On the need for more female characters

[TidePriestess]

I've read some of what Rich Burlew has said about being afraid of writing new female characters because of apparent negative responses by readers in regards to Celia and Miko. With all due respect to hindsight... both of them had personalities that clashed very strongly against "normal" adventuring parties and many of the readers of the comic who play them; it had nothing at all to do with the Giant being bad at writing female characters, at least from what I could tell. I think both of them were excellent, and I would very much welcome more of their caliber.

[oppyu]

I agree that the Giant's writing chops almost certainly extend to writing compelling female characters (really, as a general tip to everyone, if you're having trouble writing female characters, write all the characters as gender-neutral then pick your women at random), and that this story would benefit from a more equitable gender balance in the main party as well as in the supporting world.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I agree with both of those sentiments very much. Although, I would like to know where the Giant said he didn't want to write new female characters. :smallconfused:

[zimmerwald1915]

...and that this story would benefit from a more equitable gender balance in the main party as well as in the supporting world.
Bring back Roylette!

[Codex]

I'm keeping my fingers crossed for Bandana being a new, female addition.

[Gift Jeraff]

Well, in addition to Bandana possibly having a major supporting role, Lien might get picked up, Hel is now a major threat, Sabine might be more of an independent presence without her mortal employer/lover, and there's also Laurin and her ambiguous fate. And of course, Redcloak's niece.

[NerdyKris]

and there's also Laurin and her ambiguous fate.

Did you mean Sereni? We know Laurin's fate.

brain fart. Was thinking of Lirian.

[Reddish Mage]

Did you mean Sereni? We know Laurin's fate.

Really? Because I don't think anything was made clear about it.

[Keltest]

Did you mean Sereni? We know Laurin's fate.

we do? Last we saw she may or may not have been mentally attacked by something that may or may not have been the snarl, and was in the process of being dragged off by Miron.

[NerdyKris]

I don't know why I just read Lauren as Lirian, our favorite Elven Druid.

[Murk]

I wouldn't call it a "need" per se. Without trying to analyse society and how OoTS might influence it (although I know that's a thing), a gender-imbalance isn't necessarily bad for a story. Because, y'know, sometimes there are just more males or females somewhere. It happens.

Having said that, more characters is always fun, so I totally agree with the sentiment :)

[Jay R]

I wouldn't call it a "need" per se. Without trying to analyse society and how OoTS might influence it (although I know that's a thing), a gender-imbalance isn't necessarily bad for a story. Because, y'know, sometimes there are just more males or females somewhere. It happens.

Agreed. A "need" to balance the genders is just as sexist as a "need" to only write male characters, or to only write female characters.

In all three cases, it's a judgment based on gender, not on story.

[Themrys]

I've read some of what Rich Burlew has said about being afraid of writing new female characters because of apparent negative responses by readers in regards to Celia and Miko. With all due respect to hindsight... both of them had personalities that clashed very strongly against "normal" adventuring parties and many of the readers of the comic who play them; it had nothing at all to do with the Giant being bad at writing female characters, at least from what I could tell. I think both of them were excellent, and I would very much welcome more of their caliber.

He wrote that? Really? Where?

That's ... just ... well, it's his forum, so I am not going to say what I think about it.

But that will influence my decisions to buy or not buy any more OOTS-books.

No one ever would accuse a male main character of being the reason that a movie failed, but it is done with female characters all the time, which is utter nonsense, obviously.

@Jay R: So, you are saying that representing women in media that is bought and paid for by women because that's just fair, is sexist?
That makes no sense. No sense at all.

[Keltest]

@Jay R: So, you are saying that representing women in media that is bought and paid for by women because that's just fair, is sexist?
That makes no sense. No sense at all.

getting dangerously close to forbidden topics here, so lets try and end it here.

Its the opposite extreme. Forcing an equal representation in a situation where equal representation is unlikely or unnecessary isn't any better than refusing it where it would be likely. Its arbitrary and adds nothing to the story rich is trying to tell.

