OOTS #464 - The Discussion Thread [Archive] - Page 4

Shatteredtower

2007-06-14, 04:20 AM

It's possible if you cheese every possibility like maxing out his Con...

First, a 14 Con is not "maxed out". It is within the realm of possibilty for a 25 point buy NPC paladin that didn't go for the 15 Charisma.

They can't all be the same.

...and giving him a potion that he took minutes before the encounter...Minutes? Try the moment Xykon crashed through the window.

It's not an unreasonable action when you consider the fact that eagle's splendor boosts his attack rolls to smite evil as well as his saving throws -- against a spellcaster.

...and assume he did a paladin's Lay on Hands while hurtling through the air and paralyzed...What do you think makes that cheesy?

I mean, calling the rest cheesy is silly, but this one makes me genuinely curious. I mean, surely you don't condsider a sorcerer casting a silent teleport or a silent stilled fireball while paralyzed cheesy, or the use of any spell-like ability with any sort of range other than "touch", so why take issue with self-inflicted supernatural healing?

I don't consider that a calculation. I consider it wishful thinking.Where's the wish?

Am I wishing for O-Chul to be 10th level? Nope. It's possible that he is, possible that he's higher level, possible that he's lower level.

Am I wishing for him to have started with 14 Con and 14 Cha? Not really, no. I'm just admitting that not every NPC paladin that gets a name winds up with the standard build of 12 and 15 respectively.

Am I wishing for him to have access to an amulet of health and a potion of eagle's splendour? No, but they are both reasonable investments for a paladin of that level -- not ideal, to be certain, but plausible.

But even without them, he's got a 5-10% chance of making a saving throw against the explosion. So by the book, the possibility existed. The DM may have fudged the rolls, but rolling could still have plausibly allowed for success.

You cheesed his Charisma...Excuse me? Taking a 15 Charisma, the standard for an NPC paladin from the DMG, and reassigning two points from that to Constitution, so that he'd have a 14 in each, is not cheesing. The potion is just a reasonable investment for a character of his level, and at the start of a showdown with a lich was a reasonable time to use it.

...maxed his Con...Neither 14 nor, with the use of a magic item, 16, are exactly maximum Con.

...and did all kinds of silliness that Rich has proven time and again that he doesn't conceive of his characters as being cheese-weaseled, finely chiseled munchkins designed exactly to allow him a maximum 20 percent chance of survival which - SURPRISE! - Rich isn't rolling his dice.Actually, I'm utilizing sub-standard resources for such a paladin to get that result. Is the notion of defining "persona" as a subfield of "touch" when it comes to range that an offensive an idea?

The point is that if it were done by the dice, it was possible for O-Chul to have survived this. The possibility was slim, but having a smaller chance of survival than Miko had does not assure his demise or her survival.

He just decides that someone lived. And then the fanboys do all sorts of backflips and contortions to prove that Rich powergamed his NPCs when I'm sure he did nothing of the sort.Yes, I have noted repeatedly that he survived because Mr. Burlew decided he would, so it's absurd to claim that I'm proving that he actually rolled the dice.

It's also absurd to claim that only by powergaming could O-Chul have survived these events, when all I'm using is one fairly weak magical amulet, a fairly affordable potion that most paladins would deem useful, and a lucky roll, all easily within the DMG recommended budget for an NPC paladin of 10th lvl. Never mind the fact that 10th level allows a paladin to keep resist energy in effect for a good 50 minutes or the possible benefits of an aid spell attached to a hallowed area.

All of that was plausible. None of it was necessary. As you say, it happened this way because the writer wanted it to, but it takes no effort at all to show why, by the book, it could happen this way.

I love how you cheese-weasel O-Chul, and then minimize Miko's abilities to make her look like a chump to prove your alleged point.I put Miko at 15 levels of paladin to give her a +5 bonus on her Reflex save, adding 2 levels of monk to boost her to +8. I gave her a 14 Dexterity, which isn't that bad for a 25 pt buy character that is reliant on five out of six ability scores to be effective (the sixth being Intelligence). That puts her at +10.

Now if she hadn't just broken out of prison, I'd consider having that modified by magic items, but those are the sort of things one's captors generally puts into lockup. So, +10, it is, and that's assuming she's a 17th level character.

But let's be generous, okay? Give her the Lightning Reflex feat, 18 Dex, three more levels of paladin, and two more of monk. Now she's got a +16 saving throw and would have avoided all damage from the blast 85% of the time.

So she's got about a 5 in 6 chance of making it after being booted into epic levels and handed a feat to boost her Reflex save, while O-Chul had 1 in 5 at best. In all cases, even my supposedly stingy one, there is a decent chance she could fail: Russian roulette odds, really.

I do call a 20% chance something that could easily have happened, yes. I could easily roll a 1 on a d20 at any time, after all, or a 20 just as easily. Do not confuse the probability of the event with the plausibility of it.

Miko ignored anyone and everyone to do whatever she wanted.Strip #285 says otherwise. So does strip #228, or #224.

In strip #219, we see a perfectly valid time to be checking Belkar on the evilmeter, but she doesn't.

But I suppose that's all swept away with a simple, "Yeah, but what has she done for us lately?" Well, she went to the Gate instead of going after Roy, putting duty before desire.

It's not a difference at all.Yes, it is. "You don't have to eat the mushrooms," does not convey the same message as "Don't eat the mushrooms."

She attacked paladins...One paladin, who made the mistake of telling her that redemption was easy, trivializing her justly deserved punishment. That doesn't excuse her behaviour, no, but it hardly makes her Miss Killing Spree 2005 either.

...murdered an unarmed lawful ruler...The inadvisable result of misunderstood information and feelings of betrayal. Again, this hardly excuses her, but it shouldn't be dismissed when viewing her character, not her guilt.

...ignored the founder of her order...Not proven.

It didn't matter how firm or kind or understanding. She simply did whatever she wanted.

Look very carefully along the bottom of 463. You will see many prisoners taken by the goblins, and standing under falling debris in mid-flight.Prisoners, pockets of resistance, or piles of corpses? I can't tell. Even assuming you're right, however... they're not in the castle.

O-Chul had no choice.The most irresponsible statement a person can make is, "I had no choice."

You always have a choice. You just have to decide what the acceptable one is. The possible death of others, assuming either had any idea that shattering the gate would have such explosive results, was either vile or it wasn't.

Miko did. Therein lies the difference. O-Chul was one of the last of a group of slaughtered paladins trying to desperately prevent tragedy. Miko snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in a selfish attempt to glorify herself.Had O-Chul succeeded, Xykon would have gotten away. Had Miko failed, can we be sure that Tsukiko wasn't coming up next and that Soon had enough left to beat her as well?

Miko never looked to have had a life of glory. She wanted validation. She went about it entirely wrong, but there's nothing evil about that. She merely finished what O-Chul had started because he could not. You had a clear view of the big picture. She didn't, but the stakes were far more real and immediate to her than they are to us. We had days to kibitz over it, while she had seconds to take everything in and come to a conclusion. That it was a faulty conclusion based on the evidence in front of her does not make her evil.

That's why O-Chul is still blue, and Miko isn't.No, Miko is in tan because she killed Shojo. That is the only reason. If she'd somehow remained detained even now and some low-level paladin had come in and done exactly as she'd done, that paladin would still be in blue.

What exactly Soon meant in his final words to Miko remains to be seen.Not at all. It is clearly written for us.

Her selfish actions made his escape possible. Even Soon said as much.No, he didnt. He said, "Had you been less hasty, however, I might have ended Xykon's threat permanently."

Haste does not equate with selfishness, and let's not overlook the "might." Furthermore, Miko's actions did not force Soon to choose between keeping his sword trained on Xykon and shouting out to Miko. Don't blame his bad choice on Miko, because that was entirely his own doing, just as Xykon's evil is entirely Xykon's doing.

Her defense of the gate was adequate. Technically. Her actions overall got her denied access to heaven, and left her unredeemed. Interpret that how you will.The first part is easy: "Okay, it's not what we wanted, but it will do." The second part, the part you introduced, is an entirely wishful fabrication.

She also got lit up by a halfling with a bowl of rice wine, and bonked unconscious with a lead sheet.Point. Of course, the halfling was Belkar, and he'd had time to prepare the battlefield first. You and I wouldn't have lasted fifteen seconds in there.

Let's keep this in perspective.Indeed.

It was a bad choice motivated by selfish motives. She chose herself and her glory over the good of everyone else.Again, leaping to conclusions, with less evidence than she had. At least she had O-Chul's lead and a diminshing army of paladin ghosts to follow as a clue.

Both part of one EVIL day. Both part of one unrepentent, murderous, selfish day that saw the loss of her paladinhood and her denial into heaven.You make the false assumption that a good character cannot commit an evil act and still remain good. It's a common mistake.

She let her personal feelings of having been betrayed (and Shojo did betray her on several levels) guide her actions, appointing herself executioner. Sure, that's selfish, but it does not make everything she's done since then selfish. Betrayed, abandoned by the gods, stabbed in the back, mocked, denied the chance to strike down a known evil (though Hinjo was right to stop her), and then to have her current state of disgrace trivialized by the new boss? After that, wouldn't the ultimate selfish move be to renounce the gods and embrace the outsider in the next cell? Likewise, she put her standards ahead of seeking out Roy after she escaped. What makes that selfish?

I suppose you could say that only selfish pride prevented her from accepting Sabine's offer, which would just go to show that Miko couldn't win. If she accepts, it's because she's only out for herself, and if she refuses, it's not because she puts her standards first. Heck, if she'd rushed Xykon, it could still be only because she was selfish.

If Miko was evil, Soon would not be permitted to associate with her. There'd be no talk of ushering her to her destination either; if she was evil, she'd have no trouble finding Hell on the way out.

Thankfully, Mr. Burlew had better things to do with a fallen paladin than issue her an alignment change and blackguard status.

Manga Shoggoth

2007-06-14, 04:54 AM

This has to be one of the strongest strips in the series. It's a shame that there are so many people determined to dance on Miko's grave.

As to matters of taste, the last two panels have considerably less gore than I would have expected for someone who had just been cut or torn in half by an explosion (not decapitated...). I don't think Rich can be accused of grade guinol in this case.

Ithekro

2007-06-14, 05:03 AM

Sigh...The only part of this debate that I find interesting anymore is this part about Soon.

Haste does not equate with selfishness, and let's not overlook the "might." Furthermore, Miko's actions did not force Soon to choose between keeping his sword trained on Xykon and shouting out to Miko. Don't blame his bad choice on Miko, because that was entirely his own doing, just as Xykon's evil is entirely Xykon's doing.

Could there be a game mechanic involved here? Such as Soon going first followed by Miko, followed by Xykon? (Xykon followed by Miko) In this case Soon would have just finished his attacks on Xykon and Redcloak followed by Miko's speech followed by Xykon moving out. (Mash, crack, BOOM!). It could be suggested that Xykon might have done that anyway, but without the explosion Soon could intercept him. However within the Round Soon would not be able to do anything except speak, right? It's been at least 15 years since I really played D&D and that was the Basic edition, so my thoughts could be far off. I was just wondering if that was a possibility that there was nothing Soon could do at that point and Xykon's escape is not his fault, nor Miko's fault at that moment. The inability of Soon to follow would be due to the Gate's destruction, but that would be the following Round.

factotum

2007-06-14, 05:17 AM

I doubt it. If Soon were still concentrating on Xykon then he would got off an AOO on him when he got up off the floor (which happened prior to Miko actually destroying the gate). He paused to shout at Miko, which is why things happened the way they did.

nagora

2007-06-14, 05:29 AM

The fact that a certain image pushes somebody's hot buttons rather than other images that are arguably "just as bad" or "worse" doesn't somehow make the reaction invalid. (It may show that the reaction isn't fully rational, but we already know that emotional reactions aren't fully rational.)

Irrational is invalid!

Saying that one particular image of what happens to people in battles is "garbage" when many other similar images have been accepted as part of the story up until then is not a reasonable response. We need to get away from this "everyone's view is equally valid" mentality: some views are hypocritical and others are provably wrong, while others are socially unacceptable. That's reality.

Caractacus

2007-06-14, 05:45 AM

I don't think Rich can be accused of grade guinol in this case.

Interesting new term for me (actually "Grand Guignol"); thanks for bringing it up! :smallcool:

rosebud

2007-06-14, 05:53 AM

She didn't "get it" - even at the very end - that she'd been wrong.Hi, Brianna

This is slightly off topic of the ending, but I have to disagree here somewhat. She lacked the time to atone, but she did not protest Soon's words. He was the first to truly get through to her. That was the sad part: just when she became human again, she was no longer able to redeem herself. (And that is also why I would not mind seeing her resurrected. Though I understand why she might not be.)

It was during her confrontation with Hinjo (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0409.html) that she stopped being human for me. Or a character at all. In particular, in the panel where she attacked rather than surrender her weapon.

She became, in my view, a caricature and merely a tool of the plot. Until her death scene (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0464.html), she remained such. She prayed earlier for guidance, but her prayer was not answered. Yet she still listened to Soon. She hoped for favor, but she was not worthy. Yet she still listened to Soon. Then she hoped for friendship, and that prayer was answered. And that was enough. That was enough.

At the end of the conversation, Miko could have laid back, her eyes turned to Xs, and that would have been completely satisfying.Yes. But would it have been artistically complete? Setting aside the issue of making sure people would believe she was, in fact, dead, what did the last two panels provide?

I'll borrow from my earlier words (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2734686#post2734686):

It is an artistic statement about what she did -- she sundered everything she touched: the chair, her Lord, the Gem, and the connection of the fellowship to this world. In the end, she, too, was broken, both physically and spiritually.

Since we are not the creator (unless you take the Borges approach that we are all authors), this is, of course, mere speculation.

I can think of two instances of television or movies where a person is sliced in two and briefly lives. One was a crime show where the entire episode took place at a subway station. A man is pushed, he's sliced by the train, and his upper torso is conscious and functional but his legs are severed. (This, I believe has happened in real life. And when you pull the torso free and try to stabilize, the result in both cases are death.) It was an unpleasant episode, but a very well done show.

The second case is similar, but in Shyamalan's film Signs. The pastor's wife is hit by a car, and her body severed. She has time to talk to some loved ones, including giving advice that would someday save the world. Personally, I deeply disliked the film (for many reasons, including that scene), but a friend of mine appreciated it very much because she found the spiritual crises and regaining of faith such a strong message. Keep in mind that the driver of the car who killed the pastor's wife was played by Shyamalan himself as an onscreen cameo. As the writer and director of the film, he was not just responsible as the actor but as the guiding hand that both created her character and killed her character. And perhaps what my friend saw in the film is exactly what its creator intended.

Instead, the strip panned back to give its final "sight gag" - and it added absolutely nothing to the story except grossness for the sake of grossness.

Again, quoting myself:

So, yes, the strip is poignant, and, yes, the ending a a sick and disturbing scene. But not so, in my opinion, for the purpose of shock or laughter or derision. It's a statement on the realities of war and the damage her path caused to her beloved world. I personally think it's art, but you're free to make your own interpretation. Given how much of himself Rich has put into this strip, this character, and her creation, I personally don't think he did this lightly.

In any event, I'm glad you're still here. :smallsmile: There's a varied crowd here, but there are plenty of great insights and good people to be found.

Manga Shoggoth

2007-06-14, 06:29 AM

Interesting new term for me (actually "Grand Guignol"); thanks for bringing it up! :smallcool:

(sigh). I really need to work on my spelling...

Adeptus

2007-06-14, 07:43 AM

...I recall Roy's taunting of Miko in a fight being decidedly anti-woman.

I have to disagree. If one is so predisposed one will see gender bias everywhere. Roy's fighting trashtalk was just that, it wasn't misogynistic. If Miko had been a male *******, I'm sure Roy would have come up with good zingers there as well.

If a female is a positive character, like Celia, there's people on the boards who trash her because she's a slut for sleeping with Roy.

Any idiot who actually thinks/talks like that should put his money where his mouth is and move to Afganistan. If they value such garbage they should go fight it out with the UN/NATO/EU forces, I think.

