Characters You've Changed Your Mind About

[jidasfire]

As a rule, I think it's important to judge the quality of a character based on what role they fulfill in the story and how well they fulfill it rather than by how one personally feels about their actions. Still, there are times when certain characters provoke stronger reactions in us, for good or ill. And sometimes, for whatever reason, this can change with time. Are there any characters about whom you have changed your mind in a drastic way, and why?

For me, there are two. One I liked at first and grew to dislike, and the other I disliked and grew to appreciate over time. The former is Redcloak. I liked Redcloak in the early days of the comic because he provided a straight-man counterbalance to Xykon. He was sharp-witted, beleaguered, and didn't seem like too terrible of a guy, given for whom he was working, and while it wasn't completely clear what it was, he seemed to have his own agenda. Then I read Start of Darkness, and I found it increasingly difficult to sympathize with the character. In actual comic, he became increasingly self-righteous and willing to bend his own tenuous morality to get what he wanted, and I just found myself wanting him to lose and be humiliated all the more. As of the current arc, after what he did to the Resistance, all my sympathy for him is gone. None of this is to say I think he's a poorly-written character, mind you, but my emotional reaction to him is more disgust than anything.

The latter character is Celia, though in her case it's kind of a back and forth flip. I liked her well enough in her early appearances, but when she first appeared in Don't Split the Party, I found myself increasingly confounded by her decisions and actions, particularly the way she treated Haley, who I thought was doing her best in a nigh-impossible situation. I even said some things here on the board about imagining her as a DM's girlfriend character, getting special treatment while not really understanding the game. Having read the arc again in book form, though, I decided that I was being unfair to her, as she did actually do a fair bit to move the story along in the right direction, even if sometimes she messed up. That's not too different from the rest of the Order, and in truth, while she was unfair to Haley a few times, a lot of the time they were actually pretty friendly with one another. And certainly she'd have to be better company than Belkar.

So those are mine. What about you guys?

[Ridureyu]

I used to think that Roy and the Order were heroes, but now I realize that they are secretly agents of the evil lich Xykon, on a dastardly mission to undermine Azure City!

[Wordweaver]

@jidasfire: Oddly, for me it's about the other way round with Redcloak. I used to view him pretty much as the straight man in the Redcloak/Xykon troupe, but he has become a lot more for me since then, with his own agenda. True, he loses his way every now and again, but he struggles to return to it. And that's what makes a good character for me.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I used to like Tarquin. Not anymore.
Edit: to clarify, I'm referring to him as a character, not how he has been characterized. I think Tarquin is actually a really well written character, but a despicable one.

[ti'esar]

I used to despise Belkar as a shallow, one-joke character who represented an unfortunate use of a webcomic cliche instead of anything unique or interesting, and I couldn't wait for his prophecy to come true. Since his hippie vision quest, though, and especially in this last book, he's become surprisingly interesting.

[Lord Torath]

I used to despise Belkar as a shallow, one-joke character who represented an unfortunate use of a webcomic cliche instead of anything unique or interesting, and I couldn't wait for his prophecy to come true. Since his hippie vision quest, though, and especially in this last book, he's become surprisingly interesting.I have to agree with this. I'm now actively dreading the fulfillment of his prophecy. :smallfrown:

[jidasfire]

@jidasfire: Oddly, for me it's about the other way round with Redcloak. I used to view him pretty much as the straight man in the Redcloak/Xykon troupe, but he has become a lot more for me since then, with his own agenda. True, he loses his way every now and again, but he struggles to return to it. And that's what makes a good character for me.

Valid points. I agree that he's a fascinating character, and he certainly has more depth than the usual snarky straight man types. I also wouldn't say the strip is worse for him being what he is. I suppose my anger at the character, which I admit does not so easily rise at far worse people like Xykon, for instance, is because he really should know better. Xykon doesn't have any conscience and he never did, so for him there's no choice between right and wrong. Redcloak, though, clearly has a conscience. He perceives a difference between right and wrong actions, and he's overall pretty smart and self-aware. Yet he so often chooses to do despicable things, knowing full well he shouldn't, and despite that, he still blames everyone else. It's easy to imagine people like him in real life (minus the end of the world plot). So I guess that's why, while acknowledging the character as well-written, he just drives me crazy.

[Sir_Leorik]

I used to despise Belkar as a shallow, one-joke character who represented an unfortunate use of a webcomic cliche instead of anything unique or interesting, and I couldn't wait for his prophecy to come true. Since his hippie vision quest, though, and especially in this last book, he's become surprisingly interesting.


I have to agree with this. I'm now actively dreading the fulfillment of his prophecy. :smallfrown:

While I never hated Belkar, my appreciation for him has grown since his trippy experience while suffering the final effects of the Mark of Justice. His resulting character growth (fake and otherwise) is enjoyable to see, and it's always fun to see Roy give Belkar some comeuppance.

I can't stand Tarquin anymore, which is a real shame. Originally he seemed like a clever, genre savvy villain, the kind who knew not to press his luck... until he did exactly that. He's the opposite of Xykon, who honestly doesn't care about how he succeeds, just that he does. Whether it's defeating Fyron with blunt force trauma, rather than magic, spamming Energy Drain, Meteor Swarm or Fireball till his enemies are toast, or sending his minions to their deaths, Xykon knows that style and pizzazz are are a luxury. When he can afford to, he goes the extra mile, like inscribing a Symbol of Insanity onto a rubber bouncy ball and tossing it into a room full of Paladins. Sure he could just Meteor Swarm them, but where's the fun in that? But when Soon's Spirit had Xykon and Redcloak on the ropes, and Miko was about to shatter the Azure City Gate, Xykon knew it was time to book.

For Tarquin a victory is meaningless if there's no drama to it. Everything has to be treated like he's a villain in a fantasy story, which can sometimes help him, but he's not willing to do anything else. He has a great scheme going, and he may be about to lose it all thanks to his insistence that Elan obey him (and Laurin's greed, but that's another story; suffice to say The Snarl is now active in Tarquin's backyard).

Basically Tarquin is a minor villain with delusions of self-importance, just like Samantha, Daimyo Kubota or Nale. And the longer the chase scene went on in the desert, the more and more Tarquin morphed from Grand Admiral Thrawn into a pathetic old man.

[mikeejimbo]

That's funny, I grew to sympathize with Redcloak more after Start of Darkness. Not that I ever really disliked him. Now, "sympathize" doesn't mean I approve of his actions, but... it's complicated.

[SavageWombat]

I just don't get you people and your "dislike" of Rich's characters. I mean, you're entitled to your opinion and all, but - really?

[Gift Jeraff]

I'm with you on Redcloak becoming unlikable after reading SoD. Though crushing the Resistance was one of the only times I've rooted for him since then--imploding the elven commander was Redcloak's finest moment.

I didn't care for Z when he first appeared, but when he returned in Book 5, I found him very cool for some reason.

[Keltest]

I just don't get you people and your "dislike" of Rich's characters. I mean, you're entitled to your opinion and all, but - really?

As a writer, creating a character that your audience feels strongly about -one way or the other- is a fairly important goal. Naturally, since not everybody shares the same likes and dislikes, Rich cannot create every character to appeal to every reader.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I just don't get you people and your "dislike" of Rich's characters. I mean, you're entitled to your opinion and all, but - really?
As I said, I'm talking specifically about whether I like this character or not, not how I feel about Rich's characterization of them. For example, I hate Xykon because he's an evil douche. Perhaps I misunderstood the purpose of this thread.

[Anarion]

Hmm, I think Elan's really grown on me as he's grown personally. I found his original character to be somewhat grating because that level of naivete just makes me sigh and shake my head while I wait for whatever trouble he's gotten himself into to be over (I...may have some mental commonality with Roy on this). But since the mid 400s and especially since the separation of the party Elan's grown quite a bit. His outlook is eternally that of the optimist, but he's become better and better at problem solving and actually thinking about the world and what he cares about. His "I'm not a twin anymore" line, while a bit dark for him, was right on point and I see it as one of his best moments in the comic.

Also I despise Redcloak post start of darkness.
I think that's the point of the point really. Xykon nails him for being the whiny "evil for a good cause" while never really owning up to what he does, and Right-Eye absolutely destroyed Redcloak as a character by pointing out that he has never changed. That philosophy of throwing good after bad because Redcloak is so adamantly unwilling to admit that he made a mistake just disgusts me.


I just don't get you people and your "dislike" of Rich's characters. I mean, you're entitled to your opinion and all, but - really?

Dislike as in "I do not like this person" is a sign of really good writing. I think Rich writes really well, both in making me like some characters and dislike others.

[jidasfire]

I just don't get you people and your "dislike" of Rich's characters. I mean, you're entitled to your opinion and all, but - really?

Did you even read what I said? It's nothing to do with thinking the characters are poorly written or wanting them gone.

[SavageWombat]

Did you even read what I said? It's nothing to do with thinking the characters are poorly written or wanting them gone.

Of course I read what you've said. I just haven't seen a character in the strip that wasn't awesome in his own way - although I guess I'm "on the fence" with characters like the gnome with the chocolate.

[Matt620]

Like the original poster, I flip-flopped a bit on Celia: I thought her introduction was kinda fun, and the lawyer part was nice. When she was in Don't Split the Party, I was annoyed by her, but not completely: I accepted the fact that she was naive about the world. I became less annoyed during the battle at Pete's house.

I liked Haley in the beginning, but in the Don't Split the Party Arc, I found her to be quite obnoxious. Most of it was her behavior towards Celia, but she was a total idiot in her reasoning to avoid Greysky. I know she has trust issues, but it would have been simple enough to say "I'm from Greysky, and persona non grata there. We can't go there." That would have been it.

Miko I found to be self-righteous and annoying on her first introduction, but when she fell, I felt sympathy. A little, but I'm of the belief that "the special mission from the Gods" Miko felt like she was on was a delusion she created to stop herself from succumbing to despair. Think about it: She's a little girl who loses her entire family all at once, and is forced to live in a monastery. That's a lot for a little girl to take in. Giving herself a purpose, even if she went about it wrong, gave her a reason to live. As Hinjo said, she makes bad decisions, but that's true about life.

Z grew on me a lot: His return in Book 5 made him awesome, and the little tidbits we get from his relationship with Nale made him cool. He and Nale were friends, genuine friends. I wanted to know more about him.

My opinion of Durkula, when Z was killed ignobly and then his body used as a joke, tanked immensely. I wanted Laurin to kill him, I really did.


Other than that, my opinion on most of the characters was consistent.

[Agnostik]

Not sure if it counts as "changing my mind", but I'm so bored of Elan and Haley these days, it's not even funny.

[mikeejimbo]

All right, here's the thing about Redcloak and Start of Darkness:

The Sapphire Guard waged a war of genocide against the goblins. Rich has time and time again said "Genocide is evil". If the goblins lose in the end, that kind of undermines the whole point, doesn't it? No one has learned anything about rights for stigmatized species, it just leaves the world with the same assumption: The good guys won and the goblins all died because goblins are evil!

