Tactical Question - Haley

[The Oni]

On an entirely serious note which I'm sure the Giant will dismiss, but I'm submitting anyway in a Death-of-the-author sort of way, I'd like to submit the pet theory that Haley's insults towards women always being gendered is because of Haley's Latent Bisexuality. She was raised to keep everything hidden...

[mhsmith]

Maybe one way to salvage the stuff Haley has said in the past is to give her a learning experience. Maybe it's too late in the Tarquin saga, but something which drives home "Tarquin is a real jerk for the things he's been saying, maybe I should try and not go down that path either" or perhaps something where she actually does sexually insult Laurin and it doesn't go over well at all? Or maybe have that lesson pop up in a future book? There's something to be said for trying to instill a "here's how you should act" lesson as part of a character's growth, when that's feasible within the existing framework of the story.

[Sylian]

If I was writing a gritty realistic story about a woman living as a career criminal in New York, I would have every right to defend my dialogue choices for her as realistic or accurate. But I lose that defense the moment I have a character wiggle their fingers and shoot a ball of fire at a giant flying lizard, much less have the characters spout off about their hit points and Spot checks.

Well, if you were writing an allegory, you could justify realistic dialogue even in a world with magic and dragons. That being said, that's not really what you're doing, so your point still stands.

I don't think it's necessarily a bad thing if the protagonists have flaws, but if you want to avoid confusing the audience, you might want to make it clear that these character traits are flaws, or else you risk helping people associate the flaw with something good. An obvious example would be if the hero were also racist, and the narrative never pointed out that racism is bad. I think your story has done a great job so far regarding this issue, although it sometimes takes a while for you to point out that the flaws were, in fact, flaws, such as with Redcloak and hobgoblin racism (and human xenophobia/racism, though that seems to be played off more as a joke. It's still a little problematic, because Redcloak was meant to be sympathetic, and yet he hates humans for shallow reasons), and V's initial disdain for the value of black dragon lives.

Come to think of it, it is slightly problematic, actually. Perhaps I'm threading on thin ice here, but hear me out: The black dragon thing, which has been discussed over and over again on this forum. Now that we've given a proper perspective of it all, or at least I assume so, we can clearly see that V's lack of concern toward black dragon lives is problematic. Before V pointed this out, however, many people on these boards thought that what V did wasn't problematic at all.

Why is it problematic that some people thought that? Well, the main reason is time, I believe. It took a long time before we got an official answer to the question, and during that time, many people kept believing that it was right to kill the black dragons without concern, even if they thought that it might have been problematic to kill the half-dragons, or the humans with dragon blood. This kind of reasoning could, potentially, influence the way they think about real life issues.

Do I think that this comic has turned anyone racist? No, probably not. Has it made people more racist overall? I doubt it. In many ways, the comic probably helps to spread tolerance for different people, which is admirable, especially considering that it is a webcomic with stick figures. That being said, given enough media exposure, I think that issues like this could influence how some people think.

So, my point is, well: Keep in mind what signals you're sending out. You could, for instance, have a character act really sexist and all, like Roy did towards Miko, but if that had kept on for three years instead of just a few months, then I think it could potentially have some (very slight, but it might add up) effects on some of the readers.

[AgentofHellfire]

Come to think of it, it is slightly problematic, actually. Perhaps I'm threading on thin ice here, but hear me out: The black dragon thing, which has been discussed over and over again on this forum. Now that we've given a proper perspective of it all, or at least I assume so, we can clearly see that V's lack of concern toward black dragon lives is problematic. Before V pointed this out, however, many people on these boards thought that what V did wasn't problematic at all.

Why is it problematic that some people thought that? Well, the main reason is time, I believe. It took a long time before we got an official answer to the question, and during that time, many people kept believing that it was right to kill the black dragons without concern, even if they thought that it might have been problematic to kill the half-dragons, or the humans with dragon blood. This kind of reasoning could, potentially, influence the way they think about real life issues.

