PDA

View Full Version : Comic 409# actually switched my opinion on the debate



Charles Phipps
2007-02-03, 12:45 AM
Weird, I am a die hard Miko supporter usually but Hinjo just utterly ripped my support of her to shreds. I could have supported Miko under pretty much any circumstances but the guy gave the whole Luke Skywalker speech up to and INCLUDING the offer of redemption plus complete pardon.

And she just brushed it off.

Hell, it even sinks my hope for Hinjo/Miko. Though Hinjo probably has to feel SOMETHING unless he's the nicest paladin in the universe.

Haruki-kun
2007-02-03, 12:47 AM
He is the nicest paladin, I guess. Well, at least now that Shojo's gone he is.

As for Miko: I never liked her much, even though I did think she wasa cool character. but you know what?

SHE IS TOTALLY LOSING IT!!!!!!

theKOT
2007-02-03, 12:49 AM
She is having a psychotic episode. Right after Miko almost killed Belkar, the Giant posted that Miko was bordering on psychotic break. I'd say the Shojo thing was her breaking point. She's gone insane. Not that that justifies what she has done, I'm just explaining her motivations.

Charles Phipps
2007-02-03, 12:49 AM
Yeah, it's an "eyes wide open" moment from this point. Hinjo not only pointed out all the flaws in her logic, he pretty much ripped them to pieces To Kill a Mockingbird style.

He didn't condemn her further for it but even offered her a graceful way out.

TinSoldier
2007-02-03, 12:49 AM
I still support Miko, and while many have seen her as this deluded for a long time, I never thought that she was this insane.

Not until the Along the Watchtower leap to judgment and the current story arc.

I still hold out hope for her and will keep her in my heart for awhile longer.

However, I am angry at my heroine for attacking Hinjo. She needs a serious time out!

BardicLasher
2007-02-03, 12:50 AM
For a moment, I was like "Okay, I can forgive Miko... Maybe she's not all bad..."

And then, that big "NO!" I feel pity for her, but she just shoved herself into a deeper pit.

Charles Phipps
2007-02-03, 12:50 AM
Let's face it.

Miko, unlike Shojo, KNOWS that Hinjo is innocent.

Yet she still attacked him.

chibibar
2007-02-03, 12:51 AM
Yea... it pretty much kill the debate on Roy attacking her instead of talking. Hinjo was an ally to her (Miko said so herself) and she attack him!!!! he even put his weapon AWAY so there is no "intention of attacks" until Miko just unleash on him.

Hinjo tried. He really did in the most peaceful manner possible considering the situation that is going on. I like the part that Hinjo agrees with Miko that Belkar WILL also be arrested AND even considering Roy's involement.

Miko has gone to the deep end.

Porthos
2007-02-03, 12:53 AM
Right now the only person who can help Miko is Miko herself. And I think it's fairly obvious that it is going to take a long time (if ever) for her to work out her issues/demons.

As the old saying goes: Da Nile - It ain't just a river in Egypt. :smallamused:

And as long as Miko is in denial, she will never get "better", no matter who tries to intercede in her behalf. Heck, it's gotten to the point that the Gods Themselves can't get through her Mental Barriers.

Charles Phipps
2007-02-03, 12:53 AM
Yes, Miko passed from "lovable overthetop Paladin" here to "bad guy" for me.

Like Anakin Skywalker and the younglings, you can say temporary insanity with the Tuskens...but that was eyes wide open.

FelixZ
2007-02-03, 12:55 AM
He is the nicest paladin, I guess. Well, at least now that Shojo's gone he is.

As for Miko: I never liked her much, even though I did think she wasa cool character. but you know what?

SHE IS TOTALLY LOSING IT!!!!!!

Shojo was never a paladin. I believe about 100 comics back, he stated he is a med-high level aristocrat.

Once I get my homebrew world done, I'll have to stick Hinjo in as the head of the Plat. Knights.

As for Miko, she's dead. Roy just swung at her with full force baseball style, sending her in a line drive towards the stands. She ain't comming back no more. :biggrin:

Charles Phipps
2007-02-03, 12:55 AM
That's why they have hit points friend.

Porthos
2007-02-03, 12:58 AM
As for Miko, she's dead. Roy just swung at her with full force baseball style, sending her in a line drive towards the stands. She ain't comming back no more. :biggrin:

Nope, Miko is alive. If you see her eyes, they are the "---" that represents being unconscious. If a character is dead, they have "X"'s where their eyes used to be.

theKOT
2007-02-03, 01:01 AM
Yea... it pretty much kill the debate on Roy attacking her instead of talking. Hinjo was an ally to her (Miko said so herself) and she attack him!!!! he even put his weapon AWAY so there is no "intention of attacks" until Miko just unleash on him.

Hinjo tried. He really did in the most peaceful manner possible considering the situation that is going on. I like the part that Hinjo agrees with Miko that Belkar WILL also be arrested AND even considering Roy's involement.

Miko has gone to the deep end.
Actually, It doesn't change anything about what Roy should have done. It's nuetral to "offer surrender when it's convenient", but it is the epitome of good to offer surrender when it carries a risk. It isn't about results, it is about intentions and always attempting to give people another chance. Everything Miko has done since the moment she entered the scene has been wrong, but Roy had no grace or mercy, just a grudge and justification.

But yes, she probably belongs in an asylum more than a jail cell. Perhaps some mixture of the two? I honestly think she could be executed for what she has done, and no one could really get too upset. If she doesn't recover from her condition, I can't see her ever doing real good again, which is very sad.

Haruki-kun
2007-02-03, 01:05 AM
Shojo was never a paladin. I believe about 100 comics back, he stated he is a med-high level aristocrat.

Oh, right..........forgot abou that.......... then yeah, Hinjo is the nicest paladin.
Of course it's not like there are many other choices...... How many paladins do we actuallyt know? O-Chul, Miko, Hinjo........ Belkar's guards....................

chibibar
2007-02-03, 01:11 AM
Actually, It doesn't change anything about what Roy should have done. It's nuetral to "offer surrender when it's convenient", but it is the epitome of good to offer surrender when it carries a risk. It isn't about results, it is about intentions and always attempting to give people another chance. Everything Miko has done since the moment she entered the scene has been wrong, but Roy had no grace or mercy, just a grudge and justification.

But yes, she probably belongs in an asylum more than a jail cell. Perhaps some mixture of the two? I honestly think she could be executed for what she has done, and no one could really get too upset. If she doesn't recover from her condition, I can't see her ever doing real good again, which is very sad.

well as someone has posted before that Roy is a soldier. He probably did a quick analyze of the situation (also as a player would look at his options before telling the GM what he is going to do) and well.. consider he wants the best result (and live to talk about it)

Hinjo did the thing cause he is a leader.

dunbar
2007-02-03, 01:15 AM
If she doesn't recover from her condition, I can't see her ever doing real good again, which is very sad.

Actually, I think she can do good in the future. Her problem always was, and still is, arrogance. First it was her sheer arrogance in believing she is always right, but now I see it is her arrogance in believing that she is chosen of the gods.

She isn't really evil, even now. I believe she would still do good if she had escaped...helping people, like she did the dirt farmers so many strips ago. But she strongly believes that she is destined for greatness, and will cut down anyone she sees who stands in the way of that.

Everone should watch the Babylon 5 episode called "Comes the Inquisitor." I'm certain Rich is a fan of the series, and there are direct parallels between the inquisitor's questions and Miko's character. I'll have to see if I can find a clip to link to...

Piedmon_Sama
2007-02-03, 01:15 AM
Any Paladin I've ever played wouldn't have given Miko a chance, either. And while I would laud Hinjo's intentions, as his DM I'd have to roll my eyes and say Miko automatically wins initiative. Sorry, but you don't have to be a Saint to be a Paladin--and to me, the Greater Good is about protecting people, not making noble gestures.

Skippy the Dire
2007-02-03, 01:18 AM
Real quick rundown -

Hinjo - LG and a wonderful example of a Paladin. (Dump stat probably Dex).

Roy - LG, as he would have been well-justified to bisect Miko when she tried to Waring-blender Hinjo at the end

Miko - at best N/CN, probably NE/CE (as in, I, the DM, just took the character sheet away, changed the alignment, and told the player to start rolling or start walking). It really IS all about her now.

Belkar - still CE, but not irredeemable - his problem is he has Wis as a dump stat. He LIKED the wacky old guy and doesn't seem to be eying Hinjo for kidneys even though Hinjo has promised a trial, so the heavy CN tendencies are showing through.

Shojo - still dead - settling in at Bytopia now

Actual player alignments? Miko - Lawful Deranged, [Scrubbed]

Porthos
2007-02-03, 01:19 AM
How many paladins do we actuallyt know? O-Chul, Miko, Hinjo........ Belkar's guards....................

I don't have it in front of me, so I can't supply the name, but there is a paladin in On the Origins of PC's.

Drandom
2007-02-03, 01:19 AM
You get the impression that that's the reason for 409? After 408, some people were still sympathising with Miko and condemning Roy. That's not the way it's supposed to be. From a narrative perspective, we are supposed to sympathise with Roy and oppose Miko.

Being a Miko fan myself, and feeling that Roy's recent actions have been, frankly, rather self-centred, I find it a little galling. Hinjo has been quite reasonable. Miko is, though rather blunt and unwilling to compromise, basically a good person. To go through this process...
1/ Miko wants to kill Belkar. She has for quite a while. This is fine, for Belkar is a psychotic, sadistic, evil little monster who probably deserves it.
2/ She listens to Shojo and Roy talking. In this Shojo admits that he a) staged an entire trial to recruit some mercenaries, b) is paranoid, and c) has been consistently deceiving the paladins that serve him.
3/ Shojo is confronted. He knowingly and to their face calls paladin morality 'obsolete', states that the ends justify the means, and that he has been manipulating the paladins for the good of the city.
4/ Miko, then faced with self-confessed betrayal by her leader, makes a connection between Shojo and Xykon. She jumps to a swift conclusion that is consistent with Xykon's words and what Shojo has just said, finding a circumstantial link.
5/ She then attacks Shojo to prevent this evil. Shojo's words - 'Everything I did, I did for my people' - apply to Miko just as strongly. She may be wrong, but she believes Shojo is evil and carries out her paladin's duties immediately and uncompromisingly.

Okay, so, all in character so far. Miko has done what she believes to be the right thing, and from her perspective, it's not so crazy. Leaving aside what we, the readers know about the overall plot and considering only her personal knowledge... yeah, I can understand how she came to the conclusion she did.

6/ Having deliberately committed an evil act and made a mistake, she then falls.
7/ Roy promptly attacks her. She has already concluded that Roy is evil, and working with both Shojo and Xykon, and so defends herself. As she believes Roy to be an agent of evil (wrongly, of course. Agent of jerkery, maybe, but he's not evil), she attempts to make up for the mistake of killing Shojo by slaying the true criminal.

Again, this is fine and in character. Miko is still LG, though fallen, and is simply confused. I still have sympathy for her at this point.

8/ Hinjo, her long-time comrade and fellow paladin, speaks to her and tries to defuse the situation. She listens and agrees, noting her confusion and agreeing that she has to pray for guidance.

It's the 'NO!' moment I don't get it. It doesn't feel as in-character as the previous actions, but more as if Burlew needs her to be a bad guy and so is taking liberties to make that happen. No offence to him intended, but it does not seem right to me. Refusal to submit to the 'tainted courts' of Azure City, I get that (since she has just repudiated the laws of Azure City as having been orchestrated by evil), but outright attacking her companion, whom she knows is LG and a paladin? That goes against everything she believes.

Gah, I don't know. It's like I can see the strings behind the stage. Miko needs to turn into a villain and so she has to be nasty. We have to sympathise with Roy because he's the 'hero', and so her villainy needs to made clear, hence Hinjo. It all ends up with Miko not acting like Miko, as I understand her character.

Charles Phipps
2007-02-03, 01:20 AM
Any Paladin I've ever played wouldn't have given Miko a chance, either. And while I would laud Hinjo's intentions, as his DM I'd have to roll my eyes and say Miko automatically wins initiative. Sorry, but you don't have to be a Saint to be a Paladin--and to me, the Greater Good is about protecting people, not making noble gestures.

My take was that Hinjo and Miko were friends and possibly something more. At least on his part. If nothing else, Hinjo was Miko's comrade at arms and his reaction to his Uncle's death was probably coated by his own distaste at the man's manipulations combined with knowledge he could be restored to life.

I think Hinjo acted appropriately for a close friend.


Gah, I don't know. It's like I can see the strings behind the stage. Miko needs to turn into a villain and so she has to be nasty. We have to sympathise with Roy because he's the 'hero', and so her villainy needs to made clear, hence Hinjo. It all ends up with Miko not acting like Miko, as I understand her character.

This is what I consider the "Temple Massacre" moment as I mentioned above. It's the moment where George says upfront that our assumptions about the character were wrong. In the end, it says Miko isn't misguided but would prefer to have her belief in her perfection untainted than redemption.

That's where it goes from lovable to villain.

Deper
2007-02-03, 01:33 AM
Drandom, the reason that Miko is doing this is because it is completely in line with her character. The connection to Xykon and Shojo was not that good, and she said that he had been undermining and corrupting the city for the past 47 years. When Roy attacked she didn't turn to defend herself. She put the blame on him and attacked because it was all his fault. She irrationally hates the entire Order.

This is what she has building too. All we see is how she makes judgements between her version of good and evil, and refuses to shift those judgements at all. Even the other paladins think she goes to far. It was established far beyond this point that Miko was incapable of the introspection necessary to accept responsibility for what she did. That's because she was a paladin and a servant of good, which meant that anything she did would always be right.

Even after being attacked by Roy she insisted that Shojo deserved it and was still in the wrong, showing that she didn't acknowledge her crime. She tried to tie Roy in and blew holes in her own logic, but refused to accept that. And when talked down, when given the best and most understanding offer possible, she threw it away. And look at what she said while she did it. Not that Hinjo was wrong and that Roy was tricking them, but that she was a Paladin, the best one there ever was, and that she couldn't be wrong.

Her haughty, self-assured and arrogant attitude has been well established. You won't find anything that shows she is capable of admiting that she was truely wrong. Roy attacking her after the fall meant nothing in her thought process. She would have blamed him anyway, and the fact that accepting Hinjo's offer would mean accepting that she was wrong was what caused her to attack.


This is what I consider the "Temple Massacre" moment as I mentioned above. It's the moment where George says upfront that our assumptions about the character were wrong. In the end, it says Miko isn't misguided but would prefer to have her belief in her perfection untainted than redemption.When did Miko show she wasn't the type of character to slaughter Younglings if she thought they were evil. Anyone who believed that Miko was above these types of self-righteous delusions was ignoring key aspects of her character (shown by her behaviour, words, and the way others, other that the Order, spoke of her).

Kalexon
2007-02-03, 01:51 AM
Okay, here's the way I see it. Miko has completely fallen off her rocker. End.

I suspected she had for sometime though just how crazy she is and is being kind of surprised me. I never liked her as a character, she was an arrogant, stick in the @**, head up her butt, fighter as far as I was concerned. She did provide some funny dialogue from both her and Roy (and the rest of the gang) but other then that I was wondering when they would be able to dump this character off the wagon. But yeah, she's crazy end of story. And I don't think that Roy is driven by self-interest. He's seen how she's been behaving more then the Paladins have, so leading up to Shojo's death I think Roy knew she was more then unstable, killing and post-killing, he knew she was completely insane. I think the last line in 409 supports this

:roy: "is now a good time to be battering things into submission? I wanted to be clear on this though since I'm just a big dumb fighter"

I hope Miko is either exacuted(sp) or locked in one of those pit cells for a very long time, because I don't want her coming back.

kerberos
2007-02-03, 01:56 AM
Actually, It doesn't change anything about what Roy should have done. It's nuetral to "offer surrender when it's convenient", but it is the epitome of good to offer surrender when it carries a risk.

And offering surrender when it gives away an advantage and has no chance of being accepted is the epitome of stupidity. While not giving her that chance might not be actively good, it's perfectly consistent with goodness or even paladinhood. A good character is not required to pick the absolutely most saintly/stupid option every single time. You might have had a point if he was a Book of Exalted Deeds character, but he isn’t.

theKOT
2007-02-03, 02:00 AM
And offering surrender when it gives away an advantage and has no chance of being accepted is the epitome of stupidity. While not giving her that chance might not be actively good, it's perfectly consistent with goodness or even paladinhood. A good character is not required to pick the absolutely most saintly/stupid option every single time. You might have had a point if he was a Book of Exalted Deeds character, but he isn’t.
But he announced his attack before he made it, he could have readied an action and called on her to surrender. Or just included a chance to surrender in his pre-fight justification speech.

dunbar
2007-02-03, 02:03 AM
It's the 'NO!' moment I don't get it. It doesn't feel as in-character as the previous actions, but more as if Burlew needs her to be a bad guy and so is taking liberties to make that happen. No offence to him intended, but it does not seem right to me. Refusal to submit to the 'tainted courts' of Azure City, I get that (since she has just repudiated the laws of Azure City as having been orchestrated by evil), but outright attacking her companion, whom she knows is LG and a paladin? That goes against everything she believes.

Hear me out here: Miko's problem, her big character flaw, is her arrogance. For a long time, I thought it was merely her arrogance that she must best know right from wrong, good from evil. Actually, I had mentioned this in a thread ages ago:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1524159&highlight=babylon+inquisitor#post1524159

Only I was wrong, and now I have had a greater revelation into her character. Her arrogance about her knowledge of right and wrong stems from her true flaw, her arrogance that she is a chosen of the gods, that she is meant for greatness.

THAT is what she believes. Hinjo told her she was wrong in that, that she should go to prison, and (I'm sure in her mind) she realizes that means a trial, a guilty verdict, and being reviled by history. That is in direct conflict with what she "knows" to be true: that the gods have chosen her for greatness. And no one, not even a LG paladin, is going to stand in the way of that.

So her actions are in character, when you realize the depth of her character flaw and delusions of grandeur.

Deper
2007-02-03, 02:04 AM
But he announced his attack before he made it, he could have readied an action and called on her to surrender. Or just included a chance to surrender in his pre-fight justification speech.

Roy had no reason to believe that she would back down or even act rationally. Why waste the time on something he knows she isn't going to accept, especially coming from him? All he could do was knock her out quickly, and if he could get out some aggression while doing it then so much the better.

theKOT
2007-02-03, 02:06 AM
Don't forget Dunbar-she has also gone insane now too. Her actions aren't consistent with a sane person, plus the Giant said back when she almost killed Belkar that she was bordering on psychotic break. I'd say overhearing Shojo was the breaking point.

Roy had no reason to believe that she would back down or even act rationally. Why waste the time on something he knows she isn't going to accept, especially coming from him? All he could do was knock her out quickly, and if he could get out some aggression while doing it then so much the better.
Because he didn't know that she wouldn't respond. She was looking dazed and introspective and had her back turned to him. Besides, she almost escaped even though he fought her. You have gotta give people a chance. And he ALREADY WASTED THAT TIME ANNOUNCING TO HER WHY HE WAS ATTACKING! It would have taken no additionaly effort on his part. "Throw down your weapon or I will be forced to attack you" instead of his opening rant would have been a good choice.

Yzorth
2007-02-03, 02:08 AM
Wow. She's going to become a blackguard, just because of messed up logic and the fact that she can't get over the fact she made a mistake.

I'm saying Miko WILL become a blackguard. I don't see many other options plot/character development wise.

NecroPaladin
2007-02-03, 02:09 AM
Right now the only person who can help Miko is Miko herself. And I think it's fairly obvious that it is going to take a long time (if ever) for her to work out her issues/demons.

Or, if you agree with what I think is going to happen, work WITH her issues and demons (although the latter could also go to devils or yugoloths).

Deper
2007-02-03, 02:11 AM
Don't forget Dunbar-she has also gone insane now too. Her actions aren't consistent with a sane person, plus the Giant said back when she almost killed Belkar that she was bordering on psychotic break. I'd say overhearing Shojo was the breaking point.

Because he didn't know that she wouldn't respond. She was looking dazed and introspective and had her back turned to him. Besides, she almost escaped even though he fought her. You have gotta give people a chance. And he ALREADY WASTED THAT TIME ANNOUNCING TO HER WHY HE WAS ATTACKING! It would have taken no additionaly effort on his part. "Throw down your weapon or I will be forced to attack you" instead of his opening rant would have been a good choice.

You just said that she was insane, and Roy knew that a sane Miko wasn't the type of person to surrender. He also knows her enough to realize that she is incapable of admiting to a mistake (something which Rich established firmly and consistantly with her character). If she's not going to be rational, and she would never surrender to him under the best of times, why waste his breath?

Justinian
2007-02-03, 02:15 AM
Weird, I am a die hard Miko supporter usually but Hinjo just utterly ripped my support of her to shreds. I could have supported Miko under pretty much any circumstances but the guy gave the whole Luke Skywalker speech up to and INCLUDING the offer of redemption plus complete pardon.

And she just brushed it off.

Hell, it even sinks my hope for Hinjo/Miko. Though Hinjo probably has to feel SOMETHING unless he's the nicest paladin in the universe.

I think Miko, in one strip, just went from sympathetic and well-written character to crazy stereotype villain. Kinda sad.

chibibar
2007-02-03, 02:16 AM
As I have said before, Roy's player probably look at all his options. Roy is not a negotiator, he could TRY to intimidate her but unfortunately Miko is higher level and is VERY hostile toward him (too high of a check) there is no way to convince her since she already think that Roy is an agent of evil and working with Xykon.

