Concerns About the Progressions of the Goblin Plot (@Rich)

[Hurkyl]

This only weakens the story if you believe that comedy and drama cannot ever intertwine, that jokes "don't count" and that comedic or funny things are supposed to be consumed and then quickly discarded without a second thought, and that dramatic things cannot also be funny.

But real life doesn't work that way. Both the drama and the comedy are equally canon. Things don't stop being real just because they're funny. A person steps on a rake and the rake hits them in the face, and to you, an observer, that can be funny; but to the person getting hit in the face with a rake, that's painful. Maybe it's the other way around even, you see this happen and rush to their aid, worried, only to see them laugh it off. Maybe everyone laughs. Maybe everyone takes it seriously.

Saying that a story is "weakened" because the comedy and the drama have crossed is saying that things like an incisive satire is inherently a weaker story, just because it's satirical, regardless of its witty commentary.

Intertwining is fine, that's not what I'm talking about; the problem I was talking about is when the story expects the reader to engage with something one way, and then reverses course.

Running with your example is maybe a good way to describe the point. Imagine that you were reading a story that just had an entire story arc dealing seriously with casual violence and how damaging it can be to people. Then the next arc begins with someone with someone trapped in a field of rakes and plays it up purely for comedic value.

[Shadowknight12]

Intertwining is fine, that's not what I'm talking about; the problem I was talking about is when the story expects the reader to engage with something one way, and then reverses course.

Running with your example is maybe a good way to describe the point. Imagine that you were reading a story that just had an entire story arc dealing seriously with casual violence and how damaging it can be to people. Then the next arc begins with someone with someone trapped in a field of rakes and plays it up purely for comedic value.

That example would be confusing, but the opposite example wouldn't be. Setting up a scene with a field of rakes and playing it up for comedic value on one scene and then switching to a serious tone about how laughing at people in pain is maybe bad sometimes, would make people upset because they would feel "baited" by the story but it wouldn't make it a bad or weaker story. Stories pretending to be about a thing at first and then later turning around to criticize the thing they were portraying at the start is a tried and true tradition across a lot of media. It's not everyone's cup of tea, of course, but then nothing is.

[Precure]

This forum's view and treatment of Miko is getting pretty terrible lately. If Miko was a stereotypically bad paladin as posters here seems to think, there wouldn't be that much people who supported her and she wouldn't be the controversial character that created countless threads of discussion.

[arimareiji]

That is something I've noticed and which quite bothers me.

When someone covers a certain topic in their work in a subtle manner, the people who don't like the creator's stance will just take an interpretation which suits them better.

When someone covers a certain topic in their work in a blunt manner, the people who don't like the creator's stance will just go and say that it's too in your face and exaggerated.

It might be that there's some perfect balance which would make it work, but quite frankly it often seems like the 'too subtle' and 'too blunt' zones are directly adjacent to each other.

Or even overlap. You can have people simultaneously arguing that "X proves my chosen belief of Y since it doesn't write 'Y is wrong' in triplicate with 20-foot-tall flaming letters", and "Obviously the author is an over-the-top Y hater, he really derailed the plot with X".

[Manga Shoggoth]

This forum's view and treatment of Miko is getting pretty terrible lately. If Miko was a stereotypically bad paladin as posters here seems to think, there wouldn't be that much people who supported her and she wouldn't be the controversial character that created countless threads of discussion.

The problem is that Miko did many things right as well as wrong - overall in attitude she was the "stereotypically bad paladin", but her individual actions (those not played purely for humour) were frequently actually ones you could justifibly expect from a paladin. At the time there was actually a long note explaining her major scenes in this light circulating on the forum. So up to her actual fall you could argue for her position.

However, after her fall and on to her death it was made quite clear that no matter how noble she thought she was, she was becoming increasingly delusional. That rather eroded the pro-Miko side of the arguement.

[Mechalich]

The problem is that Miko did many things right as well as wrong - overall in attitude she was the "stereotypically bad paladin", but her individual actions (those not played purely for humour) were frequently actually ones you could justifibly expect from a paladin. At the time there was actually a long note explaining her major scenes in this light circulating on the forum. So up to her actual fall you could argue for her position.

