Comic for February 29th, 2012

[judah4]

Then wouldn't it make more sense to refer to her by her first name?

Only if we can remember her name that's why people resort to stalker girl

[avwolf]

In fairness, Lieutenant Madelyn Adelaide was known as "The Stalker" or "Lieutenant Stalker" since she appeared in the graveyard on the Basidian Isles. We wouldn't be given her name until Keith's trial, so for many of us forumites, referring to her as "the Stalker Girl" still seems more natural and comes to us more immediately.

I tend to believe, hairstyle notwithstanding, that Lt. Adelaide is the most reasonable character to be the "barrel dweller," as it keeps Tom from introducing a new character, which he'd then have to establish. Her appearance is pretty similar to what few hints we've seen in that shadowed panel and her behavior would be fairly consistent with sneaking aboard the ship to stay with Keith. Additionally, she doesn't appear in the last few comics before the ship departs, despite us seeing most of the other high-ranking (as far as that goes) members of the military during that period. Considering her fixation on Keith, one would expect seeing her somewhere. The biggest point is that it keeps Tom from needing to introduce a new character. No other existing characters are as reasonable to be there as the good Lieutenant (there are those who believe the Master Spy is likely, but they'd need to answer why he wouldn't be in his normal form and why he wasn't using whatever mysterious transportation he's otherwise used throughout the entirety of the comic, and I'm not aware of any compelling arguments made to answer those questions). Why would Tom want to introduce a new character and then have to establish who that character is and why they stowed away when an existing character would suffice?

[RedDwarfIV]

In fairness, Lieutenant Madelyn Adelaide was known as "The Stalker" or "Lieutenant Stalker" since she appeared in the graveyard on the Basidian Isles. We wouldn't be given her name until Keith's trial, so for many of us forumites, referring to her as "the Stalker Girl" still seems more natural and comes to us more immediately.

I tend to believe, hairstyle notwithstanding, that Lt. Adelaide is the most reasonable character to be the "barrel dweller," as it keeps Tom from introducing a new character, which he'd then have to establish. Her appearance is pretty similar to what few hints we've seen in that shadowed panel and her behavior would be fairly consistent with sneaking aboard the ship to stay with Keith. Additionally, she doesn't appear in the last few comics before the ship departs, despite us seeing most of the other high-ranking (as far as that goes) members of the military during that period. Considering her fixation on Keith, one would expect seeing her somewhere. The biggest point is that it keeps Tom from needing to introduce a new character. No other existing characters are as reasonable to be there as the good Lieutenant (there are those who believe the Master Spy is likely, but they'd need to answer why he wouldn't be in his normal form and why he wasn't using whatever mysterious transportation he's otherwise used throughout the entirety of the comic, and I'm not aware of any compelling arguments made to answer those questions). Why would Tom want to introduce a new character and then have to establish who that character is and why they stowed away when an existing character would suffice?

Why would Lt. Adelaide set a fire on board? And the Barrel Dweller
doesn't have eyelashes, as someone pointed out. I still say it looks more like a wolf.

[judah4]

In fairness, Lieutenant Madelyn Adelaide was known as "The Stalker" or "Lieutenant Stalker" since she appeared in the graveyard on the Basidian Isles. We wouldn't be given her name until Keith's trial, so for many of us forumites, referring to her as "the Stalker Girl" still seems more natural and comes to us more immediately.

I tend to believe, hairstyle notwithstanding, that Lt. Adelaide is the most reasonable character to be the "barrel dweller," as it keeps Tom from introducing a new character, which he'd then have to establish. Her appearance is pretty similar to what few hints we've seen in that shadowed panel and her behavior would be fairly consistent with sneaking aboard the ship to stay with Keith. Additionally, she doesn't appear in the last few comics before the ship departs, despite us seeing most of the other high-ranking (as far as that goes) members of the military during that period. Considering her fixation on Keith, one would expect seeing her somewhere. The biggest point is that it keeps Tom from needing to introduce a new character. No other existing characters are as reasonable to be there as the good Lieutenant (there are those who believe the Master Spy is likely, but they'd need to answer why he wouldn't be in his normal form and why he wasn't using whatever mysterious transportation he's otherwise used throughout the entirety of the comic, and I'm not aware of any compelling arguments made to answer those questions). Why would Tom want to introduce a new character and then have to establish who that character is and why they stowed away when an existing character would suffice?