[Ellye]

@Jay R: So, you are saying that representing women in media that is bought and paid for by women because that's just fair, is sexist?
That makes no sense. No sense at all.That's not what he's saying at all.

He's saying that creating extra female characters just because "oops, we don't feel have enough female characters going on at the moment!" is a form sexism. It would be as if those characters were being created to fill in some sort of "quota".

Thankfully this isn't the kind of thing that happens in OotS. Never was, and I doubt that it will be.

[TidePriestess]

That's not what he's saying at all.

He's saying that creating extra female characters just because "oops, we don't feel have enough female characters going on at the moment!" is a form sexism. It would be as if those characters were being created to fill in some sort of "quota".

Thankfully this isn't the kind of thing that happens in OotS. Never was, and I doubt that it will be.
Which is an attitude that would only appear if one was stuck in the paradigm of making male characters by default to begin with, which is the one that's best discarded.

[Keltest]

Which is an attitude that would only appear if one was stuck in the paradigm of making male characters by default to begin with, which is the one that's best discarded.

as opposed to.. what? making them female by default? Or perfectly balancing every story ever?

the second option isn't any better than the first, and balancing the story is bad for reasons already explained.

[TidePriestess]

as opposed to.. what? making them female by default? Or perfectly balancing every story ever?

the second option isn't any better than the first, and balancing the story is bad for reasons already explained.
Not having a "gender default" setting when creating characters. I do my best to avoid falling into any of that myself.

However, given that men and women have equal ability scores (except in the case of drow), I doubt anyone would need to worry about their interpretation of "realistic" gender ratios because it's obvious that everyone with equal training is equally capable.

[Unisus]

Actually, making a character female just to keep the story gender-balanced is sexist.

In the case of OotS the balancing of the main protagonists is senseless, as the OotS origined as a typical RPG-adventurer group and moved on from there.

I enjoy good stories becouse they are good stories, not because the main protagonist is male (which should be the case if the representation of one's own gender is factoring into the level of enjoyment). Actually i read a lot of stories with female protagonists and still enjoy them a lot.

[TheSummoner]

The only characters that need to be in a story (this one or any other) are the characters that the author wants to write about. Male, female, 50-foot tall fire-breathing rabbit, it's irrelevant. There's nothing sexist about an imbalance of genders in the story. It isn't a statement about one gender being inferior or less capable, just the way the distribution happens to fall.

[Kish]

Whether a story having 90% male characters with no in-universe reason is a problem is, apparently, a matter of opinion.

I suspect, somehow, that if the votes for "yes, it's a problem/no, it's not a problem" were tallied by gender, the "no, it's not a problem" side would also be 90% male. For some reason.

"Most stories have mostly people like me; if people who are not like me think there's a problem with that they're being oversensitive"--is an argument that is utterly without merit. OotS is like most stories, in that a character without a formal reason to be female is usually male.

[Murk]

A gender imbalance might very well be a problem for what it implies about society itself. I know mr. Burlew is very much about telling something about society through his work, so with that in mind it probably is a problem.
I don't think it is a problem for a story. If that is because I wish to see stories separate from society (which I know not everyone thinks is a good idea), then I see where the different opinions come from.

[Kish]

Stories separate from society? What does that even mean?

If you mean, you wish to pretend that stories have nothing to say about anything that matters, but are pure escapism and nothing more, then...yes, you could say not everybody thinks that's a good idea.

[Keltest]

Stories separate from society? What does that even mean?

If you mean, you wish to pretend that stories have nothing to say about anything that matters, but are pure escapism and nothing more, then...yes, you could say not everybody thinks that's a good idea.

I think he means that not all aspects of stories should not be looked at relative to today's society. If a story isn't talking about issues of gender equality, then anything we might consider to be "bad" in the background should be just that: in the background, unimportant.

edited for clarity

[Porthos]

He wrote that? Really? Where?

