OotS and the Mentally Handicapped [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

AKA_Bait

2013-12-30, 03:49 PM

The Giant has indicated that he is purposely working certain socially positive themes more intentionally into the comic in the most recent books. With that in mind, how do we think the Giant's depiction of the mentally handicapped fares?

A comment on the "least evil evil character" thread regarding Thog got me thinking about this issue and I found myself troubled.

Specifics on the depiction of Thog, as I read his portrayal:

Thog is, pretty unarguably, the recurring character with the lowest mental scores. The CL&G thread even uses him as a standard by which the scores of other low intelligence characters (such as Elan) are pegged. That thread also pegs him as being the only major character with an Int below eight and the only major character with penalties across all three mental attributes. According to the PHB, this puts him functionality-wise on par with a Troll at best.

Thog is explicitly portrayed as child-like (e.g., management through ice cream, and being allowed to stay up past his bed time on weekends). He's the only adult character so portrayed that I can think of. Thog is also a brutal murderer capable of making the decision to go on a rampage entirely on his own. Last, he is used as comic relief in a way that capitalizes almost exclusively on his stupidity, gullibility, or lack of understanding of his circumstances and in a manner such that he is unaware that he is the butt of the joke.

The depiction of Thog troubles me somewhat because of two implications about the mentally handicapped that could arguably be read into the comic:

(1) The mentally handicapped are generally capable of or inclined toward Thoggish behavior. Anyone who has ever had to participate in a town hall meeting on the placement of a group home for mentally handicapped adults can tell you that this is a real prejudice.

(2) Jokes made at the expense of the mentally handicapped are acceptable. For me, at least, these sorts of jokes are just as bad racial or gender based jokes. Such jokes are also not entirely uncommon but, as with race and gender jokes, they have become less common over time.

Two clarifications:

(1) Whether or not Thog would count as mentally handicapped by current medical definitions is not the point I'm getting at. He may very well not meet them. My concern is that he is the closest thing to a genuinely mentally handicapped major character in the comic, by a wide margin, and this is how that outlier character is portrayed.

(2) I don't believe that either of those messages are ones that the Giant intends. But, considering Thog's portrayal, I do think that how the mentally handicapped are portrayed merits a little discussion.

I, admittedly, have personal reasons to be particularly sensitive when it comes to the depiction of the mentally handicapped. I could just be oversensitive. What do you all think?

RickDaily12

2013-12-30, 04:06 PM

It's an interesting point that you do raise, and certainly not a viewpoint I've ever considered. And this is actually even alarming to me, since as a person, I try very hard to capitalize on a thing like empathy... :smalleek:

I'm torn, to be brutally honest... Because then we do have a person like Elan, who, in comic has been described incomic by Roy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0771.html) as mentally "differently-abled" in all senses of the word. We have, however, been able to see development on Elan's character in regards to his mental scores, but he has this luxury because he is a main character. Thog, however, does not. Neither did Crystal.

All three of their comic reliefs largely stemmed from their seemingly stupid actions or thought bubbles. But, this usually is the root of comedy... humor from being in a bizarre, unreal, yet almost harmless situation that tends to should be more embarrassing rather than offensive.

I never made the link to their characters to the mentally handicapped. It does raise good questions, sure, and of course the Giant never intended these implications. It makes me wonder more about what he said earlier about including more of LGBT characters- his reasoning for not doing this was his lack of experience with knowing how they approach things.

Hmm. Something worth asking, for sure. :smallconfused:

ORione

2013-12-30, 04:08 PM

I'm torn, to be brutally honest... Because then we do have a person like Elan, who, in comic has been described incomic by Roy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0771.html) as mentally "differently-abled" in all senses of the word.

I'm pretty sure that was Roy apologizing in advance for punching a guy with a peg leg.

RickDaily12

2013-12-30, 04:12 PM

...That was another interpretation I never considered. :smallredface:

Still, point standing that the three of those characters all have stupidity practically written across their faces for comedic purposes... and at first I was fine with this, but now I'm not as sure.

AKA_Bait

2013-12-30, 04:13 PM

I'm pretty sure that was Roy apologizing in advance for punching a guy with a peg leg.

Indeed.

I'm torn, to be brutally honest... Because then we do have a person like Elan, who, in comic has been described incomic by Roy (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0771.html) as mentally "differently-abled" in all senses of the word. We have, however, been able to see development on Elan's character in regards to his mental scores, but he has this luxury because he is a main character. Thog, however, does not. Neither did Crystal.

I don't really consider Elan and Crystal parallel examples to Thog. Probably because of their speech patterns and their possession of (at least some) obviously adult goals of their own. Neither feels to me like a depiction of a mentally disabled person, as opposed to just a generally unintelligent or unwise person. As such, their depictions do implicate my second concern, but not really my first.

KillianHawkeye

2013-12-30, 04:13 PM

The depiction of Thog troubles me somewhat because of two implications about the mentally handicapped that could arguably be read into the comic:

(1) The mentally handicapped are generally capable of or inclined toward Thoggish behavior. Anyone who has ever had to participate in a town hall meeting on the placement of a group home for mentally handicapped adults can tell you that this is a real prejudice.

(2) Jokes made at the expense of the mentally handicapped are acceptable. For me, at least, these sorts of jokes are just as bad racial or gender based jokes. Such jokes are also not entirely uncommon but, as with race and gender jokes, they have become less common over time.

I don't think it's fair to draw any general conclusions or inclinations about an entire minority based on the portrayal of a single character. We cannot possibly say that all mentally handicapped people would act like Thog. Only Thog acts like Thog.

:smallannoyed:

As for your second point, I'm not certain that any of the jokes in the comic have been made at the expense of Thog. Thog being a walking punchline does not necessarily mean Thog has been shown in a bad light because of his mental abilities. Rather the opposite, I should think. People on this forum love Thog because of his endearing personality, even in spite of all the horrible things he's done. I don't think we can say that Thog has been given a raw deal by being given a comedic role in the comic.

RickDaily12

2013-12-30, 04:17 PM

I don't really consider Elan and Crystal parallel examples to Thog. Probably because of their speech patterns and their possession of (at least some) obviously adult goals of their own. Neither feels to me like a depiction of a mentally disabled person, as opposed to just a generally unintelligent or unwise person. As such, their depictions do implicate my second concern, but not really my first.
Isn't that what we're discussing to begin with, or just the childish behaviour that we seem to see only within Thog? Because all three show childish behaviour at some point in the comic.

Thog tends to be more childish than bloodthirsty killer, and Crystal as the opposite, yet still true. Elan... is childish as well, but the way he handles himself when situations get serious crosses him as a bit more significantly mature than the other two in my mind.

But I digress- isn't the stupid childish behaviour as an adult the depiction we're concerned with here? After all, and you said so yourself- you weren't too sure about how Thog meets that criteria of the former, but the way he handles himself as the latter has you concerned enough about the former.

rbetieh

2013-12-30, 04:22 PM

I guess the question to ask is, have jokes been made at the expense of the lesser-minded character specifically because of their disability? Has anyone made fun of the disability?

Most other characters (Elan may be the exception) take Thog very seriously. Enor was portrayed as a rather Dim bulb, but he came up with a pretty nifty little scam that probably would have worked for a while. Elan seems to succeed despite his low Int score.

On the other end of the spectrum, having what is described to be above average intelligence didn't help Nale much. The comic does make fun of this character for being "Smart".

AKA_Bait

2013-12-30, 04:28 PM

I don't think it's fair to draw any general conclusions or inclinations about an entire minority based on the portrayal of a single character. We cannot possibly say that all mentally handicapped people would act like Thog. Only Thog acts like Thog.

We can't say the opposite either, based on the other characters we have seen in the comic. That concerns me, from a storytelling perspective. Also, as I said, I do not think that the Giant intends it to be read this way, but just as he didn't intend Haley's early comments to be as gendered as they were, I thought it was worth raising.

As for your second point, I'm not certain that any of the jokes in the comic have been made at the expense of Thog. Thog being a walking punchline does not necessarily mean Thog has been shown in a bad light because of his mental abilities. Rather the opposite, I should think. People on this forum love Thog because of his endearing personality, even in spite of all the horrible things he's done. I don't think we can say that Thog has been given a raw deal by being given a comedic role in the comic.

Do you disagree that the underlying essence of pretty much every Thog joke is "look how stupid/childish Thog is"? I'm not concerned with a fictional character getting a raw deal, I'm concerned with how that consistent form of joke can be read.

isn't the stupid childish behaviour as an adult the depiction we're concerned with here?

Yes, and I think that Thog is portrayed as more child-like than Elan or Crystal, and in a way that evokes the thought of mental disability differently than than Elan or Crystal's child-like behavior does.

Maybe a better way to put it is that Elan and Crystal are portrayed such that they can act like grownups sometimes. I don't think that Thog is portrayed that way, although I'll admit that his fight with Roy in the arena goes a little bit more in that direction.

Enor was portrayed as a rather Dim bulb, but he came up with a pretty nifty little scam that probably would have worked for a while.

You know, I'd forgotten about Enor. He may well be an example of the Giant attempting to move away from this more recently. Excuse me while I reread those strips.

Seto

2013-12-30, 04:33 PM

EDIT : I just read the other posts (there was no answer when I started mine), and I see you don't agree with the parallel I draw between Thog and Elan. I tried to argue that their similarities are underlined during their time together (which is IMO more important than their time apart, when discussing this), but if you don't agree then I won't convince you ;)

That's an interesting question that you raise. However, I wouldn't really agree, because I don't see Thog as the sole example of mentally challenged person (there's Elan too). I think the point of Thog is to show that Evil comes in all kinds of flavor, and doesn't need to be cruel or thought-out. I'm not sure that Thog's evil comes from his lack of judgment, but rather that his mental problems (sociopathy, particularly) give his evil all the space it needs.

I wouldn't say Thog leads to the message that "The mentally handicapped are generally capable of or inclined toward Thoggish behavior". I think it leads to the message that some of them are capable of it, but I don't see where the "generally" comes in.
Especially when there's Elan. I really see him as Thog's good counterpart. I think the strips they spent together really underline their similarities. Elan is less mentally deficient that Thog is (he's the brains of their team), but is often depicted as stupid, overly naive, and mentally challenged : when he does come up with good plans, someone usually stresses the fact that it was unexpected. Even Haley, who loves him more than anything, still clearly considers him as gullible and unaware of his circumstances (as you phrased it). And most of all, he's just as child-like as Thog is : the part that you quoted about "being allowed to stay up on weekends" even includes him.

We have two characters that are (at least on occasions) counterparts to each other (the similarity being their intellectual abilities) : one's clearly Evil and the other is one of the most Good characters in the comic. And, whereas Thog is exclusively a comic relief, Elan is much more than that, because he's a main character, whereas Thog isn't. He's shown to be an annoyance because of his "stupid" questions, but when Roy acts on it to decide that he doesn't wanna rescue him, that's the most evil act Roy ever did (according to the Deva). Besides, Elan, while a simple mind, is a complex soul : strips such as this one (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0681.html) (second panel) show that, in his simplicity, he sometimes nails it and surprises everyone by his insight. So, if anything, I'd be inclined to think that mentally challenged, naive, child-like characters are more positively than negatively characterized. Because there are two obvious such characters, and that the good one is a main, interesting character while the Evil one is a recurring character that mainly serves as comic relief. When you want to see what message about a category of people the comic conveys, looking at the most developed person of this category is more tell-tale than looking at the underdeveloped one :)

In other words, Elan is a (kinda) realistic mentally challenged person while Thog is a parody of one. Which brings us to the question : are jokes about this okay ? I'd answer using the same logic : they're not charitable, but when you take them seriously (so far as to act on them) it bites you in the ass, and you can't be too proud of yourself (see above my example of Roy).

RickDaily12

2013-12-30, 04:42 PM

Maybe a better way to put it is that Elan and Crystal are portrayed such that they can act like grownups sometimes. I don't think that Thog is portrayed that way, although I'll admit that his fight with Roy in the arena goes a little bit more in that direction.

I don't see Thog as the sole example of mentally challenged person (there's Elan too). I think the point of Thog is to show that Evil comes in all kinds of flavor, and doesn't need to be cruel or thought-out. I'm not sure that Thog's evil comes from his lack of judgment, but rather that his mental problems (sociopathy, particularly) give his evil all the space it needs.
Yeah. I mean, jokes at Thog's expense about his childish actions are one thing. Jokes at anyone's expense about their childish actions need to be considered, because adults acting like kids have clear implications to the question you raised, regardless of how often in-comic* they portray that side of them or not. This is why Elan and Crystal still fit in here.

* -Especially in-comic portrayal of these actions. A lot of Thog's out-of-comic actions involve a whole lot of sick pleasure of murdering people, and we just don't see this side of him often as opposed to his other. This kind of portrayal of his that we don't see is not childlike -at all-, and I'd be frightened if I even stopped to think if it did.

Likewise, Elan and Crystal are probably as dumb out of comic as they were normally at the time. So... I think we need to broaden the scope a bit more beyond Thog if this is the kind of question we're asking.

Sir_Leorik

2013-12-30, 04:44 PM

In the author commentary to W&XPs, The Giant does address the issue of Elan's childlike nature. One of the reasons that Elan had to be separated from the group and use his wits to escape prison (and return to Azure City) was that Rich was preparing to move Elan and Haley's relationship to the next level, and he was concerned about readers wondering if Haley was taking advantage of Elan. Hence Elan becoming proactive, gaining a level in Dashing Swordsman and saving Haley from Nale. Ever since, Elan has been on an arc of character growth; he may still be goofy and foolish, but he's clearly a mature adult (just one who makes foolish decisions for goofy reasons).

I see Enor more along the lines of Fezzik from "A Princess Bride"; Fezzik is usually seen as a brute, but he's quite clever. Fezzik can rhyme, and he comes up with common sense solutions to problems (such as getting horses for the group to escape Humperdink's castle). Enor's relationship to Gannji is a mix of Fezzik's relationship to both Vizzini and Inigo. Gannji tosses insults Enor's way, but he means them as a way of motivating the Half-Dragon/Half-Ogre, not out of malice. And the scene in the arena is really heart-rending.

Crystal has a paragraph or two devoted to her in DStP, where Rich discusses her relationship with Bozzok. In this case, the standard stereotype is reversed, with Bozzok, the Half-Orc, being smarter than Crystal, the Human, as opposed to Nale, the Human, and Thog, the Half-Orc. Bozzok keeps Crystal on a leash, to keep her from killing the wrong target out of anger, but she's definitely smarter than Thog.

Crystal and Thog's characters interact in Haleo and Julelan, with Crystal being marginally smarter than Thog. Thog does have a scene where a note has been pinned to his shirt so that merchants can give him products, and so he can invite characters to the masquerade ball. I can see how that can be seen as derogatory towards the mentally handicapped.

SavageWombat

2013-12-30, 04:53 PM

To assist with the debate, note that we have the portrayal of the orcs on the island - the Giggles worshippers - who speak and act comparably to Thog. This gives us data points beyond the single character.

SmartAlec

2013-12-30, 04:54 PM

Do you disagree that the underlying essence of pretty much every Thog joke is "look how stupid/childish Thog is"? I'm not concerned with a fictional character getting a raw deal, I'm concerned with how that consistent form of joke can be read.

There are many jokes involving Thog in which he effectively out-performs someone more intelligent by being simple-minded and direct. Not stupid; but simple-minded, and direct. Like Elan, Thog is capable of insights that other characters are not. It's up to you if you see those as Thog Jokes, or just jokes involving Thog.

Sir_Leorik

2013-12-30, 04:57 PM

Brookshw

2013-12-30, 04:58 PM

This is an interesting point though I'm skeptical. Thog was originally just a contrast to Roy, and where Roy is intelligent, Thog is rather lacking. Ii don't think I ever associated this with a mental handicap as much as that with some slapstick thrown in. Similar perhaps to the Empress of blood likewise being stupid. I don't feel the giant has attempted to bring any level of mental handicap in, certainly not with any intention of casting a negative light.

hamishspence

2013-12-30, 04:58 PM

And Therkla's mother, as well. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0555.html)

And the orcs in Origin of PCs.

Chronos

2013-12-30, 05:08 PM

Let's also not forget Monster-San. He's clearly smart in at least some ways (O-Chul seems to think he's picking up Go remarkably quickly), but he's certainly not so bright in other ways, and is definitely childish overall. Yet, despite being (presumably) a sort of creature generally associated with evil, and being brought up in the company of villains of the worst sort, he remains a fundamentally decent being.

AKA_Bait

2013-12-30, 05:08 PM

A lot of Thog's out-of-comic actions involve a whole lot of sick pleasure of murdering people, and we just don't see this side of him often as opposed to his other. This kind of portrayal of his that we don't see is not childlike -at all-, and I'd be frightened if I even stopped to think if it did.

Well, the reason concern (1) came up is because the only adult things we see Thog do are violent. Sometimes, the child like behavior and the murder are shown happening (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0051.html)simultaneously (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0361.html).

Likewise, Elan and Crystal are probably as dumb out of comic as they were normally at the time. So... I think we need to broaden the scope a bit more beyond Thog if this is the kind of question we're asking.

Well, as I said, on concern two, looking beyond Thog actually reinforces the concern raised.

I see Enor more along the lines of Fezzik from "A Princess Bride"; Fezzik is usually seen as a brute, but he's quite clever. Fezzik can rhyme, and he comes up with common sense solutions to problems (such as getting horses for the group to escape Humperdink's castle). Enor's relationship to Gannji is a mix of Fezzik's relationship to both Vizzini and Inigo. Gannji tosses insults Enor's way, but he means them as a way of motivating the Half-Dragon/Half-Ogre, not out of malice. And the scene in the arena is really heart-rending.

First read through of their scenes left me with a kind of "Of Mice and Men" feeling, but I'm going to go through them again and see if it hits me the same way.

Crystal and Thog's characters interact in Haleo and Julelan, with Crystal being marginally smarter than Thog. Thog does have a scene where a note has been pinned to his shirt so that merchants can give him products, and so he can invite characters to the masquerade ball. I can see how that can be seen as derogatory towards the mentally handicapped.

I wasn't even aware of that, but it does seem to support my point about Thog being the character most closely portrayed to a mentally disabled person.

To assist with the debate, note that we have the portrayal of the orcs on the island - the Giggles worshippers - who speak and act comparably to Thog. This gives us data points beyond the single character.

I'm not sure if this helps with concern (1). MM Orcs have penalties across all three mental attributes, like Thog. The Orcs on the Island are shown as child-like and prone to violence.

I don't think I ever associated this with a mental handicap as much as that with some slapstick thrown in.

I would argue that's pretty common with that type of joke, just as many other kinds of derogatory joke aren't always recognized as such without stepping back a bit.

I don't feel the giant has attempted to bring any level of mental handicap in, certainly not with any intention of casting a negative light.

I agree with you there. He wasn't trying to bring slut-shaming in with Haley's early portrayal either, but he admits now that it can be read to be there.

Let's also not forget Monster-San. He's clearly smart in at least some ways (O-Chul seems to think he's picking up Go remarkably quickly), but he's certainly not so bright in other ways, and is definitely childish overall. Yet, despite being (presumably) a sort of creature generally associated with evil, and being brought up in the company of villains of the worst sort, he remains a fundamentally decent being.

Monster san isn't depicted as having a penalty across all three mental attributes and is shown as having a high Int. Also, we don't know that he's a adult and many have speculated that he's not.

Edit:

And Therkla's mother, as well. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0555.html)

To be honest, that panel always made me cringe for essentially the same reasons that the Giant felt the need to have Elan mature before taking his relationship with Haley to the next level.

Gift Jeraff

2013-12-30, 05:12 PM

I don't really consider Elan and Crystal parallel examples to Thog. Probably because of their speech patterns

But Thog's (and, as pointed out above, full-blooded orcs') speech pattern is a reference to Hulk Speak.

Amphiox

2013-12-30, 05:17 PM

Isn't that what we're discussing to begin with, or just the childish behaviour that we seem to see only within Thog? Because all three show childish behaviour at some point in the comic.

Thog tends to be more childish than bloodthirsty killer, and Crystal as the opposite, yet still true. Elan... is childish as well, but the way he handles himself when situations get serious crosses him as a bit more significantly mature than the other two in my mind.

If in the sense that "maturity" means "acting in a way a child would not and an adult could", there are different senses of maturity at play here, and different classes of abilities.

Elan is childish a lot of the time, but in certain circumstances behaves with very adult competence.

Thog is precisely the same, except the circumstance in which he behaves with very adult competence is mass murder, mass murder being a decidedly adult skillset that the typical child is not very capable at (even if he had motivation to try it).

unbeliever536

2013-12-30, 05:34 PM

I'm not sure if this helps with concern (1). MM Orcs have penalties across all three mental attributes, like Thog. The Orcs on the Island are shown as child-like and prone to violence.

Actually, many (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0555.html) of the jokes about the island orcs have to do with them being intelligent, reasonable people (despite their difficulties with grammar). On reflection, that storyline seems to indicate that Thog's speech pattern is not (solely, at least) caused by his low intelligence.

AKA_Bait

2013-12-30, 05:40 PM

Actually, many (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0555.html) of the jokes about the island orcs have to do with them being intelligent, reasonable people (despite their difficulties with grammar). On reflection, that storyline seems to indicate that Thog's speech pattern is not (solely, at least) caused by his low intelligence.

I'm confused as to which jokes in there make them intelligent, reasonable people. Was it the adoption of a hand-puppet god, the threat to eat Quarr, the deference to Therkla just because she's an (half) orc, or the half-orcs are created by rape inversion joke?

AlaskaOOTSFan

2013-12-30, 05:42 PM

YMMV, but I see Thog as a slow-witted, cruel person.

I see Enor as a slow-witted, practical person.

I see Elan as a naive, initially infantile maturity good person.

Monster-San is a person of child-like mentality, who is grappling with morality.

The orcs on the island were people who didn't have access to knowledge, IMO.

I guess you could see Thog as a mentally handicapped "evil" person, but I just don't get that from his personality (for reference, my son is severely autistic and I am his mother take care of him).

I think there's a nice range here - shows you that those that aren't fully mentally equipped can be good, evil and practical. Just like everyone else :smallsmile:

AlaskaOOTSFan

2013-12-30, 05:44 PM

I'm confused as to which jokes in there make them intelligent, reasonable people. Was it the adoption of a hand-puppet god, the threat to eat Quarr, the deference to Therkla just because she's an (half) orc, or the half-orcs are created by rape inversion joke?

They picked up language pretty well, and looked forward to learn more.

In 559, once the charm is dispelled, they don't want to hurt anyone and want to live in peace and harmony.

In 553, everything went....well, considering the orcs were probably used to people attacking them on sight.

Sir_Leorik

2013-12-30, 05:53 PM

But Thog's (and, as pointed out above, full-blooded orcs') speech pattern is a reference to Hulk Speak.

The only characters to speak in "Hulk Speak" in the comic are Thog and full-blooded Orcs. Therkla and Bozzok speakl normally, as does Enor (and all other Ogres that have appeared in the comic.) The MitD speaks quite clearly.
In fact the Stereotypical Big Game Hunters were astonished to hear the MitD speaking Common.

Every Goblin or Hobgoblin to ever appear, and every Kobold, has also spoken normal Common. And V's adopted children speak very formal Elven, despite going to Kindergarten.

unbeliever536

2013-12-30, 06:02 PM

That's what I get for only reading the top four panels. This (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0552.html) is a better example; the orcs, seeing their "mission" is being accomplished by other orcs (who they assess to be competent), stop chasing the humans and go home to attend to things they actually want to do. Their dialogue throughout the storyline is also full of sarcastic asides and quips about common orc/island-folk tropes. Overall, they parallel (to my eyes, at least), all the other villainous mooks we've been shown (especially the hobgoblins). The only difference is that their dialogue is given in the same style as Thog's. The actual content of their speech is a variation on the same content Rich gives to most of the villain groups that appear in the comic.

warrl

2013-12-30, 06:06 PM

II don't really consider Elan and Crystal parallel examples to Thog. Probably because of their speech patterns

I don't see the speech patterns as indicating mental deficiency. I see them as indicating that his native language (Orcish, I'd guess) has a different arrangement of pronouns and for one reason or another he chooses to not try to keep the Common Speech pronouns straight. I've read stories with obviously-highly-intelligent characters who did likewise.

and their possession of (at least some) obviously adult goals of their own.

Lots of young adults have no apparent adult goals. Sometimes they actually don't have any adult goals (typically these folks are adults only in the chronological and biological senses, not mental or emotional), sometimes because their adult goals can - at the moment - be most effectively pursued by what appears to be default behavior for their age (e.g. going to college, working the "dead-end" job the way their boss tells them, etc.)

Mind you, I do suspect that Thog's intelligence is in the lower part of normal human range, and perhaps - but only perhaps - a bit lower than that. I don't foresee him earning a doctoral degree in any plausible lifetime.

But I wouldn't say that he is *clearly* less intelligent/wise than Elan. Certainly not noticeably more intelligent/wise either...

Rakoa

2013-12-30, 06:15 PM

I would just like to stop by and say that I am both impressed and surprised that this conversation is going so well.

And I hope I didn't just jinx anything.

Beige Dragon

2013-12-30, 06:22 PM

I don't really see the point, I guess. So Thog is unintelligent. Obviously, this must mean he's mentally handicapped, and thus its wrong for a comedy based comic to provide jokes? Thog is dumb, and he was created to be the brunt of jokes. The giant most likely does not think mentally handicapped people are like thog, as you said you believe this is not "intentional". No one is going to see Thog, and judge mentally handicapped people that way. I just don't see the harm.

Sir_Leorik

2013-12-30, 06:27 PM

Mind you, I do suspect that Thog's intelligence is in the lower part of normal human range, and perhaps - but only perhaps - a bit lower than that. I don't foresee him earning a doctoral degree in any plausible lifetime.

But I wouldn't say that he is *clearly* less intelligent/wise than Elan. Certainly not noticeably more intelligent/wise either...

I disagree. Look at how Elan and Thog behave during their Cliffport escape. Elan is struggling to come up with a good plan, but he actually manages to do two things successfully: steal clothes and bluff their way onto The Blackjack. Then they get kicked off because Elan and Thog can't maintain the pretense of being "Final Fantasy VI" characters. While Elan isn't that great at coming up with solutions, he's trying to think. Contrast Thog who whines about wanting to get his greataxe back, and later continues to wear a leprechaun costume, even though they're no longer going to do whatever Elan's wacky scheme was.

Later on, V instructs Elan on which Illusions are more effective, Elan begins to plan out his build so he can be a more effective hero, and Elan is inspired by Roy's off-hand comment, to Send to Julio. Thog is content to murder his opponents in the Arena. Nale never bothered trying to free Thog (maybe he figured it was a good source of free XP until the Linear Guild was ready to go after Girard's Gate), and Thog doesn't seem to have cared.

Boogastreehouse

2013-12-30, 06:33 PM

I think it looks better with a little space

Thog is a parody of the Hulk and, by extension, a parody of D&D characters whom their players (often lazily) model after the Hulk, and play with Hulk-like characteristics.

The Giant is under no obligation to be sensitive in his portrayal of Hulk-like characters, because there are no real-life Hulks being harmed, degraded or exploited by his comic. (Well, except maybe this Hulk (http://filmcrithulk.wordpress.com/))

This is a comic full of jokes and the Giant makes jokes involving many low-intelligence characters; Belkar, Elan, Enor, and The Empress of Blood come to mind. The Giant also makes jokes at the expense of high-intelligence characters such as Vaarsuvius, Roy and Redcloak, and Tarquin, often implying that their intelligence is a hindrance. I fail to see what the difference is, and I fail to see what the problem is.

I think it looks better with a little space

cobaltstarfire

2013-12-30, 06:35 PM

I have to be honest, I've never really thought of Thog as a special needs character, just extremely childish...but on further inspection I suppose he is special needs as he is an adult who needs to be looked after by others, and has at the very least a severe learning disability.

So after reviewing that (this thread prompted me to reflect on all the special needs kids I've worked at) and looking back over Thog's appearances, no I don't think that he is a "negative" depiction those with special needs, not any more so than any other evil character is a negative depiction of something.

Thog when not acting on his more evil impulses is a sweet dispositioned and simple minded character. All the other characters (so far as I have seen) treat him with understanding and care, and respect his needs and the limit of his abilities.

