Is every father in OoTS a jerk (or worse)?

[elros]

Just look at the fathers of the major figures:
Eugene Greenhilt (http://oots.wikia.com/wiki/Eugene_Greenhilt): insults Roy, alienated his family, had a magic accident that killed his son. Not exactly "father of the year"
Ian Starshine (http://http://oots.wikia.com/wiki/Ian_Starshine): taught his daughter not to trust anyone, making her a bit of an outcast
Tarquin (http://oots.wikia.com/wiki/Tarquin): Runs an evil empire, created a sociopath son (Nale) who he murders, tries to kill Haley and torture Elan, etc
Loki (http://oots.wikia.com/wiki/Loki): makes a bet with his own daughter pretty much for kicks

Are there any positive fatherly role models? The only one I can think of is Roy's Grandfather, Horace (http://oots.wikia.com/wiki/Horace_Greenhilt), and that doesn't really count (Roy only met him in the afterlife!)

[JbeJ275]

And even Horace was mentioned to be a poor farther to Eugeane.

Geoff starshine was only trying to do the best for his kid. Sure he worked against Ian but it was just to keep Jimmy safe.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0942.html

[Quebbster]

Durkon's father seemed to be a good dwarf. His mother certainly did a good job raising him too.
On the other hand, Julio Scoundrél can't keep track of all his kids so he's hardly an example either.

[ti'esar]

According to a past comment by the Giant, this is basically a coincidence (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?222955-Disappointing-Fathers-and-Saintly-Mothers-in-OOTS/page2&p=12240501#post12240501) - subconscious at most.

(Since he's the only one to have come up since then, I'd note that we don't actually know Loki's motives, and they may well have been good ones).

[hroþila]

The Giant's commentary in BRitF partially exonerates Ian: he wasn't a good parent, but unlike others in your list he was actually doing his best, everything he did was out of love for Haley, and he had a point regarding trust, considering where they lived.

[littlebum2002]

I would agree with most of our examples, but not with Ian. He really loves Haley, and he tried his best to raise her, but I think he cracked when Mia died and couldn't handle raising her on his own.

However, Eugene and Tarquin were both unquestionably awful fathers. Awful people in general, really.


And even Horace was mentioned to be a poor farther to Eugeane.

I'm not doubting this, but I don't remember it.


Geoff starshine was only trying to do the best for his kid. Sure he worked against Ian but it was just to keep Jimmy safe.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0942.html

Yeah, spending years in jail while innocent so your son can have a good life is about the best a father could do.

[Doctor West]

Yeah, spending years in jail while innocent so your son can have a good life is about the best a father could do.

Not to mention getting your leg chopped off in a gladiatorial match.

[Mikemical]

And even Horace was mentioned to be a poor farther to Eugeane.

More like Eugene was a bad son to Horace.

From the wiki (http://oots.wikia.com/wiki/Horace_Greenhilt):
"Horace and Eugene had a tumultuous relationship; Horace has stated that he tried to get close to Eugene when the latter was still young, but his son treated him much as he would later do to Roy, browbeating him about a perceived lack of intellect and being generally unpleasant. During Roy's temporary death he and Horace spend time together, and are shown to get along better and have more in common than either did with Eugene."

[ti'esar]

Well, I don't think it speaks terribly well of Horace that he's "still surprised [Eugene] liked girls" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0497.html), but he certainly doesn't hold a candle to Eugene's unrelenting posthumous unpleasantness.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Well, I don't think it speaks terribly well of Horace that he's "still surprised [Eugene] liked girls" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0497.html)

Not sure why it would speak badly of Horace that he guessed his son's sexual preference wrong. As long as Horace was just surprised rather than "relieved" or "pleasantly surprised" or some other indication that he would've disapproved that his son was not heterosexual (jury's out on whether he predicted Eugene to be homosexual/asexual/etc), not sure what's so wrong about that. To me, it speaks good of him that he was open minded enough to not have attempted to change his son in that department.

Grey Wolf

[SlashDash]

What about


Redcloak's brother? Didn't he have kids and was actually doing everything he could for them?

[JennTora]

Nitpick. Tarquin killing Nale was less of a murder and more of a summary execution.

Eugene may not be as terrible a father as he seems. he's a **** as a ghost, but he's been sitting on a cloud for a long time waiting to get in. And the reason he didn't fulfill the blood oath is because

he wanted to raise his kids instead of killing Xykon

Granted, "accidentally blew up my son," is a tough thing to come back from, but from what I can tell the details we have are

1. Eugene was doing a magical experiment.
2. Roy and his brother were there.
3. Something went horribly, horribly wrong and Roy's brother died.

Almost all young kids like that will put their hands on the hot eye of a stove no matter how many times you tell them "you'll burn yourself, dodohead." He could have repeatedly told the ~4 year old "don't touch this, it'll explode," and the first thing the kid would do is touch it to find out what explode means.


Not sure why it would speak badly of Horace that he guessed his son's sexual preference wrong. As long as Horace was just surprised rather than "relieved" or "pleasantly surprised" or some other indication that he would've disapproved that his son was not heterosexual (jury's out on whether he predicted Eugene to be homosexual/asexual/etc), not sure what's so wrong about that. To me, it speaks good of him that he was open minded enough to not have attempted to change his son in that department.

Grey Wolf

It depends how you read it I guess. I didn't read horace's comment as "Eugene displayed some characteristics commonly associated with homosexual men and I was therefore expecting him to be homosexual."

I read it as, "Eugene didn't like bashing things with a big sword, and was a bookworm. That's girly so I thought he'd wind up gay."

But as we don't have clues like tone of voice and stuff we have to interpret the material.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I read it as, "Eugene didn't like bashing things with a big sword, and was a bookworm. That's girly so I thought he'd wind up gay."

I read it as "Eugene hit puberty and showed so much liking of books and studying and so little in girls. Boy might be asexual". Sure, we'd need to hear the tone, which is why jumping to "Horace holds stereotypical views on gays" is a bit of a major stretch, IMnpHO.

GW

[B. Dandelion]

Most of the time in real life when someone expresses surprise that so-and-so was actually straight/gay the whole time, they don't mean to imply the person was likely asexual. That's not an orientation that's been on the public radar with nearly as much visibility. In a perfectly sterile, politically correct environment that becomes a more likely reading -- and hey, LG heaven is as likely as an exquisitely politically correct environment as can be imagined to exist, so that works out. But that's not the place most of us grew up in. So it's not much of a stretch at all that people read that comment negatively. 99% percent of the time we'd ever encountered similar comments, they were negative.

[Mikemical]

Well, I don't think it speaks terribly well of Horace that he's "still surprised [Eugene] liked girls" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0497.html), but he certainly doesn't hold a candle to Eugene's unrelenting posthumous unpleasantness.

As many have mentioned before, Eugene only had eyes for his books about magic and little to none for any other thing. He met Sara at a party and they got together after they had some adult fun after they were both piss drunk. And Sara's (http://oots.wikia.com/wiki/Sara_Greenhilt) wiki entry says, she and Eugene met while drunk at a bar (though they'd later claim to their children to have met in a library) and spent the night together. She later noted that while Eugene was focussed on her they had a happy life, though he inevitably got bored and was "stuck with her" because of their children.

And Eugene might be the worst offender on the "Bad Father" list, considering:

Eugene is vain and self-absorbed. He thinks much of his powers but does not acknowledge his failings, especially to his family. He belittles the powers of fighters, believing that magic is superior to physical strength, which lead to him pushing away both Horace and Roy, even though Roy has enough INT to be accepted into a Wizardry school before gaining any PC levels.

Though he was responsible through his negligence for the death of his son, he does not seem to have accepted any blame for the event, even if the whole "kids touch things that are harmful" thing is true, he never gave a care to make sure his magical experiments were childproof. And if his experiment was that dangerous, as Roy noted when he was still a child, he wouldn't have performed it in the house they lived in.

Since his death and purgatory of his existence as an oathspirit, he is totally absorbed with his oath being fulfilled so he can continue to the afterlife. He is willing to contemplate great evil, such as Vaarsuvius' familicide or the genocide of the dwarven species as long these means would lead to the destruction of Xykon and Eugene's release.

Compared to him, Tarkin is a saint in the parenthood department. At least Tarkin acknowledges his failings and tried to form a relationship with his children, kept Nale and Elan safe despite the former's opposing views and the latter's smug snake/Starscream tendencies, for the wrong reasons, but still.

[woweedd]

More like Eugene was a bad son to Horace.

From the wiki (http://oots.wikia.com/wiki/Horace_Greenhilt):
"Horace and Eugene had a tumultuous relationship; Horace has stated that he tried to get close to Eugene when the latter was still young, but his son treated him much as he would later do to Roy, browbeating him about a perceived lack of intellect and being generally unpleasant. During Roy's temporary death he and Horace spend time together, and are shown to get along better and have more in common than either did with Eugene."
To be fair, I always intrepid Horace am being kinda a bad father to Eugene, if not to the same extent as Eugene, vis-a-vis never being able to respect his son's choice in career as a legitimate one, if only for the appropriateness in the idea that the Greenhilt family is trapped in a cycle. Eugene rebelled against Horace by becoming a Wizard, Roy rebelled against Eugene by becoming a Fighter. The Greenhillt's general lack of functionality extends to Horace too. Heck, it's possible Eugene's inability to respect Fighters comes from his feelings towards Horace rubbing off on his feelings towards
Horace's class. I mean, there is some indication that Roy's feelings towards Eugene have rubbed off on his feelings towards Wizards as a whole, given that, in his "ideal world", everyone wants to be a Fighter and Wizards are looked upon as the Class that someone unfortunately has to pick for a balanced party. And that's Roy, who is generally pretty self-aware of his own flaws. Eugene is...considerably less so.

[Keltest]

Most of the time in real life when someone expresses surprise that so-and-so was actually straight/gay the whole time, they don't mean to imply the person was likely asexual. That's not an orientation that's been on the public radar with nearly as much visibility. In a perfectly sterile, politically correct environment that becomes a more likely reading -- and hey, LG heaven is as likely as an exquisitely politically correct environment as can be imagined to exist, so that works out. But that's not the place most of us grew up in. So it's not much of a stretch at all that people read that comment negatively. 99% percent of the time we'd ever encountered similar comments, they were negative.

For my part, I also thought Horace was thinking Eugene might be asexual. The nerd who actively avoids social contact stereotype seems to fit Eugene a lot better than the effeminate outgoing nerd who's barely in the closet.

[TidePriestess]

As many have mentioned before, Eugene only had eyes for his books about magic and little to none for any other thing. He met Sara at a party and they got together after they had some adult fun after they were both piss drunk. And Sara's (http://oots.wikia.com/wiki/Sara_Greenhilt) wiki entry says, she and Eugene met while drunk at a bar (though they'd later claim to their children to have met in a library) and spent the night together. She later noted that while Eugene was focussed on her they had a happy life, though he inevitably got bored and was "stuck with her" because of their children.

And Eugene might be the worst offender on the "Bad Father" list, considering:

Eugene is vain and self-absorbed. He thinks much of his powers but does not acknowledge his failings, especially to his family. He belittles the powers of fighters, believing that magic is superior to physical strength, which lead to him pushing away both Horace and Roy, even though Roy has enough INT to be accepted into a Wizardry school before gaining any PC levels.

Though he was responsible through his negligence for the death of his son, he does not seem to have accepted any blame for the event, even if the whole "kids touch things that are harmful" thing is true, he never gave a care to make sure his magical experiments were childproof. And if his experiment was that dangerous, as Roy noted when he was still a child, he wouldn't have performed it in the house they lived in.

Since his death and purgatory of his existence as an oathspirit, he is totally absorbed with his oath being fulfilled so he can continue to the afterlife. He is willing to contemplate great evil, such as Vaarsuvius' familicide or the genocide of the dwarven species as long these means would lead to the destruction of Xykon and Eugene's release.

