Gender and Sexuality Representation in OOTS [Archive]

oppyu

2013-04-06, 01:16 AM

Disclaimer: This is purely observational. No judgment or statement here.

Someone who did more work than me and understands how to use the table function... and knew that there was a table function on this board. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=15047804#post15047804)

Order of the Stick
Roy Greenhilt: Male, straight, protagonist, leader, love interest of Celia. (459)
Elan: Male, straight, protagonist, love interest of Haley Starshine, Therkla. (432)
Haley Starshine: Female, straight*, protagonist, second-in-command/leader, love interest of Elan. (423)
Belkar Bitterleaf: Male, straight, protagonist. (384)
Vaarsuvius: Androgynous, protagonist, love interest of Inkyrius. (345)
Durkon Thundershield: Male, straight, protagonist, love interest of Hilgya Firehelm, killed. (328)

Team Evil
Xykon: Male, straight, major antagonist, leader. (94)
Redcloak: Male, straight, major antagonist, second-in-command/leader. (94)
MitD: Male, major character. (66)
Tsukiko: Female, straight (necrophiliac), supporting antagonist, killed. (28)
Jirix: Male, supporting antagonist, leader. (21)
Hobgoblin General: Male, minor antagonist, killed. (5)

Linear Guild
Nale: Male, straight*, major antagonist, leader, love interest of Sabine. (100)
Sabine: Female, bisexual, major antagonist, second-in-command, love interest of Nale. (72)
thog: Male, major antagonist, killed. (67)
Zz'dtri: Male, supporting antagonist. (43)
Yukyuk: Male, supporting antagonist, killed. (14)
Pompey: Male, straight, supporting antagonist. (11)
Leeky Windstaff: Male, supporting antagonist. (11)
Yokyok: Male, supporting antagonist, killed. (5)
Yikyik: Male, supporting antagonist, killed. (17)
Hilgya Firehelm: Female, straight, supporting antagonist, love interest of Durkon Thundershield. (18)

Azure City
Shojo: Male, major ally, leader, killed. (35)
Hinjo: Male, major ally, leader. (76)
O-Chul: Male, major ally. (42)
Lien: Female, straight, supporting ally. (38)
Daigo Da-: Male, straight, supporting ally, love interest of Kazumi Kato. (36)
Kazumi Kato: Female, straight, supporting ally, love interest of Daigo Da-. (26)
Miko Miyazaki: Female, straight, major ally/antagonist, killed. (68)
Daimyo Kubota: Male, supporting antagonist, leader, killed. (13)
Therkla: Female, straight, supporting ally/antagonist, love interest of Elan, killed. (20)
General Chang: Male, minor ally, killed. (8)
Sangwaan: Female, minor ally, killed. (6)
Grand Larcenist: Male, minor character, killed. (7)

Team Tarquin
Tarquin: Male, straight, major antagonist, leader. (66)
Malack: Male, major antagonist, second-in-command. (48)
Empress of Blood: Female, minor antagonist, patsy. (17)
Kilkil: Male , minor antagonist, lackey. (24)

Greysky City
Bozzok: Male, supporting antagonist, leader. (12)
Hank: Male, supporting antagonist, second-in-command. (9)
Crystal: Female, supporting antagonist, killed. (13)
Jenny: Female, straight, minor antagonist. (6)

Azure City Resistance
Ho Thanh: Male, supporting ally, leader, killed. (23)
Niu: Female, supporting ally. (18)
Eye-patched leader: Female, minor supporting ally, killed. (7)
Knot-topped leader: Male, minor supporting ally, killed. (6)
Team Peregrine Leader: Androgynous, minor supporting ally, leader, killed. (7)
Team Peregrine Lieutenant: Androgynous, minor supporting ally, second-in-command, killed. (6)

Other
Celia: Female, straight, supporting ally, love interest of Roy Greenhilt. (71)
Qarr: Male , supporting antagonist. (42)
The IFCC: Males, major antagonists, leaders. (13)
The Oracle: Male, minor character. (10)
Gannji: Male, supporting character, leader. (25)
Enor: Male, supporting character. (23)
Eugene Greenhilt: Male, straight, supporting character, killed. (28)
Julia Greenhilt: Female, supporting character. (16)
Sara Greenhilt: Female, straight, supporting character. (7)
Horace Greenhilt: Male, straight, supporting character. (5)
Ian Starshine: Male, straight, supporting character. (22)
Inkyrius: Androgynous, minor character, love interest of Vaarsuvius. (8)
Mr. Jones: Male, minor character. (17)
Mr. Phil Rodriguez: Male, minor character. (14)
Ancient Black Dragon: Female, straight, supporting antagonist, killed. (11)
Shadowdancer: Male, minor antagonist. (11)
'Kaboom' Redaxe: Male, straight, minor antagonist. (10)
Amun-Zora: Female, straight, minor character. (8)
Chief: Male, minor ally, leader, killed. (10)
Rookie Cop: Male, minor ally, leader. (9)
Greysky Priest: Male, minor ally. (6)
Samantha: Female, straight, minor antagonist, leader, killed. (10)
Samantha's Dad: Male, minor antagonist, second-in-command, killed. (11)

Order of the Scribble
Soon Kim: Male, straight, minor character, leader. (9)
Lirian: Female, straight, minor character, second-in-command, love interest of Dorukan, killed. (4)
Dorukan: Male, straight, minor character, love interest of Lirian, killed. (4)
Serini: Female, minor character. (3)
Girard Draketooth: Male, minor character. (12)
Kraagor: Male, minor character, killed. (2)

*canonically shown as being heteroflexible or homoflexible, or otherwise interested in broadening their sexual horizons.
Summary
Most important group lead by a woman: Azure City Resistance
Most important group led by a man: Order of the Stick
Most important woman still alive and not a love interest: Lien
Most important man still alive and not a love interest: Belkar Bitterleaf
Most important demonstrably gay person in strip: Sabine
Most important demonstrably straight person in strip: Roy Greenhilt
Gender balance: M: 51, F: 22 (28.57%), A: 4
Not Killed Gender balance: M: 35, F: 13 (26.00%) , A: 2
% of Women Killed: 42.86% (9 killed, 13 not)
% of Men Killed: 31.37% (16 dead, 35 not)
Unattached Gender balance: M: 45, F: 15 (24.19%) , A: 2
% of Unattached Women: 68.18% (15 unattached, 7 attached)
% of Unattached Men: 88.24% (45 unattached, 6 attached)
Leader Gender balance: M: 15, F: 2 (11.11%), A: 1
Appearances Gender Balance: M: 2840, F: 890 (21.73%), A: 366
Non-PC Appearances Gender Balance: M: 1237, F: 467 (27.07%), A: 21

Adjustments
-Sabine is now classified as bisexual, and therefore the most important gay character (since she is the only demonstrably gay character).
-Kilkil is definitely a dude.
-I've included Haley as a leader, considering how she was the on-panel leader of the Azure City Resistance. While the knot-topped and eye-patched were also leaders, they never led on-panel (and frankly, including them as 'characters', let alone leaders, is pretty generous.)
-Xykon is straight as far as we can tell from SOD.
-Azure City Resistance would now be the most important organisation led by a woman.
-According to bonus material, Lien is also straight.
-Added in appearances, as well as appearances gender balances.
-Added in Ian Starshine, Eugene Starshine, Gannji and Enor (characters important enough to have 20+ appearances) and adjusted ratios accordingly.
-Took Shadowknight12's advice and posted % of Wo/Men dead, and % of Wo/Men unattached.
-Added a lot of characters, changed 'dead' to 'killed', readjusted ratios (went more in favour of women with one or two exceptions), added Inkyrius as V's love interest, moved the bandits to 'other', yadda yadda yadda.

Mutant Sheep

2013-04-06, 01:29 AM

Does Haley's Latent Bisexuality (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0382.html) not count?:smalltongue:

TaiLiu

2013-04-06, 01:31 AM

Does Haley's Latent Bisexuality (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0382.html) not count?:smalltongue:
Good point! I had forgotten about that.

oppyu

2013-04-06, 01:35 AM

Does Haley's Latent Bisexuality (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0382.html) not count?:smalltongue:
True, but if I accepted that then we'd have to go into whether or not Nale's experimentation (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0365.html) counts, and then it just gets messy.

Shadowknight12

2013-04-06, 01:39 AM

Bird

2013-04-06, 01:50 AM

Cool thread.

True, but if I accepted that then we'd have to go into whether or not Nale's experimentation (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0365.html) counts, and then it just gets messy.

You could have some note/symbol/link for characters like Haley and Nale who challenge the hetero-normative mold in some way with respect to sexuality. You wouldn't have to make a judgement as to what their sexuality is.

SowZ

2013-04-06, 01:53 AM

This is an excellent thread. Thank you for taking the time to compile and calculate all of this!

My only observations to add:

Sabine has demonstrated attraction for Miko (while they're both in jail, it's the strip where she offers her to become a blackguard), so that would make her canonically bisexual.
When Nale is impersonating Elan and V catches him making out with Sabine (but is fooled by Sabine's disguise as a male Cliffport cop), Nale says "must resist urge to assert heterosexuality" to which Sabine replies "I'm a shapeshifter, it's not like we never tried..." which would seem to indicate some bicuriosity in Nale's part.
Then there's Elan's reaction to a man (can't remember who it was) he thought was flirting with him, with the implication that he'd had some same-sex encounters during bard camp. That would fall under bicuriosity as well, I think.
And wasn't one of the secrets Haley contemplated in the Azure City dinner during New Year's Eve that she had had a same-sex fling at one point? My memory's a bit fuzzy on that. And didn't she have a bisexual side during that bit with her multiple ghostly facets?

I'd provide links to the strips in question, but my search-fu is horrible. I have no sense of how the story is structured, so I often waste time looking for a strip in the wrong places.

Oh! Also, V is married, so s/he technically has a love interest.

EDIT:

As an LGBT+ person, I take what I can get. While that sort of thing is nowhere near the level of representation I'd like to see in the strip, I'd really like to give the Giant credit where it's due for at least acknowledging that same-sex flings happen. Baby steps and all that.

There are gay characters. Shoot, the CP Police has a character who is gay, otherwise fairly masculine, and it doesn't seem like his coworkers/friends make a big deal of it. Most people we meet don't have an established sexuality because it doesn't matter to the story. Thanh could be gay, for example, I don't know.

The priesthood of Thor, while very conservative, seems to think homosexuality is normal in OtoPCs.

As for male-female representation, a lot of the characters tend to be military persons. Men tend to gravitate towards those positions more, so it makes sense we see a few more guys. Of course, that imbalance would probably be less then we see in RL in a world without strength differences between genders. (But we do see a lot more military women than one would see in a RL military, so it's fine.)

Hendel

2013-04-06, 01:53 AM

Durkon Thundershield: Male, straight, supporting protagonist, love interest of Hilgya Firehelm, dead.
Actually the status should be undead, not dead.

oppyu

2013-04-06, 01:54 AM

This is an excellent thread. Thank you for taking the time to compile and calculate all of this!

My only observations to add:

Sabine has demonstrated attraction for Miko (while they're both in jail, it's the strip where she offers her to become a blackguard), so that would make her canonically bisexual.
When Nale is impersonating Elan and V catches him making out with Sabine (but is fooled by Sabine's disguise as a male Cliffport cop), Nale says "must resist urge to assert heterosexuality" to which Sabine replies "I'm a shapeshifter, it's not like we never tried..." which would seem to indicate some bicuriosity in Nale's part.
Then there's Elan's reaction to a man (can't remember who it was) he thought was flirting with him, with the implication that he'd had some same-sex encounters during bard camp. That would fall under bicuriosity as well, I think.
And wasn't one of the secrets Haley contemplated in the Azure City dinner during New Year's Eve that she had had a same-sex fling at one point? My memory's a bit fuzzy on that. And didn't she have a bisexual side during that bit with her multiple ghostly facets?

I'd provide links to the strips in question, but my search-fu is horrible. I have no sense of how the story is structured, so I often waste time looking for a strip in the wrong places.

Oh! Also, V is married, so s/he technically has a love interest.

EDIT:

As an LGBT+ person, I take what I can get. While that sort of thing is nowhere near the level of representation I'd like to see in the strip, I'd really like to give the Giant credit where it's due for at least acknowledging that same-sex flings happen. Baby steps and all that.

1: True, that combined with the fact that she's a literal incarnation of illicit sex is enough to classify her as bisexual. That 'N/A' besides most important gay person was depressing.
2: While there may be bicuriousity on Nale's part, from the evidence at hand he would still definitely classify himself as a heterosexual.
3: Elan would be the same situation as Nale, plus some Early Installment Weirdness.
4: Haley is a close one actually. I'm still learning towards heterosexuality though, as we've never seen herself self-identify as bisexual. At best, she could qualify as heteroflexible.
5: When I say love interest, it's not so much romantic attachment as 'romance depicted in comic'. Inkyrius is a sparsely-mentioned minor character/one-scene-wonder we see in two or three strips, and we never see any courtship or attachment. On the other hand, Therkla, while never being with Elan, was often shown on-panel with him and had an emotional subplot regarding her feelings for him.

Gift Jeraff

2013-04-06, 01:58 AM

Elan was also curious about the gender-swap belt.

skim172

2013-04-06, 02:10 AM

I would point out that Haley was the organizer, commander, and primary operative of the Azure City Resistance. And among the trio of her, Belk, and Celia, Haley was not just the leader, but also the problem-solver, the "expert", and the "cavalry" - the "knight in shining armor."

Eye-patch (who I think is a paladin? Think she was identified as such in one of the bonus strips for the book) was the leader of one of the other resistance groups.

Bird

2013-04-06, 02:46 AM

By the way, since you had a question mark, Kilkil is indeed male -- Tarquin refers to Kilkil as "him".
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0863.html

MaximKat

2013-04-06, 03:08 AM

Since when is Roy the main protagonist?

SowZ

2013-04-06, 03:22 AM

Since when is Roy the main protagonist?

It seems fairly clear to me. The story is centered around his ancestral quest, after all.

B. Dandelion

2013-04-06, 03:42 AM

Mike Havran

2013-04-06, 03:43 AM

Belkar's little "adventure" with Jenny could be mentioned.

BTW, what does the ''A 1" part mean?

oppyu

2013-04-06, 03:49 AM

I'm surprised you have Redcloak as straight due to SOD but not Xykon? He was pretty plainly interested in girls. He had a relationship with Yydranna, hit on a girl in the bar, and made obviously sexual commentary regarding a cute demonic waitress. You might consider him asexual as a lich (he's "not one of those disgusting biophiliacs"), but in life he was never gay and never showed any bi-tendencies.

Ah, missed that. I'll edit that in now.

Belkar's little "adventure" with Jenny could be mentioned.

BTW, what does the ''A 1" part mean?

That marks him as straight, but it's a little too one-sided, shallow and with a meaningless character to count as a love interest.

A 1 means there's one vote for ambiguously gendered characters; Vaarsuvius.

WoLong

2013-04-06, 04:04 AM

Most important group lead by a woman: Those Bandits From A Really Long Time Ago
Most important group led by a man: Order of the Stick

What constitutes as 'important'? Important to the story, or most powerful in the story world?

Also, it might be better to list what gender(s) each character is attracted to, rather than label them straight/bi/gay. Someone who has been shown to be attracted to the opposite gender may be attracted to their own gender as well.

B. Dandelion

2013-04-06, 04:33 AM

Lien said she had a boyfriend in a bonus strip in DSTP, when Elan tried to hook her up with Hinjo. She brings up the boyfriend again in one of the "Stick Tails" in SSADT.

Kish

2013-04-06, 04:48 AM

Since when is Roy the main protagonist?
Strip #1.

Most important group lead by a woman: Those Bandits From A Really Long Time Ago
Most important group led by a man: Order of the Stick

What constitutes as 'important'? Important to the story, or most powerful in the story world?
If it was the latter, the most important group led by a man would be Xykon's group.

hamishspence

2013-04-06, 04:53 AM

Dungeon Crawling Fools commentary said Elan was thought of first, and Roy was his "straight man" (in the comedy sense- with the rest of the group having wacky antics that Roy reacts to).

I think that it was very shortly in, that Roy became primary though.

Bird

2013-04-06, 05:16 AM

1: True, that combined with the fact that she's a literal incarnation of illicit sex is enough to classify her as bisexual. That 'N/A' besides most important gay person was depressing.

The only unambiguously non-straight character being a "literal incarnation of illicit sex" is still pretty depressing. Though it is nice, as others have mentioned, that several important characters have been indicated to be at least bi-curious.

Souju

2013-04-06, 05:20 AM

Bird

2013-04-06, 05:33 AM

oppyu

2013-04-06, 05:35 AM

There's one thing that kind of irks me about threads like this.
I want to be very, VERY clear that I do not condemn LGBT in any way. It's not freaky, it's not weird to me. I see people every day who fall somewhere within those 4 letters. Someone's orientation is really their own business. However, I can't quite grasp why people want it to be EVERYWHERE.
I mean, sure the numbers and ratios are low, but does the story ever try to paint LGBT or women as any less capable or important than "heteronormal" men?
The leader of the Order of the Stick is a straight man. The leader of the Linear Guild is a straight man. The leader of Azure City is a man, who replaced another man when said man was killed by a crazy woman. The leader of Team Evil is a straight man. The leader of the Empire of Blood is a stupid woman being controlled by a straight man. Even those random bandits led by a woman were in a situation where they were better off being led by the responsible, relatively decent man she replaced. Team Peregrine, the Order of the Scribble, the Cliffport Police Department, the town Belkar visited in the Kickstarter special, the Azure City priests led by the male high cleric, the Greysky City thieves guild, the nation of Gobbotopia, the evil adventuring party that invaded Lawful Good heaven, even the random 'military geniuses' shown conquering people in the Western desert for one panel each before being driven out were all men.

I'm not saying that Rich goes out of his way to show men in authority positions, but it's a societal ill that goes through pretty much every piece of media with the odd exception.

EDIT: Actually, the evil adventuring party had no shown leader. Scratch that example.

AngryHobbit

2013-04-06, 05:40 AM

Shouldn't most important organization led by female be Azure city resistance?
Resistance is certainly more important than some random bandit group.
Haley was de facto leader, and strategist after all.

I don't see any implication with Miko and Redcloak that they are straight. They both looked asexual to me, especially Miko, since there is maybe a reference in SOD that I missed about Redcloak's sexuality, but Miko is (at least to me) clearly asexual.

hamishspence

2013-04-06, 05:42 AM

Miko expresses that she would not be dismissive of the possibility of a romantic relationship with Roy in the future, if he approaches it correctly, here:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0250.html

AngryHobbit

2013-04-06, 05:45 AM

oppyu

2013-04-06, 05:46 AM

Shouldn't most important organization led by female be Azure city resistance?
Haley was de facto leader, and strategist after all.

I don't see any implication with Miko and Redcloak that they are straight. They both looked asexual to me, especially Miko, since there is maybe a reference in SOD that I missed about Redcloak's sexuality, but Miko is (at least to me) clearly asexual.
Regarding Redcloak, Right-Eye seemed to think that Redcloak would be interested in a night out with a pretty girl. Although it is possible that Right-Eye was misinformed.

hamishspence

2013-04-06, 05:48 AM

And also, in SoD:

after Redcloak's retrieved the Monster and met up with Right Eye- he suggests he invite that girl back so he can apologize for turning down the opportunity to date.

AngryHobbit

2013-04-06, 05:50 AM

And also, in SoD:

after Redcloak's retrieved the Monster and met up with Right Eye- he suggests he invite that girl back so he can apologize for turning down the opportunity to date.

Man, I'm blind. :smalleek:

Tebryn

2013-04-06, 05:52 AM

I don't think we can say for certain if Redcloak is any kind of -sexual. More than anything...Asexual seems to be the best bet for him. Same with Tsukiko you could argue, since Undead are for the most part free from gender as a social construct.

hamishspence

2013-04-06, 05:52 AM

At the very start of the Redcloak SOD strips:

Right Eye, as a child, comments on Redcloak's "crush on the girl in the next hut" (much to Redcloak's annoyance) and Redcloak's mum encourages him to ask her out.

Same with Tsukiko you could argue, since Undead are for the most part free from gender as a social construct.

It's brought up here:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0700.html

Copperdragon

2013-04-06, 06:38 AM

oppyu

2013-04-06, 06:43 AM

When glancing over the list I found you list Durkon as "dead", but Xykon not.
Maybe you should make a distinction between "dead" and "undead", so you could list both Xykon and Durkon (and other undead) as "(un)dead".
Honestly, whether or not a character is alive or dead is secondary to the real purpose of the list. I have my basic justification of 'the character we know as Durkon has been killed and replaced by some grey-skinned douche who 'HUNGERS FOR BLOOD' and calls Malack master', and I'm not too concerned with the technicalities of Malack, Xykon and Durkon all being undead, which is considered dead but not dead.

Fenice

2013-04-06, 06:44 AM

Copperdragon

2013-04-06, 06:44 AM

Honestly, whether or not a character is alive or dead is secondary to the real purpose of the list. I have my basic justification of 'the character we know as Durkon has been killed and replaced by some grey-skinned douche who 'HUNGERS FOR BLOOD' and calls Malack master', and I'm not too concerned with the technicalities of Malack, Xykon and Durkon all being undead, which is considered dead but not dead.

I do not really care, but I think your list (whatever it is about) should be in itself consistent.

And Thog wants his capital T or he'll rage.

Unisus

2013-04-06, 06:56 AM

Not sure, but was it explicitly stated, that the MitD was male?

Another thing: Belkar may seem straight at first sight, but actually a small expedition into other regions seems not that problematic for him (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0698.html) (so bi-curious? or even bi?)

As said before, the main problem here is the automatic norming - there are theories about everyone being bi, just with tendencies to one or the other side and confronted with norms. If society sets heterosexuality as a norm, most people with low homosexual tendency will be seen as heterosexual.

Serpentine

2013-04-06, 06:58 AM

Someone's orientation is really their own business. However, I can't quite grasp why people want it to be EVERYWHERE.1. Because it is everywhere. It is the absence of decent female and LGBT characters and issues in the media which is unrealistic, not its presence.
2. Why shouldn't it be?
3. What would be your preferred alternative? Invisibility?
4. Because people like to read about characters they can relate to and subjects they are interested in, and many people - queer or otherwise - relate to queer characters and enjoy queer subjects.

Take your pick :smallsmile:

oppyu

2013-04-06, 07:00 AM

There is one thing that I find really annoying with this list (and similar lists from other fandoms).
When a character shows the slightest hint of interest for a person of the opposite sex, he/she is immediately marked as "heterosexual". No question there.
But when a character shows a hint of interest for a person of the same sex (like Haley and Nale), that is not considered proof enough of homosexuality. You need stronger evidence.

On an unrelated note, if we have to take guesses, I think Vaarsuvius is pansexual. He/she has troubles distinguishing genders, so I guess he/she doesn't really care about them. :smalltongue:

Right Eye, as a child, comments on Redcloak's "crush on the girl in the next hut" (much to Redcloak's annoyance) and Redcloak's mum encourages him to ask her out.

That really tells us nothing. How do you think a closeted gay guy in that situation would have reacted?
Huh, that is a really good point. I suppose the only defenses I have in regards to my list is that A) I have gone through the evidence for disputed characters thus far (Nale, Elan, Haley, Sabine) and either the evidence for heterosexuality outweighs bisexuality or I've corrected my mistake, and B) declaring a character as straight isn't a declaration of certainty, it's a best guess given the evidence provided. It's true that Redcloak could be homosexual, bisexual or asexual, but the on-panel evidence in SOD says that the most likely option is heterosexual who's found better things to do with his time than reproduce.

As for pansexual Vaarsuvius, that theory makes sense and I like it. The Giant should make that canon.

Not sure, but was it explicitly stated, that the MitD was male?

Another thing: Belkar may seem straight at first sight, but actually a small expedition into other regions seems not that problematic for him (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0698.html) (so bi-curious? or even bi?)

O-Chul describes MitD as 'a good man (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0654.html)'. Not definitive proof of course, it's the Monster in the Darkness after all.

As for Belkar, he describes investigating male prostitutes as a sacrifice for the team. Probably straight, although of course could be bisexual, homosexual, pansexual, etc.

Copperdragon

2013-04-06, 07:17 AM

As for Belkar, he describes investigating male prostitutes as a sacrifice for the team. Probably straight, although of course could be bisexual, homosexual, pansexual, etc.

Belkar has a clear preference for females. Which does not mean he'd not do males.

But I think this discussion indicates to me people still are waaay to obsessed with who wants to put what into which hole of whom.

Acanous

2013-04-06, 07:18 AM

You should do one of these for Questionable Content.

Lvl45DM!

2013-04-06, 07:31 AM

Kish

2013-04-06, 07:35 AM

Xykon is almost certainly Asexual since in SoD he had absolutely no qualms about losing his dangly bits.
He spelled out that that was because they, ah, didn't function sexually anymore, due to his extreme age.

Lvl45DM!

2013-04-06, 07:37 AM

He spelled out that that was because they, ah, didn't function sexually anymore, due to his extreme age.

I'm aware but he didn't seem broken up. Again im not very clear on terminology but asexual includes people who find people attractive but still don't have sex doesnt it? Or would that just be celibate?

oppyu

2013-04-06, 07:42 AM

Regarding Xykon and Redcloak.
Xykon is almost certainly Asexual since in SoD he had absolutely no qualms about losing his dangly bits.
Redcloak is probably hetero in theory from the evidence but asexual in practice. He's a busy boy and a Priest to boot.

Oh and one little thing about Elan's 'Bard camp' comment. He's very clearly offended by the insinuation so he at least self-identifies as straight.

Could we call Sabine trans or inter sexual if we know she's shapeshifted into male to have sex with Nale? Im not exactly active in LGBT things so if i've misused those words or horribly offended people I'm sorry and let me know what the correct terms are if you please.

EDIT: And just a plea to people to avoid accusing Rich of anything negative. I find this an interesting topic and that way flame wars lie. Not that anyone has yet

Um... I don't know if our limited human terminology for sexual identity quite covers shapeshifting demonic incarnations of illicit sex, but she could qualify as intersex. The problem with that though, is that she's taken a female name, chooses a female form almost all of the time except when disguising herself as a guard of some kind, and by all accounts seems to consider herself a woman.

Kish

2013-04-06, 07:45 AM

I...wonder if Sabine would be female most of the time were she not assigned to Nale. Wonder what percentage of her lifespan she has been she.

I'm aware but he didn't seem broken up. Again im not very clear on terminology but asexual includes people who find people attractive but still don't have sex doesnt it? Or would that just be celibate?
My question is more, well. Xykon is certainly asexual now (he's not one of those disgusting biophiliacs, and he never seemed particularly, ah, curious about the sex of Tsukiko's wights).

Should someone who is asexual by extreme age and then asexual by being a skeleton, but was heterosexual for most of his life, be listed as "asexual" or "heterosexual"? I'd think the latter, myself.

dps

2013-04-06, 07:49 AM

Where was it established that the Team Peregrine leader was male? I thought it was another ambiguously gendered elf.

AngryHobbit

2013-04-06, 07:58 AM

Regarding Xykon and Redcloak.
Xykon is almost certainly Asexual since in SoD he had absolutely no qualms about losing his dangly bits.

He was around 80-90 years old, so the reason he had no qualms over losing his bits was because he was incapable of using them. There's probably no viagra in OOTSverse, normal or magical. You wouldn't call your grandfather asexual, would you?

All we know is that he is not biophilliac. :smallsmile:

oppyu

2013-04-06, 08:03 AM

Where was it established that the Team Peregrine leader was male? I thought it was another ambiguously gendered elf.
Um... short hair, I guess? Also, Redcloak describes him as a 'dead man'... although that could be as meaningless as every gendered pronoun anyone's ever applied to Vaarsuvius.

Copperdragon

2013-04-06, 08:05 AM

I'm aware but he didn't seem broken up. Again im not very clear on terminology but asexual includes people who find people attractive but still don't have sex doesnt it? Or would that just be celibate?

He has been sexually active when he was alive (he was very charming), but it seems he became asexual. At that point in SoD, he did not miss sex anymore (he probably found other things he enjoys, like "even more murder" etc). I think it is save to assume he's fully asexual by now.

Sabine is probably the definition of pansexual. She's a succubus and does not care in which form she does whom, as long as she's doing it (at best included with some "illicit temptation" and "soul sucking").

LadyEowyn

2013-04-06, 08:08 AM

This is a really neat resource.

How do we know the IFCC are male? They're fiends in cloaks; they may not even have the relevant anatomy.

Given that elves are generally treated in-story as androgynous, we also don't know the Elven Commander is male.

Also, the most important organization run by a woman is technically the Empire of Blood, even if the Empress is a figurehead. Queen Liz is a figurehead but she's still head of state.

Raineh Daze

2013-04-06, 08:12 AM

He has been sexually active when he was alive (he was very charming), but it seems he became asexual. At that point in SoD, he did not miss sex anymore (he probably found other things he enjoys, like "even more murder" etc). I think it is save to assume he's fully asexual by now.

Lack of sexual activity isn't indicative of lack of attraction. Have we seen any clearly female skeletons around recently? That'd be the only way to work ouit the answer to this.

This is a really neat resource.

How do we know the IFCC are male? They're fiends in cloaks; they may not even have the relevant anatomy.

Given that elves are generally treated in-story as androgynous, we also don't know the Elven Commander is male.

Also, the most important organization run by a woman is technically the Empire of Blood, even if the Empress is a figurehead. Queen Liz is a figurehead but she's still head of state.

Cedric and Nero are pretty clearly male names (even though I've seen the Emperor Nero as a girl). Lee? Up in the air.

I think it's story importance, not power.

Unisus

2013-04-06, 08:25 AM

As for Belkar, he describes investigating male prostitutes as a sacrifice for the team. Probably straight, although of course could be bisexual, homosexual, pansexual, etc.

Actually he justs tells Roy not to say, that this was no sacrifice, but when Roy sais exactly that, he acknowledges it.

And i don't believe that the sex of MitD is any clearer than it's place in the Monster Compendium.

Copperdragon

2013-04-06, 08:26 AM

Lack of sexual activity isn't indicative of lack of attraction.

SoD makes it pretty clear he'd not miss it. If that is not enough to decide "asexual", then I do not know what would be. You could also claim Vaarsuvius wasn't asexual based on what we saw so far when it's a very clear case.

Xykon gets his arousals from murder, destruction, and evil. Sex does not play any role in it anymore.

Raineh Daze

2013-04-06, 08:30 AM

SoD makes it pretty clear he'd not miss it. If that is not enough to decide "asexual", then I do not know what would be. You could also claim Vaarsuvius wasn't asexual based on what we saw so far when it's a very clear case.

