OOTS #943 - The Discussion Thread

[orrion]

But at the time of contact, Elan had no reason to think Tarquin needed countering. Tarquin had been highly friendly and useful. He may have shown himself highly evil, but that needs attacking, not countering.

Um, they contacted Julio right before they went into the pyramid. By then Elan had dueled his father and seen the flaming letters spelling his name. So yes, Tarquin did need countering. He'd shown himself to be a terrible father figure by that point.

It also does not compel him to avoid it, quite the reverse. And the point is that you are taking the position that Scoundrel is not coming back. So any theory that shows he might return has to be proven wrong, no exceptions, or your position is wrong.

You don't even have a theory in the first place.

Perhaps you recall the old joke, "busman's holiday", where a worker takes a vacation that is much like his job. The fact this is an old joke shows this is not a rare event. That Scoundrel has a "job" robbing/seducing/rescuing women does not preclude a "vacation" of robbing/seducing/rescuing women.

No evidence that's the type of vacation he's inclined to take.

I don't need to be consistent here. If there is one way he can show up, we have the plot weaknesses I have mentioned. So even if 99 ways are not going to happen, and the 100th might, we have a flaw in the story.

Can you dredge up one other person who agrees with this?

Apples and oranges. Lampshading is the author "saying" "OK, I'm doing something stupid here. Just roll with it." It can be done before or after, or during the flaw in question. Foreshadowing has to be done before, as the very name says. So if you say there was lots of foreshadowing, that foreshadowing has not done its job and you didn't have enough or good foreshadowing.

So because you weren't paying close enough attention to catch the foreshadowing, it was bad foreshadowing? No, sorry, that isn't the way it works. It also wasn't the argument you were making. You merely said that since Elan named it as foreshadowing it was bad.

Oh? Does this mean you're revising your previous stance that Julio is definitely going to come back and wreck the narrative? You were arguing that for several weeks.

I have made no such stance. Rather, I have said that after bringing him back once, you have no good way to say he is not coming back again.

Oh, really?

Now that does bring up a possible idea. We have got to get Scoundrel out of this story. He is just too much of a lead character not to be allowed to horn in on the Order's story. But how to get rid of him. Right now he looks to escape pretty easily, but then what? He hardly seems to be the type to run away from the big scene, and even if he did, we would be thinking of his return for the next two books.

And no reason he can't either, which means the damage to drama remains.

Your entire argument in several weeks' worth of discussion threads (I'm not going to bother citing all of them) boiled down to saying that Julio showing up again is inevitable and that he'll destroy the story when he does.

Seriously, why do you have this obsession with Julio showing up? Do you want him to show up again? If not, why are you busily advancing outrageous scenarios where he does with no basis in the story whatsoever?

It's almost like you're arguing against yourself. On one side: "I really don't want Julio in this story.." On the other side: "My overactive imagination just runs amok and keeps constructing a conglomeration of implausible events that keep getting more and more absurd!."

Along about 400, we didn't have any sort of specific reason either. So why do we need a specific reason this time?

Except there was a specific reason this time.

Wait, are you actually saying that because in strip 400 there was no indication of Julio returning in 928 he's going to return in strip 1400 because there will similarly be no indication of it in strip 1000? My response to that is the second to last panel.

[Jay R]

If it helps, the accepted deadpan-without-emoticon on this site is blue text. Like you'll ever use that.

That is accepted by some people here, and rejected by other people here. Announcing one half of this without the other can give people who don't know the wrong impression.

[Jay R]

Why do you think my comment implies a "planned plot point"?

Because you were trying to disprove my statement to Grimly Feendish that the fortress is irrelevant to Julio and the order at present.

Lots of options. The list above is just a few.

Yes, lots of options - only one of which was under discussion when you weighed in.

If you wish to maintain that you could invent some completely different scenario in which it could be relevant, feel free. But there is no point quoting my statement out of context to do so.

[AutomatedTeller]

One thing I hadn't noticed was that Julio did, in fact, change his costume - from orange shirt and blue pants to red shirt and black pants.

he is now dressed more like a star trek dead guy than before. Thus, he will die soon.

