Why are Miko's parents dead?

[Keltest]

Because, for starters, I can arrive at explanations like "the Gods were deliberately screwing with Miko for utterly petty and arbitrary reasons". It it beautiful in it's simplicity. It does not overtly contradict the known facts of the text. It is impossible to disprove, and does not violate the rules of the setting, inasmuch as they can possibly be discerned. It appears to be no less valid than other contending hypotheses.

Heck, in the case of Shojo's behaviour, I'm not sure that "Shojo was actually working with Xykon, which prompted him to conceal his continued existence and waste as much of Miko and the Order's time as possible" isn't the most elegant way to account for many observations. But then I would probably be described as a paranoid fanatic clinging to emotional preconceptions. And the list goes on.

That's not a particularly compelling reason. If you find an explanation that is technically possible but highly improbable, and it doesn't satisfy you, pick one of the other ones.

[Ruck]

Rich explicitly said that the Sapphire Guard are all at least part "divine casters," not all paladins. As I said, I find this a puzzling decision, and since it's only something he said on the forum and not suggested anywhere in the comic it may well be reversed at some point, but he did say it.

I didn't remember the "by everyone" part. He could mean everyone he'd depicted (he clearly doesn't mean literally everyone, since Roy doesn't worship the Twelve Gods), still allowing for clerics of Tiger who were members of the Sapphire Guard, but if he actually meant there was no such thing as a cleric of [X member of the Twelve Gods], that's a great big loophole in Soon's "only the honor of a paladin is unbreakable" Sapphire Guard, which weakens the story thematically.

I think maybe the answer is that the Twelve Gods are generally more unified as a pantheon than the other two pantheons, but certain people still worship and/or are favored by specific gods in the Twelve more than others. For one example:

Spoiler: Good Deeds Gone Unpunished

Show

In "Spoiler Alert," Sangwaan seems to have favor with Rooster specifically.

That's not a particularly compelling reason. If you find an explanation that is technically possible but highly improbable, and it doesn't satisfy you, pick one of the other ones.

Right? "There are dozens of probable explanations for this, and the fact that I can settle on one that seems to violate much of the story being told but technically means sense" doesn't mean "This needs a definite and specific explanation from the author." It means "Pick one the many explanations that best fits the story, rather than deliberately seeking out ones that contradict it."

Frankly, this seems like a case of "when your assumptions cause things to not make sense, make different assumptions."

Well, it is a Lacuna Caster thread. Or, less bluntly:

I would also recommend that since you wanted to see if others would agree with you on some things being incongruous, if you find that your reading is a remarkably unpopular one and that the vast majority of responders disagree with your analysis, that you consider that your reading of it may be wrong. Obviously the popular answer isn't always the correct one, but you've made numerous posts about numerous inconsistencies you've seen, and not once do I ever remember your reading of it being anywhere near acceptance. It's like that old saying, if *someone calls you a duck and you know you’re not a duck, you can ignore them. If a second person calls you a duck, you can probably ignore them, too. About the third time someone calls you a duck, you might want to start checking for feathers.

[hamishspence]

this seems like a case of "when your assumptions cause things to not make sense, make different assumptions."

Or, as The Giant has put it:

the important lesson here is this: Rather than making assumptions that don't fit with the text and then complaining about the text being wrong, why not just choose different assumptions that DO fit with the text?

Things aren't errors just because they don't support your preferred assumptions. It just means your assumptions are wrong.

[Jasdoif]

It'd just take one explanation. That said, it's an explanation no one needs....

Yes. An explanation takes up space. Space that could have been used for something else. So like anything else in a story, an explanation should justify its inclusion. With a story, the criteria are usually straightforward: Is it interesting, or does it lead to something interesting (including something else more interesting)? Ideally both, but consistently maintaining that is quite a challenge....

Whether an explanation is "needed" is a supporting factor at best. Simply having an explanation isn't sufficient to warrant including that explanation in a story. Having a story is not a valid excuse to dump every bit of worldbuilding notes onto the page verbatim. If it's not interesting, it needs to be made interesting; if it can't, either it should be left out or the author should try harder to make it interesting. And if drawing the subjective line between those last two was easy, I'm not sure we'd have questions like the main ones here....

[D.One]

Or, as The Giant has put it:

And that, that Giant's quote has beauty in its simplicity, not some pet theory "because I said so, you can't disprove it."