Yes, he acts childish, but that isn't really too far off the behavior you will see from some who have special needs and are functional, but not enough so to go without a care taker to some degree.

I feel like he's a fair representation I guess?

(I hope I'm saying what I mean properly....I seem to be pretty bad at that)

Bird

2013-12-30, 06:44 PM

veti

2013-12-30, 06:57 PM

And what about the mentally ill? We've seen Miko, Tarquin, (arguably) Darth V - basically, the equation is "mentally ill = incredibly violent and dangerous...".

Well, the answer is: if they weren't, they wouldn't be in the story. There are no doubt many thousands of very-low-mentally-statted people in the OOTS, living peacefully at home, helping to look after their elderly parents and earning what they can through very simple errands or jobs or going into politics.

But those people, pretty much by definition, don't make an appearance in the strip. The ones we see are the ones who require some sort of heroic interaction. In other words, the dangerous ones.

DaggerPen

2013-12-30, 06:58 PM

I personally do not see Thog as either an intentional or unintentional representation of the real-world mentally handicapped, largely because Thog strikes me primarily as a metafictional joke.

The point of Thog is not that he is dumb so much as he is representative of a certain approach towards D&D. Thog, unlike most OotS characters, has at least minimal interest in min/maxing -- he didn't take fighter level 3 because there's no bonus feat, for example.

Take the arena fight with Roy. Thog is puzzled about why Roy would crow over a higher intelligence score, when such a score does not lead to higher combat attributes. Thog has focused as well as he can on maximizing his melee potential -- moreso than Roy has. In this instance, Roy's concession towards intelligence is proven right -- his Knowledge (Architecture & Engineering) saves him -- but Thog's argument isn't stupid. It's just indicative of what some real-world folks who are not mentally handicapped think about D&D builds. Plus, for what it's worth, he was this close to killing Roy.

In other words, Thog actually has a point about not needing a good intelligence score. Many folks running a barbarian would feel the same way. He really is low-intelligence, but this is a comment about how being dumb in Dungeons & Dragons can be smart (or at least defensible).

My position, I admit, is somewhat weakened/complicated by the fact that the Giant has been moving away from rules-based humor, and the fact that he has stated that the OotS characters do not have players.

Also, Thog's jokes usually aren't about him being stupid, per se, but more about him saying something something with elements of eloquence, genius or maturity incongruously juxtaposed with his immaturity or broken grammar.

"Thog elegant in Thog's simplicity"
"Thog thankful for update on talky-man's relationship status"

etc.

Unlike other characters in OotS, Thog has always seemed (to me) to be written as though he has a player, and that that player enjoys filtering clever/odd sayings through Thog-speak in order to get a laugh. Even discarding the "player" idea, he doesn't act like a real person, and I don't think he's supposed to act like a real person, handicapped or otherwise. As such, I never feel like the mentally handicapped are being represented when he says something.

All that said, this issue is certainly something worth interrogation. I certainly appreciate how someone could feel that Thog is an insensitive portrayal of the mentally handicapped, even if that wasn't the authorial intent.

I'm largely in agreement with this.

One thing that's also worth noting, I think, is that the common "intellectually disabled person = child in an adult's body with no self-determination whatsoever" perception is generally a pretty harmful thing - intellectually disabled adults are adults whose mind works at a slower pace than average, not children in larger bodies - so I actually kind of enjoy Thog's subversion of the "intellectually disabled person who is misled into doing bad things by an evil person" trope. Thog isn't particularly bright, but that doesn't mean that he's incapable of determining things for himself - even if he makes the wrong decision.

Mind you, some "x character is so dumb!" jokes definitely rub me the wrong way, and I definitely think this discussion is productive, but I don't think Thog is an example of a bad portrayal of an intellectually disabled person.

As for some of the other examples - I'm undecided on Elan and Crystal, but I think that Enor is neutral to positive as these portrayals go. The Empress of Blood kind of rubs me the wrong way, though.

Sir_Leorik

2013-12-30, 07:03 PM

Thog is a parody of the Hulk and, by extension, a parody of D&D characters whom their players (often lazily) model after the Hulk, and play with Hulk-like characteristics.

Fun facts: when he first appeared the Hulk did not speak in Hulk Speak. He referred to himself as "I" or "Me", not "Hulk". He spoke complete sentences. He had a slight case of amnesia on his first transformation from Bruce Banner into the Hulk, but otherwise seemed to have at least average intelligence. When he later joined the Avengers (for all of two issues) he was also speaking normally. It was only much later on that the Hulk's intellect became more and more child-like. Then for a time Bruce Banner was able to retain his intellect when transformed into the Hulk. Then Bruce Banner and the Hulk were separated and the Hulk became a mindless beast, lashing out at everyone around him. To reverse that a risky procedure was undertaken... which left the Hulk shorter, with greyish skin, and a much more sophisticated diction. So sophisticated, in fact, that the Hulk was hired as a leg-breaker and security guard for a Mob-run casino in Las Vegas, under the pseudonym "Joe Fix-It".

Later on Bruce Banner was diagnosed with dissassociative identity disorder, and his three personas (Bruce Banner, The Incredible Hulk and "Mr. Fix-It") were merged into the Gestalt, or Professor Hulk. Professor Hulk had Banner's intellect and memories, Mr. Fix-It's snarky attitude and loose morals, and The Hulk's anger management issues. Eventually Bruce and the Hulk formed a stable relationship, with Bruce Banner being himself, and Hulk being a brooding loner, occassional berserker, and member of the Avengers. He generally speaks quietly, does not refer to himself in the third person, and battles Wolverine and Hawkeye over the contents of Avengers Tower's refrigerator.

The Giant

2013-12-30, 09:13 PM

CoffeeIncluded

2013-12-30, 09:48 PM

Thank you, Giant. That is a really important aspect about Thog; I think many of us, myself included, believed that he wasn't as capable at telling right from wrong as, say, Roy is.

Though that does raise another question, out of curiosity. Would you portray a character with a mental handicap that does not affect their intelligence (for example, high-functioning autism or bipolar disorder) seriously in the comic? Or would that be too touchy a subject?

Keltest

2013-12-30, 09:55 PM

Given that it is a D&D based world and people have a degree of influence over intelligence and wisdom not present in the real world, any commentary he is trying to make (assuming he is making any) is totally invalidated by the simple fact that if they wanted to be smarter, they could take steps to do so.

Harbinger

2013-12-30, 09:56 PM

I've always thought of Enor as mentally disabled, because I always equated him and Gannji to George and Lennie from Of Mice and Men. I never thought of it as a negative portrayal though.

The Giant

2013-12-30, 10:01 PM

Though that does raise another question, out of curiosity. Would you portray a character with a mental handicap that does not affect their intelligence (for example, high-functioning autism or bipolar disorder) seriously in the comic? Or would that be too touchy a subject?

No, I would not. I have virtually no personal experience with such issues, have nothing specific to say about them, and can see no way in which a character with such an issue could in any way illuminate any of the things I do want to talk about. Plus, it would be functionally impossible for such a character to ever do or say anything funny without me getting attacked forever for it, and I try not to put characters in the comic who don't have at least some hook for humor.

And yes, I realize saying this will get someone to attack me for not being inclusive enough. Whatever, I'll take it.

CoffeeIncluded

2013-12-30, 10:21 PM

No, I would not. I have virtually no personal experience with such issues, have nothing specific to say about them, and can see no way in which a character with such an issue could in any way illuminate any of the things I do want to talk about. Plus, it would be functionally impossible for such a character to ever do or say anything funny without me getting attacked forever for it, and I try not to put characters in the comic who don't have at least some hook for humor.

And yes, I realize saying this will get someone to attack me for not being inclusive enough. Whatever, I'll take it.

Thank you, that all makes perfect sense.

The Oni

2013-12-30, 10:33 PM

I'd just like to point out there's a good comparison to Thog in Bozzok. What is Bozzok if not a smarter Thog with the same morality?

Porthos

2013-12-30, 10:41 PM

The Giant is under no obligation to be sensitive in his portrayal of Hulk-like characters, because there are no real-life Hulks being harmed, degraded or exploited by his comic. (Well, except maybe this Hulk (http://filmcrithulk.wordpress.com/))

I just want to make a side point that Film Crit Hulk is awesome and everyone who wants more awesome things in the world should be reading him (more of his work can be found here (http://badassdigest.com/author/67)).

Personally I would love to hear what he thinks of OotS (It's not impossible that he reads it, given his love of comicdom). I suspect he'd be a fan. But it'd be nice to see it confirmed. :smallwink:

Bird

2013-12-31, 12:00 AM

To me, the closest person to that 2/3 INT range was Eric Greenhilt.

Now, a toddler is of course not the same thing as an adult with a mental handicap. It just always struck me that this kid is going to be stuck with a toddler's intellect forever. (Well, maybe he'll 'grow up' somehow, eventually. But there's nothing in the comic to establish that he will age. Does he have a LG alignment, too, or was he granted some special dispensation to enter?)

SavageWombat

2013-12-31, 12:07 AM

Bird

2013-12-31, 01:54 AM

I'm not sure I'd portray someone mentally handicapped as "INT between 2-3" considering the range of competence involved. That's where other game systems would be better for handling this - with some sort of Disadvantage or Flaw. Not that most systems would be capable of writing rules for such a trait with any tact.
Well, yes, fair point. It's more complicated than that.

D&D runs on abstractions. Reducing a whole complex of competencies and aptitudes into one score ("intelligence") is indicative of the level of nuance we're working with, even before we try to introduce wrinkles like mental handicaps into the mix.

rbetieh

2013-12-31, 02:37 AM

I'd just like to point out there's a good comparison to Thog in Bozzok. What is Bozzok if not a smarter Thog with the same morality?

Hmmm, I always saw Bozzok as less of a kick down the door, rampaging is a core skill half-orc and more of a run over his own mother for one more copper piece half-orc. More in common with Enor and Ganji than Thog. Thog has a....life is a game....attitude, Bozzok takes himself a lot more seriously.

AKA_Bait

2013-12-31, 03:05 AM

Edit:

To start, I want to be very clear that I did not start this thread as any sort of attack on The Giant or this comic. I'm a huge fan of this comic and the community that has grown up around it. I have been reading it for the majority of my adult life (which is a weird thing to realize). The Order of the Stick is, in my view, one of the best and most socially positive comics I have ever read. I intend for my children to read it. My thoughts on this particular subject are not intended as any sort of condemnation. I simply think that, from a literary perspective, this issue is worth talking about and is perhaps a weakness in an otherwise stellar artistic creation. Please, please, consider everything I write below as coming from that angle.

I don't consider any of the characters in the entire comic to be "mentally handicapped." Thog is not smart compared to Roy, but he does not have an atypical neurology. He is capable of determining right from wrong, and chooses wrong consistently. I know people like to project this idea onto Thog that he's not responsible for his actions because he's dumb, but…he is responsible. We know he is because the orcs on the island are the same as him and don't murder people just for fun.

Thank you, Giant. That is a really important aspect about Thog; I think many of us, myself included, believed that he wasn't as capable at telling right from wrong as, say, Roy is.

I agree with CoffeeIncluded that this was a really positive clarification. However, that it was necessary supports my point. Lots of positive, reasonable, pro-comic readers don't think that Thog comes across as an adult actor fully capable of making his own moral decisions. I have always read him as being able to do so, but a fair number of reasonable, non-hostile readers don't perceive him that way and many of them will never access the forum, let alone this thread (or the index) to be set straight by the voice of the author. Some readers like me also read Thog as somewhat mentally handicapped and capable of making his own moral decisions nonetheless.

I'd also like to observe here, again, that I don't think the portrayal of the Orcs on the Island helps this reading. I read them as dim witted ("was getting hard to decide what right and wrong for self (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0555.html)") and easily steered toward eager violence ("hooray! sacrifice back on agenda (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0557.html)!"; "hitting people more our thing anyway (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0561.html)"). That they are not as sociopathically violent as Thog and can be peaceful if given proper motivation doesn't really erase that for me. Under the right set of beliefs (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0387.html), Thog can peacefully interact with the PCs too.

Also, Thog does have an atypical neurology for a human, as do all of the Orcs on the Island. Your typical Orc has a -2 adjustment across all three mental scores as a PC and a -2, -3, -4 adjustment for your run of the mill MM Orc. An average D&D human has no penalties to any of those scores. Is this a problem with the system in terms of tacit condonation of racial stereotyping? Yes, I'd say that it is. In a comic that has gone out of its way (laudably so) to combat some of those very problems with the system, I'd say that it also can become an issue regarding the mentally disabled.

In D&D terms, anyone who has an Intelligence of 3 or higher is capable of determining right from wrong (because they have an alignment)

I'm not sure that this really reaches the issue I'm getting at. Wyrmling through juvenile Black Dragons have an Int score of 8-10 and they have an alignment, but in the world of the comic we don't really consider them accountable moral agents because they are children. I'm not sure I see why a mentally disabled character, which per below must have an Int of 3 or higher and an alignment, is all that different.

generally looking after themselves on a daily basis while adventuring in a dangerous dungeon.

Part of the problem is that we, as readers, don't have any evidence of Thog actually doing this. At least in the online material he has always been with the Linear Guild, with Elan, or a guest of the state (either in Freeport or the EOB).

Which means the bulk of the spectrum of mental handicaps probably sits somewhere below 3 and above 2, because it's a system designed for action-adventure and it doesn't need more granularity than that.

This I must simply disagree with. The PHB describes an Int of 3 as absolute floor number for a "creature of humanlike intelligence." I don't think that most mentally disabled people, even the severely disabled, fall somewhere between Int 2 (a Tiger, Hydra, Dog, or Horse) and Int 3 (Gray render, Tendriculos, or Rast). MMI indicates that nothing without at least an Int of 3 can speak a language.

But, even putting that system nit pick aside, that the system doesn't require more granularity is not a great defense for the comic. This comic is a really fantastic piece of literature that tries, and succeeds, to do much more than the D&D 3.5 system is intended to do.

If I was depicting Thog (or anyone else) as displaying behaviors and attitudes common among actual mentally disabled people and then mocking them, you would certainly have a point. I don't think I am. Thog is "fantasy dumb." It's a trope of the genre that I'm using, not a reflection of the real world.

The point I'm trying to make is that "fantasy dumb" can look like mental handicap depending upon its presentation. As a trope of the genre, it has that problem, just as other tropes of the genre (busty women in skimpy chain mail; inherently evil sentient creatures to be killed on sight) also have problems.

I know everyone loves to repeat that line I said about the only worthwhile part of fantasy being what it tells us about the real world, but that doesn't need to apply to every single part of the entire story. Sometimes, you have to sell the rest of the fantasy world straight in order to highlight the things you want to talk about. The "barbarians are stupid" cliché falls into that category for me.

And that's a perfectly valid authorial choice that makes for an excellent comic. However, I think it's also fair for readers to discuss those cliches of the fantasy genre you decided were not the thing you wanted to talk about. What a good author decides not to address but to passively include, when juxtaposed against to what they choose to address, is a valid way for an audience to critique a literary work.

And if your argument is that I should only have people of below-average intelligence behave as pure innocent saints, well, that's a whole other sort of harmful portrayal. I'll take my story where people on both ends of the IQ scale are equally capable of the full range of morality, thanks.

That's not my argument. My point is that the comic seems to lack any character on the Thog end of the mental scale to balance his capability for evil with capability for good. If the comic had some character with comparable mental scores to Thog but who isn't evil as well as Thog, that would entirely eliminate the concerns I raised. Whether Elan fits that bill (which I don't think he does but other posters do) has been part of the discussion.

I personally do not see Thog as either an intentional or unintentional representation of the real-world mentally handicapped, largely because Thog strikes me primarily as a metafictional joke.

The point of Thog is. . .

I initially read him that way too. I still do, particularly because I'm aware of the authorial intent behind the character. But I do so just as I didn't read anything negative into Haley's choice of language early in the comic. I understand what the point was (1) because I'm familiar with D&D 3.5, (2) because I've been reading this comic and the Giant's commentary on it for almost ten years. That doesn't mean that the comic can't also read the other way to other reasonable people who aren't looking to be offended.

One thing that's also worth noting, I think, is that the common "intellectually disabled person = child in an adult's body with no self-determination whatsoever" perception is generally a pretty harmful thing - intellectually disabled adults are adults whose mind works at a slower pace than average, not children in larger bodies - so I actually kind of enjoy Thog's subversion of the "intellectually disabled person who is misled into doing bad things by an evil person" trope.

I agree that the "disabled people have no agency" trope is a bad thing and that Thog's subversion of it is a good thing. My point is that the subversion, standing as the lone portrayal of a seemingly mentally disabled character, can also be read straight, bringing with that reading its own harmful stereotypes.

I've always thought of Enor as mentally disabled, because I always equated him and Gannji to George and Lennie from Of Mice and Men. I never thought of it as a negative portrayal though.

I initially read it that way too. On a reread, I don't see Enor as having enough of an Int penalty to really be disabled rather than just having a below average intelligence. I'm sort of in between your reading of him and Sir_Leorik's.

I'd just like to point out there's a good comparison to Thog in Bozzok. What is Bozzok if not a smarter Thog with the same morality?

Actually, I think that Thog is a significantly worse person that Bozzok. Bozzok doesn't seem to derive pleasure from the act of murdering random people.

Thrillhouse

2013-12-31, 06:18 AM

There's too many issues with looking at Thog as a stand-in for a mentally handicapped person.

A) He's not fully human. Thog's intelligence may actually be quite natural given WHAT HE IS, so the notion of handicap here doesn't really work.

B) Thog's evil is clearly a desire he indulges entirely separate from his intelligence. "Resisting arrest is fun!" while he slaughters the cops comes to mind, and far from him being manipulated by Nale into doing evil things against his true nature, we actually frequently get the impression that Nale has a HARD TIME CONTROLLING Thog's murderous desires--I don't remember which comic it was, but I recall a joke about ice cream being the only way to postpone Thog's lifelong murderous rampage. Indeed, while some other works might, OOTS doesn't seem to subscribe to the notion that evil is irrational or caused by ignorance, since it's often the more intelligent characters that commit the truly spine-chilling acts of evil. (Which, without getting too much into real world stuff, is essentially how history tells the story)

C) "Stupidity" is not necessarily the same thing as being mentally handicapped. Thog is clearly "stupid", but this isn't really the same. There are people with very good minds that are stupid--Tarquin, for example, despite being in some ways quite intelligent, is clearly pretty stupid. He ignores good advice from his friends and is getting in way over his head and more likely than not going to die in a less-than-dramatic way as a result. He's NOT USING the considerable mental faculties he possesses--thus, he's being stupid.

On the other hand, based on my limited experience(I volunteered at a school for severely developmentally disabled children to gain teaching experience for that job that I still don't have) I don't see the mentally disabled as "stupid". Someone who's not capable of talking because of their handicap but tries to learn how to talk is certainly not stupid. Someone willing to put a great deal of time and effort into solving a puzzle, even if the puzzle is very simple objectively speaking, is obviously not stupid. Alternatively, a well educated politician who decides to send some ill-advised pictures of himself to a woman and is surprised when this causes scandal is absolutely stupid, despite having likely higher than average IQ. (And if you think I'm trying to work in some political discussion here, I'm not. This kind of story is so common now that it's not even a story.)

Seto

2013-12-31, 06:59 AM

C) "Stupidity" is not necessarily the same thing as being mentally handicapped. Thog is clearly "stupid", but this isn't really the same. There are people with very good minds that are stupid--Tarquin, for example, despite being in some ways quite intelligent, is clearly pretty stupid. He ignores good advice from his friends and is getting in way over his head and more likely than not going to die in a less-than-dramatic way as a result. He's NOT USING the considerable mental faculties he possesses--thus, he's being stupid.

On the other hand, based on my limited experience(I volunteered at a school for severely developmentally disabled children to gain teaching experience for that job that I still don't have) I don't see the mentally disabled as "stupid". Someone who's not capable of talking because of their handicap but tries to learn how to talk is certainly not stupid. Someone willing to put a great deal of time and effort into solving a puzzle, even if the puzzle is very simple objectively speaking, is obviously not stupid. Alternatively, a well educated politician who decides to send some ill-advised pictures of himself to a woman and is surprised when this causes scandal is absolutely stupid, despite having likely higher than average IQ. (And if you think I'm trying to work in some political discussion here, I'm not. This kind of story is so common now that it's not even a story.)

This last point is adressed in D&D terms by the distinction between "Intelligence" and "Wisdom" as stats. Your argument seems to be that "stupidity" is low Wisdom and not low Intelligence, and that mentally disabled persons have mid Wisdom and low Intelligence.
It's debatable, but in any case, as OP pointed out, all three of Thog's mental stats (Wisdom, Intelligence and Charisma, the latter being largely irrelevant in this case) are probably below average. So, Thog's mental capabilities are still nothing like Tarquin's, even if you could say both are "stupid".

Keltest

2013-12-31, 08:26 AM

AKA_Bait

2013-12-31, 11:38 AM

There's too many issues with looking at Thog as a stand-in for a mentally handicapped person.

A) He's not fully human. Thog's intelligence may actually be quite natural given WHAT HE IS, so the notion of handicap here doesn't really work.

If this comic were still a three gags a week D&D spoof, I would totally agree with you. It's moved into something better now. The notion of "x racial thing in D&D shouldn't be critiqued because of what y creature is by RAW" is something the comic has actively worked against in other contexts.

B) Thog's evil is clearly a desire he indulges entirely separate from his intelligence. "Resisting arrest is fun!" while he slaughters the cops comes to mind, and far from him being manipulated by Nale into doing evil things against his true nature, we actually frequently get the impression that Nale has a HARD TIME CONTROLLING Thog's murderous desires--I don't remember which comic it was, but I recall a joke about ice cream being the only way to postpone Thog's lifelong murderous rampage. Indeed, while some other works might, OOTS doesn't seem to subscribe to the notion that evil is irrational or caused by ignorance, since it's often the more intelligent characters that commit the truly spine-chilling acts of evil. (Which, without getting too much into real world stuff, is essentially how history tells the story)

My point is exactly that because Thog has agency and is, arguably, the only example in the comic of a seriously disabled person, the depiction of that very agency for evil can be tacitly supporting some of the more negative steriotypes about the mentally handicapped (i.e. that they are more capable of random violence than the average person).

On the other hand, based on my limited experience(I volunteered at a school for severely developmentally disabled children to gain teaching experience for that job that I still don't have) I don't see the mentally disabled as "stupid".

Ok, look, I'm not saying that mental handicap = stupid. I'm saying that mental handicap is often portrayed in media as stupid and a character portrayed to that cliche can raise issues about how a particular work handles the issue of mental handicap.

I would argue the opposite; thog is not "stupid" at all. For all his lower case bold word talking, whatever task he sets his mind to, any task at all (no matter how monstrous) he does it exceedingly well. Stupidity would imply that his lack of intelligence is making things harder for him, more in the manner of Elan and his "inspirational" speeches.

:thog:"thog elegant in thog's simplicity"

We know that Int was Thog's dump stat, that he has a really bad will save (indicating low wisdom), and that he has a racial penalty to charisma. These are all perfectly reasonable dump stats for a character with his build in D&D to be highly effective at what it is designed to do (smash stuff). How that character is played, or portrayed in a comic, may nevertheless raise issues.

DaggerPen

2013-12-31, 01:45 PM

I agree that the "disabled people have no agency" trope is a bad thing and that Thog's subversion of it is a good thing. My point is that the subversion, standing as the lone portrayal of a seemingly mentally disabled character, can also be read straight, bringing with that reading its own harmful stereotypes.

That's certainly a fair point. I will say that I always pegged Thog and Elan as having comparable Int scores and probably Wis scores within spitting distance of each other, but as you've proven, there are valid readings in which Elan is not intellectually disabled but Thog is, and that can be a problem.

As for the rest of your post, I'm very much in agreement. Not entirely sure about the repeated use of "non-crazy" in a thread specifically talking about disabilities of a mental nature, but it's otherwise very well said.

AKA_Bait

2013-12-31, 02:06 PM

As for the rest of your post, I'm very much in agreement. Not entirely sure about the repeated use of "non-crazy" in a thread specifically talking about disabilities of a mental nature, but it's otherwise very well said.

That is a very good point. I think I'll go back and edit that.

Bird

2013-12-31, 02:13 PM

I initially read him that way too. I still do, particularly because I'm aware of the authorial intent behind the character. But I do so just as I didn't read anything negative into Haley's choice of language early in the comic. I understand what the point was (1) because I'm familiar with D&D 3.5, (2) because I've been reading this comic and the Giant's commentary on it for almost ten years. That doesn't mean that the comic can't also read the other way to other non-crazy people who aren't looking to be offended.
Sure, that's fair. We can make such criticisms in the same way that we can criticize works that present orcs & goblins as uniformly evil and deserving of slaughter, and that defend this because orcs & goblins aren't intended to represent any real-world groups.

While the Giant hasn't chosen to portray the mentally handicapped in his work, we can discuss mentally handicapped narratives in the same way that we can discuss racialist narratives in The Hobbit (or what have you).

Math_Mage

2013-12-31, 03:11 PM

This forum needs another "Could X element of the comic be manipulated into a shape that could be perceived as offensive by some group of people" debate like it needs a punch in the face.

...put that way, maybe we do need an actual punch in the face.

Thog is not clearly mentally disabled. What he clearly is, is Childlike Stupid (indeed, see the title of this strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0051.html)). Even putting Elan aside, (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0014.html) there's another character like that in the comic. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0096.html) In fact, MitD is as close as the comic comes to genuine mental handicap, since he's not merely stupid, but unable to harness his mental potential. (Of course, since MitD could actually be a child, that isn't very close--but that's my point as well, that Thog is even less clearly mentally disabled than MitD.)

There's been discussion of the tribal orcs already; let me note that their violence appears cultural rather than inherent (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0552.html), and (as far as we know) that's largely a result of the way monstrous humanoid races were created in the first place. That is to say, OotS is conscious of how it portrays orcs, and is consciously distanced from "They're Evil because they're stupid," let alone "They're Evil because they're mentally disabled."

Thog is both Evil and stupid, yes. That doesn't mean he's mentally disabled, a representative of mentally disabled people, or the portrayal of mentally disabled people in OotS.

AlaskaOOTSFan

2013-12-31, 03:46 PM

Thog is both Evil and stupid, yes. That doesn't mean he's mentally disabled, a representative of mentally disabled people, or the portrayal of mentally disabled people in OotS.

This +1

I am sorry AKA_Bait, but I just don't see Thog as mentally handicapped, however I can understand your POV.

Thog is evil, stupid, and immature. That's it.

I don't see any of the chars in this story to match the differing mentally handicapped persona's that I have had the pleasure to be around (no sarcasm).

Fish

2013-12-31, 04:35 PM

Falbrogna

2013-12-31, 04:38 PM

I know everyone loves to repeat that line I said about the only worthwhile part of fantasy being what it tells us about the real world, but that doesn't need to apply to every single part of the entire story.

I never understood this frase, wouldn't it mean that all those other "parts" are worthless? :smallconfused:
Maybe you may wanna just retract that statement altogether it sounds like a pit hard to climb up from.

SowZ

2013-12-31, 04:39 PM

Also, the mentally handicapped are certainly capable of thogish behavior. There is nothing stopping them from being as cruel or as anti-social personality as anyone else. At what point they become less responsible for their actions is an interesting point, but if anyone implied the mentally handicapped aren't capable of thing like behavior, that would be its own kind of prejudice. Like assuming Asains are all going to be good at math. It's still prejudice.

Thrillhouse

2013-12-31, 04:50 PM

Thog can only be offensive towards the mentally handicapped if you believe

A) he's evil because he's dumb(which the comic doesn't bear out--Thog quite clearly just enjoys killing people.)

B) stupidity/dumbess are the same as mental handicaps. The fact that people who have a lot to work with mentally often do very stupid things both in life and in art should undercut this quite nicely. Yes, this is true even if it's a DND character with high INT, WIS, and CHA. People can and do choose not to use their brains.

And while I certainly agree with the OP that this is an important issue, OOTS cannot be about every important issue that exists. Not every artist has something to say about every issue out there, and even if they did, one story can't support the entire world.

unbeliever536

2013-12-31, 05:01 PM

Whether or not you agree with him, I think it's important to point out (as he has done several times) that AKA's point is not that Thog can be read as Evil-due-to-mental-disability but that he stands alone as a character who is mentally disabled (if you read him that way) and is evil.

