Kickstarter Discussion Thread - How the Paladin Got His Scar (SPOILERS!)

[Lissou]

In SoD, we're never told what Redcloak's actual name is. His brother considers the whole "Redcloak" pseudonym demeaning, and by the end of the story he's essentially lost that identity altogether. So that builds up the whole issue of what his name really is as being a plot point in the future if anyone actually does manage to learn it.

Ah, yes, very true. We never learn the real (or I guess "original") names of Redcloak, Right Eye or Xykon. It's possible that there is a reason behind that.

[Lacuna Caster]

And again, I'm still not clear on what youre actually arguing for. Are you trying to say that Shojo is responsible every time a paladin falls, for sending them out on a mission where they take an action that causes them to fall?

You were arguing that Shojo could not have been sending paladins out on missions that resulted in dead green toddlers for <assorted reasons>. I pointed out that these <assorted reasons> all apply with equal force to the actual paladin admins immediately below Shojo, and that apparently wasn't stopping them. I would normally consider those <assorted reasons> entirely fair, but it's not a cogent logical standard to apply here.

I find it incredible that Shojo, after decades of these policies, would not at least know what has happening, which effectively makes him complicit by inaction. I'm not sure I agree with the idea of 'attenuated responsibility', but if even a fraction of the guilt trickles up that far, then Shojo is dirty as hell.

[Peelee]

Ah, yes, very true. We never learn the real (or I guess "original") names of Redcloak, Right Eye or Xykon. It's possible that there is a reason behind that.

At a guess, I'd say the reason is their given names don't matter.

[hamishspence]

I pointed out that these <assorted reasons> all apply with equal force to the actual paladin admins immediately below Shojo, and that apparently wasn't stopping them.

In Origin of PCs, we had a paladin who thinks that Orcs being "listed as Chaotic Evil" (often Chaotic Evil) is enough to make them fair game for killing.

Gin-Jun and his predecessors probably come from the same school of thought.

[ti'esar]

I gotta say, I've never really understood in the first place why Shojo is officially CG when Ian Starshine is CN - despite his personal failings as a parent, the latter seems much more unambiguously what I would think of as Chaotic Good, at least by the time we meet him, whereas Shojo, IIRC, is actually one of the things Rich includes in the commentaries as an example of how Azure City wasn't really living up to its own standards.

[hamishspence]

Yup - it's supposed to be a beacon of law and good, but doesn't live up to it.

Shojo reduced the city's "Lawfulness", certainly, but not necessarily its "Goodness" as well - that might lie more with the aristocracy and their keenness on assassination.

[Nith]

Hmm. Shojo didn't start playing senile until the noble houses started getting too big for their britches. The noble houses are also the ones supplying the Sapphire Guard.

What if it was O-Chul's / Shojo's attempts at reform that led to the rise of corruption in the noble houses? Politics is complicated.

Do we know the nobles weren't always mucking around, and the senility wasn't just a new way for Shojo to tackle it?

My guess would still be that you are at least partially correct. That the influx of commoners into the Sapphire Guard meant more nobles staying in regular noble politics, which made them harder to control. That the Sapphire Guard used to be an outlet for noble shenanigans.

Now on my reread I found it fun to see Shojo in a different way than in the main comic. When he doesn't do the manipulating pseudo-senile schtick he can pull off authority pretty well. He clearly has no problem establishing his authority over a military general. It was a nice touch. It was also interesting to see that Hinjo might have had a lawful alignment shift, hard to see a lawful person faking a royal order.

[B. Dandelion]

Ah, yes, very true. We never learn the real (or I guess "original") names of Redcloak, Right Eye or Xykon. It's possible that there is a reason behind that.

...yes, they all go by pseudonyms, but I don't think there would be a great deal of relevance to learning Xykon or Right-Eye's real names. The only person who ever even called Right-Eye that was Xykon, and he's dead now so you obviously couldn't use it and observe his reaction. Xykon didn't like his given name because it wasn't cool enough and he didn't like the parents that gave it to him either. Finding out his real name and calling him by it might at most sort of annoy him.

For Redcloak, though? "Goodbye... Redcloak" was a slap to the face. "'Redcloak' is who you are now, not my brother." Redcloak is an alternate identity that, unlike Xykon's, is totally at odds with the person he originally wanted to be. There would be a lot of value to learning that original name and observing how he reacts to being called by it. That would have to be thoroughly unsettling to him at the very least.

