so what's the deal with Minrah?

[Scottzg]

Is she a member of oots now?
Does she get central cast plot armor?
Is she a PC that got rolled up in act 3?
...or is she an NPC that it's adventuring with the central cast?


I like her, but I just don't know how to relate to her character. Like, I always assume dnd and story telling mechanics drive the oots universe, so understanding where she sits there is important.

[hroþila]

She's a touring member.

[ByzantiumBhuka]

I think the Giant said recently that Minrah was a lower-level cohort of Durkon, if that gives some perspective.

[Peelee]

Given that two members of the Order have died so far, I don't think one can claim "plot armor" for any of the main characters.

[Fyraltari]

Given that two members of the Order have died so far, I don't think one can claim "plot armor" for any of the main characters.

They haven’t died-died have they, though?

[Peelee]

They haven’t died-died have they, though?

They are dead serious about even resurrectable death, so I don't consider un-rezzable death as a terribly meaningful distinction.

[Kantaki]

They haven’t died-died have they, though?

In my book it only counts if theydon't come back.
And even if it does Minrah has a better track record than Durkon so far.

[Fyraltari]

They are dead serious about even resurrectable death, so I don't consider un-rezzable death as a terribly meaningful distinction.

They kept impacting the story after they were « dead » and it carried no unfixable consequences. Compare with, say, A Song if Ice and Fire where sourcing your own death in any way always change who you are on a fundamental level (see Beric Dondarrion, Patchface, the wights, the wargs’ second life, etc).

Edit : Durkon’s and Roy’s deaths were more comparable to being confined to certain places than bonafide death.

[trtl]

In my mind she's just an accompanying NPC and not a member of oots. Something like a guide or an ally.

Not that I have any real evidence, that's just how I understand her.

[Peelee]

They kept impacting the story after they were « dead » and it carried no unfixable consequences. Compare with, say, A Song if Ice and Fire where sourcing your own death in any way always change who you are on a fundamental level (see Beric Dondarrion, Patchface, the wights, the wargs’ second life, etc).

Edit : Durkon’s and Roy’s deaths were more comparable to being confined to certain places than bonafide death.

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

And, to reiterate, the characters themselves treat death - any death - as seriously as, well, death. That's enough for me to treat it that way as well. That they can be brought back doesn't matter much - after all, other characters can be shot in less-critical places and heal up, but plot armor usually means they never get hit at all.

Usually.

[The Pilgrim]

She is part of the Order, as much as Blackwing or Mr. Scruffy.

[NerdyKris]

Is she a member of oots now?
Does she get central cast plot armor?
Is she a PC that got rolled up in act 3?
...or is she an NPC that it's adventuring with the central cast?


I like her, but I just don't know how to relate to her character. Like, I always assume dnd and story telling mechanics drive the oots universe, so understanding where she sits there is important.

Maybe you should relate to her as Minrah, a dwarven cleric who has now joined their mission. There's no "central cast plot armor". There's no PC's being rolled up and there's no NPCs. There's just characters in a story. Where they sit in terms of DnD and mechanics hasn't been relevant since Dorukon's dungeon.

She is part of the Order, as much as Blackwing or Mr. Scruffy.

Or Hinjo, Ochul, Lian, the airship crew, or any other number of characters who have aided and traveled with them over the last seven books.

[Fyraltari]

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

You sure? Because the way I see it, Roy moved beyond his ‘make daddy love me’ phase, learned a fancy new trick, learned that his teammate was fated to die, gained a new respect for his second-in-command leading skills and made a valuable ally while being ‘dead’. He was as much a protagonist as ever, just one who was isolated from his teammates.

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

No, that’s how they treat permanent death. When Roy died they didn’t think it was a big deal at first because they could raise him. When Hilgya killed and raised Durkon it was treated like assault not murder, etc.
Meanwhile V was haunted by the deaths of the Azurites, because these they can’t fix.

That's enough for me to treat it that way as well. That they can be brought back doesn't matter much - after all, other characters can be shot in less-critical places and heal up, but plot armor usually means they never get hit at all.

I mean, that’s a valid definition but it doesn’t really seem very useful. if a thing has no consequences on the story or the character how is it different from the thing not happening at all?

[Peelee]

You sure? Because the way I see it, Roy moved beyond his ‘make daddy love me’ phase, learned a fancy new trick, learned that his teammate was fated to die, gained a new respect for his second-in-command leading skills and made a valuable ally while being ‘dead’. He was as much a protagonist as ever, just one who was isolated from his teammates.

By the author's own statements, Roy didn't learn anything while he was dead, as the dead cannot learn and grow. Roy had to wait until he was back alive to grow past his daddy issues, learn the new trick, etc.

No, that’s how they treat permanent death. When Roy died they didn’t think it was a big deal at first

Pictured: Not a big deal, apparently.

Meanwhile V was haunted by the deaths of the Azurites, because these they can’t fix.

He could fix them. They were not disintigrated, he has a high level cleric, and it hasn't even been a year since they were last seen. Even if he wouldn't, someone else could.