As it happens, I think Thog (and a few other characters) come together in a way that is nuanced enough to alleviate such concerns. However, nobody in the thread is saying that Thog is, should be, or should be treated as less evil than his current portrayal.

Bulldog Psion

2013-12-31, 05:10 PM

Thog's Thoggishness doesn't seem to be something to point and laugh mockingly at.

Instead, it seems to make him sort of ... triumphant. Even the self-centered, never-admit-I'm-less-than-the-best Nale admits that the half-orc upstages him.

Fish

2013-12-31, 05:11 PM

...but that he stands alone as a character who is mentally disabled (if you read him that way)...
Thog is not unique in that regard. Any character could be read as having a disability or disorder if the reader chooses to read it that way.

The author is responsible for his implications, but the reader is responsible for his inferences.

CaDzilla

2013-12-31, 05:36 PM

Math_Mage

2013-12-31, 06:22 PM

What is the alignment of the majority of that orc tribe? Also, do you think that d&d should have an intelligence penalty in the first place? It encourages all sorts of pseudoscience based racism
Hard to avoid having species differences when having species differences is much of the reason to have different species.

CaDzilla

2013-12-31, 06:43 PM

Hard to avoid having species differences when having species differences is much of the reason to have different species.

I meant among humanoids.

Jormengand

2013-12-31, 06:48 PM

I meant among humanoids.

Hard to avoid having species differences among humanoids when having species differences is much of the reason to have different species among humanoids.

Doesn't really change much.

The Giant

2013-12-31, 07:03 PM

Thog is not unique in that regard. Any character could be read as having a disability or disorder if the reader chooses to read it that way.

The author is responsible for his implications, but the reader is responsible for his inferences.

Thanks; you just saved me from having to write like a thousand words to say the same thing.

Ultimately, this whole topic is a matter of trying to shove a square peg in a round hole and then yelling at me because why did I give you a round peg with corners? Thog isn't mentally disabled, and if one thinks that the way that I portray him isn't an accurate depiction of the mentally handicapped, that's a good thing. In the same way that's it's a good thing that Vaarsuvius is not an accurate portrayal of Asperger's because Vaarsuvius does not have Asperger's. If one wants to force an analogy where none exists naturally, their conclusions are their own problem, not mine.

I never understood this frase, wouldn't it mean that all those other "parts" are worthless? :smallconfused:
Maybe you may wanna just retract that statement altogether it sounds like a pit hard to climb up from.

Of course they're worthless. 95% of everything I write is disposable entertainment whose only value is to set up the 5% that's really important. It still needs to be there for the whole thing to work, but I'm under no delusion that every random joke that comes out of someone's mouth is a deep meaningful statement about the human condition.

Keltest

2013-12-31, 07:09 PM

The Giant

2013-12-31, 07:15 PM

That may be so, but I see no reason why entertainment for its own sake cant be one of your stated purposes.

It could be one of my stated purposes, but it is not. If that was my only goal, I would never have shifted away from easy jokes about skill points, and I would also have very little motivation to continue after ten years of the same thing. I have no problem with people enjoying it on that level, but if I'm going to keep working on it then I need more than that.

CoffeeIncluded

2013-12-31, 07:16 PM

That may be so, but I see no reason why entertainment for its own sake cant be one of your stated purposes. When you use phrases like "disposable entertainment" it really seems like youre neglecting the chunk of your audience that reads the comics because youre a funny person with a great sense of humor. Im sure that's not your intent, but it comes off that way a bit.

Yeah I agree with Keltest; it sounds like you consider the entertainment cheap and ultimately unnecessary, and not worthy of attention--along with the readers by extension. I'm sure that's not what you meant, but it still sounds a bit like that.

EDIT:

It could be one of my stated purposes, but it is not. If that was my only goal, I would never have shifted away from easy jokes about skill points, and I would also have very little motivation to continue after ten years of the same thing. I have no problem with people enjoying it on that level, but if I'm going to keep working on it then I need more than that.

But is it still a goal at all?

AKA_Bait

2013-12-31, 07:23 PM

Ultimately, this whole topic is a matter of trying to shove a square peg in a round hole and then yelling at me because why did I give you a round peg with corners?

I get that we disagree about how Thog reads and what if anything that means but, where did the yelling at you part come in? I apologize if my posts came across as hostile. I did my best to try to keep them from sounding that way.

Keltest

2013-12-31, 07:26 PM

I get that we disagree about how Thog reads and what if anything that means but, where did the yelling at you part come in? I apologize if my posts came across as hostile. I did my best to try to keep them from sounding that way.

I do believe that was metaphorical. He isn't referring to anyone or anything specific, just commenting on how some people see things one way that may not accurately reflect how things really are, and get frustrated by that.

Math_Mage

2013-12-31, 07:26 PM

I get that we disagree about how Thog reads and what if anything that means but, where did the yelling at you part come in? I apologize if my posts came across as hostile. I did my best to try to keep them from sounding that way.
Protesting the nonexistent misrepresentation of nonexistent mentally disabled characters can sound a lot like yelling about molehills from the receiving end. Just sayin'.

The Giant

2013-12-31, 07:55 PM

Yeah I agree with Keltest; it sounds like you consider the entertainment cheap and ultimately unnecessary, and not worthy of attention--along with the readers by extension. I'm sure that's not what you meant, but it still sounds a bit like that.

EDIT: But is it still a goal at all?

The comment I was responding to was in the context of the old statement of mine about the "worth" of a fantasy story being in how it reflected the real world. Under that specific definition of "worth," most of OOTS is worthless—it's just there to get to the next part that has something to say. Does that stuff still have value to the readers? Sure, but that has nothing to do with its long-term importance as a work of fiction. There are lots of entertaining stories that have no real value to them, and it's fine that they exist, but I don't have any desire to write one.

Bottom line is that my interests as an author have very little in common with your interests as a reader. OOTS does not entertain me; I know every joke in advance, every plot point years before it happens. So if we're talking about my goals in producing the comic, "being entertained" can't be one of them (whereas it's a primary goal for almost everyone reading). If we're talking about whether or not, "writing something that will entertain other people," is a goal I have in and of itself…no, not really. Or rather, it was, for the first few years of the comic—and that's how many unfortunate things crept into the narrative that I now regret, because all I cared about was getting a laugh. Now, ten years in, I am far more interested in what I can say to the world through the comic using the tool of being entertaining. But if you like OOTS as it is now, then you should be happy that my interests lay in that direction, because that's how I'm arriving at the work I produce now.

But ultimately, none of that has anything to do with how anyone reads or enjoys the comic, because you're not the author. How I relate to OOTS and how you relate to OOTS have just about no data points in common.

The Giant

2013-12-31, 07:58 PM

I get that we disagree about how Thog reads and what if anything that means but, where did the yelling at you part come in? I apologize if my posts came across as hostile. I did my best to try to keep them from sounding that way.

"Yelling" is used as a colloquialism to mean complaining, criticizing, expressing unhappiness, etc.

rbetieh

2013-12-31, 08:54 PM

I know every joke in advance, every plot point years before it happens. So if we're talking about my goals in producing the comic, "being entertained" can't be one of them (whereas it's a primary goal for almost everyone reading).

Could you clarify this for me? Do you enjoy writing and find the act of it entertaining or are you writing because you have something you want to say, but don't particularly enjoy it? Because the quality is rather high, and I can't imagine someone who doesn't love what they are doing producing something like this.

Bird

2013-12-31, 09:06 PM

Giant, is an affection for (or investment in) your characters part of your motivation to write? If so, there may be a data point in common between how you and your readership experience OotS.

AKA_Bait

2013-12-31, 09:19 PM

"Yelling" is used as a colloquialism to mean complaining, criticizing, expressing unhappiness, etc.

Ah. Thank you for clarifying. That's not a use of yelling that I was familiar with.

And, for the record, I'm not unhappy with the comic and I didn't start this thread with any intent that it be taken as telling you how to write. I love the comic. This was just an aspect that stuck out to me and I thought was worth some discussion, particularly because I hoped someone would talk me out of my position. I wouldn't even have started it if you hadn't seemed receptive to discussions of this sort when they came up in other contexts (e.g., the Gender and Sexuality thread).

Bird

2013-12-31, 09:30 PM

One could make the argument (and I'm not sure whether I agree with it, but it occurs to me) that "fantasy dumb" is a problematic trope in the same way the "fantasy evil" races like orcs and goblins are. Which is to say: fantasy dumb characters aren't really mentally handicapped folks just like orcs and goblins aren't really [insert real-world minority group].

Now, the implications in the case of OotS aren't so bad, I don't think, because OotS is not recommending that the "fantasy dumb" should be slaughtered or imprisoned or what have you. But, perhaps you can imagine that someone familiar with mentally handicapped folks in real life could see "fantasy dumb" as a bizarre cartoon caricature of such, in the same way that someone might see evil orcs as playing on the historical tendency to demonize [insert real-world minority group]?

It's a lot to wrestle with, because comedy has a long vast tradition of building jokes off of dumbness. I'm sure that Bullwinkle, Homestar Runner, Ralph Wiggum, etc. have all appeared to certain critics to suffer from bizarro/fantastical mental impediments. I don't think there's much reason to single out OotS, except that we're here, and if it's an argument you're interested in then you need to poke somewhere, no?

Again, Thog does not read to me personally as suffering from a mental handicap -- the intent of his character is clearly different. I can empathize, though, with folks who feel otherwise.

Oko and Qailee

2013-12-31, 09:39 PM

[QUOTE=Bird;16706261
Again, Thog does not read to me personally as suffering from a mental handicap [/QUOTE]

He just came off as dumb to me, below average intelligence and not immediately familiar with English.

I lived with an Italian guy for a while, he was very smart, had a PhD, etc. His English was horrible.

Keltest

2013-12-31, 09:43 PM

One could make the argument (and I'm not sure whether I agree with it, but it occurs to me) that "fantasy dumb" is a problematic trope in the same way the "fantasy evil" races like orcs and goblins are. Which is to say: fantasy dumb characters aren't really mentally handicapped folks just like orcs and goblins aren't really [insert real-world minority group].

Now, the implications in the case of OotS aren't so bad, I don't think, because OotS is not recommending that the "fantasy dumb" should be slaughtered or imprisoned or what have you. But, perhaps you can imagine that someone familiar with mentally handicapped folks in real life could see "fantasy dumb" as a bizarre cartoon caricature of such, in the same way that someone might see evil orcs as playing on the historical tendency to demonize [insert real-world minority group]?

I don't know why darklings (my collective term for all evil races, including things like ogres and trolls) would represent a minority. In just about ever D&D based world ive heard of (and Tolkien's works) the evil races outnumber the "good" races 10 to one, and the only thing that stops them from taking over the world is a lack of organization and that pesky tendency to kill each other as fast as they multiply.

Heck, even in OOTS, the hobgoblin army massively outnumbered the Azure City defenders even after their massively suicidal march to the other side of the world. And unless the world's hobgoblin population just all happened to be in that one valley, that means theres a ton more of them out their doing their own things.

I get that the point isn't literally theyre a minority, but there needs to be SOMETHING linking them in order to draw that connection, or the "always evil orcs" thing is only related insofar as you could call them "evil like orcs" if you wanted to, which is about as bad as saying members of X minority are all baby eaters or something equally absurd.

Bird

2013-12-31, 09:54 PM

I don't know why darklings (my collective term for all evil races, including things like ogres and trolls) would represent a minority. In just about ever D&D based world ive heard of (and Tolkien's works) the evil races outnumber the "good" races 10 to one, and the only thing that stops them from taking over the world is a lack of organization and that pesky tendency to kill each other as fast as they multiply.

Heck, even in OOTS, the hobgoblin army massively outnumbered the Azure City defenders even after their massively suicidal march to the other side of the world. And unless the world's hobgoblin population just all happened to be in that one valley, that means theres a ton more of them out their doing their own things.

I get that the point isn't literally theyre a minority, but there needs to be SOMETHING linking them in order to draw that connection, or the "always evil orcs" thing is only related insofar as you could call them "evil like orcs" if you wanted to, which is about as bad as saying members of X minority are all baby eaters or something equally absurd.
I was trying (perhaps unsuccessfully) to use 'minority' as a metonym for 'othered group'.

I should clarify in case it wasn't clear that I don't think the "always evil orcs" thing applies to OotS. That's something that OotS is specifically trying to subvert.

However, using Lord of the Rings as an example, if all the folks running around are white except for the orcs (leaving aside Haradrim) -- you can draw the inferences. There is a racialist discourse to be read, even if the orcs aren't specifically compared to real-world othered groups.

Keltest

2013-12-31, 10:01 PM

I was trying (perhaps unsuccessfully) to use 'minority' as a metonym for 'othered group'.

I should clarify in case it wasn't clear that I don't think the "always evil orcs" thing applies to OotS. That's something that OotS is specifically trying to subvert.

However, using Lord of the Rings as an example, if all the folks running around are white except for the orcs (leaving aside Haradrim) -- you can draw the inferences. There is a racialist discourse to be read, even if the orcs aren't specifically compared to real-world othered groups.

Given the societies and level of cultural strife, ethic separation is a rather natural byproduct of that degree of cultural separation. Tolkien actually went out of his way to say "just because they look different, doesn't necessarily make them evil." Specifically after the battle for helms deep, the Rohirrim released their dunlending prisoners because Saruman had lied to them and said that the Rohirrim (who looked different from them, being fair haired and skinned where they were darker) killed children and burned prisoners alive.

Versus the orcs, who would casually talk about eating man-flesh to each other.

The Giant

2013-12-31, 10:07 PM

Could you clarify this for me? Do you enjoy writing and find the act of it entertaining or are you writing because you have something you want to say, but don't particularly enjoy it? Because the quality is rather high, and I can't imagine someone who doesn't love what they are doing producing something like this.

I definitely enjoy it (when its going well), but I don't consider that enjoyment to be "entertainment" per se. More like a sense of accomplishment. "Entertainment" usually connotes the sort of thing you do to relieve stress. I promise you that nothing having to do with OOTS relieves stress for me. It is, in fact, the single greatest source of stress, by a fairly wide margin.

DaggerPen

2013-12-31, 10:09 PM

I was trying (perhaps unsuccessfully) to use 'minority' as a metonym for 'othered group'.

I should clarify in case it wasn't clear that I don't think the "always evil orcs" thing applies to OotS. That's something that OotS is specifically trying to subvert.

However, using Lord of the Rings as an example, if all the folks running around are white except for the orcs (leaving aside Haradrim) -- you can draw the inferences. There is a racialist discourse to be read, even if the orcs aren't specifically compared to real-world othered groups.

Didn't Tolkein at one point in a letter (http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Racism_in_Tolkien%27s_Works) refer to orcs as "squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes; in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types"?

Keltest

2013-12-31, 10:11 PM

I definitely enjoy it (when its going well), but I don't consider that enjoyment to be "entertainment" per se. More like a sense of accomplishment. "Entertainment" usually connotes the sort of thing you do to relieve stress. I promise you that nothing having to do with OOTS relieves stress for me. It is, in fact, the single greatest source of stress, by a fairly wide margin.

So would it be accurate to say that you write because you enjoy it, and you write about these topics about because that's what makes the writing enjoyable to you? That youre getting the message out there in a way that people want to read?

Keltest

2013-12-31, 10:15 PM

Didn't Tolkein at one point in a letter (http://tolkiengateway.net/wiki/Racism_in_Tolkien%27s_Works) refer to orcs as "squat, broad, flat-nosed, sallow-skinned, with wide mouths and slant eyes; in fact degraded and repulsive versions of the (to Europeans) least lovely Mongol-types"?

the fact that he put in the disclaimer says that he intended on some levels to play on pre-existing cultural bias to make his point rather than intentionally being racist or anything like that.

DaggerPen

2013-12-31, 10:18 PM

the fact that he put in the disclaimer says that he intended on some levels to play on pre-existing cultural bias to make his point rather than intentionally being racist or anything like that.

As a rule, I find that trading in racist imagery to make any point but "racism is bad and your race-based assumptions are wrong" tends to reinforce racist ideologies. I am no Tolkein scholar, but I have not seen much to suggest that he did so with the orcs. (Mind you, Tolkein certainly did much to fight anti-Semitism, and I am hardly saying he was an incorrigible racist, but it seems that his portrayal of the orcs may have been based in racist rhetoric.)

Regardless, though, my point was that if Tolkein himself compared his Always Evil fantasy race to real races, then it's valid for us to start analyzing his works through the lens of racialization.

Keltest

2013-12-31, 10:24 PM

As a rule, I find that trading in racist imagery to make any point but "racism is bad and your race-based assumptions are wrong" tends to reinforce racist ideologies. I am no Tolkein scholar, but I have not seen much to suggest that he did so with the orcs.

Im not much more informed unfortunately, But from what I recall language like that is not prevalent in the published works, at least the ones that ive read. As I was not looking for it it is of course possible I missed it, and ive not read every one of his writings.

one thing I do know is that Tolkien made it very clear that it was evil and corruption that changed the noble Elves into the orcs, and the Numenorians into the Black Numenorians like the Mouth of Sauron. the mouth looked very different from Aragorn despite their shared ancestry. They were deformed because they were evil, not the other way around.

The Giant

2013-12-31, 10:53 PM

So would it be accurate to say that you write because you enjoy it, and you write about these topics about because that's what makes the writing enjoyable to you? That youre getting the message out there in a way that people want to read?

Yes, that's a fair summary.

To further reiterate the difference between how readers relate to OOTS vs. how I do, consider this: Right now, if you were to describe what you're doing, you might say, "I'm posting on a website for this comic I like because the conversation is kinda interesting and I don't have anything more pressing to do right now." But I would say, "I'm working on New Year's Eve, because I need to clean up a PR misstep when I said something earlier that was taken the wrong way and since everything I say is recorded and analyzed, it might result in a downswing in readers' opinion of me that may later negatively impact my sales numbers and make it harder to feed my family." Same activity, very different goals and stakes.

Keltest

2013-12-31, 11:03 PM

Yes, that's a fair summary.

To further reiterate the difference between how readers relate to OOTS vs. how I do, consider this: Right now, if you were to describe what you're doing, you might say, "I'm posting on a website for this comic I like because the conversation is kinda interesting and I don't have anything more pressing to do right now." But I would say, "I'm working on New Year's Eve, because I need to clean up a PR misstep when I said something earlier that was taken the wrong way and since everything I say is recorded and analyzed, it might result in a downswing in readers' opinion of me that may later negatively impact my sales numbers and make it harder to feed my family." Same activity, very different goals and stakes.

Well, thanks for explaining that then. Im still going to ask that you think about the language you use when talking about the parts of the writing you don't focus on. Even though I understand the though process behind the statement now, it still seemed pretty dismissive of a lot of readers. And im sure youll have to make a similar statement again eventually.

CoffeeIncluded

2013-12-31, 11:03 PM

Yes, that's a fair summary.

To further reiterate the difference between how readers relate to OOTS vs. how I do, consider this: Right now, if you were to describe what you're doing, you might say, "I'm posting on a website for this comic I like because the conversation is kinda interesting and I don't have anything more pressing to do right now." But I would say, "I'm working on New Year's Eve, because I need to clean up a PR misstep when I said something earlier that was taken the wrong way and since everything I say is recorded and analyzed, it might result in a downswing in readers' opinion of me that may later negatively impact my sales numbers and make it harder to feed my family." Same activity, very different goals and stakes.

OH! I'm sorry! I posted to ask because your comment about entertainment value seemed to conflict with an earlier statement about how you try to find a humorous angle to every character you make, but I should have thought about your point of view more.

If it makes you feel better I love your comic and the forum, and I was going to get the next book regardless. And I hope you have a happy new year.

Sunken Valley

2014-01-01, 04:16 AM

In D&D terms, anyone who has an Intelligence of 3 or higher is capable of determining right from wrong (because they have an alignment); speak, read, and write a language fluently; and generally looking after themselves on a daily basis while adventuring in a dangerous dungeon. This does not describe most real-world people with mental handicaps (to my knowledge). Which means the bulk of the spectrum of mental handicaps probably sits somewhere below 3 and above 2, because it's a system designed for action-adventure and it doesn't need more granularity than that.

That's just wrong. Many people with mental handicaps have Intelligence higher than 3. Some have the mentality of an 8 year old or other school age child. Some are the classic "simple person". Some are savants who know very specific things but little else. And of course there are people with aspergers who are clever but have problems with communication and social skills. Most of these people (except maybe the first one) know what right and wrong is on some level and have an int of 3+. To say they don't is mildly offensive.

Edit: Where does MitD stand in whether he knows right and wrong? That character actually does act like some of the mentally handicapped people I know (not all, some).

SowZ

2014-01-01, 04:45 AM

I don't consider any of the characters in the entire comic to be "mentally handicapped." Thog is not smart compared to Roy, but he does not have an atypical neurology. He is capable of determining right from wrong, and chooses wrong consistently. I know people like to project this idea onto Thog that he's not responsible for his actions because he's dumb, but…he is responsible. We know he is because the orcs on the island are the same as him and don't murder people just for fun.

In D&D terms, anyone who has an Intelligence of 3 or higher is capable of determining right from wrong (because they have an alignment); speak, read, and write a language fluently; and generally looking after themselves on a daily basis while adventuring in a dangerous dungeon. This does not describe most real-world people with mental handicaps (to my knowledge). Which means the bulk of the spectrum of mental handicaps probably sits somewhere below 3 and above 2, because it's a system designed for action-adventure and it doesn't need more granularity than that. It doesn't want to have the conversation, and honestly, in this case, I'm inclined to agree. D&D is a system that only describes people within a certain range of mental ability, and OOTS follows suit.

If I was depicting Thog (or anyone else) as displaying behaviors and attitudes common among actual mentally disabled people and then mocking them, you would certainly have a point. I don't think I am. Thog is "fantasy dumb." It's a trope of the genre that I'm using, not a reflection of the real world. I know everyone loves to repeat that line I said about the only worthwhile part of fantasy being what it tells us about the real world, but that doesn't need to apply to every single part of the entire story. Sometimes, you have to sell the rest of the fantasy world straight in order to highlight the things you want to talk about. The "barbarians are stupid" cliché falls into that category for me.

And if your argument is that I should only have people of below-average intelligence behave as pure innocent saints, well, that's a whole other sort of harmful portrayal. I'll take my story where people on both ends of the IQ scale are equally capable of the full range of morality, thanks.

People with an IQ less than 35 or so probably fall within 1-2 Int. 35-45 or so are often capable of basic reading and life skills but still probably slower than Thog. But at around the high 40s to low 50s level, people typically learn to read though they will likely have trouble with syntax sometimes and inconsistent grammar rules.

Capable of holding certain jobs and taking care of most day to day things themselves, though they still probably wouldn't want to live alone and can't handle all the things living in a society requires. To me, this describes Thog as well as a 3, maybe even 4, Int.

Once your in the 60s, though, you are probably at people in the 4-7 Int, I'd guess. Capable of reading just fine. Can take care of themselves day to day and hold down a job, though they may get stressed about things like filing taxes or taking care of something at the DMV.

I don't think it is a big deal, though. It's clear to me Thog isn't some commentary on special needs people and his portrayal is sufficiently, (and intentionally, I think,) ridiculous as to not ever make me think of real life low IQ people. Also, Thog probably isn't as slow when compared to other orcs. Whereas he would likely by in the mild retardation IQ group by human standards, he's probably just slow compared to other orcs. So compared to other orcs, he's probably not even disabled at all.

Thrillhouse

2014-01-01, 05:16 AM

That's just wrong. Many people with mental handicaps have Intelligence higher than 3. Some have the mentality of an 8 year old or other school age child. Some are the classic "simple person". Some are savants who know very specific things but little else. And of course there are people with aspergers who are clever but have problems with communication and social skills. Most of these people (except maybe the first one) know what right and wrong is on some level and have an int of 3+. To say they don't is mildly offensive.

Edit: Where does MitD stand in whether he knows right and wrong? That character actually does act like some of the mentally handicapped people I know (not all, some).

You do understand that you real people don't have INT stats, yes? This is one of the reasons that it is difficult to transfer over intelligence in DND to intelligence in the real world. IQ aside (and as I understand it this is why some believe IQ is essentially meaningless), it's not really possible to quantify the effectiveness of our minds. As you mentioned, real world mental issues usually affect specific TYPES of mental processes, which isn't something that can be covered by a specific stat. I don't know much about the game, but as I understand it, a highly knowledgeable historical scholar, a brilliant architect, and a powerful spellcaster will all have their expertise represented with the same stat, despite doing very different things with their heads.

The point he was making, at least as far as I could see, is that DND doesn't really HAVE a nuanced way of dealing with mental handicaps. The second you have at least 3 INT you are considered able to read, write, speak, reason, etc., and when you have 2 INT you can't do these things. The idea is that IF WE LOOK FOR SOMETHING that deals with mental handicaps in the DND rules, that's about as close as you come. The point is that this ISN'T an accurate way of portraying mental handicaps, but since it's an adventure game, that really shouldn't surprise anyone.

AKA_Bait

2014-01-01, 05:39 AM

If it makes you feel better I love your comic and the forum, and I was going to get the next book regardless. And I hope you have a happy new year.

Same here. At least this part of your audience is totally safe. For example, my three month old son is currently wearing this (http://www.cafepress.com/orderofthestick.487096157). There really isn't anything you could have said on this thread that would have lowered my opinion of you or the comic.

Happy New Year!

Liliet

2014-01-01, 05:58 AM

I haven't yet read the whole thread, and I apologize if this point has been brought up already, but to me if someone in this comic is mentally handicapped, it's V. And vir (missing) gender identity and supposed Evil-ness have absolutely nothing to do with this.

Vir combination of high Int, low Cha and troubles with noticing other people's thoughts (see: his family) strikes me as very similar to high-functioning autism. Sure, the Giant didn't intend it as that, he just wrote the realistic sort of person that are encountered in real-life. And in modern real-life, they will sometimes be diagnosed as having a mental disability.

If anything, sociopathy is, as far as I know, also a legitimate disorder (even if it's not exactly called that), so we can peg Xykon, Tarquin, Belkar and generally a whole lot of villains - those who do Evil for Evil's sake and not just because they don't care, like Kubota or Mother Black Dragon.

Thinking that Thog is the closest this comic has to real-life mental disorders is harmful stereotyping itself. Sure, I'm not a psychiatrist or anything, and only have a passing knowledge of such issues, but I know something from personal experience, and if there's one thing I'm sure in about mental disability it's that it does not equal low Int.

If I'm right, then this comic does the best thing possible about people with mental disabilities: doesn't single them out and treat separately like some otherwordly creatures. The same rules apply to them as to other people, and they have all the same responsibilities on managing themselves. Even if it might objectively be a little harder for them - see "poor little Nale warped and twisted by his Evil daddy".

Nightcanon

2014-01-01, 06:26 AM

Falbrogna

2014-01-01, 07:18 AM

The comment I was responding to was in the context of the old statement of mine about the "worth" of a fantasy story being in how it reflected the real world. Under that specific definition of "worth," most of OOTS is worthless—it's just there to get to the next part that has something to say. Does that stuff still have value to the readers? Sure, but that has nothing to do with its long-term importance as a work of fiction. There are lots of entertaining stories that have no real value to them, and it's fine that they exist, but I don't have any desire to write one.

Bottom line is that my interests as an author have very little in common with your interests as a reader. OOTS does not entertain me; I know every joke in advance, every plot point years before it happens. So if we're talking about my goals in producing the comic, "being entertained" can't be one of them (whereas it's a primary goal for almost everyone reading). If we're talking about whether or not, "writing something that will entertain other people," is a goal I have in and of itself…no, not really. Or rather, it was, for the first few years of the comic—and that's how many unfortunate things crept into the narrative that I now regret, because all I cared about was getting a laugh. Now, ten years in, I am far more interested in what I can say to the world through the comic using the tool of being entertaining. But if you like OOTS as it is now, then you should be happy that my interests lay in that direction, because that's how I'm arriving at the work I produce now.

But ultimately, none of that has anything to do with how anyone reads or enjoys the comic, because you're not the author. How I relate to OOTS and how you relate to OOTS have just about no data points in common.