Miko is quick to blame after the only open option for Roy is to attack. So he did and even then Miko almost made her escape until Hinjo interfere. Hinjo even put his WEAPON away to talk to her to ensure to "aggressive moves" are made against her. He pretty much lay it all out, but Miko refuse..... she is arrogant and proud. She knows she is the best and can never be wrong. Admiting to killing Shojo (which she did) and go to prison (going to prison means you did something wrong) does not equal greatness in her mind and thus she refuse and attack the only person who can really save her other than herself.

Charles Phipps
2007-02-03, 02:18 AM
I think Miko, in one strip, just went from sympathetic and well-written character to crazy stereotype.

Yes.

Not that she's not well written but she's not a character that I love anymore.

As the Roy debate: I don't get what the debate is. Roy didn't do the right thing because it wasn't a moral decision. It was a tactical one. Hinjo did the "right" thing because redemption was his goal not victory. Different objectives. Different means of achieving it.

Deper
2007-02-03, 02:19 AM
I think Miko, in one strip, just went from sympathetic and well-written character to crazy stereotype.

No, she's still well written. She's always been like this. What has driven her to this point is a grudge against the Order based on the whole "I am a Paladin and MUST be Right!" belief she has. It's totally consistant with her attitude, actions, words and the way she presents herself to others, right up to this point.

If she's a crazy sterotype now it is because she was written as one from the beginning.

Charles Phipps
2007-02-03, 02:20 AM
If she's a crazy sterotype now it is because she was written as one from the beginning.

Meh, consistent with an utterly shallow portrayal by retrospect does not make the disappointment less.

Deper
2007-02-03, 02:24 AM
Meh, consistent with an utterly shallow portrayal by retrospect does not make the disappointment less.

Hey, I'm just pointing out that this isn't a sudden or contrived change. It was there and foreshadowed a long time ago. I established on another thread exactly why she couldn't accept being wrong before the latest comic came out, and (though not on this board) predicted she would kill Shojo (and that it would likely be the reason for her fall) back in 285. There's nothing retrospective about it, it's how she was always presented.

Rich left the clues for anyone objective enough to see them.

Charles Phipps
2007-02-03, 02:25 AM
Rich left the clues for anyone objective enough to see them.

And the same to make her fall come as a complete surprise for those who thought she might become more merciful or recant after the events of Shojo.

The fact she's been set on the course of evil doesn't make the story any more consistent since any other choice would have also worked.

Justinian
2007-02-03, 02:25 AM
Well, it's not like one bad plot twist makes the whole overall story bad, it's just today's comic left me with a very sour, kind of "I really don't buy this" feeling. I mean, okay, fine, she's just flat-out insane now.

Doesn't really make for a very compelling character. Seems she's just going to be a one-note villain now or something.

Charles Phipps
2007-02-03, 02:27 AM
Well, it's not like one bad plot twist makes the whole overall story bad, it's just today's comic left me with a very sour, kind of "I really don't buy this" feeling. I mean, okay, fine, she's just flat-out insane now.

Doesn't really make for a very compelling character.

Agreed.

The ambiguity added a very strong enjoyment to what would Miko do next. The current Miko is hell bent on evil deeds at this point. Some ambiguity or confusion on her part would have been a more satisfying read to me.

Then again, this isn't the Adventures of Miko.

It's sort of like Gundam. Usually, I'm all about Char or the bad guys to the point that I keep wondering why we flash back to the hero.

Deper
2007-02-03, 02:31 AM
And the same to make her fall come as a complete surprise for those who thought she might become more merciful or recant after the events of Shojo.

The fact she's been set on the course of evil doesn't make the story any more consistent since any other choice would have also worked.

When did she show she was capable of admitting fault or showing real mercy? Those would have made her into a sterotype.

The choices she made are consistant with her character. You can argue that the story made her make those choices, but they weren't out of character or contrived at the time, and each lead on to the next quite naturally.

There are those that argue that she only did it because the story needed/made her do it, but they're forgetting that the story was bringing her to that point the entire time they liked her. It isn't the story's fault they chose not to see what she was or what she was capable of.

That's the difference between Roy and Hinjo. Hinjo believed that Miko could be redeemed. Roy had been on the recieving end of her zealotry to know that she would never admit she was wrong.

Deper
2007-02-03, 02:34 AM
Well, it's not like one bad plot twist makes the whole overall story bad, it's just today's comic left me with a very sour, kind of "I really don't buy this" feeling. I mean, okay, fine, she's just flat-out insane now.

I still argue that calling this plot twist "bad" is just sour grapes from the Miko fans. They liked a character and now she's done something that while completely natural to her, they don't like it. It would have been bad if the actions didn't make sense for her character, but they do. She's just as round a character as ever, they're just seeing that she didn't have the traits that you were pretending she had.

Charles Phipps
2007-02-03, 02:34 AM
When did she show she was capable of admitting fault or showing real mercy? Those would have made her into a sterotype.

When has she been wrong until she thought the OOTS were evil?


The choices she made are consistant with her character. You can argue that the story made her make those choices, but they weren't out of character or contrived at the time, and each lead on to the next quite naturally.

No, she's made her choice here. However, if she fell down crying or ran away in confusion then that would also be appropriate.


That's the difference between Roy and Hinjo. Hinjo believed that Miko could be redeemed. Roy had been on the recieving end of her zealotry to know that she would never admit she was wrong.

And roy knows her better than a man whose known her 12 or so years....

Deper
2007-02-03, 02:40 AM
When has she been wrong until she thought the OOTS were evil?

She believed that they were criminals despite knowing they were only accused and never changed her mind. She viewed them all as evil the moment she set upon them, despite only having checked Roy. She decided that Haley lost her voice because of a divine curse for greed. Etc, etc.

When has she ever shown mercy?


No, she's made her choice here. However, if she fell down crying or ran away in confusion then that would also be appropriate.

She chose to believe the Order was evil despite evidence to the contrary. She decided to view any evidence as proof of their evil ways. She decided a lot of things that led her to this point, and they are all consistant with who she is. She hasn't gone insane. She has just become irrational in her beliefs, and she was never that rational to begin with.

When has she ever shown weakness or doubt in her beliefs?


And roy knows her better than a man whose known her 12 or so years....And has seen her for what she really is.

Justinian
2007-02-03, 02:40 AM
I still argue that calling this plot twist "bad" is just sour grapes from the Miko fans. They liked a character and now she's done something that while completely natural to her, they don't like it. It would have been bad if the actions didn't make sense for her character, but they do. She's just as round a character as ever, they're just seeing that she didn't have the traits that you were pretending she had.

It's completely natural for her to attack Hinjo? No. It's completely insane for her to attack Hinjo, and whether or not people noticed it or not, she wasn't always this mental. Her first evil action / crazy action happened in #406, her second evil / absolutely crazy action just happened. While she may have been mean or lacking in tact before, her actions have always been perfectly sane and justifiable.

She's basically had a psychotic break. Miko isn't Miko anymore. Miko's not home.

Charles Phipps
2007-02-03, 02:42 AM
She believed that they were criminals despite knowing they were only accused and never changed her mind. She viewed them all as evil the moment she set upon them, despite only having checked Roy. She decided that Haley lost her voice because of a divine curse for greed. Etc, etc.

I repeat. When has she ever been wrong except for thinking the Order of the Stick is evil?


When has she ever shown mercy?

All the people she's rescued?


When has she ever shown weakness or doubt in her beliefs?

Her stare after losing her powers.


And has seen her for what she really is.

Thank you, I'll stick with Hinjo here.

axraelshelm
2007-02-03, 02:48 AM
okay she needs to make peaceful contact with a evil outsider right? well Sabine is a evil outsider and they are throwing them into the same prision so.... DA DA DA BLACK GUARD!!!

Deper
2007-02-03, 02:50 AM
I repeat. When has she ever been wrong except for thinking the Order of the Stick is evil?

She believed that they were criminals despite knowing they were only accused and never changed her mind. She viewed them all as evil the moment she set upon them, despite only having checked Roy. She decided that Haley lost her voice because of a divine curse for greed. Etc, etc.


All the people she's rescued?

She had been the ones threatening them?


Her stare after losing her powers.

Just like the one after Roy had said he wasn't attracted to her. And that was followed up with rage.

Just like this time.

And her stare at the time of her Fall had nothing to do with her doubting that she was right, she was just shocked that she had lost her powers. Look at what she said to Hinjo afterwards.


Thank you, I'll stick with Hinjo here.

Different strokes for different folks. We both know who was right.

Deper
2007-02-03, 02:51 AM
okay she needs to make peaceful contact with a evil outsider right? well Sabine is a evil outsider and they are throwing them into the same prision so.... DA DA DA BLACK GUARD!!!

Or her contact with the Creature in the Darkness. They played a game, remember?

Deper
2007-02-03, 02:52 AM
It's completely natural for her to attack Hinjo? No. It's completely insane for her to attack Hinjo, and whether or not people noticed it or not, she wasn't always this mental. Her first evil action / crazy action happened in #406, her second evil / absolutely crazy action just happened. While she may have been mean or lacking in tact before, her actions have always been perfectly sane and justifiable.

She's basically had a psychotic break. Miko isn't Miko anymore. Miko's not home.

It's natural when you look at her thought process and the way she uses her emotions. She is filled with rage and anything that stands against her is evil. That was established back in 285 or 295 or something, when she faced the order. Now Hinjo is standing against her and you're surprised that she responsed with rage. She's the same Miko.

Demented
2007-02-03, 02:54 AM
She played along with the MitD's train of thought. I wouldn't call it peaceful. Just fraught with cease-fires.

axraelshelm
2007-02-03, 02:56 AM
hmm but i keep thinking that creature in the darkness is a Marut that had lost his mind that will explain the insane strength and the super damage reduction

Deper
2007-02-03, 02:58 AM
She played along with the MitD's train of thought. I wouldn't call it peaceful. Just fraught with cease-fires.

She had peaceful greeting, and he laughed off when she attacked him, thinking it was a game. She played it with him, and he was disappointed when he lost. That she was planning to hurt him probably doesn't matter. Considering the way the world works its quite possible that it is friendly as long as the evil outsider doesn't decide otherwise.

Otherwise Rich kind of wasted a comic (since he didn't need the monster to guard her like that), and we've seen enough of his style to know that he doesn't just waste comics like that.

Dervag
2007-02-03, 02:59 AM
Actually, It doesn't change anything about what Roy should have done. It's nuetral to "offer surrender when it's convenient", but it is the epitome of good to offer surrender when it carries a risk.Not necessarily.

Offering a surrender to someone you know won't accept isn't a good act; it is merely a pointless act. Lowering your guard while doing so isn't a good act, either; it is merely a foolish act. Hinjo's faith in Miko's character does him enormous credit as a human being and indicates that he must be a very good person. But it was Roy who correctly analyzed the situation, not Hinjo. Miko cannot be talked down. If Hinjo couldn't do it, no one could. Therefore, there are only two possible solutions. One is to disable her and deal with her at some later time when she can be handled more thoroughly. The other is to kill her.

It isn't an intrinsically good act to do something that you know won't work; nor is it an intrinsically anti-good act to do the only thing that will work.


It's the 'NO!' moment I don't get it. It doesn't feel as in-character as the previous actions, but more as if Burlew needs her to be a bad guy and so is taking liberties to make that happen.Your analysis doesn't include one of the most important features of Miko's personality. Miko is self-righteous. She is firmly convinced that she is the champion of the gods and of their virtuous cause on Earth. Since, for some years, she was a champion of the gods and of their virtuous cause on Earth, this was not an entirely unwarranted assumption on her part. But she has taken her faith in herself and her own judgement far beyond what is appropriate for any mortal being, to the point that even divine intervention cannot break the armor around her self-image. Her fall, which was a clearcut case of divine intervention, merely shook her self-confidence. Briefly.

Miko can no more understand the idea that she is in the wrong than she could breathe water. Anything that threatens her self-righteous beliefs provokes anger on her part. At the moment, Miko is 'seeing red'. She is in a state of fury so intense that she is literally incapable of grasping what she might understand in a calmer state: that Hinjo is closer to her side than she deserves, and closer than anyone else is likely to be. She's so angry that she'd probably attack a wall if she thought it was in her way. As Rich pointed out in another context, "Ever been so angry that you punched a wall? Then you know what I'm talking about?"


but outright attacking her companion, whom she knows is LG and a paladin? That goes against everything she believes.Not really. If Hinjo insists on imprisoning her, then he is not truly her companion. In Miko's mind, either you're with Miko, or you're against Miko, or you're a bystander. And if you're against Miko then she'll make sashimi out of you. Hinjo has just demonstrated that he is not with Miko, and his adamant refusal to listen to or legitimize Miko's self-justifications proves that he is not a bystander. Therefore he is an enemy, even if his heart is in the right place. And Miko is too angry to treat her enemies in any other way.


Gah, I don't know. It's like I can see the strings behind the stage. Miko needs to turn into a villain and so she has to be nasty. We have to sympathise with Roy because he's the 'hero', and so her villainy needs to made clear, hence Hinjo. It all ends up with Miko not acting like Miko, as I understand her character.I think you've been turning a blind eye to an important aspect of Miko's character for a while. Even before strip #200, we saw how she tends to think with her sword and cut down anyone who gets in her way remorselessly as she tracked the Order. This is a natural extension of that part of her character.


Agreed.
The ambiguity added a very strong enjoyment to what would Miko do next. The current Miko is hell bent on evil deeds at this point.No, she is not. All Miko really wants is to:
a)Kill Belkar, which is arguably not an evil deed at all given that Belkar is himself evil, and
b)Get out of there for long enough that she can 'figure out what the gods want her to do'. Of course, it's more or less a toss-up what the gods want her to do in her mind, because she's making it up as she goes along. But if the Lawful-aligned people like Roy and Hinjo didn't keep opposing her, she might well end up becoming a hermitess or something rather than somehow committing masses of evil deeds.

Some ambiguity or confusion on her part would have been a more satisfying read to me.She's had repeated flashes of confusion, but it is not in her nature to be confused for any sustained period of time.


When has she been wrong until she thought the OOTS were evil?We don't know. However, she has failed to display infallibility on a number of other occasions.


No, she's made her choice here. However, if she fell down crying or ran away in confusion then that would also be appropriate.Sustained confusion is out of character for Miko. Weeping is also out of character for her.


And roy knows her better than a man whose known her 12 or so years....Maybe not, but Roy has evaluated her better than a man who's known her 12 or so years. Roy has seen how Miko acts to strangers when she's in control of the situation; Hinjo has seen her only in the context of the Azure City court and as a fellow warrior of the Sapphire Guard. Possibly because he himself is a paladin, Hinjo does not perceive Miko's critical character flaw: her self-righteousness. Therefore, he tries to treat Miko as someone who has just had a temporary psychotic episode, rather than someone driven mad through events that amplify a fundamental aspect of her personality to the point where it overwhelms her judgement.


It's completely natural for her to attack Hinjo? No. It's completely insane for her to attack Hinjo, and whether or not people noticed it or not, she wasn't always this mental. Her first evil action / crazy action happened in #406, her second evil / absolutely crazy action just happened. While she may have been mean or lacking in tact before, her actions have always been perfectly sane and justifiable.
She's basically had a psychotic break. Miko isn't Miko anymore. Miko's not home.It is not necessarily unnatural or out of character for a person to go insane.

What's happened is that Miko's self-righteousness has overcome her socialization. The voice in her head that tells her not to attack her friends, to obey the laws, and to respect the opinions of others is drowned out by the voice in her head that tells her that she must be right and that everyone else doesn't understand the will of the gods properly. This has happened in real life to real people to various degrees. Miko has gone insane in a way that is consistent with her character. Namely, one aspect of her character has been amplified by recent events until it overwhelms her judgement and sanity.

Her anger and derangement have been building for some time; they are implicit in her behavior during the pursuit of Belkar during the trial scene and in its culmination with Strip #285. After her frustrating battle with Redcloak and Xykon, she was probably on the edge of blowing her top entirely. Overhearing Shojo just tipped her off the edge. That's not particularly unnatural or unbelievable.

Darkuwa
2007-02-03, 03:00 AM
It's the 'NO!' moment I don't get it. It doesn't feel as in-character as the previous actions, but more as if Burlew needs her to be a bad guy and so is taking liberties to make that happen. No offence to him intended, but it does not seem right to me. Refusal to submit to the 'tainted courts' of Azure City, I get that (since she has just repudiated the laws of Azure City as having been orchestrated by evil), but outright attacking her companion, whom she knows is LG and a paladin? That goes against everything she believes.


Maybe because your tainted your view of the recent events with WANTING Miko not to be the bad guy. If you take a neutral viewpoint to everything and don't try to put Miko on a pedastal then the "NO!" is entirely in character.

chibibar
2007-02-03, 03:00 AM
Miko's basic character hasn't change..... Miko will smite anything that is evil or associate with evil.

She DID warn hinjo that if he doesn't stand stand, she will kill him. She associate Hinjo with the "corrupted" court system that he is going to put her on for killing Shojo....

Miko won't even admit to that. She blames it on Roy fabricating and causing her to strike down her lord.

Since Hinjo is trying to do the right thing and Miko thinks Hinjo is stopping her from her greatness.. she attack him. It is very consistent of what she does.

If Miko met an opposition, she attacks.

Edit: why so many post before I post this.. I also wish to add.

Considering that Miko WAS a paladin and the "champion of good" she in the past have done many things and STILL retains her power. This of course boost her self image and self rightious. Does this make the 12 gods evil for allowing her to keep the powers? well the D&D rules states that she has to commit an evil act (or drop from Lawful Good... but that won't happen with Miko in Paladin mode) so up until now, Miko did not commit an evil act because the gods did not take away her powers. So she continues to pray to them to gain more wisdom to do their biddings (or so she thinks.. I don't think she has commune spell) but killing Shojo was an evil act no matter how you slice it because the gods took her power away BECAUSE of an evil act.

BUT up until now.. Miko never commit an evil act and thus she was confuse and figure it might be a test that she needs to prove herself to get her powers back. Hence attacking Roy (or defend how you slice it) Hinjo was in the way... so she attack him too


She did that with the Bandit Chief and Daughter
She did that with the ogres (who kidnap dirt farmers)
She did that with the OoTS
She did it with Belkar
She did it with Shojo
and now Hinjo

pretty consistant for me.

Charles Phipps
2007-02-03, 03:12 AM
I disagree.

It would be in character if she actually were broken by the experience and remorseful.

Because she had a REASON to be.

Deper
2007-02-03, 03:12 AM
Here are some examples of mental leaps that Miko has made and where she has been wrong (but never admitted it). I've taken it from another thread where the "Miko is incapable of any other action and has always been this way" debate got much deeper.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33429

Still waiting for proof that she was capable of necessary introspection to take some other course of action. If she couldn't do it before Falling there's little chance of her learning how after when doing so means admiting to being wrong and murdering your liege.

Anyway, the list.

207-Mental leap 1 & 2:Gold must be illegal, now they must have run in and killed a dragon that was likely good without knowing any of the details (like the fact that it attacked them). They explained why the gold was legal, but rather than accept it she decided to cast it in the light of evil wealth gathered by greed driven maniacs who carve up paragons of good for treasure.

224-Mental Leap 3:Desire to sleep inside an in is gluttony and greed

243-Mental Leap 4:Calls Haley a criminal despite no conclusive evidence (she has only been asked to bring them in to stand trial, they have not been proven guilty). Never apologizes.

250-Mental Leap 5, 6, & 7:All their fault the inn was destroyed (ignoring the assassins), caused by their greed (no evidence of greed), and that Haley was cursed by the Gods. If the inn was their fault then the blacksmith who forged her sword is culpable in Shojo's death.


251-Look at that... shock to rage, especially when her being Good is questioned.

265-Other Paladins don't like her or the way she does things.

285-Mental Leap 8 and the core of her madness: Utterly inflexible, taking "I'm a Paladin" to mean "Standing against me is Evil!" Also contains the foreshadowing that she is going to kill Shojo.

290-Mental Leap 0: Notice Shojo's orders and Miko's actual response.

298-Asking to see through "Their lies" rather than lies in general. At this point it's obvious who she's talking about. She's been proven wrong but refuses to believe it.

Deper
2007-02-03, 03:13 AM
I disagree.

It would be in character if she actually were broken by the experience and remorseful.

Because she had a REASON to be.

Not if she's shown that she's harder than that. Some people cry, others don't. Miko's response is to get mad and lash out. That's what she did.

Charles Phipps
2007-02-03, 03:15 AM
Yes, because people are defined by one personality trait....

Justinian
2007-02-03, 03:18 AM
Character stereotypes are, though. Which is what I was saying...

Charles Phipps
2007-02-03, 03:18 AM
Character stereotypes are, though. Which is what I was saying...

Yes, I was hoping for some other reaction than "kill."

chibibar
2007-02-03, 03:21 AM
Yes, because people are defined by one personality trait....

It is a 2D characters.... not a human being. It is a character and thus characters falls into traits and what is presented.

Also people with mental issue ARE define by one personality trait because that is the dominant trait.

People in general CAN be define by their strongest trait (especially if you only met them for the first time) hence an old saying, "Never judge a book by its cover" unfortunately Miko doesn't believe that. The covers says OoTS are criminals and thus they will ever be to her. EVEN before she discover the court was a hoax she swore she will take them down when her own government COURT finds them innocent.

Doesn't that strikes you as self-rightious?