Compared to him, Tarkin is a saint in the parenthood department. At least Tarkin acknowledges his failings and tried to form a relationship with his children, kept Nale and Elan safe despite the former's opposing views and the latter's smug snake/Starscream tendencies, for the wrong reasons, but still.
To be fair, the dwarf genocide idea was actually him trying to help them avoid eternal slavery under Hel. And Tarquin doesn't acknowledge his most important failings, namely his narcissism and control freakish tendencies.

[woweedd]

As many have mentioned before, Eugene only had eyes for his books about magic and little to none for any other thing. He met Sara at a party and they got together after they had some adult fun after they were both piss drunk. And Sara's (http://oots.wikia.com/wiki/Sara_Greenhilt) wiki entry says, she and Eugene met while drunk at a bar (though they'd later claim to their children to have met in a library) and spent the night together. She later noted that while Eugene was focussed on her they had a happy life, though he inevitably got bored and was "stuck with her" because of their children.

And Eugene might be the worst offender on the "Bad Father" list, considering:

Eugene is vain and self-absorbed. He thinks much of his powers but does not acknowledge his failings, especially to his family. He belittles the powers of fighters, believing that magic is superior to physical strength, which lead to him pushing away both Horace and Roy, even though Roy has enough INT to be accepted into a Wizardry school before gaining any PC levels.

Though he was responsible through his negligence for the death of his son, he does not seem to have accepted any blame for the event, even if the whole "kids touch things that are harmful" thing is true, he never gave a care to make sure his magical experiments were childproof. And if his experiment was that dangerous, as Roy noted when he was still a child, he wouldn't have performed it in the house they lived in.

Since his death and purgatory of his existence as an oathspirit, he is totally absorbed with his oath being fulfilled so he can continue to the afterlife. He is willing to contemplate great evil, such as Vaarsuvius' familicide or the genocide of the dwarven species as long these means would lead to the destruction of Xykon and Eugene's release.

Compared to him, Tarkin is a saint in the parenthood department. At least Tarkin acknowledges his failings and tried to form a relationship with his children, kept Nale and Elan safe despite the former's opposing views and the latter's smug snake/Starscream tendencies, for the wrong reasons, but still.
That...is going a bit too far. Sure, Eugene's a bad father but he's not as bad as Tarquin. No one is as bad as Tarquin. Eugene may be a jerk who was unwilling to let his son take any path other then the one Eugene wanted to take, but Tarquin wanted his sons to go down his pre-set path so much that he got murderous the instant Elan declared a lack of desire to go along with Tarquin's plan for him. Basically, if you wnat the make of a man, see how he reacts to being denied. Eugene gets snippy and sarcastic, Tarquin gets homicidal. Eugene may look at Roy as nothing more than a child who need to be guided down the right path, but Trauqin looks at his sons as nothing more then his property, to be arranged how he wants them to be.

[JennTora]

I read it as "Eugene hit puberty and showed so much liking of books and studying and so little in girls. Boy might be asexual". Sure, we'd need to hear the tone, which is why jumping to "Horace holds stereotypical views on gays" is a bit of a major stretch, IMnpHO.

GW

You may be right about the asexual thing. I didn't think about asexual people when i was reading it, so that didn't occur to me.

But I don't think it's stretching it to say that the context implies Horace has some pretty strong distaste for Eugene's interests. He's talking to Roy about how men are supposed to relate to each other in the same conversation.

We don't have much of Eugene's side of this. I'd say there's a decent chance Horace tried to push kid Eugene into things he wasn't interested in like sports or fishing.



Though he was responsible through his negligence for the death of his son, he does not seem to have accepted any blame for the event, even if the whole "kids touch things that are harmful" thing is true, he never gave a care to make sure his magical experiments were childproof. And if his experiment was that dangerous, as Roy noted when he was still a child, he wouldn't have performed it in the house they lived in.
Do you mean he shouldn't have? Or that he actually wouldn't have?

If you meant that he shouldn't have, fair enough.

If you mean he wouldn't have that actually shows a little more care on his part.

Do we know how old Roy was? If Eugene was still relatively inexperienced as a father, then his negligence there is mitigated somewhat. Especially since we don't have evidence of any parenting books in ootsverse.


Since his death and purgatory of his existence as an oathspirit, he is totally absorbed with his oath being fulfilled so he can continue to the afterlife. He is willing to contemplate great evil, such as Vaarsuvius' familicide or the genocide of the dwarven species as long these means would lead to the destruction of Xykon and Eugene's release.

We don't know his feelings on familicide, though admittedly he was willing to hide it, that doesn't mean he necessarily approved, just saw killing xykon as more important.

Actually, we don't even know if he knows about familicide. He may have just been watching xykon and knew about V's pact because it was mentioned during the battle. Why would Eugene have been scrying on a random island or V's hometown at the time?

[Grey_Wolf_c]

We don't have much of Eugene's side of this. I'd say there's a decent chance Horace tried to push kid Eugene into things he wasn't interested in like sports or fishing.

We know he took him fishing as a way to bond with him, but also allowed him to take a book with him and then read it (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0498.html) while Horace fished so, clearly, there wasn't much "pushing" him to participate.

Horace comes across as a father who tried to reach his child best he could, and failed. Extrapolating his views on homosexuality from this is, as I said, a bit much.

GW

[JennTora]

We know he took him fishing as a way to bond with him, but also allowed him to take a book with him and then read it (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0498.html) while Horace fished so, clearly, there wasn't much "pushing" him to participate.

Horace comes across as a father who tried to reach his child best he could, and failed. Extrapolating his views on homosexuality from this is, as I said, a bit much.

GW

I already admitted I overlooked a possibility or two in interpreting his "I'm still surprised he liked girls" comment, yes. I still think Horace has strong views on how men should act.

So looking through the strip you linked to, Horace comments that Eugene "always had his nose buried in a book, even on the boat." Again we don't have Eugene's side of how that went. Maybe Horace was like, "you can bring your book with you in case you don't like fishing." And Eugene didn't even try and just read the book the whole time.

Or maybe Horace dragged him on the boat, book and all, and was all "Grr stomp, put the book down! this is fishing son! Now get a hook and gut a worm with it!" To which Eugene responded with "I don't want to fish dad, fishing is stupid and you're stupid!" And went back to his book.

Both scenarios could have led to the statement Horace made here.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Both scenarios could have led to the statement Horace made here.

Precisely, so why of the two options would you choose the one that paints a good man in a bad light? Furthermore, as I said in my first post, if Rich had meant for it to be read in the worst possible light, he could've easily have had Horace show approval rather than simply surprise at coming out as heterosexual.

Going meta, Rich is on record as admitting that the number of bad male parents was unintended, a consequence of pre-plot jokes having established canon for Roy's, Haley's and Elan's parentage being less than ideal. Like with the Smurfette issue, I do not think Rich would then keep creating terrible dads once he is aware that there was an excess of those floating around.

GW

[JennTora]

Precisely, so why of the two options would you choose the one that paints a good man in a bad light?

Because I feel that "Horace has flaws that influenced Eugene's flaws, and we don't see them because he's talking with his grandson who he has more in common with" Is more believable than "Horace is the best father and grandfather ever and Eugene was a terrible little **** from the day he was born and grew up to be a terrible father."

Yes, he tried to bond with Eugene but chose activities only he had an interest in. There's no reason to believe that he ever tried to find common ground instead of dragging him to things he knew Eugene wouldn't want to do.

[Keltest]

Because I feel that "Horace has flaws that influenced Eugene's flaws, and we don't see them because he's talking with his grandson who he has more in common with" Is more believable than "Horace is the best father ever and Eugene was a terrible little **** from the day he was born and grew up to be a terrible father."

I dunno, the context of that conversation seems to be to imply that Eugene was unpleasant even as a child, and that while Horace didn't do anything to make it better, Eugene is awful of his own accord, not because Horace raised him that way.

[woweedd]

Because I feel that "Horace has flaws that influenced Eugene's flaws, and we don't see them because he's talking with his grandson who he has more in common with" Is more believable than "Horace is the best father and grandfather ever and Eugene was a terrible little **** from the day he was born and grew up to be a terrible father."

Yes, he tried to bond with Eugene but chose activities only he had an interest in. There's no reason to believe that he ever tried to find common ground instead of dragging him to things he knew Eugene wouldn't want to do.
I agree. That said, I still wouldn't think of Horace as a Homophobe.

[KorvinStarmast]

By show of hands, how many of you are raising, or have raised, children?

*Korvin's hand goes up*

I see some interesting assumptions regarding the standards of perfection some of you hold parents to, in this case fathers.
Conflict and disagreement/tension between fathers and sons is as old as fathers and sons. (I refer mostly to Horace/Eugene/Roy here).
Tarqin/Nale/Elan is a whole different animal (not to mention the badness of breaking up siblings when a marriage breaks up ... I know it had to happen for narrative purposes. but IRL it's not very common).

Regarding Horace and Roy: Grandpa - grandson is a different dynamic than father-son. (Not to mention fighter/fighter bonding stuff).

I got my mom and dad a refrigerator magnet a few years ago: The reason kids get spoiled is because you can't spank grandparents. :smallbiggrin: Got a chuckle out of them both, and it's still on mom's fridge.

[TidePriestess]

By show of hands, how many of you are raising, or have raised, children?

*Korvin's hand goes up*

I see some interesting assumptions regarding the standards of perfection some of you hold parents to, in this case fathers.

Regarding Horace and Roy: Grandpa - grandson is a different dynamic than father-son. (Not to mention fighter/fighter bonding stuff).

I got my mom and dad a refrigerator magnet a few years ago: The reason kids get spoiled is because you can't spank grandparents. :smallbiggrin: Got a chuckle out of them both, and it's still on mom's fridge.
There are, in my opinion, far fewer people who deserve children than people who have them. Although I'm not sure which father you're talking about here.

[Kish]

To be fair, the dwarf genocide idea was actually him trying to help them avoid eternal slavery under Hel.
After Roy brought up the dwarves being enslaved to Hel, following five panels of Eugene trying to convince Roy to stop trying to stop Hel's current scheme so that the world could be destroyed and Eugene could (he thinks) get into the afterlife.

That said, Tarkin may be a saint in comparison, but Tarquin is clearly the worst father in the story--he even personally murdered one of the sons Mikemical gave him credit for "protecting," and tried to mutilate the other one, both entirely for his ego.

[Keltest]

After Roy brought up the dwarves being enslaved to Hel, following five panels of Eugene trying to convince Roy to stop trying to stop Hel's current scheme so that the world could be destroyed and Eugene could (he thinks) get into the afterlife.

That said, Tarkin may be a saint in comparison, but Tarquin is clearly the worst father in the story--he even personally murdered one of the sons Mikemical gave him credit for "protecting," and tried to mutilate the other one, both entirely for his ego.

I think that's underselling the complexity of Tarquin's motivations. Yes, his ego played a part, but he also honestly believed that he was doing right by Elan and providing him the best situation to be a hero that he could. His ego did cause a fundamental misunderstanding/rejection of the reality of the situation they were in, but drawing a straight line between his ego and his assault on his children doesn't capture the situation especially well.

[KorvinStarmast]

There are, in my opinion, far fewer people who deserve children than people who have them. Although I'm not sure which father you're talking about here. I don't understand what "deserve" has to do with this. People have been having children since there were people.

[Chei]

I agree. That said, I still wouldn't think of Horace as a Homophobe.

I think there's room for Horace to not be a homophobe, but still have the kind of hetero-normative, gendered views that say "men like physical activity and girls, and if a man doesn't like one, he must not like the other." I think he tried to be a good father, but only knows how to raise a person similar to himself.

[Jasdoif]

I think that's underselling the complexity of Tarquin's motivations. Yes, his ego played a part, but he also honestly believed that he was doing right by Elan and providing him the best situation to be a hero that he could. His ego did cause a fundamental misunderstanding/rejection of the reality of the situation they were in, but drawing a straight line between his ego and his assault on his children doesn't capture the situation especially well.I think that's appealing to the complexity over the motivations.