It's so sad when people try to cling to the so called sexual morality of the stupid ages...

SteveMB

2007-06-14, 08:28 AM

I have to disagree. If one is so predisposed one will see gender bias everywhere. Roy's fighting trashtalk was just that, it wasn't misogynistic. If Miko had been a male *******, I'm sure Roy would have come up with good zingers there as well.
No doubt -- if Elan didn't shy away from throwing sexually-based gibes (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0393.html) at a male opponent, I don't see why Roy would.

berrew

2007-06-14, 08:36 AM

One minor quibble.

<snip>Look very carefully along the bottom of 463. You will see many prisoners taken by the goblins, and standing under falling debris in mid-flight.
<snip>We don't know this at all. In fact, my assumption was that they are undead. Why would hobgoblins take prisoners? Their leader clearly wants all humans slaughtered - I suspect, given his alignment, that includes noncombatants, but that's an assumption.

Grungydan

2007-06-14, 08:46 AM

Sigh. And thank you, Grungydan, for making page 13 hard to read. At least put a space in there somewhere? :)

Late, but done and done. Sorry folks, didn't realize it was that bad at auto formatting.

Erai

2007-06-14, 08:54 AM

This has probably been mentioned oomphteen times before in this thread, but: very nice job on the fading Soon, that looked really purdy :smallsmile:

nagora

2007-06-14, 09:07 AM

I imagine I'll do the same this time - but I am very sad that what was otehrwise a very moving and serious and emotional moment got ruined because Rich had to insert a stupid "sight gag" in order to titillate the "gross" fans.

Ah, here we have the answer. It wasn't a gag, you see?

I certainly understand why you would think such a gag was out of place in that strip, but on the other hand I don't know why you think someone being cut in half is a gag in the first place.

As I said earlier this sort of thing happens, but it's part of the horror of war, not part of the comedy of the comic.

Jarawara

2007-06-14, 09:10 AM

"In Azure City, Throne Cleaves You!"

I do think this is one of the best strips of the entire series, made even better with the fact that I hadn't yet scrolled down to see the final two frames, but I saw the dialog at the very bottom of my screen. I saw "I can live with that" as her final dialog, but didn't yet see that she'd been cut in half. Scroll down... and Woah!!!

But it wasn't until several days later, when seeing the above joke (posted by... sorry, I can't remember who), that I finally saw the last in-joke of the strip. She was cut in half by Shojo's throne. I don't know how I missed that, as you can still see both of her cleave attacks on it, the second one right through the stone mounting.

Talk about bad karma coming back you bite you!

Jarawara

2007-06-14, 09:16 AM

And yes, I'm aware that everyone else probably already knew that. I'm just amazed I hadn't seen it myself.

So, reading through this thread now. Interesting topic. **wanders off to read some more**

Manga Shoggoth

2007-06-14, 09:22 AM

Ah, here we have the answer. It wasn't a gag, you see?

It's not so much being a gag as causing a gag.

(Sorry - pressure of work is causing me to think in puns)

SteveMB

2007-06-14, 09:29 AM

But it wasn't until several days later, when seeing the above joke (posted by... sorry, I can't remember who), that I finally saw the last in-joke of the strip. She was cut in half by Shojo's throne. I don't know how I missed that, as you can still see both of her cleave attacks on it, the second one right through the stone mounting.

Talk about bad karma coming back you bite you!

On the other hand, she has a nice sharp rock to use as a pillow (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0224.html).

Mariana

2007-06-14, 10:57 AM

Coldwind

2007-06-14, 11:05 AM

I am happy to see that Miko get some explanation from lord soon of her failure before she died and most important; she is convinced that she failed.

priceless.

Lady_Orc

2007-06-14, 11:10 AM

Geez, so much hostility. :smalleek: People let's rejoice in our geekness and debate the rules or what will happen next. :smallyuk:

So, I have some questions: Can we assume that Miko changed her allignment when she fell from grace ? If so, am I right to believe that she won't be seeing Roy in the afterlife, because he died still as a Lawful Good and he's going to a separate plane ? Or am I assuming too much because it's strictly entitled to "Rich's cosmology design" ?

From Soon's wording, it seems Miko is going somewhere other than to the place he and the other paladins are going. That hints that her alignment is changed, but it's not proven beyond a doubt, I guess. She could theoretically be LG and just be going to another LG place. Personally, I believe she changed to LN and is heading to one of those boring LN planes. :)

Crazy_Uncle_Doug

2007-06-14, 11:13 AM

This was a great strip, even for a lack of comedy. I shed a tear for Miko. I always kinda hoped she would see her wrongs and gain redemption. It's tragic that she will not find it. It's also sad that even in the end, she was misguided.

I hope things are well for her in the afterlife.

factotum

2007-06-14, 11:25 AM

So, I have some questions: Can we assume that Miko changed her allignment when she fell from grace ?

No, we can't. Being a Paladin requires one to follow a strict code that goes way beyond simply being Lawful Good--she Fell for violating that code, not necessarily because of an alignment change. A really, really strict DM might have ruled that the evil act of killing Shojo was enough in itself to shift her alignment, but I suspect most would have given her the benefit of the doubt and allowed some sort of atonement to restore her Paladin status. (In fact, given that Hinjo also believed Miko would be capable of going through atonement--see the conversation between the two of them immediately after she killed Shojo--it implies he didn't think she'd shifted alignment either. Admittedly, that was BEFORE she kicked his butt seven ways from Sunday... :smallbiggrin: ).

nagora

2007-06-14, 11:40 AM

So, I have some questions: Can we assume that Miko changed her allignment when she fell from grace ? If so, am I right to believe that she won't be seeing Roy in the afterlife, because he died still as a Lawful Good and he's going to a separate plane ? Or am I assuming too much because it's strictly entitled to "Rich's cosmology design" ?

I don't think we can assume it, but I think she was suffering a severe drift towards N/CN - her interpretation of the law was becoming the only one for her and that's a chaotic (or at least anti-social) trait, and she clearly was not being too big on the sanctity of life either so the Good part of Lawful Good was in danger too. But I think in the end she was probably LG(N). Where N stands for "Nuts".:smallwink: So in 1stEd she'd be heading for Arcadia; I don't know if that's changed in 3rdEd.

Jacob_Gallagher

2007-06-14, 11:48 AM

Or she'll be reanimated as a zombie. That would be cool.

xyzchyx

2007-06-14, 11:56 AM

Personally, I think this comic more or less clinches that Miko was, although fallen, still Lawful Good.

I realize that a lot of people are interpreting Soon's ambiguity when he says "we will usher you to your destination as well" as meaning that she's not going to the same place as they are, but in actuality that particular phraseology does not need to imply that.

In fact, were Miko headed anywhere _other_ than Celestia, I don't think Soon would have been able to usher her spirit to her destination at all, as Celestia is where Soon is heading. Celestia does, however, have 7 distinct layers... and it's not at all improbable that Miko might be on one level while Soon will be on another (and Windstriker is not on the same layer as the one Miko will be going to either). Because the entrance to Celestia from the Astral Plane is on the first level and if I remember my D&D cosmology correctly one must pass through the lower levels of Celestia to get to the upper, so I can easily see Soon's remark as meaning that they are actually headed in exactly the same direction... only Soon will drop off Miko on one layer of heaven without even needing to take a detour, and then continue on upwards to his destination... almost like a spiritual car-pool.

Iranon

2007-06-14, 12:09 PM

In D&D cosmology, any alignment has a default plane for the souls of the deceased. However, the planes of the 8 non-neutral alignments don't touch one another directly, there's always one in between.

For example, there's Lawful Good Mount Celestia, between Lawful Good-Ish Arcadia and Lawful-Ish Good Bytopia.

nagora

2007-06-14, 12:11 PM

Because the entrance to Celestia from the Astral Plane is on the first level and if I remember my D&D cosmology correctly one must pass through the lower levels of Celestia to get to the upper, so I can easily see Soon's remark as meaning that they are actually headed in exactly the same direction... only Soon will drop off Miko on one layer of heaven without even needing to take a detour, and then continue on upwards to his destination... almost like a spiritual car-pool.

With the proviso that this "Celestia" of which you speak is The Seven Heavens of Lawful Good, then that makes sense to me too. She's lucky she died when she did, I think.

Ridureyu

2007-06-14, 01:18 PM

I don't mind Miko being a Lawful Good person who screwed up. Sure, maybe given a lot of time and a lot of screwups, she could have turned "evil," but she was still Lawful Good at the core.

Just Lawful Stupid.

Puck

2007-06-14, 01:39 PM

I do call a 20% chance something that could easily have happened, yes. I could easily roll a 1 on a d20 at any time, after all, or a 20 just as easily. Do not confuse the probability of the event with the plausibility of it.

Evidently, you're the one who is confusing plausibility with probability if you call a 20 percent chance "something that could easily have happened."

20 percent is not "easily." It's a 1 in 5 chance. That's called "extremely unlikely." If I handed you a .45 revolver with a 5-round cylinder, and loaded every chamber but one, and asked you to spin the cylinder, point the gun at your head and pull the trigger, you wouldn't smile, and say, "I will easily survive this!"

And that's assuming his character was specifically built for it.

First, a 14 Con is not "maxed out". It is within the realm of possibilty for a 25 point buy NPC paladin that didn't go for the 15 Charisma.

A 14 Con and a 15 Cha on a 25 point buy NPC is devoting 56% of the stat resources he has for six stats to those which will allow him to survive this particular incident. Devoting 25% of his resources to a single magic item to allow him to survive, another 300 GP for the potion to boost his Cha, and then - THEN - you declare that a 20 percent chance of surviving a saving throw is easily going to allow him to survive! EASILY!

Evidently, his character did nothing his entire life but prepare to be thrown from an explosion, and survive!

And, with this nice uber Fort save you've given him, he still can't make the Fort save of a paralyzing touch?

Oh sure sure. I know. It's POSSIBLE he rolled a natural 1. It could EASILY happen! He rolled a natural 1 on his Fort save, and then a natural 20 on his Reflex save while paralyzed! And then, the DM could roll no more than average damage on two sets of 20d6.

It's happens ALL the time!

Except that none of this ever happened, because as we both know, Rich didn't roll dice.

Many things are possible. Your suggestion is just extremely unlikely, and more unlikely than you admit.

Minutes? Try the moment Xykon crashed through the window.

Right, that potion that we didn't see him take. And the amulet we don't see him wearing.

It's not an unreasonable action when you consider the fact that eagle's splendor boosts his attack rolls to smite evil as well as his saving throws -- against a spellcaster. What do you think makes that cheesy?

It's not cheesy in the sense of powergaming cheesy. It's cheesy in the sense of, "Wow, this is super duper likely!"

Where's the wish?

The wish is in creating an extremely unlikely scenario, and then calling it likely when the best you can realistically come up with is 20 percent.

Am I wishing for O-Chul to be 10th level? Nope. It's possible that he is, possible that he's higher level, possible that he's lower level.

O-Chul is likely not any particular level. Rich doesn't stat these things out. Just his fans. The reason O-Chul survived - if he did - was because Rich wanted him to. End of story.

But even without them, he's got a 5-10% chance of making a saving throw against the explosion. So by the book, the possibility existed. The DM may have fudged the rolls, but rolling could still have plausibly allowed for success.

Note that I never said it was impossible. If the character was specifically created to survive this one event in his life, and the DM only rolled average, and followed your rather optimistic appraisal of the events, then yeah, there was a 5 percent chance of survival.

That's a lot of "if's" though, and frankly, too many for me.

Actually, I'm utilizing sub-standard resources for such a paladin to get that result. Is the notion of defining "persona" as a subfield of "touch" when it comes to range that an offensive an idea?

You're specifically designing a paladin to survive only this particular encounter, devoting a vast amount of NPC resources for it in order to achieve a twenty percent chance as opposed to a five percent chance, and then sitting back all smug as if you proved something.

That's what is silly.

It's also absurd to claim that only by powergaming could O-Chul have survived these events, when all I'm using is one fairly weak magical amulet, a fairly affordable potion that most paladins would deem useful, and a lucky roll, all easily within the DMG recommended budget for an NPC paladin of 10th lvl. Never mind the fact that 10th level allows a paladin to keep resist energy in effect for a good 50 minutes or the possible benefits of an aid spell attached to a hallowed area.

It's a "weak" magical amulet for a PC of the same level. It's devoting 25%+ of the resources for an NPC. I didn't say you powergamed. I simply said it was cheesy to say, "If you build the character JUST RIGHT, you get a HUGE 20 percent chance. It could EASILY happen!"

And then he has to drink the right potion, cast two of the right spells.

IT COULD EASILY HAPPEN!

Strip #285 says otherwise. So does strip #228, or #224. In strip #219, we see a perfectly valid time to be checking Belkar on the evilmeter, but she doesn't. But I suppose that's all swept away with a simple, "Yeah, but what has she done for us lately?" Well, she went to the Gate instead of going after Roy, putting duty before desire.

Your character is determined by who you are, now. And that's what we're talking about with Miko. Obviously, at one point, she was lawful good. She couldn't be a paladin, otherwise. Nobody has claimed she was evil, and always has been. That's a straw man. But when I say, "Miko ignored anyone and everyone to do whatever she wanted." I'm talking about the events right up to, and during her fall. She's becoming evil. She may not be there yet, but it's a downhill run.

And, well, she's dead. So unless they bring her back - which I think they probably will - it's kind of a moot point.

Yes, it is. "You don't have to eat the mushrooms," does not convey the same message as "Don't eat the mushrooms."

So he said, "No!" but he didn't actually mean, "No!"

He should have said, "Hell no!" or, if paladins can't do that, "Heck no!"

If you're about to do something, and someone in authority over you says, "No!" then you listen. Or your disobey them, which is what Miko did.

One paladin, who made the mistake of telling her that redemption was easy, trivializing her justly deserved punishment. That doesn't excuse her behaviour, no, but it hardly makes her Miss Killing Spree 2005 either.

How many paladins does she have to attack? She murdered Shojo, her lawful ruler, and then she tried to murder her 2nd-in-command moments later.

If someone came into your work, and murdered boss and then shot the VP, would you say, "Hey, it's not like it's a KILLING SPREE!"

If someone killed the President and then shot the head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, would you say, "It's not like it was SERIOUS or anything! C'mon!"

The inadvisable result of misunderstood information and feelings of betrayal. Again, this hardly excuses her, but it shouldn't be dismissed when viewing her character, not her guilt.

Inadvisable?

It's called evil and chaotic. That's why she's no longer a paladin.

Not proven.

Completely proven. Read the strip. She ignored him, and disobeyed him.

Prisoners, pockets of resistance, or piles of corpses? I can't tell. Even assuming you're right, however... they're not in the castle.

They are standing, which means they aren't dead.

They are alive, and standing next to a collapsing castle under piles of falling rocks. But hey, it's POSSIBLE that all of those rocks will only fall on enemies! There's probably at LEAST a .01% chance of that happening! That's HUGE!

The most irresponsible statement a person can make is, "I had no choice." You always have a choice. You just have to decide what the acceptable one is. The possible death of others, assuming either had any idea that shattering the gate would have such explosive results, was either vile or it wasn't.

O-Chul had no choice as a paladin. He had to destroy the gate if there were only the two choices of (1) letting Xykon take the gate, or (2) destroying it.

Miko was not in the same circumstance, and saw only her "grand destiny" given her by the gods. It wasn't a sacrifice. It was her attempt at glory. Self-motivated, and concerned only with furthering herself.

Nice try, though.

Not at all. It is clearly written for us.

I've heard lots of things were "clear" in this comic that later became less than clear. Unless Rich is emailing you what he plans to do with the comic, it simply remains to be seen.

No, he didnt. He said, "Had you been less hasty, however, I might have ended Xykon's threat permanently." Haste does not equate with selfishness, and let's not overlook the "might." Furthermore, Miko's actions did not force Soon to choose between keeping his sword trained on Xykon and shouting out to Miko. Don't blame his bad choice on Miko, because that was entirely his own doing, just as Xykon's evil is entirely Xykon's doing.

And what inspired her haste?

Her selfishness and desire to see herself restored.

