Why are Miko's parents dead?

[Kish]

It's easy to dislike characters who aren't villains. Roy spent much of the comic intensely disliking Elan. Haley and Celia dislike each other still.

I find myself wondering if "dislike" here should actually be "moral condemnation" or something similar.

[Rrmcklin]

Well, either would be enough reason for them to cut ties with her at that point. Until she subdued them all off-panel, that is.

I admit I don't have the whole speech in mind, but while I don't think Roy ever implied she was "evil" I do remember she wasn't a version of good he (and I assume Rich, based on the quotes that have been posted here) would genuinely consider "good".

So.... I'd say it was a combination of both.

[Kish]

"When was the last time you showed concern for the dignity of a sentient being?" said Roy.

Shojo's teleporting wizard leaned in from the future, slurred, "Yaaaa hypocrite!" and got yanked back into the future by a roc.

[Ruck]

What I don't get is why you seem to think that those are mutually exclusive.

And what I'd really want most of all is for the story to have been less damn misogynist, of course.

The latter I understand, although I disagree with your opinion on what the Giant has done to combat it since and the efficacy of those efforts, and your suggestions on how to do so (particularly re: bringing Miko and Tsukiko back from the undead) strike me as ways that would detract from the story being told.

As far as the former, I don't think they're necessarily exclusive, but I also haven't heard a compelling way to do both, at least not in this thread, and in lieu of that I prefer a character-driven story to one that prioritizes moral lessons.

TidePriestess has been making a lot of points I disagree with, but mostly understand, but my general conclusion from is that they're basically saying "The story could be good, if it was a different story" (a few posts in particularly seem very close to, if not outright, saying that) which, I have to say, isn't particularly constructive discussion.

Yeah, that's kind of what I've concluded. I think we just want different things from our stories.

[TidePriestess]

The latter I understand, although I disagree with your opinion on what the Giant has done to combat it since and the efficacy of those efforts, and your suggestions on how to do so (particularly re: bringing Miko and Tsukiko back from the undead) strike me as ways that would detract from the story being told.

As far as the former, I don't think they're necessarily exclusive, but I also haven't heard a compelling way to do both, at least not in this thread, and in lieu of that I prefer a character-driven story to one that prioritizes moral lessons.

Well, it wouldn't have to happen in Order of the Stick per se; it could be a side adventure that just takes place in the Stickverse, like SoD or those paladin things. Then it wouldn't overlap too much with the Order's plot.

I really don't think you can be said to be combating past mistakes if you just ignore them, even if you stop making new ones.

[Keltest]

Well, it wouldn't have to happen in Order of the Stick per se; it could be a side adventure that just takes place in the Stickverse, like SoD or those paladin things. Then it wouldn't overlap too much with the Order's plot.

I really don't think you can be said to be combating past mistakes if you just ignore them, even if you stop making new ones.

Attempting to combat old mistakes with new mistakes is, while perhaps an interesting philosophical statement, not an especially good way of actually fixing anything.

In a lot of cases, all you can do when you learn you made a mistake is to attempt to not repeat it. You may not find that particularly interesting or satisfying, but then I don't think very many people would find a "miko is contrived to be a character again, except she's a completely different character now doing things unrelated to the main story" especially interesting or satisfying, especially not Rich, who's opinion is easily the most relevant.

[RatElemental]

I just want to say, TidePriestess keeps saying Miko wasn't unlikable enough to be a villain. This is true. Miko also wasn't a villain.

Miko was an antagonist, a role that can be held by anyone. Being an antagonist doesn't carry as much baggage as people seem to think it does. An antagonist can be well liked by the audience. And I don't even mean "as a well written or amusing villain" like many people see Xykon as. Hell, there are examples of stories (well written ones included) where the antagonists and protagonists are close personal friends, and I don't mean stories where one of them turns evil and the plot revolves around the conflict that comes from that.

Being an antagonist literally only means that their narrative role is to present obstacles to the protagonist(s), which I don't think anyone could argue Miko did not do.

I won't comment on how the giant went about her arc, just that the words protagonist and hero are not synonymous, nor are antagonist and villain.

Belkar is a villainous protagonist, Miko was a heroic antagonist.


Edit: fixed some errors, and made the links go to the right places.

