The art is actually surprisingly good, especially the expressions. Once you get used to it, you start appreciating the freedom it offers.
I also went on a week-long OotS Archive Binge- maybe that’s why I can’t stand Belkar; he’s much easier to take in separate installments, but when you see his entire history in one sitting, he’s much more annoying .
Miko was definitely created to represent the worst aspects of The Paladin class, since misplaying them as ruthless is one of the biggest mistakes D&D players commit. I disliked her too, but I still sort of understood where she was coming from, especially given all the grief Belkar gave her- even going so far as trying to trick her into killing him, just to cause her to lose her palandinhood! Tell me THAT’S not twisted! Also, her impulsively killing off Lord Shojo, based on little evidence, appointing herself Judge, Jury and Executioner, and DESPITE THE NEXT-IN-LINE RULER BEING RIGHT THERE, struck me as very forced, storywise. And of course, she died without getting the chance to redeem herself. I swear, the author can get really sadistic sometimes. (Of course, given how death works in the strip, she might yet return.)
And yeah, OotS definitely looks better than most other stick-figure comics I’ve seen. There’s been some pretty clever tricks, art-wise. Still, I can’t help but feel that the style is at least a partial cop-out, since it’s much easier to draw a weekly strip that way. There’s plenty of OotS fanart featuring more “realistic” takes on the characters floating around the net, anyway.
Belkar is the spirit of D&D incarnate.
Yeah, one of the criticisms of D&D is that many of its campaigns are all about killing monsters and taking their treasure. OotS has always lampshaded this. However, one thing that apparently nobody seems to be aware of is that, at least in the older versions of D&D, monsters could NOT change their alignment. Goblins, for example, are born evil, and unlike a PC, cannot change alignment through their deeds. (This was explained as being the influence of the Outer Planes on the Material Plane.) Thus, you might as well kill an entire goblin village, since they would never stop being a menace, even to each other. And you might as well take their stuff along the way.
This, however, doesn’t seem to apply to OotS, where even the cockroaches can talk, and even the Monster in the Dark seems to be changing his disposition. This makes the whole morality of the heroes questionable, and the characters themselves are beginning to doubt it. This is why kill-happy characters like Belkar bother me, and why I find the constant switching between cartoony humor and serious story disturbing. I appreciate the author exploring these themes, but dammit, stick to one style of storytelling!!
Belkar is supposed to bother you, and nothing says an author needs to stick to one style, especially when you have a comic that’s over 600 pages long. Hell, have you ever watched Fullmetal Alchemist? You’ve got cosmic horror and slapstick right next to each other. If it does both of them well, I find it to be more exciting and interesting than if they’d have concentrated on one or the other. Comedy without seriousness is fluffy, and super-serious shows are depressing and/or boring.
And the person the oracle predicted would die by belkar’s hand was himself, not Roy. The oracle was just trying to give Belkar a chance to defy the prophecy with some cop out “Well technically you killed Roy” story.
Belkar is supposed to bother you,
To the point I won’t even read his dialogue anymore? I hope that’s not the intention.
and nothing says an author needs to stick to one style, especially when you have a comic that’s over 600 pages long. Hell, have you ever watched Fullmetal Alchemist? You’ve got cosmic horror and slapstick right next to each other. If it does both of them well, I find it to be more exciting and interesting than if they’d have concentrated on one or the other. Comedy without seriousness is fluffy, and super-serious shows are depressing and/or boring.
Didn’t I make that point above? But in anycase: what bothers me is not to have both humor and tragedy in the same story; that happens in real life as well. It’s the switch in realism that drives me nuts. For example: right now, we’re going into Vaarsuvius’s “damnation” plotline; that’s pretty serious, and even disturbing when we see him use a Necromantic spell to KILL ALL THE DESCENDANTS AND RELATIVES of the Black Dragon who tried to kill his family; Then, just a few strips later, when they find themselves without the diamonds needed to resurrect Roy, what do they do? Have Haley CLIMB OUT OF THE PANEL AND GET THE DIAMOND SHE WAS HOLDING IN THE CHARACTER PAGE! :thud: I know it’s supposed to be funny, but HOW do you explain that in-story?? My fear is that the whole epic, after a LOT of posturing, might be resolved by a similar gag: "Hey Bad Guys, the Author called and said you have to lose. " “Oh, OK then.”
:no2:
And the person the oracle predicted would die by belkar’s hand was himself, not Roy.
The Question was: “will I cause the Death of the one of the following people: (mentions Roy and other characters)?” and the answer was just “Yes.” Belkar did not name himself in the question.
