so what's the deal with Minrah?

[Schroeswald]

No plot armour means that the protagonist does not have to suffer for their mistakes, that they don't have to lose something or sacrifice something.

But they did suffer for their mistakes, Roy was unable to interact with the plot for almost a year (in-comic) and the rest of the party was stuck on side quests for the same amount of time, Durkon was trapped in his head as an enemy created a whole new side plot and tried to kill all of his friends. That is suffering, just not being permanently dead.

[Fyraltari]

But they did suffer for their mistakes, Roy was unable to interact with the plot for almost a year (in-comic) and the rest of the party was stuck on side quests for the same amount of time, Durkon was trapped in his head as an enemy created a whole new side plot and tried to kill all of his friends. That is suffering, just not being permanently dead.

By this resaonning no character has ever enjoyed plot armour. Of course they had inconviences, difficulties and trials, but it's not things that lasted in anyway.
The core faactor, in my opinin, is the permanence of the thing. Gandalf dying and resurrecting is plot armour Frodo getting stabbed and that wound being painful for the rest of his life that's not plot armour.

[Peelee]

By this resaonning no character has ever enjoyed plot armour. Of course they had inconviences, difficulties and trials, but it's not things that lasted in anyway.
The core faactor, in my opinin, is the permanence of the thing. Gandalf dying and resurrecting is plot armour Frodo getting stabbed and that wound being painful for the rest of his life that's not plot armour.

By this reasoning any character, no matter how minor, and no matter how reasonable the circumstances, who has not been removed from the story forever has enjoyed plot armor.

[Kelenius]

Even ignoring that, the author spent two strips to showcase characters reacting to Roy's death, which would not be necessary if we were supposed to treat Roy' death as an inconvenience. An entire book was written about the consequences of Roy's death. And entire book was written about the consequences of Durkon's death. The author very clearly (to me, at least) intended to show that death, even reversible death, is a big deal in Stickworld, and the audience should take it as seriously as the characters do.

Counterpoint.

[Keltest]

By this reasoning any character, no matter how minor, and no matter how reasonable the circumstances, who has not been removed from the story forever has enjoyed plot armor.

I mean yeah, being too inconsequential for the story to bother doing anything bad to you is a form of plot armor. Its just not one most people care about because of the aforementioned being inconsequential.

[Peelee]

Counterpoint.

Spoiler: Counter-counterpoint

Show

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.

The author equates Roy's and Durkon's deaths with Malack's, Nale's, Tsukiko's, etc. He clearly sees death as well, death, regardless of whether it can be fixed. Which I agree with.

I mean yeah, being too inconsequential for the story to bother doing anything bad to you is a form of plot armor. Its just not one most people care about because of the aforementioned being inconsequential.

It's not if they have reason to not die; Vader shooting at Luke and only hitting R2 when every other time he shoots at an X-Wing they blow up is plot armor. The Y-Wing that escaped because nobody happened to shoot it down is not plot armor. Plot armor, in all the ways I've seen, heard, and talked about myself, has always been the unreasonable escape with life and limb.

For example, the James Bond scene from Goldeneye. The soldiers are firing directly at him. He should be dead, or at least injured but is not because of plot armor. The soldiers not being shot at are not covered by plot armor because he's too busy escaping to shoot at them all.

[Jasdoif]

No plot armour means that the protagonist does not have to suffer for their mistakes, that they don't have to lose something or sacrifice something.

This is the first I have ever heard someone use "plot armor" in that way.

Same.

Spoiler: War and XPs Commentary

Show

The War and XPs commentary says "character shields" instead of "plot armor", but it's the same concept of "simply cannot be killed without endangering the story franchise." To the point that 443 was almost titled "Shields Down, Captain!"

Naturally, much as with Durkon's posthumous-return prophecy, the semantics get...interesting in settings where "death" isn't death; and you have to go with the long-winded "lose their agency on the scene", which of course doesn't persist past the scene in question. It's no coincidence that 1149 is a scene unto itself.

[CriticalFailure]

Doesn't plot armor means that the reader can assume the character will be around throughout the plot rather than making an exit in the middle? I think it could apply to most of the Order but not Belkar and maybe not V. The author intentionally included a bit meant to reassure people that things will for the most part work out with Elan's prophecy from the Oracle, so it seems intentional. It's not like it's a bad thing.