[Math_Mage]

It also does not compel him to avoid it, quite the reverse. And the point is that you are taking the position that Scoundrel is not coming back. So any theory that shows he might return has to be proven wrong, no exceptions, or your position is wrong.

Alternatively, we could reject the absurd notion that reasonable people have to cater to the most half-baked WMGs anyone on the forum can dream up in order to express the opinion that Julio isn't coming back without being declared wrong.

Yeah, let's go with that.

[Nightcanon]

to "hit the head" means to use the restroom.

He has to use the restroom.

I am a native English speaker (native English, too) and have never heard this phrase; then again in another thread I was surprised to find lots of folk who didn't know that potato salad going off means that it goes bad/rotten. There's a lot of vernacular and slang in regional English (and lots of regions too!).

[Mr. Pants]

Everyone hates goodbye scenes...except for Xykon.

[sidhe3141]

Probably should have dropped this link earlier.

("Puke and Snot" skit involving the terms "head" and "poop deck".)

[Porthos]

Not really inclined, no. Rich has often surprised me, but the surprises have pretty much always been good ones. As I said, my theory may well be wrong; but if so, I very much doubt the truth is something so lame as the ham-handed dropping of a storyline he went out of his way to establish.

And yes, I've been around here for quite a while, though I seldom post. I have the distinction of having been the very first person on here to publicly predict that Haley's father was imprisoned by Elan's father back in the day. :) Not that that makes me right this time, of course.

My point is a rather simple one, acutally. But let me expand on more than a bit.

Rich has a reputation for being a very good writer. Deserved, IMO. But the problem is, he isn't a perfect writer (not that such a thing exists, naturally). IMO he can and has had clunkers in writing. Either in concept or in execution. Now for the people who think that there are flaws in Rich's work, they might disagree on just what exactly did and did not work. Fair enough. I'm not about to sit back and say objectively what did or didn't work. I might make subjective comments, but that's an entierly different thing.

However the one thing that makes me grit my teeth just a tad is when I see someone say something to the effect of (paraphrasing) this:

A) I don't like what just happened in OotS
B) Rich is a good writer
C) A Good Writer Wouldn't do "X"
D) Since Rich is a Good Writer, he can't possibly really have done "X"
E) Therefore something else is going on here.

It is brilliantly summed up in the phrase "Rich is a better writer than that".

I've heard it time and time and time again. I think I first heard it when the party was split (I'm sure it was used before, but I really wasn't active on the forums until the Azure City storyline). I KNOW I heard it during the Four Words business. And I know I have heard it on and off again since.

And almost always it is indeed "that". The party really did stay split for over 150 strips. V really did get CaTUAP. Elan really did regress a bit mentally when he met back up with his father.

If all of this was not much more than the rest of the party not really paying attention to things and Haley messing with V, will I think it is a botched execution of a joke/plotline? Yep. But the thing is, it's something I make an allowance for. I think Rich has botched things before. And he might again. The difference between Rich and the vast majority of the writers out there is his hit/botch rate is stellar. IMO, at least.

To put it another way: He's only human.

Or, to put it yet another way: Meh, they can't all be winners.

tl;dr: The phrase "Rich is a better writer than that" should probably not be used when the phrase "You know, that really didn't work for me" would be better suited.

[jere7my]

If all of this was not much more than the rest of the party not really paying attention to things and Haley messing with V, will I think it is a botched execution of a joke/plotline? Yep.

Fair enough. But that is almost certainly what it is: a running gag based on the fact that familiars in D&D only appear when the characters remember they exist, and disappear when it would be awkward to, say, care for a small toad in the middle of an arctic blizzard. Rich developed the running gag into a bit of character development for Vaarsuvius, by showing her slowly increasing concern for Blackwing. Now that that bit of work is done, the joke's run its course. Doesn't seem a lot more complicated than that.

[Porthos]

Fair enough. But that is almost certainly what it is

I'm not the one needing convincing. I simply put in "If" to cover my bases in regards to knowing what is happening in the comic.

I could go into exactly why it feel flat with me, but it's a minor enough thing for me not to care. Especially, as I said much earlier, there is a MUCH funnier gag to talk about in this strip.

NB:: I found all of the running gags about Schrödinger's Familiar funny pretty much right up to the beginning of Book 5. It's just the latest iteration of it which didn't work for me is all.

