So, who here votes Roy should stay dead?

[Charles Phipps]

I don't mind a force ghost or Obi Waning of Roy like his father (maybe to Elan, which would be pretty sweet) but for me, I think this should be the end of Roy. He fought the good fight and his end shouldn't be undermined by making him alive again.

So, one vote for "No Return.'

[eipiplus1]

The problem here is tricky.

on on hand, most of us liked Roy as a character, and would like to see more of him

on the other side, some of us dislike the cheapening of death, and the way the possibility of resurection makes takeing even the greatest risks minor

finally we need a justifible explination of why they don't resurect Roy. Clearly its possible with in the Order of the Stick Universe, so why don't his buddies cough up the money to get him saved?

I can't wait to see the Giant explain that

[Kreistor]

This whole strip lacks meaning if Roy fails to demonstrate that he can learn from his mistakes. The only way to do that is if Roy comes back.

Roy is, ultimately, the central character of the story. He should, and will, return.

Everyone knows that Raise Dead is an integral part of DnD, and characters do die in the game. As a comic about DnD as PC's rather than novelized characters, the comic must demonstrate that character loss and recovery is inherent in the system.

[Finwe]

There are many ways to stop someone from being ressurected, of whice one of the more notable is being killed by the snarl. I'm pretty sure that by the tend fo the series we will have seen at least once PC perma-death.

[Querzis]

There are many ways to stop someone from being ressurected, of whice one of the more notable is being killed by the snarl. I'm pretty sure that by the tend fo the series we will have seen at least once PC perma-death.

Agreed, but I dont think its going to be this one. It would be easy to rez Roy and I dont think anyone in the Order woudnt want to rez him. So if Rich doesnt make him come back, he better have a really good explanation.

[Charles Phipps]

I think its important to note that Roy isn't the star of this series. It's an ensemble piece and his quest against Xyrkon is going to be carried on by the others even if he dies. If he dies, they're not going to suddenly be directionless and aimless. They will still oppose Xyrkon and it'll continue.

Ultimately, I think its more powerful that he tried to get his revenge on his father's killer only to fail at it. A quest that was ultimately pointless to begin with. He ended up fighting Xyrkon for himself in the end and his story arc was completed.

[Rainspattered]

I vote for good storytelling. Which means for him to stay dead. Don't make death meaningless.

[Querzis]

I vote for good storytelling. Which means for him to stay dead. Don't make death meaningless.

Its D&D. Death IS meaningless and going against that is pretty bad storytelling, especially since they talked about resurection lots of time already. Hell, Roy father died six or seven times.

[Izodor]

I hope he stays dead for at least 100 comics or so. When we are around 544, I would want him back alive.

[Elliot Kane]

Definitely not. I like Roy. He's my favourite member of the OOTS. I want him back.

[Charles Phipps]

Well the easy way to fix that is to have Roy be un-ressurectable somehow.

[Shadic]

Ultimately, I think its more powerful that he tried to get his revenge on his father's killer only to fail at it. A quest that was ultimately pointless to begin with. He ended up fighting Xyrkon for himself in the end and his story arc was completed.


Do you not pay attention to what Roy says, at ALL? You've proven yourself to hate Shojo, and apparently you feel the same for Roy, because Roy himself TELLS Xykon why he's up there, fighting him on a Zombified Dragon. He says that he's fighting for the world, not for his little blood oath.

[Revlid]

Nah, I wants my Roy back.

[Kioran]

Now that he´s dead, leave him that way - and besides, who said Xykon would survive this battle? A timely end is much better than a drawn out arc that loses suspense.

[JonathanC]

I don't mind a force ghost or Obi Waning of Roy like his father (maybe to Elan, which would be pretty sweet) but for me, I think this should be the end of Roy. He fought the good fight and his end shouldn't be undermined by making him alive again.

So, one vote for "No Return.'

It wasn't exactly the world's best ending. He died getting pwned by a Lich who was barely hurt by his best efforts. Not only that, he didn't even die from the Lich; he couldn't remember the one item that could save his life until it was too late, and the damn thing didn't work anyway. I've seen stormtroopers with more valiant deaths.