Yes indeed, Tarquin believed he was doing right by providing Elan with the situation to be the best hero he could...in Tarquin's story, which Tarquin believes makes himself even cooler in comparison (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0763.html). When Nale outright refused to ever play his part in Tarquin's story, Tarquin simply removed him from the story...also the state of living (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0913.html). And when Elan was getting away, while Tarquin wanted him to get away, Tarquin decided "They're not following my script! I need to get aboard, mutilate Elan, and kill everyone else (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0934.html); then it will be a revision of my script, but still my script".

[Keltest]

I think that's appealing to the complexity over the motivations.

Yes indeed, Tarquin believed he was doing right by providing Elan with the situation to be the best hero he could...in Tarquin's story, which Tarquin believes makes himself even cooler in comparison (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0763.html). When Nale outright refused to ever play his part in Tarquin's story, Tarquin simply removed him from the story...also the state of living (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0913.html). And when Elan was getting away, while Tarquin wanted him to get away, Tarquin decided "They're not following my script! I need to get aboard, mutilate Elan, and kill everyone else (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0934.html); then it will be a revision of my script, but still my script".

Sure. Tarquin's ego had a huge effect on everything he did. But it wasn't an active driving force that he sought to appease for its own sake, it was more of a behind the scenes force that only laid the framework for his decision making process. It affected his perceptions, but feeding it for its own sake was never the goal.

[JennTora]

I think that's appealing to the complexity over the motivations.

Yes indeed, Tarquin believed he was doing right by providing Elan with the situation to be the best hero he could...in Tarquin's story, which Tarquin believes makes himself even cooler in comparison (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0763.html). When Nale outright refused to ever play his part in Tarquin's story, Tarquin simply removed him from the story...also the state of living (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0913.html). And when Elan was getting away, while Tarquin wanted him to get away, Tarquin decided "They're not following my script! I need to get aboard, mutilate Elan, and kill everyone else (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0934.html); then it will be a revision of my script, but still my script".

This. The point of Tarquin's character, I think, is that while he technically tries to be a good father*, good father is defined by him, and that definition involves making sure his kids' stories play out like they're supposed to, and how they're supposed to play out is, of course, defined by Tarquin. In short, he's a narcissist of the worst kind.

*good evil father, anyway.

[Jasdoif]

Sure. Tarquin's ego had a huge effect on everything he did. But it wasn't an active driving force that he sought to appease for its own sake, it was more of a behind the scenes force that only laid the framework for his decision making process. It affected his perceptions, but feeding it for its own sake was never the goal....No, I'm rather certain that Tarquin's ego was an active driving force for him, on account of all the active driving he did to force it on everyone else.

[woweedd]

I think that's appealing to the complexity over the motivations.

Yes indeed, Tarquin believed he was doing right by providing Elan with the situation to be the best hero he could...in Tarquin's story, which Tarquin believes makes himself even cooler in comparison (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0763.html). When Nale outright refused to ever play his part in Tarquin's story, Tarquin simply removed him from the story...also the state of living (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0913.html). And when Elan was getting away, while Tarquin wanted him to get away, Tarquin decided "They're not following my script! I need to get aboard, mutilate Elan, and kill everyone else (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0934.html); then it will be a revision of my script, but still my script".
Tarquin doesn't look at other people as people. He looks at them as fictional chartres in "The Saga of Tarquin" and every one of them except his sons are just background detail. To him, Nale and Elan rebelling is the equivalent of a computer malfunction, annoying but, in his mind, easily fixed. He looks at murdering Nale as like throwing out a device that refuses to work.

[The Pilgrim]

Maybe Belkar's father was a good... mmh... okay, next!

Vaarsuius' father? Main problem is we will never know whose of hir parents is the father. If any.

Therkla's father was a good one, according to her flashback pannel on him.

[The MunchKING]

Therkla's father was a good one, according to her flashback pannel on him.

He loved her mom (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0555.html).

That is literally all the characterization we get for him. We don't know how good or not of a father he was.

[woweedd]

He loved her mom (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0555.html).

That is literally all the characterization we get for him. We don't know how good or not of a father he was.
I assume he was good, purely because that is the joke. IE that almost every Half-Orc has a dysfunctional upbring in D&D, but Therkla's parents were very stable.

[Quebbster]

Inkyrius is a good parent. Vaarsuvius makes up for it though.

[Themrys]

Inkyrius is a good parent. Vaarsuvius makes up for it though.

They're an interesting case. Do we count them as fathers because neither of them gave birth to the children (kids are adopted), or do we go from their (unknown) sex here?

For all we know they could be a heterosexual couple and Vaarsuvius could be an awful mother and Inkyrius a good father.



Therkla's father was a good one? The one who subjected her to having to watch her parents doing icky things like kissing and calling each other cutesy pet names? Not sure Therkla agrees. :smallbiggrin:

[Rogar Demonblud]

Therkla's a teenager. Parents basically exist to embarrass her regularly.

And I code V as female just because (to paraphrase the Giant) the Crappy Parenting Brigade needs some female energy.

[Liquor Box]

It depends how you read it I guess. I didn't read horace's comment as "Eugene displayed some characteristics commonly associated with homosexual men and I was therefore expecting him to be homosexual."

I read it as, "Eugene didn't like bashing things with a big sword, and was a bookworm. That's girly so I thought he'd wind up gay."

But as we don't have clues like tone of voice and stuff we have to interpret the material.

I'm not sure what the difference is between your two statements. Isn't the second just a more specific iteration of the first? As in not liking bashing things with a sword, and liking books were the "characteristics commonly associated with homosexual men"?

Also, I'm not sure that if Horace was pleasantly surprised by his son's hetrosexuality, it would mean that he was a bad father.

[woweedd]

I'm not sure what the difference is between your two statements. Isn't the second just a more specific iteration of the first? As in not liking bashing things with a sword, and liking books were the "characteristics commonly associated with homosexual men"?

Also, I'm not sure that if Horace was pleasantly surprised by his son's hetrosexuality, it would mean that he was a bad father.
Being disappointed in your child for things beyond their control would be pretty bad parenting, no? It's more of a hypothetical IE What if Eugene was actually Gay? Ideally, a Good parent should be willing to accept their child, no matter who they love or the choices they make, as long as the choices they make aren't ,you know, crimes.

[Liquor Box]

Being disappointed in your child for things beyond their control would be pretty bad parenting, no? It's more of a hypothetical IE What if Eugene was actually Gay? Ideally, a Good parent should be willing to accept their child, no matter who they love or the choices they make, as long as the choices they make aren't ,you know, crimes.

No I don't think being disappointed in a child for things is necessarily bad parenting. For example if a parent hopes that a child will follow in their footsteps in terms of profession, I don't think it is bad parenting to disappointed if the child makes a different choice - so ok for Horace to be disappointed that Eugene chose to be a wizard, not a fighter. I think that is true even where it wasn't a choice by Eugene (eg, he was simply not strong enough to be a fighter). I think it would be a but over the top to expect a parent never to feel disappointed by any aspect of their child's nature.

Where I think it crosses the line into being an aspect of bad parenting is where it goes beyond mere disappointment and a bit of teasing and crosses into thinking less of the child and berating/bullying them for the choices they make (or the way they end up, which is beyond their control) - So how Eugene treats Roy crosses the line into bad parenting because he does not merely feel an internal sense of disappointment that Roy is not a wizard, he actually thinks of Roy as less of a person because of that and berates him because of it.



It's funny that you choose to portray Horace's hypothetical disappointment in his son's sexuality as a bad thing (actually there is no disappointment), but you do not portray Horace's very real and apparent disappointment that Eugene became a wizard and not a fighter as being a bad thing. You may distinguish the two as one being a choice (becoming a wizard) and the other not, but I wonder if there is a degree to which your outrage is flamed by one being a social justice issue.

[woweedd]

No I don't think being disappointed in a child for things is necessarily bad parenting. For example if a parent hopes that a child will follow in their footsteps in terms of profession, I don't think it is bad parenting to disappointed if the child makes a different choice - so ok for Horace to be disappointed that Eugene chose to be a wizard, not a fighter. I think that is true even where it wasn't a choice by Eugene (eg, he was simply not strong enough to be a fighter). I think it would be a but over the top to expect a parent never to feel disappointed by any aspect of their child's nature.

Where I think it crosses the line into being an aspect of bad parenting is where it goes beyond mere disappointment and a bit of teasing and crosses into thinking less of the child and berating/bullying them for the choices they make (or the way they end up, which is beyond their control) - So how Eugene treats Roy crosses the line into bad parenting because he does not merely feel an internal sense of disappointment that Roy is not a wizard, he actually thinks of Roy as less of a person because of that and berates him because of it.



It's funny that you choose to portray Horace's hypothetical disappointment in his son's sexuality as a bad thing (actually there is no disappointment), but you do not portray Horace's very real and apparent disappointment that Eugene became a wizard and not a fighter as being a bad thing. You may distinguish the two as one being a choice (becoming a wizard) and the other not, but I wonder if there is a degree to which your outrage is flamed by one being a social justice issue.
A. I believe Horace's disappointment in his son's choice to become a Wizard is also a bad thing. B. Please stop with the allegations, thank you.

[hamishspence]

When does he say in conversation with Roy that he was disappointed with Eugene choosing Wizard as a career?

I think what upset him about Eugene was "Always telling me how stupid I was" - not so much "being a wizard".

[Morty]

When talking about poor-quality parenting, murdering your child is kind of hard to top. Causing their death through neglect, as Eugene did, still ranks below.

[JennTora]

I'm not sure what the difference is between your two statements. Isn't the second just a more specific iteration of the first? As in not liking bashing things with a sword, and liking books were the "characteristics commonly associated with homosexual men"?

Also, I'm not sure that if Horace was pleasantly surprised by his son's hetrosexuality, it would mean that he was a bad father.

Oh, yeah. My posts don't have tone of voice either.

The first is meant to be read as a matter of fact kind of statement, like "huh, weird. Thought he'd be homosexual."

The second was meant to be read as a "wtf?! I'm really shocked that my nerdy book loving bashing things with a piece of folded metal hating son turned out to like the gender that manly monster stomping manly men are supposed to like."

I thought i did a good job wording them so they'd be read that way the first time, guess not.

[Liquor Box]

A. I believe Horace's disappointment in his son's choice to become a Wizard is also a bad thing. B. Please stop with the allegations, thank you.

A. You didn;t say so, despite one being a reality, and the other only being a hypothetical
B. What allegations?

Fair enough though, my speculation may not have been accurate. Anyway, as already noted, I disagree. I think it is an unrealistically high standard to hold a parent to that they never be disappointed by any choice their child makes (unless that choice is criminal, or along those lines') or characteristic of that child. I think people all have certain hopes with regard to their children and are entitled to feel disappointed if their child goes a different path to what they think is right or best or whatever, so long as they ultimately accept it as the child's decision and do not bully them or berate them over it.

If you were a strong believer that one political party in your homeland (wherever that may be) was the better choice, but your child disagreed and voted for the other, would you be at all disappointed? If you were disappointed, would that be wrong of you if you accepted their choice despite your disappointment and did not let their voting preference become a source of angst?

[Liquor Box]

Oh, yeah. My posts don't have tone of voice either.

The first is meant to be read as a matter of fact kind of statement, like "huh, weird. Thought he'd be homosexual."

The second was meant to be read as a "wtf?! I'm really shocked that my nerdy book loving bashing things with a piece of folded metal hating son turned out to like the gender that manly monster stomping manly men are supposed to like."

I thought i did a good job wording them so they'd be read that way the first time, guess not.

So the difference is the amount of shock? In the first case he merely thought it "weird", in the second he was "really shocked"?

[Liquor Box]

When does he say in conversation with Roy that he was disappointed with Eugene choosing Wizard as a career?

I think what upset him about Eugene was "Always telling me how stupid I was" - not so much "being a wizard".

I don't think he does say it explicitly. I think it can be inferred though. Horace does comment that Eugene always had his head buried in a book (and from the context, that comment appears negative), and two panes later says how proud he is of Roy for being a fighter "just like I am", which I think is sufficient for the inference.

