OotS and the Mentally Handicapped

[Sir_Leorik]

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

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

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

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

[Boogastreehouse]

I think it looks better with a little space

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

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

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


I think it looks better with a little space

[cobaltstarfire]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Bird]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

etc.

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

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

[veti]

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

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

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

[DaggerPen]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

etc.

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

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

I'm largely in agreement with this.

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

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

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

[Sir_Leorik]

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

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

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

[The Giant]

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

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

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

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

[CoffeeIncluded]

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

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

[Keltest]

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

[Harbinger]

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

[The Giant]

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

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

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

[CoffeeIncluded]

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

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

Thank you, that all makes perfect sense.

[The Oni]

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

[Porthos]

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

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

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

[Bird]

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

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

[SavageWombat]

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

[Bird]

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

Well, yes, fair point. It's more complicated than that.

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

[rbetieh]

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

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

[AKA_Bait]

Edit:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The point of Thog is. . .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Thrillhouse]

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

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

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

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

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

[Seto]

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

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

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

[Keltest]

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

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

"thog elegant in thog's simplicity"

[AKA_Bait]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"thog elegant in thog's simplicity"

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

[DaggerPen]

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

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

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

[AKA_Bait]

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

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

[Bird]

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

Sure, that's fair. We can make such criticisms in the same way that we can criticize works that present orcs & goblins as uniformly evil and deserving of slaughter, and that defend this because orcs & goblins aren't intended to represent any real-world groups.

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

[Math_Mage]

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

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

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

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

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

[AlaskaOOTSFan]

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

This +1

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

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

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

[Fish]

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

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

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

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

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