Favorite OOTS Character Final: ALL EVIL! #5 BELKAR v #2 REDCLOAK

[Mandor]

Redcloak. Belkar is funny and all, but I find Redcloak a vastly more interesting and compelling character than just Stabbytown.

[Svata]

Redcloak. Belkar's cool, but Redcloak is Redcloak.

Look, if there's an election and I don't like either of the candidates, I write in my vote, and I stand by that.

And that's how you throw away an election to the candidate you find worse.

[alwaysbebatman]

Redcloak. Belkar's cool, but Redcloak is Redcloak.




And that's how you throw away an election to the candidate you find worse.

NO!!!!

I mean: no real politics, please. Thank you kindly.

[Bluepaw]

Oh, most certainly Redcloak. Don't get me wrong, I adore the Belkster, even got him in my forum sig, but Redcloak is easily the most compelling character that the Giant's created, from his tragic origins to the master manipulation of Xykon to the wry humor (not particularly less satisfying than Belkar's), this one's got it all. I'm more looking forward to see his arc unfold into the final act than anyone else's.

Plus, wasn't one of his scenes voted the best strip of the comic a couple years back?

[Peelee]

And that's how you throw away an election to the candidate you find worse.

I choose to believe you are not referring to any real-world specific events.

In any election, any vote cast for any person who didn't win is a wasted vote, and any votes for the winner more than the absolute minimum number required for victory is wasted vote. As such, I'll vote in any sort of election (such as this very one, for example) however the hell I like. If i actively do not want either candidate to win (such as these very ones, for example), then I'll write in who I do want to win. Because my vote is wasted regardless, and if I have a choice to say who to want to win, then I will, dammit. Not who I think is the less bad of the two (such as this very tourney round, for example).

If You ARE referring to real-world specific events, feel free to PM me. I'll give you my email address, and we can discuss that safely off-forum.

[Chei]

I choose to believe you are not referring to any real-world specific events.

In any election, any vote cast for any person who didn't win is a wasted vote, and any votes for the winner more than the absolute minimum number required for victory is wasted vote. As such, I'll vote in any sort of election (such as this very one, for example) however the hell I like. If i actively do not want either candidate to win (such as these very ones, for example), then I'll write in who I do want to win. Because my vote is wasted regardless, and if I have a choice to say who to want to win, then I will, dammit. Not who I think is the less bad of the two (such as this very tourney round, for example).

If You ARE referring to real-world specific events, feel free to PM me. I'll give you my email address, and we can discuss that safely off-forum.

It's funny because this exact attitude is no more or less admirable than not voting at all, and yet it's the one that gets the most flak for it.

[Jasdoif]

In any election, any vote cast for any person who didn't win is a wasted vote, and any votes for the winner more than the absolute minimum number required for victory is wasted vote. As such, I'll vote in any sort of election (such as this very one, for example) however the hell I like. If i actively do not want either candidate to win (such as these very ones, for example), then I'll write in who I do want to win. Because my vote is wasted regardless, and if I have a choice to say who to want to win, then I will, dammit. Not who I think is the less bad of the two (such as this very tourney round, for example).

Indeed. Choosing the more tolerable option from those given is naturally par for the course, but requires at least one option that isn't intolerable. It's entirely possible that putting a data point towards "hey, not into this 'occasionally funny reprobate murderers' array you have going" is easier to stomach than putting your choice (and a feasible victory) behind an occasionally funny halfling reprobate murderer or an occasionally funny goblin reprobate murderer; while still making your dissatisfaction measurable in the results. That's why it's called a protest vote: it's protesting the vote itself, and/or the circumstances that led to the vote or the choices within.

Admittedly, it does lose most of its flair in the context of a fictional tournament.

[Peelee]

Indeed. Choosing the more tolerable option from those given is naturally par for the course, but requires at least one option that isn't intolerable. It's entirely possible that putting a data point towards "hey, not into this 'occasionally funny reprobate murderers' array you have going" is easier to stomach than putting your choice (and a feasible victory) behind an occasionally funny halfling reprobate murderer or an occasionally funny goblin reprobate murderer; while still making your dissatisfaction measurable in the results. That's why it's called a protest vote: it's protesting the vote itself, and/or the circumstances that led to the vote or the choices within.

Admittedly, it does lose most of its flair in the context of a fictional tournament.

