The MitD outwitting Xykon.

[Morty]

You know, it occurs to me that one of the things I like about the comic is its defying on the common expectation for intelligent people to act smart all the time and make no bad decisions. I think this expectation is even more apparent in OotS, since the characters' mental faculties are quantifiable by the D&D rules.

And yet, people with high mental ability scores make bad judgement calls and errors frequently in accordance with their personality flaws. Roy outsmarts himself and assumes he knows more about the situation than he actually does. Redcloak is too blinded by his dedication to the Plan and unwillingness to admit his mistakes. Vaarsuvius was overcome by arrogance and unreasoning belief in the power of arcane magic. Tsukiko was wrapped up in her own delusions, which killed her. And the MitD appears to be quite intelligent, but he was too lazy and apathetic to make use of it before O-Chul stirred him into action.

[Math_Mage]

I've been trying to think of a way to put this delicately, but I've recently come to the realisation that I... don't really take the plot of this strip very seriously any more.

Which might be why you missed all the really obvious pointers that MitD is not stupid, just childlike and lazy.

It isn't really just the MitD spontaneously developing yet-another previously-unannounced plot-critical superpower,

You'd think by now people would have learned to stop misusing the phrase 'deus ex machina' around here, but somehow they never do.

or that after days, weeks and months of delay Xykon manages to arrive during the five-minute interval needed to catch the Order at the scene, while being too late to stop them.

Right, because we didn't just spend two books reading a detailed explanation of the days, weeks, and months of delay on both sides. Because it's not like the Order ever gets feedback about when Xykon is on the move that might influence their decision-making and create the dramatic timing. Yeah, if we ignore about 1/3 of the comic, suddenly these things are just huge coincidences! That's a problem, right?

It's more like a culmination of various niggling flaws in the strip that I've found harder and harder to ignore over time.

It's a feature, not a bug.

[jogiff]

Nobody's disagreeing with you that he likely has ranks in Spellcraft. What they're disagreeing with you about is that he had to go to school to get those ranks, as opposed to gaining them from some other means such as "in his blood" or whatever.

Or maybe the fact that he's spent the last year (or maybe more) hanging out with some of the most powerful casters in the world.

[137beth]

Xykon has a much better memory than the MitD when it comes to most of the relevant facts of their adventure,

Really? The MitD can at least remember that he is suppose to eat a group called "the order of the stick", while Xykon can't even manage that...

[DaggerPen]

Not to mention the strip where he mentions having difficulty with the concepts of 'pushing' and 'pulling', because that requires remembering two things at once. Mensa, hold the phone.

Not remembering two things at once - doing them. Is it possible it's just another "MitD is an airhead" thing? Yeah. But it's also possible that he might have an anatomical configuration that actually makes grabbing a rope and pulling kind of hard, or that he uses psionics, etc. We've discussed this at great length over in the MitD thread.

We've been concluding for a while that the MitD is probably reasonably bright but lacking in both wis and an attention span. He had a motivation to really, really try to do something for once and he succeeded. Heck, maybe he's got some type of detect thoughts ability and managed to pick up enough to weave together a convincing bluff just from that. We just don't know enough about the MitD's capabilities. But we do know that he's experiencing character development, and, just like Elan figuring out that they were trapped in an illusion, MitD is starting to display greater insight and maturity.

[Kish]

Really? The MitD can at least remember that he is suppose to eat a group called "the order of the stick", while Xykon can't even manage that...

Well, now, be fair. Xykon couldn't eat the Order; he no longer has a digestive system.

[veti]

It's a feature, not a bug.

This, in a nutshell.

I too found the MitD's sudden attack of eloquence - surprising, to say the least. And the fact of Xykon actually listening to anything the MitD has to say, no matter how valid, is also a pretty sharp departure from expected behaviour. But there's something very fundamental about OOTS that I think almost everyone in this thread has forgotten:

It's a comedy.

Surprises are to be expected. Improbable coincidences and sudden breaks of character are the norm here. Lighten up.

D&D is a game, it's meant to be fun. Taking it too seriously kills it. This is one of the reasons why D&D novelisations (e.g. Dragonlance) are so awful - they can't bring themselves to admit that their entire premise is the silliest idea ever seen outside a Monty Python sketch. OOTS, by contrast, lampshades that fact at every opportunity (see punchline of #904, for instance).

