Results 121 to 150 of 1675
-
2014-07-25, 07:29 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2013
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
OOTS#959. Saying the plot out loud.
-
2014-07-25, 07:32 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2009
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
Actrion figures?
Member of the Giants in the Playground Forum Chapter for the Movement to Reunite Gondwana!
-
2014-07-25, 07:33 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2009
- Location
- Birmingham, AL
- Gender
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
There's nothing inherently wrong with escapism, though. That's why I read OotS. That's why I read my Star Wars novels and play KotOR and Kerbal Space Program and D&D. I'm in it for the escapism, not because I have a terrible life ir a boring life or any melancholy, but they let me in on a world where things normally impossible are possible. It's fun.
If The Giant doesn't want to write like that, that's his right, and there's nothing wrong with that either. He's a great author and able to balance the two quite well. I'd just like to see that quote not be bandied around as if escapism was a four-letter word, is all.
-
2014-07-25, 07:39 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2010
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
This is why I like Order of the Stick and, as I said in my blog post on the matter, why I keep coming back after 10 years.
The Giant has one thing absolutely right: Stories mean something. Literature is one way in which we communicate broader ideas to eachother; even something written as "simple escapism" has an inherent message (this is why I've stopped reading superhero stories and swords-and-sorcery style fantasy; too much of it has a message glorifying power and violence).
As much as we love gaming, there is much in it which is deeply problematic: casual attitudes towards violence, implied racism, implied sexism. That OoTS takes these issues on is to its credit.
On Bandanda's sexuality feeling "forced", I can't help but see that as an aspect of our heteronormative society; had Bandanda been giving a spare suit of plate to Roy and mentioned her (presumed male) ex having left it behind, nobody would have batted an eye. We've come to see "straight" as a default and view anything else as a distraction. This is the problem that inclusion of more LGBT characters can correct.
-
2014-07-25, 07:41 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2004
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
Orth Plays: Currently Baldur's Gate II
-
2014-07-25, 07:43 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2010
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
See this strip: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0675.html
Haley's leather armor was defined as "not serious armor" but fetishwear giving AC bonuses.
-
2014-07-25, 07:53 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Apr 2009
- Location
- Ontario
- Gender
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
Right.
The Giant has been commenting on inclusion in works of fiction and the reasons he writes OOTS for a very long time, and I completely agree with him on all counts. Still, this comic felt a bit heavy-handed to me, especially the apology to readers for past gendered insults. But the reason it feels that way is because of that pre-existing debate between the Giant and some readers. We knew from that debate that a number of checkboxes had to be ticked off. So, when they get ticked off, it's no surprise, even if it's done in a nice and unexpected way (and it is). So it feels a bit on the heavy side.
Hopefully, one day the social and political debate about inclusion will have died down because inclusion has become a matter of course, then all of this will fell completely natural.DM in Mummy's Mask I, II, III | Keshkaru and Ozkrak in Extinction Curse | Marzena in Age of Worms | Elrembriel in Wrath of the Righteous | Gurmok in Nightmare in Katapesh | DM in Catacombs of Ravenloft Avatar courtesy of Neoseph7
-
2014-07-25, 07:54 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2004
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
Also...yeah. I am pretty damn sure that when deciding that leather armor would have a lower armor class than plate armor, no one completed the thought with, "because the plate armor is actually armor while the leather armor is a midriff-baring number only euphemistically termed 'armor'."
Orth Plays: Currently Baldur's Gate II
-
2014-07-25, 07:56 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2013
- Gender
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
About escapism: Yay, escapism. I like it. Nothin' wrong with that.
About homosexual characters: Yay, homosexuality. Nothin' wrong with that.
About people being homosexual because "a story needs to have at least one homosexual character": hm, not too sure about that. I like the intention, but not quite the execution.
About stories having meaning and societal impact: OK. Guess I can't complain about that. I would like to, though.
About the comic: Yay, comic. I like it.
-
2014-07-25, 07:57 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Location
- Red Dragon Territory
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
You mean like a guy telling a girl how sexism works?
He was clearly referring to her boobs, which she CHOSE to flaunt because she was sick of being addressed as 'young man'.
Also, google "men in leather armour". A lot of it is a lot more revealing than what Haley wore.
-
2014-07-25, 07:58 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Gender
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
If the artwork in the various D&D handbooks are anything to judge by, I would imagine their thoughts were pretty much the opposite of that.
Im just waiting for something in 5th edition that lets female characters add their charisma bonus to their AC when wearing skimpy armor.“Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”
-
2014-07-25, 07:59 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
- Location
- Hixson, TN
- Gender
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
Yeah, this strip is making a point, but as points go, it's not particularly overstated. Ultimately, it's just letting us learn more about a new character and establishing a relationship between them and one of our main cast, while being silly and self-aware as the strip often is. There's no sense that Rich is saying "THIS IS WHAT YOU MUST ALL BELIEVE OR YOU ARE EVIL" here. If the comic abandoned its story entirely to make a point, or again, was judging the readers, that would be one thing, but it does neither of those.
-
2014-07-25, 08:00 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2008
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
Very effective AC bonuses at that. A headband can be more effective than plate armour, we're told.
If, then, Haley's choice of outfit provides adequate protection despite exposing a good deal of skin, why criticise her choice retrospectively? It's not as if she's compromising her safety by wearing it. Shall we criticise her for what she once said to that airborne skank _and_ shame her for her fashion choices? Do we demand that she cover up to spare our blushes, despite gaining no better armour class from doing so?
