Gender and Sexuality Representation in OOTS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Water_Bear

Actually, Sunken Valley has a good point. So far Nale's plots have failed due to unforeseeable coincidences; Roy's Dad's Ghost's cryptic prophecy, Julian Scoundrel happening to run into Elan at a bar, the Order wandering into Z's Scrying Sensor in what the LG thought was a random point in a continental desert. His actual schemes are pretty good too; his initial plot in the Dungeon of Dorukan was well thought out and well executed, his revenge plot in Cliffport showed a lot of insight, and his method of finding Gerard's Gate under his father's nose was clever and actually worked.

As a minor antagonist he can't actually succeed, and he is a bit doofy, but Nale is far from an incompetent.


Anyway, back to the actual topic...

First, huge props to Rich for OotS being as cool as it is. This comic has helped make my gaming more sophisticated in a lot of ways, as I'm sure it has for many other readers, because it approaches the conventions of RPGs and Fantasy narratives in a thoughtful way which highlights the best and worst aspects of them. The fact that it's also consistently funny and avoids preachiness adds to that IMO.

If I had to identify an issue, it would be the fact that the majority of characters are male. OotS is better than most media I've seen, both in terms of the ratio of important characters and in that Rich remembers to use female "extras" and minor characters where their sex isn't directly relevant. But as the amount of Blue on the first page indicates, over-representation of men is a thing.

In terms of sexuality, I'm not really qualified to make a call. Obviously LGBT+ people want characters they can relate to, but it also strains credibility if groups who make up 5% or 1% of the population end up with multiple main characters. Where is that line drawn? I have no idea.

---

The first plot worked because the order had no idea who he was whereas he had been specifically hired to kill them. Cliffport plan got off the ground do to luck seeing as they just randomly ran into Roy's sister.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Water_Bear

If I had to identify an issue, it would be the fact that the majority of characters are male. OotS is better than most media I've seen, both in terms of the ratio of important characters and in that Rich remembers to use female "extras" and minor characters where their sex isn't directly relevant. But as the amount of Blue on the first page indicates, over-representation of men is a thing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kish

Bearing in mind that there are far more male characters than female ones (and, yes, that's a problem)...

---

Why would that be a problem? As an author, Rich wants to craft a world that will feel as natural as possible to his readers. For genetic reasons, it's far more likely that a given ruthless Evil human general out there is male, so that's what most authors will likely pick, even after thinking about it. (If you want us to embark on a biology debate, no problem with me, let's go ahead. Or you can just accept what I'm saying.)

In a story world where what generally happens (in front of the camera) is that people are adventuring and hitting each other with shiny metal sticks, a 50-50 gender balance would feel forced and generally detract from the quality/believability of the story. Kudos to Rich for the (IMO) pretty ideal gender balance in OotS for the type of story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lio45

Why would that be a problem? As an author, Rich wants to craft a world that will feel as natural as possible to his readers. For genetic reasons, it's far more likely that a given ruthless Evil human general out there is male, so that's what most authors will likely pick, even after thinking about it. (If you want us to embark on a biology debate, no problem with me, let's go ahead. Or you can just accept what I'm saying.)

In a story world where what generally happens (in front of the camera) is that people are adventuring and hitting each other with shiny metal sticks, a 50-50 gender balance would feel forced and generally detract from the quality/believability of the story. Kudos to Rich for the (IMO) pretty ideal gender balance in OotS for the type of story.

---

I could accept what you're saying, but I'm not a fan of declaring biology as the overarching reason for human behaviour. It's heartless, shallow, and honestly kind of nauseating. Biological theories of behaviour are just... unpleasant. :smallannoyed:

And hey, there's magic. And nonhumans. And gender has no mechanical impact. So saying reinforcement of gender stereotypes and biases is a good thing because it's believable... is kind of ridiculous. If that would be enough to ruin your suspension of disbelief... :smallsigh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Giant

Every time? You mean, "once." I don't remember anyone telling him he was a good leader when he got himself killed. In fact, I remember the exact opposite.



The goal, in this case, was to keep true to Haley's previously-established character. And her established character was a rule-breaking individualist with trust issues and a moderate contempt for authority who self-selected herself as second-in-command by swindling the other party members with no expectation of it ever coming up. It would have made no sense to violate that existing character 60% of the way through the story just so we could tick the "Strong Female Leader Depicted" box for the comic. That's not who Haley is, and I don't need to force her growth in that direction because it's OK to not be a leader. Not everyone in the world is good at the same things, and I take exception to the idea that only leadership positions "count." Chaotic is just as valid as Lawful in this story, it's just that Lawful tends to be a lot better at working in groups.

If you want to rag on me for not having other female leader characters, fine, whatever. Fair point. But I stand by my depiction of Haley. I am very much in favor of representation, but it doesn't help anyone for me to throw out my female character's entire personality just to satisfy an arbitrary desire to fill a role. If I do that, aren't I saying that who she is as an individual doesn't matter as much as which gender she is?

Also, Haley reunited the party and resurrected Roy. I'd take her track record over Nale's any day, and I don't see anyone questioning his legitimacy as a leader.

---

The incompetence of Nale and Xykon as male leaders has come up once or twice, though probably as offhand comments in a 7 page long thread so not to prominent.

Well, I done goofed up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Giant

Every time? You mean, "once." I don't remember anyone telling him he was a good leader when he got himself killed. In fact, I remember the exact opposite.

