What's Happening

Troperville

Tools

collapse/expand topics back to Main/UnintentionallySympathetic

EMY3K
topic
09:29:01 AM Jul 7th 2013
  • King Candy/Turbo from Wreckit Ralph also gets this from same fans. He has done a lot of bad things like putting his and another game in out of order and making a child's life hell, But many believe that he was programmed to be an Attention Whore or had to play dirty to survive.

I'm curious about this example. The video characters in Wreck-It Ralph are more like the toons in Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Ralph, for exapmple, may be a bad guy in his video game, but he's actually more than that when the game isn't playing. It's actually the whole point of the movie. So, therefore, wouldn't Turbo's programming be more of a Freudian Excuse, if anything?
KSonik
topic
05:56:10 AM Jan 21st 2013
edited by KSonik
Edited Miko's entry as it made her seem far too blameless despite the fact that she has shown herself to to pretty mean spirited and altogether not as virtuous as she would seem despite being a Paladin. Miko's unpleasantness is on display (refusing to learn V's name, undermining Roy's authority, rushing off to battle without telling them the battle plan, yelling at a random hotel staff over a mattress tag, and a couple more instances in the compilation book involving herself alone or other paladins).

These are just someof the examples. Miko in general has beeen demeaning, insulting and clearly and obviously showing self righteous arrogance towards not just the Order (even towards Roy, who she even managed to have turned against her side through her own fault(see the strip where the aftermath of the exploding Inn). Finally, she killed an innocent person based on self delusion and still try to deny any wrong doing until death!

And yes, by virtue of being a Paladin, she is "strong, brave, determined, forceful, undeniably highly skilled in her profession, who believes in honor, and is always sincerely trying to do the right thing". But only by her own screwed up way. It certainly wasn't the conventional way of a Paldin, but rather the mean spirited, judgemental way of a Lawful Stupid moral hypocrite (she condemn others for being less than pure... despite the fact that she really isn't that great a paladin). All of these reasons, plus more that is clear within the actual comic strips, shows that despite how comically screwed up the Order is, their treatment of Miko certainly isn't just being douchebags for the sake of it or "anvillicious", it is the natural consequence of having to deal with the deconstruction of a widely hated role playing archetype.

Long story short, for a Paladin, she has far too many issues to be a "Designated Jerk."

Medinoc
08:09:56 AM Jan 21st 2013
Also, the "believes in honor" part is invalidated with how she deceives the ogres/trolls (I don't remember exactly what they were).
k9feline5
10:01:04 PM Feb 17th 2013
edited by k9feline5
I've been in disputes with The Order of the Stick loyalists before and they didn't end well for me, so I don't expect I'll win this dispute (one reason it's taken me so long to comment; I'm really not looking forward to this). Still, I'll make at least one last stab at restoring the original entry as it was, because I don't think it's right for OotS fans to suppress any kind of negative criticism on YMMV pages:

I didn't create this entry. However, I liked it, I agreed with it, I noticed it wasn't on TOotS's YMMV page, so I listed it on there. I now sincerely regret doing so, since OotS fans seem to unite to crush any negative criticism in ways I've never seen on any other work's YMMV page.

KSonik, with all due respect, you are completely missing the point of this page. Nearly all of your arguments are about the author's intentions. However valid these arguments might be on any other page in this wiki, the only relevance these arguments have on this page is in helping to confirm that Rich Burlew didn't intend Miko to be sympathetic. Yet many readers do find her sympathetic despite Burlew's intentions, hence, Unintentionally Sympathetic. A person isn't wrong for liking a fictional character despite her creator's intenetions, nor is another person wrong for agreeing with her creator. It's all YMMV, like how effective the creator was in conveying those intentions. Nearly all of your arguments can be argued a different way, as I shall now demonstrate.

"refusing to learn V's name"

She didn't "refuse" to learn V's name, she just hadn't learned it yet, since she'd only just started traveling with the Order and hadn't spent much time with V. At the same time she addresses V as "elf" she's also addressing Durkon by name, which makes my explanation more likely than it was an outright refusal. It makes sense she knows Durkon by name since she's not only spent more time with him at this point, but he's also the only Order member who never once treats her like 1) crap, or 2) a sex object (Roy was the only one to treat her like the latter before switching to the former). V objects to being called "elf" (even though it isn't an insult) and Miko doesn't apologize for it, but she never calls V "elf" again. In contrast, V was already calling Miko a "foul shrew" (which is an insult) even before this incident and would call her a "shrew" again (more on V later).