-
2014-07-25, 08:15 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2010
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
Haley isn't a person; she's a character created by Rich Burlew. Burlew made the choice to depict women's armor as sexy rather than functional looking, giving him an excuse to "sex up" the depictions of female characters while paying lip-service to their actual role as adventurers. It's an attempt to have it both ways on which he is now commenting.
I think he's learned and grown over the years, perhaps as a person as well as an artist.
-
2014-07-25, 08:17 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2013
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
My response if there are OOTS action figures:
Shut up and take my money!~ Composer99
D&D 5e Campaign:
Adventures in Eaphandra
D&D 5e Homebrew:
This can be found in my extended homebrew signature!
-
2014-07-25, 08:18 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
- Location
- Groningen, Netherlands
- Gender
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
Amongst my own friends, I always felt the need to explain that lawful types don't ways need to be the leaders; they can also be followers. So in that light, most of the people I know would use that quote to say that she's lawful. Myself, I find it hard to picture an effective chaotic leader.
-
2014-07-25, 08:18 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2013
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
Also, great comic, Giant, loved the character development for Bandana and Haley, and the sly self-deprecation at the end.
~ Composer99
D&D 5e Campaign:
Adventures in Eaphandra
D&D 5e Homebrew:
This can be found in my extended homebrew signature!
-
2014-07-25, 08:19 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2004
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
*does so*
Okay, that's not armor...
...that covers his entire body...
...that looks like a piece someone might have actually worn; it's also completely waist-to-neckline covering...
...covers his entire body again...
...and again...
...that's some kind of plant...
...why did I get a picture of a woman wearing only ribbons with this search?...
...another full-body-covering one...
...that woman appears to be naked but is turned sideways...
...that one has her hair artfully draped to avoid showing too much while still suggesting nakedness...
...oh, hey, it's the cover of the Wonderful Wizard of Oz!...
...there's a romance novel cover! I see a man's bare chest, but he's not wearing leather armor...
Total number of men in armor that bares the midriff or more: 0.
Total number of pieces of armor that look like "sexy" wear rather than actually looking like armor: 0.
Total number of very-close-to-naked-women who came up in that search for some reason: 3.
Whatever that was supposed to prove, it didn't. And your claim that leather armor having huge holes in it, like baring the midriff, is expected and why it has a lower AC than heavy armor remains a ridiculous one.Orth Plays: Currently Baldur's Gate II
-
2014-07-25, 08:25 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2012
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
Are we debating whether or not women in fantasy fiction are generally more scantily clad than men? Because the answer is yes. Are we debating whether or not women in OOTS are generally more scantily clad than men? Because once again, it's yes.
Also, the 'men in leather armour' google search was disappointing. Taking out the 'armour' part didn't help much either.
-
2014-07-25, 08:28 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2009
- Location
- Birmingham, AL
- Gender
-
2014-07-25, 08:46 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Location
- Red Dragon Territory
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
So apparently all clothing choices of female characters depict the author's views on women? Are you telling me if women are scantily-clad, it's not because it's in-character?
Well, I don't know what you googled.
Out of the first dozen pictures:
Total number of men in armour (or male mannequins, there are a lot of mannequins) that bares the midriff or more: 4
Total number of pieces of armour that look like "sexy" wear rather than actually looking like armour: 2
Total number of very-close-to-naked-women who came up in that search for some reason: 0
Have a screenshot to prove it.
-
2014-07-25, 08:51 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Gender
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
“Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”
-
2014-07-25, 08:59 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Location
- Red Dragon Territory
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
My original point was that women in the OOTS series do not and have never worn ridiculously impractical armour. As someone else mentioned, obviously Sabine is an exception. I showed that there were male armours with a LOT less fabric to them than Haley's old outfit.
I still want to know what Kish googled, and hopefully get a screenshot of it, if it isn't too much trouble, because I can't see why googling the same thing multiple times would get different results
-
2014-07-25, 09:00 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2012
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
It took me a while to realize that Bandana was a female character. Really, the gender of most of the supporting characters could be male or female without changing the story (in my opinion).
-
2014-07-25, 09:01 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2010
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
I'm saying that the fantasy-world mechanic (scanty armor is protection for female) and the character's personality (and, therefore, choices) are entirely the author's decision.
Google results are personalized; your Google results and mine will be different based on whatever information Google has on our history and demographics.Last edited by Czhorat; 2014-07-25 at 09:03 AM. Reason: Consolidate doublepost.
-
2014-07-25, 09:03 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2008
- Location
- Groningen, Netherlands
- Gender
-
2014-07-25, 09:05 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2010
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
-
2014-07-25, 09:08 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2003
- Location
- Philadelphia, PA
- Gender
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
Yes. Because the author created those characters out of thin air, and could have chosen to create them differently if he had wanted to. The choice to create only women for whom it is "in-character" to be scantily clad is, itself, depicting the author's views on women.
or
Yes. Because when something occurs over and over across a swath of characters that have nothing in common with each other except for being female, then it becomes untenable to claim that it is, in fact, a result of the character's innate personality traits and not a reflection of the author's views on the one unifying trait: their gender.
Pick one.Rich Burlew
Now Available: 2023 OOTS Holiday Ornament plus a big pile of new t-shirt designs (that you can also get on mugs and stuff)!
~~You can also support The Order of the Stick and the GITP forum at Patreon.~~
-
2014-07-25, 09:08 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2009
Re: OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread
I found this one a bit too preachy.
Yes, sexism is bad, racism is bad, general intolerance and stereotyping are bad. So is giving drugs to kids, but that does not make Cartoon All-Stars to the Rescue any less awful, you know?
We're not nearly there, it's miles and light years away, but this strip still felt off. For me that is, I do realize it's a matter of personal opinion.
-
2014-07-25, 09:10 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2008
- Gender