So if somebody does learn that name, why not O-Chul? I've been thinking for a while that the main characters in the comic are actually in a really poor position to even begin to tackle the scope of the problem that Redcloak represents. We're about 30% of the way through the penultimate book and the Order of the Stick have yet to do more than just brush up against that entire part of the plot. They've never spoken or interacted with Redcloak, they have no inkling whatsoever of his backstory (and no reason to believe it or feel a personal investment if they did learn it), they don't even really have a personal grievance against him other than him being a bad guy who works for the bad guy they've already sworn to take out. There is maybe time for that to change, maybe, but they're still totally wrapped up in a different quest that's taking them in a completely different direction. Meanwhile on the other hand you've got O-Chul, who is the exact opposite. He's had lots of interaction with Redcloak, he does have major specific grievances with him, he's got a whole backstory that is completely awash with the same issues that kicked off Redcloak's own "start of darkness" -- and he absolutely would both believe and care about the fact that the Sapphire Guard were the ones who slaughtered Redcloak's family.

Maybe the name thing isn't important, maybe that's not so much a subtle clue as just a coincidence. But it's not really the name thing alone that is making me think however Redcloak is eventually defeated, and whatever specific form "defeat" takes, O-Chul is going to have the major starring role. The Order will be the ones to dispatch Xykon, but Redcloak is going to be O-Chul's job.

[Lacuna Caster]

In Origin of PCs, we had a paladin who thinks that Orcs being "listed as Chaotic Evil" (often Chaotic Evil) is enough to make them fair game for killing.

Gin-Jun and his predecessors probably come from the same school of thought.

Yeah, this did get mentioned before. It just tends to undermine the idea of Miko 'pushing at the boundary of her code' when a number of other paladins appear to have started out way, way over the line without visible ill-effects. (Never mind the various awful decisions that the main cast have made.)

[snowblizz]

Miko pushed the boundaries of the code with regards to Good people. The only people who matter.

Being Evil makes you fair game. It's not pushing any boundries if your target is tagged "Evil".
Yes the D&D universe is terribly weird this way. It tries to juggle all kinds of weird morality stuff which Rich brings up a lot. Like Evil afterlife beign horrible but still somehow a goal for those who are Evil.

The main cast aren't Paladins.

[Xapi]

I think that regardless of Rich's "you don't know if they fell in the background" comment, there's a case to be made for the idea that the Twelve Gods turn a blind eye on the misdeeds of the SG, because they know that their very existance is at stake regarding the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle.

[Emanick]

I think that regardless of Rich's "you don't know if they fell in the background" comment, there's a case to be made for the idea that the Twelve Gods turn a blind eye on the misdeeds of the SG, because they know that their very existance is at stake regarding the Bearer of the Crimson Mantle.

This is actually incredibly plausible. It's my new headcanon.

[crayzz]

It fits really well with Miko's fall.

Miko killed a good person, yes, but she also killed someone who's instrumental to defending one of the weak points of reality. Hence not just falling, but falling via a dramatic declaration of the twelve gods striking her with a bolt of light to make clear to everyone in the room what just happened.

[Kish]

However, it also undermines every word the comic has ever said about D&D paladins, because if that's the case there are no D&D paladins in the comic, just variant more-closely-scrutinized-by-their-gods clerics. And Miko's error was, not failing to realize her Falling meant she'd done something bad, but failing to realize that her Falling meant she was no longer in accord with the Twelve Gods' will.

It might be the case. Rich has, after all, moved away from close adherence to D&D rules, particularly from an edition in which paladins Fell for doing evil things rather than for pissing off gods. But if that winds up being declared to be the official answer, I won't find it satisfying, for my part.

[Lacuna Caster]

Miko pushed the boundaries of the code with regards to Good people. The only people who matter.

The main cast aren't paladins, sure, but I think there is something distinctly incongruous about the kind of person the strip implies might be redeemable. Belkar? Psychotic arsonist and murderer, sure, but he's a fixer upper. V? Commits an act tantamont to genocide, but he says he's sorry, so let's not pry. Elan? Probably obliterated those helpful goblin teens, but hey, let's never ever bring that up as something he needs to reflect on or atone for.

But the woman whose only detectable original flaw was basically bad manners... and being hated by half the fanbase despite being objectively more heroic than the order and perfectly capable of making reasonable concessions? She must be subsequently shown to be fundamentally broken and beyond saving. Which is bananas.

[Kish]

While I have quite a bit of sympathy for that perspective, I do think there is a real possibility that the comic will end with all three of those characters (edited: Belkar, Vaarsuvius, and Miko, not Elan) dead and Miko in a better afterlife than either of the other two*.

*Which may include Vaarsuvius and/or Belkar being in no afterlife at all because they were eaten by the Snarl.