Which is why I like to add ridiculously overdramatic flair.
[Grabs pitchfork] Vive la révolution!

[Liquor Box]

It's funny because this exact attitude is no more or less admirable than not voting at all, and yet it's the one that gets the most flak for it.

Not really. Voting for a candidate that has no prospect has no effect on the result of the election, but it does signal an endorsement. Someone who came third in an election by getting 10% of the votes rather than 1% may be more inclined to stand again, future candidates may examine his/her policies to see which ones captured that 10% (potentially leading to policies you like being adopted), and it may give some mandate to the losing candidate to advocate for his views outside of the formal seat of power.

I have no problem with someone voting for a candidate who has no chance (although I don't mind people not voting either - if you don't have a preference or don't know the candidates/issues, then why skew things for those that do).

This context is slightly different though - O-Chul is not a candidate who will clearly be beaten, he's not in the race at all anymore.

[B. Dandelion]

Semi-relevant:

I vote for Redcloak. For me personally, he really is the best character in the series, at least the single most interesting and compelling one.

[Chei]

Not really. Voting for a candidate that has no prospect has no effect on the result of the election, but it does signal an endorsement. Someone who came third in an election by getting 10% of the votes rather than 1% may be more inclined to stand again, future candidates may examine his/her policies to see which ones captured that 10% (potentially leading to policies you like being adopted), and it may give some mandate to the losing candidate to advocate for his views outside of the formal seat of power.

I have no problem with someone voting for a candidate who has no chance (although I don't mind people not voting either - if you don't have a preference or don't know the candidates/issues, then why skew things for those that do).

This context is slightly different though - O-Chul is not a candidate who will clearly be beaten, he's not in the race at all anymore.

Yeah I suppose I'd change what I said to "I personally don't care if people don't vote or vote for a hopeless candidate, but I have observed that people who vote for the hopeless candidate seem more maligned."

[Jasdoif]

Which is why I like to add ridiculously overdramatic flair.

Oh. I thought you just liked added ridiculously overdramatic flair in general

[137beth]

The one I wanted most barely missed out on the finals, so I'll go with Redcloak.

[Potatomade]

Finally read Start of Darkness.

Vote stays on Belkar. Though I'm kicking myself for not reading it earlier and putting Right-Eye as tied with O-Chul for top slot on that "list top 10 favorite characters" thing. Heck, even Xykon would bump up a bit on that list. Holy cow.

And I think now I'm even less sure why people like Redcloak so much. The guy's far from the most interesting character in the story people point to as his best stuff. Heck, even Dorukan was more interesting, and he was in like 4 pages!

[alwaysbebatman]

Funny, I've voted against Redcloak lot, definitely not his biggest supporter here-- but I agree with those who've argued that his back story is amazing, but he's been awfully static lately. But him not being one of the best parts of Start of Darkness? I can't see where you're coming from, there....

[lothos]

More generally I don't think there's any character Rich has included in the comic that I really hate. So I think I'll always be able to take a position on any run off for 2nd place behind O-Chul :-)

I still hate that bony bastard Xykon!

Perhaps I should clarify my meaning. I think Xykon and several other characters represent terrible people (or things) that are wholly evil and if I existed in the same world as them, I would hate them with fury. But I don't hate them as a work of fiction... I mean, I don't think they are poorly developed characters that are not suitable for their role in the story.

What I'm trying to say is that the characters that Rich has created for OOTS are all enjoyable on one level or another. I mean that I've never looked at any character and thought "Wow, that's poor characterization on Rich's part.."

So I think I'd hate Xykon... and Samantha of the Bandits and even Redcloak if I were in the story. I can't say I'd enjoy Eugene Greenhilt or Miko's company much... But I don't hate any of them as characters.

[Potatomade]

Funny, I've voted against Redcloak lot, definitely not his biggest supporter here-- but I agree with those who've argued that his back story is amazing, but he's been awfully static lately. But him not being one of the best parts of Start of Darkness? I can't see where you're coming from, there....

It felt like a story where the main character (or one of) is getting upstaged by far more compelling supporting characters, even if he himself is doing pretty well. Redcloak's attitude is less interesting to me than Right-Eye's. Same for the other characters. It just so happens that to me, Redcloak is the least part of Redcloak's own backstory (not counting MitD or the demon roaches, obviously).

