Character Development: Giant Style (Analyzing OOTS) [Archive]

CowardlyPaladin

2017-08-23, 03:06 AM

Rereading the comic for like the 80th time, and I notice a pattern the Giant has for developing characters which I wanted to share. Obviously OOTS came about first as takes on D&D stereotypes, either fulfilling them (Durkeon, V), Exaggerating them (Elan, Haley, Xykon) or subverting them (Belkar, Roy), and the joke of the earliest comics was effectively the common D&D joke of "hey look, dysfunctional party", but unlike a lot of other comics with a similar joke (8-bit Theater) the characters in OOTS grew into fully complicated realized characters which is especially interesting considering some of them were conceived as shallow (Belkar, Elan). So I was wondering why OOTS manged this so well, and I realized that the Giant's trick seems to be to debilitate the character in question and force them to grow. From the hotel assassins onwards each arch has been about debilitating a character so that we might seen more of them outside their original role

Belkar has his ability to do horrible needless violence removed from him, in essence his entire one dimensional role was taken away forcing him to grow as a character, or at least fake it till you make it

Haley had her ability to speak remove, and thus without her role as "The one who makes the witty lines) we have to learn about who she really is as a personal internally rather than just "The rogue chick with the exposed midriff who makes the funny happen"

Elan has his identity removed, the entire point of his character is that he is the spoony bard who does meta things and is generally a bit of a burden on the group and now he has to actually be a person in his own context, rather than relying on Haley or Roy to do the heavy lifting for him, both narrative as they actual do stuff, but also character-wise as the greater dept carried his relative shallowness. Then he had to be his own character and take his own actions, which suddenly removed him from being "The annoying bard" to "The actual person with goals and dreams

V actually has it inverted, she is given something rather than having it be taken away, but it does relate to moving past her role as "The power hungry knowledge wizard" Once she got it, then lost it, she had to actually grow as a larger character and become more than his role, effectively becoming their own character, literally personified by Blackwing becoming more than a joke

The two most interesting to me are Durkon and Roy, because the former is the most defined by his role of any of the other characters, until the last arch he was the most static, while Roy is was the most complicated and well rounded from the start, in fact the first few dozen comics its "Roy the character" and everybody else as sort of caricatures. And their twist is much more complicated...they die. In roy's case, his death, his rather senseless avoidable death which accomplished nothing, got him out of the lime light for awhile which allowed everybody else to grow and for Roy to actually be more than just "The protagonist" His role has always been "The guy who actually progresses the story" and being able to do literally nothing lets him grow

Durkon is...interesting because he was by far the flattest of the main leads, I don't have any evidence, but when we first got the Empire of Blood, if you had a fan poll I imagine he'd be the least popular. His dying isn't something he would have objected too, instead he gets his autonomy taken away, and thus we actually delve into the character's core motivations and beliefs.

The pattern here is striping away the characters ability to carry out their arch type and then see how they act without it as a crunch. Sort of the "Sink or swim" approach to characters, if these characters weren't good and actually were as shallow as their first appearance implies, then they would just suck when they had their role removed.
There is a term I used called "Hat Characters" which are characters who are fine characters who are quite likable but don't actually have any depth or nuance beyond the outfit that they wear, Indiana Jones is the character I always think of, he is a character who couldn't really function if you took away his outfit and his adventures, he exists to support the power fantasy and the adventure. And the OOTs characters were fine in the start, but they grew into something so much more in part by the Giant...taking away their hat. Indie is a fine character but he is nothing without his role
The Order meanwhile grow more, and even though they get over their impediments (Btw I think every single prophecy has been fulfilled). This actually kind of gets into the very plot structure of the story itself, which is going in some really unexpected turns, but that is an entire other essay unto itself.

Now we haven't seen this with Xykon, and I don't think we will, I think the Giant said he is going to say a shallow evil villain because he is more fun that way, but Redcloack doesn't fit the pattern because he more didn't have a role and then got a character.

Meanwhile the other side characters are either introduced as complicated from the start (Vamp Durk, Malak, Tarquin, Bandanna) or as they go along get further into role (The Linear Guild). Their are only three exceptions

The monster in the darkness has a very bastard standard role and is now becoming more of a person, but not by losing anything, I think because villain roles work differently than hero ones

Redcloak didn't have a role and just sort of got one because he wasn't planned as a character

And Miko who had a role...and never really grew out of it, which is why I think a lot of people are still kinda bitter about that character, she never got the treatment the other arch-typical characters did.Kinda feels like the Giant lost interest in her.

alwaysbebatman

2017-08-23, 04:21 AM

RatElemental

2017-08-23, 06:32 AM

This is somewhat off topic but I'd be remiss if I didn't ask, what about the prophecy about Belkar's death? I know I've argued it as a devil's advocate before, but even I have to admit all of the wriggling I've seen is a bit of a stretch.

Other than that, you seem to be right on the money, in retrospect. Seems like it's probably one of the best ways to grow a character to me though, that's the whole point of a conflict in a story, is it not? Have to look at some other stories now and see if they managed character development in a different way.

Fyraltari

2017-08-23, 07:14 AM

I can't recall where I heard that (probably TvTropes) but someone once said "If you want to make a character grow, you sit and think "What's the worst thing that could happen to this person" and then make just that happen." Character growth happen when a character bounces back from his lowest point.

OOTS is character-driven instead of plot-driven and that is why I am confident the durkon will come back from Vampiredom, how could he demonstrate his new hindsight ?

I disagree that Redcloak had no character type : he was the sycophantic "Renfield"/"Igor" henchman type and paradoxically enough grew out of it when he had to take charge (battle of Azure City) instead of blindly follow like he did. I know his character is explored in Start Of Darkness so maybe this moment is not as significant as I make it to be but as far as low point go, realizing that you are needlessly wasting the lives of people ready to sacrifice everything for you is pretty low.

Then again, in OOTS the difference between hero and villain seems to be the ability to recognize one's failures and better oneself, so it is not surprising that Xykon, Redcloak or Tarquin do not change that much compare to the protagonists.

CowardlyPaladin

2017-08-23, 10:59 AM

I agree with your analysis in the broad strokes, but have a couple of quibbles.

Haley losing her voice wasn't about losing her role as a punch line delivery device. It was about losing the ability to use deceit and glibness to achieve her tactical goals while at the same time avoiding emotional vulnerability and trust.

Miko's failure to grow as a person when challenged wasn't a storytelling failure, it WAS the story.