However, after her fall and on to her death it was made quite clear that no matter how noble she thought she was, she was becoming increasingly delusional. That rather eroded the pro-Miko side of the arguement.

One of the issues with Miko is that she's something like level 14 - she encounters the Order when they're level 11-12 and handily overpowers several of them even if circumstances were stacked in her favor - yet she comes across as on the very edge of falling from her very first appearance. So working backwards it becomes difficult to imagine how someone so incredibly uncompromising could have managed to advance that far as a paladin without falling long ago. This is a fridge logic issue, mostly, the kind of thing that happens when you think about a character like Miko for a while. OOTS has a lot of fridge logic issues. Normally that's not a problem, since it's a comedic parody and they come with the territory. However they undermine attempts to make serious points with real-world analogues. In the goblin plot this means taking the operations of Azure City and the Sapphire Guard as if they were real organizations. Insofar as they don't hold together as a functional organization - which is what all this back and forth arguing about paladins has covered - that breaks suspension of disbelief for many and brings down the plot.

[Dion]

What was wrong with Miko? She was a self righteous holier-than-though murder hobo who found ways to use her code to justify her violence and intolerance.

She seemed a perfect paladin.

[Hurkyl]

One of the issues with Miko is that she's something like level 14 - she encounters the Order when they're level 11-12 and handily overpowers several of them even if circumstances were stacked in her favor - yet she comes across as on the very edge of falling from her very first appearance. So working backwards it becomes difficult to imagine how someone so incredibly uncompromising could have managed to advance that far as a paladin without falling long ago. This is a fridge logic issue, mostly, the kind of thing that happens when you think about a character like Miko for a while.

I don't really see it, unless you want to make presumptions that Miko is a stereotypical malicious type that uses the rules to get away with and rationalize it. I get people like to make that presumption, but I think the comic overall makes clear that's not an accurate description.

How does she manage to be uncompromising without falling long ago? I sort of feel like that's well explained; because she's uncompromising about Good Laws. Things like rules of engagement and acceptable targets -- for example, using lethal force only on the evil leader of the adventuring party she was tasked with apprehending, and even then only after he announces his intention not to surrender. And just as a reminder, she didn't just assume Roy was evil: she confirmed it prior to engaging the party. That judgement was beyond any reasonable doubt. I think it even meets the standard of being beyond doubt.

And it's rather convenient to my point that she didn't fall until she took action outside of the Good and Lawful code of conduct demanded of a paladin of Azure City.

[Shadowknight12]

I think it even meets the standard of being beyond doubt.

It by definition cannot be beyond doubt when it was immediately disproven by Durkon. If evil artifacts can throw off Detect Evil, then there's no such thing as "beyond doubt" when using it. Beyond reasonable doubt, perhaps, depending on how common evil artifacts are. Especially since Xykon's crown had apparently no magical effects and was just a pretty bauble and it still ended up gathering enough evil to throw off Detect Evil when worn by someone else.

[arimareiji]

Does anyone else suspect Roy was voicing some of the author's feelings, talking to Miko in this comic?

You're not Good, at least not any definition of Good that I would want to follow.
You follow the letter of the alignment description while ignoring its intent. Sure, you fight Evil, but when was the last time you showed a "concern for the dignity of sentient beings"?
You're just a mean socially inept bully who hides behind a badge and her holier-than-thou morality as excuses to treat other people like crap.

[Lvl45DM!]

It by definition cannot be beyond doubt when it was immediately disproven by Durkon. If evil artifacts can throw off Detect Evil, then there's no such thing as "beyond doubt" when using it. Beyond reasonable doubt, perhaps, depending on how common evil artifacts are. Especially since Xykon's crown had apparently no magical effects and was just a pretty bauble and it still ended up gathering enough evil to throw off Detect Evil when worn by someone else.