And what really bothers me about that is that the goblins were created to be evil. They were literally created, by gods, to be killed. They are treated like cattle except instead of meat the point is to harvest XP from them. But worse, intelligent cattle capable of the self-awareness of their position. But they were also created to evil, so naturally they are going to lash out with an evil response, and in Redcloak's position, an eye for an eye (yes, intentional given Right-Eye, I'll get into it) seems fair to him, because he was created as an evil being and raised in an evil society.

Yes, individual goblins can overcome that, like Right-Eye did. Yes I get that I'm supposed to hate Redcloak for not overcoming that. But in real life, don't we understand people being damaged by their circumstances? Sure we still punish them when they lash out for it, but don't we really pity them, rather than hate them?

Don't we wish that the gods had, I dunno, not created the entire species to be bags of XP whose sole purpose in existence is literally to be killed???

Frankly, the gods can stuff it. I think they are evil, no matter if their 'alignment' says otherwise.

That said, I think that the goblins will not all die. I do think Redcloak will be punished, perhaps for eternity, but I also bet Rich is not going to undermine his point. I'm betting that there will be an outcome that will surprise - but satisfy - me.

[Angel Bob]

I find that character death has a great deal of power to influence someone's opinion of a character. Before the 830s, I was fairly apathetic about Tsukiko, but her death scene made me feel a little sorry for her (and it also provided a very impressive kill for Redcloak!).

In another example: I adore Malack. Not as a person, because he's a pretty scary level of evil, but as a character. He's just cool. He hit all the right chords with me. Obviously, when #906 came out, I was distraught, and greatly incensed that a buffoon like Nale got the drop on someone as awesome as Malack, who had so much potential. But after seeing forum discussions and analysis of Nale and Malack's past, and of Malack's ironic final words, my appreciation of Malack became more well-rounded; I accepted that he wasn't awesome all over, and had some notable flaws. I also came to appreciate Nale a lot more, though of course, not until his death scene.

I guess a character really does reveal a lot about who they really are as they lie dying, which is a very morbid but accurate interpretation of OotS.

[Rodin]

I'm gonna have to go with everybody else on these.

Celia was okay up until Greysky City, then she got annoying really fast.

Redcloak started out as meh, but once he got fleshed out he became more interesting. Xykon was still my favorite because I just love the "zany but really scary" villain type. Then came Redcloak's showdown with Tsukiko, and his awesome weasel out of it by telling Xykon nothing but the truth, just in such a way that he let Xykon draw his own (incorrect) conclusions, while also challenging Xykon to admit he'd sent Tsukiko in the first place. Marvelous stuff.

Malack was one of my favorite characters when he showed up - a guy proving that dark does not always equal evil, that even when you're involved in the running of an evil empire you can still be a pretty decent guy. Then came the scene in the pyramid....Brrrr. I cheered when Nale took him down.

For that matter, Nale is another one. He never got that much attention from me until his death scene, when he became a rather tragic character.

Moral of the story?

The Giant knows how to write really good death scenes.

[Anarion]

All right, here's the thing about Redcloak and Start of Darkness:

The Sapphire Guard waged a war of genocide against the goblins. Rich has time and time again said "Genocide is evil". If the goblins lose in the end, that kind of undermines the whole point, doesn't it? No one has learned anything about rights for stigmatized species, it just leaves the world with the same assumption: The good guys won and the goblins all died because goblins are evil!

And what really bothers me about that is that the goblins were created to be evil. They were literally created, by gods, to be killed. They are treated like cattle except instead of meat the point is to harvest XP from them. But worse, intelligent cattle capable of the self-awareness of their position. But they were also created to evil, so naturally they are going to lash out with an evil response, and in Redcloak's position, an eye for an eye (yes, intentional given Right-Eye, I'll get into it) seems fair to him, because he was created as an evil being and raised in an evil society.

Yes, individual goblins can overcome that, like Right-Eye did. Yes I get that I'm supposed to hate Redcloak for not overcoming that. But in real life, don't we understand people being damaged by their circumstances? Sure we still punish them when they lash out for it, but don't we really pity them, rather than hate them?

Don't we wish that the gods had, I dunno, not created the entire species to be bags of XP whose sole purpose in existence is literally to be killed???

Frankly, the gods can stuff it. I think they are evil, no matter if their 'alignment' says otherwise.

That said, I think that the goblins will not all die. I do think Redcloak will be punished, perhaps for eternity, but I also bet Rich is not going to undermine his point. I'm betting that there will be an outcome that will surprise - but satisfy - me.

Ultimate victory is not and should not be the only way to judge who's right and wrong. The paladins were nearly all killed and their city burned to the ground because of the desire for revenge that their genocide created. Regardless of who wins or loses in the end, it's pretty clear that wiping out towns because "everyone is evil" is not okay and will have consequences.

What SoD teaches, and what I think you're missing, is that the way Redcloak is going about things is wrong. Like, really, really wrong. I didn't quite get it from the main comic because he just seemed like a bad guy with a dangerous plan to help the goblin people. But SoD shows us that there are other, better ways. Right-Eye's village, his family were ways for goblins to establish their place in the world, justify their own defense if needed, and not be evil. And Redcloak rejected it all. He stuck with Xykon and KILLED HIS OWN BROTHER because the thought of admitting that he was wrong was so unbearable. That's right into the unforgivable sins list as far as I'm concerned.

[B. Dandelion]

But SoD shows us that there are other, better ways. Right-Eye's village, his family were ways for goblins to establish their place in the world, justify their own defense if needed, and not be evil. And Redcloak rejected it all.

I wouldn't say he rejected Right-Eye's pacifistic approach. He was in the process of getting on board with it when Xykon showed up. Redcloak expressed some interest in the Plan when Xykon told him about it, but he didn't get the chance to make any kind of significant choice there at all. Xykon conscripted everybody then and there.

Right-Eye's next plan, the "kill Xykon" plan, he does reject, obviously. It was a plan that was doomed to failure and likely would have gotten every single goblin killed in retaliation, but Redcloak did choose to live as a willing slave rather than take his chances to die as a free goblin.

Which I feel is fair to criticize him on, depending on what you admire in a character. But also, it was a pretty crappy set of options he got stuck with either way.

[mikeejimbo]

Ultimate victory is not and should not be the only way to judge who's right and wrong. The paladins were nearly all killed and their city burned to the ground because of the desire for revenge that their genocide created. Regardless of who wins or loses in the end, it's pretty clear that wiping out towns because "everyone is evil" is not okay and will have consequences.

What SoD teaches, and what I think you're missing, is that the way Redcloak is going about things is wrong. Like, really, really wrong. I didn't quite get it from the main comic because he just seemed like a bad guy with a dangerous plan to help the goblin people. But SoD shows us that there are other, better ways. Right-Eye's village, his family were ways for goblins to establish their place in the world, justify their own defense if needed, and not be evil. And Redcloak rejected it all. He stuck with Xykon and KILLED HIS OWN BROTHER because the thought of admitting that he was wrong was so unbearable. That's right into the unforgivable sins list as far as I'm concerned.

You're right, but I'll still be upset if everything is status quo for the goblins after this. Ideally the gods themselves would also get punished for putting the goblins in the position in the first place. I think Redcloak saw killing his brother as a sacrifice for the greater good, and without condoning it, I can see how he could see that. What upsets me is expecting Redcloak to not be evil when the gods created him that way, and not putting any blame on the gods for that.

[Porthos]

You're right, but I'll still be upset if everything is status quo for the goblins after this. Ideally the gods themselves would also get punished for putting the goblins in the position in the first place. I think Redcloak saw killing his brother as a sacrifice for the greater good, and without condoning it, I can see how he could see that. What upsets me is expecting Redcloak to not be evil when the gods created him that way, and not putting any blame on the gods for that.

I know I sound like a broken record when I say this, but I feel it is an important reminder:

The only people who claim that the gods created the goblins (and others) to be XP fodder are the goblins themselves. Or, even more accurately, Redcloak.

Whether or not he is right, partially right, or just repeating propaganda has yet to be established.

[Cikomyr]

In another example: I adore Malack. Not as a person, because he's a pretty scary level of evil, but as a character. He's just cool. He hit all the right chords with me. Obviously, when #906 came out, I was distraught, and greatly incensed that a buffoon like Nale got the drop on someone as awesome as Malack, who had so much potential. But after seeing forum discussions and analysis of Nale and Malack's past, and of Malack's ironic final words, my appreciation of Malack became more well-rounded; I accepted that he wasn't awesome all over, and had some notable flaws. I also came to appreciate Nale a lot more, though of course, not until his death scene.

I guess a character really does reveal a lot about who they really are as they lie dying, which is a very morbid but accurate interpretation of OotS.

May I have link to this discussion, or at least the main points that convinced you? There might be insights into his character I missed

[Lombard]

I definitely like Elan way better since he's been fleshed out to be more than a three-beat joke machine. That's not a given however since I actually enjoyed V slightly more before the familicidal angst.

Celia really though? Maybe I need to go back and read her strips some more, I long ago had written her off as the manifestation of a desire to give Roy some token love interest that wouldn't need much story treatment and was logistically convenient.

[Rezby]

Belkar was really boring initially. Oh look, its yet another guy who is so evil and brutal but he can be put to good use so we keep him around. Yawn. characters who are evil for teh lulz are boring. Nothing hooks me into their story. Xykon? He was also kind of boring at first.

Belkar's vision quest though really made him into an actual character. The dot became a line became an irregular polygon became an irregular polyhedral became a person.

Xykon has had some characterization himself, too. His speech to Vaarsuvius when V was in the soul splice (I think the forum has dubbed that to be Darth Vaarsuvius?) was excellent. He's interesting, not because he's a big bad lich, but because of the characters he surrounds himself with. Tsukiko, Redcloack, the Monster in the Dark'ness. His interactions with them give him more personality. It's fantastic.

I think its kind of fitting, that as the comic's tone has turned darker and darker, from less slapstick every panel is D&D jokes, to more plot and drama, but still making cracks, Elan himself has also really matured. His character evolution has been more or less in keeping with the evolution of the plot, and I think that's great.

[oppyu]

Miko was one for me. After my first readthrough I was rushing a bit and didn't particularly like her. Second time over she came off more sympathetically, and it helped that I actually noticed that Roy was being the sleazy douche who refuses to take 'I have zero interest in you and am only travelling with you because you are my prisoner and I'm escorting you to serve trial for crimes for which the only possible sentence is death. I have literally tried to kill you.' for an answer.

[mikeejimbo]

I know I sound like a broken record when I say this, but I feel it is an important reminder:

The only people who claim that the gods created the goblins (and others) to be XP fodder are the goblins themselves. Or, even more accurately, Redcloak.

Whether or not he is right, partially right, or just repeating propaganda has yet to be established.

I was just about to post this addendum myself. If it turns out he's wrong, I will breathe a sigh of relief. I'll still feel a little bad for the predicament, though.