So a correct interpretation would be that the whole "worthless" thing relates to how you see it, not how it is on an objective level.
I certainly find entertainment, humor and all those other aspects that go beyond "telling us about the real world" fairly worthy.

veti

2014-01-01, 07:36 AM

(Mind you, Tolkein certainly did much to fight anti-Semitism, and I am hardly saying he was an incorrigible racist, but it seems that his portrayal of the orcs may have been based in racist rhetoric.)

When you use a word like "racist" to describe Tolkien - or anyone else born before about 1940 - you need to remember that racism was not merely mainstream in those days, it was all-pervading. To say that "Tolkien probably had some racist attitudes" is like saying "Genghis Khan probably had sex". He would have stood out as freakishly abnormal if he didn't.

So yes, it's entirely fair to look for racist elements in his work, but if all you're looking for is "evidence that he was at least mildly racist", I can save you the trouble - he was. Like almost everyone else at the time. Personally, I don't think that in itself makes him a bad person, or his books bad books; there are a lot worse things to be than "mildly, mostly subconsciously, racist".

If anything, sociopathy is, as far as I know, also a legitimate disorder (even if it's not exactly called that), so we can peg Xykon, Tarquin, Belkar and generally a whole lot of villains - those who do Evil for Evil's sake and not just because they don't care, like Kubota or Mother Black Dragon.

There's a difference between "mentally handicapped" and "mentally ill". Thog is (maybe) the former; Tarquin is (definitely) the latter. "Handicapped" does imply low mental stats.

AKA_Bait

2014-01-01, 08:52 AM

Vir combination of high Int, low Cha and troubles with noticing other people's thoughts (see: his family) strikes me as very similar to high-functioning autism. Sure, the Giant didn't intend it as that, he just wrote the realistic sort of person that are encountered in real-life. And in modern real-life, they will sometimes be diagnosed as having a mental disability.

I've heard the V is an aspie/high functioning autistic argument before (maybe from you?) and I utterly disagree with it. V reads to me as a low social-skills, somewhat self-absorbed, smart person. There is a world of difference between that and someone who has a PDD spectrum disorder. I have rather a lot of personal experience with those with PDD disorders as well as with rude smart people (of which I may well be one).

To be fair, since it was important to me how Thog could reasonably be read (as opposed to authorial intent or how I personally read him), I should consider whether V can reasonably be read as an aspie/high functioning autistic. In terms of an accurate representation, I still have to say no. In terms of the developing trope of what a high functioning PPD person looks like (e.g., Bones, The Big Bang Theory), I really can't say. I try to avoid programs using this trope as they tend to anger me (Bones is actually an exception to this).

However, if you are right and V can reasonably be read as an aspie/high functioning PPD person, I'm really not sure that supports the argument that the comic is doing a good job with the issue of mental handicap.

Thinking that Thog is the closest this comic has to real-life mental disorders is harmful stereotyping itself. Sure, I'm not a psychiatrist or anything, and only have a passing knowledge of such issues, but I know something from personal experience, and if there's one thing I'm sure in about mental disability it's that it does not equal low Int.

No, a disability doesn't necessarily equal low Int (that's one reason I disagreed with the Giant's comment about what Int score a mentally handicapped person would have). However, low int + child-like behavior and speech are ways that the mentally handicapped are frequently portrayed and Thog is the closest thing in this comic to that common portrayal.

The same rules apply to them as to other people, and they have all the same responsibilities on managing themselves.

Once again, we never see Thog actually manage himself.

C'mon, people, the Giant has said that Thog isn't intended to be a representation of intellectual impairment/ disability/ handicap in a world based on a fantasy game that has no mechanic for representing this. It's surely up to the author to decide what parallels and allegories he wishes to draw.

I don't think anyone has claimed that the Giant intended Thog to be a representation of the mentally handicapped. Frankly, I would have been shocked if he had said that was his intention. However, I've tried to expressly take something like a death of the author (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeathOfTheAuthor) approach to this issue. The Giant's own interpretation is certainly important, but I don't think that it ends the discussion. Frankly, this comic is too good and will, I hope, last too long as a literary work to be considered in such a limited way.

There's a difference between "mentally handicapped" and "mentally ill". Thog is (maybe) the former; Tarquin is (definitely) the latter. "Handicapped" does imply low mental stats.

Indeed. I chose the word handicapped quite purposefully.

SowZ

2014-01-01, 09:11 AM

AKA_Bait

2014-01-01, 09:26 AM

Of course, the two can overlap. Having Aspergers does not entitle one to be intentionally rude or condescending. Most aren't, fortunately, and often they are more sensitive about being rude and very upset if they discover they have disrespected someone. But some are still jerks.

Oh, indeed, which is why I'm not so sure that even if V can reasonably be read as an aspie that it's a positive portrayal.

DaggerPen

2014-01-01, 12:08 PM

When you use a word like "racist" to describe Tolkien - or anyone else born before about 1940 - you need to remember that racism was not merely mainstream in those days, it was all-pervading. To say that "Tolkien probably had some racist attitudes" is like saying "Genghis Khan probably had sex". He would have stood out as freakishly abnormal if he didn't.

So yes, it's entirely fair to look for racist elements in his work, but if all you're looking for is "evidence that he was at least mildly racist", I can save you the trouble - he was. Like almost everyone else at the time. Personally, I don't think that in itself makes him a bad person, or his books bad books; there are a lot worse things to be than "mildly, mostly subconsciously, racist".

The question is not whether or not Tolkein was racist; the question was whether or not we can look at his portrayal of a fictional race through the lens of actual racism. And we can, because Tolkein himself made that comparison.

Falbrogna

2014-01-01, 12:12 PM

The question is not whether or not Tolkein was racist; the question was whether or not we can look at his portrayal of a fictional race through the lens of actual racism. And we can, because Tolkein himself made that comparison.

Tolkien also had some deep hatred for allegory. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

Draxonicar

2014-01-01, 12:51 PM

You're reading too much into it.

There's a difference between between being mentally handicapped and simply being a moron.

Thog has low Int/Wis/Cha because he CHOSE to. He, like every other character in the comic, is self aware of the mechanics his world conforms to. He is an optimized half-orc barbarian, meaning he's actually SMARTER than the entirety of the order, who are all horribly un-optimized.

Strip 791 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0791.html) illustrates this fact in about as clear as terms can be. There is no mechanical advantage for someone like Thog to waste points with as high scores in Int/Wis/Cha as Roy does outside of plot necessary contrivances (Cross-class points in architecture...) , which were the only way Roy would ever beat the more optimized Thog.

If Thog so desired, he could increase his mental scores when he levels up or choose enchantments to increase them, but there's no point in doing so, so he doesn't.

Thog is one of the most clearly optimized characters in the OOTS. He's stupid out of choice, like every other low-int character in the universe.

Stop trying to get offended by things that aren't there.

I'd contend that a mentally handicapped half-orc barbarian would be one who chose strength and con as his dump stats and maxed intelligence and wisdom at all opportunities.

Higher mental scores are if anything an IMPEDIMENT to a Barbarian, whose core class mechanic revolves around getting irrationally angry at things on demand. The barbarian's player doesn't WANT them to be reasoning and logical, they want them to get upset at the drop of a hat for the rage bonuses.

TL;DR:
Thog isn't mentally disabled
If this were an actual game of dungeons and dragons, Thog's player would be one of the smartest or at least rules-savvy players in the game, as his character is both well optimized and funny, which counts for a lot when you're in a comic

Lombard

2014-01-01, 01:10 PM

I, admittedly, have personal reasons to be particularly sensitive when it comes to the depiction of the mentally handicapped. I could just be oversensitive. What do you all think?

I think this thread is mentally handicapped. Thog's not human, and he is/was comedy gold. Including a portrayal of for instance a time-shifted specimen of australopithecus or an AI system infected with malware means that yes, the limited or impaired capacity to analyze and function may result in some missteps and situations that we find humorous. It does not mean that your pet issue is being impacted. It does mean that asking an unreasonable question regarding your pet issue, such as "does Lombard beat his wife" can in itself be offensive even if in your own mind you're simply being curious.

I dropped the "this thread is mentally handicapped" bomb so I will explain it quite clearly. An overstated tendency to view the unknown or undefined in terms of your pet issue is a form of pareidolia. Pereidolia taken to the extreme is paranoia. You're taking your familiar shapes, i.e. that which is often on your mind, and resolving other things into that shape. As noted earlier what is in your mind well-intentioned inquisitiveness can be more objectively viewed as unfair and damaging. Even though I am sure you meant no harm, you must understand that your lack of consideration in so blithely asking the type of question which functions just as well as an accusation is in itself harmful. :miko:

AKA_Bait

2014-01-01, 01:59 PM

It does mean that asking an unreasonable question regarding your pet issue, such as "does Lombard beat his wife" can in itself be offensive even if in your own mind you're simply being curious.

I dropped the "this thread is mentally handicapped" bomb so I will explain it quite clearly. An overstated tendency to view the unknown or undefined in terms of your pet issue is a form of pareidolia. Pereidolia taken to the extreme is paranoia. You're taking your familiar shapes, i.e. that which is often on your mind, and resolving other things into that shape. As noted earlier what is in your mind well-intentioned inquisitiveness can be more objectively viewed as unfair and damaging. Even though I am sure you meant no harm, you must understand that your lack of consideration in so blithely asking the type of question which functions just as well as an accusation is in itself harmful. :miko:

Just so I'm clear: It is your position that because I have some life experience relating to the mentally handicapped, that life experience may color my reading of the comic regarding this issue (which I admitted to in the first post), and because inquiry about the issue could be taken as accusing the author of harboring anti-disabled person sentiments (which I expressly said I wasn't doing in the first post and several more times throughout this thread), it was wrong of me to start a discussion on the topic?

regarding your pet issue

As an aside, you and I have both been on this forum for several years. I recognized your handle immediately. Have you, ever, seen me raise an issue related to the mentally handicapped before, in any context?

Stop trying to get offended by things that aren't there.

Why does everyone assume I'm offended or trying to get offended? I'm not offended. This is just an angle to look at the comic that I hadn't given thought to before and thought might be worth bringing up. Some other posters (including some who disagree with me) have also apparently thought it was worth discussing a bit.

Your point about optimization and Thog is well taken. If there is any scene that displays him as a non-mentally handicapped person, it is the arena fight. There is, clearly, a D&D oriented way of reading Thog which that scene emphasizes. Given that the audience for the comic is not entirely (or perhaps even mostly at this point) folks for whom the term "optimization" has a very specific meaning, I'm not sure that it gets entirely away from the readings I'm concerned about.

factotum

2014-01-01, 02:11 PM

There's a difference between between being mentally handicapped and simply being a moron.

You're aware that the word "moron" was originally a term used by psychologists to describe someone with an abnormally low mental age, right? :smallconfused:

Bulldog Psion

2014-01-01, 02:52 PM

1. I happen to like Thog.

2. His portrayal in no way modifies my opinion of the actually mentally handicapped, either for or against. They are mentally handicapped people. Thog is a hilarious fantasy orc who upstages everyone around him with his statements, and wields a greataxe. You might as well say that I'm going to be prejudiced against Ford Motor Corporation or Nissan because of the comically rattletrap vehicle that W.C. Fields drives in "It's a Gift."

3. Why the heck is it such a big issue? :smallconfused: To paraphrase a famous quote, "Can't we all just have fun?"

Cavenskull

2014-01-01, 03:15 PM

You're aware that the word "moron" was originally a term used by psychologists to describe someone with an abnormally low mental age, right? :smallconfused:
You're aware that the word "moron" (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=moron) was based on an ancient Greek word that mean "foolish, dull, sluggish, stupid", right?

Mith

2014-01-01, 04:08 PM

@Cravenskull: That is probablly why it was used to described those diagnosed with low mental ability.

As for my view on the comic, I can see the OP POV, when THog was introduced, but I figured that it wasn't intended to be that way, especially when the characters are aware of thier "builds". As such I see Thog as Rich described him, especially after the introduction of the Island Orcs.

Everyl

2014-01-01, 04:09 PM

Just my 2 cents:

1. My job brings be in contact with people who are mentally and/or physically handicapped on a regular basis. Absolutely nothing Thog has ever said or done, and nothing in the way he has been depicted, has ever, in the slightest bit, made me think of any of the people I have met as a result of this.

2. Judging from the responses this thread has gotten, it seems to be easier to (mis)read the OP as someone fishing for an issue to criticize the comic for than to (mis)read Thog as mentally handicapped. Considering that the discussion is about an interpretation of the comic that the Giant has stated to be incorrect, it seems oddly topical that AKA_Bait has spent multiple posts telling people that they're interpreting his OP incorrectly.

No hostility intended in either of those cents; I've just been enjoying reading this thread and wanted to chime in.

Takver

2014-01-01, 04:29 PM

I don't think anyone has claimed that the Giant intended Thog to be a representation of the mentally handicapped. Frankly, I would have been shocked if he had said that was his intention. However, I've tried to expressly take something like a death of the author (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeathOfTheAuthor) approach to this issue. The Giant's own interpretation is certainly important, but I don't think that it ends the discussion. Frankly, this comic is too good and will, I hope, last too long as a literary work to be considered in such a limited way.

I tend to agree. It's very difficult, though, to have a discussion on these boards using a "death of the author" approach. Not only is he right here, reading and moderating (setting the terms of) and contributing to the discussion, but the majority of the people on the forums are eager to take what he says as the final word on interpretations of his work.

I agree with AKA_Bait that that limits things too much, though. I believe that people can have their own interpretations of a text, even if it contradicts what the author intended, as long as they can support their interpretation with the text--and that their interpretations are as valid as the author's. In fact, that's the principle that fan activities such as shipping are grounded on. I like author interviews as much as the next person, and I understand why sentiment on this board is so against contradicting the author, but it IS a limit on the discussion, and I think it's an unfortunate one.

Keltest

2014-01-01, 04:54 PM

I tend to agree. It's very difficult, though, to have a discussion on these boards using a "death of the author" approach. Not only is he right here, reading and moderating (setting the terms of) and contributing to the discussion, but the majority of the people on the forums are eager to take what he says as the final word on interpretations of his work.

Part of that probably stems from the discussions being not about how the poster is interpreting the story, but what he thinks the giant is trying to say. "he is saying this" is a far cry from "I am reading this". Naturally, The Giant gets the final word on what hes trying to say.

Sadsharks

2014-01-01, 05:00 PM

You're aware that the word "moron" (http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=moron) was based on an ancient Greek word that mean "foolish, dull, sluggish, stupid", right?

On the page you linked, it is explicitly referred to as "medical Latin" and the second definition says it was used to refer to "those so retarded". You've basically just confirmed what he said.

However, if we're going to argue the real-life definitions it could be said that we're straying into the dangerous realm of real-life politics.

Keltest

2014-01-01, 05:09 PM

On the page you linked, it is explicitly referred to as "medical Latin" and the second definition says it was used to refer to "those so retarded". You've basically just confirmed what he said.

However, if we're going to argue the real-life definitions it could be said that we're straying into the dangerous realm of real-life politics.

Clear communication is essential for discussion. This would get locked for flaming or trolling.

Takver

2014-01-01, 05:25 PM

Part of that probably stems from the discussions being not about how the poster is interpreting the story, but what he thinks the giant is trying to say. "he is saying this" is a far cry from "I am reading this". Naturally, The Giant gets the final word on what hes trying to say.

I just reviewed all of AKA_Bait's posts on this thread and I didn't see anywhere they said "Rich intended to say this," in fact he just said (and this is what I was responding to) that what he's talking about is the exact opposite of authorial intent (thus, death of the author.) He's talking about what can be read in the text.

Keltest

2014-01-01, 05:41 PM

I just reviewed all of AKA_Bait's posts on this thread and I didn't see anywhere they said "Rich intended to say this," in fact he just said (and this is what I was responding to) that what he's talking about is the exact opposite of authorial intent (thus, death of the author.) He's talking about what can be read in the text.

I was not speaking of this thread specifically. I was referring more generally to threads and posts talking about the message in the books.

Cavenskull

2014-01-01, 06:18 PM

On the page you linked, it is explicitly referred to as "medical Latin" and the second definition says it was used to refer to "those so retarded". You've basically just confirmed what he said...
Immediately after the "medical Latin" part--and I do mean immediately--it says "from Greek (Attic) moron". Even if it happened to be a medical term in the original Greek (which I doubt), it sure didn't mean what "mental handicap" does now.

However, if we're going to argue the real-life definitions it could be said that we're straying into the dangerous realm of real-life politics.
Keltest said it far better than I would have:

Clear communication is essential for discussion.
If clarifying the origin of a word is "political", then no topic here is safe.

Just my 2 cents:

1. My job brings be in contact with people who are mentally and/or physically handicapped on a regular basis. Absolutely nothing Thog has ever said or done, and nothing in the way he has been depicted, has ever, in the slightest bit, made me think of any of the people I have met as a result of this.

2. Judging from the responses this thread has gotten, it seems to be easier to (mis)read the OP as someone fishing for an issue to criticize the comic for than to (mis)read Thog as mentally handicapped. Considering that the discussion is about an interpretation of the comic that the Giant has stated to be incorrect, it seems oddly topical that AKA_Bait has spent multiple posts telling people that they're interpreting his OP incorrectly.

I wholeheartedly agree. While I don't have a whole lot of personal experience with mentally handicapped people, the ones I have met are absolutely nothing like Thog, or his theoretical Good opposite. I just cannot see a connection, even when someone is suggesting there might be one there. There certainly are forms of entertainment with negative stereotypes in them (notably old cartoons), but the depiction of Thog in this webcomic certainly cannot be counted among them.

Sir_Leorik

2014-01-01, 06:54 PM

Bird

2014-01-01, 07:43 PM

The problem with applying "death of the author" style interpretation to this comic is that it is a work in progress. Rich has stated that he intends to complete "OotS" in the future, but right now it is released in a serial format, one or two pages at a time. Though G-d knows that this has never stopped anyone here from weighing in with their opinions, we don't have the entire work yet. Doesn't the fact that the author is still publishing his work limit a "death of the author" interpretation?
"Limited" in the sense that we don't know the future, but not limited in the sense that we can't have a meaningful discussion. Say the Giant won the lottery and decided to retire here and now -- that wouldn't mean that we could never ever perform death-of-the-author style literary analysis.

We don't have Gilgamesh in its completed form, but goodness knows there's been plenty of ink spilled over it.

After the first season of The Sopranos aired, plenty of folks were able to say meaningful things about the themes of psychotherapy, responsibility, family dynamics, capitalism, etc -- despite the fact that more was coming. This didn't require a strict adherence to whatever David Chase happened to say. It really comes with the territory when you're talking serials.

After all, there is nothing to say that analysis may only be performed on the "completed" work. We can have meaningful discussions about a single book (of which we have several), a single page, or a single panel.

Specifically with respect to Thog, it is legit to discuss how he has been portrayed thus far. While there could theoretically be some Thog revelation coming that will force us to revisit our arguments, isn't there tons of stuff to discuss already?

The Fury

2014-01-01, 08:12 PM

Even if Thog were mentally disabled, I'm not comfortable with the idea that that alone compels us that he should be depicted in a positive, real-world-affirming light.

Miko was female, and a villain. Is Rich saying women are evil? No.

Laurin has dark skin. Is Rich saying all dark-skinned desert-dwelling people are evil? No.

Kubota was an Asian melange. Is Rich saying Asian people are evil? No.

If all minorities are forbidden from being villains, then we're saying villains can only be white males. That's not an improvement. Fiction would be a barren place.

I think that it's worth noting that all of these have notable counterexamples.

Miko was a female villain, Haley Starshine is a female hero.

Laurin is a villainous dark-skinned person, Roy Greenhilt is a heroic darkskinned person.

Kubota was an Asian villain, Lien is an Asian hero.

Thog is a dim and childish, and also a mass-murderer. Elan is dim and childish too, though he's also a very kind-hearted, warm and innocent person.

I think what's really cool about Order of the Stick is that you can believe that anyone and everyone has the capacity for good or evil.

Math_Mage

2014-01-01, 08:23 PM

I've heard the V is an aspie/high functioning autistic argument before (maybe from you?) and I utterly disagree with it. V reads to me as a low social-skills, somewhat self-absorbed, smart person. There is a world of difference between that and someone who has a PDD spectrum disorder. I have rather a lot of personal experience with those with PDD disorders as well as with rude smart people (of which I may well be one).

To be fair, since it was important to me how Thog could reasonably be read (as opposed to authorial intent or how I personally read him), I should consider whether V can reasonably be read as an aspie/high functioning autistic. In terms of an accurate representation, I still have to say no. In terms of the developing trope of what a high functioning PPD person looks like (e.g., Bones, The Big Bang Theory), I really can't say. I try to avoid programs using this trope as they tend to anger me (Bones is actually an exception to this).

However, if you are right and V can reasonably be read as an aspie/high functioning PPD person, I'm really not sure that supports the argument that the comic is doing a good job with the issue of mental handicap.
I think the relevant point is that to the extent you don't buy V being autistic, many of us buy Thog being in any way related to the mentally handicapped even less. I know you're functioning in a Death of the Author paradigm, but even there, it doesn't work. The only way to interpret Thog as mentally handicapped is to interpret him as an unfortunately bigoted depiction of stereotypes of the mentally handicapped, which is completely out of line with the tone of this work, especially given that other equally (or more) likely candidates for mental handicap in the work are portrayed in ways that don't imply bigotry and stereotyping. It's not just that the Giant didn't intend to write Thog that way; it's that OotS does not lend itself to being read that way.

AKA_Bait

2014-01-01, 09:04 PM

Thog is a dim and childish, and also a mass-murderer. Elan is dim and childish too, though he's also a very kind-hearted, warm and innocent person.

I agree. My point, and the reason I think there is a non-specious argument about Thog and mental handicap is that we see Elan grow up and he speaks like an adult.

I think what's really cool about Order of the Stick is that you can believe that anyone and everyone has the capacity for good or evil.

I also agree with this. If the comic didn't have this theme, I would like it a whole lot less. Because it does is one of the major reasons I started a thread to discuss this issue. This issue is, for me, an outlier. If the whole comic were rife with discriminatory issues then one on the mentally handicapped would hardly be worth the effort to talk about (and the comic probably wouldn't be worth reading).

Naturally, The Giant gets the final word on what hes trying to say.

Of course he does. The Giant's opinion also matters for a death of the author type analysis, as he is clearly a well informed reader of the work.

I think the relevant point is that to the extent you don't buy V being autistic, many of us buy Thog being in any way related to the mentally handicapped even less.

Which is totally fair. Reasonable readers of the exact same work can read that work differently and acknowledge that it can be read in multiple, other reasonable ways. Honestly, I'm happy that there are so many folks who are utterly incapable of reading Thog the way I suggested is possible. On this point, as I mentioned, I'd rather be wrong.

I know you're functioning in a Death of the Author paradigm, but even there, it doesn't work. The only way to interpret Thog as mentally handicapped is to interpret him as an unfortunately bigoted depiction of stereotypes of the mentally handicapped, which is completely out of line with the tone of this work, especially given that other equally (or more) likely candidates for mental handicap in the work are portrayed in ways that don't imply bigotry and stereotyping.

Can you explain who? I've explained why I don't think Thog reads the same as Elan, Crystal, Enor or the MitD and why I think the depiction of the Orcs on the Island isn't a mitigating factor (and is perhaps an aggravating one) up thread. If it's just that we disagree on how those characters can be read as well, that's fine. I think having the conversation about the issue, so we can all take some time to think about our interpretations and have our views challenged, is a good thing even if we never reach any sort of consensus.

SavageWombat

2014-01-01, 09:10 PM

I think the OP intended this thread as a point for discussion, not necessarily an expression of his own viewpoint.

GrayGriffin

2014-01-01, 09:39 PM

The Fury

2014-01-01, 09:41 PM

I agree. My point, and the reason I think there is a non-specious argument about Thog and mental handicap is that we see Elan grow up and he speaks like an adult.

I'm pretty sure that Thog only speaks that way because he's a half-orc. All other orcs that have appeared in the comic also speak that way, I'm guessing that this is to imply that Thog thinks more like an orc than a human. Contrasting with Therkla who I suppose thinks more like a human than an orc.

When contrasting Elan with Thog, Elan sort of grows up when his rosy outlook stops working for him and he needed to adapt. Thog's outlook on the other hand never really stopped working for him so he's never needed to change.

Math_Mage

2014-01-01, 09:53 PM

Can you explain who? I've explained why I don't think Thog reads the same as Elan, Crystal, Enor or the MitD and why I think the depiction of the Orcs on the Island isn't a mitigating factor (and is perhaps an aggravating one) up thread. If it's just that we disagree on how those characters can be read as well, that's fine. I think having the conversation about the issue, so we can all take some time to think about our interpretations and have our views challenged, is a good thing even if we never reach any sort of consensus.
I don't think Thog reads the same as those examples. But I don't think the ways in which Thog differs from them make him any closer to a depiction of a mentally disabled character.

Your objection to the island orcs seems to be predicated on a binary between "intelligent and reasonable" and "unfortunate implications w.r.t. the mentally disabled." That's false. The island orcs are dim-witted and prone to violence, absolutely. But that's not nearly enough to show that they read as mentally disabled, or as caricatures of the mentally disabled--and they don't. As such, they also show that Thog's speech patterns are a product of, not mental disability, but the Orcish dialect of Common.

A side point--Rather than a proto-Enor as you postulated up-thread, Thog is more easily read as a proto-Tarquin--someone whose surface-level affability makes him popular with readers, but no less Evil for all that. That Thog's dumb affability is expressed via puppies and ice cream changes little.

Back to the main discussion, I think I misrepresented my argument as somewhat narrower than it is: that OotS doesn't lend itself to readings of Thog in particular as stereotyping the mentally disabled, because OotS clearly doesn't buy into stereotyping othered groups through individual characters in the first place. Thog is not the standard-bearer for the mentally disabled, he is the standard-bearer for Thog.

Hamste

2014-01-01, 10:46 PM

I have always thought of Thog as an evil version of Lennie Smalls from Of Mice and Men. Massively strong, no real character development, blindly devoted to someone and a love of a few choice things all seemed to point to this parallel. To be quite honest I am surprised that he didn't have at least some sort of intellectual disability.

That being said even if he was handicapped it is absurd to try and link Thog with the mentally handicapped in general. People don't assume every woman is good just because Haley is good and people don't assume every Caucasian male is evil because of Nale (and his father whom I can't spell out the name). Someone needs to be the evil guy and there is no reason why a mentally handicapped person can't be one.

allenw

2014-01-01, 10:53 PM

When contrasting Elan with Thog, Elan sort of grows up when his rosy outlook stops working for him and he needed to adapt. Thog's outlook on the other hand never really stopped working for him so he's never needed to change.

Possibly relevant to this discussion:
While I expect this is one of those pre-strip-100 things that Rich now regrets, Elan's diminished capacity is all-but-stated to be due to early-childhood brain damage inflicted by Nale (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0050.html).

When I read that for the first time, it got me wondering: in a D&D setting, would the "Heal" or "Restoration" spells reverse such stat damage, a la "Flowers for Algernon"?
Elan has probably had "Heal" cast on him in the course of his career; but now that I look at the spell, (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/heal.htm) I see that it cures ability damage (which is temporary, and eventually heals on its own), but doesn't cure ability drain (which is otherwise permanent).
Restoration, (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/restoration.htm) on the other hand, can cure ability drain. I wonder if it's ever been cast on Elan?

(Also: If Greater Restoration (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/restorationGreater.htm) were cast on Tarquin, would it make him sane? It "removes all forms of insanity, confusion, and similar mental effects." I'm aware that regular Restoration will cure the spell "Insanity," but the "Greater" version specifically says "all forms of insanity".)

Keltest

2014-01-01, 10:58 PM

Possibly relevant to this discussion:
While I expect this is one of those pre-strip-100 things that Rich now regrets, Elan's diminished capacity is all-but-stated to be due to early-childhood brain damage inflicted by Nale (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0050.html).

When I read that for the first time, it got me wondering: in a D&D setting, would the "Heal" or "Restoration" spells reverse such stat damage, a la "Flowers for Algernon"?
Elan has probably had "Heal" cast on him in the course of his career; but now that I look at the spell, (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/heal.htm) I see that it cures ability damage (which is temporary, and eventually heals on its own), but doesn't cure ability drain (which is otherwise permanent).
Restoration, (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/restoration.htm) on the other hand, can cure ability drain. I wonder if it's ever been cast on Elan?