"undermining Roy's authority"

Miko's not a member of the Order. Roy's not her leader. He had no authority over her for her to undermine. If you're referring to undermining his authority with the rest of the Order, she doesn't seem to have had that much effect. While they may complain about Roy and make fun of him whenever they get the chance, they still obey most of his orders, which is all percisely the way they treated him before they met Miko.

"rushing off to battle without telling them the battle plan"

And yet the plan worked spectacularly well. It worked percisely the way she intended it to, with nothing to suggest that it worked for any other reason than because it was a good plan she succesfully carried out. Normally when a character has a plan this successful, it's a sign to the audience that they should respect the character.

"yelling at a random hotel staff over a mattress tag"

You got me, I don't have a defense for this. OTOH, I do wonder how seriously we were supposed to be taking a fairly typical Mattress Tag Gag.

"•Here she refuses to take Roy's advice and treat them with respect"

Part of the problem with trying to introduce a character into this strip intended to be unlikeable is that this is strip is in so many ways a No Fourth Wall Black Comedy where all the protagonists (with the possible exception of Durkon) have been a selfish Jerk Ass at least once over the course of the strip and one of the protagonists is a a stab-happy halfling who always delights in killing creatures and doesn't care if they're innocents and it's all Played for Laughs. Normal, conventional rules of who's "likeable" tend to get thrown out the window at this point. In Miko's case, an uptight Paladin who takes herself and everything around her way too seriously, can in her own way be very, very funny. And by being funny, they can even be endearing. In the very strip you link to, there's this exchange:

Miko:A paladin never compromises.
Roy:Does a paladin ever remove the stick up their ass?
Miko:No. It's a class feature.

I'm sorry, but at the time first read this, I wasn't filled with outrage at Miko's rudeness, because I was too busy chuckling at the joke.

"•She comdemn the Order for not wanteing to sleep in the dirt"

She doesn't "condemn" them, she's just trying to persuade them to sleep in the same rough environment she would sleep in. When that fails, she goes along with them to the inn and even agrees to pay the entire bill, even though the Order has a huge fortune while she only has a small stipend. Boy, what a bitch!

"•She blamed the Order (most of them helped the innocent)"

It is indeed commendable of most of the Order that they helped the innocent. But so did Miko, who went the extra measure of risking her life going back into the burning inn just to make sure there were no more innocents still trapped inside (Haley and V also went back in, but the only thing they were trying to save was the Order's treasure).

"for something that was so not their fault!"

I'm sorry, but I couldn't disagree more. The destruction of the inn was so totally the Order's fault, it's not even funny. It's a trifle unfair that she's blaming all the Order equally, but that's only because she doesn't know (and never learns) the full facts of what happened. If she did, she'd realize it's mostly Roy's fault.

Roy deliberately took advantage of the staff's mistaking of him for the King of Nowhere just to enjoy being literally treated like a king. The rest of the Order knew about this deception and went along with it for the same selfish reasons. This led to the attack by the assassins (and since the real King of Nowhere wasn't there that night, it means the attack otherwise wouldn't have occured at that time). Not even the assassins were attempting to blow up the inn; that was caused by Belkar. Who's there because Roy recuited him into the Order in the first place. Roy did something dishonest for greedy, selfish reasons (and the rest of the Order went along with it for the same reasons); which resulted in an attack that otherwise wouldn't have occured that night; which led to the inn being destroyed by one of the people Roy had brought to the inn.

Miko's basically right: the inn would not have been destroyed if the Order had followed her suggestion of sleeping on the hard ground. The assassins wouldn't have attacked that night, and since the Order wouldn't be there the same night the real King of Nowhere would be there, it's at best doubtfull that the inn would've been destroyed if the assassins had attacked their intended target.

KSonik, we could argue back and forth on these points for the rest of our lives if we wanted to (I don't want to, and I hope you don't either). The real point is that nearly every one of your arguments against her were more open to a more sympathetic Alternative Character Interpretation than Burlew had intended.

I've compiled my own list here. I call it the "Mean to Miko" list. It lists every time from strips 201-251 that an Order member says or does something mean to or about Miko:

KSonic, you provided examples of Miko being mean from about 7 strips from this period. I've provided 15 strips of the Order being mean to Miko, more than twice as much. And that's leaving out anything Belkar said or did (I deliberately left his examples off since, as the Token Evil Teammate, you wouldn't normally expect anything nice or good from him anyway, and there are no pleasant surprises here). When I posted the link to this page on TOofTS's YMMV page I added the statement, The comic seemed to spend more time with the Order complaining about what a "mean" "shrew" "bitch" Miko was, than actually showing it. The statement got deleted, of course, but I think it was less YMMV and more a simple, statistical statement of fact.