Why would Lt. Adelaide set a fire on board? And the Barrel Dweller
doesn't have eyelashes, as someone pointed out. I still say it looks more like a wolf.

accident that she didn't notice until it was to late? Hopefully we will find out soon

[avwolf]

Why would Lt. Adelaide set a fire on board?

Easy: by accident. There's really no indication at all that the fire was intentional. Now, as for why she didn't notice the blaze or put it out herself, considering that nearly all Basitins should be fairly seasoned sailors, well, that's a question I'm afraid I don't have the answer to.

And the Barrel Dweller doesn't have eyelashes, as someone pointed out. I still say it looks more like a wolf.

Then the question you have to answer, good sir, is where did the Wolf come from? Besides, if I'm right, it wouldn't be the first time Tom left Madelyn's eyelashes off.

I should note here that my memory did fail me in one regard: we do see Lieutenant Adelaide shortly before the ship departs. It seems she may have been placed in charge of loading the Ambassador General's vessel.

[RedDwarfIV]

Why would Lt. Adelaide set a fire on board?

Easy: by accident. There's really no indication at all that the fire was intentional. Now, as for why she didn't notice the blaze or put it out herself, considering that nearly all Basitins should be fairly seasoned sailors, well, that's a question I'm afraid I don't have the answer to.

And the Barrel Dweller doesn't have eyelashes, as someone pointed out. I still say it looks more like a wolf.

Then the question you have to answer, good sir, is where did the Wolf come from? Besides, if I'm right, it wouldn't be the first time Tom left Madelyn's eyelashes off.

I should note here that my memory did fail me in one regard: we do see Lieutenant Adelaide shortly before the ship departs. It seems she may have been placed in charge of loading the Ambassador General's vessel.

Well, I can't answer the question if I don't have the answer. If Tom is introducing a new character, then we will find out anyway.

[avwolf]

Well, I can't answer the question if I don't have the answer. If Tom is introducing a new character, then we will find out anyway.

Ah, but the point isn't knowing, it's postulating.

If we were talking about leaving a port where there was a significant Keidran population, a new Wolf character might not be ridiculous (heck, there are a few existing characters that wouldn't be amiss to see show up). But since there really aren't very many Keidran on the Basidian Isles, that conclusion is much more difficult to justify. About the only Wolf we've seen capable of unexplained travel like that might be Euchre, whose connection with the the Templar would make his presence less surprising than trying to explain where a new character came from, and more importantly, why. It may be true that Tom could easily introduce a new character if he felt like doing so, I just don't believe that introducing one now would be a very good storytelling practice, not without a good reason.

[DenFremmede]

Could not the Barrel Dweller also be the unknown character that slaughtered the former arms General?

[avwolf]

Could not the Barrel Dweller also be the unknown character that slaughtered the former arms General?

That character is not generally considered "unknown." It is generally agreed on the forums that the Arms General was killed by the Master Spy. The "alt text" on that image referenced him being "the tavern keeper," who was pretty obviously the Master Spy, and Tom is on record for stating that the Master Spy's disguise magic simply lets him appear to be something he is not -- if you look closely he's clearly not whatever he's supposed to look like, which is consistent with the Arms General's comments.

[RedDwarfIV]

Well, I can't answer the question if I don't have the answer. If Tom is introducing a new character, then we will find out anyway.

Ah, but the point isn't knowing, it's postulating.

If we were talking about leaving a port where there was a significant Keidran population, a new Wolf character might not be ridiculous (heck, there are a few existing characters that wouldn't be amiss to see show up). But since there really aren't very many Keidran on the Basidian Isles, that conclusion is much more difficult to justify. About the only Wolf we've seen capable of unexplained travel like that might be Euchre, whose connection with the the Templar would make his presence less surprising than trying to explain where a new character came from, and more importantly, why. It may be true that Tom could easily introduce a new character if he felt like doing so, I just don't believe that introducing one now would be a very good storytelling practice, not without a good reason.

