A little bit of terminology here. The roles of main character, protagonist and hero are, respectively, when you want to be really specific: The one whose viewpoint informs the story’s perspective, the one whose decisions make the plot happen (e.g. in James Bond movies the villain is always the protagonist), and the one whose sacrifice leads to victory.
Alison may be the main character and the protagonist in this story, but Vigilant Gaze is the hero as of right now.
Indeed, the villain can often be the antagonist, but that does not actually have anything to do with the distinctive definitions of hero, protagonist and main character which we are discussing here.
Literature prof here. The villain in James Bond can’t be the protagonist because the story is not told from their point of view. They can, however, be one of the main characters, and often are. I find that Western theorists often have a problem with allowing more than one main character per story, but most non-Western traditions often have them. Abbadon has whole cohorts of them.
And what does the main character do, if they’re not the point of view character as I suggest? And what do you call the character that makes the plot happen? If you want to argue terms you should maybe define them.
I’m using these terms I got from film school because I find it useful to have precise terms for these specific roles of characters in stories. Maybe that’s bad because it’s not as prestigious as literature, but I’m not seeing any better alternatives on offer.
The main charakter is always the point of view, that is literally the definition of “main character”.
The protagonist is the one who makes the plot happen by actively making decisions. They often are the same person but do not have to be.
The bond villain is the plot catalyst that forces the protagonist to act in response. He is neither the central focus of the story nor do we see it unfold mainly from his perspective.
And thus he is the antagonist and not the protagonist.
No the literal definition of main character is “ the most important character in a book, film, etc.” Main Character and Protagonist are the same thing. They are synonyms. Hero is just a heroic protagonist. A character that opposes the protagonist is an antagonist. Just as a story can have multiple povs you can have multiple main characters. Both protagonists and antagonists drive the story. A good plot shouldn’t be determined by a single characters actions.
You may not like it but that is how these words are used and understood. If you want definitions look in a dictionary.
An immortal’s death and a mortal’s are both precious things. They occur only once. Even rarer, a death that is not only chosen, but screams the meaning of them out into the universe and adds to the song.
I don’t know that grandpa would want Defend Kindness to be the note he left. Perhaps more accurately, Commit to What You Want to be Real, and Make It So.
already, the craven seek to write their own words over his carefully chosen last testiment, that his strength might power their ambitions. So it always goes with all of the best and most true, let your words stand on their own merit if they are good, his were these, “If you truly believe in kindness, know this! It must be cultivated! It must be won fiercely! And it must be defended – with every last drop of blood!!!”
It always difficult to tell which daggers are drawn steel or a player’s prop here. Jests and overblown grandiosity easily mistaken for full throated aggression. But you chose craven, so I will choose to dance with you. If nothing else, old bones need the exercise.
The problem with words is that they’re dead. The instant they leave the lips and are etched on paper, they cease to be a thing that carries meaning. They are instead ignited in the audience; lit with fires they carry. Our thoughts, our understandings, all of it are shaped unavoidably by our perspectives and values. This is known.
We don’t know what exists between the ears of the fodder, or how they motivate themselves. We know what has been used across record to do so; we often find ourselves defending aggressively, proactively. Terrible things done in the name of great good is an old trope.
Thus, the problem of the epitaph. The need to take a lifetime and turn it into a phrase; a motto, a bumper sticker. The expectation of one to sum up their own life at its conclusion and wrap it in a neat package. It assumes a lesson of a life without knowing the contours of that life.
Vigilant Gaze was boisterous in actions, vibrant in his deeds, and prone to missing significant pieces of the situation. He was kind with every step and drop of whatever angel blood is. He understood it as water does a bowl. But words are dead. And if that word Kindness is missing significant pieces, then they will be filled in, and those who fill it in intentionally are rarely kind.
I think his example, more than the phrase, is the thing to honor. It is a very good phrase, and a very good moment. My apologies for speaking ill of the departed; it simply felt more true to the actions taken.
A mediocre retreat after a poor defense. And a shame, when simply standing by your resonance of this death could have been so grand. Now stop putting your words into the mouth of the dead.
>”I don’t know that grandpa would want Defend Kindness to be the note he left. Perhaps more accurately, Commit to What You Want to be Real, and Make It So.”
The above was the sentiment I was responding to. I was referring to an offense against a fictional character, so my only seriousness was about the parable of it, I don’t mean that anyone is really craven, but that saying this while sheltering with the last hope for ten thousand worlds under the burning spirit of a dying angel would be. I see people do the same thing in our world with the revered dead, and its a pet peeve of mine here. I recognize that there wasn’t an actual death here, just the drawing of an epic comic, but Vigilant Gazes words were thoughtful and respectable and its kinda spitzy to say what he meant when he probably already said what he meant.
Is this Vigilant Gazes’ last angelic incarnation then? The ultimate destruction of his cold soul? Or is he sacrificing his memory and hard earned wisdom? To once more suffer the indignity of ignorance? Both ways, a version of Vigilant Gaze dies, and a version of Vigilant Gaze will live again.