[Ruck]

Yes. An explanation takes up space. Space that could have been used for something else. So like anything else in a story, an explanation should justify its inclusion. With a story, the criteria are usually straightforward: Is it interesting, or does it lead to something interesting (including something else more interesting)? Ideally both, but consistently maintaining that is quite a challenge....

Whether an explanation is "needed" is a supporting factor at best. Simply having an explanation isn't sufficient to warrant including that explanation in a story. Having a story is not a valid excuse to dump every bit of worldbuilding notes onto the page verbatim. If it's not interesting, it needs to be made interesting; if it can't, either it should be left out or the author should try harder to make it interesting. And if drawing the subjective line between those last two was easy, I'm not sure we'd have questions like the main ones here....

Frankly, when it comes down to it, I still believe David Mamet's maxim that "backstory is bull****."

Backstory only matters to the degree it affects a character's motivations and actions. To use the topic of conversation that started this very thread as an example, since Miko is the character in this story, all we need to know about her parents is how being orphaned affected her and the decisions she makes. We don't need to know anything more about them, and we certainly don't need to contrive a list of assumptions that lead to a scenario where her being orphaned is unrealistic.

[georgie_leech]

Frankly, when it comes down to it, I still believe David Mamet's maxim that "backstory is bull****."

Backstory only matters to the degree it affects a character's motivations and actions. To use the topic of conversation that started this very thread as an example, since Miko is the character in this story, all we need to know about her parents is how being orphaned affected her and the decisions she makes. We don't need to know anything more about them, and we certainly don't need to contrive a list of assumptions that lead to a scenario where her being orphaned is unrealistic.

As an aside, thank you for so eloquently setting out why I dislike so many D&D character backstories: they're focusing on the previous "cool stuff" instead of using it to inform future decisions.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

As an aside, thank you for so eloquently setting out why I dislike so many D&D character backstories: they're focusing on the previous "cool stuff" instead of using it to inform future decisions.

A D&D character backstory, IMnpHO should only do two things: 1) explain why they are in whatever opening scenario of the campaign (i.e. why they are in that tavern/noble's court/caravan) and 2) why they are in a position to go on adventures. Some kind of tragedy will tend to be necessary (well adjusted people with solid prospects don't go on adventures), but I find it best if they've been passive and that this is the first time they are taking active steps. I like to also manufacture a few explanations for the mechanics of the character (especially feats), but that is probably too much, in all honesty.

The basis of this, of course, is the adage that "the story should be about the most interesting part of the characters' life, because otherwise, why aren't you telling that story instead", except here you need to manufacture why this will be the start of said interesting times, and the switch from passive to active is the most obvious moment to do so.

Grey Wolf

[Lacuna Caster]

Obviously the popular answer isn't always the correct one, but you've made numerous posts about numerous inconsistencies you've seen, and not once do I ever remember your reading of it being anywhere near acceptance.

I've seen no convincing arguments against the bulk of the points made in the early-strip-and-sapphire-guard thread. And oddly enough, it is now generally accepted that Miko was not, in fact, Shojo's adoptive daughter, despite numerous vocal protests that she somehow must have been. You will forgive my skepticism about the wisdom of this particular crowd.

That's not a particularly compelling reason. If you find an explanation that is technically possible but highly improbable, and it doesn't satisfy you, pick one of the other ones.

But what's so improbable about it, relatively speaking? The alternative is that the Gods (A) treat clerics and paladins radically differently for no obvious reason, (B) set out a code of conduct for paladins which is A-okay with everything Gin-Jun and his predecessors do, but not Miko, (C) set out a voting arrangement for clerics which means they're almost impossible to fire, and (D) have a good reason to both never communicate with Miko to correct her misperceptions, or her city to warn them about Xykon.

If we're just concocting ad-hoc explanations that have no actual textual support in an effort to reconcile disparate observations, "the Gods are random douchebags" doesn't strike me as drastically less likely then the chained likelihood of all of the above. If we have to support our theories based on actual data and a confidence that actors involved will behave more-or-less rationally, well... this cuts both ways.