[Ruck]

I think there's room for Horace to not be a homophobe, but still have the kind of hetero-normative, gendered views that say "men like physical activity and girls, and if a man doesn't like one, he must not like the other." I think he tried to be a good father, but only knows how to raise a person similar to himself.
This is probably closest to right. I don't read Horace as an active homophobe, more like someone who's just from an older generation and more traditional with his views of how people are supposed to be in that regard. I don't think he would have rejected Eugene for being gay.

(My read on the Greenhilt relationships, though, tends to be that Eugene is the problem. They may have all invariably clashed, but Eugene is the only one who is constantly seen or referred to as berating the others and convinced of his own superiority.)


I think that's underselling the complexity of Tarquin's motivations. Yes, his ego played a part, but he also honestly believed that he was doing right by Elan and providing him the best situation to be a hero that he could. His ego did cause a fundamental misunderstanding/rejection of the reality of the situation they were in, but drawing a straight line between his ego and his assault on his children doesn't capture the situation especially well.

I actually think it does capture the situation especially well. Tarquin had crafted his narrative for himself as a grand villain who lives like a king well before he came to the conclusion that Elan would be the hero who defeats him. Indeed, the only thing I think doesn't quite fit into the motivation is the killing of Nale, which I think was motivated as much by revenge as anything else. Revenge, at least, is more universal than "trying to force everyone to fit the narrative roles I have in mind for them."

[ti'esar]

This is probably closest to right. I don't read Horace as an active homophobe, more like someone who's just from an older generation and more traditional with his views of how people are supposed to be in that regard. I don't think he would have rejected Eugene for being gay.

(My read on the Greenhilt relationships, though, tends to be that Eugene is the problem. They may have all invariably clashed, but Eugene is the only one who is constantly seen or referred to as berating the others and convinced of his own superiority.)

FWIW, this was more or less what I was originally getting at as well. I doubt very much Horace was a homophobe, but I think a comment like that betrays a somewhat two-dimensional, stereotyped view of his son that implies it wasn't all just Eugene being a jerk (though again, I certainly think he is).

[JennTora]

So the difference is the amount of shock? In the first case he merely thought it "weird", in the second he was "really shocked"?

No. I'm not really sure now where the miscommunication is happening, but no that's not it either. I'm gonna try another way of explaining this but it may suck too because I'm terrible at explaining things.

So we basically have three hypothetical horaces that could lead to the comment we're arguing about. Hypothetical Horace #1 who said "hmm, i have a feeling my son is going to wind up homosexual," and when his son turned out to like girls and said, "well guess i was wrong." The first statement is intended to be coming from that type of father.

But if hypothetical Horace #2 had a son like Eugene and was like "my son likes reading books instead of playing with balls and sticks. What a panty waisted girly boy he is turning out to be. He's probably gonna end up gay." Hypothetical Horace #2 is not quite homophobic in general, but was expecting and hoping for his son to fit traditional definitions of manliness.

Hypothetical Horace #3 is truly a homophobe. He stomps and grumps at Eugene every day, demanding to know why he's not interested in manly man stuff. He declares reading books and basically anything other than stomping and bashing things to be feminine.

#3 probably isn't that likely. Hypothetical Horace #2 seems the most plausible and believable. He has flaws, but isn't a terrible person. He's a parent whose son didn't turn out the way he expected or wanted and didn't quite know how to respond because of it.

So the difference isn't so much in the words, but in exactly how much frustration are in them, I guess...

[Elanasaurus]

What about Daigo? He seems to be a good father.

[The MunchKING]

What about Daigo? He seems to be a good father.

do you get to be called a Father before your kid's actually born? :D

[Elanasaurus]

do you get to be called a Father before your kid's actually born? :D
He thinks so. He refers to himself as "Daddy" when *talking to* the baby in #563.

[Lissou]

Geoff Starshine was only trying to do the best for his kid. Sure he worked against Ian but it was just to keep Jimmy safe.

Do we know that his last name is "Starshine"? I thought he was "Uncle Geoff" in the "close adult friend of my parents" kind of way (like with Durkon's uncles and aunts).

Speaking of which, I don't think we know anything bad about Durkon's father, do we?

[Kish]

We know very little about Durkon's father. He may yet prove to be the ultimate villain of the comic.

(This is not a thing that is going to happen.)

[Ruck]

We know very little about Durkon's father. He may yet prove to be the ultimate villain of the comic.

(This is not a thing that is going to happen.)

He got himself killed on purpose as part of a long game to deny Durkon a father figure, which affected his upbringing and concept of how to live a proper life in a way that ultimately led to him making the decisions that got him vampirized and made the prophecy of "death and destruction" to Dwarven lands possible.

[Quebbster]

Do we know that his last name is "Starshine"? I thought he was "Uncle Geoff" in the "close adult friend of my parents" kind of way (like with Durkon's uncles and aunts).

Speaking of which, I don't think we know anything bad about Durkon's father, do we?

It is stated Ian only trusts family so I think he and Geoff are blood relatives.

[Yendor]

It is stated Ian only trusts family so I think he and Geoff are blood relatives.

Uh, no. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0770.html) Geoff is Ian's brother-in-law; he's married to Ian's sister.

As for Tarquin, he spent twenty years turning Nale into the horrible person he was, then murdered him in cold blood for refusing to be his pawn. It had nothing to do with Malack's death, because thirty seconds earlier he was willing to ignore it.

[Ruck]

So he's almost certainly not "Geoff Starshine," then.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

So he's almost certainly not "Geoff Starshine," then.

We do not know that. Like Daigo, he might have taken his wive's surname (e.g. because it was a way to ensure a happy transition into the Starshine family, who don't trust anyone that isn't a Starshine).

GW

[goto124]

It does mean that his parents aren't Ian's parents.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

Can't believe we're this far into the thread without mentioning Samantha's Father. :smallbiggrin:

[littlebum2002]

Can't believe we're this far into the thread without mentioning Samantha's Father. :smallbiggrin:

I mean, he was a decent father. If you ignore the fact that he is in an immoral profession (which you kinda have to do in this universe), he was trying to provide for his daughter. It's not his fault she took over the group and turned it into her own private Tinder. And he used the least amount of force possible to take it back.

[Emanick]

she took over the group and turned it into her own private Tinder

I found this description of Samantha's role in the storyline unreasonably funny. :smallbiggrin:

[SaintRidley]

I found this description of Samantha's role in the storyline unreasonably funny. :smallbiggrin:


Even funnier when you consider that the Samantha strips pre-date the founding of Tinder by seven years.

[Kish]

I think "I will attack anyone who defends themselves against my rapist child!" while a different means of being a bad father than that demonstrated by Eugene, still constitutes being a bad father.

[hroþila]

I think "I will attack anyone who defends themselves against my rapist child!" while a different means of being a bad father than that demonstrated by Eugene, still constitutes being a bad father.
That's... a pretty inaccurate description of what happened.

[Kish]

Oh? Who defended themselves against Samantha without being attacked by her father?

(Unless you're reading "defends themselves against my rapist child" as implying they were defending themselves specifically and only from rape, in which case I stand corrected; it should be "I will attack anyone who defends themselves against my rapist, murderer, and enslaver child.")

[littlebum2002]

It's inaccurate because he didn't attack anyone. He just yelled.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0160.html

[B. Dandelion]

He didn't just yell at Miko (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0189.html), who was legitimately defending herself.

[Aquillion]

I think that's underselling the complexity of Tarquin's motivations. Yes, his ego played a part, but he also honestly believed that he was doing right by Elan and providing him the best situation to be a hero that he could. His ego did cause a fundamental misunderstanding/rejection of the reality of the situation they were in, but drawing a straight line between his ego and his assault on his children doesn't capture the situation especially well.I don't agree. His boasts to Elan earlier and his overarching plan make it clear that this is entirely about Tarquin and his legacy, not about Elan. Tarquin wants to be defeated by a legendary hero so he'll live on in song and story, and he wants it to be Elan because that makes a better story. How Elan feels about this, what this does to Elan personally, and where Elan ends up after that seem entirely irrelevant to him.

[Emanick]

He didn't just yell at Miko (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0189.html), who was legitimately defending herself.

Well, yeah, but in fairness she just killed his daughter.

I certainly can't blame Miko for using lethal force in that case - "You'll serve me or you'll die!" is hardly a threat one can expect to ignore from a sorceress - but I think it's a bit unreasonable to expect a man to be nonviolent after you kill his only child, regardless of circumstances.

[B. Dandelion]

Well, yeah, but in fairness she just killed his daughter.

I certainly can't blame Miko for using lethal force in that case - "You'll serve me or you'll die!" is hardly a threat one can expect to ignore from a sorceress - but I think it's a bit unreasonable to expect a man to be nonviolent after you kill his only child, regardless of circumstances.

In this particular context, it's not really about how reasonable or unreasonable Miko was being in her expectations. It's what it says about the bandit guy's parenting that he consistently blames and retaliates against people who defend themselves against his daughter's blatantly evil actions.

[hroþila]

I'm really not seeing the consistency, or the parallel between #160 and the Miko situation.

[georgie_leech]

I'm not sure one can really twist "reacts with rage at the death of their child" to be bad parenting. Being a bad person maybe, given how Evil Samantha is, but would you really expect a good parent to go "oh well, she was a bitch so this is okay?" :smallconfused:

[littlebum2002]

In this particular context, it's not really about how reasonable or unreasonable Miko was being in her expectations. It's what it says about the bandit guy's parenting that he consistently blames and retaliates against people who defend themselves against his daughter's blatantly evil actions.

Probably because he's Evil himself.

As I pointed out before, this is a universe where approximately a third of all living creatures are Evil, so being Evil and performing Evil acts, in this universe, doesn't automatically make you a bad parent.

[woweedd]

Probably because he's Evil himself.

As I pointed out before, this is a universe where approximately a third of all living creatures are Evil, so being Evil and performing Evil acts, in this universe, doesn't automatically make you a bad parent.
Not necessarily. In many settings, the majority of creatures are Neutral and True Evil(or True Good, for that matter) is quite rare. It's possible Rich is using that approach. Quite plausible, in my opinion. Every Evil character we've seen isn't just a jerk, they're a manifestly awful individual.

[hamishspence]

There's this:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?6483-Belkar-s-Alignment&p=559967&highlight=Neutral#post559967

In order to be Neutral you need to either a.) commit no Good or Evil acts at all, or b.) commit a more-or-less equal number of Good and Evil acts.

A character who commits a high proportion of minor Evil acts, and has a distinctly low proportion of minor Good acts, might come across as closer to "jerk" than "manifestly awful".

[Kish]

In light of the fact that Rich has mentioned that he uses hyperbole on the forums and that he dislikes having his words over-parsed, I'm inclined to read that as closer to flavor text for the "Belkar is not Neutral, for heaven's sake" message attached than "this is an exhaustive list of what makes someone Neutral, which anyone can hold me to until my grave."

In other words: In light of how vile every character Rich has explicitly labeled as evil has been, and how much Miko and Gin-Jun and uncertain numbers of other Sapphire Guard members were apparently able to get away with without falling, I would guess that that person who committed many minor evil acts and few or no good acts but never committed a significant evil act would still be Neutral.

[hamishspence]

It's possible - and The Giant did use the phrase "evil tendencies" himself in Paladin Blues, about Samatha's father: "at best Neutral with evil tendencies".

I wonder just how good a parent the mother dragon was, given that:


You can't be a torturing, mass-murdering rapist and then go home and turn your Evil Switch to the "off" position to spend time with your kids. It doesn't work that way. If you are the sort of person that can commit the acts that Tarquin does daily, then that will find its way into every aspect of your existence. It's who you are.

She talks the talk, when it comes to relationships between dragons of different kinds "I try to be open minded"

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0628.html

but did she walk the walk?

[Chei]

It's possible - and The Giant did use the phrase "evil tendencies" himself in Paladin Blues, about Samatha's father: "at best Neutral with evil tendencies".

