El Goonish Shive VII: The Comic is 20 Years Old, but the Cast is Still 18

[Qwertystop]

All right! Keeping up the streak of actually-running-out-of-pages these days, here's the ninth El Goonish Shive thread, immediately following the one officially numbered 5, and thereby numbered appropriately. For those new to it, this comic has a lot of magic action gender stuff, was at one point described as "the dirtiest squeaky-clean comic on the internet", and currently appears to be dipping its metaphorical toes into something resembling intrigue. It's got the sort of character development you only really get when the author's had time to develop alongside said characters; it might be a bit of a rough start, but it gets good pretty fast.

Previous Threads:
El Goonish Shive (Late June 2009)
El Goonish Shive (Jan-Feb 2010)
El Goonish Shive (March 2011-May 2012; first thread to exceed one page)
El Goonish Shive (April 2013-May 2014; first thread to be closed for length at... 45 pages?)
El Goonish Shive II - I stand by my ridiculous comic (first thread to be numbered!)
El Goonish Shive III - Totally Adorkable!
El Goonish ShIVe - Dammit Dan, Stop Teasing Us
El Goonish ShiVe - Look! Squirrel!

Currently: Fungible morality?

[Celestia]

You have the wrong subtitle on the last thread. Though, that one is still relevant, so I understand your reuse of it.

[Rater202]

You ever play a JRPG and right after you defeat a boss midway through the game you unlock them as a party member and then the version in your party just kind of sucks?

That would be why going villain comes with power boost.

[Qwertystop]

You have the wrong subtitle on the last thread. Though, that one is still relevant, so I understand your reuse of it.

Good catch, thanks.

[Fyraltari]

You ever play a JRPG and right after you defeat a boss midway through the game you unlock them as a party member and then the version in your party just kind of sucks?

That would be why going villain comes with power boost.

*Angrily shakes fist* Damn you, dramatic tension! Damn you!

[Rater202]

So, thought...

Early on, part of the plan for Elliot was that he would, like many anime protagonists, struggle with semi-literal inner demons and a lust for battle and violence.

Like, in the exhibition match Greg had Elliot and Nanase put on when he found out that Elliot brought a guest to observe Geg flat out says "Nanase, don't use your magic powers* and Elliot don't summon your inner demons."

It was eventually declared that that was just Greg making something up to be dramatic... But we're flat out told that that was a retcon in one of th Q&A strips.

So... Maybe Dan is revisiting that concept? Elliot... Likes fighting. And when he gets angry, he wants to inflict violence on the people who made him angry. It's just that he has enough self-control not to do that.

So maybe villain Elliot is just Elliot... With his inhibitions and emotional filters removed. His "inner demon" laid bare.

*Which she did anyway. Color clone spell... She hasn't used that in a while.

[Anonymouswizard]

Yeah, this is likely a reworking of the old Inner Demons idea. Although if we're lucky it'll instead be used to dive into potentially questionable aspects of Eliot's morality.

Like, we're going to see this villain form at some point, probably in four decades, and its actions are going to be based on Eliot's personality (be else why else include it). It being a kind of inverted morality is much less interesting than smaller twists. Especially if (speculation time) the form can exist in it's powered state for extended periods.

[InvisibleBison]

Especially if (speculation time) the form can exist in it's powered state for extended periods.

Is there some reason to think it would be unusual if the villain form could last for a long time? I don't recall it ever being said that there's any limit to how long the Cheerleadra spell can last.

[DavidSh]

Is there some reason to think it would be unusual if the villain form could last for a long time? I don't recall it ever being said that there's any limit to how long the Cheerleadra spell can last.

There's been some information on how long transformation spells last, but I don't have the spare time to dig through the last couple of years of comics to find it. I believe it depends on how willing the subject is, and it probably changed with the magic change. It would be a bummer of most magical personality changes become permanent because the new personality doesn't want to change back.

[Kish]

Like, we're going to see this villain form at some point,

Hopefully not.

It would truly be painfully stupid of Elliott to go, "This gryphon is vastly more powerful than me and nearly killed me because she was tricked into thinking I was evil. I'mma be evil when I go to meet her."

I'll be much happier if his reasoning arrives at, "So...ever using that form would be a really dumb idea," and that's the end of it.

[Rater202]

Hopefully not.

It would truly be painfully stupid of Elliott to go, "This gryphon is vastly more powerful than me and nearly killed me because she was tricked into thinking I was evil. I'mma be evil when I go to meet her."

I'll be much happier if his reasoning arrives at, "So...ever using that form would be a really dumb idea," and that's the end of it.

1: Nobody said anything about Elliot using the form to meet the Gryphons. It could just as easily be a situation where... Say, an encounter with Lord Tedd later in the comic?

2: We've already seen Elliot at the meeting with the Grpyhons at the beginning of the arc, he's Cheerleadra but smaller.

