OOTS 450 - Wands are for Suckers

[Pbartender]

Because nobody minds when the rules are bent or broken for a bit of humor, but not when it's done as a major plot point.

It has to do with the mood... When you insert bouncy-ball sillyness into the middle of a dratically tense scene, you kind of break the mood and disrupt the flow of the story.

Breaking or bending the rules in a goofy way during a scene that's entirely meant to be a joke fits right in and much, much less aesthetically jarring.

In other words, "There's a time and a place for everything."

 

[Professor Phobos]

It has to do with the mood... When you insert bouncy-ball sillyness into the middle of a dratically tense scene, you kind of break the mood and disrupt the flow of the story.

I guess I'll go tell that to seven years (well, five...four) of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and any one of a thousand more or less serious works that had moments of humor to accentuate the moments of severity.

 

[Quartz]

MAN, I love that little halfling.Chaotic evil FTW!

They're all good, but he's on a roll with Belkar. But I wouldn't put him as CE. More NE, IMHO.

 

[Pbartender]

I guess I'll go tell that to seven years (well, five...four) of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, and any one of a thousand more or less serious works that had moments of humor to accentuate the moments of severity.

"Humor" does not necessarily mean "silly".

Taunting an enemy with a witty quip or a humorously sarcastic insult during the climactic and dramatic fight scene is one thing...

Throwing a creme pie during the climactic and dramatic fight scene is something else...

And intentionally satirizing a serious situation by using overt comedy is something completely different.

 

[Professor Phobos]

"Humor" does not necessarily mean "silly".

Taunting an enemy with a witty quip or a humorously sarcastic insult during the climactic and dramatic fight scene is one thing...

Throwing a creme pie during the climactic and dramatic fight scene is something else...

And intentionally satirizing a serious situation by using overt comedy is something completely different.

I dunno, man, this is the same old thing- no "Law of Drama" was violated in that strip. There are no rules about this stuff. I get that it didn't work for you, but you will not be able to find a textbook that says, "Yes, sillyness and severity can not mix."

Besides, it isn't as if Villainous NPC killing a bunch of mook Paladins is really a "climactic scene."

 

[WD40]

Hmmm... Belkar seems to have picked up some trendy red stripes on his tunic.. they weren't there for his 'Sexy Shoeless God of War' strip, and they don't disappear when he drinks his potion...

Any suggestions?

 

[Ry]

Hmmm... Belkar seems to have picked up some trendy red stripes on his tunic.. they weren't there for his 'Sexy Shoeless God of War' strip, and they don't disappear when he drinks his potion...

Any suggestions?

Probably just blood he lost during the fight that's still on his clothes. That or Hobgoblin blood.

 

[orsal]

They're all good, but he's on a roll with Belkar. But I wouldn't put him as CE. More NE, IMHO.

Wanton slaughter? Pretty chaotic to me. Besides, Belkar himself agrees.

 

[Kaledor]

Hmmm... Belkar seems to have picked up some trendy red stripes on his tunic.. they weren't there for his 'Sexy Shoeless God of War' strip, and they don't disappear when he drinks his potion...

Any suggestions?

I took it to mean that it's showing damage that he has taken.
The potion just didn't heal all of his damage...

 

[Balgus]

Not that I'm complaining... but I find it pretty funny that no one has a problem with using the disembodied head of an undead for unlimited fireballs, but people have a problem with a super bouncey ball of insanity.

Perseus had no problems using medussa's head for unlimited Petrifications.... so why is this any different?

from the first line "I could drink the healing potion, but then I would lose this kickass'battle damage' look" to the last line, this comic was HYE-larious. I enjoyed every cell...