Also note: in all Miko's interaction with anything that is against her... what does she do.... draw blades.
and usualy either somewhere along the time: either you are with me or against me.

Charles Phipps
2007-02-03, 03:22 AM
It is a 2D characters.... not a human being. It is a character and thus characters falls into traits and what is presented.

As a writer, I object to that.

And it's up to the Giant as to how Miko would react. That doesn't mean I think its as enjoyable to me as it could be.

Justinian
2007-02-03, 03:24 AM
Kind of a bad example. She felt the court was wrong to let them go free, which was correct in that the whole trial was a sham. Her instincts were right.

And given how deranged and evil Belkar is, a third-party Paladin shouldn't trust any of the Order by nature of association. She took it too far in the end, but at the same time it's reasonable for her to have acted as she did.

chibibar
2007-02-03, 03:26 AM
Kind of a bad example. She felt the court was wrong to let them go free, which was correct in that the whole trial was a sham. Her instincts were right.

good point BUT at the time, she should have admit she was wrong and apologize for her action (if she had humility) but she didn't.....

The courtroom had a being of Lawful Good (before we discover it was a Roy's father most of us thought the OoTS was in serious trouble)

Edit: as for Belkar, until he actually kill the guard, there was NO successful detect evil on him remember? WE know he is CE, but the NPC didn't :)

chibibar
2007-02-03, 03:31 AM
As a writer, I object to that.

And it's up to the Giant as to how Miko would react. That doesn't mean I think its as enjoyable to me as it could be.

Well.. I might be a little quick to answer like that. I know it is human nature to write characters to make them as real as possible (it is easier to relate than a total fictional character with no human trait) let take another character from a different story Harry Potter.

Prof Snape, He always show to be dark, but borderline good until Book 6. Now with book 7 coming out we might find out more what is going on (that shouldn't spoil anyone)

To me: Miko was following a path that I'm too well familair with. I study psychology (minor in college) and could see a pattern. Miko could have gone either way, but I don't see Miko being a "romantacized" female characeter of "weak" Miko is one of the strongest female in the story. Nothing will shake her conviction and her morals, except herself.

Halrin
2007-02-03, 03:31 AM
For me it's simple, even setting aside all Miko's words, all Roy's word, there's one thing I can't shake. Miko's facial expressions.

When she kills Shojo and when shes about to kill Hinjo she TOTALLY rages out. That isn't the grim demeanor of someone killing for duty, that is a facial expression full of anger and hate and bitterness, to me it is the most powerful representation of her fall, and the reasons for her.

She lets anger get the best of her, as Roy said, she finds an explanation of events that suits her emotional state at the time.

When you look at that 'rage' face of Miko's you cannot still see a good character, that is blind, hateful, selfish rage :smallfurious:.

chibibar
2007-02-03, 03:36 AM
For me it's simple, even setting aside all Miko's words, all Roy's word, there's one thing I can't shake. Miko's facial expressions.

When she kills Shojo and when shes about to kill Hinjo she TOTALLY rages out. That isn't the grim demeanor of someone killing for duty, that is a facial expression full of anger and hate and bitterness, to me it is the most powerful representation of her fall, and the reasons for her.

She lets anger get the best of her, as Roy said, she finds an explanation of events that suits her emotional state at the time.

When you look at that 'rage' face of Miko's you cannot still see a good character, that is blind, hateful, selfish rage :smallfurious:.

heh.. I'm glad you caught that. I remember saying on the other thread that anger (in terms of real life) tends to bring the worst in all of us. When we are in rage, we do not think straight. We say things we don't mean, we do hurtful things, but later our concience bring us out of it and we ask for forgiveness.

Miko will NEVER ask to be forgiven before in her eyes she is the chosen champion of the twelve gods. She cannot be wrong.. she was chosen... she is the best......

Darkuwa
2007-02-03, 03:39 AM
Prof Snape, He always show to be dark, but borderline good until Book 6. Now with book 7 coming out we might find out more what is going on (that shouldn't spoil anyone)


There is quite a bit of arguement over wether snape actually did what he did. There is also a good bit of arguement over if he was told to do it by the bumblebee.

Miko is off her rocker and it follows the character from the begining. What Roy did was fine and was entirly in character. What Hinjo did was naive but still in character.

chibibar
2007-02-03, 03:47 AM
There is quite a bit of arguement over wether snape actually did what he did. There is also a good bit of arguement over if he was told to do it by the bumblebee.

Miko is off her rocker and it follows the character from the begining. What Roy did was fine and was entirly in character. What Hinjo did was naive but still in character.

true true, we'll find out on July 21st :)

Well in Miko's case, her only guidence is her faith. Her mind. Her understanding of the universe of good and evil (which in my mind is pretty limited) unless paladin gain an ability to commune or talk with their gods directly (I don't think they do but if they did I apologize) and thus Miko formulate there must be a greater thing she must do and cannot deny the gods' will.

Invisible Queen
2007-02-03, 07:23 AM
Funny, some posters seem just as Miko in her leaps of logic inability to admit her mistakes. . .

That's what I get from reading this thread anyway.

I got into the comic fairly recently and didn't go through months of judging Miko on her appearence so far, before she showed her true quality. I think I always thought of her as a villain. So, I don't see any inconsistencies in her character. There's $0.02 for ya.

Lord Zentei
2007-02-03, 08:22 AM
Yes, Miko passed from "lovable overthetop Paladin" here to "bad guy" for me.

Like Anakin Skywalker and the younglings, you can say temporary insanity with the Tuskens...but that was eyes wide open.

She always was "lovable, over the top antagonist" to me. And now she is "tragic, fallen hero". See, the way I can remain a fan of hers now is that I never regarded her as a protagonist to begin with. And agreed on the Tusken comparison.


For a moment, I was like "Okay, I can forgive Miko... Maybe she's not all bad..."

And then, that big "NO!" I feel pity for her, but she just shoved herself into a deeper pit.

Pity? Indeed, yes. First for the rasberries she suffered as a result of her character flaws, now for her self-inflicted fall.


Funny, some posters seem just as Miko in her leaps of logic inability to admit her mistakes. . .

That's what I get from reading this thread anyway.

I got into the comic fairly recently and didn't go through months of judging Miko on her appearence so far, before she showed her true quality. I think I always thought of her as a villain. So, I don't see any inconsistencies in her character. There's $0.02 for ya.

Mostly agreed, if you substitute "formerly lovable, over the top antagonist" for "always a villain". There definately was a downward spiral: it's all part and parcel of the tragic pathos of her character.


Oh, and IMPORTANT CAVEAT:

EDIT: I'll freely admit that I was pooh-poohing the possibility of the blackguard ways back, since she was a fine, complex and lovable-despite-herself antagonist before. [And arguably, I was annoyed by all the arguments that "she must fall" - since they were made more due to dislike of the character than upon sound reasoning and desire to see character improvement.] But now the transition seems almost inevitable. I don't know whether that will be a character improvement, though I guess we'll see.

Swashbuckler
2007-02-03, 08:31 AM
SHE IS TOTALLY LOSING IT!!!!!!

Uh ... that would have required her to "have it" at some point. Which, to my recollection, has never been the case.

Pizoxuat
2007-02-03, 08:32 AM
And roy knows her better than a man whose known her 12 or so years....

No, Roy knows her bad side better than a man who has not had to suffer under her. Hinjo has known her under her best behavior, Roy has lived with her under her worst.

Grod_The_Giant
2007-02-03, 08:35 AM
Hell yes! Miko got owned!!

por hinjo, though...and where was O-chul? shouldn't he have head the noise and ran in to see what's happening?

Lord Zentei
2007-02-03, 08:36 AM
Uh ... that would have required her to "have it" at some point. Which, to my recollection, has never been the case.

Yeah, she did have it at some point.

For instance: you did not see her snap and strike out at her Lord and fellow paladins when they contradicted her before now, nor did you see her automatically assume that anyone she didn't like was evil. Note that Durkon was able to talk sense into her when they first met. He would almost certainly not have been able to do so now.

So, she has indeed had a downward spiral.

Talyn
2007-02-03, 09:44 AM
I have sadly switched camps as well, so to speak. I agree with the original poster - I've gone from Pixe to Dwarf in the last two weeks as Miko's advocate and apologist. This, however, crosses the line... into madness. She's insane. Perhaps it was killing Shojo.. perhaps it was her vision of his betrayal, or maybe the desperate flight to warn the city...

Or, maybe I've always been wrong about her, and she's been crazy the whole time. I hope not. I'll frankly admit that I'm disappointed with the direction this whole story arc went - we've seen Miko go from one of the most interesting and nuanced characters in the comic into a one-dimensional villain. What a shame.

Right now, what might be best for her is honorable death - and a prayer that the gods remember that she was a truly good person before her descent into madness, and that they don't judge her too harshly.

Silver Agent
2007-02-03, 09:47 AM
I think, quite simply, people are disappointed because they built up their vision of Miko in their head and it conflicts with the Giant's.

This is pretty common. You see X, Y, and Z and you add all sorts of detail that might be, like in reading a book, and when your details don't mesh with the author's, you are disappointed. This is pretty natural. Hell, has happened to me.

My problem is that people are saying the character is suddenly DIFFERENT, when she quite seriously is not. Everything she's done is an outgrowth of what she's done before.

I'm not even going to go into the 'cliche' argument. To me, that's just sour grapes.

Lord Zentei
2007-02-03, 09:48 AM
I have sadly switched camps as well, so to speak. I agree with the original poster - I've gone from Pixe to Dwarf in the last two weeks as Miko's advocate and apologist. This, however, crosses the line... into madness. She's insane. Perhaps it was killing Shojo.. perhaps it was her vision of his betrayal, or maybe the desperate flight to warn the city...

It was a lot of things adding up, probably. She was not always that way, IMHO: the advocacy before this point was rational - mostly - and justified, though her personality flaws built up over time, leading to this pass.


Or, maybe I've always been wrong about her, and she's been crazy the whole time. I hope not. I'll frankly admit that I'm disappointed with the direction this whole story arc went - we've seen Miko go from one of the most interesting and nuanced characters in the comic into a one-dimensional villain. What a shame.

Don't be too hasty in claiming she has become one-dimensional. After all, we have yet to see more of her in her new role. I doubt that she'll just become another recurring mostrous encounter - call it faith in Rich's writing skills, if you will. :smallwink:


Right now, what might be best for her is honorable death - and a prayer that the gods remember that she was a truly good person before her descent into madness, and that they don't judge her too harshly.

Indeed.



I think, quite simply, people are disappointed because they built up their vision of Miko in their head and it conflicts with the Giant's.

This is pretty common. You see X, Y, and Z and you add all sorts of detail that might be, like in reading a book, and when your details don't mesh with the author's, you are disappointed. This is pretty natural. Hell, has happened to me.

My problem is that people are saying the character is suddenly DIFFERENT, when she quite seriously is not. Everything she's done is an outgrowth of what she's done before.

I'm not even going to go into the 'cliche' argument. To me, that's just sour grapes.

The pro-Miko camp was generally split into two factions: those that thought she was a good, if misunderstood person, and those who thought she was an antagonist with a tragic pathos and a sympathetic (though not neccesarily nice) character.

I am in the latter camp. And though I had not expected such a colossal fall, it does not conflict with my perception; only with its extent.

I guess this is the reason we are seeing this apparent split and confusion now.

berrew
2007-02-03, 09:54 AM
The Giant has regularly used Miko as a stalking horse for issues like Lawful-Stupid, and The Bad Pally syndrome. I am pretty convinced that he's harping on the RPG Pally "holier-than-thou" trait, where a Paladin sees their powers as making *them* special, rather than making their *task* special.

As for the debates about "not seeing her as she really was" - her character has, up until now, had a number of options open to her that all follow logically from her various character strengths and weaknesses. Personally, I never liked her as a character, though I liked her use in the strip - but I could see how she could swing any of a number of ways. (NO comment from the "Haley is bisexual" crowd! :) )

I suspect that, given her current descent, she's about to drop out of the story line (which is, after all, about OoTS and the Gates, not Miko or Azure City), which would be fine with me. Unless she is "redeemed" by becoming a major recurring villain (redeemed in the plotline sense), her usefulness to the story was about over, anyway - so I kinda like having her ambiguities resolve.

Mike_G
2007-02-03, 11:23 AM
Hell yes! Miko got owned!!

por hinjo, though...and where was O-chul? shouldn't he have head the noise and ran in to see what's happening?

Listen isn't a class skill for Paladins.

Which should have been obvious a loooong time ago.

theStorminMormo
2007-02-03, 11:49 AM
This is what I consider the "Temple Massacre" moment as I mentioned above. It's the moment where George says upfront that our assumptions about the character were wrong. In the end, it says Miko isn't misguided but would prefer to have her belief in her perfection untainted than redemption.

That's where it goes from lovable to villain.

I'm really aghast that anyone would consider anakin "loveable" at any point in ep 3. The temple massacre scene, in my opinion, was the perfect evidence that George lives in la-la land. (I mean, as if we needed more evidence after Jar-Jar, and the million and one other ways he made the prequels suck.) It was so over-the-top evil that it negates Vader's repentance in ep 6.

Seriously, you think that there's any kind of moral balance between -

Fall: killing innocent 6-year old children (on top of everything else)

Redemption: refusing to allow an evil emperor to torture your son to death in front of you

?

I really can't fathom the kind of person that had to wait until the temple massacre to get that anakin was evil, or that had to wait until comic #409 to see that Miko was evil. I've called that practically since the beginning. I took it for granted that she was the *real* villain in the series and I had no idea anyone reading OotS could possibly miss that obvious point (since I didn't read the forums then). I've said it before and I'll say it again: Xykon and Redcloak are *comedic* evil, they are not *dramatic/serious* evil. Miko was - and is. This means she can't be just 100% evil because dramatic/serious villains are supposed to be realistic, not caricatures. So of course she's not evil through-and-through. No one is.

In defense of some Miko supporters, if you actually put weight in the D&D rankings than you have to believe that Miko was LG (and hence GOOD) to begin with. If you think Miko was good, then I imagine that you would have to come up with an alternative understanding of her character to support this conclusion. From that alternative starting point (working hard to see her as good) it's somewhat understandable that the obvious would be hard to see.

But I don't see OotS as a re-enactment of D&D first and a comic second. I see it the other way around. For that reason, I saw no reason to try and read Miko as good because she's a paladin. And I think questions about whether or not these characters are role-played poorly/well are off-the mark. We should be talking about *Miko*, not the hypothetical player who - from the standpoint of OotS - doesn't exist. So I evaluated her based on actions/words - and saw her propensity for evil from the start.

Guys, Rich was not throwing a curve ball here.

-stormin

Elliot Kane
2007-02-03, 12:00 PM
I think Redcloak covered it perfectly (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0372.html) already.

"Maybe that's why you paladins are so full of yourselves. You're immune to the fear you might be wrong."

I think that sums up Miko exactly...

She's still a great character, though, and I'm awaiting the rest of her story with interest. I'm still thinking Death Knight...

Tokiko Mima
2007-02-03, 12:02 PM
The part of Miko that's hurting her is the one that is telling her she's so special that she can't make a mistake. It's at the core of why she's making so many bad judgement calls and refusing to see them as bad. It's also why she's so arrogant (wouldn't you be arrogant if everything you said or did was correct, and other people were wrong?) and so ready to find fault with others.

Miko could easily become a Blackguard, or she could become a Corrupt Avenger or some other non-Paladin PrC. I still do believe that this is a chance she could be redeemed, but not until she allows herself to take personal responsibility for her actions and accepts that being a (formerly) powerful Paladin does not make one immune to error, only fear and disease and anything with a low save DC.

Lord Zentei
2007-02-03, 12:06 PM
I'm really aghast that anyone would consider anakin "loveable" at any point in ep 3. The temple massacre scene, in my opinion, was the perfect evidence that George lives in la-la land. (I mean, as if we needed more evidence after Jar-Jar, and the million and one other ways he made the prequels suck.) It was so over-the-top evil that it negates Vader's repentance in ep 6.

Seriously, you think that there's any kind of moral balance between -

Fall: killing innocent 6-year old children (on top of everything else)

Redemption: refusing to allow an evil emperor to torture your son to death in front of you <snip RAH RAH>

Yeah, we know Lucas isn't Shakespeare. That's not Miko, though.


I really can't fathom the kind of person that had to wait <snippa> until comic #409 to see that Miko was evil. I've called that practically since the beginning.

Stopped clocks are right twice daily. :smalltongue: That you judged a person that had the potential for being evil as evil does not mean that they were evil all along. That just precludes the concept of character development.


I took it for granted that she was the *real* villain in the series and I had no idea anyone reading OotS could possibly miss that obvious point (since I didn't read the forums then). I've said it before and I'll say it again: Xykon and Redcloak are *comedic* evil, they are not *dramatic/serious* evil. Miko was - and is. This means she can't be just 100% evil because dramatic/serious villains are supposed to be realistic, not caricatures. So of course she's not evil through-and-through. No one is.

Not evil through-and-through? So: she was not neccesarily evil to begin with. Which is what is being argued. And I saw her as an antagonist from the start, though not neccesarily as "the *real* villain" as you are claiming, but not all antagonists have to be evil, much less The Evil.


In defense of some Miko supporters, if you actually put weight in the D&D rankings than you have to believe that Miko was LG (and hence GOOD) to begin with. If you think Miko was good, then I imagine that you would have to come up with an alternative understanding of her character to support this conclusion. From that alternative starting point (working hard to see her as good) it's somewhat understandable that the obvious would be hard to see.

There are arguments to the opposite effect, you know: Linka (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=33782).


But I don't see OotS as a re-enactment of D&D first and a comic second. I see it the other way around. For that reason, I saw no reason to try and read Miko as good because she's a paladin. And I think questions about whether or not these characters are role-played poorly/well are off-the mark. We should be talking about *Miko*, not the hypothetical player who - from the standpoint of OotS - doesn't exist. So I evaluated her based on actions/words - and saw her propensity for evil from the start.

Guys, Rich was not throwing a curve ball here.

Propensity for evil is not evil. Just as no-one is perfectly evil so too is no one perfectly good, after all.

Porthos
2007-02-03, 12:19 PM
Paladins must be Lawful Good, otherwise they stop being Paladins.

Miko was a Paladin until she killed Shojo.

Therefore Miko was Lawful Good until that point. QED.

Now she was an extremely borderline Good character, and her actions were leading down the Path to Falling. But. She. Was. Still. Good.... Barely. :smalltongue:

[NOTE: If you really want, I can list all of her Good Actions pre 405. Not surprisingly they usually happen when she is not dealing with the OotS. :smalltongue: )

Now was she an antagonist from Day One? Absolutely. But she didn't stop being Good until recently. If I was DMing her, I'd put her at CN right now (mostly due to the madness/psychotic break) with her eventually settling in at LE (it sure seems like she is going to go down that path at least - I suppose there is an outside chance she could settle in at LN. But I doubt it.). I only say CN because she is acting way too chaotically right now to be LN (the "I'm so confused" and the "*SNAP* I attack Hinjo for no discernible reason" moments being the sign of a chaotic mind right now).

PaladinFreak
2007-02-03, 12:31 PM
Excellent point. At the moment, Miko seems to just be wallowing in her delusions. I had hoped that falling would knock some sense into her, but now I think she is bound for blackguard. Ooo... If she goes blackgaurd, its my turn!

Kreistor
2007-02-03, 12:34 PM
Yzorth, Redcloak foreshadowed this path for Miko many strips ago. He suggested she was capable of "becoming a Tyrant" because of her lack of fear. Xykon allowed her to leave because he saw in her something useful, as well. Good beings should never be that useful to Evil. If they are, then they are seriously flawed. It took Xykon and Redcloak three strips and a few minutes to figure Miko out.

Also note that Hinjo, another Paladin, did not like her presence, suggesting she was not quite right. Hinjo was the reasonable Paladin that was intended to act as a foil to demonstrate Miko's severity and extremism. If Hinjo is Lawful Good, then what is Miko?

Miko suffers from Hubris, not messed up logic, and she has ever since she was introduced. It is one of the classic Paladin faults. Given so much powre by a deific being, Miko has let that power go to her head. Instead of feeling appreciation for the gift, she feels that she deserved it. She crossed the line from custodian of power to user of power. Miko's prayers lack humility -- she assumes betrayal is all about her. Why? Because she is not being allowed to do what she wants to do. Roy has the right of it -- Miko's mind manipulates facts to allow her to do what her emotions desire instead what reason demands. When faced with the inconsistency of her beliefs (by Hinjo in 409), Miko's response is to stop thinking and attack the person that suggested that inconsistency.

Miko doesn't truly think. She invents and manipulates her perception and memory to support her belief in her own righteousness.

theStorminMormo
2007-02-03, 12:41 PM
@Lord Zentei

I'm starting to think that you just go after my posts on principle here!


Yeah, we know Lucas isn't Shakespeare. That's not Miko, though.

Right, but I was just responding to someone comparing #408-409 to the temple massacre in ep 3. I didn't bring up the comparison!


That you judged a person that had the potential for being evil as evil does not mean that they were evil all along. That's just narrow minded, and precludes the concept of character development.

Oh come one! Calling me narrow-minded because I'm judging a character? That's what they are for! You can't go around appyling the same morality to people and characters. Sheesh. And as for precluding character development: that's hogswash. I wasn't saying she wouldn't change. I was guessing the direction that change would take. I don't view it as going from "good" to "evil" but as from "little evil" to "big evil". She has certainly developed as a character - just not in good ways.