More importantly, these "Mean to Miko" strips are not open to any kind of Alternative Character Interpretation. The Order simply hates Miko's guts. To those of us not inclined to hate her, it made the Order look hateful. I don't normally hate the Order. They can be very funny, and they often do have sympathetic motivations. But here, getting so very nasty over what I felt was so very little, I found myself hating them a lot.

I deliberately stopped at strip # 251 because that's when the author's intentions became clear. We were all supposed to fully agree with Roy and hate Miko at this point. Some readers did, but some of us did not. This is not a case of "Designated Jerk". Miko does have her faults (faults that Burlew would later grossly exaggerate, IMHO, but that's another story). It's a case of a character whose creator intended to be unsympathetic, that many of us did find sympathetic, and felt justified in feeling this way.
KSonik
06:29:10 AM Jul 1st 2013
edited by 70.33.253.45
Still, I'll make at least one last stab at restoring the original entry as it was, because I don't think it's right for Oot S fans to suppress any kind of negative criticism on YMMV pages:

That was never my intention, particularly as I have disagreed with a few events that have happened, such as Celia inexplicably acting idiotic when she and Haley were in Greysky City. In fact that’s not even what this is about- it’s about countering against ill founded criticisms.

She doesn't "condemn" them, she's just trying to persuade them to sleep in the same rough environment she would sleep in.

Miko: "Well, yes, if you wanted to give in to gluttony and corruption"

Doesn't sound to me like it.

When that fails, she goes along with them to the inn and even agrees to pay the entire bill, even though the Order has a huge fortune while she only has a small stipend.

Fair enough.

I'm sorry, but I couldn't disagree more. The destruction of the inn was so totally the Order's fault, it's not even funny. It's a trifle unfair that she's blaming all the Order equally, but that's only because she doesn't know (and never learns) the full facts of what happened. If she did, she'd realize it's mostly Roy's fault.

No it was not. There was no way in which the Order could reasonably expect to know that somehow impersonating someone would cause them to be the target of an assassination. In fact no one within the readership, considering how little was already known at that point of that particular King could have know and frankly, if Burlew used that situation to show just how Roy was wrong, that would be an incredibly stupid Space Whale Aesop. “Impersonate someone and you and all the other people(who had nothing to do with the king and so were innocent) will always be in an immediate danger.” And that would be a legit example of Anvilliciousness, particularly that of the Can’tGetAwayWithNuthin variety. But hey, I guess Roy shouldn’t have said “assassinate me” during Truth or Dare!:P Now that that point has been covered, whilst Roy was still wrong to impersonate someone that does not mean that the consequence was any less contrived because if the intention was for Roy to get what not just was reasonable consequence, but a just one, he would have simply gotten arrested for impersonation, and that would be the end of that and just him. But because this somehow “led” to an assassination attempt that Roy would have to be a future psychic to be able to predict (because somehow, political enemies send to assassinate the King somehow coincidentally being able to find the place where the ”King” is residing in a place, which mind you, is in the middle of nowhere, doesn’t sound contrived) the idea that the inn being blown up is Roy and the rest of the Order of the Stick’s fault has been disproven.

And as for that barrel? That was only there in the first place because the assassins brought them with them! If anything, it’s more like Nice Job Breaking It, Assassins!

Anyways, Even if none of these things were true, there was still no way in which Miko would reasonable know (given the knowledge that she had of the situation) that it was somehow the Order’s fault, if it hypothetically was. In fact she only “knows” this based on conclusions that she has jumped, thinking that the Order’s gluttony and corruption was the cause, when in reality, it was contrived coincidences, because, again, the assassins “knowing” that the King of Nowhere was residing in a random hotel in the middle of nowhere due to coincidentally eavesdropping does not sound like a valid and organic consequence of impersonation.

This point is made blatantly clear when she cruelly blamed Haley for her speech problems, which is the next and second final point against the idea that the Order were being unreasonable against Miko. It is clear and obvious to people that despite Haley’s flaws, she is still not a fundamentally monstrous being but rather at worst a Loveable Rogue type character that despite her flaws, genuinely does care about. Sure it may not be something that Miko would necessarily be aware of, but she should obviously know that Haley isn’t exactly anywhere near morally deficient enough to somehow deserve having her ability to speak taken away. What Haley actually is doesn’t help Miko’s condemnation of her, but the fact that Miko has no real legit reason to believe that she deserve this doesn’t help Miko’s image because frankly condemning Haley for something that was her fault is just wrong and shows that for how much she would like to see herself as a morally pure person who is never in the wrong, she doesn’t act like how a Paladin is supposed to act. Paladin’s are about mercy and compassion and comforting people when they are down, not for kicking them down when their words and actions would really be helpful-which is what Miko has exactly done when she act as if losing her speech was somehow supposed to be Haley’s punishment. So yeah, hardly the words of someone who is supposedly morally superior, because guess what? Someone who genuinely is as moral as a normal Paladin (as opposed to self righteous Lawful Stupid characters) would not have condemned someone suffering in this particular kind of context.

