OOTS Kickstarter Bonus PDFs: The Discussion Thread *Unmarked spoilers*

[Rogar Demonblud]

And the actual point where Shylock loses it is where he finds out that Jessica essentially pawned her mother's engagement ring to buy a monkey (by Jewish/medieval tradition, the resting place of souls damned for heresy until they get judged at the End of Days). I think that'd drive me up the wall too.

And Merchant is actually based on an Italian play that combines the separate legend. In that, Shylock is pretty much the title character (I forget what the exact word is, but recall it translates as 'Banker'). Shylock is sympathetic in that play as well, although probably we in the 20th/21st Century are missing a lot of subtext that was understood by the Renaissance audience.

Most of Shakespeare's comedies are originally Italian, btw.

[Tannhaeuser]

And the actual point where Shylock loses it is where he finds out that Jessica essentially pawned her mother’s engagement ring to buy a monkey…

No, no, no. There is no proof of this. The actual exchange on which this is based is

TUBAL. One of [Antonio’s creditors] showed me a ring that he had of your daughter for a monkey.

SHYLOCK. Out upon her! Thou torturest me, Tubal. It was my turquoise. I had it of Leah when I was a bachelor. I would not have given it for a wilderness of monkeys.

There is no proof that “Leah” is Jessica’s mother—she could simply have been one of Shylock’s debtors, for all we know (though I grant her particular name makes this less likely)—and even if she were, what Shylock plainly says is not that he gave it to Leah, but got if from her when he was a young man—so it can hardly be her engagement ring. Anyway, “I would not have given it for a wilderness of monkeys” is not exactly how one speaks of the last remembrance of a beloved wife.

It’s true that Shakespeare humanizes Shylock more than Marlowe did Barabbas of Malta, who probably suggested some aspects of Shylock, or more than Gernutus or the nameless usurer of Il pecorone (“the Simpleton”), but the idea of Shylock as to any real extent a sympathetic character is no older than the late 18th century at best and has more to do with Lessing than with Shakespeare.

[SaintRidley]

I'm just going to continue holding onto my hope that Rich does a version of Titus. Many good options for a titus, but I think V would be most wonderful of all for the bloodiest of Shakespeare's plays. And he could call it Titvs Androgynous.

[Reddish Mage]

And the actual point where Shylock loses it is where he finds out that Jessica essentially pawned her mother's engagement ring to buy a monkey (by Jewish/medieval tradition, the resting place of souls damned for heresy until they get judged at the End of Days). I think that'd drive me up the wall too.

And Merchant is actually based on an Italian play that combines the separate legend. In that, Shylock is pretty much the title character (I forget what the exact word is, but recall it translates as 'Banker'). Shylock is sympathetic in that play as well, although probably we in the 20th/21st Century are missing a lot of subtext that was understood by the Renaissance audience.

Most of Shakespeare's comedies are originally Italian, btw.

I've been thinking for quite awhile that Red Cloak makes a good Shylock parallel. Shylock is viewed in modern interpretation (by which I mean 18th century onward!) as cast as an alienated outsider due to his religion and ethnicity.

What's more I think the differences in interpretation of Merchant parallel points to be made in OOTS. Shylock may be portrayed sympathetically but his actions ultimately are not, Redcloak is exactly the same (willing to sacrifice anything for his goals).

I view Shylock as far more interesting then his role warrants, he was ingloriously removed an act and a half from the end of the play (Yiddish-music playing fiddles were added in the Victorian era to suggest exclusion, but the script simply removes him). Similarly, I think the possibility exists that the goblins may ultimately be sidelined (if not already sidelined) and Redcloak may ultimately be removed without fulfilling his mission and replaced by villains like the IFCC.

[Grey Watcher]

No, no, no. There is no proof of this. The actual exchange on which this is based is

TUBAL. One of [Antonio’s creditors] showed me a ring that he had of your daughter for a monkey.