The oracle was just trying to give Belkar a chance to defy the prophecy with some cop out “Well technically you killed Roy” story.
I reeeeally doubt it; the oracle HATES Belkar -rightly so, since he knew Belkar was going to kill him- and even went so far as to arrange things to have his death activate Belkar’s Mark of Justice punishment. I’m pretty sure he will be very happy when Belkar bites it.
Speaking of the Mark of Justice, the one hope I have about Belkar ever improving is that pretending to be good (as suggested by his hallucination of Lord Shojo) WILL cause him to really change, and he himself might be surprised by his feelings, ala Earl in “My Name is Earl”. After all, given that Shojo was a shrewd manipulator (but a good person) I see his ghost manipulating Belkar by appealing to his own bloodlust in order to get him to improve as a person. I’m not betting money on it, though.
No, he killed the Oracle. That was what the prophecy was, and why the oracle tried to get belkar to defy it since, even though he had the resurrection scheduled, I’m pretty sure dying sucks. Meh… this is why I hate pronouns.
To the point I won’t even read his dialogue anymore? I hope that’s not the intention.
No, not to the point where you don’t read the dialogue, but maybe you’re just not getting the joke, or your sense of humor doesn’t jive with the author’s (and mine). I certainly don’t have the problems you do.
I know it’s supposed to be funny, but HOW do you explain that in-story??
I think your roots as comic-book fan are showing. 8p See, I never got as bothered about “canon” and “in-story explanations” as comic-book people seem to be. Part of OotS’s charm is its breaking the fourth wall, but it’s very difficult to do that and still be serious. So essentially what you’re saying is you like the fact that they break the fourth wall, and you don’t mind that they become serious, but you do mind that they suddenly stop breaking the fourth wall. None of that adds up. The humor of OotS is very much predicated on that fourth-wall breaking, so if you admit they’re allowed to change moods, then they should be allowed to insert that stuff wherever they like.
My fear is that the whole epic, after a LOT of posturing, might be resolved by a similar gag: "Hey Bad Guys, the Author called and said you have to lose. " “Oh, OK then.”
There’s a major difference between humor and cop-out. The diamond is an extremely minor piece of story, which is only in there because the actual D&D spell requires it. The author has never, to my recollection, used his fourth-wall-breaking to actually influence the plot in any major way, unless you count Elan’s abilities, which have more to do with being Genre Savvy than that.
No, not to the point where you don’t read the dialogue, but maybe you’re just not getting the joke, or your sense of humor doesn’t jive with the author’s (and mine). I certainly don’t have the problems you do.
Oh, I get the joke alright. I just don’t find it funny. Not that I mind if other people enjoy it- what I’m saying here is that I personally don’t like it, and explaining why. Which I have a right to express, just like everybody else. It should be noted however, that I’m FAR from the only person who hates Belkar; so my points aren’t just some quirks of mine; they’re valid. It’s up to the author to decide if he cares enough to deal with them, though.
I think your roots as comic-book fan are showing. 8p See, I never got as bothered about “canon” and “in-story explanations” as comic-book people seem to be.
C’mon, Cid, that is hardly just a comic book thing. Ever seen Star Trek or Star Wars fan argue?Heck, even Final Fantasy, whose series WERE supposed not to have any intercontinuity, has ended having flame wars between fans over the silliest details. Black kettles and all that.
There’s a major difference between humor and cop-out. The diamond is an extremely minor piece of story, which is only in there because the actual D&D spell requires it. The author has never, to my recollection, used his fourth-wall-breaking to actually influence the plot in any major way, unless you count Elan’s abilities, which have more to do with being Genre Savvy than that.
I disagree; Roy’s resurrection IS a major plot point, and since the story operates on “D&D Universe” rules, the diamond WAS important, and the author’s solving of it by breaking the 4th wall WAS a cop-out, though I agree it was the first I’ve seen that really mattered. Of course, we can handwave this away- as I mentioned above (does anyone bother to read my basic comments?) I deal with OotS by separating the strip (with all its meta-jokes) from the story in my mind. I do not demand that anybody else do the same… but when I start having problems doing even that, I think it’s a sign that the author (who is, you know, just human) fumbled. I can assume that V got another diamond from the plane of Earth (as he suggested) instead; or that this entire strip didn’t happen. But as a reader, I’m not the one who is supposed to come up with excuses, the author is. And if it happens too often, it affects my enjoyment of it, and I’m sure, many other readers as well. We’ll see…
Black kettles and all that.
I’ve never hung around Star Wars/Star Trek fans, but I have read some of your comic book reviews, so you can’t blame me for saying what I know. 8p And it’s far less common amongst Final Fantasy fans (maybe one in ten thousand are that far-out to discuss continuity).