(Also: If Greater Restoration (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/restorationGreater.htm) were cast on Tarquin, would it make him sane? It "removes all forms of insanity, confusion, and similar mental effects." I'm aware that regular Restoration will cure the spell "Insanity," but the "Greater" version specifically says "all forms of insanity".)

In other comics, it has also been all but outright stated that Int was (one of) Elan's dump stats, similar to thog.

As for Tarquin, I don't think hes insane or anything, just a terrible person who's worldview is falling apart around him.

DaggerPen

2014-01-01, 11:01 PM

I think it's perhaps worth mentioning that there are caricatures of intellectually disabled people (as well as people with just about every other disability - see Sheldon Cooper in the Big Bang Theory, etc.) in media that are fairly common and that do not resemble real intellectually disabled people, but that, due to their ubiquity, lead to widespread misconceptions about and sometimes discrimination against intellectually disabled people. The question, I think, is not just "to what extent does Thog resemble a real mentally disabled person," but also "to what extent does Thog resemble and perpetuate these stereotypes?".

Personally, I don't think that Thog fits into those stereotypes any more than he resembles actual intellectually disabled people, for reasons others have listed, but I can understand why some people might consider there to be enough similarities for discussion. Asking how other people have read it and trying to start a discussion about it is a reasonable thing, if one that I worry is going to bring out some of the worst of the forum. For the record, making derogatory statements about intellectual disabilities in an attempt to disagree with the OP furthers someone's point, and it's not yours.

ryuplaneswalker

2014-01-01, 11:01 PM

Thog does not read like a person who is mentally handicapped, well beyond having a short attention span. he reads closer to someone who has a very loose grasp on common Here is probably the best example of it (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0367.html).

Thog understands what was going on as far as he was told as the "kill Haley" part of the plan was improvisation after Sabine had to make an emergency trip to hell, if you replace not-nale with Elan the phrasing makes a great deal more sense and sounds more like the explanation by a person who does not exactly have a perfect grasp on the language they are using.

Gnoman

2014-01-01, 11:30 PM

I think it's perhaps worth mentioning that there are caricatures of intellectually disabled people (as well as people with just about every other disability - see Sheldon Cooper in the Big Bang Theory, etc.)

Sheldon's another example of people declaring a character as having a mental disorder. Both in and out of universe, it is explicit that he has none. He's just an egotistical jerk.

DaggerPen

2014-01-01, 11:50 PM

Sheldon's another example of people declaring a character as having a mental disorder. Both in and out of universe, it is explicit that he has none. He's just an egotistical jerk.

An egoistical jerk who is exceptionally habitual, fidgets, is socially awkward, has difficulty distinguishing irony, speaks in a formal fashion with a high level of vocabulary, has "been tested" and was referred to a specialist to follow up with (but his mother never chose to do so), and who was based off of real-life individuals of unknown neurotype. The fact that the writers have not chosen to give him an autism diagnosis because they feel it would be too serious for their excuse for comedy does not mean that he is not read as a caricature of an autistic person by people familiar with autistic people/autistic characteristics or who are themselves autistic.

Forum Explorer

2014-01-01, 11:57 PM

Of course they're worthless. 95% of everything I write is disposable entertainment whose only value is to set up the 5% that's really important. It still needs to be there for the whole thing to work, but I'm under no delusion that every random joke that comes out of someone's mouth is a deep meaningful statement about the human condition.

I disagree, I'd say the 'disposable entertainment' is just as important if not more important then the meaningful message. (Entertainment not equaling humor in this case). Anyways, the reason for that is because we wouldn't 'hear' your statement about the human condition, or whatever your message may be, if it the story wasn't genuinely entertaining.

So therefore the entertainment value is very important because without it the message is worthless. To sum it up in a poorly thought metaphor, if everyone was blind, books would be worthless.

The inherent value of entertainment is a different conversation, and not for this thread in particular.

On the subject of Thog: No, I never saw him a mentally handicapped. Rather he knows what he wants out of life and that's what he goes for. And what he enjoys is ice cream, jokes, puppies, fighting, and the suffering of others. And he's very good at getting what he wants. He simply doesn't care about anything else.

DaggerPen

2014-01-02, 12:00 AM

Bulldog Psion

2014-01-02, 12:44 AM

I disagree, I'd say the 'disposable entertainment' is just as important if not more important then the meaningful message. (Entertainment not equaling humor in this case). Anyways, the reason for that is because we wouldn't 'hear' your statement about the human condition, or whatever your message may be, if it the story wasn't genuinely entertaining.

So therefore the entertainment value is very important because without it the message is worthless. To sum it up in a poorly thought metaphor, if everyone was blind, books would be worthless.

Definitely. Purely didactic works tend to be annoying as all heck when they're relevant, and utterly, totally worthless once their message is passe, which typically happens within a surprisingly short time.

Works with entertainment value last far longer than those simply meant to preach. And from a philosophical viewpoint, I do think that entertainment that produces a response in its viewers -- be that amusement, excitement, a sense of lofty melancholy, or whatever -- has intrinsic value apart from whatever it is meant to "teach." Even something meant purely for laughter can give a new perspective and broaden the mind, even if it's only very slightly in some cases.

I think that OotS has artistic merit apart from its "message." But then, what do I know -- I'm probably just weird. :smallbiggrin:

Nightcanon

2014-01-02, 01:10 AM

On the page you linked, it is explicitly referred to as "medical Latin" and the second definition says it was used to refer to "those so retarded". You've basically just confirmed what he said.

However, if we're going to argue the real-life definitions it could be said that we're straying into the dangerous realm of real-life politics.

Apologies for not popping out to dig out a load of old textbooks to back this up, but I have seen old medical books that give names to specific ranges of IQ in the form [IQ 35-45: Idiot. IQ 45-60: Moron] in a way that was quite shocking to me as an undergrad ~15 years ago. The books were first half 20th century at a guess. However, it seemed pretty clear that they had mainly taken existing words that long predated formal measurement of degrees of mental impairment and fitted them into their table, rather than creating neologisms with precise medical meanings or popularising obscure words (a bit like, now I come to think of it, the way the 1st Ed Player's Handbook had named 'ranks' for character classes- they found lots of synonyms for 'thief' or 'wizard' and ordered them as they fitted best, but the real-life use of footpad and cutpurse for thieves long predated any notion that one was more skilled than another in a measurable way).

Menas

2014-01-02, 01:12 AM

AKA_Bait

2014-01-02, 01:38 AM

I just want to say how ironically hilarious it is that the people telling the OP to stop being so confrontational are the ones being the most confrontational (and also just really rude in general) in the first place.

I actually think that the forum as a whole has been quite civil given the sensitivity of the subject matter.

Your objection to the island orcs seems to be predicated on a binary between "intelligent and reasonable" and "unfortunate implications w.r.t. the mentally disabled." That's false. The island orcs are dim-witted and prone to violence, absolutely. But that's not nearly enough to show that they read as mentally disabled, or as caricatures of the mentally disabled--and they don't. As such, they also show that Thog's speech patterns are a product of, not mental disability, but the Orcish dialect of Common.

Therkla is one of the reasons I have a problem with saying that Orc speak is just a dialect and has no connection to the supposed intelligence of the character. If that were the case, when communicating with the Orcs, shouldn't Therkla be speaking in their dialect (one which her mother spoke)?

A side point--Rather than a proto-Enor as you postulated up-thread, Thog is more easily read as a proto-Tarquin--someone whose surface-level affability makes him popular with readers, but no less Evil for all that. That Thog's dumb affability is expressed via puppies and ice cream changes little.

Well, I also changed my mind about Enor on a second read. He strikes me as dumb, but not quite handicapped dumb. Even if I hadn't, though, I don't see why Thog can't be read as a precursor to both characters, in different ways.

OotS doesn't lend itself to readings of Thog in particular as stereotyping the mentally disabled, because OotS clearly doesn't buy into stereotyping othered groups through individual characters in the first place. Thog is not the standard-bearer for the mentally disabled, he is the standard-bearer for Thog.

Fair point, although I kind feel like it's working backwards. There's something off to me about arguing that because the comic doesn't stereotype other othered groups through individual characters, it cannot be read to be doing so here.

The fact that the writers have not chosen to give him an autism diagnosis because they feel it would be too serious for their excuse for comedy does not mean that he is not read as a caricature of an autistic person by people familiar with autistic people/autistic characteristics or who are themselves autistic.

I think it's also worth mentioning that the actor who plays Sheldon has made comments about Sheldon's behavior being that of an aspie. God I hate that show.

SowZ

2014-01-02, 01:49 AM

Sheldon's another example of people declaring a character as having a mental disorder. Both in and out of universe, it is explicit that he has none. He's just an egotistical jerk.

I think he probably is on the autistic spectrum, but that in no way excuses his behavior. Half the time, he is accidentally condescending and offensive. This I would gladly look past, except that when someone tells him he is being rude he doesn't mind much and sometimes continues behaving inappropriately just to spite the person who told him off. And frequently he says things intentionally to be hurtful.

So even if he is autistic, I don't really care, because he is the kind of person who would be a jerk even if he were neuro-typical. I've known four people diagnosed with Aspergers. One of them tries to be offensive sometimes if he thinks the people are being jerks, one of them if he feels like it, one tries to be as polite as possible, and the other is actually very sensitive and frequently checks to make sure everyone is comfortable if he senses any signs of someone being upset. People should be more patient with people who have mental issues, but shouldn't excuse them intentionally jerkish behavior.

MadZuri

2014-01-02, 02:22 AM

I, admittedly, have personal reasons to be particularly sensitive when it comes to the depiction of the mentally handicapped. I could just be oversensitive. What do you all think?

I going with oversensitive. The question "Could X character be interpreted as Y causing offense to Z" is kind of loaded, don't you think? The answer will always be yes. There will always be someone that could take offense in any possible thing.

Forum Explorer

2014-01-02, 02:30 AM

*rolls Will save against urge to nitpick*

... I got a four.

Braille books are a thing. Just saying. :P

But otherwise, yes, I agree.

I did say poorly thought out. :smalltongue:

Math_Mage

2014-01-02, 03:24 AM

Therkla is one of the reasons I have a problem with saying that Orc speak is just a dialect and has no connection to the supposed intelligence of the character. If that were the case, when communicating with the Orcs, shouldn't Therkla be speaking in their dialect (one which her mother spoke)?
Given she has extensive training at the foot of a cultured nobleman, I see every reason for her to speak without an accent. Also, Bozzok.

Well, I also changed my mind about Enor on a second read. He strikes me as dumb, but not quite handicapped dumb. Even if I hadn't, though, I don't see why Thog can't be read as a precursor to both characters, in different ways.
Fair enough.

Fair point, although I kind feel like it's working backwards. There's something off to me about arguing that because the comic doesn't stereotype other othered groups through individual characters, it cannot be read to be doing so here.
Also fair enough. Bit of a grouping fallacy on my part.

BeerMug Paladin

2014-01-02, 04:20 AM

Thog is stupid, and evil. He's an amusing jerk, but he's a jerk at heart.

You know what surprised me and was rather great? The story arc with the orcs living on the island. Those orcs were stupid, and enjoy violence, but they were not really jerks at heart. They just had reasons to fight the protagonists.

They even departed as friends with the orcs, because Elan showed them a bit of kindness after they had been beaten. Also, there was more than one orc there, so it kind of cancels out Thog's evilness.

It was a story arc where people fought with each other briefly, the good guys won, but then both sides got something to make them happy. Usually, that is just not possible in a lot of story arcs, but it makes it seem like the good guys are, you know, actually good.

Also, it was done with a society of stupid people, which in D&D settings usually equates to "evil, kill on sight". In a lot of settings, stupidity equals evilness, and it's kind of nice to see a story arc (and comic, on the whole) subvert that expectation.

SowZ

2014-01-02, 04:31 AM

Also, just because orcs on that island have a certain dialect doesn't mean all orcs should. It may just be a cultural thing, not an intelligence one. I'd be willing to gamble a lot of you here wouldn't stand a snowballs chance at understanding some of the West Virginia mountain folk just a little ways into the woods where I hail from.

Liliet

2014-01-02, 06:03 AM

C'mon, people, the Giant has said that Thog isn't intended to be a representation of intellectual impairment/ disability/ handicap in a world based on a fantasy game that has no mechanic for representing this. It's surely up to the author to decide what parallels and allegories he wishes to draw. Stupid guy who says dumb things is a standard comedy character and isn't generally taken as representing people with specific mental impairments; Thog is actually less sympathetic than that, since he's more or less said that he likes violence and ice cream, and has made a moral decision not to think more deeply about life because doing so wouldn't lead to more of either.
It's up to the author to decide what he wishes to draw, but it's not to decide what the actual result is. We're not discussing Rich here, we're discussing his work.

(and yes, I have read his comments. No, I don't think they are relevant, if his definition of mental handicap is Int<3)

To be fair, since it was important to me how Thog could reasonably be read (as opposed to authorial intent or how I personally read him), I should consider whether V can reasonably be read as an aspie/high functioning autistic. In terms of an accurate representation, I still have to say no. In terms of the developing trope of what a high functioning PPD person looks like (e.g., Bones, The Big Bang Theory), I really can't say. I try to avoid programs using this trope as they tend to anger me (Bones is actually an exception to this).

However, if you are right and V can reasonably be read as an aspie/high functioning PPD person, I'm really not sure that supports the argument that the comic is doing a good job with the issue of mental handicap.
Well I think it does. V has rage issues and could really put more effort in noticing other people's feelings. Reads fair to me.

No, a disability doesn't necessarily equal low Int (that's one reason I disagreed with the Giant's comment about what Int score a mentally handicapped person would have). However, low int + child-like behavior and speech are ways that the mentally handicapped are frequently portrayed and Thog is the closest thing in this comic to that common portrayal.

Once again, we never see Thog actually manage himself.

I don't think anyone has claimed that the Giant intended Thog to be a representation of the mentally handicapped. Frankly, I would have been shocked if he had said that was his intention. However, I've tried to expressly take something like a death of the author (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DeathOfTheAuthor) approach to this issue. The Giant's own interpretation is certainly important, but I don't think that it ends the discussion. Frankly, this comic is too good and will, I hope, last too long as a literary work to be considered in such a limited way.

Indeed. I chose the word handicapped quite purposefully.
I know I knew a person like that once. I was just a kid back then so most that I remember was that he was twenty and spent most of his time playing with us - five to twelve year olds.

I guess it's not just a stereotype but just the most well-known kind?...

And you actually have a point here. Thog's lines in prison peg him as someone who doesn't understand what's going on at all. Nale told him to nail not-nale, which he did and understood everything about it, but he didn't understand the part where he was supposed to keep it secret and not tell it to the police. And Elan's way of manipulating Thog just screamed "little kid" to me. Breadcrumbs, seriously? And the metal bars did bad things to Nale?

I still read Elan as someone with the same sort of mental impediment as Thog (see their lines about being allowed to stay past bedtime) but more high-functioning. This prevents me from taking Thog as the only portrayal of mentally impaired.

If anything, I also think that being Evil signifies some sort of mental deficiency and really smart people won't be like that, so it reads to me like perpetuating the stereotype in the other way, that Evil people are dumb, not that dumb people are Evil... which is not a bad thing in my book since I buy into that stereotype... but I can see how someone can disagree with that idea.

Seto

2014-01-02, 06:20 AM

If anything, I also think that being Evil signifies some sort of mental deficiency and really smart people won't be like that, so it reads to me like perpetuating the stereotype in the other way, that Evil people are dumb, not that dumb people are Evil... which is not a bad thing in my book since I buy into that stereotype... but I can see how someone can disagree with that idea.

(didn't quote the rest of your post because I agree with it)

With that I don't. The three Fiends for example seem to be perfectly well-functioning and well-organized, arguably the most far-sighted guys in the comic. Tarquin is very far from dumb (granted, he has trouble adjusting when things don't go his way, but I don't think it encompasses his overall life choice (be the villain)). Even the dumbest of the Evil characters (Thog) makes his own choices. I'd say Good, as well as Evil, is the result of a choice which doesn't boil down to "the logical thing to do". In other words, a better-informed person will not choose good as the result of a better-informed choice (they might, but it doesn't suffice). Which is precisely the scary thing about evil.

As for Thog, I think he's Evil and also happens to be dumb, which means that his Evil (not inherent, but chosen) translates into senseless violence. Nale is smarter than him, and his Evil translates into more elaborate plans. The Fiends are smarter than all of them, and their thorougly thought-through Evil translates into the most efficient and logical attitude to advance the forces of Evil.

RicB76

2014-01-02, 07:55 AM

SowZ

2014-01-02, 08:06 AM

ChristianSt

2014-01-02, 09:13 AM

After reading this thread I find myself wondering was there really any point in having 6 pages on an irrelevant topic? Thog is a character in a DnD based universe, mentally handicapped doesn't even come into it! If I were roleplaying a char with an int of 3 I would not expect hours and hours of debate over whether he/she/it was mentally handicapped....! You guys must have waaaay to much free time on your hands! Hopefully I'm not breaking any rules by posting this, just seems like there are many random topics like this one cropping up on here recently! It's as if people are posting just for the hell of posting "I'll check if a new OOTS is up, no, right make a random forum post then" :smallfrown:

I'd be more apt to agree with you and say that if a new comic had just come out, we'd be distracted enough to talk about the important points in the new comic as to not have devolved to nit-picking random details and speculating on inane ideas. I would, if I didn't know us better.

I don't think that is a random discussion on an irrelevant topic because we had no new comic.

While I didn't post earlier in this thread, and I think some postings are close to cross some lines - the underlying topic is interesting.

I never really did see Thog (or anyone else) as mentally handicapped. I wouldn't call anyone mentally handicapped because he is dumb. There are peoples smarter than me or not as smart as me, and they are still normal people.

But imo a large part of why he seems a lot dumber than most other dumb characters (I think that Crystal could actually be even dumber than Thog) is his way to speak (lower-case Orc-speak), which while featuring weak punctuation and a smallish vocabulary could be a large part because he is a Half-Orc. And while the other Orcs have a better language, they are still speaking not as good as other character. I think if Thog featured normal speak (while making it simpler than other characters - to portray he is dumber), he would seem much smarter than now.

Kish

2014-01-02, 10:18 AM

Thog is a character in a DnD based universe, mentally handicapped doesn't even come into it!
I do not believe, "There's no such thing as mentally handicapped in any D&D-based universe" is either a logical takeaway, or a logical attitude to bring.

AKA_Bait

2014-01-02, 11:02 AM

Given she has extensive training at the foot of a cultured nobleman, I see every reason for her to speak without an accent. Also, Bozzok.

Also, just because orcs on that island have a certain dialect doesn't mean all orcs should. It may just be a cultural thing, not an intelligence one. I'd be willing to gamble a lot of you here wouldn't stand a snowballs chance at understanding some of the West Virginia mountain folk just a little ways into the woods where I hail from.

I think this is a good point for me to try to distinguish between an accent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accent_%28sociolinguistics%29)and a dialect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialect). Speaking broadly and imprecisely accents are generally differences in pronunciation of a standard language (in American English this might be the difference or lack thereof in how the words "Mary, merry, and marry" are pronounced in different parts of the country). A dialect, on the other hand, indicates a broader range of linguistic changes, encompassing differences in vocabulary and grammar from the standard language. Given the obvious, and lampshaded (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0552.html), grammatical differences between "Orc Speak" and Common, if "Orc Speak" falls into either category, I'd argue that it would be a dialect.

Given the way that lampshading is discussed among the orcs on the island, I read it as neither an accent nor a dialect but just as poorly used and understood Common. That this indicates lower intelligence, as opposed to being a function of Common being a second language for the orcs, is reinforced for me by the fact that we never see the orcs speak a different language among themselves as we do, for example, with elves (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0641.html). That difference is also why I consider it meaningful that Therkla doesn't even attempt to talk in "Orc Speak" even when communicating with the orcs of the island. If we were dealing with a dialect or even an accent, switching to that of the orcs of the island would significantly facilitate communication, just as switching to Appalachian English (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_English) would make it easier to communicate with "West Virginia mountain folk" if only from a sociocultural perspective.

Thus, I read Therkla and Bozzok's speech, which lacks the poor grammar of the orcs, as indicative of their higher intelligence scores than the orcs rather than just a difference in accent, dialect, or primary language. Given how much explanation that took, the difference is, admittedly, probably not one that the Giant gave much if any thought to or that most readers would either.

Also fair enough. Bit of a grouping fallacy on my part.

It's still a fair point, just not one that follows as a logical proof. While "almost all x are y" doesn't prove "this specific x is y," that "almost all x are y" does increase the odds that "this specific x is y."

Sir_Leorik

2014-01-02, 11:16 AM

I'm pretty sure that Thog only speaks that way because he's a half-orc. All other orcs that have appeared in the comic also speak that way, I'm guessing that this is to imply that Thog thinks more like an orc than a human. Contrasting with Therkla who I suppose thinks more like a human than an orc.

Every Full blooded Orc in the comic has spoken the same way as Thog and the Orcs from the Island. Thog is the only Half-Orc we've seen speaking Common in "orc speak". Therkla, Bozzok and the parking attendant (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0173.html) all speak Common with the same dialect as the Human characters in the comic. It's possible that "orc speak" is the way Orcs speak Common, regardless of Intelligence and Thog, having been raised by Orcs, speaks it as well. Therkla was raised in Azure City by a Human father and Orc mother, but she was trying to blend in to Azurite culture as best as possible. Bozzok may have been raised in Greysky City, among street urchins or the Thieves' Guild, and acquired the dialect of a street criminal rather than an Orc.

When contrasting Elan with Thog, Elan sort of grows up when his rosy outlook stops working for him and he needed to adapt. Thog's outlook on the other hand never really stopped working for him so he's never needed to change.

Elan may have begun a process of maturation in his daring escape from Cliffport, but he still has a rosy outlook on life. Otherwise he wouldn't have been inspired to Send to Julio, nor would he have taken the revelation of the Phantasm so well. He was pretty bummed by Therkla's murder and his inability to save her, though. He's mature enough to know that he's not the smartest or strongest, and that's why I will never be convinced that Elan is mentally handicapped. He's not mentally handicapped, he's just a Human with an 8 Intelligence (or maybe a 7) who also has a Chaotic way of life.

Possibly relevant to this discussion:
While I expect this is one of those pre-strip-100 things that Rich now regrets, Elan's diminished capacity is all-but-stated to be due to early-childhood brain damage inflicted by Nale (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0050.html).

That was a joke about Ability scores. Elan and Nale are identical twins, meaning that they have identical Strength, Dexterity and Constitution scores. But Nale clearly has higher Intelligence, while Elan has higher Charisma. (I think they both have crummy Wisdom scores.) The answer is that Elan's Intelligence score was "generated" after he was born.

(Also: If Greater Restoration (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/restorationGreater.htm) were cast on Tarquin, would it make him sane? It "removes all forms of insanity, confusion, and similar mental effects." I'm aware that regular Restoration will cure the spell "Insanity," but the "Greater" version specifically says "all forms of insanity".)

Tarquin's not insane, he's Lawful Evil. His way of adhering to the Lawful Evil Alignment is expressed through megalomania. :smalltongue:

Also, just because orcs on that island have a certain dialect doesn't mean all orcs should. It may just be a cultural thing, not an intelligence one. I'd be willing to gamble a lot of you here wouldn't stand a snowballs chance at understanding some of the West Virginia mountain folk just a little ways into the woods where I hail from.

I think the only way we'll ever know for sure would be to encounter a tribe of Orcs who all speak like Tony Randall. :smallwink:

Keltest

2014-01-02, 11:19 AM

I think this is a good point for me to try to distinguish between an accent (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accent_%28sociolinguistics%29)and a dialect (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialect). Speaking broadly and imprecisely accents are generally differences in pronunciation of a standard language (in American English this might be the difference or lack thereof in how the words "Mary, merry, and marry" are pronounced in different parts of the country). A dialect, on the other hand, indicates a broader range of linguistic changes, encompassing differences in vocabulary and grammar from the standard language. Given the obvious, and lampshaded (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0552.html), grammatical differences between "Orc Speak" and Common, if "Orc Speak" falls into either category, I'd argue that it would be a dialect.

Given the way that lampshading is discussed among the orcs on the island, I read it as neither an accent nor a dialect but just as poorly used and understood Common. That this indicates lower intelligence, as opposed to being a function of Common being a second language for the orcs, is reinforced for me by the fact that we never see the orcs speak a different language among themselves as we do, for example, with elves (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0641.html). That difference is also why I consider it meaningful that Therkla doesn't even attempt to talk in "Orc Speak" even when communicating with the orcs of the island. If we were dealing with a dialect or even an accent, switching to that of the orcs of the island would significantly facilitate communication, just as switching to Appalachian English (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_English) would make it easier to communicate with "West Virginia mountain folk" if only from a sociocultural perspective.

Thus, I read Therkla and Bozzok's speech, which lacks the poor grammar of the orcs, as indicative of their higher intelligence scores than the orcs rather than just a difference in accent, dialect, or primary language. Given how much explanation that took, the difference is, admittedly, probably not one that the Giant gave much if any thought to or that most readers would either.

Many D&D worlds I know of actually have that as a separate language, usually called "Low Common." The idea is that the goblinoid races (orcs, goblins, bugbears etc...) all have their own languages, but since they interact with each other far more often than humans, they've taken Common and added in bits from their own languages. There are enough consistencies that a speaker of one could generally understand the other, but speaking it would be difficult.

AKA_Bait

2014-01-02, 11:33 AM

Many D&D worlds I know of actually have that as a separate language, usually called "Low Common." The idea is that the goblinoid races (orcs, goblins, bugbears etc...) all have their own languages, but since they interact with each other far more often than humans, they've taken Common and added in bits from their own languages. There are enough consistencies that a speaker of one could generally understand the other, but speaking it would be difficult.

Low common, as you describe it, would probably be either a dialect or a pidgin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pidgin) depending on the specifics of its grammar and history. I don't think that "Orc Speak" here is a pigin, for essentially the same reason I don't think the orcs' poor grammar is a result of Common being a second language (i.e., we never see the original language spoken among themselves).

RicB76

2014-01-02, 11:40 AM

I do not believe, "There's no such thing as mentally handicapped in any D&D-based universe" is either a logical takeaway, or a logical attitude to bring.

Well, I'm not on here to be trolled. I've made my point like it or not. I will say however that I doubt you'll find any reference to mental handicap in any WOTC material and that's the bottom line.

Keltest

2014-01-02, 11:47 AM

Low common, as you describe it, would probably be either a dialect or a pidgin (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pidgin) depending on the specifics of its grammar and history. I don't think that "Orc Speak" here is a pigin, for essentially the same reason I don't think the orcs' poor grammar is a result of Common being a second language (i.e., we never see the original language spoken among themselves).

Without seeing the goblin/orcish language(s), if they even have them, I don't think we'll be able to get that specific. I do agree that their poor speech is a result of poorly understood common, but I don't think we know enough to determine if its because theyre just dumb or because they speak some variant of low common (or your "orcish dialect" if you prefer)

Deliverance

2014-01-02, 11:59 AM

Snails

2014-01-02, 12:07 PM

Kudos to AKA_Bait for bringing up an idea for discussion that I had not considered. That said, I think the basic hypothesis is built on a single ambiguous data point, while we have some pretty solid counterarguments.

(1) We have not an iota of evidence that Thog is actually "disabled" rather than merely very dim.

(2) We have two more important similarly dim characters (Elan and MitD) who are arguably closer to actually being "disabled", yet they choose not to be evil.

(3) The larger trend is rather the opposite: Smartypants characters (Nale, Tarquin, V, Eugene, Roy) are prone to letting their brains lead them to being jerks.

AKA_Bait

2014-01-02, 12:09 PM

I think that extrapolating from a sample of one is not only logically indefensible, it is also a colossal waste of time.

Can you explain why indicating that the portrayal of the only representative of a class or group in a literary work may be troubling is logically indefensible when discussing the work? Would it still be indefensible if the sample of one was the only example of a particular race, social class, or gender?

Kudos to AKA_Bait for bringing up an idea for discussion that I had not considered.

Thanks. I thought it was worth some hashing out.

(1) We have not an iota of evidence that Thog is actually "disabled" rather than merely very dim.

I'd just say that the line between those two in fictional portrayals of the handicapped can be very, very blurry.