That's ... just ... well, it's his forum, so I am not going to say what I think about it.

But that will influence my decisions to buy or not buy any more OOTS-books.

No one ever would accuse a male main character of being the reason that a movie failed, but it is done with female characters all the time, which is utter nonsense, obviously.

If you don't see a direct quote of someone making a claim such as that, I'd take it with several grains of salt. Or at least presume that it's been subjected to a SEVERE case of 'telephone'.

As it is, Rich not a month ago or so went on Twitter to say that'new strong female character' have already been introduced into the story (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435655752724647938). With the inference being that he will be putting a spotlight on said character(s).

[Kish]

This (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?279142-Gender-and-Sexuality-Representation-in-OOTS&p=15058416&viewfull=1#post15058416) is the reference to which TidePriestess refers.

[TheSummoner]

Whether a story having 90% male characters with no in-universe reason is a problem is, apparently, a matter of opinion.

Your in-universe reason is this: those happen to be the people who agreed to go with Roy on his quest to slay a lich.

[TidePriestess]

This (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?279142-Gender-and-Sexuality-Representation-in-OOTS&p=15058416&viewfull=1#post15058416) is the reference to which TidePriestess refers.
Ah, yes. Wonderful.

[Keltest]

This (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?279142-Gender-and-Sexuality-Representation-in-OOTS&p=15058416&viewfull=1#post15058416) is the reference to which TidePriestess refers.

sounds like Telephone to me. And heck, without reading the thread to see what hes addressing, its still telephone to an extent.

[Porthos]

This (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?279142-Gender-and-Sexuality-Representation-in-OOTS&p=15058416&viewfull=1#post15058416) is the reference to which TidePriestess refers.

I knew which conversation was being talked about, but I didn't want to do the digging. So thanks for that.

I do want to add one thing though. One thing I've seen from a lot of artists is self-doubt over the qualitiy of one's writing. And one thing I've seen from Rich is that he very much cares about how his female characters are seen and viewed. His comments about intentionally non-sexualizing Laurin and apologizing for some of Haley's prior characterization are signs of this.

Put more simply, Rich is/was critiquing his own writing about female characters in an attempt to make sure he does them justice in the future.

This is the danger of looking at one post in isolation of a conversation. Or indeed several conversations.

Since that post linked by Kish, we've seen the introduction of both Laurin and Bandana. And I tend to think he's done rather well with them.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

As it is, Rich not a month ago or so went on Twitter to say that'new strong female character' have already been introduced into the story (https://twitter.com/RichBurlew/status/435655752724647938). With the inference being that he will be putting a spotlight on said character(s).

The wording of that tweet has made me feel as though it's saying we will meet several more major female characters and that "one is already here". Just my personal speculation though.


This (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?279142-Gender-and-Sexuality-Representation-in-OOTS&p=15058416&viewfull=1#post15058416) is the reference to which TidePriestess refers.

Thanks for pulling up that quote. I think it was a little misrepresented/Telephoned in the first post.

[Porthos]

The wording of that tweet has made me feel as though it's saying we will meet several more major female characters and that "one is already here". Just my personal speculation though.

Thanks for pulling up that quote. I think it was a little misrepresented/Telephoned in the first post.

Well, it was Kish that brought up the relevant one. :smallsmile:

Personally, I think if anyone wants to know where Rich stands on all of this, all one needs to do is read the post made a couple of months back about Laurin and Haley. I mentioned it in my last post, but I edited the link into the thread afterwards.

Here is the link again, for those who missed it:

16450188

That is the post of someone who:

A) Wants very badly to make sure his work doesn't send inappropiate (if unintended) messages.

and

B) Willing to self-criticize his own work in an attempt to make it better in the future.

I tend to think that is fairly indicative that he is indeed going to be writing 'strong female characters' in the future.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Well, it was Kish that brought up the relevant one. :smallsmile:
Oops, I thought I had put that quote in my post. I need to edit that.