I wonder just how good a parent the mother dragon was, given that:

She talks the talk, when it comes to relationships between dragons of different kinds "I try to be open minded"

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0628.html

but did she walk the walk?

I believe we're to assume she did walk the walk, in fact. Note that, when speaking of Tarquin, The Giant specifies that he visits atrocities daily, which is not the same thing as swearing vengeance on the wizard that killed your child while you were out visiting a relative. Momma Dragon didn't go around murdering folks as a consistent pattern of behavior. She doesn't even explicitly say that she took personal vengeance on the party of adventurers that killed and skinned her child's father.

Now, to my mind, the thing that would push the dragon towards Evil is her insistence on punishing V's family for the murder of her child, but it still doesn't make her any worse of a parent to the child, per se. It just makes her vengeance less likely to be affirmed as just by a third party.

The mother dragon being a good parent actually, in a roundabout way, contributed to her child's death: she taught him Lizard, saying that it was important to study other cultures. This made him susceptible to the polymorphed V's Suggestion.

[hamishspence]

There's also the possibility that she was visiting atrocities daily on the other residents of the swamp.

If her actions toward V's family are a hint that she was Evil All Along, rather than having turned evil out of vengefulness - then we can have "evil plus good parent".

[Liquor Box]

No. I'm not really sure now where the miscommunication is happening, but no that's not it either. I'm gonna try another way of explaining this but it may suck too because I'm terrible at explaining things.

So we basically have three hypothetical horaces that could lead to the comment we're arguing about. Hypothetical Horace #1 who said "hmm, i have a feeling my son is going to wind up homosexual," and when his son turned out to like girls and said, "well guess i was wrong." The first statement is intended to be coming from that type of father.

But if hypothetical Horace #2 had a son like Eugene and was like "my son likes reading books instead of playing with balls and sticks. What a panty waisted girly boy he is turning out to be. He's probably gonna end up gay." Hypothetical Horace #2 is not quite homophobic in general, but was expecting and hoping for his son to fit traditional definitions of manliness.

Hypothetical Horace #3 is truly a homophobe. He stomps and grumps at Eugene every day, demanding to know why he's not interested in manly man stuff. He declares reading books and basically anything other than stomping and bashing things to be feminine.

#3 probably isn't that likely. Hypothetical Horace #2 seems the most plausible and believable. He has flaws, but isn't a terrible person. He's a parent whose son didn't turn out the way he expected or wanted and didn't quite know how to respond because of it.

So the difference isn't so much in the words, but in exactly how much frustration are in them, I guess...

I think I understand where you are coming from mate, thanks for bearing with me.

[B. Dandelion]

I'm not sure one can really twist "reacts with rage at the death of their child" to be bad parenting. Being a bad person maybe, given how Evil Samantha is, but would you really expect a good parent to go "oh well, she was a bitch so this is okay?" :smallconfused:

Eh, this is what I get for jumping into somebody else's conversation, really. I saw this:


It's inaccurate because he didn't attack anyone. He just yelled.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0160.html

as a response to this:


Oh? Who defended themselves against Samantha without being attacked by her father?

(Unless you're reading "defends themselves against my rapist child" as implying they were defending themselves specifically and only from rape, in which case I stand corrected; it should be "I will attack anyone who defends themselves against my rapist, murderer, and enslaver child.")

And thought much more obviously of the Miko scene than the "yelling" scene.

It does seem obvious the guy was a sub-par parent though. He genuinely seemed to love his daughter, which put him head and shoulders above Tarquin for sure. But she turned out rotten, and his response is apparently to think he should have given her more of what she asked for as a child ("just bought her that pony she asked for when she was eight (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0159.html)"). She kidnaps a dude because she wants to have sex with him, and he gets mad at the dude. His friends try to rescue him, and he's happy to use the opportunity to seize back control from his daughter, but still seems to think the group has transgressed enough that he has no problem robbing them and leaving them tied up in the woods to possibly be eaten by dire weasels (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0169.html). Then his daughter finally picks a fight with the wrong person and he dies as he had lived -- an enabler and excuser of her terrible behavior.

[Kish]

It is quite true that if you point to a scene where he's not attacking anyone, he's not attacking anyone in that scene. Possibly, then, the logical reading is that what I said about him attacking people referred, instead, to the multiple scenes in which he does attack people, both the Order and Miko, and in every one of them he's attacking his daughter's victims. Not that I just must have meant strip #160, and only strip #160.

[Riftwolf]

Just a slight off-tangent; in the Giants post about Belkars alignment, he lists 'selling an attractive young woman into slavery'. When did this happen? Who was it?

[hamishspence]

Did or attempted to do. He attempted to get Samantha sold into slavery - but failed:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0171.html

[littlebum2002]

Just a slight off-tangent; in the Giants post about Belkars alignment, he lists 'selling an attractive young woman into slavery'. When did this happen? Who was it?

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0171.html

It's actually not off-tangent at all, since it's the same girl we are talking about!

[martianmister]

Just a slight off-tangent; in the Giants post about Belkars alignment, he lists 'selling an attractive young woman into slavery'. When did this happen? Who was it?

Did he really specified "attractive" part?

[martianmister]

We know very little about Durkon's father. He may yet prove to be the ultimate villain of the comic.

(This is not a thing that is going to happen.)

Uncle Thirden is his real father!

[hamishspence]

Did he really specified "attractive" part?

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?6483-Belkar-s-Alignment&p=559967&highlight=Neutral#post559967

it was over 10 years ago though.

[B. Dandelion]

Is it surprising he'd mention "attractive"?

[Edit: You know what? I doubt this conversation benefits from going down this tangent at all. Nvm.]

[The MunchKING]

He also clearly says he's done it before, and they ran into his contacts in the desert. So it's not like Samantha was his first or only.

[hamishspence]

In other words: In light of how vile every character Rich has explicitly labeled as evil has been, and how much Miko and Gin-Jun and uncertain numbers of other Sapphire Guard members were apparently able to get away with without falling, I would guess that that person who committed many minor evil acts and few or no good acts but never committed a significant evil act would still be Neutral.

For me, Miko, Gin-Jun, Haley, Shojo, and so on - epitomise that you can be Good, and yet be kind of jerkish and ruthless, a very broad class of good.

For symmetry - Evil should be equally broad.

The "vile evil" characters are counterparts of the most "saintly Good" characters in the strip, like O-Chul.

But there should be evil counterparts to the "nasty Good" characters as well.

[Darth Tom]

But there should be evil counterparts to the "nasty Good" characters as well.

I would suggest there are: we see a few Hobgoblins in Azure City, from Jirix to the craftsgoblin who duplicated the phylactery who seem to be decent people in a culture that is predominantly Evil. And Tarquin's former party member, the one who is running her part of the Evil Empire scheme to keep her daughter in plumbing commissions.

I think that these are the characters which make OOTS feel like a "real" world, more than the unpleasant Good characters.

[hamishspence]

Laurin's the only one of these that's specifically identified as Evil though (Word of Giant posts).

Still, it's possible to conjecture some.

The former Supreme Leader before Redcloak, from How The Paladin Got His Scar, may qualify:

he murdered his predecessor, but he wants peace and not war. O-Chul specifically points out that alignment matters less to him than unnecessary war does - which is why he counts that hobgoblin as an ally and Gin-Jun as an opponent.

[Aquillion]

It does seem obvious the guy was a sub-par parent though. He genuinely seemed to love his daughter, which put him head and shoulders above Tarquin for sure. But she turned out rotten, and his response is apparently to think he should have given her more of what she asked for as a child ("just bought her that pony she asked for when she was eight (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0159.html)"). She kidnaps a dude because she wants to have sex with him, and he gets mad at the dude.That was in the context of Elan saying "it was my solemn duty to seduce female bad guys!" Keep in mind that he hadn't seen anything that had happened up until then.

Up until that point, his anger was directed entire at Samantha, but after Elan said that, I think it's reasonable for him to interpret it as consensual. Yes, the reality is that Elan was kidnapped. But it's reasonable for the bandit leader - especially if he's more inclined to see things in a light favorable to his family, which is totally-reasonable and doesn't itself make him a terrible person - to take that to mean Elan intentionally slipped into the camp purely to seduce Samantha. And, I mean, that's not entirely off; Elan had escaped and was on his way out when he heard Samantha talking about him and decided to seduce her instead. (And most people, hearing Elan say he intended to seduce Samantha, wouldn't assume that that was what happened, because that's weird and can only be chalked up to Elan being Elan, ie. not worrying about being kidnapped because he considers it all part of a story of his gallant exploits.) That doesn't justify Samantha's initial actions or intentions in kidnapping him, obviously, but I think it's reasonable for her father to piece together what he knows about this and assume that Elan was some sort of playboy who wandered the world seducing female villains and that that's how he ended up there.

I mean... it's a bit silly to argue this, I guess, since we already know he's a pretty awful person on account of the whole bandit leader thing. But if you keep in mind that he only knows what comes out in the conversation in strip 160 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0160.html), I can see how he could interpret it as consensual (he doesn't turn on Elan until Elan basically says his goal was to seduce Samantha.) I don't see how someone knowing just that conversation (which is all he knows of the issue) could come to the conclusion that Elan was going to be raped, especially when you realize he doesn't know about Elan's really weird view of the world.

[AchtungNight]

I have it on good authority that Belkar's father was a very nice Halfling, one so wonderful and not a jerkass that he would one day inspire the Halflings who bowed to no one. And how do I know this? His son, who _is not holding a dagger to my throat right now_ told me so himself.

[JennTora]

I have it on good authority that Belkar's father was a very nice Halfling, one so wonderful and not a jerkass that he would one day inspire the Halflings who bowed to no one. And how do I know this? His son, who _is not holding a dagger to my throat right now_ told me so himself.

...Belkar has an also evil brother who cares about his father?

[dps]

Yokyok said that Yikyik was a good father.

[littlebum2002]

But she turned out rotten, and his response is apparently to think he should have given her more of what she asked for as a child ("just bought her that pony she asked for when she was eight (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0159.html)").

But he DIDN'T give her that pony she wanted. That's the point. You don't become a bad parent just by questioning yourself.



She kidnaps a dude because she wants to have sex with him, and he gets mad at the dude.

If you read the strip in question, he is only mad at Samantha when he belives she kidnapped Elan. He only becomes mad at Elan when Elan claims that it was he, not Samantha, who did the seducing.


His friends try to rescue him, and he's happy to use the opportunity to seize back control from his daughter, but still seems to think the group has transgressed enough that he has no problem robbing them and leaving them tied up in the woods to possibly be eaten by dire weasels (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0169.html).

He's a bandit. Bandit =/= bad parent.


For me, Miko, Gin-Jun, Haley, Shojo, and so on - epitomise that you can be Good, and yet be kind of jerkish and ruthless, a very broad class of good.

For symmetry - Evil should be equally broad.

The "vile evil" characters are counterparts of the most "saintly Good" characters in the strip, like O-Chul.

But there should be evil counterparts to the "nasty Good" characters as well.

Exactly. Anyone who claims that "if you're Evil you must be a bad parent" is just engaging in Star Wars Prequels levels of "bad people can do not good things", which leads the most boring characters imaginable.

[B. Dandelion]

That was in the context of Elan saying "it was my solemn duty to seduce female bad guys!" Keep in mind that he hadn't seen anything that had happened up until then.

Except the kidnapping and the making out? He was right there (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0152.html) when Elan was being carried off!


Up until that point, his anger was directed entire at Samantha,

Yeah, for "turning his noble band of brigands into some kind of cheap dating service," not attempted rape. Note also that by specifically mentioning the involvement of the bandits, he definitely knows Elan didn't sneak into the camp at all but was taken there against his will. I mean, if him being in the strip where Elan was kidnapped in the first place wasn't a big enough clue.


I think it's reasonable for her father to piece together what he knows about this and assume that Elan was some sort of playboy who wandered the world seducing female villains and that that's how he ended up there.

I do not consider that "reasonable" at all given what we know he knew.