---

I would just like to point out that this is Eugene. He'd probably rather tear his spine out with his own hands than compliment Roy on anything. I recall, later on, that Roy is praised (by his mother? grandfather?) for his leadership skills, despite his own death. But I do admit that even if we count "twice" it still wasn't a very good argument on my part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Giant

The goal, in this case, was to keep true to Haley's previously-established character. And her established character was a rule-breaking individualist with trust issues and a moderate contempt for authority who self-selected herself as second-in-command by swindling the other party members with no expectation of it ever coming up. It would have made no sense to violate that existing character 60% of the way through the story just so we could tick the "Strong Female Leader Depicted" box for the comic. That's not who Haley is, and I don't need to force her growth in that direction because it's OK to not be a leader. Not everyone in the world is good at the same things, and I take exception to the idea that only leadership positions "count." Chaotic is just as valid as Lawful in this story, it's just that Lawful tends to be a lot better at working in groups.

---

I completely agree and respect that, but I would just like to point out Shojo as a Chaotic, rules-breaking leader who showed extreme competence in leading an entire nation for years while still maintaining the same alignment as Haley. While I understand what you're trying to say, I merely point out that perhaps it could have been possible to preserve the goals you're trying to achieve with the character while still portraying her as a strong leader. Of course, this would've somewhat lessened the impact of Belkar's speech to Roy, but it's possible to preserve most of it by having Haley state that it's not that she's bad at leadership, she just doesn't like it or want it (because she's an individualist, and doesn't like having that kind of responsibility), thereby retaining some of the punch of Belkar's "you are a valuable team member" speech to Roy.

EDIT: I would just like to add that this is just speculation on my behalf and in no way is me trying to tell you how to run your comic, merely speculating on ways to achieve the same narrative goal in different ways, to elicit discussion that might educate future writers/creators.

It was not my intention to throw Haley's personality under the bus, she's one of my favourite characters, and I definitely enjoy the nuance and richness of her characterisation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Giant

If you want to rag on me for not having other female leader characters, fine, whatever. Fair point. But I stand by my depiction of Haley. I am very much in favor of representation, but it doesn't help anyone for me to throw out my female character's entire personality just to satisfy an arbitrary desire to fill a role. If I do that, aren't I saying that who she is as an individual doesn't matter as much as which gender she is?

Also, Haley reunited the party and resurrected Roy. I'd take her track record over Nale's any day, and I don't see anyone questioning his legitimacy as a leader.

---

The problem is precisely that the dearth of female leaders leads us to looking closely at the main example we have. I know I wouldn't have analysed Haley's leadership skills so closely if we had had a wealth of other female leaders to talk about (which is precisely why I don't really debate Nale's leadership skills, because we have Tarquin, Roy, Hinjo, Shojo and others to compare, contrast and analyse in terms of male leadership).

Again, sorry if I inadvertently offended, it wasn't my intention. I really appreciate the effort in giving female characters and LGBT+ people far more time in the spotlight and character depth than we get in other works of the same genre, or the media in general.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lio45

Why would that be a problem? As an author, Rich wants to craft a world that will feel as natural as possible to his readers. For genetic reasons, it's far more likely that a given ruthless Evil human general out there is male, so that's what most authors will likely pick, even after thinking about it.

---

This is not a valid excuse. A world that will feel as natural as possible to the readers would not include elves, dragons, magic, gods of provable existence or monsters. If you are willing to suspend your disbelief for such blatant and fragrant violations of physics, chemistry, biology and every other natural science, it's completely arbitrary to decide that gender equality is too unrealistic.

Not to mention, of course, that biologically speaking, men and women are canonically exactly the same in D&D worlds (and most RPGs). Gender, in most RPGs, is strictly cosmetic. A woman is just as competent as a fighter or leader as a man, and that means, statistically, that a 50/50 gender ratio would naturally follow from that.

Quote:

---

(If you want us to embark on a biology debate, no problem with me, let's go ahead. Or you can just accept what I'm saying.)

---

If you want a biology debate, PM me. I'll blind you with science. :smallcool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sunken Valley

I'm not sure Eugene counts. He'd have insulted Roy for anything pre-strip 500 except actually killing Xykon. Meaning no member of the Order questioned or praised his poor tactic of Dragon Jumping.

---

Haley questions Roy's decision to jump on the dragon here:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0444.html

and she brings it up again here when Roy does something similar:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0686.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowknight12

I would just like to point out that this is Eugene. He'd probably rather tear his spine out with his own hands than compliment Roy on anything. I recall, later on, that Roy is praised (by his mother? grandfather?) for his leadership skills, despite his own death. But I do admit that even if we count "twice" it still wasn't a very good argument on my part.

---

First, Hamishspence just pointed out that Haley called him stupid twice. And second, if your point is that the narrative unambiguously supports Roy's leadership and not Haley's, then it doesn't matter which character is doing the criticizing. The criticism is made, explicitly. Once you step outside the internal logic of the story to make comments about what I should have had characters do or say, you can't ignore the things I have characters do or say just because they're based on the internal logic of the story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowknight12

I completely agree and respect that, but I would just like to point out Shojo as a Chaotic, rules-breaking leader who showed extreme competence in leading an entire nation for years while still maintaining the same alignment as Haley.

---

Yes, but that's backstory. Consider his on-panel track record: He accomplished almost nothing toward his goal, and then was about to be thrown in prison by his own nephew before he was killed by his protégé. Then his city got conquered. Again, if your argument is about the narrative, what happened in the narrative was a dismal leadership failure directly related to his Chaotic tendencies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowknight12

While I understand what you're trying to say, I merely point out that perhaps it could have been possible to preserve the goals you're trying to achieve with the character while still portraying her as a strong leader. Of course, this would've somewhat lessened the impact of Belkar's speech to Roy, but it's possible to preserve most of it by having Haley state that it's not that she's bad at leadership, she just doesn't like it or want it (because she's an individualist, and doesn't like having that kind of responsibility), thereby retaining some of the punch of Belkar's "you are a valuable team member" speech to Roy.