Anyway, you know what this screams to me?
Seriously. It’s a webcomic that’s profoundly irreverent and still manages to have a serious, coherent story. If little things like that bug you that much, then yeah, you’re probably reading the wrong thing.
As for Belkar, have you ever read Looking for Group? It’ll probably give you an aneurysm. If that sort of humor isn’t up your alley, again, it’s not up your alley
It should be noted that the silly Deus Ex Character-Page gag is only in response to the existing Deus Ex Machina of the diamonds getting stolen. They had them, it wasn’t a problem that was solved by breaking the fourth, it was a problem that was created then solved again within a single strip to make V’s powers seem less useful.
As for the other complaint, I find Belkar an interesting, even crucial, part of the comic’s complex moral scheme. Most of the members of the OotS went around killing sentient creatures, as Redcloak eloquently explains, who had friends, families, aspirations and dreams, all because they gained experience and money, or got closer to other selfish goals, like vengeance. This is absolutely no different to the manner in which Belkar treats just about anything. The difference, theoretically, is that all of those goblins and such are “evil,” a line whose blurriness is exemplified by Miko’s decisions and actions.
Additionally, Belkar is a powerful fighting force (specifically, a sexy shoeless god of war), and his immense power is mostly put towards to cause of saving the world from destruction, a cause he sees in more utilitarian terms than others. In the interest of saving the world, Celia won’t kill, some won’t kill humans who aren’t fighting, and Belkar will kill anyone who will advance the goal. His monstrosity could be viewed as nothing more than a more pragmatic, egalitarian equivalent of what all the good characters are doing. There exists the possibility that his “evil” is merely a hypocritical judgment by the arbitrarily self-righteous, the same way all of the OotS was evil, in Miko’s eyes.
Cid: I don’t see how “Stop Having Fun Guys” applies here: I’m not claiming to be an expert on OotS (not more than anybody who has read the full strip, anyway) I’m not demanding anybody (much less the author) change his ways to please me, I’m not bothered by the fact other people like what I don’t, and I sure as heck am not ranting illogically. I’m simply explaining which parts of the series bother me, why they bother me, and what I’d wish the author would do so I could enjoy the series more fully. Same thing as everybody else does online.
…Although you make me realize something: one of the causes of flaming over things like this, is due to the fact that posters take things way too personally- as if just disagreeing with your views were a personal insult, or a threat to the series you like. Not you, mind, but people like the one I had the argument over at the OotS page on TVTropes. Ideally, conversations online should be like conversations in person- most of us do not give lip to strangers, if only not to sound like idiots ourselves. I guess being online does get some of us too involved.
Anyway: how about commenting instead on the things we agree- like the plot, art, characterization, and most of the other stuff I mentioned above? There ARE reasons I still follow OotS despite Belkar, you know.
And no, I don’t think I would like Looking for Group much either. I already decided that from reading its TV Tropes page; just as I discovered OotS thanks to it. It’s a great site to learn about Webcomics (and other stuff).
Arac: You are right, the author is questioning RPG morality. Thing is, that was NOT how things were at the start- Belkar’s behavior (and the other heroes’) didn’t matter because it was a self-referential comedy, more Simpsons than Lord of the Rings. The author himself has admitted that he has veered far from his original concept. I do not mind that, as I said above such a change is typical of long-lasting comics; but if you’re changing genres, you should be honest about it, and not jump back to the sillier stuff right in the middle of a serious storyline; that’s annoying, and not just to me, but a lot of other people as well.
However, if evil is out of limits then being good has no moral value (not taking into account Arac’s valid points). Even if goblins are always bad it doesn’t follow that killing them is the answer (should they opt for a Mordekainen’s All-Enclosing Wall of Good Guys? Start talking bad races and it immediately evokes Hitler-talk). Besides, Belkar serves as a successful foil to the “good” characters of the party (is the rogue better than the dwarf etc.) and is the natural end to the use of power for convenience (which the rest of the party isn’t free from). I mean, if your party regularly slaughters sentient creatures with their own communal structures why is using the same on your own so much worse?
I stand over my point in the other thread that by ignoring Belkor’s dialogue, you miss out on a vital part of the story the author is trying to tell. Arac pretty much summed up a lot what I’d like to say so whatever. You do have to remember that the real point of that strip with the diamond was to simply antagonise V further, in order to compel him to act rashly. As Arac said, the point of the strip wasn’t just the humour, that was intentional but a side effect of the story, not the story being a side effect of the humour.