(3) The larger trend is rather the opposite: Smartypants characters (Nale, Tarquin, V, Eugene, Roy) are prone to letting their brains lead them to being jerks.

This is a good point which I had not considered. I'm not sure that the two trends are mutually exclusive though.

Snails

2014-01-02, 12:28 PM

I'd just say that the line between those two in fictional portrayals of the handicapped can be very, very blurry.

Agreed. IMHO it is perfectly reasonable to ask questions, but I would argue for withholding any conclusion, because it is so blurry.

This is a good point which I had not considered. I'm not sure that the two trends are mutually exclusive though.

You are correct. They are not directly related.

But sit in the author's shoes for a moment.

If anything the Giant has "erred" towards making dim people likeable and smart people abrasive. What can he do differently that would not be obviously patronizing or worse? Make a few more dim people mean, too? That is the opposite of what you want. Make all dim people genuinely nice? That would be a patronizing stereotype. Should he just stay away from the topic and write dim people out of the universe? I would not be happy about that either, because less smart and more smart people wrestling with moral questions is an interesting and useful artistic tool. And isn't applying nonexistence to certain people a kind of disrespect?

enh

2014-01-02, 12:32 PM

If we're talking about whether or not, "writing something that will entertain other people," is a goal I have in and of itself…no, not really. Or rather, it was, for the first few years of the comic—and that's how many unfortunate things crept into the narrative that I now regret, because all I cared about was getting a laugh.

If ever you feel like killing some time in public, I for one would love to hear what those unfortunate things are. Reading/watching the one-step-removed stories about storytelling is fascinating to me, especially when the storytelling itself has been meaningful.

Also, the "Thread Tools" dropdown menu for this forum needs a "Jump to first/next Giant post". :-) Maybe just for the OOTS subforum.

Ridry

2014-01-02, 12:35 PM

Just to throw my 2 cents in... many people in our world equate being mentally handicapped as having a really low IQ score. This obviously has implications to the thought that a character with a low enough int is probably mentally handicapped.

The implications for this world are numerous (or perhaps none at all), depending on how you look at it. One could argue that our pets low IQ scores don't make them mentally handicapped, because they are not human and should not be held to the same standard. Some animals are vastly more aggressive than humans and all are less intelligent... which is also true about orcs.

Now the catch here is that D&D/OotS takes place in a world where there are multiple sentient races. Our world does not. Granted, some might argue that there was a time when people in our world might have argued that the portrayal of stereotypes of our racial "races" was not problematic because they weren't white, I think that in terms of orcs as they are intended to be by D&D standards that it's not quite the same thing. Although perhaps it's worth thinking about.

So I'm not particularly troubled about Thog being aggressive/dim/Hulk like (along with other orcs) because this is basically what it says about them in the monster manual. I think the portrayal of Thog's by itself says very little about mentally handicapped people.

One could argue though that there is something troublesome about Thog's friendship with Nale. I think if Thog was best friends with Elan he'd still be a violent simpleton, but perhaps his violent urges could be channeled for good instead of evil. I think part of the reason the forums find Thog so endearing despite his horribleness is the thought that he really could have been not so bad if it weren't for Nale. True or false it's something to consider. At the very least I believe if he and Elan had become best friends Thog would have been less evil than Belkar started.

But perhaps there is nothing more troublesome about Nale "taking advantage" of Thog than there is an evil hunter training a bear companion pet to fight. Thog isn't human. And as I said before, I don't know if we can truly understand what it would be like to exist with another race of sentient beings. If we ever find one in our quest across the stars (assuming that ever happens) they will likely be far smarter or dumber than us. And given human history that will be very problematic.....

rbetieh

2014-01-02, 12:38 PM

But imo a large part of why he seems a lot dumber than most other dumb characters (I think that Crystal could actually be even dumber than Thog) is his way to speak (lower-case Orc-speak), which while featuring weak punctuation and a smallish vocabulary could be a large part because he is a Half-Orc. And while the other Orcs have a better language, they are still speaking not as good as other character. I think if Thog featured normal speak (while making it simpler than other characters - to portray he is dumber), he would seem much smarter than now.

The difference isn't just in language. Thog is one of a few characters that we have actually gotten to see their though processes (I think these are Roy, Elan, Haley, Thog, Belkar, The Mind-Flayer and Nale), and it turns out that Thog thinks in Orc-speak, and he doesnt think about what he is doing. He seems to be on auto-pilot. I don't know if that is indicative of a mental issue, or if he just happens to be "In the Zone" while rampaging. I will say that I doubt all other Orcs think in Orc-Speak. I would expect them to think in some Orc language...

AlaskaOOTSFan

2014-01-02, 12:38 PM

OH! I'm sorry! I posted to ask because your comment about entertainment value seemed to conflict with an earlier statement about how you try to find a humorous angle to every character you make, but I should have thought about your point of view more.

If it makes you feel better I love your comic and the forum, and I was going to get the next book regardless. And I hope you have a happy new year.

+1

Actually +infinite.

Heck, I got the board game simply to read the instruction comic(s) and to support The Giant.

I do want to play it some time.

AKA_Bait

2014-01-02, 12:42 PM

Agreed. IMHO it is perfectly reasonable to ask questions, but I would argue for withholding any conclusion, because it is so blurry.

Fair enough.

If anything the Giant has "erred" towards making dim people likeable and smart people abrasive. What can he do differently that would not be obviously patronizing or worse? Make a few more dim people mean, too? That is the opposite of what you want. Make all dim people genuinely nice? That would be a patronizing stereotype. Should he just stay away from the topic and write dim people out of the universe? I would not be happy about that either, because less smart and more smart people wrestling with moral questions is an interesting and useful artistic tool. And isn't applying nonexistence to certain people a kind of disrespect?

I'll say that this concern wouldn't be present for me if there was another character that was good aligned and had significant penalties across all three mental attributes and whose function wasn't largely as the delivery vehicle of "fantasy stupid" jokes. However, I don't mean that to say that the Giant should write such a character into the comic. I'd really rather not get into the business of telling the Giant how to write this comic (as opposed to looking at the comic as written). Allowing one, arguable area of concern, in a literary work to slide in order to focus on other things more important to the author is a perfectly reasonable choice and one that has so far made for an excellent comic.

AlaskaOOTSFan

2014-01-02, 12:45 PM

I think that it's worth noting that all of these have notable counterexamples.

.....

I think what's really cool about Order of the Stick is that you can believe that anyone and everyone has the capacity for good or evil.

This, so much this.

Personally, I see those being mentally handicapped see the world differently, and experience it differently, and interpret it differently.

Stats don't account for that kind of thing, just like they don't account for alignment or class or personality. You'd need a new "modifier" (not what I would add one, that is).

AlaskaOOTSFan

2014-01-02, 12:51 PM

I actually think that the forum as a whole has been quite civil given the sensitivity of the subject matter.

Agreed.

I am sensitive about the issue as well (being mildly autistic, having a severely autistic son, and having worked with mentally handicapped people), and while the comments have been heated, I don't see anyone being cruel and malicious. However, some comments I have just parsed and I don't always see/understand "between the lines" things, so I may be wrong.

All in all, people have been very mature in this thread.

TBH, this is the one of the most civil sites that people can agree-to-disagree on the web.

AlaskaOOTSFan

2014-01-02, 01:03 PM

Just to throw my 2 cents in... many people in our world equate being mentally handicapped as having a really low IQ score. This obviously has implications to the thought that a character with a low enough int is probably mentally handicapped.

Ridry - don't take this comment as directed to you, just it's a convenient place to bring in this tangent.

Lots of times when I am out with my son, or talking about him, people will ask if he understands things, why doesn't we respond in a certain way. They also ask why I punish him when he does something wrong that he knows not to do.

I explain "He's autistic, not stupid. He sees the world differently, and mentally is 4months-4years old given the time/topic, but he's not dumb".

Fates

2014-01-02, 01:05 PM

After reading this thread I find myself wondering was there really any point in having 6 pages on an irrelevant topic? Thog is a character in a DnD based universe, mentally handicapped doesn't even come into it! If I were roleplaying a char with an int of 3 I would not expect hours and hours of debate over whether he/she/it was mentally handicapped....! You guys must have waaaay to much free time on your hands! Hopefully I'm not breaking any rules by posting this, just seems like there are many random topics like this one cropping up on here recently! It's as if people are posting just for the hell of posting "I'll check if a new OOTS is up, no, right make a random forum post then" :smallfrown:

...And yet you've got enough free time on your hands to belittle them for it? How the bloody hell does this discussion impact you in any way? If you think a discussion is meaningless, then ignore it. It's not difficult. I, however, do find this discussion both meaningful and interesting, and so I am happy that it was brought up, because while it might not be for you, this is a very real issue to me which I have personal reasons to take an interest in. What possible reason could you have for making a comment like that? That is not only pointless, it's also incredibly rude.

This is to say nothing of the fact that the comic is not just a D&D-based comic. The author regular makes it a point it a point to emphasize that. The comic does try to apply real-world ethics to a world normally sorely lacking in that area, and many such discussions (on the portrayal of women, on the morality of "always evil," etc etc) have proven fruitful and enlightening on many levels.

This thread is not just a way to pass the time. It is legitimate discussion, and I frankly believe it is worth my own time. It's not for you to judge whether or not it is so, based on a few superficial assumptions.

EDIT: And why is it that you chose to single out this particular thread? If you look on the forum main, you'll find that the thread "Forcecages on a Plane" has also reached six pages- why is that more "worthwhile" than this?

Nightsbridge

2014-01-02, 01:05 PM

Thus, I read Therkla and Bozzok's speech, which lacks the poor grammar of the orcs, as indicative of their higher intelligence scores than the orcs rather than just a difference in accent, dialect, or primary language. Given how much explanation that took, the difference is, admittedly, probably not one that the Giant gave much if any thought to or that most readers would either.

Do we know Therkla's and Bozzok's history? As a half-orc, it is not entirely impossible that they would be raised among humanity, and away from orcish dialogue altogether. They are half-orcs, after all. Just because their orcish heritage is most obvious to us through their canines and skin tone doesn't mean that it was as important to their upbringing as it maybe was for Thog. That is at least as valid an interpretation of the difference.

Aasimar

2014-01-02, 01:08 PM

Fates

2014-01-02, 01:15 PM

I gotta say, this whole post reeks of 'looking to be offended'.

The fact of the matter is, Rich hasn't dealt with the subject of mentally handicapped (at least not as understood in the real world) at all. It's even questionable if people with downs syndrome or other developmental issues can exist in the world of Oots, which is based on the D&D stat system.

You can have absurdly low ability scores without having a genetic disorder, it was because your die rolls were unlucky, or your point buy focused on other things.

Sure, Thog is perhaps the closest we have in the comic to a mentally handicapped person, but he ISN'T anyone's take on real life mentally handicapped and fretting about how he's still the closest thing is just looking for issues where nobody intended them.

He's a stupid character, a lampooning of what a min-maxed choice of attributes at character creation might end up with in a world that jokes around with D&D staples and stereotypes.

It seems that what you and other such objectors aren't understanding is that no one is getting offended or trying to get offended here, and no one is arguing that Rich had any intent to portray Thog as being mentally handicapped. This is a discussion of implication, and not of intent- that is to say, what image the comic creates of the mentally handicapped, not how the comic attempts to portray them. Functionally, it's similar to a "death of the author" discussion- the author's own authority, while easily accessible, has relatively little bearing on the discussion at hand. What matters is the work itself, and how that work affects its readers.

AKA_Bait

2014-01-02, 01:17 PM

Do we know Therkla's and Bozzok's history?

Therkla's is the only one we know, as far as I'm aware. Even what we know there is very limited. We do, however, know she was raised by loving parents, one of whom was a female orc who used "Orc Speak" and that she does not use "Orc Speak" even when talking to those who do.

Aasimar

2014-01-02, 01:22 PM

It seems that what you and other such objectors aren't understanding is that no one is getting offended or trying to get offended here, and no one is arguing that Rich had any intent to portray Thog as being mentally handicapped. This is a discussion of implication, and not of intent- that is to say, what image the comic creates of the mentally handicapped, not how the comic attempts to portray them. Functionally, it's similar to a "death of the author" discussion- the author's own authority, while easily accessible, has relatively little bearing on the discussion at hand. What matters is the work itself, and how that work affects its readers.

What you said amounts to "We all know it isn't so, but we're still worried about it because idiots might misunderstand" ?

AKA_Bait

2014-01-02, 01:25 PM

What you said amounts to "We all know it isn't so, but we're still worried about it because idiots might misunderstand" ?

Actually, it amounts to "we know it wasn't intended by the author to read this way but we think it might also read a different more troubling way."

Sir_Leorik

2014-01-02, 01:34 PM

Do we know Therkla's and Bozzok's history? As a half-orc, it is not entirely impossible that they would be raised among humanity, and away from orcish dialogue altogether. They are half-orcs, after all. Just because their orcish heritage is most obvious to us through their canines and skin tone doesn't mean that it was as important to their upbringing as it maybe was for Thog. That is at least as valid an interpretation of the difference.

All we know about Bozzok is that he paid Tarquin to imprison Ian Starshine, and that Bozzok and Ian have a rivalry that goes back quite far.

Therkla is a different story. We know that she had two loving parents (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0555.html), a Human father and an Orc mother, but that she felt ostracized in Azurite society due to her mixed heritage (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0582.html). Daimyo Kubota looked beyond her heritage to her skill as a Ninja, and she became his most valued employee. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0509.html) (Suck it Qarr!) (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0562.html) Therkla was intelligent, clever and devious, everything a Ninja needs to kill the class Valedictorian and claim his spot.

Keltest

2014-01-02, 01:36 PM

Actually, it amount to "we know it wasn't intended by the author to read this way but we think it might also read a different more troubling way."

the problem being, most of us DONT think it would be read that way unless someone, consciously or otherwise, read it looking for that.

Ridry

2014-01-02, 01:44 PM

Ridry - don't take this comment as directed to you, just it's a convenient place to bring in this tangent.

Lots of times when I am out with my son, or talking about him, people will ask if he understands things, why doesn't we respond in a certain way. They also ask why I punish him when he does something wrong that he knows not to do.

I explain "He's autistic, not stupid. He sees the world differently, and mentally is 4months-4years old given the time/topic, but he's not dumb".

Apologies, my comment did ignore the wide range of types of mental handicaps. Whether you see Thog as more similar to a monkey (ie a non-human with human-like traits that we "humanize" unnecessarily), a downs patient (a human who has a mental handicap that lowers IQ), an autism patient (a fellow sentient being that processes the world very differently than us) or something entirely different is probably based on your own unique personal experience.

It must be frustrating though to have a great amount of the population immediately associate mental handicap with Downs and Downs-like illnesses when your immediate experience with such things is an autistic child that is nothing like that at all.

Edit : Just want to clarify that I'm in no way comparing mentally handicapped people to monkeys (I read my post over and was mildly concerned it might read that way). Only using it as an example because our world lacks sentient non-humans.

AKA_Bait

2014-01-02, 01:48 PM

the problem being, most of us DONT think it would be read that way unless someone, consciously or otherwise, read it looking for that.

Why is that a problem? The main purpose of my starting this thread was to field the takes of other readers on the subject, including those who (like you) strongly disagree. This is "[a] forum for discussion of Rich Burlew's stick figure fantasy webcomic" not a "bulletin board on which readers should only post inarguable truths about Rich Burlew's stick figure fantasy webcomic."

Keltest

2014-01-02, 01:56 PM

Why is that a problem? The main purpose of my starting this thread was to field the takes of other readers on the subject, including those who (like you) strongly disagree. This is "[a] forum for discussion of Rich Burlew's stick figure fantasy webcomic" not a "bulletin board on which readers should only post inarguable truths about Rich Burlew's stick figure fantasy webcomic."

Because its being pushed as an issue with the comic, not with the reader.

Ridry

2014-01-02, 01:57 PM

the problem being, most of us DONT think it would be read that way unless someone, consciously or otherwise, read it looking for that.

Perhaps most of us don't have enough real life experience with close friends/relatives with mental handicaps to know how someone who does might read the comic. And the truth is that my reading experience is no less valid than theirs and I don't automatically assume those people are looking to be offended.

I truly dislike talking to people who are out looking to be offended by everything and the OP did not really feel like that at all to me. But as with the comic, perhaps we just read it very differently.

AKA_Bait

2014-01-02, 02:00 PM

Because its being pushed as an issue with the comic, not with the reader.

In other words, you think I should have started the thread in "a forum for discussion of the readers of Rich Burlew's stick figure fantasy webcomic"?

Ridry

2014-01-02, 02:02 PM

Because its being pushed as an issue with the comic, not with the reader.

Actually if anything I think the OP was not pushing an ISSUE with the comic, but rather the opposite. I read the OP as one that was impressed that the Giant was attempting to weave more socially positive messages into his webcomic based on feedback and hoping this could be a good place to discuss if the community felt that the original portrayal of Thog was in line with the current mentality of Rich.

Most of us that applaud Rich's attempt to be more positive with his comic don't think that he should go back and edit the originals or that it necessarily means the original comics are bad in some way. No more than those of us that think the comic has become an epic work of art think the original joke-a-days should be changed. Everything needs a starting point and this comic has fantastically evolved more than most things do. At least I don't think the fans do.... does George Lucas read OotS?

If everyone in this world gave half a thought about if they could "do better" in the way that Rich seems to be, the world would be a better place. But we can't figure out what better is unless we talk to people with different world views!

Keltest

2014-01-02, 02:04 PM

In other words, you think I should have started the thread in "a forum for discussion of the readers of Rich Burlew's stick figure fantasy webcomic"?

No. I think you are hunting for any possible way that someone could be offended by the comic and/or thog though (whether this is your intent, its how it comes off), and that is not going to do much besides agitate people.

Rodin

2014-01-02, 02:05 PM

My real complaint is that the discussion remains even when we are told with 100% certainty that it isn't so. The topic should have ended have the Giant put his 2 cents in. Death of the Author is all well and good, but when you're having to stretch to make the initial point (I can't recall anyone over the course of the comic questioning Thog getting thrown in jail, beaten up by Roy, etc.) and the author can and does step in with an unequivocal NO with very solid reasoning, to then say "No you, the author, are wrong about your own work" is the worst kind of critic overreach.

Sometimes a cigar is a cigar, the curtains are just blue and not evoking the time the author spent at the beach as a child, and a Dumb Muscle thug of the type we've seen in hundreds of stories in the past is just dumb and not somebody who should be on medication and with a minder.

AlaskaOOTSFan

2014-01-02, 02:05 PM

Apologies, my comment did ignore the wide range of types of mental handicaps.

I didn't mean to infer anything Ridry - I only quoted you as it seemed tangentially related.

No apologies asked for or required, and *I* apologize about not being more clear. Your comment(s) were all good. :smallsmile:

It must be frustrating though to have a great amount of the population immediately associate mental handicap with Downs and Downs-like illnesses when your immediate experience with such things is an autistic child that is nothing like that at all.

It is what it is - an the whole, people and society have been very accommodating, understanding and patient. I have no complaints. I explain my son thusly: "Imagine a 5yr old stuck in a 24 year old body, with the inability to mentally mature as we normally think of maturing". He is who he is and I love him for it. People tend to be kind and understanding and patient with him.

Edit : Just want to clarify that I'm in no way comparing mentally handicapped people to monkeys (I read my post over and was mildly concerned it might read that way). Only using it as an example because our world lacks sentient non-humans.

I understand the context to which it was used and think it's an appropriate metaphor, however I understand that people could take it out of context inappropriately.

Ridry

2014-01-02, 02:08 PM

No apologies asked for or required, and *I* apologize about not being more clear. Your comment(s) were all good. :smallsmile:

I understood none were asked for, still felt like offering one anyhow :smallsmile:

Cavenskull

2014-01-02, 02:09 PM

...(and yes, I have read his comments. No, I don't think they are relevant, if his definition of mental handicap is Int<3)...
That's not his definition of mental handicap, but rather a limitation of the system used by DnD. Because of the way the rules are written, it's very difficult--if not impossible--to depict a mentally handicapped person in a rules-compliant fashion. Read what the Giant said again:

In D&D terms, anyone who has an Intelligence of 3 or higher is capable of determining right from wrong (because they have an alignment); speak, read, and write a language fluently; and generally looking after themselves on a daily basis while adventuring in a dangerous dungeon.
If you don't want a mentally handicapped character to be able to do all those things, either you set their Int below 3, or you have to start house-ruling so many aspects of the character that it's not really a DnD character anymore. DnD was designed around parties of adventurers exploring dungeons and fighting monsters. The rules were never intended for creating realistic, nuanced depictions of characters, and it shows. How would you make a mentally handicapped character in DnD so that it works within the rules?

AKA_Bait

2014-01-02, 02:18 PM

No. I think you are hunting for any possible way that someone could be offended by the comic and/or thog though (whether this is your intent, its how it comes off), and that is not going to do much besides agitate people.

Well, I'm sorry that it agitates you and a few others. A fair number of other posters have found the topic worth discussing and I have personally found the discussion to be quite interesting and useful for my own reading of the comic.

At this point, though, I've spent as many posts arguing about whether the discussion is worth having as discussing the topic itself. So, I'm going to do what I probably should have done a page ago (i.e., stop responding to "you should stop taking about this" posts).

Lombard

2014-01-02, 02:23 PM

Actually, it amounts to "we know it wasn't intended by the author to read this way but we think it might also read a different more troubling way."

Which, as I noted previously, would be more due to your own personal inclination for such an inference rather than an actual implication. Thanks though for starting and cultivating a thread about how OoTS could be construed as mocking mentally handicapped people, even though apparently nobody actually thinks that it does. That's just lovely.

Amphiox

2014-01-02, 02:38 PM

If you don't want a mentally handicapped character to be able to do all those things, either you set their Int below 3, or you have to start house-ruling so many aspects of the character that it's not really a DnD character anymore. DnD was designed around parties of adventurers exploring dungeons and fighting monsters. The rules were never intended for creating realistic, nuanced depictions of characters, and it shows. How would you make a mentally handicapped character in DnD so that it works within the rules?

Indeed. In D&D "intelligence" is a single measure. Or if you want to be generous, it is three (Int, Wis, Cha). In real life, "intelligence" is made up of *hundreds* of individual components. A mentally handicapped individual could be very high on some of these measures, but very low on others. And each such individual could be different.

About the only thing that can be said, as per the Giant's comment, is that in D&D, every playable character must have agency - ie they must be able to tell right from wrong, and therefore have an alignment, and this goes all the way back to the fact that D&D rules were created for role-playing.

A character mentally handicapped in a way that he cannot understand right and wrong, and thus lacking in agency, would be an NPC with a INT less than 3, and his actions would be entirely houseruled by the GM. A character mentally handicapped that does have agency could be a PC with regular INT, WIS, CHA rolls (because the areas of his disability would fall outside what can be readily described with such general scores), and the player would role-play the specific handicaps as the situations arise.

teratorn

2014-01-02, 02:58 PM

Well, I'm sorry that it agitates you and a few others. A fair number of other posters have found the topic worth discussing and I have personally found the discussion to be quite interesting and useful for my own reading of the comic.

It's not just a «few others.» I had decided not to touch the thread expecting it to die and I think it's likely many people felt the same way. The thread serves no useful purpose whatsoever and is one of the few threads that really made me feel mad at the OP.

warrl

2014-01-02, 03:19 PM

The "barbarians are stupid" cliché falls into that category for me.

This is somewhat relevant to the thread, but "the barbarians are stupid" is a rather ethnocentric trope in the first place.

I tried to build a genuine barbarian - raised as hunter/herdsman in a nomadic horse-clan - in 3.5E. That was quite a while ago and I no longer have the character sheet (or a single 3.xE book) but I can look at the skill list in the SRD and pick these as the one such a character is likely to need as a level-1 commoner (actually capable of operating at basic competence):

*Climb
Concentration
*Craft Snare/Trap
*Craft Enclosure
*Handle Animal
Hide
*Jump
Knowledge: Animals
Knowledge: Plants
*Listen
Move Silently
*Profession: Herdsman or Hunter (or both)
*Ride
Search
*Spot
Survival
*Swim
*Use Rope

Eighteen skills, eleven of them class skills and the other seven not, for a total of 25 skill points required to get *just one* rank in each of these skills.

And that's assuming there are specialists in the tribe making the rope, saddles, blankets, tents, weapons, etc.

Commoners get (2+intmod)*4 skill points at level 1. To get to 25 skill points, they need Int 20.

In fact, if there's a defining characteristic of primitive societies, I suggest it's that a very large share of people MUST be generalists in order to survive long enough to be specialists, or alternatively to support the specialists. And being a generalist is not for the stupid.

The large majority of people in cities - or even medieval farm villages - are, in comparison, specialists.

Now Thog isn't very smart in what city folks think is important, but he could be plenty smart in what's important to wherever he came from. He has trouble with the grammar of Common, but I'd assume he's fluent in Orcish. And he's got a lighthearted outlook on life (while being brutal), but that isn't a solidly identifying mark of low intelligence.

So yeah, not a Ph.D. candidate by any means, but not of unusually low intelligence either.

Boogastreehouse

2014-01-02, 03:31 PM

I think it looks nice with some space

After reading this thread I find myself wondering was there really any point in having 6 pages on an irrelevant topic?
(...)
Hopefully I'm not breaking any rules by posting this, just seems like there are many random topics like this one cropping up on here recently! It's as if people are posting just for the hell of posting "I'll check if a new OOTS is up, no, right make a random forum post then" :smallfrown:

I'd be more apt to agree with you and say that if a new comic had just come out, we'd be distracted enough to talk about the important points in the new comic as to not have devolved to nit-picking random details and speculating on inane ideas. I would, if I didn't know us better.

I've been noticing an increase of "Giant-Bait" threads recently, where an inflammatory topic—usually about a sensitive social subject like racism or sexism—was brought up with the intent (in my opinion) of luring the Giant into making an appearance and commenting, and at first I really thought this was one of those.

After reading the thread, however, I am more inclined to think that this thread was sincere and that the timing was just coincidental or, rather, that the OP of this thread got the idea from a thread that was deliberate "Giant-Bait" (in my opinion), as shown here:

A comment on the "least evil evil character" thread regarding Thog got me thinking about this issue and I found myself troubled.

...but that the OP of this thread was probably sincere, and not motivated to provoke the author into commenting just for their own amusement.

I think it looks nice with some space

Kish

2014-01-02, 03:34 PM

It's not just a «few others.» I had decided not to touch the thread expecting it to die and I think it's likely many people felt the same way. The thread serves no useful purpose whatsoever and is one of the few threads that really made me feel mad at the OP.
Oh jeez, are we holding a vote on whether this thread should exist now?

Being that my view of the modern concept of "death of the author" is just short of unprintable, I don't have a lot of interest in discussing the implications of whether characters like Thog or Elan or the Empress of Blood might come across as mentally handicapped rather than stupid in the presence of Word of the Author that they're being written as purely stupid, but, that Word of the Author itself is, in my opinion, useful information. And I'm reasonably sure that were the thread actually breaking a forum rule, it wouldn't have survived the forum admin posting in it.

DaggerPen

2014-01-02, 03:48 PM

I've been noticing an increase of "Giant-Bait" threads recently, where an inflammatory topic—usually about a sensitive social subject like racism or sexism—was brought up with the intent (in my opinion) of luring the Giant into making an appearance and commenting, and at first I really thought this was one of those.

After reading the thread, however, I am more inclined to think that this thread was sincere and that the timing was just coincidental or, rather, that the OP of this thread got the idea from a thread that was deliberate "Giant-Bait" (in my opinion), as shown here:

...but that the OP of this thread was probably sincere, and not motivated to provoke the author into commenting just for their own amusement.

Exactly.

People keep saying that no one else was reading Thog as intellectually disabled... except that a lot of people HAVE been reading Thog as exactly that. There have been a huge amount of people on the forum who have argued that Thog is so disabled, and that he's being manipulated by Nale due to his low intelligence and that he'd be a good person with better friends. This view has been so popular that the author himself has put in jibes about it in-comic to make it clear that, no, Thog genuinely likes hurting people, and that he, unlike, say, the MitD, has not just fallen in with a bad crowd who pushes him into doing things he wouldn't otherwise. And even then there have been a lot of people over in, as mentioned, the "least evil Evil character" thread talking about Thog's low int as a possible negating factor for his evil. The OP was basically saying that, given that reading, do you think that the comic portrays any intellectually disabled characters, Thog chief among them, and if so, how well do you think it does so?