Not that Redcloak was bad or anything. It's just exactly what I expected. Maybe that's why it didn't do it for me.

Though I WILL say that it has now and forever killed any sympathy I might have ever had for him. The tragedy wasn't Redcloak's, it was Right-Eye's.

[alwaysbebatman]

Hmm. Well, I'll admit that a lot if SoD is about revealing backstory to those fans who didn't want to wait for it to come up piecemeal through the main story. Now that most (all?) of those secrets are out, it may be less effective as a story.

But I definitely didn't feel like Redcloak was upstaged. SoD is the tragedy of Redcloak and Xykon, and that's exactly what it felt like to me, anyhow...

Though I WILL say that it has now and forever killed any sympathy I might have ever had for him. The tragedy wasn't Redcloak's, it was Right-Eye's.

Noooooo, that's not what "tragedy" means, not literary tragedy, anyhow. Something terrible happens to you because you were betrayed by someone you trusted because of their character flaws, that not your tragedy...

[Potatomade]

Fair enough. Both are plenty valid viewpoints. I'm just the kinda guy who likes Samwise Gamgee more than Aragorn. And I hated Gollum.

(Also, I meant more in the "I feel bad for this character because something bad happened to them" sense, not the "strict literary definition" sense)

[Dushara]

I like Smeagol though. :)

Start of Darkness is one of my favorite books, so as awesome as Belkar is, I'm going to have to vote for Redcloak.

[alwaysbebatman]

(Also, I meant more in the "I feel bad for this character because something bad happened to them" sense, not the "strict literary definition" sense)

Ah! Tragedy as in "unfortunate event" not as in "Macbeth" or such. I get you.

It seems to me as though your qualification for a character you don't enjoy is that they aren't likable, whereas I think that the antagonists usually should be pretty unlikable.

But I'm likely misunderstanding you; can you think of any antagonists you really think of as a terrible person (as intended,) but that you also really enjoy as an antagonist?

[Potatomade]

It seems to me as though your qualification for a character you don't enjoy is that they aren't likable, whereas I think that the antagonists usually should be pretty unlikable.

But I'm likely misunderstanding you; can you think of any antagonists you really think of as a terrible person (as intended,) but that you also really enjoy as an antagonist?

Xykon and Tarquin. Lots more outside of the comic (Max Cady from the original Cape Fear comes to mind). They do seem to love their work. Miko also works. The thing is, for a tragic character to work, their line of reasoning has to be believable and not completely crazy.

Spoiler

Show

The scene in the diner where Redcloak happily told Right-Eye about how everything would still turn out fine for the Dark One even if the Plan destroyed the world is where Redcloak lost me. Being chummy about it is just loony.

Miko was always a pain, but at least started out all right. The crazy can come later, that's fine. But it's gotta start someplace reasonable first.

Edit: And Malack! Man, BRitF was just too good.

[Chei]

But I definitely didn't feel like Redcloak was upstaged. SoD is the tragedy of Redcloak and Xykon, and that's exactly what it felt like to me, anyhow...

Was Xykon's story really a tragedy in the same sense? To me it actually felt like a rather darkly triumphant tale. If Xykon were a hero, you'd be cheering for the fact that he overcame the wizards who maligned him all his life, but since he's a villain and capital-E Evil, it's not cause for celebration that he was ultimately vindicated.

Redcloak, though, I understand. That's why I voted for him; I'm all about the tragic villains, especially those who come full circle so cleanly. Like I said when I voted for him, it kills me that he shook off the Crimson Mantle's compulsion to flee because his brother needed help, only to kill Right-Eye in the end with no (overt) coercion.

[Peelee]

Oh. I thought you just liked added ridiculously overdramatic flair in general

If that's wrong, I don't wanna be right!

[alwaysbebatman]

Was Xykon's story really a tragedy in the same sense? To me it actually felt like a rather darkly triumphant tale. If Xykon were a hero, you'd be cheering for the fact that he overcame the wizards who maligned him all his life, but since he's a villain and capital-E Evil, it's not cause for celebration that he was ultimately vindicated.

He gave up all visceral enjoyments to become a lich, and the theme of his monologue to Redcloak at the end is that winning is all about how low you are willing to sink for it. His words applied to himself every bit as much as to Redcloak.