Abaddon has stated that the white flame is immutable by nature and is incredibly hard to alter or unmake. I’d be surprised if this technique actually permakilled the angel performing it, but given the subtext and reactions of other characters…
Set a bonfire anflame against eternal night. Take refuge in its protection. Tomorrow, the bonfire is no more, yet it remains among the ashes and the scattered atoms of smoke.
An Indeterminate Number of Angels on the Head of a Pin
I wouldn’t be surprised if this is one of those few things that can unmake or alter the Smokeless Fire of UN, its not an easy technique to pull off if 2-Michael is to be believed.
If it doesn’t consume him completely then I’d wager his next reincarnation will beat the rest of the Prime Angels for longest time.
I don’t think Vigilant Gaze would’ve wanted to use a technique that is going to slowly kill him. Also he’s a trans ally unlike that woman’s characters.
for a few moments, it seemed as if his words, while wise, might ring a bit hollow. A stone skinned fire hearted immortal telling the battered and bleeding that one should sacrifice completely, if it comes to that.
But no, he absolutely meant that shit.
Cultivate kindness. Defend it. With every last drop of blood.
/salute
/salute
/salute
/salute
/salute
/salute
/salute
/salute
/salute
/salute
/salute
/salute
/salute
/salute
/salute
/salute
/salute
Wait. They’re an angel. Their soul is already burning.
Oh well- it’s still a LOT of effort.
/salute
Gog has a hard time taking anything seriously. Except the bit
RIP King Grandpa you were the one of the realest ones of them all.
That reminds me like how Baki works
Ah, Gog, my dear Gog, I don’t think you get it. This is Allison’s story. SHE. DECIDES. THE FUCKING. SCRIPT.
Or, at least, she gets input on how the story flows.
Perks of being the main character.
Leomund’s Tiny Hut
Ewige blumenkraft.
Goodness,
We didn’t deserve Papa Vigilant Gaze.
That’s okay. Vigilant Gaze wasn’t concerned with being earned. The best never are.
The realest one until the very end
A little bit of terminology here. The roles of main character, protagonist and hero are, respectively, when you want to be really specific: The one whose viewpoint informs the story’s perspective, the one whose decisions make the plot happen (e.g. in James Bond movies the villain is always the protagonist), and the one whose sacrifice leads to victory.
Alison may be the main character and the protagonist in this story, but Vigilant Gaze is the hero as of right now.
For anyone actually wondering: No, this is not how that terminology is actually used in any actual critical context.
Okay, what words do you think would work better?
Lol yeah, what is up with that nonsense? The protagonist is the main character. In james bond, the villain is the antagonist.
Indeed, the villain can often be the antagonist, but that does not actually have anything to do with the distinctive definitions of hero, protagonist and main character which we are discussing here.
Or I guess lol what.
Literature prof here. The villain in James Bond can’t be the protagonist because the story is not told from their point of view. They can, however, be one of the main characters, and often are. I find that Western theorists often have a problem with allowing more than one main character per story, but most non-Western traditions often have them. Abbadon has whole cohorts of them.
And what does the main character do, if they’re not the point of view character as I suggest? And what do you call the character that makes the plot happen? If you want to argue terms you should maybe define them.
I’m using these terms I got from film school because I find it useful to have precise terms for these specific roles of characters in stories. Maybe that’s bad because it’s not as prestigious as literature, but I’m not seeing any better alternatives on offer.
The main charakter is always the point of view, that is literally the definition of “main character”.
The protagonist is the one who makes the plot happen by actively making decisions. They often are the same person but do not have to be.
The bond villain is the plot catalyst that forces the protagonist to act in response. He is neither the central focus of the story nor do we see it unfold mainly from his perspective.
And thus he is the antagonist and not the protagonist.
No the literal definition of main character is “ the most important character in a book, film, etc.” Main Character and Protagonist are the same thing. They are synonyms. Hero is just a heroic protagonist. A character that opposes the protagonist is an antagonist. Just as a story can have multiple povs you can have multiple main characters. Both protagonists and antagonists drive the story. A good plot shouldn’t be determined by a single characters actions.
You may not like it but that is how these words are used and understood. If you want definitions look in a dictionary.
WAY OF THE AURA
Royalty is a continous farming motion
10 Vigilant Gaze Purges the Horizon remains to be the real one.
Sir, we salute you.
HES DOING IT HES PURGING THE HORIZON
10X VIGILANTLY
An immortal’s death and a mortal’s are both precious things. They occur only once. Even rarer, a death that is not only chosen, but screams the meaning of them out into the universe and adds to the song.
I don’t know that grandpa would want Defend Kindness to be the note he left. Perhaps more accurately, Commit to What You Want to be Real, and Make It So.
already, the craven seek to write their own words over his carefully chosen last testiment, that his strength might power their ambitions. So it always goes with all of the best and most true, let your words stand on their own merit if they are good, his were these, “If you truly believe in kindness, know this! It must be cultivated! It must be won fiercely! And it must be defended – with every last drop of blood!!!”
Well said.