Xykon gets his arousals from murder, destruction, and evil. Sex does not play any role in it anymore.

As has been said above, he wouldn't miss it because he was already incapable. That does not constitute sufficient evidence for asexuality. If he had been much younger at the time, then yes. Not, however, someone nearly at the end of their life anyway. :smallsigh:

Smolder

2013-04-06, 08:32 AM

So how do we score the Belkar/Vaarsuvius kiss?

Gift Jeraff

2013-04-06, 08:41 AM

Qarr calls the archfiends "the three gentlemen downstairs."

Unisus

2013-04-06, 08:46 AM

Oh, and on the Sabine topic: if i remember correctly, she's a succubus, which is, by definition, a female demon (the male counterpart is incubus, as far as i know).

Shadowknight12

2013-04-06, 08:57 AM

There are gay characters. Shoot, the CP Police has a character who is gay, otherwise fairly masculine, and it doesn't seem like his coworkers/friends make a big deal of it. Most people we meet don't have an established sexuality because it doesn't matter to the story. Thanh could be gay, for example, I don't know.

The priesthood of Thor, while very conservative, seems to think homosexuality is normal in OtoPCs.

As for male-female representation, a lot of the characters tend to be military persons. Men tend to gravitate towards those positions more, so it makes sense we see a few more guys. Of course, that imbalance would probably be less then we see in RL in a world without strength differences between genders. (But we do see a lot more military women than one would see in a RL military, so it's fine.)

And this is why I want to recognise how much the Giant tries to make a more egalitarian work. Sure, he's not perfect (this thread is evidence that speaks for itself in that regard), but I wouldn't be reading the OotS if it didn't at least try to have some gender and minority representation. In regards to race, too, I think the Giant tries hard to have them represented (as per the Greenhilt family and his post on Hylgia's race).

1: True, that combined with the fact that she's a literal incarnation of illicit sex is enough to classify her as bisexual. That 'N/A' besides most important gay person was depressing.
2: While there may be bicuriousity on Nale's part, from the evidence at hand he would still definitely classify himself as a heterosexual.
3: Elan would be the same situation as Nale, plus some Early Installment Weirdness.
4: Haley is a close one actually. I'm still learning towards heterosexuality though, as we've never seen herself self-identify as bisexual. At best, she could qualify as heteroflexible.
5: When I say love interest, it's not so much romantic attachment as 'romance depicted in comic'. Inkyrius is a sparsely-mentioned minor character/one-scene-wonder we see in two or three strips, and we never see any courtship or attachment. On the other hand, Therkla, while never being with Elan, was often shown on-panel with him and had an emotional subplot regarding her feelings for him.

Point taken on most of this, but I do support the suggestion of adding a symbol (maybe "[E]" for experimentation?) to these instances of non-rigid heteronormativity. While it's important to label the character as they label themselves (and it seems like it would be "straight" for Elan and Nale), I really do think that these minor instances are to be recognised somehow.

4. I really think that having a part of your brain called "latent bisexuality" pretty much makes you bisexual, regardless of whether you act on it or not. Of course, that in itself also has some unfortunate implications (just like Sabine's bi/pansexuality, it's somewhat depressing that the most prominent LGBT+ characters are sexualised women).

Oh, and on the Sabine topic: if i remember correctly, she's a succubus, which is, by definition, a female demon (the male counterpart is incubus, as far as i know).

In D&D, succubi and incubi are the same creature. Sabine could have just as easily self-identified as male, called himself an incubus and taken on a primarily male form, and he would have had the exact same powers and plot relevance as she has as a female.

But the predominant male heteronormative view would have no interest in a male incarnation of illicit sex, so instead we have a ton of succubi and nary a mention of incubi in most D&D works.

Copperdragon

2013-04-06, 09:05 AM

As has been said above, he wouldn't miss it because he was already incapable. That does not constitute sufficient evidence for asexuality. If he had been much younger at the time, then yes. Not, however, someone nearly at the end of their life anyway. :smallsigh:

As I said above, he started as clear heterosexual but changed in between to asexual. We know he was asexual at the point he turned into a Lich (for whatever reason!) and becoming an undead abomination surely did not let the pendulum swing back again.
We are discussing what "is", not what was like 20 years ago when the characters were alive, teenagers, shapechanged into a fungus, etc...

Awesome smiley, btw. Makes you appear in a truly grand light for discussing stuff.

Raineh Daze

2013-04-06, 09:19 AM

As I said above, he started as clear heterosexual but changed in between to asexual. We know he was asexual at the point he turned into a Lich (for whatever reason!) and becoming an undead abomination surely did not let the pendulum swing back again.
We are discussing what "is", not what was like 20 years ago when the characters were alive, teenagers, shapechanged into a fungus, etc...

So what you're saying is that because he eventually lost the capability, he lost any sort of desire or attraction? Um, no, it doesn't work like that. What you're saying is basically 'if you lose something, you lose interest in everything that requires it'. It really doesn't work like that (even with regards to Xykon: lost taste, has ended up substituting more murder for coffee).

oppyu

2013-04-06, 09:36 AM

Point taken on most of this, but I do support the suggestion of adding a symbol (maybe "[E]" for experimentation?) to these instances of non-rigid heteronormativity. While it's important to label the character as they label themselves (and it seems like it would be "straight" for Elan and Nale), I really do think that these minor instances are to be recognised somehow.

4. I really think that having a part of your brain called "latent bisexuality" pretty much makes you bisexual, regardless of whether you act on it or not. Of course, that in itself also has some unfortunate implications (just like Sabine's bi/pansexuality, it's somewhat depressing that the most prominent LGBT+ characters are sexualised women).
A problem I have with an 'experimented' tag is how limited it would be. You pretty much have Nale, Haley and... Tsukiko accidentally molested a female corpse, so maybe that could count?... I think the fact that I typed the words 'molested a female corpse' means I should try to change the subject.

Regarding Haley, if my brain was broken down into split personalities, I don't think there'd be one called 'Oppyu's sexuality', whose sole purpose is to distract me with thoughts of licking cheesecake of the rippling abs of Hollywood stars. It's just my default setting, like my gender identity or my feelings towards boy bands (I hate them). If anything, the fact that there's only one part of Haley that supports latent bisexuality means that that part is inconsequentially strong compared to 'Haley's heterosexuality', or 'Haley's self-identification as a woman'.

Serpentine

2013-04-06, 09:50 AM

I would suggest that if you wanted to be truly accurate, you would have to go from the other direction: "not Xsexual". Say, if you have a male character, and we have evidence that he's interested in women, then you could say he is not homosexual, but not for sure whether he's bi/pan- or heterosexual.

Copperdragon

2013-04-06, 09:54 AM

So what you're saying is that because he eventually lost the capability, he lost any sort of desire or attraction?

No, I am not. I am saying, in this specific case, losing his fleshy parts made Xykon, over the years, lose his drive to use them. SoD is pretty clear about his reaction there.
You're thinking I make a general claim, which I do not. I make a specific claim and quote SoD for it.

But all this stuff aside: It totally does not matter at all as the Xykon we're seeing now (since #1) does not show any sexual interest at all in anyone. If you argue Xykon wasn't devoid of sexuality, I ask you to provide proof from within the comic. Else I find it more likely the guy who said "Pah, I do not need it anymore" and who now is an undead abomination doesn't have an interest in sex anymore.
Bring Proof or Occam's Razor has cut of all balls.

Raineh Daze

2013-04-06, 10:11 AM

I would think the burden of proof is on your side, actually. Lack of sexual activity does not constitute proof of sexual orientation. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Occam's Razor? Let's see, which is simpler: his sexual orientation has changed, or he's just stopped expressing desires he can't act on? I'd say the second one.

Copperdragon

2013-04-06, 10:14 AM

Occam's Razor? Let's see, which is simpler: his sexual orientation has changed, or he's just stopped expressing desires he can't act on? I'd say the second one.

Then we disagree. Which is fine, as the question is actually without any real relevancy.

I just think you're wrong in interpreting SoD and very, very wrong on what you think an "Undead Abomination devoid of all that makes life worth living" actually is.
But as this is a pure matter of opinion and interpretation without any solid proof*, I do not see a problem at all.

* Apart from Xykon showing now sexual interest at all for 882 strips.

Syncro

2013-04-06, 10:21 AM

I'm pretty sure both Haley and Belkar are bi-sexual

Xykon seems to be asexual, not really giving any concern to romantic affairs, I mean he could be an evilsexual :amused:

Vaarsuvius probably doesn't reallt care about gender considering he/she doesn't even know the sexual qualities of a male or female( didn't notice Roy changed gender)

The different characers in OOTs usually desire different forms of relationships for example Malack desired a "brotherly" relationship, that of a scholar he talk to intellectually, Sabien usually craves a purely sexual relationship, Elan displays a healthy desire for both platonic and romantic companionship ect

Raineh Daze

2013-04-06, 10:30 AM

I just think you're wrong in interpreting SoD and very, very wrong on what you think an "Undead Abomination devoid of all that makes life worth living" actually is.
But as this is a pure matter of opinion and interpretation without any solid proof*, I do not see a problem at all.

Let's see: Xykon can't be an Undead Abomination, since humans aren't classified as abominations. :smalltongue:

More specifically: a person that happens to be a living corpse, with all the attendant thoughts and feelings, just with the disadvantage of, you know, being an animate skeleton.

Asexuality is one of those things that pretty much needs to be spelled out, not assumed from a lack of action.

Cizak

2013-04-06, 11:07 AM

Xykon HAS sexual attraction in SOD. He briefly gets to describe what he would do to the demon waitress if he was 50 younger before Redcloak shuts him down. I interpret this as that he still thinks about sexual stuff, but knows he's not able to do it anymore. He's okay with losing his fleshy parts because "it hasn't moved on its own in 16 years", not because he doesn't feel lust anymore.

hamishspence

2013-04-06, 11:15 AM

In D&D, succubi and incubi are the same creature. Sabine could have just as easily self-identified as male, called himself an incubus and taken on a primarily male form, and he would have had the exact same powers and plot relevance as she has as a female.

Dragon Magazine introduced an incubus, with different powers (Demonomicon: Malcanthet).

4E also took the approach that they were different (for one thing, incubi are demons and succubi devils, in that- though the first incubi were succubi that had been transformed by the Abyss).

Thrax

2013-04-06, 11:46 AM

Shouldn't the original Linear Guild kobold (whose name eludes me) be marked as straight? We've seen one evidence of a heterosexual activity (offspring) and no evidence of any homosexual activities, so it counts as straight in my book.

137beth

2013-04-06, 11:56 AM

I'm really surprised no one has pointed this out, but...

The most important group lead by a female was the order of the stick, when Roy was dead.

Raineh Daze

2013-04-06, 12:05 PM

I'm really surprised no one has pointed this out, but...

The most important group lead by a female was the order of the stick, when Roy was dead.

Because Belkar is clearly sufficient to count as a group.

137beth

2013-04-06, 12:20 PM

Because Belkar is clearly sufficient to count as a group.

Before the end of war and xp, the other five OOTS members were together, and Haley was still the leader. That is a group.

Raineh Daze

2013-04-06, 12:27 PM

That's really stretching the definition of leading.

Copperdragon

2013-04-06, 12:53 PM

Let's see: Xykon can't be an Undead Abomination, since humans aren't classified as abominations. :smalltongue:

More specifically: a person that happens to be a living corpse, with all the attendant thoughts and feelings, just with the disadvantage of, you know, being an animate skeleton.

On what Xykon is (not a big spoiler as we all know what he is):
To quote Xykon: "irredeemable state of utter depravity"
To quote Redcloak: "life draining mockery of all that is beautiful"

Really, that's an undead abomination (not in the sense of rules). He was horrible as living person but SoD makes a point in showing that he went much further than that after becoming undead.

But I think we were done talking about this. ;)

SowZ

2013-04-06, 01:15 PM

On what Xykon is (not a big spoiler as we all know what he is):
To quote Xykon: "irredeemable state of utter depravity"
To quote Redcloak: "life draining mockery of all that is beautiful"

Really, that's an undead abomination (not in the sense of rules). He was horrible as living person but SoD makes a point in showing that he went much further than that after becoming undead.

But I think we were done talking about this. ;)

Also, when there were three AC resistances, one of them was lead by a woman. I don't like bringing this up a second time, but in response to 'we haven't seen any gay people,' we have the Cliffport police officer.

MaximKat

2013-04-06, 01:26 PM

Strip #1.

The fact that he is the leader of the group doesn't make him the main character of the story.

AngryHobbit

2013-04-06, 01:29 PM

"Straight, undead" should be enough for explaining Xykon's sexuality.

Xykon is very tricky to classify, because he was never in a real relationship.

Sentient undead are (probably, we never had examples in the comic) capable of loving, even if they are incapable of having sex. If a vampire, ghost or a lich is in love with someone or attracted to someone you could easily say he's gay, straight or bi, no matter if he can or can't sleep with that person.

But Xykon was, even when he was still alive, incapable of loving someone. Only thing that defined his sexuality is his sex urge, which he lost after becoming the lich.
But I would still count him as straight.

Or maybe all undead are asexual? Giant probably doesn't think or cares about stuff like undead character's sex life.

The fact that he is the leader of the group doesn't make him the main character of the story.

Aren't all 6 the main characters?

137beth

2013-04-06, 01:37 PM

That's really stretching the definition of leading.

How? It is made clear that after Roy dies, she is the new leader of the order of the stick, at least until they split up. After which point she directly leads the group of herself, Belkar, and Celia. What could possibly be less stretchy than that:smallconfused:

Raineh Daze

2013-04-06, 01:42 PM

How? It is made clear that after Roy dies, she is the new leader of the order of the stick, at least until they split up. After which point she directly leads the group of herself, Belkar, and Celia. What could possibly be less stretchy than that:smallconfused:

Being the de jure leader of a group that promptly disintegrates for all of half an hour is the issue: she didn't really get much leading done.

Mutant Sheep

2013-04-06, 01:49 PM

Being the de jure leader of a group that promptly disintegrates for all of half an hour is the issue: she didn't really get much leading done.She was the Leader though. Samantha didn't do much leading in the Bandit group, she just told them to kidnap cute guys. The actual engagements (and probably the rest of the logistics, she doesn't seem the type) were left up to her not-loony-teenager Neutral father. She was the Leader though. If nothing else, Haley did have the position.

AngryHobbit

2013-04-06, 01:58 PM

5: When I say love interest, it's not so much romantic attachment as 'romance depicted in comic'. Inkyrius is a sparsely-mentioned minor character/one-scene-wonder we see in two or three strips, and we never see any courtship or attachment. On the other hand, Therkla, while never being with Elan, was often shown on-panel with him and had an emotional subplot regarding her feelings for him.

By that logic we shouldn't list Hylgia either.

I really don't want to look for that comic, but before introducing Inky, V talks about love and relationships (describing shim as "mate"). So he/she's (I always tought that V is female, and Inky male, with V as dominant partner, but that's not the topic here) not just one scene wonder, they are/were married, they have children (although adopted), and that makes I important enough to list him as love interest.

How? It is made clear that after Roy dies, she is the new leader of the order of the stick, at least until they split up. After which point she directly leads the group of herself, Belkar, and Celia. What could possibly be less stretchy than that:smallconfused:

group of herself, Belkar, and Celia (Celia is not even a member of OOTS) < Azure city resistance

MaximKat

2013-04-06, 02:12 PM

Aren't all 6 the main characters?
That's why I was pointing out that it's incorrect to call Roy "main protagonist" and the rest - "supporting".

skaddix

2013-04-06, 02:17 PM

Yeah Roy is main. Elan is secondary

SowZ

2013-04-06, 02:28 PM

The fact that he is the leader of the group doesn't make him the main character of the story.

No, but the main plot revolving around his ancestral quest, the group admitting that most of the things they do are for Roy's motivations, Roy getting more screentime than anyone else, and Roy being the most active protagonist are what makes him the main character. Him being the leader does help in being the main character, though.

Souju

2013-04-06, 02:44 PM

1. Because it is everywhere. It is the absence of decent female and LGBT characters and issues in the media which is unrealistic, not its presence.
2. Why shouldn't it be?
3. What would be your preferred alternative? Invisibility?
4. Because people like to read about characters they can relate to and subjects they are interested in, and many people - queer or otherwise - relate to queer characters and enjoy queer subjects.

Take your pick :smallsmile:

Alright I'll break this down one by one:
1) "Everywhere" is subjective and/or relative. I've personally met quite a few LGBT people and have one or two LGBT pseudo-relatives, and one of my college friends is strongly LGBT, but I don't SEE it everywhere because it rarely comes up in my own life. I'm not part of some sheltered community, or anything like that, it's just not something I actively seek out. It's actually a common logical fallacy: Because we're ingrained into our own communities and worldviews, we believe that something we either love or despise is "everywhere" when really it's no more prevalent than people who like pineapple on their pizza (which, incidentally, may fall into one of both categories). I'm not saying LGBT is more or less common than people who like pineapple on their pizza as I don't really have the statistics for the latter, but the point is just because it's common in your life, doesn't mean it's truly common for the larger world, or for the person standing next to you at the very least. It may be "everywhere" you go, but it's not "everywhere" "everyone" goes, in other words. Sci Fi nerds, comic book geeks, and polka music fans have to learn this lesson the hard way. I can't remember the exact name of the fallacy, but it's the same one that tells our minds that flying is unsafe because of a single deadly plane crash, or that child abductors are everywhere because of three reported kidnapping cases on Nancy Grace. LGBT is kind of like...pelicans. You can go to a beach and see a flock of seagulls, but you might only see one or two, or maybe a half dozen or so, pelicans. That's not to say there aren't a lot of pelicans, and if two people got attacked there'd probably be a report about the rising pelican epidemic. Since there were three pelicans at the beach instead of two, that means a 50% increase in pelican population! Also the pelicans will snatch our children away in the night because they have those scooping bills!

2) Here's where I talk about writing: Write what you know. Since the majority of people in English speaking nations don't really identify as LGBT, they can't necessarily write from an LGBT perspective. There are some that can and do, of course, but sometimes that can cause issues. In writing, writing outside your realm of knowledge can turn into either spouting off about crap you know nothing about or you get the "token minority" aspect. Rich is male and straight. It's not a far fetched idea that, since he has the most experience with being a straight male, he writes straight males. That's not to say writers shouldn't break away from what they know and try something new, but it's an extremely daunting prospect, as the further outside your realm of knowledge you get, the more difficult it can be to come up with something that doesn't offend people. Offend being very loose in this case, as I refer just as much to portraying a lazy Mexican as I do to kanji being a "secret asian language." Or my pizza topping comment from before.

3) Nope. Well, it's not my story. If it's a "cast full of gay," "cast full of straight with token LGBT," or "two asexual guys and a robot named Jack who switches between genders at literally the push of a button," it doesn't matter as long as it's a good story. (Hell, that last one would probably intrigue me on concept alone...) I don't like to dwell on these things (but I can).

4) This goes both ways. People like to read about what they relate to, but people like to WRITE what they can relate to as well. In the end, "write what you know" isn't just a piece of advice tossed around to keep writers on the straight and narrow as far as knowing what they're talking about, it's something we unconsciously do as well. It's why fetish fuel is so prominent in works of fiction too, since it's rather easy to observe and write about your own kinks than something you have no experience with. It's also why you can look at an authors work and notice distinct similarities between different books even if the setting and characters are ostensibly different. An example would be Charles Dickens' apparent love of the contrived coincidence trope. Also, while pleasing the audience is normal, if authors did everything they could to please every aspect of every member of their audience, they'd never get anything done because they need to make absolutely sure there are just as many women named as men and that they all have equal roles and at least one character needs to be a brony and...ugh! It just doesn't work. So they "write what [they] know."

Now, once again, it's not that I don't think LGBT fiction should exist, or that LGBT characters shouldn't be present in a story, far from it. I, well, I don't really care about the characters' sexual preferences as long as it's a good story. It's just the expectation that everything should follow some nebulous set of representation guidelines that irks me. My whole argument, by the way, doesn't really apply towards portrayals of women, though, as they really ARE underrepresented in media as a whole despite comprising half the population of the human race. But again, see above...people write what they know, and if men truly knew women and vice versa, the relationship section of bookstores would be empty.
Why can't we just enjoy a story for what it is, rather than what we want it to be?
(whew)

Shadowknight12

2013-04-06, 03:15 PM

A problem I have with an 'experimented' tag is how limited it would be. You pretty much have Nale, Haley and... Tsukiko accidentally molested a female corpse, so maybe that could count?... I think the fact that I typed the words 'molested a female corpse' means I should try to change the subject.

And Elan. That's a third of the Order of the Stick, a third of the Linear Guild, and you can safely ignore Tsukiko. You can even add a [E?] tag for Belkar (if he sees V as male and he stilled kissed V, that does count as experimentation/bicuriosity). That would make the tag applicable to half the Order. I wouldn't scoff at that.

Regarding Haley, if my brain was broken down into split personalities, I don't think there'd be one called 'Oppyu's sexuality', whose sole purpose is to distract me with thoughts of licking cheesecake of the rippling abs of Hollywood stars. It's just my default setting, like my gender identity or my feelings towards boy bands (I hate them). If anything, the fact that there's only one part of Haley that supports latent bisexuality means that that part is inconsequentially strong compared to 'Haley's heterosexuality', or 'Haley's self-identification as a woman'.

That is an excellent (and evocative) rationale, but the fact that it exists and is told to "go back to the corner" means it's an attraction Haley does feel, but suppresses for whatever reasons (comedic reasons, from a meta point of view, so we can have jokes about it). I wouldn't call her "bisexual" but it does matter. That part of her brain exists on some level.

Why can't we just enjoy a story for what it is, rather than what we want it to be?

This always crops up, always, whenever we try to breach this subject. I frequent a gaming forum, where I take a very strong feminist (almost radfem) stance on the inclusion of women in the gaming industry, and I see that exact phrase over and over. And what I read is "Why can't you go back to being quiet and stop making us feel guilty that we're enjoying something that marginalises you?"

Nobody is going to lambast you for enjoying a story that is imperfect in some area. All stories are imperfect in some area, so if we set such ridiculous high standards, we couldn't enjoy any stories, period. Enjoying something does not mean we shouldn't speak of what it could do better, or analyse it to see what it got right and what it got wrong.

Nobody is doing this because we loathe the Giant, or his comic, or because we expect him to do anything about it (especially not when we're already past the halfway point and it's unlikely major characters will be introduced). We do it because some people, shock of shocks, love analysing and discussing the media they consume (and enjoy). This very forum should show ample evidence of that.

EDIT:

Dragon Magazine introduced an incubus, with different powers (Demonomicon: Malcanthet).

4E also took the approach that they were different (for one thing, incubi are demons and succubi devils, in that- though the first incubi were succubi that had been transformed by the Abyss).

And this is terrible. Way to go, WotC. :smallannoyed: We can't have dudes doing the same thing succubi do. That would be icky and gross. Mhm.

SowZ

2013-04-06, 03:37 PM

This always crops up, always, whenever we try to breach this subject. I frequent a gaming forum, where I take a very strong feminist (almost radfem) stance on the inclusion of women in the gaming industry, and I see that exact phrase over and over. And what I read is "Why can't you go back to being quiet and stop making us feel guilty that we're enjoying something that marginalises you?"

Nobody is going to lambast you for enjoying a story that is imperfect in some area. All stories are imperfect in some area, so if we set such ridiculous high standards, we couldn't enjoy any stories, period. Enjoying something does not mean we shouldn't speak of what it could do better, or analyse it to see what it got right and what it got wrong.

Nobody is doing this because we loathe the Giant, or his comic, or because we expect him to do anything about it (especially not when we're already past the halfway point and it's unlikely major characters will be introduced). We do it because some people, shock of shocks, love analysing and discussing the media they consume (and enjoy). This very forum should show ample evidence of that.

Here's the rub, though. Some stories work better with mostly men, some with mostly women, and most could probably be told fine with either. The author shouldn't feel obligated to tell either kind of story. You have every right to object to a lack of representation of women in a particular type of media. Or a lack of homosexuality. That's fine. Eventually, the market will fill that role because publishers will see there is money to be made in publishing it for that niche. Eventually it might even get normalized in the culture at large. Media plays a big part in that, which is cool.

What one shouldn't do is get upset that the author isn't actively telling those kinds of stories or actively normalizing women as characters/homosexuality/etc. IF the author is perpetuating stereotypes or somehow acting prejudiced towards women, gay persons, etc. sure, get mad. Point it out. But if the author just happens to focus on straight, male characters? That is perfectly fine. The author has every right to do that as much as another author has every right to focus on female, gay characters.

If you think that most stories are about straight men and that is why authors should try and shy away from it, that is an argument that you find the story less interesting or cliche. Not an argument that the author is doing anything immoral. Because an artist shouldn't have to limit the type of art they do based on the time period they live in and what is normalized.

(It goes both ways. The author should feel free to tell stories about things that are or aren't normalized.) A lot of it is market, too, not any insidiousness. The demographic of D&D players is going to include more straight males than anything else. Same with video games. The publishers could capture a larger portion of the female or homosexual market by representing it more, sure. But there is more financial risk in trying to capture a new market.

So, as for video games, I think it is fair to call foul that a given franchise is sexually exploitative of its female characters or has lots of stupid women without smart women, or portrays homosexuals as a joke or as overly cliched. It is not fair to call foul just because a franchise doesn't focus on women or gay people. It is fair to say you aren't interested in buying it, though.

Shoot, an author can have few women in leadership roles or LGBT feelings that are suppressed or rarely shown even in a fantasy or sci-fi universe because the author is trying to mirror the real world with his fiction, not create an idealized world. There doesn't even have to be some greater theme to the author showing men/women/gay/straight in certain roles other than that is how the author views the world. In lots of places and industries, men dominate them. I'm not saying its good, but I often hear people cry foul when an author represents that in some sort of fantasy world.

King of Nowhere

2013-04-06, 03:41 PM

I don't see why people assume Xykon is incapable of performing sexual acts. There are plenty of polymorph spells. even if xykon don't have them in his spelllist, he could easily get a magic item to turn into a younger man every once in a while.

Xykon himself seems to never have thought about it, on the other hand. Incidentally, it would also allow him to taste coffe. Maybe there's some reason the spell don't work, maybe he didn't want to spend the money. Or maybe he just never considered it.

As for haley latent bisexuality, the border between hetero and bi is not so well defined. But I would not cconsider her fully bi just for some kisses.

hamishspence

2013-04-06, 03:47 PM

And this is terrible. Way to go, WotC. :smallannoyed: We can't have dudes doing the same thing succubi do. That would be icky and gross. Mhm.

3e incubi were actually ickier.

4e ones were actually closer to the original "dream-invader" myths. With a bit of possessor demon as well.

Raineh Daze

2013-04-06, 03:54 PM

RE: Previous page. Yay, an argument that basically reads 'heteronormativity is the norm, therefore it is perfectly fine to have works of fiction express this, and complaining is wrong because this is the normal thing'.

I think I'm done with this thread. Have fun with it.

Shadowknight12

2013-04-06, 03:59 PM

3e incubi were actually ickier.

4e ones were actually closer to the original "dream-invader" myths. With a bit of possessor demon as well.

Yeah, but I would bet the contents of my wallet that both instances were desexualised to avoid grossing out the straight male fanbase.

Here's the rub, though. Some stories work better with mostly men, some with mostly women, and most could probably be told fine with either. The author shouldn't feel obligated to tell either kind of story. You have every right to object to a lack of representation of women in a particular type of media. Or a lack of homosexuality. That's fine. Eventually, the market will fill that role because publishers will see there is money to be made in publishing it for that niche. Eventually it might even get normalized in the culture at large. Media plays a big part in that, which is cool.

What one shouldn't do is get upset that the author isn't actively telling those kinds of stories or actively normalizing women as characters/homosexuality/etc. IF the author is perpetuating stereotypes or somehow acting prejudiced towards women, gay persons, etc. sure, get mad. Point it out. But if the author just happens to focus on straight, male characters? That is perfectly fine. The author has every right to do that as much as another author has every right to focus on female, gay characters.

You are arguing against something nobody has proposed or defended. I have stated, in the very post you're quoting, that there is no expectation that the Giant change the story in any way. For all intents and purposes, the story is already finished. LBGT+ inclusion is not going to happen, because the odds of major characters being introduced diminishes the closer you are to the end. While I'm sure there might be one or two last-minute important characters waiting, the intention is still not to tell the writer what to do.

A work can be analysed and discussed without the people doing so ever intending for the writer to change their work in the slightest.

So please kindly stop charging that windmill. It's not a giant.

If you think that most stories are about straight men and that is why authors should try and shy away from it, that is an argument that you find the story less interesting or cliche. Not an argument that the author is doing anything immoral. Because an artist shouldn't have to limit the type of art they do based on the time period they live in and what is normalized.

I fail to see where I have referenced morality or immorality in my posts. That too, is a windmill.

(It goes both ways. The author should feel free to tell stories about things that are or aren't normalized.) A lot of it is market, too, not any insidiousness. The demographic of D&D players is going to include more straight males than anything else. Same with video games. The publishers could capture a larger portion of the female or homosexual market by representing it more, sure. But there is more financial risk in trying to capture a new market.

Windmill.

So, as for video games, I think it is fair to call foul that a given franchise is sexually exploitative of its female characters or has lots of stupid women without smart women, or portrays homosexuals as a joke or as overly cliched. It is not fair to call foul just because a franchise doesn't focus on women or gay people. It is fair to say you aren't interested in buying it, though.

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Shoot, an author can have few women in leadership roles or LGBT feelings that are suppressed or rarely shown even in a fantasy or sci-fi universe because the author is trying to mirror the real world with his fiction, not create an idealized world. There doesn't even have to be some greater theme to the author showing men/women/gay/straight in certain roles other than that is how the author views the world. In lots of places and industries, men dominate them. I'm not saying its good, but I often hear people cry foul when an author represents that in some sort of fantasy world.

Windmill again.

You are addressing roughly 10% of what I actually said. The rest is purely your own fabrication.

RE: Previous page. Yay, an argument that basically reads 'heteronormativity is the norm, therefore it is perfectly fine to have works of fiction express this, and complaining is wrong because this is the normal thing'.

I think I'm done with this thread. Have fun with it.

Don't worry, you get used it. I've heard it all before, it's always the same.

hamishspence

2013-04-06, 04:03 PM

Yeah, but I would bet the contents of my wallet that both instances were desexualised to avoid grossing out the straight male fanbase.

Not really.

4e incubus- Demonomicon:

Although an incubus can control a mortal host at a distance, its power can be partially blocked at a site consecrated against evil. The demon thus attempts to obtain a creature's trust by inhabiting its dreams, convincing it to willingly accept the incubus's dark embrace.

