OOTS #1151 - The Discussion Thread

[Liquor Box]

The thing is, we pretty much can tell that OOTS world is far more accepting of different races and sexual preferences than ours (e.g Bandana casually mentioning girlfriend, Roy being referred to as dark skinned, and never as black, jail guard in Cliffport, the loads of female warriors in W&XP, etc), so it is likely that many other things also are different, regarding that area. As such, since we have no information other than what the comic has provided, it is difficult to extrapolate. That being said, who am I to dictate how much info is needed for folks to be able to take away from stuff?

Do you think Bandana's casual reference is something that wouldn't happen in the real world? My home country may be different to most other posters in that regard, but i have heard people casually referencing their homosexuality before many times.

Fair point about the loads of female warriors. That does seem to be a significant departure from our world - especially our world in medieval times.

[Liquor Box]

Why all this statistical "analysis" on Durkon? We have in-comic evidence that Durkon finds females attractive (hence, Kudzu, y'know) and we have in-comic evidence that Durkon's mom would like him to settle down with someone of either gender, which would lend to the argument that she believes that he would be fine with either gender, i.e. bi. Now, the latter motherly comment may be a retcon of earlier strips that have been cited in support of Durkon being hetero, but that's irrelevant here. What we know from the actual comic would easily support the idea that Durkon is bi, and how the real world human population shakes out statistically is therefore particularly meaningless here.

Given Rich's comments in the past about more inclusiveness, I would absolutely find it in character (sorry, bad pun) that Durkon is bi. You can use statistics to your heart's content, but if you know something about the horses in the race, you are going to have a much better chance picking the winner than if you just go by their records on paper.

How old was Durkon when his mother made that comment? Because if he was not sexually mature (or had not revealed his sexual preference to his mother) then I don't think it gives us any guidance as to what Durkon's sexual preference might be.

If anything, his mothers acceptance of same sex relationships mitigates against any argument that belkar was suppressing his homosexual tendencies when her showed aversion to Elan and Roy's nudity.

Statisitics aside, the in-comic indications are that Durkon is hetero.

[CriticalFailure]

Hunh, confusing because I thought it was implied that the elves are generally androgynous and not have gender roles in their society.

And because the website faq says nothing will be revealed with that question.

[Caerulea]

Do you think Bandana's casual reference is something that wouldn't happen in the real world? My home country may be different to most other posters in that regard, but i have heard people casually referencing their homosexuality before many times.

Fair point about the loads of female warriors. That does seem to be a significant departure from our world - especially our world in medieval times.

I'm going to take Jasdoif's role and quote The Giant.
The Giant's opinion on this:

This isn't the medieval world, after all, it's a world with 100% gender equality, a known afterlife, clerics that can cure any disease, and rampaging monsters around every corner.

[Jasdoif]

Drawing conclusions and trying to get an approximate idea of a what a population looks like are two different things. The latter is what I am saying you can do.

I guess when you said "try to draw a conclusion", I thought you were talking about trying to draw a conclusion.

[Jasdoif]

I guess just think of it as if I said "try to make a reasonable assumption"

Is it "reasonable", though? Or is it "as reasonable as currently possible while still being able to provide an answer"? The size of the gulf between the two is, in my opinion, the best indicator of whether you should be determining how to refine the model; rather than giving that answer. (Sometimes that's a luxury, but I doubt this particular question is ever going to have that kind of urgency.)

I mean, if the "grain" of salt you need to take it with is as big as one of those salt lamps, you'd be better served looking for a better (and less dehydrating) meal.

[jokem]

"hardcore introspection"?

I think Durkon has become a much better preacher and Belkar really is turning less evil!

I agree. I have long held that Belkar had been on the road to Chaotic Neutral for some time.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

I don't see why it is such a stretch to apply real-world statistics of heterosexuality to the dwarven population.

for the same reason it's a stretch to apply RL statistics to anything else OotS related: it is not RL.

Grey Wolf

[jokem]

I don't see why it is such a stretch to apply real-world statistics of heterosexuality to the dwarven population. Dwarves, by all accounts, seem to be very similar to humans. Yes, the culture in oots seems more accepting, but that shouldn't actually change the percentage of the population who are non-heterosexual. That is like saying that how much gender equality is present in a population determines how many men and women are in the population.

I guess it just comes down to how comparable we view the two populations are in this regard.

Actually this becomes a complex question, since there are no dwarven females, just those that are less male...

The converse is true for elves...