[Mordokai]

Bring him back, as soon as possible. Not right away, but when the battle is over, bring him back. He has to much story to tell, too much banters to banters, to much roleplaying to do. He has to live. I would miss him if he stayed death and I don't think this comic would be same without him.

[Lumenadducere]

Definitely bring him back. He's the straight man of the group, and there's no one else that can really fill that role (not even Durkon). As others have said, death in DnD does seem to be pretty meaningless overall. There'd have to be a darn good reason as to why Roy isn't coming back if he stays dead.


Don't, however, bring him back right away - at least until the battle's over, if not longer.

[Moral Wiz]

Hmm. I'm not going to give my own opinion on if Roy should stay dead, cos I'm not quite sure how to explane it (it's not a strict yes or no.)

However, for a way to have res fail

the only confermed res we know of is roy's dads. Since then two gates have been destroyed. If a third one bites the dust in this battle... Well "weakens the fabric of existance" dosn't sound like it's doing magic a good turn.

[Glome]

If Roy was meant to stay dead, he would have died in a situation where Xykon or Redcloak immediately turned him into an undead, therefore denying him the chance to ressurect. Right now there is no reason why he wouldn't be ressurected after the battle, he would definitely want to come back to finish off Xykon once and for all.

Nor do I see why it would be better for Roy to remain dead either. He was the straight man who the rest of the party played off of. If he remained dead, someone else would have to take over his position, and nobody would make as good a Roy as Roy, not even Hinjo.

Besides, it follows closely the classic story arc of a heroic persona
for the hero to face death and somehow defeat it.
Instead of cheapening his death, Roy coming back from the dead would allow him to fulfill of the fundamental mythological patterns in storytelling, one which could make for some great jokes as well. Besides, we already have the Obi-Wan spirit advisory role played out by Roy's father, we don't need another person to fulfill the same role.

[ChimericPhase]

I vote for good storytelling. Which means for him to stay dead. Don't make death meaningless.


See the problem with that statement assumes that any possible story that could occur if Roy is brought back would automatically be awful.

Rich has proven, time and again, that he is an innovative storyteller. You might just enjoy it.

To the second half of that statement - let me rephrase what others are saying.

Death in D&D is NOT meaningless. It's simply not permenant. To say death is meaningless is to say that no one learns anything from the occurance of any death that ever happens.

While everyone has been talking about the sacrifice and the honor of Roy's death (and thus he should stay dead), I point out the following:

Roy's actions were selfish, arrogant, and ill-planned to the detrement of his entire group. Roy says, as he's falling, words from his own mouth, that he basically failed. As a direct result of his brash actions, Roy is dead. In other words: Roy's death already IS meaningless!

The power of death in D&D is that Roy will have the chance to have a character epiphany. He will learn something from this experience. If he is resurrected, then he will bring back with him the knowledge of how he failed and possibly how to be a better team-leader.

Rich will make this event interesting no matter what direction he chooses to take it in. I know it. I trust him, as an excellent writer who has entertained me since I first stumbled across a quirky stick-figure comic on the internet.

And before any Roy fanboys yell at me for hatin' - I love Roy. He is a powerful character and I foresee a lot of character development for him in the future (if he lives). Roy actions have far more depth to them if you've ever read the Origin of the PCs. Read it, you'll know.


I am optimistic that Roy will be ressurected. After Shojo's failed ressurection, and with everything that Roy has to live for, I think the greater chance stands for Roy's return. However, knowing Rich, I refuse to set myself in stone about any issue because Rich has surprised me in the past - and I liked it.

[Renegade Paladin]

This is D&D. In a story set in a world like ours then yes, bringing him back would be cheap. In D&D, though, death is just another condition to be removed like any other inconvenience. :smalltongue:

[JohnnyPsycho]

I say have Roy's sister join the Order, then have Xykon zombify Roy and have him duke it out with his sister and former party-mates.

Buuuuut I doubt that's gonna happen, despite how cool that would be...

[JonathanC]

I say have Roy's sister join the Order, then have Xykon zombify Roy and have him duke it out with his sister and former party-mates.

Buuuuut I doubt that's gonna happen, despite how cool that would be...