[Dr.Starky]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with making a conscious effort to make a cast a little more diverse. Males are seen as the default in fiction and that sucks so sometimes you have to make a conscious effort to recognize that cultural inertia in nip it in bud. From what I've seen from Rich's posts here, he seems to understand that representation in media is important and I respect him for that. I think their was a post somewhere saying he regretted "Smurfetting" the group.

I'm not sure how many more opportunities he'll have to add new characters with the story the approaching it's end, but I sympathize with the OP's point.

[Kish]

I think their was a post somewhere saying he regretted "Smurfetting" the group.
Same quote I already linked.

[Squark]

Looking at the context of the thread, I think the Giant was acknowledging that he felt that, looking back, he'd done a rather poor job with Mike and Celia, so he was going to have to be careful with future female characters.

[Loreweaver15]

Note to Themrys: That's pretty much exactly what he was saying, Squark. He's not intentionally excluding female characters, he was saying that he wasn't sure he was any good at writing them without large portions of his fanbase crying out for their bloody ends.

[TidePriestess]

Note to Themrys: That's pretty much exactly what he was saying, Squark. He's not intentionally excluding female characters, he was saying that he wasn't sure he was any good at writing them without large portions of his fanbase crying out for their bloody ends.
Which is completely ridiculous if they did, especially for Celia; if she has a hatedom, it's one I can't possibly comprehend. In Miko's case, though, none of her hatedom had anything whatsoever to do with her femininity, from what I can tell.

[Keltest]

Which is completely ridiculous if they did, especially for Celia; if she has a hatedom, it's one I can't possibly comprehend. In Miko's case, though, none of her hatedom had anything whatsoever to do with her femininity, from what I can tell.

I can understand it. Celia is bloody annoying sometimes. It isn't usually very bad, but from when she, Haley and Belkar are going to see the oracle, until right around when Belkar gets the mark removed, shes incredibly obnoxious.

for the same reasons as Miko even to an extent: she tries to force others to conform to her worldview.

[Murk]

Stories separate from society? What does that even mean?

If you mean, you wish to pretend that stories have nothing to say about anything that matters, but are pure escapism and nothing more, then...yes, you could say not everybody thinks that's a good idea.

Well, yes, that's exactly what I mean. I know most people (including mr. Burlew himself) don't feel that way, but I want stories to be escapism. That's why I read them. If I want to see the real world, I look out of the window. But since there are no dragons outside of my window, I read stories.

However, I seem to have misjudged the intent of this thread, so I won't bother it again with meta-analyses of literature. I'm just going to sneak out of here.

[TidePriestess]

I can understand it. Celia is bloody annoying sometimes. It isn't usually very bad, but from when she, Haley and Belkar are going to see the oracle, until right around when Belkar gets the mark removed, shes incredibly obnoxious.

for the same reasons as Miko even to an extent: she tries to force others to conform to her worldview.
I firmly disagree. She's just acting like a normal moral person suddenly dropped into a far bloodier existence than what she's used to.

[Keltest]

I firmly disagree. She's just acting like a normal moral person suddenly dropped into a far bloodier existence than what she's used to.

Implying that that would not be annoying.

Seriously, she gave away Haley's fortune, for crying out loud, Lawyer-in-training or not, that's just not something you do without consent.

[Amphiox]

OotS is like most stories, in that a character without a formal reason to be female is usually male.

For very minor characters (and the vilest of the villains) that would seem to be the case. For important supporting characters though the OotS is actually quite a bit better than average on this point.

There was no formal reason for Lien to be female, for example. Her narrative role as a supporting character could have easily been filled by a male character. Similarly, Laurin's narrative role could also have easily been filled by a male character. Even Miko, minus the short, aborted romance arc with Roy, could have been a male character - every important character trait she had that was important to the plot was a gender-neutral trait. Serini could be male and her narrative role would be the same, as well.