[Ironsmith]

for the same reason it's a stretch to apply RL statistics to anything else OotS related: it is not RL.

Grey Wolf

So, does "like reality except where noted" not hold any sway, in your opinion?

[Caerulea]

I don't see why it is such a stretch to apply real-world statistics of heterosexuality to the dwarven population. Dwarves, by all accounts, seem to be very similar to humans. Yes, the culture in oots seems more accepting, but that shouldn't actually change the percentage of the population who are non-heterosexual. That is like saying that how much gender equality is present in a population determines how many men and women are in the population.

Not quite. 100 years ago, the results of any survey we could take (short of invading people's minds) would have determined that few people are homosexual. Now, I don't think anyone claims rates of homosexuality have significantly gone up, just that people have hidden it in the past. I think this is less likely in OotS because of what The Giant said. People don't tend to hide their sex in our world, they will hide their orientation.

So, does "like reality except where noted" not hold any sway, in your opinion?

It's been noted: not like reality.

[Arkain]

"Awww."
To quote my react- uh, I mean my intense hardcore reaction.

[DaggerPen]

Real world sexuality statistics are almost entirely irrelevant to the question of Durkon's sexuality. The Giant isn't rolling dice to generate statistically accurate sexualities for his characters. Hell, by all appearances he isn't even rolling dice for the stuff D&D characters do roll dice for.

Durkon's sexuality, if defined beyond "is attracted to women," is the result of a choice on The Giant's part, and his statements on the matter are fairly clear that statistical accuracy is not a driving force behind that decision.

We do in our culture have a tendency to assume heterosexuality as the default. While this is related to the fact that heterosexuality is the most common sexuality, there are other normative factors at play which make non-heterosexual orientations underrepresented in fiction and under considered in general as compared to other types of human variation which do not have such normative factors associated with them. (For a trivial example, let's say... hair color amongst white people. Red and blonde are still fairly uncommon, yet we have one of each in the party.) Even here, characters often do not represent statistical norms, because writers tend to like a variety in character designs and traits, and a small party does not leave a lot of room for a statistically representative group who are not boringly similar.

Due to heteronormativity, it is common for writers who do not think about their characters' sexualities to write them as vaguely heterosexual (I.E. not confirming it, but acting in a way more consistent with being hetero than not.) This is consistent with Durkon showing attraction to Haley but being offput by Elan's nudity. Conversely, the Giant has expressed that he is thinking about these things a lot more now and making an effort to have more diversity in gender and sexuality, which is consistent with Sidgi mentioning wanting Durkon to find a nice gal or fella to settle down with. We can't know if the Giant had Durkon sufficiently set as heterosexual in his mind that he is still writing him as heterosexual. Consequently, we cannot determine Durkon's sexuality by analyzing the Giant's background and statements.

In the comic, we have weak evidence both that Durkon is heterosexual and that Durkon is bisexual. In evidence that he is heterosexual, we have him expressing interest in Haley's wardrobe malfunction and crystal balls, but being offput by Elan's nudity. However, this is not conclusive, and characterization in the early strips is often considered to have less weight due to early installment weirdness. In evidence of his bisexuality, we have Sidgi's comment about him possibly marrying a fella, which would be weird at his age if he hadn't expressed some possible interest in men. However, it is still possible this is a more general expression that homosexuality is not considered taboo by Sidgi/larger dwarven culture rather than a specific hint at Durkon's sexuality. Consequently, we cannot determine Durkon's sexuality purely from the comic.

If statistical analysis, analysis of the Giant, and analysis of the comic itself all fail to make one sexuality clearly more likely than another for Durkon, then we cannot assume either sexuality is more likely. While we are free to have whatever headcanons regarding Durkon's sexuality we like, there is no real traction to be had in using our interpretation of Durkon's sexuality to convince others to subscribe to our rankings. Furthermore, even were we to know whether Durkon was attracted to men, it would do little to change the rankings beyond serving as a possible ranking booster for Haley.

Thus, in general, we're going to get better rankings by ignoring the question of Durkon's sexuality and focusing on factors we know to be important to him from the comic, such as compatibility in personality and outlook, benefit to his family, etc.

Thank you for coming to my Ted Talk.

[Ironsmith]

It's been noted: not like reality.