Why would that be cool? The group already has a wizard, already has a selfish jerk, so what would she add to the party?

[Charles Phipps]

Do you not pay attention to what Roy says, at ALL? You've proven yourself to hate Shojo, and apparently you feel the same for Roy, because Roy himself TELLS Xykon why he's up there, fighting him on a Zombified Dragon. He says that he's fighting for the world, not for his little blood oath.

Uhhh you mean what I said?

I disliked Shojo, yes, but I liked Roy. I just think its a more dynamic character arc if his death is permanent.

[JohnnyPsycho]

Why would that be cool? The group already has a wizard, already has a selfish jerk, so what would she add to the party?

An imbalance in the party structure. Chaos is always cool...:smalltongue:

Or maybe she can just run off and start her own adventuring party to avenge her brother's death... that would be equally interesting...

[Choas_Dragoon]

I would want him back, but I could see the comic go either way with his death.

[JonathanC]

An imbalance in the party structure. Chaos is always cool...:smalltongue:

Or maybe she can just run off and start her own adventuring party to avenge her brother's death... that would be equally interesting...

Absolute chaos is as boring to read about as absolute order. And I really don't see how his sister starting her own party would be all that interesting. I really don't see her being bothered with the blood oath anyway. She's true neutral, and has no reason to really want to take it up.

[SteveMB]

I expect that Roy's return will be difficult enough (obstacles to rezzing him, serious temptation to enjoy the afterlife) to avoid cheapening his death, but my gut feeling is that he'll be back -- and I think the group dynamics will only work well for so long without him.

[Fawkes]

The main argument I have with the whole "resurrection cheapens his heroic death" thing is that he didn't accomplish anything. He did his best, but he failed to kill Xykon and died for it. That's pretty depressing stuff for a comedy.

If he had died after killing Xykon, I might feel differently.

[Vulion]

I vote for Roy being ressurected, maybe not as soon as possible but within the next fifty strips. Roy is the balance that the team needs, with his share of good and bad traits. The team needs him.

[Morty]

OOTS may try to get Roy ressurected, but I doubt it'll be easy. If the AC stands, bringing back Roy will be simple. But if it falls, they'd have to run, so they may have trobles getting Roy's body. Besides, even if they have money, how are they going to get diamonds? The don't grow on trees, you know.

[Charles Phipps]

Someone should assemble Roy art in a slideshow and set the song

"Better get ready to die" to it.

It'd be funny.

[Mjoellnir]

Hello? This is D&D, death is NOT permanent (if your best buddies are clerics), just look at the stone on Eugene Greenhilts grave. But death is still one of the hardest things in D&D, I mean, Roy will lose a level, permanently. I can already see Belkar gloating about that. It's an important part of this RPG. And there's nothing more annoying as someone who writes books (or comics) based on a RPG-System while totally ignoring its basic rules. They do this a lot in the Warcraft novels. We see in the games Paladins who ressurect 5 Soldiers at once, but in the novels the sole ressurection I can find is the one of Medivh by Aegwynn who's an arcane caster. And this doesn't fit in the universe.

[Alysar]

I vote 'Oh HELLLLL NO!'

[Snipers_Promise]

As mentioned in another thread, I think something like Church from Red Vs. Blue. Haha.

[Porthos]

Dramtically speaking being brought back from The Land of the Dead can be very, well, dramatic. Consider Gandalf the White. Consider the plethora of other tales that follow The Heroes Journey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero's_journey). Quite frankly being brought back from the dead is a standard dramatic tool of writers.

Now, I agree that it could be cheap, dramatically speaking. If Durkon just wanders over to Roy's body (the day after the battle) and casts Raise Dead, it won't mean very much dramtically. Although it could be the source of humor:
Durkon: Raise Dead.
Roy: AGGHH!!!.... Where am I??? What happen...
<looks around, pauses as the Memory of Dying clears>
Roy: Huh. I thought my death was going to be the center of the next 100 strip arc--
Durkon: Ack! We dinna have time fer that. Xykon escaped in tha durin' the battle and we have to find him. Now get off yer backside an rally tha troops!