[Jagos]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with making a conscious effort to make a cast a little more diverse. Males are seen as the default in fiction and that sucks so sometimes you have to make a conscious effort to recognize that cultural inertia in nip it in bud. From what I've seen from Rich's posts here, he seems to understand that representation in media is important and I respect him for that. I think their was a post somewhere saying he regretted "Smurfetting" the group.

I'm not sure how many more opportunities he'll have to add new characters with the story the approaching it's end, but I sympathize with the OP's point.

Ugh...

No, males aren't seen as defaults in fiction. A writer creates a character. That's it. The gender imbalance can usually be considered an afterthought. For example, I played D&D with 4 girls and I was the only guy. We created characters based on what we knew and the experiences around us. My strong orc was based on a samurai code because I loved karate. One of the girls had a smart thief type character with an eagle eye while practicing special ops and she was a lover of the army.

Fictional stories don't conform to real life roles. Rich has created some great characters who have defied anything I've seen in other stories. Tsukiko was a depraved woman looking for solace in undead characters while Roy has a lot of complexities to his overall good demeanor.

I like all of the characters for who they are. I was passionate about Miko because I wanted her to redeem herself and yet she didn't. Celia got on my nerves by being a normal person thrust into an adventure and really having to face some consequences from that.

Haley is a thief that got some character growth.

Even minor characters get development and sometimes they lose their battles and die.

It's a story. It's fiction. It's meant to entertain and it does so. If it had 500 females and 2 males, I wouldn't care because the story is great. And yes, we've even seen it where Roy went "transgender" and no, it didn't make one difference to me. The story mattered and to me, that's all that matters. This "default male" stuff is just nonsense.

[Keltest]

For very minor characters (and the vilest of the villains) that would seem to be the case. For important supporting characters though the OotS is actually quite a bit better than average on this point.

There was no formal reason for Lien to be female, for example. Her narrative role as a supporting character could have easily been filled by a male character. Similarly, Laurin's narrative role could also have easily been filled by a male character. Even Miko, minus the short, aborted romance arc with Roy, could have been a male character - every important character trait she had that was important to the plot was a gender-neutral trait. Serini could be male and her narrative role would be the same, as well.

Just about any role (except maybe romantic, depending) can be filled by a male or female. A character being male of female is pretty much only going to add to the character itself, rather than further along the plot.

[zimmerwald1915]

There was no formal reason for Lien to be female, for example. Her narrative role as a supporting character could have easily been filled by a male character.
If you're making this argument, Lien should not be your go-to example. Her narrative role might be simple support, but almost every bit of characterization she's had outside of that has been gendered and sexualized up the wazoo. There are four images that come to mind when I think about Lien (which might speak more to me than to her, but that's a whole other discussion): Lien defending the gangplank of Hinjo's junk, Lien tied up on the orcs' sacrificial altar, Lien lecturing Therkla about being "good, not dumb," and Lien telling Elan off for trying to pair her with Hinjo. I don't remember the first being gender-problematic, but the rest certainly are. Having Lien be the one captured and tied up is about as problematic as having Wonder Woman being the superhero most associated with bondage. The excuse "she didn't run because Paladins don't retreat/are immune to fear/whatever" reads as much like a post-hoc rationalization as "she gets tied up a lot because that's just part of Amazon culture". On the island now graced by a giant devil headstone, one of the proofs she uses for her intelligence was that she saw Therkla's attraction to Elan - incidentally, she veered in the direction of shaming Therkla over that attraction. And in the print-exclusive scene where Elan tries to pair her with Hinjo, she pulls out her taste in men as a badge of working-class honor. Personally, and I admit that there is and probably never will be proof of this, I think the Giant was referring to Lien when he said he was subconsciously sexing-up the female characters (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?110574-Why-are-all-black-women-in-the-comic-sluts/page3&p=6062407#post6062407).

This does not make Lien a bad character or a character the comic could stand to live without. But it also makes her a very bad example of a female character who could just as easily have been a man.