[Daloth]

Having wasted my time reading this topic hoping to see some actual criticism with intelligent discussion whenever a view opposite of the majority is shown I see two things:

1. The readers of OotS don't like it when someone tries to criticize what the giant has written. The idea of not liking something isn't that hard to go with, but instead of trying to debate the merit of it and see what he is saying, they go straight to trying to disprove his OPINION. We don't know what the MitD is, that's why we have {SCRUBBED} what, 5 threads about it now? If he wants to say that, in his opinion, the plot is failing because of a character acting completely out of the norm, then there is nothing wrong with that. Instead of trying to change his mind, why not do as he says in his last line and answer if the plot is bothering anyone else? Even the fact he opens with "trying to put this delicately" is exceedingly unwelcome to the point of debate and discussion. The giant is a writer, that means some people will NOT like his work. having someone comment about what they don't like is fine, and considering this is the internet, its kind of a surprise that we don't see it more. Which leads me to the second part.

2. Why are people so scared to criticize the writing of this comic? It's a story, no different than a novel, a poem, a newspaper article even. It's perfectly fine to criticize a work like this. Whenever you DO see comments that directly criticize or even disprove what we see in the comic as plausible (this is a D&D comic after all, and no matter how much personal DeM the giant gives of "Everything from here is homebrewed" we will see it that way), the majority immediately shoot it down, gang up on the negative thought to try and disprove it, or the giant comes in himself and makes a joke or tries to explain it (like say in this topic).

I applaud Carry2 for having the guts on a board like this to even try and open the debate of actual, real, critical analysis. If everyone kisses your ass and agrees with everything you do, then you will never get better as an artist/writer because you never have to think what will make those people who don't like your work or know of you to like it.

I have nothing more to say than this last bit (because what happened to Carry will happen to me, people will bandwagon, the giant might make a joke or get angry, or a mod might even do something, and that also doesn't help the problem the OP has.)

If you truly care about the giant and his work, then do not be scared to criticize it. Poke holes in it. Call out every time there is a rule flub, a contradiction, anything that bothers you, because without criticism there is no reason to get better as a writer. Why re write something that every person you meet says is amazing? If you want this story to get better, do what Carry has done. Ask questions and pose critical analysis, and don't be so damn scared to do things youtubers and kids in writing workshops do every day, if its a spade call it black. That simple.

Buena Suerta, Carry2. Y tu Gigante

[SavageWombat]

Gee, is it possible that we don't criticize the Giant's writing because we don't see anything wrong with it?

We're not supporting the man out of a sense of social obligation. I happen to think that he's a brilliant writer - better than I expect he himself realized - and I've never really seen anything in the story I felt was out of character for anyone.

I'm beginning to think that the people who criticize the plot or plot elements are saying more about themselves than the supposed flaws.

[137beth]

Instead of trying to change his mind, why not do as he says in his last line and answer if the plot is bothering anyone else?

Huh, and here I thought that people were answering that question by saying that it didn't bother them, and then explaining why...

[Goosefeather]

1. The readers of OotS don't like it when someone tries to criticize what the giant has written. The idea of not liking something isn't that hard to go with, but instead of trying to debate the merit of it and see what he is saying, they go straight to trying to disprove his OPINION.

People disagreed with his claims, and they provided evidence to back up their position. How is that not 'debate'? No-one is denying him the right to his opinion or anything, they are simply arguing that it doesn't match objective facts present in the comic.

{SCRUBBED}

{SCRUBBED}

If he wants to say that, in his opinion, the plot is failing because of a character acting completely out of the norm, then there is nothing wrong with that. Instead of trying to change his mind, why not do as he says in his last line and answer if the plot is bothering anyone else?

Most people ARE answering that, just in the negative. Does that not count for some reason?

(this is a D&D comic after all, and no matter how much personal DeM the giant gives of "Everything from here is homebrewed" we will see it that way),

I genuinely don't understand what you mean by this. How is that in any way DeM?

snip of the rest, for space

The thing is, people do criticise the comic. All the time. And other people defend it. The official forums are, unsurprisingly, full of people who like the comic - hence why people might seem to defend it more than attack it, I'd guess.

Buena Suerta, Carry2. Y tu Gigante

'Buena suerte' and either 'et tu' or 'y tú'
Sorry, it's the Spanish student in me!

[Grey_Wolf_c]

<snipage>
'Buena suerte' and either 'et tu' or 'y tú'

Thanks, Goosefeather. That post of yours saved me all the typing I was going to use to say exactly the same thing.

