world who has an inherent right to live (estimation later to be revised to include one white cat)--would make her fall. Nothing more is implied, lightly or heavily.

[gerryq]

Anyway, the there's no chance that the main six characters are going to die, so the comic lacks any sense of danger. Durkon's death lacks any meaning, because even as a vampire, he's the same lawful good dwarf.


There's a prophesy that Belkar will die.

And Roy died *already*.

[Sunken Valley]

I absolutely consider Javert a villain, full stop. And not in a weak, "All antagonists are villains," sort of way. I mean I find Javert's actions (and especially his inactions) over the course of the novel to be villainous. I'm not going to really go into more detail, though, because we have rules about discussing personal moral convictions and/or politics, and this would run smack into both of those.


I thought Javert was "supposed" to be Lawful Neutral (Hugo didn't use alignments). In fact, I think the only way he could be more Lawful Neutral is if he wore a sign saying "I'm Lawful Neutral". You saying Lawful Neutral people are villains?

[NerdyKris]

I thought Javert was "supposed" to be Lawful Neutral (Hugo didn't use alignments). In fact, I think the only way he could be more Lawful Neutral is if he wore a sign saying "I'm Lawful Neutral". You saying Lawful Neutral people are villains?

I don't think that's what he's saying at all, and I've never read or seen Les Miserables.

Clearly his post is referring to Javert's actions and philosophy, not an alignment system that didn't even exist when Les Miserables was written.

[Warren Dew]

I'm finding it hard to care anymore about these characters. Things should have been wrapped up by now, but the story drags on and on.

Also, the Giant keeps killing off my favorite villains.

Also, I think Miko should have been allowed to redeem herself. Her death, without redemption, left a bad taste in my mouth.

Anyway, the there's no chance that the main six characters are going to die, so the comic lacks any sense of danger. Durkon's death lacks any meaning, because even as a vampire, he's the same lawful good dwarf.

I don't know, I might keep reading, but I may lose interest and do something else.
I don't care much about the protagonists any more, either; it could be argued that this author puts plot above characterization. However, the comic still has good jokes, and the plot is still reasonable.

If it's not worth your time, it's not worth your time, but it's not as if you have to spend money to read it.

[Sunken Valley]

I don't think that's what he's saying at all, and I've never read or seen Les Miserables.

Clearly his post is referring to Javert's actions and philosophy, not an alignment system that didn't even exist when Les Miserables was written.

Javert's Philosophy
Inspector Javert's mental attitude was compounded of two very simple principles, admirable in themselves but which, by carrying them to extremes, he made almost evil - respect for authority and hatred of all forms of revolt against it. Theft, murder, and every other crime were to him all forms of revolt. Everybody who played any part in the running of the State, from First Minister to the garde champerte was invested in his eyes with a kind of mystical sanctity, and he felt nothing but contempt, aversion and disgust for those who, only if only once, transgressed beyond the bounds of law. His judgements were absolute, admitting no exceptions. [...] He would have arrested his own father escaping from prison and denounced his mother for breaking parole, and he would have done it with a glow of conscious rectitude.

This is clearly a Lawful Neutral one, bolded for Lawful Neutralness. Remember, the commentary never calls Miko a villain, just an antagonist. Yet if you replace Javert with Miko, He with She and First Minister to the garde champerte with Lord Shojo to the Sapphire Guard, you get Miko. Who is just an antagonist. Not villain.

[137beth]

I haven't read the book of Les Mis, but I have seen the musical many times and know the plot and music well....

I don't consider Javert a villian. I consider him Lawful Neutral. Which, like Miko, means he would not make a good paladin. IMO, Javert was not Evil. He was, however, certainly not Good (at least until his redemption). He tried to uphold the law as best he could, without regard to whether it was fair or "good". That screams Lawful Neutral to me.

[Kish]

I thought Javert was "supposed" to be Lawful Neutral (Hugo didn't use alignments). In fact, I think the only way he could be more Lawful Neutral is if he wore a sign saying "I'm Lawful Neutral". You saying Lawful Neutral people are villains?
If he accepts your premise that Javert is Lawful Neutral, I would venture that he is, rather, saying that being Lawful Neutral does not inherently mean someone is not a villain.