[Maat Mons]

Looks like Tedd's going to be tricked into helping to build new superweapons for the government. Well, it was bound to happen sooner or later. It's sort of a rite of passage for genius inventors.

[Radar]

Looks like Tedd's going to be tricked into helping to build new superweapons for the government. Well, it was bound to happen sooner or later. It's sort of a rite of passage for genius inventors.

Not really superweapons. I would say quite the opposite as what Arthur needs are precise and safe weapons for field agents. Still weapon development though. Some inventors object to it very emotionally and I think Tedd will not be happy either.

[Gnoman]

I don't think Tedd would object nearly as much to making non-lethal weapons as he will to Arthur going behind his back like this.

[Anonymouswizard]

Is there some reason to think it would be unusual if the villain form could last for a long time? I don't recall it ever being said that there's any limit to how long the Cheerleadra spell can last.

I was thinking along the lines of 'if it can be switched off at will a lot of drawbacks are mitigated', which admittedly might not be an actual issue.


While Tedd might be in theory fine with helping to build the kind of weapons Arthur wants at the moment, Arthur likely realises that others are going to want to use Tedd's research to build far more destructive stuff, and he probably thinks that there is a justification for doing so down the line. Hence the secrecy.

[DavidSh]

But once you have become evil, why would you ever want to become non-evil? Unless you could ensure that you would become evil again at a future time.

[Anonymouswizard]

But once you have become evil, why would you ever want to become non-evil? Unless you could ensure that you would become evil again at a future time.

Not sure, posted both of those posts at work, so double checking or noting my thought process wasn't a priority.

[mucat]

But once you have become evil, why would you ever want to become non-evil? Unless you could ensure that you would become evil again at a future time.

For the record, I will become evil at 3:15 pm on Wednesday, 11 June 2025. My power shall be unsurpassed.

Edit: Pacific Daylight time.

[Celestia]

Hopefully not.

It would truly be painfully stupid of Elliott to go, "This gryphon is vastly more powerful than me and nearly killed me because she was tricked into thinking I was evil. I'mma be evil when I go to meet her."

I'll be much happier if his reasoning arrives at, "So...ever using that form would be a really dumb idea," and that's the end of it.

That would be a clear violation of Chekov's Gun. You can't introduce something to the story only to then ignore it. If it's irrelevant and never used, then why even bring it into the story in the first place?

[InvisibleBison]

That would be a clear violation of Chekov's Gun. You can't introduce something to the story only to then ignore it. If it's irrelevant and never used, then why even bring it into the story in the first place?

Perhaps because it makes sense for the characters to discuss it. Perhaps because it's an interesting bit of information about how the new magic system works. Perhaps because the author wants us to worry about whether or not Elliot will be tempted to use the evil mode powerup in the next dangerous scene. Perhaps because there's going to be a new character using a similar phenomenon and the author wants to make their ability more understandable. Perhaps because contemplating this issue will lead Elliot to figuring out a different, morally acceptable, trade that he can do. In short, there are lots of ways to "use" something without having it directly appear in the story.

Also, Chekhov's gun is overrated. The most concise possible story is not necessarily the best story. And Chekhov was a playwright talking about using actual, physical props. The constraints are different for other media.

[Windscion]

As IB says, a gun can be used without being fired. The threat of force is a use for a weapon, even if it is never used with killing intent -- or even grasped.

[Maat Mons]

Regarding todays NP, I'm going to propose a few items before even knowing the scenarios. I'm interested to see if my items wind up being able to allow success.

1. My cell phone
2. A fat stack of cash
3. A gun
4. Duct tape

[Gez]

But once you have become evil, why would you ever want to become non-evil? Unless you could ensure that you would become evil again at a future time.

I think there are exceedingly few people who want to be evil. This kind of motivation is more the domain of comic book scenery chewers than real people. Far more common are those who just are evil because it's what seemed the most convenient path to their own gratification.

[Rater202]

Very few people think of themselves as the villain of the story.

Even in a scenario with a clear-cut bad guy, the bad usually thinks that the other guy is the bad guy.

The Highschool Bully doesn't see himself as the bad guy for teasing, pranking, or committing violence against his victim. He sees the victim as the bad guy for not being able to "take a joke."

If someone genuinely wants to be "evil" it's becuase they see the villain as "cool" or "relatable" or becuase there's something fundamentally wrong with them—sociopathy or psychopathy.

*and to be fair, sometimes it's easy to sympathize with the villain. I see Himiko Toga or Riley Davis and I don't see a serial killer, I see someone who could have and should have gotten help becuase it's pretty clear-cut not their fault that they're the way they are.)

...And Some people just want to wear flamboyant costumes and make bombastic speeches about how they're gonna show them, show them all!

[Vinyadan]

To tell the truth, I think Elliot is jumping to conclusions. We are kinda used to this sort of stuff for D&D epic spells -- to lower the difficulty of a very powerful spell, one that even an epic spellcaster would have trouble casting, you add certain drawbacks. For example, you can cast an extremely powerful spell, with much better chances, at the condition of dying.