Or something like that. :smalltongue:

However, if something should happen to Roy's body that makes Raise Dead/Resurrection unfeasable, then the next 100 strips could be devoted to a Grand Quest to get the body. And at the same time, Roy could be continuing his Heroes Journey in the afterlife, before he comes back with increased wisdom.

Regardless, the Return of Roy can be funny, dramatic or both. It just depends on where Rich wants to take the plot. :smallsmile:

[Geilan]

He should not, but we need a segment of him speaking with dear old dad, maybe a little bit of ghost action, then a nice little ressurection. Then the tormenting when he finds out Belkar and Elan are higher level than he is.

[Tmabbbb]

Another vote for Roy stays dead.

[Axl_Rose]

I can't wait to see the Giant explain that
Instead of saying, "I wonder how the oots will get out of this one!" we should say "I wonder how the giant will get out of this one!" lol

[warmachine]

Roy should live 'cos I'd prefer OotS as a comedy with plot, rather than a drama with comedy.

[PirateMonk]

Anybody who reads this comic plays or has played D&D.

Um, no.

Anyway, as has been stated before, I don't see how anything would be "undermined" by Roy living again. He was simply overpowered by jumping (literally) into combat with a higher level caster, accomplishing nothing but annoying himself and Xykon, destroying a dragon and the Death Knight, losing the crown, and oh yes, dying. That is not exactly the heroic noble sacrifice, though it will definitely make a difference. Dying to have a significant but not vital impact on the battle is what important NPCs are for, not PCs.

[Necromas]

Nay!

Roy may not be the funniest character, but he's still awesome.

[Admiral W.]

This is just speculation, but…

I think that Rich is setting us up. We have heard many times that the Order of the Stick is going to try to resurrect Roy; this has the effect of offering hope to the idea that Roy’s death is temporary. The Order is going to put all their hopes into resurrecting Roy; thus the most dramatic thing to would be to
stop the Order in such a way that it seems hopeless to ever resurrect Roy. This would give meaningfulness to Roy’s death –Seeing his friends hoping above all hope to see him alive again, only to learn that it cannot happen.

Then the story would enter of period of chaos, without a leader the hidden qualities of the other characters would come through; both the good and the bad. This would be a testing time, not against an enemy, but a test of themselves.

However that does not mean that Roy needs to stay dead, he could still come back, just in an unexpected time and way. And when he did come back it would be all the more meaningful because of the fact that the Order thought he was truly dead. In this way the dramatic effect of character death need not be made meaningless by DnD rules, in fact it would be enhanced by them.

From a conventional story telling perspective it makes perfect sense, but then again Rich is not necessarily a conventional story teller. Anything could happen, and it would still be very good, simply because Rich is a very good story teller; the proof of that is the beauty of #445.

So yes I think that Roy should stay dead long enough for the dramatic effect, and we should believe the he is dead for good. But there is no reason why he can not come back some time after that; just like Gandalf comes back in the Lord of the Rings.

[Querzis]

And there's nothing more annoying as someone who writes books (or comics) based on a RPG-System while totally ignoring its basic rules. They do this a lot in the Warcraft novels. We see in the games Paladins who ressurect 5 Soldiers at once, but in the novels the sole ressurection I can find is the one of Medivh by Aegwynn who's an arcane caster. And this doesn't fit in the universe.

Hum its actually the exact opposite in the warcraft universe. Resurection is possible in the game just because the gameplay is better that way but in the lore you cant resurect people. Its true both in the game lore and in the novels (who are considered real lore by the way since Blizzard ask author to do a book about something, not the other way around).

If World of Warcraft would work with the real lore then night elf male would all be druids, people would die and never come back, you would need 1000 man raids to be able to kill Ragnaros or Nefarian and they would still kill more then half of them, all the importants characters or monster would die once and never come back, Tauren and orcs would be 100 times stronger and thougher then gnomes, the Draenei woudnt be a player race since there is not even as much draenei alive in the lore as there is people playing them in the game etc... Even the planet isnt the real one, it take weeks to go through the barrens and months to get through the ocean but the gameplay would be really bad if that was true in WoW not to mention how long it would be to create such a huge world.