---

Well, I would argue that Haley's previously-established characteristics would lead her to say she was bad at it, because she has a tendency toward self-criticism. Certainly, Thanh and Niu never expressed that she was a bad leader.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowknight12

The problem is precisely that the dearth of female leaders leads us to looking closely at the main example we have. I know I wouldn't have analysed Haley's leadership skills so closely if we had had a wealth of other female leaders to talk about (which is precisely why I don't really debate Nale's leadership skills, because we have Tarquin, Roy, Hinjo, Shojo and others to compare, contrast and analyse in terms of male leadership).

---

Yeah, OK, that's fair. My only defense is that almost all of those decisions were made within the first ~200 strips, when I didn't think about stuff like this. Even Tarquin, since I picked him to be the Evil Parent over Elan's mom back in strip #50. I think the last completely-new leader character I created was...Kubota, maybe? And since I knew what his fate was going to be, I didn't want to get accused of only killing off the female characters.

Ultimately, I think I never thought about this aspect before because "leadership skills" are not a trait I particularly possess or value, so I don't feel a character suffers for not having them. I'm far more concerned with screen time and general importance to the story. Miko was far more important to the narrative than Shojo or Hinjo, for example; she's been dead for 300+ strips and Hinjo has only just edged her in number of appearances. And when she did appear, she was always the center of attention (while Hinjo sometimes just stands around and expostions). But by this criteria, she is less important than either of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Giant

First, Hamishspence just pointed out that Haley called him stupid twice. And second, if your point is that the narrative unambiguously supports Roy's leadership and not Haley's, then it doesn't matter which character is doing the criticizing. The criticism is made, explicitly. Once you step outside the internal logic of the story to make comments about what I should have had characters do or say, you can't ignore the things I have characters do or say just because they're based on the internal logic of the story.

---

Ah, you're right, I hadn't realised I was doing that. Point taken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Giant

Yes, but that's backstory. Consider his on-panel track record: He accomplished almost nothing toward his goal, and then was about to be thrown in prison by his own nephew before he was killed by his protégé. Again, if your argument is about the narrative, what happened in the narrative was a dismal leadership failure directly related to his Chaotic tendencies.

---

True, I suppose, but by that same token, I would have unquestionably supported giving Haley the "leader" title if we had been told via flashback or dialogue that she was an excellent leader in the past (as a part of her backstory). Just like Shojo's mistake is excusable by the years of successful leadership and deception, so would've Haley's leadership flukes would have been excusable by a backstory of good leadership. We don't really have much information on what happened during the three months she spent being the leader of that third/quarter of the Azure Resistance, so it's possible that she might have been a good leader then. All we have on it is Roy's comment about how "she's been doing well for herself", which is somewhat ambiguous as to whether it refers to her leadership skills or if whether merely surviving in such a hostile and dangerous environment wouldn't count as "doing well" on its own.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Giant

Well, I would argue that Haley's previously-established characteristics would lead her to say she was bad at it, because she has a tendency toward self-criticism. Certainly, Thanh and Niu never expressed that she was a bad leader.

---

Point taken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Giant

Yeah, OK, that's fair. My only defense is that almost all of those decisions were made within the first ~200 strips, when I didn't think about stuff like this. Even Tarquin, since I picked him to be the Evil Parent over Elan's mom back in strip #50. I think the last completely-new leader character I created was...Kubota, maybe? And since I knew what his fate was going to be, I didn't want to get accused of only killing off the female characters.

Ultimately, I think I never thought about this aspect before because "leadership skills" are not a trait I particularly possess or value, so I don't feel a character suffers for not having them. I'm far more concerned with screen time and general importance to the story. Miko was far more important to the narrative than Shojo or Hinjo, for example; she's been dead for 300+ strips and Hinjo has only just edged her in number of appearances. And when she did appear, she was always the center of attention (while Hinjo sometimes just stands around and expostions). But by this criteria, she is less important than either of them.

---

Kubota being male was definitely a good idea. Between Miko, Tsukiko, Haley and Roy's mothers, Therkla, the Black Dragon and Samantha, it would have added yet another female secondary character who is killed off after her narrative purpose has been fulfilled (though I admit that tends to happen to male NPCs and villains as well, it's just that the gender ratio tends to make it look worse than it is).

You have a very good point regarding Miko and screen time versus leadership. The thing is, I think, that it all boils down to personal philosophies. This is a division that happens within feminist groups as well. In general, many people focus on female leaders because it's somewhat of a big deal in feminism, along with the depiction of women as melee warriors/soldiers in the same standing as the men (which is, IMO, something you do really well, since I definitely noticed the female soldiers in Azure City, Cliffport and other places). These two areas are important to feminism both because of the power and important they wield in society, and because they have been denied to women for a really long time (and we're still seeing resistance in that regard today).

However, I do agree that your view on screen time and narrative importance is definitely valid, a lot of feminist stories do not require women to have positions of leadership or melee combat, but are still termed feminist because of the importance placed on women as realised human beings, their independence from men and their relationships with other women (the Bechdel Test, simple as it might be, is an example of this).

I think doing a strip count of each character in the OP would add really valuable information, since when the author states "I prioritise X instead of Y", researching X gives you greater insight on his work. I still expect the numbers to be skewed in favour of men, but it might not be such a skewed gender ratio as the male leaders to female leaders one, or the male soldiers to female soldiers one.