[Angel Bob]

May I have link to this discussion, or at least the main points that convinced you? There might be insights into his character I missed

I'm afraid I've forgotten which specific threads/posts changed my mind. Essentially, it was pointed out to me that Nale had been plotting Malack's death longer than he had Elan's, and, more importantly, Malack was a selfish hypocrite and a villain. Even his devotion to Nergal, he who brings death to all things (no exceptions, Malack specified that early on) got thrown out the window when he found himself moments from eradication. As likable as Malack's demeanor was, he was as myopic and callously cruel as Tarquin or the like: he was perfectly cordial to someone who wasn't in his way, but when push came to shove, Malack would sacrifice even a dear friend to further his own ambitions and protect his level of comfort.

[DeliaP]

You're right, but I'll still be upset if everything is status quo for the goblins after this. Ideally the gods themselves would also get punished for putting the goblins in the position in the first place. I think Redcloak saw killing his brother as a sacrifice for the greater good, and without condoning it, I can see how he could see that. What upsets me is expecting Redcloak to not be evil when the gods created him that way, and not putting any blame on the gods for that.

Lots of points of agreement with you. Here's the dilemma regarding RC: I want the goblins to get a happy(-ier) ending; Redcloak? Not so much. But almost any way that the goblins get a happier resolution would be claimed by RC as a victory.

Probably one of the single biggest overarching themes to the whole run of OotS, is the idea that viewing "monsters" as chunks of XP, and it being OK to kill "Always Evil" creatures without any other reasons, is just wrong, wrong wrong. And so I can't believe that the story will end without a better deal for the goblin races.

But there's a problem: how to avoid Redcloak then claiming the end justified the means(*), whatever?

Here's my only guess: RC's plans will all fail to come to fruition, and he will be facing total disaster, only for humans, elves, dwarves (even paladins!) to effectively come to his (and/or the goblin races) rescue. And he will be faced with a situation where he nearly destroyed the goblins, but they were saved by the very races he despised.

(*) Kinda like Cyclops at the end of AvX :smallbiggrin:

[Sir_Leorik]

I just don't get you people and your "dislike" of Rich's characters. I mean, you're entitled to your opinion and all, but - really?

That doesn't mean I don't like the story, it just means I find some characters annoying, or overused. Tarquin was a case where the readers are meant to realize that Tarquin is merely a semi-competent Warlord with an over-inflated ego. By contrast, Xykon is pretty much a case of "What You See Is What You Get". Xykon doesn't care about artifice, only about staving off boredom (preferably by hurting someone or watching someone get hurt). But when necessary, Xykon shows that he really is a badass Lich. He just doesn't care enough whether other characters acknowledge how clever he is. At the end of the day, Xykon only cares about power and not being bored out of his skull. And in a sense that's why I find him interesting. He seems like a walking villain cliche, but scratch those bones a little, and under the surface is a deadly threat to the whole World.

Then there are characters that I don't think I've ever liked, and probably never will. Qarr tops that list. Between his treatment of Therkla, Vaarsuvius, Sabine, Zz'Ditri and the unnamed Pit Fiend, Qarr has basically betrayed every single character he's been associated with since he first showed up. He only failed to betray Kubota because V disintegrated the Daimyo first, and Qarr is probably too terrified to betray the IFCC directors. On top of his snide, cowardly behavior, Qarr is quite frankly awful at his job. Unless he's supposed to cast Charm Monster on a few creatures with low Will saves, Qarr will fail at any task he is given, and make excuses all the while. He is awful at tempting others, he is awful at Bluffing others, he is awful at stealth (even when invisible) he is awful at conveying messages, and he is awful at spotting enemies.

Compare Qarr to Kilkil, for example. Kilkil is a model of efficiency. Without characters like him, the Empire of Blood would collapse under it's own weight. Kilkil is Lawful Neutral, a character who is content to do his job and do it well, collect a paycheck and live long enough to collect his pension. He did not retreat or flee from any of the combats he participated in in Book Five, even though he's not really an adventurer. He's simply a Kobold Expert with a Feat from Races of the Dragon that grants him wings. He's an accountant, not a Warrior, Wizard or Rogue. But he obeyed orders and went on an expedition with his boss into a Pyramid. Compare him to Qarr, who teleported away from the Linear Guild at the first opportunity, in order to try (and fail) to mess with V's mind. When teleporting away, Qarr could have told Malack that he was going to try searching for Z, and would attempt to keep Malack in the loop. Instead, he flaunted the fact that he had his own agenda, and popped away. I hope the IFCC's Infernal Resources department notes that on Qarr's next review. :smallamused:


All right, here's the thing about Redcloak and Start of Darkness:

The Sapphire Guard waged a war of genocide against the goblins. Rich has time and time again said "Genocide is evil". If the goblins lose in the end, that kind of undermines the whole point, doesn't it? No one has learned anything about rights for stigmatized species, it just leaves the world with the same assumption: The good guys won and the goblins all died because goblins are evil!

And what really bothers me about that is that the goblins were created to be evil. They were literally created, by gods, to be killed. They are treated like cattle except instead of meat the point is to harvest XP from them. But worse, intelligent cattle capable of the self-awareness of their position. But they were also created to evil, so naturally they are going to lash out with an evil response, and in Redcloak's position, an eye for an eye (yes, intentional given Right-Eye, I'll get into it) seems fair to him, because he was created as an evil being and raised in an evil society.

Yes, individual goblins can overcome that, like Right-Eye did. Yes I get that I'm supposed to hate Redcloak for not overcoming that. But in real life, don't we understand people being damaged by their circumstances? Sure we still punish them when they lash out for it, but don't we really pity them, rather than hate them?

Don't we wish that the gods had, I dunno, not created the entire species to be bags of XP whose sole purpose in existence is literally to be killed???

Frankly, the gods can stuff it. I think they are evil, no matter if their 'alignment' says otherwise.

That said, I think that the goblins will not all die. I do think Redcloak will be punished, perhaps for eternity, but I also bet Rich is not going to undermine his point. I'm betting that there will be an outcome that will surprise - but satisfy - me.

Long before Right-Eye took Eugene Greenhilt's advice, and took up the life of a humble carpenter, The Dark One was also trying to advance the well-being of the Goblins. The thing is that Right-Eye and The Dark One took completely opposite paths to trying to acheive the same goal. The Dark One basically chose to raise an army and demand that Goblins be treated better. Right-Eye built a village and earned the respect of the surrounding humans. And that's why The Dark One failed: he behaved the way the gods intended him to: as a menace to Humans, Dwarves, Elves, Halflings and Gnomes.

That is what the gods meant by "creating the humanoids to provide XP". They created them as a threat to Humanity, Dwarfkind, Elvendom, etc. And The Dark One played that role to a tee, even as he was trying to break out of it. Is it any wonder that the kings and queens he was meeting decided to assassinate The Dark One? They thought he was a menace, and that the negotiations were a ploy. They didn't think that because of something the gods had said. They thought that because Goblins had been living on the edges of civilization for so long, acting as bandits, brigands and marauders. The difference between past Goblin armies and The Dark One's army was merely one of scale. And the fact that The Dark One's army rampaged for an entire year, committing genocide against humans, until they were stopped, shows that whatever fancy words The Dark One spoke, he was still the leader of a Goblin army.

Redcloak is merely perpetuating The Dark One's misguided means to a noble end: ending persecution of Goblins and acheiving equality for Goblins. And worse, he's doing so in an even worse manner. Not only is Redcloak risking the entire World's safety with The Plan, but ever since he and Right-Eye allied with Xykon in "Be'elzebuddy's Diner", Xykon has killed hundreds, possibly thousands, of Goblins, and caused the deaths of many more.

Meanwhile, Right-Eye walked away from this cycle of death and insanity, and forged a new way of life for Goblins. No raids, no war bands, no pillaging. No adventurer attacks, no need to set traps, or summon Devils. Just hard work, cooperation and forging good relations with the neighbors. Right-Eye created a village that doesn't scream "adventure hook", unless adventurers are stopping by between adventures to rest at the inn, and ask about nearby threats to the Goblin village. The only adventurers who would attack Right-Eye's village are Evil adventurers (who would attack a Human village too), or bigoted Neutral adventurers. Good Aligned adventurers should not attack a village just because Goblins live there, unless those Goblins are raiders, brigands or marauders. (And even then, attacking the women and children is an Evil act).



What SoD teaches, and what I think you're missing, is that the way Redcloak is going about things is wrong. Like, really, really wrong. I didn't quite get it from the main comic because he just seemed like a bad guy with a dangerous plan to help the goblin people. But SoD shows us that there are other, better ways. Right-Eye's village, his family were ways for goblins to establish their place in the world, justify their own defense if needed, and not be evil. And Redcloak rejected it all. He stuck with Xykon and KILLED HIS OWN BROTHER because the thought of admitting that he was wrong was so unbearable. That's right into the unforgivable sins list as far as I'm concerned.

And then we come to the final step of Redcloak's journey to irredeemable Evil. Before he murdered Right-Eye, Redcloak could justify his actions as a means to a better life for his people. But the fact that he chose Xykon over his own brother speaks volumes. He chose The Plan over family and there's no coming back from that. Originally, Redcloak's devotion to The Plan was to prevent the murder of any more Goblins by religious extremists. But then he goes and does exactly that: he murders his brother over devotion to religious dogma. That makes Redcloak a villain. As much as I sympathize with the hard life he had, Right-Eye had the same hard life and chose not to be Xykon's pawn. Redcloak chose to serve both The Dark One and Xykon, at the expense of his brother's life.

Then Xykon drops by and reveals it was all a test; he was never in any danger from Right-Eye. Xykon wanted to see where Redcloak's loyalties lay, and the answer was that he was Xykon's slave.

While Redcloak has shown signs in DStP and Book Five of chafing under Xykon's rule, he will not take direct steps to harm Xykon or upset the Lich. He just wants to perform the Ritual so The Plan can be concluded. Any distractions or obstacles (like Tsukiko or Roy Greenhilt) need to be removed in a quick and efficient manner. But that doesn't change the fact that he's only continuing because he's come so far. He feels that if he stops now it would all be for nothing, so he keeps going forward.


I wouldn't say he rejected Right-Eye's pacifistic approach. He was in the process of getting on board with it when Xykon showed up. Redcloak expressed some interest in the Plan when Xykon told him about it, but he didn't get the chance to make any kind of significant choice there at all. Xykon conscripted everybody then and there.

Right-Eye's next plan, the "kill Xykon" plan, he does reject, obviously. It was a plan that was doomed to failure and likely would have gotten every single goblin killed in retaliation, but Redcloak did choose to live as a willing slave rather than take his chances to die as a free goblin.

Which I feel is fair to criticize him on, depending on what you admire in a character. But also, it was a pretty crappy set of options he got stuck with either way.

Redcloak only accepted Right-Eye's offer to live in the village after seeing how close Right-Eye and his oldest son were. The bonds of family, which Redcloak hadn't felt in many years, was about to win him over. Then Xykon shows up, and The Plan's Sirine song lures Redcloak back.

As for Right-Eye's plan, Redcloak had three options: help Right-Eye destroy Xykon; attack Right-Eye; or do nothing and see which side won. Redcloak chose to side with Xykon and murdered his brother in cold blood. Doing nothing was an option. It probably would have ticked Xykon off, but Xykon can be mercurial and might have spared Redcloak's life.