[ti'esar]

Personally, I never saw it as being a continuation of the "Schrödinger's Familiar" gag. It was just irony: now that V is acknowledging Blackwing's existence, the rest of the party is unaware of it.

[Gift Jeraff]

Personally, I never saw it as being a continuation of the "Schrödinger's Familiar" gag. It was just irony: now that V is acknowledging Blackwing's existence, the rest of the party is unaware of it.

This is how I saw it, too.

I never understood what was so odd about forgetting a bird you barely interacted with over a year ago.

[Amphiox]

What?

Celia was seen visiting her home (plane?) when she was explaining how she ended up coming to defend the Order at the trial. Does that mean you think the party might visit the Elemental Plane of Air at some point?

A visit to Celia's home plane is in fact not precluded either. I could see it happening in the denouement, as a gag panel where Celia takes Roy home to meet her parents.

Because you were trying to disprove my statement to Grimly Feendish that the fortress is irrelevant to Julio and the order at present.

My argument against your statement there does not in any way depend on the fortress being a PLANNED plot point. So long as it is a POSSIBLE plot point, then the relevance is there, and it is not IRRELEVANT.

Yes, lots of options - only one of which was under discussion when you weighed in.

Um, no. It was not the ONLY one which was under discussion when I weighed in. In fact the discussion that I was choosing to participate in was not restricted to only one of anything. THAT discussion was about relevance, and if you are going to use the proper definition of that term, something can only be said to be definitively irrelevant if you can eliminate ALL options, not just one arbitrary one you chose as the one that happened to most strongly support your preferred position. If even a single option remains potentially possible, then a thing is not "irrelevant" by the very definition of that word.

[Sir_Leorik]

Personally, I never saw it as being a continuation of the "Schrödinger's Familiar" gag. It was just irony: now that V is acknowledging Blackwing's existence, the rest of the party is unaware of it.

This is how I saw it, too.

I never understood what was so odd about forgetting a bird you barely interacted with over a year ago.

Include me in the "It's meant to be ironic" camp. Whether someone finds that irony funny or not can be dependent on lots of factors, and given that I played a Sorcerer PC in 3.5 who treated his viper Familiar only a little better than V used to treat Blackwing, I can definitely appreciate the irony. (I actually named my Familiar in the first or second time playing my Sorcerer, so that gives me a leg up over V. )

Basically I can understand three reactions: those who get the irony and find it funny; those who get the irony but don't see why we should be laughing at this; and those who don't get the irony, and ask what the joke was. I just don't get the subset of the last group who refuse to accept the answer and instead bother the rest of us with outlandish hypotheses.

And for the record, I can totally see Haley having fun at V's expense over this.

[Porthos]

Interesting.

I went back to check my original reaction to all of this.

Huh. I loved it at the time. And was one of the louder "It Was A Joke" posters. Heh. Go figure.

Thinking back, I think what I didn't like was how it played out post-674. One off gag in 674: Good. Party seemingly to contine to ignore Blackwing: Bad.

I'd have to check, but I think it 698 where I shifted from "Funny Running Gag" to "Huh. This Doesn't Quite Add Up - What's Up Here.

...

Either that, or constantly listening to people speculate on the forum wore me down.

Let this be a lesson to you all: Don't listen to too much Wild Mass Guessing.

---

If I really think about it though, it was probably the 250+ strip length from introduction to payoff.

Eh. Whatever. Just glad it's been resolved.

[factotum]

I never understood what was so odd about forgetting a bird you barely interacted with over a year ago.

There's a difference between forgetting the bird exists and *denying its existence when it's right in front of you*, which is what the party did back in Sandsedge. I think that was one of the few occasions I can recall (at least since the early strips) where the Giant allowed the story to take a back seat to a joke, and I don't think it worked terribly well--which might be why he's trying to backpedal here.

[MrMercury]

Spoilered due to TSoD discussion.

Spoiler

Show

Redcloak, in TSoD, murders his own brother in cold blood so as to save the single entity that kills more goblinoids then anyone else in the comic.

He does this in the name of goblin liberation and rights.