And the final thing that goes against the idea that the Order’s reaction towards Miko was unreasonable? She tried to straight up murder them for something only Elan (accidentally, not deliberately) caused-the destruction of a Gate. Elan, the only person who could hypothetically have any real blame for this, had no idea about the long term consequences of blowing up the Gate (nor could he),but only pressed the self destruct button because of genre convention. Was it still stupid of Elan to press the self destruct button? Yes! Does it mean that he deserves to die for something for consequences no one at the time could foresee? No!

And yet, Miko tried to kill Elan and the rest of the Order of the Stick, even though they were even less blameworthy than Elan. In other words, Miko was going to murder a bunch of innocent people just because she relied on a flawed method of determining their guilt-Detect Evil. Any reasonable Paladin would know not just of the various ways in which it can be fooled, but also of the fact that just because someone is Evil, it doesn’t mean that they automatically deserve to die. The fact that she was explicitly told not to kill them by Shojo, an order she disobeyed, does not help. Of course, whilst killing them could have had been due to legitimate beliefs that they were Evil, this wasn’t the case in this particular scenario because the manner in which Miko determined that they “deserved” to die was incredibly stupid and ultimately wrong, and not the kind you can just say “Oops! My mistake” and expect it to all sort out. So in conclusion, considering that Miko tried to murder them in the first place, the Order weren’t just being jerks, but acting naturally and logically to a the actions of a frankly poor excuse of a Paladin.

Does all of this mean that Miko can’t be seen as sympathetic? No, but it does mean that any resentment that Miko got by the Order was well deserved and the fact the entry try to leave out such important details to make the Order look bad is problematic. So whilst the entry can still stay, that part trying to criticise the Order for acting like they would naturally needs to go. And if anyone still tries to put that part back in, they should take it to the discussion page to see why that part is wrong.

k9feline5
04:54:36 PM Jul 8th 2013
edited by 216.99.32.42
I have disagreed with a few events that have happened, such as Celia inexplicably acting idiotic when she and Haley were in Greysky City. In fact that’s not even what this is about- it’s about countering against ill founded criticisms.

I'm sure there are OotS fans who'd disagree that Celia is inexplicably acting idiotic and would find your criticism "ill founded".(I wouldn't know, I lost interest after reading Miko's death.) YMMV and this is a YMMV page.

Miko: "Well, yes, if you wanted to give in to gluttony and corruption"

Doesn't sound to me like it.

It does sound to me like it. Specificly, it sounds like a casual, sarcastic, "Well, yes if you want to do this bad thing," because she honestly believes they wouldn't want to do such a "bad thing". When they do it anyway, she objects, but ojecting's not the same thing as condemning.

There was no way in which the Order could reasonably expect to know that somehow impersonating someone would cause them to be the target of an assassination.

Roy wasn't just impersonating "someone", he was impersonating a king, as it turns out, a real king, the leader of an actual nation (in the story). Even in Real Life, the leaders of nations take a lot of precautions against assassination attempts since that's a genuine occupational hazard that comes with being the leader of a nation. That's even more true in the Action/Adventure Fantasy universe of OotS, where multiple assissination attempts are a regular occurence.

if Burlew used that situation to show just how Roy was wrong, that would be an incredibly stupid Space Whale Aesop. “Impersonate someone and you and all the other people(who had nothing to do with the king and so were innocent) will always be in an immediate danger.”

I think a better, more generalized aesop that could still be legitimately applied here is that actions have consequences, and the more dishonest and selfish your actions are, the greater your responsibility you bear for those consequences.

But because this somehow “led” to an assassination attempt that Roy would have to be a future psychic to be able to predict (because somehow, political enemies send to assassinate the King somehow coincidentally being able to find the place where the ”King” is residing in a place, which mind you, is in the middle of nowhere, doesn’t sound contrived)

I'm afraid you've got the wrong idea about the situation. I know because I just got through reading this damn storyline for the third time, which is twice more than I wish to. The assassins are at the inn because the real King of Nowhere is scheduled to be at the inn two days later to join the King of Somewhere (who's alreay at the inn) for a Peace Conference. The assassins arrive and are shocked to discover the "King of Nowhere" (Roy) is already there. It's still a contrived coincidence, but considerably less contrived than you're making it out to be.

the idea that the inn being blown up is Roy and the rest of the Order of the Stick’s fault has been disproven.

