Redcloak and Miko - two sides of the same coin (spoilers for SoD)

[TheNifty]

The last comic (547) really has me seeing the similarities between Redcloak and Miko - two characters who couldn't have seemed more different only a couple hundred strips ago. Both suffer from the same fatal flaw - they are totally incapable of allowing new evidence to change a cherished view they hold. In effect, they are both guilty of fanaticism.

Miko simply cannot comprehend of the OOTS not being evil, and so, when she discovers them plotting with Shoujo, immediately leaps to the conclusion that he must also be evil, rather than rethinking her judgment on the OOTS. Even after the gods strip her paladin abilities, she still doesn't rethink her beliefs - in fact, she cannot rethink them, do do so would mean she murdered her Lord for no reason, and so every piece of evidence is contorted until it fits her personal views, or discarded if she can't twist it far enough.

Likewise, Redcloak has grown more and more incapable of considering whether the current path he is on is the right one. He kills his own brother as a traitor for trying to come up with a way for the goblins to live in peace, instead believing that peace will only come when he can force the other races to submit.

He is faced with a mountain of evidence that O-Chul doesn't know where the next gate is, but rather than accept this, and thus accept that the human paladins have honorably kept their vows, instead views the situation as O-Chul demonstrating disregard for the lives of his fellow humans.

Like Miko and her refusal to accept responsibility for her murder of Shoujo, he is incapable of seeing the truth because doing so would mean he had to face up to murdering his brother.

[Felixaar]

Agreed. Both of them seem to have problems dmitting that they were wrong.

[hamishspence]

hmm, which raises question of why redcloak is popular and miko a little less than.

Maybe people sympathise more with villain with genuine grievance, than a hero with unpleasant traits?

its odd though, Miko, after leaping to erroneous conclusion, did evil. Redcloak, after making wrong guess, chose to cancel order to do evil act.

[warmachine]

Yep. Fanaticism rather than determination. The author gets a thumbs up for excellent writing. For characters with divine classes, Redcloak and Miko don't seem enlightened.

You should place spoiler warnings in the thread title. The clash between Redcloak and his brother is an important conclusion in the Start of Darkness book.

[TheNifty]

You should place spoiler warnings in the thread title. The clash between Redcloak and his brother is an important conclusion in the Start of Darkness book.

K, edited the title. Sorry to anyone who didn't know before.

[Eric]

hmm, which raises question of why redcloak is popular and miko a little less than.

Maybe because all Miko *was* was a one-dimensional fanatic. Redcloak, despite being evil rather than good, has more to his character than Miko.

[Animefunkmaster]

hmm, which raises question of why redcloak is popular and miko a little less than.

Maybe people sympathise more with villain with genuine grievance, than a hero with unpleasant traits?

(Inner Orc): AFUNKY NO LIEKK GRRRLLLSSS!

There was more to their characters than there unwillingness to admit when they are wrong, and blindly following an ideal (Personally I think O-Chul DOES have some info and he is being all paladin/monk about it... at least a dip in monk for the unarmed strike feat. He really must have hot saves.)

[Karkadinn]

Maybe because all Miko *was* was a one-dimensional fanatic. Redcloak, despite being evil rather than good, has more to his character than Miko.

If that was all Miko was, then she never would have sparked such intense debate to start with. No, there's a different explanation, one that doesn't ignore the writing skills of the author or the reactions of the audience.
Miko was a humorless character.
In a fantasy-comedy comic.
Redcloak, however flawed he may be, has a sense of humor. Like Xykon, like Belkar, etc.
In a comedy genre story, you're likeable to the audience no matter what you do so long as you do it in a flippant and chuckleworthy way. This says less about the characters themselves and more about the shallowness of human emotional reactions, but there you go.

[ZekeArgo]

This says less about the characters themselves and more about the shallowness of human emotional reactions, but there you go.

