The irony of bozzok being right

[King of Nowhere]

So, Bozzok told crystal that she was too dumb to be on her own and she needed to listen to him.
She followed her new-found independence, killed bozzok, and started to think for herself.
She died five minutes later. at most. something that would have never happened if she had kept listening to bozzok.
Not only it is ironic because disobeying bozzok lead to her getting killled by her stupidity immediately afterwards, but it is twice as ironic because rich has a policy of always killing major characters as a result of their choices, and the first choice crystal ever took was fatal to her.

Yet she still managed to last more than nale. when nale decided he didn't want his father's protection, he died the next round.

I feel there's an aesop to be learned from this. Something like, "all that great talk about freedom only works if you're smart enough to take care of yourself"

[Gift Jeraff]

So the comic is anti-freedom?

[D.One]

So, Bozzok told crystal that she was too dumb to be on her own and she needed to listen to him.
She followed her new-found independence, killed bozzok, and started to think for herself.
She died five minutes later. at most. something that would have never happened if she had kept listening to bozzok.
Not only it is ironic because disobeying bozzok lead to her getting killled by her stupidity immediately afterwards, but it is twice as ironic because rich has a policy of always killing major characters as a result of their choices, and the first choice crystal ever took was fatal to her.

Yet she still managed to last more than nale. when nale decided he didn't want his father's protection, he died the next round.

I feel there's an aesop to be learned from this. Something like, "all that great talk about freedom only works if you're smart enough to take care of yourself"

That's a way of putting it, but I'd say Crystal death comes more directly from her inability to grow up beyond "kill for kicks". Haley states she has gone beyond some of her own past flaws, and that contrasts with Crystal attitude of staying the same ruthless killer she ever was.

Had she considered another way of life, and left the city, or pursued any less murderous goal, Haley seemed inclined to let her go.

[Snails]

Crystal's problem is not that she is dumb. Crystal's problem is she takes such extreme pleasure in doing Evil, that she convinces herself she is rather clever for using this sick kind of distraction to mitigate her situation, rather than solving her real problems at all.

Both Belkar and Elan are comparably stupid. Yet they manage to Evolve past their issues, to some degree.

[The Pilgrim]

Yet she still managed to last more than nale. when nale decided he didn't want his father's protection, he died the next round.

Nale lasted for two years.

[goodpeople25]

Crystal also seems to be completely self absorbed despite being a follower and also has a complete lack of empathy, i mean she doesn't even seem to understand that haley might not like it if she kills gnomes for fun. not doesn't care, I'm not even sure if she knows, even belkar seems to know that people don't like that he kills people.

[King of Nowhere]

Belkar at least is aware of it. He knows that he needs roy around to keep him from doing something stupid

But if you don't like the broken aesop, you can rephrase it as something like "you should take into consideration the opinions of those smarter than you, especially if they are higher level than you".
Whatever, I still find it ironic that deciding to think for herself lead crystal right to her death.

[Bird]

Following Bozzok is what got Crystal turned into a golem that feels near constant pain--a fate (arguably) worse than death. If she'd continued to follow Bozzok, there's no reason to think he would have helped her find peace. He would have kept her in torment, siccing her on whatever target was convenient. Plus, she easily could have gotten killed anyway. Bozzok wasn't able to protect her from Haley killing her the first time.

I agree with D.One and Snails that the bad choice wasn't ditching Bozzok--it was clinging to her murder fixation instead of trying to grow up.

[The Giant]

Bozzok was wrong, because he told Crystal that she was incapable of thinking for herself. This was then proven objectively untrue; she made several decisions in succession that were her own, possibly for the first time in her adult life.

That she chose poorly with some of them is not really relevant. Children grow into young adults and often make stupid decisions that can ruin their lives; does that mean that they should have stayed wholly dependent on their parents for the rest of their lives? Of course not. The freedom to make your own mistakes—even deadly ones—is one of the fundamental passages into adulthood.

Bozzok is only right* if you subscribe to the notion that living as a slave is always preferable to dying free, regardless of circumstances. It would be wrong to think that is a universally held belief.

* In spirit; Bozzok never actually made the argument that Crystal was better off with him because he never took Crystal's welfare into account in the first place.