[TidePriestess]

Implying that that would not be annoying.

Seriously, she gave away Haley's fortune, for crying out loud, Lawyer-in-training or not, that's just not something you do without consent.
To save numerous lives? I would.

[zimmerwald1915]

To save numerous lives? I would.
I haven't taken legal ethics yet, and I suspect you haven't either (for that matter, depending on how law schools on the Plane of Air structure their curriculum, Celia might not have either!), but fiduciary obligations are things that exist in the real world, and Celia did claim Haley as her client.

[Dr.Starky]

Ugh...

No, males aren't seen as defaults in fiction.

[...]I'm not seeing anything in this post that supports this statement.

Just because you can find specific examples of well-written female characters does not mean that males aren't, in general, still seen as the default.

[Keltest]

To save numerous lives? I would.

And that's why its annoying. Its incredibly short sighted and frankly pretty selfish. A concern for life is laudable, but giving away something you have no right to and no idea what its being used for is just going to cause more problems in the long run.

[TidePriestess]

I haven't taken legal ethics yet, and I suspect you haven't either (for that matter, depending on how law schools on the Plane of Air structure their curriculum, Celia might not have either!), but fiduciary obligations are things that exist in the real world, and Celia did claim Haley as her client.
Well, Roy still counted as LG despite having taken several chaotic actions.

[Kish]

I'm also blinking at the idea that "I played in a gaming group where the four other players were all women" even relates.

Apparently Jagos and his former gaming group are fictional characters.

[zimmerwald1915]

I'm not seeing anything in this post that supports this statement.

Just because you can find specific examples of well-written female characters does not mean that males aren't, in general, still seen as the default.
People keep using the passive voice to talk about males and default-ness. Authors and audiences, coming as they do from [a particular] society, see males as the default unless they creatively challenge themselves, or are (what is more likely) creatively challenged by others organized into an oppositional movement, to see differently.

[Keltest]

Well, Roy still counted as LG despite having taken several chaotic actions.

how does that matter? Celia can be as lawful and good as she wants, and still be annoying.

[zimmerwald1915]

Well, Roy still counted as LG despite having taken several chaotic actions.
What in my comment about Celia's professional ethics (that is, not the game-mechanical "Ethics" axis, but something additional like the Hippocratic Oath) made you think I was talking about her alignment?

As for Celia as a character, I'd like it on the record that I don't find her annoying.

[TidePriestess]

And that's why its annoying. Its incredibly short sighted and frankly pretty selfish. A concern for life is laudable, but giving away something you have no right to and no idea what its being used for is just going to cause more problems in the long run.
If someone cares about keeping money more than saving lives, their opinion on such matters is one that I, by definition, do not care about. And it wasn't even all of Haley's money (which wasn't rightfully hers to begin with), just half.

[zimmerwald1915]

If someone cares about keeping money more than saving lives, their opinion on such matters is one that I, by definition, do not care about. And it wasn't even all of Haley's money (which wasn't rightfully hers to begin with), just half.
If someone really cares about saving lives, they should be willing to pony up their own stuff instead of someone else's. Particularly someone for whom you are acting as agent and whose interests you've taken it upon yourself - with no prompting, mind you - to protect.

[Porthos]

Ugh...

No, males aren't seen as defaults in fiction.

I think that, statistically speaking, they might as well be (though this is thankfully changing ever so slowly as time goes on). The comment "males are seen as default" in fiction usually points to the fact that the male gender is portrayed far more often in fiction than the female for whatever reason one might want to come up with.

[Keltest]

If someone really cares about saving lives, they should be willing to pony up their own stuff instead of someone else's. Particularly someone for whom you are acting as agent and whose interests you've taken it upon yourself - with no prompting, mind you - to protect.

it reminds me of those cliché movie villains who try to justify killing a lot of people with "sacrifices must be made for the greater good." well great, except they aren't sacrificing anything.