The first part is easy: "Okay, it's not what we wanted, but it will do." The second part, the part you introduced, is an entirely wishful fabrication.

If by "fabrication" you mean "exactly what it says in the comic" then sure.

You make the false assumption that a good character cannot commit an evil act and still remain good. It's a common mistake.

I make no such assumption. I simply am not hell-bent on defending her actions in every possible way.

A good character can commit an evil act. But Miko did not merely commit one act. Her character was of the sort that couldn't recognize that she could be wrong. She could not atone. She could not seek forgiveness, or redeem herself. All she knows is duty, and she even screws THAT up. Since she is her only compass, she was headed straight toward lawful evil.

Obviously, death interrupted that.

If Miko was evil, Soon would not be permitted to associate with her. There'd be no talk of ushering her to her destination either; if she was evil, she'd have no trouble finding Hell on the way out.

Paladins are forbidden from talking to evil people while they are dying? That's stretching the word "associate" to the breaking point. I never said that she was definitely headed for hell. But she sure isn't headed for heaven. The souls of the just in many mythologies escort the good and the bad to their place of ultimate repose.

Puck

2007-06-14, 01:40 PM

Or she'll be reanimated as a zombie. That would be cool.

Or a Death Knight. That would be even cooler.

wartburg

2007-06-14, 01:49 PM

Puck...buddy...i think you have way to much time on your hands :smallwink:

Morty

2007-06-14, 01:56 PM

Or a Death Knight. That would be even cooler.

A legless Death Knight. That'd decrease Coolness Factor dramatically.

Scarab83

2007-06-14, 02:13 PM

From Soon's wording, it seems Miko is going somewhere other than to the place he and the other paladins are going. That hints that her alignment is changed, but it's not proven beyond a doubt, I guess. She could theoretically be LG and just be going to another LG place. Personally, I believe she changed to LN and is heading to one of those boring LN planes. :)

Yes! Thank you! I still can't understand why some people think ANYTHING she did over the last few panels could be considered Good as opposed to pure Lawful.

If anything, she went to a Lawful Neutral/Lawful Good afterlife. NOT a Neutral Good afterlife..

Scarab83

2007-06-14, 02:14 PM

A legless Death Knight. That'd decrease Coolness Factor dramatically.

Unless it's like.. a Death Knight with animated morningstars for legs.. :smallbiggrin:

Puck

2007-06-14, 02:17 PM

Puck...buddy...i think you have way to much time on your hands :smallwink:

You're posting in a nearly 30 page thread where people express their opinions on a webcomic designed around a niche hobby that most people consider the realm of geeks and fools.

All of us have way too much time on their hands. I just type faster than most of you.

Deathslover

2007-06-14, 02:20 PM

You're posting in a nearly 30 page thread where people express their opinions on a webcomic designed around a niche hobby that most people consider the realm of geeks and fools.

All of us have way too much time on their hands. I just type faster than most of you.

well I'm on cool geek status, at least that what I hope.:smallcool:

Deathslover

2007-06-14, 02:21 PM

oowatie

2007-06-14, 02:21 PM

A legless Death Knight. That'd decrease Coolness Factor dramatically.

Not necessarily. I seem to remember a legless, black-armor-clad, British knight from a certain Arthurian movie that threatened to "bite your kneecaps off!". I thought that was pretty cool, myself. :smallbiggrin:

aslmaster

2007-06-14, 05:38 PM

A friend and I were having a discussion about this and I wonder, if both Roy and Miko could be rezed.

Can hardly wait for the next installment.

Star

theravenzone

2007-06-14, 05:47 PM

Hrm dont know if it was already mentioned but I do remember a certain oracle... #331

Miko is dead and I hope she stays so
Windstriker is on the celestian realm and without Miko it will certainly rest there.
Roy is dead (for now let's hope he will not have to much time for a long discussion with his father)

So there's still Vaarsuvius and the Oracle but I dont think that they will return to the Oracle. Well whatever such a prediction has all the time it needs to come true.

Surfing HalfOrc

2007-06-14, 05:53 PM

I don't have my 3.5 books here with me, but I sort of remember the Planes "map" from 1st Ed... Each Plane had multiple levels as well as "Near Neighbors" to the left and right. If Celestia has three areas (rusty memory, don't freak) wouldn't the section "closest" to the Prime Material be for those who were Lawful Good all their lives, but not good enough to be paladins, while the area furthest out was for the paladins?

Miko could end up in Celestia, but more out in the reception area than in the private smoking rooms of the paladins. Windstriker could be reassigned to a new, more deserving paladin, but while in Celestia, Miko can feed Windstriker Celestial apples and Celestial cubes of sugar. That would meet Soon's "We will usher you to your destination, as well" and "He will visit you as much as he is able."

Sorry if this has been gone over already, but there are nearly 800 posts (or more by the time I type this). Just my take on this.

Alex Warlorn

2007-06-14, 06:11 PM

Her horse WOULDN'T be able to visit her if she went to the lower planes, and Soon appear so far to be a man of his word.

Puck

2007-06-14, 06:15 PM

Her horse WOULDN'T be able to visit her if she went to the lower planes...

Proof of this?

Bilbo27

2007-06-14, 06:18 PM

Ding Dong the witch is dead.

Now with that said

__Spoiler__
She will redeem herself in the afterlife by helping Roy return to the land of the living.

I'm calling it!!

consul

2007-06-14, 06:40 PM

The point, however, is that two people were standing next to the throne when it exploded. One, a high level character with a penchant for avoiding area affects rather handily, was torn in half. The other get thrown a quarter mile and survived.
Spin it how you will.

I'll have to say it wasn't powergaming, so much as the 4th wall of the comic strip showing. Look at the scene. Miko has the sword. There is a Throne. And the two characters are line art, aka 2 dimensions, aka paper.

And everyone knows, Scissors cuts Paper, Paper covers Rock. That's why it played out that way.

see

2007-06-14, 06:42 PM

So, I have some questions: Can we assume that Miko changed her allignment when she fell from grace ?
By the rules, it's possible (depending on GM judgment) to commit an evil act (thus losing paladin status) and still remain Lawful Good.

If so, am I right to believe that she won't be seeing Roy in the afterlife, because he died still as a Lawful Good and he's going to a separate plane ? Or am I assuming too much because it's strictly entitled to "Rich's cosmology design" ?
Yeah, what plane they wind up in is highly dependent on cosmology design. Even using the default D&D cosmology, an NE character could wind up on the CG plane of Olympus by being a worshiper of CE Ares, who dwells on that plane.

Shatteredtower

2007-06-14, 07:08 PM

20 percent is not "easily."We're talking at cross-purposes. You think I'm talking about how likely the event is to happen. I'm talking about the fact that rolling between 17 and 20 on a 20-sided die isn't going to come as that much of a shock. It's easy to imagine it happening.

Better?

That's called "extremely unlikely."No, it's not. Extremely unlikely is such that you wouldn't bother rolling, such as when you're told you need to roll 20 seven times in a row uninterrupted. People will roll for that double 20, despite the 1 in 400 chance, even the triple 20 in games where that's an auto-kill, because the effort is worth it to them, but 1 in 640,000,000? Admittedly, that goes beyond extremely unlikely, but it's a little bit closer to the mark than 1 in 5. :smallwink:

A 14 Con and a 15 Cha on a 25 point buy NPC is devoting 56% of the stat resources he has for six stats to those which will allow him to survive this particular incident.Puck, by the DMG, the typical NPC paladin is already devoting 56% of his stat resources to Charisma and Constitution. Knowing a point off Cha to add two to Con changes nothing, you realize.

Devoting 56% of his resources to a single magic item to allow him to survive...It's not 56%. It's 56% after you've equipped him with +1 full plate (2,650 gp), a +1 heavy steel shield (+1,170 gp), a +1 ring of protection (2000 gp), a +1 weapon (2300 gp+), and a masterwork ranged weapon (300 gp+). That makes it 4000 gp out of 16,120, or a little bit less than 25% of his total resources. That's a reasonable percentage for one item.

Incidentally, he doesn't even need the amulet. Just the potion and the 14 Con would have been enough. :smallwink:

And, with this nice uber Fort save you've given him, he still can't make the Fort save of a paralyzing touch?The DC on the paralyzing touch is at least 27. Even a +20 on the Fort save would have failed 30% of the time, at best.

Right, that potion that we didn't see him take. And the amulet we don't see him wearing.The amulet could be anything else, but hey, it would still work without the amulet. As for the potion, that's covered under off-screen action. We don't need to see it. We don't need to know what his Reflex save modifier is either. All that matters is that he has one and that it was plausible for him to have the means and incentive, as well as a convenient time, to improve it. All three conditions are fulfilled. This does not mean O-Chul necessarily had such an item, but it doesn't have to.

It's not cheesy in the sense of powergaming cheesy. It's cheesy in the sense of, "Wow, this is super duper likely!"The word is plausible. O-Chul having a slightly better Con and slightly lower Cha than average? Why not? A 10th level paladin carrying a potion of eagle's splendor? Sensible purchase, that.

The wish is in creating an extremely unlikely scenario, and then calling it likely when the best you can realistically come up with is 20 percent.The scenario is just one way he could have survived that within the rules. That's all I need, a simple one off the top of my head, and I even overprepared him. Knowing that he had a 20% of coming through is all that matters. It doesn't matter that he had an 80% chance of failing. All that matters is that the results we see were entirely possible within the rules.

Note that I never said it was impossible.You made it abundantly clear earlier that there was no way he'd have survived in an actual game. I showed how it was possible within the rules for this character to survive even a difficult environmental DC (at least by the standards the source books tend to use) and the peak damage such conditions dish out

If the character was specifically created to survive this one event in his life...No, it's "If O-Chul was designed with an eye to making him a little tougher than average to take down through straight hit point attrition..."

...and the DM only rolled average......as opposed to say, below average.

...and followed your rather optimistic appraisal of the events...Say you're a paladin with a few thousand gp lying about, about to face a powerful evil spellcaster. Is a potion that lets you increase your chance of successfully smiting him, to say nothing of improving your chances against the spells he'll use, a good investment of 300 gp? If not, explain why it's not.

You're specifically designing a paladin to survive only this particular encounter, devoting a vast amount of NPC resources for it in order to achieve a twenty percent chance as opposed to a five percent chance, and then sitting back all smug as if you proved something.I showed one way that even a 10th level paladin designed to take a 10% more hp damage than normal (in exchange for losing out on his saving throws and smiting ability) could have believably survived this challenge with only minimal preparation. I even added a little bit of overkill with the amulet, which was not an excessively expensive acquisition for this character.

You, on the other hand, have tried to argue the numbers while maintaining that the only thing that matters is what the Giant decides happened. Isn't that a little bit silly?

And then he has to drink the right potion, cast two of the right spells.He doesn't need the spells. They're just other means by which he'd have improved his odds. I mean, when you get right down to it, he doesn't even need the potion or the amulet. All they do is elevate a 5% chance to 20%, which is a far cry from being entirely dependent on the DM's whim to survive, as was claimed earlier.

Nobody has claimed she was evil, and always has been.Allow me to refer to post #566, where you wrote:

Miko isn't anti-social. She's evil. She's simply Lawful Evil as opposed to Belkar's Chaotic Evil.Yes, I see that bit after the comma, and it's true you never claimed that she's always been evil. So you never claimed she'd always been evil. Even so, aside from the minutes in which she lost it, she was otherwise behaving in the same fashion she'd been doing before her fall.

She's becoming evil.Nope. Oh, there's a risk of it, but the path out of a good alignment is not as clear as you'd like to believe. Miko knew she was wrong to kill Shojo, or she'd never have gone looking for excuses to blame it on Roy. That was irresponsible of her, but still an admission of guilt.

So he said, "No!" but he didn't actually mean, "No!"Ah, but did he mean, "No! Miko, stop!" or "No, Xykon! You shall not escape! Miko, you don't have to help me!" hmm?

Well, you and I know he meant the former, but we've got audience privilege.

If you're about to do something, and someone in authority over you says, "No!" then you listen.If you have reason to believe that they are saying it to you. I've seen more than a few cases in which such a poorly chosen word by someone in command really gummed things up. Ideally, she'd have known. Second best is thinking he meant, "No, you don't have to sacrifice yourself!" and then there's also the possibility of not having heard what was said.

You don't believe she couldn't have heard him? Physically, there's no reason the sound would not have carried that far, but people focused on a critical task often do blot out all distractions. There's nothing evil about that. Regrettable, certainly.

How many paladins does she have to attack?To entitle you to pluralize the word in the charges against her? More than one. That is not a quibble.

She was going to murder Shojo, her lawful ruler, and then her 2nd in command in less than a few minutes.See, she did murder Shojo. Hinjo? Not so much. It was possible that she would have, but there's no proof that beating him within an inch of his life would not have sufficed. Then again, he harboured evil by defending Belkar -- and getting in her way. Doesn't excuse her for beating on him, but there it is. In any case, one dead is not a killing spree.

It's called evil and chaotic. That's why she's no longer a paladin.Assuming that the act was either evil or chaotic, and I believe it was, it was therefore inadvisable for a paladin. It puts her where MacBeth (in the play, of course, not history) was after the first murder, not the end. It certainly didn't put her in a position where she was likely to follow his road to slaughter.

They are standing, which means they aren't dead.I don't see any proof that they're standing. I don't even have any proof their not zombies. They are grey, you know.

O-Chul had no choice as a paladin.O-Chul had a choice. He could have defended the gate to his last, hoping that someone else would come to its defense if given enough time. As we can see, someone did do exactly that.

Miko was not in the same circumstance, and saw only her "grand destiny" given her by the gods.Miko, being a pious sort (to the point of sanctimonius, I'll grant you), saw the god's hands in everything, yet never blamed them. So let's take another look at what she saw.

She saw the weakening of her prison as a sign from the gods that she should try to esape. Clearly, this meant she was clear to track down Belkar (who was running free again) and the man who'd defend such evil from justice (Roy).

Except... duty called her away from that task. Note that she offered no excuses to justify going after the Order of the Stick anyway. How could she know her destiny lay in front of her at that point?

Well, it was pretty obvious when she reached the throne room, wasn't it? I mean, there was O-Chul, last corporeal paladin standing, clearly unable to finish the task given to him -- a task that mirrored perfectly the event that caused her to fall in the first place. To one that believes the gods point the way, that sort of symmetry is blindingly obvious.

The gods needed her strength, Shojo had told her long ago. Believing that, it becomes hard to believe that they'd just cast her aside. So she left messages and waited for a reply -- and when they finally called her, she raced to answer.

I mean, it's all so clear: she was made to fall so that she'd not only arrive in time to destroy the gate, but also so that she'd recognize what she was meant to do in O-Chul's position.

Please note that if he had not attempted to destroy the Gate -- which he did not need to do, by the way -- her course would not have been so clear. It's certainly more clear than the meaning of Soon's cry of, "No! Miko, you don't have to--"

This is, of course, only what Miko saw. I'm not blaming O-Chul for the choice she made either, though his absence would likely have seen her seek out a rematch with the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle. (Remember, this is single-minded Miko, obsessed with addressing Nonetheless, when you serve gods you know to work in subtle ways, it is not in the least unreasonable to see things as Miko did at that moment. She was, after all, working with more than a statement such as, "When the goat turns, red strikes true." :smallwink:

And what inspired her haste?Forty dead paladins, the ease with which the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle was mopping up their spirits, and the knowledge that Xykon was a formidable foe does not sound like the sort of scene that prompts a person to say, "Uh, I need to go think about this for awhile."

I mean, she stopped long enough to take the scene in, as evidenced by the goggled expression before she walked into the room. Her conclusion was wrong, mainly because she'd yet to accept responsibility for her actions, but the alternative holds up rather well for someone taught to look for signs from the gods (no matter how bad she is at reading them) and to believe that the gods needed her strength.

If by "fabrication" you mean "exactly what it says in the comic" then sure.Soon didn't say that at all. What he said was that he was fading back to the the Celestial Realm, not, "the Celestial Realm with detours along the way." He said that Windstriker was waiting for her, not, "waiting to go see her."