He claims that he needs to commit crimes of this magnitude so as to save goblins from things like, himself. Right Eye gives a fine example of a goblin community living at peace with the surrounding humans prior to the future Wrong Eye showing up and leading Xykon to it.

That would be the same Right Eye he murders to preserve the same Xykon so Xykon can presumably FINISH murdering the rest of his relatives and their friends and neighbors.

Based on the comic I might foolishly assume that Wrong Eye actually HAS a workable plan and a real chance of success rather than simply being insanely committed to the sunk costs fallacy. But thanks to TSoD I know better. It killed my sympathy to read it, as it's obvious that RC is his own cause's second worst enemy. (The Dark One gets to be number one since the Dark One is the source of Wrong Eye's plan, power, and longevity and will probably repeat the whole fiasco if he has the chance after Wrong Eye gets what's coming to him.)

He's willing to risk the destruction of the souls of every goblin to "better" the goblin's fate. He conspires with someone who murders goblins out of boredom to make things "better" for goblins. He finds a kingdom of goblinoids living in reasonable security, and ONLY gets 10,000 of them killed as part of his quest to help goblinoids PRIOR to coming to the STUNNING epiphany that Hobgoblins are Goblinoids too!

I save my sympathy for Red Cloak's victims, who are quite literally legion, and will only grow in numbers until he is stopped.

Oh yeah, I know all that. I still like redcloak

[DeliaP]

There's a difference between forgetting the bird exists and *denying its existence when it's right in front of you*, which is what the party did back in Sandsedge. I think that was one of the few occasions I can recall (at least since the early strips) where the Giant allowed the story to take a back seat to a joke, and I don't think it worked terribly well--which might be why he's trying to backpedal here.

So I guess here's another difference between those of us who thought the gag was funny, and those that just didn't get the joke.

If you thought the gag was funny, your reaction to the latest strip might be: that the joke's been told; we've actually seen Blackwing develop quite a lot as a character in his own right in this Book and the rest of the Order need to start interacting with that character going into the next book; so, joke's done, time to hang a lampshade on it and move on. Cue Haley, with one last deadpan funny. Nothing more to it than that, no backpedalling by the Giant involved.

If you didn't think the joke was funny, and your reaction to the strips was "Huh? Why can't they remember Blackwing? That's weird, must be something to do with the Snarl." then wrapping up the running gag without resolving the apparent in-comic weirdness it implies is going to seem unsatisfying and you're maybe going to think the Giant made a mistake and is now trying to correct it.

But I would point out that Blackwing apparently popping in and out of existence, was carrying on right up to the end of Don't split the Party. The running gag of the party not seeing Blackwing in the most recent book (which appeared, what, 3 times, at most?) is no more weird, in-comic, than that previous running gag, which clearly didn't require any Snarl related explanation.

[ti'esar]

For what it's worth, I didn't think the joke was very funny either. I just never thought there was any reason to believe it was other than a misfired joke. Anyone who's ever tried to be funny knows it happens sometimes; it wouldn't be the only time in OOTS I didn't think a strip was funny.

[CozJa]

Hi all, I'm new to the forum, but an old time reader, so I'm feel like blackwing: I've always been there but no one ever knew it!

[Storm_Of_Snow]

Fair enough. But that is almost certainly what it is: a running gag based on the fact that familiars in D&D only appear when the characters remember they exist, and disappear when it would be awkward to, say, care for a small toad in the middle of an arctic blizzard.

Familiars, horses, pets, relatives...

[Jay R]

My argument against your statement there does not in any way depend on the fortress being a PLANNED plot point. So long as it is a POSSIBLE plot point, then the relevance is there, and it is not IRRELEVANT.

Oh. OK, yes it is possible that there is a plot thread coming which has not yet been begun, and about which we know nothing. In this way, one can say that Xykon's fortress, Goblin Bob's barbeque, and the village eaten by Surtur are equally "relevant".

[Dalek Kommander]

I don't think "Vampire Durkon is a completely separate entity from Living Durkon who will nonetheless unlive and be part of the Order long enough to be a new main character" is in the cards.

Well, vampire durkon is already being treated as a de-facto main character, and Rich has made it very, very, VERY clear that they aren't going to stake him any time soon. Rich clearly saved the bulk of Durkon's character development arc for when he's a vampire: being a vampire is the SUBJECT of his character development.