1. The reasoning didn't exist because of the comic, though. It existed because of the existing lore on black dragons being what it is.
2. Before V brought the problems up, V's mass murder wasn't even really a thought about topic. It wasn't discussed further than in passing in the comic. So I wouldn't say that the comic really portrayed it as being okay.
3. As for Redcloak--he's sympathetic, but he's still evil. What he's doing is still obviously considered wrong.

[Math_Mage]

He was talking about how they (I don't, and would resent the implication that I did) perceive Laurin--and hanging a lampshade over it. I don't know if that would cause the same problem.

I can't really respond to this because I don't know what "they" is attached to. But I don't think OP was merely lampshading Haley's attitudes.

[AgentofHellfire]

I can't really respond to this because I don't know what "they" is attached to. But I don't think OP was merely lampshading Haley's attitudes.

"They" is attached to the rest of the audience/Haley.

But anyhow, why would you say it isn't a lampshade? The OP was using those attitudes as the start of a joke. He was laughing at those attitudes. That kind of has to be lampshading.

(Unless you think he was calling Laurin a tramp, which I find even more unlikely, but...)

[Zrak]

I think part of the difficulty is that Haley's slut-shaming is not so much a personal flaw as it is indicative of a problematic linguistic trend; I never thought Haley's comments reflected an actual opinion about female promiscuity, but rather a cultural trend of gendered insults against women being primarily based in slut-shaming. In other words, as no more literal (and no less problematic) than gendered insults against men either questioning their sexuality or impugning their masculinity. I don't mean to say that this excuses such behavior, but it makes it a lot more difficult to portray. It's easier to show Roy's behavior towards Miko is problematic because the problem is in his attitudes, even if those attitudes are socially enforced; Haley's use of potentially problematic language is different in that it doesn't reflect an actual belief on her part.

I don't mean this to say it's not worth taking a hard look at what you've written in the past, but as something to consider when taking that look. I don't think Haley having avoided that language all along would necessarily present a critical engagement with its use — I don't think Haley avoiding gendered insults would have the same impact as the comic making no mention of Roy's race. It would make her behavior less problematic, certainly, but I think an opportunity for engagement with her problematic language, however accidental, is more productive than for it to have never happened in the first place. I think the potential to both learn and teach is greater, here, than it would be has Haley simply always used non-gendered insults. I think it's important to show that it's very easy to be perpetuate the insidious forms of discrimination and oppression that are woven into the fabric of our discourse, even for those with the most progressive attitudes or the best intentions.

Sometimes, we plan flaws in our characters and sometimes we find them; I think what is more important is what the author makes of those flaws than if they were originally intended. All of us, characters and authors alike, can make mistakes without even realizing it; what defines us is how we react when we do realize it.

[Grey Watcher]

On an entirely serious note which I'm sure the Giant will dismiss, but I'm submitting anyway in a Death-of-the-author sort of way, I'd like to submit the pet theory that Haley's insults towards women always being gendered is because of Haley's Latent Bisexuality. She was raised to keep everything hidden...

I actually like this idea. And who knows, maybe a Watsonian-Freudian justification for the slut-shaming dialogue disappearing could be that, now that she's openly involved with Elan and not massively geographically separated from him, her sexuality in general is fairly well-satisfied, so there's less fuel for the Latent Bisexual fire.

Of course, as I write it, this theory is skewing awfully close to the "All you need is a good man..." line of reasoning, which I find utterly repugnant, so I think I'm just going to dunk my head in bleach and try to forget about it.

(That said, part of me would like it if Haley's Latent Bisexuality became Haley's Bisexuality. Openly gay characters are pretty rare, openly bi characters even moreso.)

[Math_Mage]

"They" is attached to the rest of the audience/Haley.

But anyhow, why would you say it isn't a lampshade? The OP was using those attitudes as the start of a joke. He was laughing at those attitudes. That kind of has to be lampshading.

(Unless you think he was calling Laurin a tramp, which I find even more unlikely, but...)