If plane-hopping was as easy as that for a horse without the ability to do so on his own, surely he didn't have to wait for her to die before paying a visit.

But Miko did not merely commit one act.I'm not sure she's committed any evil acts. Oh, I believe that killing Shojo was evil, but I'm willing to consider David Argall's alternative explanation, which certainly fits the bill as well.

However, attacking Hinjo was not evil. If it had been evil, she'd have lost her paladin status for attacking Roy -- with the intention of killing him -- the first time they met. "Honest mistake" doesn't cut it. :smallwink:

Her character was of the sort that couldn't recognize that she could be wrong. She could not atone. She could not seek forgiveness, or redeem herself. Soon said otherwise. He said she hadn't. He didn't say it was impossible for her. At most, he said it wasn't certain she'd ever be able to do it.

Paladins are forbidden from talking to evil people while they are dying?Not just that. There's also the matter of giving her a lift to her next destination. His expression and words do not indicate that she's been transported as part of a prison detail, nor that he's got shipping rights to other destinations.

Soon and the other forty paladins in the hall have the card that reads, "Go to Celestial Realm. Go directly to the Celestial Realm. Do not pass Nirvana. Do not collect 200 gp." Windstriker is waiting for her. The simplest explanation of Soon's words is that Miko is heaven-bound. She might be crawling in by the skin of her teeth, destined for a few very centuries of lessons in humility, but it's still the option that fits events most closely.

xyzchyx

2007-06-14, 07:26 PM

A good character can commit an evil act. But Miko did not merely commit one act. Her character was of the sort that couldn't recognize that she could be wrong. She could not atone. She could not seek forgiveness, or redeem herself. All she knows is duty, and she even screws THAT up. Since she is her only compass, she was headed straight toward lawful evil. Foolish is not the same thing as evil. You point out her character flaws, which are indefenceable to be sure, and they certainly make her somebody that nobody would ever want to be around, but they do NOT make someone evil... or even headed down that path. The only actual _evil_ thing that Miko ever did was to kill Shojo. Not that I defend that action of course, but one evil action, even when accompanied by an exasperatingly irritating personalty, does not make her or anyone else evil... or even shift their alignment. Particularly since in spite of all her misplaced arrogance, her actual _intentions_ were always, in fact, to do the right thing and to do good. In fact, the consistency with which she comes to wrong conclusions without considering alternative explanations is one of the strongest indicators that it is Miko's wisdom that was lax... not her values.

Now that doesn't mean I'm saying it's okay for her to have acted the way she did. There are always going to be consequences for one's actions, and Miko's certainly faced about the limit of hers. But foolish is not the same as evil. It's just foolish.

Puck

2007-06-14, 07:33 PM

The only actual _evil_ thing that Miko ever did was to kill Shojo. Not that I defend that action of course, but one evil action, even when accompanied by an exasperatingly irritating personalty, does not make her or anyone else evil or even shift their alignment...

She tried to murder a lawful paladin in good standing with the gods who lawfully arrested her.

She tried to murder Roy. She just wasn't successful.

She also tried to murder Belkar, who had been tried in the courts and convicted. He was unarmed, unable to fight back and simply stood there.

Murder is unlawful killing. She is a murderer who would have a much larger body count, presently, if she had her way.

Particularly since in spite of all her misplaced arrogance, her actual _intentions_ were always, in fact, to do the right thing and to do good. In fact, the consistency with which she comes to wrong conclusions without considering alternative explanations is one of the strongest indicators that it is Miko's wisdom that was lax... not her values.

As Soon pointed out, goodness is more than duty or intention. It is also mercy, compassion, and atonement.

Now that doesn't mean I'm saying it's okay for her to have acted the way she did. There are always going to be consequences for one's actions, and Miko's certainly faced about the limit of hers. But foolish is not the same as evil. It's just foolish.

I'd say Miko's primary fault was not merely foolishness. Her actions were unquestionably evil.

rosebud

2007-06-14, 07:38 PM

Evidently, his character did nothing his entire life but prepare to be thrown from an explosion, and survive!Well, he also had to tend to Mr. Scruffy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0403.html), but that should not have taxed his stats too heavily. :smallwink:

The wish is in creating an extremely unlikely scenario, and then calling it likely when the best you can realistically come up with is 20 percent.Deus ex machina is a common technique in literature. This just has the added benefit of possibility, even if the God decreed that this would be so. So, for one person on this board, that makes him happy with the God of this land. For you, the true believer, all you require is that the God wanted it so, and it was so. See, both people happy! :smallsmile:

DragonTounge

2007-06-14, 07:39 PM

Well i was thinking since Roy and Miko are both Lawful Good I bet Rich will do a comic with them meeting in the after life.

Puck

2007-06-14, 07:49 PM

No, it's not. Extremely unlikely is such that you wouldn't bother rolling, such as when you're told you need to roll 20 seven times in a row uninterrupted. People will roll for that double 20, despite the 1 in 400 chance, even the triple 20 in games where that's an auto-kill, because the effort is worth it to them, but 1 in 640,000,000? Admittedly, that goes beyond extremely unlikely, but it's a little bit closer to the mark than 1 in 5. :smallwink:

Okay, so you consider playing Russian Roulette with one chamber out of 5 to be good odds. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on that, especially since you have to stack the deck to get that.

Puck, by the DMG, the typical NPC paladin is already devoting 56% of his stat resources to Charisma and Constitution. Knowing a point off Cha to add two to Con changes nothing, you realize.

And it's all part of, "And he must have chugged a potion just as Xykon came through the window" and "He must have used Lay on Hands while he was spinning thorugh the air." Yes, I know.

It's not 56%. It's 56% after you've equipped him with +1 full plate (2,650 gp), a +1 heavy steel shield (+1,170 gp), a +1 ring of protection (2000 gp), a +1 weapon (2300 gp+), and a masterwork ranged weapon (300 gp+). That makes it 4000 gp out of 16,120, or a little bit less than 25% of his total resources. That's a reasonable percentage for one item. Incidentally, he doesn't even need the amulet. Just the potion and the 14 Con would have been enough. :smallwink:

I already change the numbers on that a long time ago, sport. Due try and keep up.

The DC on the paralyzing touch is at least 27. Even a +20 on the Fort save would have failed 30% of the time, at best.

Right, because Rich tells you exactly how he stats out his creations. I forgot about that.

The amulet could be anything else, but hey, it would still work without the amulet. As for the potion, that's covered under off-screen action. We don't need to see it. We don't need to know what his Reflex save modifier is either. All that matters is that he has one and that it was plausible for him to have the means and incentive, as well as a convenient time, to improve it. All three conditions are fulfilled. This does not mean O-Chul necessarily had such an item, but it doesn't have to.

Dude, whatever floats your boat. It's still bloody unlikely, even WITH your unlikely stipulations.

The scenario is just one way he could have survived that within the rules. That's all I need, a simple one off the top of my head, and I even overprepared him. Knowing that he had a 20% of coming through is all that matters. It doesn't matter that he had an 80% chance of failing. All that matters is that the results we see were entirely possible within the rules.

And that would be pretty damning if I'd said it was IMPOSSIBLE. I didn't.

In fact, you can solve it MORE easily by saying he had a Ring of Feather Fall.

2,200 gp

Problem solved.

And it even makes sense.

You made it abundantly clear earlier that there was no way he'd have survived in an actual game. I showed how it was possible within the rules for this character to survive even a difficult environmental DC (at least by the standards the source books tend to use) and the peak damage such conditions dish out

No, actually, you dealt with slightly below average. Not the peak.

You, on the other hand, have tried to argue the numbers while maintaining that the only thing that matters is what the Giant decides happened. Isn't that a little bit silly?

And, while agreeing with me that the only thing that matters is what the Giant decides, you're arguing the numbers.

Welcome to Sillyville. Population 2.

Ah, but did he mean, "No! Miko, stop!" or "No, Xykon! You shall not escape! Miko, you don't have to help me!" hmm?

That's just downright retarded, I'm sorry.

You don't believe she couldn't have heard him? Physically, there's no reason the sound would not have carried that far, but people focused on a critical task often do blot out all distractions. There's nothing evil about that. Regrettable, certainly.

People talking is a Listen check DC 0.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/listen.htm

Think she failed it?

You sure do like ignoring the rules when it doesn't suit your purpose.

See, she did murder Shojo. Hinjo? Not so much. It was possible that she would have, but there's no proof that beating him within an inch of his life would not have sufficed. Then again, he harboured evil by defending Belkar -- and getting in her way. Doesn't excuse her for beating on him, but there it is. In any case, one dead is not a killing spree.

It certainly wasn't for lack of trying on her part.

Of course she didn't murder Hinjo, because he's still alive.

Assuming that the act was either evil or chaotic, and I believe it was, it was therefore inadvisable for a paladin. It puts her where MacBeth (in the play, of course, not history) was after the first murder, not the end. It certainly didn't put her in a position where she was likely to follow his road to slaughter.

She tried to kill her lawful leader, Roy, Belkar and Hinjo in the space of a few rounds. If she didn't accomplish those things, that doesn't change what she did, or who she is.

I don't see any proof that they're standing. I don't even have any proof their not zombies. They are grey, you know.

No proof? Besides the fact that they are wearing open-faced helmets, have flesh-colored skin, are all standing and are different from the round grey dots that are zombies?

Come on, man. This is weak sauce. It's a lost point. Let it go.

I mean, she stopped long enough to take the scene in, as evidenced by the goggled expression before she walked into the room. Her conclusion was wrong, mainly because she'd yet to accept responsibility for her actions, but the alternative holds up rather well for someone taught to look for signs from the gods (no matter how bad she is at reading them) and to believe that the gods needed her strength.

She had time to monologue, but not to think?

If plane-hopping was as easy as that for a horse without the ability to do so on his own, surely he didn't have to wait for her to die before paying a visit.

Soon did say, "When he is able."

I'm not sure she's committed any evil acts.

And there are people who refuse to consider Belkar evil.

*shrug*

However, attacking Hinjo was not evil. If it had been evil, she'd have lost her paladin status for attacking Roy -- with the intention of killing him -- the first time they met. "Honest mistake" doesn't cut it. :smallwink:

Except that Hinjo was a lawful paladin in good standing with their gods who arrested her, and willfully put away his weapon to speak with her. That's not the actions of a paladin. That is the action of a Blackguard.

Not just that. There's also the matter of giving her a lift to her next destination. His expression and words do not indicate that she's been transported as part of a prison detail, nor that he's got shipping rights to other destinations.

Where she ends up remains to be seen.

Soon and the other forty paladins in the hall have the card that reads, "Go to Celestial Realm. Go directly to the Celestial Realm. Do not pass Nirvana. Do not collect 200 gp." Windstriker is waiting for her. The simplest explanation of Soon's words is that Miko is heaven-bound. She might be crawling in by the skin of her teeth, destined for a few very centuries of lessons in humility, but it's still the option that fits events most closely.

And if that's what Rich shows, then I'll certainly believe it.

There are other equally possible destinations for her soul which are .... ready? .... plausible.

xyzchyx

2007-06-14, 07:50 PM

[Miko] is a murderer who would have a much larger body count, presently, if she had her way.Except she DIDN'T have her way.... so instead of her actions, we can only judge her intent. And her intent, was, in fact, to do the right thing and to do good.... to simply carry out the will of the gods as best as she was able.

I'd say Miko's primary fault was not merely foolishness. Her actions were unquestionably evil.Miko did one evil thing: killing Shojo. TRYING to do something that would be unquestionably evil if successful cannot by itself be considered as an evil act unless it is accompanied by evil intent. If it were not so, Miko would have fallen LONG before she actually did.

Puck

2007-06-14, 07:50 PM

Well, he also had to tend to Mr. Scruffy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0403.html), but that should not have taxed his stats too heavily. :smallwink:

Heh.

Deus ex machina is a common technique in literature. This just has the added benefit of possibility, even if the God decreed that this would be so. So, for one person on this board, that makes him happy with the God of this land. For you, the true believer, all you require is that the God wanted it so, and it was so. See, both people happy! :smallsmile:

Actually, if you'll note, I'm saying that the Deus ex machina is precisely what happened here, except that it was the decree of a god who, in this universe, stands above even the 12 gods of the pantheon: Rich himself. Amen.

Puck

2007-06-14, 07:53 PM

Except she DIDN'T have her way.... so instead of her actions, we can only judge her intent. And her intent, was, in fact, to do the right thing and to do good.... to simply carry out the will of the gods as best as she was able.

So you consider the 9/11 terrorists good because they meant well? They were serving God, in their minds.

When all the flights were grounded that day, authorities are fairly certain that other cells were stopped in their mission.

Do you consider those who were stopped absolved of any guilt because some cells failed to execute their task?

Storm

2007-06-14, 08:04 PM

I just couldn't wait to say this: YAY MIKOS DEAD! MIKOS DEAD! YAY YAY YAY YAHOOOOO FINALLY!!!!! :smallbiggrin: :smallsmile: :smallbiggrin: :smallsmile: :smallbiggrin: :smallsmile: :smallbiggrin: :smallsmile: :smalltongue: IF SHE EVER COMES BACK IM GOING TO WRITE RICH A LETTER SAYYING TO KILL HER AGAIN BUT MORE PAINFULLY AND MORE SLOWLY, AND THEN NEVVVVER BRRRINGGG HERR BAAACK AGAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I must sing!

Joy to the world, Miko is dead,
she got blown up in half!
Dont worry bout her body
its getting eaten by goblins
And now she'll burn eternally
and now she'll burn eternally
And nowoooowooooow oooow oooow oooow
Shes dead for good!!!!!!

xyzchyx

2007-06-14, 08:05 PM

So you consider the 9/11 terrorists good because they meant well?Comparing D&D ethicality to the real world is an exercise in futility and I refuse to get into an argument about it. My statement is formed around the simple observation that if it were not as I had assessed, Miko would have fallen LONG before she actually did.

I hereby coin a new argument terminology "Reducto ad 9/11", which I propose should be similar in premise to "Reducto ad Hitler", but compares things to the 9-11 situation instead of the events of World War II.

Puck

2007-06-14, 08:10 PM

Comparing D&D ethicality to the real world is an exercise in futility and I refuse to get into an argument about it. My statement is formed around the simple observation that if it were not as I had assessed, Miko would have fallen LONG before she actually did. I hereby coin a new argument terminology "Reducto ad 9/11", which I propose should be similar in premise to "Reducto ad Hitler", but compares things to the 9-11 situation instead of the events of World War II.

Translation:

Crap! If you answer that question consistently, you already know what the answer is.

Nice try, Neo. But Godwin's Law ain't gonna help you, here.

David Argall

2007-06-14, 09:33 PM

Miko knew she was wrong to kill Shojo, or she'd never have gone looking for excuses to blame it on Roy. That was irresponsible of her, but still an admission of guilt.
She was likely looking for excuses at this point, but she did have a "case" against Roy and it was not an admission of guilt. She "knew" that Roy had lied about killing the lich, and now she discovers him in deeply illegal conspiracy with Shojo. "Obviously" he is deeply involved.

See, she did murder Shojo. Hinjo? Not so much. It was possible that she would have, but there's no proof that beating him within an inch of his life would not have sufficed. Then again, he harboured evil by defending Belkar -- and getting in her way. Doesn't excuse her for beating on him, but there it is. In any case, one dead is not a killing spree.
Unfortunately we have to give her "points" for trying. There is no sign she was going to stop before Hinjo was hamburger. I suppose we can mention attacking Belkar too, tho given the nature of the little monster, offing him is likely a good deed. But as Hinjo said, she had lost it at this point. We can give her some slack with a plea of temporary/permanent insanity.

I'm not sure she's committed any evil acts. Oh, I believe that killing Shojo was evil, but I'm willing to consider David Argall's alternative explanation, which certainly fits the bill as well.
An apparent misunderstanding I will try to correct. Killing Shojo was definitely evil. It was not treason, or otherwise a violation of any duty she owed Shoto. Shoto was clearly guilty of crimes that negated any such relationship.
But there was no need to kill him, nor serious evidence that he was in fact guilty of a crime that merited the death penalty [a point that the paladins might question, but one that needs settling at a trial, not quickly.] Indeed, looking over Miko's comments, we find suggestions she killed because of the lies he told her, not because any flaw in his duty. Being a poor "daddy" is not a capital offense. Accordingy we have to wonder if there was even the beginnings of sufficient motive. We can again extend mercy on the grounds of emotional overload, but that merely means we deem the crime less of a crime, not that it is not a crime.