The Monster in the Dark didn't have a lot to lose. His umbrella? But O-Chul does challenge him to give up something that was very important to him: his ability to outrageously misinterpret everything around him to suit his preferences.

Team Evil are presented in a humorous fashion, but they are consistently engaging in monstrous atrocities. The Monster shields himself from all of that by inventing an alternate reality where everybody's just having a nice tea party.The Monster is deeply committed to his version of the world: Mr. Stiffly remains Mr. Stiffly regardless of how many times O-Chul corrects him. But when he knows that O-Chul is going to his likely death, he finally breaks his consistency and calls him by his real name.

From that point forward, he is no longer the character there to create a punchline by comically misunderstanding what the other characters are saying, and Oona and Greyview are introduced to Team Evil to fill that role.

1) yes, you're right, its Haley's entire ability to do the "Sneaky rogue" trope which is taken away from her
2) I know that was the point...I just don't find it very interesting, I rarely find "this character is static" more interesting than 'This character grows and changes". I think it works with the undead but there is a larger point being made there, I've always felt that Miko is a bit of a weak link of a character
3) You are right, the Monster does need to give up his needed to reinterpret everything around him, but I don't think that fits the pattern, because that isn't related to his original character role, which is the big scary monster, its more organically tied to him as a person, which I think is why it is less dramatic. The big dramatic "lets take away this character's ability to function" style of story telling seems to apply the most to characters who came into existence as a an example of a certain D&D cliche. You are right about his growth as a character, I just think its more an example of good old fashioned "organic development"

RatElemental: I totally forgot about Belkar's death, my bad, you are right.

Also what i really love about OOTs is that yes, conflict grows character but the Giant isn't just throwing conflict at them en mass and seeing what sticks, its much more surgical, finding the exact thing that would undermine the character and then jumping on it. A lot of writers think "Oh I need these characters to grow, I know, lets just have them get tortured, that will do it" while OOTs designs something very specific for the individual involved.

Jasdoif

2017-08-23, 12:16 PM

Also what i really love about OOTs is that yes, conflict grows character but the Giant isn't just throwing conflict at them en mass and seeing what sticks, its much more surgical, finding the exact thing that would undermine the character and then jumping on it. A lot of writers think "Oh I need these characters to grow, I know, lets just have them get tortured, that will do it" while OOTs designs something very specific for the individual involved.
On that note:

I think that's one of the big issues here: why couldn't Tarquin BE a calm and collected person whose actions in the various aspects of his life all follow from his Evil character?Because then there's no climax to the story?

He IS that, 99.999999999% of his life, but you are looking at his very worst day. Drama is all about taking characters and pushing them until they break, one way or the other. If a character can't be broken, then they have no place as a main character in a story. So writing a drama involves thinking of all the ways that your characters can be broken; this is the way that I chose for Tarquin.

I once read excellent writing advice that said, "Is this the most interesting time in your character's life? If not, why aren't you writing about that instead?" This is the most interesting time in Tarquin's life, because it's where the rubber of his self-image hits the road of reality. It's where his worldview is being challenged in a way that he can't just throw resources at it to fix it. Take away that conflict, that inherent crumbling of his previous cool, and there's nothing interesting to write about. There's just, "Oh, he was bad for a long time, but then the good guys fixed it by stabbing him." Boring.
"Breaking" a character does not mean brainwashing them into being someone else, it means knocking down all the walls that the character has put up to hide from themselves. It's breaking through to see the truth. It's removing all the easy paths so that they have to pick one of the hard ones, and then seeing which of the hard ones they pick.

I guess if one thought that everyone walks around being 100% the person they seem to be on the surface, then that wouldn't make sense, but it's been my experience that most humans construct elaborate series of lies, delusions, and justifications for their actions that they trot out to convince themselves and others that they are in the right. "Breaking" a character is about getting past those and finding out what really matters.

alwaysbebatman

2017-08-23, 12:47 PM

Re 2) I don't see how a paladin falling can be considered static. Change isn't always going to be for the better. I'm not going to say that she's as fully rounded a character as the main cast, but I don't think she's comparable to "immunity to character arcs is in my template" Xykon. She's more like Redcloak. They both have good intentions, but their actions are clouded by ego and self-deception. They both get opportunities to turn back from their path of self-destruction, but they'd have had to admit they'd been wrong all along, and their egos can't stand it.

Re 3) I can't agree that "being a scary monster" is the aspect that the Monster relies upon in the way that Haley relies on glibness, for example. That's what Xykon values about the Monster, not what he values about himself. And he has yet to actually use that, still waiting for a dramatically appropriate moment that has yet to come.

But I really agree with what you said about Mr. Burlew being "surgical" in the way he handles character growth. Too many writers come across as sadistic, just "let's pile some more angst on our already angsty protagonist!" A lot of that is because the things he takes away from the protagonists were crutches to begin with.

Lacuna Caster

2017-08-24, 06:21 PM

Re 2) I don't see how a paladin falling can be considered static. Change isn't always going to be for the better. I'm not going to say that she's as fully rounded a character as the main cast, but I don't think she's comparable to "immunity to character arcs is in my template" Xykon. She's more like Redcloak. They both have good intentions, but their actions are clouded by ego and self-deception. They both get opportunities to turn back from their path of self-destruction, but they'd have had to admit they'd been wrong all along, and their egos can't stand it.

And Miko who had a role...and never really grew out of it, which is why I think a lot of people are still kinda bitter about that character, she never got the treatment the other arch-typical characters did. Kinda feels like the Giant lost interest in her.
I'm not sure I can speak for 'people', but I wouldn't say that Miko is a static character. She's initially restrained, generous, tactically sharp and arguably more heroic than any of the Order. At the end she's been reduced to a belligerent sliver of her former self. But what most annoys me is that the circumstances of her fall are so blatantly manufactured that she's not actually wrong to see a pattern in the noise, and secondly that it vindicated the knee-jerk reactionism of the (many) readers who hated her for no good reason from day one.

Jasdoif

2017-08-24, 07:43 PM

CowardlyPaladin

2017-08-24, 09:54 PM

I'm not sure I can speak for 'people', but I wouldn't say that Miko is a static character. She's initially restrained, generous, tactically sharp and arguably more heroic than any of the Order. At the end she's been reduced to a belligerent sliver of her former self. But what most annoys me is that the circumstances of her fall are so blatantly manufactured that she's not actually wrong to see a pattern in the noise, and secondly that it vindicated the knee-jerk reactionism of the (many) readers who hated her for no good reason from day one.