Thank you for indulging us, by the way. I know this is well within your rights to ignore, but I for one appreciate the fact that you care about these issues. :smallsmile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowknight12

Not to mention, of course, that biologically speaking, men and women are canonically exactly the same in D&D worlds (and most RPGs). Gender, in most RPGs, is strictly cosmetic. A woman is just as competent as a fighter or leader as a man, and that means, statistically, that a 50/50 gender ratio would naturally follow from that.

---

This is all true, and very important. One thing I would add though; many D+D worlds (even OotSverse to some extent) are loosely based on the societies of medieval Europe, and/or Tolkien's Middle-Earth. While D+D worlds are set up as gender-neutral, these fundamental resources decidedly are not. This has a significant impact on, for example, default assumptions about who has leaadership roles and positions of authority in D+Dverse societies. Certainly in my playing experience, it was lords and kings, not ladies and queens, who called the shots.

Another point, which has been mentioned above, is the gender bias in RPG players (and RPG writers). Most players and DMs are men, and therefore most PCs (and, in my experience, significant NPCs) are also male.

So according to the canon, 'D+Dverse' is a gender-blind meritocracy, and so 50% of the leaders (or wizards, or pit fighters, or master thieves, or whatever) should be men, 50% women. But the influence of the ultimate historical and literary source material, and the biases of the players/DMs/writers who create D+Dverses will naturally lead to over-representation of male characters in many cases.

ETA:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowknight12

I think doing a strip count of each character in the OP would add really valuable information, since when the author states "I prioritise X instead of Y", researching X gives you greater insight on his work. I still expect the numbers to be skewed in favour of men, but it might not be such a skewed gender ratio as the male leaders to female leaders one, or the male soldiers to female soldiers one.

---

There is already a number of character apperances thread, maintained by one of the forumites here (Martianmister, I think). It is indeed incredibly valuable, but screentime does not always corrolate well with importance (Eugene, for example, is pretty fundamental to the strip, but has far fewer appearances than, say, Mr. Scruffy)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowknight12

True, I suppose, but by that same token, I would have unquestionably supported giving Haley the "leader" title if we had been told via flashback or dialogue that she was an excellent leader in the past (as a part of her backstory). Just like Shojo's mistake is excusable by the years of successful leadership and deception, so would've Haley's leadership flukes would have been excusable by a backstory of good leadership.

---

But again, that's not who she was in the past. That would have cut the legs out from her actual character development, from a greedy self-centered rogue who didn't trust anyone. I could have done it, yes, but I think it would have made a more muddled story.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowknight12

We don't really have much information on what happened during the three months she spent being the leader of that third/quarter of the Azure Resistance, so it's possible that she might have been a good leader then. All we have on it is Roy's comment about how "she's been doing well for herself", which is somewhat ambiguous as to whether it refers to her leadership skills or if whether merely surviving in such a hostile and dangerous environment wouldn't count as "doing well" on its own.

---

When you lead a group living behind enemy lines, they're one and the same. And given that Thanh and Niu and the rest of the Resistance unquestioningly looked to Haley as their leader even though she is not even native to the country said everything that was needed about how well she did in the intervening time. After all, it's not like there weren't two other options they could have joined instead. The only people who disputed her effectiveness were Belkar (who was half the problem), and herself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sam79

This is all true, and very important. One thing I would add though; many D+D worlds (even OotSverse to some extent) are loosely based on the societies of medieval Europe, and/or Tolkien's Middle-Earth. While D+D worlds are set up as gender-neutral, these fundamental resources decidedly are not. This has a significant impact on, for example, default assumptions about who has leaadership roles and positions of authority in D+Dverse societies. Certainly in my playing experience, it was lords and kings, not ladies and queens, who called the shots.

Another point, which has been mentioned above, is the gender bias in RPG players (and RPG writers). Most players and DMs are men, and therefore most PCs (and, in my experience, significant NPCs) are also male.

So according to the canon, 'D+Dverse' is a gender-blind meritocracy, and so 50% of the leaders (or wizards, or pit fighters, or master thieves, or whatever) should be men, 50% women. But the influence of the ultimate historical and literary source material, and the biases of the players/DMs/writers who create D+Dverses will naturally lead to over-representation of male characters in many cases.

---

Since I will vocally denounce this sort of defense from authors who can't be bothered to put non-white people in their fantasy worlds, I'd prefer it not be used with regards to gender and sexuality concerns. At least not for my work. I'd rather take my lumps for non-inclusion and argue the corner-cases for which I think I have a good justification.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sam79

This is all true, and very important. One thing I would add though; many D+D worlds (even OotSverse to some extent) are loosely based on the societies of medieval Europe, and/or Tolkien's Middle-Earth. While D+D worlds are set up as gender-neutral, these fundamental resources decidedly are not. This has a significant impact on, for example, default assumptions about who has leaadership roles and positions of authority in D+Dverse societies. Certainly in my playing experience, it was lords and kings, not ladies and queens, who called the shots.

Another point, which has been mentioned above, is the gender bias in RPG players (and RPG writers). Most players and DMs are men, and therefore most PCs (and, in my experience, significant NPCs) are also male.

So according to the canon, 'D+Dverse' is a gender-blind meritocracy, and so 50% of the leaders (or wizards, or pit fighters, or master thieves, or whatever) should be men, 50% women. But the influence of the ultimate historical and literary source material, and the biases of the players/DMs/writers who create D+Dverses will naturally lead to over-representation of male characters in many cases.