I don't know what you mean by "The Evil". I'm saying I saw her as evil to begin with, and now she's more evil. It's like seeing a little kid pick on littler kids. That's evil. And you might say "if something doens't change - they're going to grow up to do real evil things". Because I could see Richard was taking a more dramatic tone (as opposed to the extremely light comedy in the beginning) I knew he would need a more realistic villain. It's not that I thought that there was no way Miko could have turned out better (just as the kid on the playground could have learned a lesson and turned into a nice person). It's just that there was a clear need for a genuine villain and Miko was being groomed as the obvious candidate for the role. I'm just suprised people didn't see it coming. You can't have interesting philosphical discussions very much about a cartoon bad guy. And that's what Xykon is. Miko provides ample opportunity for much meatier story: as the current hullabaloo attests.

So in sum: I saw the evil inclinations in Miko from the beginning. At the time it was little evil. I also say that Richard was adding deeper elements to the story, and would need a deeper antagonist. Miko - who clearly had the potential to be an extremely evil villain in a less-cartoon like way - was the obvious candidate.

[QUOTE=Lord Zentei;1948512]Propensity for evil is not evil. Just as no-one is perfectly evil so too is no one perfectly good, after all.

Uh... I would say that to the extent that a person has a propensity of evil that person is evil. If the propensity is mild and latent, then the degree of evil is mild and latent. If the propensity is deep-seated and well-nourished then the evil is deep-seated and well-nourished. Miko started out with a definite bent for evil. This didn't doom her. But remember, she's a character, not a person, and the fact that the story she was in required a villain did doom her.

Evil acts do not make people evil. They are the result of circumstance and propensity/desire/etc. Call it what you will, but that internal element is what's left when you factor the circumstance back out. You can even call it "action", if you will, but that part of the action that matters is not the external event, but the internal process, the desire, and the intention.

Let's be clear: I love the character of Miko. I just think she's an evil one.

-stormin

Fus.Weapon 1337
2007-02-03, 12:44 PM
My opinion has changed.

From "Meh" to "Like".

I absolutely love a good character gone bad, and being insane is even better! Now, if she just becomes a villian....

theStorminMormo
2007-02-03, 12:45 PM
@Kreistor-

You're so dead on! I love your posts. One nit-pick.


Miko suffers from Hubris, not messed up logic, and she has ever since she was introduced.

I'd say she suffers from messed up logic and hubris, but the key moral element is that her messed-up logic is a direct result of her pride. It's because she refuses to admit that her conclusions could be wrong that she ends up descending into this pseudo-madness. This is why I don't feel (very) sorry for her. Her madness - such as it is - is entirely self-created.

-stormin

Lord Zentei
2007-02-03, 12:56 PM
@Lord Zentei

I'm starting to think that you just go after my posts on principle here!

Oh, come on, of course not! I have been responding to dozens of people today; if you don't beleive me, just check out my "find more posts by" button.


Right, but I was just responding to someone comparing #408-409 to the temple massacre in ep 3. I didn't bring up the comparison!

Yeah, that's fair enough, and I didn't claim you brought it up.


Oh come one! Calling me narrow-minded because I'm judging a character? That's what they are for! You can't go around appyling the same morality to people and characters. Sheesh. And as for precluding character development: that's hogswash. I wasn't saying she wouldn't change. I was guessing the direction that change would take. I don't view it as going from "good" to "evil" but as from "little evil" to "big evil". She has certainly developed as a character - just not in good ways.

I scrubbed that as you can clearly see, before you posted too. Anyway: please define "little evil". Is that "mostly good but with nasty inclinations"?


I don't know what you mean by "The Evil". I'm saying I saw her as evil to begin with, and now she's more evil. It's like seeing a little kid pick on littler kids. That's evil. And you might say "if something doens't change - they're going to grow up to do real evil things". Because I could see Richard was taking a more dramatic tone (as opposed to the extremely light comedy in the beginning) I knew he would need a more realistic villain. It's not that I thought that there was no way Miko could have turned out better (just as the kid on the playground could have learned a lesson and turned into a nice person). It's just that there was a clear need for a genuine villain and Miko was being groomed as the obvious candidate for the role. I'm just suprised people didn't see it coming. You can't have interesting philosphical discussions very much about a cartoon bad guy. And that's what Xykon is. Miko provides ample opportunity for much meatier story: as the current hullabaloo attests.

The strip needed a realistic antagonist, and Miko was certainly it. That does not imply that she was always evil, though she was never friendly. Hell by that argument, you can claim that Roy is evil, since he abandoned Elan to the bandits and treated him as dirt all the time. Your argument simply does not follow.


So in sum: I saw the evil inclinations in Miko from the beginning. At the time it was little evil. I also say that Richard was adding deeper elements to the story, and would need a deeper antagonist. Miko - who clearly had the potential to be an extremely evil villain in a less-cartoon like way - was the obvious candidate.

Antagonisms and character flaws =/= character is out and out evil.


Uh... I would say that to the extent that a person has a propensity of evil that person is evil. If the propensity is mild and latent, then the degree of evil is mild and latent. If the propensity is deep-seated and well-nourished then the evil is deep-seated and well-nourished. Miko started out with a definite bent for evil. This didn't doom her. But remember, she's a character, not a person, and the fact that the story she was in required a villain did doom her.

Meaningless. If evil propensity are enough to make one evil, everyone is evil.

And if a character is written with the intent that they become evil eventually due to character flaws they were always evil throughout the entire story? What kind of reasoning is that?


Let's be clear: I love the character of Miko. I just think she's an evil one.

-stormin

Now, yes. Before, no.

kolvar
2007-02-03, 01:07 PM
I just had to think about some old rules: Wasn't it so, that death knights where created from dead fallen paladins? If Miko is actually sentenced to death ... Xykon is not far away to raise her.
Another way, it could go: Miko is put to jail and finds new allies there. With no supernatural abilities to deduce that they are evil, Nale and Sabine can easyly convince her, that the OotS captured them with their evil ways and braught them to this evil place.
Somehow, I doubt that she will become a blackguard.

DomaDoma
2007-02-03, 01:10 PM
Out of curiosity, Tin, is your av a little way of saying "hey, it could be worse"?

Actually, my second-arc opinion of Miko was more or less cordial dislike, and my esteem of her actually rose during the watchtower bit because she was actually doing something admirable and looking cool doing it (plus, I figured her little conspiracy theory would be resolved a touch less brutally). Now, yeah, it's hit rock bottom.

theStorminMormo
2007-02-03, 01:32 PM
I scrubbed that as you can clearly see, before you posted too. Anyway: please define "little evil". Is that "mostly good but with nasty inclinations"?

I must have hit "Quote" before you scrubbed it. I didn't mean to quote something that you'd scrubbed.


The strip needed a realistic antagonist, and Miko was certainly it. That does not imply that she was always evil, though she was never friendly. Hell by that argument, you can claim that Roy is evil, since he abandoned Elan to the bandits and treated him as dirt all the time. Your argument simply does not follow.

I don't think that the need of the strip for a realistic villain implied that Miko was always evil. I think that - given her tendency to violence, judgmentalism, and pride - it served as good indication that her character would succumb to those traits.

Antagonisms and character flaws =/= character is out and out evil.

Antagonism, granted. But character flaw? It depends on the flaw! If your character flaw is "smells funny", then sure, you're not evil. But if you're character flaw is "propensity to want to shed blood first, ask questions never" than yeah - your character flaw is evidence of your evil nature. But what do you mean by "out and out evil"? Are you arguing about whether or not she's Evil in the alignment system? Because I'm not having an argument about game mechanics. I'm having a discussion about morality. I don't think she was out and out evil until she killed Shojo because that was the manifestation and determination of her inner character. But I think the seed of evil has been there all along. And it's not evil like Belkar, Redcoat, etc., but dramatic evil.


Meaningless. If evil propensity are enough to make one evil, everyone is evil.

That's not meaningless! It's a truism! Everyone is evil to some extent. But characters like Roy - who have an evil tendency to abandon Elan to his fate - tend to win out over the evil propensities in the end. Is Roy a little evil? Certainly. But, in general, is he evil? No - because his good side tends to win out. The difference between Roy and Miko is that she's been giving in to her evil side for the last 200 strips: causing her propensity for evil to grow and fester like a cancer. She's more evil in 409 than in 408 because she has continued to feed her inner demons. We all have inner demons. We are all evil to an extent. But Miko is evil in the final analysis because she's letting her evil side win out.


And if a character is written with the intent that they become evil eventually due to character flaws they were always evil throughout the entire story? What kind of reasoning is that?

But where does that evil come from? What I'm saying is that if you're going to realistically write a story about an evil villain, you have to explain it somehow. There are two broad ideas. There's the sudden conversion in which an otherwise good person snaps, and then there's the prolonged descent into evil in which an initially ambigious or only somewhat evil character develops their existing evil nature until a final fall. Miko is the latter type. She started out with petty evil (my comparison to an obnoxious and arrogant traffic cop who uses the law to exercise sadistic tendencies) and has reached the point of regicide. She has NEVER been a good character. She was just less bad in the beginning.

-stormin

Justinian
2007-02-03, 01:48 PM
Stormin - You think aggressively hunting down villains makes someone evil?

Not so, it's a perfectly valid way for a paladin to be envisioned and played. Detect evil, demand its immediate surrender, and then smite is not going to cause a paladin to fall. It might cause them to bite off more than they can chew, so it's not neccessarily always a wise tactic, but that doesn't make it wrong. Killing evildoers is not evil - in a fantasy campaign setting, someone doesn't detect as evil for cheating on their taxes.

If you want to throw real-world morality into the mix and eschew D&D's rules-as-written, I don't agree with your perspective of "latent evil" or "evil natures." I think a person is defined by their actions - everyone has a capacity for evil, that's kind of what free will is all about, and kind of why being a good person is so hard... and thus, so commendable.

Of course, I think Miko's just gone insane, so this is neither here nor there.

Emanick1
2007-02-03, 01:49 PM
Miko is utterly selfish. However, she's much too far gone to realize this in his motives. She is feeling pure rage, and only rage. She has no room in her brain for anything BUT rage. It's quite possible, even probable, that if she had killed Hinjo then she would have felt sorry for it later on. Incredibly sorry. I doubt she would have felt sorry enough to turn herself in, though, and it probably it wouldn't have made any difference in the long run.
In all probability, if this wasn't fiction then she would probably just run over to Xykon and fight him and his minions until she's dead.
(Also, I never saw any evidence that Hinjo "liked" Miko or vice versa. I don't see where you guys get that from. Probably it was just wishful thinking.

Lord Zentei
2007-02-03, 01:51 PM
I must have hit "Quote" before you scrubbed it. I didn't mean to quote something that you'd scrubbed.

Ninja business. No problem.


I don't think that the need of the strip for a realistic villain implied that Miko was always evil. I think that - given her tendency to violence, judgmentalism, and pride - it served as good indication that her character would succumb to those traits.

Ooooh!

But that's not what you have been saying this whole time!!



Antagonism, granted. But character flaw? It depends on the flaw! If your character flaw is "smells funny", then sure, you're not evil. But if you're character flaw is "propensity to want to shed blood first, ask questions never" than yeah - your character flaw is evidence of your evil nature. But what do you mean by "out and out evil"? Are you arguing about whether or not she's Evil in the alignment system? Because I'm not having an argument about game mechanics. I'm having a discussion about morality.

By character flaw, I'm obviously referring to something more important than bad smell, halitosis or such. :smalltongue: I'm talking about issues of character and personality that lead to confrontation and self-destruction.

Moreover: inclinations are not the same as disastrous actions; particularly since in the absence of such actions there is the possibility of control of such inclinations and redemption as opposed to fall. That holds in a literary sense no less than in a game mechanics sense.


I don't think she was out and out evil until she killed Shojo because that was the manifestation and determination of her inner character. But I think the seed of evil has been there all along. And it's not evil like Belkar, Redcoat, etc., but dramatic evil.

I'm sorry, but to me, that's not the impression I have received from what you have meant by what you were saying up to this point.

Obviously everyone has "seeds of evil" to some extent; and obviously Miko had it more than most; otherwise she, as a "good" person would never have been an antagonist to a mostly upright party in the first place. The potential never bloomed in full till 406, howerver, nor was that turn of events truly inevitable in a character analysis sense. Certainly it was a possibility; but that means not inevitability. Antagonists don't have to be full-blown psychos like that.


That's not meaningless! It's a truism! Everyone is evil to some extent.

I meant that in this context it is meaningless - i.e. as an argument for Miko's inevitable fall.


But characters like Roy - who have an evil tendency to abandon Elan to his fate - tend to win out over the evil propensities in the end. Is Roy a little evil? Certainly. But, in general, is he evil? No - because his good side tends to win out.

OK, I'm going to ask flat out: Is Roy "evil" or is he not in the sense that Miko was "evil" before crossing the point of no return?


The difference between Roy and Miko is that she's been giving in to her evil side for the last 200 strips: causing her propensity for evil to grow and fester like a cancer. She's more evil in 409 than in 408 because she has continued to feed her inner demons. We all have inner demons. We are all evil to an extent. But Miko is evil in the final analysis because she's letting her evil side win out.

"We're all evil to some extent", well that settles it as far as my impression of your position is concerned. If we are "all evil to some extent", then it is rather poor analysis to assert that Miko was "always evil" since the conclusion is implied in the premise.


But where does that evil come from? What I'm saying is that if you're going to realistically write a story about an evil villain, you have to explain it somehow.

Indeed.


There are two broad ideas. There's the sudden conversion in which an otherwise good person snaps, and then there's the prolonged descent into evil in which an initially ambigious or only somewhat evil character develops their existing evil nature until a final fall. Miko is the latter type.

And then there is the position where a mostly good but with evil inclinations character descends into evil. You said yourself that we are all evil to some extent, right? So where does this "otherwise good person" fit into that? If all have some inclinations to evil, then a "otherwise good person" has them too, and you don't need unexplained "snapping". Moreover, the concept of an "otherwise good person" is a bit suspect given your earlier assertion that "we're all evil to some extent", IMHO.


She started out with petty evil (my comparison to an obnoxious and arrogant traffic cop who uses the law to exercise sadistic tendencies) and has reached the point of regicide. She has NEVER been a good character. She was just less bad in the beginning.

Well, since you claimed that "we are all evil to some extent", that would just be another truism, right?

I imagine Roy was always evil too: first minor evil like you claimed, and now even less minor evil. Heh.

chibibar
2007-02-03, 01:58 PM
The thing is that everyone does have the potential to become evil and everyone has the potential to be good.

Thinking evil thoughts doesn't usually gets into trouble in the real world or in Fantasy world (unless you are around a bunch of psions who can read minds/thoughts)

Acting on them is a different story. That is why the Paladin rules was EVIL ACT... not evil thoughts :) if that was the case, I don't think there will be any paladins.

NemesisDM4
2007-02-03, 02:25 PM
Wow. She's going to become a blackguard, just because of messed up logic and the fact that she can't get over the fact she made a mistake.

Oh, of course, it's one of the classic falls. Hasn't anyone here ever played in/read about the Ravenloft setting? Many of the darklords fell in such a manner, and one (Elenia Faithold) is actually quite analogous to Miko (a former paladin who fell due to overzealousness in her quest against evil, and inability to admit mistakes).

Also, I think this is entirely in Miko's character, and not at all cliched. The cliche would have been if this completely self-righteous hard@ss suddenly broke down in tears, sobbing for the 12 Gods to forgive her, and then later gave her life to save the OotS from an attack by Xykon - that's a cliche. For her to instead insist she must still be right is very much in character.

Look at how her personality is constructed: the very basis of her entire identity is her belief that she is the chosen of the gods (as further evidenced by her words to Shojo - where she gives the melodramatic "was it all a lie?" speech about her first coming to the Sapphire Guard). Furthermore, her belief that the OotS is evil and duplicitous has become deepseated and repeatedly reinforced (albeit by specious logic - plus the fact that she seems to assume Belkar is typical of the OotS:smalltongue: ).

By contrast, her belief that Shojo is a good and rightful ruler was what you might call a contingent belief - it was derived from her core beliefs (i.e. "I am chosen by the gods to serve in the Sapphire Guard, therefore I assume that the leader of the Guard is also favored by the gods."). Her belief that Hinjo is good is similarly contingent (contingent upon her notion of paladins being the paragon of virtue, which is itself derived from the fact that the gods showed favor to her by making her a paladin).

However, these belief sets have come into conflict. Either she is wrong, she is not favored by the gods (certainly not anymore, anyway), the OotS is in the right, and Shojo and Hinjo are still good, or she is still favored (and therefore right), the OotS are villains behind the whole thing, and therefore Shojo and Hinjo cannot be good, because they oppose her and cooperate with the OotS.

Furthermore, if she continues to believe that all paladins are virtuous and favored by the gods, then she must believe that Hinjo is good (because she's seen what happens when a paladin falls, and it didn't happen to him), and she also must believe that she is no longer favored (because the one thing she doesn't deny is that, at least temporarily, she is no longer a paladin).

Therefore, she must either admit her mistake, and therefore give up the very core of her beliefs (that she is chosen), or accept the logical conclusions derived from the premise that she is still right - that Shojo and Hinjo are bad, that it is possible for a paladin (Hinjo) to lose virtue and not fall, and that it is possible to lose paladinhood without falling in any objective sense (as she "did").

When pushed to an impasse wherein one's beliefs are placed in obvious contradiction, one will almost always choose to preserve the belief that is most central to one's overall system of beliefs, and discard all those beliefs that contradict that central belief. (Sorry, that was more tongue-twisting than I intended)

Therefore, the only in-character move Miko could have made (or at least the most likely of a small handful) was to rationalize her fall (and here I use "rationalize" in a sense that in no way implies rationality:smallbiggrin: ) and accept the required corollaries of such a rationalization.

In conclusion, yes, she's well on her way to some brand of Evil (whether she's quite there yet or not), and will almost certainly become a serious villain in the future. Whether she becomes LE, NE, or CE depends entirely on how her rationalization evolves. If she insists she's still upholding the will of the gods, and their laws, then she'll go LE (almost a sort of false prophet). If she is consumed by hatred for the OotS and makes it her sole goal to eliminate them, then it'd be NE (selfish obsession). Finally, if her belief in her own virtue is stronger even than her belief in the gods (and in the fact that they've chosen her), then she might even snap completely and decide that the gods must be punished for their betrayal, thus going complete CE (maniacal nihilistic destroyer).

theStorminMormo
2007-02-03, 02:40 PM
Stormin - You think aggressively hunting down villains makes someone evil?

No, but I think she did more than that. She also thirsted for blood and treated them all as inferiors. She's the classic example of someone who manages to be entirely selfish within the framework of rules. I've already compared her to an obnoxious, sadistic traffic cop. There's nothing wrong with writing a speeding ticket, but I think anyone that enjoys it is twisted.


Killing evildoers is not evil - in a fantasy campaign setting, someone doesn't detect as evil for cheating on their taxes.

Belkar is clearly not really evil. Yes, yes - his alignment is. But he's comedic evil. He's not killing children or raping their mothers. If I had to judge Belkar's role-playing, I wouldn't give him an A. A truly evil character would have killed a lot more of the people he wants to by now. But Belkar's evil isn't realistic. You're judging this according to the rules of D&D alignment, I'm seeing it as story first, D&D session second.


I think a person is defined by their actions - everyone has a capacity for evil, that's kind of what free will is all about

Actually no. It's free will that proves that actions do not define morality. Actions are contingent. They depend on circumstances. I believe morality only applies to what people have control over. Therefore actions - which are contingent - do not match up to morality which is not. So, for example, if you're an evil person (internally, by my definition) consider these two options:

Person A says he hates you. You hear, and in rage kill him.

Person A says he hates you. You don't hear, so you don't kill him.

The character of the evil person in these alternatives is identical, but his actions are different based on circumstance. In the philosophy of ethics there are a lot of different alternatives but "actions define morality" isn't one of them (unless you have a well-developed theory of agent-causation to back it up.)


Of course, I think Miko's just gone insane, so this is neither here nor there.

I agree that she's insane - but the insanity is her fault. So she doesn't get a pass. It's like a drunk driver that kills a kid. You don't say "they were drunk! They had no control!" You say "what were they going driving drunk?" She's responsible for her mental breakdown (consequence of her pride) so she's responsible for what she does in that state.

-stormin

Porthos
2007-02-03, 02:43 PM
Belkar is clearly not really evil. Yes, yes - his alignment is. But he's comedic evil. He's not killing children or raping their mothers. If I had to judge Belkar's role-playing, I wouldn't give him an A. A truly evil character would have killed a lot more of the people he wants to by now. But Belkar's evil isn't realistic. You're judging this according to the rules of D&D alignment, I'm seeing it as story first, D&D session second.

I don't know if you have read On the Origins of PCs or not, but it is fairly obvious that Roy is keeping Belkar on a very short leash. If Belkar was left to his own devices, I suspect he would have more kills to his name than Nale and Thog combined.

theStorminMormo
2007-02-03, 02:56 PM
Moreover: inclinations are not the same as disastrous actions; particularly since in the absence of such actions there is the possibility of control of such inclinations and redemption as opposed to fall. That holds in a literary sense no less than in a game mechanics sense.

Inclinations != actions, agreed. But inclinations are a better measure of morality. Think about it this way, the further you get form the decision-making process the worse something is for judging morality (see my example in my last post on this thread). The only thing worse than using actions to judge morality is using consequences of those actions to judge morality. You need to get as close to the essence of character as possible. By the time you get out to actions, there's a lot of random "noise".