[understatement]

I think plot armor can also apply to specific moments along the plot: at the moment of Roy's death he was not protected by armor at all (he made a mistake and he gravely paid for it). Same with Durkon; the moment he fought a cleric while he was depleted on spells, he was a goner.

Besides, there's other ways of losing than everyone dying. Maybe.

[Scottzg]

We know that belkar, Durkon, elan, roy, V, and haley are going to be part of the story up until the climax. When they die the story doesn't abandon them. That's my definition for plot armor.

It's important because Tarquin and Elan do things because they're aware things happen because of narrative. Tarquin exploits it, Elan serves it.

Minrah is the first instance where a character has joined the crew, rather than serving as a helpful outsider. The story followed her in death like it did when Roy and Durkon. Maybe. So does the narrative care about her like it does the other members of OOTS?


I think that adding another PC in act 3 is a neat concept, and i wish it was more obvious that was what happened.

[CriticalFailure]

We know that belkar, Durkon, elan, roy, V, and haley are going to be part of the story up until the climax. When they die the story doesn't abandon them. That's my definition for plot armor.

It's important because Tarquin and Elan do things because they're aware things happen because of narrative. Tarquin exploits it, Elan serves it.

Minrah is the first instance where a character has joined the crew, rather than serving as a helpful outsider. The story followed her in death like it did when Roy and Durkon. Maybe. So does the narrative care about her like it does the other members of OOTS?


I think that adding another PC in act 3 is a neat concept, and i wish it was more obvious that was what happened.

Minrah's activity being shown in the afterlife and her interaction and participation in the plot are all contingent on Durkon. I think "follower of Durkon" is pretty much her relation to the Order. I don't think she's a PC. She's a secondary character drawn into the plot by her relationship with one of the protagonists rather than a protagonist in her own right, and in mechanical terms she's a lower level character who follows one of the PCs.

[Fyraltari]

Regardless of wether you want it to be called plot armour or not, I think we all agree here to say that, no member of the Order will be removed from the story until the climax (and even then, only Belkar and possibly V)?

[hroþila]

Regardless of wether you want it to be called plot armour or not, I think we all agree here to say that, no member of the Order will be removed from the story until the climax (and even then, only Belkar and possibly V)?

I disagree with that, and not just because I want to be special. I think there are a number of ways Belkar in particular (and possibly V) could be removed before the climax.

[Jasdoif]

I disagree with that, and not just because I want to be special. I think there are a number of ways Belkar in particular (and possibly V) could be removed before the climax.

And possibly Elan.

[Fyraltari]

I disagree with that, and not just because I want to be special. I think there are a number of ways Belkar in particular (and possibly V) could be removed before the climax.

And possibly Elan.

Can you develop?

Why Elan?

[CriticalFailure]

Elan is confirmed to get a happy ending. I can't see him leaving the narrative in any way.

[Jasdoif]

Regardless of wether you want it to be called plot armour or not, I think we all agree here to say that, no member of the Order will be removed from the story until the climax (and even then, only Belkar and possibly V)?

I disagree with that, and not just because I want to be special. I think there are a number of ways Belkar in particular (and possibly V) could be removed before the climax.

And possibly Elan.

Can you develop?

Why Elan?

The story will have a happy ending for Elan. Elan ending in a way he's happy with (a heroic sacrifice to save the people he loves, perhaps?) would qualify.

The first step to getting surprised is taking an interpretation for granted, as Durkon could tell you.

[Fyraltari]

The story will have a happy ending for Elan. Elan ending in a way he's happy with (a heroic sacrifice to save the people he loves, perhaps?) would qualify.

The first step to getting surprised is taking an interpretation for granted, as Durkon could tell you.

Didn’t the Giant state that it was a promise of a sort that the story wouldn’t get too dark?

[hroþila]

Can you develop?

There's not much to say. I just don't think the Order must necessarily stay together until the end, so I leave my options open. Belkar is an obvious choice because everything that could lead to his exiting the story has already been put in place. The same applies (less strongly) to V. The others I have a harder time seeing, but I guess it could happen (IMO, except for Haley and Elan).

[Jasdoif]

DidnÂ’t the Giant state that it was a promise of a sort that the story wouldnÂ’t get too dark?