[Keltest]

While I have quite a bit of sympathy for that perspective, I do think there is a real possibility that the comic will end with all three of those characters dead and Miko in a better afterlife than either of the other two*.

*Which may include Vaarsuvius and/or Belkar being in no afterlife at all because they were eaten by the Snarl.

"A third of the main cast gets horribly killed in the most punishing way possible" seems entirely at odds with the generally comedic nature of the story. As Rich has said, he isn't writing a tragedy here.

[Kish]

Yes, if you ignore the fact that the characters in question are a serial killer and a mass murderer and simply view them as "a third of the main cast." But since I wouldn't advise looking at it that way, your implicit assumption that them dying would make the comic darker than them getting away with their crimes is highly debatable. Regardless, Belkar, at least, is not long for the world.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The main cast aren't paladins, sure, but I think there is something distinctly incongruous about the kind of person the strip implies might be redeemable. Belkar? Psychotic arsonist and murderer, sure, but he's a fixer upper. V? Commits an act tantamont to genocide, but he says he's sorry, so let's not pry. Elan? Probably obliterated those helpful goblin teens, but hey, let's never ever bring that up as something he needs to reflect on or atone for.

But the woman whose only detectable original flaw was basically bad manners... and being hated by half the fanbase despite being objectively more heroic than the order and perfectly capable of making reasonable concessions? She must be subsequently shown to be fundamentally broken and beyond saving. Which is bananas.

Your analysis ignores intention and remorse, which are if nothing else even more crucial to alignment than the act itself. Miko was self-righteous to the last; convinced that her whims and desires were Good because they were hers, and thus was incapable of reflection or even basic empathy, both of which are requisites to accept redemption. Could she have been saved? Yes, but first she had to accept she needed saving, and only once was she shown to have even a smidgen of self-doubt about her actions, and that smidgen was quickly snuffed out by her own towering ego.

Did she perform heroic deeds? Sure, but this ain't ancient Greece, where being a hero is its own reward. She obeyed the rules, but we've never been shown that she wanted to make the world better. She just wanted to destroy Evil, and she defined Evil as anything in her path. That might be heroic by murderhobo's standards, but it ain't Good.

Lets run down your other examples:
Belkar: not sure why you think he is in the road to redemption. He neither wants to nor cares to be Good. Nevertheless, he is developing a stunted form of empathy that is already more prominent than anything Miko ever showed.

V: Obviously, she is experiencing massive remorse and while he may never accomplish it (although being an elf, she does have at least plenty of time, plot allowing, to attempt to), at least he is trying, which we are told counts for a lot.

Elan: this is just silly. First, the "helpful" goblin teens where just "going through a phase to annoy their parents". Second, Elan is not intelligent enough to understand the consequence of his actions - if someone had explained to him in advance that touching the sigil might kill nice people, he would not have. But being an impulsive short-witted big-hearted person does not mean he is evil, and honestly the very fact you felt the need to bring him up suggests you are grasping at straws.

Grey Wolf

[hamishspence]

But the woman whose only detectable original flaw was basically bad manners... and being hated by half the fanbase despite being objectively more heroic than the order and perfectly capable of making reasonable concessions? She must be subsequently shown to be fundamentally broken and beyond saving. Which is bananas.

Note that OoTS does not have an entry there in "Flanderization- Web Comics".

Miko was always intended to kill Shojo and eventually destroy the gate - the only major thing about her that The Giant changed his mind about - was that she didn't end up flirting with Roy:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/shows...&postcount=122

When I first introduced her, the interaction between her and Roy was supposed to be light and flirty. But within just a few strips of writing her dialogue, it became clear that she was a far more serious and determined character (and also that she wouldn't know how to flirt if her life depended on it). So I simply dropped that aspect from the story; it didn't change the plot really, just some of the surface interactions. But I would never say that I disliked Miko, just that she ended up being a slightly different person than I first imagined—and I think what ended up on the page is better than it would have been the other way. So it all works out.

Just because that part of the plot (and the flaws in Miko's character that would lead to it) hadn't been foreshadowed early on, didn't mean it wasn't already planned.

That said - Miko's own character entry does mention "Jumping To Conclusions" as a flanderized trait for her:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...StickAzureCity

Sometimes a character's flaws are revealed a bit at a time - but in this case, they always had them.

[Doran]

That said - Miko's own character entry does mention "Jumping To Conclusions" as a flanderized trait for her:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...StickAzureCity

That proves nothing - I could go in and remove that line myself - all it shows is someone thinks Conclusion jumping was a flanderized trait for her and cared enough to edit the trope page about it.

In addition, the flanderisation trait has itself been flanderised - it doesn't mean character development you don't agree with or revealing disliked new depths to a character when they are put in a dire situation.