With their minds fractured, an incubus's cast-off victims serve the demon in the hope of regaining its attention and favor. Rakes, thugs, and other dissolute humanoids are often found following an incubus.

Bird

2013-04-06, 04:11 PM

And Elan. That's a third of the Order of the Stick, a third of the Linear Guild, and you can safely ignore Tsukiko. You can even add a [E?] tag for Belkar (if he sees V as male and he stilled kissed V, that does count as experimentation/bicuriosity). That would make the tag applicable to half the Order. I wouldn't scoff at that.
Add in Vaarsuvius, who implicitly challenges gender assumptions, and that's two thirds of the order who have broken the heteronormative mold in some way, at some point.

For sure, this isn't everything it might be -- since the "evidence" for some characters amounts to one page gags. I agree that it's something to take seriously, though, because it's a lot more than you see in most media.

By the way, in the Order of the Stick Coloring Book, Vaarsuvius' page asks you to circle whether V is a boy or girl.

The answer key in the back of the book says

"That's very interesting, and probably says a lot about how you see gender roles. Why don't you ask your parents what they think? Be sure to ask them why they think that, too.

V has the potential to open up a healthy conversation about gender assumptions every time he/she appears. Frankly, I think that's wonderful, and something the Giant deserves a ton of credit for.

Shadowknight12

2013-04-06, 04:30 PM

Not really.

4e incubus- Demonomicon:

Well, colour me surprised. That and Pathfinder satyrs being canonically bisexual (with straight/gay leanings as the DM sees fit) might restore some of my dying faith in the RPG industry regarding its myopia to everything that isn't straight and male.

Add in Vaarsuvius, who implicitly challenges gender assumptions, and that's two thirds of the order who have broken the heteronormative mold in some way, at some point.

For sure, this isn't everything it might be -- since the "evidence" for some characters amounts to one page gags. I agree that it's something to take seriously, though, because it's a lot more than you see in most media.

By the way, in the Order of the Stick Coloring Book, Vaarsuvius' page asks you to circle whether V is a boy or girl.

The answer key in the back of the book says

"That's very interesting, and probably says a lot about how you see gender roles. Why don't you ask your parents what they think? Be sure to ask them why they think that, too.

V has the potential to open up a healthy conversation about gender assumptions every time he/she appears. Frankly, I think that's wonderful, and something the Giant deserves a ton of credit for.

I couldn't possibly agree more, in all accounts. Much like the Deva that Roy got in the afterlife, I value trying a hell of a lot more than failing to achieve. I personally admire the Giant for his attempts to represent marginalised groups and break stereotypes, despite what the end result might be.

Hell, the fact that the Giant tried this much might mean that, in the future, those who take him as an inspiration might take his inclusion as a baseline, and if they, in turn, also try, we might reach true equality and inclusion some day.

Rather than throwing someone under the bus for not meeting an arbitrary high standard, we should be celebrating what they did right and point out where they could have improved, to further education and to serve as an example for the future.

SowZ

2013-04-06, 04:30 PM

Yeah, but I would bet the contents of my wallet that both instances were desexualised to avoid grossing out the straight male fanbase.

You are arguing against something nobody has proposed or defended. I have stated, in the very post you're quoting, that there is no expectation that the Giant change the story in any way. For all intents and purposes, the story is already finished. LBGT+ inclusion is not going to happen, because the odds of major characters being introduced diminishes the closer you are to the end. While I'm sure there might be one or two last-minute important characters waiting, the intention is still not to tell the writer what to do.

A work can be analysed and discussed without the people doing so ever intending for the writer to change their work in the slightest.

So please kindly stop charging that windmill. It's not a giant.

I fail to see where I have referenced morality or immorality in my posts. That too, is a windmill.

Windmill.

Irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Windmill again.

You are addressing roughly 10% of what I actually said. The rest is purely your own fabrication.

Don't worry, you get used it. I've heard it all before, it's always the same.

What I'm addressing is this;

This always crops up, always, whenever we try to breach this subject. I frequent a gaming forum, where I take a very strong feminist (almost radfem) stance on the inclusion of women in the gaming industry, and I see that exact phrase over and over. And what I read is "Why can't you go back to being quiet and stop making us feel guilty that we're enjoying something that marginalises you?"

Nobody is going to lambast you for enjoying a story that is imperfect in some area. All stories are imperfect in some area, so if we set such ridiculous high standards, we couldn't enjoy any stories, period. Enjoying something does not mean we shouldn't speak of what it could do better, or analyse it to see what it got right and what it got wrong.

My points are arguing a few things. 1. the argument 'Enjoy the story for what it is/does,' is a valid point. 2. the OOTS story is not more imperfect because the lack of, nor would it necessarily be better for the inclusion of, more gay or female characters. Which is the implication, there. Not anymore than a story would be imperfect for the lack of straight or male characters. 3. The lack of women or gay characters etc. etc. in a body of work does not marginalize said group. If that wasn't your intent, then I think it was irrelevant to talk about being quiet when marginalized.

Shadowknight12

2013-04-06, 04:54 PM

My points are arguing a few things. 1. the argument 'Enjoy the story for what it is/does,' is a valid point.

Not in this case, as that argument implies enjoying the story for what it is/does is mutually exclusive with analysis and criticism (also, by the way, in case it needs to be said, criticism isn't a dirty word. It's perfectly possible to analyse and criticise something you like and enjoy very much).

2. the OOTS story is not more imperfect because the lack of, nor would it necessarily be better for the inclusion of, more gay or female characters. Which is the implication, there. Not anymore than a story would be imperfect for the lack of straight or male characters.

Imperfection is subjective. To me, such things make the story imperfect, while I couldn't care less about the way it handles D&D rules. To others, its casual flippancy towards the D&D ruleset would make the story imperfect. If you do not agree with me, that's fine. I do not mind. Those of us who care about these things are discussing them and analysing the work in this thread. I do not consider this any less of a worthy pursuit than the MitD guessing thread or the Class and Geekery thread.

3. The lack of women or gay characters etc. etc. in a body of work does not marginalize said group. If that wasn't your intent, then I think it was irrelevant to talk about being quiet when marginalized.

On a societal level, keeping certain groups away from the media, whether consciously or unconsciously, perpetuates marginalisation. Marginalisation is not the same as hate crime or hate speech. People can unconsciously marginalise others because they are emulating the behaviours of other creators, and marginalise people in their own works without consciously meaning to.

A straight man who devoted himself to a hobby made by straight men for other straight men, and who wrote a story based on that hobby, with a primarily straight male audience in mind, is not at fault for marginalising groups that aren't straight and male (and cis, and able-bodied, and white, and so on). This does not make said straight man a monster. This does not mean his work needs to be censored or altered in any way. He was simply the product of his upbringing and society.

However, that doesn't mean that marginalised groups don't feel further marginalised by their lack of inclusion in the media, of which the OotS webcomic is a part of (the media, not the marginalised groups). Marginalisation exists, and it exists in several degrees. Nobody here is saying that the marginalisation in OotS is of an extreme degree. On the contrary, many of us are loudly praising the Giant for having such a minimal marginalisation, when the standard for other works of the same genre carries a significantly higher degree of marginalisation.

Nobody is telling you that you can't enjoy a work that engages in marginalisation. Almost all works do. Nobody is condemning the Giant for engaging in minimal marginalisation when it's something that everyone does.

Instead of pretending that the marginalisation doesn't exist and that the people who suggest so are wrong, it might be more productive to accept that an enjoyable work has marginalisation, that the marginalisation need no detract from the enjoyment of the work, and that an analysis of the marginalisation in question might yield valuable information for future works. That's all. It need not be an ideological war.

SowZ

2013-04-06, 05:14 PM

Not in this case, as that argument implies enjoying the story for what it is/does is mutually exclusive with analysis and criticism (also, by the way, in case it needs to be said, criticism isn't a dirty word. It's perfectly possible to analyse and criticise something you like and enjoy very much).

Imperfection is subjective. To me, such things make the story imperfect, while I couldn't care less about the way it handles D&D rules. To others, its casual flippancy towards the D&D ruleset would make the story imperfect. If you do not agree with me, that's fine. I do not mind. Those of us who care about these things are discussing them and analysing the work in this thread. I do not consider this any less of a worthy pursuit than the MitD guessing thread or the Class and Geekery thread.

On a societal level, keeping certain groups away from the media, whether consciously or unconsciously, perpetuates marginalisation. Marginalisation is not the same as hate crime or hate speech. People can unconsciously marginalise others because they are emulating the behaviours of other creators, and marginalise people in their own works without consciously meaning to.

A straight man who devoted himself to a hobby made by straight men for other straight men, and who wrote a story based on that hobby, with a primarily straight male audience in mind, is not at fault for marginalising groups that aren't straight and male (and cis, and able-bodied, and white, and so on). This does not make said straight man a monster. This does not mean his work needs to be censored or altered in any way. He was simply the product of his upbringing and society.

However, that doesn't mean that marginalised groups don't feel further marginalised by their lack of inclusion in the media, of which the OotS webcomic is a part of (the media, not the marginalised groups). Marginalisation exists, and it exists in several degrees. Nobody here is saying that the marginalisation in OotS is of an extreme degree. On the contrary, many of us are loudly praising the Giant for having such a minimal marginalisation, when the standard for other works of the same genre carries a significantly higher degree of marginalisation.

Nobody is telling you that you can't enjoy a work that engages in marginalisation. Almost all works do. Nobody is condemning the Giant for engaging in minimal marginalisation when it's something that everyone does.

Instead of pretending that the marginalisation doesn't exist and that the people who suggest so are wrong, it might be more productive to accept that an enjoyable work has marginalisation, that the marginalisation need no detract from the enjoyment of the work, and that an analysis of the marginalisation in question might yield valuable information for future works. That's all. It need not be an ideological war.

My biggest issue is that it implies that the artist is guilty of marginalization or not guilty of it based on the time period he or she is born in. If we happened to live in a society where being bisexual was normative, by your definition of marginalizing, and being either homosexual or heterosexual was considered bizarre, then it would be marginalizing not to include prominent heterosexual and homosexual characters in a body of work.

I don't think so. It would be marginalizing if it failed to include heterosexual or homosexual characters where they would clearly exist or if it portrayed what characters were hetero/homosexual negatively or cliched.

If an author wants to write a story all about gay characters, great. Or if it is set in an all girls dorm, awesome. Or if it is an island with a bunch of grade school boys trying to survive, good for him. The stories aren't less perfect for the lack of diversity. They tell the story they are supposed to tell. One difference might be that those concepts don't really allow the diversity, whereas most concepts would.

But in my opinion, when it doesn't matter what gender/orientation/ethnicity a character is, the author should have the freedom to pick that character based on verisimilitude and the aesthetic the author prefers. There shouldn't be a sense of obligation to balance the cast out just for the sake of balancing the cast out. I would disagree with this only when it breaks believability. If the setting has a 74% female population and we almost never meet females, yeah, thats a problem.

But it is a problem of consistency, (and the author may have made that mistake because of social norms,) but it isn't inherently some social problem.

I'm a writer. I do try and include some gay characters because it fleshes out the setting and adds new character dynamics to play with. But I wouldn't want to feel like I should add gay characters because of outside influences. I want to add things because it is good for the story within the context of the story, not because of societal pressures.

jere7my

2013-04-06, 05:14 PM

Well said, Shadowknight. I would add:

On a societal level, keeping certain groups away from the media, whether consciously or unconsciously, perpetuates marginalisation. Marginalisation is not the same as hate crime or hate speech. People can unconsciously marginalise others because they are emulating the behaviours of other creators, and marginalise people in their own works without consciously meaning to.

There is nothing wrong with writing a story filled with straight white males. The Name of the Rose is set in a medieval monastery; it's a brilliant book, but it's not exactly inclusive.

But an author should always be aware of the reasons why he or she is making choices. If a story works better with straight white males than it would with women or LGBT characters or non-white characters, that's reason enough. If you're making your characters straight white men because that's the default in your head, and you're making those choices without giving it any thought, then it's probably worth examining. Stories are made better by constant self-interrogation of authorial choices; even if you end up with straight white men, that process is worthwhile.

Astrella

2013-04-06, 05:26 PM

Fantasy worlds are still often very biased towards mirroring real life, it's not like oppression actually takes fair turns prevalence wise in fantasy, and often it's just a lazy copying rather than an in universe justification of the inequality.

Edit; Also queer representation doesn't come near to matching real life numbers, no matter the genre of media.

oppyu

2013-04-06, 05:42 PM

By that logic we shouldn't list Hylgia either.

I really don't want to look for that comic, but before introducing Inky, V talks about love and relationships (describing shim as "mate"). So he/she's (I always tought that V is female, and Inky male, with V as dominant partner, but that's not the topic here) not just one scene wonder, they are/were married, they have children (although adopted), and that makes I important enough to list him as love interest.

True, but we didn't see any of that. We didn't see V and Inky get married, we didn't see them adopting kids, little to no time was spent going through V's feelings on the matter... s/he wasn't so much a love interest as a backstory romance. Compared to Hilgya Firehelm, where we get a short but sweet built up as the two of them get closer on-panel, then they bump dwarven uglies on-panel, then they have an ugly on-panel break up.

And Elan. That's a third of the Order of the Stick, a third of the Linear Guild, and you can safely ignore Tsukiko. You can even add a [E?] tag for Belkar (if he sees V as male and he stilled kissed V, that does count as experimentation/bicuriosity). That would make the tag applicable to half the Order. I wouldn't scoff at that.

We don't know what happened with Elan at bard camp. For all we know, he could have accidentally done something homosexual, and then been stigmatised by his fellow bards. And Belkar was absolutely, magnificently drunk. If his behavior was in any way supported by his sober conduct I'd think about it, but at the time being the Vaarsuvius thing is just drunken tomfoolery. (I can't believe I just used the word 'tomfoolery'.)

Shadowknight12

2013-04-06, 05:45 PM

My biggest issue is that it implies that the artist is guilty of marginalization or not guilty of it based on the time period he or she is born in. If we happened to live in a society where being bisexual was normative, by your definition of marginalizing, and being either homosexual or heterosexual was considered bizarre, then it would be marginalizing not to include prominent heterosexual and homosexual characters in a body of work.

This is correct. Marginalisation indeed is a product of cultural mores, which is why so much effort is put into education and hoping for a future where culture changes and marginalisation no longer happens (or is considered an exceptional thing).

I don't think so. It would be marginalizing if it failed to include heterosexual or homosexual characters where they would clearly exist or if it portrayed what characters were hetero/homosexual negatively or cliched.

Marginalisation is not black and white. It is not an on-off switch. It is a continuum of behaviours, a gradient. Some marginalisation is minimal and some reaches the level of hate speech. There is a whole world in between.

If an author wants to write a story all about gay characters, great. Or if it is set in an all girls dorm, awesome. Or if it is an island with a bunch of grade school boys trying to survive, good for him. The stories aren't less perfect for the lack of diversity. They tell the story they are supposed to tell. One difference might be that those concepts don't really allow the diversity, whereas most concepts would.

You disregarded my previous points about how imperfection is subjective and how nobody is trying to censor any author, tell them what to do, or have their work altered. I encourage you to re-read them. An art critic is not a censor.

But in my opinion, when it doesn't matter what gender/orientation/ethnicity a character is, the author should have the freedom to pick that character based on verisimilitude and the aesthetic the author prefers. There shouldn't be a sense of obligation to balance the cast out just for the sake of balancing the cast out. I would disagree with this only when it breaks believability. If the setting has a 74% female population and we almost never meet females, yeah, thats a problem.

Nobody is trying to censor anything or tell writers what to do. Nobody is telling writers what they can or can't do. We are criticising and analysing, and giving people information/education that they might be unaware of, to do with it what they will.

Also, I do not agree (in the slightest) with your assumption that representation must be a slave to demography. Asexuals might only be 1% of the population, but that does not invalidate analysing their marginalisation in the media. The same goes for the entire LGBT+ spectrum, as not a single letter in the whole QUILTBAG acronym (plus pansexuals) are majorities, and yet people like me will still continue to desire their inclusion.

I'm a writer. I do try and include some gay characters because it fleshes out the setting and adds new character dynamics to play with. But I wouldn't want to feel like I should add gay characters because of outside influences. I want to add things because it is good for the story within the context of the story, not because of societal pressures.

Nobody is out to get you. Nobody is out to tell you what to do. Criticism is not censorship or a demand for the product to be altered.

Please, stop arguing against that, because that is an argument nobody is making.

Well said, Shadowknight. I would add:

There is nothing wrong with writing a story filled with straight white males. The Name of the Rose is set in a medieval monastery; it's a brilliant book, but it's not exactly inclusive.

But an author should always be aware of the reasons why he or she is making choices. If a story works better with straight white males than it would with women or LGBT characters or non-white characters, that's reason enough. If you're making your characters straight white men because that's the default in your head, and you're making those choices without giving it any thought, then it's probably worth examining. Stories are made better by constant self-interrogation of authorial choices; even if you end up with straight white men, that process is worthwhile.

I agree, though I wouldn't purport to imply that such self-examination ought to be mandatory. Merely encouraged, lest they accuse us of being censors and trying to tell writers what to do.

EDIT:

We don't know what happened with Elan at bard camp. For all we know, he could have accidentally done something homosexual, and then been stigmatised by his fellow bards. And Belkar was absolutely, magnificently drunk. If his behavior was in any way supported by his sober conduct I'd think about it, but at the time being the Vaarsuvius thing is just drunken tomfoolery. (I can't believe I just used the word 'tomfoolery'.)

The theory that Elan has a bicurious side that he keeps hidden because of narrative conventions (see: the Samantha storyline where he unquestionably assumes his narrative role is to seduce female antagonists) is just as plausible as that one. The truth, obviously, is that it was just a one-time gag that will never be mentioned again, so we're never going to get confirmation one way or another.

No matter how drunk a straight person gets, they won't be pulling any moves on people they perceive as being of the same gender if there isn't already some baseline desire. Alcohol merely removes inhibitions and clouds judgement, it's not a love potion.

SowZ

2013-04-06, 07:05 PM

This is correct. Marginalisation indeed is a product of cultural mores, which is why so much effort is put into education and hoping for a future where culture changes and marginalisation no longer happens (or is considered an exceptional thing).

Marginalisation is not black and white. It is not an on-off switch. It is a continuum of behaviours, a gradient. Some marginalisation is minimal and some reaches the level of hate speech. There is a whole world in between.

You disregarded my previous points about how imperfection is subjective and how nobody is trying to censor any author, tell them what to do, or have their work altered. I encourage you to re-read them. An art critic is not a censor.

Nobody is trying to censor anything or tell writers what to do. Nobody is telling writers what they can or can't do. We are criticising and analysing, and giving people information/education that they might be unaware of, to do with it what they will.

Also, I do not agree (in the slightest) with your assumption that representation must be a slave to demography. Asexuals might only be 1% of the population, but that does not invalidate analysing their marginalisation in the media. The same goes for the entire LGBT+ spectrum, as not a single letter in the whole QUILTBAG acronym (plus pansexuals) are majorities, and yet people like me will still continue to desire their inclusion.

Nobody is out to get you. Nobody is out to tell you what to do. Criticism is not censorship or a demand for the product to be altered.

Please, stop arguing against that, because that is an argument nobody is making.

I agree, though I wouldn't purport to imply that such self-examination ought to be mandatory. Merely encouraged, lest they accuse us of being censors and trying to tell writers what to do.

EDIT:

The theory that Elan has a bicurious side that he keeps hidden because of narrative conventions (see: the Samantha storyline where he unquestionably assumes his narrative role is to seduce female antagonists) is just as plausible as that one. The truth, obviously, is that it was just a one-time gag that will never be mentioned again, so we're never going to get confirmation one way or another.

No matter how drunk a straight person gets, they won't be pulling any moves on people they perceive as being of the same gender if there isn't already some baseline desire. Alcohol merely removes inhibitions and clouds judgement, it's not a love potion.

I realize you are not saying writers should be forced to write one way or another. Yes, imperfection is subjective. I am disagreeing with your definitions of it. When I say,
If an author wants to write a story all about gay characters, great. Or if it is set in an all girls dorm, awesome. Or if it is an island with a bunch of grade school boys trying to survive, good for him. The stories aren't less perfect for the lack of diversity. They tell the story they are supposed to tell. One difference might be that those concepts don't really allow the diversity, whereas most concepts would. and you respond by saying no one is censoring authors, you're completely missing my point.

Of course I know you aren't trying to pass laws or bully authors around. That isn't my point. My point is that where you are saying you think that lack of diversity or representation is an imperfection, I am saying it is not. It can be the best way to tell a certain story. I know you're not be saying, "We have to boycott the author if he doesn't include a gay character." What you are saying is, "I critique the lack of female characters." That can be a legitimate critique in some contexts, but by itself I think it is an unfair critique.

I'm aware that a critiquing art is not censorship and is someones right. Just as it is my right to say when I don't think a certain critique is fair. In my quoted section, where did I accuse you of censoring? My point was that the story is not less perfect for the lack of diversity, not that anyone is keeping the artist from telling that story.

Further, I never once implied that representation is a slave to demography. Multiple times I said a story can be all gay, great, and clearly that goes against demography. I don't know where you are getting at. I did say that in a setting where most people were women, it would be a problem, (as in breaks believability,) if we never meet women. That is not at all the same as what you are saying I believe.

If marginalization is just the lack of including certain types of people in a work, and not negative portrayals of those people, I fully support marginalization and hope it never goes away. Some stories benefit from being all female, or all male, or just about all gay, or just about all straight, or all Chinese.

As for not trying to limit authors, I see a general metric being used that doesn't factor in the needs of that work specifically. Like I said, as an author I want to make characters gay or straight of male or female based soley on the needs of that story and what would be good for that story. Unless I'm commenting on something social, I don't want outside forces to influence the demographics in my story. No, you aren't trying to force me to write what you prefer. I would not at all object to you saying you aren't interested in a writing that doesn't include strong female leads, for example. What you are interested in is totally your call. What I do object to is you saying the work is less perfect because of that.

Raineh Daze

2013-04-06, 07:13 PM

What you are instead saying is that works should not be criticised for lack of inclusiveness, because they might require a specific cast to work. Unless that is built into the premise, I cannot see how it's a valid defence.

Set at an all boys' school? Lack of women makes sense.

Set in a setting without such restrictions? Then it's lack of representation that the story in no way would suffer from if the gender balance was more equal. Gender and sexuality do not wholly determine character role. :smallannoyed:

Zmeoaice

2013-04-06, 07:13 PM

Maybe we can look at race too.

Order of the Stick
Roy Greenhilt: Black, main protagonist, leader,
Elan: White, supporting protagonist,
Haley Starshine: White, supporting protagonist, second-in-command/leader (of AzuCR),
Belkar Bitterleaf: White (hobbit), supporting protagonist
Vaarsuvius: White (elf) supporting protagonist
Durkon Thundershield: white(? somewhat darkish skin) (dwarf) supporting protagonist, dead.

Team Evil
Xykon: white, major antagonist, leader
Redcloak: No real life counterpart-Green (goblin) major antagonist, second-in-command
MitD: N/A major character
Tsukiko: East Asian, supporting antagonist, vying for second-in-command, dead.
Jirix: No real life counterpart-Orange (Hobgoblin) supporting antagonist

Linear Guild
Nale: White, major antagonist, leader
Sabine: Black (Demon), major antagonist, second-in-command
thog: No real life counterpart-Green (Half-orc), major antagonist, dead(?)
Zz'dtri: No real life counterpart-Grey (Drow), supporting antagonist
Yukyuk: No real life counterpart-Orange (Kobold), supporting antagonist, dead
Pompey: White (half-elf), supporting antagonist
Leeky Windstaff: black(?) gnome, supporting antagonist
Yokyok: No real life counterpart-orange (Kobold), supporting antagonist, dead
Yikyik: No real life counterpart- Orange (Kobold), supporting antagonist, dead
Hilgya Firehelm: White (dwarf), supporting antagonist,

Azure City
Shojo: East Asian, major ally, leader, dead
Hinjo: East Asian, major ally, leader
O-Chul: East Asian, major ally
Lien: East Asian, supporting ally
Daigo Da-: East Asian, supporting ally, love interest of Kazumi Kato
Kazumi Kato: East Asian, supporting ally, love interest of Daigo Da-
Miko Miyazaki: East Asian, major ally/antagonist, dead
Daimyo Kubota: East Asian, supporting antagonist, leader, dead
Therkla: No real life counterpart-green (half-orc), straight, supporting ally/antagonist,

Team Tarquin
Tarquin: White, straight, major antagonist, leader
Malack: No real life counterpart-snow white (vampire lizardfolk), major antagonist, second-in-command
Empress of Blood: No real life counterpart-red (dragon), minor antagonist, patsy
Kilkil: No real life counterpart-orange (flying Kobold), minor antagonist, lackey

Greysky City
Bozzok: No real life counterpart-green (half-orc), supporting antagonist, leader
Hank: white (halfling), supporting antagonist, second-in-command
Crystal: White, supporting antagonist, dead

Azure City Resistance
Ho Thanh: East Asian, supporting ally, leader, dead
Niu: East Asian, supporting ally, second-in-command (?)
Eye-patched leader: East Asian, minor supporting ally, dead
Knot-topped leader: East Asian, minor supporting ally, dead
Team Peregrine Leader: dark skinned (elf), minor supporting ally, leader (of TP), dead.
Team Peregrine Lieutenant: White (elf), minor supporting ally, second-in-command (of TP), dead.

Other
Celia: White (Slyph), straight, supporting ally,
Qarr: No real life counterpart-red (imp), supporting antagonist
The IFCC: No real life counterpart- black(?) (fiends), major antagonists
The Oracle: No real life counterpart-orange (Kobold), minor character

Order of the Scribble
Soon Kim: East Asian, straight, leader, dead
Lirian: White (elf), straight, second-in-command, dead
Dorukan: White, straight, love interest of Lirian, dead
Serini: White (hobbit), dead (?)
Girard Draketooth: White, dead
Kraagor: Dark skinned (Dwarf), dead

Those Bandits From A Really Long Time Ago
Samantha: White, straight, minor antagonist, leader, dead.
Samantha's Dad: White, minor antagonist, second-in-command, dead.

Shadowknight12

2013-04-06, 07:21 PM

I realize you are not saying writers should be forced to write one way or another. Yes, imperfection is subjective. I am disagreeing with your definitions of it. When I say, and you respond by saying no one is censoring authors, you're completely missing my point.

Nobody is asking you to agree with my definition of imperfection. I am allowed to consider whatever I want as imperfect, and I am obeying the rules of civility by not shoving that definition down anybody's throat. Nobody in this thread is trying to convince you to change your mind. If you do not agree with someone's definition of imperfection, that's okay. Nobody will mind. This thread isn't for you.

Of course I know you aren't trying to pass laws or bully authors around. That isn't my point. My point is that where you are saying you think that lack of diversity or representation is an imperfection, I am saying it is not. It can be the best way to tell a certain story. I know you're not be saying, "We have to boycott the author if he doesn't include a gay character." What you are saying is, "I critique the lack of female characters." That can be a legitimate critique in some contexts, but by itself I think it is an unfair critique.

I'm aware that a critiquing art is not censorship and is someones right. Just as it is my right to say when I don't think a certain critique is fair. In my quoted section, where did I accuse you of censoring? My point was that the story is not less perfect for the lack of diversity, not that anyone is keeping the artist from telling that story.

You have every right not to agree with my critique. That does not affect my critique whatsoever, and I still stand by it. I do not agree with you and I am not troubled or moved by that. I am content with agreeing to disagreeing.

If marginalization is just the lack of including certain types of people in a work, and not negative portrayals of those people, I fully support marginalization and hope it never goes away. Some stories benefit from being all female, or all male, or just about all gay, or just about all straight, or all Chinese.

And in this, we too, shall always disagree. The good thing is that nobody's stopping you from writing those stories, just like nobody's stopping me from writing inclusive stories.

As for not trying to limit authors, I see a general metric being used that doesn't factor in the needs of that work specifically. Like I said, as an author I want to make characters gay or straight of male or female based soley on the needs of that story and what would be good for that story. Unless I'm commenting on something social, I don't want outside forces to influence the demographics in my story. No, you aren't trying to force me to write what you prefer. I would not at all object to you saying you aren't interested in a writing that doesn't include strong female leads, for example. What you are interested in is totally your call. What I do object to is you saying the work is less perfect because of that.

Yet it is my prerogative to say exactly that. That's the entire point of imperfection being subjective, that I can have one definition of it and you can have another, and we might disagree on whether a work is imperfect or not, and that is okay.

I respect that your definition of imperfection is not the same as mine, and that you might consider a story imperfect that I wouldn't, and viceversa. Why can't you extend the same courtesy to me?

SowZ

2013-04-06, 07:28 PM

Nobody is asking you to agree with my definition of imperfection. I am allowed to consider whatever I want as imperfect, and I am obeying the rules of civility by not shoving that definition down anybody's throat. Nobody in this thread is trying to convince you to change your mind. If you do not agree with someone's definition of imperfection, that's okay. Nobody will mind. This thread isn't for you.

You have every right not to agree with my critique. That does not affect my critique whatsoever, and I still stand by it. I do not agree with you and I am not troubled or moved by that. I am content with agreeing to disagreeing.

And in this, we too, shall always disagree. The good thing is that nobody's stopping you from writing those stories, just like nobody's stopping me from writing inclusive stories.

Yet it is my prerogative to say exactly that. That's the entire point of imperfection being subjective, that I can have one definition of it and you can have another, and we might disagree on whether a work is imperfect or not, and that is okay.

I respect that your definition of imperfection is not the same as mine, and that you might consider a story imperfect that I wouldn't, and viceversa. Why can't you extend the same courtesy to me?

I respect your right to define perfection and imperfection however you please. There is no such thing as true perfection anyway, so it isn't like one of us can be right and the other wrong if choose to define it.

My point is that some stories are told better by including as few demographics as possible, (like Lord of the Flies or many dorm stories,) so it isn't a mark against the quality of the story that the writer chooses not to include a certain gender, just as it isn't a mark against a story that a writer chooses a certain genre that I'm not too fond of. I probably won't read it if I don't like that genre, but it doesn't make the story less perfect because it is that genre. Probably it is the best way to tell that specific story, since shifting genres could make it a substantially different story.

I actually prefer inclusive stories. There are typically more character dynamics and ways to challenge audience perception if you have a varied cast. But some stories wouldn't be benefited by more inclusiveness.

Raineh Daze

2013-04-06, 07:34 PM

I respect your right to define perfection and imperfection however you please. There is no such thing as true perfection anyway, so it isn't like one of us can be right and the other wrong if choose to define it.