[The Giant]

I thought Javert was "supposed" to be Lawful Neutral (Hugo didn't use alignments). In fact, I think the only way he could be more Lawful Neutral is if he wore a sign saying "I'm Lawful Neutral". You saying Lawful Neutral people are villains?

No, I'm saying they can be villains, based on their actions. In the same way that Miko is a villain. Maybe not mustache-twirling do-it-for-the-lulz villains, but villains nonetheless.

As I recently referenced in the comic, all that is required for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing, and Javert went quite a bit further in the wrong direction than just "doing nothing." He supported and enforced an unjust set of laws even above and beyond what was required of him. He tricked his way into the good graces of the students with a plan designed to lead to their deaths. When Fantine dies and Javert confronts Valjean, and Valjean says he must take care of Cosette, Javert could have said, "I'll make sure the girl is taken care of if you turn yourself in." He didn't. He didn't care whether she lived or died when he easily could have without compromising his duty. The idea of mercy is so incompatible to his mindset that when he finds himself having displayed it, his only solution is to commit suicide because his world doesn't make sense anymore. When you get to the point that the idea of mercy is incomprehensible to you? You're a villain.

While the alignment system is very useful for playing the game, it is not the be-all and end-all of analysis. As you say, there is no alignment in Hugo's work. We declare Javert to be Lawful Neutral after-the-fact, but that doesn't absolve the character of his villainous aspects. It just means we did the math and found that he fits in Box A slightly better than Box B. The fact is, the very idea of being "Neutral" with regards to Good and Evil is a D&D invention; it does not exist in most literature. In Hugo's eyes, Javert is Evil by virtue of repeatedly choosing not to be Good when given multiple opportunities. He is an antagonist who represents a moral position the author holds as being contemptible; thus, he is a villain.

[Sky_Schemer]

I would argue that Javert is not even the antagonist, he is the main character. The book ends when he is redeemed and dies to save the hero. And I think the story would not have been any good if Javert had died without being redeemed.

Redeemed? I have a hard time swallowing this interpretation. He learned he was a horrible person, and that the person he thought was a villain was in fact a much better man. Committing suicide was easier than changing, and was the coward's way out.

[Dwy]

Committing suicide was easier than changing, and was the coward's way out.

Not really. I'd guess he just realised how bad a person he'd been, and ended himself, like he would done to anybody else guilty of his crimes.

No redemption there either though, but at least he removed himself from the picture.

EDIT: as such, cowardize wasn't a factor. Justice was.

[The Giant]

Redeemed? I have a hard time swallowing this interpretation. He learned he was a horrible person, and that the person he thought was a villain was in fact a much better man. Committing suicide was easier than changing, and was the coward's way out.

How anyone could call this redemption is a mystery to me.

Also, this. Javert was exactly one step in front of Miko on the path to redemption, in that he realized he had been wrong. But that's just one step, that's not the whole thing. Think of how much good he could have done if he had dedicated his remaining years to reforming the prison/parole system from within. But that would have meant publicly facing up to having been wrong, and that would have been hard, so...

[hamishspence]

I'm wondering just how much of a shift in perspective Miko had toward the end.

If she felt herself "above the law" and was a person who was Lawful partly through her personal code- did she move a bit from Lawful toward Neutral when she rejected Hinjo's authority?

[Anarion]

I'm wondering just how much of a shift in perspective Miko had toward the end.

If she felt herself "above the law" and was a person who was Lawful partly through her personal code- did she move a bit from Lawful toward Neutral when she rejected Hinjo's authority?

I don't think so. For a couple reasons. First, although Azure City had laws, my read of Miko is that her lawfulness was a strict adherence to her personal code. While Shojo was alive, her personal code aligned with his orders and thus with the law of Azure City. But once she killed Shojo, especially because she heard about how the trial was falsified, her personal code diverged from the law of Azure City because she viewed it as corrupt and untrustworthy.

Second, even if the specific act of disobeying Hinjo may have been one instance of a slide towards neutrality, I don't think it outweighs Miko's otherwise rigid adherence to her beliefs in the face of overwhelming evidence.

[hamishspence]

I was thinking more of her rejecting his "surrender" orders and trying to kill him.

[Anarion]

I was thinking more of her rejecting his "surrender" orders and trying to kill him.

I think she got carried away there. In an "anyone who's not with me is against me" kind of way.