SHYLOCK. Out upon her! Thou torturest me, Tubal. It was my turquoise. I had it of Leah when I was a bachelor. I would not have given it for a wilderness of monkeys.

There is no proof that “Leah” is Jessica’s mother—she could simply have been one of Shylock’s debtors, for all we know (though I grant her particular name makes this less likely)—and even if she were, what Shylock plainly says is not that he gave it to Leah, but got if from her when he was a young man—so it can hardly be her engagement ring. Anyway, “I would not have given it for a wilderness of monkeys” is not exactly how one speaks of the last remembrance of a beloved wife.

It’s true that Shakespeare humanizes Shylock more than Marlowe did Barabbas of Malta, who probably suggested some aspects of Shylock, or more than Gernutus or the nameless usurer of Il pecorone (“the Simpleton”), but the idea of Shylock as to any real extent a sympathetic character is no older than the late 18th century at best and has more to do with Lessing than with Shakespeare.

So, the ring was something he took in lieu of payment from some woman named Leah and he's just cheesed off that Jessica stole and sold it for far less than it's worth?

I'm just going to continue holding onto my hope that Rich does a version of Titus. Many good options for a titus, but I think V would be most wonderful of all for the bloodiest of Shakespeare's plays. And he could call it Titvs Androgynous.

Bravo, sir. Bravo.

[Rogar Demonblud]

So, the ring was something he took in lieu of payment from some woman named Leah and he's just cheesed off that Jessica stole and sold it for far less than it's worth?

Since Leah was exclusively a Jewish name at the time, no. Like I said, the closest equivalent in our culture is trading your mother's engagement ring for something trivial.

[Grey Watcher]

Since Leah was exclusively a Jewish name at the time, no. Like I said, the closest equivalent in our culture is trading your mother's engagement ring for something trivial.

I get that Leah would have been recognized as a jewish name by contemporary audiences, but I think Tannhaeuser's point is that the text doesn't seem to support the idea that Leah was anything other than one of Shylock's clients, who just happened to be a jewish woman. To me, reading the quote entirely out of context, it seems kind of ambiguous.

[Sir_Leorik]

And the actual point where Shylock loses it is where he finds out that Jessica essentially pawned her mother's engagement ring to buy a monkey (by Jewish/medieval tradition, the resting place of souls damned for heresy until they get judged at the End of Days). I think that'd drive me up the wall too.

???

My impression from studying "Merchant" is that Leah was Shylock's wife and Jessica's mother, who has passed away. I'm not sure which tradition you're referencing, and it makes no sense in the context of the play, since Shakespeare had no actual knowledge of contemporary Jews, other than Conversos, living in London. My understanding is that Jessica is rebelling against her upbringing, and part of that rebellion is to pawn her mother's engagement ring (or dowery, it isn't clear from the play) to buy something trivial, like a monkey.

And Merchant is actually based on an Italian play that combines the separate legend. In that, Shylock is pretty much the title character (I forget what the exact word is, but recall it translates as 'Banker'). Shylock is sympathetic in that play as well, although probably we in the 20th/21st Century are missing a lot of subtext that was understood by the Renaissance audience.

Shylock wasn't really portrayed in a sympathetic light until the early 19th century, especially when "Merchant" was translated into Yiddish. In the context of Shakespeare's time, Shylock is a villain, although much more three-dimensional than similar villains, like Barabas in Marlowe's "The Jew of Malta". Barabas is a one-dimensional caricature, while Shylock has layers. Shylock is still the bad guy, but not because of his ethnicity; it is because he declines Portia's request to show mercy, instead being consumed with a desire for vengeance.

Most of Shakespeare's comedies are originally Italian, btw.

Many of the comedies are, as are a few of the tragedies. The history plays, of course, are not.

No, no, no. There is no proof of this. The actual exchange on which this is based is

TUBAL. One of [Antonio’s creditors] showed me a ring that he had of your daughter for a monkey.