Whether it is fixable or not has no relevance on the fact that they died. See above link for more.

I mean, that’s a valid definition but it doesn’t really seem very useful. if a thing has no consequences on the story or the character how is it different from the thing not happening at all?

It does have consequences! There was an entire book written about the consequences of Roy and Durkon dying each!

[Fyraltari]

By the author's own statements, Roy didn't learn anything while he was dead, as the dead cannot learn and grow. Roy had to wait until he was back alive to grow past his daddy issues, learn the new trick, etc.

I’m sorry but that is not what is shown on-panel.

Pictured: Not a big deal, apparently.

Literally the next page, Durkon is saying that the dead don’t get deader the next day.

He could fix them. They were not disintigrated, he has a high level cleric, and it hasn't even been a year since they were last seen. Even if he wouldn't, someone else could.

V couldn’t. Not when V was having nightmares about them.

Whether it is fixable or not has no relevance on the fact that they died. See above link for more.


It does have consequences! There was an entire book written about the consequences of Roy and Durkon dying each!

And at the end of these books? They weren’t dead. They weren’t removed from the story, they weren’t diminished in any meaningful way. Hell, they were grown by comparison to who they were before.

[Peelee]

I’m sorry but that is not what is shown on-panel.

It is when Horace explicitly says as much to Roy.

Literally the next page, Durkon is saying that the dead don’t get deader the next day.

Dwarves are explicitly weird when it comes to death, as has been shown on panel.

Also, on that same page you call out, Elan singe a dirge so soulful that it attracts the attention of all that hear it, and even momentarily stops a fight between Belkar and a goblin. Yes, they point out that they can fix his death, but they're still very much reacting to it as death.

V couldn’t. Not when V was having nightmares about them.

V could. Whether V would or not is irrelevant; again, V had the means; the soldiers were not disinitigrated, V had a high level cleric, and less than a year had passed. For all V knows, the elven nations were able to retake the city and rezzed the soldiers, because again, that is possible. Regardless, their deaths haunted V, because again, people in Stickworld treat death - any death - as death.

And at the end of these books? They weren’t dead.

Yeah, and at the end of Return of the Jedi, Luke had two hands. Doesn't mean his plot armor was up when Vader cut his hand off in ESB.

[Fyraltari]

It is when Horace explicitly says as much to Roy.

Still, that wouldn’t have happened without the scene in the afterlife (and I maintain that Roy outgrowing Eugene happened on the clouds) so Roy’s story was still progressing when he was dead.

Dwarves are explicitly weird when it comes to death, as has been shown on panel.

Fair point.

Also, on that same page you call out, Elan singe a dirge so soulful that it attracts the attention of all that hear it, and even momentarily stops a fight between Belkar and a goblin. Yes, they point out that they can fix his death, but they're still very much reacting to it as death.

And Elan is explicitly weird.

V could. Whether V would or not is irrelevant; again, V had the means; the soldiers were not disinitigrated, V had a high level cleric, and less than a year had passed. For all V knows, the elven nations were able to retake the city and rezzed the soldiers, because again, that is possible.

No, V knew very well the city wasn’t retaken because if it had Hinjo would have told them and they would have moved there immediately looking for their lost teammates.

Regardless, their deaths haunted V, because again, people in Stickworld treat death - any death - as death.

Would you at the very least admit they don’t treat it like death after it has been fixed?

Yeah, and at the end of Return of the Jedi, Luke had two hands. Doesn't mean his plot armor was up when Vader cut his hand off in ESB.

Are you seriously proposing the moment where a character tries to commit suicide by throwing themselves into a bottomless pit and then doesn’t die by sheer dumb luck as an example of plot armour not working? Because I considered using that very scene as an example of plot armour earlier on.

[Razade]

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

Well I don't know about that. He certainly impacted the ground. When he died.

[Scottzg]

Maybe you should relate to her as Minrah, a dwarven cleric who has now joined their mission. There's no "central cast plot armor". There's no PC's being rolled up and there's no NPCs. There's just characters in a story. Where they sit in terms of DnD and mechanics hasn't been relevant since Dorukon's dungeon

We must be reading different comics. In oots they talk about going up levels, how many spell slots they have, etc. Sure, it's not as blunt as it was for the first 100 pages, but the mechanic were not abandoned.

The world running by narrative has been explicitly stated. It's why Tarquin was valuable to high level adventurers. His whole story arc was about acknowledging/abusing the fact they were in a story.

Or Hinjo, Ochul, Lian, the airship crew, or any other number of characters who have aided and traveled with them over the last seven books.

Have all been helpful NPCs. They're assisted oots in a specific objective. Nobody has just decided travel with oots indefinitely before.

[Kantaki]

Well I don't know about that. He certainly impacted the ground. When he died.

Well, yeah. When he died.
So he was still alive for it.

[Ruck]

We must be reading different comics. In oots they talk about going up levels, how many spell slots they have, etc. Sure, it's not as blunt as it was for the first 100 pages, but the mechanic were not abandoned.