This here is quite harsh, because as you have already stated: shes crossed genera boundaries. It's honestly quite similar to introducing a player who loves "deep, soul-searching roleplay" into a beer and pretzels style group. It just doesn't mesh.

[Porthos]

As a person who has been beating the drums about the Miko/Redcloak equivalency for a long time now (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2810025&postcount=27), I think it is relatively easy to explain why Redcloak has more sympathizers than Miko did (or at least different ones). Redcloak will occasionally feel bad about what he's done. Miko never did. In fact, when Miko showed a hint of regret and understanding of what she had done when she died, the board bent over backward to shower sympathy on her.

To me that speaks volumes.

So while the lack of humor is indeed a major strike in a humor based comic, the lack of humility or remorse is a bigger one. Oh sure the latter reason doesn't explain characters like Xykon or Belkar. But they're so funny and outrageous that it takes something really bad for the board to rise up in arms. But even they can suffer a board backlash if they cross a vaguely defined line, as the killing of the gnome and the paladin slaughter showed.

Of course, I'm speaking in generalizations here, as there were plenty of Miko defenders on the board. :smallwink:

[The Hop Goblin]

If that was all Miko was, then she never would have sparked such intense debate to start with. No, there's a different explanation, one that doesn't ignore the writing skills of the author or the reactions of the audience.
Miko was a humorless character.
In a fantasy-comedy comic.
Redcloak, however flawed he may be, has a sense of humor. Like Xykon, like Belkar, etc.
In a comedy genre story, you're likeable to the audience no matter what you do so long as you do it in a flippant and chuckleworthy way. This says less about the characters themselves and more about the shallowness of human emotional reactions, but there you go.

Not to quote my own signature... but do you think that maybe... just maybe.. that if Miko was Michelle and she was a mideavil paladin as opposed to a samurai - that maybe interest in Miko would have been a great deal smaller? In much of today's society (speaking from a North American standpoint) Asiaphillia is still pretty big. Interest in the Japanese culture, for example, outweighs interest for European culture for much of the younger population (most likely due to the exposure to anime, video games, movies, etc).

Miko was a character to stab at players who play paladins baddly; the holier-than-thou-if-you-don't-agree-with-me-you-must-be-evil-or-you'd-see-I'm-right sort of player. She had very little character arc - no character progression other than the slight jump to being crazy (which she exhibited signs of all along). In this, she was very much a one-dimensional character.

Redcloak has had change, Redcloak has inner-conflict on what he does and how he does it. Unlike Miko who was blithely unaware that her actions and opinions pushed her closer and closer to the edge of madness; Redcloak has always shown hesitancy and/or foreknowledge when he's about to take another step irevocably downwards. To him, some part of him, knows he's a little off center - but he's running with it towards the ultimate goal. He has a bone to pick with Xykon, which he has always kept on the downlow due to the the necessity to keep Xykon around.

[The Wanderer]

As a person who has been beating the drums about the Miko/Redcloak equivalency for a long time now (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2810025&postcount=27), I think it is relatively easy to explain why Redcloak has more sympathizers than Miko did (or at least different ones). Redcloak will occasionally feel bad about what he's done. Miko never did.

I think it's an important distinction. Miko never showed any real understanding of people, the harm she caused, or the ability to sympathize with the plight of others. Because of this, while I doubted that something good would come of her or that she'd be able to turn it around, I hoped for it. (Before her fall and death, obviously). The continuance of those traits after her fall, and her blind fanaticism, was what really tipped me from disliking the character but being ambiguous and hoping for the best to not being able to stand her and being glad for her exit from the story. (And hoping she doesn't come back).

Redcloak keeps walking along that line, and keeps teasing us, sometimes leaning more one way and sometimes the other. In the end probably the main difference for them is degree of fanaticism and that Redcloak is smarter and more unconventional than Miko, (passing grades in chem indeed!). For their most ardent supporters, I often suspect the main difference is which side of the good/evil line they fall on.