[Keltest]

But what's so improbable about it, relatively speaking? The alternative is that the Gods (A) treat clerics and paladins radically differently for no obvious reason, (B) set out a code of conduct for paladins which is A-okay with everything Gin-Jun and his predecessors do, but not Miko, (C) set out a voting arrangement for clerics which means they're almost impossible to fire, and (D) have a good reason to both never communicate with Miko to correct her misperceptions, or her city to warn them about Xykon.

If we're just concocting ad-hoc explanations that have no actual textual support in an effort to reconcile disparate observations, "the Gods are random douchebags" doesn't strike me as drastically less likely then the chained likelihood of all of the above. If we have to support our theories based on actual data and a confidence that actors involved will behave more-or-less rationally, well... this cuts both ways.

A: No reason besides the fact that they ARE different?
B: Per the Giant's statements, we cant assume that other paladins didn't fall just because it didn't happen on screen. Again, this is a problem with your assumptions, not the story. Also, I haven't read HTPGHS, so don't expect any specific response to anything from that, at least from me
C: Yes, that's sort of the point of presenting a unified front as a pantheon: to be unified.
D: There is literally one example, ever, of a god contacting a "mortal" directly in this manner, and Hel is heavily implied to have a massive disregard for the rules except for how she can make them serve her.

[hamishspence]

it is now generally accepted that Miko was not, in fact, Shojo's adoptive daughter, despite numerous vocal protests that she somehow must have been. You will forgive my skepticism about the wisdom of this particular crowd.

The Giant made it clear that Miko was basically Shojo's ward,

First, this is not that complicated:

Spoiler: How the Paladin Got His Scar

Show

Miko is not legally Shojo's daughter, but he did "adopt" her in the sense of taking her under his wing and mentoring her. As was mentioned in the main comic, she was only 13 at the time, so she would have been living under his roof rather than being on her own. As a result, both Miko and Hinjo were told to think of each other as cousins. As adults, they no longer see each other in that light, because they are not actually cousins and Miko's general behavior in the interim has already brought strain to that relationship. I'm sure they had a big falling out at some point, but that's not what the story was about so I didn't show it. And to be clear, I don't feel like I need to spell this out in the text just so that everyone can feel like all the dots connect.

and ever since then, I've used that term, rather than "adoptive daughter".

[Ruck]

The gods treat clerics and paladins "radically differently for no obvious reason" in the same sense that I treat my doctor and my accountant "radically differently for no obvious reason."

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The gods treat clerics and paladins "radically differently for no obvious reason" in the same sense that I treat my doctor and my accountant "radically differently for no obvious reason."

I'd go with "general practitioner and brain surgeon", myself. They are very technically in the same business, but their jobs couldn't be any more different.

Grey Wolf

[Peelee]

I've seen no convincing arguments against the bulk of the points made in the early-strip-and-sapphire-guard thread. And oddly enough, it is now generally accepted that Miko was not, in fact, Shojo's adoptive daughter, despite numerous vocal protests that she somehow must have been. You will forgive my skepticism about the wisdom of this particular crowd.

Please let me know, preferably with links, if I'm wrong, but so far as I remember, you were the one who was the most gung-ho on Miko being Shojo's adoptive daughter (mostly due to the implications thereof which you saw inconsistencies in).

[Lacuna Caster]

The Giant made it clear that Miko was basically Shojo's ward...

This is not the impression that the large majority of readers were under, and I do not think it is the impression that the author was trying to convey. The audience were apparently convinced that Miko was, for all intents and purposes, Shojo's legal child. They were wrong.

A: No reason besides the fact that they ARE different?
B: Per the Giant's statements, we cant assume that other paladins didn't fall just because it didn't happen on screen. Again, this is a problem with your assumptions, not the story. Also, I haven't read HTPGHS, so don't expect any specific response to anything from that, at least from me
C: Yes, that's sort of the point of presenting a unified front as a pantheon: to be unified.
D: There is literally one example, ever, of a god contacting a "mortal" directly in this manner, and Hel is heavily implied to have a massive disregard for the rules except for how she can make them serve her.

(A) Yes, they are different. The clerics get more power, so their responsibilities should logically be stricter.
(B) Never mind individual paladins 'making mistakes'. I'm not assuming anything to say that the Gods could have halted Gin-Jun's actions at any time by giving him a bolt of blue lightning to the face. They never do.
(C) And what is so 'disunified' about 'we will abide by a majority vote'?
(D) This a swiss-cheese argument.

[Ruck]

I'd go with "general practitioner and brain surgeon", myself. They are very technically in the same business, but their jobs couldn't be any more different.

Grey Wolf

Sure, that works too. I wasn't going for an exact metaphor, just a situation where two professionals were in my employ, but their responsibilities, expectations, professional ethics, and codes of conduct were quite different, by definition.

In other words, this was true when I wrote it four weeks ago, and it's true today:

A more accurate framing, from the other side, is that your argument against "Clerics and Paladins are held to different standards" is "Well, I don't think they should be."

[martianmister]

Well, the most important difference between them is their priorities: Clerics serve their god's will, while paladins serve goodness itself. Problem is that Miko and many SG members seem closer to clerics than paladins.

[Lacuna Caster]

In other words, this was true when I wrote it four weeks ago, and it's true today:

Then what, exactly is your argument against "the Gods are random douchebags"? You don't think they ought to be?

[hamishspence]

This is not the impression that the large majority of readers were under, and I do not think it is the impression that the author was trying to convey. The audience were apparently convinced that Miko was, for all intents and purposes, Shojo's legal child.

The author was IMO trying to convey the same message that was provided in War & XPs commentary - that Miko was plucked from obscurity to the heights of power in Azure City - (which is why Hinjo thinks Miko's influence will counter his).

I'm not assuming anything to say that the Gods could have halted Gin-Jun's actions at any time by giving him a bolt of blue lightning to the face. They never do.

The gods cannot make a paladin fall, for any reason other than the reasons the PHB gives for a paladin falling.

Changing alignment.
Grossly violating The Code.
Committing an Evil Act.

[Keltest]

Then what, exactly is your argument against "the Gods are random douchebags"? You don't think they ought to be?

It dramatically weakens the story if Miko's Fall, and by extension the fall of Azure City, is actually just because the Twelve Gods are jerks instead of because of the character flaws of Miko and the various forces in play.

Again, if something is technically possible unsatisfying, pick a different set of assumptions. If you think it makes sense, theres nothing stopping you from believing it.

[Ruck]

Well, the most important difference between them is their priorities: Clerics serve their god's will, while paladins serve goodness itself.

And yet, Lacuna's big objection is "the Twelve Gods should have made Tsukiko lose her cleric powers for not serving Goodness! This is a plot hole!"

(But, yes, what you have said is essentially a rewording of my point that Clerics and Paladins have different responsibilities and expectations from one another. Thus, they also have different standards of conduct and professional ethics to follow.)

Problem is that Miko and many SG members seem closer to clerics than paladins.

The descent of the Sapphire Guard's morals and ethics in pursuit of their mission doesn't mean it's a "plot hole" when an Evil cleric keeps her powers, though.

[Lacuna Caster]

The author was IMO trying to convey the same message that was provided in War & XPs commentary - that Miko was plucked from obscurity to the heights of power in Azure City - (which is why Hinjo thinks Miko's influence will counter his).

Unfortunately, as I pointed out before, Miko isn't especially rich, doesn't have an especially lofty title, doesn't have the family name or ever refer to Shojo or Hinjo as familymembers. There's no reason to consider her Hinjo's equal or part of the royal family.

The gods cannot make a paladin fall, for any reason other than the reasons the PHB gives for a paladin falling.

Which I would believe, if there any sign that Gin-Jun wasn't flagrantly evil.

It dramatically weakens the story if Miko's Fall, and by extension the fall of Azure City, is actually just because the Twelve Gods are jerks instead of because of the character flaws of Miko and the various forces in play.

But the Gods are behaving like jerks with no clear rhyme or reason to their actions anyway. I'm sorry that the author wrote them this way, but that's how it shakes out.

And yet, Lacuna's big objection is "the Twelve Gods should have made Tsukiko lose her cleric powers for not serving Goodness...

Again, no. The bigger problem is that Tsukiko is effectively working toward killing her own metaphysical employers. That's not a trivial detail to resolve.

[hamishspence]

The audience were apparently convinced that Miko was, for all intents and purposes, Shojo's legal child. They were wrong.

Mostly because Hinjo actually used the phrase "adoptive daughter". It's not the audience's fault that Hinjo, as a kid, has a slightly mistaken impression of the situation.