Except not. This applies to individual traits of the setting as much as it does the setting as a whole (that it does so is half the point of the maxim). There's no particular note saying that homosexual or bisexual individuals are more common in the Stickverse than they are IRL; the Giant has said that they don't have to be as common, but in the absence of evidence that says they're more or less commonplace than they would otherwise be IRL, the two are assumed to be parallel (as the maxim states). We've seen two canonically bisexual characters, one (maybe?) genderqueer character, and that's about it; that's well below the IRL rate.

[Sloanzilla]

Does anyone else find it weird that, so far, the most manipulative, cunning, and roguish member of the party is...a dwarven cleric of thor? We're talking about a guy that knocked up the enemy before telling her off for disloyalty, half-truthed his way into gaining a hyperaggressive paladin's trust, and manipulated a vampire over the course of I think weeks or even months while trapped in its subconscious. All with a racial charisma penalty.

If Thor doesn't work out, I think Durkon could find good company with his brother.

I've actually thought about this quite a bit. Durkon also got along with Malack and Roy's sister, and in fact generally gets along with people the Order meets better than probably anyone else.

I've often wondered if there is a particular form of "uncharisma" that is actually charismatic. You know, the grumpy, introverted people in real life who somehow get along with others better than anyone else. For that matter, is a slick car salesman type who annoys everyone through his slickness actually charismatic?

Durkon has a low charisma, but in terms of rolls that might require charisma he does as well or better than anyone in the group. I suppose this could be explained as investing in diplomacy. Or wisdom and reliability. Or maybe it is just that charisma is much harder to define than, say, strength or intelligence.

[Sloanzilla]

I've played quite a few (online) games that do something like that, where the source material demands a certain delineation of abilities among different alignments/races/factions, but game play considerations make it untenable to enforce certain restrictions (i.e., all of "evil" being substantially crippled in terms of healing.) Sometimes the game play (or story telling) benefits from keeping that particular obstacle, but sometimes it just breaks everything.

DnD has always flirted back and forth on positive energy = good, negative=evil vs. they are just two opposing forms of energy with little to do with alignment. I seem to recall some sort of evil, positive energy creature in one obscure splatbook.
It’s worth noting that a neutral evil lich cleric can cast cure light spells, which rely on positive energy. The only thing he or she can’t do is sacrifice a spell for that level’s curative spell. When 3.0 rolled around, they decided that good and neutral clerics can sacrifice spell slots for cure spells, neutral and evil clerics can sacrifice spell slots for inflict spells and druids can sacrifice spell slots for summon spells. I feel like this decision was more based on making adventuring clerics appealing (so you can actually pretend like you might get to cast some non-healing spells) than any sort of investment in worldbuilding.

[Ironsmith]

I think it is just that Durkon is a better and more appealing person than the clueless Elan, the bloodthirsty Belkar, the somewhat detached Varsuvius, the suspicious and suspicion-worthy Haley, and the easily-annoyed Roy. Yes, Durkon has his quirks, but under it all, he seems to be a nice, sympathetic guy.

In-universe, it could also be explained away as him having skill ranks in Diplomacy. He knows he's not a charmer, but has put extra effort into his social interactions as a result, doing through a hard learning process what people like Elan do with talent. Plus, what self-respecting church lets a cleric gets ordained without having him take at least one Public Speaking course?

[Sloanzilla]

I think it is just that Durkon is a better and more appealing person than the clueless Elan, the bloodthirsty Belkar, the somewhat detached Varsuvius, the suspicious and suspicion-worthy Haley, and the easily-annoyed Roy. Yes, Durkon has his quirks, but under it all, he seems to be a nice, sympathetic guy.

Well I agree, but is that charisma or not? It's interesting how people with low charismas can be more appealing than people with higher charismas. If that is the case, does charisma need to be redefined?

[Liquor Box]

Well I agree, but is that charisma or not? It's interesting how people with low charismas can be more appealing than people with higher charismas. If that is the case, does charisma need to be redefined?

Sure.

My take is that charisma is measuring things like rapport building skills, friendliness, attractiveness, sense of humour. The sorts of things that make people immediately drawn to a person.

But a non charismatic person can have a good character, a heart of gold, can be caring or attentive. For these reasons they can be more appealing once you get to know them.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

So, does "like reality except where noted" not hold any sway, in your opinion?

Not in OotS. OotS runs on "D&D 3.5 except where noted".

Grey Wolf

[Ironsmith]

Not in OotS. OotS runs on "D&D 3.5 except where noted".

Grey Wolf

Which in turn is "like reality except where noted"? (Bearing in mind that it's a lot of notes...)