As long as vampire durkon isn't going to be staked and resurrected, we can really only guess whether the resurrected Durkon would be a lawful evil dwarf who misses his vampire powers, or a lawful good dwarf who doesn't remember any of it. And honestly, if EITHER of those results happen after a long character development arc focusing on Durkon as a vampire that definitely IS in the cards, there would be something narratively unsatisfying about it. If he returns as a lawful evil ex-vampire who no longer finds the taste of fresh blood so indescribably satisfying, the loss of his vampiric powers would be pointless and crippling: If he returns as a lawful good amnesiac, the vampire who got the charcter development would be utterly destroyed. It's a lose-lose scenario.

Rich does not strike me as the sort of author who feels compelled to satisfy pedants who want an absolutely clear-cut answer to every question, especially when doing so would make a less satisfying story. With that in mind, I suspect that vampire durkon not only won't get staked and resurrected soon, it will just NEVER happen.

[Kish]

Rich clearly saved the bulk of Durkon's character development arc for when he's a vampire: being a vampire is the SUBJECT of his character development.

That would seem to require Vampire Durkon not being a separate entity from Living Durkon, would it not?

[Amphiox]

Oh. OK, yes it is possible that there is a plot thread coming which has not yet been begun, and about which we know nothing. In this way, one can say that Xykon's fortress, Goblin Bob's barbeque, and the village eaten by Surtur are equally "relevant".

Now let's not be silly. EQUALLY relevant?

Narrative and illustrative details surrounding, you know, the *main antagonist and primary villain* TEND, on average, to be more relevant than such details concerning throwaway on-off joke characters.

Reductio ad absurdum only works as an argument if the absurdity presented as a comparison is actually a valid comparison in parallel.

Quite frankly, I personally work off the null hypothesis that NOTHING that is shown in relation to Xykon (or Redcloak) anywhere in this comic should be considered irrelevant unless there is direct in-narrative evidence or word-of-the-giant that says so, or until we reach the end of the story and thus know everything that has and will happen. Just as nothing concerning Roy should be similarly considered irrelevant.

Certainly the author is free to choose to let it be irrelevant, but when it comes to main characters in fictional works as tightly plotted as this one has become (and the fact that the details were introduced well after the point when the tight plotting had become a thing - it might be different if it were shown very early during book one, for example), I think it is unwise to assume irrelevance as one's starting position, without direct evidence to back that assessment up.

(And the plot thread, if it is a plot thread, HAS already begun. It began with the introduction of the fortress. And Redcloak's shenanigans with the real phylactery would be a part of that plot thread as well.)

[orrion]

Now let's not be silly. EQUALLY relevant?

Narrative and illustrative details surrounding, you know, the *main antagonist and primary villain* TEND, on average, to be more relevant than such details concerning throwaway on-off joke characters.

Reductio ad absurdum only works as an argument if the absurdity presented as a comparison is actually a valid comparison in parallel.

Quite frankly, I personally work off the null hypothesis that NOTHING that is shown in relation to Xykon (or Redcloak) anywhere in this comic should be considered irrelevant unless there is direct in-narrative evidence or word-of-the-giant that says so, or until we reach the end of the story and thus know everything that has and will happen. Just as nothing concerning Roy should be similarly considered irrelevant.

Certainly the author is free to choose to let it be irrelevant, but when it comes to main characters in fictional works as tightly plotted as this one has become (and the fact that the details were introduced well after the point when the tight plotting had become a thing - it might be different if it were shown very early during book one, for example), I think it is unwise to assume irrelevance as one's starting position, without direct evidence to back that assessment up.

(And the plot thread, if it is a plot thread, HAS already begun. It began with the introduction of the fortress. And Redcloak's shenanigans with the real phylactery would be a part of that plot thread as well.)

Hold it.

Your original stance had nothing to do with the fortresses' relation to Xykon or Redcloak. In fact, up to this point you've ignored the proposition that the fortress being shown provides information about Xykon himself and have learned more toward the explanation that the fortress is relevant because of some future interactions - namely, that the party will go there at some point. That conflicts with your null hypothesis above.