That doesn't mean that to understand the story you need to know which TV Tropes page you would classify every character under.

[NerdyKris]

Exactly. The whole point of Tarquin was that he was WRONG. He failed. The world did not adhere to dramatic convention and tropes. Elan rejected them and in doing so beat him.

[Peelee]

And Elan is explicitly weird.

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.

Would you at the very least admit they don’t treat it like death after it has been fixed?

Sure, because after it's been fixed they're no longer dead. There's no reason for me to not agree with that.

Are you seriously proposing the moment where a character tries to commit suicide by throwing themselves into a bottomless pit and then doesn’t die by sheer dumb luck as an example of plot armour not working? Because I considered using that very scene as an example of plot armour earlier on.

His hand getting cut off was my example, not his fall.

Exactly. The whole point of Tarquin was that he was WRONG. He failed. The world did not adhere to dramatic convention and tropes. Elan rejected them and in doing so beat him.

Eh, Tarquin wasn't wrong about that. The world objectively does run on dramatic convention. Elan was able to turn the tables on Tarquin by refusing bucking dramatic convention, forcing Tarquin into a battlefield that he was unfamiliar with and did not know how to react to.

[KorvinStarmast]

Well I don't know about that. He certainly impacted the ground. When he died.

*golf clap* Roy was always well grounded ...

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.

Clear to me as well.

[Fyraltari]

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.

Sure, because after it's been fixed they're no longer dead. There's no reason for me to not agree with that.

His hand getting cut off was my example, not his fall.

Eh, Tarquin wasn't wrong about that. The world objectively does run on dramatic convention. Elan was able to turn the tables on Tarquin by refusing bucking dramatic convention, forcing Tarquin into a battlefield that he was unfamiliar with and did not know how to react to.

Okay, I will yield that the character treat death as death until it is fixed. However I still consider that a negative event that has no negative consequences on the characters like Roy and Durkon's deaths or Luke's lost hand are example of plot armor working. Bandana paladin was just as dead as Roy but he didn't get to come back because he was just a nameless extra while Roy is one of the main characters.

[Peelee]

Okay, I will yield that the character treat death as death until it is fixed. However I still consider that a negative event that has no negative consequences on the characters like Roy and Durkon's deaths or Luke's lost hand are example of plot armor working. Bandana paladin was just as dead as Roy but he didn't get to come back because he was just a nameless extra while Roy is one of the main characters.

Luke's lost hand finally showed him that he was completely outclassed, disarmed him, and left him at Vader's mercy. It continued to serve as a reminder of the perils of hubris in RotJ. That was not plot armor working. That was a character losing a dang hand! Vader very explicitly wanted him alive, so an amputation is abiut the most he could possibly be injured, and he got that extreme injury.

Bandana paladin immediately returned in ghost form to continue fighting Xykon, so if anyone, their death had the least negative effect since Xykon couldn't combat them where he could before (and this is not an argument I particularly like making), and again, a whole book was written about the negative effects of Roy's and Durkon's deaths each! They wouldn't have died if their deaths didn't bring negative consequences, that was kind of the point of them dying to begin with.

[Fyraltari]

Luke's lost hand finally showed him that he was completely outclassed, disarmed him, and left him at Vader's mercy. It continued to serve as a reminder of the perils of hubris in RotJ. That was not plot armor working. That was a character losing a dang hand! Vader very explicitly wanted him alive, so an amputation is abiut the most he could possibly be injured, and he got that extreme injury.

Bandana paladin immediately returned in ghost form to continue fighting Xykon, so if anyone, their death had the least negative effect since Xykon couldn't combat them where he could before (and this is not an argument I particularly like making), and again, a whole book was written about the negative effects of Roy's and Durkon's deaths each! They wouldn't have died if their deaths didn't bring negative consequences, that was kind of the point of them dying to begin with.

And again all that was fixed. All of it. If a character has their hand cut off and remains one-armed (or get a realistic prosthetic) then it's not plot armor. If they get a new hand that is in no way distinguishable from the former one, then that's plot armour.

If a character dies and stay dead, that's not plot armor, if a character dies and come back is in some way diminished or changed then that's not plot armour. If a character dies, come back and there is no noticeable difference then that's plot armour.

Plot armour is not a dirty word, nor is it a symptom of bad writing (who would read a story that ends in the middle of the fifth chapter xithout resolving its plot because the hero died?), it's a perfevtly normal feature of writing.

[Peelee]

And again all that was fixed.

There would be nothing to be fixed it there was plot armor.

Plot armor means I can't crash my car, not that I can get a new car if I do crash.

[Fyraltari]

There would be nothing to be fixed it there was plot armor.

Plot armor means I can't crash my car, not that I can get a new car if I do crash.

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.

[Peelee]

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. Typically, plot armor means a character surviving what they normally shouldn't. For example, a base full of Russian soldiers shooting at James Bond as he escapes, with only metal grate flooring between him and the soldiers.