But its not unfair to say that it was beyond reasonable doubt though, considering part of the reason she attacked was Nales actions and "It was my identical twin" is a hard pill to swallow

[Shadowknight12]

But its not unfair to say that it was beyond reasonable doubt though, considering part of the reason she attacked was Nales actions and "It was my identical twin" is a hard pill to swallow

Considering that the world she lives in has both Illusion and Transmutation magic and you are a paladin that could fall if you make a terrible enough mistake, you don't need identical twins to be like "hm maybe I shouldn't jump to conclusions." Miko jumping to conclusions on zero evidence was one of her main personality traits, so it makes sense for the story that she did this, but it doesn't mean that her actions were duly justified.

[Hurkyl]

It by definition cannot be beyond doubt when it was immediately disproven by Durkon. If evil artifacts can throw off Detect Evil, then there's no such thing as "beyond doubt" when using it. Beyond reasonable doubt, perhaps, depending on how common evil artifacts are. Especially since Xykon's crown had apparently no magical effects and was just a pretty bauble and it still ended up gathering enough evil to throw off Detect Evil when worn by someone else.

But Miko doesn't have that information at the time she makes that judgement. IIRC, dialog later in the comic makes it clear that prior to this encounter, there was nothing to even suggest the possibility that Detect Evil could be fooled.

And to her credit, she ceases her attack immediately upon gaining information to doubt the judgement, namely that Smite Evil failed to do any bonus damage. And she doesn't have any prideful stubbornness over the matter; she readily accepts the explanation and empirical demonstration of the effect.

With the knowledge gained from this encounter, it is reasonable to argue that a Detect Evil cast cannot meet the "beyond doubt" standard of evidence, but for someone in Miko's position making a judgement without that knowledge? I think it's likely the term is accurate.

(as an aside, I do dislike the term "beyond doubt"; I really dislike such subjective legal standards, especially when cast in a term like "certainty" which people are really bad about using, but I don't really have a good alternate descriptor)

[Shadowknight12]

(as an aside, I do dislike the term "beyond doubt"; I really dislike such subjective legal standards, especially when cast in a term like "certainty" which people are really bad about using, but I don't really have a good alternate descriptor)

Personally I would consider "with the information available" as being beyond reasonable doubt. I would consider "beyond doubt" to be nigh-impossible to certify unless the situation in question has been thoroughly studied from every possible angle, and even then,there's the possibility for random exceptions to occur.

[The Aboleth]

But Miko doesn't have that information at the time she makes that judgement. IIRC, dialog later in the comic makes it clear that prior to this encounter, there was nothing to even suggest the possibility that Detect Evil could be fooled.

And to her credit, she ceases her attack immediately upon gaining information to doubt the judgement, namely that Smite Evil failed to do any bonus damage. And she doesn't have any prideful stubbornness over the matter; she readily accepts the explanation and empirical demonstration of the effect.

With the knowledge gained from this encounter, it is reasonable to argue that a Detect Evil cast cannot meet the "beyond doubt" standard of evidence, but for someone in Miko's position making a judgement without that knowledge?

Let's also not forget that a BIG part of Miko's distrust during her overall arc was the fact that Belkar--who definitely WAS Evil--made active attempts to hide his Alignment and (certainly from Miko's perspective) the Order made zero attempts to confront or even explain the situation (at least, I don't think we saw this on-panel unless I am forgetting). This could totally come off as apathetic at best if I were in Miko's shoes.

Miko is definitely guilty of a lot of things, including jumping to conclusions based on flimsy evidence...but there was SOME evidence for her to distrust the Order at large and I find it uncomfortable to ignore that.

If anything, I think Miko should be a cautionary tale about how one's Alignment (even, and perhaps especially, what we largely consider "Good" in the context of the game system) can be blinding if you don't leave room for the possibility you might be wrong, or at the least of mitigating context. Put another way: if you think that YOUR version of events can be the only possible perspective that aligns with what is "right," (in Miko's case, probably because she had believed that version to have been true her entire life with little substantial pushback), then you may end up doing the exact OPPOSITE of what you intend.

Miko couldn't accept a version of Goodness that would allow an Evil person to achieve Good objectives; therefore, she drew the conclusion (not rightly, but not out of nowhere, either) that the others were also either Evil or advancing Evil ends. Couple this with meeting up with Xykon as he's destroying a Warning Beacon after the Order had seemingly destroyed him? Yeah, I can personally see the bend of her character arc and envision how a Player who takes a Paladin in that direction would look similar to Miko.