[Blackrook]

This is the Javert I know, even though my only experience is with the musical.

But this Javert is unfamiliar with me. My understanding is that Javert committed suicide by throwing himself into the river, and then the story continued until Valjean's death, some time later. Is the musical that different from the book?Yes, in the book Valjean doesn't die, he lives happily ever after. Javert sacrificed himself so Valjean could have this happy ending, so the musical makes no sense. The whole point of the sacrifice is so Valjean could LIVE happily with his daughter. Making him die ruins the entire point of the plot.

[The Giant]

Yes, in the book Valjean doesn't die, he lives happily ever after. Javert sacrificed himself so Valjean could have this happy ending, so the musical makes no sense. The whole point of the sacrifice is so Valjean could LIVE happily with his daughter. Making him die ruins the entire point of the plot.

Um...no. No, that's not really a valid interpretation of the text. Javert commits suicide because he cannot bear being wrong about everything; this is explicitly stated in the novel:


He said to himself that it was true that there were exceptional cases, that authority might be put out of countenance, that the rule might be inadequate in the presence of a fact, that everything could not be framed within the text of the code, that the unforeseen compelled obedience, that the virtue of a convict might set a snare for the virtue of the functionary, that destiny did indulge in such ambushes, and he reflected with despair that he himself had not even been fortified against a surprise.

He was forced to acknowledge that goodness did exist. This convict had been good. And he himself, unprecedented circumstance, had just been good also. So he was becoming depraved.

He found that he was a coward. He conceived a horror of himself.

Javert's ideal, was not to be human, to be grand, to be sublime; it was to be irreproachable.

Now, he had just failed in this.

How had he come to such a pass? How had all this happened? He could not have told himself. He clasped his head in both hands, but in spite of all that he could do, he could not contrive to explain it to himself.

Thus,--and in the exaggeration of anguish, and the optical illusion of consternation, all that might have corrected and restrained this impression was effaced, and society, and the human race, and the universe were, henceforth, summed up in his eyes, in one simple and terrible feature,--thus the penal laws, the thing judged, the force due to legislation, the decrees of the sovereign courts, the magistracy, the government, prevention, repression, official cruelty, wisdom, legal infallibility, the principle of authority, all the dogmas on which rest political and civil security, sovereignty, justice, public truth, all this was rubbish, a shapeless mass, chaos; he himself, Javert, the spy of order, incorruptibility in the service of the police, the bull-dog providence of society, vanquished and hurled to earth; and, erect, at the summit of all that ruin, a man with a green cap on his head and a halo round his brow; this was the astounding confusion to which he had come; this was the fearful vision which he bore within his soul.

Was this to be endured? No.

A violent state, if ever such existed. There were only two ways of escaping from it. One was to go resolutely to Jean Valjean, and restore to his cell the convict from the galleys. The other . . .

Javert quitted the parapet, and, with head erect this time, betook himself, with a firm tread, towards the station-house indicated by a lantern at one of the corners of the Place du Chatelet.
So, yeah...again, I now understand why you don't like Miko's death, and I'm cool with it.

[Blackrook]

OK, well, I think I've found the root of why you don't like my treatment of Miko.



I absolutely consider Javert a villain, full stop. And not in a weak, "All antagonists are villains," sort of way. I mean I find Javert's actions (and especially his inactions) over the course of the novel to be villainous. I'm not going to really go into more detail, though, because we have rules about discussing personal moral convictions and/or politics, and this would run smack into both of those.

The point is, Miko was intended as a direct criticism of the way in which players play the paladin class, and many do so in either conscious or subconscious imitation of Javert. Therefore, you could extrapolate that Miko is a criticism of people who find Javert admirable.

Thus, if you find Javert especially admirable or respectable, then Miko was written as an express criticism of you.

So rather than being upset that you don't like her portrayal, I am actually now quite pleased that her ending rubs you the wrong way. It means I succeeded in my artistic goal for her.
Giant, I disagree with your theory that Javert and Miko are villains. That does not make me a bad person, and for you to imply that it does, is totally out of line.

It's your forum, but I hardly find it appropriate that you attack me personally for the mild criticism I have given of your work.

You will find as an artist that there is a world of fans and critics who will have something to say about your stories and characters. Some of that will be critical.