"Y tú" needs a comma after it, though, unless Carry2 has a giant of his own, in which case the unaccented original is correct ("And your giant").

Grey Wolf

[Porthos]

Having wasted my time reading this topic hoping to see some actual criticism with intelligent discussion whenever a view opposite of the majority is shown I see two things:

1. The readers of OotS don't like it when someone tries to criticize what the giant has written.

Au contraire.

I've criticized this comic before, and at length. When I think it was justified. But I don't think it was justified in this case.

[SavageWombat]

{SCRUBBED}

{SCRUBBED}

[The Giant]

Instead of trying to change his mind, why not do as he says in his last line and answer if the plot is bothering anyone else?

Everyone is welcome to criticize the comic as much as they want. Carry2 has done it before and he and I have discussed certain points at great length. However, what you seem to be advocating is that anyone who does criticize the comic should, themselves, be immune to criticism. That if you put forth an argument that the majority of people disagree with, those people are required to hold their tongues and let your words stand unchallenged. And that's stupid.

If someone wants to start a thread that begins with the question, "Is this bothering anyone else?" they should be prepared for some people to answer, "No, not really. Here's why it doesn't bother me." If that original person, rather than just registering the dissenting opinion in their mind, chooses to engage the other poster in debate over the issue...then that's their choice. But disagreeing is not censorship, even when more people disagree than agree. Even when every single person here disagrees. No one, not one person, has said that Carry2 doesn't have the right to post his criticism. What they have said is that in their opinion, his criticism is incorrect.

If everyone kisses your ass and agrees with everything you do, then you will never get better as an artist/writer because you never have to think what will make those people who don't like your work or know of you to like it.

And if you listen to every inane, subjective, shallow, anal-retentive criticism that is deliberately missing the point of a scene because the poster has a preconceived idea that you're wrong, you'll never write anything at all. I get about 50 of these each strip, so you'll forgive me if I don't cry myself to sleep over each one.

If you truly care about the giant and his work, then do not be scared to criticize it. Poke holes in it. Call out every time there is a rule flub, a contradiction, anything that bothers you, because without criticism there is no reason to get better as a writer. Why re write something that every person you meet says is amazing? If you want this story to get better, do what Carry has done. Ask questions and pose critical analysis, and don't be so damn scared to do things youtubers and kids in writing workshops do every day, if its a spade call it black. That simple.

This, I agree with. Well, except the rule flub thing, because **** that, I do not care.

And yes, I'm going to moderate your post in a moment. Not because of your points, but because of the unnecessary insult you leveled at another poster in the middle of it. Personal insults are not valid criticism.

[Goosefeather]

{SCRUBBED}

{SCRUBBED}

[137beth]

{SCRUBBED}

{SCRUBBED}

[The Giant]

Also, guys? If you see someone flame another poster, don't start a spin-off discussion of the flame. It just makes more work for the moderators to clean up. Just report the flame and then ignore it.

[Goosefeather]

Also, guys? If you see someone flame another poster, don't start a spin-off discussion of the flame. It just makes more work for the moderators to clean up. Just report the flame and then ignore it.

Sorry, I wasn't thinking. Will be more careful in future.

[littlebum2002]

At first, I really, really agreed with your sentiment. I even said something to that effect in the post for that comic.

However, I started thinking about it. The last we saw anything important about the MitD was when he was talking with O-Chul. During this time, he started losing his childish innocence, enough to become proficient at a game like "Go" that I STILL haven't figured out how to play, and cast some sort of "teleport other person" spell that is so rare/difficult, the many d&d experts on this forum still haven;'t figured out what spell it was.

It seems to me that O-Chul has gotten the MitD to realize its own intelligence, and it started acting on it. The problem is, it's had weeks to learn and figure out things while we have been focusing on the OOTS. Perhaps this advancement could have been shown more gradually, by showing us other observations the MitD has made. Perhaps we will see them one day in a montage flashback (doubtful).

Either way, from someone who was initially very skeptical of this turn of events, I have been convinced that it is a natural progression of the earlier storyline.

[luc258]

MITD made a good point, from Xykons pov, and Redcloak did not, but I wouldn't call it a Cicero like pinnacle of rhetoric. Formulating an argument is not something I would call a Deux ex Machina either.