SHYLOCK. Out upon her! Thou torturest me, Tubal. It was my turquoise. I had it of Leah when I was a bachelor. I would not have given it for a wilderness of monkeys.

There is no proof that “Leah” is Jessica’s mother—she could simply have been one of Shylock’s debtors, for all we know (though I grant her particular name makes this less likely)—and even if she were, what Shylock plainly says is not that he gave it to Leah, but got if from her when he was a young man—so it can hardly be her engagement ring. Anyway, “I would not have given it for a wilderness of monkeys” is not exactly how one speaks of the last remembrance of a beloved wife.

I don't see how that context can show that Leah was anything but Shylock's late wife. The turquoise ring is either the engagement ring he gave Leah, or part of the dowery her father gave Shylock. It has a great deal of sentimental value to him, and the fact that Jessica pawned it (especially for something of no actual use or meaning, like a monkey) drives him bananas (pardon the pun). When Shakespeare has Shylock say "I would not have given it for a wilderness of monkeys" he is speaking idiomatically, like saying "I wouldn't part with [x] for all the money in the world", or "not for all the tea in China". While Shylock is mourning in act III for both Jessica and the money she stole ("My daughter! My ducats!), in this case he's more pained by the callousness of Jessica, who must have known the sentimental value of the turqouise ring.

It’s true that Shakespeare humanizes Shylock more than Marlowe did Barabbas of Malta, who probably suggested some aspects of Shylock, or more than Gernutus or the nameless usurer of Il pecorone (“the Simpleton”), but the idea of Shylock as to any real extent a sympathetic character is no older than the late 18th century at best and has more to do with Lessing than with Shakespeare.

Marlowe wrote "The Jew of Malta" first, and it was a hit, so naturally Shakespeare was trying to tap into the box office success. Marlowe and Shakespeare were using the same trope ("Evil Jewish moneylender"), but they used it in markedly different ways. Barabas is a cartoon villain, while Shylock is a human being who wants revenge for very real slights. That doesn't make Shylock less of a villain, it just makes him a more realistic one than Barabas.

I've been thinking for quite awhile that Red Cloak makes a good Shylock parallel. Shylock is viewed in modern interpretation (by which I mean 18th century onward!) as cast as an alienated outsider due to his religion and ethnicity.

What's more I think the differences in interpretation of Merchant parallel points to be made in OOTS. Shylock may be portrayed sympathetically but his actions ultimately are not, Redcloak is exactly the same (willing to sacrifice anything for his goals).

Now that is a great parallel! It also ties in with how the OotS view Redcloak as Xykon's minion, and are completely unaware of his backstory. A "Stick Tales" in which Redcloak is Shylock ("Shycloak"? "Redlock"?) who is facing indignities, while Antonio (Durkon) seeks to borrow money for Bassanio (Roy) to court Portia (Celia) would be a good adaptation. Gratiano could be Elan, and Portia's maid could be Haley. And who should be Launcelot Gobbo? Jirix? The MitD? Xykon?

So, the ring was something he took in lieu of payment from some woman named Leah and he's just cheesed off that Jessica stole and sold it for far less than it's worth?

Since Leah was exclusively a Jewish name at the time, no. Like I said, the closest equivalent in our culture is trading your mother's engagement ring for something trivial.

I get that Leah would have been recognized as a jewish name by contemporary audiences, but I think Tannhaeuser's point is that the text doesn't seem to support the idea that Leah was anything other than one of Shylock's clients, who just happened to be a jewish woman. To me, reading the quote entirely out of context, it seems kind of ambiguous.

For me the key word in the exchange between Shylock and Tubal is "bachelor". This connotes courtship; the ring may have been given to Leah by Shylock, or to Shylock by Leah's family; otherwise it wouldn't have sentimental value for him. While he may wail about losing his ducats, he seems to be more upset about being robbed by Jessica (which is a betrayal) than just being robbed.