But he DIDN'T give her that pony she wanted. That's the point. You don't become a bad parent just by questioning yourself.

"I should have acceded to more of her demands" suggests to me he spoiled her in the first place and learned nothing from it.


He's a bandit. Bandit =/= bad parent.

I'll agree for the sake of conversation that you can be a bandit and still be a good parent. It's not the evilness of the deed that's relevant here, so much as the fact that leaving the Order to possibly die when all they'd done was try and save their friend after Samantha kidnapped him says to me he's blaming them for her transgressions. Which is part of a pattern of behavior where she isn't held accountable. If you care about your kid not turning into a terrible person -- and if he's ashamed that she's rotten to her core, then he does -- it's bad parenting to always find fault with the people they've wronged and not with them. Prior to punching her in the face, had he ever significantly disciplined her?


Exactly. Anyone who claims that "if you're Evil you must be a bad parent" is just engaging in Star Wars Prequels levels of "bad people can do not good things", which leads the most boring characters imaginable.

I understand the desire to see evil characters in complicated situations where they're capable of doing good. I'm all about it myself, generally. But I don't see that it should be forced into scenarios where it doesn't apply.

And bandit guy was kind of boring and two-dimensional. Does it give you greater satisfaction to imagine him in a different way? Understandable, but I don't think that reflects on the reality of what we got with him.

[dps]

BTW, as far as Tarquin is concerned, I think that he wasn't a bad parent simply because he's Evil, he was a bad parent because he's insane.

[Riftwolf]

Yokyok said that Yikyik was a good father.

But he was a better hat.

Can't remember at the time, but was there speculation on Yokyoks alignment? Seeing as he's based in Inigo, there's a good chance he was non-evil.

[Keltest]

But he was a better hat.

Can't remember at the time, but was there speculation on Yokyoks alignment? Seeing as he's based in Inigo, there's a good chance he was non-evil.

I seem to remember it being mentioned somewhere that he was Good to make him Belkar's opposite.

[Kish]

"Noble in the company of villains, while Belkar is despicable in the company of heroes," Rich said.

[137beth]

"Noble in the company of villains, while Belkar is despicable in the company of heroes," Rich said.

Specifically, that quote comes from the Round 3 Commentary in the book of War and XP.

[dps]

I seem to remember it being mentioned somewhere that he was Good to make him Belkar's opposite.

Yep. In addition to the quote from The Giant, Yokyok himself said that he wouldn't have stooped to associate with scoundrels like the Linear Guild, except that Nale offered him the chance to avenge his father's murder.

[Reddish Mage]

I mean, he was a decent father. If you ignore the fact that he is in an immoral profession (which you kinda have to do in this universe), he was trying to provide for his daughter. It's not his fault she took over the group and turned it into her own private Tinder. And he used the least amount of force possible to take it back.

I don't see how banditry was required in-universe, but by his own account, Samantha's father is Robin Hood.

We also don't know that he was a good father, although he blames Samantha's hatred of him for failing to get her that pony when she was eight. This suggests Samantha's evil for silly reasons rather than being raised by a bad father...but we don't have any confirmation as to whether he is decent.

There's a lot of leeway with the Good Alignment. This thread is showing how broad Good characters can be in OOTS-verse.

I would like to say D&D, but we've had many a thread showing that just about every opinion is expressed somewhere in the sourcebooks.

[bertrc]

Don't forget Girard Draketooth in this list of lousy fathers. He separates his children from their mother and then twists their minds enough so that they stay removed from the rest of the world in an isolated pyramid. (And convinces them to continue kidnapping their children from the other parent)

[goto124]

I'll admit, I thought entire families lived in the pyramid.

[Riftwolf]

Don't forget Girard Draketooth in this list of lousy fathers. He separates his children from their mother and then twists their minds enough so that they stay removed from the rest of the world in an isolated pyramid. (And convinces them to continue kidnapping their children from the other parent)

It's probably not just the men that got sent out (though it had to be a male Draketooth for Tarquins story to make sense, I guess). Really the more I think about it, the more effed up Girards entire plan gets.

[bertrc]

It's probably not just the men that got sent out (though it had to be a male Draketooth for Tarquins story to make sense, I guess). Really the more I think about it, the more effed up Girards entire plan gets.

Well, I was just holding up Girard as the bad Father, but, yeah, I'm sure the women descendants kidnap their kids from the fathers, as well. That's why I said "other parent". (I'd link to the comic with V's children, but I'm not allowed to post links, yet :-) )

[woweedd]

Don't forget Girard Draketooth in this list of lousy fathers. He separates his children from their mother and then twists their minds enough so that they stay removed from the rest of the world in an isolated pyramid. (And convinces them to continue kidnapping their children from the other parent)
The entire Draketooth family has a spot on the Terrible Parents list. Sidenote: Like every other Gate, Girard fell to irony and hubris. Dorukan fell because he underestimated magic other than his own. Lirian fell because she didn't account for how to defeat a non-biological enemy. Soon's gate fell to a Paladin who proved that even the honor of a Paladin has its limits. Girard? He only trusted his family. And the fact that all the people he was willing to use were blood-related is what made it so easy for Familicide to wipe them all out in one fell swoop.

[georgie_leech]

The entire Draketooth family has a spot on the Terrible Parents list. Sidenote: Like every other Gate, Girard fell to irony and hubris. Dorukan fell because he underestimated magic other than his own. Lirian fell because she didn't account for how to defeat a non-biological enemy. Soon's gate fell to a Paladin who proved that even the honor of a Paladin has its limits. Girard? He only trusted his family. And the fact that all the people he was willing to use were blood-related is what made it so easy for Familicide to wipe them all out in one fell swoop.

In fairness, it's hard to account for magic developed and used by a by a single epic necro mancer, and even if you knew all that, who you'd know was dead. :smalltongue:

Instilling sufficient paranoia into his family to have them never collaborate on gate defences even after 3 of the others have fallen is all on him though.

[woweedd]

In fairness, it's hard to account for magic developed and used by a by a single epic necro mancer, and even if you knew all that, who you'd know was dead. :smalltongue:

Instilling sufficient paranoia into his family to have them never collaborate on gate defences even after 3 of the others have fallen is all on him though.

Indeed. Though, really, it was the collective Scribbler's fault and that's kinda the point. I'd say one of the most major themes of OOTS is basically "Cooperation is good. Pretending you don't need other people and trying to go it alone will only get you killed." Every character, from Belker to Darth V, who refuses to work as a team player suffers mightily for it. Belker pukes his guts out and is forced into being a team player, V gets a massive serving of humble pie, courtesy Xykon, and the Scribblers are another perfect example. If they'd worked together to defend the Gates, their defenses probably would have been a lot more long-lasting and effective, since they'd be able to account for each other's weaknesses. But, unfortunately, they let their bitterness and enmity over Kraggor's death overtake them.

[Kish]

I'll admit, I thought entire families lived in the pyramid.
Lots of people did, even though, provably, everyone in the pyramid was blood related. I can only guess that what the Draketooths were doing is so horrifying that the mind tries to substitute something else for it.

[goto124]

I'll admit again, I'm still utterly lost and curious on how one extrapolates kidnapping and other horrible things from the fact that everyone in the pyramid is family.

[woweedd]

I'll admit again, I'm still utterly lost and curious on how one extrapolates kidnapping and other horrible things from the fact that everyone in the pyramid is family.
Ummm...The comic is quite explicit. The Draketooth's whole thing is to find random strangers, seduce them, have a child, then leave, bringing the child with them. It may all be for a theoretically noble cause in the end, but it's damn scummy.

[goto124]

Woweedd: Which strip? I must've missed it.

[Wristlet Eater]

Ummm...The comic is quite explicit. The Draketooth's whole thing is to find random strangers, seduce them, have a child, then leave, bringing the child with them. It may all be for a theoretically noble cause in the end, but it's damn scummy.

Not really, we only know Orrin has done that. It may be implied for some others, and that is the conclusion the Order got, but maybe not all the family did that.

[woweedd]

Woweedd: Which strip? I must've missed it.
Assuming that what Orrin Draketooth did to Penelope is standard operating produce... (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0816.html)

[woweedd]

Not really, we only know Orrin has done that. It may be implied for some others, and that is the conclusion the Order got, but maybe not all the family did that.
I odn't know, the Draketooths, despite their Chaotic alignment, seem the type to emphasize loyalty to your family above all else, and that includes family tradition. I highly doubt Orrin was an exception.

[Kish]

I'll admit again, I'm still utterly lost and curious on how one extrapolates kidnapping and other horrible things from the fact that everyone in the pyramid is family.
See, this is why questions work better than passive-aggressive hints. I read your statement that you thought entire families lived in the pyramid as a genuine "huh, I didn't think about that" thing.

(I see woweedd answered the semi-implied question.)

[Jasdoif]

Which strip? I must've missed it.843 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0843.html). Do bear in mind Vaarsuvius could read their genealogy chart in the prior strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0842.html), odds are at least a high chance of accuracy there.


There's also all the various families shown being hit by Familicide in 843 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0843.html). Girard's grandparents constitute the only time a black dragon and a human produced offspring in the history of OOTS-world, so that looks like nine distinct instances of a Draketooth running off with a child.

[Wristlet Eater]

I odn't know, the Draketooths, despite their Chaotic alignment, seem the type to emphasize loyalty to your family above all else, and that includes family tradition. I highly doubt Orrin was an exception.

All they have to do is bring back a child to the pyramid, I don't think anything else matters. Orrin just chose a really dickish way to do it for some reason.

[B. Dandelion]

The impression I did get was that the only people in the pyramid were direct descendants of Girard, rather than any spouses or in-laws living together as a family. I don't think we saw a single person who wasn't some shade of redhead with facial markings.

But... technically, Familicide having wiped everyone out wouldn't in and of itself prove that they were all blood relatives, because the second step of the spell targeted non-Draketooths who had living Draketooth kin. So long as any hypothetical in-laws living with the Draketooths had living children/grandchildren/siblings/etc. with Draketooth blood, they'd be toast just like Penelope was. So the story plays out the same either way.

What Orrin did to Penelope was implied to be standard operating procedure, which is so heinous and sociopathic that the mind boggles. But was it actually completely forbidden to come back with a spouse along with a kid? In all the time the Draketooths have been running their scheme, did not one of them ever set out, genuinely fell in love with their intended mark, and try to bring them into the family for real?

It wouldn't excuse the scheme in general of course. But there might be some wiggle room for a few individual Draketooths to buck the trend and not be completely awful.

[martianmister]

The impression I did get was that the only people in the pyramid were direct descendants of Girard, rather than any spouses or in-laws living together as a family. I don't think we saw a single person who wasn't some shade of redhead with facial markings.

Inbreeding is also a possibility.


But... technically, Familicide having wiped everyone out wouldn't in and of itself prove that they were all blood relatives, because the second step of the spell targeted non-Draketooths who had living Draketooth kin. So long as any hypothetical in-laws living with the Draketooths had living children/grandchildren/siblings/etc. with Draketooth blood, they'd be toast just like Penelope was. So the story plays out the same either way.

If that's the case, there should be at east one "in-law" without a child.

[Cazero]

All they have to do is bring back a child to the pyramid, I don't think anything else matters. Orrin just chose a really dickish way to do it for some reason.
The Draketooth want children with sorcerer powers to maintain the illusion spells. They can't just adopt orphans, they need to produce their own dragon-related offspring.

[Wristlet Eater]

The Draketooth want children with sorcerer powers to maintain the illusion spells. They can't just adopt orphans, they need to produce their own dragon-related offspring.

Yeah, but they could bring their partners back too. Or live normally as a family until the kid can understand the family mission and go to the pyramid of his own accord. If you're trying not to break hearts and families, that is the decent thing to do, and I can't imagine all the Draketooths were as bad as Orrin when it came to that kind of thing.

[hroþila]

They probably can't bring back their partners because they're not blood-related and thus, in their eyes, not trustworthy. Yeah, it's effed up, but that's how it is. I'm sure some Draketooths have genuinely fallen in love with their spouses and/or tried to bring them in, but I would imagine they simply were forced to choose between their clan and their new nuclear family.