No it hasn't. At all. The fact that Roy is at least partly responsible for the inn being blown up is explicitly pointed out in the webcomic itself:

"Although I suppose there would never have been an explosion in the first place if you had refrained from pretending to be-"

The quote's from the bottom of the strip, and it's being said by Vaarsuvius, hardly a member of the Miko fanclub. The conclusion that Roy is at least partly responsible isn't just a reasonable conclusion to come to, it's explicitly stated.

No, Roy and the rest of the Order can't predict the future. But they still did something dishonest and selfish that is explictily stated within the comic as being responsible for the inn's destruction. To be as fair and accurate as possible on this, I'd say there are three different levels of responisibility for the inn's destruction. From most to least responsible the people on each of these levels are:

  • Belkar and the assassins: None of these three were trying to blow up the inn, but they directly caused it while committing a felony. Specifically, all three were committing Attempted Murder at the time.
  • Roy: Committed the Fraud that led to the felonies that led to the destruction of the inn.
  • The rest of the Order: Knew about Roy's Fraud and went along with it, making them accessories after the fact.

So that's 6 out of 8 people responisible for the inn's destruction who are Order members and 100% of the Order who bear some responsibility for it. And I feel I can't say this often enough for genuine fear that some will choose to ignore it, it's explicitly stated in the comic itself that Roy bears some responsibility for it.

there was still no way in which Miko would reasonable know (given the knowledge that she had of the situation) that it was somehow the Order’s fault

Twice, Miko wonders aloud why the assassins would be going after Roy, and Vaarsuvius starts to point out Roy's blame right in front of her (see link above). There's actually no good reason why she couldn't figure out the Order's fault. The only reason I can think of why she doesn't figure it out lies outside the story: Burlew didn't want her to make too good a point just before Roy's big "The Reason You Suck" Speech. And yet she still managed to make a point that was technically correct: the inn wouldn't have been destroyed if the Order had followed her suggestion of sleeping on the muddy ground.

she cruelly blamed Haley for her speech problems

I'm not going to defend this. It's clearly meant to be a Kick the Dog moment for Miko so the readers will side more with Roy in his "The Reason You Suck" Speech that soon follows. However, since it comes right at the end of the Order's journey with Miko, it does nothing to justify the mean things most of the Order (including Haley) were doing to Miko before this moment (see my previous post).

She tried to straight up murder them

No, she didn't. Your criticism of Miko on this point is ill-founded.

First, she demands the Order's surrender. It's only when Roy refuses that she attacks. Even then, there are 2 Order members she never attacks during this fight: Durkon and Elan. She doesn't attack Durkon because he surrenders. Why she doesn't attack Elan isn't explained. Possibly it's because Elan's arm was in a sling at the time and she thought it dishonorable to attack an opponent who was already injured. Whatever her reason, the fact is she never once tried to murder Elan. So no one should make that claim because it simply isn't true.

Of the 4 Order members she did attack, 3 of her attacks were decidedly non-lethal in nature: tossing a bag of adhesive at Vaarsuvius, sicking her horse on Belkar, delivering a Stunning Kick at Haley. There is no evidence to suggest she was trying to kill any of these 3.

The only Order member she was actively trying to kill was Roy. This was probably both because her Detect Evil ability "confirmed" his Evil and because he had explicitly refused to surrender. Even then, she chose to kill him with a Smite Evil attack, which would be fatal only to an Evil being. When that didn't work (because Roy isn't Evil), it gave her pause, giving Dukon the opportunity to sort out this whole misunderstanding.

What's problematic about using the fight as enough justification for the Order's treatment of her is that unlike Roy's responsibility for the destruction of the inn, it's never explicity stated within the comic itself that the fight is a reason whey the Order hate her so much. The only Order member who seems to bear any kind of lasting grudge about the fight itself is Belkar, and most of that grudge was directed at Miko's horse, which hardly seems justified. Roy, who admittedly would've had the strongest reason to bear a grudge, got over it immedeately. Even in his "The Reason You Suck" Speech, he didn't list the fight as a reason why she "sucks".