[Reddish Mage]

I'm just going to continue holding onto my hope that Rich does a version of Titus. Many good options for a titus, but I think V would be most wonderful of all for the bloodiest of Shakespeare's plays. And he could call it Titvs Androgynous.

I'm wondering how many more Stick Shakespeare and other Stick stories we can see. We've already seen plenty of "even baseline assumptions of D&D wreck havoc with traditional storytelling." New stories have to find some new variation of "D&D messes with a story" to keep it from being too repetitive.

Haleo and Julelan was a masterpiece. The translation of story roles for the characters was wonderful and even better than in "Greenhilt PoD," with the play on the mix of gender roles alongside the characters' personal foibles. The last scene produced belly laughs with the sudden imposition of what you find in a tomb.

What themes have we yet to see that we can set a story? I would like to see how magic items and magic run amuck can really mess with a story. I think we could see another bond movie with V as Q and magic items in place of technology. I'd also like to see a well-placed raise dead or resurrection spell surprise us at a critical juncture.

What could you see in a future Stick Tale?

[Tannhaeuser]

Since Leah was exclusively a Jewish name at the time, no. Like I said, the closest equivalent in our culture is trading your mother’s engagement ring for something trivial.

Doubtless. And when Shylock was running to the Duke, screaming and babbling out in the street, “Oh, my daughter! Oh, my ducats!” (which is mentioned in II. viii., some time before the mention in III. i. of “Leah,” whoever she might have been* (by the way, “Leah” was not exclusively a Jewish name in Elizabethan England; it was also popular among the Puritans—not that that applies here, but it is just as well to get our facts straight)), he hadn’t yet really lost it. And when he mentions the diamond that cost a thousand ducats, it is obvious that since the Elizabethans associated Frankfort with its famous Judengasse (rather in the manner of the Victorians and Amsterdam), it wasn’t the value of the jewel, it was that Shylock once lived there. And the fourscore ducats Jessica spent in Genoa—what is the sentimental association there?

Shylock speaks extensively about why he is upset, and never once does he mention his wife, except (dubiously) in this passage; but many, many, many times, both in this scene and many others, he mentions his money and his jewels. In this same scene he wishes that his daughter were dead at his feet, as long as she had the money in her coffin and the jewels in her ear. What exactly is the “closest equivalent in our culture” of that?

E. E. Stoll demonstrated way back in 1911 how unfounded the sentimental view of Shylock was. I do think Stoll somewhat overstated his case, and that Shylock is meant to invoke some small amount of sympathy, just as Dante’s Ugolino and Wagner’s Alberich do—and just as Rich Burlew’s Redcloak does. Good writers never prefer strawman villains. But that Shakespeare wants us to regard Shylock as primarily driven by any sentiment rather than greed and prejudice? It needs much stronger evidence than one extremely vague and disputable reference.

* Even Shylock’s “Batcheler” is not entirely unambiguous, as the word was still in the process of transition from its original meaning of “an untried knight” to “unmarried man”; it could simply mean “young man” here, though I admit that there is a strong connotation of “unmarried” as well.

[Sir_Leorik]

What could you see in a future Stick Tale?

Harry Potter Larry Gardener. Come on, we've seen this guy twice, why not show us how he vexes Julia at school?

Twilight, starring Durkula.

Haley Baba and the Forty Thieves' Guilds

Fighter on the Roof

Young Grubwriggler

Anything with Superheroes, especially spoofing Superhero RPG tropes

The 4th Dimension OotS return, seeking the 3.5 Dimension's OotS's help to thwart: The Next Dimension!

Weekend at the Oracle's.

The Seven Paladins.

[Sir_Leorik]

E. E. Stoll demonstrated way back in 1911 how unfounded the sentimental view of Shylock was. I do think Stoll somewhat overstated his case, and that Shylock is meant to invoke some small amount of sympathy, just as Dante’s Ugolino and Wagner’s Alberich do—and just as Rich Burlew’s Redcloak does. Good writers never prefer strawman villains. But that Shakespeare wants us to regard Shylock as primarily driven by any sentiment rather than greed and prejudice? It needs much stronger evidence than one extremely vague and disputable reference.