[Peelee]

Let's also not forget that a BIG part of Miko's distrust during her overall arc was the fact that Belkar--who definitely WAS Evil--made active attempts to hide his Alignment and (certainly from Miko's perspective) the Order made zero attempts to confront or even explain the situation (at least, I don't think we saw this on-panel unless I am forgetting). This could totally come off as apathetic at best if I were in Miko's shoes.

Miko is definitely guilty of a lot of things, including jumping to conclusions based on flimsy evidence...but there was SOME evidence for her to distrust the Order at large and I find it uncomfortable to ignore that.

If anything, I think Miko should be a cautionary tale about how one's Alignment (even, and perhaps especially, what we largely consider "Good" in the context of the game system) can be blinding if you don't leave room for the possibility you might be wrong, or at the least of mitigating context. Put another way: if you think that YOUR version of events can be the only possible perspective that aligns with what is "right," (in Miko's case, probably because she had believed that version to have been true her entire life with little substantial pushback), then you may end up doing the exact OPPOSITE of what you intend.

Miko couldn't accept a version of Goodness that would allow an Evil person to achieve Good objectives; therefore, she drew the conclusion (not rightly, but not out of nowhere, either) that the others were also either Evil or advancing Evil ends. Couple this with meeting up with Xykon as he's destroying a Warning Beacon after the Order had seemingly destroyed him? Yeah, I can personally see the bend of her character arc and envision how a Player who takes a Paladin in that direction would look similar to Miko.

I like this analasys. Throwing my support behind it.

[Worldsong]

I like this analasys. Throwing my support behind it.

Same. I strongly support the notion that Miko's greatest flaw was that she was incapable of introspection (rather than sociopathy or whatever accusations people levy at her). She had a certain worldview, and when reality provided scenarios which conflicted with said worldview she had trouble adjusting and instead developed increasingly elaborate and twisted rationalizations to try and match reality with her expectations. And when reality continued to disagree with her said rationalizations eventually reached a point of making no sense at all.

When she accepted that Roy wasn't evil the explanation was as simple as "Magic was interfering with your Detect Evil", and it happened before she was given much reason to consider him Evil on a personal level. After that, however, she had to deal with the problem Aboleth put forth, namely that Belkar both was and acted as an Evil character, while the Order at best tolerated it and at worst endorsed it.

The tragic part is that Miko could very well have managed to reconcile her perspective with reality if she was given time to calm down, and maybe talk about it with someone she could trust to be reasonable (Hinjo, for example. He almost got through to her in the throne room). Instead she was almost immediately sent out on another mission to deliver Durkon's letter, and after that the encounter with Xykon happened, followed by the throne room.

[Doug Lampert]

But Miko doesn't have that information at the time she makes that judgement. IIRC, dialog later in the comic makes it clear that prior to this encounter, there was nothing to even suggest the possibility that Detect Evil could be fooled.

The comic works by 3.5 rules. Detect evil gives the location and strength of evil auras. The spell itself lists SIX different things that can give an evil aura, only one of which is "evil creature".

You might think that "Evil Outsider" as one of those entries only means another type of evil creature, but the description of the Evil subtype specifies that the subtype is what pings on this, and ALSO specifies that creatures with the subtype need not be evil. The succubus paladin registers as lawful, good, chaotic, and evil; but she is a paladin just the same.

Similarly, ANYONE under the effect of a "Protection from Good" spell registers as Evil, so beating detect evil requires a level 1 spell on the wizard/sorcerer list.

So, no, by straight 3.x D&D rules, there's no excuse for assuming that detecting as Evil means a creature is evil beyond a reasonable doubt. It creates a reasonable presumption and might be evidence sufficient to do some more investigating. But not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Now: In this particular case, Miko should not have been fooled if she spent two rounds detecting [and it takes three to get the locations] then she gets the strength which should be "dim" since the crown should only have a lingering aura from Xykon and the lingering aura is the only listed source of dim auras; but Rich may have ruled that epic evil and prolonged possession gave the crown a stronger evil aura.