See, I don't think OP was lampshading "those attitudes" so much as wallowing in them. As a joke about people who think of Laurin that way, it doesn't even make sense; it's merely a joke that relies on thinking of Laurin that way.

I actually like this idea. And who knows, maybe a Watsonian-Freudian justification for the slut-shaming dialogue disappearing could be that, now that she's openly involved with Elan and not massively geographically separated from him, her sexuality in general is fairly well-satisfied, so there's less fuel for the Latent Bisexual fire.

Of course, as I write it, this theory is skewing awfully close to the "All you need is a good man..." line of reasoning, which I find utterly repugnant, so I think I'm just going to dunk my head in bleach and try to forget about it.

(That said, part of me would like it if Haley's Latent Bisexuality became Haley's Bisexuality. Openly gay characters are pretty rare, openly bi characters even moreso.)

If I could contrive of a way to do it without unfortunate implications vis-a-vis her relationship with Elan, I'd be all for it.

[AgentofHellfire]

See, I don't think OP was lampshading "those attitudes" so much as wallowing in them. As a joke about people who think of Laurin that way, it doesn't even make sense; it's merely a joke that relies on thinking of Laurin that way.

Or finding people that think of Laurin that way funny, and/or the attitude ridiculous enough to seem a joking caricature.

[The Giant]

Come to think of it, it is slightly problematic, actually. Perhaps I'm threading on thin ice here, but hear me out: The black dragon thing, which has been discussed over and over again on this forum. Now that we've given a proper perspective of it all, or at least I assume so, we can clearly see that V's lack of concern toward black dragon lives is problematic. Before V pointed this out, however, many people on these boards thought that what V did wasn't problematic at all.

Why is it problematic that some people thought that? Well, the main reason is time, I believe. It took a long time before we got an official answer to the question, and during that time, many people kept believing that it was right to kill the black dragons without concern, even if they thought that it might have been problematic to kill the half-dragons, or the humans with dragon blood. This kind of reasoning could, potentially, influence the way they think about real life issues.

Here's the thing: The reason it took "so long" for anyone on-panel to acknowledge that yes, killing a bazillion black dragons is wrong is largely because I thought it was self-evident from the narrative. From the dwindling size of the panels in that strip that blurred together into an unnumbered massacre to the following strip where the literal incarnations of Evil are stunned by the scale of it, I was under the impression that I had made a clear statement about whether it was a good idea or a bad idea. Maybe Vaarsuvius him/herself was unclear, but I didn't consider it even slightly ambiguous on the part of the narrative. Indeed, the very point of the scene was that it was an unjustifiable atrocity. That so many people continued to argue that it wasn't was completely unforeseen on my part, and perhaps fueled largely by feelings from their gaming experiences—not by what I had drawn.

But my point is, the intent was always there to present that as utterly wrong, it just apparently failed to penetrate for some readers. But honestly, like I said upthread, I shouldn't have to have someone speak dialogue saying, "THIS IS BAD!" in order to get the point across that I'm not supporting that thing.

[AgentofHellfire]

If I could contrive of a way to do it without unfortunate implications vis-a-vis her relationship with Elan, I'd be all for it.

Whatever did happen to Elan's belt of gender transformation...


(It was Elan that gave it to Roy in that one arc)

[Math_Mage]

Or finding people that think of Laurin that way funny, and/or the attitude ridiculous enough to seem a joking caricature.

I think you're applying the principle of charity a little too liberally here. I buy that Wombat simply didn't think it through, but I don't buy that there's a secret troll going on here. There's no indication that this is a joke about those people; the words of the post indicate that it is a joke about Laurin.

Whatever did happen to Elan's belt of gender transformation...


(It was Elan that gave it to Roy in that one arc)

This, however, is brilliant.

[DaggerPen]

I don't think it's unreasonable to say that the original "joke" in this thread was a stretch, considering the only thing she has in common with a "Airborne Tramp" is…nothing. No, literally—nothing. She has been depicted as neither flying nor sexually promiscuous, and those are the only two words in the original reference. The only thing she has in common with any of the characters Haley was referring to with the original joke was that she is female, which means that as far as the OP goes, being female is enough to prompt the mental association. That's not really OK.