There is a big difference between sentiment and sympathy. We can be sympathetic to the abuse Antonio heaps on Shylock, and still be appalled that Shylock is planning to have the Venetien courts murder Antonio at Shylock's behest, because of a contract. Shylock is not portrayed in a sentimental light. The problem with the play is that Antonio isn't either, and that Bassanio is shown in a somewhat unflattering light. Only Portia is portrayed in a genuinely sentimental light, caught in a trap because of her father's will, but clever enough to provide Bassanio hints to solve the riddle of the chests. Portia gives Shylock a chance to back down, and he refuses to take it of his own free will. But what did Antonio do to earn Portia's help? The only reason she wants to help Antonio is that she loves Bassanio, yet she manages to trick him into giving up the ring she gave him. (Further proof, if you really need it, that this was a custom in Shakespeare's England, which only proves that Leah must have been Shylock's wife.)

Shylock is bitter, vengeful and more than a little greedy. He is also being abused by the ostensible title character, which earns him sympathy points. Unlike a lot of villains, Shylock is given a chance to back out, and he refuses to take it. That makes him a powerful villain; too bad he's up against the lamest protagonist in a Shakespeare comedy.

[Reddish Mage]

Shyock speaks extensively about why he is upset, and never once does he mention his wife, except (dubiously) in this passage; but many, many, many times, both in this scene and many others, he mentions his money and his jewels. In this same scene he wishes that his daughter were dead at his feet, as long as she had the money in her coffin and the jewels in her ear. What exactly is the “closest equivalent in our culture” of that?

E. E. Stoll demonstrated way back in 1911 how unfounded the sentimental view of Shylock was. I do think Stoll somewhat overstated his case, and that Shylock is meant to invoke some small amount of sympathy, just as Dante’s Ugolino and Wagner’s Alberich do—and just as Rich Burlew’s Redcloak does. Good writers never prefer strawman villains. But that Shakespeare wants us to regard Shylock as primarily driven by any sentiment rather than greed and prejudice? It needs much stronger evidence than one extremely vague and disputable reference.

I agree with the notion that Redcloak is motivated by negative emotions, is meant to deserve only the smallest measure of sympathy, and that this parallels the mischaracterization of Shylock by moderns to make him far more sympathic than evidence warrants.

Shylock is bitter, vengeful and more than a little greedy. He is also being abused by the ostensible title character, which earns him sympathy points. Unlike a lot of villains, Shylock is given a chance to back out, and he refuses to take it. That makes him a powerful villain; too bad he's up against the lamest protagonist in a Shakespeare comedy.

Here is the thing. Every version of Shylock is the most interesting thing about The Merchant of Venice, in fact the play was being called "The Jew of Venice" very early on. This is where the parallels to Redcloak end. No one can argue Redcloak is caricature of goblin-kind. Early portrayals of Shylock had him wearing a cheap red wig and being portrayed in an exaggerated manner to get laughs. Merchant of Venice with a greedy, clownish, Shylock in the manner it was arguably intended is bigoted without any redeeming quality.

Merchant of Venice without Shylock is utterly boring, OOTS without Redcloak is still an amazing story.

[Tannhaeuser]

“The problem with the play” is that it is an Elizabethan play, not a modern one. The Elizabethans had no problem at all with the old miser being cheated out of his money; what else is he good for?—particularly when he belongs to a group which to that particular audience was a short-hand symbol for ungracious legalism and vengefulness.

Where is there one shred of evidence in the play that Shakespeare and his audience did not thoroughly approve of Antonio and of his actions and attitude toward Shylock? The only one who expresses any disapproval at all is Shylock himself. The sympathies of the audience, we may be sure, are with Antonio, the man who lends money without interest to keep a loan shark foreigner from ruining his countrymen, and who puts himself at risk to allow his noble young friend to marry in accordance with his station in life. What we see as improvidence in Bassanio, the Elizabethans viewed as the liberality proper to his rank.