My point is that some stories are told better by including as few demographics as possible, (like Lord of the Flies or many dorm stories,) so it isn't a mark against the quality of the story that the writer chooses not to include a certain gender, just as it isn't a mark against a story that a writer chooses a certain genre that I'm not too fond of. I probably won't read it if I don't like that genre, but it doesn't make the story less perfect because it is that genre. Probably it is the best way to tell that specific story, since shifting genres could make it a substantially different story.

I actually prefer inclusive stories. There are typically more character dynamics and ways to challenge audience perception if you have a varied cast. But some stories wouldn't be benefited by more inclusiveness.

The fun thing is, most stories would benefit.

This would be one of them, because nothing is derived from the current representation.

You're using, as an example, stories specifically about one group. I'm not terribly sure why.

jere7my

2013-04-06, 07:40 PM

As for not trying to limit authors, I see a general metric being used that doesn't factor in the needs of that work specifically. Like I said, as an author I want to make characters gay or straight of male or female based soley on the needs of that story and what would be good for that story.

I don't think anyone here disagrees with that. The issue arises when the characters an author comes up with are straight white males by default, and are only made different if there's a specific story reason for it. That perpetuates the notion that straight, white, and male are the unmarked norms — that an off-the-rack, generic, "normal" character will be straight and white and male, and anyone else has to have a reason for existing.

I have no idea what your process is, so I can't speak to it. But it is not uncommon for a writer to, by default, make the hero a SWM, and the buddy a SWM, and the love interest...oh, wait, we need a woman for that, don't we? And this guy they meet needs a shameful past, so let's make him gay, that's an easy way to add some past emotional angst...etc.

It makes for better stories when a writer doesn't jump immediately to the same demographics we're used to seeing, or at least rolls their characters around in their head after the initial conception, asking themselves questions like, "What if Kraal Thunderthews were a woman; would that make the story stronger?"

dps

2013-04-06, 07:42 PM

As has been said above, he wouldn't miss it because he was already incapable. That does not constitute sufficient evidence for asexuality.

The term for someone who is still capable of feeling sexual attraction but incapable of acting on it isn't asexual, it's frustrated.

Shadowknight12

2013-04-06, 07:53 PM

I respect your right to define perfection and imperfection however you please. There is no such thing as true perfection anyway, so it isn't like one of us can be right and the other wrong if choose to define it.

Precisely, neither of us is right nor wrong. We simply have different conceptions of imperfection.

My point is that some stories are told better by including as few demographics as possible, (like Lord of the Flies or many dorm stories,) so it isn't a mark against the quality of the story that the writer chooses not to include a certain gender, just as it isn't a mark against a story that a writer chooses a certain genre that I'm not too fond of. I probably won't read it if I don't like that genre, but it doesn't make the story less perfect because it is that genre. Probably it is the best way to tell that specific story, since shifting genres could make it a substantially different story.

I actually prefer inclusive stories. There are typically more character dynamics and ways to challenge audience perception if you have a varied cast. But some stories wouldn't be benefited by more inclusiveness.

And I am not fond of stories whose main premise precludes, by necessity, inclusion, such as the examples you are citing. In my opinion, such a premise would make the story imperfect and it would be worth criticising and analysing the merits of that premise and whether the same objectives could have been achieved with a more inclusive premise.

But I do understand that others may not agree with me, and that's fine. No, really, it is. If you do not share the same interests that I do, it's okay not to join me in that kind of activity.

I understand that the image most people have of those who touch these issues is that of an angry mob that wants to get into your house, tie you up with a pride flag, gag you with a burning bra and destroy all your books, movies, games and forms of media.

But you'll find that most of us are perfectly willing to have civilised and polite conversations where we calmly and politely analyse and criticise a work without harming anybody. :smallsmile:

I don't think anyone here disagrees with that. The issue arises when the characters an author comes up with are straight white males by default, and are only made different if there's a specific story reason for it. That perpetuates the notion that straight, white, and male are the unmarked norms — that an off-the-rack, generic, "normal" character will be straight and white and male, and anyone else has to have a reason for existing.

This, this is exactly it. The entire point of inclusion is that, save some exceedingly specific circumstances, a more inclusive story helps dispel stereotypes, the normativity of straight-white-maleness, and turns being non-straight, non-white and non-male into something natural and common, not as a mysterious or exotic Other.

Or at least, that's why I like inclusion.

Lvl45DM!

2013-04-06, 07:54 PM

I knew this would happen. I go to sleep check in in the morning and someone had to start an argument rather than just enjoy this thread for what it is.

Tamari

2013-04-06, 08:01 PM

Lien is straight, she mentions having a "steady boyfriend" in the DStP bonus material.

SowZ

2013-04-06, 08:17 PM

The fun thing is, most stories would benefit.

This would be one of them, because nothing is derived from the current representation.

You're using, as an example, stories specifically about one group. I'm not terribly sure why.

I'm using those examples as an extreme example. Sometimes, there is a specific reason for a limited cast. It's to show that diverse stories aren't inherently better. Most stories could include balanced genders and such, sure. And there's no reason it shouldn't. But if it favors one gender, ethnicity, religion, etc. without a strong reason to do so the issue here isn't so much that there isn't enough minority representation, IMO, (because I don't use that as a metric of quality,) but that the author is making something more boring than it needs to be by limiting character dynamics.

I don't think that's true of OOTS, anyway. There are lots of women in this story who are totally awesome. More men, but not so much so that it makes the story more boring. And women as leaders doesn't seem to be out of place at all in the world. (Some aren't listed in the thread, either, like the leader of one of the resistance groups,) and some aren't great leaders, (like Haley,) but most of the men who lead are pretty lousy leaders, too. (Xykon, Nale, etc.)

As for ethnicity, seems to be well represented. Imbalance is primarily based on region, which makes perfect sense, really.

When it comes to sexual orientation, sure, there isn't a whole lot. But when the subject does come up, it is usually treated respectfully. I don't want to start a story with a check list and see if they have at least X many ethnicities and X many people of less common sexual preferences. Not trying to say you do, but I will look at how the work treats diversity as a whole. Again, there is mention of people being gay, so it is recognized in the comic as fairly normal, but there aren't any main characters confirmed as gay.

I don't think anyone here disagrees with that. The issue arises when the characters an author comes up with are straight white males by default, and are only made different if there's a specific story reason for it. That perpetuates the notion that straight, white, and male are the unmarked norms — that an off-the-rack, generic, "normal" character will be straight and white and male, and anyone else has to have a reason for existing.

I have no idea what your process is, so I can't speak to it. But it is not uncommon for a writer to, by default, make the hero a SWM, and the buddy a SWM, and the love interest...oh, wait, we need a woman for that, don't we? And this guy they meet needs a shameful past, so let's make him gay, that's an easy way to add some past emotional angst...etc.

It makes for better stories when a writer doesn't jump immediately to the same demographics we're used to seeing, or at least rolls their characters around in their head after the initial conception, asking themselves questions like, "What if Kraal Thunderthews were a woman; would that make the story stronger?"

Based on my perceptions and my impression of OOTS world, there are lots of characters I make no assumption about when it comes to sexual orientation. I have no opinion about Thanh's or O-Chul's sex life. V could easily be gay or pansexual, as has been mentioned. It doesn't seem to matter so doesn't come up that often.

Precisely, neither of us is right nor wrong. We simply have different conceptions of imperfection.

And I am not fond of stories whose main premise precludes, by necessity, inclusion, such as the examples you are citing. In my opinion, such a premise would make the story imperfect and it would be worth criticising and analysing the merits of that premise and whether the same objectives could have been achieved with a more inclusive premise.

But I do understand that others may not agree with me, and that's fine. No, really, it is. If you do not share the same interests that I do, it's okay not to join me in that kind of activity.

I understand that the image most people have of those who touch these issues is that of an angry mob that wants to get into your house, tie you up with a pride flag, gag you with a burning bra and destroy all your books, movies, games and forms of media.

But you'll find that most of us are perfectly willing to have civilised and polite conversations where we calmly and politely analyse and criticise a work without harming anybody. :smallsmile:

This, this is exactly it. The entire point of inclusion is that, save some exceedingly specific circumstances, a more inclusive story helps dispel stereotypes, the normativity of straight-white-maleness, and turns being non-straight, non-white and non-male into something natural and common, not as a mysterious or exotic Other.

Or at least, that's why I like inclusion.

I don't have any image of you being some sort of extremist. Just that I think a lot of it boils down to preference as opposed to how well a story is crafted. Having a very inclusive story to dispel norms is cool and when writers do it it can be interesting. I wouldn't fault a writer that didn't, though.

Shadowknight12

2013-04-06, 08:22 PM

I don't have any image of you being some sort of extremist. Just that I think a lot of it boils down to preference as opposed to how well a story is crafted. Having a very inclusive story to dispel norms is cool and when writers do it it can be interesting. I wouldn't fault a writer that didn't, though.

Nobody's faulting anyone. While the whole "can there be objectivity in art analysis" thing has been the subject of much debate, I am of the personal opinion that some personal preferences, particularly strongly-held ones (and which pertain to the spheres of society, ethics and the like), are perfectly fine to use as a measure for how well a story is crafted.

jere7my

2013-04-06, 08:27 PM

Based on my perceptions and my impression of OOTS world, there are lots of characters I make no assumption about when it comes to sexual orientation. I have no opinion about Thanh's or O-Chul's sex life. V could easily be gay or pansexual, as has been mentioned. It doesn't seem to matter so doesn't come up that often.

I was making a general point, not actually talking about anything in OotS. If anything, Rich long ago demonstrated exactly what I'm talking about by choosing to make Roy black. There's no story reason for it; he just is, because, hey, it's normal for some people to be black.

SowZ

2013-04-06, 08:33 PM

Nobody's faulting anyone. While the whole "can there be objectivity in art analysis" thing has been the subject of much debate, I am of the personal opinion that some personal preferences, particularly strongly-held ones (and which pertain to the spheres of society, ethics and the like), are perfectly fine to use as a measure for how well a story is crafted.

Hmm, I like to think that the value of an art piece can and usually should stand independent of the story behind its creator, author intent, its time period, and the culture it is written in, (with the obvious exception of true parody and direct social commentary.) You can sometimes get more out of a work if you understand the authors story and the culture, but I view all of that as distinctly separate from the work itself. It's why I don't accept Word of G-d as the end all canon. It may be the authors intent and the authors interpretation, but every other interpretation is just as valid.

Shadowknight12

2013-04-06, 08:35 PM

Hmm, I like to think that the value of an art piece can and usually should stand independent of the story behind its creator, author intent, its time period, and the culture it is written in, (with the obvious exception of true parody and direct social commentary.) You can sometimes get more out of a work if you understand the authors story and the culture, but I view all of that as distinctly separate from the work itself. It's why I don't accept Word of G-d as the end all canon. It may be the authors intent and the authors interpretation, but every other interpretation is just as valid.

That is called Death of the Author (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_the_author) and is a perfectly valid method of criticism, one which I personally neither reject nor embrace.

Raineh Daze

2013-04-06, 08:36 PM

SowZ

2013-04-06, 09:00 PM

... that viewpoint makes no sense. :/

Why not? A story should contain everything you need to know to understand the story. If I read a book and say, "Wow, Heathecliffe is a real douchebag." And the author says, "No, he is actually a good guy, deep down." the author isn't right and I'm not right. We both have our own belief on the work.

Similarly, since the story is self contained, and I read the book and gather from it that Huma-Hina-chan is going to end up with Yara-Kama-Sama, and the author says, "No, Huma-Hina-chan gets with Tetsu-Hotsu-Matsu," but that isn't in the book, the author isn't right just by virtue of being the author. Just like Lucas saying 'Greedo shot first' isn't correct.

Basically, it is a philosophy which accepts content in a book over intention. Ultimately, all storytelling is cooperative. So I see no reason why the authors interpretation is the correct one.

While what I am about to say next isn't true evidence for the validity of my viewpoint, it is actually extremely common in literary circles.

rodneyAnonymous

2013-04-06, 09:05 PM

The problem with "Han shot first" is that it implies Greedo shoots at all ;)

137beth

2013-04-06, 09:08 PM

She was the Leader though. Samantha didn't do much leading in the Bandit group, she just told them to kidnap cute guys. The actual engagements (and probably the rest of the logistics, she doesn't seem the type) were left up to her not-loony-teenager Neutral father. She was the Leader though. If nothing else, Haley did have the position.

group of herself, Belkar, and Celia (Celia is not even a member of OOTS) < Azure city resistance

She was the Leader though. Samantha didn't do much leading in the Bandit group, she just told them to kidnap cute guys. The actual engagements (and probably the rest of the logistics, she doesn't seem the type) were left up to her not-loony-teenager Neutral father. She was the Leader though. If nothing else, Haley did have the position.
Roy dies in 443. Haley is the leader of the unified OOTS until the split, at the end of 468. That's 25 strips, plus the last panel of strip 443. That is more than Samantha did. Even after they split, Haley is still the leader of the Order of the Stick until Roy is resurrected. It was her idea to split up and try to find each other, remember? She was still the leader. Unless you are under the impression that someone can only "lead" a group if they are in the immediate vicinity, in which case V was not a member of the OOTS when on another plane, (or now, for that matter), since he/she/ze/it was not near Roy.

Yes, the assumption of heteronormitivity does bother me. It bothers me enough that I'm going to skip getting involved in the argument...

Raineh Daze

2013-04-06, 09:09 PM

Ah, it's that ludicrous part of literary criticism that thinks that the person behind the world is wrong, got it. Never been able to understand that argument, since I sure as hell know what I mean when I write something, so I don't see why Random Person X should be considered just as likely to be right. Pretty much the same reason why I would put someone that read the whole story or the original version (assuming translations etc., not revisions) before someone that never finished.

In short: sounds like an excuse to keep talking about something that should be a closed case.

Roy dies in 443. Haley is the leader of the unified OOTS until the split, at the end of 468. That's 25 strips, plus the last panel of strip 443. That is more than Samantha did. Even after they split, Haley is still the leader of the Order of the Stick until Roy is resurrected. It was her idea to split up and try to find each other, remember? She was still the leader. Unless you are under the impression that someone can only "lead" a group if they are in the immediate vicinity, in which case V was not a member of the OOTS when on another plane, (or now, for that matter), since he/she/ze/it was not near Roy.

Eh, seems more like she was still second in command, then, if being on another plane doesn't matter. Roy never explicitly vacated the spot, he just went to the LG afterlife for a bit. :smallbiggrin:

Shadowknight12

2013-04-06, 09:14 PM

Raineh Daze

2013-04-06, 09:18 PM

Which is a shame, really, because the original intention of that form of literary critique was not to tell the author that he was wrong, but to try and extract additional enjoyment, food for thought, meaning or speculation from the text. It was, in a way, formalised speculation, a way to turn what would otherwise be a very cut and dry story into a starting point for philosophy, social analysis, literary analysis and so on.

It has its uses, but saying "the author is wrong, nyeh nyeh!" does give the method a bad name.

I don't mind the talking about it so much. That's fine. Allegory is fine. Saying, however, that personal opinion is just as correct as the opinions that created it is too presumptuous. :smallfrown:

... well, unless the author can't stick to one opinion. :smallamused:

Lvl45DM!

2013-04-06, 09:20 PM

Ah, it's that ludicrous part of literary criticism that thinks that the person behind the world is wrong, got it. Never been able to understand that argument, since I sure as hell know what I mean when I write something, so I don't see why Random Person X should be considered just as likely to be right. Pretty much the same reason why I would put someone that read the whole story or the original version (assuming translations etc., not revisions) before someone that never finished.

In short: sounds like an excuse to keep talking about something that should be a closed case.

Well you have to remember that your intentions and your results might not match. For instance, I'm pretty sure that comic writers in the 50's and 60's were trying to make Batman heterosexual but some people consider him to be gay based on reading those comics. James Cameron meant for the Humans to be bad in Avatar and the Aliens to be good, but plenty of people felt that the humans were justified, or that both were evil.

Using it to say that "Batman never actually did anything he fell into a PTSD induced coma and has hallucinated his whole life after his parents died" would perhaps be an overuse of Death of the Author. But saying that Batman is actually a barely functioning sociopath wouldn't be. Remember one would still have to provide reasonable evidence.

Shadowknight12

2013-04-06, 09:23 PM

I don't mind the talking about it so much. That's fine. Allegory is fine. Saying, however, that personal opinion is just as correct as the opinions that created it is too presumptuous. :smallfrown:

... well, unless the author can't stick to one opinion. :smallamused:

Philosophically, strong proponents of Death of the Author subscribe to the notion that literary works exist independently from the creator, and that it is possible to derive additional meaning that the author did not intend. Again, this isn't about telling the author that he is wrong, it was mostly used to speculate about the work like... well, like the example Lvl45DM! just gave you, for instance.

It was very crass to say "the author is wrong" though. Or at least that's what I was taught. It was more of a "sure, we know what is canon, but wouldn't it be interesting if..." thing.

Mutant Sheep

2013-04-06, 09:26 PM

Roy dies in 443. Haley is the leader of the unified OOTS until the split, at the end of 468. That's 25 strips, plus the last panel of strip 443. That is more than Samantha did. Even after they split, Haley is still the leader of the Order of the Stick until Roy is resurrected. It was her idea to split up and try to find each other, remember? She was still the leader. Unless you are under the impression that someone can only "lead" a group if they are in the immediate vicinity, in which case V was not a member of the OOTS when on another plane, (or now, for that matter), since he/she/ze/it was not near Roy.

Yes, the assumption of heteronormitivity does bother me. It bothers me enough that I'm going to skip getting involved in the argument...thank you for saying what I meant to say, but in a way where it's actually readable.:smalltongue: (I was trying to say that if we can take Samantha's "leadership" as her being the leader of a group, Haley definitely counts. Because she has the actual title of Leader (that's what second in commands do, after all) and she was actually leading the united Order (minus Roy, naturally) before the boat split. )

Ok. That made even less sense.:smallconfused: Eurgh.

Raineh Daze

2013-04-06, 09:28 PM

You can sum up my preferred phrasing as: "Hey, you can read it as this," without then going and saying it's just as valid as whatever other random thing.

Like saying something's an allegory for an even that happened after it was written. Seriously, sometimes people need to check dates. :smallannoyed:

SowZ

2013-04-06, 09:30 PM

Ah, it's that ludicrous part of literary criticism that thinks that the person behind the world is wrong, got it. Never been able to understand that argument, since I sure as hell know what I mean when I write something, so I don't see why Random Person X should be considered just as likely to be right. Pretty much the same reason why I would put someone that read the whole story or the original version (assuming translations etc., not revisions) before someone that never finished.

In short: sounds like an excuse to keep talking about something that should be a closed case.

Eh, seems more like she was still second in command, then, if being on another plane doesn't matter. Roy never explicitly vacated the spot, he just went to the LG afterlife for a bit. :smallbiggrin:

It's not that the author didn't have intent, or didn't know what he was writing. It is more like, "Why does the authors intent supercede my interpretation?" Since, ultimately, all story telling is collaborative, I see no reason why this should be the case.

Further, as has already been explored, the literary work is its own thing. It exists whether or not its author does. An author could always rewrite his work or postulate that he or she meant something that they never did originally. But that wouldn't change the original story. The original story would still be a story. It would create a new story. Which is fine, but the other story still lives on with or without author Word of G-d.

Whenever I am at a writing workshop, and someone says they interpreted X plot event or X personality trait from a character that I didn't mean, I would never tell the person they were wrong. That was the story they got out of it and that's just as valid as the story I crafted in my own head.

The problem with "Han shot first" is that it implies Greedo shoots at all ;)

Fair enough.

137beth

2013-04-06, 09:34 PM

Eh, seems more like she was still second in command, then, if being on another plane doesn't matter. Roy never explicitly vacated the spot, he just went to the LG afterlife for a bit. :smallbiggrin:
See strip 455, where Haley explicitly states that she is "current leader of the Order of the Stick."

It is pretty clear cut, Haley was the OOTS leader.

Raineh Daze

2013-04-06, 09:34 PM

It's not that the author didn't have intent, or didn't know what he was writing. It is more like, "Why does the authors intent supercede my interpretation?" Since, ultimately, all story telling is collaborative, I see no reason why this should be the case.

Because the author's intent is actually important to the way the story turned out as it did, and is therefore necessary for it to exist? Seems a simple enough thing to explain. Without that intent, there'd be no story, therefore the intend is more important than what you read into it.

Also because that intend affects more people. Not hard to grasp. :smallconfused:

See strip 455, where Haley explicitly states that she is "current leader of the Order of the Stick."

It is pretty clear cut, Haley was the OOTS leader.

Look, my reasoning against listing it like that boils down to this:

1) She didn't really lead the whole Order properly. Battle was going on, group fell apart. Such great leadership.

2) The Order wasn't really important to the story whilst she was in charge (as a group, not as individuals: five people and a corpse in disparate regions of the world and doing different things do not really comprise a group in any sense of the word), so shouldn't be listed.

3) False impression of equality.

SowZ

2013-04-06, 09:41 PM

Because the author's intent is actually important to the way the story turned out as it did, and is therefore necessary for it to exist? Seems a simple enough thing to explain. Without that intent, there'd be no story, therefore the intend is more important than what you read into it.

Also because that intend affects more people. Not hard to grasp. :smallconfused:

Look, my reasoning against listing it like that boils down to this:

1) She didn't really lead the whole Order properly. Battle was going on, group fell apart. Such great leadership.

2) The Order wasn't really important to the story whilst she was in charge (as a group, not as individuals: five people and a corpse in disparate regions of the world and doing different things do not really comprise a group in any sense of the word), so shouldn't be listed.

3) False impression of equality.

Without the authors mother and father meeting up, the story would have been equally impossible. There are countless factors that effected the story. The authors nationality, religion, etc. etc. But those aren't part of the story anymore than author intent is part of the story. Author intent helped create the story, but it isn't part of it.

oppyu

2013-04-06, 09:41 PM

Re: Most important group led by a woman being OOTS

My reasoning is that Haley was fulfilling her duties as the second-in-command; at no point in the story did the Order go "Ok, forget about the old guy who used to lead this team, I'm the new head honcho and we're going to kill Xykon." Her entire modus operandi as leader was to survive long enough to find Roy, and put him back in charge so they could continue on his mission. She was just a temporary fill-in.

Raineh Daze

2013-04-06, 09:44 PM

Without the authors mother and father meeting up, the story would have been equally impossible. There are countless factors that effected the story. The authors nationality, religion, etc. etc. But those aren't part of the story anymore than author intent is part of the story. Author intent helped create the story, but it isn't part of it.

Extract all authorial intent from the story and tell me how much story you have left. :smallannoyed:

Shadowknight12

2013-04-06, 09:47 PM

3) False impression of equality.

This, pretty much. Belkar even goes out of his way to mention to Roy how she couldn't lead anyone (which presumably also includes the Azure Resistance). While this is obviously not intended to be sexist at all, and instead is meant to tell Roy that he has valuable leadership skills and that the team would fall apart without him, it really drives home that Haley simply did not have leadership capabilities and worked best on her own.

Which is why it's very disingenuous to portray her as a leader.

Xacal

2013-04-06, 09:56 PM

Hmm... I know that this has already been discussed at length throughout several of the previous pages...
But maybe it would be more useful to categorize Xykon as "formerly" living and straight, currently undead and, as the character's portrayal stands so far, effectively asexual?

SowZ

2013-04-06, 09:59 PM

Extract all authorial intent from the story and tell me how much story you have left. :smallannoyed:

100 percent of it is left from the readers POV. Most people read most things with little to no knowledge of the authors life, so they fill in any holes left by not knowing 'intent' with personal life experiences or viewpoints, which make the reading experience personal. All storytelling is cooperative.

If you are saying, "Subtract authorial intent from the writers process," we are no longer talking about the story anymore. We may as well say subtract all pens and pencils from the authors house and there is no story.

Shadowknight12

2013-04-06, 10:04 PM

All storytelling is cooperative.

You have said this over and over, and while I neither agree nor disagree with you on that, I would merely like to remind you that not everyone shares that idea. Some people believe that, in non-interactive media, the audience is passive.

Neither view is better or worse than the other (that too is subjective, like all forms of opinion), but I bring that up to prevent a lengthy argument that might lead nowhere.

Invoking Death of the Author is fine, but so is rejecting it.

Raineh Daze

2013-04-06, 10:09 PM

100 percent of it is left from the readers POV. Most people read most things with little to no knowledge of the authors life, so they fill in any holes left by not knowing 'intent' with personal life experiences or viewpoints, which make the reading experience personal. All storytelling is cooperative.

If you are saying, "Subtract authorial intent from the writers process," we are no longer talking about the story anymore. We may as well say subtract all pens and pencils from the authors house and there is no story.

Subtract all authorial intent from it and you're left with nothing, because it's interwoven with the story itself. That is why I say it's more important than your interpretation, because it's just as important to the story as the characters are.

As you may have guessed by now, I don't subscribe to the idea that just because the author will one day no longer be around, their opinions don't matter.

jere7my

2013-04-06, 10:11 PM

I don't mind the talking about it so much. That's fine. Allegory is fine. Saying, however, that personal opinion is just as correct as the opinions that created it is too presumptuous. :smallfrown:

Authors are not always the last word in what's going on in their own work. I've lost count of the times I've heard an author say, "Wow, I never noticed that" after some fan pointed out a cool resonance between two elements of their work; I've also lost count of the times I've seen an author bullheadedly insist that they were trying to say X when their story, for whatever reason, supports Y. Sometimes an author's hindbrain makes connections that their forebrain doesn't, and it takes a reader to see them; sometimes an author has blind spots because of the culture they're embedded in at the time, or because of their personal history; sometimes an author just fails to notice something, or forgets to put something in. In my experience, professional writers tend to be excited and pleased when someone notices something they didn't intend. I know I've written things and not noticed that something was obviously true until the fifth reread.

(A semi-related story: A director was adapting one of Raymond Chandler's Philip Marlowe novels to the silver screen. Confused about who, exactly, committed one of the murders, the director called Chandler, who angrily shouted into the phone, "It's right there on the page!" and hung up. Two hours later, the phone rang. It was Chandler, who said, "Never mind—I've just been rereading the book, and I can't figure it out either.")

(A semi-related Mister Boffo comic: A sculptor standing next to a lumpy stone ovoid, saying, "I originally planned to title it 'The Incarnation of All Evil in the
Universe,' but then I realized not everyone feels the way I do about potatoes.")

Anyway, I think an author's exegesis is a worthwhile resource when trying to study a work, and I don't see any reason to ignore it if we have access to it, but it certainly shouldn't be taken as holy writ.

WoLong

2013-04-06, 10:11 PM

This, pretty much. Belkar even goes out of his way to mention to Roy how she couldn't lead anyone (which presumably also includes the Azure Resistance).

Yeah. There hasn't been a competent female leader for the entire comic, as far as I can remember. There is an instinctive impulse (in men and women) to categorize women as relatively childish. Women have even evolved physically to reinforce this (narrower eye canals, more likely to cry than males even when they've produced fewer tears.) This doesn't necessarily affect Mr. Giant, but it's interesting nonetheless. I would quite like to see an extremely competent female leader introduced in the near future.

Raineh Daze

2013-04-06, 10:17 PM

Authors are not always the last word in what's going on in their own work. I've lost count of the times I've heard an author say, "Wow, I never noticed that" after some fan pointed out a cool resonance between two elements of their work; I've also lost count of the times I've seen an author bullheadedly insist that they were trying to say X when their story, for whatever reason, supports Y. Sometimes an author's hindbrain makes connections that their forebrain doesn't, and it takes a reader to see them; sometimes an author has blind spots because of the culture they're embedded in at the time, or because of their personal history; sometimes an author just fails to notice something, or forgets to put something in. In my experience, professional writers tend to be excited and pleased when someone notices something they didn't intend. I know I've written things and not noticed that something was obviously true until the fifth reread.

First point: uh, what? I'm not sure how lacking effective omniscience makes any difference.
Second: Great, you've found an author that can't write what they mean. Congratulations, they're bad at getting a point across.
Third: Umm... irrelevant.

(A semi-related story: A director was adapting one of Raymond Chandler's Philip Marlowe novels to the silver screen. Confused about who, exactly, committed one of the murders, the director called Chandler, who angrily shouted into the phone, "It's right there on the page!" and hung up. Two hours later, the phone rang. It was Chandler, who said, "Never mind—I've just been rereading the book, and I can't figure it out either.")

Also irrelevant.

(A semi-related Mister Boffo comic: A sculptor standing next to a lumpy stone ovoid, saying, "I originally planned to title it 'The Incarnation of All Evil in the
Universe,' but then I realized not everyone feels the way I do about potatoes.")

Now I'm just getting confused. :/

Anyway, I think an author's exegesis is a worthwhile resource when trying to study a work, and I don't see any reason to ignore it if we have access to it, but it certainly shouldn't be taken as holy writ.

I'm just going to assume you realised I was talking about saying your interpretation is just as important, and add this: who said holy writ? I've been saying that the author's intent is more important than your opinion, and acting different is arrogant. :smallconfused:

SowZ

2013-04-06, 10:19 PM

Subtract all authorial intent from it and you're left with nothing, because it's interwoven with the story itself. That is why I say it's more important than your interpretation, because it's just as important to the story as the characters are.

As you may have guessed by now, I don't subscribe to the idea that just because the author will one day no longer be around, their opinions don't matter.

The authors intent is not part of the actual story itself. Here's an illustration. Two authors who've never met both write a 100 word story. By coincidence, they write exactly the same story. The same exact words in the same order, same names, and each has their own motivations for doing it. Each has separate intentions. Despite each work having different intentions, a reader would get the exact same thing out out of both works. Author intent is not part of the story itself.

If you say that the illustration couldn't happen, do the same thing with a shorter work. A Haiku, even.

An authors opinion matters. Just not more than anyone else, because everyone has a hand in creating the story. Every time a story is read by a new person, a new version of that story now exists, because everyone makes different value judgments or assumptions from that story.

You have said this over and over, and while I neither agree nor disagree with you on that, I would merely like to remind you that not everyone shares that idea. Some people believe that, in non-interactive media, the audience is passive.

Neither view is better or worse than the other (that too is subjective, like all forms of opinion), but I bring that up to prevent a lengthy argument that might lead nowhere.

Invoking Death of the Author is fine, but so is rejecting it.

Rejecting Death of the Author is fine, sure, but I disagree with anyone saying that all storytelling isn't cooperative. There is no such thing as a truly passive listener, because it is impossible with words and images to perfectly transcribe an idea to someone else, not to mention a story which is a combination of hundreds or thousands of ideas.

There will always be holes in every story that the listener or reader has to fill in for themselves, so no two people will ever draw exactly the same thing form a given story. That is what makes it cooperative. If it were possible to transfer complete ideas between two people without any personal take on it, I would agree that a reader or listener or viewer could maybe be passive. But I don't think it is.

