Whether they have “reasons” or not doesn’t mean they are or are not villains. However, having “reasons” and “justifications” makes a villain more relate-able, more understandable, and often more tragic. In some cases, it also makes them more terrifying.
Consider the Cultists. They are evil for the sake of being evil. Yet there aren’t any that could be considered particularly memorable (except maybe as comic relief), not even the leader guy. Iwatani makes a much greater impression.
Of course, this isn’t always necessary, sometimes other things can carry it through, but it usually adds to it. And also it is very much not necessary to actually justify their “reasons” to the audience. Kefka of FF6 is a great villain, and his motivations (nihilism, wanting to stave off boredom, lust for power) are explored, but his actions to achieve those are not exactly “sane” or reasonable to most people. On the other hand FF5’s Exdeath is hardly memorable at all (in fact I had to look it up to make sure I got the name right)…
Exdeath wasn’t unmemorable because his motivations were unclear or because his actions weren’t explained. He was unmemorable because he didn’t appear until halfway through the game, and had no personality, and then you killed him a few hours later. But he came back to life later because he was SECRETLY A TREEEEEEE and gave you a splinter during the fight.
He would have probably been okay if he’d had, like, a *single conversation* with one of his henchmen that consisted of anything other than “Henchman, go defeat the Warriors of Light!” or “Henchman, as punishment for your failure, wander for eternity in the X-Zone! Where’s my next henchman? Go defeat the Warriors of Light!”
The fact that this chapter is shown to the reader instead of the savage champions just showing up in a fight later and calling themselves the savage champions is what makes me pay a little more attention to them. They’re characters instead of obstacles.
Yeah, this. Kefka had a lot of character establishing moments, and a lot of moments where he interacted with several protagonists individually, several antagonists individually, several secondary characters…
He had lots of screen time, and he did lots of different things during that screen time.
Sure, but the point, to me anyway, is that establishing motive, developing it and their reasoning, etc. is one of the better ways to establish character. Someone shows up and says: “I want to blow up the world!” Yeah, they’re a villain, but not a well written one. On the other hand, if some of the reason why they want to blow up the world is shown, it gives screen time, but also makes their character more understandable, even if their reasoning is ultimately flawed/wrong/psychotic or whatever.
Well developed motivations, even without screen time, can also give insight into a character that’s introduced later, so long as the connections can be made by the audience. If Magda was just as generic as the other three Savasi Tectonicians, she’d be far less interesting and eye-catching… including in-universe, and part of that “interest” is generated from connections set up before the character was introduced as such.
Basically, it’s the difference of depth. Even a character that gets a lot of screen time, if they aren’t given depth/developed, they end up being unmemorable characters anyway (at the very least, by comparison of other characters).
Personal gain at the expense of institutional integrity, even in noble ways and toward noble ends, is one of those things that sounds like a great idea until it starts to scale up. If, for example, the building had been on fire, and he’d opportunistically appropriated the keys in an explicit rescue effort, that would be different.
It all depends on your point of view. From Harky and his allies’ perspective, they’re the good guys and Byron is the most evil/dangerous person around. From the Gastonian leadership perspective, humans (meaning humans loyal to Gastonia) are the good guys. To the adventurers and probably to the readers, the adventurers are the good guys.
So, it seems we’re going to have counterparts to the main cast. What are the odds that our favorite drummer winds up the counterpart to our favorite bard?
I guess so, in that Penk is alive and Best is dead, and Best got laid all the time and Penk got no game, that they really would be counterparts, wouldn’t they?
Thirded. She’s not in it for herself- she’s doing it for her people. Even if she recognizes how the mystics had “failed” her people, she knows what value they did provide.
Nice to see the avian dude got Arfa’s lesson as well.
I’m guessing that they’re rightfully going to be heroes in their own right, the same way the Peace-Makers/Adventurer’s Guild are heroes. Goblaurence looking at slaves as tools and being willing to blow up a couple of Avians may be red flags, but he’s not needlessly cruel, while Frigg’s pretty rough too.
Arkherra’s always been rather like World of Warcraft, so it’s hardly surprising that the Horde-equivalent has its good points and its bad, just like the Alliance-equivalent.