If Redcloak was a PC race and a cleric of the 12 Gods, I honestly doubt that many Miko supporters would have anything bad to say about him.

Edited to add, for the sake of balance: and if Miko had been a LE character of some kind, say a Blackguard or something similar, I doubt that many who like to root for the villains would have much of a problem with her and would instead play up how badass she is.

[TheNifty]

Redcloak has had change, Redcloak has inner-conflict on what he does and how he does it. Unlike Miko who was blithely unaware that her actions and opinions pushed her closer and closer to the edge of madness; Redcloak has always shown hesitancy and/or foreknowledge when he's about to take another step irevocably downwards. To him, some part of him, knows he's a little off center - but he's running with it towards the ultimate goal. He has a bone to pick with Xykon, which he has always kept on the downlow due to the the necessity to keep Xykon around.

Redcloak is more intelligent and self-aware than Miko, but there are similarities -for one, they both fall for the sunk cost fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_fallacy) . Both have sacrificed so much to get where they are, the idea of turning back now is inconceivable. IMHO, Redcloak is at least partially aware of this, and the irrationality of his actions, but he's not the type to waver after setting himself a goal, especially one for which he has (you guessed it) sacrificed so much.



Miko never showed any real understanding of people, the harm she caused, or the ability to sympathize with the plight of others.

Ironically, this makes her (slightly) more sympathetic to me. Is it better to consciously choose to take an action you know is evil or to do so by mistake?

[The Wanderer]

Ironically, this makes her (slightly) more sympathetic to me. Is it better to consciously choose to take an action you know is evil or to do so by mistake?

Normally I'd say something similar, but once you get to a certain point and seem completely unable or unwilling to do learn or show any basic empathy for any fellow sentients, you start verging on sociopathic tendencies. And sociopaths are scary, especially when they have a significant amount of power.

[King of Nowhere]

I opened a thread on the same argument some weeks ago and the general answer was "no, you're stretching it". Yes, they're both the result of fanatism and blind following of a goal.


Is it better to consciously choose to take an action you know is evil or to do so by mistake?
I don't think Redcloak realizes his actions are bad. Evil in terms of alignment yes, but he believes alignment are just another form of oppression of the gods. In bonus strips from No cure ..., he stated that the neutral good alignment was invented by a god to elude taxation. Paladins in his mind are evil oppressor and murderers.
He thinks "good" people to be as bad as the evil ones, just hypocrite who don't admit it and have the support of the gods. He kill humans because he thinks they're bad people, just like the paladins destroied his village thinking all of his inhabitants were evil. He did many of his evilness thinking it was the right thing to do. The only exception to that I can think of is when he killed hobgoblins for fun.
I hoped he could learn something from O-Chul about the true nature of good, but he seem to misunderstood again.

[Renegade Paladin]

Not to quote my own signature... but do you think that maybe... just maybe.. that if Miko was Michelle and she was a mideavil paladin as opposed to a samurai - that maybe interest in Miko would have been a great deal smaller?
Maybe. For my part, I like her despite that, not because of it. Anime fanboyism annoys me to no end.

[JonahFalcon]

I don't think Redcloak is evil. He has a deep concern for helpless foes. An Evil PC would have killed them anyway, as a way to intimidate the other prisoners. He has a real concern for the weak, though he doesn't mind using them as leverage.

Smacks of Redcloak being Lawful Neutral, and constantly creating excuses (PR? He shows concerns for the hobgoblins being slaves? Hello? Lawful Evil PCs enjoy slaves.)

[Alysar]

I wonder why Redcloak wouldn't simply come to the conclusion that Shojo and Hinjo had information on the other gates, but that information wasn't shared with the rest of the Sapphire Guard.

[Tom90deg]

I wonder why Redcloak wouldn't simply come to the conclusion that Shojo and Hinjo had information on the other gates, but that information wasn't shared with the rest of the Sapphire Guard.