Shadowknight12

2013-04-06, 10:25 PM

Yeah. There hasn't been a competent female leader for the entire comic, as far as I can remember. There is an instinctive impulse (in men and women) to categorize women as relatively childish. Women have even evolved physically to reinforce this (narrower eye canals, more likely to cry than males even when they've produced fewer tears.) This doesn't necessarily affect Mr. Giant, but it's interesting nonetheless. I would quite like to see an extremely competent female leader introduced in the near future.

Yeah, though a lot of that can be explained by epigenetics and polymorphisms that we can hope to revert in the future (even the oft-cited adage that men are unchangeably stronger than women could be, in fact, changed, if we were to raise our children differently).

I completely and wholeheartedly agree that it would be magnificent to see strong, competent women in positions of leadership. Having a Tarquin-like woman (in terms of physical and mental competence, not morality) in the story would fill my heart with glee.

Rejecting Death of the Author is fine, sure, but I disagree with anyone saying that all storytelling isn't cooperative. There is no such thing as a truly passive listener, because it is impossible with words and images to perfectly transcribe an idea to someone else, not to mention a story which is a combination of hundreds or thousands of ideas.

There will always be holes in every story that the listener or reader has to fill in for themselves, so no two people will ever draw exactly the same thing form a given story. That is what makes it cooperative. If it were possible to transfer complete ideas between two people without any personal take on it, I would agree that a reader or listener or viewer could maybe be passive. But I don't think it is.

The problem is that you are conflating two different kinds of cooperative storytelling. One is the kind you are describing, where the author sends one half of the message and the audience makes up the other half in their own minds.

The other kind of cooperative storytelling is the one where the audience feels entitled to dictate what happens in the story, to alter the canon as they see fit, and to loudly complain when things don't go their way. I have a feeling that's what Raineh Daze is trying to explain, that asserting that your opinion has the same validity as authorial intent is presumptuous and arrogant.

I tend to agree with her, though I do acknowledge that one shouldn't outright discount personal interpretation in the audience. It's just that she does have a point: it's rather rude to presume that your own thoughts and feelings on a story are just as important (if not moreso) than the author's.

SaintRidley

2013-04-06, 10:25 PM

Extract all authorial intent from the story and tell me how much story you have left. :smallannoyed:
I'm going to preface this by stating my hope that I might clarify some things about literary criticism and its relation to intent here. I deal primarily with texts of an age where there are few known authors, and little is known of the few known authors we have. The language is also archaic enough that it needs translation to even be comprehensible to your average person. With that said, allow me to give your question a shot.

But can you, the reader, absolutely glean authorial intent?

The thing about literary criticism and analysis is that it is not a science. It is not searching for The Answer. Assuming that there is, in fact, The Answer, is pretty much right out at this point. There are multiple answers, and multiple lines to get to those answers. The author may intend one thing, but there is far more at work in language than that. A poem may have been intended to say one thing, and that's fine. However, language doesn't really allow for that. The precise wording, the precise turns of phrase, may have intended one thing, but if they point also in another direction, then that's also a valid reading. There are a number of things that construct the author, whether the author is aware of them or not, and which subtly touch the product.

An author's intent is an interpretation, and one of many. An author may intend one thing, but the result might be different. Or the result might be that thing. But there are always other things. Chaucer may have only intended to tell a bawdy tale or twenty, but he gave us a number of other things in the process. Rich may have given us what he intended as a critique of several attitudes prevalent in role-playing games and gamers in general, but he's also giving us new formal problems in terms of how a comic on the internet should and could work, critiques of gender roles on a larger level, and (this through characters like Elan) an exploration of just what makes a narrative function. Shakespeare may not have intended to advance a serious argument for Jewish personhood and Jewish rights, but a number of critics have found Shylock to be just that. These may all have been intended to some degree or another, but they are part of a large tapesty of ideas that go into making a story or a poem, and the author makes one part of that tapestry consciously. A work of literature is more than the sum of its parts.

Now, I know of no serious scholars who argue that any text is an allegory for an event which took place after the text was written. Indeed, there aren't many serious scholars who argue that a text is an allegory for anything anymore. It's a pretty weak form of criticism. I'm guessing that you're seeing largely untrained people online making such arguments, and you should consider them as such.

The field of translation is one of the great proofs of the postmodern critical perspective regarding the variety of answers as opposed to one, totalized Answer. Every translation is inherently an act of criticism, an act of attempting to access what seems to be the mind of the author. And yet you will find that different translators understand that mind differently. There's more to a work than the creator's intent. Indeed, look at the translator's work and you'll see just as clearly that the translator's mind is very much at work, often in very subtle ways.

Trust me as a professional when I say that Rich's intent and its attendant interpretation are very important. He certainly isn't wrong about his story (Ray Bradbury might be, but he can't seem to make up his mind just what his intent was. But that gets us to memory and reconstructing intent, which is what all statements of intent boil down to once the work has been deemed finished). Trust me also when I say his intent does not by any means contain the whole range of possibilities. Nor is it terribly interesting (unless it can be used to support a different interpretation) precisely because it's already said. We're in the business of finding all the things that make the story what it is, and simply repeating the author isn't very helpful there. It's not a science, after all.

rodneyAnonymous

2013-04-06, 10:28 PM

Token concession to something that was clearly (I thought) a joke? Okay. :)

137beth

2013-04-06, 10:43 PM

Look, my reasoning against listing it like that boils down to this:

1) She didn't really lead the whole Order properly. Battle was going on, group fell apart. Such great leadership.

2) The Order wasn't really important to the story whilst she was in charge (as a group, not as individuals: five people and a corpse in disparate regions of the world and doing different things do not really comprise a group in any sense of the word), so shouldn't be listed.

3) False impression of equality.

1 and 2: Samantha is listed as a leader, though. And the bandit camp was still substantially less important than the order was in DstP
3: I'm not sure what you mean...

rodneyAnonymous

2013-04-06, 10:53 PM

Durkon explicitly calls Haley the leader of the Order of the Stick. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0444.html) That seems good enough. Arguments against involve subjective opinions about importance and effectiveness and whatnot.

At the very least, she is the one and only leader of the Azure City Resistance. Definitely.

Shadowknight12

2013-04-06, 10:55 PM

At the very least, she is the one and only leader of the Azure City Resistance. Definitely.

You're forgetting Ho Thanh, who led the unified Azure Resistance, not just the branch Haley was in charge of. Haley led one third of it, a woman led another third, a man led the last third, and Ho Thanh led them all once they consolidated under his leadership.

rodneyAnonymous

2013-04-06, 10:58 PM

Not forgetting anything. That is a new organization. They weren't just branches of the same organization prior to merging. Seems like this is arguing just to argue.

Shadowknight12

2013-04-06, 11:04 PM

Not forgetting anything. That is a new organization. They weren't just branches of the same organization prior to merging. Seems like this is arguing just to argue.

Narratively, they were. Even the elves, which were merely warriors from another country, were narratively considered to be part of the Azure Resistance, despite the fact that they functioned under yet another hierarchy. They are all narratively part of the same group, and Haley only got to lead a third (or a quarter, if you count the elves) of it.

The reason it's being argued is that putting Haley down as a leader, in the same vein as every other (male) leader we've seen would give a false impression when analysing the work, since Haley was clearly not the same calibre of leader as Roy or the others. If someone were to read the OP of this thread and see "Roy, leader" and "Haley, second in command, temporary leader" they might conclude that the narrative treated them equally during their turns at leadership, when it obviously hasn't. It would be conveying a false message.

Lvl45DM!

2013-04-06, 11:20 PM

rodneyAnonymous

2013-04-06, 11:21 PM

Narratively, they were. Even the elves, which were merely warriors from another country, were narratively considered to be part of the Azure Resistance...

In what sense? Would Haley or Thanh give them orders? Would they be followed? I doubt it in both cases.

Narratively maybe they are considered part of the "same movement" or something, but the same organization? Not at all.

SowZ

2013-04-06, 11:22 PM

Shadowknight12

2013-04-06, 11:26 PM

To be entirely fair to Haley she was less effective than Roy due to the fact that half of the party wasn't around and Belkar responds only to violence. Since he is an equivalent level ranger who is better at violence than she is...
Her plans were good its just she didn't have the same kind of power as Roy

Tier-wise, ranger and rogue are roughly the same, and fighter is a tier below them, so if a fighter could keep the ranger in check, so could the rogue. We don't know exactly why Belkar didn't respect her. It could have been because they were both Chaotic, because Roy had more Charisma/Intimidate than Haley, or because Belkar was chauvinistic and only followed the leadership of men. We can speculate as much as we want, but power? Nope, that is probably one of the few things that we can rule out.

In what sense? Would Haley or Thanh give them orders? Would they be followed? I doubt it in both cases.

Narratively maybe they are considered part of the "same movement" or something, but the same organization? Not at all.

It doesn't matter, because their narrative purpose is finished and therefore we will never know. They worked together to pursue the same goals, on the same side, and were not narratively important enough to warrant a detailed explanation of their hierarchy.

jere7my

2013-04-06, 11:37 PM

First point: uh, what? I'm not sure how lacking effective omniscience makes any difference.
Second: Great, you've found an author that can't write what they mean. Congratulations, they're bad at getting a point across.
Third: Umm... irrelevant.

Since I provided about five illustrations in that paragraph, I'm not sure what your three points refer to. My point is that authors are not perfect communicators, either with their audience, themselves, or the world around them. An author might blithely write what, to them, seems like a very simple story, all while their subconscious is investing it with deeper connections that they might never even notice until a reader points it out to them. I have seen actual published big-name authors say, "Holy ****, you're right" in response to a reader insight. That's an instance of reader interpretation exceeding authorial intent.

Authors are also sometimes bad communicators, yes. In fact, no author ever writes exactly what they mean, and the more subtle and complex the thing they're trying to write is, the more that comes into play. That doesn't make an author bad. But some authors are blinded by their experiences, either because they're embedded in a particular culture or because of their own life stories, and they may write something that they think says deep things about the world that actually says something entirely different. To give a rather crude example, an author might think he's saying "Women like my ex are conniving ratbags" and actually be saying "Men like me, the author, are jerks, and no woman would want to spend time with them." (Thus the potato comic.)

And authors make mistakes, like Raymond Chandler did. It was his belief that the murderer was evident, but apparently he forgot to actually write that bit into his book. In that case, the reader (actually the director) was blatantly right and the author blatantly wrong. The authorial intent was that someone (nobody knows, now) committed the murder, but the text, which is all we have to go by, doesn't let us reach any conclusions. If we found clues in the text pointing to someone, it would be valid to draw them out and make a case, even though the author doesn't even know whodunnit.

Anyway, I've said what I meant to say. That's probably all I'm going to say on this topic, unless you contribute something more thoughtful than "Pfft...irrelevant."

137beth

2013-04-07, 12:14 AM

Shadowknight12

2013-04-07, 12:18 AM

Okay, so there's a disagreement about whether Haley and Thahn were leaders of the same organization, but...
Why is that important? Haley was unquestionably the leader of the Order, as expressed by herself, Durkon, and Celia. Surely we can agree that that is a more important group than the resistance?

Yes, and her leadership skills could not prevent Celia and Belkar from getting into... well, we all know the story. She also failed to establish her leadership with the other half of the party at all.

Again, the narrative does not treat her the same as any of the male leaders. Belkar says it, Haley herself says it, ghost!Roy vaguely hints at it, the narrative says it. As much as I would really like to see a competent female leader in the comic, her stint as a leader was not competent. This is something I wish had been handled differently, but what's done is done. That's how she has been portrayed.

137beth

2013-04-07, 12:26 AM

Yes, and her leadership skills could not prevent Celia and Belkar from getting into... well, we all know the story. She also failed to establish her leadership with the other half of the party at all.

Again, the narrative does not treat her the same as any of the male leaders. Belkar says it, Haley herself says it, ghost!Roy vaguely hints at it, the narrative says it. As much as I would really like to see a competent female leader in the comic, her stint as a leader was not competent. This is something I wish had been handled differently, but what's done is done. That's how she has been portrayed.
Who said anything about competence? Okay, some other people did, but I was primarily referring to the fact that she should be listed under "most important group lead by a female." The debate about whether she was a good leader is besides the point.

Shadowknight12

2013-04-07, 12:29 AM

Who said anything about competence? Okay, some other people did, but I was primarily referring to the fact that she should be listed under "most important group lead by a female." The debate about whether she was a good leader is besides the point.

The point is that it gives a false impression of equality. She was not Roy's equal as a leader (or the equal of most of the male leaders on the list), so listing her as such is disingenuous and unfair, and paints a very different picture of what actually happened.

oppyu

2013-04-07, 12:35 AM

Who said anything about competence? Okay, some other people did, but I was primarily referring to the fact that she should be listed under "most important group lead by a female." The debate about whether she was a good leader is besides the point.
Evidence for my alternate argument; that Roy was the leader all along and Haley was just trying to survive until they could get the man back.

"Our leader is dead, our most powerful member is MIA, and Durkon has been healing us all day." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0467.html)

"Leaders are held responsible for their followers under the assumption that the leader has SOME degree of control over them. Which is not the case here: Belkar doesn't listen to me at all. I'm 'leader' in name only, so I refuse to be held accountable for his actions." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0540.html)

"Our leader, Roy, is dead." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0566.html)

Lvl45DM!

2013-04-07, 01:44 AM

Tier-wise, ranger and rogue are roughly the same, and fighter is a tier below them, so if a fighter could keep the ranger in check, so could the rogue. We don't know exactly why Belkar didn't respect her. It could have been because they were both Chaotic, because Roy had more Charisma/Intimidate than Haley, or because Belkar was chauvinistic and only followed the leadership of men. We can speculate as much as we want, but power? Nope, that is probably one of the few things that we can rule out.

Tiers do not necessarily indicate who would beat who in a fight. Rich doesn't care about tiers he cares about story. Belkar annihilated Haleys rival in like one round. Its been blatantly stated in comic that the only reason that Belkar listens to Roy is cos Roy had the rest of the OotS backing him up.

In the larger sense using Belkar as a measure of someones leadership isn't exactly fair, and in the long run Haley got the Order of the Stick reunited successfully despite Epic magic, a whole thieves guild, two party members that disobeyed direct orders and limited funds.
Not to mention successfully maintaining a low-level army against Tsukiko for months. She did pretty dang well. Do we want to start comparing her to Roy? Under Roy's watch two party members have died, one being himself!

Shadowknight12

2013-04-07, 01:55 AM

Tiers do not necessarily indicate who would beat who in a fight. Rich doesn't care about tiers he cares about story. Belkar annihilated Haleys rival in like one round. Its been blatantly stated in comic that the only reason that Belkar listens to Roy is cos Roy had the rest of the OotS backing him up.

You are asserting two contradictory things. On one hand, you imply that Roy was more powerful than Haley, and contained Belkar on threat of violence alone (I disagree, I think Haley, Belkar and Roy are evenly matched, with "whoever wins in a fight" going to whoever has the surprise/environmental advantage).

On the other, you're asserting that Roy can only keep Belkar in check because he has the rest of the order backing him up, in which case Haley was doomed to fail the moment the other three sailed away.

In the larger sense using Belkar as a measure of someones leadership isn't exactly fair, and in the long run Haley got the Order of the Stick reunited successfully despite Epic magic, a whole thieves guild, two party members that disobeyed direct orders and limited funds.
Not to mention successfully maintaining a low-level army against Tsukiko for months. She did pretty dang well. Do we want to start comparing her to Roy? Under Roy's watch two party members have died, one being himself!

Actually, Haley wouldn't have got the order reunited at all if it weren't for Celia. She was the one that prodded her to leave Cloister range, find a cleric, and contact Durkon. Sure, she screwed things up majorly afterwards, but Haley was content to do nothing (just like Durkon) for months.

We don't know if she successfully maintained a low-level army. The only excursion we saw ended up with her losing lives under her care. After that, Belkar ended up taking out the Oracle before he could give them useful advice (and becoming useless as the Mark of Justice was triggered), she was unable to keep Celia out of trouble (and ended up getting dragged into a huge mess where she would've likely ended up dead if it hadn't been for both Celia and Belkar) and ended up repeatedly admitting she wasn't cut up for the job.

Every time Roy loses a team member, on the other hand, several people rush to reassure him of his leadership capacities and continue believing he's an excellent leader despite it, while all of Haley's accomplishments as a leader end up under "you did the best you could, but you don't have what it takes to lead." This isn't my opinion, this is what the narrative says, what characters around her say, and what Haley herself says.

Lvl45DM!

2013-04-07, 02:48 AM

Stuff

Your point about what the narrative says is poignant.

Shadowknight12

2013-04-07, 03:06 AM

Your point about what the narrative says is poignant.

Thank you. I don't want to diss Haley, she's one of my favourite characters (and I don't want to diss the Giant either), but this is one of those things I mentioned before where you can analyse and criticise something you love.

Examining how the narrative treats women in a position of power can lead us to interesting discussions about the work, and can educate people who might otherwise be ignorant about some social/literary issues. Which I think is a good thing. We could discuss, for example, how the Giant could have achieved his goals while empowering Haley as a strong leader (or, perhaps, if he could have achieved his goals while doing so, or if the goal of empowering the male leader necessitated that his replacement was not nearly as good as him in order to lend him confidence when it faltered, as per #881), and many other topics.

The Giant

2013-04-07, 06:21 AM

Every time Roy loses a team member, on the other hand, several people rush to reassure him of his leadership capacities and continue believing he's an excellent leader despite it,

Every time? You mean, "once." I don't remember anyone telling him he was a good leader when he got himself killed. In fact, I remember the exact opposite. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0485.html)

We could discuss, for example, how the Giant could have achieved his goals while empowering Haley as a strong leader (or, perhaps, if he could have achieved his goals while doing so, or if the goal of empowering the male leader necessitated that his replacement was not nearly as good as him in order to lend him confidence when it faltered, as per #881), and many other topics.

The goal, in this case, was to keep true to Haley's previously-established character. And her established character was a rule-breaking individualist with trust issues and a moderate contempt for authority who self-selected herself as second-in-command by swindling the other party members with no expectation of it ever coming up. It would have made no sense to violate that existing character 60% of the way through the story just so we could tick the "Strong Female Leader Depicted" box for the comic. That's not who Haley is, and I don't need to force her growth in that direction because it's OK to not be a leader. Not everyone in the world is good at the same things, and I take exception to the idea that only leadership positions "count." Chaotic is just as valid as Lawful in this story, it's just that Lawful tends to be a lot better at working in groups.

If you want to rag on me for not having other female leader characters, fine, whatever. Fair point. But I stand by my depiction of Haley. I am very much in favor of representation, but it doesn't help anyone for me to throw out my female character's entire personality just to satisfy an arbitrary desire to fill a role. If I do that, aren't I saying that who she is as an individual doesn't matter as much as which gender she is?

Also, Haley reunited the party and resurrected Roy. I'd take her track record over Nale's any day, and I don't see anyone questioning his legitimacy as a leader.

Raineh Daze

2013-04-07, 07:56 AM

Also, Haley reunited the party and resurrected Roy. I'd take her track record over Nale's any day, and I don't see anyone questioning his legitimacy as a leader.

Probably because Nale is very much definitely a leader, even if his planning skills are... ridiculous.

Hm. Something has occurred to me: how many females have had a Lawful alignment, without that being explicitly required of their class or what they are? Including them, I can think of Miko, Lien, and Celia... and that's not exactly the largest pool ever. :smallconfused:

Kish

2013-04-07, 08:06 AM

Sara Greenhilt.

And for men with a Lawful alignment, there's Roy, Durkon, Tarquin, Nale, Malack, Redcloak, Hinjo, O-Chul, Thanh, Eugene Greenhilt. Bearing in mind that there are far more male characters than female ones (and, yes, that's a problem), I don't think there's any correlation between being female and being non-Lawful (though there is, actually, one between being female and being Lawful Good if established Lawful at all).

oppyu

2013-04-07, 08:37 AM

Probably because Nale is very much definitely a leader, even if his planning skills are... ridiculous.

Hm. Something has occurred to me: how many females have had a Lawful alignment, without that being explicitly required of their class or what they are? Including them, I can think of Miko, Lien, and Celia... and that's not exactly the largest pool ever. :smallconfused:

Going through the list with best guesses,

Lawful
Lien
Miko
Celia

Neutral
Therkla

Chaotic
Haley Starshine
Tsukiko
Sabine
Hilgya Firehelm
Crystal
Samantha

Unknown
Kazumi Kato (guess: lawful)
Empress of Blood (guess: chaotic)
Niu (guess: lawful)
Eye-patched Leader (guess: chaotic)
Team Peregrine Lieutenant (guess: um... let's say neutral)
Lirian (guess: neutral)
Serini (guess: chaotic)

There are many more guys than girls on the list and I really don't feel like going through all of them, but if I had to guess after a quick scan, I would say there is a more even distribution, leaning towards lawful.

Sunken Valley

2013-04-07, 08:51 AM

Every time? You mean, "once." I don't remember anyone telling him he was a good leader when he got himself killed. In fact, I remember the exact opposite. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0485.html)

Also, Haley reunited the party and resurrected Roy. I'd take her track record over Nale's any day, and I don't see anyone questioning his legitimacy as a leader.

I'm not sure Eugene counts. He'd have insulted Roy for anything pre-strip 500 except actually killing Xykon. Meaning no member of the Order questioned or praised his poor tactic of Dragon Jumping.

Haley didn't do as much to reunite the Party as Celia did. Haley would have stayed in Gobbotopia forever if Celia hadn't intervened. Celia prevented the party from sending Greysky into a warzone. Celia indirectly cured Belkar's curse and revived his city killing powers due to the cowardly cleric. Celia enabled Haley to have the satisfaction of killing Crystal unlocking some sort of character development. All Haley did was know Blind Pete and UMD a sending scroll.

I think Nale is a good leader. He gets his party to listen to him and do exactly what he says, which Roy cannot do. He consistently recruits members. He can buy himself time even against opponents more powerful than him. It always takes random luck and intervention from outside forces to thwart his plans against the order. The only reason his 2012 record is so low is because Tarquin is just that much better and Nale is scared of him and Malack. I have no doubt that if the linear guild were more inclined to saving the world, Xykon would have died at Azure City.

137beth

2013-04-07, 10:27 AM

Celia indirectly cured Belkar's curse and revived his city killing powers due to the cowardly cleric. Celia enabled Haley to have the satisfaction of killing Crystal unlocking some sort of character development.
How did Celia contribute to either of those?!?

I think Nale is a good leader. He gets his party to listen to him and do exactly what he says, which Roy cannot do. He consistently recruits members. He can buy himself time even against opponents more powerful than him. It always takes random luck and intervention from outside forces to thwart his plans against the order. The only reason his 2012 record is so low is because Tarquin is just that much better and Nale is scared of him and Malack. I have no doubt that if the linear guild were more inclined to saving the world, Xykon would have died at Azure City.
Wha? I don't even...no.

Raineh Daze

2013-04-07, 10:34 AM

How did Celia contribute to either of those?!?

Without Celia, Haley would never have gone and done them? Pretty straightforward.

Wha? I don't even...no.

Complexity addiction aside, he can lead. Now, if he could create a simple plan? He'd be a threat. :smallbiggrin:

Sunken Valley

2013-04-07, 10:41 AM

How did Celia contribute to either of those?!?

By going to Greysky City against Haley's Advice.

Water_Bear

2013-04-07, 11:02 AM

Wha? I don't even...no.

Actually, Sunken Valley has a good point. So far Nale's plots have failed due to unforeseeable coincidences; Roy's Dad's Ghost's cryptic prophecy, Julian Scoundrel happening to run into Elan at a bar, the Order wandering into Z's Scrying Sensor in what the LG thought was a random point in a continental desert. His actual schemes are pretty good too; his initial plot in the Dungeon of Dorukan was well thought out and well executed, his revenge plot in Cliffport showed a lot of insight, and his method of finding Gerard's Gate under his father's nose was clever and actually worked.

As a minor antagonist he can't actually succeed, and he is a bit doofy, but Nale is far from an incompetent.

Anyway, back to the actual topic...

First, huge props to Rich for OotS being as cool as it is. This comic has helped make my gaming more sophisticated in a lot of ways, as I'm sure it has for many other readers, because it approaches the conventions of RPGs and Fantasy narratives in a thoughtful way which highlights the best and worst aspects of them. The fact that it's also consistently funny and avoids preachiness adds to that IMO.

If I had to identify an issue, it would be the fact that the majority of characters are male. OotS is better than most media I've seen, both in terms of the ratio of important characters and in that Rich remembers to use female "extras" and minor characters where their sex isn't directly relevant. But as the amount of Blue on the first page indicates, over-representation of men is a thing.

In terms of sexuality, I'm not really qualified to make a call. Obviously LGBT+ people want characters they can relate to, but it also strains credibility if groups who make up 5% or 1% of the population end up with multiple main characters. Where is that line drawn? I have no idea.

Gift Jeraff

2013-04-07, 11:18 AM

Nale is a bad leader in the sense that he doesn't care if the people he leads (except maybe Sabine) are being led to their doom. And unlike Xykon and Redcloak the people in question aren't easily replaceable.

JustWantedToSay

2013-04-07, 11:26 AM

Missing Captain Amun-Zora (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0742.html) as a female leader.

Captain is a commanding-officer in any branch.

ETA: And Team Tarquin has two more females (and two males) here, to bring the average down abit:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0758.html.

And there's a Queen in that strip too.

Raineh Daze

2013-04-07, 11:40 AM

skaddix

2013-04-07, 11:49 AM

Actually, Sunken Valley has a good point. So far Nale's plots have failed due to unforeseeable coincidences; Roy's Dad's Ghost's cryptic prophecy, Julian Scoundrel happening to run into Elan at a bar, the Order wandering into Z's Scrying Sensor in what the LG thought was a random point in a continental desert. His actual schemes are pretty good too; his initial plot in the Dungeon of Dorukan was well thought out and well executed, his revenge plot in Cliffport showed a lot of insight, and his method of finding Gerard's Gate under his father's nose was clever and actually worked.

As a minor antagonist he can't actually succeed, and he is a bit doofy, but Nale is far from an incompetent.

Anyway, back to the actual topic...

First, huge props to Rich for OotS being as cool as it is. This comic has helped make my gaming more sophisticated in a lot of ways, as I'm sure it has for many other readers, because it approaches the conventions of RPGs and Fantasy narratives in a thoughtful way which highlights the best and worst aspects of them. The fact that it's also consistently funny and avoids preachiness adds to that IMO.

If I had to identify an issue, it would be the fact that the majority of characters are male. OotS is better than most media I've seen, both in terms of the ratio of important characters and in that Rich remembers to use female "extras" and minor characters where their sex isn't directly relevant. But as the amount of Blue on the first page indicates, over-representation of men is a thing.

In terms of sexuality, I'm not really qualified to make a call. Obviously LGBT+ people want characters they can relate to, but it also strains credibility if groups who make up 5% or 1% of the population end up with multiple main characters. Where is that line drawn? I have no idea.

The first plot worked because the order had no idea who he was whereas he had been specifically hired to kill them. Cliffport plan got off the ground do to luck seeing as they just randomly ran into Roy's sister.

lio45

2013-04-07, 11:51 AM

If I had to identify an issue, it would be the fact that the majority of characters are male. OotS is better than most media I've seen, both in terms of the ratio of important characters and in that Rich remembers to use female "extras" and minor characters where their sex isn't directly relevant. But as the amount of Blue on the first page indicates, over-representation of men is a thing.

Bearing in mind that there are far more male characters than female ones (and, yes, that's a problem)...

Why would that be a problem? As an author, Rich wants to craft a world that will feel as natural as possible to his readers. For genetic reasons, it's far more likely that a given ruthless Evil human general out there is male, so that's what most authors will likely pick, even after thinking about it. (If you want us to embark on a biology debate, no problem with me, let's go ahead. Or you can just accept what I'm saying.)

In a story world where what generally happens (in front of the camera) is that people are adventuring and hitting each other with shiny metal sticks, a 50-50 gender balance would feel forced and generally detract from the quality/believability of the story. Kudos to Rich for the (IMO) pretty ideal gender balance in OotS for the type of story.

Raineh Daze

2013-04-07, 12:19 PM

Why would that be a problem? As an author, Rich wants to craft a world that will feel as natural as possible to his readers. For genetic reasons, it's far more likely that a given ruthless Evil human general out there is male, so that's what most authors will likely pick, even after thinking about it. (If you want us to embark on a biology debate, no problem with me, let's go ahead. Or you can just accept what I'm saying.)

In a story world where what generally happens (in front of the camera) is that people are adventuring and hitting each other with shiny metal sticks, a 50-50 gender balance would feel forced and generally detract from the quality/believability of the story. Kudos to Rich for the (IMO) pretty ideal gender balance in OotS for the type of story.

I could accept what you're saying, but I'm not a fan of declaring biology as the overarching reason for human behaviour. It's heartless, shallow, and honestly kind of nauseating. Biological theories of behaviour are just... unpleasant. :smallannoyed:

And hey, there's magic. And nonhumans. And gender has no mechanical impact. So saying reinforcement of gender stereotypes and biases is a good thing because it's believable... is kind of ridiculous. If that would be enough to ruin your suspension of disbelief... :smallsigh:

SowZ

2013-04-07, 12:32 PM

Every time? You mean, "once." I don't remember anyone telling him he was a good leader when he got himself killed. In fact, I remember the exact opposite. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0485.html)

The goal, in this case, was to keep true to Haley's previously-established character. And her established character was a rule-breaking individualist with trust issues and a moderate contempt for authority who self-selected herself as second-in-command by swindling the other party members with no expectation of it ever coming up. It would have made no sense to violate that existing character 60% of the way through the story just so we could tick the "Strong Female Leader Depicted" box for the comic. That's not who Haley is, and I don't need to force her growth in that direction because it's OK to not be a leader. Not everyone in the world is good at the same things, and I take exception to the idea that only leadership positions "count." Chaotic is just as valid as Lawful in this story, it's just that Lawful tends to be a lot better at working in groups.

If you want to rag on me for not having other female leader characters, fine, whatever. Fair point. But I stand by my depiction of Haley. I am very much in favor of representation, but it doesn't help anyone for me to throw out my female character's entire personality just to satisfy an arbitrary desire to fill a role. If I do that, aren't I saying that who she is as an individual doesn't matter as much as which gender she is?

Also, Haley reunited the party and resurrected Roy. I'd take her track record over Nale's any day, and I don't see anyone questioning his legitimacy as a leader.

The incompetence of Nale and Xykon as male leaders has come up once or twice, though probably as offhand comments in a 7 page long thread so not to prominent.

Shadowknight12

2013-04-07, 02:03 PM

Well, I done goofed up.