I think her falling being rather manufactured and seems to vindicate a certain dislike of the character is a sign of her being Static, Miko is never really a full character she is an idea, an idea of a certain way Paladins are played/viewed. Hinjo, O-Chul, Lien, and Ho Thanh are all people first, takes on the paladin second, even O-Chul who seems to exist as a way to prove "Good is not dumb" is defined far more by his personality rather than "paladin Traits"
By contrast, most of Miko's traits are tied to her class, the stereotype of the paladin is them being boss, holier than thou, uptight, humorless, paranoid, zealous, brave, suicidal, puritanical and idealistic, which are Mikos primary traits, she doesn't have much beyond that. Contrast to say, Durkon, who has the standard Dwarf Traits of

Conservatism
Loving Rules
Stubborness
Drinking
Funny Accent
Brave
Kinda of clueless
Socially Awkward
Support

but he has so much more than that, which Miko never really gets.

Which incidentally I think is why in a giant essay I wrote, the main focus of the thread is on Miko, because that character really is sort of the flash point of the entire fandom

I haven't read the one about O-Chul getting his scar, so maybe there is more to her there

woweedd

2017-08-24, 10:21 PM

Jasdoif

2017-08-24, 10:47 PM

By contrast, most of Miko's traits are tied to her class, the stereotype of the paladin is them being boss, holier than thou, uptight, humorless, paranoid, zealous, brave, suicidal, puritanical and idealistic, which are Mikos primary traits, she doesn't have much beyond that.Paranoid? Suicidal? Puritanical? I'm...not sure we're talking about the same Miko, here.

georgie_leech

2017-08-24, 11:39 PM

Lacuna Caster

2017-08-25, 04:42 AM

I think her falling being rather manufactured and seems to vindicate a certain dislike of the character is a sign of her being Static, Miko is never really a full character she is an idea, an idea of a certain way Paladins are played/viewed. Hinjo, O-Chul, Lien, and Ho Thanh are all people first, takes on the paladin second, even O-Chul who seems to exist as a way to prove "Good is not dumb" is defined far more by his personality rather than "paladin Traits"
By contrast, most of Miko's traits are tied to her class, the stereotype of the paladin is them being boss, holier than thou, uptight, humorless, paranoid, zealous, brave, suicidal, puritanical and idealistic, which are Mikos primary traits, she doesn't have much beyond that.
I have to disagree. Hinjo, Lien and Thanh, to my mind, go through much less change than Miko and aren't as sharply defined. Early-strip Miko refrains from killing Belkar even when it's implied that executing evil-doers is well within her mandate, orders or no. Later-strip Miko appears to do her damndest to kill Hinjo, a definitionally decent person who happens to be her current organisational superior, essentially for being in her way. That's quite a transition- large enough that I'd raise an eyebrow about how psychologically plausible it is, but certainly not static.

I also don't think she was the worst way to play a paladin at the time of introduction- or at least, given that the Order weren't exactly shining exemplars of how to play rogues, bards, rangers and wizards, I don't see how this complaint made any sense. I mean, even the commentary to paladin blues makes a big deal out of Roy's willingness to temporarily embarrass himself to rescue an ally at the Inn, when Miko, who at that moment is actively risking permanent immolation to rescue total strangers, gets zero credit. In a nutshell, that's why the fanbase was so divided.

She wasn't wrong to see a pattern of lies and deception, she was wrong to conclude "I know what's best in this pile of politics and oaths and I think the best solution is to kill a defenseless old man in cold blood."
That's not what I'm mainly getting at. It's more that she manages to enter the throne room at precisely the right moment to give a maximally bad impression on three separate occasions. Miko, by the end, was a murderous, deluded fanatic clinging to the vestiges of her tattered pride... and she was screwed sideways by manipulative narrative contrivance. These are not mutually exclusive propositions.

For perspective, I'll mention I've run with a number of ostensibly good-to-neutral D&D adventuring groups that couldn't even accommodate the mildest possible version of a paladin, when it comes to, e.g, not butchering enemies in their sleep, giving fair warning or prioritising defence of innocents- and even these groups came down hard on Belkar-style antics when they didn't ban Evil PCs entirely. Let's just say I can see Miko's PoV here.

alwaysbebatman

2017-08-25, 01:25 PM

That's not what I'm mainly getting at. It's more that she manages to enter the throne room at precisely the right moment to give a maximally bad impression on three separate occasions. Miko, by the end, was a murderous, deluded fanatic clinging to the vestiges of her tattered pride... and she was screwed sideways by manipulative narrative contrivance. These are not mutually exclusive propositions.

She was a self-righteous paranoid incapable of second thoughts once she's convinced that she's right, and her boss was a manipulator hiding a massive secret from her. The plot contrivance was that she hadn't found out some partial truth about Shojo and murdered him as a traitor sooner.

Lacuna Caster

2017-08-25, 07:33 PM

She was a self-righteous paranoid incapable of second thoughts once she's convinced that she's right, and her boss was a manipulator hiding a massive secret from her. The plot contrivance was that she hadn't found out some partial truth about Shojo and murdered him as a traitor sooner.
Again... I just don't see particular signs of paranoia in early Miko, who seemed perfectly capable of second thoughts (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0202.html) on several occasions (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0225.html), and conspicuously neglected to, for example, confiscate Belkar's lead sheet until he passed inspection or use DE pre-emptively on Sam & Pa. I suppose there's no way to prove what would have happened with her and Shojo minus the OOTS, but I certainly don't see what happened in the throne room as a direct extension of her initial character traits.

alwaysbebatman

2017-08-25, 08:33 PM

The first feat we ever see her use is "Leaping to Conclusions (Improved)"... Which would be fine, anybody can make a mistake. But when she was proven mistaken she held a grudge over it. "Well, I suppose you aren't evil after all, but... then again, if there's a magic item that can make him seem to be evil, maybe there's another that can make them appear to be good. I will nurture that suspicion deep in my heart until my confirmation bias eventually proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt. Because the Gods know I could never be wrong twice!"

Lacuna Caster

2017-08-25, 08:46 PM

Again... I just don't see her forming opinions on the Order based on multiple converging lines of evidence to be 'leaping to conclusions', especially when the first hint she gets that Roy isn't actively evil is enough to have her back down, and especially by the general standards by which pivotal life-or-death decisions get made in the early days of OOTS. I also don't see any particular sign of nursing a grudge until after the trial scene, given she was tentatively willing to, e.g, date Roy.

thereaper

2017-08-28, 04:36 AM

Thing is, it became pretty obvious after a certain point that while Miko was doing the right things, she was always doing them for the wrong reasons (that is, her own ego). If that made her heroic, then one could also argue the current Belkar to be heroic. That Flaw (and her failure to grow out of it) led to her fall.