It just means a character's quirks become exaggerated over time, when the primary goal wasn't about changing that character - it was done for a joke etc.

Since Rich Burlew has already stated Miko was set to kill Lord Shojo from the start, he must have had in mind from the start the reasons for a paladin to end up killing an innocent and Fall.

[snowblizz]

The main cast aren't paladins, sure, but I think there is something distinctly incongruous about the kind of person the strip implies might be redeemable. Belkar? Psychotic arsonist and murderer, sure, but he's a fixer upper. V? Commits an act tantamont to genocide, but he says he's sorry, so let's not pry. Elan? Probably obliterated those helpful goblin teens, but hey, let's never ever bring that up as something he needs to reflect on or atone for.

Taken lessons from Miko in Jumping to Conclusions? When Dorukans castle blew up all the creatures therein got out safe. There's author confirmation of that. Sure, it came much later when asked about this and he decided he didn't want all those creatures on Elan's conscience.

You seem to entirely misunderstand the concept of redeemable. It has nothing to do with the severity of your actions. It has entirely to do with your willingness to change and see the error of your ways. And the latter is what Miko cannot. Have you noticed that even when her Divine Mandate of Heaven is revoked in the most theatrical way imaginable does she actually change her mind that she could have in some way been wrong. It is not Miko Miyasaki that is wrong, the Gods themselves just haven't understood her True Rightness (tm). And that's why redeeming her was improbable. Also she serves as a stark warning that being redeem isn't automatic. You can't just bank on it, so don't go get yourself in over your head.
I think you are overstating the redeemability of Belkar, though. Probably as a reaction to people liking him despite the horrible little thing he is. (He's awesome).

But the woman whose only detectable original flaw was basically bad manners... and being hated by half the fanbase despite being objectively more heroic than the order and perfectly capable of making reasonable concessions? She must be subsequently shown to be fundamentally broken and beyond saving. Which is bananas.

Yea, murdering innocents you just found tied up because you don't like how they talk back to you. Or in Miko's own words,"it could all been avoided had I bothered with a Gather Information check". And that there is a one of those Miko flaws you don't care to see. She'll talk with her swords before using words a second time around. If you got the Evil tag she won't even do that. A lot of her flaws are disguised somewhat in the comic because the Giant specifically didn't want to tip his hands on the reveal that pushes Miko off the edge. I'm not sure if all the scenes are in the online comic but there are several where her "divine right crazy" comes through strong.

People hated Miko because she was an antagonist (and treating the cast badly). In fact one of the first where the new and improved OOtS that could perform moderately couldn't overcome. They had just defeated Xykon. And completed the Starmetal sidequest and killed a dragon. Then bam this mysterious person shows up and derails the OOtS train to drag it along another railroad. And gamers don't like that. And she is completely unable to make reasonable concessions. Liek not outright killing people who don't answer questions satisfactorily or summarily executing people she was asked to bring in for questioning.

[Aedilred]

Yea, murdering innocents you just found tied up because you don't like how they talk back to you. Or in Miko's own words, "it could all been avoided had I bothered with a Gather Information check". And that there is a one of those Miko flaws you don't care to see. She'll talk with her swords before using words a second time around.

Let's be fair here. She didn't murder them. She set them free, then Samantha attacked her with magic. Then her dad (was his name ever mentioned?) drew his weapons with clear intention to attack. In retrospect, she could have used nonlethal attacks, especially against Samantha's father (Samantha herself was probably too dangerous to risk it) but Miko was defending herself and I don't think we can blame her for using lethal force. As to "She'll talk with her swords before using words a second time around", note that even after killing Samantha she attempts to bargain with her father. Not very well, because it's Miko and her interpersonal skills are terrible, but she explicitly does at least attempt words a second time and only goes into slash-slash-slash mode when he draws on her.

As to the "it could all been avoided had I made a Gather Information check" that's clearly just a fourth-wall joke about the rules. Not to mention that had she done so that would have meant leaving the pair of them tied up, which is hardly very compassionate in itself.

There are a lot of reasons to dislike Miko but let's at least stick to what actually happened.

[hamishspence]

As to "She'll talk with her swords before using words a second time around", note that even after killing Samantha she attempts to bargain with her father. Not very well, because it's Miko and her interpersonal skills are terrible, but she explicitly does at least attempt words a second time and only goes into slash-slash-slash mode when he draws on her.