Spoiler: War and XPs Commentary

Show

[indent]

...I had managed to drop hints about the potential depths of two-thirds of my main cast and the most visible good-aligned NPC at the same time!...so I determined that Elan's answer would set the reader's mind at ease. Yes, there might be some major character deaths coming up (heck, there are two before this book finishes!) but in the end, this is still a comedy-adventure, not a drama. When the entire Order of the Stick saga is over, Elan will have a happy ending. Not everyone in the story will be able to say the same, but it doesn't take much work to extrapolate a few things that simply could not happen without invalidating Elan's prophecy-assured happy ending. Consider it my way of turning to the audience and saying, "Don't worry, folks! It might get scary for a while, but it will all work out in the end!"

So I guess it depends on where, exactly, you want to set the conditions on what "too dark" is.

For my part, I presume the world's population isn't going to be expunged by the Snarl/gods, nor will they be enslaved by Xykon/god(s). Beyond that, though? Elan dying seems slightly less outlandish to me than Durkon's corpse being driven around by a foreign intelligence did (before it was made obvious). And, should the situation arise, Elan wouldn't be happy with a selfish ending over a heroic one. (I wonder if that relates to Soon and Kraagor somehow....)

[SlashDash]

I think the reason this discussion is going in circles a bit is because there is a disagreement on what exactly "plot armor" means.
Here's TVTropes definition:

Sometimes referred to as "Script Immunity" or a "Character Shield", Plot Armor is when a main character's life and health are safeguarded by the fact that he's the one person who can't be removed from the story.

In other words, it's basically when you get yourself into a situation when you ponder who will survive (with or without some consequences) of a particular event in the story and you assume the main characters are going to survive just because they are the main characters.




I'll add that sometimes, people also refer to Plot Armor as a semi version of Deus-Ex-Machina, in which characters survive a situation without any logic except that the writers need to keep them alive. This particular form of plot armor is often used as an insult.

As in : "Oh, man, there's no reason why a gang of thugs who are constantly killing people in a single shot will suddenly miss the hero of all things. It's just dumb plot armor" as opposed to at least giving a logical reason why the thugs can't shoot the heroes, like telling us the hero removed the bullets from their gun earlier.

But that is a slightly different meaning.

Roy didn't impact anything until he was alive again.

We know that Roy and his archon has some plan going on. Whether that plan actually involves Xykon or the gates in anyway is unknown. Heck it could be related to Eugene's afterlife for all we know. But if it comes to play, Roy absolutely did something while being dead.

I would say the fact that Roy knows Belkar would die is part of the reason why they keep Belkar around. He even says as much to Haley.

Heck, if we're just talking general effectiveness of dead people? Eugene intervened at least twice so far to save the party.

And, to reiterate, the characters themselves treat death - any death - as seriously as, well, death.

This is just absolutely false. Not only do you have the perfect example of Hylga killing and then bringing Durkon back as a no big deal which everyone treat as just a slap on the wrist - but Roy does this as well.

In the prequel book, Eugene comes to tell Roy he is about to die. Roy dismisses it by saying he was already resurrected multiple times. To which Eugene replies that this time he is dying of old age and there's no coming back.

So Roy clearly didn't take Eugene's upcoming death as serious because resurrection exists.

Heck, when Durkon died, Haley tells Roy it's not such a big deal they can resurrect him. To which Roy points out that it took her months to try and find someone and she couldn't. Elan took Threlka's death hard because she told him she doesn't want to be brought back. If she was willing to let Durkon bring her back, everyone would have a party the next day. (Well, not V...)

It would be incredibly illogical for people to treat death the same way we do when death isn't final. That is what makes death so drastic the fact that it can't be undone.

People can recover from bruises, they can even have replacement for limbs. But death is the final destination and there's no coming back.

That is the only reason people take it seriously. If it's not final, it's not serious.

[vonBoomslang]

She's Belkar's player's new character. That's why she has so many scenes with him and is helping him with his redemption arc.

[Fyraltari]

She's Belkar's player's new character. That's why she has so many scenes with him and is helping him with his redemption arc.

I think this was meant for the BelkarXMinrah thread?

[katiecruel]

She's Belkar's player's new character. That's why she has so many scenes with him and is helping him with his redemption arc.

No she's definitely Durkon's player's new character, who took his place in the party while the player was busy role-playing both sides.

[Schroeswald]

No she's definitely Durkon's player's new character, who took his place in the party while the player was busy role-playing both sides.