A lot of people read Thog as intellectually disabled in the absence of authorial clarification. Asking more about how people read the work is completely valid.

Ridry

2014-01-02, 04:02 PM

Exactly.

People keep saying that no one else was reading Thog as intellectually disabled... except that a lot of people HAVE been reading Thog as exactly that. There have been a huge amount of people on the forum who have argued that Thog is so disabled, and that he's being manipulated by Nale due to his low intelligence and that he'd be a good person with better friends. This view has been so popular that the author himself has put in jibes about it in-comic to make it clear that, no, Thog genuinely likes hurting people, and that he, unlike, say, the MitD, has not just fallen in with a bad crowd who pushes him into doing things he wouldn't otherwise. And even then there have been a lot of people over in, as mentioned, the "least evil Evil character" thread talking about Thog's low int as a possible negating factor for his evil. The OP was basically saying that, given that reading, do you think that the comic portrays any intellectually disabled characters, Thog chief among them, and if so, how well do you think it does so?

A lot of people read Thog as intellectually disabled in the absence of authorial clarification. Asking more about how people read the work is completely valid.

Its funny, while I actually don't read him as mentally disabled nor do I think he's not evil I do wonder if say.... he had joined the OotS and Belkar had joined Nale if somewhere along the way Thog would have ended up where Belkar is and not just the evil psychopath that is being pointed at the bad guys by Roy.

SowZ

2014-01-02, 04:05 PM

Oh jeez, are we holding a vote on whether this thread should exist now?

Being that my view of the modern concept of "death of the author" is just short of unprintable, I don't have a lot of interest in discussing the implications of whether characters like Thog or Elan or the Empress of Blood might come across as mentally handicapped rather than stupid in the presence of Word of the Author that they're being written as purely stupid, but, that Word of the Author itself is, in my opinion, useful information. And I'm reasonably sure that were the thread actually breaking a forum rule, it wouldn't have survived the forum admin posting in it.

Death of the Author is as valid as any other way to read literature. It doesn't disallow for greater continuities and 'canons' to exist in which Word of Author has final say and it doesn't disallow authorial intent to be important when discussing the intentional themes and messages of the work. It just states that nothing that isn't in the body of work is part of the actual story itself and that each reader has their own version of the story.

So, The Giants intent behind OOTS, Kish's reading of OOTS, and my reading of OOTS are all going to be somewhat different and equally valid stories. One person isn't wrong in their reading, that is partly their story by virtue of reading it. The author is more than fair in responding to criticisms stemming from, say, reading Thog as handicapped by stating that he never intended that and he doesn't think it is evident in the story.

Death of the Author doesn't mean all critiques are valid, just that all readings are their own thing and each is equally valid.

If, for example, throughout the whole series Vs gender was never revealed and then ten years later Rich came out and said, 'V was a woman.' And I responded with, 'Oh, well, I didn't see that in the story. I saw V as a man, and that's what I think he is.' I wouldn't be objectively wrong. That might conflict with an overarching canon if anyone is keeping track of such a thing, but each persons reading is a self contained thing.

As much as it may have informed the story, authorial intent isn't actually part of the story. All story telling short of telepathically inserting ideas into others heads is ultimately collaborative since everyone fills in the blanks.

Keltest

2014-01-02, 04:05 PM

Its funny, while I actually don't read him as mentally disabled nor do I think he's not evil I do wonder if say.... he had joined the OotS and Belkar had joined Nale if somewhere along the way Thog would have ended up where Belkar is and not just the evil psychopath that is being pointed at the bad guys by Roy.

Belkar is faking character growth, remember?

Ridry

2014-01-02, 04:14 PM

Belkar is faking character growth, remember?

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0881.html

The last line is character growth. There's just no other way to read that IMHO.

Obviously as we're talking about death of the author and all that, your reading can be valid too, but that line... I just personally can't see it any other way. A lot of other examples can go either way... but this is bit goes above and beyond to a level of self-awareness and actively trying to help the team. He did what he did there to help Roy. And he actually feels a bit bad about the way everyone sees him. At least in my reading of it. That's growth. You can argue it's small, but it's growth.

Keltest

2014-01-02, 04:25 PM

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0881.html

The last line is character growth. There's just no other way to read that IMHO.

Obviously as we're talking about death of the author and all that, your reading can be valid too, but that line... I just personally can't see it any other way. A lot of other examples can go either way... but this is bit goes above and beyond to a level of self-awareness and actively trying to help the team. He did what he did there to help Roy. And he actually feels a bit bad about the way everyone sees him. At least in my reading of it. That's growth. You can argue it's small, but it's growth.

Eh, I really don't see it. He's shown that he has (at least a little) affection (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0483.html) for the rest of the team before. He seemed genuinely distressed at the thought that something might have happened to them.

Ridry

2014-01-02, 04:27 PM

Eh, I really don't see it. He's shown that he has (at least a little) affection (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0483.html) for the rest of the team before. He seemed genuinely distressed at the thought that something might have happened to them.

Sure, but in this case I felt that last line about all he's good for.... I read it with a twinge of regret. And if he feels regret there, it's growth.

Keltest

2014-01-02, 04:31 PM

Sure, but in this case I felt that last line about all he's good for.... I read it with a twinge of regret. And if he feels regret there, it's growth.

And I did not. I can see why you would read it like that, but belkar and the rest of the party have been horribly blunt about how horrible he is before. And after, for that matter.

Ridry

2014-01-02, 04:36 PM

And I did not. I can see why you would read it like that, but belkar and the rest of the party have been horribly blunt about how horrible he is before. And after, for that matter.

As I said your reading is obviously no less valid than mine, but I can't get that line out of my head as anything else. It's the same way I can't see V as anything other than a woman in my head.

And if there is regret, there's growth. Previously Belkar could never have expressed regret at such a thought.

Either way, I'm about 95% sure one of us will be proved correct about his growth before his time is up! I can't see Belkar dying and the Giant leaving that plot line hanging.

Boogastreehouse

2014-01-02, 04:38 PM

I think it looks better with a little space

I've been noticing an increase of "Giant-Bait" threads recently, where an inflammatory topic—usually about a sensitive social subject like racism or sexism—was brought up with the intent (in my opinion) of luring the Giant into making an appearance and commenting, and at first I really thought this was one of those.

After reading the thread, however, I am more inclined to think that this thread was sincere and that the timing was just coincidental or, rather, that the OP of this thread got the idea from a thread that was deliberate "Giant-Bait" (in my opinion), as shown here:

...but that the OP of this thread was probably sincere, and not motivated to provoke the author into commenting just for their own amusement.Exactly.

People keep saying that no one else was reading Thog as intellectually disabled... except that a lot of people HAVE been reading Thog as exactly that. There have been a huge amount of people on the forum who have argued that Thog is so disabled, and that he's being manipulated by Nale due to his low intelligence and that he'd be a good person with better friends. This view has been so popular that the author himself has put in jibes about it in-comic to make it clear that, no, Thog genuinely likes hurting people, and that he, unlike, say, the MitD, has not just fallen in with a bad crowd who pushes him into doing things he wouldn't otherwise. And even then there have been a lot of people over in, as mentioned, the "least evil Evil character" thread talking about Thog's low int as a possible negating factor for his evil. The OP was basically saying that, given that reading, do you think that the comic portrays any intellectually disabled characters, Thog chief among them, and if so, how well do you think it does so?

A lot of people read Thog as intellectually disabled in the absence of authorial clarification. Asking more about how people read the work is completely valid.

Careful now, don't put words in my mouth...

I said the OP was sincere in their concern, and not just out to troll the Giant; I didn't say that I agree with that concern, as shown in my earlier post:

Thog is a parody of the Hulk and, by extension, a parody of D&D characters whom their players (often lazily) model after the Hulk, and play with Hulk-like characteristics.

The Giant is under no obligation to be sensitive in his portrayal of Hulk-like characters, because there are no real-life Hulks being harmed, degraded or exploited by his comic. (Well, except maybe this Hulk (http://filmcrithulk.wordpress.com/))

This is a comic full of jokes and the Giant makes jokes involving many low-intelligence characters; Belkar, Elan, Enor, and The Empress of Blood come to mind. The Giant also makes jokes at the expense of high-intelligence characters such as Vaarsuvius, Roy and Redcloak, and Tarquin, often implying that their intelligence is a hindrance. I fail to see what the difference is, and I fail to see what the problem is.

I don't think that portraying a character of whom the descriptor of "simple" could be applied, for instance, is a slight on people who have mental disabilities. Nor would I consider a "foolish," "willfully-ignorant," "gullible," "naive," "stubborn," "inflexible," "socially-awkward," "obsessive," "overly-literal" "hysterical," "high-strung," "quick-tempered," "slow-witted," "unimaginative," "backwards," or even "slow" character as being a deliberate slight on people who have mental disabilities. They could be, of course, depending on how they were handled, but they are not inherently signs that the author is being insensitive in their portrayal of a group. Honestly, if characteristics such as these were deemed to be "inappropriate" regardless of context, then humor itself would cease to exist.

I think it looks better with a little space

DaggerPen

2014-01-02, 04:39 PM

The Pilgrim

2014-01-02, 04:39 PM

(...)how many unfortunate things crept into the narrative that I now regret, because all I cared about was getting a laugh.(...)

Given the topic of this thread, when I read that line from the Giant, I immediately bolted to Strip #50, Panel #14 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0050.html)...

...in which it is implied that Elan is, in fact, a mentally handicapped character, his limited mental capabilities being the result of brain damage inflicted by his brother when both were babies.

DaggerPen

2014-01-02, 04:41 PM

Careful now, don't put words in my mouth...

I said the OP was sincere in their concern, and not just out to troll the Giant; I didn't say that I agree with that concern, as shown in my earlier post:

Apologies, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth. I was just saying that I agreed that the OP was sincere, and said why I thought that it was a discussion worth having, but in retrospect it came off as me saying you said things you didn't. Sorry about that.

For the record, I have said that I don't read Thog as intellectually disabled, and that I don't think the comic has any real issues with negative portrayals of intellectually disabled people (because I don't think the comic has any clear examples of such characters). I just think that the OP was sincere, and, more importantly, that it's a valid discussion given the popular readings of Thog as intellectually disabled, even if the consensus is "Nope, Thog isn't disabled and the comic doesn't have such issues."

Rodin

2014-01-02, 04:43 PM

And I did not. I can see why you would read it like that, but belkar and the rest of the party have been horribly blunt about how horrible he is before. And after, for that matter.

I think it's fairly clear that Belkar is having some level of character growth via Mr. Scruffy. The key line is in this comic:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0807.html

:belkar: Stupid cat. A ranger is supposed to influence an animal's behaviour. You're doing it backwards!

Ridry

2014-01-02, 04:47 PM

I'm always really surprised when discussions of Belkar's growth come up that don't mention Belkar saving Ganji and Enor, or showing concern for Bloodfeast's fate when they were escaping to the Mechane. Belkar's line did seem kind of remorseful to me, but it could go either way, but the two examples I listed seem to me to be more concrete evidence that Belkar's fake character growth has become real.

Well as I said before "A lot of other examples can go either way...". I PERSONALLY think your examples do show growth, but empathy and even love are not signs of an alignment shift. He empathized with Ganji/Enor as he saw himself and Mr. Scruffy in their relationship. Same with Bloodfeast... I think that the ability to empathize/relate to animals can be seen as part of Belkar's personality. Even Redcloak has shown himself capable of love/empathy... that doesn't make him less evil.

If Belkar is truly growing from something OTHER than a psychopathic murderer, that's really, really significant growth, and if he regrets being little more than a machine designed to hurt things.... well to me, that's the biggest, most clear example of growth I've seen from him.

Don't get me wrong, I personally agree with your assessment of the other situations as well, I just feel I could see an argument for them either way, whereas if Belkar is truly regretting being what he is... that's HUGE beyond compare.

Keltest

2014-01-02, 04:48 PM

I think it's fairly clear that Belkar is having some level of character growth via Mr. Scruffy. The key line is in this comic:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0807.html

:belkar: Stupid cat. A ranger is supposed to influence an animal's behaviour. You're doing it backwards!

Darn it belkar, how could you betray me like that. Youre not allowed to grow as a character, that's your thing!

Oh well.

DaggerPen

2014-01-02, 04:55 PM

Well as I said before "A lot of other examples can go either way...". I PERSONALLY think your examples do show growth, but empathy and even love are not signs of an alignment shift. He empathized with Ganji/Enor as he saw himself and Mr. Scruffy in their relationship. Same with Bloodfeast... I think that the ability to empathize/relate to animals can be seen as part of Belkar's personality. Even Redcloak has shown himself capable of love/empathy... that doesn't make him less evil.

If Belkar is truly growing from something OTHER than a psychopathic murderer, that's really, really significant growth, and if he regrets being little more than a machine designed to hurt things.... well to me, that's the biggest, most clear example of growth I've seen from him.

Don't get me wrong, I personally agree with your assessment of the other situations as well, I just feel I could see an argument for them either way, whereas if Belkar is truly regretting being what he is... that's HUGE beyond compare.

Very much agreed, though I think that there's a distinction to be made between alignment shift and character growth. Whether Belkar's moving towards Neutral is debatable, but even if he isn't, I'd say that he's still growing on a personal level, learning to empathize with and even be concerned for others, even if only in a limited fashion.

Ridry

2014-01-02, 05:02 PM

Very much agreed, though I think that there's a distinction to be made between alignment shift and character growth. Whether Belkar's moving towards Neutral is debatable, but even if he isn't, I'd say that he's still growing on a personal level, learning to empathize with and even be concerned for others, even if only in a limited fashion.

Agreed. I was not clear enough in my distinction. Even learning to fake being useful to get along better in society was intellectual/social growth, even if it was void/empty of other kinds of personal growth at the time.

I see the biggest change of Belkar of late (starting with this episode of regret) as his alignment shift that is north of evil, so to speak. Whether he'll actually hit neutral remains to be seen, but I think he's less evil than he started.

Deliverance

2014-01-02, 05:09 PM

Can you explain why indicating that the portrayal of the only representative of a class or group in a literary work may be troubling is logically indefensible when discussing the work? Would it still be indefensible if the sample of one was the only example of a particular race, social class, or gender?

YES.

Generalizing from a sample size of one is the extreme case of generalization from the particular, and it is one of the oldest logical fallacies known to man. That's why I consider it logically indefensible and a waste of time.

There are no implications about mentally handicapped in general to be deduced or inferred by examining the other properties from the portrayal of a single character in OOTS with this property, just like we cannot conclude anything in general about "living black guys with Greatswords" from the portrayal of Roy, "vertically challenged chefs" from the portrayal of Belkar, "devout men with speaking impediments" from Durkon, or "one-eyed men" from Redcloak* - to take just four obvious categories of people, that in OOTS are represented with sample sizes of one.

That doesn't mean one cannot discuss such characters or compare them to characters in other literary works, for instance, but it does mean that attempting to generalize meaning about the group from the sole sample is a humongous waste of time and, usually, only done by somebody wishing, for whatever reason, to impute the author motives that cannot be deduced.

Generalization from the particular: Don't do it.

---

* excluding prequels here. :smallbiggrin:

BeerMug Paladin

2014-01-02, 05:51 PM

Belkar is faking character growth, remember?

If Belkar is faking it, he should have claimed credit for releasing the allosaurus in the arena.

warrl

2014-01-02, 06:12 PM

Whether Belkar's moving towards Neutral is debatable

I'd say it's real... but moving toward something doesn't necessarily mean you actually get there. THAT is to be determined.

Math_Mage

2014-01-02, 06:16 PM

I gotta say, turning this into yet another Belkar alignment thread was probably not the best way to make it less irritating to people who were irritated by the thread in the first place.

This is somewhat relevant to the thread, but "the barbarians are stupid" is a rather ethnocentric trope in the first place.

I tried to build a genuine barbarian - raised as hunter/herdsman in a nomadic horse-clan - in 3.5E. That was quite a while ago and I no longer have the character sheet (or a single 3.xE book) but I can look at the skill list in the SRD and pick these as the one such a character is likely to need as a level-1 commoner (actually capable of operating at basic competence):

*Climb
Concentration
*Craft Snare/Trap
*Craft Enclosure
*Handle Animal
Hide
*Jump
Knowledge: Animals
Knowledge: Plants
*Listen
Move Silently
*Profession: Herdsman or Hunter (or both)
*Ride
Search
*Spot
Survival
*Swim
*Use Rope

Eighteen skills, eleven of them class skills and the other seven not, for a total of 25 skill points required to get *just one* rank in each of these skills.

And that's assuming there are specialists in the tribe making the rope, saddles, blankets, tents, weapons, etc.

Commoners get (2+intmod)*4 skill points at level 1. To get to 25 skill points, they need Int 20.

In fact, if there's a defining characteristic of primitive societies, I suggest it's that a very large share of people MUST be generalists in order to survive long enough to be specialists, or alternatively to support the specialists. And being a generalist is not for the stupid.

The large majority of people in cities - or even medieval farm villages - are, in comparison, specialists.

Now Thog isn't very smart in what city folks think is important, but he could be plenty smart in what's important to wherever he came from. He has trouble with the grammar of Common, but I'd assume he's fluent in Orcish. And he's got a lighthearted outlook on life (while being brutal), but that isn't a solidly identifying mark of low intelligence.

So yeah, not a Ph.D. candidate by any means, but not of unusually low intelligence either.
1) Are you sure you aren't conflating 'does something involving X skill' with 'specializing in X skill to the degree that it should be represented by skill points'?
2) It's not so much that the system is unfair to barbarians as that it's unfair to Level 1 barbarians (and Level 1 everything else, for that matter).

allenw

2014-01-02, 08:30 PM

After reading this thread I find myself wondering was there really any point in having 6 pages on an irrelevant topic?

Welcome to the Internet OotS forums! Enjoy your stay; try the veal (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=352286) (but best not to ask if it's morally justified).

AKA_Bait

2014-01-02, 09:41 PM

YES.

Generalizing from a sample size of one is the extreme case of generalization from the particular, and it is one of the oldest logical fallacies known to man. That's why I consider it logically indefensible and a waste of time.

*snip*

Generalization from the particular: Don't do it.

Thanks for responding. I thought this might have been where you were going with that. While the fallacy of UG is applicable in many things, particularly the sciences, it doesn't really work in the context of literary analysis.

If UG means that it is logically indefensible to ever discuss how a work reads or what it means on the basis of the portrayal of only one significant character in the work then the following discussions are logically indefensible: the treatment of minorities in Othello; the treatment of mental handicap in Of Mice and Men; the treatment of women of color in the original Star Trek; the treatment of mental illness in The Glass Menagerie; the treatment of alcoholism in Angela's Ashes. That's obviously a non-exhaustive list, but I hope that you see my point. Please note that not all of the portrayals on that list are understood to be negative.

Welcome to the Internet OotS forums! Enjoy your stay; try the veal (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=352286) (but best not to ask if it's morally justified).

::rim shot::

nabcif

2014-01-02, 10:14 PM

YES.

Generalizing from a sample size of one is the extreme case of generalization from the particular, and it is one of the oldest logical fallacies known to man. That's why I consider it logically indefensible and a waste of time.

But everyone generalizes from one example! Well, I do, anyway.

(And so, perhaps, does Stephen Brust, whose character I stole that from.)

The_Weirdo

2014-01-02, 10:35 PM

Okay, the two cents of someone that *didn't* read the entire thread. So, yeah, I may say stuff that's wrong or otherwise has been said, etc. Ah well.

First off, IMHO, D&D Ability scores do not account for or reflect mental disabilities or other traits. Basically, it's not that a mentally handicapped person's INT score would be high or low, it's just that it doesn't really apply. Halaster is a crazed psychopath and has the INT to be an Epic Wizard. Fzoul Chembryl has the WIS to be a powerful Cleric and is, nevertheless, Lawful Evil. Halaster clearly *has* a laundry list of mental issues; they in no way interfere on his Ability scores. Likewise, Fzoul Chembryl is "wise". He just used that wisdom of his to reach conclusions most of us (including other very wise people) find abhorrent.

The moral here is as follows: No Ability describes how your brain is *wired*. Not INT, not WIS, not CHA, not a mix of those.

Which brings me to Thog. He's not mentally handicapped. He's, well, *stupid*. He is, yes, able to make his own decisions and - while sometimes childlike in behavior - knows right from wrong, insofar, at least, as he can *measure* it. He's a Barbarian, which also means he's illiterate. That, by itself, is another hit to his cognitive abilities, as literacy very much creates culture. This isn't a joke at the expense of illiterate people, it's just a class "feature" of Barbarians. Thog has been shown consistently to be able to talk, think and behave in the same fashion as other people, just not on the same level. So, yeah. He's not mentally handicapped, he's just mind-numbingly stupid. His stupidity happens to include deriving pleasure from the pain of others or showing a total lack of self-control and a disregard for whom said lack of self-control hurts. So, yes, Chaotic Evil. But he's not Chaotic Evil due to his low INT score. And his INT score has nothing to do with any mental issues (which, aside from possible sadistic *behavior* disorders, but I'm not a psychologist, he doesn't have).

Thog is fine, medically and mentally speaking. He just happens to be dumber than a bag of rocks. He also happens to be Evil. These three facts are completely independent from one another, beyond applying to the same person.

Deliverance

2014-01-02, 11:42 PM

Thanks for responding. I thought this might have been where you were going with that. While the fallacy of UG is applicable in many things, particularly the sciences, it doesn't really work in the context of literary analysis.

It most certainly does work in literary analysis. It is the difference between a) discussing how something is depicted within a work and comparing it to other depictions in other works or other avenues of life, i.e. examining it as part of a larger group and b) attempting to draw wider conclusions or read wider implications into a text by generalizing from the particular, which is not supported by the text itself. The first can be scholarly work; the second is usually rabblerousing.

Forum Explorer

2014-01-03, 12:37 AM

It most certainly does work in literary analysis. It is the difference between a) discussing how something is depicted within a work and comparing it to other depictions in other works or other avenues of life, i.e. examining it as part of a larger group and b) attempting to draw wider conclusions or read wider implications into a text by generalizing from the particular, which is not supported by the text itself. The first can be scholarly work; the second is usually rabblerousing.

Going off this, in order to really 'determine' if Thog is mentally handicapped and a negative portrayal you'd need to compare Thog in context of the work itself for other mentally handicapped people. Looking at the rest of the comic you see that other dim people are both good and neutral so I would say that no Thog isn't a negative portrayal of mentally handicapped, though Thog is arguably dumber then them (though I would say Thog is around Enor's intelligence)

Then compare Thog to portrayals of mentally handicapped in other works, and well as the Fantasy Dumb Barbarian. In that context you could see if Thog is mentally handicapped or just the Dumb Barbarian.

Math_Mage

2014-01-03, 01:20 AM

I'll say that this concern wouldn't be present for me if there was another character that was good aligned and had significant penalties across all three mental attributes and whose function wasn't largely as the delivery vehicle of "fantasy stupid" jokes. However, I don't mean that to say that the Giant should write such a character into the comic. I'd really rather not get into the business of telling the Giant how to write this comic (as opposed to looking at the comic as written). Allowing one, arguable area of concern, in a literary work to slide in order to focus on other things more important to the author is a perfectly reasonable choice and one that has so far made for an excellent comic.
I'd like to go back to this for a moment, because I think this is the main reason why I'm uncomfortable with your line of reasoning.

The evidence is that Thog has low mental scores and acts dumb. To reach the conclusion that the work is saying something unfortunate about Thog as a mentally disabled person requires that one make the leap from 'low mental scores and acts dumb' to mental handicap. But that leap is neither intended by the author, nor objectively present in the work--that is, the text itself does not equate Thog's stupidity with mental handicap. As such, this interpretation is purely a product of the reader's expectations. The reader is reading Thog with the assumption that Thog's stupidity implies something about mental disability. To the extent that this is unfortunate, it would seem to be unfortunate on the part of the reader, not of the text.

Exactly.

People keep saying that no one else was reading Thog as intellectually disabled... except that a lot of people HAVE been reading Thog as exactly that. There have been a huge amount of people on the forum who have argued that Thog is so disabled, and that he's being manipulated by Nale due to his low intelligence and that he'd be a good person with better friends. This view has been so popular that the author himself has put in jibes about it in-comic to make it clear that, no, Thog genuinely likes hurting people, and that he, unlike, say, the MitD, has not just fallen in with a bad crowd who pushes him into doing things he wouldn't otherwise. And even then there have been a lot of people over in, as mentioned, the "least evil Evil character" thread talking about Thog's low int as a possible negating factor for his evil. The OP was basically saying that, given that reading, do you think that the comic portrays any intellectually disabled characters, Thog chief among them, and if so, how well do you think it does so?

A lot of people read Thog as intellectually disabled in the absence of authorial clarification. Asking more about how people read the work is completely valid.
Hang on, now. What I see from your post is an assertion that lots of people see Thog as mentally disabled...and then lots of citations that have to do with Thog being stupid. To assert that this leads to a conclusion about Thog's supposed mental disability would seem to be committing the exact same error the text is being accused of.

(Of course, it's possible that lots of people have been committing this error, and that's where you're deriving your citations from. But in that case, the issue is with the people committing the error.)

DaggerPen

2014-01-03, 01:51 AM

Hang on, now. What I see from your post is an assertion that lots of people see Thog as mentally disabled...and then lots of citations that have to do with Thog being stupid. To assert that this leads to a conclusion about Thog's supposed mental disability would seem to be committing the exact same error the text is being accused of.

(Of course, it's possible that lots of people have been committing this error, and that's where you're deriving your citations from. But in that case, the issue is with the people committing the error.)

I'm... going to be honest, I've read this post like five times and I'm not sure what you're saying. I haven't exactly taken a scientific survey here, but I've definitely seen a substantial number of people over the years saying that they think Thog is intellectually handicapped and that it makes him incapable of judging right from wrong. "Thog is too dumb to know right from wrong" is generally a subcategory of that. I mean, you could say that he is not intellectually disabled but is still dumb to know right from wrong, but I'm... not entirely certain that idea holds water. All of this is an error with the poster, certainly, and assumes that intellectually disabled people have far less agency than they actually do. But if a significant number of people read it that way, it's fair to ask "Okay, what portrayals of intellectually disabled people does this comic have, and how well are they done?"

Confession - I've kind of lost the thread of this argument at this point. I was annoyed by the "OP is trolling" type responses, because the OP seemed to be sincere to me and to raise a good point to the people who are arguing that Thog can't separate right from wrong because he's intellectually disabled. Then there were a few tangents and now we're mostly arguing about whether or not the thread deserves to be posted in? I think I'm just going to bow out here, because I don't really have anything more to say at this point than "The OP seems to have been sincere, a lot of people read Thog as intellectually disabled even though he was never intended to be so, but I don't think that it's ultimately a problem with the comic."

Math_Mage

2014-01-03, 02:10 AM

I'm... going to be honest, I've read this post like five times and I'm not sure what you're saying. I haven't exactly taken a scientific survey here, but I've definitely seen a substantial number of people over the years saying that they think Thog is intellectually handicapped and that it makes him incapable of judging right from wrong. "Thog is too dumb to know right from wrong" is generally a subcategory of that. I mean, you could say that he is not intellectually disabled but is still dumb to know right from wrong, but I'm... not entirely certain that idea holds water. All of this is an error with the poster, certainly, and assumes that intellectually disabled people have far less agency than they actually do. But if a significant number of people read it that way, it's fair to ask "Okay, what portrayals of intellectually disabled people does this comic have, and how well are they done?"
If it helps, the bolded line is probably the central point of our disagreement. Maybe it's just that, since I don't think the text implies Thog is too dumb to know right from wrong in the first place, I'm seeing a leap from general stupidity to mental handicap in your post, when you're actually writing about some specific kind and degree of stupidity (i.e., "too stupid to know from right from wrong" is an actual mental handicap above and beyond merely being very stupid). Is that right?

Either way, I don't think the fact that a lot of people have dumb ideas about Thog in morality threads makes it either more or less fair to inquire about how OotS handles mental handicaps. However, the initial inquiry was given a more specific scope--'Does Thog raise unfortunate implications'--and that's how the discussion has progressed. This, IMO, has detracted from the potential for an actually useful discussion of reading mental handicaps into OotS characters.