Laurin is a female character probably in her late 50's who is covered from head to toe and has never discussed anything sexual at all. I made a deliberate effort to not sexualize her, even, since I realized a while ago that I was subconsciously "sexing up" almost all of the female characters. The fact that she still rates these kind of comments is very disappointing.

Regarding Haley's fairly persistent slut-shaming…all I can do is apologize for that. I have no excuse except my own shortcomings and lack of self-awareness. I could try to say that because of the environment that Haley was raised in (a literal criminal gang), she hasn't had the education or experience to not fall in line and perpetuate those sort of harmful labels on her own gender. I could say that, but that would be justifying it after the fact. The truth is, I didn't think it was a problem at the time. I've known so many women (many in the lower class, like Haley) who would drop those insults at other women in a fight that I was just trying to add authenticity. In my experience, some women are quicker to slut-shame other women than even men. So I was going for accuracy in how a woman might insult other women, but you know what? It's still not acceptable. I'm still producing a piece of media consumed by young women, and I have a responsibility to do better.

Does this mean that those words will never show up in anything I write ever again? Probably not, but at least in the future I hope to only use them when I'm depicting a character who is overtly sexist/misogynistic (like Tarquin), rather than having them flow out of the mouth of the primary female lead. Because what kind of message does that send? I may be wrong, but I think I've avoided Haley using any of those words for this entire book. I just didn't want to draw attention to it.

And, for the record, "You're oversensitive," is not a valid defense for saying something offensive on this message board. The initial joke was mildly offensive; some of the responses defending it have been much more so. And references to political movements of the past are right out. Scrubbing may be in order.

And this is why The Giant is awesome. Everyone internalizes problematic stuff at some point or the other, but not a lot of people realize that, acknowledge it without excusing it, and learn from it.

[AgentofHellfire]

I think you're applying the principle of charity a little too liberally here. I buy that Wombat simply didn't think it through, but I don't buy that there's a secret troll going on here. There's no indication that this is a joke about those people; the words of the post indicate that it is a joke about Laurin.

At first, that's what the simpler solution would be, but at the same time Laurin isn't really like that at all. It wouldn't make sense for someone to apply that term to her seriously.

(Well, unless it was Belkar. Belkar might actually be attracted to that.)

And this level of trolling isn't something like the long-winded posts on why Tarquin is good--it's not even really sarcasm--it's just...making a wry comment about the attitude.

This, however, is brilliant.

*does a bow*

[Zrak]

But my point is, the intent was always there to present that as utterly wrong, it just apparently failed to penetrate for some readers. But honestly, like I said upthread, I shouldn't have to have someone speak dialogue saying, "THIS IS BAD!" in order to get the point across that I'm not supporting that thing.

I think a good comparison to this is the plenitude of readers who found Humbert Humbert sympathetic; the character is so able to rationalize his behavior that we, as readers, can often be taken in by the same lies the characters tell themselves to justify their actions. The strength of this is that it can remind us of our own weaknesses when we catch ourselves agreeing with a character's attempt to justify what we know to be unjustifiable, the difficulty is to make sure that the readers catch themselves without making the justification patently ridiculous.

[Zmeoaice]

If I could contrive of a way to do it without unfortunate implications vis-a-vis her relationship with Elan, I'd be all for it.

Sadly Tsukiko is dead.

Nothing wrong with polyamory though.

Whatever did happen to Elan's belt of gender transformation...


(It was Elan that gave it to Roy in that one arc)

Durkon has it

And, for the record, "You're oversensitive," is not a valid defense for saying something offensive on this message board. The initial joke was mildly offensive; some of the responses defending it have been much more so. And references to political movements of the past are right out. Scrubbing may be in order.