---

I agree that the influences exist, yes, but then you can't use biology or "realisticness" to justify the skewed gender ratio. If you say "the skewed gender ratio exists because this takes inspiration from works where men were predominant", that makes logical sense (though it is still worth discussing, analysing, questioning and criticising). Saying "the skewed gender ratio is because biology duh" is flat-out illogical, if not outright wrong, when the setting rules specifically state otherwise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sam79

There is already a number of character apperances thread, maintained by one of the forumites here (Wrecan, I think). It is indeed incredably valuable, but screentime does not always corrolate well with importence (Eugene, for example, is pretty fundamental to the strip, but has far fewer appearances than, say, Mr. Scruffy)

---

Well, if oppyu is so inclined, and the thread you mention is updated, we could incorporate the strip appearances, crunch some numbers and see what they tell us. While I agree that they're not an exact indication of importance, they're valuable information that merits addition to the thread (again, if oppyu agrees).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Giant

But again, that's not who she was in the past. That would have cut the legs out from her actual character development, from a greedy self-centered rogue who didn't trust anyone. I could have done it, yes, but I think it would have made a more muddled story.

---

Ah, yes, that's a good point. The trust issues would have lacked punch if she had had to trust others to carry out her indications and support an organisation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Giant

When you lead a group living behind enemy lines, they're one and the same. And given that Thanh and Niu and the rest of the Resistance unquestioningly looked to Haley as their leader even though she is not even native to the country said everything that was needed about how well she did in the intervening time. After all, it's not like there weren't two other options they could have joined instead. The only people who disputed her effectiveness were Belkar (who was half the problem), and herself.

---

That's actually something I had completely neglected to consider, and it's quite true. The entire resistance, save Belkar and Haley, were Azurites. It hadn't occurred to me that the other two groups would have welcomed them with open arms if they had chosen to defect from Haley's leadership. That actually speaks surprisingly well of Haley's leadership abilities, considering that, as per her own admission, they spent a considerable time bickering with each other over supplies and whatnot, so one could imagine that Thanh, Niu and the others would've stood up to defend Haley's leadership when it was challenged.

Huh. I suppose you're right, Haley does deserve to be called a leader, or at least a temporary one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oppyu

5: When I say love interest, it's not so much romantic attachment as 'romance depicted in comic'. Inkyrius is a sparsely-mentioned minor character/one-scene-wonder we see in two or three strips, and we never see any courtship or attachment. On the other hand, Therkla, while never being with Elan, was often shown on-panel with him and had an emotional subplot regarding her feelings for him.

---

We see Inky romancing V (or at least trying to), in the "I made dinner and the kids are at my parents" incident, and V repeatedly declares hir love for Inky.

I think that's enough to count as "love interest".


Edit: My impression is that the comic does include gay and bisexual people sufficiently in comparison to their existence in real life, but has way too few women. It's gotten a lot better since the first comedy-comics, but the main group still has just one female member, and that probably won't change. I don't count Sabine as female, since she's a shapechanger, and we don't know about V, so regarding what is seen on-screen, there are way too many men, and men are portrayed as default (all evil beings who probably don't have any reproductive organs are portrayed as male).

Even all the animals are male, if I remember correctly. (Not sure about Miko's horse).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oppyu

True, but we didn't see any of that. We didn't see V and Inky get married, we didn't see them adopting kids, little to no time was spent going through V's feelings on the matter... s/he wasn't so much a love interest as a backstory romance. Compared to Hilgya Firehelm, where we get a short but sweet built up as the two of them get closer on-panel, then they bump dwarven uglies on-panel, then they have an ugly on-panel break up.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Themrys

We see Inky romancing V (or at least trying to), in the "I made dinner and the kids are with their grandparents" incident, and V repeatedly declares hir love for Inky.

I think that's enough to count as "love interest".

---

For what it's worth, we also see an ugly on-panel breakup.

Quote:

---

Huh. I suppose you're right, Haley does deserve to be called a leader, or at least a temporary one.

---

So, after seven pages of internet debate, someone has changed their mind. Huzzah! This is a grand new age in internet arguments!

Well, ya know, until someone else comes along and says

Quote:

---

nuh uh! Haley can't be a leader because I said so!

---

:smalltongue:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Themrys

Edit: My impression is that the comic does include gay and bisexual people sufficiently in comparison to their existence in real life,

---

Why do we continuously bring up real life in terms of gender and sexuality (and race, though that's not the point of this thread) when the story in question is pure fantasy? I already tackled this:

Quote:

---

This is not a valid excuse. A world that will feel as natural as possible to the readers would not include elves, dragons, magic, gods of provable existence or monsters. If you are willing to suspend your disbelief for such blatant and fragrant violations of physics, chemistry, biology and every other natural science, it's completely arbitrary to decide that gender equality is too unrealistic.

---

The same goes for sexual orientation. We have things in the genre of fantasy that literally do not exist. Literally. I cannot emphasise that word strongly enough. There is a support group and plenty of group therapy for the laws of physics of fantasy worlds. But suddenly, when it comes to matters of gender, race and sexuality, we start throwing the words "realistic" and "unrealistic" around? That's completely arbitrary. I'd find a world made up entirely of bisexuals far more believable and realistic than your average fantasy world. Mainly because bisexuals exist in the real world, while elves, dragons and magic don't.

It's also really, really hurtful to see people saying "oh yeah, elves and dragons and magic are awesome and totally believable and realistic because we like them, but a prevalence (or the mere existence) of LGBT+ people is totally unrealistic."

It really makes me feel like we're getting in the way of your enjoyment of magic and dragons and straight privilege. And goodness forfend that ever happen. :smallsigh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 137ben

So, after seven pages of internet debate, someone has changed their mind. Huzzah! This is a grand new age in internet arguments!