[BroomGuys]

1. The readers of OotS don't like it when someone tries to criticize what the giant has written. The idea of not liking something isn't that hard to go with, but instead of trying to debate the merit of it and see what he is saying, they go straight to trying to disprove his OPINION.

I'm not entirely clear on what the difference is between debating something and trying to disprove your opponent's opinion. When folks say a guy is wrong on the internet and state reasons why they think so, isn't that debating? I think the point you want to make is that people aren't debating it well, but that point would be far better illustrated by counterarguments than visiting the intentions of the people you think are in error.

Do OotS readers often find it irritating when people criticize the comic in a way that they disagree with? That's as obvious a yes as you'll find. Does that make any of their arguments any less valid? A-nope. And asking the question of why we're all arguing on the internet in the middle of a multi-paragraph post probably opens some doors you'd be better off leaving shut, methinks.

Furthermore, Carry2 didn't just say he didn't like the recent development. Instead, he levied a criticism that many folks believed was based on poor analysis, most notably that the MitD's ability to fool Xykon was a deus ex machina. I am in agreement with the majority of posters on this point--it was not, in fact, a deus ex machina, because of this dialogue:

O-Chul: Have you considered starting?
MitD: Thinking?
O-Chul: Yes. You know what they say about an unexamined life.
MitD: That it's totally awsome and everyone who lives one gets cake?
O-Chul: Monster-san...
Mitd: OK, I get what you're saying, but thinking is so... hard. It's just easier to let everyone else do it.

This is a step shy of Rich directly announcing to the audience "Hey guys, the MitD is going to start using his brain more in the coming strips, meaning he'll probably start acting smarter than he did before!" In my opinion , this foreshadowing is no less good, even though it's very obvious, but because this foreshadowing is so obvious, it doesn't seem particularly defensible to say that strip 901 is a deus ex machina. To say "it bothered me that he did something that mentally impressive when he was so dumb early in the comic" is valid (though it does not personally bother me), but to say it came totally from nowhere is no longer wholly within the realm of subjectivity, and I agree that this part of the criticism is based on faulty analysis. If you disagree, you're welcome to announce as much and then go about your business, or say nothing and go about your business, or point out things you think I may be wrong about. But saying that I'm overeager to rush in and try to defend the comic (I like the comic, and I like arguing with people on the internet) ain't really much of a counterargument.

[veti]

1. The readers of OotS don't like it when someone tries to criticize what the giant has written. The idea of not liking something isn't that hard to go with, but instead of trying to debate the merit of it and see what he is saying, they go straight to trying to disprove his OPINION.

This is true. This is not a tolerant forum for dissent. That comes with the territory - it's a fan site, and fans of most anything are apt to react prickly when their thing gets criticised. There's a kneejerk effect and a bandwagon effect and, sometimes, just a hint of burn-the-heretic (although this thread has so far been quite remarkably civil), and these things usually combine to make an uncomfortable atmosphere for dissidents.

2. Why are people so scared to criticize the writing of this comic?

Partly for the reason you've already noted - because such criticism tends to provoke sharp, not always to-the-point, responses.

It may not look like it, but the strip does actually get criticised all the time. Carry2 was particularly provocative in (linking to) the phrase 'deus ex machina', which is one of the most-repeated and oft-abused charges.

My response to Carry2 saying "I... don't really take the plot of this strip very seriously any more" is - good. I don't think it's meant to be taken 'seriously' in the sense that the complaint implies. Sure, it has serious points to make, such as about morality in D&D games - just as Monty Python makes serious (if somewhat dated, now) points about class and expectation - but the story itself? About as serious as Swift's Modest Proposal.

[Math_Mage]

At first, I really, really agreed with your sentiment. I even said something to that effect in the post for that comic.

However, I started thinking about it. The last we saw anything important about the MitD was when he was talking with O-Chul. During this time, he started losing his childish innocence, enough to become proficient at a game like "Go" that I STILL haven't figured out how to play, and cast some sort of "teleport other person" spell that is so rare/difficult, the many d&d experts on this forum still haven;'t figured out what spell it was.

It seems to me that O-Chul has gotten the MitD to realize its own intelligence, and it started acting on it. The problem is, it's had weeks to learn and figure out things while we have been focusing on the OOTS. Perhaps this advancement could have been shown more gradually, by showing us other observations the MitD has made. Perhaps we will see them one day in a montage flashback (doubtful).