You're right, but I'll still be upset if everything is status quo for the goblins after this. Ideally the gods themselves would also get punished for putting the goblins in the position in the first place. I think Redcloak saw killing his brother as a sacrifice for the greater good, and without condoning it, I can see how he could see that. What upsets me is expecting Redcloak to not be evil when the gods created him that way, and not putting any blame on the gods for that.

The gods never told their Clerics "Go kill Orcs, Kobolds, Goblins and Lizardfolk." They instead created those races, and placed them in areas that aren't conducive to civillized life. While it wasn't necessary to become raiders, it was pretty much a guarantee that these races would become barbaric, savage or primitive. The Orcs on the island where Elan, Durkon, Lien and Deigo were captured (before being rescued by Therkla) are a good example. Those Orcs aren't Evil, just primitive. Given a proper education, and training in metal-working and stonemasonry, those Orcs could build a decent civilization (though the small size of the island would keep their population low). Add the fact that the Greg Initiative's stations are scattered around the Island, and they have their own god to provide Shaman Vurkle with Cleric spells, and these Orcs could be quite well off.

Then there are the Kobolds and Lizardfolk of the Western Continent, who are far more civilized than their counterparts on the Northern Continent. While they often engage in marauding, banditry and attacks against their neighbors, that's because they live on the Western Continent; everyone on the Western Continent does that.

Basically, even if Redcloak was correct about why the gods created Humanoids, it doesn't mean that Humanoids need to live by that Fate. They can forge their own destiny, as Right-Eye proved. Redcloak is merely living down to the gods' low expectations, albeit on a grand scale.

[B. Dandelion]

Redcloak only accepted Right-Eye's offer to live in the village after seeing how close Right-Eye and his oldest son were. The bonds of family, which Redcloak hadn't felt in many years, was about to win him over. Then Xykon shows up, and The Plan's Sirine song lures Redcloak back.

As for Right-Eye's plan, Redcloak had three options: help Right-Eye destroy Xykon; attack Right-Eye; or do nothing and see which side won. Redcloak chose to side with Xykon and murdered his brother in cold blood. Doing nothing was an option. It probably would have ticked Xykon off, but Xykon can be mercurial and might have spared Redcloak's life.

The bonds of family were part-and-parcel of an entire near-epiphany. "Maybe it is time to rethink my grand designs. Maybe I should be trying to build our people up instead of tearing other people down. Maybe I can do the most good for our people by helping this little farming village and all the ones near it achieve their true potential."

Where exactly do you get "the Plan's Siren song lures Redcloak back"? He expresses some interest in what Xykon has to say. He doesn't make some kind of definitive, "okay, you're right, let's forget the village thing and go back to the Plan" kind of decision because he doesn't get to. Right-Eye tries to make the decision for him ("he's not going anywhere"), and then Xykon overrules him and makes the decision for all of them. Redcloak had zero say in that, so I don't see why that counts as some kind of outright rejection.

It would have been better to watch Xykon kill Right-Eye and then just have to hold out for hope he didn't retaliate against everyone else? Considering Xykon let Right-Eye go through with it especially because he wanted to test Redcloak, it sounds like a pretty bad idea for Redcloak to go about explicitly failing that test. My point here is, given the setup, there was no way Redcloak was walking out of the book with a happy ending, none of his available choices led to such an outcome. He was going to be free and dead, or alive and enslaved. Your third choice amounts to "living at Xykon's whim," which is not to my mind significantly different than his current standing.

It's all right with me if people criticize him for taking the worst of all available options, but it rubs me a little bit the wrong way when they act as though he had genuinely good ones to choose from between instead.

[Sir_Leorik]

It's all right with me if people criticize him for taking the worst of all available options, but it rubs me a little bit the wrong way when they act as though he had genuinely good ones to choose from between instead.

But all of those choices Redcloak had available outside of Dorukan's Castle (and outside Right-Eye's hovel) were the result of previous choices Redcloak had made years before. The first was teaming up with Xykon in the first place. By the time of the assault on Lirian's Gate, Right-Eye already has concluded that it was a Collosal mistake, and that's before Xykon's become a Lich.

The second choice was transforming Xykon into a Lich. Yeah, the choice was doing that or remaining in Lirian's dungeon for years, but that backfired in Redcloak's face almost immediately. First Xykon murders every remaining Goblin (save Redcloak and Right-Eye), then Xykon throws a temper tantrum because he's lost his sense of taste.

The third choice Redcloak made was to not accompany Right-Eye when Right-Eye fled Xykon's tower on Lair Island.

The fourth choice was not enlisting SG-1 into The Dark One's crusade against the other gods going to visit his brother without considering that Xykon might follow him there. Even if Redcloak didn't want to abandon The Plan, he should have made sure that Xykon (or the Sapphire Guard) wasn't able to track him down.

The fifth choice was not protecting Right-Eye's family when adventurers attacked Xykon's Goblin army.

Finally, the most terrible choice that Redcloak made can be summed up in two words: Taco Night. :smalltongue:

Had it not been for those six choices, Redcloak would not have been placed in the position of choosing between Xykon and his own brother.

[B. Dandelion]

But all of those choices Redcloak had available outside of Dorukan's Castle (and outside Right-Eye's hovel) were the result of previous choices Redcloak had made years before.

Yes, but most of those other choices were also between two bad choices. You make the same point yourself when you bring up the decision to turn Xykon into a lich. Recloak's better options for all of those choices were: Don't pick up a powerful ally when you get the chance, even though your odds of picking up a goblin wizard are admittedly very low. Stay imprisoned indefinitely. Run away from your responsibilities as high priest and make someone else take over that unpleasant job. And.. stay away from the person you most care about when you haven't seen your boss in years (that was less a bad moral choice than a bad tactical one). As for not protecting Right-Eye's family -- you honestly think Redcloak had a shot at seeing them stay alive and made the active decision to take a pass on helping? Even Right-Eye doesn't make that accusation. The Giant suggested he would have raised them but was vetoed by Xykon due to that being a "waste of resources".

He's made a series of bad choices when offered a long string of only terrible options. That's kind of the story of his life, really.

[JBiddles]

I used to really hate Nale, but he kind of got better in the latest arc. That could just be due to his death, though.

Belkar never really did anything for me until the Mark activated.

As for Redcloak, I lost all sympathy for him when he even entertained the prospect of throwing people into the Azure City Rift. Seriously? Not even Xykon has ever gone so far as to destroy a soul.

Like the thread starter, I wavered on Celia, but finally came down on the "nope" side when she claimed that Haley was only in it for self-interest. It's not as if Haley, you know, saved Celia's life and continues to risk her own for the greater good.

[Bulldog Psion]

Characters I've changed my mind about?

Haley: started out kind of being meh about her, have gradually come to like her a lot (probably more than any of the other characters in the story, actually) as she's shown from a more mature viewpoint.

Varsuuvius: liked the elf back when she was a verbose, but basically decent, bookworm type at the start. After evolving into a genocidal freak, casual torturer, and annoying penitent, I can't stand him any more.

Redcloak: thought he was kind of meh to begin with. Now he's become a formidable villain. Don't like/dislike him, but went from being bored with him to viewing him as a complex and dangerous adversary for the heroes.

Celia: liked her initially. Despised her more recently.

[Ceiling_Squid]

Varsuuvius: liked the elf back when she was a verbose, but basically decent, bookworm type at the start. After evolving into a genocidal freak, casual torturer, and annoying penitent, I can't stand him any more.


Annoying penitent? Really?

Would you rather he jumped right over the moral event horizon and never looked back?

On the contrary, I've liked Varsuuvius more and more as the story has gone on. Instead of being a one-note uptight joke character, the wizard has been forced to constantly re-evaluate everything he thought about himself.

As far as "casual torturer" and "genocidal freak" goes: I think its very revealing that he made those choices under controlled conditions. It revealed a part of himself I'm sure he wasn't aware of. His response to that, however, is what makes me like him more.

Unlike other characters who crossed the threshold of evil (like Miko), he recoiled in shock at what he saw in the mirror, and didn't deny his guilt after the fact. I don't think he can ever forgive himself. Angst and paralyzing guilt is probably expected, given the degree of his crimes. I don't find it annoying - I find sobering. It's interesting to watch him grapple with it by degrees.

It's nice to see a character who committed a terrible act trying to seek redemption. At least I think so.

*EDIT: Not saying "He" to contradict you. I think I'm just going to be meta and use my personal view of the character to describe him. Same way the characters in-comic. do. Easier than resorting to gender-neutral pronoun mashups.


Redcloak, on the other hand, while well-written, has gradually lost my sympathy. He's become increasingly hypocritical in his casual racism towards humans, and has lost sight of his own ideals for the goblin people. I think he's a good exercise in "he who hunts monsters".

I also keep wishing Redcloak would grow a spine and actually stand up to Xykon when it matters.

[CaDzilla]

Qarr has basically betrayed every single character he's been associated with since he first showed up. He only failed to betray Kubota because V disintegrated the Daimyo first, and Qarr is probably too terrified to betray the IFCC directors.



Qarr betrayed Kubota He was supposed to be his backup (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0594.html)

[Bulldog Psion]

Annoying penitent? Really?

Would you rather he jumped right over the moral event horizon and never looked back?

No, I'm just saying that he's annoying as a penitent as well. It's not that I don't want V to be penitent, but rather that I find V's particular brand of regret to be obnoxious. I guess I just dislike the character now, and there's not much that V could do that would change that. Any action by him would annoy me, even if I don't carry it quite as far as Zimmerwald. :smallwink: Though I do hope that the elf gets unmade by the Snarl or flung into the Nine Hells at the end of the comic.

And the penitence is mostly fake anyway, since she tortured the kobold without a qualm after supposedly starting to repent.

[Sir_Dr_D]

I think the part with Celia was misunderstood. One of the points of the Haley/Celia arc was to show case some of Haley's poor leadership and communication skills. If you look at things from Celia's perspective, the first thing she had to when summoned, is tell Hailey about the cloister, and give Haley a grip on reality about her leadership with the resistance. Then when the go the adventure the first thing that happens is they meet some Hobgobolins. Haley immediately treats killing the Hobgolblins as the only option, when their was other options. Then Belkar kills the gnome, and Hailey doesn't really do anything about it. If you were Celia, would you trust Hailey after that?
Celia does act a little bit like the collage student who thinks she knows more then her superiors, which is a common trait and would simmer after proper leadership. But she is also smart, innovative, adaptable and takes actions on her ideals. She found non-violent solutions that were actually quite smart, from the point of view of the information she had available. The fact that Haley didn't tell her things, was not Celia's fault.

___________________________________________
Anyhow, characters that I changed my mind about: almost all of them from the first 100 pages of comics. This includes the OOTS, the Linear guild, and Team Evil. They were all one dimensional at that point as the comic had different goals in mind. The giant did a good job of providing depth to all of the characters, after that point.

Julio Scoundrel is another character worth mentioning. I did not like him at all when he showed up again, as he was a cliched character that had no business being in any part of the story other then a side plot. But the recent story with him has been interesting, and he has grown on me.

[Vinyadan]

I found most of Blackwing's talks with V and the Imp extremely boring. I begun to like him only when he showed himself as something more than V's conscience, when he had the chance of interacting with other characters in 943. Good thing, because both he and V were starting to feel stale to me.