Lacuna Caster

2017-08-28, 06:34 AM

woweedd

2017-08-29, 03:08 AM

She wasn't wrong to see a pattern of lies and deception, she was wrong to conclude "I know what's best in this pile of politics and oaths and I think the best solution is to kill a defenseless old man in cold blood." Like, not respecting legitimate (if dishonest) Good authority by killing them is pretty fall worthy. Note the lack of falling for Hinjo's "arrest him and let the courts do their thing" solution.
Acting as judge, jury, and executioner, for crimes you don't even fully understand, is not Lawful nor Good.

thereaper

2017-08-31, 12:44 AM

With respect, assuming that someone would run into the lobby of a burning building purely as an ego-syntonic PR exercise seems like an incredibly mean-spirited way to interpret someone's underlying motives. This didn't stop many readers at the time from doing exactly that, of course, but if the purpose of Miko's narrative trajectory was to ultimately validate that perspective... well, I'm not exactly going to approve of the company Rich keeps.

I think you misunderstand what I mean. It's not that Miko did Good things for PR, but rather because it allowed her to justify her attitude of superiority, rather than out of any concern for people, as a lack of empathy or compassion was very evident in all of her actions, and she never took kindly to people calling her out on this. Roy's speech to her sort of hit the nail on the head, there.

Note that none of this makes her a bad character (quite the contrary, in my opinion; she was a very interesting and nontraditional antagonist, and the controversy surrounding her proves how thought-provoking she was). Nor did it make her ineffective at what she did, until that flaw brought her down.

Cozzer

2017-08-31, 02:21 AM

You know, it just hit me how much Miko's situation is similar to Tarquin's. Sure, one wanted to be an Evil dictator and the other wanted to be a champion of Good, but but were convinced they were the main characters (on the heroes' side and on the villains' side, respectively) of the story and fell because of it.

All of Miko's mistakes, in the end, were caused by her conviction that she had to be the one to solve all the major problems. Every time she made a major mistake, the fault in her reasoning was that she completely failed to account for the fact that maybe there were people more important than her in the context of the current crisis, and she should just have let these people do their job in their own way, providing support as needed. She tried to take the main characters' spot by force, just like Tarquin tried to make Elan the main character by force, because both of them believed that the actual main characters weren't good enough (for different reasons, obiviously).

At the beginning of her personal arc Miko was a hero, there's no question about that. A jerkish and unpleasant hero, sure, but there's plenty of them in the genre (or, well, in any genre). Her fatal flaw, in my opinion, was that being a hero wasn't enough for her. She had to be the hero.

It's just that in Tarquin's case, this narrative subtext is spelled out because when Elan and his family are around, the fourth wall might as well give up and go home.

Lacuna Caster

2017-08-31, 05:39 AM

I think you misunderstand what I mean. It's not that Miko did Good things for PR, but rather because it allowed her to justify her attitude of superiority, rather than out of any concern for people, as a lack of empathy or compassion was very evident in all of her actions...
'All of her actions' would include offering healing after battle, rescuing the defenceless, and paying for rent and damages she did not cause. How, exactly, is a lack of compassion evident in those actions? That doesn't make any sense.

All of Miko's mistakes, in the end, were caused by her conviction that she had to be the one to solve all the major problems. Every time she made a major mistake, the fault in her reasoning was that she completely failed to account for the fact that maybe there were people more important than her in the context of the current crisis, and she should just have let these people do their job in their own way, providing support as needed.
No. Miko is the very powerful and presumably experienced second-in-command of a major paladin organisation charged with combating existential threats. The people she butts heads with are either hazardously inept random misfits (the Order), ethically shady to the point of being actively criminal (the Order, Shojo), or by all appearances in dire need of help at a critical moment (Soon). There is no good reason for her to hang back and wait for an invitation under those circumstances. Miko's bad calls are serious, but they have to do with how she intervenes.

Even then, I don't think the early version of Miko necessarily hogs the spotlight. She was quite willing to let Belkar track the ogres, lets Durkon do the healing after combat, and during the Inn scene could have ordered Roy & Co. to do the grunt work of evacuating civilians while she took the glory of capturing trained assassins. But she doesn't, which suggests that either (A), she genuinely cared more about the civilians, and/or (B) was willing to defer to Roy's plan. The evidence does not fit the theory.

LadyEowyn

2017-08-31, 06:08 AM

Away from the Miko topic, I just wanted to say that the analysis by the first poster is excellent. A lot lf writers think that just throwing loss and tragedy at the characters causes character development, and that gets old fast. This method is focused on removing narrative crutches, so that characyers need to become something more than they initially were.

But I think the Belkar analysis is a little off. He got the Mark of Justice at the end of Book 2, but he didn't start sctually devrloping as a character until Book 5, after it had been removed.

Cozzer

2017-08-31, 07:14 AM

No. Miko is the very powerful and presumably experienced second-in-command of a major paladin organisation...

I agree with most of what you're saying. The problem is, the major paladin organization is still limited and their approach is not enough to deal with the menace, just like Girard's opposite approach has faults (the Order at its best shows how you need both Lawful leadership/focus and Chaotic guile to succeed). But Miko can't even imagine her approach might be wrong. In her mindset, if what she's doing isn't bringing the desired results, she just needs to do the same thing but harder. And if someone, even someone who has a better grip on what's going on and more experience than her, disagrees, she just needs to keep doing things the same way but harder until that person changes their mind.

Even then, I don't think the early version of Miko necessarily hogs the spotlight...
I don't think Miko has ever cared about glory, or hogging the spotlight. The way I see it, the fact that she was the hero of whatever story she was in was a given for her, so she didn't really feel challenged in these situations. Again, I do believe she was a legit hero despite her flaws, until the circumstances broke her because she wouldn't bend.

That said, I join the praise for the OP and his analysis. :smallsmile:

Lacuna Caster

2017-08-31, 08:10 AM

I really hate being a cracked record on this point, but... again, whatever one can say about Miko's later conduct... I don't think those remarks apply to her early behaviour. Miko using Smite Evil on Roy during their first encounter didn't bring the desired result, and her reaction was to immediately pause and listen to someone more experienced with a better grip on the situation (Durkon.) Harrying the OOTS to follow her orders didn't exactly work, so her reaction (before the Inn blew up) was to accommodate their demands and follow Roy's lead. Which was, in fact, compromising with them.