Obviously everyone has "seeds of evil" to some extent; and obviously Miko had it more than most; otherwise she, as a "good" person would never have been an antagonist to a mostly upright party in the first place. The potential never bloomed in full till 406, howerver, nor was that turn of events truly inevitable in a character analysis sense. Certainly it was a possibility; but that means not inevitability. Antagonists don't have to be full-blown psychos like that.

First of all, I don't believe she was ever a good person. If you rescue people from a burning building because you don't like the smell of burned human flesh, was your action good? I'd be happy for the rescue, but I wouldn't consider it a morally good act. It's purely selfish. Same problem in religion. If you're following all the rules because it's the only way to avoid hellfire are you really a good person? I'd say no. And every indication was that Miko's "good" actions were at best to follow some law she'd been trained to follow from age 13 and at worst a cover to sate her thirst for vengence and murder.

So it's not her evil proclivities that makes me call her evil from day 1. It's the fact that, unlike say Roy, she gave into those proclivities. Having evil inclinations doesn't make you evil (in the sense that Miko has always been evil), but giving in to them does.


OK, I'm going to ask flat out: Is Roy "evil" or is he not in the sense that Miko was "evil" before crossing the point of no return?

There is no "point of no return". She can atone. Even after #409. She's just taken another step on a long path. A dramatic step to be sure, but there were many less dramatic steps that got her to that point. And no, Roy was not evil in that sense. He hasn't been headed down that path towards a dramatic fall. He hasn't been dramatically headed in the direction of greater goodness, but he's kept his evil inclinations in check. He takes a step or two down that path from time to time, but usually comes around.


"We're all evil to some extent", well that settles it as far as my impression of your position is concerned. If we are "all evil to some extent", then it is rather poor analysis to assert that Miko was "always evil" since the conclusion is implied in the premise.

There are two ways I use the word "evil". Sorry - I didn't plot out my argument ahead of time.

Meaning of being evil #1 - to have evil inclinations. We're all evil in this (limited) sense.

Meaning of being evil #2 - we are actively engaged in following our evil inclinations. In this sense Roy is not evil, Miko is. We all fall into this form of evil from time to time, but we generally feel bad and try to make up for our actions. Just as Miko could (and still can) try to make up for hers.

The important thing to note is that what matters (to me) is not some "state", but the direction. A thief who is reforming is better (in my eyes) then a saint who's started to seriously plan a bank robbery.

-stormin

Machelle
2007-02-03, 03:23 PM
:smallwink: I actually find miko more interesting now. She has the potential to be a great villian as opposed to a 'bad palladin' joke -smile-

People who always think that they are right leave a bad taste in my mouth :smallredface: probably a knee jerk reaction to my x-husband sorry :smallredface: but none the less true. Thus I have never really -liked- miko. I enjoyed the part she played in the story and in my opinion she has travelled down the path she set for herself since the beginning. .

Justinian
2007-02-03, 03:37 PM
No, but I think she did more than that. She also thirsted for blood and treated them all as inferiors. She's the classic example of someone who manages to be entirely selfish within the framework of rules. I've already compared her to an obnoxious, sadistic traffic cop. There's nothing wrong with writing a speeding ticket, but I think anyone that enjoys it is twisted.

She's a Paladin - if someone is believed to be an evil criminal you don't throw them a tea party. Shojo used her a one-woman wrecking crew against the evils that might threaten the Gate, is it any wonder that she treated the OotS thusly?


Belkar is clearly not really evil. Yes, yes - his alignment is. But he's comedic evil. He's not killing children or raping their mothers. If I had to judge Belkar's role-playing, I wouldn't give him an A. A truly evil character would have killed a lot more of the people he wants to by now. But Belkar's evil isn't realistic. You're judging this according to the rules of D&D alignment, I'm seeing it as story first, D&D session second.Wait, what?! The sociopath Roy keeps on a short leash is not evil? Could you have possibly damaged your own argument any worse than what you just said?

I can laugh at Belkar, too, but both IRL and in a medieval setting he's signed, sealed, and delivered his own death warrant multiple times.


Actually no. It's free will that proves that actions do not define morality. Actions are contingent. They depend on circumstances. I believe morality only applies to what people have control over. Therefore actions - which are contingent - do not match up to morality which is not. So, for example, if you're an evil person (internally, by my definition) consider these two options:

Person A says he hates you. You hear, and in rage kill him.

Person A says he hates you. You don't hear, so you don't kill him.

The character of the evil person in these alternatives is identical, but his actions are different based on circumstance. In the philosophy of ethics there are a lot of different alternatives but "actions define morality" isn't one of them (unless you have a well-developed theory of agent-causation to back it up.)

Actually, the character of the person is not even tested until the event. Your statement implies that you believe in free will, yet you're entirely abandoning the concept of free will for determinism, i.e. I am evil, thus if I hear Person A claim hatred for me, I will invariably kill him because I am evil.

People have a choice - they always have a choice... which is why evil must be punished, because people had the opportunity to do the right thing and chose something else.

This of course, includes Miko now. Not that Shojo was a saint or even deserved his throne, but he didn't deserve summary execution.


I agree that she's insane - but the insanity is her fault. So she doesn't get a pass. It's like a drunk driver that kills a kid. You don't say "they were drunk! They had no control!" You say "what were they going driving drunk?" She's responsible for her mental breakdown (consequence of her pride) so she's responsible for what she does in that state.-storminI'm all for personal responsibility, but if the woman were in the real world, at this point I'd say she belonged in a mental hospital, not a prison.

N0-1_H3r3
2007-02-03, 04:04 PM
I can laugh at Belkar, too, but both IRL and in a medieval setting he's signed, sealed, and delivered his own death warrant multiple times.
I think it's a matter of grades within alignments - Belkar is Chaotic Evil... but sits closer to the Chaotic side of it rather than the Evil side, as close to Chaotic Neutral as it's possible to be while still being evil. IIRC, this was covered in the notes in No Cure For The Paladin Blues - given the chance, Belkar happily butchers evil monsters, because for him, killing is fun. Watching the suffering of others is amusing. Punching kittens in the face is (presumably) a hobby. But he's not 'take over the world, consort with Demons' evil. He's like Spike from Buffy the Vampire Slayer - he's there to enjoy himself; his methods of enjoying himself happen to be murder and mayhem, but he doesn't engage in evil for it's own sake.

Miko is, IMO, very similar in that regard. Like Belkar, she sits at the far end of her alignment - in this case, she starts off far closer to the Lawful end of the spectrum than the Good end - seeing the Law as something inherently Good. Thus, even someone Chaotic Good (like Haley - who has demonstrated good tendancies amidst her of greed and disregard for the law, and is quite clearly not evil) is an adversary, because they're against the Law. If Law is Good (in the mind of paladins like Miko) then someone who breaks the law, even for Good reasons, must be Evil. Simple as that.

It's an extreme judgement, certainly, but one that seems entirely fitting for Miko's personality.


Not that Shojo was a saint or even deserved his throne
But then, Shojo himself appeared to have been aware of that - afterall, his throne was given to him by dint of his family legacy, and his deeds should be deemed more 'necessary' than 'righteous'. He didn't seem to proud of either fact, really.

Alfryd
2007-02-03, 04:05 PM
I'm all for personal responsibility, but if the woman were in the real world, at this point I'd say she belonged in a mental hospital, not a prison.
Quite.

I don't think it's really a question of picking a side on the debate here. Miko has obviously undergone a somewhat radical personality change, and what she has done lately is wrong, pure and simple. Ergo, I'm no longer going to defend her actions, which are, basically, indefensible, even if once upon a time she was on average, a decent and rational human being. It's simply not worth the ulcers involved.

Ampersand
2007-02-03, 04:30 PM
I think Miko, in one strip, just went from sympathetic and well-written character to crazy stereotype villain. Kinda sad.

Yeah, that's pretty much where I'm sitting. I would agree, for the most part, with those who say that it's not out of character for her, but when you decide to justify a change to villian status by having them start quoting Anakin Skywalker...ehhhh.

The main problem for me is I don't really see what having Miko go ape-**** capital-E Evil (I'm holding out hope that the Giant doesn't have her fall all the way and indulge in the whole stupid "Once a paladin loses their paladinhood they become immeditely and irrevocably evil" thing, but I'm not holding my breath) adds to the strip. Psychotic evil? Covered by Nale. Personal evil? Nale again. Bondian evil? C'mon, Nale himself copped to that. Cosmic evil? The Snarl and, to a lesser extent, Xykon. Impersonal, overwhelming evil? Xykon is marching a big hobgoblin army to Azure City as we speak, and never seems short of minions anyway.

So what "flavor" of evil/villanry does Miko the Full Fledged Villian (Blackguard [hope not, ugh] or Otherwise [please please please, if you must]) serve?

Personally, this is how I'd like Miko's story to end, in light of current events:

Either:
First of all, these are proceeded by Durkon giving her a good talking to about the mistakes she's made and what she has to do to correct them. I actually have a mini-script for this encounter bouncing around my head, but doubt anyone is really interested in seeing it.

1) Miko attempts to Atone, and fails. Out of shame she either commits seppuku or buries her katana, vowing to never touch it again.

2) Miko attempts to Atone and succeds. However, before the spell is applied, she decides to not become a paladin again, recognizing that the stress of attempting to follow the code is a large part of why she Fell in the first place. Instead she formally resigns her post in the Sapphire Guard (token gesture, since she will certantly be stripped of it at this point) and makes her way, much more happily, as a LG/N fighter.

Like I said, though, I'm not holding my breath.

Alfryd
2007-02-03, 04:34 PM
I actually have a mini-script for this encounter bouncing around my head, but doubt anyone is really interested in seeing it.
Eh, I'll give it a go. I had an entire retroactive alternate script for 406, after all. Spoiler, if you please.

Lord Zentei
2007-02-03, 04:37 PM
Inclinations != actions, agreed. But inclinations are a better measure of morality. Think about it this way, the further you get form the decision-making process the worse something is for judging morality (see my example in my last post on this thread). The only thing worse than using actions to judge morality is using consequences of those actions to judge morality. You need to get as close to the essence of character as possible. By the time you get out to actions, there's a lot of random "noise".

Not at all, since you have already stated that everyone has bad inclinations. Moreover, bad inclinations are irrelevant as long as they are not manifest - that is from the utilitarian perspective. Otherwise, everyone would be judged evil, as you have already said. Only problem with that is this: a test that always results in "FAILED" is useless.

Anyway, it is not "noise" that determines which inclinations become manifest but character. In that regard, Miko was not evil, while she is so now. Unless you want to classify her as "insane", that is; but I'm leaving aside this possibility, as it is largely irrelevant to her villainous status in any case.


I First of all, I don't believe she was ever a good person. If you rescue people from a burning building because you don't like the smell of burned human flesh, was your action good?

Miko rescued innocents from a burning building (specifically, the inn) because she deemed it to be her moral duty. :smallwink:


I'd be happy for the rescue, but I wouldn't consider it a morally good act. It's purely selfish. Same problem in religion. If you're following all the rules because it's the only way to avoid hellfire are you really a good person? I'd say no.

So religious people are to be judged selfish when they perform good acts simply because they might have been motivated by their religion telling them to? Does not follow. :smallannoyed: You may be a good person, then again you may not. I don't recall any desires to avoid hellfire in Miko's motivations for her actions.


And every indication was that Miko's "good" actions were at best to follow some law she'd been trained to follow from age 13 and at worst a cover to sate her thirst for vengence and murder.

You didn't actually go and examine that Miko's History thread as I recommended, did you? And are you not second guessing her motives, thus projecting your pre-existing bias upon her actions? Rather ironic, since this tendency was one of her consistent negative aspects. :smallamused:


So it's not her evil proclivities that makes me call her evil from day 1. It's the fact that, unlike say Roy, she gave into those proclivities. Having evil inclinations doesn't make you evil (in the sense that Miko has always been evil), but giving in to them does.

Though unfriendly, she did not always do that. So, "no", she was not always evil in this sense.

Remember this?


In any case, I'm saying she was always "evil" and then you're saying "she was not always out-and-out evil." Note the difference? I've never said she has been the same degree of evil for all 200 strips, or that she has always been evil. I'm just saying that - unlike Roy - she has consistently failed to win out against her dark side since day 1.

According to this, you claimed that she was NOT ALWAYS EVIL. That is, presumably according to Definition of Evil #2, since everyone is evil according to Definition of Evil #1 automatically.

Though I seem to detect that you are using a third definition here.

Looking below, it seems that this suspicion is vindicated...


There is no "point of no return". She can atone. Even after #409. She's just taken another step on a long path. A dramatic step to be sure, but there were many less dramatic steps that got her to that point.

There is as far as paladinhood is concerned. But fine, given that she can in principle atone, that is not a point of no return, but it is a defining moment in the development of her character. In effect she crossed a line there that is far more fundamental than each of the small steps that led to it.


And no, Roy was not evil in that sense. He hasn't been headed down that path towards a dramatic fall. He hasn't been dramatically headed in the direction of greater goodness, but he's kept his evil inclinations in check. He takes a step or two down that path from time to time, but usually comes around.

Since you have admitted to using two definitions obelow, I'm not sure which one you are using here. As far as "evil inclinations" is concerned, he certainly has them to the extent Miko did. So I imagine it is the second definition.


There are two ways I use the word "evil". Sorry - I didn't plot out my argument ahead of time.

Meaning of being evil #1 - to have evil inclinations. We're all evil in this (limited) sense.

Making statements to the effect that any character is "evil" by this definition a truism and hence irrelevant at best, at worst a source of confusion as to your position. I maintain therefore it should not be used in the first place since it fails to distinguish characters from one another.


Meaning of being evil #2 - we are actively engaged in following our evil inclinations. In this sense Roy is not evil, Miko is. We all fall into this form of evil from time to time, but we generally feel bad and try to make up for our actions. Just as Miko could (and still can) try to make up for hers.

Well, if we all fall into this from time to time, Roy is (or has been) "evil" from time to time.

I would hesitate to use such a label to describe a characters overall personality, though. As a label for specific actions, sure, but to me it takes consistent acts of this kind to describe the overall character "evil".

That is why I did not assign that label to Miko herself immediately upon her killing Shojo, but waited until she had thrown her chance with Hinjo away. Snapping is possible, though obviously it was not the case here.


The important thing to note is that what matters (to me) is not some "state", but the direction. A thief who is reforming is better (in my eyes) then a saint who's started to seriously plan a bank robbery.

Now you seem to be adding a third concept to the matter of "evil" - the direction of change. :smallconfused:

Change is matters, but it is the long term orientation that is important, since change by itself holds no promise of permanence. To borrow a euphemism, to "talk the talk" is not the same as "walking the walk".

If the thief turns back to theivery tomorrow, he is no better. Moreover, the saint that is committing a misdemeanor (as opposed to a bank robbery) is not on par with the theif. At least not yet, though he may become that in due course, if he keeps taking ever downward steps.

For instance: say we have an arbitrary scale to gauge the monthly benefit or damage to society as caused by a person. The benefit or damage is rated from +10 (very good) to -10 (very bad). If the saint is at +10, but declining at a rate of -1 per month, he is still better than the theif who is at -10 and rising at a rate of +1 per month. That is, until after 10 months, and assuming that the change is sustainable. So, rate of change matters, but only to the extent that it is manifest in long term change in orientation.

Then there can be chaotic blips up and down the scale, of course.

theStorminMormo
2007-02-03, 05:03 PM
Wait, what?! The sociopath Roy keeps on a short leash is not evil? Could you have possibly damaged your own argument any worse than what you just said?

Yes. He's not really evil. He's a joke. It's the difference between Mojo Jojo and Hannibal Lecter.


Actually, the character of the person is not even tested until the event. Your statement implies that you believe in free will, yet you're entirely abandoning the concept of free will for determinism, i.e. I am evil, thus if I hear Person A claim hatred for me, I will invariably kill him because I am evil.

I don't believe people have static character that is discovered (or "tested") by events. I believe in radical free will. That is to say, a person can choose to be evil or good. And furthermore a person is *only* good or evil by choice. Thus I was not invalidating free will in my example. I was just using a hypothetical person who had decided to be evil.

-stormin

Lord Zentei
2007-02-03, 05:05 PM
Yes. He's not really evil. He's a joke. It's the difference between Mojo Jojo and Hannibal Lecter.

So: Miko the Paladin was evil, and Belkar Bitterleaf is not.

Wow. Just wow.

Terraxos
2007-02-03, 05:52 PM
Miko has obviously undergone a somewhat radical personality change, and what she has done lately is wrong, pure and simple. Ergo, I'm no longer going to defend her actions, which are, basically, indefensible, even if once upon a time she was on average, a decent and rational human being. It's simply not worth the ulcers involved.
Agreed entirely. Right up to and including #408, I didn't *like* Miko, but I was prepared to defend her in the face of others who were, I felt, attacking her unjustifiably. I was even planning to make a topic entitled 'Miko deserves our sympathy', outlining a possible counterargument. But after #409? No way. By attacking Hinjo, after he gave her every chance to redeem herself, she's lost all my sympathy entirely. She will not be getting any more defence from me.

Lord Zentei
2007-02-03, 05:55 PM
Agreed entirely. Right up to and including #408, I didn't *like* Miko, but I was prepared to defend her in the face of others who were, I felt, attacking her unjustifiably. I was even planning to make a topic entitled 'Miko deserves our sympathy', outlining a possible counterargument. But after #409? No way. By attacking Hinjo, after he gave her every chance to redeem herself, she's lost all my sympathy entirely. She will not be getting any more defence from me.

I'd agree, though I assert she does still deserve sympathy, as in "pity", due to the tragic nature of her character. Of course, her fall was self inflicted, no doubt about that. But one can have sympathy nonetheless - justification of her actions is something else entirely.

Scorpion13
2007-02-03, 06:41 PM
I have a question: what are all the bad things that Belkar has done?

Just curious.

Lord Zentei
2007-02-03, 06:53 PM
I have a question: what are all the bad things that Belkar has done?

Just curious.

There is a thread somewhere around here where it is all tabulated. And there are events in On the Origin of PCs where his actions were rather less than sterling.

TinSoldier
2007-02-03, 06:58 PM
Out of curiosity, Tin, is your av a little way of saying "hey, it could be worse"?Heh. Yeah, I guess.

I've been thinking of changing to a Spike Spiegel avatar that I use on other boards though.

Bralius
2007-02-03, 06:59 PM
Miko's always been a bit off. One of those paladins you just wait to get a little -too- trigger happy and kill the wrong person.

Those that are defending her are grasping, at best. I've seen different posts following "Miko's logic" and showing that Rich portrayed her as something she's not because she needs to fill a certain role and at this point it has to be "forced", but honestly I think those are all just explanations of what people want the situation to be.

Miko is a "shoot now, ask questions later" paladin. (well, fallen now) Those types always spiral down into darkness. It won't surprise me if she starts embracing evil. Killing seems to be her way to release and rid herself of her problems. When things are piling up on her... when she's confused... when anything is going wrong, out comes that katana - and with 409 and her attacking an unarmed Hinjo, it's only proven that it no longer matters who it is that's in her path.

She's either going to die, or become a villain, or both.

TinSoldier
2007-02-03, 07:06 PM
I'm still catching up on the thread, but...


No, but I think she did more than that. She also thirsted for blood and treated them all as inferiors. She's the classic example of someone who manages to be entirely selfish within the framework of rules. I've already compared her to an obnoxious, sadistic traffic cop. There's nothing wrong with writing a speeding ticket, but I think anyone that enjoys it is twisted.If you think she did more than that then you are reading stuff into it. If she did more than that she would have lost her powers or been kicked out of the Sapphire Guard a long time ago.


Belkar is clearly not really evil. Yes, yes - his alignment is. But he's comedic evil. He's not killing children or raping their mothers. If I had to judge Belkar's role-playing, I wouldn't give him an A. A truly evil character would have killed a lot more of the people he wants to by now. But Belkar's evil isn't realistic. You're judging this according to the rules of D&D alignment, I'm seeing it as story first, D&D session second.Not this again! Gah! So killing children is the threshold of evil but killing non-threatening adults isn't? Have you read On the Origin of PCs? Where Belkar is in jail for killing a bunch of people and escapes and kills a guard (even though he didn't need to)? Oh, that's right. PC vs. Nameless NPCs. Never mind.

Lord Zentei
2007-02-03, 07:08 PM
Miko's always been a bit off. One of those paladins you just wait to get a little -too- trigger happy and kill the wrong person.

Those that are defending her are grasping, at best. I've seen different posts following "Miko's logic" and showing that Rich portrayed her as something she's not because she needs to fill a certain role and at this point it has to be "forced", but honestly I think those are all just explanations of what people want the situation to be.

Mostly the defence here entails whether she was always the way she is now. It is a matter of degrees, and her propensity for what you describe has been progressively increasing. Not all her actions in the past, though rash, were unjustified, nor was her path inevitably all the way down, though she was always an antagonist. Explaining the Miko Logic in recent events is more an analysis than excuse-making.

Of course, here I am speaking for myself. :smallwink:


Miko is a "shoot now, ask questions later" paladin. (well, fallen now) Those types always spiral down into darkness. It won't surprise me if she starts embracing evil. Killing seems to be her way to release and rid herself of her problems. When things are piling up on her... when she's confused... when anything is going wrong, out comes that katana - and with 409 and her attacking an unarmed Hinjo, it's only proven that it no longer matters who it is that's in her path.

That spiral does not always go all the way down, nor is it inevitably unidirectional.