I begun thinking of Tarquin with a neutral-to-positive feel, then I stopped liking him when the whole "narrative about the narrative" thing went all way out. Elan's feelings when he runs away from the balcony are something I cannot relate to; and, after all, the only reason why he is so appalled is a bard's particularity. I then begun liking Tarquin again when he did his big show on the Mechane, because, however evil, he finally looked convinced to me, and not just like an actor playing his part.

[Keltest]

Qarr betrayed Kubota He was supposed to be his backup (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0594.html)

that was Quarr's incompetence leaving him out of position. Not him taking deliberate actions that he knew would end up leaving him out of position.

[mikeejimbo]

The gods never told their Clerics "Go kill Orcs, Kobolds, Goblins and Lizardfolk." They instead created those races, and placed them in areas that aren't conducive to civillized life. While it wasn't necessary to become raiders, it was pretty much a guarantee that these races would become barbaric, savage or primitive. The Orcs on the island where Elan, Durkon, Lien and Deigo were captured (before being rescued by Therkla) are a good example. Those Orcs aren't Evil, just primitive. Given a proper education, and training in metal-working and stonemasonry, those Orcs could build a decent civilization (though the small size of the island would keep their population low). Add the fact that the Greg Initiative's stations are scattered around the Island, and they have their own god to provide Shaman Vurkle with Cleric spells, and these Orcs could be quite well off.

Then there are the Kobolds and Lizardfolk of the Western Continent, who are far more civilized than their counterparts on the Northern Continent. While they often engage in marauding, banditry and attacks against their neighbors, that's because they live on the Western Continent; everyone on the Western Continent does that.

Basically, even if Redcloak was correct about why the gods created Humanoids, it doesn't mean that Humanoids need to live by that Fate. They can forge their own destiny, as Right-Eye proved. Redcloak is merely living down to the gods' low expectations, albeit on a grand scale.

I still have a problem with the gods forcing them into that position, though, and then expecting them to just "deal with it."

I think I've come to the wall where I can't really explain my problem with it better without getting into real world politics/religion stuff, though, unfortunately. So I should probably just stop here :smallredface:.

[Keltest]

I still have a problem with the gods forcing them into that position, though, and then expecting them to just "deal with it."

I think I've come to the wall where I can't really explain my problem with it better without getting into real world politics/religion stuff, though, unfortunately. So I should probably just stop here :smallredface:.

you are, of course, assuming that the gods cared about making sense. They managed to get Ninjas into the classic swords and sorcery Europe style setting after all.

[mikeejimbo]

you are, of course, assuming that the gods cared about making sense. They managed to get Ninjas into the classic swords and sorcery Europe style setting after all.

Well, that was just Monkey. :smalltongue:

[Sir_Leorik]

Qarr betrayed Kubota He was supposed to be his backup (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0594.html)


that was Quarr's incompetence leaving him out of position. Not him taking deliberate actions that he knew would end up leaving him out of position.

Exactly. Qarr thinks he's some mastermind, able to trick mortals with ease and craft plans, but he's basically an idiot and a coward. Qarr was probably planning to hide until the Pit Fiend finished off Hinjo, Lien and the Order. Had he shown up during the fight, there isn't much Elan could have done against him (though Therkla might have been able to hurt Qarr).

Daimyo Kubota was not the bravest of men, but he knew how to fight dirty, and he gamed the system by making sure he had +5 full plate armor, buffs and took Total Defense. While he was weaving in and out of Elan's way, Qarr could have teleported in, flanked Elan and started poisoning Elan with his tail. He could have cast Charm Monster on Elan. He could have threatened to coup de grace Daigo. But instead Qarr made a break for it, since he figured there was nothing more Daimyo Kubota could offer him.

[Angel Bob]

Initially, I was greatly disappointed at the revelations in #946 regarding Durkon and vampirism. I had been eagerly looking forward to seeing a vampire with Durkon's memories and personality, plus evil urges. Obviously, that's not the case. I gnashed my teeth for a bit, because this situation is not how I expect or prefer vampires to work.

However, as with Malack's destruction, my disappointment has been tempered by forum insight and predictions. There is still an opportunity for Durkon's character to undergo interesting ordeals and dramatics. And the duality of two spirits wrestling among the same body can always be interesting.

I do regret that the High Priest of Hel sees itself and Durkon as separate entities, though. I really would have liked to see a vampire Durkon that actually thought it was Durkon (whether or not its assumption was correct). Oh well.

[Gift Jeraff]

Exactly. Qarr thinks he's some mastermind, able to trick mortals with ease and craft plans, but he's basically an idiot and a coward. Qarr was probably planning to hide until the Pit Fiend finished off Hinjo, Lien and the Order.

Therkla said Qarr teleported off to give the order to attack the tertiary targets (the Katos).

Anyway, I think Qarr saw the petrified fiend and already decided to ditch Kubota for V.

I don't see Qarr as someone who fancies himself a brilliant mastermind. He outright admits that his whole purpose in life is to just suck up to people more powerful than him. Poor guy probably has low self-esteem.

[Anarion]

You're right, but I'll still be upset if everything is status quo for the goblins after this. Ideally the gods themselves would also get punished for putting the goblins in the position in the first place. I think Redcloak saw killing his brother as a sacrifice for the greater good, and without condoning it, I can see how he could see that. What upsets me is expecting Redcloak to not be evil when the gods created him that way, and not putting any blame on the gods for that.

I think we're out of SoD spoilers here, but I truly, truly do not see how it's possible for there to be status quo for anyone by the end of this story. Unless you define status quo so broadly as "the good guys win," which is just meaningless at that point. Azure City is destroyed, Redcloak won, the paladins were almost entirely murdered. Even if it is eventually retaken, the Azurites will be forever scarred by the experience.

The goblins rule a city now. The hobgoblins were already an organized militaristic society before Redcloak and Xykon even got there and now they've got trade rights with numerous other cities including Cliffport. Even if Azure City is retaken, Gobottopia doesn't cease to be or fade into history and future goblins would not forget what had been done so swiftly.



And the penitence is mostly fake anyway, since she tortured the kobold without a qualm after supposedly starting to repent.

Your timing is off on this point. V felt bad about wasting her power after it wore off, but did not understand the scope of familicide nor intend to make penance for it at the time that she tortured the kobold. V's realization came inside the pyramid and she panicked and ran away from, what was the name, YukYuk along with the rest of the party. Since overcoming that initial bout of despair and choosing to do her best to make up for what she did, V has had no interaction with YukYuk and I think it likely that V would not treat a YukYuk style character the same way in the future (though she might still dominate someone for tactical reasons in combat).

[mikeejimbo]

I think we're out of SoD spoilers here, but I truly, truly do not see how it's possible for there to be status quo for anyone by the end of this story.

I mean status quo in thoughts and attitudes. If all the 'good guys' still feel like goblin genocide is acceptable, I'll feel like something has been missed.

[Living Oxymoron]

I used to like Tarquin. Not anymore.
Edit: to clarify, I'm referring to him as a character, not how he has been characterized. I think Tarquin is actually a really well written character, but a despicable one.

Me too, Tarquin was very promising villain in my view before, but after he sent an army to attack the Order just because Elan wasn't fitting his ideal narrative, I realized he was just an ass.

[Anarion]

I mean status quo in thoughts and attitudes. If all the 'good guys' still feel like goblin genocide is acceptable, I'll feel like something has been missed.

Sorry to be pushing on this, but who thinks that now and doesn't have a name that rhymes with Blykon?

None of the Order. None of the few remaining paladins. None of the random helpful cameo characters have ever expressed the view you seem to think that the good guys hold about goblin genocide. And Miko is dead, the elven insurgents are dead, the more extreme members of the Azure City resistance are dead so the only known "good" characters I can think of who might have supported the goblin genocide thing are no longer living.

[oppyu]

Sorry to be pushing on this, but who thinks that now and doesn't have a name that rhymes with Blykon?

None of the Order. None of the few remaining paladins. None of the random helpful cameo characters have ever expressed the view you seem to think that the good guys hold about goblin genocide. And Miko is dead, the elven insurgents are dead, the more extreme members of the Azure City resistance are dead so the only known "good" characters I can think of who might have supported the goblin genocide thing are no longer living.
Well, there is Belkar :smalltongue:

[mikeejimbo]

Sorry to be pushing on this, but who thinks that now and doesnhas tried have a name that rhymes with Blykon?

None of the Order. None of the few remaining paladins. None of the random helpful cameo characters have ever expressed the view you seem to think that the good guys hold about goblin genocide. And Miko is dead, the elven insurgents are dead, the more extreme members of the Azure City resistance are dead so the only known "good" characters I can think of who might have supported the goblin genocide thing are no longer living.

And what have any of these characters ever done to help improve the goblins' position? I know that's not personally killing them, but sitting by while they suffer, struggling to barely make a living in the most hostile lands is tantamount to at least accepting their extinction. I guess a few of the nations that recognize Gobbotopia, showing an effort at treating them as equals.

[oppyu]

And what have any of these characters ever done to help improve the goblins' position? I know that's not personally killing them, but sitting by while they suffer, struggling to barely make a living in the most hostile lands is tantamount to at least accepting their extinction. I guess a few of the nations that recognize Gobbotopia, showing an effort at treating them as equals.
I don't see how any of the main parties are going to derive 'we should do more to help the goblin population' from this whole affair. Thus far, goblins have served a purely antagonistic role in the narrative. There are exactly two goblins the Order have met who weren't trying to kill them, and that was in the first hundred strips. Since then, goblins waged a massive invasion of Azure City that the Order fought against, claimed Azure City for their own and enslaved the human population (which Haley and Belkar fought against), and Redcloak is still partners/working for Xykon in their plan to control the Snarl. If anything, Hinjo's going to come out of this with a renewed vigilance for hunting down and killing the bearer of the Crimson Mantle at all costs.

[Warren Dew]

I couldn't stand Elan at the beginning, but as he became competent, he quit being annoying. I liked Belkar as a character at the beginning, though I didn't like him as a person; now, he's just a nebbish.

I agree that Vaarsuvius has become an annoying penitent, but it hasn't been enough to really change my views yet.


It would have been better to watch Xykon kill Right-Eye and then just have to hold out for hope he didn't retaliate against everyone else? Considering Xykon let Right-Eye go through with it especially because he wanted to test Redcloak, it sounds like a pretty bad idea for Redcloak to go about explicitly failing that test. My point here is, given the setup, there was no way Redcloak was walking out of the book with a happy ending, none of his available choices led to such an outcome.

I'm unconvinced that Right Eye was certain to be unsuccessful, and I'm certainly unconvinced that Redcloak had the information to conclude that Right Eye would be unsuccessful. I think it's quite clear that Redcloak killed Right Eye to preserve 'the plan' - and not Xykon's plan, either, but the Dark One's plan - rather than to save other goblins. Fear of retribution against himself might have been a factor, but even that marks his murder as selfish, when even standing aside might have been less ignoble.

[B. Dandelion]

We're not entirely at odds on this, Warren.