I don't think we really know enough about the Draketooths to say how much or little they had in common with the Guard, but I would point out these are both hierarchical secret organisations with rigid membership standards that share information on a need-to-know basis, so they might be more similar than either would care to admit. And what I partly found interesting about Miko is that she was a blend of Lawful focus and Chaotic guile. I mean, you can talk about how she rubs people the wrong way and isn't great at tactful persuasion, sure, but using half-truths and misdirection to, e.g, destroy the Ogres certainly wasn't tactically sub-par. That's actually the opposite of Lawful Stupid.

Cozzer

2017-08-31, 08:37 AM

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you. As long as she stays more or less inside her confort zone (which, as a trained warrior and agent, is pretty large) she's able to compromise, use guile and be effective at most things. It took a very specific chain of huge events to push her far, far away from her confort zone and to ultimately break her, in War and XPs... which is similar to what happened to Tarquin in the fifth book, is my point. Rich stated that Tarquin is a succesful Evil dictator 99% of the time, but for the story to be interesting it has to focus on the other 1%. War and XPs is Miko's other 1%.

(I guess part of the reason why they're so... problematic, is that it's easy to think that 1% is the only way they can be, since it's the biggest part of what the story actually shows).

Which, to avoid being too much off topic, is part of the "take away a character's role" style of character development the OP talks about, in my opinion. A character has his or her role gradually taken away, falls to the bottom, somehow survives and that's where development starts. Since Miko's not a main character and her personal story is a tragedy, it ends at the "falls to the bottom" step. It's what would have happened to Belkar without the Cleric of Loki's Remove Curse, or Varsuviuus without O-Chul's presence.

wumpus

2017-08-31, 08:53 AM

Well, yeah. That's the point. Her existence in the story is to make a point about D&D and how it's played, same way Redcloak is. Redcloak's point is about the idea of assuming that any creature that's labeled "Mostly Evil" must automatically be an irredeemable monster, and using that to make a point about real-world Racism, Miko is about how not to play a Paladin. She just gets a lot less screen time. Keep in mind: Just because she was with the OOTS for an arc, that doesn't make her a main cast member, any more then Cellia was.

The problems Rich points out about Miko and D&D Paladins is pretty much baked into the rules, and it takes a certain amount of house ruling to even allow a PC Paladin to work with a Belkar-less OOTS (dealing with V's fall would be much more traumatic). There is a reason the paladins make great NPCs, but the paladin who has to be the main character suffers disaster for it. This is something Roy never shows: he just needs the world to be saved. Had V been successful after the ABD, he would have happily moved on and faced Tarquin with Elan [although I think I have the timeline a bit off].

KorvinStarmast

2017-08-31, 10:40 AM

I disagree that Redcloak had no character type : he was the sycophantic "Renfield"/"Igor" henchman type and paradoxically enough grew out of it when he had to take charge (battle of Azure City) instead of blindly follow like he did. I know his character is explored in Start Of Darkness so maybe this moment is not as significant as I make it to be but as far as low point go, realizing that you are needlessly wasting the lives of people ready to sacrifice everything for you is pretty low. Redcloak has an "aha!" moment (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0451.html)during the battle for Azure City. I think that's a part of his growth process.

Kalmegil

2017-08-31, 11:01 AM

Miko, who at that moment is actively risking permanent immolation to rescue total strangers, gets zero credit.

She wasn't risking permanent immolation. As V would say, "Stop being so blasted melodramatic! It's nonmagical fire. It inflicts a mere 1d6 points of damage. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0243.html)"

Lacuna Caster

2017-08-31, 11:31 AM

V is wrong. The kitchen stove inflicts 1d6 points of damage, but having several storeys of burning rafters collapse on top of you is a different story. Even in the actual story we got, Miko narrowly escapes being blown to pieces.

goodpeople25

2017-08-31, 12:03 PM

If Miko didn't know the Inn was going to explode how does it affect the act of going into the burning building? (To possibly rescue total strangers, she goes in after the initial evacuation in case there were stranglers not sure if anybody was actually left, don't think it necessarily affects the act but I think it needs to be said and could affect the obligation angle) Also citation needed on the narrowly escaped thing.

Lacuna Caster

2017-08-31, 12:43 PM

I don't think Miko knew the Inn was going to explode, but I do think she'd be reasonably aware of the risk of the structure collapsing. Because... that's what burning structures do. And just about everyone knows that. Even in D&D. And yeah, she doesn't know for sure that anyone is left inside, but in a way that's more impressive- she's double-checking for the sake of people that she doesn't even know for sure were left inside.

Look, I'm aware that Rich probably didn't intend that scene as something entirely serious, but... it goes on for multiple pages and genuinely did endanger her life and kinda has some significant knock-on effects, if not on the main protagonists then certainly for Somewhere's inhabitants. That's one hell of an outlying data point.

martianmister

2017-08-31, 01:14 PM

Miko is a product of the transitional period where characters changed from being caricatures of DnD classes to actual persons. Miko's "Lawful Stupid" flaws supposed to be jokes like others' flaws, but she was neither funny nor part of the original team and she became unpopular, so, after the strip's change into something much more serious, she never got the same treatment others got and her flaws seems worser in hindsight.

hroþila

2017-08-31, 02:46 PM

Kalmegil

2017-08-31, 03:44 PM

The inn collapsed so fast because of the additional explosives. As far as Miko and V knew, they weren't in any particular danger. I think Miko would probably have done the same even if she had known about the explosives, but that's not what happened.

Exactly. In the comic I linked, she, Haley, and V are just casually walking through the fire. No particular urgency or note of caution.

Lacuna Caster

2017-08-31, 04:46 PM

No... I'm still gonna say the strip where Haley was actively running and the walls are all burning is a point when you can reasonably start worrying about structural collapse.

EDIT: Look, here (https://www.gtmetrofire.org/public-education/safety-information/fire-spread-and-fire-drills/). I realise conventional physics don't exactly apply here, but in reality you'd have around 4 minutes before you get air temperatures similar to molten lava. A think a reasonable interpretation of the environment rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/environment.htm) pegs that at 10d6 damage/round, quite apart from suffocation and smoke effects.

Miko is a product of the transitional period where characters changed from being caricatures of DnD classes to actual persons. Miko's "Lawful Stupid" flaws supposed to be jokes like others' flaws, but she was neither funny nor part of the original team and she became unpopular, so, after the strip's change into something much more serious, she never got the same treatment others got and her flaws seems worser in hindsight.
Miko never 'became' unpopular. There were readers who wished her a violent end more or less the instant she revealed herself as a paladin. So I think some other explanation for her reception is required. (For my own part, I thought she was amusing enough, though I guess there's no accounting for taste.)