Simple, that would mean that he was wrong about it, and in fact he DOES know nothing, and he was telling the truth, Which means Redcloak just waisted untold weeks.

As we've mentioned, Redcloak is a lot like Miko (who I always liked, I think if she'd of had some more time she'd of redeemed herself, and I still think she got some redemption before the end.) in that they have to be right, as everything else hinges on it. In the movie Dogma, if God was proven wrong, then everything would cease to be. It's kinda like that, Redcloak HAS to be right, otherwise he may start thinking, and in his position, with as much as he'd had to rationalize and twist, thinking is NOT something that he can do.

[Shatteredtower]

In fact, when Miko showed a hint of regret and understanding of what she had done when she died, the board bent over backward to shower sympathy on her.If you go back and count all of the variants of "Ding dong, the witch is dead!" posts that came out after she died, you'll find this claim exceeds the limits of exaggeration into untruth.


Not to quote my own signature... but do you think that maybe... just maybe.. that if Miko was Michelle and she was a mideavil paladin as opposed to a samurai - that maybe interest in Miko would have been a great deal smaller?No more than I'd wonder if some of the rabid loathing expressed toward Miko comes from associating her with one's dislike of anime or other sources of Eastern obsession -- or a mistrust of strong, independent women. Such accusations are cheap shots at other posters, not actual arguments, and are therefore unacceptable.

Besides, Miko goes quite against the grain as an anime or Asian ideal -- unless the lesson you're trying to drive home that a woman working on her own will eventually fail without the support of a team.


Miko was a character to stab at players who play paladins baddly; the holier-than-thou-if-you-don't-agree-with-me-you-must-be-evil-or-you'd-see-I'm-right sort of player.Yes, indeed.

I'm a bit more perturbed by the general clamour that O-Chul demonstrates THE right way to play a paladin, however. It's about as erroneous as claiming that Miko demonstrates the only way to play one.


She had very little character arc - no character progression other than the slight jump to being crazy (which she exhibited signs of all along). In this, she was very much a one-dimensional character.Not true at all. Up until Roy gave her the Ultimatum, she'd been showing signs of trying to accomodate a difficult group, even going so far as opening up to him once he finally got around to treating her as a human being.

From there, things went further and further astray. She tried to best Belkar on
his own terms. She failed to grasp the chance Durkon offered her. She tried to handle Shojo's betrayal the same way she'd been expected to handle everything else for a long time -- on her own. And then she met her end the exact same way.

There's a lot of irony in pitting an isolated (even while standing in the base of her order's power) representative of lawful goodness against a team whose members ranged from lawful good to chaotic evil in alignment. It certainly reflects her flaws, but not lack of dimensions.

Redcloak once insulted both Miko and Xykon for observing that the two weren't so different after all. Ironically, the goblin is more like the paladin in ways that matter more: neither of them believed they had a choice in how they act. (Xykon does.) The difference is that Miko believed she was doing what was expected of her as a faithful servant of the gods, her city, and Shojo (at least until she discovered that her master had been deceiving her in favour of less trustworthy allies), whereas Redcloak won't be able to accept all he's done or permitted unless he sees things through to the final goal.

[The Hop Goblin]

No more than I'd wonder if some of the rabid loathing expressed toward Miko comes from associating her with one's dislike of anime or other sources of Eastern obsession -- or a mistrust of strong, independent women. Such accusations are cheap shots at other posters, not actual arguments, and are therefore unacceptable.

Besides, Miko goes quite against the grain as an anime or Asian ideal -- unless the lesson you're trying to drive home that a woman working on her own will eventually fail without the support of a team.


Making the assumption I am not a fan of Asian culture or Anime, or subtley insinuating that I'm a misoganyst is also unacceptable. Moreover, I'm not sure what limited choices of anime you have seen before, but I could suggest any number of anime that has a "Miko"-like character in it.