Obviously saying things certain that are offensive wouldn't be permitted on these boards since it's all encompassing and bans discussions on politics, religion, or other real life issues that are the subject of offensive humor. However, people going to places where such humor is tolerated or encouraged and telling people to stop them is annoying and unnecessary.

...If you think that's what the Giant was getting at, I think you missed the point. If you understand and disagree, you certainly have not given adequate justification for your viewpoint.

I don't think that's what he was getting at, but I felt the need to say what I did, since I used the oversensitive line but wasn't referring to comments on the forum.

[The Oni]

Of course, as I write it, this theory is skewing awfully close to the "All you need is a good man..." line of reasoning, which I find utterly repugnant, so I think I'm just going to dunk my head in bleach and try to forget about it.

I look at it more from the perspective of "Elan is a good person and Haley is happy with monogamy, but is still a little flustered by Tsukiko's short skirts and fishnet." And in all seriousness she has every right to feel uncomfortable about being attracted to the enemy - it could be a hazard in combat. But if Elan happened to be Elaine, she might also be perfectly OK with that.

I dunno what happened to the belt of gender change, but remember that those things are technically cursed items - you can't just take them off at will - so they might've gotten rid of it as it might've become a liability later. In fact, I would guess Roy ditched it at the next available opportunity simply because Belkar was in the party.

[Benthesquid]

This, however, is brilliant.

It would also play into the Opposites theme with Nale- Nale and Sabine have experimented with gender-swapping play, with Sabine changing genders, and Nale is somewhat ashamed of it.

Elan and Haley experiment with gender-swapping play, with Elan changing genders, and they're both cool about it and don't think it's a big deal (or anyone else's business, which is why it won't be mentioned on panel until Elan makes an off-handed remark while talking about something else).

[Math_Mage]

Obviously saying things certain that are offensive wouldn't be permitted on these boards since it's all encompassing and bans discussions on politics, religion, or other real life issues that are the subject of offensive humor. However, people going to places where such humor is tolerated or encouraged and telling people to stop them is annoying and unnecessary.

...If you think that's what the Giant was getting at, I think you missed the point. If you understand and disagree, you certainly have not given adequate justification for your viewpoint.

[137beth]

<snip>

But my point is, the intent was always there to present that as utterly wrong, it just apparently failed to penetrate for some readers. But honestly, like I said upthread, I shouldn't have to have someone speak dialogue saying, "THIS IS BAD!" in order to get the point across that I'm not supporting that thing.

You did, indirectly, have a character say 'this is bad': Qarr said he thought the familicide was affecting V's alignment.
Either way, I'm pretty sure that even if Nero or Lee said "Wow, that is the most Evil thing I have ever seen a mortal do!", there still would be forumites saying it was somehow good.
The same group of forumites who promoted the theory about Belkar somehow being CN during NCFPB. It's just the nature of the forums. I think most readers understood that what V did was horrible, if not immediately upon his/her/its casting, then certainly in the next strip when the effects were explained, and when even the fiends were surprised at the level of V's evil.
In other words, I think the familicide thing worked as it is for all but the segment of readers who will come to silly conclusions no matter what.

[Reddish Mage]

It's my decision about how I want my work to be perceived. I've come to my own conclusions about what I want my work to say, and without exception, I want to stand against racism and sexism and homophobia and classism and all the other forms of discrimination and dehumanization that take place in our society. I want to be part of the solution. And if that means taking a hard look at what I wrote in the past when maybe I didn't think as much about these things, then that's what it means.

There is a point where that would start taking self-censorship to the extreme. Sexism is such a big thing it is hardly where I would say it crosses that line but there are other parts of the comic where we find these things. The Empress of Blood is clearly a "fat=stupid=lazy=acceptable to laugh at" characterization, something I am very much aware of given that I used to be obese and have a number of friends of various weight levels who are actively promoting a positive image of fat, or who have a negative perception of their own bodies, or are struggling on the fence. I'm not sure what I think about the acceptability fat jokes, but I decided to take away a link that included an my earlier attempt using the Empress that has in fact bothered me. This would certainly seem to cross the line if you are actively attempting to avoid all forms of discrimination.