Jasdoif

2017-08-31, 06:08 PM

No... I'm still gonna say the strip where Haley was actively running and the walls are all burning is a point when you can reasonably start worrying about structural collapse.I'm gonna question the validity of that on the basis of Haley actively running back towards the still-burning building (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0245.html).

A think a reasonable interpretation of the environment rules (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/environment.htm) pegs that at 10d6 damage/round, quite apart from suffocation and smoke effects.Those rules quite clearly state (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/environment.htm#heatDangers) being in an environment with fire, or air temperatures over 140 degrees Fahrenheit, or even lava; does at much 10 damage per minute, and even catching on fire does only 1d6 per round.

It seems clear to me: Miko went into the burning building to rescue civilians because protecting people she finds innocent is what she does; and because dealing with physical threats by crushing them into oblivion is how she normally does it, the risk of physical harm to herself doesn't bother her. What's your intent in trying to push such a flimsy rules transmogrification?

Kish

2017-08-31, 06:44 PM

If Miko didn't know the Inn was going to explode how does it affect the act of going into the burning building?
If, and only if, one starts with the premise that heroism is dependent on knowingly and avoidably embracing great personal risk, Miko suddenly isn't heroic anymore if she was confident (rightly or wrongly) that her level 10+ Evasion-having self was in no significant danger when she went into the inn to save any low-level commoners, experts, or aristocrats who might still be inside.

I don't have that premise, and thus it makes no meaningful difference to me; in the scene where Miko tells the truth that she's there to rescue the helpless and Haley either lies about what she's doing or demonstrates how profoundly warped her priorities are by calling her* loot "the helpless," the moral high ground rests entirely with Miko. But I suspect Lacuna's moral beliefs differ from mine, such that the scene becomes substantially worse for him if Miko didn't believe she was in any danger.

*Properly the whole party's, but considering that she'll shortly be saying "AH diim. Afup!**" about it, that fact does not make her perspective look less selfish and warped.
**Translated: "MY loot. Mine!"

Lacuna Caster

2017-09-01, 04:06 AM

Those rules quite clearly state (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/environment.htm#heatDangers) being in an environment with fire, or air temperatures over 140 degrees Fahrenheit, or even lava; does at much 10 damage per minute, and even catching on fire does only 1d6 per round.
At the point where the air hits 1400 Fahrenheit, I'm gonna say the situation is comparable to total immersion, which deals 10x damage. But okay- even if you were only looking at 1d6/round, how many rounds does it take to check all the rooms in a four-storey building, or start failing suffocation checks? The latter in particular is save-or-die.

To address Kish's point: If Miko genuinely believed she was in no danger, then yes, it would still be a distinctly good thing to do, consequentially speaking, but as a measurement of her commitment to principle it would be lot more tepid (all she'd be sacrificing is spare time.) But I think it's implausible that she'd get to the second or third floor without noticing, e.g, all the blistering heat, dense smoke and falling timbers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFfozZTjItQ).

I'll fully admit that having buckets of hit dice and good saves would greatly improve Miko's odds of survival, but this is still one of the few environmental threats that can genuinely kill high-level D&D characters. (Also of note- if your corpse is cremated, nothing beside True Resurrection brings you back.)

Jasdoif

2017-09-01, 10:57 AM

If Miko genuinely believed she was in no danger, then yes, it would still be a distinctly good thing to do, consequentially speaking, but as a measurement of her commitment to principle it would be lot more tepid (all she'd be sacrificing is spare time.)Suppose, as I do, that innocent people definitely being in danger mattered more to Miko than whether she'd be in danger or not. Where would that fall on your tepidity scale?

Kalmegil

2017-09-01, 12:11 PM

At the point where the air hits 1400 Fahrenheit, I'm gonna say the situation is comparable to total immersion, which deals 10x damage. But okay- even if you were only looking at 1d6/round, how many rounds does it take to check all the rooms in a four-storey building, or start failing suffocation checks? The latter in particular is save-or-die.

The characters clearly did not view the situation that way, which is why it's incorrect to say that Miko was "actively risking permanent immolation."

But I think it's implausible that she'd get to the second or third floor without noticing, e.g, all the blistering heat, dense smoke and falling timbers (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nFfozZTjItQ).

Again, that's not how fire works here. That might be how you handle it as a DM, but OOTS clearly does not run under your proposed house rule. Either that, or the characters are all greatly underestimating the risk involved, which doesn't seem plausible. Especially when one of them is V: both very smart and with pitiful hit points I don't see any evidence in the comic that anything more than 1d6 damage per minute is at risk.

Lacuna Caster

2017-10-09, 07:33 AM

Suppose, as I do, that innocent people definitely being in danger mattered more to Miko than whether she'd be in danger or not. Where would that fall on your tepidity scale?
I think the main point I'm driving at is that what the main cast are saying and what the tangible facts of the narrative imply are, at this point in the strip, somewhat at odds with eachother. (Even if we're dealing with some exotic brand of fire that doesn't consume oxygen or collapse ceilings, smoke effects (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/environment.htm#smokeEffects) can leave a character effectively helpless with mounting save DCs.)

Maybe I'm being too hard on the comic's relatively flippant early days, but it's of some interest to me that readers more than a decade after the fact apparently take away that Miko was a static and unchanging caricature of a fanatic termagant, when her behaviour actually demonstrates (A) considerable change over time, and (B) substantial capacity for generosity and heroism. But framing trumps (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKyrUMUervU&t=3m25s) the text.

On that note... it just occurred to me that Eugene could probably have solved the Xykon problem in under 24 hours after Dorukan's Gate was destroyed by (A) asking the sapphire guard diviners to locate X/RC, (B) reminding Shojo that teleport spells exist, (C) pointing out that Xykon is vulnerable while he regenerates, and (D) that such an intervention would in no way contravene the paladins' oath to not interfere with the Gates, since Xykon isn't actually at any of the Gates at the time. Huh.

alwaysbebatman

2017-10-09, 09:48 AM

I think the main point I'm driving at is that what the main cast are saying and what the tangible facts of the narrative imply are, at this point in the strip, somewhat at odds with eachother.

Awful people take jobs that involve risking their life in a good cause and then do those jobs and risk their lives in a good cause, every day.

The text is very clear that they aren't in much danger in the burning building, but it doesn't matter enough to debate, because nobody doubts that Miko would risk her life to save innocents if that were the situation.