[hamishspence]

Javert, at least in The Giant's opinion, is a villain, not just an antagonist - and Miko is somewhat Javert-ish. As is Gin-Jun- even more so than Miko is. And both are supposed to be LG (though both might have changed alignment by the time they reached their most villainous).

So, in that respect, the question "Can a Lawful Good character be a villain?" does apply.

"Non-Evil Villain" or even "Good Villain" are not oxymorons, and are terms that can be applicable here. Especially when Good alignment is treated as an extremely broad category.

[Lacuna Caster]

Oh, that was a big part of it, but not even close to all of it. To quote a friend of mine...

Anyway, the problem is that the arc only works if we agree that Miko is being unfair and cruel to the poor innocent Order of the Stick.
But: the Order of the Stick are idiots.
That's the whole point.
When Miko criticises them for being idiots, she is absolutely correct.
And Miko has to be written as increasingly evil for this to be sustained.
Early on, Miko is basically the straight man. She's a paladin, she's good at her job, she correctly diagnoses the OotS as a bunch of irresponsible bunglers.
Later, in order to make the plot work, Miko has to become this violent fanatic to make the OotS look good by contrast.
But that shift is both forced and too quick to be effective, and to the extent that this is a story about a capable paladin driven to fanaticism and madness by living in a cartoon world where everyone is stupid... well... that feels mean-spirited?
Miko is Frank Grimes, basically.
And I am in the minority of people who doesn't like the Frank Grimes episode.
Plus I feel like Miko's character is bound up with a bunch of really skeezy attitudes towards women.
The Roy genderswap bit, where he comes to realise he was being a complete ******* to Miko, then tries to be polite to her, and she responds to him more kindly... and then he immediately insults and abuses her just felt cruel.
Like, Roy... Miko was 100% in the right in all your earlier disputes.
We are meant to side with Roy because we empathise with him as the protagonist, and Miko is annoying.
But Miko's only annoying in a very exaggerated comedy way ("You removed the tag from this mattress, how dare you!" or "Let us sleep in the ditch and eat roots - oh wait there's an inn").
Miko has never been any more annoying or unpleasant than any of Roy's usual companions.
Belkar's outright evil and murders people. Elan's stupidity has regularly gotten Roy beaten within an inch of his life. Vaarsuvius' arrogance tops Miko by far. Haley lies and cheats and steals all the time.
Miko is... um, a bit exasperated because she has to babysit these guys? What?
Basically, the dysfunctional party trope does not mesh well with a character who is genuinely competent and mature.
And sure, eventually Miko is written as just plain evil.
That's necessary in order for the party to still seem better.
But that's only well after they reach Azure City.
In conclusion.
The Miko arc is terribly written.
And it's the reason I stopped reading OotS.

The utter dreck of the early Miko arc renders the rest utterly worthless. And she never stops being an objectively better person than the average alignment of the Order until the Shojo thing, and even that's debatable.

Thank you, TidePriestess. I think I'm pretty much in full agreement with your friend.

IMO Miko was intended all along, to be a "Javert"...

Then the author has a funny way of showing it.

[Lacuna Caster]

Not to speak for TidePriestess, but I think the concept "I want to prove that a good character can be a villain" was flawed out of the gate. Rich handled it by...making Miko (and Gin-Jun, and the leader of Roy's first adventuring party) characters who weren't actually Lawful Good in any framework except "the alignment they declared for themselves won't be questioned until they're dead."

In Miko's case, she was inconsistently written. The author explicitly acknowledges having changed direction on how he was writing her partway through the inn scene. But the Miko who works as an antagonist is a Miko who doesn't work as a paladin or as a good-aligned character.

To be clear, I think it's entirely possible to LG characters to function as antagonists, provided that they're working toward incompatible goals. If Azure City was for some reason at war with some of the northern states and the OOTS were part of a mercenary company hired on behalf of the King of Somwhere, Miko could easily be fundamentally antagonistic to Roy's goals and still be LG.

But when they're both working for the same person with the same ultimate goals and same alignment? Yeah, you basically have to make Miko crazy and Shojo exceptionally near-sighted.

Rich did better than certain horrible Star Wars prequels in that he had her stay the arrogant, ruthless, convinced of her own rightness character she was from the start...

