Character Development: Giant Style (Analyzing OOTS)

[Thaumic]

I agree with your analysis, CowardlyPaladin, but I would like to point out one character you seem to have skipped: Therkla. Her story arc is somewhat short (or at least, has fewer comics covering it, on the order of 20), so I think she is often forgotten. But she also exhibits the type of character growth you discussed.
She is faced with a difficult choice: the man who has given her a feeling of belonging (something she never had before), or the man she loves. Her problem is, the two of them refuse to co-exist. When she is first introduced, she doesn't seem to have a plan about resolving this issue, in fact, she may not even be aware of it.
As the story continues, she begins to realize that Kubota really wants Elan dead, and that simply "failing" to kill him over and over is not a viable solution. It is at this point that she reaches her big, character-defining loss: she cannot have the two people she cares most about, and must pick one.
At first, she sides with Elan, as the two go off to stop Kubota from killing Kazumi and Daigo. However, she doesn't realize at the time that Elan plans to actually arrest Kubota, and when she is forced to make the heroes' choice a little later on, she chooses... neither.
I think this is her lowest point of loss, because the only choice she felt like she could make didn't work (instead, she got poisoned). This is the point when she takes a big step in the character-development direction: she chooses Elan over Kubota (saying "I shoulda just... just stuck with you and attacked Kubota right away.")
Unfortunately, before the emotions between her and Elan can really be sorted out... she dies. However, I feel like if she had lived, we could have seen some amount of growth in her as a character as a result of these events, such as how you described in the original thread post.

[Ruck]

As to the more recent discussion, I had understood empathy to be experiencing the feelings of others. And while being happy when others are happy obviously motivates benevolence, but being sad and afraid when others are sad and afraid doesn't necessarily put you in the best emotional state to help them. Furthermore, since we can only vicariously experience things we're aware of in the first place, that sort of sensitivity can lead someone to avoid learning about suffering in the first place, e.g. by not reading the news, rather than to alleviate suffering.

I think that those are the sorts of problems people are thinking about when they say that empathy isn't necessarily all that great. Feeling bad about bad things happening to others not only doesn't automatically translate into helping them, but can lead away from doing so. And it's possible to care about the welfare of others and work to improve it without feeling bad about it. For some people, that may be easier.

Empathy isn't just "feeling what others feel." It's the ability to place oneself in their shoes and understand why they feel the way they feel and do the things they do.

[Lacuna Caster]

Empathy isn't just "feeling what others feel." It's the ability to place oneself in their shoes and understand why they feel the way they feel and do the things they do.

I think you're talking about cognitive vs. affective empathy. As Korvin mentioned, psychopaths are often quite good at this.


On the broader subject of the OP and mechanics for character development, etc.- I agree that putting characters in positions that involve tradeoffs between their values is an effective tool to create dramatic arcs, but I think this is more of a universal pattern than something specific to OOTS. Examples off the top of my head- LA Confidential creates tradeoffs between Exley's integrity, ambition and social capital, Star Wars creates tradeoffs between Luke's family, impatience and the rebel cause, and Berserk creates tradeoffs between inclusion, isolation and class struggle.