But she very likely would use detect evil to be sure it was worth her time.

Physical courage is a good quality, but having it doesn't mean you have any other good qualities.

You seem to be arguing that when (for example) Roy tells Miko off, that the characters are telling us something that Miko's actions don't show. But the idea there is that Roy was the one who was slow to see something about Miko that the rest of the party and the audience (mostly) had seen right away.

Lacuna Caster

2017-10-09, 10:43 AM

Awful people take jobs that involve risking their life in a good cause and then do those jobs and risk their lives in a good cause, every day.
Um... no? Or at least, that's an assertion so outlandish I'd want to see some substantial evidence to support it? Could you consult your dense tome of psychometric statistics and get back to me?

I don't assume that Miko has other good traits because she has physical courage. I infer she has other good traits because she's demonstrating physical courage to get people out of danger, in a pattern consistent with her, e.g, forfeiting personal gain to cover damage to property she didn't even cause, but inconsistent with her being someone who hides behind a badge to treat people like crap. So, yes, up to that point in the narrative I think you need to have a fairly warped assessment of Miko's priorities to conclude any such thing.

alwaysbebatman

2017-10-09, 12:45 PM

Have you ever personally worked in a dangerous lifesaving profession? Or around them? Many of them are not nice people.

Even without personal experience, just paying attention to the news and to history should tell you that.

Here have some evidence: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/09/19/ohio-firefighter-one-dog-is-more-important-than-a-million-african-americans/?utm_term=.b280206e5ba7

Old General

2017-10-10, 06:56 PM

Have you ever personally worked in a dangerous lifesaving profession? Or around them? Many of them are not nice people.

Heh. Having worked in a hospital with a couple of people who scored very highly on Dr Hare’s Psychopathy checklist, I have to add my +1 to this.

Also, for the posters speaking of Miko’s courage, does she not state to Redcloak (just before he delivers his somewhat hypocritical “The Reason You Suck” speech) that she has had her fear removed? Is it even possible to be courageous if one doesn’t feel fear?

[also: Hi! First post! I’m binge-rereading the PDFs from Gumroad, and I could resist posting no longer 😃]

alwaysbebatman

2017-10-11, 12:30 AM

I completely forgot about that, thank you!

Was that ALL paladins, or just Miko?

Yeah, my wife insists that House, MD is super unrealistic, because nobody would put up with such an *******. I'm like, you'd be surprised what you can get away with if you're effective.

Eta: Oh, also: welcome!

Lacuna Caster

2017-10-11, 01:46 PM

The question of professional motivations among firefighters is actually an interesting one (http://www.centerforperformancepsychology.org/assets/resources/pageResources/The-Journal-of-Performance-Psychology-Issue-Nine.pdf), because it touches on of my major objections (http://community.fireengineering.com/profiles/blog/show?id=1219672%3ABlogPost%3A635795) to 'empathy == good'. (This is why I don't really object to someone doing the right thing out a sense of unfeeling duty, because those habits are much more sustainable.) But I would point out that, e.g, medical surgeons are extremely well-paid for the work they do- if you want to find an ulterior motive there it's not difficult.

Yes, 'feel no fear' applies to all paladins. But the point isn't whether Miko shows courage, or feels warm and fuzzy about helping people- the point is whether she attaches intrinsic value to altruistic action. If she wanted to show off her skills or willingness to risk danger, she could have just chased after the assassins (which, incidentally, would also have been perfectly compatible with her code.) It's not like she's getting a paycheck out of it.

alwaysbebatman

2017-10-11, 03:02 PM

So, ALL that you want to assert is that Miko believes that altruism has intrinsic value?

Sure, point conceded.

If you truly believe that empathy and humility are just "warm fuzzies" and not important to living an ethical life, I can't imagine what's left to discuss.

georgie_leech

2017-10-11, 05:06 PM

In fairness, I'll take cynical altruism over naive jerkishness any day of the week. :smalltongue:

Lacuna Caster

2017-10-11, 05:16 PM

I don't strictly know that Miko doesn't feel warm and fuzzy about helping people, I just don't think it's the be-all and end-all of virtues, and that politeness/etiquette is a surprisingly weak predictor (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyXRYgjQXX0&t=9m40s) either way.

Empathy isn't a bad thing to have, but it comes with it's own drawbacks, such as the risk of burnout or manipulation, which tend to limit its scope and make it prone to misdirection. The reason why a lot of health professionals, for example, come off as cold and unfeeling to patients is precisely because they can't maintain close emotional rapport under those kind of stresses. Only the Oath endures.

KorvinStarmast

2017-10-13, 12:49 PM

Also, for the posters speaking of Miko’s courage, does she not state to Redcloak (just before he delivers his somewhat hypocritical “The Reason You Suck” speech) that she has had her fear removed? Is it even possible to be courageous if one doesn’t feel fear?
Courage is being scared to death but saddling up anyway. (https://www.retroplanet.com/mm5/graphics/00000006/29814_main.jpg)

I don't strictly know that Miko doesn't feel warm and fuzzy about helping people, I just don't think it's the be-all and end-all of virtues, and that politeness/etiquette is a surprisingly weak predictor (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YyXRYgjQXX0&t=9m40s) either way. Sociopaths can do a lovely job of faking empathy.

Empathy isn't a bad thing to have, but it comes with it's own drawbacks, such as the risk of burnout or manipulation, which tend to limit its scope and make it prone to misdirection. The reason why a lot of health professionals, for example, come off as cold and unfeeling to patients is precisely because they can't maintain close emotional rapport under those kind of stresses. Only the Oath endures. Yes, quite true, and your closing sentence is how a Paladin stays committed.

alwaysbebatman

2017-10-13, 02:25 PM

Man, "empathy is important" is such a weird thing to not have consensus on, I had to Google it. Two of the top autocompletes for "empathy is" for me were "overrated" and "bad."

So, you aren't the only ones thinking it. But it's highly unconvincing to me. Isn't it reasonable to suspect that this pushback against empathy is coming from defensiveness? (I mean in general, not accusing anyone of anything.)