She's either going to die, or become a villain, or both.

I'd say she already is a villain, post 409, but other than that, yeah. Barring possible redemption, though that's by no means a given.

Terraxos
2007-02-03, 07:42 PM
I'd say she already is a villain, post 409, but other than that, yeah. Barring possible redemption, though that's by no means a given.
Redemption? I somehow doubt it. I too was holding out that hope for Miko, and I'd still like to see it happen - but after #409, it just wouldn't be plausible. She is utterly single-minded in her belief that she is right and everyone who disagrees with her is wrong (and, indeed, evil) - and there is, apparently, nothing she will not do to preserve the 'rightness' of her beliefs. She would literally rather kill Hinjo (I have no doubt she was about to do it) than put herself in a position where she would have to admit that she was wrong.

In that context, any kind of sudden change of heart from Miko would make very little sense. She's not going to get any kind of Darth Vader-style last-minute heroic repentance; she is going to remain totally committed to her current path, even if it means sacrificing her powers, her alignment, her mind, and most likely her life, to achieve it.

In terms of your earlier question about sympathy: well, I feel a certain sense of pity for Miko, in the 'tragically misguided hero' kind of way (Shakespeare's Othello is a perfect example). And she has undeniably had a lot of bad things happen to her. But she's reached the point where I can no longer justify her actions in any way, or fairly see things from her point of view - because 'her point of view' has completely ceased to have any resemblance to reality.

Lastly, though, on the issue of Miko being a villain. Yes, she certainly is. (And presuming the Giant planned out his storyline in advance, it looks like she was intended to become one all along.) But actually, I'd go further than that: from a certain point of view, she's the 'greatest villain' in the comic.

Why's that? Well, assume that the 'greatness' of a villain can be judged by how the audience feel about that character; the more they are hated, the more effective they are as an antagonist. By that measure, Miko is definitely the most successful villain in the story, judging by these forums at least. Some fans have some degree of dislike for Nale, Thog, the MitD, Redcloak or Xykon; but far more than any of them, Miko is actively *hated*. On pretty much every Miko thread, there are people calling for the next strip to see Belkar harvesting her kidneys. And if that isn't evidence of a great villain, what is? :smallsmile:

Lord Zentei
2007-02-03, 08:03 PM
Redemption? I somehow doubt it. I too was holding out that hope for Miko, and I'd still like to see it happen - but after #409, it just wouldn't be plausible. She is utterly single-minded in her belief that she is right and everyone who disagrees with her is wrong (and, indeed, evil) - and there is, apparently, nothing she will not do to preserve the 'rightness' of her beliefs. She would literally rather kill Hinjo (I have no doubt she was about to do it) than put herself in a position where she would have to admit that she was wrong.

Probably true, though the Giant could hatch a surprise for us there. :smallwink: I would dearly love to see such a thing come to pass, but it may very well be that Miko's fall is a one way trip.

In any case, while I thought previously that it was a point of no return, installment #409 is really not the be all end all of such matters, since, well, since it was too early, quite frankly, and it is not impossible in principle to turn. (**) Literary argument, sure, but there you go. Also, she may be suffering from some kind of psychosis.

(**) theStorminMormo: you have at least that point. ;)


In that context, any kind of sudden change of heart from Miko would make very little sense. She's not going to get any kind of Darth Vader-style last-minute heroic repentance; she is going to remain totally committed to her current path, even if it means sacrificing her powers, her alignment, her mind, and most likely her life, to achieve it.

Definately. It would really have to take something major for her to realize the situation she has put herself into, thoguh she hasn't really come to terms with her loss of status yet.

But on Darth Vader: he only slowly started to show regret at the situation, which only became apparent in episode VI, and the redemption moment was presented to him pretty dramatically. In Episode IV I doubt anyone would consider him to be redeemable in the least, and Miko hasn't even cleared the end of her version of episode III yet. :smallwink:


In terms of your earlier question about sympathy: well, I feel a certain sense of pity for Miko, in the 'tragically misguided hero' kind of way (Shakespeare's Othello is a perfect example). And she has undeniably had a lot of bad things happen to her. But she's reached the point where I can no longer justify her actions in any way, or fairly see things from her point of view - because 'her point of view' has completely ceased to have any resemblance to reality.

Oh, yes indeed. No arguments there. There was a time when that was possible, but she crossed a line in #406, across which she won't be going back for a long time, if ever.

I'll still argue that her descent into "evil" was not unavoidable and that her actions before, while uncompromising, were not villainous - as I pointed out, a fallen hero type villain that was always evil does not work. It ruins the tragedy of the situation. For that reason, I will persist in defending her one-time status, despite the character flaws that ultimately led her to this pass. :smallwink:

And more than that, she was pretty cool as a "good" antagonist; plenty of complexity and conflict there, and it peeved me somewhat (and still does) that people will blast the character for being antagonistic while ostensibly "good", since it is such a nifty thing. It was my perception that people were attacking her for not being "protagonist-good" enough, and objected to the idea of her having "good" status at all, I moreover felt that the arguments raised against her were largely irrational (which I thought was pretty ironic in itself). Her defenders then argued in her favour, either as a paragon of virtue or as a "good" antagonist - but "good" one way or another.


Lastly, though, on the issue of Miko being a villain. Yes, she certainly is. (And presuming the Giant planned out his storyline in advance, it looks like she was intended to become one all along.) But actually, I'd go further than that: from a certain point of view, she's the 'greatest villain' in the comic.

Why's that? <SNIPPA>

Well, I guess that's a point. :smallbiggrin: See my point above, though.

TinSoldier
2007-02-03, 08:07 PM
In that context, any kind of sudden change of heart from Miko would make very little sense. She's not going to get any kind of Darth Vader-style last-minute heroic repentance; she is going to remain totally committed to her current path, even if it means sacrificing her powers, her alignment, her mind, and most likely her life, to achieve it.Well, like other readers, I see some of her recent ideas and actions to be a sudden change. I know a lot of people disagree, though.


Lastly, though, on the issue of Miko being a villain. Yes, she certainly is. (And presuming the Giant planned out his storyline in advance, it looks like she was intended to become one all along.) But actually, I'd go further than that: from a certain point of view, she's the 'greatest villain' in the comic.

Why's that? Well, assume that the 'greatness' of a villain can be judged by how the audience feel about that character; the more they are hated, the more effective they are as an antagonist. By that measure, Miko is definitely the most successful villain in the story, judging by these forums at least. Some fans have some degree of dislike for Nale, Thog, the MitD, Redcloak or Xykon; but far more than any of them, Miko is actively *hated*. On pretty much every Miko thread, there are people calling for the next strip to see Belkar harvesting her kidneys. And if that isn't evidence of a great villain, what is? :smallsmile:Quoted for truth. I realized this a couple of days ago.

Miko has never been really funny (another reason for people to dislike her) but Nale and Xykon are both very funny. While Miko doesn't have a horde of hobgoblins and undead to back her up in some ways she has become far more villainous than either Nale or Xykon.

Another point regarding Miko joining the Linear Guild--that is not going to happen because then you would have two huge egos clashing for control. There's no way that Nale would give up leadership of the Linear Guild (which he founded) and there is no way that Miko would ever accept being second in command (or lower).

rosebud
2007-02-03, 09:41 PM
Some quick points since most aspects have been discussed.

1) Miko like/dislike

I still like Miko as a character. As a person, she's scary
and not sane. :smallsmile:

2) Miko fall/redeem

I still think she is capable of redemption or of a complete
fall. I dislike hearing people say, "That's it. She'll never
be redeemed." Or, "It is definite she will be blackguard."
I thought a similar thing with Belkar in the OOTS after he
killed the guard and used him for writing supplies. That
was not the case. Please do not limit the world with
assumptions.

3) OOTS as the only characters

While the world is about OOTS, it is also about the others
in the world. Had Miko not been part of The Story, she
would not have had several strips in many occasions
devoted to her. Recent events, for example, could have
been covered merely with Miko riding up and telling
Hinjo, "A hobgoblin army led by a Lich is on it's way! They
knocked out all the advance warning beacons. I barely
escaped myself. Only the support of the gods allowed
me to reach Azure City before the army." But, instead,
we were graced with the images of Miko and MITD playing
games, philosophical debates with Redcloak, and Windstriker
landing butt-first on Miko's face. Do you have any idea
the budget those special effects cost? :smallsmile:

4) Hinjo rocks and was reasonable

I always liked Hinjo, and respect him even more now. He
needed to do what he did. Miko chose to continue her
attack rather than use his stance to run away. (Not
asking for aid when she attacked with his failing. Not
escaping instead of continuing to attack was hers.)

5) Roy was rude and he rocks

I did not like how he handled the situation at first, and I
completely recognize that others have valid viewpoints
that he handled it properly. He might have pushed her
further; most likely, it would not have mattered.

His POW hit rocked, of course. And he was jesting to
Hinjo, not being mean. And he DID enjoy that hit. :smallsmile:
And he deserved to enjoy it.

6) Belkar showed amazing restraint

And it took people pointing out how funny his comment
was to realize what he was actually implying with his
paladin reply. And that he just stood there showed he
was far more sane than she.

Shadow of the Sun
2007-02-03, 09:59 PM
Miko has always been like this. It is not a sudden change. She has always seen herself as "Special"- above over people. Once you see yourself as above other people, you can then start thinking of them as things or cattle- you can do whatever you want to them in good conscience, because you see yourself as above them and whatever you do to them is in your eyes good for them, even if they do not understand that. She is the worst kind of villain possible. The kind that acts in good conscience with no regrets because whatever she does is good for her herd. Some of you could argue that Shojo did this as well. He may have, but that is not the point. Shojo was never a villain. Miko is.

theStorminMormo
2007-02-03, 10:14 PM
If you think she did more than that then you are reading stuff into it. If she did more than that she would have lost her powers or been kicked out of the Sapphire Guard a long time ago.

It's not so much that she did more stuff, as how she did what she did and the fact that she clearly wanted to do more. The example I keep using is this. There's nothing wrong with writing speeding tickets. But if you have a cop who clearly relishes ruining peoples days and wielding power over fellow citizens than - even if their actions are always in accord with the law - they have gone above and beyond the spirit of the law. That's the impression I've always had of Miko. She operated within the bounds of her paladin law, but she was never a true paladin at heart. It wasn't about "serve and protect" for her, it as about having authority and power over other people, it was about derive self-worth from that authority and power over other people.

If she had been really interested in good - she would have been more willing to see what the OotS was up to, etc. and not always ruled out the possibility that there were other things going on more important than her own scope of authority.


Not this again! Gah! So killing children is the threshold of evil but killing non-threatening adults isn't?

That's not it at all. Not all violence depicted in movies, books, etc. is on the same scale. I'd say, for example, that Reservoir Dogs is far more violent than Independence Day. The characters of a Quentin Terantino flick are more evil even though the space aliens in Independence Day are attempting to wipe out the entire human race. It's naive to just compare body counts of movie and think that tells you about the relative evils.

Even though Belkar and Miko are in the same comic, they are clearly on different levels. Belkar, like Xykon and Redcloak, is a comic depiction of evil. Miko is not a comic depiction of evil, she's a dramatic depiction of evil. As such, she's more like Reservoir Dogs than Independence Day. From the standpoint of someone observing the art YES, Belkar is not as evil as Miko.

-stormin

Arbitrarity
2007-02-03, 10:34 PM
Did I see a philisophical argument?
Time for... my opinion of the #1 principle of human psychology!
Everything anyone does is to derive the greatest percieved pleasure.

It's true :D.
This also shows just how greedy and hypocritical we all are :/.
And what's with the insulting of nihlists?

And lastly, if our actions are forced by our character, and our character is moulded by our surroundings, I am unblamable for anything I do.

Fineous Orlon
2007-02-04, 04:53 AM
You get the impression that that's the reason for 409? After 408, some people were still sympathising with Miko and condemning Roy. That's not the way it's supposed to be. From a narrative perspective, we are supposed to sympathise with Roy and oppose Miko.

Yeah.


Being a Miko fan myself, and feeling that Roy's recent actions have been, frankly, rather self-centred, I find it a little galling. ...
7/ Roy promptly attacks her. ...

How about this: [checks the panels again] Roy walks up to her after the regicide and fall, while she picks up her sword, and he berates her [for two panels]. He smacks her, disarming her, and berates her some more, and she picks up her sword again, and attacks.

He smacks the tar out of her, disarming her, and points out her shortcomings, while she pauses and thinks, and she picks up her sword and attacks again.

Granted, Roy's style is sarcasm, not tact or diplomancy, but she armed herself three times in a row, two of those times, while or just after she "took a moment to think," and two of those times, attacked.

I just don't buy the whole "Roy promptly attacks her," line...

Hopeless
2007-02-04, 07:35 AM
I don't have it in front of me, so I can't supply the name, but there is a paladin in On the Origins of PC's.

Elan's former mentor before he met Roy trying to recruit new members of his party to be off the streets as I recall Elan has mastered the art behind how to recruit a party of adventurers, admittedly the "look" Roy had to try out before getting to the bar reminded me of Lois & Clark's pilot episode and left me in stitches...

Hopeless
2007-02-04, 09:04 AM
I'm still catching up on the thread, but...

If you think she did more than that then you are reading stuff into it. If she did more than that she would have lost her powers or been kicked out of the Sapphire Guard a long time ago.

Not this again! Gah! So killing children is the threshold of evil but killing non-threatening adults isn't? Have you read On the Origin of PCs? Where Belkar is in jail for killing a bunch of people and escapes and kills a guard (even though he didn't need to)? Oh, that's right. PC vs. Nameless NPCs. Never mind.

I believe Belkar was CE originally, however as he continues with the Order of the Stick he is slowly turning CN until that is he arrived in Azure City as Miko's prisoner and went back to his old ways when he escaped although I wonder if he was truly the same person, please note he had the chance to kill Miko when she was unconscious but didn't.

Yes I agree he's like Spike in that purposeless evil doesn't interest him if he isn't having fun, however I suspect that should someone have used a detect evil spell at this point will find he might not actually register...

Yes a mite dubious but how do you explain why he hasn't turned on the rest of the party? He's had plenty of chances so there might be a chance he has really changed... and I can't see any flying monkeys in the mirror as I type this...

Pellias
2007-02-04, 01:13 PM
Miko's been sacrificed by the Giant for a "Create villain" spell. All hail Miko the Martyr!

Lord Zentei
2007-02-04, 01:20 PM
I believe Belkar was CE originally, however as he continues with the Order of the Stick he is slowly turning CN until that is he arrived in Azure City as Miko's prisoner and went back to his old ways when he escaped although I wonder if he was truly the same person, please note he had the chance to kill Miko when she was unconscious but didn't.

He didn't kill Miko because he wanted her to fall. As he pointed out (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0286.html), Raise Dead spells are aplenty, but reversing loss of paladinhood is another issue. So, it was a fate worse than death, and hence more evil than killing her.


Yes a mite dubious but how do you explain why he hasn't turned on the rest of the party? He's had plenty of chances so there might be a chance he has really changed... and I can't see any flying monkeys in the mirror as I type this...

Evil characters don't neccesarily (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0042.html) have to turn on their companions all the time to retain their alignment.


EDIT: added linskies.

Ampersand
2007-02-04, 01:44 PM
You get the impression that that's the reason for 409? After 408, some people were still sympathising with Miko and condemning Roy. That's not the way it's supposed to be. From a narrative perspective, we are supposed to sympathise with Roy and oppose Miko.

Yeah, see, that's the thing...I sympathise a lot more with Miko than I do with Roy. Maybe it's just how they come off to me...to me, Roy seems like a self-centered egomanic who believes that the world revolves around him (I'm a big believer in the "PCs get no special treatment by virtue of being PCs" school of DMing) and can't rub two brain cells together without thinking about how superior he is to everyone around him. The only thing that really changes is whether he thinks he's superior: either his intelligence score, his MBA, or some sort of moral superiority he attains by...being Roy Greenhilt, pretty much.

Miko, on the other hand, I can completely understand. Maybe it's just because we've been given more insight into her thought processes and how she's arrived at the erronious conclusions that led to her fall. But I can totally understand about 95% of the things she does (I too am still somewhat baffled by the whole attacking Hinjo thing, and am inclined to agree that it seems meant to just slide her more into the "pure dag-nasty evil" camp rather than be a logical extention of her charcter. But I guess we'll see)


I'd say she already is a villain, post 409, but other than that, yeah. Barring possible redemption, though that's by no means a given.

The thing that's keeping me hoping is that, despite the fact she had a full dose of Crazy Juice at the time, Hinjo almost talked Miko down. And that, in her rebuff, she didn't actually mention anything about Hinjo, but the "tainted courts". In true Miko fashion, though, I'm jumping to the conclusion that we've seen the writing on the wall and things won't get better, just so I'm not constantly disappointed as things go on. But a tattered, flimsy shred of hope is better than none, neh?

I'd honestly like to know why she rebuffed Hinjo, though. Maybe it was the symbolic stripping of her katana (and thus her position in the Sapphire Guard), maybe it's because two examples of the fine, upstanding Azure City justice system were standing in the room with them...I rather doubt that we'll get much in-comic explanation other than "she's just crazy and dag-nasty evil," though.


That spiral does not always go all the way down, nor is it inevitably unidirectional.

I've been barking up that tree for a few comics now, and don't think anyone's listened yet. And it doesn't seem to be the way the Giant is going.


Eh, I'll give it a go. I had an entire retroactive alternate script for 406, after all. Spoiler, if you please.

Naturally.

As fair warning, I'm probably going to be very inconsistent in transcribing/applying Durkon's accent.

Durkon is led to Miko's cell, either by Hinjo or Generic Azure City Guard #4759 (#2186 called in sick)

Hinjo/Guard: You know the only reason I/Lord Hinjo agreed to this is because of the service your group is performing for me/him? Normally prisoners this dangerous aren't allowed visitors.
:durkon: Aye, an' I appreciate tha opportunity ye/yer lord has so generously granted me.

Durkon is left in front of Miko's cell
:durkon: Lass?
:miko: Hello, Durkon. Have you come to mock me?
:durkon: Nay, lass, jus' ta talk.
:miko: Liar! You may have pretended to be my ally before, but I've seen through your deception! You support Greenhilt and the halfling, you...
:durkon: (interupting) Yell all ye like, lass, ye know I'm patient enough ta wait here 'til yer hoarse ta say what I have ta.
:miko: Than say what you will and begone. I have no desire to listen to your lies.
:durkon: Unless ye have gained tha ability to create Silence, 15' Raidus a' will, lass, ye'll hear it. Whether or not ye'll take it ta heart is another matter entirely.
:miko: ........
:durkon: Tha's better.

:durkon: Let me start by sayin' that I'm disappointed in ye, Miko Miyazaki. I know yer better than what ye've been doin' of late. What ye did was wrong, and yer smart enough ta know that.

:durkon: But tha's not what I came here ta say, an' gods know ye've gotten more than enough'a that from everyone. What I came ta say is this: It's not too late for ye, Miko Miyazaki, daughter of Eyko. Ye've not gone so far down tha road that ye can't get off it. But tha's the kicker: ye have to be the one ta decide to get off it.

:durkon: I won't lie ta ye: ye can regain what ye've lost, but tha way will be long, an' hard, harder than anything ye've ever done, an' no one will do ya any favors while you go. Ye'll have ta look deep within yer soul, and yer gonna find things in there that ye won't like. But I know tha yer strong enough ta o'come those things, if ye truly want ta.

:miko: And how precisely do you suggest I begin this quest? If you hadn't noticed, there is a thick iron door and bars in the window that currently impede my mobility.
:durkon: Than start inside yerself, lass. Pray ta tha Twelve, and ask 'em ta show ye the way. And think long an' hard on tha answer they give, even if tha answer be silence.

Durkon has turned and is walking away

:durkon: Farewell, Miko Miyazaki. I be prayin' ta Thor tha the next time we meet'll be o'er raised mugs instad'a crossed swords.
:miko: Alcohol is a deceiver and...
:durkon: Completely not tha point, lass.

I don't really like how it's one big Durkon monologue, but at this point I honestly don't know what to write for Miko aside from her initial outburst. Anyway, I like this because it gives Durkon a moment in the spotlight (which he rarely gets), and I think it's in character for our Lawful As Dirt dwarf to want to try to redeem Miko(and if someone doubts me, I have a few stripes in mind that I can link to as backup of that belief). And I think he'd do so by telling the straight truth: it won't be easy or fun, but she can do it if she truly wants to. And it won't be Roy or Shojo or Elan or Xykon or anyone else who causes her to suceed or fail, but her own actions and attitudes.

Whether Miko actually gets the message or not is, of course, up for debate, but I still think it'd be a cool scene.

Lord Zentei
2007-02-04, 01:49 PM
The thing that's keeping me hoping is that, despite the fact she had a full dose of Crazy Juice at the time, Hinjo almost talked Miko down. And that, in her rebuff, she didn't actually mention anything about Hinjo, but the "tainted courts". In true Miko fashion, though, I'm jumping to the conclusion that we've seen the writing on the wall and things won't get better, just so I'm not constantly disappointed as things go on. But a tattered, flimsy shred of hope is better than none, neh?

Agreed.


I'd honestly like to know why she rebuffed Hinjo, though. Maybe it was the symbolic stripping of her katana (and thus her position in the Sapphire Guard), maybe it's because two examples of the fine, upstanding Azure City justice system were standing in the room with them...I rather doubt that we'll get much in-comic explanation other than "she's just crazy and dag-nasty evil," though.