Well, ya know, until someone else comes along and says nuh uh!
:smalltongue:

---

Oh, you. :smallbiggrin:

Well, I can definitely admit when I'm wrong. That point about Thanh, Niu and the others being perfectly able to walk out on Haley if her leadership skills weren't up to standard, and join the other resistances? I had never thought of that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Giant

Since I will vocally denounce this sort of defense from authors who can't be bothered to put non-white people in their fantasy worlds, I'd prefer it not be used with regards to gender and sexuality concerns. At least not for my work. I'd rather take my lumps for non-inclusion and argue the corner-cases for which I think I have a good justification.

---

Thank you for your reply.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowknight12

I agree that the influences exist, yes, but then you can't use biology or "realisticness" to justify the skewed gender ratio. If you say "the skewed gender ratio exists because this takes inspiration from works where men were predominant", that makes logical sense (though it is still worth discussing, analysing, questioning and criticising). Saying "the skewed gender ratio is because biology duh" is flat-out illogical, if not outright wrong, when the setting rules specifically state otherwise.

---

I agree on the biology point, which I why I made no mention of it at all.

Regarding historical realism; I think it depends on how much authors wants their fantasy world to reflect its historical roots, and how much they want to explore current gender/race/sexuality issues in their worlds. George R.R. Martin's Westeros, for example, plays its gender roles fairly straight in terms of a European feudalistic society. Women, even noble ones, have fewer rights and a lower status than men of their same class. Those women who challenge their position in society tend not to get much support from their peers, reinforcing the 'norm'. I don't think this is a bad feature of his work; just a feature.

It would be more of a problem if such a political and social structure is forced to sit alongside canonically established (or assumed) gender equality, which is the standard for a fantasy world based on D+D rules. Men are just as strong as women, just as capable of using magic, equally intelligent and ruthless etc etc etc. It is hard to see how traditional patriarchal structures could have become established in such a context.

On reflection: if Haley were to be listed as leader of the OotS, it would at least have to be noted that:

1. At no point in this tenure did she have contact with V, so that's not exactly a complete group (Roy also being dead)
2. The group kind of fell apart. Like, immediately.
3. Without outside influences, there's pretty much no chance she would've reunited it. I think. :smallconfused:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowknight12

Why do we continuously bring up real life in terms of gender and sexuality (and race, though that's not the point of this thread) when the story in question is pure fantasy?

---

Nothing is ever "pure fantasy". Nothing can be. Every "fantasy" is influenced by the real world and thus shows how the author views the real world.


Also, you're missing my point. I pointed out that there are too few women in the Stickverse if you consider that in real life, one out of two people is a woman.

In historical fiction, you can get away with "There are women, you just don't see them because they stay at home", but in a supposedly equal society, you cannot.

Thus, the fact that OotS is a fantasy comic makes the lack of female main characters moreof a problem than it would otherwise be.



I, as a woman, feel underrepresented in OotS, while I assume that gay men do not, as the percentages make it much more likely that a group of six more or less random people doesn't contain a gay man than that it doesn't contain more than one woman.

A fantasyworld where women rule the world and everyone is bisexual is fine, and indeed I would not critisize it with "that's not realistic", exactly because it's fantsy, but "My fantasy world is just heteronormative and patriarchal because it's pure fantasy, you have no right to be offended!" is a lazy excuse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sam79

I agree on the biology point, which I why I made no mention of it at all.

Regarding historical realism; I think it depends on how much authors wants their fantasy world to reflect its historical roots, and how much they want to explore current gender/race/sexuality issues in their worlds. George R.R. Martin's Westeros, for example, plays its gender roles fairly straight in terms of a European feudalistic society. Women, even noble ones, have fewer rights and a lower status than men of their same class. Those women who challenge their position in society tend not to get much support from their peers, reinforcing the 'norm'. I don't think this is a bad feature of his work; just a feature.

It would be more of a problem if such a political and social structure is forced to sit alongside canonically established (or assumed) gender equality, which is the standard for a fantasy world based on D+D rules. Men are just as strong as women, just as capable of using magic, equally intelligent and ruthless etc etc etc. It is hard to see how traditional patriarchal structures could have become established in such a context.

---

If I wanted to see a fictional story about a patriarchal society in embellished medieval times, I would read historical fiction, not fantasy (which is why I don't read historical fiction at all, because the patriarchy sickens me). But I concede that it's a matter of personal taste. Some people really like the idea of "Patriarchy WITH DRAGONS!".

But yes, that's pretty much why I said that the "influences" assumptions could be questioned and criticised, because once you start asking the right questions, you don't have much of a leg to stand on in order to justify patriarchal societies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raineh Daze

On reflection: if Haley were to be listed as leader of the OotS, it would at least have to be noted that:

1. At no point in this tenure did she have contact with V, so that's not exactly a complete group (Roy also being dead)
2. The group kind of fell apart. Like, immediately.
3. Without outside influences, there's pretty much no chance she would've reunited it. I think. :smallconfused:

---

She had clerics with her (the man and the woman who cast Cure Moderate Wounds on her). Eventually, they would have levelled up and she would've been able to contact Durkon and V. Or they would've taken Knowledge(Arcana) or Spellcraft ranks and told her about the Cloister effect, and without Celia's distractions, she would've made it to Cliffport with little incident, where finding a cleric wouldn't have been anywhere nearly as dangerous. This might have taken more than 3 months, obviously.

Also, spliced V would've eventually found her and reunited the entire order via the magic of teleportation. Does that count as outside influence?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Themrys

Nothing is ever "pure fantasy". Nothing can be. Every "fantasy" is influenced by the real world and thus shows how the author views the real world.