[King of Nowhere]

Huh, I see there is a bit of a misunderstanding. I was never claiming that the comic was trying to pass the message that you should not take decisions for your own. Neither was I claiming that it is the right course of action.
I was only claiming that it's funny that the comic, while saying it is important to take decisions for your own, accidentally gives good arguments to the opposite.

EDIT: when I mentioned an aesop I was specifically referencing tvtropes, and that you can get a spoof aesop from the demise of recent villains.

[skim172]

I'm not sure I'd call it "ironic"; it's nothing like rain on my wedding day.

[Czhorat]

Bozzok was wrong, because he told Crystal that she was incapable of thinking for herself. This was then proven objectively untrue; she made several decisions in succession that were her own, possibly for the first time in her adult life.

That she chose poorly with some of them is not really relevant. Children grow into young adults and often make stupid decisions that can ruin their lives; does that mean that they should have stayed wholly dependent on their parents for the rest of their lives? Of course not. The freedom to make your own mistakes—even deadly ones—is one of the fundamental passages into adulthood.

Bozzok is only right* if you subscribe to the notion that living as a slave is always preferable to dying free, regardless of circumstances. It would be wrong to think that is a universally held belief.

* In spirit; Bozzok never actually made the argument that Crystal was better off with him because he never took Crystal's welfare into account in the first place.

This makes perfect sense to me.

It also says something about "good" and "evil" - Bozzak was evil because he used Crystal as a tool, not caring about her pain or suffering. Haley - even in her anger - acted in such a way as to give Crystal a chance at redemption. She even outlined in broad strokes the steps Crystal would need to take to move on from this chapter in her life - go on a quest away from population centers, seeking a cure for her eternal pain.

That Crystal chose continued murder and mayhem was her choice. Haley was good in allowing Crystal to make the choice, again good in preventing her from carryign it out.

[DavidBV]

So you guys believe Haley would have allowed Crystal to just wander away from gnomeland, or not? It sounded like she gave her a choice, when she asked her to "go on a quest".

I don't think it would've been a good idea to let her go, in any case...

[Rogar Demonblud]

I'm not sure I'd call it "ironic"; it's nothing like rain on my wedding day.

That's not irony. It isn't anything more than a coincidence.

[Dalek Kommander]

So, Bozzok told crystal that she was too dumb to be on her own and she needed to listen to him.
She followed her new-found independence, killed bozzok, and started to think for herself.
She died five minutes later. at most. something that would have never happened if she had kept listening to bozzok.

Even putting aside everything that the Giant said, it simply isn't true that Crystal would have had a drastically longer life expectancy if only she had listened to Bozzok.

let's begin by observing that Haley's plan to lead Crystal to the waste disposal facility didn't actually depend on Crystal's blood-lust being sated. When Crystal returned to Haley, the first thing Haley asked was whether they were going to resume fighting, and it's not very hard to guess what Haley's contingency plan would have been if the answer was affirmative: she would have led Crystal to EXACTLY the same waste disposal facility. The only difference is that it would be a frantic chase scene instead of a leisurely stroll. The giant decided on the leisurely stroll option because it gave him more room to put in useful exposition, but Crystal would be dead either way.

And if Haley was planning to "dispose" of Crystal whether or not she came out ready to rumble, it didn't even matter if she killed Bozzok at all. He could have completely succeeded in his attempt to "talk sense" into Crystal, and she would have rushed back outside to kill Haley... and ended up immersed in lava anyway.

There were a number of "narrative reasons" that the giant decided to have Crystal turn on Bozzock and not attack Haley, but let's be clear that in purely tactical terms, Haley's plan to destroy Crystal only crucially depended on two facts: the waste disposal facility was nearby, and Crystal was an easily-tricked idiot.

[Darth Paul]

So you guys believe Haley would have allowed Crystal to just wander away from gnomeland, or not? It sounded like she gave her a choice, when she asked her to "go on a quest".

I don't think it would've been a good idea to let her go, in any case...

Who said anything about letting her go? The Order already has a history of employing violent unemployables, who are a danger to the rest of the known world, for the sole reason that they can be useful in the quest to save that same world. She may have been prepared to gamble that she and Roy between them could keep Crystal pointed in the right direction for long enough to help them in their own quest. Crystal Golem vs Sorceror Lich... think of the possibilities.