If you lash out with insults out every time someone says something that upsets you, you will get a bad reputation as a hot-headed, temperamental artist-type that needs to be coddled rather than respected.

[Blackrook]

Um...no. No, that's not really a valid interpretation of the text. Javert commits suicide because he cannot bear being wrong about everything; this is explicitly stated in the novel:



So, yeah...again, I now understand why you don't like Miko's death, and I'm cool with it.
You lack empathy with Javert and Miko. You have judged them as villains. You have condemned them, you have declared them evil.

You are guilty of doing exactly what you don't like about them.

[SaintRidley]

No, he had the choice to die (go on) and he turned it down.



Nitpicking - he did die. It's just he was more than a whole person, so the universe gave him a mulligan and took the extra. Much as Harry thinks it was the intent that mattered, his actually dying for a brief moment was what actually made the protection take. Leastways, that's my reading of the scene.


Anyway, back to redemption, ultimately you can't do redemption if you're completely unwilling to believe you committed an error. Miko never did, not even in her dying moments. She asks Soon to recognize her success. When he doesn't, she says he can still kill Xykon. She then misses his point and asks if she can have her powers back. When Soon bluntly tells her she needs to admit error before redemption can happen - that you have to admit to needing redemption before you can start - she asks if she'll ever see Windstriker again. You can kind of squint at that and see it as a tacit acknowledgement that she'll be in a different afterlife from him, but given everything we know about Miko and her inability to comprehend subtlety, that's not likely.

Even V has come farther along the path to redemption than Miko - V at least sees that there was an error, a grievous and catastrophically evil error. And V doesn't necessarily stand a chance of redemption, given the magnitude of the error. Yet, here we are, with V taking baby steps toward redemption and Miko in her dying moments still under the impression that she did nothing wrong.

A Miko redemption arc was never in the cards precisely because it would be utterly inconsistent with her character. V's redemption arc will be worth reading both because there is a chance it might result in something, and because there's a good chance V fails - V has to work for it.


You lack empathy with Javert and Miko. You have judged them as villains. You have condemned them, you have declared them evil.

You are guilty of doing exactly what you don't like about them.


I'm going to zero in precisely on the declaring them evil part. Find me where Rich has done any such thing here. What you're guilty of in this post is one of the things that got Miko in trouble - reading the situation wrong and leaping to unfounded conclusions based on half-understood evidence. Or so it looks from over here.

[Blackrook]

{SCRUBBED: Please refrain from discussing real-world religion.}

Showing us that NO ONE is beyond redemption. NO ONE.

Your story rubbed me the wrong way because you don't share that belief.

You think that some people don't deserve to be redeemed.

I disagree.

If you think that makes me a bad person, so be it.

[LadyEowyn]

Yes, in the book Valjean doesn't die, he lives happily ever after. Javert sacrificed himself so Valjean could have this happy ending, so the musical makes no sense. The whole point of the sacrifice is so Valjean could LIVE happily with his daughter. Making him die ruins the entire point of the plot.

This is incorrect. Valjean dies in the book just as in the musical, as a result of depression due to being isolated from Cosette after he confesses his identity to Marius.

Javert killed himself because he was unable to process the idea that a criminal could be a good person, or that he could be in a criminal's debt. The contradiction between those ideas and his typical thought patterns and beliefs caused what was pretty much a complete mental breakdown.

[SaintRidley]

{SCRUBBED: Scrub the original, scrub the quote.}

Showing us that NO ONE is beyond redemption. NO ONE.

Your story rubbed me the wrong way because you don't share that belief.

You think that some people don't deserve to be redeemed.

I disagree.

If you think that makes me a bad person, so be it.

I think you might be taking this a mite too personally. Rich (nor I or anybody else for that matter) isn't saying some people don't deserve to be redeemed. Just that some people are incapable of recognizing they need to be redeemed, and so will never get redemption. That's a completely different thing.

[Blackrook]

What gets me is that Belkar can do whatever he damn well wants to, and there are no consequences. He murdered a gnome merchant in cold blood, and it was treated as some kind of humorous incident. Miko never did anything that bad. She killed a man who she thought was a traitor. The OOTS are the biggest hypocrites traveling with Belkar, while condemning Miko.

[NerdyKris]

You lack empathy with Javert and Miko. You have judged them as villains. You have condemned them, you have declared them evil.