Iver is like a smarter, more charismatic version of Don Gobligno. Like the Don, Iver is kinda vain, greedy and power hungry but is also much more measured and controlled in his approach. However just as the Don’s “trolling” attempt failed so it seems Iver’s attempt at flattery will also fail to impress Harky or at least won’t have the full desired effect.
I’m not even sure that it’s flat-out flattery. Iver seems really savvy. Yeah, he cherry-picked those four because their chosen deity to worship coincides with Harky’s, but that’s just a smart decision. He picked people he thought his fellow leader(s) would approve of – and he was right.
No way his choice of Magda was an accident. She’s not only the niece of one of the mystics he killed, but she’s decidedly NOT a yes-woman? Hell, I’d bet those are the reasons he chose her. If the other three candidates had a reason to be fleshed out more, I’d expect them to have some large differences in personality amongst each other, too.
Wait…something’s dawning on me…she’s the niece of a Mystic, but where does it way he was actually killed? Could he…oh, I dunno…perhaps…still be alive? I think we know where this is going…
The picture she makes when talking about her uncle is that of Cliff Rockside, who’s confirmed dead. Between that and both Gravedust and Iver independently saying “the other mystics are all dead”, I’m assuming Magda’s uncle is pretty dead.
The last couple of days I’ve noticed that the comic has been updating pretty late — I think this page went up at 3 AM for me instead of the usual ten minutes or so after midnight. Is the system working okay, or did the holidays get to you guys?
Okay, what exactly is sword girl laughing at? I would say it is the juggling but she seems to be facing away from the juggler and towards Magda. Is it something Magda or Gondolessa said or is the mere image of Cliff Rockside somehow humorous to her?
They are picking people who are thinkers and dedicated to their people, not personal glory, as their champions.
Wouldn’t be a riot if they find common ground with the Peacemakers and negotiate a peace treaty that honorable and just, and therefore satisfies none of the leaders on either side.
Harky is unimpressed at the gnomes’ appropriation of his culture.
Dwarves. I meant Dwarves. v__v “Now who’s being insensitive, Alice?”
It’s gnome problem.
Gnomebody knows the trouble they’ve seen…
Gnomenclature can be tricky.
This is gnome time to be making puns!!
I don’t know why, but you remind me of myself in some small way.
And you’ve compounded your sin by calling the Savasi that vile human slur!
The secret to writing good bad guys is that nobody views themselves as a villain, and everyone can justify their motivations.
So, who isn’t a bad guy in this comic then?
Those who don’t attack the civilians, I guess. *rubs chin, thinking stuff*
The loser of the war is usually histories villain. After all, History is decided by the VICTOR.
Whether they have “reasons” or not doesn’t mean they are or are not villains. However, having “reasons” and “justifications” makes a villain more relate-able, more understandable, and often more tragic. In some cases, it also makes them more terrifying.
Consider the Cultists. They are evil for the sake of being evil. Yet there aren’t any that could be considered particularly memorable (except maybe as comic relief), not even the leader guy. Iwatani makes a much greater impression.
Of course, this isn’t always necessary, sometimes other things can carry it through, but it usually adds to it. And also it is very much not necessary to actually justify their “reasons” to the audience. Kefka of FF6 is a great villain, and his motivations (nihilism, wanting to stave off boredom, lust for power) are explored, but his actions to achieve those are not exactly “sane” or reasonable to most people. On the other hand FF5’s Exdeath is hardly memorable at all (in fact I had to look it up to make sure I got the name right)…
Exdeath wasn’t unmemorable because his motivations were unclear or because his actions weren’t explained. He was unmemorable because he didn’t appear until halfway through the game, and had no personality, and then you killed him a few hours later. But he came back to life later because he was SECRETLY A TREEEEEEE and gave you a splinter during the fight.
He would have probably been okay if he’d had, like, a *single conversation* with one of his henchmen that consisted of anything other than “Henchman, go defeat the Warriors of Light!” or “Henchman, as punishment for your failure, wander for eternity in the X-Zone! Where’s my next henchman? Go defeat the Warriors of Light!”