[Czhorat]

So you guys believe Haley would have allowed Crystal to just wander away from gnomeland, or not? It sounded like she gave her a choice, when she asked her to "go on a quest".

I don't think it would've been a good idea to let her go, in any case...

I think giving her the choice is what elevated the killing from murder to self-defense and defense of others.

[Deliverance]

Not only it is ironic because disobeying bozzok lead to her getting killled by her stupidity immediately afterwards, but it is twice as ironic because rich has a policy of always killing major characters as a result of their choices, and the first choice crystal ever took was fatal to her.

Tell me more of this policy. I'm not seeing it unless you include "if X had just chosen to be somewhere else or had done something differently in the past, he'd not have been there at that time in that situation and died, hence since he didn't do it he died as a result of his choice" in your line of reasoning.

Miko is probably the example that fits your template best, as she chose to shatter the gem, breaking the gate, and dying in the explosion.

Nale arguably also fits your template, due to Tarquin killing him off once Nale wrote himself off as a useful asset, though it should be noted that this is assigning Nale responsibility for Tarquin's action, something that I'm rather leery about.

But take Durkon. You can claim that Durkon died "because he chose to fight Malak", but it would make just as much sense to say that Durkon died because Malak, who a) could have escaped any time he wanted, d) didn't want the fight in the first place, and c) had the upper hand in the fight, chose to end the fight by killing Durkon and raising a vampire spawn.... and it would make even more sense than claiming that it was down to the actions of one of them to say that he died as a result of [I]both[I] of their choices. They both had options but, when each had the ability to break off, chose to pursue the course that led to Durkon's death.

Roy... Did Roy die because of his choice to fight Xykon? If he hadn't tried, he wouldn't have died, that much is sure, but trying certainly didn't logically lead to his death. Xykon was fine with Roy trying to be a hero. Now, if Roy chopping off the undead dragon's head had caused the dragon to crash with Roy dying in the crash, an argument could be made that he died as a result of his own action, but chopping off the head didn't crash the dragon. (Though it did save V). Roy's action there only indirectly led to his death, the direct cause was Xykon in response to his ride losing its head choosing to fly away, nuking Roy with a Meteor Swarm that sent him crashing to the ground.

Or how about Lord Shojo, slain by Miko because of her amazing ability to jump to conclusions. The way he died didn't follow naturally as a consequence of his actions. Let any other member of the Sapphire Guard be in her position overhearing Shojo talking to the OOTS and the outcome would likely have been different (indeed, it was different for Hinjo)

ZZ'dtri? How did he die as a result of his choices? Because "if he hadn't been a member of the linear guild, he wouldn't have been there, so he wouldn't have died?"

Or since we are looking at minor villains that yet have appeared frequently like Crystal, how about Kubota? He died because V saw that Elan had tied him up and decided that disintegrate beat lawyers hands down, not as a result of any of his own actions.

Or to return to Crystal and Bozzok or Crystal and Haley, in both cases two people with a long history together. Claiming that Crystal and Bozzok each died as a result of their own actions seems weird.

They were certainly partly responsible for ending up in the situations they did, but so were many others, and claiming that their deaths were a result of their own choices seems to ignore everybody else involved.

Take Bozzok. It makes just as much sense to say that he died because of Haley's expert manipulation of Crystal as because of his treatment of her. BOTH were required for her attacking him. But then again, if Grubwiggler hadn't chosen to bail out, Bozzok would likely have lived, so is Bozzok's death ultimately the result of Grubwiggler's actions? Then again, Grubwiggler was pissed with the guild of which Bozzok is the leader for constantly getting him involved, so perhaps Bozzok is to blame after all. But wait, it was Crystal that murdered him and Bozzok who had him raised from the dead also paid him a lot of money to build the Crystal golem, so perhaps Crystal is ultimately to blame for the result?

Or perhaps it is simply too superficial an observation to say that Bozzok died as a result of his choices.

As for Crystal, Haley killed her for the second time by luring her into a trap that she'd set up in advance.