But why would she stick around now? Durkon is back, why would he decide to play two characters in the same party?

[CriticalFailure]

I know it's unlikely but I like the theory that she's literally a cohort better. If she were a new PC she'd be similar level to the rest rather than significantly lower.

[Peelee]

I

This is just absolutely false. Not only do you have the perfect example of Hylga killing and then bringing Durkon back as a no big deal which everyone treat as just a slap on the wrist - but Roy does this as well.

In the prequel book, Eugene comes to tell Roy he is about to die. Roy dismisses it by saying he was already resurrected multiple times. To which Eugene replies that this time he is dying of old age and there's no coming back.

Hilgya is an attempted murderer and actual murderer, so her reaction to killing Durkon is hardly one id call important. The Order seems more than a bit displeased, to grossly underscore the point, when she kills him, and we don't see them afterwards until Durkon is back alive - and I've already noted that once it's reversed they are more ok with it. Which also feeds into Roy talking to someone who has already come back multiple times already, and also whom he doesn't particularly care for.

If it's not final, it's not serious.

Odd choice for the author to spend multiple strips having multiple characters react to death seriously, and have two entire books written on the effects of characters dying, then.

[nolongeralurker]

My two cents on Minrah: unlike the paladins, pirates, etc., she's (quasi?-)officially joined the Order of the Stick (Roy: "Welcome to the team."). However, narratively speaking, depending on how you define "main character" she's either joined too late to be a main character or she's a main character but not of the same level of importance as the other six members of the Order. I don't know a lot about D&D mechanics, but if you replace "main character" with "PC" the same logic applies. (The only difference being that you could argue that it's impossible for a character who joins a story late enough to be considered a main character, whereas PCs can be added late to a gaming session, if someone is willing to play them.)

So I guess my opinion is that Minrah is currently an official part of the Order, at least in a way the pirates or whoever aren't, and she may or may not be a PC, but regardless of whether she is or not, she's not as important of a character as the rest of the Order are.

[Ruck]

We know that belkar, Durkon, elan, roy, V, and haley are going to be part of the story up until the climax. When they die the story doesn't abandon them. That's my definition for plot armor.

It's important because Tarquin and Elan do things because they're aware things happen because of narrative. Tarquin exploits it, Elan serves it.

Minrah is the first instance where a character has joined the crew, rather than serving as a helpful outsider. The story followed her in death like it did when Roy and Durkon. Maybe. So does the narrative care about her like it does the other members of OOTS?


I think that adding another PC in act 3 is a neat concept, and i wish it was more obvious that was what happened.

I still don't understand how these distinctions matter to your enjoyment of the story.

[RickDaily12]

Elan is weird in some ways, but he reacted similarly to Haley, in that they both treated Roy's death as death.

Even ignoring that, the author spent two strips to showcase characters reacting to Roy's death, which would not be necessary if we were supposed to treat Roy' death as an inconvenience. An entire book was written about the consequences of Roy's death. And entire book was written about the consequences of Durkon's death. The author very clearly (to me, at least) intended to show that death, even reversible death, is a big deal in Stickworld, and the audience should take it as seriously as the characters do.

I would like to point out that while I agree with your points by and large, and that I find them compelling, that Rich has gone out of his way to showcase that even reversible deaths are problematic in this world; there are some other pretty flagrant examples of characters not treating death even remotely as seriously as we would in the real world, like it's an everyday occurence.

Example 1: Roy and Belkar being incarcerated to the Gladiator arena, and the lawyers being happy that their clients are certainly likely to die (thus completing their sentences in a manner MUCH shorter than a Life Sentence, a concept completely removed and alien from the real world)

Example 2: (On the Origin of PCs Spoilers)

Spoiler

Show

When Eugene approached Roy and told Roy he was going to die, this was his 7th death. Roy even reacts with some apathy ("so what, you've died like 6 times", or something to that effect")

Roy, of all people, said that completely ironically despite what was coming his way.

Example 3: I would even go as far to argue that Roy himself made no big deal about dying at all, easily dismissing that he died, at first, because he was completely convinced it was going to be a minor inconvenience easily solved within the first 24 hours, until, all of a sudden, it wasn't.


So while I agree with you that Death is intended to have massive consequences, even if reversible, in this story, combined with the fact that even in this world, the vast majority of people still are not raised after death, yet this is still somehow the mindset of multiple characters in this story.