[Peelee]

He gave up all visceral enjoyments to become a lich, and the theme of his monologue to Redcloak at the end is that winning is all about how low you are willing to sink for it. His words applied to himself every bit as much as to Redcloak.

He also didn't realize what he was giving up until it was gone. The monologue is also justification after the fact. I'd call that tragederious. Dear diary, today I invented a new word. It was the best day ever.

[Ruck]

What I'm trying to say is that the characters that Rich has created for OOTS are all enjoyable on one level or another. I mean that I've never looked at any character and thought "Wow, that's poor characterization on Rich's part.."

Well, for example, I don't think the characters I mentioned have poor characterization. They're just the kind of people I hate.

Though I WILL say that it has now and forever killed any sympathy I might have ever had for him. The tragedy wasn't Redcloak's, it was Right-Eye's.

But I definitely didn't feel like Redcloak was upstaged. SoD is the tragedy of Redcloak and Xykon, and that's exactly what it felt like to me, anyhow...




Noooooo, that's not what "tragedy" means, not literary tragedy, anyhow. Something terrible happens to you because you were betrayed by someone you trusted because of their character flaws, that not your tragedy...

Right, what makes it Redcloak's tragedy is that it's Redcloak's own actions which led to results that are calamitous to him. What happened to Right-Eye is terrible, but he didn't really bring it on himself.

I don't really see Start of Darkness as Xykon's tragedy because he doesn't regret what's happened and indeed comes out roughly on top; he doesn't experience the reversal and recognition that define tragedy. Redcloak experiences reversal (he loses everything except the Plan to the Plan) and recognition (he brought this on himself, by prioritizing the Plan above all else, allying with Xykon, etc.)

He gave up all visceral enjoyments to become a lich, and the theme of his monologue to Redcloak at the end is that winning is all about how low you are willing to sink for it. His words applied to himself every bit as much as to Redcloak.

He also didn't realize what he was giving up until it was gone. The monologue is also justification after the fact. I'd call that tragederious. Dear diary, today I invented a new word. It was the best day ever.

I can see this point, but given his "Anything to avoid the big fire below" speech, and the fact that the alternative to becoming a lich was to just grow old and die, I still think Xykon might feel like it was a fair trade-off in the end. (He just had to substitute more exercising of power and killing things for coffee.)

[B. Dandelion]

Funny, I've voted against Redcloak lot, definitely not his biggest supporter here-- but I agree with those who've argued that his back story is amazing, but he's been awfully static lately.

What exactly is the basis for that? I don't think Redcloak has been "static" lately so much as "not around". From what I can tell, he's had a speaking role in six comics since 2012, which had the whole Tsukiko murder sequence on top of several other jaw droppers. In the sense of giving people new material to work with it makes sense to point out that Redcloak just hasn't been giving much in quite a while, but saying he's "static" or unchanging for not having done something completely new and unexpected in the six strips he's had to maneuver in since the last time he blew everybody's mind?

[alwaysbebatman]

Ooh, I did the thing!

#5 Belkar Bitterleaf	#	#2 Redcloak
Euclidodese	1	Goblin_Priest
Potatomade	2	goodpeople25
Chobarth	3	drazen
Fincher	4	Kish
Laurana	5	martianmister
Bob_McSurly	6	The Curt Jester
Riftwolf	7	Ruck
Hamste	8	NamonakiRei
Rack	9	lothos
Dr.Zero	10	Jaxzan Proditor
KorvinStarmast	11	Arkku
aurilee	12	2D8HP
Ornithologist	13	white lancer
littlebum2002	14	Amazon
Gift Jeraff	15	Chei
blademan9999	16	The Aboleth
Rogan	17	Joerg
Rasputin	18	LadyEowyn
Thedoctorking	19	hroþila
h0m3st4r	20	Legato Endless
	21	Nathan5
	22	Mandor
	23	Svata
	24	Bluepaw
	25	B. Dandelion
	26	137ben
	27	Dushara

My god, that was tedious. There must be shortcuts I am unaware of. Jasdoif, teach me your ways!

But, yeah, Redcloak has a commanding lead.

[elros]

[B]Redcloak[/B, especially since that is not really his name! His identity is defined by his devotion to the Dark One, and his subservience to Xykon (even if that is feigned). I think that later strips will show more layers to Redcloak, and we will find out how much regret he has.
And although the Belkster is cool, Redcloak has his moments.