It is possible to read the first few panels of #981 as Haley giving Crystal a chance to evade the trap, but I have a hard time doing so. I see it as a case of Haley both a) wanting to understand Crystal's situation better, b) wishful thinking on her part, exploring the possibilities even if she isn't seriously considering letting Crystal go, and c) finessing the situation to make Crystal follow her. I have a really hard time seeing Haley seriously considering letting Crystal going free after her free-willed murder spree amongst the gnomes, and Haley knows that Crystal was acting on her own volition rather than being forced to do so since Haley had just been able to convince Crystal to change her actions. Even if Haley ignored all her old reasons for killing Crystal the first time and considered the slate wiped clean by Crystal's death, Crystal's willingness to choose to kill defenseless people to coerce Haley's behaviour would surely be anathema to Haley, classifying her as a menace to society.


EDIT: Good lord, that ended up as quite a wall of text. I guess you struck one of my storytelling nerves there. It is just that the Giant has done a good work of setting up interesting story-lines and relationships between people that are more complex than the average webcomic, and it annoys me to see character deaths terminating story arcs waved away as something as simple as a "result of their own choices".

[Jasdoif]

Tell me more of this policy.

Here you go; I'll let you decide how much you think this applies to the scenario at hand:

And I've never killed a developed character where that character's death wasn't a direct result of their own choices.

...Kubota died because he made a choice to surrender based on his assumption that Hinjo was bound by morality and therefore he would be safe to continue his scheme from inside a courtroom. He made a calculated choice that involved his own safety and got the math wrong—because he didn't count on anyone going outside of Hinjo's laws. In many ways, like Nale; he thought he was untouchable, so he made a bad call.

I think it's pretty much Storytelling 101, actually. Maybe I'm wrong, but it's how I see it. If the character isn't important enough to die through their own agency, even indirectly, then they're not important enough to learn much about in the first place.

Saangwan is a good example. She totally got killed not as a result of her own choices, except maybe her choice to be there on the wall in the first place. But we also know almost nothing about her. How did she get her powers? Was she born blind? What did she think or feel about what was happening? We don't know. And that's on purpose.

[Snails]

It is pretty much Storytelling 101.

The time to allow the audience to understand a character is an expensive investment. If the author is interested in making a death very significant, then it is a logical and efficient to take advantage of that investment.

No, it is not logically required. But not following such Storytelling 101 rules of thumb tends to make pacing sloppy.

Let's imagine the reverse tactics:
(1) Let's go into great detail about the moral struggles of someone we have just met and then dies as a result. Does that make for a good story?
(2) Let's invest lots and lots of time in an interesting character over the long haul. Then they get randomly snuffed for a reason that is not worth much thought.

Does that sound like the kind of writing that would excite (the proverbial) you?

[Chronos]

Quoth The Giant:

Saangwan is a good example. She totally got killed not as a result of her own choices, except maybe her choice to be there on the wall in the first place. But we also know almost nothing about her. How did she get her powers? Was she born blind? What did she think or feel about what was happening? We don't know. And that's on purpose.

This quote gains new meaning in the context of the most recent Kickstarter bonus story (about which any more said would be a spoiler).

[The Giant]

Choices, not actions. Choices can include inaction, as well as a given viewpoint or a lifestyle. If you live a life of crime, and then die from disease while in jail, then your choices led to your death for our purposes. Accurate foresight into the possible consequences of one's choices is not required; indeed, most commonly, it is absent because if the character was capable of seeing and understanding the true possibilities then they probably wouldn't make that choice. It also does not absolve responsibility from the person who does the killing; that's not the point. The point is, characters don't die from someone jumping out of an alleyway and murdering them for shock value. A character's death is the culmination of their story, and should be handled as such.

Malack dies because his settled comfortable life leads him to both underestimate his enemies and ignore his own vulnerabilities. Roy dies because he is given the chance to back out of a battle that is clearly over his head and he refuses. Durkon dies because he trusted Malack to not mess with his spell research. Zz'dtri dies like he lived, as Nale's loyal follower and without much story of his own. Shojo dies because of a lifetime of lies and deceptions, the most important of which was telling a random orphan girl that she was Special and Chosen. Nale dies because he doesn't recognize the privilege he has been living under his entire life. Crystal dies the first time because she can't help but continue to threaten Haley even as they have a truce, and the second time because she can't help being a sadistic killer. Bozzok dies because he chose not to consider his follower's well-being at all. Tsukikko dies because she can't avoid gloating, and because she trusts the undead. Therkla dies because she won't pick a side.