Your original stance was:

If it's completely irrelevant, why did The Giant devote time to describe and draw it? After all, even the Polearm merchant got a callback.

You yourself implied 2 things:

1) Anything that the Giant describes and draws is relevant (conservation of detail).
2) All one-off panels/jokes are equal.

There's been nothing in any of your previous points that I can find concerning the elevation of the fortress's relevance based on it concerning Xykon. I think you're moving the goalposts.

[Sir_Leorik]

For what it's worth, I didn't think the joke was very funny either. I just never thought there was any reason to believe it was other than a misfired joke. Anyone who's ever tried to be funny knows it happens sometimes; it wouldn't be the only time in OOTS I didn't think a strip was funny.

I think context has a lot to do with whether or not you find the Blackwing jokes (whether as disappearing because his master doesn't need him, or the rest of the party didn't realize the party Wizard has a Familiar) funny. I played a Sorcerer PC in 3.5, I would constantly forget about my viper Familiar, until the adventure where the whole party was paralyzed by a tiny Aberration, and we were facing a TPK. I remembered my viper in the nick of time, and insisted that it get a save (which it made) and that it could bite the Aberration. The Aberration failed it's Fortitude saves against the viper's poisonous bite, and went down in 5 rounds. Afterwards I tried harder to remember the viper, and give it some personality. So yeah, I find the Blackwing jokes hilarious. And I can definitely see Haley deciding to get some fun in at V's expense when she sees how upset V is that Roy doesn't recognize Blackwing. (Elan and Belkar barely pay attention to anything, so they get a pass. As for Durkon... I really don't know why he didn't recognize Blackwing in Sandsedge. Maybe he was too worried about the trees?)

Hi all, I'm new to the forum, but an old time reader, so I'm feel like blackwing: I've always been there but no one ever knew it!

Welcome to the Forums CozJa! Try not to get intimidated by the Wild Mass Guessing that goes on here; sometimes, some posters can tell where the plot is headed days, weeks or months in advance, while other times the same people refuse to acknowledge that their pet hypotheses have been debunked by Word of Giant.

Familiars, horses, pets, relatives...

The NPC you just rescued, the clergyman that you want healing from, the guy selling 10' poles...

[Amphiox]

You yourself implied 2 things:

1) Anything that the Giant describes and draws is relevant (conservation of detail).
2) All one-off panels/jokes are equal.

WHUT?!

I implied one-off panels and jokes had a degree of relevance that is a non-zero positive value. In no way shape or form did I ever imply they were EQUALLY relevant. Some are slightly relevant. Some are more so.

There's been nothing in any of your previous points that I can find concerning the elevation of the fortress's relevance based on it concerning Xykon. I think you're moving the goalposts.

ANOTHER poster, possibly more than one, posting on the same topic, made that point during the conversation. Once introduced into the conversation, it is perfectly valid to refer to it. I am merely adding my agreement to that point. That is not moving the goalposts. Not even close.

My point number 1: The fortress has relevance due to conservation of detail.

Point number 2: Already having relevance, vis-a-vis point number 1, being associated with the main villain gives it MORE relevance.

How in any reasonable way can that be called "moving the goalposts", seeing as point 1 stands on its own and point 2 merely adds to it?


You know I am getting mighty tired of the way some of the people responding to me twist my comments, intended to be nuanced, into black-and-white straw-positions just to further their own arguments. Like when I try to argue that certain things have SOME relevance, suddenly the only two types of relevance are SUPREME relevance, or NONE at all. Or when I try to argue that Roy should wait for further evidence before acting against Durkon and suddenly everyone is claiming my position is that Roy should never act against Durkon and let him rampage away no matter what. Or when I try to argue that Durkon and Durkula deserve equal consideration as free-willed beings and suddenly its I only care about Durkula and have no regard for Durkon. Or when I say that I find it objectionable that undead should be considered fair game to kill just for being undead and someone pretends in a reply that my position is that even Xykon should be left alone.

Does this forum not do subtlety? Is there some forum rule that complex arguments must always be reduced to monochrome caricatures?

[eaglewingz]

Is there some forum rule that complex arguments must always be reduced to monochrome caricatures?

That's actually an internet rule, I believe.