Accepting everyone as part of the human family (or in this setting, the sophont family) and treating them as such is the source of moral and ethical codes to begin with. Putting your code before your fellowship is getting things backwards and is prone to justifying the unjustifiable.

georgie_leech

2017-10-13, 03:21 PM

There are certain people that use real or feigned empathy to be an indicator they are a good person, and put less effort into actually being a decent human being. No names, but certain sections of the internet can really use empathy as an excuse to act extremely holier than thou, for instance. Which sort of defeats the point:smalltongue:

Lacuna Caster

2017-10-14, 02:57 PM

Accepting everyone as part of the human family (or in this setting, the sophont family) and treating them as such is the source of moral and ethical codes to begin with. Putting your code before your fellowship is getting things backwards and is prone to justifying the unjustifiable.
There are potential drawbacks to all personality styles, and a tendency toward orderliness is no exception, but there's an interesting discussion on the specific dangers of empathy here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVMvQhxN_M8).

I'd also just say there's a difference between cognitive empathy (anticipating emotional reactions) and affective empathy (actually caring about well-being), which as Korvin points out can diverge greatly in the case of sociopaths, along with other minority groups (https://www.mpib-berlin.mpg.de/en/research/concluded-areas/mprg-neurocognition-of-decision-making/decision-making-in-social-contexts/individuals-with-asperger). (Not saying that Miko specifically fits the profile, but... food for thought.)

alwaysbebatman

2017-10-14, 03:09 PM

I agree that it's very important to make the distinction between caring about people and being good at figuring out how people feel. One is foundational to life, the other's just a skill. If we use the word "empathy" for both (which I have no doubt I'm guilty of) it's not surprising if we misunderstand one another.

I definitely can't agree that caring about people is a personality style or that it can lead you astray.

Caring about people combined with poor judgement and/or misinformation or lack of perspective can lead you astray, but that's the fault of the poor judgment or etc, not of the caring.

Lacuna Caster

2017-10-15, 06:27 AM

If you're referring to compassion in the high-level utilitarian sense of maximising long-term benefit to as many people as possible, then... sure, that's hard to argue against on policy grounds, and I'm obviously not going to argue you out of your own priorities. But I think in practice that's a goal that requires, along with, e.g, sensitivity and generosity, other values such as discipline, directness, competition and impartiality. And insofar as we're referring to empathy as a moment-to-moment emotional contagion- which is a facet of personality- then it can absolutely conflict with those values.

EDIT: I would just say for completeness that if we're looking at the Big 5 model in particular, agreeableness is usually broken down into separate-but-correlating measures for politeness and compassion, which is a little different from Adam Grant's findings. (It's possible that big organisations weed out the most egregious specimens in terms of lacking both traits, but Big-5 studies are typically based on self-assessment, so take it with a grain of salt (https://people.csail.mit.edu/meyer/sex-degrees.pdf).)

And Miko is clearly AGR 12, CON 20, NEU 16, EXT 6, OPE 13. Like, objectively.

.

Devils_Advocate

2017-11-27, 09:59 PM

That's definitely a good analysis, CowardlyPaladin. The broader point is an obvious one in retrospect: Place characters in situations where they won't engage in their normal behavior, and they have to demonstrate different things about themselves. You can do that by making their normal behavior somehow not possible, but that's far from the only option. Someone who fulfills a major goal, for example, will then stop directing efforts towards it. In the case of Vaarsuvius, we get to see what V finally does with ultimate arcane power after chasing after it for so long, and how reluctant V is to give it up.

Of course, after circumstances return to normal, characters can likewise revert entirely or almost entirely to earlier patterns of behavior. And, indeed, this is necessary standard practice in low-continuity serial fiction wherein the status quo must be maintained. But being forced into an unfamiliar mode of operation can also teach important lessons and have lasting impacts. So it can serve as a device for long-term changes to characters, but it doesn't have to.

As to the more recent discussion, I had understood empathy to be experiencing the feelings of others. And while being happy when others are happy obviously motivates benevolence, but being sad and afraid when others are sad and afraid doesn't necessarily put you in the best emotional state to help them. Furthermore, since we can only vicariously experience things we're aware of in the first place, that sort of sensitivity can lead someone to avoid learning about suffering in the first place, e.g. by not reading the news, rather than to alleviate suffering.

I think that those are the sorts of problems people are thinking about when they say that empathy isn't necessarily all that great. Feeling bad about bad things happening to others not only doesn't automatically translate into helping them, but can lead away from doing so. And it's possible to care about the welfare of others and work to improve it without feeling bad about it. For some people, that may be easier.

Thaumic

2017-12-05, 09:00 AM

I agree with your analysis, CowardlyPaladin, but I would like to point out one character you seem to have skipped: Therkla. Her story arc is somewhat short (or at least, has fewer comics covering it, on the order of 20), so I think she is often forgotten. But she also exhibits the type of character growth you discussed.
She is faced with a difficult choice: the man who has given her a feeling of belonging (something she never had before), or the man she loves. Her problem is, the two of them refuse to co-exist. When she is first introduced, she doesn't seem to have a plan about resolving this issue, in fact, she may not even be aware of it.
As the story continues, she begins to realize that Kubota really wants Elan dead, and that simply "failing" to kill him over and over is not a viable solution. It is at this point that she reaches her big, character-defining loss: she cannot have the two people she cares most about, and must pick one.
At first, she sides with Elan, as the two go off to stop Kubota from killing Kazumi and Daigo. However, she doesn't realize at the time that Elan plans to actually arrest Kubota, and when she is forced to make the heroes' choice a little later on, she chooses... neither.
I think this is her lowest point of loss, because the only choice she felt like she could make didn't work (instead, she got poisoned). This is the point when she takes a big step in the character-development direction: she chooses Elan over Kubota (saying "I shoulda just... just stuck with you and attacked Kubota right away.")
Unfortunately, before the emotions between her and Elan can really be sorted out... she dies. However, I feel like if she had lived, we could have seen some amount of growth in her as a character as a result of these events, such as how you described in the original thread post.

Ruck

2017-12-05, 02:51 PM

As to the more recent discussion, I had understood empathy to be experiencing the feelings of others. And while being happy when others are happy obviously motivates benevolence, but being sad and afraid when others are sad and afraid doesn't necessarily put you in the best emotional state to help them. Furthermore, since we can only vicariously experience things we're aware of in the first place, that sort of sensitivity can lead someone to avoid learning about suffering in the first place, e.g. by not reading the news, rather than to alleviate suffering.

I think that those are the sorts of problems people are thinking about when they say that empathy isn't necessarily all that great. Feeling bad about bad things happening to others not only doesn't automatically translate into helping them, but can lead away from doing so. And it's possible to care about the welfare of others and work to improve it without feeling bad about it. For some people, that may be easier.

Empathy isn't just "feeling what others feel." It's the ability to place oneself in their shoes and understand why they feel the way they feel and do the things they do.