The fact that this chapter is shown to the reader instead of the savage champions just showing up in a fight later and calling themselves the savage champions is what makes me pay a little more attention to them. They’re characters instead of obstacles.
Yeah, this. Kefka had a lot of character establishing moments, and a lot of moments where he interacted with several protagonists individually, several antagonists individually, several secondary characters…
He had lots of screen time, and he did lots of different things during that screen time.
Sure, but the point, to me anyway, is that establishing motive, developing it and their reasoning, etc. is one of the better ways to establish character. Someone shows up and says: “I want to blow up the world!” Yeah, they’re a villain, but not a well written one. On the other hand, if some of the reason why they want to blow up the world is shown, it gives screen time, but also makes their character more understandable, even if their reasoning is ultimately flawed/wrong/psychotic or whatever.
Well developed motivations, even without screen time, can also give insight into a character that’s introduced later, so long as the connections can be made by the audience. If Magda was just as generic as the other three Savasi Tectonicians, she’d be far less interesting and eye-catching… including in-universe, and part of that “interest” is generated from connections set up before the character was introduced as such.
Basically, it’s the difference of depth. Even a character that gets a lot of screen time, if they aren’t given depth/developed, they end up being unmemorable characters anyway (at the very least, by comparison of other characters).
Ferris.
At least, not YET.
He stole his boss’s keys and entered a restricted area without permission, just to satisfy curiosity. That’s at least a little bit bad.
Depends on how you view authority and ownership, and how much you value curiosity.
To me, “just to satisfy curiosity” sounds a lot like “just for the sake of helping people and becoming a more complete person”.
No, that could be viewed as “snooping” and “corporate espionage”, specially seeing how he did it at the behest of The Nose
Personal gain at the expense of institutional integrity, even in noble ways and toward noble ends, is one of those things that sounds like a great idea until it starts to scale up. If, for example, the building had been on fire, and he’d opportunistically appropriated the keys in an explicit rescue effort, that would be different.
It all depends on your point of view. From Harky and his allies’ perspective, they’re the good guys and Byron is the most evil/dangerous person around. From the Gastonian leadership perspective, humans (meaning humans loyal to Gastonia) are the good guys. To the adventurers and probably to the readers, the adventurers are the good guys.
The secret of writing a good rebellion is that no one side should be outright evil, even if some members would quallify
So, it seems we’re going to have counterparts to the main cast. What are the odds that our favorite drummer winds up the counterpart to our favorite bard?
I guess so, in that Penk is alive and Best is dead, and Best got laid all the time and Penk got no game, that they really would be counterparts, wouldn’t they?
Penk’s mother was probably really encouraging and taught him the value of teamwork. Plus he absolutely LOVES basins and keeping them safe.
Okay, cool. Guess there’s not a con here after all. And I like Magda. She seems nice.
Seconded. And something tells me she won’t be on the side of the Savage Races forever.
Thirded. She’s not in it for herself- she’s doing it for her people. Even if she recognizes how the mystics had “failed” her people, she knows what value they did provide.
Nice to see the avian dude got Arfa’s lesson as well.
They may have failed, but that doesn’t mean what they were preaching/teaching was wrong, just the other side was simply better on the day
And whos to say this new way is any more ‘guided’ than the Mystics were ‘misguided’? Only Time will tell
How could a massive fire god of death and destruction be wrong?
Death… and destruction. Pretty straight forward points.
Rules of Death Cult.
1. Death and destruction is always the best choice.
2. see rule #1
Your response, sir, is full of insightful win.
i’m liking that the anti-heroes are surprisingly normal;D
I’m guessing that they’re rightfully going to be heroes in their own right, the same way the Peace-Makers/Adventurer’s Guild are heroes. Goblaurence looking at slaves as tools and being willing to blow up a couple of Avians may be red flags, but he’s not needlessly cruel, while Frigg’s pretty rough too.
I can’t wait to see the rest of the roster.
Arkherra’s always been rather like World of Warcraft, so it’s hardly surprising that the Horde-equivalent has its good points and its bad, just like the Alliance-equivalent.
I’m crossing my fingers for an Orc rebellion…
Work, work, work.