However, attacking Hinjo was not evil. If it had been evil, she'd have lost her paladin status for attacking Roy -- with the intention of killing him -- the first time they met. "Honest mistake" doesn't cut it. :smallwink:
Not at all. She had sufficient grounds for assuming Roy was an evil criminal resisting arrest. And given the existing combat situation, accepting surrender once combat had started was clearly dangerous.

Soon and the other forty paladins in the hall have the card that reads, "Go to Celestial Realm. Go directly to the Celestial Realm. Do not pass Nirvana. Do not collect 200 gp."
Strictly, that should be "Do not pay 200 gp." as the card would be considered a bonus, not a penalty.

She tried to kill her lawful leader, Roy, Belkar and Hinjo in the space of a few rounds. If she didn't accomplish those things, that doesn't change what she did, or who she is.
Shoto was no longer her leader and, as she had just discovered, wasn't at all lawful. Roy attacked her, and she retreated when she had a good chance. Killing Belkar sounds like a good deed in most cirumstances. And Hinjo refused to get out of her way. Not at all a non-evil attack still, but definitely of lesser evil.

Alfryd

2007-06-15, 06:36 AM

One presumes Soon simply has maxxed ranks in diplomacy and a scarily high cha score.

Of course, an interesting problem with Miko being raised is that, if she does remain substantially involved in the plotline, she's not going to be able to advance in levels until and unless she's redeemed or goes blackguard. I can't really see her redemption in the near future, and she's only 2 levels beyond the Order by this point (less, after level loss from being raised.)
If she's going to be able to compete with the kind of hazards the Order will face by the time they approach Epic-level, as an antagonist or otherwise, she'll probably need her powers restored within 400 strips or so.

What means, though?
I don't know. However, Rich has stated that Miko will be popping up at intervals throughout the story, and I can't think of any very compelling reason fro her to do so unless she's alive. She doesn't have a blood oath or vital information to share like Eugene. So, a Rez will very very likely be forthcoming.

Why would he put Miko ahead of any other paladin in the Sapphire Guard? That pile of corpses isn't likely to leave that much of a clue as to which one of them destroyed the gate. O-Chul could tell him, but that would remove the necessity to bring her back, since O-Chul was there at the end and was more likely to have heard about Xykon's weakness than Miko.
Because she's the only body available which wasn't vapourised by the explosion?
Without access to True Resurrection, options are limited, and Destruction took care of the High priest of the Twelve Gods, so *he* can't be raised.
In addition, O-chul's testimony might... just conceivably... work in Miko's favour. Hinjo might interpret Miko's actions as some slight token of good behaviour.

Can't see why not. Miko's an overachiever. She has never settled for less than doing her best -- even when that's not been the best thing to do.
Sure, if she gets a Raise she both can and will take advantage of the chance to return, but she may not be enthusiastic about it in the strictest sense. I don't know. It's just a vague hunch. if Durkon does the honours, it might go some way toward establishing good relations.

I've seen Miko's lack of repentant words on her deathbed criticized, but I see this as a good thing.
She admitted, by implication, that she wasn't a paladin anymore. Previously she had denied this, so that's good. I also find the phrase 'I can live with that' (though it might be just black humour) revealing- it suggests there were things she couldn't live with. It's also notable that she urged Soon to take out Xykon, rather than waste time talking with her as she's dying.

Alfryd

2007-06-15, 06:43 AM

Miko isn't funny. She is humourless. In Britain, that gets you shot. I guess elsewhere it's a punishable offence, too, going by the reactions.
She *can* be funny, it's just difficult to make her hilarious in isolation.

Reincarnation also works, but the only living Druid seen in OotS was once working for the Linear Guild, and I very much doubt people would like Miko the same as a Bugbear.
A half-elf has distinct potential, though. Oh yes... Oh me, oh my, yes.
Besides, don't knock Bugbears. +4 to str and 2 to dex and con is not to be sneezed at.

In fact, she said she could live with that. I think that means she'll be satisfied in the Celestial realm and won't want to come back.
Possibly. Then again, she might want to take an opportunity to atone for herself. It's hard to say.

RIP, Miko. I hope you meet Roy in the afterlife, and have a nice chat with him. Maybe you can start the road to redemption by being polite, and apologizing to him for your actions towards him.
I'm afraid the odds of this are poor. Miko still has quasi-rational reasons to suspect Roy of collusion with Xykon, though being dead and on the same plane as Miko herself might soften her attitude slightly.

All one or two of them? Everyone but Hinjo was in the throne room, and only O'Chul survived the massacre in a non-dead state.
Many members of the sapphire guard were away, and the low-level members were among the general soldiery. They may well still be alive.

Had the OOTS done anything at all really useful since the siege started?
They killed a bunch of hobgoblins, but that's about it. I don't think Durkon's seen a lot of action yet, though.

Don't think of it as Tsukiko trying to kill Redcloak; think of it as her trying to get him to change the one annoying personal flaw that keeps him from being her ideal sweetie.
Good call.

They're either bratty sisters or evil seducers or unhinged paladins, and I recall Roy's taunting of Miko in a fight being decidedly anti-woman. If a female is a positive character, like Celia, there's people on the boards who trash her because she's a slut for sleeping with Roy.
What about the men? They're either psychopath midgets or suave serial killers or manipulative frauds or retarded liabilities. If a male is a positive character, like Roy, there's people on the boards who trash him because he's a chauvenist bigot for taunting Miko, who'd beaten him within an inch of his life twice over.

Nice site, thanks for these. I have a new archive to browse instead of getting some sleep, hurray!
Sleep? I remember sleep. It's this... thing?.. I used to do before the internet...

Alfryd

2007-06-15, 06:46 AM

...blood and guts of the people she's just illegally and evilly slaughtered...
You mean 1?

She tried to kill her lawful leader, Roy, Belkar and Hinjo in the space of a few rounds. If she didn't accomplish those things, that doesn't change what she did, or who she is.
No, it doesn't, though strictly speaking we don't know for certain if she intended to execute Roy on the spot. 'Bring him to justice' by violent means, certainly, and I doubt she'd have used nonlethal damage, but perhaps not neccesarily kill.
On the other hand, based on Rich's comments, she had been pushed to point of 'wanting to kill Good and Neutral characters' just after the courtroom scene.

She was not guilty of high treason, merely of murder of a prisoner who was guilty of a large number of crimes that authorized a life in prison, if not execution. Shojo had ceased to be her, or anybody's, lord with the discovery of all his lies.
Good point.

I'm not sure she's committed any evil acts.
Oh, come on. Her increasingly tenuous rationalisations aren't sufficient to justify her treatments of Shojo and Hinjo, the latter of which had done exactly nothing to deserve that kind of treatment.

Killing Belkar sounds like a good deed in most cirumstances. And Hinjo refused to get out of her way.

However, attacking Hinjo was not evil. If it had been evil, she'd have lost her paladin status for attacking Roy -- with the intention of killing him -- the first time they met. "Honest mistake" doesn't cut it.
Actually, it does. Killing Roy might have been a different matter. But wanting to attack, and kill, a Lawful Good character who has done nothing to deserve death and when dealing nonlethal damage or simply fleeing were trivial options, is an evil kind of act. This was Miko's express intent, whatever flimsy excuses she might conjure to cover her existential ass.
The only situation where you might be able to justify cutting down Hinjo would be if Belkar were an imminent threat to the lives of many more innocents, and only immediate lethal force against Hinjo could reasonably prevent those deaths. That was not the case here by a long shot.

Murder is unlawful killing. She is a murderer who would have a much larger body count, presently, if she had her way.
Define 'unlawful'. Do you mean 'inconsistent' or 'illegal'? In which case, inconsistent with what, and illegal by what legal code?

Just had a vague feeling of, '...and thats what you get, you idiot.'
Miko could be called a lot of things. Stupid wouldn't be one of 'em, though.
Yes, she probably had it coming. But the fact that she accepts it without undue fuss and bother counts for something.

I dunno, I would have thought the murderous inclinations and egomania were her biggest flaw. But, y'know, thats just me.
Both were closely related to single-mindedness. She sets a goal in mind and ignores or demolishes anything that would impede attaining that goal. People, rules, her feelings, small-to-medium mountain ranges- the list goes on.

What a lot of people tend to forget is that Miko had essentially no close friends, no relatives, and no anonymous support group to tide her over during periods of stress. The only thing that gets you through that kind of lifestyle is myopic devotion to a particular goal, a titanic ego, or both.

And I don't so much see how having that recognition [of pathos] was any 'earthly' use to those charged with stopping her from committing more evil acts...
Oh, I don't know. Conceivably because it would have made it possible for someone with enough ranks in diplomacy to talk her down? Or possibly to predict her behaviour well enough in advance that she could be stopped before commiting atrocities?

Miko knew she was wrong to kill Shojo, or she'd never have gone looking for excuses to blame it on Roy. That was irresponsible of her, but still an admission of guilt.
So, her efforts to pass the buck meant she was accepting responsibility?

But the point is, and the point remains, that the world is a worse place because of Miko's actions. She put herself above anyone else, and no matter how you slice that or equivocate, that's evil. Her actions had consequences, and those consequences are evil.

And what inspired her haste?
Her selfishness and desire to see herself restored.
Selfishness would have been to pursue and punish the Order to the exclusion of all other concerns. In addition, Miko may have been aware that she was running considerable personal risks by entering the throne room and smashing the gem. If so, I don't think that accepting those risks for an outcome that doesn't directly benefit her could reasonably be construed as selfish.
Sure, she values being a Paladin. And Roy values being LG. Does that make Roy's efforts at attaining LG status 'selfish'? That makes no sense. Seeking to redeem herself in the eyes of the Gods at the cost of her own life can't reasonably be termed malicious.

Since she is her only compass, she was headed straight toward lawful evil.
If you're trying to argue that Miko's fall was an inevitable biproduct of her pre-existing attitudes, I think you would do well to consider the train of deceit, manipulation and outrageous unlikelihood that contributed to her decisions. Yes, Miko has often done her best to make a bad situation worse, but I don't think an accusation of moral determinism holds up.
Moreover, Miko has gone out of her way to help threatened innocents on a couple of occasions, a habit which we have no compelling evidence to suppose she would abandon, even when consumed by vengeance and incapable of admitting fault.

As Soon pointed out, Miko has shown herself remarkably unable to learn anything.
Untrue. Miko is remarkably good at adapting tactics and assimilating information whenever her brain isn't clouded by rage and anguish. For whatever that may be worth.

They escaped because of her pride. Every person who dies at their hands can be laid at her feet. Everyone who suffers because of their evil is her fault, too.
This is rediculous. If you're going to argue that Miko is evil because an act she performed in an effort to keep the Gate out of evil hands makes her evil due to consequences she could not forsee and are not her direct fault, then Elan is evil for allowing his treacherous brother to escape death on several occasions, and Roy is evil for not executing Samantha at the first opportunity.

Uh... no. Soon allowed them to escape. He did so in an unsuccessful bid to save Miko's life, but the choice to let them escape was still his.
I think he may have been partly concerned that the gem's destruction would render him unable to finish off the main villains, (though I don't see why he couldn't just shout out while keeping them pinned.) Perhaps you are right. Soon would almost certainly be aware that the Gate's destruction would likely kill Miko (and O-chul.)

Miko had no cause to assume that destroying the gate would cause that kind of physical damage to the castle or anyone in it. None.
Of course, if she had, it would be an excellent way to destroy the primary villains. Hmm.

Paladins are forbidden from talking to evil people while they are dying? That's stretching the word "associate" to the breaking point.
I think that offering them solace and comfort and escort to the next world could hardly be called anything other than association, actually.

Even Belkar gets a passing mark as neutral, from some. That doesn't mean a whole lot.
Yeah, but Soon is a paladin. And not Fallen, I would add.

Miko isn't anti-social. She's evil. She's simply Lawful Evil as opposed to Belkar's Chaotic Evil.

...we see nothing in her character... ...that makes anyone think she's anywhere good.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46832

Alfryd

2007-06-15, 06:51 AM

Let's not overstate things. O-Chul would not have survived any sort of nuclear explosion.
Not anything resembling modern bombs, certainly, but those would literally have vapourised anything with a mile. Even hiroshima/nagasaki would have levelled the castle completely and demolished the walls. But yes, there's no way in hell O-chul could survive that.

I put Miko at 15 levels of paladin to give her a +5 bonus on her Reflex save...
Miko can't be higher than paladin 14/monk 2, or she'd get 4 attacks with her primary weapon.

Dude. Admit it. The whole thing was a DM fiat. I have no problem with that, either, but trying to argue that someone could have been thrown a quarter mile from an explosion like that while paralyzed, and survived? That's weak sauce.
Oh, yes, absolutely.

First, a 14 Con is not "maxed out". It is within the realm of possibilty for a 25 point buy NPC paladin that didn't go for the 15 Charisma.
The PCs and NPCs in OotS appear to have relatively generous point buys. Roy, for instance, boasts roughly 20/8/14/14/14/12, or a point buy of 35. Of course, O-chul would be subject to aging penalties. But it wouldn't come close to legitimising O-chul's survival.

And, with this nice uber Fort save you've given him, he still can't make the Fort save of a paralyzing touch?
Excellent point.

People talking is a Listen check DC 0.
"If you beat the DC by 10 or more, you can make out what’s being said, assuming that you understand the language."

DC is also +3 for distance of 30 feet, +5 for being distracted. So with wis 14, Miko would have to roll a 16 or better to hear and understand Soon.

I am the Uber-nerd! Bow before me!

And now I have responded to 27 pages worth of posts. More or less. I think I shall try something involving less wrist strain for a time- spelunking, perhaps, or alligator wrestling.

Scarab83

2007-06-15, 07:03 PM

You guys have issues.

Shatteredtower

2007-06-16, 03:57 AM

I didn't realize people were still posting here after the new comic went up. My apologies.

And it's all part of, "And he must have chugged a potion just as Xykon came through the window" and "He must have used Lay on Hands while he was spinning thorugh the air." Yes, I know.No, Robin, it's all, "This is one way it could have worked."

Just one. As you know, there were others, some of which do the trick more easily. Even so, the point was to find one that could work, not the one that worked best and would work in all cases.

I already change the numbers on that a long time ago, sport. Due try and keep up.I'm in no way obliged to reread previous entries in the event of edits that come hours after they were posted. I happened to write up my reply over the course of several free intervals offline.

It's not just the fact that the calculations I addressed were wrong. It's the fact that the wrong figures were delivered in such scathing fashion. I don't get that, since I'm pretty sure I haven't run over anyone's dog lately.

Right, because Rich tells you exactly how he stats out his creations. I forgot about that.Not necessary. All it takes is the ability to do basic math.

We've seen Xykon cast meteor swarm. That means he's at least an 18th level and has at least a 19 Charisma.

The save DC for a lich's paralyzing touch is 10 + 1/2 lich's HD + lich's Cha modifier. In Xykon's case, that's at least 10 + 9 + 9, which equals...

Oh, I'm sorry. I made a mistake: it's at least a DC 23 save.

Oh, and lich paralysis requires a Will save, not a Fort save. However, even if it did allow the Fort save, a +14 would be sufficient 60% of the time, as opposed to the 95% chance it offers against the massive damage save.

As it's a Will save, we can knock 15% off that chance.

And it even makes sense.The ring of feather fall is just one more plausible explanation. Of course, we don't ever see a ring on O-Chul's finger, but we can imagine that it might nevertheless be there.

And yes, it's more likely to ensure his survival. The odds are irrelevant. The possibility, no matter how unlikely, is all that matters in this discussion.

No, actually, you dealt with slightly below average. Not the peak.Ah, I apologize for the misunderstanding. By peak, I was referring to the peak in terms of number of dice rolled for damage, not the most damage one could theoretically do with those dice.