I'm unconvinced that Right Eye was certain to be unsuccessful, and I'm certainly unconvinced that Redcloak had the information to conclude that Right Eye would be unsuccessful.

Xykon is an undead immune to Sneak Attack, knew about Right-Eye's plan to betray him and was in possession of an item that nullified positive energy attacks. I see no compelling reason to presume there is some kind of conspiracy at work here where we're not in fact seeing exactly what we're told we were seeing: a plan doomed to failure.

As for Redcloak not knowing the plan was doomed beforehand -- no, he didn't. He didn't know it had no chance to succeed. Without knowing what Xykon does it seems like a risky gamble... one that would be worth thinking about taking, at the least, which Redcloak does not do.

This to my mind is indeed Redcloak's Great Moral Failing. I just like to be clear that, hey, when you're looking for the definitive moment to hang him on, it's definitely that one, NOT the "well Redcloak turned his back on Right-Eye's peaceful way of doing things" one, because that one doesn't rightfully exist. Redcloak never got to make a choice between "the pacifistic way" and "the way of the Plan". The choice he did make was between "siding with his conscience on what was a righteous gamble" and between "siding with the horrific status quo and thus willingly accepting his subordinate role to Xykon".

Does the fact that the plan was doomed to failure exonerate Redcloak, who didn't know everything? On the face of the facts as they exist temporally, I suppose not. From the position of me feeling comfortable passing judgment on him myself? It does screw with things a bit.

In that one definitive moment of choice, the main one we can stick him for and hold him to account, the reward for Redcloak doing the "right thing" there would have been death.

There was no "happy ending" for him in the cards there. By design.

It's perfectly fine with me intellectually if you say that this interpretation holds no personal significance and say he is deserving of no sympathy from your point of view going by the pure temporal facts and not any after-the-fact considerations. Just so long as we're pointing to the same thing and drawing different conclusions.

[maxi]

Miko's last scene kind of turned her around for me. I actually wanted her to live for a bit.

Redcloak's murder of Tsukiko elevated him from "plucky evil sidekick to be evilly kicked on the side" to "potential chief antagonist of the entire series".

Roy went from being "stupid buffoon who got a party he didn't deserve" to "capable leader" during the - of all things - colloseum fight. And then reaffirmed in that role after i got a chance to read "Origin of the PCs"

[mikeejimbo]

I don't see how any of the main parties are going to derive 'we should do more to help the goblin population' from this whole affair. Thus far, goblins have served a purely antagonistic role in the narrative. There are exactly two goblins the Order have met who weren't trying to kill them, and that was in the first hundred strips. Since then, goblins waged a massive invasion of Azure City that the Order fought against, claimed Azure City for their own and enslaved the human population (which Haley and Belkar fought against), and Redcloak is still partners/working for Xykon in their plan to control the Snarl. If anything, Hinjo's going to come out of this with a renewed vigilance for hunting down and killing the bearer of the Crimson Mantle at all costs.

Me neither, which is why I'm worried.

[TrexPushups]

Redcloak, on the other hand, while well-written, has gradually lost my sympathy. He's become increasingly hypocritical in his casual racism towards humans, and has lost sight of his own ideals for the goblin people. I think he's a good exercise in "he who hunts monsters".

I also keep wishing Redcloak would grow a spine and actually stand up to Xykon when it matters.

Actually I think redcloak is going to be the one to make sure Xykon goes down. Xykon doesn't know that redcloak swapped the phylactery out with a fake. Redcloak is already in position to put him down for good in a way that he doesn't see coming.

Redcloak is playing Xykon.

[Warren Dew]

We're not entirely at odds on this, Warren.

Xykon is an undead immune to Sneak Attack, knew about Right-Eye's plan to betray him and was in possession of an item that nullified positive energy attacks. I see no compelling reason to presume there is some kind of conspiracy at work here where we're not in fact seeing exactly what we're told we were seeing: a plan doomed to failure.

That's all true if we believe what Xykon said. I don't put a lot of store by his telling the truth, because irrespective of what the truth was, what Xykon would say is whatever would manipulate Redcloak in the direction Xykon wanted.

Xykon would say that he knew about Right Eye's plan even if he didn't, because that makes Redcloak feel worse about being Xykon's instrument in preventing that plan, and would avoid letting Redcloak think that he might be able to betray Xykon successfully in the future by not acting in a similar circumstance. He would say he had a defense against it partly because it would make Redcloak feel worse about the lack of necessity for Redcloak himself to kill his brother to save Xykon, and again because it would present the possibility of trying to betray Xykon as pointless.

Did Redcloak get to choose between a certainty of a peaceful way and a chance at The Plan? I agree that no, he didn't. Did he get to choose between a chance of a peaceful way and a chance at The Plan? I think that yes, he did.

And if you believe that Right Eye's plan was doomed to failure and that that exonerates Redcloak at all, doesn't the fact that the goblins that were 'saved' end up dead anyway eliminate any exoneration? Ultimately it still comes down to murdering his brother for sure in return for possibly saving his own skin.


Actually I think redcloak is going to be the one to make sure Xykon goes down. Xykon doesn't know that redcloak swapped the phylactery out with a fake. Redcloak is already in position to put him down for good in a way that he doesn't see coming.

I wouldn't completely discount the idea that Xykon sees Redcloak's plan coming, if we believe he saw Right Eye's plan coming, since we didn't know about that until the last minute either.

[Keltest]

I wouldn't completely discount the idea that Xykon sees Redcloak's plan coming, if we believe he saw Right Eye's plan coming, since we didn't know about that until the last minute either.

I think its safe to say that Xykon does not consider Redcloak a credible threat. While he isn't the meek toady from DCF anymore, hes certainly still acting as Xykon's yes-man, more or less. Up to this point, whenever he has displayed signs of an agenda that wont be guaranteed to further Xykon's cause, Xykon has been quick to slap Redcloak down.

[Heksefatter]

Elan has grown on me since the start of the comic. I like his mixture of utter stupidity and pure brillance. These days, he's arguably me favorite character in the strip.

Strangely enough I've also grown to like Nale a bit more, after got some glimpses of what it must have been like growing up under Tarquin's overbearing influence. You get to see the roots of his motivations.

I like Tarquin less now than I did earlier. To me, he came across as a bit like Elan as a skilled, evil warlord. An interesting mixture of competence, goofiness and being a horrific monster, combined with glimpses of a fatal flaw that would be his downfall. Xykon. Now he just seems pathetic.

With Celia I've had my ups and downs like the original poster. She's currently at the 'meh' level for me.

Haley's grown less interesting to me over time. I can't really put my finger on why.

I grew to like Roy more during his stay in the afterlife. Before that, he was not that interesting to me.

V has just gotten more and more interesting. S/he's never really gated on me like Celia has, but s/he had hir up and downs and hir remorse and redemption interests me.

Miko was just a <BLEEP> to me, initially, but she grew much more interesting as her story proceeded. Of course, it is almost certainly over now.

[Xzenu]

The only character that really "switched sides" for me is Xykon.
Unless Durkula counts, and quite frankly he doesn't. After all, he's not a count. :smalltongue:

Celia, Miko, Tarquin, Elan, Belkar and others: While by opinions on them have shifted, it never changed from like to dislike or vice versa. I liked them all a little bit, and grew to like them much more as they developed. Yes, I did start to like Tarquin more as he went berserk: He was always a psycho, and I wasn't surprised when it started to surface in a more obvious way.

Same with Miko: Sure she was kinda psycho, but she was it in a coherent and interesting way. Her arc made me like Roy even less (but not so much that he switched zone from neutral to dislike), as I blame him for his part in driving her over the edge. Sure, Belkar and Shojo were bigger jerks to her, but they had reasonable reasons from their own perspectives - while Roy didn't have a motivation beyond the "pettiness" personality trait that is one of his main character flaws.

Tarquin and Xykon are both utterly despicable people. They both started out as merely "fun to watch", the kind of entertaining villain that you cheerfully love to hate and happily wish a horrible death/termination.

However, Tarquin grew more interesting as a person and villain. A person guided by delusions that made sense as far as delusions go. His motivations were comprehensible in their own warped ways.

Xykon,on the other hand, simply grew more boring and disgusting. He is a very flat character, perfectly simple to understand because there isn't really anything worth understanding. He's a petty bully, a "for lulz" troll, and a sadist who happens to be crude as well as heartless. The only thing that make him interesting is his great power as a sorcerer, a power that make him interesting ONLY as the plot device of being the threat for more interesting characters (such as Redcloak and the PC:s) to handle.

As for Durkon in his upgraded form as Durkula, I had big hopes for his character development and really liked the guy. Now that Durkula's true nature has been revealed to be a separate entity, I find him an entirely uninteresting character. I do find him interesting as a plot device, just not as a character. While interesting character development may still happen (for Durkon, Durkula or both), I certainly do not count on it. Anyway, the fake "Durkon is now Durkula" character doesn't really count, since we only met him for a few strips before he was revealed to be nothing more than a facade for a despicable minion of Hel.

[Sir_Leorik]

I'm unconvinced that Right Eye was certain to be unsuccessful, and I'm certainly unconvinced that Redcloak had the information to conclude that Right Eye would be unsuccessful. I think it's quite clear that Redcloak killed Right Eye to preserve 'the plan' - and not Xykon's plan, either, but the Dark One's plan - rather than to save other goblins. Fear of retribution against himself might have been a factor, but even that marks his murder as selfish, when even standing aside might have been less ignoble.

Right-Eye was willing to gamble his life to save his people from servitude to Xykon. While there was an element of vengeance in what he was doing, it is completely understandable. Xykon destroyed his home, caused the deaths of his wife and sons, and had come close to murdering Right-Eye on multiple occasions. Even running away from Xykon hadn't helped. Right-Eye's plan wasn't fool proof, but maybe if Redcloak had provided him with some buffs, and been willing to cover for Right-Eye in case the plan failed, they could have pulled it off (or gotten away with it not succeeding).

Instead Redcloak murdered Right-Eye, so that The Dark One's Plan would not be jeapordized. Redcloak demonstrated with that act that he's a religious fanatic, willing to sacrifice family members to The Plan. Redcloak's hypocrisy while interrogating O-Chul is revealed here. While Redcloak was astounded that O-Chul was "willing" to let the innocent civillians die, Redcloak actually murdered his own brother to further his god's aims. Redcloak could have stood aside and prayed to the Dark One that Xykon would not destroy the Goblins in the army because of his brother's foolishness. He could have prayed for luck finding a new Arcane spellcaster. Instead, he blasted his brother's atoms apart.


As for Redcloak not knowing the plan was doomed beforehand -- no, he didn't. He didn't know it had no chance to succeed. Without knowing what Xykon does it seems like a risky gamble... one that would be worth thinking about taking, at the least, which Redcloak does not do.

This to my mind is indeed Redcloak's Great Moral Failing. I just like to be clear that, hey, when you're looking for the definitive moment to hang him on, it's definitely that one, NOT the "well Redcloak turned his back on Right-Eye's peaceful way of doing things" one, because that one doesn't rightfully exist. Redcloak never got to make a choice between "the pacifistic way" and "the way of the Plan". The choice he did make was between "siding with his conscience on what was a righteous gamble" and between "siding with the horrific status quo and thus willingly accepting his subordinate role to Xykon".