The supposition was, Michelle the Snobby French Knight would not have had the cult-following that Miko the Paladin does - Even if she had the same actions and dialogue that Miko did (barring cultural differences).

Getting highly defensive and resulting to personal attacks won't improve your standing of debate.

[Shatteredtower]

Making the assumption I am not a fan of Asian culture or Anime, or subtley insinuating that I'm a misoganyst is also unacceptable.That is precisely my point. I didn't think I was being subtle about it either.


Moreover, I'm not sure what limited choices of anime you have seen before, but I could suggest any number of anime that has a "Miko"-like character in it.Nearly all of whom ultimately fail without the team.


The supposition was, Michelle the Snobby French Knight would not have had the cult-following that Miko the Paladin does - Even if she had the same actions and dialogue that Miko did (barring cultural differences).There's no need to repeat the claim. You are still casting aspersions on the motives of other posters.


Getting highly defensive and resulting to personal attacks won't improve your standing of debate.I provided you with a counterexample to demonstrate how the insinuation made in your post was out of line. There was no personal attack involved. I did not accuse anyone of having such motives. However, if you read one into the examples, then I apologize.

The original supposition, however, was not an example. It was an accusation, and thus inexcusable.

The advice is good, but it would help if it wasn't contradicted by both posts I'm addressing.

[David Argall]

Having just spend entirely too much time reading the early postings about Miko, I find that the sins she is normally accused of were passed over as reasonable at the time.
Samantha gets diced. Reaction-Wow, there is a real stud chasing the party. [And there were some pretty accurate guesses about her class and sex, of course mostly because there were a whole lot more wrong guesses that covered just about all the alternatives. But I found nobody saying she could not be a paladin because she had done something objectionable.
Miko attacks the party-Again, the reaction was favorable to her, and the idea of her being Roy's hot piece was in the air.

It was only as people decided that Miko was annoying that she was accused of these being crimes.

Accordingly, it seems that the anti-Miko reasoning is "I hate Miko. Therefore she is criminal and evil."

[The Boyce]

I'd say the whole slicing a geezer in half thing didn't help

[Porthos]

If you go back and count all of the variants of "Ding dong, the witch is dead!" posts that came out after she died, you'll find this claim exceeds the limits of exaggeration into untruth.

Nope, I stand by my "exaggeration". :smalltongue:

I was on the boards at the time of the castle's destruction and the celebrating that was going on (and worrying that she survived the blast) was a sight to behold. Once we found out her fate, tho, a large portion of the board had a turnabout.

Just read the main reaction thread if you want to see the ratio of Ding-Dong the <blank> is dead versus OMG, I never thought I would feel bad at this moment. Then compare it to the reaction thread immediately prior. It was a textbook Alas Poor Scrapy (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AlasPoorScrappy) moment if there ever was one.

Now you would certainly have a point if I had said the board universally was saddened at Miko's death. But I didn't say that, not even by implication. :smallwink: And while I don't have time (nor the inclination) to go and count the percentage of Boo/Yay posts, I feel safe in saying that the board (and other threads around the Net) as a whole was saddened at the way Miko checked out. :smallsmile:

PS: You might want to go back and fix the attributions in your post, as I only posted the first block you quoted from me. Everything else was from someone else, and I probably disagree with a large chunk of it. :smallwink:

[David Argall]