Since I neither participated in or supported "OP is trolling" responses, I don't see any reason to bring that baggage into this part of the conversation.

mlund

2014-01-03, 02:21 AM

Did people stop and consider that Thog is Evil, and that like so many evil people in real life he's lived a life that completely revolves about getting what he enjoys and avoiding things he dislikes with no regard for the well-being of other sapients (as a class)?

Thog eats foods that taste good and things he finds amusing. He happens to find the physical suffering of others at his hands to be one of the most amusing things in the world. He's sadistic and strong. He lives a life of petty self-service and focuses on doing what he likes. His combat skills and physical abilities are the ones that fulfill his desires.

Thog is dim because he's a half-orc who has lived a life of petty pleasures and sadistic violence with little regard for constructive pursuits or the well-being of strangers.

If you enjoy the life of the brute and can get away with living it is it really all that irrational to seize upon it?

Immoral? Sure. Ignorant? Maybe. Irrational? Nope.

- Marty Lund

DaggerPen

2014-01-03, 02:35 AM

Bowing back in briefly because my sleep deprived brain is having a much easier time making sense of your reply.

If it helps, the bolded line is probably the central point of our disagreement. Maybe it's just that, since I don't think the text implies Thog is too dumb to know right from wrong in the first place, I'm seeing a leap from general stupidity to mental handicap in your post, when you're actually writing about some specific kind and degree of stupidity (i.e., "too stupid to know from right from wrong" is an actual mental handicap above and beyond merely being very stupid). Is that right?

More or less. There is in general a common misconception that intellectually disabled people can't distinguish right from wrong (the question of capacity is a complicated thing, but in reality, intellectually disabled people have much more awareness and agency than most people think), so in my experience, if someone is saying "they're too dumb to know right from wrong," they are saying that because they believe that character is intellectually disabled. The hypothetical person who would be incapable of judging right from wrong purely due to low intelligence who was not intellectually disabled would be... strange, to say the least. The only character who jumps to mind is the MitD, but the MitD does seem to have some moral compunctions (not eating babies) and just generally gives the impression of being an actual child to me, which is a different can of worms.

Actually, I think that by considering the MitD, I'm understanding what you mean. I don't think it's very common to read MitD as intellectually disabled, but he doesn't quite seem to understand that eating adults is bad, given that O-Chul calls him a "good man" but he was perfectly willing to eat the Order. But for whatever reasons, I think the generally proffered explanations aren't just "he's too dumb" - they're "he's just a child," "he's from a species with natural evil inclinations," "he's actively not examining it," etc. The general idea is that the MitD is capable of understanding right from wrong, whereas a non-zero number of people seem to think that Thog is incapable of the same.

Either way, I don't think the fact that a lot of people have dumb ideas about Thog in morality threads makes it either more or less fair to inquire about how OotS handles mental handicaps.

I think that it does, in the sense that the train of thought- as I understood it- is:

-This is a common reading of that character
-This reading has unfortunate implications
-Do you think that this is a reasonable reading of the comic as written, or?

We know that the Giant has not intended to portray any characters as intellectually disabled. The question is, has his execution measured up to this intent? I say that the answer is that, yes, it has, and I have no idea where people are getting this idea that Thog is anything but thoroughly evil, or that his low Int score in any way mitigates his evil. But I don't think it was anything resembling a Miko-esque leap to go from "boy do a lot of people in this thread think that Thog has diminished capacity" to "is the narrative giving this impression, intentionally or not?", nor to go from there to "if the narrative does give this impression, does that have unfortunate implications?"

However, the initial inquiry was given a more specific scope--'Does Thog raise unfortunate implications'--and that's how the discussion has progressed. This, IMO, has detracted from the potential for an actually useful discussion of reading mental handicaps into OotS characters.

I can agree with that.

Since I neither participated in or supported "OP is trolling" responses, I don't see any reason to bring that baggage into this part of the conversation.

I think it was relevant because it was why I made the post to which you were responding, but I certainly don't think that you were in that group, nor do I intend to bring that baggage in to this discussion outside of the context of explaining why I made posts.

WindStruck

2014-01-03, 04:02 AM

Hrm... I don't understand where all the concerns are coming from...

Dumb people act stupid because they generally make poor decisions do stupid things. Dumb people have trouble understanding more complex concepts. There's a shocker!

As for being "mentally handicapped", as The Giant has said it's a far different matter. He has officially forgone including anyone like that in his comic, as it would serve no purpose, and any jokes centered around that quality would be inappropriate.

AKA_Bait

2014-01-03, 05:19 AM

Going off this, in order to really 'determine' if Thog is mentally handicapped and a negative portrayal you'd need to compare Thog in context of the work itself for other mentally handicapped people. Looking at the rest of the comic you see that other dim people are both good and neutral so I would say that no Thog isn't a negative portrayal of mentally handicapped, though Thog is arguably dumber then them (though I would say Thog is around Enor's intelligence)

Those comparisons (e.g., with Elan, Crystal, and Enor) are what was going to a substantial degree in this thread and those comparisons lead many posters to conclude that the text doesn't have troubling implications. I'm even starting to come around to that position myself upon more reflection. However, Deliverances' point seems to have been that having that conversation at all is logically indefensible because there is only one of Thog in the work.

Then compare Thog to portrayals of mentally handicapped in other works, and well as the Fantasy Dumb Barbarian. In that context you could see if Thog is mentally handicapped or just the Dumb Barbarian.

This has also been part of the discussion, but to a lesser extent. There is a lingering issue with this comparison, and one I raised in response to the Giant. That is, it seems to me that a work can use the "Fantasy Dumb Barbarian" trope and still be a negative portrayal of a mentally handicapped character in much the same manner that it can be using "realistic female dialogue" and still be using slut-shaming language.

The evidence is that Thog has low mental scores and acts dumb. To reach the conclusion that the work is saying something unfortunate about Thog as a mentally disabled person requires that one make the leap from 'low mental scores and acts dumb' to mental handicap.

I think it's actually a little bit more than that. It's that Thog acts child-like in the sense that we don't see evidence that he has adult goals or is capable of self-care. Elan has low mental scores and acts dumb, and Crystal has low mental scores and acts dumb but I don't think those characters read as mentally handicapped because they seem fully capable of self-care and have adult goals.

Maybe in response to this is the right place to reraise a point I made earlier. A person can be both mentally handicapped and capable of knowing right from wrong. In other words, having an intellectual disability does not necessarily entail an incapacity for moral agency. I think Thog reasonably reads exactly that way. He's an adult, very dim, has poor oral language skills, pays no attention to social rules, and seems to have a low capacity for self care. These are all markers for mental disability, but not disability so severe as to deprive him of moral agency. That other readers see Thog as even more disabled seems to lend support to the way I read him in a force majeure sort of way.

To the extent that this is unfortunate, it would seem to be unfortunate on the part of the reader, not of the text.

I think this whole "problem with the reader" v. "problem with the text" thing is an unhelpful phrasing. Let me ask this: do you think a text can ever reasonably be read to convey a meaning the author didn't intend? It seems to me that virtually every instance where a text does so it will be the case that (1) the author did not intend the proposed meaning and (2) the text does not expressly endorse the proposed meaning (if it did, it seems pretty unlikely that the author didn't intend the meaning). Thus, if you don't think a text can convey an unintended meaning then "problem with the reader" really just means "the author did not intend the work to be read in this way."

On the other hand, if you do think a text can convey a meaning other than that intended by the author then specific questions about what meanings can be read in a text are really about whether a particular reading is reasonable in light of the text itself. I suppose another way of putting this is to say, the question is "can the text be fairly misread in the manner proposed?" In this context, "problem with the reader" really just means "your reading of the text cannot be supported by the text itself."

Since I neither participated in or supported "OP is trolling" responses, I don't see any reason to bring that baggage into this part of the conversation.

I'll try to keep it out as well. It just gets a little difficult not to read into things when you are being accused of trolling every other post.

For a little while, several years ago, I actually was a troll in the playground. Then the mods changed the post-count rules.

I think that it does, in the sense that the train of thought- as I understood it- is:

-This is a common reading of that character
-This reading has unfortunate implications
-Do you think that this is a reasonable reading of the comic as written, or?

We know that the Giant has not intended to portray any characters as intellectually disabled. The question is, has his execution measured up to this intent?

That's pretty much what I wanted this discussion to be about. I focused on Thog because the question occurred to me in the context of a separate Thog discussion and he seems to me to show the most markers of the various OotS characters.

I say that the answer is that, yes, it has, and I have no idea where people are getting this idea that Thog is anything but thoroughly evil, or that his low Int score in any way mitigates his evil.

Well, part of the discussion I wanted to have, which seems to have mostly been lost in the shuffle, is whether having a low mental scores character that reads as disabled to a portion of the audience and who is thoroughly evil can itself be a cause for concern.

For the record, I don't see anything wrong with asking the question: does x have troubling unintended implications, talking about it, and deciding (individually) that it does or doesn't. I'm also not going to debate that issue anymore.

Socksy

2014-01-03, 05:44 AM

As someone with a 'learning disability' (no idea what the politically correct name is elsewhere, but I'm talking about myself, so who cares), nothing about Thog seems to point towards him having one, if that makes sense. Like, he functions correctly and can look after himself (insofar as he can stay alive and healthy), and doesn't have any issues with his speech beyond that of other orcs - I'm aware he's a half-orc, but perhaps he was raised in orc culture? As far as I'm aware, we haven't seen any of it except for the orcs on that island. I think if there's any issue with him, he's dumb, and doesn't give two hoots about the rules of human society, which combined make it seem like he might have some sort of learning difficulty or other mental issue.

Also, I have an IQ up in the genius range. INTELLIGENCE =/= FULL MENTAL ABILITIES, although I think you guys have generally got that?

Anyway, the Giant said that Thog wasn't mentally handicapped.

Math_Mage

2014-01-03, 05:45 AM

I think it's actually a little bit more than that. It's that Thog acts child-like in the sense that we don't see evidence that he has adult goals or is capable of self-care. Elan has low mental scores and acts dumb, and Crystal has low mental scores and acts dumb but I don't think those characters read as mentally handicapped because they seem fully capable of self-care and have adult goals.
I dunno, it seems like Crystal would end up ass over teakettle without people to lead her by the nose, and has no goals more mature than 'get back at Starshine because she dissed my hair.' (I don't think Crystal is handicapped, but then, I don't think Thog is either...)

Maybe in response to this is the right place to reraise a point I made earlier. A person can be both mentally handicapped and capable of knowing right from wrong. In other words, having an intellectual disability does not necessarily entail an incapacity for moral agency. I think Thog reasonably reads exactly that way. He's an adult, very dim, has poor oral language skills, pays no attention to social rules, and seems to have a low capacity for self care. These are all markers for mental disability, but not disability so severe as to deprive him of moral agency. That other readers see Thog as even more disabled, seems to lend support to they way I read him in a force majeure sort of way.
I agree with your reraised point, but not with your reading. At least half of those are not markers of anything other than themselves, the language issue is dialectic (bringing us back to the island orcs debate), and I'm still not clear on how we established that Thog has a low capacity for self care.

I think this whole "problem with the reader" v. "problem with the text" thing is really more against death of the author type analysis at all. Let me ask this: do you think a text can ever reasonably be read to convey a meaning the author didn't intend? It seems to me that virtually every instance where a text does so it will be the case that (1) the author did not intend the proposed meaning and (2) the text does not expressly endorse the proposed meaning (if it did, it seems pretty unlikely that the author didn't intend the meaning). Thus, if you don't think a text can convey an unintended meaning then "problem with the reader" really just means "the author did not intend the work to be read in this way."
It's not against death of the author. But it is about properly sourcing the interpretation. Let's take an intentionally simplistic example--the use of "gay" in the song "I Feel Pretty" from The Sound of Music. Clearly it's intended to have the old meaning; clearly it has unfortunate implications given modern language patterns. But the implications derive from the reader, not the text.

That doesn't mean implications deriving from the reader can't be legitimate, or that they can't also find support within the text. But it means that without the latter, the legitimacy of those implications depends on the legitimacy of the viewpoint that created those implications.

Well, part of the discussion I wanted to have, which seems to have mostly been lost in the shuffle, is whether having a low Int character that reads as disabled to a portion of the audience and who is thoroughly evil can itself be a cause for concern. I don't see anything wrong with asking the question: does x have troubling unintended implications, talking about it, and deciding that it doesn't.
*shrug* Not a bad discussion to have; my answer is no, simply because it's too narrow--one datum. A trend that leads to stereotyping the mentally disabled (or the stupid, for that matter) as evil would be another story.

AKA_Bait

2014-01-03, 06:08 AM

I dunno, it seems like Crystal would end up ass over teakettle without people to lead her by the nose, and has no goals more mature than 'get back at Starshine because she dissed my hair.' (I don't think Crystal is handicapped, but then, I don't think Thog is either...)

I think Crystal is actually more borderline than Elan, but the fact that she has her own apartment and is capable of the antagonist to a PC realization push me in the other direction.

I agree with your reraised point, but not with your reading. At least half of those are not markers of anything other than themselves, the language issue is dialectic (bringing us back to the island orcs debate), and I'm still not clear on how we established that Thog has a low capacity for self care.

I view Thog as having a low capacity for self care because we never see him outside of the direction or care of others. Admittedly, I may be over reading that. On the dialect issue, we have already been around the block on that and may have to agree to disagree. As for the others, low IQ, lack of understanding social rules, and possessing social inhibitors are common symptoms of mental disability. I mentioned adult only to distinguish the lack of those things due to impairment with their lack as a result of youth.

It's not against death of the author. But it is about properly sourcing the interpretation. Let's take an intentionally simplistic example--the use of "gay" in the song "I Feel Pretty" from The Sound of Music. Clearly it's intended to have the old meaning; clearly it has unfortunate implications given modern language patterns. But the implications derive from the reader, not the text.

That doesn't mean implications deriving from the reader can't be legitimate, or that they can't also find support within the text. But it means that without the latter, the legitimacy of those implications depends on the legitimacy of the viewpoint that created those implications.

Ok, sure, but then aren't we still really talking about whether there is textual support for a particular reading outside of authorial intent to determine legitimacy?

*shrug* Not a bad discussion to have; my answer is no, simply because it's too narrow--one datum. A trend that leads to stereotyping the mentally disabled (or the stupid, for that matter) as evil would be another story.

That's fair. I don't think that there's a trend across multiple characters here, although as I've said the Orcs of the Island have also become a little suspect to me. As I explained above, I'm not sure a limited data set (even a set of one) means that there can't be troubling implications when talking about a particular work.

I'd agree that drawing a conclusion on one datum in a case where the potential implication is neither intended nor arguably tied up with a major theme of the work may very well not be fair. As I said, I am starting to come around to the position that I shouldn't be troubled by Thog, even though I think he can fairly be read as mentally handicapped.

SowZ

2014-01-03, 07:42 AM

I think Crystal is actually more borderline than Elan, but the fact that she has her own apartment and is capable of the antagonist to a PC realization push me in the other direction.

I view Thog as having a low capacity for self care because we never see him outside of the direction or care of others. Admittedly, I may be over reading that. On the dialect issue, we have already been around the block on that and may have to agree to disagree. As for the others, low IQ, lack of understanding social rules, and possessing social inhibitors are common symptoms of mental disability. I mentioned adult only to distinguish the lack of those things due to impairment with their lack as a result of youth.

Ok, sure, but then aren't we still really talking about whether there is textual support for a particular reading outside of authorial intent to determine legitimacy?

That's fair. I don't think that there's a trend across multiple characters here, although as I've said the Orcs of the Island have also become a little suspect to me. As I explained above, I'm not sure a limited data set (even a set of one) means that there can't be troubling implications when talking about a particular work.

I'd agree that drawing a conclusion on one datum in a case where the potential implication is neither intended nor arguably tied up with a major theme of the work may very well not be fair. As I said, I am starting to come around to the position that I shouldn't be troubled by Thog, even though I think he can fairly be read as mentally handicapped.

Have you met some of the hill people in West Virginia, Alabama, etc.? Their dialect can be far, far harder to make sense of then the orcs. Also, what if they speak Common as a second language?

Carlo

2014-01-03, 08:09 AM

First, let me add my voice to those who think that this is an interesting and worthwhile discussion. I must admit to feeling a bit of impatience towards those posters who are chiming in with the assertion that this whole subject matter itself is too stupid to discuss, or that the author has already answered so shut up already, and anyway it's just a webcomic. It gives me an admittedly hypocritical urge to respond by telling them to shush, grownups are talking.

Secondly, I think that the idea of Thog not merely being stupid but actually mentally handicapped is a completely fair and reasonable interpretation of his character, warranted by an acceptable degree of evidence, authorial intent notwithstanding. In fact, though my opinion on the matter isn't particularly strong or fixed, I lean this way myself. Admittedly, this opinion comes with the caveat that I have no particular expertise of or experience with mentally handicapped persons; to be honest I'm not entirely clear on the difference between having a mental disability and merely being on the very far left of the intelligence distribution. Since to me those things are very nearly the same, I have little problem with interpreting someone who displays an egregious lack of mental capacity as someone who is so handicapped. (Although of course that opinion can readily change if I were disabused of my ignorance regarding matters psychiatric or neuroscientific).

But to be absolutely clear, my main reason for reading Thog as mentally handicapped isn't simply that he's stupid; the comic has many other characters who share that quality (e.g Elan, MITD, Crystal, Enor, Empress of Blood). It's that, in singular contrast to all of those characters, Thog strikes me as having a severely stunted ability to engage in moral reasoning. Put simply, (and I understand this is hardly an original opinion, and that the author himself has argued otherwise to persuasive effect), to my mind Thog simply lacks the capacity to understand the moral or ethical implications of his actions. It is this characteristic, distinct from but closely related to his stupidity, that I view as the defining feature of Thog's mental disability.

To cite an example, when Thog exclaims that "resisting arrest is fun! (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0362.html)" in mid-swing of his axe through the body of a Cliffport police officer, I think he means it only in its simplest, most literal sense - namely that it is an activity from which he derives much enjoyment. He simply doesn't grasp the broader and more disturbing implications of that statement, particularly with regard to the welfare of other sentient beings, the eventual fate of his soul upon his death, or his alignment as a D&D character. To him, "Good" and "Evil" are just words on a character sheet that help to describe what that character does, and not powerful and extremely loaded words upon which philosophers and ethicists have pontificated for centuries. I would agree with a lot of people here that Thog would nod his head enthusiastically if admonished that mass murder is an Evil act. I just don't think he is capable of grasping what that statement actually means in its fullest sense, or even in any sense that is meaningful to someone with a functioning conscience and a capacity for empathy.

(All that being said, I have no problem classifying Thog as someone with an Evil alignment. He clearly, even gleefully, revels in dishing out violence and death to other sentient creatures. There's an argument to be had about whether someone with a stunted capacity for moral reasoning can really be considered evil, in either the D&D or real-world sense. But that isn't the discussion we're having in this thread.)

Now on to the OP's point: in so far as Thog can be thought of as mentally disabled, is his mass-murdering violence a problematic portrayal of the mentally handicapped? In my opinion, no, not really. Mainly, because the nature of Thog's disability as I see it bears little-to-no resemblance to real-world mental or personality disorders such as autism, psychopathy, or (apologies for the phrase, I don't know how else to put it), mental retardation, at least as I understand those terms. I wouldn't even classify Thog as a sociopath as that word is popularly used, whether high-functioning or otherwise - I think even sociopaths normally have a capacity to understand why society would view their actions as wrong, even if they might disagree or not care. In essence, Thog's mental handicap is a very specific one that I more or less invented, that specifically explains his happy willingness to engage in violent behavior. I can't really think of anyone off the top of my head, whether fictional or real, that exhibits similar behavior due to suffering the same problem; so connecting Thog's imaginary mental disability to unfortunate prejudices about mentally handicapped persons in the real world seems to me as too much of a stretch, and strains credulity.

Keltest

2014-01-03, 09:02 AM

I view Thog as having a low capacity for self care because we never see him outside of the direction or care of others. Admittedly, I may be over reading that.

That's because if hes left to his own devices he'd go on a boredom driven rampage, to the detriment of Nale's goals. He's like Belkar in that the team keeps him around to direct the damage he will invariably (and knowingly) cause against things they think need/deserve it. Plus they need a melee fighter who isn't more or less guaranteed to be on Belkar's Favored Enemies list.

Deliverance

2014-01-03, 10:07 AM

Those comparisons (e.g., with Elan, Crystal, and Enor) are what was going to a substantial degree in this thread and those comparisons lead many posters to conclude that the text doesn't have troubling implications. I'm even starting to come around to that position myself upon more reflection. However, Deliverances' point seems to have been that having that conversation at all is logically indefensible because there is only one of Thog in the work.

NO.

My post was an explicit answer to the question you posted in your original post, not an reponse to where the thread had wandered with comparisons between different people. Your original post was not an invitation to discuss those comparisons, it was, essentially, "I'm worried about Thog's behaviour, I've defined him as being the sole representative of mentally handicapped people in OOTS, and I am reading his behaviour into a general attitude to the mentally handicapped (rather than e.g. reflecting stupidity+evil), and since Thog has all sorts of negative properties, this is troubling/offensive to me. What do you think the Giant is trying to say about the mentally handicapped? Am I being oversensitive?"

Your OP lays on the generalization from the particular with a trowel and I consider that approach logically indefensible, which is what I responded to; later discussions in the thread comparing different people in the comic is another matter and they should be evaluated on their own merits. Overall, the thread has become much more interesting than your OP invited to, primarily by not accepting your definitions, by comparing characters in OOTS, and taking it from there. :smallsmile:

But I digress.

ChristianSt

2014-01-03, 10:12 AM

I think Crystal is actually more borderline than Elan, but the fact that she has her own apartment and is capable of the antagonist to a PC realization push me in the other direction.

I view Thog as having a low capacity for self care because we never see him outside of the direction or care of others. Admittedly, I may be over reading that.

Antagonist to a PC is imo something that doesn't affect these discussion (and if so, Thog is an antagonist to Roy, too).

Actually it is possibly that Thog can do some pretty "smart" things on his own. We don't know if he was responsible alone (and why he did it), but even Tarquin couldn't figure out how he flooded the palace with lemon pudding... (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0822.html) (It is probably just a noodle incident (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NoodleIncident), but heck, flooding a palace with pudding is no easy task I would say)

And in term of goals, I don't see Crystal that much better anyway. She more or less exactly does what Bozzok wants - at least Thog can extort Nale into doing fun stuff for/with him (getting a bunch of ice cream (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0252.html), having a Barbarian Guild sleepover (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0142.html), successfully insisting on using rocket skates (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0256.html)).

From a motivation I think Thog, Belkar and Crystal aren't that far away - they all simple want to wreck chaos. On the "brutally funny" to "brutally brutal" line, I think Thog is probably the most funny and Crystal the most brutal one. She seems just to get the lulz out of murdering people. Belkar has the sort of benefit of being protagonist and being supervised by Roy. (I think if Belkar would have been a sidekick of Nale, and Thog would be supervised by Roy, Belkar would be worse than Thog now, while Thog would be better than Belkar). They all might be somewhat psychopathic, though.

The only character I think could be seen as mentally handicapped might be MitD, but I would say that he actually is a child that just has no real guidance, making the whole growing up process much harder for him - but at least from his interaction with O-Chul, I would say he finally started to figure it out.

Kish

2014-01-03, 10:44 AM

So something just made me look back at the OP, and I realized I have a couple issues with it, unrelated to the recent annoying tide of "this thread shouldn't exist."

Thog is, pretty unarguably, the recurring character with the lowest mental scores. The CL&G thread even uses him as a standard by which the scores of other low intelligence characters (such as Elan) are pegged. That thread also pegs him as being the only major character with an Int below eight

The only reason Thog's Intelligence is shown there as <8 and Elan's is shown as <10 is that Thog gets -2 for being a half-orc, and a thread-curator decided that Intelligence being his dump stat meant he had to have rolled less than a 10 for Intelligence.

The phrasing, "That thread also pegs only Thog as having an Int below eight" would be accurate, but "That thread also pegs him as being the only major character with an Int below eight" is not. Do you see what I'm saying? The thread doesn't put a floor on Elan's Intelligence, only a ceiling. I think Elan's Intelligence is higher than Thog's, but only because Elan was able to find the motivation to manipulate Thog, not the other way around.

and the only major character with penalties across all three mental attributes.
This part is actually untrue. Check again; it has Belkar listed as Intelligence <10, Wisdom <10, Charisma <10. That's penalties in all three mental ability scores.

According to the PHB, this puts him functionality-wise on par with a Troll at best.

Trolls are sapient, y'know. Can be brilliant, though an average troll's Intelligence isn't as high as an average human's. An average troll is exactly as intelligent as an average orc.

Thog is explicitly portrayed as child-like (e.g., management through ice cream, and being allowed to stay up past his bed time on weekends). He's the only adult character so portrayed that I can think of.

Elan is also allowed to stay up past his bedtime on weekends. And much of a strip was dedicated to him wanting Roy to do parent-type things before he'd go to sleep. That said, Thog is probably as close as a major character gets to being mentally handicapped since, as I said, I do think Elan is more intelligent than Thog.

Sir_Leorik

2014-01-03, 11:25 AM

This is somewhat relevant to the thread, but "the barbarians are stupid" is a rather ethnocentric trope in the first place.

I tried to build a genuine barbarian - raised as hunter/herdsman in a nomadic horse-clan - in 3.5E. That was quite a while ago and I no longer have the character sheet (or a single 3.xE book) but I can look at the skill list in the SRD and pick these as the one such a character is likely to need as a level-1 commoner (actually capable of operating at basic competence):

*Climb
Concentration
*Craft Snare/Trap
*Craft Enclosure
*Handle Animal
Hide
*Jump
Knowledge: Animals
Knowledge: Plants
*Listen
Move Silently
*Profession: Herdsman or Hunter (or both)
*Ride
Search
*Spot
Survival
*Swim
*Use Rope

Eighteen skills, eleven of them class skills and the other seven not, for a total of 25 skill points required to get *just one* rank in each of these skills.

And that's assuming there are specialists in the tribe making the rope, saddles, blankets, tents, weapons, etc.

Commoners get (2+intmod)*4 skill points at level 1. To get to 25 skill points, they need Int 20.

In fact, if there's a defining characteristic of primitive societies, I suggest it's that a very large share of people MUST be generalists in order to survive long enough to be specialists, or alternatively to support the specialists. And being a generalist is not for the stupid.

The large majority of people in cities - or even medieval farm villages - are, in comparison, specialists.

Just a few comments regarding that list of skills. Several of them are redundant, while others don't actually exist in the game.

*Climb
Concentration
*Craft Snare/Trap
*Craft Enclosure
*Handle Animal
Hide
*Jump
Knowledge: Animals
Knowledge: Plants
*Listen
Move Silently
*Profession: Herdsman or Hunter (or both)
*Ride
Search
*Spot
Survival
*Swim
*Use Rope

There is no Knowledge (Animals/Plants) skill in 3.X; there is only Knowledge (Nature) which covers Animals, plants and Plant monsters.

Climb can be used untrained.

Concentration is irrelevant for a primitive hunter/gatherer or herdsman, unless they are going to be using a skill that could provoke an attack of opportunity or that could be ruined if their concentration is broken.

I'd replace Craft (Enclosure) with Craft (Woodworker); it's less specific, and your whole goal was to make this Commoner a "generalist" hunter/gatherer or herdsman.

Unless your hunter/gatherer is going to rear hunting dogs or some other animals to assist in the hunt, Handle Animal is a waste of skill points.

Jump can be used untrained.

Swim can be used untrained.

Let's take another look at those skills:

*Climb (Use untrained)
Concentration (Irrelevant)
*Craft Snare/Trap
*Craft Enclosure Woodworking
*Handle Animal
Hide
*Jump
Knowledge: Animals
Knowledge: Plants
Knowledge (Nature)
*Listen
Move Silently
*Profession: Herdsman or Hunter (or both)
*Ride
Search
*Spot
Survival
*Swim
*Use Rope

That still leaves twelve skills, of which five are cross-class. Why not just try using the Expert class instead? They are proficient with a wider variety of weapons, proficient with light armor (but not shields) and they can choose ten skills to become class skills. That might be a better way to look at this thought experiment.