Now, wouldn't that be a downer, and not really something teens should get near to! But, to tell the truth, I had a much less worrisome idea, which is: you give up the ability to turn the spell off, be it at will (you get a set duration) or at all (you will need external means of transformation to return to your normal form).

[Anonymouswizard]

Regarding todays NP, I'm going to propose a few items before even knowing the scenarios. I'm interested to see if my items wind up being able to allow success.

1. My cell phone
2. A fat stack of cash
3. A gun
4. Duct tape

I mean, the few times we did this kind of activity on school I hated them. Partially because it was always some kind of trick like "your best bet is to stay with the vehicle', but also because there would generally be some kind of bag or backpack but I wasn't allowed to put other items into it.

[Kish]

That would be a clear violation of Chekov's Gun. You can't introduce something to the story only to then ignore it. If it's irrelevant and never used, then why even bring it into the story in the first place?

Chekov's Gun, at least in the form it's presented here, is a terrible rule. It amounts to: Don't do worldbuilding, since implying that anything is happening that isn't all about this story's protagonists is a waste; no matter how intelligent your protagonists are supposed to be, if there's a mistake that could be made, they have to make it.

If Elliott applies a tiny amount of thought here and never turns into a super-villain, that does not make it irrelevant that he could, any more than, e.g., the fact that Ellen did not attempt to copy Not-Tengu's form makes it irrelevant that that's something she could have (disastrously) attempted had Zeus not pushed her in the direction of duplicating Nanase's guardian form instead.

[Lord Raziere]

Chekov's Gun, at least in the form it's presented here, is a terrible rule. It amounts to: Don't do worldbuilding, since implying that anything is happening that isn't all about this story's protagonists is a waste; no matter how intelligent your protagonists are supposed to be, if there's a mistake that could be made, they have to make it.

If Elliott applies a tiny amount of thought here and never turns into a super-villain, that does not make it irrelevant that he could, any more than, e.g., the fact that Ellen did not attempt to copy Not-Tengu's form makes it irrelevant that that's something she could have (disastrously) attempted had Zeus not pushed her in the direction of duplicating Nanase's guardian form instead.

Agreed, for example it is a well known fact in comic books that Superman could destroy the world if he really wanted to. But he never really does. all his plots involve him sticking to his rules and beliefs and presenting it as bad if he slips even a little bit, any mind control plots have him be saved/broke out of it before he can cause too much destruction, alternate evil supermen tend to stick to the world conquering route rather than giving up on humanity entirely. But no iteration of Superman actively tries to destroy the world or makes the mistake of doing so as far as I can recall.

The fact that he could destroy the world drives a lot of the motivations of the people opposing him however, such as Lex Luthor, Amanda Waller, Cadmus, or just some villain that recognizes "hey this guys really powerful, best take him out first if I want to carry out my plan on Earth". So just because it never happens, doesn't mean its not relevant.

also good storytelling/wordbuilding can use the mistake detail by making a villain do something similar but in their foolishness, haste or other flaw makes the mistake that the protagonist doesn't and thus gets defeated for it. for example if Elliot was facing some Elliot-expy villain who mirrored him most ways but was more reckless, you could use the fact that this villain-Elliot has a similar form to make them make the mistake of going villain for more powerful thinking they could somehow direct their villainy for maximum effect against injustice but be wrong.

[Qwertystop]

To tell the truth, I think Elliot is jumping to conclusions. We are kinda used to this sort of stuff for D&D epic spells -- to lower the difficulty of a very powerful spell, one that even an epic spellcaster would have trouble casting, you add certain drawbacks. For example, you can cast an extremely powerful spell, with much better chances, at the condition of dying.

Now, wouldn't that be a downer, and not really something teens should get near to! But, to tell the truth, I had a much less worrisome idea, which is: you give up the ability to turn the spell off, be it at will (you get a set duration) or at all (you will need external means of transformation to return to your normal form).

Eh. That doesn't seem like the sort of "bad trade" that the Emissary would warn against without saying what it is – situationally, "more powerful but time-limited" is perfectly fine, and in fact that's very similar to the "when it ends you burn out" tradeoff of guardian forms. "You die", or "permanent long-term consequences", or "reduced lifespan"... I can see times when it would be worth it, and I would caution heavily against it without hiding the existence of the option, but I suppose that he might want to discourage reckless undervaluing-the-long-term behavior by a teen.

[Anonymouswizard]

I admit it could be a red herring, and that Elliott or somebody else is going to work out another trade that'll be more important to the story. But I do feel like this is setup for an arc way down the line where Eliot decides them going villain is less problematic than whatever the current issue is.

Although considering Dan, Eliot's villain form might just steal puppies and put them on tall roofs. Which as a dogophobe I'd be in support of.