It does showcase her lack of empathy - not comprehending that the time to make requests of someone is not after you've killed their kin in front of them:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0189.html

[Aedilred]

It does showcase her lack of empathy - not comprehending that the time to make requests of someone is not after you've killed their kin in front of them:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0189.html

Oh, definitely. I'm not going to claim her behaviour in that instance was paladin-exemplary or anything. Just that the way it was framed - as "murdering two helpless prisoners because she couldn't be bothered to make a gather information check", and "resorting to swords at the earliest opportunity rather than even attempt diplomacy" is a complete misconstruction of what happened and is thoroughly misleading.

Let alone the description of them as "innocents".

[Kish]

A great deal like describing Roy's throwing Xykon into the gate as "murdering an innocent old man because you're annoyed because he doesn't remember something trivial," yes, thank you, Aedilred.

(I think pretty much anyone, including the people who heavy-handedly condemn Miko for defending herself there, would probably "not like" an "innocent" evil sorceress "talking back" to them with "You'll serve me or you'll die! Hold Person!" And as for the father, look again; he doesn't just draw his weapons but actually takes a swing at her before she attacks him. His understanding of the morality of killing Samantha being distorted is at least somewhat predictable; forum posters have no such excuse.)

[Lacuna Caster]

It does showcase her lack of empathy - not comprehending that the time to make requests of someone is not after you've killed their kin in front of them:

I'm quite open to the possibility that early-strip Miko treats diplomacy as a perfunctory chore, but in fairness, O-Chul would have had a hard time talking things out in that scenario. (I actually think empathy is overrated, but that's a discussion for another day.)


In a certain sense, however, I think these arguments are missing the mark. Pointing out diegetic factors X and Y as to why Miko was wrong doesn't really help when authors get to invent their own facts to fit their own theories. (I think this is called the thermian argument.) Similarly, whether Miko's development did or didn't go 'as planned' is beside the point: There's no external force constraining the author to follow his own plan.

The question is, why write that story? Why not write a version of Miko who, despite a rough start in life and some initial flaws, learns from positive role-models and turns out to be an upstanding character, despite being critical and aloof? Isn't that essentially what O-Chul's story was about, and didn't it go down a lot easier? Seems like the author might have saved himself a certain amount of stress and overhead, if you get what I'm saying. And given, in reality, the overlap between 'people who rescue strangers from burning buildings' and 'people who have psychotic breaks and murder adoptive parents' is very slim, it might be a more plausible direction.

.

[Kish]

Aside from the fact that making Miko no longer an antagonist would leave a gaping hole in the plot where an antagonist was called for, that's not a real good analogy. The people who got "How the Paladin Got His Scar" backed the Kickstarter and read the book knowing it was going to be about O-Chul.

(Not that O-Chul doesn't benefit from all the people who just hate paladins and would never read a comic in which any showed up without being treated as pure punching bags having quit in disgust by the time Hinjo appeared at the latest, because he does. No, this is not hyperbole, my putting words in people's mouths, or whatever you're about to accuse me of here; the forum culture was different enough circa #200 that a number of people expressed the sentiments I'm describing openly and loudly. The one who sticks most in my mind is the one who said he "loved a good revenge story" but hated that the story was introducing actual moral concerns to the story of Roy's grudge against Xykon, which he explicitly stated not wanting to think about the motivations behind. I don't think he made it to comic #250.)

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The question is, why write that story? Why not write a version of Miko who, despite a rough start in life and some initial flaws, learns from positive role-models and turns out to be an upstanding character, despite being critical and aloof? Isn't that essentially what O-Chul's story was about, and didn't it go down a lot easier? Seems like the author might have saved himself a certain amount of stress and overhead, if you get what I'm saying..

No, I don't get what you are saying. Because what I believe you meant is "Lacuna Caster would've liked the story better if Miko had been the main character". I doubt Rich loses any sleep at night over Miko: he needed a Paladin to murder the leader of Azure city, and he wrote it.

You think Miko is good and should have redeemed herself? Bully for you, even if the latter is simply beyond her displayed capabilities. Nothing stops you from writing that story, in your head or on paper. But since this story is NOT the story of Miko, the idea that the actual story should have been put on hold and told the Miko story you wanted would somehow "saved [Rich Burlew] a certain amount of stress and overhead" is ludicrous.

Grey Wolf

[Keltest]

For my part, I'm a sucker for a good redemption story, and I find the idea that Miko was secretly psychotic inside the whole time to be somewhat implausible, so I think a story where Miko recovered and gets redeemed through death to be the better story, but that's just, like, my opinion man.

I will say though that her in-story negative traits were very much told, not shown, especially early on. For example, we jump straight from Roy agreeing to travel south with her to the entire order (including Elan!) hating her, and Roy's accusation that she jumps to a conclusion that supports her existing emotional state isn't really supported by his past experiences with her.