You... just said that her early character is not consistent with this later characterisation. There is nothing 'non-good' about sparing your enemies, rescuing the helpless, healing after battle, or using a king's favour to help other people with no thought of personal reward. This is unambiguously good behaviour, and if the text says otherwise, that doesn't raise my opinion of the text.

[hamishspence]

While some of Miko's negative traits were present long before the Order met her, it is true that she got worse over the duration of their association:

In #120, she's under the impression that some clearly evil force like a giant demon or something is responsible, so the speech there is mostly grandstanding. Once she sees Durkon explains they are not evil, the bloodlust backs away. She doesn't like them, but she doesn't consider killing them and brings them back to trial. Belkar and the rest have now brought it back, and pushed it to the point of her wanting to kill Good and Neutral characters. She's been pushed beyond what had been a line she didn't cross.

Which may be one of the reasons paladins don't associate with people whose actions they find offensive, on a continuing basis - because they themselves can end up corrupted in the process.

[Kish]

You... just said that her early character is not consistent with this later characterisation. There is nothing 'non-good' about sparing your enemies, rescuing the helpless, healing after battle, or using a king's favour to help other people with no thought of personal reward. This is unambiguously good behaviour, and if the text says otherwise, that doesn't raise my opinion of the text.

The character did not undergo personality changes, like, say, Elan, Vaarsuvius, and Belkar did. I would guess that in Rich's original version of the text, she was going to.

The character is inconsistently written, in that vestiges of the "some romantic comedy before she revealed herself as a full-blown antagonist/like Roy's watching his own life from the outside" character who was originally planned can still be seen in the online strips between #200 and #250. Bonus strips inserted later present the ruthlessly authoritarian character we're supposed to accept she always was. Prequel content presents the ruthlessly authoritarian character we're supposed to accept she always was.

Saying that there's nothing "non-good" about sparing your enemies requires "anyone who isn't good will always kill their enemies," which is utterly wrong. Apply the same to each of your other criticisms, except the last one (whether it was reasonable for Miko to accept that she needed to pay for the Order's stay at the inn or not, she had done so and thus it was her bill that the King of Somewhere paid off, and by Rich's description of her fight with the Order and the aftermath, she also prevailed upon him to let her beat the Order up and haul them away without any questions asked--no part of what she asked from him was to help other people).

[hamishspence]

The author explicitly acknowledges having changed direction on how he was writing her partway through the inn scene.

From the Paladin Blues commentary, it was 223, immediately before the inn scene, that was the point The Giant had decided "Light romantic commentary is not what Miko is about" - and that was when the reason Roy put the belt on (already planned) was changed - from "getting to understand Miko better, while belted" to "saving Elan".

[TidePriestess]

From the Paladin Blues commentary, it was 223, immediately before the inn scene, that was the point The Giant had decided "Light romantic commentary is not what Miko is about" - and that was when the reason Roy put the belt on (already planned) was changed - from "getting to understand Miko better, while belted" to "saving Elan".

Ironically, that probably would have made the Belt plot somewhat less terrible.

[hamishspence]

Ironically, that probably would have made the Belt plot somewhat less terrible.

Disguising yourself to "get info that would make your romance work better" sounds IMO very creepy.

[TidePriestess]

Disguising yourself to "get info that would make your romance work better" sounds IMO very creepy.

Oh, wait, I thought you meant "Roy respects/understands Miko more after living as a woman for a bit." Bah, never mind.

[Kish]

I will say that I think the depiction of the Twelve Gods in the sky when Miko fell was a bad idea unless Rich actually meant to send the message "my paladins are variant clerics and Miko may or may not have done anything evil but definitely pissed off the entire pantheon," which I don't think he did.

[Keltest]

I will say that I think the depiction of the Twelve Gods in the sky when Miko fell was a bad idea unless Rich actually meant to send the message "my paladins are variant clerics and Miko may or may not have done anything evil but definitely pissed off the entire pantheon," which I don't think he did.

Given that his expressed intent was to go for an effect similar to the CEO of a megacorporation coming into your cubicle to fire you personally, id say that was in fact exactly what he was going for, except for the "may or may not have done anything evil" part. Since, you know, she did something unambiguously evil.

[hamishspence]

Oh, wait, I thought you meant "Roy respects/understands Miko more after living as a woman for a bit." Bah, never mind.

