Quote Originally Posted by Nerd_Paladin View Post
Spoiler
Show
Indeed. And if the fictional universe chooses to depict them as BAD people, exclusively, then that's valid within the confines of that universe. We may find it "unrealistic" and recognize that doing that is a storytelling device that we may or may not like, but it is not "racism."



Not reall; goblins aren't anything but an abstract concept of whatever the writer wants them to be. Mr. Burlew wants them to be like real people, and hundreds of game designers want them not to be, and each depiction is equally valid (though not necessarily as good, that's an opinion matter) within the confines of its own little world. But go on.



I didn't say don't become invested. I said don't become SO invested that you lose your sense of objectivity and start having the same emotional reaction to fictional characters as you would to real people. Why not do this? Because losing your objectivity ruins your power to assess the work, and almost always leads you to interpret it wrongly. This is, for example, why people tend to think of "Romeo & Juliet" as a great love story (which it isn't) rather than a cautionary tale (which it is; among other things).



Which is fine in itself, except that work is, by the author's admission, supposed to be moralizing satirical tirade against the ethical ramifications of the source material. The problem with that is that those ethical ramifications only exist if you misinterpret the game material and/or run the game poorly. So he's satirizing a convention for it's misuse, which seems a little unfair to me. So I stand by my conclusion of yesterday; "The Order of the Stick" is a great story, but a poor satire.



But fantasy gaming doesn't work the way our world does. In our world, killing people is wrong because people are complex beings, and all of them have some kind of value, even those who commit despicable acts. Not so in the fantasy world; in the fantasy world we may have creatures who are wholly evil with no redeeming qualities, if the writer so chooses for that to be the case.

Again, we may find this depiction "unrealistic" and recognize it for the cheap dramatic convenience that it is, but that's as far as it goes. At no point does it become analogous to "racism". To effect, we cannot take the position that "Fake evil monsters deserve equal rights too," (boy, good luck with THAT charity fundraiser...). If the comic intends to point out that that dramatic device is unrealistic...well, go nuts, but we all arrived at that station about a minute after the train left, so seems like much ado about noting to me.

Further, I would once again point out that anyone who plays fantasy games that consist of killing creatures for literally no reason is doing it poorly.



And now it's become an angry, moralizing satire of D&D and the various elements of the gaming habit that "disgust" the writer. He's got an axe to grind; that's his prerogative, as it is his story after all, and he's worked hard on it, but it's a misplaced agenda, if you ask me.

So your point is that "The Order of the Stick" is a great story, but a poor, angry, moralizing satire of D&D and the various elements of the gaming habit that "disgust" the writer."*
And you think that the satire is "misplaced" and talk about it on 8 pages. Lolwat?

Seriously - analyzing and debating about something with your key argument being "it's not worth of debate" is flawed in itself. Because if it really would be pointless to debate about, then why are you trying so hard to prove it's pointless to debate about? If you want just everyone to move on, why don't you move on yourself? And if the debate is helpful to someone (either in helping him to reach that OMGSOTRIVIAL conclusion, or in shifting his own view of the matter - like your view of comic) why dismiss is it entirely?

This entire thread is actually proof that Rich is tremendously successful in this topic (morality blah blah blah) - and stance "I think it's OBVIOUS" is just another simplified one-sided opinion in debate.

So no, OOTS is not poor satire.

*anyone else thinking about someone having emotional reaction at the moment?