Does the fact that the plan was doomed to failure exonerate Redcloak, who didn't know everything? On the face of the facts as they exist temporally, I suppose not. From the position of me feeling comfortable passing judgment on him myself? It does screw with things a bit.

In that one definitive moment of choice, the main one we can stick him for and hold him to account, the reward for Redcloak doing the "right thing" there would have been death.

There was no "happy ending" for him in the cards there. By design.

It's perfectly fine with me intellectually if you say that this interpretation holds no personal significance and say he is deserving of no sympathy from your point of view going by the pure temporal facts and not any after-the-fact considerations. Just so long as we're pointing to the same thing and drawing different conclusions.

The fact that Xykon was using the scenario as a test of Redcloak's obedience doesn't change the fact that Redcloak zapped his brother of his own free will. And then realized just how far he'd sunk when Xykon told him that if he Raised his brother, Right-Eye would resent Redcloak forever for choosing Xykon (and The Dark One) over Right-Eye. That is possibly the second most pivotal moment in Redcloak's backstory, the first obviously being the Sapphire Guard slaughtering his village. It's how Redcloak went from a misguided Goblin Cleric to a villainous second-in-command, the Starscream to Xykon's Megatron.

[B. Dandelion]

That's all true if we believe what Xykon said. I don't put a lot of store by his telling the truth, because irrespective of what the truth was, what Xykon would say is whatever would manipulate Redcloak in the direction Xykon wanted.

I don't trust Xykon, but I trust Rich. What would be the narrative point there to have Xykon be lying about how in control he was of the situation, except to totally undercut the entire rest of the scene? Xykon is large and in charge.

My honest-to-goodness first reaction to 946 was "so I'm 100% on this being literal and not some kind of metaphor for forced alignment change resulting in split personality disorder or something? Leading up to some kind of mind screw later on where "vampire Durkon" actually is Durkon, but the inner part of Durkon that secretly despised many of his core mannerisms?" But that would kill the entire dramatic reveal for the sake of a gotcha later on, which doesn't seem to be the Giant's style. So I dropped that in the conspiracy pile back with "are we SURE those were Vaarsuvius' four words?" (learned that one the hard way). I'm not going to go down that route of spinning some maybe not 100% impossible but pretty unlikely counter-scenario without some really good in-text evidence as opposed to mere conjecture. In sum: I'm sticking with the position that Xykon knew unless you can prove to me he didn't, not speculate it's possible he might not have.


Did Redcloak get to choose between a certainty of a peaceful way and a chance at The Plan? I agree that no, he didn't. Did he get to choose between a chance of a peaceful way and a chance at The Plan? I think that yes, he did.

Then that's fair enough.


And if you believe that Right Eye's plan was doomed to failure and that that exonerates Redcloak at all, doesn't the fact that the goblins that were 'saved' end up dead anyway eliminate any exoneration? Ultimately it still comes down to murdering his brother for sure in return for possibly saving his own skin.

It's not that it exonerated him that Right-Eye's plan was doomed. After-the-fact considerations cannot make Redcloak's choice between two bad options noble. It merely affects how I feel about being able to personally condemn him, which demands a certain element of "if I had been in your shoes, I would have done much better". It feels way too arrogant for me to assert that kind of thing for a character who is admittedly flawed, but had the deck stacked against him from the beginning. Would I have done better as Redcloak, knowing only what Redcloak could know and dealing with the options as they were presented to him? If not, can I really assert he's not deserving of sympathy?


The fact that Xykon was using the scenario as a test of Redcloak's obedience doesn't change the fact that Redcloak zapped his brother of his own free will. And then realized just how far he'd sunk when Xykon told him that if he Raised his brother, Right-Eye would resent Redcloak forever for choosing Xykon (and The Dark One) over Right-Eye. That is possibly the second most pivotal moment in Redcloak's backstory, the first obviously being the Sapphire Guard slaughtering his village. It's how Redcloak went from a misguided Goblin Cleric to a villainous second-in-command, the Starscream to Xykon's Megatron.

The preceding paragraph applies pretty well to this response as well.

[Zmeoaice]

It depends on what you mean changed your mind about. Like, if you've changed your mind based on new evidence, or just changed your mind on them but didn't learn anything new.

I changed by mind on Malack when I found out he was going to kill 1000 people a day, and on Durkula when it was revealed he's an Agent of Hel and Durkon's soul was trapped in his mind.

As for characters I changed my mind about on my own, I'm not sure. Maybe.

[Ellye]

Nale. Definitely and absolutely Nale.

He was the one character in the comic that I felt was a bit out of place. A remnant from the time the comics was a gag-a-day a strip, trying to fit in the now serious plot. I couldn't figure out his character - he didn't felt as natural as the other characters in the comic.

He started to become more interesting, bit by bit, during this last book. That was to be expected, given the setting and all that. But then, right before his death, I finally understood what made him be the way he is. And it made so much sense. He's one of my favorite secondary characters now, no doubt about it.

[Warren Dew]

I don't trust Xykon, but I trust Rich. What would be the narrative point there to have Xykon be lying about how in control he was of the situation, except to totally undercut the entire rest of the scene? Xykon is large and in charge.
I think the point of the scene is to emphasize the psychological relationship between Redcloak and Xykon, not the actual power relationship. There has been too much in the actual comic that illustrates that the Xykon is not all that dominant in the actual power relationship - the Azure City siege was driven at least as much by Redcloak as by Xykon, the person in charge of Gobbotopia was Redcloak, not Xykon, etc. It seems to me the reason Xykon is in overall charge of Team Evil is because of the psychological relationship, not the underlying balance of power.

I don't believe 946 is a parallel. I think Rich has always made a clear distinction between what the comic says, and I agree that he doesn't play that kind of game with us there, and what the characters say, as the characters have been known to lie. I think the 946 reveal is itself an example of the latter: it clearly shows that Durkula has, and thus that characters are capable of, dissembling.


It merely affects how I feel about being able to personally condemn him, which demands a certain element of "if I had been in your shoes, I would have done much better". It feels way too arrogant for me to assert that kind of thing for a character who is admittedly flawed, but had the deck stacked against him from the beginning. Would I have done better as Redcloak, knowing only what Redcloak could know and dealing with the options as they were presented to him? If not, can I really assert he's not deserving of sympathy?
While I'm perfectly willing to condemn people for things I would do - and condemn myself for things I do wrong - I can't imagine murdering my own brother in that situation. Of course, I can't imagine prosecuting a plan of race warfare, either, which is ultimately what the Dark One's plan is.

[B. Dandelion]

I think the point of the scene is to emphasize the psychological relationship between Redcloak and Xykon, not the actual power relationship. There has been too much in the actual comic that illustrates that the Xykon is not all that dominant in the actual power relationship - the Azure City siege was driven at least as much by Redcloak as by Xykon, the person in charge of Gobbotopia was Redcloak, not Xykon, etc. It seems to me the reason Xykon is in overall charge of Team Evil is because of the psychological relationship, not the underlying balance of power.

So... conjecture.


While I'm perfectly willing to condemn people for things I would do - and condemn myself for things I do wrong - I can't imagine murdering my own brother in that situation. Of course, I can't imagine prosecuting a plan of race warfare, either, which is ultimately what the Dark One's plan is.

When you say "condemn" in such a way as to include yourself for things you've done wrong, it would indicate to me you're not using the word to invoke final closure, unless you're expressing the opinion that you're an irredeemable human being yourself. I don't mean Redcloak has done nothing morally wrong or worthy of censure.

Funny thing is, if what had happened to Redcloak's village had happened to me, I could well imagine "prosecuting a plan of race warfare," as you put it, as for all appearances it'd be more that I was fighting back against an already-ongoing plan of race warfare directed against me.

[Warren Dew]

So... conjecture.
Either point of view is conjecture.


When you say "condemn" in such a way as to include yourself for things you've done wrong, it would indicate to me you're not using the word to invoke final closure, unless you're expressing the opinion that you're an irredeemable human being yourself. I don't mean Redcloak has done nothing morally wrong or worthy of censure.
I'm not. That's not to say I'd consider Redcloak redeemable, though - though that's another word that gets used in a lot of different ways around here.


Funny thing is, if what had happened to Redcloak's village had happened to me, I could well imagine "prosecuting a plan of race warfare," as you put it, as for all appearances it'd be more that I was fighting back against an already-ongoing plan of race warfare directed against me.
I'd go with Right Eye's solution, instead.

[B. Dandelion]

Either point of view is conjecture.
To an extent, yeah, but your interpretation requires the scene plus the spin "Xykon's quite likely lying about at least some of that". Which... would mean we didn't see what we thought we saw. Why? "Well because... [...]" and there you might have your theories, sure, but I don't find them particularly compelling enough to give them greater weight than what's already there and wasn't so implausible or offensive that it demanded an alternate interpretation. Xykon saw it coming and had taken steps to remove the threat.


I'm not. That's not to say I'd consider Redcloak redeemable, though - though that's another word that gets used in a lot of different ways around here.
I don't know if he is or isn't.



I'd go with Right Eye's solution, instead.
You realize Right-Eye didn't use "Right-Eye's Solution" right at first. He got around to that after the Plan went all horrible squared and sideways, and he escaped to have his own life. Before he was going along with the Plan, racial war aspect and all.

But we forgive Right-Eye for that, right? We're kinda compelled to by the story.

[Mike Havran]

I started to dislike Vaarsuvius after she refused to help Lien on the island. That she was willing to torture Yukyuk made things even worse.

A positive case is Ian, his farewell scene with Haley and Elan was really touching.

[AgentofHellfire]

I used to like Tarquin. Not anymore.
Edit: to clarify, I'm referring to him as a character, not how he has been characterized. I think Tarquin is actually a really well written character, but a despicable one.


^Yep.

It was his killing of Nale that did it for me, actually. That and his subsequent attitude towards Elan. In the grand scheme of things, other things he did could've been worse on the alignment end, but those two aspects...they really did rub me the wrong way.

By the way, admissions of his delusionality and arrogance aside, I still think he's got some admirable traits--he's really quite clever at times, as his plan for Nale, his lying ability and his whole staging revolutions plan suggests, basically. But although that would typically make up for it, it doesn't in his case. His need for control...bothers me somewhat.

[Warren Dew]

To an extent, yeah, but your interpretation requires the scene plus the spin "Xykon's quite likely lying about at least some of that".
I consider "Xykon is likely telling the truth" to be just as much spin as "Xykon is likely lying".


You realize Right-Eye didn't use "Right-Eye's Solution" right at first. He got around to that after the Plan went all horrible squared and sideways, and he escaped to have his own life. Before he was going along with the Plan, racial war aspect and all.
That's a valid point. I don't particularly forgive him for it. As far as I'm concerned, he still bears responsibility for the bad things; it's just that, after starting his village, he's no longer doing those things. From an alignment standpoint, he's also to some extent balancing his former evil deeds with new good deeds.

Ultimately, though, I think the main point is that Right Eye is dead, so it doesn't really matter whether he's forgiven or not.