[Rodin]

A common argument I see is "Miko had good reason to suspect the Order, therefore..."

I dislike this argument, because it misses the reason why she fell. Let's assume for a moment that she's right. Lord Shojo is evil, the Order is evil. What now?

The Lawful thing to do would be to lock up everyone involved. She has the next best authority in the city telling her to do just that - Shojo's heir and a fellow Paladin who she trusts.

The Good thing to do would be to refrain from bisecting an unarmed octogenarian civilian in cold blood.

The latter is likely to make her fall no matter what Shojo's alignment truly was. The combination of the two makes it certain. Miko being wrong is just the icing on the cake.

It's also why Hinjo is in the scene. He has the exact same information as Miko - that there's a huge army about to attack, and his liege lord is conspiring with a group of adventurers for unknown purposes. He acts as the voice of reason, Good, and Law all at once. Miko first ignores him, then attacks him.

Miko could have been the most perfect paladin who ever paladinned a paladin...but when she acted as she did in the throne room, she fell. Regardless of how she acted prior to that one deed.

[Kish]

The comic works by 3.5 rules. Detect evil gives the location and strength of evil auras. The spell itself lists SIX different things that can give an evil aura, only one of which is "evil creature".

Miko also should have had a different reaction to: Of the group of ruthless brigands, murderers, and torturers I've been tracking, two of the three I scanned are not evil.

That she still went straight to: Surrender and go to a capital trial, or die, suggests she was looking for "do I have an excuse to attack?" rather than for "does the evidence all point in the same direction?"

[yrm2]

The comic isn't on the forum. The forum rules only apply to the forum, that should really be obvious.

As to why the comic doesn't have similar rules to the forum. The forum is a place of discourse and political discussions, especially on the internet have a tendency to get heated real quick. We're not a group pf friends having a chat over pizza, we're a crowd of a few hundred anonymous people, if we start talking about current events, flaming will ensue.

But the comic isn't a place of discourse, it's a place where we listen to what Richard Burlew wants to say. We can't answer back so there's no risk of descending into petty insults.

Right but, if the comic, which normally is an escape from the stresses and lectures of real life, becomes a political soap box... it becomes walking on eggshells to try to talk about the comic without talking about politics and violating a rule. I'd be happier just laughing at the comic and never even posting, as I hadn't in years. I posted because I respect Rich enough to believe we can at least voice an objection here, without being given a scarlet letter.

People hate this message/cult for the same reason we hated the {scrubbed} . It was garbage then, and it's garbage now.

There should be at least a few safe havens where people can escape from this topic.

At least Belkar gets it.

[Hurkyl]

The comic works by 3.5 rules. Detect evil gives the location and strength of evil auras. The spell itself lists SIX different things that can give an evil aura, only one of which is "evil creature".

...

Now: In this particular case, Miko should not have been fooled if she spent two rounds detecting [and it takes three to get the locations] then she gets the strength which should be "dim" since the crown should only have a lingering aura from Xykon and the lingering aura is the only listed source of dim auras; but Rich may have ruled that epic evil and prolonged possession gave the crown a stronger evil aura.

Except we know it doesn't work like that in comic. In 202, we see that the information Miko gains from the spell is a clear and precise reading "Roy is not evil and Durkon is evil" when Durkon is holding the crown.

So, no, by straight 3.x D&D rules, there's no excuse for assuming that detecting as Evil means a creature is evil beyond a reasonable doubt. It creates a reasonable presumption and might be evidence sufficient to do some more investigating. But not beyond a reasonable doubt.

Irrelevant. The topic isn't about whether about forum posters with access to the D&D rulebook (and hindsight) are reasonable to doubt a judgement based on a detect evil reading; the topic is about someone in Miko's position.

I do think it's plausible that Miko has enough training and experience for it to be reasonable for her to believe her understanding of practical application of the spell was comprehensive. If so, if she lacks knowledge that the spell can be fooled, it would be unreasonable for her to doubt in the reading.

I can't find the strip that led me to be sure Miko was previously unaware the spell could be fooled, so I may be misremembering something else. I still think it's plausible, though.