Every time? You mean, "once." I don't remember anyone telling him he was a good leader when he got himself killed. In fact, I remember the exact opposite. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0485.html)

I would just like to point out that this is Eugene. He'd probably rather tear his spine out with his own hands than compliment Roy on anything. I recall, later on, that Roy is praised (by his mother? grandfather?) for his leadership skills, despite his own death. But I do admit that even if we count "twice" it still wasn't a very good argument on my part.

The goal, in this case, was to keep true to Haley's previously-established character. And her established character was a rule-breaking individualist with trust issues and a moderate contempt for authority who self-selected herself as second-in-command by swindling the other party members with no expectation of it ever coming up. It would have made no sense to violate that existing character 60% of the way through the story just so we could tick the "Strong Female Leader Depicted" box for the comic. That's not who Haley is, and I don't need to force her growth in that direction because it's OK to not be a leader. Not everyone in the world is good at the same things, and I take exception to the idea that only leadership positions "count." Chaotic is just as valid as Lawful in this story, it's just that Lawful tends to be a lot better at working in groups.

I completely agree and respect that, but I would just like to point out Shojo as a Chaotic, rules-breaking leader who showed extreme competence in leading an entire nation for years while still maintaining the same alignment as Haley. While I understand what you're trying to say, I merely point out that perhaps it could have been possible to preserve the goals you're trying to achieve with the character while still portraying her as a strong leader. Of course, this would've somewhat lessened the impact of Belkar's speech to Roy, but it's possible to preserve most of it by having Haley state that it's not that she's bad at leadership, she just doesn't like it or want it (because she's an individualist, and doesn't like having that kind of responsibility), thereby retaining some of the punch of Belkar's "you are a valuable team member" speech to Roy.

EDIT: I would just like to add that this is just speculation on my behalf and in no way is me trying to tell you how to run your comic, merely speculating on ways to achieve the same narrative goal in different ways, to elicit discussion that might educate future writers/creators.

It was not my intention to throw Haley's personality under the bus, she's one of my favourite characters, and I definitely enjoy the nuance and richness of her characterisation.

If you want to rag on me for not having other female leader characters, fine, whatever. Fair point. But I stand by my depiction of Haley. I am very much in favor of representation, but it doesn't help anyone for me to throw out my female character's entire personality just to satisfy an arbitrary desire to fill a role. If I do that, aren't I saying that who she is as an individual doesn't matter as much as which gender she is?

Also, Haley reunited the party and resurrected Roy. I'd take her track record over Nale's any day, and I don't see anyone questioning his legitimacy as a leader.

The problem is precisely that the dearth of female leaders leads us to looking closely at the main example we have. I know I wouldn't have analysed Haley's leadership skills so closely if we had had a wealth of other female leaders to talk about (which is precisely why I don't really debate Nale's leadership skills, because we have Tarquin, Roy, Hinjo, Shojo and others to compare, contrast and analyse in terms of male leadership).

Again, sorry if I inadvertently offended, it wasn't my intention. I really appreciate the effort in giving female characters and LGBT+ people far more time in the spotlight and character depth than we get in other works of the same genre, or the media in general.

Why would that be a problem? As an author, Rich wants to craft a world that will feel as natural as possible to his readers. For genetic reasons, it's far more likely that a given ruthless Evil human general out there is male, so that's what most authors will likely pick, even after thinking about it.

This is not a valid excuse. A world that will feel as natural as possible to the readers would not include elves, dragons, magic, gods of provable existence or monsters. If you are willing to suspend your disbelief for such blatant and fragrant violations of physics, chemistry, biology and every other natural science, it's completely arbitrary to decide that gender equality is too unrealistic.

Not to mention, of course, that biologically speaking, men and women are canonically exactly the same in D&D worlds (and most RPGs). Gender, in most RPGs, is strictly cosmetic. A woman is just as competent as a fighter or leader as a man, and that means, statistically, that a 50/50 gender ratio would naturally follow from that.

(If you want us to embark on a biology debate, no problem with me, let's go ahead. Or you can just accept what I'm saying.)

If you want a biology debate, PM me. I'll blind you with science. :smallcool:

hamishspence

2013-04-07, 02:04 PM

I'm not sure Eugene counts. He'd have insulted Roy for anything pre-strip 500 except actually killing Xykon. Meaning no member of the Order questioned or praised his poor tactic of Dragon Jumping.

Haley questions Roy's decision to jump on the dragon here:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0444.html

and she brings it up again here when Roy does something similar:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0686.html

The Giant

2013-04-07, 02:37 PM

I would just like to point out that this is Eugene. He'd probably rather tear his spine out with his own hands than compliment Roy on anything. I recall, later on, that Roy is praised (by his mother? grandfather?) for his leadership skills, despite his own death. But I do admit that even if we count "twice" it still wasn't a very good argument on my part.

First, Hamishspence just pointed out that Haley called him stupid twice. And second, if your point is that the narrative unambiguously supports Roy's leadership and not Haley's, then it doesn't matter which character is doing the criticizing. The criticism is made, explicitly. Once you step outside the internal logic of the story to make comments about what I should have had characters do or say, you can't ignore the things I have characters do or say just because they're based on the internal logic of the story.

I completely agree and respect that, but I would just like to point out Shojo as a Chaotic, rules-breaking leader who showed extreme competence in leading an entire nation for years while still maintaining the same alignment as Haley.

Yes, but that's backstory. Consider his on-panel track record: He accomplished almost nothing toward his goal, and then was about to be thrown in prison by his own nephew before he was killed by his protégé. Then his city got conquered. Again, if your argument is about the narrative, what happened in the narrative was a dismal leadership failure directly related to his Chaotic tendencies.

While I understand what you're trying to say, I merely point out that perhaps it could have been possible to preserve the goals you're trying to achieve with the character while still portraying her as a strong leader. Of course, this would've somewhat lessened the impact of Belkar's speech to Roy, but it's possible to preserve most of it by having Haley state that it's not that she's bad at leadership, she just doesn't like it or want it (because she's an individualist, and doesn't like having that kind of responsibility), thereby retaining some of the punch of Belkar's "you are a valuable team member" speech to Roy.

Well, I would argue that Haley's previously-established characteristics would lead her to say she was bad at it, because she has a tendency toward self-criticism. Certainly, Thanh and Niu never expressed that she was a bad leader.

The problem is precisely that the dearth of female leaders leads us to looking closely at the main example we have. I know I wouldn't have analysed Haley's leadership skills so closely if we had had a wealth of other female leaders to talk about (which is precisely why I don't really debate Nale's leadership skills, because we have Tarquin, Roy, Hinjo, Shojo and others to compare, contrast and analyse in terms of male leadership).

Yeah, OK, that's fair. My only defense is that almost all of those decisions were made within the first ~200 strips, when I didn't think about stuff like this. Even Tarquin, since I picked him to be the Evil Parent over Elan's mom back in strip #50. I think the last completely-new leader character I created was...Kubota, maybe? And since I knew what his fate was going to be, I didn't want to get accused of only killing off the female characters.

Ultimately, I think I never thought about this aspect before because "leadership skills" are not a trait I particularly possess or value, so I don't feel a character suffers for not having them. I'm far more concerned with screen time and general importance to the story. Miko was far more important to the narrative than Shojo or Hinjo, for example; she's been dead for 300+ strips and Hinjo has only just edged her in number of appearances. And when she did appear, she was always the center of attention (while Hinjo sometimes just stands around and expostions). But by this criteria, she is less important than either of them.

Shadowknight12

2013-04-07, 03:02 PM

First, Hamishspence just pointed out that Haley called him stupid twice. And second, if your point is that the narrative unambiguously supports Roy's leadership and not Haley's, then it doesn't matter which character is doing the criticizing. The criticism is made, explicitly. Once you step outside the internal logic of the story to make comments about what I should have had characters do or say, you can't ignore the things I have characters do or say just because they're based on the internal logic of the story.

Ah, you're right, I hadn't realised I was doing that. Point taken.

Yes, but that's backstory. Consider his on-panel track record: He accomplished almost nothing toward his goal, and then was about to be thrown in prison by his own nephew before he was killed by his protégé. Again, if your argument is about the narrative, what happened in the narrative was a dismal leadership failure directly related to his Chaotic tendencies.

True, I suppose, but by that same token, I would have unquestionably supported giving Haley the "leader" title if we had been told via flashback or dialogue that she was an excellent leader in the past (as a part of her backstory). Just like Shojo's mistake is excusable by the years of successful leadership and deception, so would've Haley's leadership flukes would have been excusable by a backstory of good leadership. We don't really have much information on what happened during the three months she spent being the leader of that third/quarter of the Azure Resistance, so it's possible that she might have been a good leader then. All we have on it is Roy's comment about how "she's been doing well for herself", which is somewhat ambiguous as to whether it refers to her leadership skills or if whether merely surviving in such a hostile and dangerous environment wouldn't count as "doing well" on its own.

Well, I would argue that Haley's previously-established characteristics would lead her to say she was bad at it, because she has a tendency toward self-criticism. Certainly, Thanh and Niu never expressed that she was a bad leader.

Point taken.

Yeah, OK, that's fair. My only defense is that almost all of those decisions were made within the first ~200 strips, when I didn't think about stuff like this. Even Tarquin, since I picked him to be the Evil Parent over Elan's mom back in strip #50. I think the last completely-new leader character I created was...Kubota, maybe? And since I knew what his fate was going to be, I didn't want to get accused of only killing off the female characters.

Ultimately, I think I never thought about this aspect before because "leadership skills" are not a trait I particularly possess or value, so I don't feel a character suffers for not having them. I'm far more concerned with screen time and general importance to the story. Miko was far more important to the narrative than Shojo or Hinjo, for example; she's been dead for 300+ strips and Hinjo has only just edged her in number of appearances. And when she did appear, she was always the center of attention (while Hinjo sometimes just stands around and expostions). But by this criteria, she is less important than either of them.

Kubota being male was definitely a good idea. Between Miko, Tsukiko, Haley and Roy's mothers, Therkla, the Black Dragon and Samantha, it would have added yet another female secondary character who is killed off after her narrative purpose has been fulfilled (though I admit that tends to happen to male NPCs and villains as well, it's just that the gender ratio tends to make it look worse than it is).

You have a very good point regarding Miko and screen time versus leadership. The thing is, I think, that it all boils down to personal philosophies. This is a division that happens within feminist groups as well. In general, many people focus on female leaders because it's somewhat of a big deal in feminism, along with the depiction of women as melee warriors/soldiers in the same standing as the men (which is, IMO, something you do really well, since I definitely noticed the female soldiers in Azure City, Cliffport and other places). These two areas are important to feminism both because of the power and important they wield in society, and because they have been denied to women for a really long time (and we're still seeing resistance in that regard today).

However, I do agree that your view on screen time and narrative importance is definitely valid, a lot of feminist stories do not require women to have positions of leadership or melee combat, but are still termed feminist because of the importance placed on women as realised human beings, their independence from men and their relationships with other women (the Bechdel Test, simple as it might be, is an example of this).

I think doing a strip count of each character in the OP would add really valuable information, since when the author states "I prioritise X instead of Y", researching X gives you greater insight on his work. I still expect the numbers to be skewed in favour of men, but it might not be such a skewed gender ratio as the male leaders to female leaders one, or the male soldiers to female soldiers one.

Thank you for indulging us, by the way. I know this is well within your rights to ignore, but I for one appreciate the fact that you care about these issues. :smallsmile:

sam79

2013-04-07, 03:09 PM

Not to mention, of course, that biologically speaking, men and women are canonically exactly the same in D&D worlds (and most RPGs). Gender, in most RPGs, is strictly cosmetic. A woman is just as competent as a fighter or leader as a man, and that means, statistically, that a 50/50 gender ratio would naturally follow from that.

This is all true, and very important. One thing I would add though; many D+D worlds (even OotSverse to some extent) are loosely based on the societies of medieval Europe, and/or Tolkien's Middle-Earth. While D+D worlds are set up as gender-neutral, these fundamental resources decidedly are not. This has a significant impact on, for example, default assumptions about who has leaadership roles and positions of authority in D+Dverse societies. Certainly in my playing experience, it was lords and kings, not ladies and queens, who called the shots.

Another point, which has been mentioned above, is the gender bias in RPG players (and RPG writers). Most players and DMs are men, and therefore most PCs (and, in my experience, significant NPCs) are also male.

So according to the canon, 'D+Dverse' is a gender-blind meritocracy, and so 50% of the leaders (or wizards, or pit fighters, or master thieves, or whatever) should be men, 50% women. But the influence of the ultimate historical and literary source material, and the biases of the players/DMs/writers who create D+Dverses will naturally lead to over-representation of male characters in many cases.

ETA:

I think doing a strip count of each character in the OP would add really valuable information, since when the author states "I prioritise X instead of Y", researching X gives you greater insight on his work. I still expect the numbers to be skewed in favour of men, but it might not be such a skewed gender ratio as the male leaders to female leaders one, or the male soldiers to female soldiers one.

There is already a number of character apperances thread, maintained by one of the forumites here (Martianmister, I think). It is indeed incredibly valuable, but screentime does not always corrolate well with importance (Eugene, for example, is pretty fundamental to the strip, but has far fewer appearances than, say, Mr. Scruffy)

The Giant

2013-04-07, 03:17 PM

True, I suppose, but by that same token, I would have unquestionably supported giving Haley the "leader" title if we had been told via flashback or dialogue that she was an excellent leader in the past (as a part of her backstory). Just like Shojo's mistake is excusable by the years of successful leadership and deception, so would've Haley's leadership flukes would have been excusable by a backstory of good leadership.

But again, that's not who she was in the past. That would have cut the legs out from her actual character development, from a greedy self-centered rogue who didn't trust anyone. I could have done it, yes, but I think it would have made a more muddled story.

We don't really have much information on what happened during the three months she spent being the leader of that third/quarter of the Azure Resistance, so it's possible that she might have been a good leader then. All we have on it is Roy's comment about how "she's been doing well for herself", which is somewhat ambiguous as to whether it refers to her leadership skills or if whether merely surviving in such a hostile and dangerous environment wouldn't count as "doing well" on its own.

When you lead a group living behind enemy lines, they're one and the same. And given that Thanh and Niu and the rest of the Resistance unquestioningly looked to Haley as their leader even though she is not even native to the country said everything that was needed about how well she did in the intervening time. After all, it's not like there weren't two other options they could have joined instead. The only people who disputed her effectiveness were Belkar (who was half the problem), and herself.

The Giant

2013-04-07, 03:20 PM

Shadowknight12

2013-04-07, 03:32 PM

This is all true, and very important. One thing I would add though; many D+D worlds (even OotSverse to some extent) are loosely based on the societies of medieval Europe, and/or Tolkien's Middle-Earth. While D+D worlds are set up as gender-neutral, these fundamental resources decidedly are not. This has a significant impact on, for example, default assumptions about who has leaadership roles and positions of authority in D+Dverse societies. Certainly in my playing experience, it was lords and kings, not ladies and queens, who called the shots.

Another point, which has been mentioned above, is the gender bias in RPG players (and RPG writers). Most players and DMs are men, and therefore most PCs (and, in my experience, significant NPCs) are also male.

So according to the canon, 'D+Dverse' is a gender-blind meritocracy, and so 50% of the leaders (or wizards, or pit fighters, or master thieves, or whatever) should be men, 50% women. But the influence of the ultimate historical and literary source material, and the biases of the players/DMs/writers who create D+Dverses will naturally lead to over-representation of male characters in many cases.

I agree that the influences exist, yes, but then you can't use biology or "realisticness" to justify the skewed gender ratio. If you say "the skewed gender ratio exists because this takes inspiration from works where men were predominant", that makes logical sense (though it is still worth discussing, analysing, questioning and criticising). Saying "the skewed gender ratio is because biology duh" is flat-out illogical, if not outright wrong, when the setting rules specifically state otherwise.

There is already a number of character apperances thread, maintained by one of the forumites here (Wrecan, I think). It is indeed incredably valuable, but screentime does not always corrolate well with importence (Eugene, for example, is pretty fundamental to the strip, but has far fewer appearances than, say, Mr. Scruffy)

Well, if oppyu is so inclined, and the thread you mention is updated, we could incorporate the strip appearances, crunch some numbers and see what they tell us. While I agree that they're not an exact indication of importance, they're valuable information that merits addition to the thread (again, if oppyu agrees).

But again, that's not who she was in the past. That would have cut the legs out from her actual character development, from a greedy self-centered rogue who didn't trust anyone. I could have done it, yes, but I think it would have made a more muddled story.

Ah, yes, that's a good point. The trust issues would have lacked punch if she had had to trust others to carry out her indications and support an organisation.

When you lead a group living behind enemy lines, they're one and the same. And given that Thanh and Niu and the rest of the Resistance unquestioningly looked to Haley as their leader even though she is not even native to the country said everything that was needed about how well she did in the intervening time. After all, it's not like there weren't two other options they could have joined instead. The only people who disputed her effectiveness were Belkar (who was half the problem), and herself.

That's actually something I had completely neglected to consider, and it's quite true. The entire resistance, save Belkar and Haley, were Azurites. It hadn't occurred to me that the other two groups would have welcomed them with open arms if they had chosen to defect from Haley's leadership. That actually speaks surprisingly well of Haley's leadership abilities, considering that, as per her own admission, they spent a considerable time bickering with each other over supplies and whatnot, so one could imagine that Thanh, Niu and the others would've stood up to defend Haley's leadership when it was challenged.

Huh. I suppose you're right, Haley does deserve to be called a leader, or at least a temporary one.

Themrys

2013-04-07, 04:05 PM

5: When I say love interest, it's not so much romantic attachment as 'romance depicted in comic'. Inkyrius is a sparsely-mentioned minor character/one-scene-wonder we see in two or three strips, and we never see any courtship or attachment. On the other hand, Therkla, while never being with Elan, was often shown on-panel with him and had an emotional subplot regarding her feelings for him.

We see Inky romancing V (or at least trying to), in the "I made dinner and the kids are at my parents" incident, and V repeatedly declares hir love for Inky.

I think that's enough to count as "love interest".

Edit: My impression is that the comic does include gay and bisexual people sufficiently in comparison to their existence in real life, but has way too few women. It's gotten a lot better since the first comedy-comics, but the main group still has just one female member, and that probably won't change. I don't count Sabine as female, since she's a shapechanger, and we don't know about V, so regarding what is seen on-screen, there are way too many men, and men are portrayed as default (all evil beings who probably don't have any reproductive organs are portrayed as male).

Even all the animals are male, if I remember correctly. (Not sure about Miko's horse).

zimmerwald1915

2013-04-07, 04:23 PM

True, but we didn't see any of that. We didn't see V and Inky get married, we didn't see them adopting kids, little to no time was spent going through V's feelings on the matter... s/he wasn't so much a love interest as a backstory romance. Compared to Hilgya Firehelm, where we get a short but sweet built up as the two of them get closer on-panel, then they bump dwarven uglies on-panel, then they have an ugly on-panel break up.

We see Inky romancing V (or at least trying to), in the "I made dinner and the kids are with their grandparents" incident, and V repeatedly declares hir love for Inky.

I think that's enough to count as "love interest".
For what it's worth, we also see an ugly (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0641.html) on-panel (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0642.html) breakup (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0678.html).

137beth

2013-04-07, 04:34 PM

Huh. I suppose you're right, Haley does deserve to be called a leader, or at least a temporary one.
So, after seven pages of internet debate, someone has changed their mind. Huzzah! This is a grand new age in internet arguments!

Well, ya know, until someone else comes along and says
nuh uh! Haley can't be a leader because I said so!

:smalltongue:

Shadowknight12

2013-04-07, 04:45 PM

Edit: My impression is that the comic does include gay and bisexual people sufficiently in comparison to their existence in real life,

Why do we continuously bring up real life in terms of gender and sexuality (and race, though that's not the point of this thread) when the story in question is pure fantasy? I already tackled this:

This is not a valid excuse. A world that will feel as natural as possible to the readers would not include elves, dragons, magic, gods of provable existence or monsters. If you are willing to suspend your disbelief for such blatant and fragrant violations of physics, chemistry, biology and every other natural science, it's completely arbitrary to decide that gender equality is too unrealistic.

The same goes for sexual orientation. We have things in the genre of fantasy that literally do not exist. Literally. I cannot emphasise that word strongly enough. There is a support group and plenty of group therapy for the laws of physics of fantasy worlds. But suddenly, when it comes to matters of gender, race and sexuality, we start throwing the words "realistic" and "unrealistic" around? That's completely arbitrary. I'd find a world made up entirely of bisexuals far more believable and realistic than your average fantasy world. Mainly because bisexuals exist in the real world, while elves, dragons and magic don't.

It's also really, really hurtful to see people saying "oh yeah, elves and dragons and magic are awesome and totally believable and realistic because we like them, but a prevalence (or the mere existence) of LGBT+ people is totally unrealistic."

It really makes me feel like we're getting in the way of your enjoyment of magic and dragons and straight privilege. And goodness forfend that ever happen. :smallsigh:

So, after seven pages of internet debate, someone has changed their mind. Huzzah! This is a grand new age in internet arguments!

Well, ya know, until someone else comes along and says nuh uh!
:smalltongue:

Oh, you. :smallbiggrin:

Well, I can definitely admit when I'm wrong. That point about Thanh, Niu and the others being perfectly able to walk out on Haley if her leadership skills weren't up to standard, and join the other resistances? I had never thought of that.

sam79

2013-04-07, 04:50 PM

Since I will vocally denounce this sort of defense from authors who can't be bothered to put non-white people in their fantasy worlds, I'd prefer it not be used with regards to gender and sexuality concerns. At least not for my work. I'd rather take my lumps for non-inclusion and argue the corner-cases for which I think I have a good justification.

Thank you for your reply.

I agree that the influences exist, yes, but then you can't use biology or "realisticness" to justify the skewed gender ratio. If you say "the skewed gender ratio exists because this takes inspiration from works where men were predominant", that makes logical sense (though it is still worth discussing, analysing, questioning and criticising). Saying "the skewed gender ratio is because biology duh" is flat-out illogical, if not outright wrong, when the setting rules specifically state otherwise.

I agree on the biology point, which I why I made no mention of it at all.

Regarding historical realism; I think it depends on how much authors wants their fantasy world to reflect its historical roots, and how much they want to explore current gender/race/sexuality issues in their worlds. George R.R. Martin's Westeros, for example, plays its gender roles fairly straight in terms of a European feudalistic society. Women, even noble ones, have fewer rights and a lower status than men of their same class. Those women who challenge their position in society tend not to get much support from their peers, reinforcing the 'norm'. I don't think this is a bad feature of his work; just a feature.

It would be more of a problem if such a political and social structure is forced to sit alongside canonically established (or assumed) gender equality, which is the standard for a fantasy world based on D+D rules. Men are just as strong as women, just as capable of using magic, equally intelligent and ruthless etc etc etc. It is hard to see how traditional patriarchal structures could have become established in such a context.

Raineh Daze

2013-04-07, 05:02 PM

On reflection: if Haley were to be listed as leader of the OotS, it would at least have to be noted that:
At no point in this tenure did she have contact with V, so that's not exactly a complete group (Roy also being dead)
The group kind of fell apart. Like, immediately.
Without outside influences, there's pretty much no chance she would've reunited it. I think. :smallconfused:

Themrys

2013-04-07, 05:08 PM

Why do we continuously bring up real life in terms of gender and sexuality (and race, though that's not the point of this thread) when the story in question is pure fantasy?

Nothing is ever "pure fantasy". Nothing can be. Every "fantasy" is influenced by the real world and thus shows how the author views the real world.

Also, you're missing my point. I pointed out that there are too few women in the Stickverse if you consider that in real life, one out of two people is a woman.

In historical fiction, you can get away with "There are women, you just don't see them because they stay at home", but in a supposedly equal society, you cannot.

Thus, the fact that OotS is a fantasy comic makes the lack of female main characters moreof a problem than it would otherwise be.

I, as a woman, feel underrepresented in OotS, while I assume that gay men do not, as the percentages make it much more likely that a group of six more or less random people doesn't contain a gay man than that it doesn't contain more than one woman.

A fantasyworld where women rule the world and everyone is bisexual is fine, and indeed I would not critisize it with "that's not realistic", exactly because it's fantsy, but "My fantasy world is just heteronormative and patriarchal because it's pure fantasy, you have no right to be offended!" is a lazy excuse.

Shadowknight12

2013-04-07, 05:15 PM

I agree on the biology point, which I why I made no mention of it at all.

Regarding historical realism; I think it depends on how much authors wants their fantasy world to reflect its historical roots, and how much they want to explore current gender/race/sexuality issues in their worlds. George R.R. Martin's Westeros, for example, plays its gender roles fairly straight in terms of a European feudalistic society. Women, even noble ones, have fewer rights and a lower status than men of their same class. Those women who challenge their position in society tend not to get much support from their peers, reinforcing the 'norm'. I don't think this is a bad feature of his work; just a feature.

It would be more of a problem if such a political and social structure is forced to sit alongside canonically established (or assumed) gender equality, which is the standard for a fantasy world based on D+D rules. Men are just as strong as women, just as capable of using magic, equally intelligent and ruthless etc etc etc. It is hard to see how traditional patriarchal structures could have become established in such a context.

If I wanted to see a fictional story about a patriarchal society in embellished medieval times, I would read historical fiction, not fantasy (which is why I don't read historical fiction at all, because the patriarchy sickens me). But I concede that it's a matter of personal taste. Some people really like the idea of "Patriarchy WITH DRAGONS!".

But yes, that's pretty much why I said that the "influences" assumptions could be questioned and criticised, because once you start asking the right questions, you don't have much of a leg to stand on in order to justify patriarchal societies.

On reflection: if Haley were to be listed as leader of the OotS, it would at least have to be noted that:
At no point in this tenure did she have contact with V, so that's not exactly a complete group (Roy also being dead)
The group kind of fell apart. Like, immediately.
Without outside influences, there's pretty much no chance she would've reunited it. I think. :smallconfused:

She had clerics with her (the man and the woman who cast Cure Moderate Wounds on her). Eventually, they would have levelled up and she would've been able to contact Durkon and V. Or they would've taken Knowledge(Arcana) or Spellcraft ranks and told her about the Cloister effect, and without Celia's distractions, she would've made it to Cliffport with little incident, where finding a cleric wouldn't have been anywhere nearly as dangerous. This might have taken more than 3 months, obviously.

Also, spliced V would've eventually found her and reunited the entire order via the magic of teleportation. Does that count as outside influence?

Nothing is ever "pure fantasy". Nothing can be. Every "fantasy" is influenced by the real world and thus shows how the author views the real world.

Correct. That supports my argument towards inclusion, not against it. If we accept hilariously unrealistic things such as magic and dragons, I fail to see what the problem is with more representation for LGBT+ people.

Also, you're missing my point. I pointed out that there are too few women in the Stickverse if you consider that in real life, one out of two people is a woman.

In historical fiction, you can get away with "There are women, you just don't see them because they stay at home", but in a supposedly equal society, you cannot.

Thus, the fact that OotS is a fantasy comic makes the lack of female main characters moreof a problem than it would otherwise be.

You will note that I have never argued against this, as I have made that exact same arguments against others (see: this very post). I completely agree with you on that regard.

I, as a woman, feel underrepresented in OotS, while I assume that gay men do not, as the percentages make it much more likely that a group of six more or less random people doesn't contain a gay man than that it doesn't contain more than one woman.

A fantasyworld where women rule the world and everyone is bisexual is fine, and indeed I would not critisize it with "that's not realistic", exactly because it's fantsy, but "My fantasy world is just heteronormative and patriarchal because it's pure fantasy, you have no right to be offended!" is a lazy excuse.

What. Just what.

So you're basically telling me "do you feel underrepresented as an LGBT+ man? Well, too bad, because I, as a woman, am even MORE underrepresented." That's called the Oppression Olympics, and popular wisdom says that there are no winners in the Oppression Olympics.

Also, I have never argued in favour of patriarchy (on the contrary, I would see it banished from the Fantasy genre). I was arguing against straight people saying that an even gender ratio is fine because that's realistic (as women make up 50% of the population) but that a greater prevalence of LGBT+ characters is too unrealistic because we're minorities and therefore underrepresentation is fair and just when applied to us.

Raineh Daze

2013-04-07, 05:27 PM

Also, spliced V would've eventually found her and reunited the entire order via the magic of teleportation. Does that count as outside influence?

Well, yes, because that says nothing about Haley's leadership of the group, does it? Contact with V was limited to... what, two strips during the entire split party arc, whilst the splice was in effect? :smallconfused:

Underrepresentation: I can count at least three (or four) separate ways I can feel underrepresented, do I lose most? :smallbiggrin:

sam79

2013-04-07, 05:30 PM

If I wanted to see a fictional story about a patriarchal society in embellished medieval times, I would read historical fiction, not fantasy (which is why I don't read historical fiction at all, because the patriarchy sickens me). But I concede that it's a matter of personal taste. Some people really like the idea of "Patriarchy WITH DRAGONS!".

If I ever write a fantasy novel, this is SO going to be the title :smallwink:

Out of interest; do you find that there are a lot fantasy settings which aren't heavily based on patriarchal societies? I'm not a huge reader of fantasy these days, but most of the works that I have read tend to be more or less based on European feudalism, or other pre-modern male-dominated systems.

But yes, that's pretty much why I said that the "influences" assumptions could be questioned and criticised, because once you start asking the right questions, you don't have much of a leg to stand on in order to justify patriarchal societies.

If your default assumptions are 1) differences between men and women are purely cosmetic and 2) gender equality is the accepted norm (i.e. those of D+D), then you are right that an author would find a patriarchal society hard to justify. Take away these two assumptions though, and patriarchal socieites are likely to appear as often in fiction, even fantasy fiction, as they do and have done in the Real World.

Shadowknight12

2013-04-07, 05:43 PM

Well, yes, because that says nothing about Haley's leadership of the group, does it? Contact with V was limited to... what, two strips during the entire split party arc, whilst the splice was in effect? :smallconfused:

Point taken, but the fact that she would have eventually learnt of the Cloister and headed straight for Cliffport, if given enough time (and then she'd have contacted Durkon and V with instructions), speaks in favour of her leadership skills. Well, hypothetically. I'm willing to cut her some slack, as I did with Shojo. Us Chaotic types need to stick together. Though not TOO together. :smalltongue:

Underrepresentation: I can count at least three (or four) separate ways I can feel underrepresented, do I lose most? :smallbiggrin:

Yes, you take the Olympic gold. Let it be a cold, metallic comfort as you read and watch stories about the privileged majorities. :smallbiggrin:

If I ever write a fantasy novel, this is SO going to be the title :smallwink:

Out of interest; do you find that there are a lot fantasy settings which aren't heavily based on patriarchal societies? I'm not a huge reader of fantasy these days, but most of the works that I have read tend to be more or less based on European feudalism, or other pre-modern male-dominated systems.