[Wristlet Eater]

They probably can't bring back their partners because they're not blood-related and thus, in their eyes, not trustworthy. Yeah, it's effed up, but that's how it is. I'm sure some Draketooths have genuinely fallen in love with their spouses and/or tried to bring them in, but I would imagine they simply were forced to choose between their clan and their new nuclear family.

I feel like you are just using the most terrible interpretation delibrately. We don't really know enough about the Draketooths to judge what might be the majority's practices.

[Lacuna Caster]

Indeed. Though, really, it was the collective Scribbler's fault and that's kinda the point. I'd say one of the most major themes of OOTS is basically "Cooperation is good. Pretending you don't need other people and trying to go it alone will only get you killed." Every character, from Belker to Darth V, who refuses to work as a team player suffers mightily for it.
That's not an inaccurate summary, and there are certainly arguments to be made for teamwork, but OOTS also basically suggests that you should stick up for and accept in-group members no matter how utterly reprehensible or inept their past actions have been. I thinks that's a highly questionable management practice.

I would also point out that the main reason Dorukan fell was actually from being a little too attached to one of his fellow scribblers. (And also that, by RAW, Miko would have destroyed both Xykon & Redcloak.)

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I feel like you are just using the most terrible interpretation delibrately. We don't really know enough about the Draketooths to judge what might be the majority's practices.

Do you see (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0841.html) any non-dragon mark'ed, non-red-haired corpse?

There is two simple facts:
1) They are sent out to breed. If one of them falls in love and wants to bring their partner back, they have to at least have produced offspring as well.
2) There are no non-family corpses, even though any non-Draketooth parents would be hit by the course

To those two simple facts, we add that Girard simply did not trust non-family. I cannot imagine a scenario where he would allow one of his children to bring in an outsider to the family secret base. So what you are left is with the expectation that after Girard's death, his children may have relaxed the rule... but given their fanatical dedication to the cause, that seems exceedingly unlikely.

So no, hroþila is not using "the most terrible interpretation delibrately". He is using the most likely, which also happens to be a fairly terrible one.

Grey Wolf

[Wristlet Eater]

Do you see (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0841.html) any non-dragon mark'ed, non-red-haired corpse?

There is two simple facts:
1) They are sent out to breed. If one of them falls in love and wants to bring their partner back, they have to at least have produced offspring as well.
2) There are no non-family corpses, even though any non-Draketooth parents would be hit by the course

To those two simple facts, we add that Girard simply did not trust non-family. I cannot imagine a scenario where he would allow one of his children to bring in an outsider to the family secret base. So what you are left is with the expectation that after Girard's death, his children may have relaxed the rule... but given their fanatical dedication to the cause, that seems exceedingly unlikely.

So no, hroþila is not using "the most terrible interpretation delibrately". He is using the most likely, which also happens to be a fairly terrible one.

First of all, we might not have seen the whole family, and if any outsider husband or wife joined the clan, they probably would get the dragon tattoo as well. It's not even unlikely they also have red hair, people tend to be attracted to those who look similar to them, and as I said it may not be the whole family pictured there.

Sure, Girard might not trust non-family, but even he has to accept marrying into the dragonblooded family makes you a part of it. Otherwise he would not consider his own mother and grandmother family, which is a stretch as well. We can't even say that his descendants were as fanatical as him, as we never saw them alive.

I get that this interpretation is the most accepted, but really there are many other entirely plausible possibilities. Two Draketooth family members (and we don't know that Girard kidnapped any children) have been shown so far, and it is unreasonable to make conclusions about all of them based on that. If that interpretation is the most likely it is not by a lot more than any other interpretation.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

First of all, we might not have seen the whole family, and if any outsider husband or wife joined the clan, they probably would get the dragon tattoo as well.
Those are not tattoos. You can't "get" them. They are dragon marks, and you are born with them.


It's not even unlikely they also have red hair, people tend to be attracted to those who look similar to them, and as I said it may not be the whole family pictured there.
So you have no evidence for your position, and still choose to ascribe motive to other's for having evidence and drawing conclusions from it. Noted.


Otherwise he would not consider his own mother and grandmother family, which is a stretch as well.
Do you see them in the family tree (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0842.html)?


I get that this interpretation is the most accepted, but really there are many other entirely plausible possibilities. Two Draketooth family members (and we don't know that Girard kidnapped any children) have been shown so far, and it is unreasonable to make conclusions about all of them based on that. If that interpretation is the most likely it is not by a lot more than any other interpretation.

It is the most parsimonious interpretation. One that does not require magically vanishing corpses, violations of the family secret to outsiders, going against the trust of the funder, etc. Therefore, by Okham's Razor, the most likely explanation.

Grey Wolf

[Keltest]

Lots of people did, even though, provably, everyone in the pyramid was blood related. I can only guess that what the Draketooths were doing is so horrifying that the mind tries to substitute something else for it.

Actually, while I doubt that there were extended families in the pyramid, the mechanics of Familicide allows for it. All of the Draketeeth are killed because they are direct blood relative of the dragon, and then everyone else in the pyramid related to the draketeeth are killed as part of step 2, which is how Tarquin's wife was affected.

[hroþila]

I would also add that 843 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0843.html) refutes the idea that they'd go mostly after redheads.

[Quebbster]

Bringing in the other parent also means there is an alternate viewpoint that living in a pyramid in the middle of the desert might not be all it's cracked up to be, which in turn would increase the chance of the Child leaving.
Sadly, I Think Orrin is the norm rather than the exception. The less involvement there is from non-family, the better for the Draketooth clan. It's probably enough risk to send the next generation out into the World to breed as there is no guarantee they are coming back.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Bringing in the other parent also means there is an alternate viewpoint that living in a pyramid in the middle of the desert might not be all it's cracked up to be, which in turn would increase the chance of the Child leaving.
Sadly, I Think Orrin is the norm rather than the exception. The less involvement there is from non-family, the better for the Draketooth clan. It's probably enough risk to send the next generation out into the World to breed as there is no guarantee they are coming back.

Agreed, but there is more guarantee than you think. The Amish too allow their children to go outside their communities when they reach a certain age. They are then introduced to the technological world, and given the chance to leave the Amish community. Some do, but AFAIK most chose to stay with their family and the life that is familiar [pun not intended] to them.

Grey Wolf

[Quebbster]

Agreed, but there is more guarantee than you think. The Amish too allow their children to go outside their communities when they reach a certain age. They are then introduced to the technological world, and given the chance to leave the Amish community. Some do, but AFAIK most chose to stay with their family and the life that is familiar [pun not intended] to them.

Grey Wolf

Ahh yes, rumspringa. I am vaguely familiar with that custom. In the Draketooth case the separation would probably be even more dramatic since it would likely mean never seeing any of the people you grew up with again, and exchanging the security of the pyramid for the uncertainty of the rest of the World.

[Lacuna Caster]

Ahh yes, rumspringa. I am vaguely familiar with that custom. In the Draketooth case the separation would probably be even more dramatic since it would likely mean never seeing any of the people you grew up with again, and exchanging the security of the pyramid for the uncertainty of the rest of the World.
IIRC, that's pretty much how the Amish handle it too. Leaving the community on a permanent basis means being shunned.

[Wristlet Eater]

Those are not tattoos. You can't "get" them. They are dragon marks, and you are born with them.

Elan states here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0710.html) that they are tattoos.


So you have no evidence for your position, and still choose to ascribe motive to other's for having evidence and drawing conclusions from it. Noted.

I just showed you evidence. Also, I'm not saying he has any motive in particular. I'm just saying there are other possibilities and he chose the worst one to go with.


Do you see them in the family tree (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0842.html)?

Yes, his grandmother is there, and that doesn't tell us much about his personal views on family. He might not even have been the one who did the mural.


It is the most parsimonious interpretation. One that does not require magically vanishing corpses, violations of the family secret to outsiders, going against the trust of the funder, etc. Therefore, by Okham's Razor, the most likely explanation.

None of those are what I stated. You have greatly exaggerated my statements. Yes, it may be the most likely, but this is a place where we discuss possibilities of the comic. It is not wrong to consider other ways things may have happened.


I would also add that 843 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0843.html) refutes the idea that they'd go mostly after redheads.

Not really, because the spell affects anyone who might have any family member that had a child with any Draketooth.

[Quebbster]

IIRC, that's pretty much how the Amish handle it too. Leaving the community on a permanent basis means being shunned.

I just started thinking about how it would be to abandon a whole family of spellcasters too. If they want you to come back they could just start scrying, Sending and so forth... possibly going out and getting you in the end if needed.

[littlebum2002]

Elan states here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0710.html) that they are tattoos.


You're taking the word of someone who has never even seen one as to what they are? And, more importantly, you're taking the word of ELAN about something he's never even seen before?

[hamishspence]

He saw Illusory Girard up close:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0695.html

and probably conjectured "that's a tattoo, not a scar".

[littlebum2002]

He saw Illusory Girard up close:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0695.html

and probably conjectured "that's a tattoo, not a scar".

Right, and in the very next strip he did this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0696.html). Clearly this is a very astute individual we should be taking advice from.

[Wristlet Eater]

I don't claim that Elan's conclusion is definitely right. But it is the only evidence we have one way or another.

[Keltest]

Right, and in the very next strip he did this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0696.html). Clearly this is a very astute individual we should be taking advice from.

I don't seem to recall them ever being identified as dragon marks of any sort, in comic or out, so if you have some evidence to support that, now would be a good time to bring it up.

[hamishspence]

Right, and in the very next strip he did this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0696.html). Clearly this is a very astute individual we should be taking advice from.

We also see some variation in the shape and location of the marks, here

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0841.html


Whereas "dragonmarks" are always the same shape for a specific dragonmarked family (in Eberron).

Hence - given that this is not Eberron, plus the marks are extremely different in shape, and present on all family members (or almost all?) it makes sense that, for once, Elan was right.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Ahh yes, rumspringa. I am vaguely familiar with that custom.
Hey, you know what it's called. That puts you ahead of me on the issue.


Elan states here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0710.html) that they are tattoos.
Elan is not a reliable source of knowledge. The mural is evidence that those are dragon marks.


I just showed you evidence.
No, you didn't. You effectively say "we don't see any of the thing I'd expect for my theory to be correct, but I still think my hypothesis is better". Absence of Evidence is not evidence of absence, but it is also not evidence for alternatives. We do not see any non-Draketooth members present in the family lunch room - even though there is children young enough that normally both parents would need to be present. Concluding from that "oh, most of the non-Draketooth parents are in the pyramid, but none of them were drawn by the author" requires a massive leap of faith.


Also, I'm not saying he has any motive in particular. I'm just saying there are other possibilities and he chose the worst one to go with.
You accused him of "delibrately"[sic] using the most terrible interpretation. You are accusing him of choosing an interpretation not on the basis of evidence, but on what you think his preferences or feeling are - that he somehow wants Draketooth to be terrible. That is a very serious accusation and, in what is clearly a trend, one which you do not have enough evidence to sustain.


Yes, his grandmother is there,
First, that is moving the goalposts, since you said "mother and grandmother family". Not grandmother, but the family thereof. Second, there is no mother in that chart. In fact, no non-Draketooth parents beyond the source of the red hair. Your entire theory of "Draketooth did care for non-dragon sides of the family" fails right there.


and that doesn't tell us much about his personal views on family. He might not even have been the one who did the mural.
Please note that 1) he built the pyramid. 2) He has an aura around his head. If it was not built by him, it was done for him, to show what was important. And there is nary a non-redheaded non-dragon-marked person in sight.


None of those are what I stated. You have greatly exaggerated my statements.
I am not exagerating that you chose to characterise someone else's position as deliberately "terrible" rather than "likely". Your own alternative requires evidence that is not present: supposed outsiders that we never see, sexual preferences we no evidence for. Adding assumptions for the sake of your theory rather than go with the most parsimonious interpretation.