---

Correct. That supports my argument towards inclusion, not against it. If we accept hilariously unrealistic things such as magic and dragons, I fail to see what the problem is with more representation for LGBT+ people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Themrys

Also, you're missing my point. I pointed out that there are too few women in the Stickverse if you consider that in real life, one out of two people is a woman.

In historical fiction, you can get away with "There are women, you just don't see them because they stay at home", but in a supposedly equal society, you cannot.

Thus, the fact that OotS is a fantasy comic makes the lack of female main characters moreof a problem than it would otherwise be.

---

You will note that I have never argued against this, as I have made that exact same arguments against others (see: this very post). I completely agree with you on that regard.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Themrys

I, as a woman, feel underrepresented in OotS, while I assume that gay men do not, as the percentages make it much more likely that a group of six more or less random people doesn't contain a gay man than that it doesn't contain more than one woman.

A fantasyworld where women rule the world and everyone is bisexual is fine, and indeed I would not critisize it with "that's not realistic", exactly because it's fantsy, but "My fantasy world is just heteronormative and patriarchal because it's pure fantasy, you have no right to be offended!" is a lazy excuse.

---

What. Just what.

So you're basically telling me "do you feel underrepresented as an LGBT+ man? Well, too bad, because I, as a woman, am even MORE underrepresented." That's called the Oppression Olympics, and popular wisdom says that there are no winners in the Oppression Olympics.

Also, I have never argued in favour of patriarchy (on the contrary, I would see it banished from the Fantasy genre). I was arguing against straight people saying that an even gender ratio is fine because that's realistic (as women make up 50% of the population) but that a greater prevalence of LGBT+ characters is too unrealistic because we're minorities and therefore underrepresentation is fair and just when applied to us.

Quote:

---

Also, spliced V would've eventually found her and reunited the entire order via the magic of teleportation. Does that count as outside influence?

---

Well, yes, because that says nothing about Haley's leadership of the group, does it? Contact with V was limited to... what, two strips during the entire split party arc, whilst the splice was in effect? :smallconfused:

Underrepresentation: I can count at least three (or four) separate ways I can feel underrepresented, do I lose most? :smallbiggrin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowknight12

If I wanted to see a fictional story about a patriarchal society in embellished medieval times, I would read historical fiction, not fantasy (which is why I don't read historical fiction at all, because the patriarchy sickens me). But I concede that it's a matter of personal taste. Some people really like the idea of "Patriarchy WITH DRAGONS!".

---

If I ever write a fantasy novel, this is SO going to be the title :smallwink:

Out of interest; do you find that there are a lot fantasy settings which aren't heavily based on patriarchal societies? I'm not a huge reader of fantasy these days, but most of the works that I have read tend to be more or less based on European feudalism, or other pre-modern male-dominated systems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowknight12

But yes, that's pretty much why I said that the "influences" assumptions could be questioned and criticised, because once you start asking the right questions, you don't have much of a leg to stand on in order to justify patriarchal societies.

---

If your default assumptions are 1) differences between men and women are purely cosmetic and 2) gender equality is the accepted norm (i.e. those of D+D), then you are right that an author would find a patriarchal society hard to justify. Take away these two assumptions though, and patriarchal socieites are likely to appear as often in fiction, even fantasy fiction, as they do and have done in the Real World.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raineh Daze

Well, yes, because that says nothing about Haley's leadership of the group, does it? Contact with V was limited to... what, two strips during the entire split party arc, whilst the splice was in effect? :smallconfused:

---

Point taken, but the fact that she would have eventually learnt of the Cloister and headed straight for Cliffport, if given enough time (and then she'd have contacted Durkon and V with instructions), speaks in favour of her leadership skills. Well, hypothetically. I'm willing to cut her some slack, as I did with Shojo. Us Chaotic types need to stick together. Though not TOO together. :smalltongue:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raineh Daze

Underrepresentation: I can count at least three (or four) separate ways I can feel underrepresented, do I lose most? :smallbiggrin:

---

Yes, you take the Olympic gold. Let it be a cold, metallic comfort as you read and watch stories about the privileged majorities. :smallbiggrin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sam79

If I ever write a fantasy novel, this is SO going to be the title :smallwink:

Out of interest; do you find that there are a lot fantasy settings which aren't heavily based on patriarchal societies? I'm not a huge reader of fantasy these days, but most of the works that I have read tend to be more or less based on European feudalism, or other pre-modern male-dominated systems.

---

Hah! You can go with "Dungeons and Patriarchy", "Patriarchy of Thrones", "A Song of Patriarchy and More Patriarchy", "The Lord of the Patriarchs" and so on, if you want to be more obvious. Take an established fantasy IP, add patriarchy and serve piping hot.

As for the second part, no, not in what is considered "mainstream fantasy". Which is written by straight white men for other straight white men. Patriarchy, LGBT+/people of colour erasure and classism run rampant. Get out of the mainstream, and you find different takes on the standard fantasy setting. Last year, I read a truly atrocious fantasy book by a non-mainstream writer simply because the main protagonist and antagonist were gay men, and the deuteragonist was a lesbian of colour. Still patriarchy, but with excellent LGBT+ representation (though I could have done without the excessive societal homophobia played for cheap drama).

Now I'm looking up feminist fantasy, which is bound to do away with the patriarchy. And if I doesn't exist, I'll have to write it myself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sam79

If your default assumptions are 1) differences between men and women are purely cosmetic and 2) gender equality is the accepted norm (i.e. those of D+D), then you are right that an author would find a patriarchal society hard to justify. Take away these two assumptions though, and patriarchal socieites are likely to appear as often in fiction, even fantasy fiction, as they do and have done in the Real World.