[TidePriestess]

If someone really cares about saving lives, they should be willing to pony up their own stuff instead of someone else's. Particularly someone for whom you are acting as agent and whose interests you've taken it upon yourself - with no prompting, mind you - to protect.
Even if Celia had money, which as a college student in a strip rife with tropes seems less than likely, it wouldn't have mattered because it was specifically Haley's contract with the Thieves' Guild that needed to be renewed. Plus, I doubt she could have Plane Shifted there and back in time to even get it if she had it.

[Keltest]

Even if Celia had money, which as a college student in a strip rife with tropes seems less than likely, it wouldn't have mattered because it was specifically Haley's contract with the Thieves' Guild that needed to be renewed. Plus, I doubt she could have Plane Shifted there and back in time to even get it if she had it.

youre missing the point. Imagine if your neighbor told someone who they knew you had debts to that they could take the stuff out of your house to settle the debt, and gave them the spare house key you left them. Furthermore, they neglected to mention to you that they did this until after the fact.

[zimmerwald1915]

Even if Celia had money, which as a college student in a strip rife with tropes seems less than likely, it wouldn't have mattered because it was specifically Haley's contract with the Thieves' Guild that needed to be renewed. Plus, I doubt she could have Plane Shifted there and back in time to even get it if she had it.
Given the way Celia herself framed the issue (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0621.html), I think it much more likely that she cared about giving Haley the comeuppance she thought Haley deserved for resorting to violence against the Guild so readily, and over her objections, than about any practical difficulties1. But you seem to think I have some beef with Celia. I don't. Her giving Haley some comeuppance, from a narrative standpoint, is perfectly fine. Celia taking advantage of a client's distress to teach her a lesson, instead of zealously guarding her interest to the utmost, is just a little more questionable, that's all. Celia didn't act badly, she acted unprofessionally.

1These, by the way, do exist, since Celia cannot plane shift on her own (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0671.html). But they are not insurmountable given that if the Guild wanted her stuff it could have ordered some clerics of Loki to plane shift over and fetch it.

[Kish]

Celia said that what she was about to do went against everything she'd been taught.

Beyond that, I find one of Haley's traveling companions stealing from her downright hilarious.

[BroomGuys]

I think it sort of misses the point, in an argument about whether Celia is an annoying character, to discuss the moral justification for Celia's actions in the name of nonviolence. A big theme of Don't Split the Party (and I'm getting much of this from the book commentary) is that we learn how important Roy was for the party by the way they fall apart. Haley isn't able to keep control over Belkar, and Celia, who doesn't live in a world where violent actions are a necessity for self-preservation, is enough removed from all the death to step in and point out that killing someone willy-nilly is horrible. As I read those passages the first time, I felt stressed out, and then I was frustrated when Celia dumbly dragged Roy's corpse to Grubwiggler. It's reasonable to sympathize with Celia because her morals are good ones, but that doesn't mean it's wrong to find her annoying when she gets in the way of the story and directly contributes to the stress of the part of the story when the Order hit rock bottom. I don't just wanna trumpet out "it's all subjective" mindlessly, but you really have to acknowledge the subjectivity of annoyance.

[shamgar001]

Personally, I would be afraid of writing female characters because doing so while avoiding charges of sexism requires me to know about and carefully avoid every stereotype to preempt charges of sexism.

Not to throw anyone specific under the bus, but take Zimmerwald's comment a page ago: having Lien tied up is gender-problematic, even though an in-universe explanation was given that was not only plausible, but necessary (should Lien have retreated while Durkon stayed behind to get captured? Should Hinjo have gone with them instead?). There's no reason to assume that the explanation wasn't legitimate.

I've read plenty of other commentaries on media where there's an underlying assumption that if a "minority" character ever matches up with any stereotype, the only reason that should be considered is *ism from the author.

Given that so many people are going to go out of their way to find problems with my hypothetical portrayal of females, I would be easier to just write an all-male cast and come up with an in-universe justification.