I do understand hating a character though. I had real trouble reading some of the chapters in the Song of Ice and Fire series, simply because I hated the characters so much. not the ‘evil’ ones, particularly, but people like Sansa in the first book. God her short sightedness and intentional blindness was so damn frustrating. If I’m going to read those books again, I probably will skip some of those chapters. But I read them once, because I wanted to understand the story as best I could and, more importantly, how the author intended…well, at least as much as possible. I expect what I took out of the chapters whas somewhat different to what he put in. I feel you’re missing out on this by not even reading the lines once.
OK, I’m officially done talking about Belkar. Sorry guys, he just pisses me off.
Let’s check out the rest of the group:
Roy- my favorite character: for being the “straight man” who always complains about the tomfoolery of the others, and for being a Lawful Good character done right (as opposed -intentionally- to Miko, the fanatical Paladin). I think his suicidal charge on Xykon was very, very stupid (all he had was a magic sword that did some damage to undead! Hello? Shouldn’t he have at least had some magical protection?) but I can live with it, because hey, nobody’s perfect. Plus it lead to the very interesting Life-in-Heaven plotline. Oh, and he’s BLACK, but nobody even notices. Good! I like my fantasies racially integrated! 
Elan- My second favorite; would be first if he’d gotten over his lunacy earlier. But still, he was funny, innocent and charming. I like him much better now that he’s a “Dashing Swordsman” (not a real D&D class, btw). His arc with the half-orc ninja girl was actually moving. I hope we don’t see his puppet god anymore, tho.
Haley- While she annoys me occasionally (her recent killing of her rival, the assassin Crystal, despite having made a truce with the Thieve’s Guild, was controversial) in general she’s smart, caring, slick, and sexy. Her crush on Elan is both logical and funny, because he’s so different from her. (wonder what his reaction to Crystal’s killing will be…)
Durkan- Not much of a character- he’s just your typical Dwarf priest (even the strip pointed this out) but that’s Ok, he’s still fun in his old-fashioned ways, and also plays sort of the straight man to the party as well.
Vaarsuvius- For a neutral-aligned mage, I find I like him well enough. He’s also sort of the “straight” man, a “Spock” type of character who tries to live by logic only, and oh yes, HE’S POWERFUL! Love to see all those wizard spells in D&D put to good use. I don’t care about the “is he male or female?” bit at all; I neither find it funny nor annoying, just tired. His/her current “damned to save his family” arc is pretty effective, even chilling. Bonus points to the author for finding a new spin on the Faustian Deal trope, as well.
Celia- is she an official party member yet? Though something tells me she might be killed off (permanently) eventually since “outsiders cannot be revived”. I hope not, I like her well enough. She’s, in fact, the only Sylph character I’ve seen in a Fantasy series so far. Sure, she’s a little out of touch with the realities of adventuring, but she’s shown as intelligent and sensitive. A good match for Roy.
More later.
Hoenstly, as someone who’s known Wil better than pretty much anyone else here, got to say that Wil can never like any character who takes refuge in audacity. Everyone’s got to have some redeeming factor for him. There’s no point convincing him otherwise.
Anyway, I enjoy OotS. I am interested in seeing how the current Varsuuvius arc ends. But what I really love right now is its sister comic, Erfworld. That one is interesting to me.
V, since we’re friends, I’m not going to assume you meant that in a “leave the poor old fool alone” kinda way, OK? But next time, phrase it a bit better.
Edit: Hmm, that may have sounded meaner than I intended. But damn, I’ve not had a good week. First was that guy at TV Tropes, and now this. I can get stressed too, you know. Can we move on? Please?
While also answering our question. Kind of. I still don’t fully understand why being annoyed by a character is enough reason to ignore his existence, despite the fact that he does play a role in the story (and, by the nature of stories) the point the author wishes to convey. Even if that point is “Hey, buddy, morality isn’t so easy!” or “Pie is delicious!”
Cavalcade: I’ll answer that- some other time. Right now, I’m just sick of talking about Belkar. I really want to talk about the parts I like, you know. Or especulate about what may happen next.
Personal prediction: Vaarsuvius is going to be defeated, for all his new demonic powers. Possibly because the Necromancer spirit he lost is going to be inside Xykon, or in that Necromancer chic that joined them. I mean, if Xykon is destroyed, the story’s basically over.
Unless the author wants Xykon to die, and let Redcloak take over. I’d like that…
Oh, and the Monster in the Dark switches sides. My bet is that it’s a Tarrasque (probably a baby one.)
Oh, and the Infernal Trio has special plans for Vaarsuvius after he’s done. What, I don’t know. Control of the gates maybe?