The exact phrasing:


Originally, the inn sequence was conceived as light romantic comedy, with Roy using the belt to try to learn more about Miko in "girl talk" before finding out that it couldn't be removed. By the time strip 223 rolled round though, it was obvious to me that "light romantic comedy" was not what Miko was about. In fact, it was clear that she and Roy were completely incompatible.

Whenever I wrote her lines of dialogue, they came out far ruder and harsher than I had expected, and I saw the character evolve into a far harsher person before my eyes. There was no way to undo some of her rudeness from previous strips, so the solution was to have the other characters react to her poor manners appropriately - including Roy, who had started out giving her the benefit of the doubt because he was physically attracted to her.

So instead of the inn sequence being the story of how Roy tried to woo Miko and failed, it's the story of how Roy realised that Miko was not worth his efforts.

If this second story arc is really Roy's journey of self-discovery, this next section is the part where Roy learns he needs to let go of his old hang-ups, particularly about men and women, and to realize via a changed perspective that Miko was not who he imagined her to be.

[TidePriestess]

The exact phrasing:


Originally, the inn sequence was conceived as light romantic comedy, with Roy using the belt to try to learn more about Miko in "girl talk" before finding out that it couldn't be removed. By the time strip 223 rolled round though, it was obvious to me that "light romantic comedy" was not what Miko was about. In fact, it was clear that she and Roy were completely incompatible.

Whenever I wrote her lines of dialogue, they came out far ruder and harsher than I had expected, and I saw the character evolve into a far harsher person before my eyes. There was no way to undo some of her rudeness from previous strips, so the solution was to have the other characters react to her poor manners appropriately - including Roy, who had started out giving her the benefit of the doubt because he was physically attracted to her.

So instead of the inn sequence being the story of how Roy tried to woo Miko and failed, it's the story of how Roy realised that Miko was not worth his efforts.

If this second story arc is really Roy's journey of self-discovery, this next section is the part where Roy learns he needs to let go of his old hang-ups, particularly about men and women, and to realize via a changed perspective that Miko was not who he imagined her to be.

Wow, that's awful. Both the original conception and the overcorrection. I'm kind of impressed that Rich is at least a decent author now; he's certainly come a long way.

[Keltest]

Wow, that's awful. Both the original conception and the overcorrection. I'm kind of impressed that Rich is at least a decent author now; he's certainly come a long way.

I must say, you are remarkably judgmental given that you haven't even pointed to anything specific from the comic and said "this is bad because X"

[TidePriestess]

I must say, you are remarkably judgmental given that you haven't even pointed to anything specific from the comic and said "this is bad because X"

I'm not actually sure what you mean.

[Keltest]

I'm not actually sure what you mean.

You keep calling the early comic "misogynist", "terrible" "awful", and other similar words. Well how about you back that up a little. WHAT is so terrible about them? Demonstrate what you think is bad, explain what is bad about it. Don't just say its bad, that's meaningless and not at all conducive to either having a discussion or understanding your position.

[Lacuna Caster]

The character did not undergo personality changes, like, say, Elan, Vaarsuvius, and Belkar did.

She clearly did. Initially refraining from killing Belkar- who she knows is evil- and later doing her damndest to kill Hinjo- who she knows is good- represents a pretty substantial shift in priorities.

When this topic comes up, I tend to ask the same question- what, exactly, could early Miko possibly do that would convince you she had good intentions beneath her abrasive exterior? Because "rescued total strangers from burning building at cost of near-death" was apparently not sufficient. You're setting an awfully high bar there.

[TidePriestess]

You keep calling the early comic "misogynist", "terrible" "awful", and other similar words. Well how about you back that up a little. WHAT is so terrible about them? Demonstrate what you think is bad, explain what is bad about it. Don't just say its bad, that's meaningless and not at all conducive to either having a discussion or understanding your position.

Not sure how you got that impression, but let's start out with this:

By contrast to Miko, no one called Soon, Gin-Jun, any paladin, or any male character however despised:
1) frigid (Haley),
2) a bitch (lots and lots and lots of people),
3) fat (Haley, again),
and/or
4) suggested that he needed to have sex more often, though someone would have needed to be ordered to have sex with him as a horrible chore (Roy).