I never disputed that Leah might well be Shylock’s wife, just that it is proven that she is. There is even less evidence that the ring she gave him was an engagement ring; but even if it was, it doesn’t matter; it is obvious from the entire tenor of the scene that it is not its familial associations, but its pecuniary value that has Shylock upset. Every other reference in the scene is in reference to cash value; why should we take this one any differently, except that we (unlike Shakespeare’s audience) want to find reasons not to be prejudiced against him?

Don’t get me wrong. Obviously, it would be odious nowadays to play The Merchant of Venice as the Elizabethans would have played it. It is entirely legitimate, in my opinion, gently to warp the play out of its original meaning for the purposes of modern presentation. But it not legitimate to pretend that the Elizabethans held modern or post-modern attitudes; and it is pretty obvious what their attitude is. As Francis Gentleman says (some hundred and fifty years or so after Shakespeare’s time), “The retorts of Gratiano are admirably pleasant[!], and the wretched state to which Shylock is in his turn reduced, is so agreeable a sacrifice to justice, that it conveys inexpressible satisfaction to every feeling mind; the lenity of Antonio is judiciously opposed to the malevolence of his inexorable persecutor.”

[Sir_Leorik]

Here is the thing. Every version of Shylock is the most interesting thing about The Merchant of Venice, in fact the play was being called "The Jew of Venice" very early on. This is where the parallels to Redcloak end. No one can argue Redcloak is caricature of goblin-kind. Early portrayals of Shylock had him wearing a cheap red wig and being portrayed in an exaggerated manner to get laughs. Merchant of Venice with a greedy, clownish, Shylock in the manner it was arguably intended is bigoted without any redeeming quality.

There's a bit of debate over how bigoted Shylock was intended. I think the red wig came much later than the original performances by the Lord Chamberlain's men; it was definitely considered essential in the late 17th century and up to the early 19th century, but I'm not sure if it was part of the original portrayal. I do know that in 18th century performances, Shylock comes to the court scenes with a butcher's knife a pair of scales to weigh the "pound of flesh". I'm not saying the bigotry isn't in the original text, just that later performances added even more bigotry, with some removing Shylock's "To bait fish withal" speech, which goes a long way towards humanizing him.

Merchant of Venice without Shylock is utterly boring, OOTS without Redcloak is still an amazing story.

Now, now, it would still have Portia, and she's the other reason to see the play.

[Anarion]

I've never read Merchant of Venice and am going to refrain from commenting on its parallels other than to note that this thread has been utterly fascinating to read.

I want to go back to The Tempest for a sec though.

Prospero, like V, is someone who left home in search of power. That connection alone makes for some interesting parallels. (Of course, Prospero had been exiled, unlike V.)

I think this comparison is a misread of Prospero's character. Being an exile as opposed to choosing to leave is not a trivial difference. Moreover, although V and Prospero are both wizards, their fundamental attitudes are very different. Prospero is a manipulator, albeit one who acts for good. He concerns himself with the affairs of others and controls events to ensure good relationships for people in The Tempest. He also enters the story with power already established and his servant, Caliban in place and capable of acting for him. Prospero's character arc is not a quest for his own power or self-centered in any way beyond the satisfaction he derives from seeing the people he cares about be happy.

In comparison, V has never been a manipulator or a leader. V is deeply concerned with the self: personal power, intelligence, control over events. V is a person who wants to always have the ability to control things around her and to be more individually powerful than anyone else. V certainly does care about others including V's family and the members of the Order of the Stick. But V would never go around manipulating those people, whether for their own good or any other reason and V has not concerned his/herself with taking charge of the growth or relationships of other people.

[allenw]

Prospero = Nale?
Caliban = Thog?
Ariel = Sabine?

[Psyren]

This was hilarious!