Medivh resurection was possible because he is really powerfull so his spirit was still existing and because Aegwynn is the strongest spellcaster ever so she just created a corpse for the spirit of Medivh.

Warcraft lore is in the dialogue, the cinematic part, the books and stuff like that, the gameplay isnt trully based on the lore because it would be boring. Hell, Thrall could easely destroy bases and entire cities all by himself without any help at the start of Warcraft 3. Beside, in the game you only lead 20 or less units but in the lore, there is billions of orcs and humans.

[Roderick_BR]

The question is, being an important member of a group bent to save the world, and being in a D&D based setting with enough resurrection magic, WHY would he not come back? The only way it would happen is if they manage to destroy Xykon once and for all, so Roy doesn't need to return at all. although he might go back because of people he still cares for among the living.

[EdgarVerona]

He's too important of a character to kill off for good I think. I mean, in truth the whole series to this point has really revolved around him. It'd be like having Frodo killed off halfway through Lord of the Rings. Sure, Sam could've continued the trip on his own or something like that, but it really wouldn't have been the same.

There's also then the fact that Xykon's utterly defeated him and thwarted Roy's (apparently) single reason for having gone on the quest in the first place, which I think would make most of us feel pretty bad.


If the goal was to show that Xykon wasn't some pushover, I think that's mission accomplished. I'm wondering if that's what was going on here: the last encounter with Xykon wasn't terribly deadly all things considered, and he never showed himself to be a powerhouse... a comedic genius yes, but a powerhouse no. By killing Roy (hopefully temporarily), it reminds us all that Xykon is (A) not just Redcloak's farsical companion, and (B) not to be trifled with.

So... mission accomplished there. Now let's bring Roy back so he can do what he set out to do. I know it's predictable to have Roy actually accomplish his mission... but especially when reading a comedy, I like for there to be a happy ending even if it is predictable. (That is to say, sometimes I wonder if Giant does things like this because he worries that the plot may be too predictable... and if that's the case it's understandable, but he doesn't have to deny the ending that most of us want to see for the sake of unpredictability. That'd be going too far I think.)

[Charles Phipps]

I think its better that he dies in a relatively meaningless conflict. It's more realistic.

[Finwe]

If you want realistic, there's this stuff called the news you can read. A story is meant to be entertaining and exciting, or at least more so than the real world.

[Tobrian]

I vote for good storytelling. Which means for him to stay dead. Don't make death meaningless.

Why is that good storytelling? A story that is truncated in the middle is not "good storytelling".

You know, usually I'm the first to complain about the kind of revolving-door-rez'ing in some D&D groups, but claiming that making a character stay dead (especially in the FANTASY genre!) is automatically good storytelling because everything else would make death "meaningless" is pure nonsense. Killing off a protagonist just for death's sake is pretty useless, especially when his story isn't done yet.

You seem to have swallowed the rather simplistic equation "dead character must stay dead at all cost = good storytelling". Are you demanding that an author should put himself into a literary straightjacket just so that you can adhere to some "pure" principle? Death never has "meaning"... a story has, or has not.

Look at mythology and folklore. Scores of dead heroes have come back to life... hell, I've mentioned the Campbellian mythological Hero Journey cycle before, in other threads on this forum. After he has descended into the Underworld or undergone ritual death, the hero who has gained wisdom MUST return, must become reborn, to carry the wisdom/Water of Life back into the world. Otherwise he becomes a Sleeping Once and Future King, like Arthur... but Arthur's story arc was closed and over, Camelot had fallen and receeded into dream. Odin climbed back down from the world ash after his ordeal, Buddha returned to the mortal world after reaching enlightenment, Osiris was killed and dismembered but brought back to life by his wife. Death and resurrection are merely stages of transformation.

Prof. Joseph Campbell has analysed myths in depth, i.e. in The Hero With A Thousand Faces. He states in fact that the whole adventure was meaningless unless the hero returns from the Other World and brings whatever knowledge or treasure he found back to the ordinary world! It's the whole point of the quest.


I think its better that he dies in a relatively meaningless conflict. It's more realistic.