---

Quite true. But then there would be very little to differentiate it from historical fiction. And it's still extremely arbitrary. Again, if we have dragons and magic and elves and whatnot, why on earth do we draw the line at gender, race and sexuality? What is there in our brains that says "Dragons, check, magic that breaks the laws of physics, check, gods that walk the land, check, elves, check, monsters, check, gender equality? NEVER!!"?

If you want to be really depressing, just look at all the potential problems in the Drow.

... which somewhat raises the question of why I enjoy playing Drow Samurai so much. Eh.

Quote:

---

Point taken, but the fact that she would have eventually learnt of the Cloister and headed straight for Cliffport, if given enough time (and then she'd have contacted Durkon and V with instructions), speaks in favour of her leadership skills. Well, hypothetically. I'm willing to cut her some slack, as I did with Shojo. Us Chaotic types need to stick together. Though not TOO together.

---

I'm not entirely sure what I'm trying to say, but I think it's that her Resistance leadership is more important than her Order leadership, because the latter is basically nonexistent at worst, and severely hamstringed at best. XD

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raineh Daze

If you want to be really depressing, just look at all the potential problems in the Drow.

---

Hah! There's a matriarchy done wrong if I've ever seen it. A true matriarchy (especially in the D&D world, where women are just as strong/smart/etc. as men) wouldn't have men as soldiers. It wouldn't have men as anything but househusbands, eye-candy and child caretakers. The women wouldn't be just the leaders and priestesses, they would be the everything. The leaders, the priestesses, the soldiers, the mages, the hunters, the merchants, the craftspeople, and so on. The favoured class of drow men wouldn't have been "wizard", it would've been "commoner".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raineh Daze

... which somewhat raises the question of why I enjoy playing Drow Samurai so much. Eh.

---

The race itself is pretty good with LA buyoff, I don't blame you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raineh Daze

I'm not entirely sure what I'm trying to say, but I think it's that her Resistance leadership is more important than her Order leadership, because the latter is basically nonexistent at worst, and severely hamstringed at best. XD

---

Ah, I see what you mean. I think it depends on what you consider more important, the group itself or the effectiveness of the leader. In terms of group importance, the Order is clearly more important than the Azure Resistance (narratively, at least). While I don't disagree with you, I think there's definitely room to discuss which leadership stint was more important for Haley.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Raineh Daze

Leadership talent and alignment are noticeably two different things, though.

---

But if you get your entire group killed/arrested and make no effort to get them back, you're not really leading anything anymore. :smalltongue:

Wasn't Belkar a love interest for that bard chick in the Thieves' Guild?

Hey, you! Yes, you there. (Not you, Giant, you're cool.) Maybe you should lighten up a bit. :smallwink: It's a well-told story, and not bigoted at all.

Any story that is not specifically about diversity will not be "perfectly diverse" in every way. And that's okay. If every story had to meet a certain quota of diversity, that would be just as boringly uniform as if every story were about [straight white men/gay black women/gender-dysphoric Mongolian children/etc.].

The difference in amounts and types of "diversity" between certain stories forms a "metadiversity" which is itself valuable. For example, if it's important to you to read a webcomic with mostly female characters, you could read Questionable Content. (I read it because it's well characterized, but that's neither here nor there.)

What I'm trying to say is that it's good that there's some story with a preponderance of Group A and some other story with a preponderance of Group B. But that doesn't make the Group B story any better, inherently, than the Group A story, or vice versa. As long as neither is bigoted, their difference from each other enriches the human experience just as much as does the difference between the characters in either one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Flame of Anor

What I'm trying to say is that it's good that there's some story with a preponderance of Group A and some other story with a preponderance of Group B. But that doesn't make the Group B story any better, inherently, than the Group A story, or vice versa.

---

We already had this discussion before in the thread. I urge you to read it. If you do not share the idea that more diversity and representation is an inherently good thing, that's okay. Nobody will mind. It just means this kind of thread is not for you. :smallsmile:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shadowknight12

Hah! There's a matriarchy done wrong if I've ever seen it. A true matriarchy (especially in the D&D world, where women are just as strong/smart/etc. as men) wouldn't have men as soldiers. It wouldn't have men as anything but househusbands, eye-candy and child caretakers. The women wouldn't be just the leaders and priestesses, they would be the everything. The leaders, the priestesses, the soldiers, the mages, the hunters, the merchants, the craftspeople, and so on. The favoured class of drow men wouldn't have been "wizard", it would've been "commoner".

---

Not to mention that the matriarchal race is also evil, has pitch black skin, and has what is viewed as poor taste in animals. :smallsigh:

Quote:

---

The race itself is pretty good with LA buyoff, I don't blame you.

---

Eh, one's PF drow, the other's just grabbing the race for something non-mechanical. Well, and a class for abilities. That one's kind of crazy, skill wise. :smallredface:

Quote:

---

Ah, I see what you mean. I think it depends on what you consider more important, the group itself or the effectiveness of the leader. In terms of group importance, the Order is clearly more important than the Azure Resistance (narratively, at least). While I don't disagree with you, I think there's definitely room to discuss which leadership stint was more important for Haley.

---

Which takes me back to 'the Order, as a group, was pretty much irrelevant for this time period'. Firstly, they were kind of dispersed over the city. Then they split up. There was Team Boat, which was doing B-plot stuff until V went crazy, and there was the Resistance side of things, which had Haley leading exactly one member of the Order. It just seems wrong to list it without specifically noting the situation. :smallconfused: