Why are Miko's parents dead?

[Lacuna Caster]

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.

I would be more sympathetic to this argument if the rules of D&D were being enforced in OOTS with any particular consistency. But they aren't, particularly when it comes to the finer points of the paladin code. You don't get to say 'paladins are judged by different standards' when nothing in the primary text suggests that paladins-beside-Miko are held to any discernible standards at all.

(And yes, hamish, I know, 'maybe some of them fell off-panel.' The commanders, such as Gin-Jun, evidently never did, or they wouldn't be commanders very long. What's their excuse for massacre of civilians as being non-evil? "I was only issuing orders?")

...as has been stated repeatedly, more leeway for Clerics becomes a necessity for "whole pantheon worship".

Why is it a necessity? To the extent that the pantheon has a wide variety of clashing agendas- including evil ones- why would the "zero evil tolerance" paladins consent to worship one or more evil Gods? How does that work, exactly? "Oh, Twelve Gods, hear my prayer, please stop fueling the unholy magics of the witch who keeps raining death on my people and raising their corpses as deathless thralls. Sincerely, Thanh?"

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

But why would her employers care? If one of my hypothetical employees kept shredding tax records, I wouldn't care if she thought they were disposable, I'd just want her to stop.

[martianmister]

But why would her employers care? If one of my hypothetical employees kept shredding tax records, I wouldn't care if she thought they were disposable, I'd just want her to stop.

Actually, Tsukiko's actions as a wild force weren't exactly bad for Twelve gods' interests, as her rivalry with Redcloak worsen X and R's alliance and undermined Redcloak's puppet show.

[Rrmcklin]

But why would her employers care? If one of my hypothetical employees kept shredding tax records, I wouldn't care if she thought they were disposable, I'd just want her to stop.

Because holding knowledge Tsukiko has no way of knowing against her makes no sense, and if their own rules prevent them from telling her any of this, well, they're just out of luck. Maybe they could have done something if someone actually got around to explaining the Snarl stuff to Tsukiko, but that didn't happen.

All of this goes back to the gods not micromanaging their Clerics.

[martianmister]

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?

And you quoted me because? Do I look like messenger-girl?

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?

It matters because I can't answer your points when those points had nothing to do with me.

[Peelee]

I would be more sympathetic to this argument if the rules of D&D were being enforced in OOTS with any particular consistency. But they aren't, particularly when it comes to the finer points of the paladin code. You don't get to say 'paladins are judged by different standards' when nothing in the primary text suggests that paladins-beside-Miko are held to any discernible standards at all.

(And yes, hamish, I know, 'maybe some of them fell off-panel.' The commanders, such as Gin-Jun, evidently never did, or they wouldn't be commanders very long.

Spoiler: Scar

Show

Five gold says Gin-Jun absolutely fell when he stabbed Zhou Bo.

But why would her employers care? If one of my hypothetical employees kept shredding tax records, I wouldn't care if she thought they were disposable, I'd just want her to stop.

I love this example, because if she needed unanimous board approval to get rid of her and one board member had incriminating stuff she was shredding or ridiculous conspiracy theories about the IRS or anything like that, you ain't getting the green light to fire her. Sure, it's terrible and she should stop and be held accountable, but that board member likes her and wants to keep her on the payroll.

[martianmister]

Spoiler: Scar

Show

Five gold says Gin-Jun absolutely fell when he stabbed Zhou Bo.

Spoiler

Show

Because humans matter more than hobgoblins?

[Peelee]

Spoiler

Show

Because humans matter more than hobgoblins?

Spoiler:

Show

Because he had the pretense of justification for the hobgoblins, let alone the fact that they were at the very least armed. A thin veil apparently protects them, but I have no reason to assume no veil at all does the same.

[Ruck]

And you quoted me because? Do I look like messenger-girl?

I quoted you because you answered me! Why did you quote me, then?

It matters because I can't answer your points when those points had nothing to do with me.

You don't have to answer my points because it seems obvious you are not in disagreement with them. I thought that would have been clear from, like, reading the posts and their context in the greater conversation rather than treating each one as completely separate and independent. I'm not sure why you think I was looking for you to answer my points when I wrote "what you have said is essentially a rewording of my point."

[georgie_leech]

You don't have to answer my points because it seems obvious you are not in disagreement with them. I thought that would have been clear from, like, reading the posts and their context in the greater conversation rather than treating each one as completely separate and independent. I'm not sure why you think I was looking for you to answer my points when I wrote "what you have said is essentially a rewording of my point."

Sometimes people only quote when they are in disagreement, rather than when providing context generally. So sometimes quoting can be read as "I disagree with this quoted post and want to refute and/or clarify my point."

[TidePriestess]

I will agree that, technically, the difference between Miko's and Tsukiko's treatments is simply the ludicrous unfairness of the D&D rules, that give clerics much more leeway despite them being much more powerful. Of course, given that Rat was said to be "furious" about Azure City's fall, one might wonder why he didn't drop a line to Tsukiko about that, since it wasn't to do with the Snarl.

I will admit, one of the major reasons I like Miko is that she specifically didn't put up with the Order's crap.

[Keltest]

I will agree that, technically, the difference between Miko's and Tsukiko's treatments is simply the ludicrous unfairness of the D&D rules, that give clerics much more leeway despite them being much more powerful. Of course, given that Rat was said to be "furious" about Azure City's fall, one might wonder why he didn't drop a line to Tsukiko about that, since it wasn't to do with the Snarl.

I will admit, one of the major reasons I like Miko is that she specifically didn't put up with the Order's crap.

As far as the rules go, the cleric class has fewer restrictions baked in because its up to each god to define what behavior they do or do not find appropriate. A god of nature for example would probably be ticked if you went around using flame strike and setting forest fires all the time, for example, while a god of fire would probably think that's hilarious. Being a cleric of a pantheon gives them a bit more leeway, but the 12 gods are a little unusual in that theyre a united pantheon that covers pretty much all the alignments to some degree. Most settings don't have gods with such wildly differing values willing to operate together like that, instead acting more like the northern pantheon and being split along alignment and value lines.

[Kish]

I don't know, Peelee. Veering off-topic is hardly unusual, and hundreds of pages have been devoted to class-and-geekery analysis for a ruleset the author freely ignores. I suppose I was hoping that at some point, someone might suggest that the author was human and probably made a mistake, or at least didn't foresee how incongruous certain elements of the text would appear. Because that honestly seems, to me, the more likely explanation.

Lots of people have criticized the author. For example: For having vastly more male characters than female ones, for writing Haley as a misogynist, for making a joke which evoked the idea of a trans prostitute.

It's when you instead look at a character, a Neutral Evil cleric, of a pantheon which, almost by definition, has Good, Neutral, and Evil members, who allies with a lich and helps conquer a major city--something entirely within standard tolerances for a D&D game or a story, which is familiar to lots of people who have played D&D--and declare that, since a paladin who worshiped the same pantheon fell for murdering her liege lord, the Neutral Evil cleric should have fallen as well, and declare the fact that she didn't a plot hole. And instead of acknowledging how goofy this idea is, you cling to it like a proverbial dog with a bone, declaring over and over that the pantheon in question just must have unanimously hated any action taken to make the city fall, gradually (and without acknowledging that change) modifying what you say she should have fallen for over time until it finally reaches saying that she was helping Redcloak (someone she fought against constantly) with a plan to kill all the Twelve Gods (which is recognizable as Redcloak's plan only to you). People who are being downright excessively generous to you attempt to engage with and explain the plot hole you've made up; you brush them off with mockery.

That?

Is not merely asking people to concede that the author is human.

In fact, while I'm not going to search through the prior posts in this thread, I have a memory of you saying that Rich "foolishly" described the fight where Miko beat up the Order. Apparently you're not only not at all interested in engaging with the story here as a story, good or bad, you're taking for granted that everyone should be looking at what Rich says with the attitude that he has the right to remain silent, and anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law.

[TidePriestess]

Lots of people have criticized the author. For example: For having vastly more male characters than female ones, for writing Haley as a misogynist, for making a joke which evoked the idea of a trans prostitute.

It's when you instead look at a character, a Neutral Evil cleric, of a pantheon which, almost by definition, has Good, Neutral, and Evil members, who allies with a lich and helps conquer a major city--something entirely within standard tolerances for a D&D game or a story, which is familiar to lots of people who have played D&D--and declare that, since a paladin who worshiped the same pantheon fell for murdering her liege lord, the Neutral Evil cleric should have fallen as well, and declare the fact that she didn't a plot hole. And instead of acknowledging how goofy this idea is, you cling to it like a proverbial dog with a bone, declaring over and over that the pantheon in question just must have unanimously hated any action taken to make the city fall, gradually (and without acknowledging that change) modifying what you say she should have fallen for over time until it finally reaches saying that she was helping Redcloak (someone she fought against constantly) with a plan to kill all the Twelve Gods (which is recognizable as Redcloak's plan only to you). People who are being downright excessively generous to you attempt to explain the plot hole you've made up; you brush them off with mockery.

That?

Is not merely asking people to concede that the author is human.

In fact, while I'm not going to search through the prior posts in this thread, I have a memory of you saying that Rich "foolishly" described the fight where Miko beat up the Order. Apparently you're not only not at all interested in engaging with the story here as a story, good or bad, you're taking for granted that everyone should be looking at what Rich says with the attitude that he has the right to remain silent, and anything he says can and will be used against him in a court of law.

I think the major problem is having the Twelve Gods smite Miko. That was not in the D&D rules; indeed, gods and paladins are deliberately separate there, and having them show up there introduces unnecessary confusion for the sake of spiting Miko further.

[Kish]

While I don't think "pissed off the Twelve Gods" is worse for Miko than "committed an evil act or gross violation of the paladin code," I agree that it's unfortunate that Rich depicted the gods as involved in a paladin's fall.

[Keltest]

While I don't think "pissed off the Twelve Gods" is worse for Miko than "committed an evil act or gross violation of the paladin code," I agree that it's unfortunate that Rich depicted the gods as involved in a paladin's fall.

Its not without reason. Besides helping to reinforce just how completely wrong and self deluding Miko was, it is also far clearer to depict the Twelve Gods doing something than it is the cosmic forces of Law and Good. Furthermore, the very idea of the Sapphire Guard, and Miko in particular, is divine empowerment for a goal, and that power sometimes going to their heads and causing profound errors.

[Rrmcklin]

Since this thread sort of moved away from it's opening topic awhile ago, I'm just going to say that a lot of these complaints (some I agree with, others not so much) just originate from this starting out as a gag serious, and the attempts to transition from purely that (even though the comedy is obviously still there) and something much more serious with serious themes not always succeeding for various reasons.

I think that's what a lot of the issues with Miko, Belkar, etc come from. That and, in general, the humor was very much "look at this ragtag gang, each of which is to various degrees insufferable for your amusement". That kind of comedy isn't for everyone (I'm actually pretty indifferent to it myself), so I can imagine if you find yourself more annoyed by that it would be more difficult to understand why someone like Miko would be considered annoying.

All that being said, just because some complaints are justified doesn't mean certain people argue them in a particularly compelling or appreciable way. That's why I've sort of just decided to start ignoring TidePriestess and Lacuna Caster. They don't really seem interested in explaining/defending their points so much as just declaring them.

[hamishspence]

Its not without reason. Besides helping to reinforce just how completely wrong and self deluding Miko was, it is also far clearer to depict the Twelve Gods doing something than it is the cosmic forces of Law and Good.

Yup - The Giant explained in War & XPs why this was - comic strips are a visual medium, and it serves the story better to make Miko's fall very visible.

[Ruck]

Sometimes people only quote when they are in disagreement, rather than when providing context generally. So sometimes quoting can be read as "I disagree with this quoted post and want to refute and/or clarify my point."

I was probably more harsh in tone than I needed to be, but I thought my point was pretty clear and I got a response out of line with it. I'm probably also just frustrated with how often it seems like I get responses that don't consider the full context of the conversation in which I made the comment.

[Liquor Box]

I'm going to join the club of people who do not think that Miko was badly written, or that she failed as an antagonist.

I don't think it matters whether or not she was good, or more good than much of the party (whether by the rules, or by anyone's own moral code). Some stories are fairy tales where all the good guys get happy endings and all the bad guys get karmic retribution. This story is not one of them. There's nothing wrong with stories where good vs evil is more nuanced, or even when the bad guys are the protagonists (eg Breaking Bad, the Sopranos or Sons of Anarchy). It may be that the people who think Miko did not fit into her role as an antagonist simply dislike the type of story where it is not simple good vs evil.

For Miko to work as an antagonist though, most readers have to prefer the protagonists to her. I think they do without a doubt - there was a poll on this forum a we way back. I think Belkar made the top four, and Miko didn't get a mention.

The Order's reaction to Miko also has to be believable. I saw a suggestion a few pages back that it was not plausible that the Order would have reacted to Miko the way they did, because Miko was less objectionable than several members of the Order. That is of course subjective, and it is for the Giant to decide waht each of the protagonist's subjective opinion was (and he did that). Personally, I think it is entirely likely that the Order would not like Miko, because the very first thing she did when she met them was attack them and then take the prisoner.

[Ruck]

I'm going to join the club of people who do not think that Miko was badly written, or that she failed as an antagonist.

I don't think it matters whether or not she was good, or more good than much of the party (whether by the rules, or by anyone's own moral code). Some stories are fairy tales where all the good guys get happy endings and all the bad guys get karmic retribution. This story is not one of them. There's nothing wrong with stories where good vs evil is more nuanced, or even when the bad guys are the protagonists (eg Breaking Bad, the Sopranos or Sons of Anarchy). It may be that the people who think Miko did not fit into her role as an antagonist simply dislike the type of story where it is not simple good vs evil.

For Miko to work as an antagonist though, most readers have to prefer the protagonists to her. I think they do without a doubt - there was a poll on this forum a we way back. I think Belkar made the top four, and Miko didn't get a mention.

The Order's reaction to Miko also has to be believable. I saw a suggestion a few pages back that it was not plausible that the Order would have reacted to Miko the way they did, because Miko was less objectionable than several members of the Order. That is of course subjective, and it is for the Giant to decide waht each of the protagonist's subjective opinion was (and he did that). Personally, I think it is entirely likely that the Order would not like Miko, because the very first thing she did when she met them was attack them and then take the prisoner.

The last paragraph, particularly the bolded, is what matters to me. This is what I mean when I say I prefer a character-based story to a moral lesson, when I say I am interested in what makes a narrative work as a story. I need the protagonists to behave in a plausible manner (and for the consequences of their actions, and their responses to such, to be plausible as well). And, as your last sentence notes quite plainly and directly, it is very plausible that the members of the Order, even the Good ones, would not like Miko.

[TidePriestess]

Since this thread sort of moved away from it's opening topic awhile ago, I'm just going to say that a lot of these complaints (some I agree with, others not so much) just originate from this starting out as a gag serious, and the attempts to transition from purely that (even though the comedy is obviously still there) and something much more serious with serious themes not always succeeding for various reasons.

I think that's what a lot of the issues with Miko, Belkar, etc come from. That and, in general, the humor was very much "look at this ragtag gang, each of which is to various degrees insufferable for your amusement". That kind of comedy isn't for everyone (I'm actually pretty indifferent to it myself), so I can imagine if you find yourself more annoyed by that it would be more difficult to understand why someone like Miko would be considered annoying.

All that being said, just because some complaints are justified doesn't mean certain people argue them in a particularly compelling or appreciable way. That's why I've sort of just decided to start ignoring TidePriestess and Lacuna Caster. They don't really seem interested in explaining/defending their points so much as just declaring them.

What points would you like to have expanded?

[D.One]

For the enormous () inconsistencies cast here, I really expect the far superior story The Gang of the Branch to be made some day. There, the gods will be absolutely fair in their taking and giving of powers, no one will consider Shogo good or think he somehow adopted Niko, and Hulga Icehorn will be recognized as the true and pure hero she is...

[Rrmcklin]

I'll also point out (though it's probably already been mentioned) that moral character and likeability are not synonymous. You're more likely to find someone the latter if you approve of the former, but that's no means a given.

Take Belkar and Miko, for example. Even at her worse she was never a worse person than Belkar, but he was personable in a way that Miko was never shown to be. Belkar could joke around, have fun conversations, celebrate with the party, etc. The problem, of course, being that at a moments notice that he could go from that to wanting to kill whoever he was talking to (something we've seen at least once).

And you could say that this isn't rational or fair, or whatever, and you might have a point. But, well, who people find personable isn't (entirely) a rational decision. And again, this isn't to dismiss any sexism in how Miko was written, but even without that it really isn't some big mystery why people wouldn't like spending time with her.

[TidePriestess]

I'll also point out (though it's probably already been mentioned) that moral character and likeability are not synonymous. You're more likely to find someone the latter if you approve of the former, but that's no means a given.

Take Belkar and Miko, for example. Even at her worse she was never a worse person than Belkar, but he was personable in a way that Miko was never shown to be. Belkar could joke around, have fun conversations, celebrate with the party, etc. The problem, of course, being that at a moments notice that he could go from that to wanting to kill whoever he was talking to (something we've seen at least once).

And you could say that this isn't rational or fair, or whatever, and you might have a point. But, well, who people find personable isn't (entirely) a rational decision. And again, this isn't to dismiss any sexism in how Miko was written, but even without that it really isn't some big mystery why people wouldn't like spending time with her.

Belkar's misogyny is such that I'm quite sure I could never tolerate his presence IRL. He's only "personable" in a distinctly biased way.

[Rrmcklin]

Also, also on Belkar, it's not even that the Order actually did like spending time with him.

Really, in this situation is like "You can like spending time with people you acknowledge as bad" (although that is true) and more "Being a good person doesn't automatically mean you like spending time with someone".

[hamishspence]

Both Belkar and Roy use inappropriate language, but you never see either of them actually sneering at women for being women, or suggesting that men make better adventurers, or anything like that.

[Liquor Box]

Belkar's misogyny is such that I'm quite sure I could never tolerate his presence IRL. He's only "personable" in a distinctly biased way.

And if you were a character in OotS then you could make the decision to not associate with him and to prefer Miko instead. But that doesn't invalidate the fact that the Order made a different decision.

[Rrmcklin]

Both Belkar and Roy use inappropriate language, but you never see either of them actually sneering at women for being women, or suggesting that men make better adventurers, or anything like that.

I'll add that with Haley. It's unfortunate that so much of her banter with female villains came down to slut-shaming insults, but that's not the same thing as Haley hating all women, as TidePriestess implied several times.

To be clear, I'm not saying how Haley was written before wasn't bad, just trying to be more accurate.

I'm trying to be careful not to make this seem like I'm going "well, it wasn't that bad...." as often happens with discussions like this.

[KorvinStarmast]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0231.html

Till that moment, Miko was no more mean than most of the Order. Sure Belkar, Haley and Vaarsuvius dislike her, but it was Elan's calling her "mean" that crossed the line that puts her the antagonist box.

At that point, I liked Miko more than I cared for Elan. Elan is a dangerous personality type in my first career (Navy, 20+ years): a likeable idiot who is engaged in a dangerous profession. People like that get other people killed in real life. My reaction to Elan is informed by my own life experience. It took a long time (in terms of reading strips of OoTS) for me to not react to Elan's presence in a strip with a sigh of resignation.

That isn't Rich's fault: there are stories galore about likeable idiots that are very popular. That has to do with what I bring with me when I read the story. A great many readers will not have had my life experience, so they'll react to Elan differently.

Which brings us back to Miko and the reactions to that character. She is seen through whatever lens the reader has.

So Vice President is a meaningless position

I've met a few where that is sorta true. (but not most)

I don't know where you're getting this impression. It's precisely because Miko is in a position of considerable responsibility that one would expect the Gods to talk to her now and then.

As compared to Durkon (before he met Thor recently?) Shojo apparently gets little to no input from the Gods, and he has even more responsibilities than she.

(Note: Dangerous Profession for Elan isn't bard, it is adventurer. Also, I cannot recall a single strip where I thought that Elan showed any murderhobo tendencies. This is the first time I have thought that through, so thanks to all for this long conversation that got me to ask myself that question).

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.

See Alec Guinness, Bridge on the River Kwai.

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.

In D&D 3.5, Clerics are Tier 1, Paladins are not. *shrugs* The unfairness is built in.

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.

Supports my Tier 1 and other, though probably unintentional.

Actually, Tsukiko's actions as a wild force weren't exactly bad for Twelve gods' interests, as her rivalry with Redcloak worsen X and R's alliance and undermined Redcloak's puppet show.

The "Team Evil is one big happy family" theme was disabused back in book 1, I think. (Or was that in SoD?)

I will agree that, technically, the difference between Miko's and Tsukiko's treatments is simply the ludicrous unfairness of the D&D rules,

Tier 1 versus not Tier 1.

[Morty]

All else aside, I have to agree that the double standard applied to paladins versus clerics is pretty ridiculous. It becomes doubly so in OotS, where paladins directly serve gods, rather than the ideals of Law and Good. The 3E and earlier design of the paladin is an absolute minefield and I think Miko and the countless threads about her, including this one, illustrate it well. Just probably not in the manner the Giant has intended.