And, while agreeing with me that the only thing that matters is what the Giant decides, you're arguing the numbers.Because my point is, as it always has been, that there is more than one plausible way, going by the numbers, that O-Chul could have survived. I'm not sure why this is unclear.

That's just downright retarded, I'm sorry.No, it isn't, and no, you're not.

Miko might have heard the "No!" and nothing else. Alfryd covered the Listen DC quite nicely. If she did not hear her name, it's as plausible that Soon was speaking to either goblin or lich as her under the circumstances.

That's not how it went down, but please consider it. Imagine that Soon had been in a bad way and Xykon was preparing to launch deadly magic at Miko. Now imagine that she'd paused in what she was doing because Soon had cried out, "No! Miko, look out!" -- and, as a result, she failed to destroy the throne. Would it have been better then for her to allow no distraction to sway her from her course, hmm?

Yes, she did the wrong thing. No, it doesn't necessarily mean she was too wrapped up in herself to listen to anyone else. It could, sure, but it's as likely that she was wrapped up in the task.

You sure do like ignoring the rules when it doesn't suit your purpose.Alfryd addressed this adequately.

It certainly wasn't for lack of trying on her part.Trying to kill him or beat him?

She tried to kill her lawful leader, Roy...Well, Roy isn't really the best example to bring up, seeing as he attacked her. Still in shock, she wasn't a threat to anyone when he hit her that first time, snapping her out of her confused state.

She was supposed to be in a state of mind to say, "Oh, I'm sorry, Roy; you are totally right; please continue with your efforts to cut me into little pieces," was she?

Roy never even tried to reason with her, assuming -- wrongly -- that she was completely beyond reason. (I saw wrongly because she nearly did give her sword to Hinjo even after the verbal and physical beating Roy gave her.)

I don't dislike Roy for that either. I find his frustration quite understandable -- though I think he's using her as a scapegoat for several other sources of frustration (ones he restrains himself from attacking) at that moment -- but it made a bad situation much worse.

Besides, if she was really trying to kill Roy, running away while he was stunned hardly seems like the best approach.

...Belkar...Though I also like Belkar as a character and will mourn his passing, should it occur, I fail to see the problem. He was clearly evil and manipulative, and yet somehow he was at large again, despite having murdered a guard. How can authority be legitimate if it lets someone like him roam free?

Yes, I'm aware of the limitations placed on Belkar at the time. Miko wasn't. What Belkar says at the bottom of strip #408 really doesn't cover it either. He was evil and he elected to get in her way; what's the problem?

...and Hinjo in the space of a few rounds.Not proven. If he'd not tried to prevent "justice" from being meted out against Belkar or otherwise gotten out of the way, do you think she'd have pursued the matter -- knowing that she'd already tried to flee the room? She did try to give him a choice: "Do not force me to kill you."

If she didn't accomplish those things, that doesn't change what she did, or who she is.It has no bearing on what she did either. She killed Soon, and only Soon. She was trained to fight, even kill, the likes of Belkar and any that would support his evil.

She committed one murder, which I've stated I view as an evil act. (My thanks to Mr. Argall for the clarification. My apologies for misunderstanding his position.) That's the only one on her record, however.

No proof? Besides the fact that they are wearing open-faced helmets, have flesh-colored skin, are all standing and are different from the round grey dots that are zombies?I don't see any open-faced helmets, though that doesn't really prove much, does it? They derive as much benefit from armor as they did when they were alive.

It may be that my monitor is faulty, but the colours I see down there are grey, mottled green (or whatever you call that green shade the ghouls have), and orange, but not this so-called "flesh" colour.

She had time to monologue, but not to think?Monologue and thought were both focused entirely on one action.

Soon did say, "When he is able."It's a big plane and he's got a lot to do. He also said that Windstriker was waiting for her, not waiting to go see her.

Except that Hinjo was a lawful paladin in good standing with their gods who arrested her and willfully put away his weapon to speak with her. That's not the actions of a paladin. That is the action of a Blackguard.No, it is the action of a person pushed beyond her limits. Such incidents might affect her alignment in the long run, but they do not define it.

There are other equally possible destinations for her soul which are .... ready? .... plausible.None of which happen to be where Soon is going or Windstriker is waiting.

Because she's the only body available which wasn't vapourised by the explosion?I had not considered that point. Thank you.

Sure, if she gets a Raise she both can and will take advantage of the chance to return, but she may not be enthusiastic about it in the strictest sense.Ah. Okay, now I see what you're saying. Again, thank you. I think the point about Durkon is a good one. At least, I'd hope so, if the issue comes up.

She admitted, by implication, that she wasn't a paladin anymore. Previously she had denied this, so that's good. I also find the phrase 'I can live with that' (though it might be just black humour) revealing- it suggests there were things she couldn't live with. It's also notable that she urged Soon to take out Xykon, rather than waste time talking with her as she's dying.That's pretty much how I see it, yeah.

Miko can't be higher than paladin 14/monk 2, or she'd get 4 attacks with her primary weapon.Good point, though my reason for giving her that extra level was to boost her Reflex save just a little bit for the purpose of showing that, even then, there was still room for her to fail.

Oh, yes, absolutely.I'm not sure what you mean. By the rules, he could have made it. By the rulebooks, the resources to make that slightly more likely were easily affordable, but the issue at hand is that the Giant's results could have occurred even if he had decided to let dice decide O-Chul's fate.

Excellent point.Afraid not. I covered that above. However, I should also mention that the save DC assumes that Xykon had a 17 Charisma before becoming a lich, which suggests he started his sorcererous career with only a 13 Charisma, increasing it by one point every four levels. That seem a little low to anyone else?

Thank you for that analysis of Listen checks, though. Much appreciated.

zimri

2007-06-16, 04:40 AM

She did try to give him a choice: "Do not force me to kill you."

"Honey go to the store and pick up some bread please."

"No."

"Do not force me to kill you."

"What, get bent"

*death of honey ensues*

"Kindly judge, Your Honor, Honey had a choice so it wasn't my fault"

"I find the Defendant guilty"

"your Honor please do not force me to kill you."

Shattered I like the cut of your jib.

Habzial

2007-06-16, 07:47 AM

My prediction on the outcome of this event (I'm not reading 28 pages of posts to see if I'm the first one to say it):
Roy encounters Miko in Limbo (or whatever) and is convinced to resurrect her so she can have a chance at redemption. Alternately, someone else convinces him to do it, but ultimately it's his decision. She either does not immediately join the OotS or goes her seperate way early on.

Possible twist: While heading off to redeem herself, she decides it's not for her. She becomes chaotic good or lawful evil, dedicating herself to fighting the snarl her own way from then-on. When the OotS encounter her next, she is some kind of warlord.

A totally different prediction which probably will never happen:
Miko goes to the Abyss. Belkar dies and encounters her there during a mixer for people from Lawful Torment and Chaotic Torment. They begin a whirlwind romance, and to mark comic 700 their spawn appears for the first time. This new character causes everyone to instantly love-and-hate him or hate-and-love him. The end result is that all of the long-time readers post even more fervent fan/anti-fan threads on the boards... right up up until their heads inevitably explode from the emotional paradox, Scanners-style.

The Giant then contacts his alien overlords to report success.

Alfryd

2007-06-16, 06:05 PM

"your Honor please do not force me to kill you."
Shattered I like the cut of your jib.
Very droll.

Afraid not. I covered that above.
You proved that it was possible for O-chul to both survive the explosion and fail his Fort save, if you presuppose the bizarrely unlikely. It's been done before. 'Plausible' and 'probable' are very different things, as certain irate samurai have found to their cost.

Miko goes to the Abyss. Belkar dies and encounters her there during a mixer for people from Lawful Torment and Chaotic Torment. They begin a whirlwind romance... heads inevitably explode from the emotional paradox, Scanners-style.
Okay, you can stop there. This no longer requires spoilering.

Shatteredtower

2007-06-17, 10:17 AM

Zimri, whether you can accept it or not, a Lawful Good character can be flat out wrong and still Lawful Good. Paladins are not so fortunate when it comes to their status, of course.

Hinjo got more of a chance than a bunch of goblins Roy killed in their sleep for about as much reason. "They were probably evil and would have attacked us," is about as valid as, "What good are your laws when it keeps letting evil go unpunished?"

You proved that it was possible for O-chul to both survive the explosion and fail his Fort save, if you presuppose the bizarrely unlikely. It's been done before. 'Plausible' and 'probable' are very different things, as certain irate samurai have found to their cost.Proving that he could have failed his Fort save was only a side issue. The real point was to prove that he could fail his Will save, the one relevant to a lich's paralytic touch.

O'Chul's Will save is significantly better than his Reflex save at the moment (by at least a 5 point margin), but the DC of Xykon's paralysis is almost certainly 4 or more points higher than the Reflex save for the explosion (since I doubt he started his sorcerous career with a 13 Charisma). He'd have been more likely to succeed against that Will save than Reflex, but a 10-20% difference in the margin isn't that much of an issue.

A 20% chance is not bizaarely unlikely. Having used a potion that would be highly relevant for two reasons (better bonus to attack rolls with smite evil; better saving throws vs spells -- the improvements to turning undead were hardly likely to be relevant) to a paladin facing this encounter as Xykon comes crashing through the window is not bizaarely unlikely. Failing to roll a an 18 on the Will save (assuming Xykon has 18 lvls and 20 Cha to O-Chul's 10 lvls, 14 Wis, and a potion boosted 18 Cha) and then rolling 18 on a Reflex save right afterward is not bizaarely unlikely either.

It would be the gambler's fallacy to claim that the failure of that first saving throw made it more likely for O-Chul to succeed on the second, but I'm not making that point either.

Puck

2007-06-17, 12:11 PM

She committed one murder, which I've stated I view as an evil act. (My thanks to Mr. Argall for the clarification. My apologies for misunderstanding his position.) That's the only one on her record, however. I don't see any open-faced helmets, though that doesn't really prove much, does it? They derive as much benefit from armor as they did when they were alive. It may be that my monitor is faulty, but the colours I see down there are grey, mottled green (or whatever you call that green shade the ghouls have), and orange, but not this so-called "flesh" colour.

You know, the comic is passed, and everything else here is just a ridiculous rehash of stuff that I've already addressed, but I'm going to pull this one point out because it was disproved definitively in comic #466. Redcloak even says, "The explosion took out most of their remaining troops."

You've made it painfully clear that you're going to defend a murderer like Miko to the bitter end. She didn't just kill one person, though, within the context of the comic. In the end, she blew up most of their remaining troops.

How many? Who knows?

But this is just an example of the silly tapdancing you seem addicted to on every single point. The characters in the courtyard were soldiers, they wore helmets, and they died unnecessarily because of Miko. I have no doubt that you will simply reconstruct your argument to account for this, and explain why it wasn't her fault, or she bears no moral responsibility for killing her own troops in this fashion.

But you were wrong, and you might as well begin reconstructing your defense in light of this.

Alfryd

2007-06-17, 01:08 PM

You've made it painfully clear that you're going to defend a murderer like Miko to the bitter end. She didn't just kill one person, though, within the context of the comic. In the end, she blew up most of their remaining troops.

1. She has no firm reason to think an explosion would result. Dorukan's Gate had a self-destruct mechanism, and Lirian's was destroyed in a forest fire.
2. She has no firm reason to believe that her sides' troops would principally suffer from any hypothetical explosion. En route to the throne room she saw that hobgoblins were already in control of both the city and the castle.
3. She has no firm reason to believe that Soon was going to win. The Listen DC gives her a 25% to both hear and understand Soon, and she was behind the throne. For whatever that's worth.
(4. She has no firm reason, in addition, to suppose that smashing the gate would prevent Soon from winning. She was evidently unaware of the Gate's nature as the martyrs' anchor to the prime material plane.)

So Miko can't be reasonably accused of flattening her city's troops beneath airborne masonry with malice aforethought.
You can argue that it was irresponsible of Miko to assume that the gate's explosion would turn out for the best, but you can also argue that the potential consequences of allowing the Gate to fall into Xykon's calcerous hands would justify a good deal of collateral damage. Miko, and O-chul, were always aware that destroying the Gate posed a threat to the fabric of reality itself. What's a few thousand troops by comparison?

(In fairness, the Listen DC check for comprehension seems a bit strict- I'd reduce the modifer to +5 myself. I mean, it gives a wis 8 character with no ranks in Listen at best a 50/50 chance of ever understanding what anybody says.)
Actually, that's a fair description of Belkar. ...But anyway.

The real point was to prove that he could fail his Will save, the one relevant to a lich's paralytic touch.
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/lich.htm
Paralyzing Touch (Su)
Any living creature a lich hits with its touch attack must succeed on a Fortitude save or be permanently paralyzed.

It would be the gambler's fallacy to claim that the failure of that first saving throw made it more likely for O-Chul to succeed on the second, but I'm not making that point either.
Thankfully, I can instead invoke something called basic probability theory.

20% chance x 90% chance x 10% chance x, call it 50% chance for potions, items, stats needed etc. = less than a 1% chance of O-chul surviving.
The individual events are within the realm of possibility. Put them together, and you have a bizarre unlikelihood.

Puck

2007-06-17, 03:36 PM

So Miko can't be reasonably accused of flattening her city's troops beneath airborne masonry with malice aforethought. You can argue that it was irresponsible of Miko to assume that the gate's explosion would turn out for the best, but you can also argue that the potential consequences of allowing the Gate to fall into Xykon's calcerous hands would justify a good deal of collateral damage. Miko, and O-chul, were always aware that destroying the Gate posed a threat to the fabric of reality itself. What's a few thousand troops by comparison?

If you'll read back a bit, you'll see that among ShatteredTower's many unlikely claims was the claim that no friendly troops were killed in the explosion. That, in particular, is what I was answering. I have no doubt he'll retreat to the position that it doesn't matter, anyway, because, well, that's what he does.

To answer your points, which are a different argument, Miko didn't expect a lot of things. She didn't expect that the murder of Shojo would result in the yanking of her paladin status. Yet, we as readers, and the gods themselves within the context of the story hold her accountable for her actions.

And while she might not have been aware of certain eventualities, when the person who DOES know tells you, "Don't press the red button!" then yes, you do become responsible for your actions. Miko's arrogance, her inability or unwillingness to listen to anyone including the other paladins of her order or her leige lord Shojo or Soon the founder of her order, her desire to glorify herself and gain her previous status resulted in the deaths of hundreds if not thousands of her troops fighting for their lives.

(In fairness, the Listen DC check for comprehension seems a bit strict- I'd reduce the modifer to +5 myself. I mean, it gives a wis 8 character with no ranks in Listen at best a 50/50 chance of ever understanding what anybody says.) Actually, that's a fair description of Belkar. ...But anyway.

That's the DC to hear people talking. It's not the DC to hear or understand people shouting.

Thankfully, I can instead invoke something called basic probability theory. 20% chance x 90% chance x 10% chance x, call it 50% chance for potions, items, stats needed etc. = less than a 1% chance of O-chul surviving. The individual events are within the realm of possibility. Put them together, and you have a bizarre unlikelihood.

Agreed.

berrew

2007-06-17, 05:19 PM

Shatteredtower

2007-06-17, 08:31 PM

Alfryd, you're right; the lich save is Fort based. My apologies; I read the wrong section when I mentioned Will saves.

Your use of probability theory is mistaken, however: O-Chul's odds of survival were no less than 5%, assuming a 10th level paladin. Everything I've factored in since then are the odds that his chances were higher than that.

"The explosion took out most of their remaining troops."Alfryd covers this quite adequately. I will concede that the Giant's clarification of the point would make those death the result of her actions.

However, for the reasons Alfryd covers, there's no evil in the action, just as there'd have been no evil in O-Chul doing the same thing. Please note that if O-Chul had succeeded in destroying the gate, it would have killed at least as many defenders, but a lot fewer hobgoblins. It is also likely to have forced Xykon back into his phylactery, but that item would not have been at ground zero at the time of the explosion.