[Hurkyl]

Miko also should have had a different reaction to: Of the group of ruthless brigands, murderers, and torturers I've been tracking, two of the three I scanned are not evil.

That she still went straight to: Surrender and go to a capital trial, or die, suggests she was looking for "do I have an excuse to attack?" rather than for "does the evidence all point in the same direction?"

You make it sound like she was going after the party on a malicious whim rather than, for example, being under orders to track down and apprehend a party charged with crimes against existence.

[Ruck]

I'd be happier just laughing at the comic and never even posting, as I hadn't in years.

No one's stopping you.

I posted because I respect Rich enough to believe we can at least voice an objection here, without being given a scarlet letter.

People hate this message/cult for the same reason we hated the {scrubbed} . It was garbage then, and it's garbage now.

Calling people a "cult" is a poor way for them to take you seriously.

There should be at least a few safe havens where people can escape from this topic.

There are plenty of safe spaces you can go if seeing any kind of comparison to the real world in this strip triggers you.

At least Belkar gets it.

Weird how so many people who complain about the recent tone of the comic sympathize with the Chaotic Evil character yet don't consider what that suggests about their position.

[hroþila]

You make it sound like she was going after the party on a malicious whim rather than, for example, being under orders to track down and apprehend a party charged with crimes against existence.

You're exactly right - her orders were to apprehend the party. Alive if at all possible. And yet she tried to kill them a nanosecond after she met them because they didn't surrender quickly enough for her tastes, even though they weren't hostile yet, and she claimed that her liege had ordered their execution, which was only true in her head. Because she wanted an excuse to attack.

[Fyraltari]

Right but, if the comic, which normally is an escape from the stresses and lectures of real life, becomes a political soap box... it becomes walking on eggshells to try to talk about the comic without talking about politics and violating a rule. I'd be happier just laughing at the comic and never even posting, as I hadn't in years. I posted because I respect Rich enough to believe we can at least voice an objection here, without being given a scarlet letter.

People hate this message/cult for the same reason we hated the {scrubbed} . It was garbage then, and it's garbage now.

There should be at least a few safe havens where people can escape from this topic.

At least Belkar gets it.

Are you allright? You seem very angry about a man writing his own comic that your read for free the way he wants to.

[Morty]

It takes some impressive levels of selective reading to have read this comic in its entirety without noticing that the author is using it to say something more serious than silly jokes about fighters and wizards.

[Kristinn]

Now this thread has developed a fair bit from the first page, but I would just like to say that I agree with OP. I definitely think he is right when he says that Roy is beating himself up about issues that he is in no way guilty of.

I also agree with the sentiment that this aspect of the story is derailing the pacing of the story, and possibly also the plot. Of course the creator of any story has full control and right of how his story is told, but readers also have full control and right of how they enjoy the story and what direction it's taken. In my case it's not any ideological qualms per se, it's just that I am not feeling invested in or captivated by this development of the story.

[Shadowknight12]

You make it sound like she was going after the party on a malicious whim rather than, for example, being under orders to track down and apprehend a party charged with crimes against existence.

She was told to apprehend them and immediately said "their blood will bathe my blades" or somesuch, and Shojo had to specifically clarify he wanted them back alive, to which she responded with a disappointed sigh. She then jumped at the chance to deal lethal violence to literally everyone she thought warranted it, including both an unarmed civilian (who even if he was Evil and guilty of treason does not warrant an unlawful execution) and Hinjo himself, who was at the time a non-Fallen paladin simply trying to reason with her.

[Ionathus]

Weird how so many people who complain about the recent tone of the comic sympathize with the Chaotic Evil character yet don't consider what that suggests about their position.

I find it very odd for a different reason: when someone says "ugh, it's so annoying that the main characters are nuance-devoid mouthpieces for the author's viewpoint" but then immediately follow it up with "I like this other main character! He totally gets it!" it's like they've forgotten who that latter character was also written by.

The author is pretty obviously using the different personalities to portray different viewpoints on a given topic, poke fun at his own storytelling, and allow the characters to be themselves. In other words, business as usual.