The last comic (547) really has me seeing the similarities between Redcloak and Miko - two characters who couldn't have seemed more different only a couple hundred strips ago. Both suffer from the same fatal flaw - they are totally incapable of allowing new evidence to change a cherished view they hold.
This doesn't seem to quite fly.
a-Redcloak's inability to see that O-Chul's protestations of ignorance are genuine have not been fatal yet, and by the presumed plot, will not be.
b-Miko's fall happens because she was able to allow new evidence to change a cherished view [that Shojo was devoted to the good of the city]
c-Redcloak's central idea is the Plan, and while that may be based on a lie, we have not been presented with any solid evidence of that, nor with Redcloak having ignored any of that evidence. SoD In SoD, we have Redcloak sacrificing more and more to the Plan, ending with him realizing he had sacrificed far too much, but refusing to turn back. But in fact he knew this might happen from the start. He did not like paying the price, but he wasn't deluded about it or unwilling.
d-Miko, by contrast suffers a serious delusion, which detracts from her central goal of being a paladin. Had you told the Miko of 190 what would happen over the next 300 strips, she would have been horrified, and would have done her best to prevented such a fate. [Not necessarily to the party's advantage since simply slaughtering the party when she first met them might have been how she did that.]


Miko simply cannot comprehend of the OOTS not being evil, and so, when she discovers them plotting with Shoujo, immediately leaps to the conclusion that he must also be evil, rather than rethinking her judgment on the OOTS.
From her view at that time, there was considerably more evidence of the OOTS, and Shojo, being evil at the time she executed him than of Miko being mistaken. The OOTS had been involved in destroying a defense for the entire world. At least one member was grossly evil, and the rest supported him. Shojo put on an elaborate stage trial to get the party off, and is now engaged in a conspiracy with them to violate the Oath that gives the Order meaning and to which he is sworn.... Miko's problem is a willingness to act immediately rather than wait and go over the evidence carefully.


Even after the gods strip her paladin abilities, she still doesn't rethink her beliefs - in fact, she cannot rethink them, do do so would mean she murdered her Lord for no reason, and so every piece of evidence is contorted until it fits her personal views, or discarded if she can't twist it far enough.
Now one thing to keep in mind here is that she only had a day or two to consider the matter [vs 35 years for Redcloak]. Nor can we be sure that a more rational Miko would have been any different thereafter [and likely would have been less entertaining.] So we make Miko in jail entirely rational and contrite. She decides to break out on the grounds that the city can't afford to have its best fighter loafing in a cell when it is being overrun. Getting out, she hears Xykon in the throne room and rushes to the rescue. At the throne room, she sees a desperate fight and decides that Xykon is winning, so she rushes over and destroys the Gate. Net difference, about nil.


Likewise, Redcloak has grown more and more incapable of considering whether the current path he is on is the right one. He kills his own brother as a traitor for trying to come up with a way for the goblins to live in peace, instead believing that peace will only come when he can [i]force the other races to submit.
Not really. He kills him for trying to interfere with the Plan, which as far as Redcloak can see, has a quite good chance of success.


Like Miko and her refusal to accept responsibility for her murder of Shoujo, he is incapable of seeing the truth because doing so would mean he had to face up to murdering his brother.
Now this is just reaching. Redcloak's inability to see O'Chul's honesty is not at all related to any of the events of SoD. It is caused by the immediate tactical situation. He doesn't want to go to the next gate without some advance warning and planning.

[King of Nowhere]

The fact that they have differences doesn't means that they're not similar. But Redcloak is constantly changing, and after those last strips I think think he passed the "Miko" level. I don't see him as a fanatic anymore, more as a man (ok, tecnically goblin) that is struck beyond great responsabilities and is trying to do his best. His prejudices against humans stands, even if he learned something (last strip, 548, shows that he knew O-Chul cares about his people).

But what I really didn't expected is that he's not only pursuing the Plan, but he's still trying to make a lasting hobgoblin civilization; I tought he was going to take the hobbo's army with him in his travel to the western continent, but instead he's doing his best to grant them a future in Azure City. He's also putting the Plan in danger, because the more he waits the more time the good guys have to reorganize. He's not anymore fanatically and mindlessy devoted to the Plan, he's working in various levels to improve goblinoids.
Crap, if he keeps going on like this I'll be forced to move him to the lawful good side.
Now, I'm very curious about what will he do if he realizes that paladins are not criminals but just misguided good people.