Huh. It just occurred to me to wonder why they tried Resurrection instead of Raise Dead.
Printable View
Huh. It just occurred to me to wonder why they tried Resurrection instead of Raise Dead.
Durkon doesn't think so, and Roy didn't think so, and it's not like their future prospects are nothing but sunshine and daisies.
I'm not saying that taking the easy way out isn't understandable... but it's also a basically selfish decision. Which, given the stakes of the situation, does not reflect especially well on the late Lord Shojo. He basically took an opportunity to run away.
.
After being forcibly exiled from the Material Plane, unjustly, he chose not to respond to requests to return. Not quite the same thing as "running away".
Shojo is Chaotic Good - but "Good" doesn't mean "Perfectly unselfish" - it just means "Mostly unselfish".
More likely, for a short period (a day or two?) after being killed, he was angry and resentful:
"So this is how I get treated after a lifetime of trying to do what's in their best interests".
and acted accordingly.
Possibly, if the CG afterlife has the same ability to "scry the Material Plane" he might have seen how badly the Siege of Azure City turned out, and regretted his refusal to return. We'll probably never know.
I suppose we will never know, Keltest. I can only say it looked like Hinjo had some expectation that his advice and experience would be useful, but maybe he was off the mark. I don't know for sure.
The usual argument I've heard- and what is implied by the strip- is that Miko was in some sense to blame for the soldiers' poor morale and noble defections among the azurites, possibly leading to the hobgoblins' victory, because Shojo died under unclear circumstances. I would counter that to whatever extent the city suffered from Shojo's death, that was entirely his own decision. And to the extent that Shojo couldn't have helped from prison, Miko is not responsible for his actual crimes.
.
So let me get this straight. You believe Shojo is morally compelled to come back from the dead and be thrown in prison so that he can participate in the defense of Azure City in some unknown manner you yourself can neither identify nor explain how he will be in a position to actually do this. Additionally, you do not believe his stated reasons for subterfuge (namely, keeping the paladins in the dark) and instead believe him guilty of legitimate crimes which you also cannot identify as being distinct from legitimate actions taken by the other Lord seen in the comic.
Im going to be honest here, you seem as confused as Miko.
Keltest, not so long ago you were arguing that Shojo did nothing legally wrong and the paladins would have a hard time removing him from office. Now you're arguing his imprisonment was so certain that he had nothing to live for and no wiggle room to influence events.
Maybe he'd have had some information about the nobles that could be used as leverage to coerce them. Maybe having him under 'house arrest' or 'pending investigation' would be easier to explain/lie-about than dropping suddenly dead. Maybe he'd have some general experience in military tactics and could improve their overall battle plan. I don't know. But again, Hinjo found a use for Belkar, of all people. I don't see him failing to find a use for a 14th-level aristocrat with Improved Paranoia.
.
His arrest is absolutely certain. His conviction is unlikely, but theres still a period of time between the two where Shojo is out of commission.
And given that your entire claim rests on him being able to make a meaningful contribution to the defense, you may want to do better than "I don't know."
More to my point, Roy and Durkon were killed by Evil undead abominations who were actively opposing their attempts to save the world. Shojo was killed by a Lawful Good Paladin who was his ally and subordinate. So having a different feeling on "I have everything including my life" is pretty understandable there, even ignoring all other aspects (PCs vs NPC, prime-of-their-lives vs coming up in the dice roll of old-age-death, etc. etc.).
I have pondered this before.
I know this isn't news to anyone, but the tenor of the exact same events seems totally different depending on how one phrases it.
i.e., there's, "Roy and Durkon were killed by Evil undead abominations who were actively opposing their attempts to save the world. Shojo was killed by a Lawful Good Paladin who was his ally and subordinate" which evidently comes from a position of being sympathetic to Shojo's not being willing to come back. There's also the equally accurate, "Roy and Durkon were killed trying to save others, Shojo was killed immediately after trying to lie his way out of trouble with two of the many people he'd spent decades manipulating like chesspieces, by one of them, and unless he was completely stupid had to recognize the attempted resurrection as an indication that the other one didn't want him dead and Miko had spoken only for herself in indicating she wanted him dead...though if it took him longer than two seconds to independently realize the latter of those he was pretty close to completely stupid already," which comes from a position of not being sympathetic to Shojo.
I wonder what Roy would think of Shojo's decision not to come back, if it was presented to him through a veil of ignorance (i.e., he knew all the events but not that it specifically involved the woman he'd called an "overbearing self-righteous bitch").
In any event, it appears to me that Shojo was fundamentally unwilling to recognize that it was wrong to manipulate other people like chesspieces, when he was doing it throughout his life, when he was telling Hinjo to "grow up" for objecting to it, and when he was deciding whether to come back to what would (in my and Peelee's opinion, if no one else's) have been a subordinate position as an imprisoned advisor rather than a ruler. That'd be the kind of severe moral failing that, in the absence of any repentance, would bar someone from an Upper Plane were I the writer...
...but of course, I'm not, so that doesn't really matter. Just felt like sharing.
I'm still not entirely certain what difference it makes why the deceased parents of the likewise deceased secondary character didn't come back.
There's been some discussion about how sustainable Shojo's government would be, particularly if Hinjo, who has no obvious talent for political scheming, was supposed to step into his shoes. But I guess this thread has wandered pretty off-topic already.
In War & XPs, the bonus strip where Shojo talks to Eugene, makes it clear that Shojo's goal is to turn Hinjo into someone less idealistic, more cynical, and more capable of scheming, and thus, from Shojo's perspective, better able to run the city.
I am going to respond to the title question.
Why are Miko's parents dead?
The narrative imperative. In order for her to be both related to Shojo and Hinjo, but not be someone born of privilege, and to multiclass Monk/Paladin, the convenient trope of "lost parents at an early age, was orphaned, and then ..." was very useful to fit her into the story in ways that (1) made her personally loyal to Shojo and (2) established a sort of tension between her and Hojo that wasn't manufactured but rather felt natural. This made for a great set up, and sense of wrongness from a loyal servant, when her feelings of betrayal over Shojo's choices drove her to murder.
I don't want to rain on the parade of the previous five pages, but given the state of the strip at the time of her becoming one of the dramatis personae, a more complicated backstory wasn't necessary.