It's her pride that is the lynchpin: that's what made her unable to doubt her own conclusions and now unable to accept that she needs to surrender and atone.


I've been barking up that tree for a few comics now, and don't think anyone's listened yet. And it doesn't seem to be the way the Giant is going.

I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Morty
2007-02-04, 02:00 PM
Yeah, see, that's the thing...I sympathise a lot more with Miko than I do with Roy. Maybe it's just how they come off to me...to me, Roy seems like a self-centered egomanic who believes that the world revolves around him (I'm a big believer in the "PCs get no special treatment by virtue of being PCs" school of DMing) and can't rub two brain cells together without thinking about how superior he is to everyone around him. The only thing that really changes is whether he thinks he's superior: either his intelligence score, his MBA, or some sort of moral superiority he attains by...being Roy Greenhilt, pretty much.
Putting aside the fact that what you're accusing Roy of is basically untrue, how is it different from Miko's behaviour since her first apperance?
And yes, Roy is morally superior to Miko. Everyone is, including Belkar.

Sir_Norbert
2007-02-04, 02:05 PM
You get the impression that that's the reason for 409? After 408, some people were still sympathising with Miko and condemning Roy. That's not the way it's supposed to be. From a narrative perspective, we are supposed to sympathise with Roy and oppose Miko.

Yeah.
I don't understand what you mean by "narrative perspective". Roy isn't a (usually) sympathetic character just because he's one of the main characters; after all, the very unsympathetic Belkar is too. Roy's a generally sympathetic character, and Belkar isn't, because of their respective actions. But Roy was out of order in 408 (as Hinjo confirmed in 409).

As for Miko, you treat "sympathising" and "condemning" as antonyms, which is far from true. One can sympathise with a character while condemning their actions; someone mentioned Othello a few posts up, a clear example, and Miko is indeed another example for some of us. Having her image in my sig does not mean I hold her blameless for her murder of Shojo; far from it. It's her faults (and especially the combination of faults with virtues) that make her such a complex and interesting character.

Lord Zentei
2007-02-04, 02:08 PM
Putting aside the fact that what you're accusing Roy of is basically untrue, how is it different from Miko's behaviour since her first apperance?
And yes, Roy is morally superior to Miko.

It is not really that different IMHO. But neither is the perception of Roy entirely untrue. The two characters are pretty similar in many regards. The difference is that Roy does not spiral downwards as a result of his flaws.

Now, if he had been put in Miko's place (including in particular shunning all friendships so as not to have the OOTS to interact with) things might be different.


Everyone is, including Belkar.

Er, no. Belkar is not morally superior to Miko, or anyone else. He is a great character, and humerous, but let's not deceive ourselves here.

Morty
2007-02-04, 02:12 PM
Er, no. Belkar is not morally superior to Miko, or anyone else. He is a great character, and humerous, but let's not deceive ourselves here.
Well, that was an intended exagerration. My point was, that Belkar is stabbity-happy freak, but at least he doesn't try to justfy his actions by thinking that because he's CE Ranger/Barbarian he's superior to everyone who isn't. And he hates almost everyone because... well, because he hates them, not because they don't act in the way he wants them to.
Roy is in fact one of most realistic interpretations of LG I've ever seen.

Lord Zentei
2007-02-04, 02:20 PM
Well, that was an intended exagerration. My point was, that Belkar is stabbity-happy freak, but at least he doesn't try to justfy his actions by thinking that because he's CE Ranger/Barbarian he's superior to everyone who isn't. And he hates almost everyone because... well, because he hates them, not because they don't act in the way he wants them to.

Heh, well, that to me is a less sympathetic evil than the deluded kind (though it is certainly more humerous - as long as it keeps out of real life manifestations).

After all, with the deluded kind of evil, you are dealing with good desires gone bad, all that, even if she realizes she has become trapped on the dark path later on. And the deluded kind also leaves the window of opportunity for change, which the character who exultantly glorifies in his/her evil does not have. Sort of Palpatine versus Vader; the former is certainly more evil in my book. But, YMMV, all that.

EDIT: also, Miko is not on Vader's level. At least, not yet.


Roy is in fact one of most realistic interpretations of LG I've ever seen.

True dat.

Morty
2007-02-04, 02:23 PM
Heh, well, that to me is a less sympathetic evil than the deluded kind (though it is certainly more humerous - as long as it keeps out of real life manifestations).

After all, with the deluded kind of evil, you are dealing with good desires gone bad, all that, even if she realizes she has become trapped on the dark path later on. And the deluded kind also leaves the window of opportunity for change, which the character who exultantly glorifies in his/her evil does not have. Sort of Palpatine versus Vader; the former is certainly more evil in my book. But, YMMV, all that.
I wasn't adressing 'after-fall' Miko only, but Miko's behaviour since her first apperance in the strip. And Miko isn't evil even now, but she's always been self-righteous, 'holier-than-thou' and completely inable to admit that she could be wrong, plus now she's also delusional.

Lord Zentei
2007-02-04, 02:28 PM
I wasn't adressing 'after-fall' Miko only, but Miko's behaviour since her first apperance in the strip.

Ah, OK. But in that case, it is "good intent with personality flaws that eventually grow and become the catalyst for fall". In that case, I assert that her moral standing was not always low, and that the comparison to Roy was actually fairly apt: he had flaws that were quite similar to hers, though they declined, but did not grow.

EDIT: as Vaarsuvius actually pointed out here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0223.html).

berrew
2007-02-04, 02:39 PM
My major complaint about trying to equate Roy and Miko is that their faults are not only somewhat different, but that Roy, vitally, recognises that he has them. Miko is not only defined by, but dominated by, her faults. IMO, this makes her case radically different from Roy's.

Twilight Jack
2007-02-04, 03:02 PM
I loved your scene, Ampersand, and a part of me hopes it goes down just like that.

On the other hand, it requires Durkon to get to her before Nale or Sabine does. . .

I agree with your assessment of Durkon's desire to help redeem her, but I think she may have found a sounding board for her bitterness by then.

Mathias_Tanavar
2007-02-04, 03:09 PM
I shall be honest here

I never liked Miko... I despised Miko, Miko made me grit my teeth in anger. (I will point out I dislike the character traits, not the character itself, I love to hate her if you will)

All the Miko supporters say that this is a change in the way she would act.

For me... A Miko Derider I do not feel it is a change at all... She has always jumped to conclusions

"So if you could just bring them back here..."

"The Blood of these criminals shall bathe my blades"

Not direct quotes, but something to that effect. And, rightly or wrongly, has always believed in her own rightousness. Basically what she is now saying is that she believes she is more right than the law... It's the law that is wrong, not her... She hasn't gone quite as far as to say that the gods are wrong yet... but give it time.

I don't see a change in Miko at all, other than now she has just gone too far...

Lord Zentei
2007-02-04, 03:18 PM
For me... A Miko Derider I do not feel it is a change at all... She has always jumped to conclusions

"So if you could just bring them back here..."

"The Blood of these criminals shall bathe my blades"

Not an accurate quote. It went like this:

- "My diviner tells me that the Redmountain gate has been destroyed. You know what must be done, young one."

- "Yes master. My blades will be bathed in the blood of those responsible."

- "Uh, actually, Mr Scruffy says that you should try hard to bring them back for trial."

- "Sigh. As your cat wishes, master, if it is possible.


And, rightly or wrongly, has always believed in her own rightousness. Basically what she is now saying is that she believes she is more right than the law... It's the law that is wrong, not her... She hasn't gone quite as far as to say that the gods are wrong yet... but give it time.

I don't see a change in Miko at all, other than now she has just gone too far...

It is a substantial change, but in degree (i.e. I agree that it is not a qualitative change). As I have said, it is the personality flaws that grew over time and became the catalyst for her fall. They were not to the extent that they are now, nor was such change inevitable, either from a logical nor a literary perspective.

bitnine
2007-02-04, 04:19 PM
Look at how her personality is constructed: the very basis of her entire identity is her belief that she is the chosen of the gods (as further evidenced by her words to Shojo - where she gives the melodramatic "was it all a lie?" speech about her first coming to the Sapphire Guard). Furthermore, her belief that the OotS is evil and duplicitous has become deepseated and repeatedly reinforced (albeit by specious logic - plus the fact that she seems to assume Belkar is typical of the OotS:smalltongue: ).

By contrast, her belief that Shojo is a good and rightful ruler was what you might call a contingent belief - it was derived from her core beliefs (i.e. "I am chosen by the gods to serve in the Sapphire Guard, therefore I assume that the leader of the Guard is also favored by the gods."). Her belief that Hinjo is good is similarly contingent (contingent upon her notion of paladins being the paragon of virtue, which is itself derived from the fact that the gods showed favor to her by making her a paladin).

However, these belief sets have come into conflict. Either she is wrong, she is not favored by the gods (certainly not anymore, anyway), the OotS is in the right, and Shojo and Hinjo are still good, or she is still favored (and therefore right), the OotS are villains behind the whole thing, and therefore Shojo and Hinjo cannot be good, because they oppose her and cooperate with the OotS.

Furthermore, if she continues to believe that all paladins are virtuous and favored by the gods, then she must believe that Hinjo is good (because she's seen what happens when a paladin falls, and it didn't happen to him), and she also must believe that she is no longer favored (because the one thing she doesn't deny is that, at least temporarily, she is no longer a paladin).

Therefore, she must either admit her mistake, and therefore give up the very core of her beliefs (that she is chosen), or accept the logical conclusions derived from the premise that she is still right - that Shojo and Hinjo are bad, that it is possible for a paladin (Hinjo) to lose virtue and not fall, and that it is possible to lose paladinhood without falling in any objective sense (as she "did").

When pushed to an impasse wherein one's beliefs are placed in obvious contradiction, one will almost always choose to preserve the belief that is most central to one's overall system of beliefs, and discard all those beliefs that contradict that central belief. (Sorry, that was more tongue-twisting than I intended)

Therefore, the only in-character move Miko could have made (or at least the most likely of a small handful) was to rationalize her fall (and here I use "rationalize" in a sense that in no way implies rationality:smallbiggrin: ) and accept the required corollaries of such a rationalization.The above is more than entirely correct and filled with win. I suggest everyone read it about 5 times.

There is a real pity here, and that is that Miko has had serious mental issues for quite some time. And instead of helping her, Shojo and the paladins of the order partially ostracized her, sent her on missions alone, and derided her condition. Instead she's routinely been put and allowed into positions that exacerbate her condition. Really, she should have had an intervention a long, long time ago. Maybe her colleagues could have helped her and maybe they couldn't. But they really should have tried.

'Course, that ain't an excuse. Just a pity.

Demented
2007-02-04, 04:32 PM
Edit:
-In reply to Mathias and Zentei, a couple of posts up.

Actually, a better example of Miko jumping to conclusions early on is the Dragon argument. She "can think of no other lawful purpose for transporting such wealth." That's either fairly presumptuous of her, or she has a limited imagination. Myself, I find it clearly lawful, since leaving so much "filthy lucre" behind would be a crime! :smalltongue:

Then she questions Roy in a rather demeaning and imposing fashion, over whether it was truly Evil. What kind of "champion for good" is a dragon if it has all that "filthy lucre" anyway? Maybe humans are governed by different standards.

Lord Zentei
2007-02-04, 04:39 PM
Actually, a better example of Miko jumping to conclusions early on is the Dragon argument. She "can think of no other lawful purpose for transporting such wealth." That's either fairly presumptuous of her, or she has a limited imagination. Myself, I find it clearly lawful, since leaving so much "filthy lucre" behind would be a crime! :smalltongue:

LOL! Well, I guess imagination is not one of her strong suits. Good luck convincing her of that argument, though. :smallwink:


Then she questions Roy in a rather demeaning and imposing fashion, over whether it was truly Evil. What kind of "champion for good" is a dragon if it has all that "filthy lucre" anyway? Maybe humans are governed by different standards.

Maybe, indeed. But all dragons are prone to hoard wealth. Even if they are forces for good. I guess she would simply regard this as one of their foibles. Or she judges them as lords of Good somehow, so they would have a right to "tribute". :smallwink: Who knows.

Terraxos
2007-02-04, 04:46 PM
I loved your scene, Ampersand, and a part of me hopes it goes down just like that.

I agree with your assessment of Durkon's desire to help redeem her, but I think she may have found a sounding board for her bitterness by then.
It's still possible for that scene to happen - presumably Miko will be captured and imprisoned, and Durkon could then take the opportunity to visit her. Out of all the main characters, he's probably the most likely to do so - along with Hinjo, and he's already tried to redeem Miko and failed, so probably won't try again. (Actually, the fact that we've already had a similar conversation, between Hinjo and Miko in #409, is the reason I think it probably won't happen. But it might.)

The real question is - would Miko be convinced? It's open to debate, and I accept that Miko's Fall isn't *totally* irreversible (as Hinjo says, that's what Atonement spells are for) - but given everything we've seen of her so far, I have to say that it seems vastly more likely that Miko would continue along her current path. I don't actually know if there's *anything* that would get her to see things differently now - if intervention by the Twelve Gods themselves didn't do it, what could?

Assuming that Miko does remain 'evil' (and arguably Evil) for the foreseeable future, there's one more question to think about:
How does she get out of Azure City alive? We know she has to survive - the Giant has said she will be a long-running nemesis of the OOTS, and continue to appear in the comic for some time yet. But she's presumably about to be imprisoned, possibly even sentenced to death (depending on what Azure City's laws are), and meanwhile Xykon is approaching with a gigantic army. That doesn't look like an easy situation to escape from!

Maybe (as is widely speculated), she'll fall in with the Linear Guild, and they'll help her escape? Or maybe she'll just find a convenient way out in the confusion of the battle, much like how Belkar escaped from jail in On the Origins of PCs? Who knows...

AllisterH
2007-02-04, 04:53 PM
Edit:
-In reply to Mathias and Zentei, a couple of posts up.

Actually, a better example of Miko jumping to conclusions early on is the Dragon argument. She "can think of no other lawful purpose for transporting such wealth." That's either fairly presumptuous of her, or she has a limited imagination. Myself, I find it clearly lawful, since leaving so much "filthy lucre" behind would be a crime! :smalltongue:

Then she questions Roy in a rather demeaning and imposing fashion, over whether it was truly Evil. What kind of "champion for good" is a dragon if it has all that "filthy lucre" anyway? Maybe humans are governed by different standards.

1. Er, she listed seven different reasons in which she could see why they would have that much lucre.

2. Have you seen the treasure listed for gold dragons? Dude, there's a mated silver and gold dragon pair in the Forgotten Realms who EASILY have the most treasure of any dragon in Faerun. The only reason no-one taken from them is they are on personal first name basis with the Chosen.

Jannex
2007-02-04, 05:16 PM
Here're my thoughts on Miko, as related in another thread. I'll spoiler-tag 'em so you can skip 'em if you've already read... it's longish.

For me personally, at least, Miko has always been an object lesson first, and a character second. I see her as the archetypal embodiment of everything that can go horrifically wrong with the Lawful Good alignment. I've always held that Lawful Good, if taken to sufficient extremes, loops back around into profound evil. You can end up with someone who commits horrific acts, and is firm and steadfast in his belief that these actions serve the Greater Good, and are therefore justified.

I'm going to ramble philosophically for a bit about alignments. There is, perhaps inevitably, eventually a tension between Law and Good. The concept of Law is one of rules and strictures, by its very nature rigid and inflexible. (See the Clockwork Nirvana of Mechanus, for instance. Everything precise and exact, no deviations.) On the other hand, inherent in the concept of Good is compassion, mercy, and the capacity and willingness to consider extenuating circumstances and look at context. Good is not and cannot be "one size fits all." Certainly there is a similar conflict within Chaotic Good, when the championing of personal liberties and freedoms is pitted against the harm that can be brought to innocents as a result of someone else's choices, but the nature of Chaos, I think, allows the individual more ideological flexibility in attempting to resolve this tension. Law, on the other hand, comes with the ideological baggage that there is Only One Right Answer. And that, I think, is problematic for LG characters.

Speaking in very general terms, there are two ways in which a character can attempt to resolve the Lawful Good conflict; he can err on the side of Good, or err on the side of Law. The former case is mercy, is compassion, is open-mindedness. The latter case is where I see the opportunity for problems to arise.

Law has no purpose unless it supports another, more tangible ideal. It can support Good, or it can support Evil, and in each of these cases it has a practical purpose. However, Law by itself is meaningless... it isn't "for" anything. Again, consider Mechanus, where Law reigns alone, without Good or Evil. It has no real purpose other than to propogate itself. Consider, even, how the alignments are structured, grammatically. Law/Chaos becomes an adjective modifying Good/Evil, when both axial extremes are present; the Law/Chaos modifier describes how the character goes about being Good/Evil. Thus, choosing Law over Good (or Evil) does not serve the purpose of the alignment. When it comes down to a conflict between the ideal (Good) and the method of pursuing it (Law), I think the choice is obvious.

When a character makes the other choice, he is choosing his own methods ("my way") over compassion and respect for life. He is, in a sense, making himself the authority over what constitutes Good and Evil--rewriting the rules, and then following them to the letter, until they need to be rewritten again. I've always seen this as a possible pitfall of ideologies that can be described as "Lawful Good," if taken too far to their logical extreme. That way lies fanaticism, and atrocity. I've believed that since before I started reading Order of the Stick.

Thus, when Miko was introduced to the story, and her personality and ideology began to be developed, I immediately identified her as the archetype of "problematic Lawful Good." I've also read and enjoyed her characterization and development (as much as I've disliked her character on a personal level), but for me, it's always been obvious what she's represented, and where it will lead her. This isn't to say that the character can't change, can't realize what path she's walking, and undergo a shift in archetype (in fact, I think that would be interesting; I'm a fan of changing archetypes), but if she doesn't, I think it's obvious where she'll end up, and I think it will be the natural progression of who and what she's been since we first encountered her.

Suffice it to say, it seems to me that Miko's fall was a logical progression of her actions since her introduction to the strip, and while perhaps not inevitable, were certainly an obvious and likely possibility from the get-go.

berrew
2007-02-04, 06:19 PM
2. Have you seen the treasure listed for gold dragons? Dude, there's a mated silver and gold dragon pair in the Forgotten Realms who EASILY have the most treasure of any dragon in Faerun. The only reason no-one taken from them is they are on personal first name basis with the Chosen.That's the point... It's her limited perceptions of Good* that are being questioned.


*Normally, I don't capitalize good, evil, law, chaos, but I think that here I really should start doing so, since in AD&D they are measurable absolutes (i.e., Detect Evil) that are the foundation on which the AD&D multiverse rests.

Fineous Orlon
2007-02-05, 12:32 AM
I don't understand what you mean by "narrative perspective". Roy isn't a (usually) sympathetic character just because he's one of the main characters; after all, the very unsympathetic Belkar is too. Roy's a generally sympathetic character, and Belkar isn't, because of their respective actions. But Roy was out of order in 408 (as Hinjo confirmed in 409).

Well, a couple of things. Number one, the whole of my post is the context I feel is appropriate, not just the first half. Also, I was being 'generally agreeable' to the poster I quoted in the first bit of his post to emphasize how from a similar base, we came to different outcomes.

Be that as it may...

I do see Roy as the main protagonist, and I have a lot of sympathy for him. I enjoy his wit, I felt for him in the abandoning Elan thing , and I feel for his need to overcome his inherently sarcastic critical nature to become both a truly effective leader and a good friend. It was easier to be Durkon's friend, he was effective and stalwart [which Roy admired in "Origin"], and harder to learn how really to be Elan's friend.


As for Miko, you treat "sympathising" and "condemning" as antonyms, which is far from true. One can sympathise with [I]a character while condemning their actions; someone mentioned Othello a few posts up, a clear example, and Miko is indeed another example for some of us. Having her image in my sig does not mean I hold her blameless for her murder of Shojo; far from it. It's her faults (and especially the combination of faults with virtues) that make her such a complex and interesting character.

I may have been treating sympathizing and condemning as antonyms as a shorthand not related to my overall point, and you are right, they are not necessarily antonyms. The point I was making was along the lines of one poster's sympathizing with Miko and condemning Roy, and the condemning of Roy didn't hold up for me based on the actions in 408, regardless of how one might sympathize with Miko. I was pointing out, that panel by panel, in 408, Roy did not just 'up and attack Miko,' that he in fact did the right thing, talking to her a lot, disarming her, etc., which many people seemed to be ignoring. It seemed a good idea to reiterate how the Giant drew the encounter panel by panel instead of using remembered impressions that seemed to be influenced by character-love.

Roy handled it well, given his toolset, if you will, unfortunately sarcasm was not going to get Miko to listen or come to any sudden epiphany favorable to Roy.

Hinjo pointed out Roy did not act properly, but Hinjo was wrong on at least two levels. First, HINJO was the one equipped to try to reason things out with Miko as an ally, with speaking skills [or at least a favorable Char mod], but Hinjo was not available in 408 due to shock at the regicide. Roy is very well equipped in times of stress to deal with people who get the ironies and sarcasm he dispenses and so loves; dealing with other types, well, no. Secondly, Roy clearly understood the threat Miko represented better than Hinjo, and was much more capable of dealing with it.

Hinjo acted as a paladin and as a leader, and chose the best course, it's a shame it didn't work out. But I will not condemn Roy for his actions, he did TRY several times to point out the nature of her mistakes, giving her time to rearm herself a couple of times during the discussion/fight. He did not attack the regicide out of hand.