I actually went back and forth with that several times. The main problem was that I couldn't put X's in Haley's eyes after she drank the poison if she was still alive, and if she was the only one who didn't get X's when she "died" it would be immediately obvious that I was changing the ending. So I just took them out of the whole thing.

I thought it might be jarring to long-time readers, but since it's consistent within that story, it would already be established by the time we got to the end scene.

This actually fits with how cavalier death is in this play. I'd bet Friar Durkon raised V off panel to help counter Nalebalt's revenance.

[Reddish Mage]

Now, now, it would still have Portia, and she's the other reason to see the play.

Ok, there's definitely a spark there, but you can do the female protagonist in male clothing much better.

[The Giant]

Hey, wow, that's some derailment there.

Any chance we can drop the extensive analysis of a play I haven't touched?

[Reddish Mage]

Hey, wow, that's some derailment there.

Any chance we can drop the extensive analysis of a play I haven't touched?

K. I was actually wondering why you choose the route of Julelan trying to kill himself with a dagger, and Haleo failing to kill herself with poison rather than use raise dead after successful suicide, but in thinking about it its pretty obvious raise dead was already brought up and bringing in the friar all of a sudden might be a show stopper.

[The Giant]

K. I was actually wondering why you choose the route of Julelan trying to kill himself with a dagger, and Haleo failing to kill herself with poison rather than use raise dead after successful suicide, but in thinking about it its pretty obvious raise dead was already brought up and bringing in the friar all of a sudden might be a show stopper.

Because the joke where Julelan tries to stab himself was literally one of the first things I came up with when plotting. So everything else was written to fit. But yeah, dragging Durkon into their final scene would have dragged the story down anyway.

I almost considered having Haley bring a scroll of Raise Dead to raise Elan in the tomb and have it fail (because he wasn't really dead), but I was tight on space and decided to just pre-empt it by having Crystal say that they already tried raising him.

[Grey Watcher]

Haley's expression when the poison kicks in is hilarious, by the way.

[t209]

Next, O-Chul's or Therkla story. By the Way, was Therkla a victim of half-breed discrimination in her home city.

[Anarion]

Next, O-Chul's or Therkla story. By the Way, was Therkla a victim of half-breed discrimination in her home city.

We'll have to wait for the PDF to find out! (But probably yes.)

[Sunken Valley]

I think it will be Sir Francois. But O-Chul would be better.

[factotum]

I'm almost starting to wonder if the timing of this PDF was arranged to coincide with Nale dying in the online strip, so he can die in both at the same time...doubt it, mind you, but 'tis always fun to speculate!

[Grey Watcher]

Next, O-Chul's or Therkla story. By the Way, was Therkla a victim of half-breed discrimination in her home city.

We'll have to wait for the PDF to find out! (But probably yes.)

I dunno. On the one hand, Azure City is almost exclusively human, according to the bonus material in one of the books (War and XP if I remember correctly), so that sort of discrimination is quite plausible. On the other hand, I like that Burlew sidestepped the whole "unpleasant backstory" implicit in the official material and kinda want Therkla's story to be something other than "Azurites are racist".

I'm almost starting to wonder if the timing of this PDF was arranged to coincide with Nale dying in the online strip, so he can die in both at the same time...doubt it, mind you, but 'tis always fun to speculate!

That occured to me to. Are we going to see Vampire Prince Nale in the main continuity?

[DreadArchon]

I'm almost starting to wonder if the timing of this PDF was arranged to coincide with Nale dying in the online strip, so he can die in both at the same time...doubt it, mind you, but 'tis always fun to speculate!

That occured to me to. Are we going to see Vampire Prince Nale in the main continuity?

I had the same thought! As far as sneaky foreshadowing goes, that would be pretty bangin'.

[Sir_Leorik]

That occured to me to. Are we going to see Vampire Prince Nale in the main continuity?

Death Knight Nale has a nicer ring to it, don't you think?