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Which in turn is "like reality except where noted"? (Bearing in mind that it's a lot of notes...)

No, it is quite explicitly nothing like reality.

Grey Wolf

[Caerulea]

Which in turn is "like reality except where noted"? (Bearing in mind that it's a lot of notes...)

Not really. Once you change nearly everything, the amount and type of stuff you can bring over from reality decreases. It also becomes broader. You can't bring detailed scientific analysis of genetics, and I feel that current population statistics is also a bit much.

[Larre Gannd]

No, it is quite explicitly nothing like reality.

Grey Wolf

Well, the only differences are new species, magic, ki, polytheism that is explicitly proven, demons, different planes of existence, ability to be resurrected, being totally fine, no matter how badly injured, until you fall unconscious, and gold used as currency. Otherwise, other than quantifying everything in numbers and dice rolls, they are the same.

[Fincher]

Regarding the likelihood of Durkon being bisexual, you could imagine a scenario where it's illegal for dwarves to marry bards, in which case Elan would be his #5 choice. That may not seem to make much sense, but in a world with dragons and wizards and dwarves being afraid of trees, anything is possible. So there's just as much chance of it being illegal as it not being illegal.

Except that if you approach a work of fiction like The Order of the Stick that way, you won't be able to make any sense of it. How do we know what they're speaking is English? How do we know that "humans" in the strip aren't some sort of hyper-evolved cricket? Because the story builds off of the real world and assumes that the readers are applying their knowledge of the real world to it. Durkon could be bisexual, all dwarves could be bisexual, but if I'm placing bets on his orientation and as a result his choices, I'm going to have to go with heterosexual until I see any evidence to the contrary.

[Ironsmith]

Regarding the likelihood of Durkon being bisexual, you could imagine a scenario where it's illegal for dwarves to marry bards, in which case Elan would be his #5 choice. That may not seem to make much sense, but in a world with dragons and wizards and dwarves being afraid of trees, anything is possible. So there's just as much chance of it being illegal as it not being illegal.

Except that if you approach a work of fiction like The Order of the Stick that way, you won't be able to make any sense of it. How do we know what they're speaking is English? How do we know that "humans" in the strip aren't some sort of hyper-evolved cricket? Because the story builds off of the real world and assumes that the readers are applying their knowledge of the real world to it. Durkon could be bisexual, all dwarves could be bisexual, but if I'm placing bets on his orientation and as a result his choices, I'm going to have to go with heterosexual until I see any evidence to the contrary.

Thank you! Knew I wasn't crazy.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Well, the only differences are new species, magic, ki, polytheism that is explicitly proven, demons, different planes of existence, ability to be resurrected, being totally fine, no matter how badly injured, until you fall unconscious, and gold used as currency. Otherwise, other than quantifying everything in numbers and dice rolls, they are the same.

Don't forget skill points, classes, feats, disconnect between effort invested and results, and so many other things.

Really, we could be here all day. Or we could summarize and say "it is quite explicitly nothing like reality".

if I'm placing bets on his orientation and as a result his choices, I'm going to have to go with heterosexual until I see any evidence to the contrary.

And that says more about you than it says anything about Durkon.

Grey Wolf

[Caerulea]

Except that if you approach a work of fiction like The Order of the Stick that way, you won't be able to make any sense of it. How do we know what they're speaking is English? How do we know that "humans" in the strip aren't some sort of hyper-evolved cricket? Because the story builds off of the real world and assumes that the readers are applying their knowledge of the real world to it. Durkon could be bisexual, all dwarves could be bisexual, but if I'm placing bets on his orientation and as a result his choices, I'm going to have to go with heterosexual until I see any evidence to the contrary.

They're actually probably speaking common, not English. The humans are not hyper-evolved crickets because d&d says their humans, not crickets. Sure, they have some basic similarities with our world. I don't think population distributions is one that is shared, at least not necessarily.

Edit: dangit Grey_Wolf_c, that is the second time today you've ninja'd what I was about to say.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Edit: dangit Grey_Wolf_c, that is the second time today you've ninja'd what I was about to say.

Wolves are naturally stealthy.

Grey Wolf

[Kish]

Nothing in the D&D rules says that humans can't be hyper-evolved crickets in a given campaign setting.

That said, they clearly aren't hyper-evolved crickets in OotS, because Thor spelled out very recently that they were created, not evolved. Next you'll suggest they're related to apes.

(If there even are any apes in the OotS setting; I don't remember seeing any.)