Me not that kind of orc…
Since I know the fellow who recorded those voice parts, I find this post hilarious for reasons totally unrelated.
Please tell him he’s awesome!
“Something need doing?”
I don’t know the reference… :(
Warcraft 3 the Orc peon’s :)
Warcraft (started in III?) orc peons would say this when you clicked on them. If you clicked on them too much… you got “Me not that kind of orc!”
started with the first one. warcraft orcs and humans
jobs finished!
I seem to recall she was the only one not smiling like a nimrod last strip. Good eye, Birdman.
Yeah, noticed that as well, and now we see why she didn’t look like she wanted to be there
Gondolessa: also the only general of Harky’s army I like.
Notice his shining halo and beatific expression.
Clearly, he’ll turn out to be the most ruthless and evil of them all in the end.
Some how, don’t believe Head-beard will like the answer to his question
Technically, Iver is in panel one, in the background. Shouldn’t he have a tag?
If it please you.
Iver is like a smarter, more charismatic version of Don Gobligno. Like the Don, Iver is kinda vain, greedy and power hungry but is also much more measured and controlled in his approach. However just as the Don’s “trolling” attempt failed so it seems Iver’s attempt at flattery will also fail to impress Harky or at least won’t have the full desired effect.
I prefer to think of him as like Iwatani, minus a son to act on his behalf, or the resources/connections to back up his ambitions.
I’m not even sure that it’s flat-out flattery. Iver seems really savvy. Yeah, he cherry-picked those four because their chosen deity to worship coincides with Harky’s, but that’s just a smart decision. He picked people he thought his fellow leader(s) would approve of – and he was right.
No way his choice of Magda was an accident. She’s not only the niece of one of the mystics he killed, but she’s decidedly NOT a yes-woman? Hell, I’d bet those are the reasons he chose her. If the other three candidates had a reason to be fleshed out more, I’d expect them to have some large differences in personality amongst each other, too.
Wait…something’s dawning on me…she’s the niece of a Mystic, but where does it way he was actually killed? Could he…oh, I dunno…perhaps…still be alive? I think we know where this is going…
Way…say…blegh. Need more caffeine. Anywho, anyone else strongly suspect her Mystic Uncle might be the last surviving one? :-D
Nahh her uncle looks to be the maker of the best snowpeak’s broiled desert moss!
It’s all ready been established that Gravedust was the last surviving Mystic. I think that was spelled out from his encounter with Iver.
The picture she makes when talking about her uncle is that of Cliff Rockside, who’s confirmed dead. Between that and both Gravedust and Iver independently saying “the other mystics are all dead”, I’m assuming Magda’s uncle is pretty dead.
If her uncle was Gravy, why would she be projecting an image of Cliff?
Ha. I thought it’d be her.
LOL at the bearded dwarf in the third panel background juggling his heat stones. I wouldn’t be surprised if that’s a faux pas in troll culture.
Was wondering about that myself. Kinda feel sorry for the poor guy — if Magda weren’t the one to be picked, I’d almost want to pick him.
The last couple of days I’ve noticed that the comic has been updating pretty late — I think this page went up at 3 AM for me instead of the usual ten minutes or so after midnight. Is the system working okay, or did the holidays get to you guys?
I’m not complaining, just curious.
Okay, what exactly is sword girl laughing at? I would say it is the juggling but she seems to be facing away from the juggler and towards Magda. Is it something Magda or Gondolessa said or is the mere image of Cliff Rockside somehow humorous to her?
She is laughing at Magda because it is obvious to anyone Magda has none of the qualities needed to be a Champion.
They are picking people who are thinkers and dedicated to their people, not personal glory, as their champions.
Wouldn’t be a riot if they find common ground with the Peacemakers and negotiate a peace treaty that honorable and just, and therefore satisfies none of the leaders on either side.
Magda has instantly rose to favorite character for me. It’s not because I’m biased towards awesome lady Dwarves, I swear! *whistles*
Wait a minute. The other chiefs dissed old dog lady’s ability to lead in war because she’s female, but now they’ve picked a female champion?
It was only the Don who dissed her for being female.