But the strongest reason not to regard the initial fight as enough justification for the Order's treatment of her is that after the fight was over and her misunderstanding was cleared up, all of the Order agreed to go with her to Azure City. They all had their reasons, but expcet for Haley, they all actually wanted to go. Whatever ill will the Order members might've felt towards Miko after the fight wasn't enough to make them decide they wouldn't want to travel with her.

Judging by the comic itself, the reasons why the Order hates Miko have little or nothing to do with the initial fight but simply because Miko is supposedly such a "bitch" during their journey. And that's where some of us found Miko sympathetic, completely at odds with Burlew's intentions.

It was the over-the-top reactions against her during this journey, the constant insults at her by the Order when she's not insulting them, the intentionaly malicious things some of the Order do to her when she's doing nothing intentionally malicious to them, the fact that the "Mean to Miko" strips of this period outnumbered the "Mean Miko" strips by a ratio of almost 2 to 1, the fact that many of the "Mean Miko" strips were more open to a more sympathetic Alternative Character Interpretation than the "Mean to Miko" strips, all of this contributed to the unintended sympathy readers had for poor Miko. Thus the Ordrer's treatment of Miko is an essential reason she's unintentionally sympathetic and should be included on this page's entry.

One might think her initial attack of the Order justifies the Order's treatment of her, but YMMV. One might think her attitude on her journey justifed the Order's reaction against her, but YMMV. This is a YMMV page, and should include opinions addressed to this specific page, even if one doesn't agree with those opinions.
KSonik
03:36:31 AM Jul 10th 2013
edited by 70.33.253.43
It does sound to me like it. Specificly, it sounds like a casual, sarcastic, "Well, yes if you want to do this bad thing," because she honestly believes they wouldn't want to do such a "bad thing". When they do it anyway, she objects, but ojecting's not the same thing as condemning.

That's really streching it. Gluttony and corruption have the exact obvious negative connotation that you are glossing over. I shouldn't need to further discuss this point, but all I have to say is, that interpretation was never supported within the actual comic and that is purely unsupported theory.

Roy wasn't just impersonating "someone", he was impersonating a king, as it turns out, a real king, the leader of an actual nation (in the story). Even in Real Life, the leaders of nations take a lot of precautions against assassination attempts since that's a genuine occupational hazard that comes with being the leader of a nation. That's even more true in the Action/Adventure Fantasy universe of Oot S, where multiple assissination attempts are a regular occurence.

You seemed to be ignoring the important part that thery were in the middle of nowhere

I think a better, more generalized aesop that could still be legitimately applied here is that actions have consequences, and the more dishonest and selfish your actions are, the greater your responsibility you bear for those consequences.

That’s not what I was arguing against. I was arguing against the idea that being assassinated for impersonation is not a valid consequence,

No, she didn't. Your criticism of Miko on this point is ill-founded.

First, she demands the Order's surrender.

Yes, in the same “Surrender or die!” manner that hardly would seem heroic to the Order, having initially little knowledge at first that Miko was on the side of justice. It's only when Roy refuses that she attacks.

Just one question. Who on earth within that land gave her the legal justification to carry out that death? No one! Yes I’m aware of the fact she was acting under the order of the Twelve Southern Gods, but that is not the same as the local law enforcement. And guess what? Not having the local authority to kill them means the Order have the right to refuse to surrender to her as they had no reason to initially believe that she was going to be reasonable.And frankly, she explicitly said that she was going to kill the Order entirely which once again, has been ignored. That said, this is the last I will try to discuss of this point. If this important point will still be ignored, then there is no point in going to discussing why I feel justified removing that justification.

all of the Order agreed to go with her to Azure City. They all had their reasons, but expcet for Haley, they all actually wanted to go. Whatever ill will the Order members might've felt towards Miko after the fight wasn't enough to make them decide they wouldn't want to travel with her.

No, but it certainly does explain their "apparent" hatred of her. And really, the fact they didn't go because they liked her (excpet for Roy) but for their own reason does not invalidate that argument. And the fact that Roy initially wanted to go because of Miko and ignored what she attempted on the Order reflected badly on him, not well on Miko, seeing as he only went along because of how he objectified her, which ewas deservedly treated as an absolute wrong reason.

“Judging by the comic itself, the reasons why the Order hates Miko have little or nothing to do with the initial fight but simply because Miko is supposedly such a "bitch" during their journey. And that's where some of us found Miko sympathetic, completely at odds with Burlew's intentions.’’

Which is perfectly okay, what isn’t okay, is that line in the entry suggesting that the Order had no legit reason to dislike Miko. "The quote's from the bottom of the strip, and it's being said by Vaarsuvius, hardly a member of the Miko fanclub. The conclusion that Roy is at least partly ‘’responsible’’ isn't just a reasonable conclusion to come to, it's explicitly stated."