Tell me, why do you read fiction, if that's the case? :smallconfused:

"Realistic" and storytelling rarely go together. A story should make internal sense, but that isn't the same as realistic. Not even in Hard Science Fiction.

"This is the central protagonist, but he slipped one day when crossing the street and died in a meaningless way before he could get to the part where anything important happened, so the tale ends here. Goodnight."

[Shadic]

Uhhh you mean what I said?

I disliked Shojo, yes, but I liked Roy. I just think its a more dynamic character arc if his death is permanent.

I was talking about this quote of yours.


Ultimately, I think its more powerful that he tried to get his revenge on his father's killer only to fail at it. A quest that was ultimately pointless to begin with. He ended up fighting Xyrkon for himself in the end and his story arc was completed.

And again, Roy was not "Fighting Xykon for himself." he flat-out STATED that we was not doing it for himself, nor his father, BUT FOR THE WORLD.

Besides, the whole "It's more dramatic this way" thing is a lame/false point. The Giant has done a great job with the story so far, and isn't going to allow anything related to the plot to just be "cheapened." He's a good writer, and an excellent storyteller. Let him do what he does best.

[EdgarVerona]

I think the big confusion here is that different people see OOTS as very different things.

Some people here view it as a realistic (but sometimes humorous) portrayal of the D&D world.

Others view it as a somewhat serious story about characters, their depth and the plotline that surrounds them.

Personally, I find it to be primarily a comedy, and secondarily concerning D&D rules etc... the jokes are geared to D&D, but like DMing the game itself the rules can be easily bent as is needed.

I respect the other views of what OOTS might be, but I put this post up merely so that people might better understand where others are coming from when someone says "Roy should be killed off because it deepens his character" or "In D&D death isn't meaningful" etc... Hopefully everyone can see that, depending on their point of view on what OOTS' central theme is about, they're all correct.

Since I go with the "comedy first" aspect, I personally greatly desire Roy to continue living. He has the potential for much more comedy in him, and he plays a unique role in the team as far as the comedic diversity goes which no one else on the team could fill in while remaining in their current personality. But I respect where you with differing opinions are coming from on this.

[Querzis]

I think the big confusion here is that different people see OOTS as very different things.

Some people here view it as a realistic (but sometimes humorous) portrayal of the D&D world.

Others view it as a somewhat serious story about characters, their depth and the plotline that surrounds them.

Since I go with the "comedy first" aspect, I personally greatly desire Roy to continue living. He has the potential for much more comedy in him, and he plays a unique role in the team as far as the comedic diversity goes which no one else on the team could fill in while remaining in their current personality. But I respect where you with differing opinions are coming from on this.

Personnaly, I view it as a story about chracters, their depth and the plotline that surround them which doesnt change the fact that it would be pretty stupid if we never see Roy again. The plot and the character are more important then the humor for me but in the OOTS world, the plot said many times that resurection is possible and Roy friends are apparently ready to resurect him right after this battle so if the Giant doesnt resurect Roy, then he need a very good reason.

[PirateMonk]

I think its better that he dies in a relatively meaningless conflict. It's more realistic.

Uh, if you want realism, why are you reading not just a stick figure fantasy webcomic, but one based on D&D?


Ultimately, I think its more powerful that he tried to get his revenge on his father's killer only to fail at it. A quest that was ultimately pointless to begin with. He ended up fighting Xyrkon for himself in the end and his story arc was completed.

Okay, first of all, Xykon didn't kill Eugene. Secondly, as has been mentioned, his quest wasn't pointless and he didn't fight Xykon for himself; he was trying to save the world. Thirdly and finally, yes, the moment of horror at discovering why high level casters aren't messed with was powerful, but his death more seemed like the climax of a nightmare rather than that of a story. So what's wrong with having him "wake up"?

[Charles Phipps]

And again, Roy was not "Fighting Xykon for himself." he flat-out STATED that we was not doing it for himself, nor his father, BUT FOR THE WORLD.

And that's his reason, his own reason. For himself and not his father, he's chosen to be the hero.


Besides, the whole "It's more dramatic this way" thing is a lame/false point. The Giant has done a great job with the story so far, and isn't going to allow anything related to the plot to just be "cheapened." He's a good writer, and an excellent storyteller. Let him do what he does best.