Hah! You can go with "Dungeons and Patriarchy", "Patriarchy of Thrones", "A Song of Patriarchy and More Patriarchy", "The Lord of the Patriarchs" and so on, if you want to be more obvious. Take an established fantasy IP, add patriarchy and serve piping hot.

As for the second part, no, not in what is considered "mainstream fantasy". Which is written by straight white men for other straight white men. Patriarchy, LGBT+/people of colour erasure and classism run rampant. Get out of the mainstream, and you find different takes on the standard fantasy setting. Last year, I read a truly atrocious fantasy book by a non-mainstream writer simply because the main protagonist and antagonist were gay men, and the deuteragonist was a lesbian of colour. Still patriarchy, but with excellent LGBT+ representation (though I could have done without the excessive societal homophobia played for cheap drama).

Now I'm looking up feminist fantasy, which is bound to do away with the patriarchy. And if I doesn't exist, I'll have to write it myself.

If your default assumptions are 1) differences between men and women are purely cosmetic and 2) gender equality is the accepted norm (i.e. those of D+D), then you are right that an author would find a patriarchal society hard to justify. Take away these two assumptions though, and patriarchal socieites are likely to appear as often in fiction, even fantasy fiction, as they do and have done in the Real World.

Quite true. But then there would be very little to differentiate it from historical fiction. And it's still extremely arbitrary. Again, if we have dragons and magic and elves and whatnot, why on earth do we draw the line at gender, race and sexuality? What is there in our brains that says "Dragons, check, magic that breaks the laws of physics, check, gods that walk the land, check, elves, check, monsters, check, gender equality? NEVER!!"?

Raineh Daze

2013-04-07, 05:57 PM

If you want to be really depressing, just look at all the potential problems in the Drow.

... which somewhat raises the question of why I enjoy playing Drow Samurai so much. Eh.

Point taken, but the fact that she would have eventually learnt of the Cloister and headed straight for Cliffport, if given enough time (and then she'd have contacted Durkon and V with instructions), speaks in favour of her leadership skills. Well, hypothetically. I'm willing to cut her some slack, as I did with Shojo. Us Chaotic types need to stick together. Though not TOO together.

I'm not entirely sure what I'm trying to say, but I think it's that her Resistance leadership is more important than her Order leadership, because the latter is basically nonexistent at worst, and severely hamstringed at best. XD

Shadowknight12

2013-04-07, 06:04 PM

If you want to be really depressing, just look at all the potential problems in the Drow.

Hah! There's a matriarchy done wrong if I've ever seen it. A true matriarchy (especially in the D&D world, where women are just as strong/smart/etc. as men) wouldn't have men as soldiers. It wouldn't have men as anything but househusbands, eye-candy and child caretakers. The women wouldn't be just the leaders and priestesses, they would be the everything. The leaders, the priestesses, the soldiers, the mages, the hunters, the merchants, the craftspeople, and so on. The favoured class of drow men wouldn't have been "wizard", it would've been "commoner".

... which somewhat raises the question of why I enjoy playing Drow Samurai so much. Eh.

The race itself is pretty good with LA buyoff, I don't blame you.

I'm not entirely sure what I'm trying to say, but I think it's that her Resistance leadership is more important than her Order leadership, because the latter is basically nonexistent at worst, and severely hamstringed at best. XD

Ah, I see what you mean. I think it depends on what you consider more important, the group itself or the effectiveness of the leader. In terms of group importance, the Order is clearly more important than the Azure Resistance (narratively, at least). While I don't disagree with you, I think there's definitely room to discuss which leadership stint was more important for Haley.

Gift Jeraff

2013-04-07, 06:10 PM

Leadership talent and alignment are noticeably two different things, though.

But if you get your entire group killed/arrested and make no effort to get them back, you're not really leading anything anymore. :smalltongue:

The Pilgrim

2013-04-07, 06:18 PM

Wasn't Belkar a love interest for that bard chick in the Thieves' Guild?

Flame of Anor

2013-04-07, 06:23 PM

Hey, you! Yes, you there. (Not you, Giant, you're cool.) Maybe you should lighten up a bit. :smallwink: It's a well-told story, and not bigoted at all.

Any story that is not specifically about diversity will not be "perfectly diverse" in every way. And that's okay. If every story had to meet a certain quota of diversity, that would be just as boringly uniform as if every story were about [straight white men/gay black women/gender-dysphoric Mongolian children/etc.].

The difference in amounts and types of "diversity" between certain stories forms a "metadiversity" which is itself valuable. For example, if it's important to you to read a webcomic with mostly female characters, you could read Questionable Content. (I read it because it's well characterized, but that's neither here nor there.)

What I'm trying to say is that it's good that there's some story with a preponderance of Group A and some other story with a preponderance of Group B. But that doesn't make the Group B story any better, inherently, than the Group A story, or vice versa. As long as neither is bigoted, their difference from each other enriches the human experience just as much as does the difference between the characters in either one.

Shadowknight12

2013-04-07, 06:26 PM

What I'm trying to say is that it's good that there's some story with a preponderance of Group A and some other story with a preponderance of Group B. But that doesn't make the Group B story any better, inherently, than the Group A story, or vice versa.

We already had this discussion before in the thread. I urge you to read it. If you do not share the idea that more diversity and representation is an inherently good thing, that's okay. Nobody will mind. It just means this kind of thread is not for you. :smallsmile:

Raineh Daze

2013-04-07, 06:33 PM

Hah! There's a matriarchy done wrong if I've ever seen it. A true matriarchy (especially in the D&D world, where women are just as strong/smart/etc. as men) wouldn't have men as soldiers. It wouldn't have men as anything but househusbands, eye-candy and child caretakers. The women wouldn't be just the leaders and priestesses, they would be the everything. The leaders, the priestesses, the soldiers, the mages, the hunters, the merchants, the craftspeople, and so on. The favoured class of drow men wouldn't have been "wizard", it would've been "commoner".

Not to mention that the matriarchal race is also evil, has pitch black skin, and has what is viewed as poor taste in animals. :smallsigh:

The race itself is pretty good with LA buyoff, I don't blame you.

Eh, one's PF drow, the other's just grabbing the race for something non-mechanical. Well, and a class for abilities. That one's kind of crazy, skill wise. :smallredface:

Ah, I see what you mean. I think it depends on what you consider more important, the group itself or the effectiveness of the leader. In terms of group importance, the Order is clearly more important than the Azure Resistance (narratively, at least). While I don't disagree with you, I think there's definitely room to discuss which leadership stint was more important for Haley.

Which takes me back to 'the Order, as a group, was pretty much irrelevant for this time period'. Firstly, they were kind of dispersed over the city. Then they split up. There was Team Boat, which was doing B-plot stuff until V went crazy, and there was the Resistance side of things, which had Haley leading exactly one member of the Order. It just seems wrong to list it without specifically noting the situation. :smallconfused:

Leirus

2013-04-07, 06:35 PM

I do not know how important it is the "love interest" thing. Haley, for example, is not Elan's "love interest" in the sense that she was not introduced in the history to fit that role, and is not limited to it. Even Celia, who fits more nicely with the idea (a secondary character whose main link with the group is the fact that she is datig Roy), had her own character developement going on.

And, I have to say, I kind of would like to have a gay character. In the fantasy works I grew up with, there were none, ever. I would love to have a character that was just gay but not stereotypical or anything. Sabine does not much count because she is a succubi. That is just her nature.

(I have to say, I have claimed O-Chul as gay in my mental canon, and I will only let him go if he gets busy with Lian.)

Shadowknight12

2013-04-07, 06:45 PM

Not to mention that the matriarchal race is also evil, has pitch black skin, and has what is viewed as poor taste in animals. :smallsigh:

Oh, that too. Which makes no sense, as living underground would've left them with exceedingly white skin, not black, but eh. What am I even arguing about. The "matriarch race is evil" thing is actually pretty terrible. If there was a neutral- or good-aligned counterpart, it wouldn't have looked so bad. And the sexual objectification of female drow in official art is downright shameful. Not to mention nonsensical, as they have nobody to impress. Patriarchs didn't go shirtless and emphasised their physical assets for the benefits of the women they were oppressing, so having drow matriarchs dressed in stripperriffic outfits makes absolutel no sense. But, you know. Male Gaze.

Eh, one's PF drow, the other's just grabbing the race for something non-mechanical. Well, and a class for abilities. That one's kind of crazy, skill wise. :smallredface:

Well, so long as it fits the character concept, who are we to criticise?

Which takes me back to 'the Order, as a group, was pretty much irrelevant for this time period'. Firstly, they were kind of dispersed over the city. Then they split up. There was Team Boat, which was doing B-plot stuff until V went crazy, and there was the Resistance side of things, which had Haley leading exactly one member of the Order. It just seems wrong to list it without specifically noting the situation. :smallconfused:

Hmmmm, but we could just list her as "temporary leader" and cover both her leadership stints. She was, at one point, a leader of both the Order and the Azure Resistance. If you don't think one merits calling her a leader, there's always the other group. That way, everyone's happy.

Carry2

2013-04-07, 06:47 PM

oppyu

2013-04-07, 06:49 PM

Well, if oppyu is so inclined, and the thread you mention is updated, we could incorporate the strip appearances, crunch some numbers and see what they tell us. While I agree that they're not an exact indication of importance, they're valuable information that merits addition to the thread (again, if oppyu agrees).
Ta-Daaaaaaaa!

Appearances Gender Balance: M 2738, F 841 (21.44%), A 344
Non-PC Appearances Gender Balance: M 1136, F 418 (26.90%)

Shadowknight12

2013-04-07, 06:57 PM

Ta-Daaaaaaaa!

Appearances Gender Balance: M 2738, F 841 (21.44%), A 344
Non-PC Appearances Gender Balance: M 1136, F 418 (26.90%)

Huh. Well, would you look at that. One in five and one in four, depending on whether they're PCs or not. While it's better than the leadership gender ratio, it's still more or less in keeping with the rest of the statistical parameters you used.

Thank you for taking the time to compile and calculate that! I can't imagine it must have been easy. My hat off to you!

Leirus

2013-04-07, 06:59 PM

I think that Haley definetly qualifies as a leader. Remember, she got to lead in a very difficult time, with Roy's corpse at the other side of an advancing enemy army. She got the corpse back and managed to keep alive all the people she was with (Belkar and Celia). Also people seem to forget that she actually managed to reunite the order

In strip 643 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0643.html) we see that when spliced V returns to the Azurite fleet, Durkon and Elan have left because they got the sending from her.

In strips 646 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0646.html)-647 Elan and Durkon arrive to Greysky city to join her and Belkar. They are not teleported there by V.

Additional points for trying to restrain Belkar and somehow managing not to strangle Celia all that time.

It is less obvious because at that point the action was following V, but Haley definetly made a good show, in my view. It is just that she does not like being a leader, and I think that is perfectly fine.

Raineh Daze

2013-04-07, 07:05 PM

Leirus

2013-04-07, 07:11 PM

Well, the 'good' Dark Elves (AKA, what the drow supposedly were before. Forgotten Realms, or D&D as a whole? Can't remember) are really tan too so... that's something, I guess? Apparently it's a curse thingy.

At least we can take solace in the greyness of the other underground races.

Umm... at what point does grabbing a corpse qualify as a feat of leadership? It's a great achievement, but not, in fact, one that involves leading. :smallconfused:

So, her successes in leading the OotS: not killing Belkar and getting a Cleric to cast one spell. Uh... that's not really... how shall I put this... leading the group.

Grabbing a corpse that is behind enemy lines and carrying it during months while keeping up a fraction of a rebel alliance and ultimately managing to sneak out of a country conquered by an epic level wizard lych to contact a cleric able to contact the rest of the order seems quite feat-y to me. Sure, it is not the same kind of leadership Roy displays, but then again, Haley is not Roy. Her prime objetive was always trying to keep everyone possible alive, reunite the order and resurrect Roy. Which she did.

Themrys

2013-04-07, 07:14 PM

Also, I have never argued in favour of patriarchy (on the contrary, I would see it banished from the Fantasy genre). I was arguing against straight people saying that an even gender ratio is fine because that's realistic (as women make up 50% of the population) but that a greater prevalence of LGBT+ characters is too unrealistic because we're minorities and therefore underrepresentation is fair and just when applied to us.

You are actively trying to make an enemy of me, are you?

I didn't say that the number of LGBT characters was unrealistically high, I just said that I don't see see number of gay men as being unrealistically low and am more concerned with the overall lack of women.

If you want to call it opression olympics if I object to the fact that women are put into the category "minority" together with LGBT people, and that authors seem to think one token woman and one token gay male are enough so everyone can feel included, I can't do anything about that.

Raineh Daze

2013-04-07, 07:16 PM

Grabbing a corpse that is behind enemy lines and carrying it during months while keeping up a fraction of a rebel alliance and ultimately managing to sneak out of a country conquered by an epic level wizard lych to contact a cleric able to contact the rest of the order seems quite feat-y to me. Sure, it is not the same kind of leadership Roy displays, but then again, Haley is not Roy. Her prime objetive was always trying to keep everyone possible alive, reunite the order and resurrect Roy. Which she did.

And none of that contributes to making 'lead the Order of the Stick' worth noting, because none of it is leading. Grabbing the corpse and carrying it? Irrelevant to leadership! Sneaking out of the country? Irrelevant to leading the group, because only one person from it is with her! Contacting a cleric to tell the others to 'come here'? The closest thing to leadership, but she wasn't leading anyone.

You are actively trying to make an enemy of me, are you?

I didn't say that the number of LGBT characters was unrealistically high, I just said that I don't see see number of gay men as being unrealistically low and am more concerned with the overall lack of women.

If you want to call it opression olympics if I object to the fact that women are put into the category "minority" together with LGBT people, and that authors seem to think one token woman and one token gay male are enough so everyone can feel included, I can't do anything about that.

Number of gay men: one, and a random NPC. Um, that's just a teensy little bit unrealistically low. Because, you know, it implies nonexistence. :smallannoyed:

And you explicitly said you assume gay men don't feel underrepresented because it's statistically unlikely for a group of six to contain one, and decided that you have more right to object. That is the oppression olympics thing.

Cavelcade

2013-04-07, 07:17 PM

Why do we continuously bring up real life in terms of gender and sexuality (and race, though that's not the point of this thread) when the story in question is pure fantasy?

I think the idea is that the fantastical elements in a story (should) exist to act as some kind of metaphor/symbol/sign-that-the-main-character-is-crazy, so their inclusion is justified based on that. While a prevalence of LGBT characters could fulfill those criteria, it would probably be deemed to be more derogatory if they were used in that way. I'd find it...odd, to say the least.

In this story, they obviously also have the link that, well, he's talking about D&D.

Further - while gender equality with regards to strength/magical capability is at least said to be equal, the reason for this isn't brought up. If it's because chicks also have increased hormonal levels that, as well as increasing muscle mass, make them a bit fighty, they should be represented just as much as males in the fighty side of things. If not, then they shouldn't be. The decision should probably rest with the author - however, I agree that in every other area they should be equally represented at minimum, and presumable in some, more represented, simply due to how the numbers work out. Possibly as non-figihty mages? Shopowners, politicians, rulers?

Also, I have never argued in favour of patriarchy (on the contrary, I would see it banished from the Fantasy genre).

Also this seems kind of...self-defeating? Just because something isn't discussed doesn't mean it doesn't exist - fantasy as a way of talking about real world issues would be diminished if the real issue of patriarchal abuse couldn't be discussed.

Also the Drow are hilarious, and the more you think about them, the sadder you get.

That is not the contradiction it seems!

oppyu

2013-04-07, 07:22 PM

Leirus

2013-04-07, 07:27 PM

And none of that contributes to making 'lead the Order of the Stick' worth noting, because none of it is leading. Grabbing the corpse and carrying it? Irrelevant to leadership! Sneaking out of the country? Irrelevant to leading the group, because only one person from it is with her! Contacting a cleric to tell the others to 'come here'? The closest thing to leadership, but she wasn't leading anyone.

How is working to fullfill the ends of the Order not leading? She could not do anything about Elan, Durkon and V not being there. They were beyond her reach at the time. Left to their own devices, Durkon would sit on his tumbs waiting for her to contact them (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0667.html), Belkar would likely have joined Xykon and V went mad from impotence. She was the one leading her tiny fraction with Belkar and honorary Celia, working towards the resurrection of Roy and the gathering of the party. She always had the initiative in what they did.

Even Roy admits she made an Ok job. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0666.html)

If you are thinking in a more strict definition of leading, like, leading the combat in a dungeon, well, that was not the situation at hand. I think she made an Ok job with what she had. Moreso, I think she did what the situation required, while also having to play checks and balances between a psychopath and an extreme pacifist.

Raineh Daze

2013-04-07, 07:28 PM

I think the idea is that the fantastical elements in a story (should) exist to act as some kind of metaphor/symbol/sign-that-the-main-character-is-crazy, so their inclusion is justified based on that. While a prevalence of LGBT characters could fulfill those criteria, it would probably be deemed to be more derogatory if they were used in that way. I'd find it...odd, to say the least.

In this story, they obviously also have the link that, well, he's talking about D&D.

... we shouldn't be allowed fair representation because there's no allegorical reason for it? I... what. So media bias should continue, echoing modern society, simply because there needs to be a reason otherwise, and working to prevent any change to society that would make a difference.

That makes absolutely no sense. :smallmad:

Further - while gender equality with regards to strength/magical capability is at least said to be equal, the reason for this isn't brought up. If it's because chicks also have increased hormonal levels that, as well as increasing muscle mass, make them a bit fighty, they should be represented just as much as males in the fighty side of things. If not, then they shouldn't be. The decision should probably rest with the author - however, I agree that in every other area they should be equally represented at minimum, and presumable in some, more represented, simply due to how the numbers work out. Possibly as non-figihty mages? Shopowners, politicians, rulers?

Biology went out the window the same time you got giant flying magical lizards that talk.

How is it working to fullfill the ends of the Order not leading? She could not do anything about Elan, Durkon and V not being there. They were beyond her reach at the time. Left to their own devices, Durkon would sit on his tumbs waiting for her to contact them (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0667.html), Belkar would likely have joined Xykon and V went mad from impotence. She was the one leading her tiny fraction with Belkar and honorary Celia, working towards the resurrection of Roy and the gathering of the party. She always had the initiative in what they did.

Even Roy admits she made an Ok job. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0666.html)

If you are thinking in a more strict definition of leading, like, leading the combat in a dungeon, well, that was not the situation at hand. I think she made an Ok job with what she had. Moreso, I think she did what the situation required, while also having to play checks and balances between a psychopath and an extreme pacifist.

The sheer fact that the only part of the Order she had any influence on for months on end is a single person is why I keep saying leading the resistance is a better indicator of 'most important group led by a female'. Elan, Durkon, and V were all basically leading themselves.

Rakoa

2013-04-07, 07:29 PM

And none of that contributes to making 'lead the Order of the Stick' worth noting, because none of it is leading. Grabbing the corpse and carrying it? Irrelevant to leadership! Sneaking out of the country? Irrelevant to leading the group, because only one person from it is with her! Contacting a cleric to tell the others to 'come here'? The closest thing to leadership, but she wasn't leading anyone.

I think this really depends on what your definition of Leadership. She wasn't standing in front of a group of people, walking first in line if that is what you mean. But she was doing what needed to be done. Events occurred, definitely not according to plan, and she responded to them efficiently. She did exactly what needed to be done, and decisively, to make sure that the group could come together again. Her actions aren't really irrelevant to leading a group just because nobody was with her at the time, because the fact is she was completing very important tasks that nobody else did/was able to.

So yes, you could say it is relatively simple to carry a corpse, sneak it out of a country, and contact the rest of the group through a Cleric. But what she did was save their late leader, bring back his body and reassemble the Order.

But again, this all depends on what you define as "leadership". It is a loose term, but I think it fits her actions.

Shadowknight12

2013-04-07, 07:30 PM

You are actively trying to make an enemy of me, are you?

I didn't say that the number of LGBT characters was unrealistically high, I just said that I don't see see number of gay men as being unrealistically low and am more concerned with the overall lack of women.

If you want to call it opression olympics if I object to the fact that women are put into the category "minority" together with LGBT people, and that authors seem to think one token woman and one token gay male are enough so everyone can feel included, I can't do anything about that.

My apologies if I misunderstood or misrepresented your points. They are valid. I would agree that women need more representation, but I disagree on the reasons why. I do not agree that women need more representation merely because they make up 50% of the population. I would strive for representation of women even if their percentages were significantly lower, because I do not think that demography should ever be a reason to decide if a certain sector of the population merits representation or not, and in what amount.

I think the idea is that the fantastical elements in a story (should) exist to act as some kind of metaphor/symbol/sign-that-the-main-character-is-crazy, so their inclusion is justified based on that. While a prevalence of LGBT characters could fulfill those criteria, it would probably be deemed to be more derogatory if they were used in that way. I'd find it...odd, to say the least.

In this story, they obviously also have the link that, well, he's talking about D&D.

Further - while gender equality with regards to strength/magical capability is at least said to be equal, the reason for this isn't brought up. If it's because chicks also have increased hormonal levels that, as well as increasing muscle mass, make them a bit fighty, they should be represented just as much as males in the fighty side of things. If not, then they shouldn't be. The decision should probably rest with the author - however, I agree that in every other area they should be equally represented at minimum, and presumable in some, more represented, simply due to how the numbers work out. Possibly as non-figihty mages? Shopowners, politicians, rulers?

The biology argument doesn't hold up. Not only because the D&D rules actively specify that women are just as physically strong and capable as men, but because the RL biology involved isn't as set in stone as pop science would have you believe (if you wish to discuss that, PM me. I am unclear as to whether that sort of thing is allowed to be discussed in the forums, so I'd err on the safe side).

As for the bit about fantastical elements: nope. That is not valid for every story in the fantasy genre, and I would argue not even for the majority or them, or any significant number. Most of the time, the fantasy races in question are just like humans, with some minor differences. While it's true that fantasy stories explore the human condition just like the rest of literature, it's simply equivocal to ascribe a sense of metaphor or symbolism to every single fantastical aspect. While some stories do work like that, they are most certainly not the majority (and I'd even go as far as to say that they are a small number within the larger fantasy genre), and D&D is most certainly not part of that school of thought.

Also this seems kind of...self-defeating? Just because something isn't discussed doesn't mean it doesn't exist - fantasy as a way of talking about real world issues would be diminished if the real issue of patriarchal abuse couldn't be discussed.

We have historical fiction for that. And academic textbooks. And history books. And contemporary fiction. The list goes on. Fantasy and Sci-Fi are the two main genres were we can explore worlds where such things do not exist. I find it quite tiresome to see the patriarchy in genres where it would be perfectly believable to replace it with any other form of sociological construct.

But, in case it needs to be said, I'm not telling writers what to do. I was merely expressing my wish (which I already know will never come true) to avoid having to deal with the patriarchy in one of the few "safe haven" genres of fiction.

EDIT:

Also, this:

Biology went out the window the same time you got giant flying magical lizards that talk.

Pretty much all there is to say on the subject.

Leirus

2013-04-07, 07:39 PM

The sheer fact that the only part of the Order she had any influence on for months on end is a single person is why I keep saying leading the resistance is a better indicator of 'most important group led by a female'. Elan, Durkon, and V were all basically leading themselves.

I would object that Elan and Durkon were actually waiting for her to contact them, but I understand your point... I just... I just think that Haley had to act against her nature and take some hard decissions thinking about the whole party, decissions she would not have taken otherwise so for me that qualifies her as a leader, no matter how many members she had nearby at the time. I think Rakoa explained it better than I can.

Themrys

2013-04-07, 07:45 PM

It's a bit difficult to agree with your point that only women are underrepresented in the stickverse, when the only gay people shown in OOTS are a succubus and a one-strip gag in the CPPD I don't remember ever seeing.

I thought there was a gay gladiator couple somewhere in the background. Also, male homosexuality is frequently mentioned (Durkon in his backstory, gladiators, Roy's gender change, cop), while the only mention of female homosexuality was Tsukiko saying that she didn't know the skeleton was female.

Another reason why I think the underrepresentation of women is more of a problem in terms of being unsolvable: There are plot-relevant characters who can turn out to be gay. O-Chul and Malack, for example, while the only "character" who could believably turn out to be female is probably Mr. Scruffy. (As V's sex is never going to be revealed, I don't count V. Besides, V also counts as possibly gay character)

Raineh Daze

2013-04-07, 07:49 PM

If the only LGBT+ characters are one-panel gags or jokes (and the Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity does not count. It's a cursed item) then there's a problem.

Add in that the only definitively fitting character that isn't a brief gag is a shapechanging incarnation of sex... yeah, that doesn't say good things.

'Solvability' isn't really the issue here, because no-one is suggesting that anything should be done. This thread is about interpretation of what's already there, unless I missed some post contradicting that.

Rakoa

2013-04-07, 07:49 PM

dps

2013-04-07, 07:54 PM

The same goes for sexual orientation. We have things in the genre of fantasy that literally do not exist. Literally. I cannot emphasise that word strongly enough. There is a support group and plenty of group therapy for the laws of physics of fantasy worlds. But suddenly, when it comes to matters of gender, race and sexuality, we start throwing the words "realistic" and "unrealistic" around? That's completely arbitrary. I'd find a world made up entirely of bisexuals far more believable and realistic than your average fantasy world. Mainly because bisexuals exist in the real world, while elves, dragons and magic don't.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but it seems to me that the argument being made is that gay folks deserve "fair" representation in the OotS-verse because they exist in real life, but if you then make the argument that as a fantasy world, even the laws of the universe are literally not those of the real world, so it doesn't have to reflect reality (and, apparantly, shouldn't), doesn't that undercut the prior argument?

oppyu

2013-04-07, 07:56 PM

I don't have an issue with this whole idea, and I never had time to read through the entire thread, so excuse me if this has been mentioned before...

But if the sexuality of a character isn't plot relevant, then why should it ever come up? This isn't a romance comic, it's meant to be funny. What I'm saying is, if a character's sexuality is not relevant to the plot, should it come up just for the sake of making the comic inclusive or representative of the population?
Well, the sexuality of characters has come up as relevant enough to be shown on-panel. And with one literal demonic incarnation of illicit sex exception, the sexuality of characters (I do not count one-strip gags as characters) has come up every time with heterosexuality.

Leirus

2013-04-07, 07:58 PM

I thought there was a gay gladiator couple somewhere in the background. Also, male homosexuality is frequently mentioned (Durkon in his backstory, gladiators, Roy's gender change, cop), while the only mention of female homosexuality was Tsukiko saying that she didn't know the skeleton was female.

Another reason why I think the underrepresentation of women is more of a problem in terms of being unsolvable: There are plot-relevant characters who can turn out to be gay. O-Chul and Malack, for example, while the only "character" who could believably turn out to be female is probably Mr. Scruffy. (As V's sex is never going to be revealed, I don't count V. Besides, V also counts as possibly gay character)

If you count as V as possibly gay, you should also count him as possibly female. I think he actually helps to balance out the order because he is a blank (not male or female). If the Order had to replace Durkon or Belkar they may get a female member, bringing the parity count to three Males, two Females and one who knows.

The comic could do with more relevant women and some gay characters, but it is also based upon traditional D&D games, starting as a parody of them, so the unbalanced gender count is kind of... to be expected.

However, and this is important, the female characters we actually get are fully developed characters, never a mere "love interest" hanging around, waiting to be stuffed in a fridge. I mean, would anybody doubt that Haley is more important to the party than Belkar or Elan are? That should count for something.

I don't have an issue with this whole idea, and I never had time to read through the entire thread, so excuse me if this has been mentioned before...

But if the sexuality of a character isn't plot relevant, then why should it ever come up? This isn't a romance comic, it's meant to be funny. What I'm saying is, if a character's sexuality is not relevant to the plot, should it come up just for the sake of making the comic inclusive or representative of the population?

It would be a nice touch, yes. I like feeling included. This may sound weird to you, but even an off handed comment by, lets us say, O-Chul about him being gay would make my day.

Shadowknight12

2013-04-07, 08:05 PM

(As V's sex is never going to be revealed, I don't count V. Besides, V also counts as possibly gay character)

If V's gender is never going to be revealed, then neither will V's sexuality. V is as much possibly gay as s/he is possibly female.

But if the sexuality of a character isn't plot relevant, then why should it ever come up? This isn't a romance comic, it's meant to be funny. What I'm saying is, if a character's sexuality is not relevant to the plot, should it come up just for the sake of making the comic inclusive or representative of the population?

This is something that gets brought up a lot. Quite often, actually. See, sexuality is an intrinsic part of almost every story, particularly fantasy or sci-fi stories, as they tend to deal with large casts of people, entire nations, and large scales, all of which give us a great cavalcade of relationships.

And if you're straight, you are always automatically included. It doesn't matter if it's not a romance, your sexuality is constantly being included and validated. In this very comic, we've had Durkon/Hylgia, Roy/Celia, Haley/Elan, almost Miko/Roy, Nale/Sabine, Belkar/Jenny, Elan/Samantha, Elan/Therkla and many other instances of heterosexual relationships. Despite the fact that, as you've said it yourself, this isn't a romance comic.

And even in works where less screen time is given to romantic couples, you still have mentions of "her husband", "his wife", "her lover", "Lord and Lady X" and so on and so forth, with the implications of heterosexual relationships. Your sexuality is constantly being included, validated, affirmed, portrayed as normal and positive, cherished, and so on. And this is something that, with no intention to offend anyone, most straight people take for granted. They assume that all of this is normal and expected, and therefore any attempt to include non-straight sexualities or non-cis gender is seen as abnormal and meriting special reasons. Why do we need special reasons? Why do we need to justify our inclusion when you have never had to justify yours? This isn't meant to be antagonistic, I'm merely citing questions that serve as a starting point to examine sexuality in stories and realising that the question you're asking isn't really fair to us.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point, but it seems to me that the argument being made is that gay folks deserve "fair" representation in the OotS-verse because they exist in real life, but if you then make the argument that as a fantasy world, even the laws of the universe are literally not those of the real world, so it doesn't have to reflect reality (and, apparantly, shouldn't), doesn't that undercut the prior argument?

My argument was not that representation relies on the fact that LGBT+ people exist in real life. That was not what I argued for. What I argued against was the notion that LGBT+ people deserved underrepresentation because they were minorities in real life. That is the logic that I am arguing against.

If a writer decides not to include LGBT+ people because he or she doesn't want to, that's perfectly sound logic. I will still argue in favour of inclusion, but I understand the logic the author is using and I acknowledge it as valid.

The logic that "because it is so in real life, so must it be in fantasy" is simply invalid.