And Soon could have done nothing to stop him -- or Xykon or Redcloak. So please tell me why O-Chul is not as reviled as Miko, when the results if he'd succeeded would have been worse than those she gave us.

For that matter, please tell me where the fanatic hatred is for Soon, the guy who built a city around a bomb without informing most people of the danger. Hello? I understand the reasoning behind such a risk, but let's be consistent here, hmm?

"You've made it painfully clear that you're going to defend a murderer like Miko to the bitter end.No, no, no.

I've simply made it clear that I'm willing to call people on a blind, frothing hatred of Miko. Yes, she killed Shojo. Yes, she was wrong to do so, even for the reasons she had (both real and assumed). Yes, she was wrong to attack Hinjo, in spite of what did seem a betrayal of what she believed her duty was all about.

However, these actions do not make her evil, nor would they lead inevitably to her becoming evil.

But this is just an example of the silly tapdancing you seem addicted to on every single point.Puck, please stick to discussing the strip. The consistent attacks on me and how I think damage any credibility you might otherwise bring to this discussion.

"The characters in the courtyard were soldiers, they wore helmets, and they died unnecessarily because of Miko.I still don't see the helmets, not that this proves anything -- a zombie made from a soldier would still wear a helmet. In light of the Giant's clarification in the next strip, however, I will concede the point that they might have been soldiers.

Of course, if they were soldiers and they were killed in the explosion, does it not stand to reason that her action likely killed significantly more hobgoblins (and undead) than city defenders? They died in the line of duty, victims of what doesn't even count as friendly fire.

I have no doubt that you will simply reconstruct your argument to account for this, and explain why it wasn't her fault, or she bears no moral responsibility for killing her own troops in this fashion.My argument remains the same. Please tell me how your position is consistent with not holding either O-Chul or Soon (to say nothing of Hinjo and Shojo) culpable for the same reason. I don't condemn them for this. Now show me how you can condemn Miko but not any of the others for either making the attempt or increasing the risk to their fellow countrymen in the first place.

And please give up the straw man, "Don't press the red button!" argument. That's not what was said, nor was it reasonable to assume before the fact that it was even what was meant. You are acting on knowledge after the fact and condemning someone who didn't have it.

Isn't that the sort of thing you condemn Miko for?

But you were wrong, and you might as well begin reconstructing your defense in light of this.When I am wrong, I will concede to being wrong. I have admitted as much to Alfryd and David Argall several times throughout the course of this conversation. I have even given in on the point of the defenders when a clarification within the strip confirmed an argument you have made.

For the record, I have also done so without the need to insult anyone, as it does not help my point any. As much as I like Roy's character, it would help immeasurably for him to learn that lesson.

Post

2007-06-18, 06:32 AM

Let the poor thread die already.

Alfryd

2007-06-18, 06:59 AM

To answer your points, which are a different argument, Miko didn't expect a lot of things. She didn't expect that the murder of Shojo would result in the yanking of her paladin status. Yet, we as readers, and the gods themselves within the context of the story hold her accountable for her actions.
That's because Miko was fully aware of the consequences of slicing Shojo in two- that he'd die as a result- and because her reasoning regarding his culpability for imminent invasion was fallacious- quasi-willfully so, one would add.
The evidence available to Miko indicated destroying them gem was, if not neccesarily the optimal course of action, then within the range of justified behaviour. You can argue that Miko was in a state of mind where she'd have happily ignored any contrary evidence, but that isn't substantiated.

...when the person who DOES know tells you, "Don't press the red button!" then yes, you do become responsible for your actions.
...That's the DC to hear people talking. It's not the DC to hear or understand people shouting.
Do we know that Soon was shouting? The text isn't bold or enlarged.

I have no doubt he'll retreat to the position that it doesn't matter, anyway, because, well, that's what he does.
On a tangent, I would gently suggest that you refrain from casting aspersions on your opponents, however exhasperating you may find them. I know the feeling, but it almost never convinces anyone.

Your use of probability theory is mistaken, however: O-Chul's odds of survival were no less than 5%, assuming a 10th level paladin. Everything I've factored in since then are the odds that his chances were higher than that.
You assume the following:

The DM permits a reflex save to O-chul despite being, for all intents and purposes, an inanimate object at ground zero. Bear in mind this explosion took out a good 50 feet of superior masonry with 90 hit points each in all directions. Said DM also allows self-application of Lay on Hands to be considered a purely mental action.
O-chul possesses and/or employs stats, potions and items that enchance his constitution and charisma to abnormal levels.
O-chul fails his fort save versus Lich paralysis, but makes a hypothetical DC 20 reflex save. Falling and explosion damage aren't much above average.

Let's generously assign total 50% odds to items, stats, and DM interpretation. Give O-Chul 22 con and 18 cha. That's Fort of 7 + 6 + 4 = 17, about 125 hit points + 40 points of Lay on Hands, Reflex of 3 (level 10 paladin) - 5 (0 dex) + 4 (divine grace) = 2.

So, O-Chul fails his Fort save versus paralysis- 15% chance. Makes his 10% reflex save, despite being inanimate. Sure, he can handle the damage. But the odds of this are 15% x 10% = less than 2%.
If you make the reflex save more likely, or provide better con, you make it almost impossible for O-chul to fail his paralysis save. If you reduce con or cha to make the paralysis save weaker, you reduce his hit points, lay on hands, or increase the damage he takes. At best I give you 5% odds for survival, and that's only by presupposing the bizarrely fortuitous.
This has been done halfway to death on another thread.
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46929

I have to admit, I love the irony of this conversation. Posters argue left and right about 5% probabilities, while completely ignoring the incredibly tiny probability of O-Chul landing at MiTDs tea party. It just makes me chuckle.
The MitD's tea party will probably not have a significant impact on the plot. If it does, that will be a first. O-chul's general survival might.
If you want to take a counterexample, it was highly unlikely that Elan would be carrying a gender-bender-belt just as he and Roy were hoping to make a dash for the exits, or that Belkar would trip the fuse on a gunpowder keg as he dashed by Regina Greenhilt. But those didn't blatantly violate game mechanics, common sense or the laws of physics, insofar as those apply to D&D, which isn't saying much, and probably weren't critical to the overall plot. I dunno. It just ticks me off to see O-chul touching down on left field when 400 tonnes of rock, one former paladin and several thousand azure city troops went to meet their makers.

Let the poor thread die already.
I'm sorry. I didn't realise you were taped to the screen with fluid dripped onto your eyeballs a la clockwork orange.
Oh, right!
Or maybe nobody's forcing you to read the thread and no forum regulations are being broken. We are on-topic, more or less, right?

ThorFluff

2007-06-18, 08:01 AM

Ok then! Let the poor girl die! ;)

Puck

2007-06-18, 02:25 PM

However, for the reasons Alfryd covers, there's no evil in the action, just as there'd have been no evil in O-Chul doing the same thing. Please note that if O-Chul had succeeded in destroying the gate, it would have killed at least as many defenders, but a lot fewer hobgoblins. It is also likely to have forced Xykon back into his phylactery, but that item would not have been at ground zero at the time of the explosion.

Evil derives from intent, not merely consequences.

O-Chul charged the throne while all of the paladins were being slaughtered behind him in a last-ditch effort to put the gate beyond Xykon's reach, and in the face of the defeat of the Sapphire Guard. He knew he was probably dead. The paladin who guarded his back died. It was simply a matter of death and a stalemate, or death and defeat.

Miko, by contrast, snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, and for the sole purpose of fulfilling her "divine destiny" and glorifying herself. She was more concerned with being a paladin again than doing good.

And Soon could have done nothing to stop him -- or Xykon or Redcloak. So please tell me why O-Chul is not as reviled as Miko, when the results if he'd succeeded would have been worse than those she gave us. For that matter, please tell me where the fanatic hatred is for Soon, the guy who built a city around a bomb without informing most people of the danger. Hello? I understand the reasoning behind such a risk, but let's be consistent here, hmm?

O-Chul sacrificed himself in the face of imminent defeat. Soon may or may not have informed people of the risk, but the development of a city after his death and entombment is beyond his control.

All three of them were lawful good. Miko is a character designed to earn hatred, however. That's part of what she does. Even the characters in the strip, including other paladins, don't particular LIKE her.

No, no, no. I've simply made it clear that I'm willing to call people on a blind, frothing hatred of Miko. Yes, she killed Shojo. Yes, she was wrong to do so, even for the reasons she had (both real and assumed). Yes, she was wrong to attack Hinjo, in spite of what did seem a betrayal of what she believed her duty was all about. However, these actions do not make her evil, nor would they lead inevitably to her becoming evil.

Your arguments aren't particularly compelling on this point. I understand that you refuse to see anything she did as "evil" and I'm simply refusing to argue this point further. There just comes a point where some folks are going to see a character - even Belkar, for example - as innately good or neutral no matter what they do.

Of course, if they were soldiers and they were killed in the explosion, does it not stand to reason that her action likely killed significantly more hobgoblins (and undead) than city defenders? They died in the line of duty, victims of what doesn't even count as friendly fire.

As I've said, you are obviously going to view Miko as good despite causing the death of hundreds if not thousands through pride and vanity.

And please give up the straw man, "Don't press the red button!" argument. That's not what was said, nor was it reasonable to assume before the fact that it was even what was meant. You are acting on knowledge after the fact and condemning someone who didn't have it. Isn't that the sort of thing you condemn Miko for?

It's not a straw man. The founder of her order said, "No!"

That's as short of a command as you utter.

But, as you've proven, you are going to defend her actions until she stands in the comic bathed in the blood of infants, and even then, I'm sure you'll come up with a good reason WHY the slaughter of innocent children isn't a truly evil act, so ... whatever.

That's because Miko was fully aware of the consequences of slicing Shojo in two- that he'd die as a result- and because her reasoning regarding his culpability for imminent invasion was fallacious- quasi-willfully so, one would add. The evidence available to Miko indicated destroying them gem was, if not neccesarily the optimal course of action, then within the range of justified behaviour. You can argue that Miko was in a state of mind where she'd have happily ignored any contrary evidence, but that isn't substantiated.

I don't need to argue that Miko was in a state of mind to happily ignore any contrary evidence. She did, in point of fact, ignore anything and everything around her except her own incredibly bizarre mode of reasoning. A crack in the steel bar? It must be the will of the gods. Someone standing over a gem with a drawn sword? It must be the will of the gods, even though that guy who founded my order is standing over there shouting, "No!"

Do we know that Soon was shouting? The text isn't bold or enlarged.

Oh, hey, good point! Maybe he whispered with the exclamation point at the end. Maybe it was an interior monologue, and not spoken at all.

Come on.

At best I give you 5% odds for survival, and that's only by presupposing the bizarrely fortuitous.

Agreed.

Puck

2007-06-18, 05:00 PM

I have to admit, I love the irony of this conversation. Posters argue left and right about 5% probabilities, while completely ignoring the incredibly tiny probability of O-Chul landing at MiTDs tea party. It just makes me chuckle.

Actually, stated thusly, you made me laugh, as well.

But, then again, I've asserted that the reason these things happen is because the DM/writer wanted it that way, and not because of any rules judgments or possibilities, so ultimately, I agree with you.

comicadv

2007-06-18, 07:14 PM

Have you noticed that OOTS has become more morbid?

I smell an evil plot...

This is how it works:

1. The Giant has always wanted to have a dramatic lifelike webcomic, but he knew he would have to get people hooked first, so he made a funny joking webcomic.

2. Since then he has made the comic more dramatic and put it these "art upgrades".

3. He will continue until he has his perfect comic and we won't notice or care because the change will be very slow and subtle.

One other thought:

The giant said OOTS does have a finite end. Does he mean it will end and become a new comic?

Shatteredtower

2007-06-18, 08:37 PM

O-Chul charged the throne while all of the paladins were being slaughtered behind him in a last-ditch effort to put the gate beyond Xykon's reach, and in the face of the defeat of the Sapphire Guard. He knew he was probably dead. The paladin who guarded his back died. It was simply a matter of death and a stalemate, or death and defeat.And he was wrong. And more would have died.

Miko, by contrast, snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, and for the sole purpose of fulfilling her "divine destiny" and glorifying herself. She was more concerned with being a paladin again than doing good.I see no proof of this. Oh, I see that she believes that the gods need her strength and that they have shown her what they need her to do for them, but the assumption that she's doing it all for herself...

...well, it's a little more probable than the theory that Roy was working for Xykon, but not much.

O-Chul sacrificed himself in the face of imminent defeat.O-Chul was prepared to sacrifice anyone within the general vicinity of the castle as well.

Oh, wait, no -- neither he nor Miko had any reason to believe that the gate would explode.

Soon may or may not have informed people of the risk, but the development of a city after his death and entombment is beyond his control.Soon founded a city around a highly explosive device. You don't get to wash your hands of that fact just because it's grown ten to a hundred times larger since then.

Miko is a character designed to earn hatred, however.Uh...

That's an awful lot of presumption in that statement.

Even the characters in the strip, including other paladins, don't particular LIKE her.A far cry from hatred, that.

Your arguments aren't particularly compelling on this point. I understand that you refuse to see anything she did as "evil" and I'm simply refusing to argue this point further. There just comes a point where some folks are going to see a character - even Belkar, for example - as innately good or neutral no matter what they do.The Belkar comparison is a straw man.

Miko did what she thought the gods wanted her to do. Misreading the message does not make her or her actions evil, no matter how desperately some might wish that to be the case. It would be so much easier to hate her if she was evil, after all.

As I've said, you are obviously going to view Miko as good despite causing the death of hundreds if not thousands through pride and vanity.I don't know the last time I saw a proud character spend so much time asking others what she should do. She made a request for the gods. She received a very clear sign. It was not a real sign, but if a spider's web was good enough for Robert the Bruce, then a cracked throne, two score dead, and a paralyzed man standing where you did, his sword raised in the fateful moment that brought you low is a pretty obvious red flag.

There's nothing proud about what doing what you think the gods are telling you to do, not when you've already clearly put it ahead of your own desires to punish the Order of the Stick. She walked out of jail with that thought foremost in her head, but pushed it aside to fulfill her oath.

If this was all about her pride, she'd have found an excuse to ignore even that, surely?

It's not a straw man. The founder of her order said, "No!"And that would mean something definite to a bad dog.

The only reason it's clear what he meant to you is because you're in the audience. That's it. You know who he said it to. You know what was said.

You assume, therefore, that Miko must have heard it and must have known he was directing the words to her.

And if he'd been shouting it at Xykon or Redcloak, causing her to pause long enough for either of them to finish off both her and Soon, would we now be seeing her condemned for letting herself get distracted from what she had to do?

That's as short of a command as you utter.Among other possibilities. Actually, based on the wording that followed, it was a request. Now I'm aware of the fact that a request from your superior officer should be treated as an order... but, assuming she heard everything he said, she had received instructions from further up the chain of command.

But, as you've proven, you are going to defend her actions until she stands in the comic bathed in the blood of infants...Completely untrue and groundless besides.

She's guilty of murdering Shojo. It is inexcusable. Nevertheless, I can look at how she got to that position in her life and feel sympathy for it. Consider me a monster for being able to do so, if you must.

But there's no need to spout falsehoods about what I will and won't do in the process.

...and even then, I'm sure you'll come up with a good reason WHY the slaughter of innocent children isn't a truly evil act, so ... whatever.If it had come up, that would be a different matter. It never did. Such misrepresentation has no bearing on the discussion.

I don't need to argue that Miko was in a state of mind to happily ignore any contrary evidence. She did, in point of fact, ignore anything and everything around her except her own incredibly bizarre mode of reasoning.And yet it lead her to the gate, not after the Order of the Stick.

A crack in the steel bar? It must be the will of the gods.When you know that the gods exist and spend most of your adult life on their road in service to them, you become very familiar with the adage, "The gods help those who help themselves."

If there was no crack, there was no help. Best of all, she needed to work with what they gave her.

Someone standing over a gem with a drawn sword? It must be the will of the gods...I've already demonstrated how obvious the symbolism was. The only way to paint a clearer picture would be with glowing arrows and letters of fire saying, "Hit it, Miko!"