You are guilty of doing exactly what you don't like about them.


Wow. Okay. You can certainly judge a person's actions without being evil. And telling the creator of a character that he is viewing the character wrong is a bit silly, in my opinion.

Miko believed she was doing the will of the gods. When someone called that into question, she killed him. She murdered an old man in cold blood and then attacked the leader of her order of Paladins. We can very certainly judge someone for using lethal force when they're upset.

[hamishspence]

The OOTS are the biggest hypocrites traveling with Belkar, while condemning Miko.

Haley's reason for continuing to travel with Belkar is "needs all the help she can get":

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0540.html

[Cizak]

Giant, I disagree with your theory that Javert and Miko are villains. That does not make me a bad person, and for you to imply that it does, is totally out of line.

It's your forum, but I hardly find it appropriate that you attack me personally for the mild criticism I have given of your work.

You will find as an artist that there is a world of fans and critics who will have something to say about your stories and characters. Some of that will be critical.

If you lash out with insults out every time someone says something that upsets you, you will get a bad reputation as a hot-headed, temperamental artist-type that needs to be coddled rather than respected.

He's not attacking you personally. He's saying that he disagrees with the way you and many others are thinking and chose to reflect his beliefs in his fictional work.

Also, I have to say, Rich is one of the nicest and most level-headed authors I've ever read comments from. He's never gone out to personally attack or insult anyone on these forums as far as I'm aware.

[The Giant]

Giant, I disagree with your theory that Javert and Miko are villains. That does not make me a bad person, and for you to imply that it does, is totally out of line.

It's your forum, but I hardly find it appropriate that you attack me personally for the mild criticism I have given of your work.

You will find as an artist that there is a world of fans and critics who will have something to say about your stories and characters. Some of that will be critical.

If you lash out with insults out every time someone says something that upsets you, you will get a bad reputation as a hot-headed, temperamental artist-type that needs to be coddled rather than respected.

I don't see any insults in my text. I simply said that you clearly feel a certain way, and that the entire point of the character of Miko was to make an argument against that feeling. I don't think you are a bad person for feeling that way. If I did, I wouldn't bother to write a story trying to convince anyone that they were wrong. My goal is to make people think, "Huh, I don't want to be like Miko."

If you look back up this thread, I spent a great deal of energy deleting attacks against you and defending your right to criticize me. However, I also have every right to defend myself from that criticism, including analyzing why you may have made such a criticism and deciding whether or not I cared about that criticism as a result. As the result of this conversation, I can see that you hold opinions that are in direct opposition to those I was trying to communicate. Again, that's not a bad thing, but it is fairly clear that those are the reason you don't care for the work. Now, I suppose I could change my comic to more closely follow your feelings about the world, but in doing so I would be betraying my own. So I choose not to.

Ultimately, I only participate in conversations like this because I get dragged into them via my moderation duties, but once here, I sought to understand whether or not your criticism was valid. I don't think it is. Or rather, it is only valid from your perspective, and that is not the perspective I want to portray. Contrary to this idea that I only hear compliments, I get deluged with criticism almost every day. I ignore 95% of the feedback I get, positive or negative. The only way to truly get anything useful out of the noise that gets directed my way is to try to understand WHY people who don't like something don't like it. So what I was doing in engaging you was trying to wring some critical value out your otherwise generic complaint. "I don't like it," is worthless; "I don't like it because I believe X, Y, and Z, and this doesn't reflect that," has use.

As for what the rest of the public thinks about me attempting to engage a new reader in a conversation that uncovers the root causes of their dissatisfaction with my work after deleting dozens of comments from my long-time readers defending me so that we could have an honest dialogue? I will be happy to let them draw their own conclusions as to my temperament.

[The Giant]

Showing us that NO ONE is beyond redemption. NO ONE.

Your story rubbed me the wrong way because you don't share that belief.

You think that some people don't deserve to be redeemed.

I disagree.

If you think that makes me a bad person, so be it.

That is a concise recap of the parting of opinions, yes. Except that I never said that you were a bad person as a result.

However, we have a strict no-religion rule on this message board, wherein any reference to real-world religion or politics is not permitted. So this is not a conversation that is going to continue. If you plan on continuing on this message board at all, I strongly suggest that you learn to leave religious beliefs out of your posting.