And even without being technically correct - the basic point - that Miko has a great deal of "soft political power" is still true.

Which I would believe, if there any sign that Gin-Jun wasn't flagrantly evil.

As the Deva pointed out, "battling Evil without compensation" + "very few truly evil acts - all of which are too minor to blip the Malev-O-Meter" qualifies one as Good:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0490.html

Tsukiko is effectively working toward killing her own metaphysical employers. That's not a trivial detail to resolve.

She's not "in-on" The Plan, and right after she finds out its exact nature, she gets killed. So she never has a chance to consciously "work toward threatening her employers"

[martianmister]

And yet, Lacuna's big objection is "the Twelve Gods should have made Tsukiko lose her cleric powers for not serving Goodness! This is a plot hole!"

(But, yes, what you have said is essentially a rewording of my point that Clerics and Paladins have different responsibilities and expectations from one another. Thus, they also have different standards of conduct and professional ethics to follow.

The descent of the Sapphire Guard's morals and ethics in pursuit of their mission doesn't mean it's a "plot hole" when an Evil cleric keeps her powers, though.

Last time I checked, I wasn't Lacuna.

[Lacuna Caster]

Please let me know, preferably with links, if I'm wrong, but so far as I remember, you were the one who was the most gung-ho on Miko being Shojo's adoptive daughter (mostly due to the implications thereof which you saw inconsistencies in).

Probably here, for what it's worth. The arguments I was mostly hearing appeared to be "yes, she's legally his daughter, she just never talks about it".

Mostly because Hinjo actually used the phrase "adoptive daughter". It's not the audience's fault that Hinjo, as a kid, has a slightly mistaken impression of the situation.

But what impression was the author trying to give by having Hinjo be mistaken? That Miko was even more monstrous than she already looked in the main story? Not enough that she kills her master, she has to kill her father too?

[hamishspence]

That Miko's feelings of betrayal:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0406.html

are at least partly rooted in the fact that Shojo was a father figure to her, at least on some level, thanks to her time as his ward.

And that they were close enough for a time, for people like Hinjo to be able to think of her as an adoptive daughter.

[Rrmcklin]

Part of Lacuna's issues seems to be that Clerics get more benefits, but with more leeway. Though I'm not sure why that's particularly surprising since Clerics potentially have a much wider scope than Paladins. Especially in a set up like the Twelve Gods have, as has been stated repeatedly, more leeway for Clerics becomes a necessity for "whole pantheon worship".

[woweedd]

This is not the impression that the large majority of readers were under, and I do not think it is the impression that the author was trying to convey. The audience were apparently convinced that Miko was, for all intents and purposes, Shojo's legal child. They were wrong.


(A) Yes, they are different. The clerics get more power, so their responsibilities should logically be stricter.
(B) Never mind individual paladins 'making mistakes'. I'm not assuming anything to say that the Gods could have halted Gin-Jun's actions at any time by giving him a bolt of blue lightning to the face. They never do.
(C) And what is so 'disunified' about 'we will abide by a majority vote'?
(D) This a swiss-cheese argument.

A. Not how that works.
B. They...did. Every indication is that he DID Fall.
C. It's not a majority vote. It's a unanimous vote. They need all members ot agree, or they'r egridlocked.
D. I don't know what you mean.

[Ruck]

Last time I checked, I wasn't Lacuna.

Well, given that Lacuna created the thread and that my metaphor was a direct refutation of a contention Lacuna has made over and over... OK? I don't know why you not being Lacuna matters when we're talking about a major point of contention Lacuna has made over and over and you're offering your input?

Part of Lacuna's issues seems to be that Clerics get more benefits, but with more leeway. Though I'm not sure why that's particularly surprising since Clerics potentially have a much wider scope than Paladins. Especially in a set up like the Twelve Gods have, as has been stated repeatedly, more leeway for Clerics becomes a necessity for "whole pantheon worship".

And even that issue seems to be more with the rules of Dungeons and Dragons, but being reframed as plot holes in The Order of the Stick.

[hamishspence]

Tsukiko is effectively working toward killing her own metaphysical employers.

She doesn't know anything about The Snarl until Xykon gives her his half of the ritual.

And, as Thor points out:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1137.html

the gods are forbidden (by mutual agreement) from telling even their own clerics about the Snarl, unless the clerics have already found out some other way.