Of course, the gods were probably paying as much attention to the event as Thor does, but hey, it's still an easy target to misread if you come at it from just the right set of experiences.

I also like the symmetry between her stance and that of Soon in the previous panel. That was another nice touch.

...even though that guy who founded my order is standing over there shouting, "No!"And could be shouting it at anyone in the room for any reason. Miko doesn't have audience privilege.

Oh, hey, good point! Maybe he whispered with the exclamation point at the end. Maybe it was an interior monologue, and not spoken at all."No!" was shouted. So was, "Go! Go!" -- and you'll notice that Miko didn't leap at the chance to go after Xykon and Redcloak.

Proud, glory-hounding Miko didn't leap at the chance for vengeance against either Redcloak or Xykon. Think about that. Why would such a proud person settle for trying to thwart the goals of her enemies when she had a chance to go directly after them? Defeating Xykon and Redcloak without loss of the gate? How much more glory can you earn than to be part of that?

However, back to what Soon said after, "No!" We don't know that "Miko, you don't have to--" was an exclamation. In fact, the evidence is against it, since such a statement usually would finish with an exclamation mark even if it was cut off.

As for the only 5% chance of survival, the point is that it's all the author needs to make his result compatible with a possible result. He may not care, and that's cool too, but the contention didn't originate with the claim that it was unlikely. It started with the claim that there was no way it could have happened within game.

Alfryd's observation overlooks the fact that the chance of survival for an unprepared paladin starts at 5%.

Alfryd

2007-06-19, 02:20 AM

Alfryd's observation overlooks the fact that the chance of survival for an unprepared paladin starts at 5%.
No. As I elaborated, this is after assuming fvourable spells/items, and neccesary stats. If you include those in the probability calculation, odds are even worse.

I don't need to argue that Miko was in a state of mind to happily ignore any contrary evidence.
And yet, she apparently accepted Soon's corrections without protest afterward.

Oh, hey, good point! Maybe he whispered with the exclamation point at the end. Maybe it was an interior monologue, and not spoken at all.
He may have raised his voice somewhat, but shouting generally has certain indicators in the comic. Observe:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0203.html
So what? Mod the DC by 3 points. Knock yourself out.

Evil derives from intent, not merely consequences....
Miko, by contrast, snatched defeat from the jaws of victory, and for the sole purpose of fulfilling her "divine destiny" and glorifying herself.
Once again, a Mikophobe presumes to be capable of reading the character's mind. I would also point out you are blaming Miko for consequences (snatching defeat from the jaws of victory,) rather than intent (smashing the gem to prevent subversion to foul purposes.)
Miko's and O-chul's situation were almost identical as far as Miko could tell. Her side was in the process of being slaughtered, a lich sorceror of nefarious intent was nearby, the Gate needed to be destroyed. Just because she thinks this is her destiny, and looked forward to fulfilling it, doesn't make her actions unjustified.

Puck

2007-06-20, 05:02 PM

And he was wrong. And more would have died.

Actually, given the scene around him, he was entirely correct.

Miko, on the other hand, saw a victorious Soon before her, a vanquished lich, and a prone cleric bleeding to death.

Quite a different scene from O-Chul watching the entire Sapphire Guard slaughtered in his wake.

I see no proof of this. Oh, I see that she believes that the gods need her strength and that they have shown her what they need her to do for them, but the assumption that she's doing it all for herself...

You see no proof of anything that contradicts your statements, unless the Giant spells it out for you.

Or rather, you are very adept at ignoring anything that contradicts your apriori conclusions.

Miko struck for her own glory and to regain her paladin status. She ignored the obvious, and reinterpreted everything to suit her own emotional state, DESPITE the evidence, and not because of it:

Roy noted this when he said in comic #408:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0408.html

"Wow, Miko Miyazaki ignoring all possibilities in order to arrive at a preconceived conclusion that happens to support her existing emotional state. Who could have possibly seen THAT coming?"

and

"Honey, we're out of milk."

"Clearly, that means the gods want me to kill you! Slash! Slash! Slash!"

O-Chul was prepared to sacrifice anyone within the general vicinity of the castle as well.

And, given the choice between death and defeat, or death and a stalemate, he chose correctly.

Miko faced an entirely different choice.

Oh, wait, no -- neither he nor Miko had any reason to believe that the gate would explode.

Except for the founder of her order telling her to stop?

Soon founded a city around a highly explosive device. You don't get to wash your hands of that fact just because it's grown ten to a hundred times larger since then.

Why not?

You wash Miko's hands of everything she does. Regularly.

Miko did what she thought the gods wanted her to do. Misreading the message does not make her or her actions evil, no matter how desperately some might wish that to be the case. It would be so much easier to hate her if she was evil, after all.

No. You're wrong. Miko BEGAN with the assumption that the gods wanted her to do something, and then created whatever evidence she needed to support that.

She didn't misread the message. She wrote it, herself.

That's where the evil comes in.

I don't know the last time I saw a proud character spend so much time asking others what she should do. She made a request for the gods. She received a very clear sign. It was not a real sign, but if a spider's web was good enough for Robert the Bruce, then a cracked throne, two score dead, and a paralyzed man standing where you did, his sword raised in the fateful moment that brought you low is a pretty obvious red flag.

Miko asks for advice, and then ignores ACTUAL advice. She prefers to look for the shape of a Virgin Mary on a tortilla while ignoring the direct words of the person standing near her.

And that would mean something definite to a bad dog.

It means something to anyone who speaks English.

The only reason it's clear what he meant to you is because you're in the audience. That's it. You know who he said it to. You know what was said.

Yes, because "No!" is such an ambiguous word. It can mean "No!" or "No!" or even "No!" depending on the speaker.

You assume, therefore, that Miko must have heard it and must have known he was directing the words to her.

No, the rules the comic are based on make it impossible that she didn't. The situation itself tells she heard, and ignored.

I assume nothing.

Your entire argument throughout this thread come be summarized, "Not necessarily .... not necessarily ... not necessarily ... not necessarily."

And if he'd been shouting it at Xykon or Redcloak, causing her to pause long enough for either of them to finish off both her and Soon, would we now be seeing her condemned for letting herself get distracted from what she had to do?

"No! Miko ..."

It's so ambiguous. It could mean anything.

And yet it lead her to the gate, not after the Order of the Stick.

It lead her to the gate first, because it was closer. She prioritized.

When you know that the gods exist and spend most of your adult life on their road in service to them, you become very familiar with the adage, "The gods help those who help themselves."

A phrase which appears in no holy scripture on planet earth.

I've already demonstrated how obvious the symbolism was. The only way to paint a clearer picture would be with glowing arrows and letters of fire saying, "Hit it, Miko!"

And the Giant, speaking through Roy, has long ago identified one of Miko's primary character flaws in viewing the events around her.

Of course, the gods were probably paying as much attention to the event as Thor does, but hey, it's still an easy target to misread if you come at it from just the right set of experiences.

It's an easy target to read that way if you are a pscyhopath of dubious sanity who frequently misinterprets events around her to support her existing emotional state.

"No!" was shouted. So was, "Go! Go!" -- and you'll notice that Miko didn't leap at the chance to go after Xykon and Redcloak.

Weak sauce.

Right. She should TOTALLY obey the orders of a lich. They are COMPLETELY equivalent to Soon, the founder of her order, calling her by name and telling her to stop.

Proud, glory-hounding Miko didn't leap at the chance for vengeance against either Redcloak or Xykon. Think about that. Why would such a proud person settle for trying to thwart the goals of her enemies when she had a chance to go directly after them? Defeating Xykon and Redcloak without loss of the gate? How much more glory can you earn than to be part of that?

She actually would have accomplished something useful if she'd done that.

However, back to what Soon said after, "No!" We don't know that "Miko, you don't have to--" was an exclamation. In fact, the evidence is against it, since such a statement usually would finish with an exclamation mark even if it was cut off.

Right. He might have WHISPERED the exclamation point, or it might have been an interior monologue.

Puck

2007-06-20, 05:11 PM

And yet, she apparently accepted Soon's corrections without protest afterward.

Do you think having her body severed from the waist down and bleeding to death, and the shock that comes with that, might have had something to do with it?

I think so.

He may have raised his voice somewhat, but shouting generally has certain indicators in the comic. Observe:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0203.html

Your statement is dubious because you assume, then provide an example, and any example to the contrary is simply going to be handwaved as, "We don't KNOW that they were shouting ... despite the exclamation points and the structure of the sentence."

So what? Mod the DC by 3 points. Knock yourself out.

The DC for hearing someone talk is 0. I'd say the DC for hearing someone shout is DC -5, because it's not quite as loud as the sounds of battle - which was not happening when he shouted - is -10. Understanding a complex sentence? Probably a little more difficult. Understanding, "No! Miko ...?"

Easy as cake.

I would also point out you are blaming Miko for consequences (snatching defeat from the jaws of victory,) rather than intent (smashing the gem to prevent subversion to foul purposes.)

That's incorrect. I blame her for her actions - snatching defeat from the jaws of victory - and her intent, which was to simply glorify herself and regain her lost paladin status instead of doing what was right.

She assumed that whatever happened, she had to do something dramatic. Something centerstage. Something glorious.

Miko's and O-chul's situation were almost identical as far as Miko could tell. Her side was in the process of being slaughtered, a lich sorceror of nefarious intent was nearby, the Gate needed to be destroyed. Just because she thinks this is her destiny, and looked forward to fulfilling it, doesn't make her actions unjustified.

I've already demonstrated past examples of Miko's flawed reasoning, and the inherent problem with saying, "As far as Miko could tell" which should be more accurately stated, "As far as Miko was capable of knowing."

Her side was victorious after a hard battle, her master told her to stop and the lich and cleric were both on the ground, defeated.

You paint the picture wrongly.

Shatteredtower

2007-06-21, 12:48 AM

Miko, on the other hand, saw a victorious Soon before her, a vanquished lich, and a prone cleric bleeding to death.Where do you get that idea?

I mean, to ignore that if she'd actually seen it, she'd have to have been hallucinating. Last I heard, it's considered bad form to accuse people of being evil for experiencing hallucinations.

She either she was seeing things that weren't there... or she didn't see something that was.

Quite a different scene from O-Chul watching the entire Sapphire Guard slaughtered in his wake.Not really. The bodies are all still there. O-Chul's now helpless too.

Miko struck for her own glory and to regain her paladin status.That would be believable if she'd gotten upset over the fact that she wasn't getting in back after all.

Roy noted this when he said in comic...Roy also stated that she needed to get laid once in awhile. It's not as offensive as killing someone, but...

...No, actually, it's worse, if Roy is actually speaking for the Giant. I don't think he is, because I think Mr. Burlew is a better writer than that. But if he was having Roy speak for him, all Miko is is a fictional character who killed her fictional lord. Roy, speaking entirely for himself, is just a guy pushed past to the point of fighting nasty.

But if it's the author, that's an awfully misogynistic moment right there.

And when Roy attacked her while she was a threat to no one, his answer to her question was, "Who the hell cares?"

I'm going to give the Giant more credit than to have meant either statement as anything more than character dialogue.

Except for the founder of her order telling her to stop?How is that proof it would explode? Really, if I walked up to the automatic doors of the local Wal-Mart and the greeter shouted out, "NO!" I am supposed to assume the doors will explode?

Or how about if I come into work and start walking up the brick pathway only to hear my boss yell out, "NO!" Am I supposed to assume there's a bomb hidden in the walkway?

Should I pay attention? Well, yes, but then, I didn't see either the greeter or my boss fighting two spellcasters at the time, nor was there a handy, "In Case of Emergency, Break Glass," panel nearby.

I mean, with the evidence right in front of her ("Hello, O-Chul, don't mind me..."), it's a much more likely interpretation than, "Do not press. Ever. No, not even then."

Why not?

You wash Miko's hands of everything she does. Regularly.Not only is that untrue, it also evades the question.

Miko killed Shojo. She resisted arrest. She even broke free from jail.

She did not construct a castle that would blow up if a single sapphire, located within the throne, should it happen to be shattered.

After reviewing this strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0277.html), I can see that the city was already there when the gate was built, and therefore, he's not responsible for the city's location. He is, however, responsible for turning it into an explosive device with a lot of handy shrapnel to throw around. I mean, if a severely injured Xykon could just fly away from that without a scratch, the real danger was within the building itself, right?

Miko BEGAN with the assumption that the gods wanted her to do something...Correct -- up to that point. Of course, that assumption was learned.

She didn't misread the message.Yes, she did. It's right here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0460.html) in strip #460. Look at the big panel.

Right after she was saying, "No sign could be clearer than [that]..." lo and behold! Written in Letters of Fire even!

That's where the evil comes in.I know it can be hard to accept the fact that good is capable of making Very Bad Mistakes, but it's a lot more interesting than, "Bad things happened 'cause she was evil."

Miko asks for advice, and then ignores ACTUAL advice.She already had her advice. Even if she had heard Soon, why should she assume he'd countermand the instructions of the gods?

She prefers to look for the shape of a Virgin Mary on a tortilla while ignoring the direct words of the person standing near her.Hey, if the guy standing right next to her is all but screaming, "Must... destroy... throne..." why not?

It means something to anyone who speaks English.If I paint it on your front door, do you know what I meant by it?

Of course not.

Yes, because "No!" is such an ambiguous word. It can mean "No!" or "No!" or even "No!" depending on the speaker.If you mean, "No, Miko, stop!" or "No, Redcloak, I will not be defeated thus!" or even, "No, Xykon, don't you dare throw that at Miko!" you're right.

Hey, it could even mean, "No, I can't stand pineapple on my pizza!"

No, the rules the comic are based on make it impossible that she didn't.Wait, did you just invoke these rules (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0003.html)?

The situation itself tells she heard, and ignored.Strip #3 might not you a liar call, Puck, but it does indicate quite strongly just how mistaken you are.

"No! Miko ..."

It's so ambiguous. It could mean anything.Assuming she heard even both of those words, can you prove that it meant, "No! Miko, don't!" as opposed to, "No! Miko, duck!" or "No! Miko, now!"

Of course it could. Therefore, it is indeed ambiguous.

It lead her to the gate first, because it was closer. She prioritized.But clearly the gods wanted her to punish the Order of the Stick! They had other people guarding the gate, or else Xykon likes to talk to himself.

Yes, that is a very convincing argument for how Miko only does exactly what she wants to do.

A phrase which appears in no holy scripture on planet earth.Even if I were to assume you'd actually read every line of all of them, I didn't say anything about holy scripture. I used the word, "adage". Shall I assume that you've never heard the original or are you splitting hairs because I paraphrased it to reflect a clearly pantheistic, rather than monotheistic, culture?

And the Giant, speaking through Roy...This bears repeating, so I will: It is poor form to assume that a character is speaking for the author.

Weak sauce.Ah, I'm sorry. It appears I didn't word things clearly, leading to a false conclusion.

Right. She should TOTALLY obey the orders of a lich.What I am saying is that she didn't catch the words Xykon said to Redcloak, not that she was supposed to say, "Oh, he must be talking to me."

I mean, sure, if she'd looked over to what was happening when he yelled that, things would have turned out better, but it appears she didn't hear that either, even at higher volume than Soon was using.

"AHHH!" and "AHHH!" were also right out.

Right. He might have WHISPERED the exclamation point, or it might have been an interior monologue.Puck, there was no exclamation point at all after "No!" which, as was easily demonstrated, is insufficient data when you've reason to believe the fate of the world hangs in the balance.

The rest? Sure, not a whisper, but there is no evidence to indicate it's a shout. In my experience, most voices lose strength after a, "No!" which they'll usually make up on the third word -- assuming that word is actually a command.

You know, like, "NO! Miko, DON'T!" or "NO! Miko, STOP!" or, "NO! Miko, WAIT!"

Those are all pretty emphatic. "No! Miko, you don't have to--" on the other hand, is a rather weak follow-up.

But hey, if the boss calls says name while you're concentrating on something important, such as... oh, securing the fate of the world... you should always stop what you're doing.

Except when he wasn't actually talking to you, in which case you're screwed. Now maybe you might ask, "Why else would he say her name," but I covered that earlier.