[zimmerwald1915]

Not to throw anyone specific under the bus
Don't worry about it :smallsmile:


I've read plenty of other commentaries on media where there's an underlying assumption that if a "minority" character ever matches up with any stereotype, the only reason that should be considered is *ism from the author.
There's a difference between saying "<Author X> is <category Y>ist" and saying "<Author X>, by not challenging a prevalent <category Y>ist assumption or power dynamic that is endemic in society, is reinforcing the power of <category Y>ism in society." Besides the number of words in those statements, that is.

[Dr.Starky]

I'd like to add that pretty much everyone is influenced by stereotypes and even very well-meaning, intelligent writers who are trying very hard to avoid those stereotypes are certainly going to fall into them on occasion.

However, I still think it is very important to call out those kind of mistakes when they happen and there isn't any reason to take calling out those mistakes as an attack on the work or the author.

[Codex]

I knew that this would turn into a morally justified thread soon.

[Kish]

I knew that this would turn into a morally justified thread soon.
I'm impressed. I didn't expect it to; even when the first person expressed an opinion on Celia's moral justification, I didn't expect anyone to take the bait and start arguing the point.

[Codex]

Welcome to giantip forums.

[shamgar001]

There's a difference between saying "<Author X> is <category Y>ist" and saying "<Author X>, by not challenging a prevalent <category Y>ist assumption or power dynamic that is endemic in society, is reinforcing the power of <category Y>ism in society." Besides the number of words in those statements, that is.

How is the latter category a reasonable standard to which we can hold authors? :smallconfused: They must be actively working against every problem simultaneously, else be part of the problem itself?



I knew that this would turn into a morally justified thread soon.

Could you expound on that?

[Jagos]

I think that, statistically speaking, they might as well be (though this is thankfully changing ever so slowly as time goes on). The comment "males are seen as default" in fiction usually points to the fact that the male gender is portrayed far more often in fiction than the female for whatever reason one might want to come up with.

No, it's a gender bias that has no bearing on actual fiction. People just base the characters on what they know. Even when my group did it, the girls played boy characters regardless of their gender. It's just as meaningless to point and say "OMG, this character is teh menz!!!" as it is to look at a female character and say that somehow her femalehood represents all women (such as Haley supposedly did before Celia showed up).

It's just nonsense that ignores the basics of storytelling for gender observation. We tell a story with 20 basic plot points (http://changingminds.org/disciplines/storytelling/plots/tobias_plots.htm) to which we can add or take away someone's gender at any time in a story so long as it makes sense. Why did Haley take so long to rescue Roy's body? Because [reasons]. Not because of gender representation.

If we make good characters, usually the rest falls into place.


I'm also blinking at the idea that "I played in a gaming group where the four other players were all women" even relates.

The point: We made characters to fit experiences, not gender roles. The gender of the players does not explain the characters just because of some idea that the default in a D&D game is maleness.

And now I have a question for you. What gender was the characters created? Does it matter compared to telling a good story or running a campaign?

That's the issue that I find disagreeable with this position. It seems to just assume things of players that aren't really in the games to begin with.

I'm pretty sure that the number of female characters really doesn't matter in the end. I just like them all for what they present in this story.

[The Giant]

I find it interesting how the OP started this thread to tell me how I'm wrong in thinking I did poorly writing Miko, then another thread to tell me how badly I messed up writing Miko. :smallannoyed:

But more interestingly, I notice that the comments that are being referred to are from a locked thread. And as we all know, we don't restart locked threads around here.

Since I've already addressed the substance of the point in the posts that Porthos and Kish linked to upthread, and I'm not about to respond to a petition or any other sort of attempt to request certain types of new characters, that leaves this thread with nothing but rehashing old points.

Thread locked.

EDIT: This thread actually turned into a Morally Justified thread while I was composing this post. A Morally Justified ninja, as it were. DOUBLE locked.