Yes, it may be the most likely, but this is a place where we discuss possibilities of the comic. It is not wrong to consider other ways things may have happened.
It is also not wrong to shoot down alternative hypotheses for lack of evidence.


Not really, because the spell affects anyone who might have any family member that had a child with any Draketooth.
And all but one are non-redheads. Which leads to the conclusion that the Draketooths tdid not have "a thing" for redheads as you suggested, and therefore that the corpses are all Draketooths, and that no outsiders were allowed.

Grey Wolf

[hamishspence]

Elan is not a reliable source of knowledge. The mural is evidence that those are dragon marks.


How exactly does the mural support "dragonmarks" over "tattoos"?

[Wristlet Eater]

Elan is not a reliable source of knowledge. The mural is evidence that those are dragon marks.

Not if the tattoo was a family tradition. Plus, Elan is not reliable but he is the only source we have.


No, you didn't. You effectively say "we don't see any of the thing I'd expect for my theory to be correct, but I still think my hypothesis is better". Absence of Evidence is not evidence of absence, but it is also not evidence for alternatives. We do not see any non-Draketooth members present in the family lunch room - even though there is children young enough that normally both parents would need to be present. Concluding from that "oh, most of the non-Draketooth parents are in the pyramid, but none of them were drawn by the author" requires a massive leap of faith.

First, I presented a hypothesis that would make some not Draketooth. Second, I did not say my explanation was better, only that it is an alternate explanation.


You accused him of "delibrately"[sic] using the most terrible interpretation. You are accusing him of choosing an interpretation not on the basis of evidence, but on what you think his preferences or feeling are - that he somehow wants Draketooth to be terrible. That is a very serious accusation and, in what is clearly a trend, one which you do not have enough evidence to sustain.

I did not say he wants it. Just that there are many possibilities and he chose that one. A deliberste choice. Maybe it was a bad choice of words but that is all I meant.


First, that is moving the goalposts, since you said "mother and grandmother family". Not grandmother, but the family thereof. Second, there is no mother in that chart. In fact, no non-Draketooth parents beyond the source of the red hair. Your entire theory of "Draketooth did care for non-dragon sides of the family" fails right there.

You can't infer the level of someone caring for another through one painting that may have had other influences in it's design choices.


Please note that 1) he built the pyramid. 2) He has an aura around his head. If it was not built by him, it was done for him, to show what was important. And there is nary a non-redheaded non-dragon-marked person in sight.

Again, there is indication that they are not dragonmarks.


I am not exagerating that you chose to characterise someone else's position as deliberately "terrible" rather than "likely". Your own alternative requires evidence that is not present: supposed outsiders that we never see, sexual preferences we no evidence for. Adding assumptions for the sake of your theory rather than go with the most parsimonious interpretation.

I don't mean his position is terrible, I mean what he is implying all the Draketooths did is terrible.


And all but one are non-redheads, and the one that is a red-head is clearly a different shade. Which leads to the conclusion that the Draketooths tdid not have "a thing" for redheads as you suggested, and therefore that the corpses are all Draketooths, and that no outsiders were allowed.

I think you underestimate how big families can be.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

How exactly does the mural support "dragonmarks" over "tattoos"?

Tattoos are voluntary. Dragonmarks are hereditary. If they were forced upon the family members, I'd expect them to be uniform - a family tattoo of some description. Instead, we see them in all human branches of the family (including Girard's cousins), and slightly different in every person, suggesting that they are indeed an inherited characteristic. They are also important enough to be in the tree. Since the ultimate grandmother provided the hair colour (that is also shown), it highlights that the other characteristic shown in the tree is likely a mark of their draconic inheritance, so the step from "it's an inherited birthmark" to "it's an inherited dragon mark" is a short one.

Grey Wolf

[Keltest]

Tattoos are voluntary. Dragonmarks are hereditary. If they were forced upon the family members, I'd expect them to be uniform - a family tattoo of some description. Instead, we see them in all human branches of the family (including Girard's cousins), and slightly different in every person, suggesting that they are indeed an inherited characteristic. They are also important enough to be in the tree. Since the ultimate grandmother provided the hair colour (that is also shown), it highlights that the other characteristic shown in the tree is likely a mark of their draconic inheritance, so the step from "it's an inherited birthmark" to "it's an inherited dragon mark" is a short one.

Grey Wolf

To borrow from O-chul for a moment, you find the idea that it is a visible yet inconsistent manifestation of their draconic bloodline, which by the latest generation is extremely diluted to be simpler than the idea that its just a family tradition to tattoo your face?

[littlebum2002]

Actually, Penelope used to say it was a tattoo, and it was her husband, so I think she might be correct.

Also, the baby didn't appear to have one.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0816.html

[Wristlet Eater]

If the tattoos were an important family tradition, though, it would also make sense to put them on the mural. And it's possible they all had slightly different tattoos, as they were still similar, fitting the 'dragon' theme.

Dragonmarks are an alternate rule in D&D anyway. Who's to say OotS uses them?

[KorvinStarmast]

BTW, as far as Tarquin is concerned, I think that he wasn't a bad parent simply because he's Evil, he was a bad parent because he's insane. Yeah. Meglomania and parenting are rarely a good match.

This this whole "find 'em, foal 'em, flee 'em, forget 'em" scheme Draketooth came up with: it is rooted in a D&D mechanic that has Sorcerers to use Charisma as the spell casting ability rather than Int or Wis or something else. Charisma enhances their ability to seduce and deceive, both.

(Yet another reason to question why Warlock's weren't Int casters ... but I suppose that I am digressing here).

[Wristlet Eater]

(Yet another reason to question why Warlock's weren't Int casters ... but I suppose that I am digressing here).

They seduced and deceived the beings who gave them power, I guess?

[KorvinStarmast]

They seduced and deceived the beings who gave them power, I guess?
Hmm, I see the relationship more as the patron seducing and deceiving the Warlock, who hungers for power, but I suppose the relationship could start the other way as well.

[martianmister]

Little girl that disturbingly looks like Haley's childhood (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0841.html) also had no visible marks.

[Keltest]

Little girl that disturbingly looks like Haley's childhood (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0841.html) also had no visible marks.

I also see at least one person who has it on another part of their body.

[The MunchKING]

Hmm, I see the relationship more as the patron seducing and deceiving the Warlock, who hungers for power, but I suppose the relationship could start the other way as well.

It's a mutual seduction and deception circle?

[dps]

IIRC, that's pretty much how the Amish handle it too. Leaving the community on a permanent basis means being shunned.

The difference is that the Amish aren't hiding the existence and location of their communities from the outside world.

[Wristlet Eater]

The difference is that the Amish aren't hiding the existence and location of their communities from the outside world.

That's just what they want you to think.

[goto124]

EDIT: Turns out Orrin's baby did not have the tattoo. The pigtail girl in #841 does not have a tattoo either. Over to the top left corner, there's a boy who lacks a tattoo too. At the lower left corner is a lady whose tattoo isn't on her face.

Why can't a female Draketooth go out to get impregnated by a male human, then return to the pyramid and give birth? The human isn't going to miss the baby of someone he had a one-night stand with.

The family tree shows a bunch of lady Draketooths. Maybe Girard needed more children in the time and ladies alone weren't enough?


I also see at least one person who has it on another part of their body.

Haley's adulthood :smallamused:

[Reddish Mage]

The difference is that the Amish aren't hiding the existence and location of their communities from the outside world.

So a community that hides the existence and location of their communities from the outside...Got it, the Draketooths are ninjas.

[goodpeople25]

I thought elves were the ones with hidden villages, oh well maybe the secret ninja village is inside the elven one. That'd be a tale to tell. :smallwink:

[Lissou]

Considering that none of the children seen have these marks, but all the adults do, that the mark's locations and design varies, and that every time the marks have been described in comic the word used has been "tattoo", I think the most simple explanation is that they get tattooed as some rite of passage when they reach adulthood. Alternate explanation: the marks appear on their own and just look like tattoos, but they only appear when they reach adulthood for some reason. Less simple explanation and therefore less likely, but not impossible.

[dmc91356]

In that my D&D playing ended with AD&D and I have no sorcerer experience other than CRPG's (and Sorcerer's Place, which is not the same thing at all), I freely confess to having no real knowledge of how D&D of any recent iteration treats the manifestation of sorcerer power. However, if this does not contradict it, could the "tattoo" manifest whenever the person first gains sorcerer power? That would explain the "no marks on children" aspect of things.

I guess it is all really just a mind exercise anyway, as Xykon is a sorcerer and when he was human in SOD I do not recall seeing any "tattoos" on him. That could be brushed aside by the idea that his sorcerer powers came from some other source than dragon background.

[Keltest]

In that my D&D playing ended with AD&D and I have no sorcerer experience other than CRPG's (and Sorcerer's Place, which is not the same thing at all), I freely confess to having no real knowledge of how D&D of any recent iteration treats the manifestation of sorcerer power. However, if this does not contradict it, could the "tattoo" manifest whenever the person first gains sorcerer power? That would explain the "no marks on children" aspect of things.

I guess it is all really just a mind exercise anyway, as Xykon is a sorcerer and when he was human in SOD I do not recall seeing any "tattoos" on him. That could be brushed aside by the idea that his sorcerer powers came from some other source than dragon background.

It could, theoretically, but there is no crunch related to the manifestation of mystic tattoos with the sorcerer class. If that were the case, it would be something Rich just made up for the story.

[The MunchKING]

Considering that none of the children seen have these marks, but all the adults do, that the mark's locations and design varies, and that every time the marks have been described in comic the word used has been "tattoo", I think the most simple explanation is that they get tattooed as some rite of passage when they reach adulthood. Alternate explanation: the marks appear on their own and just look like tattoos, but they only appear when they reach adulthood for some reason. Less simple explanation and therefore less likely, but not impossible.

My idea was it was a mark of maturity, in the sense that when your sorcerer powers came in, you were old enough to be taught illusions and old enough to be trusted with part of the spell upkeep on the place. And when you were old enough to help, you were old enough to be a "real" Draketooth and get your tattoo.

[Wristlet Eater]

In that my D&D playing ended with AD&D and I have no sorcerer experience other than CRPG's (and Sorcerer's Place, which is not the same thing at all), I freely confess to having no real knowledge of how D&D of any recent iteration treats the manifestation of sorcerer power. However, if this does not contradict it, could the "tattoo" manifest whenever the person first gains sorcerer power? That would explain the "no marks on children" aspect of things.

I guess it is all really just a mind exercise anyway, as Xykon is a sorcerer and when he was human in SOD I do not recall seeing any "tattoos" on him. That could be brushed aside by the idea that his sorcerer powers came from some other source than dragon background.

It's unlikely, but even if Xykon had a mark like that, maybe it was just somewhere he wore clothes over. Then he became a skeleton so we wouldn't see it anyway.

[goto124]

Since we do have a book showing human Xykon, if he had a tattoo, it would be a really major plot point if it didn't get shown in said book.

[Cazero]

Since we do have a book showing human Xykon, if he had a tattoo, it would be a really major plot point if it didn't get shown in said book.
Different sorcerers lines, different rules. Xykon not being related to the Draketooth would be a surprise to exactly nobody.

[Wristlet Eater]

Since we do have a book showing human Xykon, if he had a tattoo, it would be a really major plot point if it didn't get shown in said book.

Why? I mean, maybe he just had a tattoo that doesn't affect anything at all.

[bertrc]

I would also add that http : // www . giantitp . com / comics / oots0843 . html refutes the idea that they'd go mostly after redheads.

Huh, I had always thought 843 was just showing progeny related to the original dragon, but your right, from the text, it is showing links through Draketooth.

I'm pretty sure 816 establishes it as a facial tattoo.

Well, whether you are going out of your way to ascribe the worst interpretation of the Draketooths or going out to ascribe the best interpretation, he still convinced them to be as untrusting as Haley's Dad, so Draketooth is at least as bad as him (Even worse if you believe he was kidnapping his children from their mother and convincing his progeny to kidnap their children from the other parent)