[Irenaeus]

I thought Tarquin was a bad character as first, bordering on Admiral Thrawn levels of Villain Sue, but then relished how he was revealed to be the obsessive maniac he we since have learned he is. How it's completely consistent with his behaviour even from the start is really well done.

I didn't quite do a 180 on Miko when I saw her demise, but perhaps a 90. My experiences of how Miko and Tarquin has been revealed to the readers as characters have a few parallells.

[B. Dandelion]

I consider "Xykon is likely telling the truth" to be just as much spin as "Xykon is likely lying".
And I just think "it is as it appears" is not spin.



That's a valid point. I don't particularly forgive him for it. As far as I'm concerned, he still bears responsibility for the bad things; it's just that, after starting his village, he's no longer doing those things. From an alignment standpoint, he's also to some extent balancing his former evil deeds with new good deeds.

Ultimately, though, I think the main point is that Right Eye is dead, so it doesn't really matter whether he's forgiven or not.

...so then, with regards to feeling adequate to judge them, you feel confident that had you been in their shoes you would have done the morally correct thing as Right-Eye did, only sooner?

[Takver]

Your timing is off on this point. V felt bad about wasting her power after it wore off, but did not understand the scope of familicide nor intend to make penance for it at the time that she tortured the kobold. V's realization came inside the pyramid and she panicked and ran away from, what was the name, YukYuk along with the rest of the party. Since overcoming that initial bout of despair and choosing to do her best to make up for what she did, V has had no interaction with YukYuk and I think it likely that V would not treat a YukYuk style character the same way in the future (though she might still dominate someone for tactical reasons in combat).
I think this is a great point. It's easy to forget that V's personal epiphanies from the events of book four came in two stages, and the first one was all about the lessons learned from the fight with Xykon, NOT from Familicide.

667 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0667.html): "It was...such a waste...I squandered its true potential...When I think of all I might have accomplished...I almost weep." 672 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0672.html): "I have not always been the most considerate master. Or teammate." 684 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0684.html): "It is not necessary to insert myself into the fray with frivolous displays of arcane dominance just to satisfy my own ego." There's nothing about killing innocents (much less the guilty) in any of what V says prior to seeing the Draketooth family tree.

[Boogastreehouse]

It looks better with some space


Ultimate victory is not and should not be the only way to judge who's right and wrong. The paladins were nearly all killed and their city burned to the ground because of the desire for revenge that their genocide created. Regardless of who wins or loses in the end, it's pretty clear that wiping out towns because "everyone is evil" is not okay and will have consequences.

What SoD teaches, and what I think you're missing, is that the way Redcloak is going about things is wrong. Like, really, really wrong. I didn't quite get it from the main comic because he just seemed like a bad guy with a dangerous plan to help the goblin people. But SoD shows us that there are other, better ways. Right-Eye's village, his family were ways for goblins to establish their place in the world, justify their own defense if needed, and not be evil. And Redcloak rejected it all. He stuck with Xykon and KILLED HIS OWN BROTHER because the thought of admitting that he was wrong was so unbearable. That's right into the unforgivable sins list as far as I'm concerned.

I think that there is a significant parallel here, and I suspect that it is awesomely deliberate:

Redcloak had to see that there was a better way. He had to know clearly and completely that he wasn't being forced into The Plan and that he could freely choose another path. It's the same situation that Vaarsuvius had to face, and V also had to be made aware of the possibility of other choices, dubious as they may have been.

This sort of attention to the reasons behind evil acts is often neglected in literature, but very rewarding when explored. I think it's sort of the dark reflection of an heroic choice—anyone can be brave when they have no other choice; when they're fighting for their lives. It takes a heroic decision to be courageous when there are easier choices available. Back to Vaarsuvius, she/he was weakened, in unbelievable danger and had the ability to slip away whilst invisible, yet he/she chose to go back into danger and try to save O-Chul. That's heroic.

As to the original topic, I really can't think of a character who didn't become more rich and interesting as more attention was given to them. Roy, for instance, went from being a stoic (occasionally wise-cracking) straight man, to a character who felt so fleshed-out that one could begin to consider nuances about his motivations based on his history (for example, I feel that he tries to be lawful, loyal and reliable because he feels that Eugene's irresponsible behavior is what got his baby brother killed).

I liked Tarquin alright when he first appeared, and his genre-savvy-ness was a pretty amusing trait, if perhaps making him a little predictable. As he became more and more unhinged, though, I thought to myself "Oh, wait. Tarquin's actually a little insane. I have no idea what's going to happen next." That's when I found myself really interested in him, and I was really satisfied with how his part of the story played out.

It looks better with some space

[Orc Warrior]

When I first saw Zz'dtri, I despised him. He was simply there to be V's evil opposite and really added nothing to the strip. But after Z was arrested, I made a mental note to watch out for his return. As the comic continued, I got more and more excited for Z's return whenever I saw the Linear Guild. So when Zz'dtri returned, I was super excited.

[Rakoa]

Put me down for Zz'dtri as well. For someone who does so little, I find the hints at his relationships with other characters like Nale, and just his general demeanor to be so interesting and cool. I really like him as a character. But at first, he was similar, but just not as interesting. It wasn't until his reappearance he became one of my favourites.

[Warren Dew]

{{Scrubbed}}

[Mastikator]

Although there's no denying that Tarquin is pretty awesome and usually right, I've always seen him as a monster, but when he killed Nale I half way forgave him.

Also Elan I always found to be an annoying moronic ****, if I knew him in real life I'd dislike him, it's mostly because he represents the kind of humor I don't find funny. But lately (very lately) he's been showing small signs of maturity that is very long overdue, so I think by the end of the comic he may be someone I wouldn't dislike.

[Thrillhouse]

For me it's not so much about "liking" the characters but whether they're interesting to me. Just so we're clear on what I mean here.

V was a big one for me...initially I found the character to be somewhat bland, but the bargain with the fiends is one of my favourite sequences in the comic, so now I definitely watch "V-heavy" comics very closely.

Durkon was a big one too. Initially I found it difficult to translate his speech bubbles into a proper voice in my head, but as the comic went on I found myself identifying with him more and more (I'm a pretty religious dude myself) and his death scene just clinched it for me.

I did a big reversal on Malack, of course, but that hardly bears mentioning since my initial impression was based on limited information.

I actually still like Tarquin as a villain. As weird as this sounds, he couldn't be a "complete" villain for me until he did a few unreasonably evil things for petty reasons. If he ever utters "THIS CANNOT BE! I AM INVINCIBLE!" he'll probably be my favourite character in the whole comic. Change in his apparent competence didn't hurt that for me.

[Hydro]

I initially liked Elan. I liked Elan less and less as time went on, up until he got a new outfit and hung out with Thog for a while, then I liked him a lot.

I don't generally like the "stupid/bumbling/cute/contributes-less-than-everyone-else" character, but I think Rich has managed Elan very well. He's kept the balance between Elan being himself and Elan experiencing character growth. Elan is probably my favorite character at the moment. He's also a good meta-character, his plot-sense power is hilarious.

Good character stories remind us of the essential truth that people are different, and getting along with different people is a puzzle sometimes, but it's solvable.

[YossarianLives]

Honestly i used to dislike Thog (i know right) i thought he was just sort of unimportant and trivial and just took up space in the comic....

Then he broke through a window wearing a leprechaun costume.

[Trubbol]

I really disliked Tarquin around when he was first introduced, because he just seemed to be this unphasable villain who put a lampshade on everything and anything, and liked to hear himself monologue quite a bit. Then he stabbed Nale. I loved Nales character already, but that put a nail in it, he was officially awesome in my books. Seeing him having a personality outside of being genre savvy is what made him interesting for me... does this make sense at all?

I also was not too sure about Banjo's character when he first showed up, but then he started to amuse me later on!

[Aasimar]

Durkon, he seems like a real ******* lately.

And now he's become the high priest of Hel? Lying to his friends?

I thought he was better than that.

[Keltest]

Durkon, he seems like a real ******* lately.

And now he's become the high priest of Hel? Lying to his friends?

I thought he was better than that.

Well, the whole "possessed by an evil spirit from Hel" thing probably has something to do with it.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Well, the whole "possessed by an evil spirit from Hel" thing probably has something to do with it.

Don't be silly. Everything that Durkon has done for the past 50 or so strips has been entirely of his own free will.

[Keltest]

Don't be silly. Everything that Durkon has done for the past 50 or so strips has been entirely of his own free will.

yeah, youre right. Dunno what I was thinking.

[CaDzilla]

At first, I thought that Laurin was sort of a hypocrite about fighting for scraps, but when I heard that she actually tried something regarding the marids to get water, my respect for her went up.

[Rakoa]

Don't be silly. Everything that Durkon has done for the past 50 or so strips has been entirely of his own free will.

But anything he did before that was as a mindless drone. :smalltongue:

[Jaxzan Proditor]

But anything he did before that was as a mindless drone. :smalltongue:

Absolutely. Vampirism alone allows you to break lose from the shackles of fate and have true free will.

[CaDzilla]

Wait, is the HPoH situation going to end in a Jekyll/Hyde scenario, where the HPoH is just Durkon's Id?

[Domino Quartz]

Wait, is the HPoH situation going to end in a Jekyll/Hyde scenario, where the HPoH is just Durkon's Id?

No.uigoliugoliug

[happyman]

Wait, is the HPoH situation going to end in a Jekyll/Hyde scenario, where the HPoH is just Durkon's Id?

No.

Definitely not.

What? No.

[Codex]

I originally looked at Xykon and thought "wow, this is the guy the entire strip's based around?" After seeing what he did to the Sapphire guard, my opinion of him simultaneously raised and lowered.

I at first thought Ganji and Enor were just a pair of generic bounty hunters. After the incident in the arena, where Rich showed that they had actual lives, personalities, and truly cared for each other, they soon became two of my favorite characters.

I first felt sympathy for Malack. After seeing what he really is, an elitist, power hungry monster who strips beings of their free will and forces them to keep him company, I cheered when Nale burned him.

[The Goodnight]

My feelings about various characters have developed as the characters (and the story) have.

But for the most clear-cut "changed my mind" it would have to be:

Strip 313a ("Odd Paladin Out", bonus in "War and XPs") at one stroke changed my feelings about Miko from dislike to pity. It was the last two panels, showing that she'd already prepared a meal for the two people she was hoping would join her. Yes, she had no clue how to reach out without being abrasive and, well, Miko-esque. But she was trying and they didn't even see it.

It changed my perception of other incidents, like "guess who always gets sent on the long missions."

None of this exonerates Miko from blame for what she was and what she became (that's a separate question). But it does raise the question: could her fate (and therefore Shinjo's and possibly Azure City's) have been averted if just once, instead of shunning her and then laughing about it behind her back, one of those Paladins had shown enough of their supposed goodness to join her for dinner?

(In fact, if they disliked her because of the way she treated those who failed to meet her standards, what does that say about how they treated her because she failed to meet theirs?)

THE GOODNIGHT

[Hyena]

Used to dislike Miko, then she became antagonistic and she quickly became my number one favourite character. Yes, even better then Tarquin.