Character deaths are a function of that character's traits, not random. Their deaths flow logically from their flaws. That's all it means.

[Excise]

And as for the most important death of them all: Milk Dudes died because he chose to be too good for this sinful Earth.

[The Giant]

And as for the most important death of them all: Milk Dudes died because he chose to be too good for this sinful Earth.

And Fruit Pie the Sorcerer died because he was a sorcerer who chose to fight encounters with fruit pies rather than actual spells.

[Ghost Nappa]

And Fruit Pie the Sorcerer died because he was a sorcerer who chose to fight encounters with fruit pies rather than actual spells.

The tragic heartbreak of being an over specialized conjurer of delicious snacks.

May he rest in pieces. In my stomach.

And now I can't help but wonder what choices will lead to Belkar and/or Leeky Corpsewhisker's demise.

[ranagrande]

And Fruit Pie the Sorcerer died because he was a sorcerer who chose to fight encounters with fruit pies rather than actual spells.

I unfortunately decided that I couldn't afford it, but you came close to being commissioned to do a Fruit Pie the Sorcerer story during the Kickstarter.

[Deliverance]

Choices, not actions. Choices can include inaction, as well as a given viewpoint or a lifestyle.

[snipped bulk of text]

Character deaths are a function of that character's traits, not random. Their deaths flow logically from their flaws. That's all it means.

Thank you for expanding on your reasons and clarification. It is a classic storytelling device.

Suffice to say that that is not what I took out of the first post in the thread and responded to, which was of the "Z resulted as an immediate consequence of X taking action Y" variety. Once you start using that sort of argumentation, it is possible to unravel it to the n'th degree, and that's not what good storytelling is about.

That's all my post meant. :)

[Peelee]

[on death]

If possible, can you explain about

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

Right-Eye? I mean, I can see that his flaw was trusting that his brother would side with him instead of Xykon, but everything up to that point said that he would. Even Redcloak rejected Xykon, and after the MitD rescue, even decided to forget the Plan. Sure, he decided to go back to the Plan when Xykon conscripted the whole freaking village, but Redcloak was still always there for his brother. He had returned once, and even through the disagreement near the end, Right-Eye said, "We CAN turn back - if we admit we were wrong, and try to fix our mistakes." This was what Redcloak had done before already. And, for all they knew, this was the singular moment in which they could destroy Xykon forever. The choice was entirely on Redcloak. He could choose to stop Right-Eye, or stop Xykon. Wasn't this choice the deciding factor in Right-Eye's death, moreso than Right-Eye's decision to trust in his brother (at the very least, if not to help him, then not to stop him)?


Regardless of whether you choose respond, that battle was probably my favorite part of the whole series. Right up there with O-Chul and V against Xykon. Thank you for writing it.

[ti'esar]

This quote gains new meaning in the context of the most recent Kickstarter bonus story (about which any more said would be a spoiler).

Yeah, I remember picking up on that at the time.

Spoiler: Spoiler Alert

Show

If Sangwaan was originally an example of a character whose death was kind of random because she wasn't important enough for it to matter, then the logical thing to do when fleshing her out is characterizing her so that death was a meaningful conclusion to her story, in context.

[Kish]

Spoiler: Start of Darkness

Show

He could choose to stop Right-Eye, or stop Xykon. Wasn't this choice the deciding factor in Right-Eye's death, moreso than Right-Eye's decision to trust in his brother (at the very least, if not to help him, then not to stop him)?

You could say the same way that Bozzok died more because of Crystal's choice to believe Haley and rebel against being Bozzok's tool than Bozzok's choices. Or that Crystal died because Haley decided to kill her. Or that Nale died because Tarquin decided to kill him. Or that Malack died because Nale decided to kill him. Or...

I could go on nearly as long as there are dead developed characters in the comic, probably. To say that a character's own choices lead to her/his death is not to say that they're the only factor doing so, and Redcloak's brother chose to try to destroy Xykon, not to keep serving him like his cowardly brother did, nor to simply sneak away and trust to Xykon's apathetic inattention that Xykon would not chase him down.