More mildly Kilkil is clearly a stereotype of a boring, efficient, bureaucratic, accountant subordinate. This stereotype perpetuation is nothing on the scale of the fat-comedy mini-industry, and I'm sure most accountants would laugh at it, but it is a way to differentiate people by a single trait and put them into boxes.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

The Empress of Blood is clearly a "fat=stupid=lazy=acceptable to laugh at" characterization

No, it is not, clearly or otherwise. The Empress of Blood is a "mark" or "patsy" - i.e. the person being conned, as is appropriate for a puppet for a shadow government. These roles require characters that are stupid.

Now, since this character also happens to be a dragon, it opened up the joke opportunity of a stupid individual misunderstanding the meaning of "size" in the context of dragon rules, interpreting as weight when it is meant to be interpreted as age. Which lead to a dragon stuffing itself in an attempt to gain power. Laziness does not enter the picture at all - indeed, she still flies herself, does she not? We do not laugh at her for being fat, we laugh at her for failing to understand simple words. See also "Gate? What gate?".

So your equation should read "stupid dragon->fat-> jokes about how inconsequential weight is to the rules or anything else"

Grey Wolf

[Sylian]

Here's the thing: The reason it took "so long" for anyone on-panel to acknowledge that yes, killing a bazillion black dragons is wrong is largely because I thought it was self-evident from the narrative.

I suspect what threw some people off was the half-dragons killed in the strip.

But my point is, the intent was always there to present that as utterly wrong, it just apparently failed to penetrate for some readers. But honestly, like I said upthread, I shouldn't have to have someone speak dialogue saying, "THIS IS BAD!" in order to get the point across that I'm not supporting that thing.

I'm inclined to agree. There should be some kind of balancing scale between how clear the author wants to make something and other values, such as subtlety and not looking down on your audience. You could make a comic where nearly everything is obvious and where subtlety is sacrificed to make it easier for the readers to understand your intention, but I think the comic would be worse off for it. Aiming for the lowest common denominator is not always good, and sometimes some clarity might need to be sacrificed in order to gain some other value.

That being said, your comic is read by a large audience, and, assuming you buy into the theory that media can affect us (which I find fairly obvious, but some disagree), then it might be something worth keeping in mind.

It's rather general advice that I'm mainly putting here because I find the subject interesting to discuss, not because I believe that you need it. You've probably thought about this already, but I had fun developing my thoughts on the matter, so yeah, at least something was gained, even if the advice wasn't needed.

1. The reasoning didn't exist because of the comic, though. It existed because of the existing lore on black dragons being what it is.
2. Before V brought the problems up, V's mass murder wasn't even really a thought about topic. It wasn't discussed further than in passing in the comic. So I wouldn't say that the comic really portrayed it as being okay.
3. As for Redcloak--he's sympathetic, but he's still evil. What he's doing is still obviously considered wrong.

1. Quite likely, though it isn't impossible that the comic, in some ways, helped reinforce that belief. In the end, I'm inclined to believe that it did more good than harm, since we ended up in a situation where V discussed the implication of genocide of "Always Evil"-creatures that aren't really "Always" Evil.
2. I seem to recall it being quite a popular topic, about whether Familicide was evil or not. In either case, I'm primarily using it as an example to help illustrate my point better, I'm not trying to pin any blame on the Giant for it.
3. To some extent, I'm inclined to agree. Redcloak is a lot more nuanced than Xykon, though, and not everything he does or believes in is necessarily bad. Are people supposed to think that because Redcloak believes that everyone should get a fair chance (if we assume he's not hypocritic, which he might very well be), giving people a fair chance is a bad thing? Probably not. If someone is racist in real life, I suppose they might agree with some of Redcloak's thoughts... but given how he's written, I'm not too worried. Redcloak's racism could, potentially, be problematic, though I don't think it is at the moment, and I don't think it's going to be. What's interesting is that if would step over the line with his racism, then it's likely that he will do so in a manner that's obviously evil and obviously bigoted, thus falling under the "Antagonist doing obviously bad things"-clause.