Cavelcade

2013-04-07, 08:06 PM

... we shouldn't be allowed fair representation because there's no allegorical reason for it? I... what. So media bias should continue, echoing modern society, simply because there needs to be a reason otherwise, and working to prevent any change to society that would make a difference.

That makes absolutely no sense. :smallmad:

That wasn't my point at all. Women should 100% be more prominent in all forms of media, and less sexualised. LGBT being represented at all is nice - it would be good if they were represented as ordinary members of whatever groups they're in. You seem to have taken what I said incorrectly - bad phrasing on my part, I assume.

I was just stating what I've understood to be the reason it's done. That doesn't make my understanding correct, and I wasn't trying to say that such worlds should never be explored. Though, because it is men writing them mostly, you will often end up with races like that Asari in Mass Effect that are interesting but disturbingly oversexualised.

To be clear, that is not me suggesting they shouldn't be done for that reason - just giving an example of such a society and then remembering the...weirdness of it.

Working against the media bias to under-represent these demographics is something which is a goal that any work in any medium should work for.

Biology went out the window the same time you got giant flying magical lizards that talk.

Why?

I mean, I understand why this means that we can't be in the world we know, but if the author wants to ground the reader then that would be an argument for keeping some things at least recognisable. This doesn't mean they should be kept this way - or even be that way in the entirety of the world. An example would be the Wheel of Time series. It has a lot of issues (especially for LGBT issues, doubly so for the L part pre-Sanderson), but it does at least show women in positions of power being considered normal in a lot of places.

The biology argument doesn't hold up. Not only because the D&D rules actively specify that women are just as physically strong and capable as men, but because the RL biology involved isn't as set in stone as pop science would have you believe (if you wish to discuss that, PM me. I am unclear as to whether that sort of thing is allowed to be discussed in the forums, so I'd err on the safe side).

I am aware that it's not definitive, but the studies I know of show in general that men tend to be ~40-50% stronger than women.

However, this might be something like the 'women are bad at maths' thing - in societies with higher levels of gender equality, women tend to do better at maths than in societies with lower levels.

I am also not a huge fan of evolutionary/biological psychology as being 'set' - but I do think there are some tendencies (like the strength) are, on average at least, correct.

I am happy to continue that discussion over PM, if you want - but I think we're probably on more or less the same page? If you disagree, please do PM me, I'm always interested in learning.

Also - maybe it wasn't clear. I wasn't saying women shouldn't show up as much in the story as men, or that LGBT should be excluded. Just that, even if women are as strong and capable as men, that doesn't mean they have to fulfill the same roles. That could well be gender normativity seeping through in my mindset, though.

As for the bit about fantastical elements: nope. That is not valid for every story in the fantasy genre, and I would argue not even for the majority or them, or any significant number. Most of the time, the fantasy races in question are just like humans, with some minor differences. While it's true that fantasy stories explore the human condition just like the rest of literature, it's simply equivocal to ascribe a sense of metaphor or symbolism to every single fantastical aspect. While some stories do work like that, they are most certainly not the majority (and I'd even go as far as to say that they are a small number within the larger fantasy genre), and D&D is most certainly not part of that school of thought.

Yes, that is probably fair. I just like to be an idealist with my readings, and prefer to see parts of the books as symbolic which probably aren't.

D&D is hilariously/tragically sexist. I won't say it's a pity that Rich didn't choose to examine that in detail given the scale of his project already, but it is a shame his cast is as...gender biased as he is. Given how thoughtful he is in general, I am willing to give him a pass on it - but then again, I am not in one of the groups which is underrepresented, so I'm not trying to suggest everyone should feel the same way about it.

We have historical fiction for that. And academic textbooks. And history books. And contemporary fiction. The list goes on. Fantasy and Sci-Fi are the two main genres were we can explore worlds where such things do not exist. I find it quite tiresome to see the patriarchy in genres where it would be perfectly believable to replace it with any other form of sociological construct.

But, in case it needs to be said, I'm not telling writers what to do. I was merely expressing my wish (which I already know will never come true) to avoid having to deal with the patriarchy in one of the few "safe haven" genres of fiction.

Fair enough, I suppose - but there are people who enjoy Sci-fi/Fantasy more than those genres who do want to read stories that deal with it? Isn't it more reasonable for you to avoid the stories containing it?

Rakoa

2013-04-07, 08:07 PM

This isn't meant to be antagonistic, I'm merely citing questions that serve as a starting point to examine sexuality in stories and realising that the question you're asking isn't really fair to us.

Not antagonistic at all. That was an excellent response and helped to clear it up. Thanks for taking the time to write it.

lio45

2013-04-07, 08:09 PM

This is not a valid excuse. A world that will feel as natural as possible to the readers would not include elves, dragons, magic, gods of provable existence or monsters. If you are willing to suspend your disbelief for such blatant and fragrant violations of physics, chemistry, biology and every other natural science, it's completely arbitrary to decide that gender equality is too unrealistic.

I don't really agree with that.

Let's say an author decides that it's the men who are bearing the childs and giving birth in his fantasy world, just because. Or that humans reproduce through eggs. That'd actually be a more minor breach of the real world rules as, say, magic...

...but it would likely bug the readers more. Why? Because it goes against what feels natural.

A D&D setting is something that's inspired from the real-life medieval period, with the fantasy bits (dragons, elves, magic) grafted on it. It's not something that's been conjured out of thin air. We tend to expect that basic biology will still apply -- women, not men, giving birth, etc.

Rich's story would still be an perfectly enjoyable one even if humans were born in eggs in the OotSverse, it would just be... a work of arguably slightly less quality, if there's no good reason behind that alteration.

If you want a biology debate, PM me. I'll blind you with science. :smallcool:

Or maybe I'll blind you with science... ;)

This is all true, and very important. One thing I would add though; many D+D worlds (even OotSverse to some extent) are loosely based on the societies of medieval Europe, and/or Tolkien's Middle-Earth. While D+D worlds are set up as gender-neutral, these fundamental resources decidedly are not. This has a significant impact on, for example, default assumptions about who has leaadership roles and positions of authority in D+Dverse societies. Certainly in my playing experience, it was lords and kings, not ladies and queens, who called the shots.

Another point, which has been mentioned above, is the gender bias in RPG players (and RPG writers). Most players and DMs are men, and therefore most PCs (and, in my experience, significant NPCs) are also male.

So according to the canon, 'D+Dverse' is a gender-blind meritocracy, and so 50% of the leaders (or wizards, or pit fighters, or master thieves, or whatever) should be men, 50% women. But the influence of the ultimate historical and literary source material, and the biases of the players/DMs/writers who create D+Dverses will naturally lead to over-representation of male characters in many cases.

Unsurprisingly, I agree with that, which is actually exactly my point. (I just went one level deeper in explaining why things are so, by invoking biology.)

I will also dare say I believe that Rich is not impervious to that phenomenon, in spite of stating the contrary in his reply to you. For example, he "chose" to split his party 4:1. (I'm giving Original V, the elven wizard with a defined gender and a name ending in -ius, the benefit of doubt, so he/she is taken out of the calculation completely.)

Would Rich be able to tell us with a straight face he could just as easily have split his party 1:4, with four female characters and only one male one?

Whether it's conscious or not, I'm observing that there still seems to be an element of wanting to mirror to an extent what people are used to see in actual D&D in the strips (especially the early ones) instead of going against the flow for absolutely no story purpose with things like a nearly all-female team of PCs, or humans who lay eggs, or anything like that.

I agree that the influences exist, yes, but then you can't use biology or "realisticness" to justify the skewed gender ratio. If you say "the skewed gender ratio exists because this takes inspiration from works where men were predominant", that makes logical sense (though it is still worth discussing, analysing, questioning and criticising). Saying "the skewed gender ratio is because biology duh" is flat-out illogical, if not outright wrong, when the setting rules specifically state otherwise.

It's actually the same thing... "the skewed gender ratio exists because this takes inspiration from works where men were predominant, which is because in real life men were actually predominant in those types of positions, which fundamentally is because biology duh".

Raineh Daze

2013-04-07, 08:16 PM

zimmerwald1915

2013-04-07, 08:21 PM

Someone a while ago expanded the list to include race. So why not go for the trifecta of oppressive social categories? Without the benefit of extensive discussion, those designations that do not appear on oppyu's and Zmeoaice's are just my personal opinions and are subject to revision should discussion ever take place. Not that it will; people on this board really like to discuss gender and sexuality.

working definitions for the classes I used:
Aristocrats tend to possess, and derive their income from, extensive real property. They tend to rent to, and employ, others. They tend to have extensive leisure time and opportunities for higher education. They also tend to be found in and among state heirarchies.

Middle class people tend to possess, and derive their income from, rarefied professional skills or capital-intensive machinery. They may employ others. They tend to have some leisure time and opportunities for higher education.

Working class people tend to be employed by others and derive their income from their employment. They tend not to have much leisure time or opportunities for higher education.

Criminal class people tend to derive their income from taking others' possessions. Levels of organization, education, and leisure time can vary wildly.

The Order of the Stick
{table=head]Character|Status|Race|Class|Education|Occupation|G ender|Orientation|Love Interest
Roy Greenhilt|main protagonist|black|middle class|university|adventurer (leader)|male|straight|Celia
Elan|supporting protagonist|white|working class|camp|adventurer|male|straight|Samantha, Haley Starshine, Therkla
Haley Starshine|supporting protagonist|white|criminal class|guild|adventurer (second in command, leader)|female|straight*|Elan
Belkar Bitterleaf|supporting protagonist|white (halfling)|criminal class| - |adventurer|male|straight| -
Vaarsuvius|supporting protagonist|white (elf)|middle class|apprenticeship|adventurer| - | - |Inkyrius
Durkon Thundershield (dead)|supporting protagonist|white* (dwarf)|middle class|church|adventurer|male| straight|Hilgya Firehelm[/table]

Team Evil
{table=head]Character|Status|Race|Class|Education|Occupation|G ender|Orientation|Love Interest
Xykon|major antagonist|white|middle class|self-taught|adventurer (leader)|male|straight| -
Redcloak|major antagonist|goblin|middle class|apprenticeship|adventurer (second in command), general, ruler|male|straight| -
MitD|major character| - | - | - | - |male| - | -
Tsukiko (dead)|supporting antagonist|east asian|middle class|university (expelled)|adventurer (vying for second in command)|female|straight (necrophiliac)| -
Jirix|supporting antagonist|hobgoblin|middle class| - |adventurer, ruler|male| - | - [/table]

Linear Guild
{table=head]Character|Status|Race|Class|Education|Occupation|G ender|Orientation|Love Interest
Nale|major antagonist|white|middle class|apprenticeship|adventurer (leader)|male|straight*|Sabine
Sabine|major antagonist|black (succubus)|working class| - |adventurer (second in command)|female|bisexual|Nale
Thog (dead)|major antagonist| - (half-orc)|working class|guild|adventurer|male| - | -
Zz'dtri|supporting antagonist|drow (elf)|middle class| - |adventurer|male| - | -
Yukyuk (dead)|supporting antagonist|orange (kobold)| - | - |adventurer|male| - | -
Pompey|supporting antagonist|white (half-elf)|middle class|university (dropped out), apprenticeship|adventurer|male|straight| -
Leeky Windstaff|supporting antagonist|black (gnome)| - |druid circle (expelled)|adventurer|male| - | -
Yokyok (dead)|supporting antagonist|orange (kobold)| - | - |adventurer|male| - | -
Yikyik (dead)|supporting antagonist|orange (kobold)| - | - |adventurer|male| - | -
Hilgya Firehelm|supporting antagonist|white (dwarf)|middle class|church|adventurer|female|straight|Durkon Thundershield[/table]

Azure City
{table=head]Character|Status|Race|Class|Education|Occupation|G ender|Orientation|Love Interest
Shojo (dead)|major ally|east asian|aristocrat|apprenticeship|ruler (leader)|male| - | -
Hinjo|major ally|east asian|aristocrat|guild|general, ruler (leader)|male| - | -
O-Chul|major ally|east asian|working class|army|soldier|male| - | -
Lien|supporting ally|east asian|working class|guild|soldier|female|straight| -
Daigo Da-|supporting ally|east asian|aristocrat|army|soldier|male|straight|Kazumi Kato
Kazumi Kato|supporting ally|east asian|aristocrat|army|soldier|female|straight|Daig o Da-
Miko Miyazaki (dead)|major ally/antagonist|east asian|aristocrat|monastery|soldier|female|straight | -
Daimyo Kubota (dead)|supporting antagonist|east asian|aristocrat| - |noble (leader)|male| - | -
Therkla (dead)|supporting ally/antagonist|east asian (half-orc)|working class|university|assassin|female|straight|Elan[/table]

Team Tarquin
{table=head]Character|Status|Race|Class|Education|Occupation|G ender|Orientation|Love Interest
Tarquin|major antagonist|white|middle class| - |general (leader)|male|straight| -
Malack|major antagonist|albino (lizardfolk)|middle class|apprenticeship|priest|male| - | -
Empress of Blood|minor antagonist|red (dragon)|aristocrat| - |ruler (patsy)|female| - | -
Kilkil|minor antagonist|dark orange (kobold)|working class| - |accountant|male| - | - [/table]

Greysky City
{table=head]Character|Status|Race|Class|Education|Occupation|G ender|Orientation|Love Interest
Bozzok|supporting antagonist| - (half-orc)|criminal class|guild|guildmaster (leader)|male| - | -
Hank|supporting antagonist|white (halfling)|criminal class|guild|negotiator (second in command)|male| - | -
Crystal (dead)|supporting antagonist|white|criminal class|guild|assassin|female| - | - [/table]

Azure City Resistance
{table=head]Character|Status|Race|Class|Education|Occupation|G ender|Orientation|Love Interest
Ho Thanh (dead)|supporting ally|east asian|working class|guild|soldier (leader)|male| - | -
Niu|supporting ally|east asian|working class|army|soldier (second in command)|female| - | -
Eye-patched leader (dead)|minor ally|east asian| - | - | - |female| - | -
Knot-topped leader (dead)|minor ally|east asian| - | - | - |male| - | -
Team Peregrine Leader (dead)|minor ally|black (elf)|working class|army|soldier (leader)|male| - | -
Team Peregrine Lieutenant (dead)|minor ally|white (elf)|working class|army|soldier (second in command)|female| - | - [/table]

Other
{table=head]Character|Status|Race|Class|Education|Occupation|G ender|Orientation|Love Interest
Celia|supporting ally|white (sylph)|middle class|university|attorney|female|straight|Roy Greenhilt
Qarr|supporting antagonist|red (imp)|working class| - |lackey|male| - | -
The IFCC|major antagonists| - |aristocrats| - |board members|male| - | -
The Oracle|minor character|orange (kobold)|aristocrat|self-taught|seer|male| - | -
Gannji|supporting character|green (lizardfolk)|criminal class| - |bounty hunter|male| - | -
Enor|supporting character|blue (half-dragon half-ogre)|criminal class| - |bounty hunter|male| - | -
Eugene Greenhilt (dead)|supporting character|black|middle class|university|researcher|male|straight| -
Ian Starshine|supporting character|white|criminal class|guild|revolutionary|male| - | - [/table]

Order of the Scribble
{table=head]Character|Status|Race|Class|Education|Occupation|G ender|Orientation|Love Interest
Soon Kim (dead)|minor ally|east asian|aristocrat| - |adventurer, general (leader)|male|straight| -
Lirian (dead)|minor ally|white (elf)|middle class| - |adventurer (second in command)|female|straight|Dorukan
Dorukan (dead)|minor ally|white|aristocrat| - |adventurer|male|straight|Lirian
Serini| - |white (halfling)| - | - |adventurer|female| - | -
Girard Draketooth (dead)|minor antagonist|white|aristocrat| - |adventurer|male| - | -
Kraagor (dead)| - |black (dwarf)| - | - |adventurer|male| - | - [/table]

Bandits
{table=head]Character|Status|Race|Class|Education|Occupation|G ender|Orientation|Love Interest
Samantha (dead)|minor antagonist|white|criminal class|self-taught|bandit leader (leader)|female|straight|Elan
Samantha's Dad (dead)|minor antagonist|white|criminal class| - |bandit (second in command)|male| - | - [/table]

Shadowknight12

2013-04-07, 08:30 PM

Not antagonistic at all. That was an excellent response and helped to clear it up. Thanks for taking the time to write it.

No problem, glad to be of service. :smallsmile:

I am aware that it's not definitive, but the studies I know of show in general that men tend to be ~40-50% stronger than women.

However, this might be something like the 'women are bad at maths' thing - in societies with higher levels of gender equality, women tend to do better at maths than in societies with lower levels.

I am also not a huge fan of evolutionary/biological psychology as being 'set' - but I do think there are some tendencies (like the strength) are, on average at least, correct.

I am happy to continue that discussion over PM, if you want - but I think we're probably on more or less the same page? If you disagree, please do PM me, I'm always interested in learning.

Heh, everyone always brings up the physical strength thing. Don't worry, I've made that argument time and again, I'll shoot you a PM with a book and studies that suggest that the strength difference between the genders is a result of childhood rearing and societal mores.

Also - maybe it wasn't clear. I wasn't saying women shouldn't show up as much in the story as men, or that LGBT should be excluded. Just that, even if women are as strong and capable as men, that doesn't mean they have to fulfill the same roles. That could well be gender normativity seeping through in my mindset, though.

No, it doesn't mean they absolutely HAVE to, but that logically, they would. But yeah, it's probably gender normativity and gender constructs seeping through.

Yes, that is probably fair. I just like to be an idealist with my readings, and prefer to see parts of the books as symbolic which probably aren't.

D&D is hilariously/tragically sexist. I won't say it's a pity that Rich didn't choose to examine that in detail given the scale of his project already, but it is a shame his cast is as...gender biased as he is. Given how thoughtful he is in general, I am willing to give him a pass on it - but then again, I am not in one of the groups which is underrepresented, so I'm not trying to suggest everyone should feel the same way about it.

While D&D has indeed suffered from ingrained sexism, it's still a way for women to roleplay a woman in a world completely different to theirs, where the patriarchy does not exist, and their characters are viewed as exactly equal to men. That alone should be something worth cherishing.

But yeah, it has sexism issues. Lots of them.

Fair enough, I suppose - but there are people who enjoy Sci-fi/Fantasy more than those genres who do want to read stories that deal with it? Isn't it more reasonable for you to avoid the stories containing it?

Firstly, who says I don't already do that? Because I do, I assure you. There are some works I would not touch with a ten-foot pole. Secondly, no change is ever going to be made without someone going out there to try and bring education and information to people. Not to tell them what to do, but to tell them things they might not be aware of, and then letting them do with that information what they will. In a sense, I'm like a salesman. I have a sales pitch to sell you inclusion in the media, but the decision is yours.

I don't really agree with that.

Let's say an author decides that it's the men who are bearing the childs and giving birth in his fantasy world, just because. Or that humans reproduce through eggs. That'd actually be a more minor breach of the real world rules as, say, magic...

...but it would likely bug the readers more. Why? Because it goes against what feels natural.

A D&D setting is something that's inspired from the real-life medieval period, with the fantasy bits (dragons, elves, magic) grafted on it. It's not something that's been conjured out of thin air. We tend to expect that basic biology will still apply -- women, not men, giving birth, etc.

Rich's story would still be an perfectly enjoyable one even if humans were born in eggs in the OotSverse, it would just be... a work of arguably slightly less quality, if there's no good reason behind that alteration.

Yeah, you can try to justify it using vague terminology, such as "feels natural", but that's just heteronormativity and gender constructs. The whole "natural" thing does not exist in the fantasy genre. And it's absent of a big part of the sci-fi genre.

You lose the right to talk about what feels natural or not in a fantasy work when you have enormous, unfathomably heavy, intelligent lizards flying around on a wing and a prayer.

Or, you know. Anything magic does, ever.

Or maybe I'll blind you with science... ;)

By all means, feel free! I'm always up for some science in my retinae.

It's actually the same thing... "the skewed gender ratio exists because this takes inspiration from works where men were predominant, which is because in real life men were actually predominant in those types of positions, which fundamentally is because biology duh".

There is a term for that. It's called cultural inertia. It's the concept that because something cultural has been done before, it must be maintained for no other reason than because it has been done before. It is absolutely arbitrary, and therefore perfectly changeable.

*snip*

:smallbiggrin:

*applause*

What an excellent job. The idea of including social class was actually a stroke of genius. Classism is VERY ingrained in fantasy settings (as cultural inertia from the idea that only nobles or people with the blood of nobles/kings/gods were able to perform great deeds).

Raineh Daze

2013-04-07, 08:36 PM

Some objections to the table:

'Aristocrats'. Upper class would be better, and could then more accurately reflect certain situations (e.g. Tarquin and Malack might not own land, but both of them are obscenely well off due to their positions and the whole setup. 'Spare Ring of Regeneration', for instance. Too high up to be middle class, but not landed gentry.)
Half-orcs don't have their race listed as green.
Samantha and her father are both deceased
Gannji and Enor aren't criminals. Not sure where that's come from. :smallconfused:
Girard doesn't seem like his class is right. He isn't exactly much of a land owner any more than Dorukan is.

Cavelcade

2013-04-07, 08:56 PM

No, it doesn't mean they absolutely HAVE to, but that logically, they would. But yeah, it's probably gender normativity and gender constructs seeping through.

Not necessarily - even if they can, there will still (probably) be tendencies based on culture with in the setting which causes them to gravitate towards certain positions. That's not to say that women mightn't be more inclined to be fighters, but it seems likely they'd be more inclined to be something. If they aren't, and there is literally no difference between the genders well...why have them at all, then?

I guess the idea of an essentially genderless world doesn't particularly interest me because ours isn't. While I would prefer our media not reinforce the idea that women are weak, fragile, delicate things and LGBT is unnatural, I would prefer that they not ignore it either. I suppose I could see a few ways this could be interesting - but most of them would be in reference to less pleasant things.

If that is what you're interested in - fair enough.

While D&D has indeed suffered from ingrained sexism, it's still a way for women to roleplay a woman in a world completely different to theirs, where the patriarchy does not exist, and their characters are viewed as exactly equal to men. That alone should be something worth cherishing.

Interestingly, one of the most feminist minded woman I know really dislikes that element of it, because she views it as a historian, and doesn't buy into the genders being magically equal - she finds it off putting, because all the historical setting vibe puts her in her historian mode, and then that just seems completely wrong to her.

But yeah, it has sexism issues. Lots of them.

Well, the published material does. The game itself is I guess progressive, mostly.

Firstly, who says I don't already do that? Because I do, I assure you. There are some works I would not touch with a ten-foot pole. Secondly, no change is ever going to be made without someone going out there to try and bring education and information to people. Not to tell them what to do, but to tell them things they might not be aware of, and then letting them do with that information what they will. In a sense, I'm like a salesman. I have a sales pitch to sell you inclusion in the media, but the decision is yours.

I don't agree that having it be without those issues is the correct way to enact social change. It'd be like the horribly edited for daytime TV version of Blazing Saddles I saw - it had all the racism taken out, which made it both pointless and dull. Having it be present in the story doesn't mean it supports it - if the story is about how idiotic those ideas are and overcoming them, then quite the opposite.

Raineh Daze

2013-04-07, 09:01 PM

I guess the idea of an essentially genderless world doesn't particularly interest me because ours isn't. While I would prefer our media not reinforce the idea that women are weak, fragile, delicate things and LGBT is unnatural, I would prefer that they not ignore it either. I suppose I could see a few ways this could be interesting - but most of them would be in reference to less pleasant things.

Please consider your wording more carefully. I doubt that you're saying they shouldn't ignore that LGBT is unnatural, but that's what it can be read as. :smallsigh:

Cavelcade

2013-04-07, 09:04 PM

Jesus Christ, I am way too tired to be commenting if that's what that came out as.

I meant they shouldn't ignore it or treat it as unnatural.

Shadowknight12

2013-04-07, 09:07 PM

Not necessarily - even if they can, there will still (probably) be tendencies based on culture with in the setting which causes them to gravitate towards certain positions. That's not to say that women mightn't be more inclined to be fighters, but it seems likely they'd be more inclined to be something. If they aren't, and there is literally no difference between the genders well...why have them at all, then?

I guess the idea of an essentially genderless world doesn't particularly interest me because ours isn't. While I would prefer our media not reinforce the idea that women are weak, fragile, delicate things and LGBT is unnatural, I would prefer that they not ignore it either. I suppose I could see a few ways this could be interesting - but most of them would be in reference to less pleasant things.

If that is what you're interested in - fair enough.

It is, actually. I am a gender deconstructivist. I support the destruction of gender (understood as "all that cultural baggage we pile onto biological sex") and the vision of gender as exclusively cosmetic, with no cultural or psychological baggage. Of course, I understand my position is controversial, and I don't expect anybody to share it or agree. I bring it up because yes, you've encapsulated my preferences exactly. An essentially genderless world would make me squee with glee. Which is, funny enough, the basic premise of D&D when it says that gender is purely cosmetic.

Interestingly, one of the most feminist minded woman I know really dislikes that element of it, because she views it as a historian, and doesn't buy into the genders being magically equal - she finds it off putting, because all the historical setting vibe puts her in her historian mode, and then that just seems completely wrong to her.

That's probably because she's not a gender deconstructivist. I'm a feminist ally myself, but that doesn't mean other feminists and I see eye to eye on everything. There are things we simply agree to disagree.

I don't agree that having it be without those issues is the correct way to enact social change. It'd be like the horribly edited for daytime TV version of Blazing Saddles I saw - it had all the racism taken out, which made it both pointless and dull. Having it be present in the story doesn't mean it supports it - if the story is about how idiotic those ideas are and overcoming them, then quite the opposite.

I consider that a matter of personal preference. Some people prefer to see those issues addressed and overcome, as you indicate. Others (like me) would rather see fiction where such issues don't exist at all, in order to give us an inspiration to strive for, or an ideal to pursue, or simply to enjoy the novelty of not being treated like crap by society. That sort of thing has a value of its own.

Raineh Daze

2013-04-07, 09:10 PM

Shadowknight12

2013-04-07, 09:13 PM

Reminds me of a discussion I was in a few days ago about whether a genderless society would be better or worse for gender dysphoria. :smallconfused:

I don't think D&D eliminates the concepts of masculinity or femininity, so gender isn't purely cosmetic. Theoretically (i.e., before the settings get involved) unbiased, but not genderless.

Well, obviously, so long as there are two different biological sexes in a species, there will always be femininity and masculinity. But if we remove all the sociocultural and psychological baggage that we pile atop the reproductive organs, in the end, masculinity and femininity will have nothing to do with behaviour, psychology, culture, preferences, professions, attitudes, social roles or even physical appearance, they will be reduced exclusively to reproductive organs. They will still exist, but their sphere of effect will be vastly, vastly reduced.

In theory, anyway.

Cavelcade

2013-04-07, 09:14 PM

An essentially genderless world would make me squee with glee. Which is, funny enough, the basic premise of D&D when it says that gender is purely cosmetic.

This is something I support as an ideal, but is not something I would be particularly interested to see in literature - although, maybe I'm being unfair. It's more that if that were the basis of the work, I wouldn't be interested. The work itself could still be interesting to me based on other things.

Raineh Daze

2013-04-07, 09:17 PM

Well, obviously, so long as there are two different biological sexes in a species, there will always be femininity and masculinity. But if we remove all the sociocultural and psychological baggage that we pile atop the reproductive organs, in the end, masculinity and femininity will have nothing to do with behaviour, psychology, culture, preferences, professions, attitudes, social roles or even physical appearance, they will be reduced exclusively to reproductive organs. They will still exist, but their sphere of effect will be vastly, vastly reduced.

In theory, anyway.

I think the overall conclusion was 'it would probably make things harder', so I find that ideal unappealing. Not that I wouldn't mind for things to be less rigidly defined and constricting.

Water_Bear

2013-04-07, 09:35 PM

And this is part of why I hate biological psychology. Nothing but endlessly reinforcing the same problems, and you can't falsify it either, because genetics is so hideously complicated...

All psychology is biological psychology, because humans are living organisms. And since our brains are biochemical machines (like every other organ), genes and gene expression is very important to understand how and why we think and act the way we do. [/Pedant]

But either way, science isn't the problem here. Equality doesn't require people to be identical, or to be treated as if they were, so the fact that the sexes are different is not something which needs to be concealed. Knowing that women are more dexterous and mentally resilient on average or that men tend to be stronger and think more hierarchically/aggressively doesn't mean that women need to be barefoot and pregnant for society to function; on the contrary, that information reveals just how wasteful it is to have half the population locked out of jobs they are likely to excel at.

Biology is not the enemy of societal progress, in fact it's quite the opposite; people cannot possibly hope to reach their potential if we don't understand what that potential is or how best to unlock it.

I see absolutely no reason why a fantasy world with fairer LGBT and female representation would feel unnatural. :smallannoyed:

Because it's what we're not used to seeing, and that's why we need to see it more.

Personally, I like my Fantasy societies to have real world precedent because fantasy authors are lazy. If someone took the somewhat-matriarchal Iroquois Confederacy (or any of the other RL matriarchal/egalitarian civilizations) as the base for their fantasy kingdom I'd be thrilled, not just because that society fascinates me but because it has an actual history which caused it to develop that way. In my experience most fantasy authors are terrible world-builders as it is, so dropping a rare societal setup into a culture which developed from an entirely different set of pressures without any better explanation than "it's progressive!" makes me wretch. It's almost as bad as the fake languages full of apostrophes.

There are enough societies where bi/homosexuality (male and/or female) and/or transexuality were accepted or even considered ideal, and enough where women had an equal (or better) say in politics, that inventing one out of whole cloth is pointless. At best it'll just be a ton of work to get the same effect as switching the names of countries around, and at worst you end up with an illogical mess.

-Edit-

[Enormous Chart]

I like the idea, but this thing needs some fine-tuning.

Class is the most obvious to me.

Redcloak and the higher-ranking Hobgoblins might present as middle class, but they're either very high or very low class depending on how that's seen. In Goblin society they're at the top of the heap but outside of it they're Kill-On-Sight Untouchables. Either way, they're not working for a living so much as ruling or scrabbling to survive.
Nale is not middle class; Tarquin's three-empire scheme was going pretty much his entire life, leaving him as the son of the Top General / secret dictator of wherever they were at the time. That and his attitude put him solidly in the aristocratic category.
Diago and Kazumi may have noble titles, but they're the definition of nouveau riche. If Kubota had killed them, I doubt the other Noble Houses would see it as anything other than getting rid of pretentious rabble.
Tarquin is even less Middle Class than Nale. He literally sips fine wine while watching slaves killed for his personal amusement.

Those are the most obvious ones, but going over the list more carefully will probably show more. Again; I like the idea, just the execution needs work.