Maybe. But the keyword the at most is partially. Even then, if you are going to call my example of Miko attacking the Order as ill founded criticism a due to the fact it was never brought up as a reason, then you should note that Miko only blamed them for the wrong reason, saying that “If you had all been willing to sleep in the muddy ditch, as I suggested, you would still have your precious dragon treasure”

Which is just plain old ridiculous. And even Elan recognized that the idea that “they bought all of this upon [themselves]” ridiculous, humorously pointing out assassins were to be blamed.

Anyways, I have already tried to explain twice why on earth Miko is not as innocent from hate from the Order as that entry suggest they were and frankly YMMV is a poor excuse to leave something as blatantly inaccurate as that out. YMMV does not mean that one creates an entry that blatantly favours a character leaving out any possibility that they were in the wrong. YMMV simply means that not everyone is going to recognize the same opinion on the character. At the very least, two different views on Miko would have to be acknowledged as legit in equal measures or neither point is simply discussed. What one does not do with a YMMV entry is make one blatantly in favour of a particular character and use the excuse that it is YMMV.’’

"And yet she still managed to make a point that was technically correct: the inn wouldn't have been destroyed if the Order had followed her suggestion of sleeping on the muddy ground. "

No, it was not a valid point at all. You're shifting way too much blame on the Order, conveniently ignoring there would be no danger of the inn being blown up if there was no keg, which was brought by the assassins. And that was not the Order's fault. And for all that Belkar has done, he cannot be blamed for that in which he accidentally have done, and that is knocking over the keg. Apparently, Belkar accidentally knocking over the keg = the entire Order's fault

Larkmarn
05:27:17 AM Jul 10th 2013
Holy crap.

It's YMMV. Unintentionally Sympathetic is an Audience Reaction trope. Obviously someone believes this enough for us to say that. The way it's currently worded is fine. She's meant to be a Lawful Jerkass, but some people disagree. the page can leave it like that.
KSonik
07:07:29 AM Jul 10th 2013
edited by 70.33.253.45
To Larkman: Whether or not she was seen as justified to some was never the problem. The problem came from the the entry being one sided and wrong.

At K Feline: To try and conclude the argument I have made, the fact that Miko had no legal justification to even make that demand cannot be intepreted otherwise as could neither the idea that she had no right to demand a "surrender or die" ultimatum is she was apparently "not" trying to kill them. The Order cannot be faulted for not accepting surrender from an illegitimate moral or legal authority, especially when they were obviously threatened. Again, this is not something that can be reasonably interpreted as anything otherwise. So yeah, there is no other way to intepret Miko's action, especially when she declared her intention to kill them.

And frankly, this incidence does not need to be blatanly brought up in order for one to be able to see how this incident would have shaped most of the Order's feelings towards Miko. This comic isn't exactly foreign to the idea of usign subtle implications. It can be obvserved how the Order in general immedietly became hostile towards Miko after her attempted killing of them. Again, this cannot be interpreted in any other way. The comic needs not spell this out.

More importantly, it was the assassins that brought the kegs, despitethe fact that they would not obvously need it to assassinate the "king." It is blatanly common sense for anyone who is trying to become a professional assassin that if you do not want to unintentionally risk the life of lots of people, they shoudln't have brought something as dangerous as that. Again, whilst Roy was impersonating a king, he was only, at most, reasonably endangering his well being. There is no way one could easily intepret the kegs prescence as anything other than the assassins' fault. To ignore this is to say that somehow Roy should have known that assassins would have been either evil enough or stupid enough to bring the kegs along to a covert assassination attempt. The fact that Belkar accidentally (something that, again, cannot be interpreted as otherwise) knocked over a keg is not an argument for blaming everyone in the Order, but against it.

So for Miko to blame everyone is not just slightly unfair, but incredibly unjust and any argument she made was invalidated the moment she picked on Haley. Which funnily enough proved that what Roy said a mere moment after was completely correct oins saying that she was a "mean socially inept bully who hides behind her holier-than-thou morality" and not following the spirit of the Good alignment.

So yeah, to say that somehow Miko did not deserve her treatment by the Order for trying to kill them, not apologising for that attempt to kill them, being jerks to them (them being jerks to her is obviously due to the fact she tried to kill them in the first place. Haley was initally against joining Miko, Belkar wanted to kill Miko and V called her a "foul shrew" moments after she tried to kill them) ending up with the her blaming the entire Order for the fact that the assassins were careless enough to bring the kegs in the first place. So for that reason, that part will have to go because that part is not in any way shape or form justified.