[The Giant]

There is a point where that would start taking self-censorship to the extreme. Sexism is such a big thing it is hardly where I would say it crosses that line but there are other parts of the comic where we find these things. The Empress of Blood is clearly a "fat=stupid=lazy=acceptable to laugh at" characterization, something I am very much aware of given that I used to be obese and have a number of friends of various weight levels who are actively promoting a positive image of fat, or who have a negative perception of their own bodies, or are struggling on the fence. I'm not sure what I think about the acceptability fat jokes, but I decided to take away a link that included an my earlier attempt using the Empress that has in fact bothered me. This would certainly seem to cross the line if you are actively attempting to avoid all forms of discrimination.

The Empress is fat because she is dumb, not dumb because she is fat. Her fatness is the direct result of being fooled by Tarquin. You'll note that in the flashback panel where Tarquin is fighting Nale (just two years ago), she's still skinny. Her defining characteristic is thus her stupidity, not her weight, and in no way does her weight actually impede her functioning. And she's not lazy at all—she's actively pursuing a regimen of self-improvement, day in and day out. She's just totally wrong on how that works.

So while I get what you're saying, I feel like the fact that her size is willfully self-inflicted muddies the water.

More mildly Kilkil is clearly a stereotype of a boring, efficient, bureaucratic, accountant subordinate. This stereotype perpetuation is nothing on the scale of the fat-comedy mini-industry, and I'm sure most accountants would laugh at it, but it is a way to differentiate people by a single trait and put them into boxes.

I have no idea how displaying an accountant that is good with numbers is in any way supposed to be a problem, but I would point out that this accountant is still secretly conspiring in an evil world domination scheme, and is in fact a flying kobold, so I feel pretty safe that I managed to step outside the box on that one.

I think the race issue—that an unusual race doesn't have to be a monster or a bandit, but can have a normal everyday job and be good at it—is a far more important point than whether or not I am stereotyping accountants as being efficient. If I make him some sort of weird non-typical accountant, the audience assumption would be, "Oh, that's because he's a kobold. Kobolds shouldn't be accountants, then." Heck, the fact that it didn't even register in your mind that it was unusual to put a kobold as an accountant means I achieved exactly what I wanted to!

[jogiff]

But my point is, the intent was always there to present that as utterly wrong, it just apparently failed to penetrate for some readers. But honestly, like I said upthread, I shouldn't have to have someone speak dialogue saying, "THIS IS BAD!" in order to get the point across that I'm not supporting that thing.

I'm sorry. I know this is your comic but I have to disagree with you here.

You should ALWAYS have a character standing off to the side and telling the readers how they should feel.

[Spoomeister]

Just a brief drive-by comment here to note that the Giant's parameters for a character flaw in this thread is a stunning one (in a good way). I have been wracking my brain trying to think of counterexamples in what I consider good stories and nothing has come to mind. I'd never heard that take on characterization before. Well done, and insightful.

[Reddish Mage]

Heck, the fact that it didn't even register in your mind that it was unusual to put a kobold as an accountant means I achieved exactly what I wanted to!

touché. I can't argue with that.

[Werekat]

But my point is, the intent was always there to present that as utterly wrong, it just apparently failed to penetrate for some readers. But honestly, like I said upthread, I shouldn't have to have someone speak dialogue saying, "THIS IS BAD!" in order to get the point across that I'm not supporting that thing.

Ooh, Giant, since you're here anyway, I'd been wanting to ask: you have seem to become more direct in taking a stance on morality and making other points in-comic - to be honest, it sometimes feels like you're talking through the characters directly to the audience and not primarily to the other characters. Is this an intentional change in writing, or am I just reading too much into it?

[deworde]

I'm sorry. I know this is your comic but I have to disagree with you here.

You should ALWAYS have a character standing off to the side and telling the readers how they should feel.

Good enough for Shakespeare, I guess.