I think it just makes the story better for it to go in an unexpected direction. Roy is the straight man, yes, but change will occur when he's no longer there and the story must go in new ways. Without Roy, the focus will go to other characters.

Maybe Durkon or other overlooked heroes.

[Jayabalard]

There are many ways to stop someone from being ressurected, of whice one of the more notable is being killed by the snarl. I'm pretty sure that by the tend fo the series we will have seen at least once PC perma-death.Roy wasn't killed by the snarl... so that one is out.


Look at mythology and folklore. Scores of dead heroes have come back to life... hell, I've mentioned the Campbellian mythological Hero Journey cycle before, in other threads on this forum. After he has descended into the Underworld or undergone ritual death, the hero who has gained wisdom MUST return, must become reborn, to carry the wisdom/Water of Life back into the world. Otherwise he becomes a Sleeping Once and Future King, like Arthur... but Arthur's story arc was closed and over, Camelot had fallen and receeded into dream. Odin climbed back down from the world ash after his ordeal, Buddha returned to the mortal world after reaching enlightenment, Osiris was killed and dismembered but brought back to life by his wife. Death and resurrection are merely stages of transformation.

Prof. Joseph Campbell has analysed myths in depth, i.e. in The Hero With A Thousand Faces. He states in fact that the whole adventure was meaningless unless the hero returns from the Other World and brings whatever knowledge or treasure he found back to the ordinary world! It's the whole point of the quest.I agree...


even if they have money, how are they going to get diamonds? The don't grow on trees, you know.AC has the diamonds, and the oots have several people who would have no compunctions about taking them in order to rez Roy.

[eetdestroyer]

if it is my recolection belkar did say that durkon can throw out a number of raise dead spells a day (he even says "I'll heal him tommow ehn i can pere tha' spell" or something like that) so he is going to be ressurected anyway, and have you seen any of the spells used by V or any other spell caster use material components??

if any of this was mentioned earlyer i appologise i couldn't be bothered reading this whole thread.

and Roy should get up and live again anyway, he is such an important character

[Plactus]

Okay, first of all, Xykon didn't kill Eugene.

You don't know that. Eugene died seven times, only one to old age. Xykon could have been one of the previous six :smallwink:

[Driderman]

Roy will be back and soon, I think.
Why?
Because a humorous ressurection scene will be in the spirit of the OotS and because the OotS wouldn't really work without Roy. I sincerely doubt the illustrious artist would ruin the cast/party-composition just because of a state of temporary death.
Roy is an integral part of the comedic mechanics of the Order, not to mention one of the primary drives behind their quest.
Killing him off for good would require a lot of patchworking to explain several inconsistencies and reasonings for the future workings of the OotS

[taraxia]

Having Roy stay dead forever would be just as pointless and stupid as having Roy get res'd quickly and with no trouble the very next day.

Drama demands that Roy's death be resolved and Roy returned, but that the process of this happening *not* be cheapened by it being quick and routine. If this were another kind of story taking place on modern Earth and Roy were, say, injured and sent to the hospital, drama would demand that Roy *not* be patched up quickly and without complications and be back on his feet in no time.

[Pax_Chi]

Indeed. I vote that Roy should NOT stay dead, but that his death should not be immediately undone so that it actually has some impact. Let the OotS struggle without him for a while, let him do his own thing in the afterlife for 25-50 strips or so, and then have him come back ready to kick Xykon tailbone.

[migdititp]

i think roy should stay dead but as he is the main character he probably wont i just cant imagine oots without roy

:thog: ooo! or candy land?? thog loves candy land *sigh* thog fears he will never again know the majesty of the gumdrop mountains

[Weiser_Cain]

I'd stop reading the strip if it became the elan and haley show.
Roy and V are my favorite characters.

[Demented]

Cheapen, cheapen, cheapen, cheapen the death of Roy!


Actually, I'm a little more confident that his death won't be cheapened. Y'see, the death itself doesn't change. It's the revival that matters. If the revival is treated cheaply, then it is the revival that will be cheap, not the death.