Not only that, Roy did not insist he was right and overrule Hinjo, he gave Hinjo a chance to work his diplo-mojo.

Of course, when Miko got free moments, she self-justified her re/actions, rearms, attacks, and then when Roy was out for a moment, did not give him a chance [however poorly worded] to recant/ stop, she went to murder Belkar, continuing even though she MUST have heard Belkar talking about the Mark of Justice, and must have noticed Belkar not defending himself.

I have SOME sympathy for Miko in her present predicament, but have lost most of my capacity to be sympathetic with her as she has shown the lack of capacity for self-examination and lack of ability to see that she might be wrong.

I loved Redcloak saying to her, "you're immune to the fear that you might be wrong." The whole foreshadowing sequence in 371 [The Road to Heck] to 373 or so was great. Notably, she ignores Xykon's offhand statements about OotS then.

Ampersand
2007-02-05, 02:54 AM
It's her pride that is the lynchpin: that's what made her unable to doubt her own conclusions and now unable to accept that she needs to surrender and atone.

I guess...I don't know, maybe the whole thing just puts me off because Miko completely out of the blue started quoting Anakin Skywalker's Big Book of Trashy Dialouge. Honestly, the way the second half of 409 went I wouldn't have been surprised if she had started ranting about how Obi-wan was jealous of her and was purposefully holding back her training.


Putting aside the fact that what you're accusing Roy of is basically untrue, how is it different from Miko's behaviour since her first apperance?

As Lord Zentei points out, there's not much difference between the way Roy acts and the way Miko acts. I guess it just seems more pronounced with Roy because he gets more screen time. And since he's the strip's straight man, what else does he really have? Take away Miko's arrogance and you still have her zealotry and increasing dementia. Take away Roy's and I can't think of anything else he really has as far as character traits. I admit I'm biased in thinking that, though...I've disliked Roy for a while now because I felt his character was repetitive with too little progression/growth (aside from occasional after school special lessions like "I really shouldn't abandon my friends to possible torture and death when they annoy me") somewhere around his 4,569th indignant tirade. I'd be perfectly willing to revise that assement, though...Roy (along with Haley, whom I've also grown to dislike) used to be one of my favorite characters, so I owe him at least that consideration.



I loved your scene, Ampersand, and a part of me hopes it goes down just like that.

Thanks! I was a bit concerned it'd end up being too much "Em, Aye, Kay, Oh, Miko! Rah rah rah!" but I think it came out decently.


On the other hand, it requires Durkon to get to her before Nale or Sabine does. . .

I agree with your assessment of Durkon's desire to help redeem her, but I think she may have found a sounding board for her bitterness by then.

That's true, but I think there will be an opportunity. In 409 Hinjo strongly suggested that he's going to be putting Miko in the Box, not general lockup, so if Durkon wants to talk to her before Xykon invades he should have the opportunity to do so without Nale and Sabine having had a chance to influence her. After Team Evil hits Azure City, though, all bets are off.


Out of all the main characters, he's probably the most likely to do so - along with Hinjo, and he's already tried to redeem Miko and failed, so probably won't try again. (Actually, the fact that we've already had a similar conversation, between Hinjo and Miko in #409, is the reason I think it probably won't happen. But it might.)

I don't really think Hinjo was trying to redeem Miko...it struck me that his immediate concern there was talking her down, and any serious talk of redemption would come afterwards. Atonment generally is generally preceded by a Geas or Quest first, after all.

Hmmm...

:hinjo: Miko, are you ready to receive your penance?
:miko: Yes. Name the task, and I shall complete it.
:hinjo: You must apologize to Roy.
:miko: .......
:hinjo: Well?
:miko: Can't I storm the gates of Hell by myself instead? Or spend three hours with Elan?
:hinjo: No.

Yeah, we need a Hinjo smiley.

AK-00
2007-02-05, 03:20 AM
She was confused, injured, trapped and had just been betrayed, both by the gods and by the one person she thought she could completely trust. She panicked and freaked out. Not really surprising.

Estelindis
2007-02-05, 04:45 AM
I really have to say that I agree with Charles Phipps - #409 really changed my feelings on this matter too. Even in #408, it looked like Miko might be capable of reflecting on her actions - that she might be shocked into asking herself if she'd done the wrong thing when the Twelve Gods emphatically told her so. But the fact that she attacked Hinjo - who she had known as a loyal paladin for many years, and was very understanding towards her after she had murdered his uncle - when he was holding out the hand of peace to her really outlines that she has lost it. I still feel sorry for her, but she nows seems more pathetic than tragic.

Bozidar
2007-02-05, 08:08 AM
Gah, I don't know. It's like I can see the strings behind the stage. Miko needs to turn into a villain and so she has to be nasty. We have to sympathise with Roy because he's the 'hero', and so her villainy needs to made clear, hence Hinjo. It all ends up with Miko not acting like Miko, as I understand her character.And your whole post seems like self-justification as to why you didn't really understand her character in the first place.
It's not the Giant's fault you didn't. I am 99.999% sure that he didn't write the comment to get folks to not like Miko anymore, because from many points of view it's obvious she was never intended to be a likable character in the first place.
He does what he does for the story line, not to adjust the attitudes of the fans as he reads them on the forum.

Lord Zentei
2007-02-05, 08:17 AM
Gah, I don't know. It's like I can see the strings behind the stage. Miko needs to turn into a villain and so she has to be nasty. We have to sympathise with Roy because he's the 'hero', and so her villainy needs to made clear, hence Hinjo. It all ends up with Miko not acting like Miko, as I understand her character

And your whole post seems like self-justification as to why you didn't really understand her character in the first place.
It's not the Giant's fault you didn't. I am 99.999% sure that he didn't write the comment to get folks to not like Miko anymore, because from many points of view it's obvious she was never intended to be a likable character in the first place.
He does what he does for the story line, not to adjust the attitudes of the fans as he reads them on the forum.

Or, you know, the Giant simply never meant for her character to be static.

People change. Characters too.

Morty
2007-02-05, 08:21 AM
Or, you know, the Giant simply never meant for her character to be static.

People change. Characters too.

Except that Miko hasn't changed, but developed.

Lord Zentei
2007-02-05, 08:40 AM
Except that Miko hasn't changed, but developed.

Play semantics, much?

I'm sure you're aware that this does not refute my point.

Morty
2007-02-05, 08:47 AM
It doesn't, it's just a side note. Maybe 'developed' wasn't the best word, but overall my point was that Miko hasn't really changed, it's just in addition to being self-righteous and 'better than you' she's delusional now.

berrew
2007-02-05, 09:03 AM
Play semantics, much?


I'm sure you're aware that this does not refute my point.The two words potentially have a BIG difference in meaning. If a character "develops", it means that they are continuing along a logical path that flows from their basic traits. If a character "changes", it can mean the same thing, but often means the opposite - that the changes are in direct opposition to the way a character is originally presented.

Semantics is rarely a bad thing to emphasize.

Bozidar
2007-02-05, 09:11 AM
It doesn't, it's just a side note. Maybe 'developed' wasn't the best word, but overall my point was that Miko hasn't really changed, it's just in addition to being self-righteous and 'better than you' she's delusional now.i was thinking that in addition to being self-righteous and holier..oops.. better-than-thou, now she's a psychotic murder :)

SteveMB
2007-02-05, 09:18 AM
Except that Miko hasn't changed, but developed.Play semantics, much?
I get the impression that the distinction M0rt is trying to draw is that Miko is continuing along a path that was more or less set by her original characterization rather than one that responds to developments (e.g. regrets over lying to the rest of the group and abandoning Elan to the bandits during the starmetal sidequest, followed by an object lesson in how manipulation feels when you're on the receiving end, had a clear effect on Roy).

Lord Zentei
2007-02-05, 10:34 AM
It doesn't, it's just a side note. Maybe 'developed' wasn't the best word, but overall my point was that Miko hasn't really changed, it's just in addition to being self-righteous and 'better than you' she's delusional now.

That depends on what you mean by "change". Of course, the character flaws she posessed before now had to be the ones that magnified became the catalyst for her fall; that's not to say that she is not different now than she was before, or that she was always a "villain". As I pointed out elsewhere, Roy posessed many of the flaws Miko did (though not all, and they were manifest differently), but he gradually rose above them, while she succumbed to them. That is what I meant by she had "changed". Not in the radical metamorphosis sense a la Kerrigan, but nonetheless.

In short, there is no literary reason to suppose that she must have fallen as she did.


The two words potentially have a BIG difference in meaning. If a character "develops", it means that they are continuing along a logical path that flows from their basic traits. If a character "changes", it can mean the same thing, but often means the opposite - that the changes are in direct opposition to the way a character is originally presented.

Semantics is rarely a bad thing to emphasize.

So it is.


I get the impression that the distinction M0rt is trying to draw is that Miko is continuing along a path that was more or less set by her original characterization rather than one that responds to developments (e.g. regrets over lying to the rest of the group and abandoning Elan to the bandits during the starmetal sidequest, followed by an object lesson in how manipulation feels when you're on the receiving end, had a clear effect on Roy).

Well, yes, I can see that now; though I disagree. Note that the course of events for Roy and Miko were quite different. For instance, she never had an ally group to set her straight; she was always in opposition to the Order, their captor not companion. Also, we had events like the the killed guard and Belkar chase scene amongst other things (instead an Elan rescue scene - which she never really got) gradually reinforcing her initial disdain and mistrust, etc. So she did develop in response to interaction with the environment and other characters, though of course, in the absence of her initial flaws that would not have led to this particular pass.

Krellen
2007-02-05, 11:26 AM
she was always in opposition to the Order, their captor not companion.
In fairness, Roy did offer (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0223.html) her a chance to become more companion than captor; all she had to do was relax a little and compromise. "A paladin never compromises" is not part of the Paladin's Code; she didn't have to respond like that.

Lord Zentei
2007-02-05, 11:33 AM
In fairness, Roy did offer (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0223.html) her a chance to become more companion than captor; all she had to do was relax a little and compromise. "A paladin never compromises" is not part of the Paladin's Code; she didn't have to respond like that.

Indeed a fair point, though it was her job to be their captor. A police officer can hardly fraternize with his prisoners (even if they are compliant). And also, it took Roy a lot of tries before he warmed up to Elan. Indeed, he remained somewhat cold even after the rescue.

I guess the deck was stacked against reconciliation, but consider if they had entered into a "must rescue Elan" subarc there instead of in the forest, and the dead guard/Belkar chase scene had not occoured.

Moreover, she offered Roy a chance at romance after the inn burned down: he could have, well, compromised at that point himself (though I admit that it would have been hard :smallwink:), but instead he kicked her in the gut proverbially. Moreover, she was polite to Durkon throughout the entire arc up to Shojo's throne room. These two things show pretty clearly that she was not irredeemably one track.

Krellen
2007-02-05, 11:39 AM
Oh certainly. I think you'll realise I've often pointed to Roy's rejection as the turning point. Really, Roy was the key to either way - the one person she started to see as a possible friend, and thus the one best poised to push her over the edge, or pull her from the brink. And we know what choice he made.

Lord Zentei
2007-02-05, 11:50 AM
Oh certainly. I think you'll realise I've often pointed to Roy's rejection as the turning point. Really, Roy was the key to either way - the one person she started to see as a possible friend, and thus the one best poised to push her over the edge, or pull her from the brink. And we know what choice he made.

Ah, splendid. In that case we actually agree on something. :smalleek:

Thus I conclude that her fall was not an inevitability of her character as initially presented, but relied on events and interaction with other characters.


PS: And in a very warped way, Roy may thus in fact have actually contributed to her fall, though obviously not in the way she claims. :smallwink: Nonetheless, she ultimately held the responsibility for what happened.

Krellen
2007-02-05, 12:07 PM
PS: And in a very warped way, Roy may thus in fact have actually contributed to her fall, though obviously not in the way she claims. :smallwink: Nonetheless, she ultimately held the responsibility for what happened.
Yeah. When Roy told her off, she could have said "Very well. May we speak about this a moment, perhaps?" and had what amounted to a lover's spat (which, really, is what Miko was doing when she beat up the OotS at the end of #251, taking out her frustrations on the whole Order) with words instead of swords. Or she could have compromised back in #223 and started treating her prisoners like rational sentient beings. Or she could have apologised for attacking them in #200 after she realised they weren't evil and were even willing to come along peaceably. There were a lot of things Miko could have done to make her life easier, and she didn't.

NephandiMan
2007-02-05, 12:30 PM
There is a sense in which the complaint that Miko's actions aren't a logical outgrowth of her character is justified. In retrospect, it's clear that she's been walking (I won't call it dancing) on a razor's edge ever since we first saw her, and it seems obtuse to deny that she was always going to fall, that her fall was overdetermined - the only question is which side she would come down on when she did. As others have pointed out, Roy realized very shortly after he abandoned Elan to the bandits' tender mercies that it was wrong for him to do so; and although his epiphany in this instance is couched in terms of an address to his father, Eugene Greenhilt is conspicuous by his absence in that scene.

The mere memory of Roy's father drives him to rescue his entire party from the bandits; in contrast, not even being cast down by the Twelve Gods she purports to serve could make Miko take responsibility for the wrong she had done. If one wanted the contrast between the two of them in a nutshell, there it is. Call it humility, call it a capacity for self-reflection, call it whatever you like - the point is that Roy has it, and Miko, except for the merest glimmers - which did not even manifest themselves until #408, nearly three hundred strips after we first see her - does not.

This lack of capacity for self-reflection is a major key to both her utter lack of a sense of humor and to her "uncharacteristic" actions in #409. When one reflects critically on one's real and one's professed motives, one will sooner or later be struck by the disparity between them. This insight can be tragic and take the form of remorse, as in the case of Roy's realization mentioned above, or it can be comic (which, if Miko took the time to reflect in such a manner, would probably be the result she got). But she's never learned to say "O, what fools these mortals be," and she certainly never learned to include herself in that company of fools, however much it may surround her. She is in the world, but not of it, or so she would like to believe.

And that is why she falls the way she does. If she'd had more of a sense of humor or irony - which means first and foremost a better understanding of her own follies - she might have realized the very grim, sardonic humor in the Author's purpose: the moment when her perceptions are more distorted than they've ever been, she believes to be her first moment of perfect clarity. Tragic? Of course, from her perspective, and the perspective of those who sympathize with her. But I have never been burdened with such sympathy, and perhaps for that reason can see to what degree a lack of a sense of humor pushed her off the wrong side of that razor's edge.

Why, then, do her actions seem uncharacteristic? The murder of Shojo and the subsequent fall from grace is a crisis, not only for Miko, and it is the nature of crises that they bring out unexpected traits in the people who live through them. In that sense, Miko's actions might seem "uncharacteristic," but only in the sense that we would not have expected them - not that they are any way implausible or improbable, given her lack of a sense of humor. Her refusal to recognize her own failings has assumed hitherto unimagined proportions, but then so have her paranoia and her unassailable sense of her own righteousness. And Miko amply demonstrates that there is no witches' brew more poisonous for compassion than a fusion of paranoia, a sense of one's own righteousness, and a refusal to recognize one's own failings.

Miko came down on the wrong side of the razor's edge. If you have, or ever had, any sympathy for her, it will understandably be hard to see how her actions in #409 are entirely consistent with her character as it was presented in her previous appearances. But that doesn't change the fact that they are.

mrocktor
2007-02-05, 12:40 PM
it is the epitome of good to offer surrender when it carries a risk


That is what I would call the epitome of stupid. Good people need not take risks on behalf of the evil. Good people must uphold the good. Need I point out that except for Roy, Hinjo would be dead? Much good that would do to the world.

Silverlocke980
2007-02-05, 12:48 PM
1. Er, she listed seven different reasons in which she could see why they would have that much lucre.

2. Have you seen the treasure listed for gold dragons? Dude, there's a mated silver and gold dragon pair in the Forgotten Realms who EASILY have the most treasure of any dragon in Faerun. The only reason no-one taken from them is they are on personal first name basis with the Chosen.

All seven of those reasons were based on either giving it to someone, paying it to someone, or charity. Those are highly limited reasons, albeit seven of them.

She couldn't, after all, just assume that the Order's members were all filthy rich? It's possible.

(In fact, for that matter, it was true- that's the real reason they were lugging it around. They were, at the moment, filthy rich.)

Miko is blind to anything but what she considers "good". She never thought that- hey- maybe the Order has money and likes it?

Lord Zentei
2007-02-05, 01:29 PM
There is a sense in which the complaint that Miko's actions aren't a logical outgrowth of her character is justified. In retrospect, it's clear that she's been walking (I won't call it dancing) on a razor's edge ever since we first saw her, and it seems obtuse to deny that she was always going to fall, that her fall was overdetermined - the only question is which side she would come down on when she did. As others have pointed out, Roy realized very shortly after he abandoned Elan to the bandits' tender mercies that it was wrong for him to do so; and although his epiphany in this instance is couched in terms of an address to his father, Eugene Greenhilt is conspicuous by his absence in that scene.

Perhaps she was preordained to "fall" in the sense that she would end up on one side or the other of the "razor's edge" as you call it, though when I spoke of her fall not being inevitable earlier, I was referring to the fall from grace; the fall on the "wrong side", if you will.


The mere memory of Roy's father drives him to rescue his entire party from the bandits; in contrast, not even being cast down by the Twelve Gods she purports to serve could make Miko take responsibility for the wrong she had done. If one wanted the contrast between the two of them in a nutshell, there it is. Call it humility, call it a capacity for self-reflection, call it whatever you like - the point is that Roy has it, and Miko, except for the merest glimmers - which did not even manifest themselves until #408, nearly three hundred strips after we first see her - does not.

Deference and the possibility to acnowledge that her initial perception was in error were clearly demonstrated in the first confrontation with the Order of the Stick. That glimmers such as these and others already mentioned failed to grow are a result not of their intrinsic nature, but also of events and interactions that followed. It seems trite to assert that her fall from grace resulted from her failure to show such progress in retrospect. Moreover, following her fall, her sanity may have been questionable.


This lack of capacity for self-reflection is a major key to both her utter lack of a sense of humor and to her "uncharacteristic" actions in #409. When one reflects critically on one's real and one's professed motives, one will sooner or later be struck by the disparity between them. This insight can be tragic and take the form of remorse, as in the case of Roy's realization mentioned above, or it can be comic (which, if Miko took the time to reflect in such a manner, would probably be the result she got). But she's never learned to say "O, what fools these mortals be," and she certainly never learned to include herself in that company of fools, however much it may surround her. She is in the world, but not of it, or so she would like to believe.

Clearly, she remains of that position.


And that is why she falls the way she does. If she'd had more of a sense of humor or irony - which means first and foremost a better understanding of her own follies - she might have realized the very grim, sardonic humor in the Author's purpose: the moment when her perceptions are more distorted than they've ever been, she believes to be her first moment of perfect clarity. Tragic? Of course, from her perspective, and the perspective of those who sympathize with her. But I have never been burdened with such sympathy, and perhaps for that reason can see to what degree a lack of a sense of humor pushed her off the wrong side of that razor's edge.

That depends on what is meant by "sympathy": as I'll outline below. Her continued distortions of reality in her own mind to accomondate preconceived ideas were radical, though, and though they were consistent with her own sense of self importance, the capacity for reason had also been demonstrated, however, that capacity seemed to grow less and less as time wore on, as many noted in the All Along the Watchtower arc.


Why, then, do her actions seem uncharacteristic? The murder of Shojo and the subsequent fall from grace is a crisis, not only for Miko, and it is the nature of crises that they bring out unexpected traits in the people who live through them. In that sense, Miko's actions might seem "uncharacteristic," but only in the sense that we would not have expected them - not that they are any way implausible or improbable, given her lack of a sense of humor. Her refusal to recognize her own failings has assumed hitherto unimagined proportions, but then so have her paranoia and her unassailable sense of her own righteousness. And Miko amply demonstrates that there is no witches' brew more poisonous for compassion than a fusion of paranoia, a sense of one's own righteousness, and a refusal to recognize one's own failings.

Agreed here; the point I was making is that the failings need not have inevitably grown to the proportions that they did; they are a result of a continious development that was not inevitable at the point where we first saw the character.


Miko came down on the wrong side of the razor's edge. If you have, or ever had, any sympathy for her, it will understandably be hard to see how her actions in #409 are entirely consistent with her character as it was presented in her previous appearances. But that doesn't change the fact that they are.

I think there may be a misunderstanding here. The sympathy that is held for her is not a sympathy for her actions or an apology fot the dichotomy between her professed motives and actual actions; it is more a sense of pity: the knowledge of motivations for good that cannot be realized, as a result of inner demons and the destructive self-isolation. Moreover, it is the sympathy for her desire to be the ideal; and for the waste of potential.

Had she "fallen" on the "right" side of the razor's edge, would you have claimed that this desire was unworthy of sympathy? And seeing as she could have fallen on either side, does her struggle not deserve our wishes for hope?

chibibar
2007-02-05, 01:37 PM
personally in short of Giant changing the character of Miko or the 12 gods descend and give Miko a stern talking to, I don't think it is within Miko's personality to change her mind or her conviction.

Lord Zentei
2007-02-05, 01:43 PM
personally in short of Giant changing the character of Miko or the 12 gods descend and give Miko a stern talking to, I don't think it is within Miko's personality to change her mind or her conviction.

At this point it will take quite a bit.

Mike_G
2007-02-05, 01:45 PM
Heh. Yeah, I guess.

I've been thinking of changing to a Spike Spiegel avatar that I use on other boards though.

Cowboy Beebop rules.

Nice icon.