It always difficult to tell which daggers are drawn steel or a player’s prop here. Jests and overblown grandiosity easily mistaken for full throated aggression. But you chose craven, so I will choose to dance with you. If nothing else, old bones need the exercise.
The problem with words is that they’re dead. The instant they leave the lips and are etched on paper, they cease to be a thing that carries meaning. They are instead ignited in the audience; lit with fires they carry. Our thoughts, our understandings, all of it are shaped unavoidably by our perspectives and values. This is known.
We don’t know what exists between the ears of the fodder, or how they motivate themselves. We know what has been used across record to do so; we often find ourselves defending aggressively, proactively. Terrible things done in the name of great good is an old trope.
Thus, the problem of the epitaph. The need to take a lifetime and turn it into a phrase; a motto, a bumper sticker. The expectation of one to sum up their own life at its conclusion and wrap it in a neat package. It assumes a lesson of a life without knowing the contours of that life.
Vigilant Gaze was boisterous in actions, vibrant in his deeds, and prone to missing significant pieces of the situation. He was kind with every step and drop of whatever angel blood is. He understood it as water does a bowl. But words are dead. And if that word Kindness is missing significant pieces, then they will be filled in, and those who fill it in intentionally are rarely kind.
I think his example, more than the phrase, is the thing to honor. It is a very good phrase, and a very good moment. My apologies for speaking ill of the departed; it simply felt more true to the actions taken.
A mediocre retreat after a poor defense. And a shame, when simply standing by your resonance of this death could have been so grand. Now stop putting your words into the mouth of the dead.
By my own reading, Zal does no such thing, and instead appears to be describing their own subjective understanding of this moment.
Perhaps you misunderstand their post?
>”I don’t know that grandpa would want Defend Kindness to be the note he left. Perhaps more accurately, Commit to What You Want to be Real, and Make It So.”
The above was the sentiment I was responding to. I was referring to an offense against a fictional character, so my only seriousness was about the parable of it, I don’t mean that anyone is really craven, but that saying this while sheltering with the last hope for ten thousand worlds under the burning spirit of a dying angel would be. I see people do the same thing in our world with the revered dead, and its a pet peeve of mine here. I recognize that there wasn’t an actual death here, just the drawing of an epic comic, but Vigilant Gazes words were thoughtful and respectable and its kinda spitzy to say what he meant when he probably already said what he meant.
Ah, behold the falling angel, see how, even as he dies, he clings tightly to prim’s comb. May he reach concordance.
I’m still hoping Nukoku will join the fray and pull some sort of super ivory demon magic and save the day… Hopefully.
Blessed is the match consumed
Is this Vigilant Gazes’ last angelic incarnation then? The ultimate destruction of his cold soul? Or is he sacrificing his memory and hard earned wisdom? To once more suffer the indignity of ignorance? Both ways, a version of Vigilant Gaze dies, and a version of Vigilant Gaze will live again.
So turns the wheel.
Abaddon has stated that the white flame is immutable by nature and is incredibly hard to alter or unmake. I’d be surprised if this technique actually permakilled the angel performing it, but given the subtext and reactions of other characters…
Set a bonfire anflame against eternal night. Take refuge in its protection. Tomorrow, the bonfire is no more, yet it remains among the ashes and the scattered atoms of smoke.
And in the memories of those who witnessed it.
I wouldn’t be surprised if this is one of those few things that can unmake or alter the Smokeless Fire of UN, its not an easy technique to pull off if 2-Michael is to be believed.
If it doesn’t consume him completely then I’d wager his next reincarnation will beat the rest of the Prime Angels for longest time.
aura so tough princess’ hair lost gravity
Thank you Big Sal o7
I didn’t hear no bell.
“the last just thing” woof
Reminds me of McGonagall: “I always wanted to use that spell!”
I don’t think Vigilant Gaze would’ve wanted to use a technique that is going to slowly kill him. Also he’s a trans ally unlike that woman’s characters.
has zaid just been hanging out there in the back the entire time
He’s just a lil sleepy, give him time!
Good news! Your friend is just ‘mostly dead’. There’s a big difference between ‘mostly dead’ and ‘all dead’.
10 Vigilant Gaze Auramaxxing the Horizon
Today’s comic is full of feels. I was not expecting this, and now I am full of feels.
salutes to you, 10 Vigilant Gaze Purges the Horizon. [glances over] oh, hey zaid
If to gain immortality is to lose one’s soul, then to relinquish immortality is to gain that soul back.
May His pyre be the death of the Wheel.
And may Al-Yi-Sun be the midwife of what will come.
Gigachad angel sacrificing himself for the greater good.
Thank you for giving him a send-off that epic. He truly deserved it.
every last drop…
For the kindness cultivated, it’s flourishing and defense, every. Last. Drop.
for a few moments, it seemed as if his words, while wise, might ring a bit hollow. A stone skinned fire hearted immortal telling the battered and bleeding that one should sacrifice completely, if it comes to that.
But no, he absolutely meant that shit.
Cultivate kindness. Defend it. With every last drop of blood.
Who are you? Who are you, really?