Larkmarn
08:46:20 AM Jul 10th 2013
I know, but the current wording is sufficiently neutral.

Personally, I hate her and don't get the defense of her, but the current wording is sufficient in my opinion. Maybe add a line about Rule of Cautious Editing Judgement.
KSonik
08:55:20 AM Jul 10th 2013
Sorry if I sounded confrontational.

Fighteer
moderator
06:47:07 AM Jul 11th 2013
Hi, folks. I'd like to throw in a bit of perspective here.

In my mind Miko doesn't belong on this trope because being sympathetic is not "unintentional" on the part of the author; he deliberately wrote her to be controversial.

Miko is both a perpetrator and a victim; she is not blameless but she has good reason to feel that she is awash in lies and deceptions, as she was conditioned from a young age to absolute obedience of an absolute principle by a man who never believed in it to begin with. She was socially isolated and told that her very existence served a holy purpose. She then took the bit and ran with it until she murdered her own lord for no reason other than her belief in her own infallibility.

I would say that if you can't see how that is supposed to be perceived as sympathetic (even if you don't agree), then you are badly missing the point.

It is also true that Roy and company were colossal jerks to her, but in their defense, they saw no reason to be otherwise. She didn't exactly go out of her way to appreciate their world view; she just barged in and took over, treating them as captives to be delivered to her lord (which was, in fact, her mission). Conflict was inevitable.

So, again, I see no reason why Miko should be in this trope. Everything about her character was designed to make the audience sympathize with her motives whilst hating her actions in service of them.
Fighteer
moderator
07:17:38 AM Jul 11th 2013
Also, Xykon, really? You can call him many things, but sympathetic is not one of them. I'm just going to axe the entry.
TheLunchster
topic
11:34:28 AM Dec 25th 2012
I just removed this instance of Natter regarding Lot R's Orcs:
  • You mean other than the fact that they are explicitly Tortured Abominations in how they are created? Morgoth and Sauron created the Orcs by twisting elves into perverted abominations. Oh, and the Orcs do plenty of onscreen evil (slaughter of civilians, hewning defeated soldiers on ramparts, etc.) Other than their creation, they aren't portrayed sympathetically at all and how is it 'one-sided'?
I'm putting it here because there are points in here which are worth considering. Do the Orcs really count as this trope?
Danel
topic
10:42:10 AM Sep 29th 2011
Okay, way too many of these examples didn't really get the memo about it being U Nintentionally sympathetic. I'm gonna do a major clean up on this page soon unless someone objects.
pimpdaddy
topic
04:36:49 PM Jan 23rd 2011
Any particular reason why Fawn shoved all of the posts into one or two paragraphs together without changing the words? Because it sort of looks like there's now people contradicting themselves in mid paragraph.
SylviaSybil
08:39:05 PM Jan 23rd 2011
That's proper formatting. One bullet point to one example. **s are only for multiple examples occurring in the same work. We should never see contradictions in the main page, mid paragraph or not. If something's blatantly wrong, delete it. If it's open to interpretation, take it to the discussion page.

It looks like Fawn did the basic clean up, putting everything into one paragraph. If you see examples where there are contradictions, feel free to remove whichever half is wrong.
pimpdaddy
03:21:39 PM Feb 5th 2011
Considering this is a subjective trope, there isn't a right or wrong person, though.
pimpdaddy
topic
02:22:48 PM Jan 18th 2011
Someone should add this to the subjective tropes.
nrjxll
topic
11:33:23 PM Jan 11th 2011
edited by nrjxll
So how is this different from "Misaimed Fandom, but it could be justified"?
SylviaSybil
topic
07:29:17 PM Jul 26th 2010
I don't think Cloverfield is an example. There's nothing in the movie that says it's a baby - in fact, many viewers thought its fleas were its babies and that it was an adult. The only way we know the monster's a baby is by Word of God. So it's unsympathetic in the movie, and intentionally sympathetic outside of it.
Flyairth
topic
08:53:07 AM Jul 1st 2010
edited by Flyairth
Removed this "justifying" edit:

  • I think you misunderstand. The hyenas are bad guys because they hunt for sport, which is against Mufasa's laws. Plus they're you know, hyenas. You feel sorry for them mainly because they're funny.

It is never stated that the hyenas hunt for any reason other than food. Also the fact that hyenas are often stereotyped as evil doesn't make them any less sympathetic in this instance.
back to Main/UnintentionallySympathetic

TV Tropes by TV Tropes Foundation, LLC is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org.
Privacy Policy