All good reasons. I couldn't think of a good reason why there would be a new wolf character, it just looked to me by appearence most like a wolf Keidran. I don't have any evidence to back it up beyond that it has roughly the same hairstyle as Zen, and that Lt. Adelaide's hair isn't quite the same either.

Besides, the Barrel Dweller has been put in a dark barrel because it looks creepier. If Tom were to go and have Lt. Adelaide, a character who is certifiably not creepy beyond an obsession with watching male Basitin have fights, it would sort of flop like a wet fish.

[BadFoMo]

Why would Lt. Adelaide set a fire on board?

Easy: by accident. There's really no indication at all that the fire was intentional. Now, as for why she didn't notice the blaze or put it out herself, considering that nearly all Basitins should be fairly seasoned sailors, well, that's a question I'm afraid I don't have the answer to.

Well, there was this idea I had a while ago, but I think it’s way too far-fetched to be plausible. The most logical thing that I could come up with would be that it was an accident and she had it completely under control. Until Mike came down. She needed to stay out of sight, so she ran for it hoping that Mike would report the fire.

Now this raises another question. Where is she hiding now?

Anyway, I think I found a good way to introduce the stowaway. Continuing from the guessed story I sort of wrote earlier,

Eric: If it wasn’t you then who did it?!
Evals: I don’t know.
Mike: Actually, has anyone seen the Basitin lately?
Evals: Which one? The one that has been traveling with us, or the one sneaking around behind you?
[Eric, Flora, Mike and Trace turned around to see the stowaway.]

And then we see a chaotic chase scene with the song ‘Bad Dog No Biscuit’ playing in the background.

[AlfaWskyDlta]

Lt. Adelaide is the most reasonable character to be the "barrel dweller," as it keeps Tom from introducing a new character, which he'd then have to establish.

I agree with this, and pretty much everything in this post. What I am stuck on is that once she is discovered, assuming she is the stowaway, what purpose would she have in the plot? (besides stalking Keith and being generally creepy of coarse...)

[Gradivus]

Any good RPG GM should be able to tell you that being asked a context-less question like that is just begging to be answered in a way that doesn't help the interrogator at all, or at least not as much as they think it will. The biggest shock for the readership and for the other members of the party is for Evals to answer "yes." It's the most dramatic answer he could give. As a result, there's good money on him saying it, but it's still pretty likely that he wasn't involved in the most recent fire, implying that he started some other fire on the ship at some period in the past.

What about the opposite case? At this point it doesn't seem likely that he did set fire to the ship, but still, that's a possibility. In "Did you set fire to my ship?" the "my" is italicized and in bold, signifying that Eric (or Tom) is emphasizing the word. So Evals could say "no" even if he did set fire to the ship – if for some reason he thinks it isn't really Eric's ship.

[Deaththekat]

Could not the Barrel Dweller also be the unknown character that slaughtered the former arms General?

That character is not generally considered "unknown." It is generally agreed on the forums that the Arms General was killed by the Master Spy. The "alt text" on that image referenced him being "the tavern keeper," who was pretty obviously the Master Spy, and Tom is on record for stating that the Master Spy's disguise magic simply lets him appear to be something he is not -- if you look closely he's clearly not whatever he's supposed to look like, which is consistent with the Arms General's comments.

i may be wrong but doesnt lady Nora hint at having killed the Master Arms General? I'll relook at that chapter.

[Deaththekat]

Could not the Barrel Dweller also be the unknown character that slaughtered the former arms General?

That character is not generally considered "unknown." It is generally agreed on the forums that the Arms General was killed by the Master Spy. The "alt text" on that image referenced him being "the tavern keeper," who was pretty obviously the Master Spy, and Tom is on record for stating that the Master Spy's disguise magic simply lets him appear to be something he is not -- if you look closely he's clearly not whatever he's supposed to look like, which is consistent with the Arms General's comments.

i may be wrong but doesnt lady Nora hint at having killed the Master Arms General? I'll relook at that chapter.

... well then I retract this statement...
Where did that memory come from though?o3o