Either way, from someone who was initially very skeptical of this turn of events, I have been convinced that it is a natural progression of the earlier storyline.

Well, we do see the MitD making observations and showing initiative. Since his final conversation with O-Chul, the MitD has helped O-Chul escape (albeit unwittingly), tried to understand his capabilities, identified a half-ritual, and understood O-Chul's and Tsukiko's motivations. The three conversations with O-Chul themselves also establish MitD over time as more than a fool--as BroomGuys points out, Rich all but states that MitD has a brain and might start using it. This event is itself a stepping stone to further maturation and independent action by MitD. I think that's enough intermediary steps to show the progression.

[Snails]

Skipping ahead...

They way I see it, the MitD got lucky. He got lucky because both Xykon convinced Xykon AND Redcloak convinced Xykon.

Xykon has been building up a grudge and suspicion that Redcloak has been playing him. He previously ranted about staying in Bluetown too long. Now he is ranting that he should not have stayed in Bluetown one measly round. THAT has exactly nothing to do with MitD's bluff -- it is everything to do with his own fears about how well he has Redcloak under control. The death of Tsukiko did not help Xykon's peace of mind here either, while Redcloak gave a very logical explanation it was rather convenient.

So what happens? Redcloaks says "let's be reasonable" which is exactly the LAST thing Xykon wants to hear from Redcloak. In fact, that provokes Xykon to overtly yank on Redcloak leash.

So it is not that MitD made a particularly great Bluff in terms of him having any great amount of skill. It so happens that the first reasonable lie that came out the MitD's mouth exploded a barely hidden minefield in Team Evil interrelationships -- in the end Xykon does not care whether Stupid in the Darkness is lying, Xykon first and foremost want Redcloak to shut up and do what he is told.

[Xelbiuj]

Moreso than the MITD tricking Xykon (which has been coming a while) I'm just tired of the constant use of tropes used to justify everything. (I blame Elan/Tarquin/Nale)

So because a "lone Paladin is guarding the last gate" you should just ignore the group of heroes that you're meeting in battle for the 3rd time, each time having destroyed a gate? That's moronic, unless Xykon is 2 minutes from murdering Redcloak, it makes absolutely no sense to ignore his advice in favor of the monsters.

[Snails]

So because a "lone Paladin is guarding the last gate" you should just ignore the group of heroes that you're meeting in battle for the 3rd time, each time having destroyed a gate? That's moronic, unless Xykon is 2 minutes from murdering Redcloak, it makes absolutely no sense to ignore his advice in favor of the monsters.

It may or may not be moronic, but it so happens to be in character. Most every character in the OotSverse has serious blindspots.

There is also an underlying theme here. MitD explicitly points out V is "missing". It is not necessarily the lone paladin, but what the Real Player in the Order is up to. V, being the most powerful spell caster in the Order, is the one that matters the most -- it is a conceit that every spellcaster in the OotSverse seems to hold to some degree, not just Eugene.

That V and O-Chul are up to something is the most natural thing in the world to believe. Didn't Xykon last see them make a completely impossible escape together?

[Math_Mage]

Moreso than the MITD tricking Xykon (which has been coming a while) I'm just tired of the constant use of tropes used to justify everything. (I blame Elan/Tarquin/Nale)

So because a "lone Paladin is guarding the last gate" you should just ignore the group of heroes that you're meeting in battle for the 3rd time, each time having destroyed a gate? That's moronic, unless Xykon is 2 minutes from murdering Redcloak, it makes absolutely no sense to ignore his advice in favor of the monsters.

...

The constant lampshading of narrative causality is definitely a feature, rather than a bug.

If it's just this one scene you're taking issue with, you'll note that Xykon is one more instance of backtalk from taking an ear off Redcloak. 2 minutes is a conservative estimate.

[Xelbiuj]

I'm not saying it's bad logic, just that it's not enough to warrant immediate action versus smoking the 4 people you know (can assume) just blew up the 4th gate.

[Snails]

Could just be me, but I'd put the odds at rather less than 50/50.

It is not "odds". From Xykon's point of view, not doing the apparently logical thing is a means to rub Redcloak's nose in the fact that he (Xykon) is the one in charge. In fact, letting the silly heroes live is a small price to pay to honk off Redcloak. In direct proportion to how much Redcloak thinks it is completely obvious that the heroes should die here, is how potent the lesson will be when wielded so bluntly.