[Keltest]

Not sure how you got that impression, but let's start out with this:

Using somebody else's words to support your own gripes isn't exactly the best looking defense, but whatever, theyre at least specific. So how about you expand on all the other shots you've fired at the comic?

And then maybe take the time to consider why youre still on the forums for a webcomic you profess to dislike, years after the events that you considered so bad they tainted it for the rest of its run?

[Rrmcklin]

Oh, something else I do want to comment on from TidePriestess friend's take down of why everything Miko sucked: "And now she's just plain evil, because that's the only way she can look worse than the heroes" is just flat out wrong.

People who try to insist that Miko was somehow NG and there's going to be some plot reason she was allowed to be a Paladin aside, I don't think the implication was ever that Miko "turned evil, so hate her now".

There's the unambiguous fact she did a horribly evil act, but as come up before, one act doesn't (usually) change a character's alignment by itself.

[hamishspence]

There's the unambiguous fact she did a horribly evil act, but as come up before, one act doesn't (usually) change a character's alignment by itself.

Yup. There's a certain amount of implication in commentary that she was close to the Good/Neutral borderline, and that the act might have pushed her across it into Neutral - but I don't think The Giant has ever said she was anywhere near Evil.

[Kish]

She clearly did. Initially refraining from killing Belkar- who she knows is evil- and later doing her damndest to kill Hinjo- who she knows is good- represents a pretty substantial shift in priorities.

When this topic comes up, I tend to ask the same question- what, exactly, could early Miko possibly do that would convince you she had good intentions beneath her abrasive exterior? Because "rescued total strangers from burning building at cost of near-death" was apparently not sufficient. You're setting an awfully high bar there.

I briefly considered pointing to the life of any character who, in my view, qualifies as unambiguously good. Then I realized that while I could show you a slice of life from Celia or O-Chul...I have no answer to the question you're asking, because it's based on an invalid premise (again). It's possible to isolate one moment from someone's life, point to it, and say that they're evil (the moment at which they commit mass murder, for example). It takes more than that to say that someone's good, because good's more complicated than evil.

[Lacuna Caster]

Oh, something else I do want to comment on from TidePriestess friend's take down of why everything Miko sucked: "And now she's just plain evil, because that's the only way she can look worse than the heroes" is just flat out wrong.

People who try to insist that Miko was somehow NG and there's going to be some plot reason she was allowed to be a Paladin aside, I don't think the implication was ever that Miko "turned evil, so hate her now"...

I can't speak for what other forumites might have said, but my usual talking points are (A) early Miko's behaviour is not 'good by technicality'. It's actual Good. (B) later-Miko's behaviour is crazy and bad, but it is profoundly unclear how it's worse than, for example, Gin-Jun or Tsukiko, who never get a bolt of blue lightning to the face. (C) Shojo's rationale for almost everything he does is either baffling, cowardly or awful, which makes me wonder how much of this was planned.

I mean, I could quibble with TP's friend- Miko's lecture to the order after the inn-scene invokes divine intervention in ways that aren't strictly justified by the evidence, and I would probably agree that she could stand to put a few more skill ranks in diplomacy. But in a comic where the audience were mostly happy to shrug off Elan's near-obliteration of his entire team (and quite possibly the goblin teens,) certain reactions to Miko seemed exceptionally mean-spirited. And I never cared for the author vindicating them.

I briefly considered pointing to the life of any character who, in my view, qualifies as unambiguously good. Then I realized that while I could show you a slice of life from Celia or O-Chul...I have no answer to the question you're asking, because it's based on an invalid premise (again). It's possible to isolate one moment from someone's life, point to it, and say that they're evil...

But I'm not pointing at a single moment. I'm pointing at repeated moments where she either does clearly good things or demonstrates a willingness to. Stopping in mid-combat and listening to your opponents because fresh evidence overturned your preconceptions is not the behaviour of someone who will never admit being wrong. Acceding to your filthy-rich captives' demands for 4-star accommodations and restraining orders- which they are not automatically entitled to- is not the behaviour of someone unwilling to compromise. Agreeing to Roy's suggestion that she evacuate civilians from the Inn while assassins are at large is not the behaviour of someone myopically fixated on chasing evildoers or hogging the spotlight.