OOTS #959 - The Discussion Thread

[Keltest]

When I was growing up, I drank 2% fat milk. When I moved in with my now-spouse, she generally got skim milk; I wasn't terribly attached to the idea of 2% milk so I went along with it.

Last year, seven years after I thus switched to skim milk, I got 2%--or it could even have been 1%--milk because the store was out of skim milk. Neither of us could drink it; it tasted like I was trying to drink pure cream.

I feel the same way about 2%, but skim milk feels like im just drinking water. Its really weird.

[Rogar Demonblud]

Skim essentially is colored water, with about half the nutrients present being artificially created chemicals added to replace all the natural chemicals that were skimmed off.

[breathandpaper]

I jump to the last page and see people are now discussing milk.

Well that's an improvement, I guess.

[Bird]

I feel the same way about 2%, but skim milk feels like im just drinking water. Its really weird.

If 2% feels thick, imagine drinking 50% fat whale milk, which is apparently a thing.

Whale milk ice cream does sound decadent.

Other thought: I'd wonder about the living conditions of commercially milked whales.

[Keltest]

If 2% feels thick, imagine drinking 50% fat whale milk, which is apparently a thing.

Whale milk ice cream does sound decadent.

Im imagining my head exploding while my heart gives out.

[Phylactery]

Out of curiosity what is more natural than saying that someone's armor belonged to their ex? What would be a more natural way of bringing it up?

I think I was ambiguous in my meaning, for which I appologise: I wasn't referring to the naturalness of the scene itself, rather the naturalness of the scene's sudden appearance.

Still, you answered your own question (Durkon's "not that there's anything wrong with the alternative" line in Start of Darkness would be another example, I suppose):

BTW, while you're mulling my question over, take a look at this example here. He we have a never before seen (and will never see again) character saying, "Thanks, but no thanks, I'm gay." when a potential romantic liaison is shoved in front of said character's face. Seems to me what happened in the latest comic is JUST as natural as that.

No, it wasn't. the case you linked to seems to have come up naturally, and seems to have just-so-happened to have included a representation of a gay charector in a neutral/positive light. I didn't even bat an eyelid at that. If it was intentionally constructed so that the giant could bring a neutral/positive representation of a homosexual into the comic, then so be it. the imporant thing is that it felt like a natural part of the comic that happened to touch on gender, whereas the latest comic felt forced and artificial so that it touched on gender

If you can't live with one three-hundred-sixty-sixth of your time being frittered away like that, don't worry... because any other explanation of where Haley got her armour from would have taken just as long!

If it didn't involve a reference to a charectors sexuality, the conversation about where the armour came from likely wouldn't have come up. I'm complaining that the comic seemed to have a scene constructed soley to deliver a political message, which grated (not the message so much as the blunt way in which it was delivered)

And if you feel offended by the notion of gender slurs being offensive, let me ask: do you find the N-word or any other racial slurs offensive?

It depends on the context, and the likely meaning of the person using the word (remember that lots of black people refer to themselves as *******, which at least proves that you don't neccesarily have to be racist to use it)

If yes, why are slurs against women not offensive? And if no, why not?

I never said they aren't (tho: it depends on context, and the likely meaning of the person using the word).

tho i don't think one girl calling another a 'slut' is neccesarily sexist or gender-repressing, and I certainly don't think that the giant has to feel any guilt for having hayley use them. If he wants her to not use them any more, then it's his comic, but we don't need hayley to repent or appologise or anything like that.

If we do, then using the comic to show us why he thinks it was so wrong would be preferable to what we had.

[Kish]

I don't know how Rich could convey, "The use of an insult which means 'you are a woman who has more sex than I think she should' is sexist" to someone who doesn't already see it. Similarly, for all his efforts to illustrate the evil of racism-based genocide, I question whether a single person who started at the position "black dragons need killing, yes all of them" has been moved one inch (except possibly to stopping reading the comic).

[ti'esar]

I jump to the last page and see people are now discussing milk.

Well that's an improvement, I guess.

GitP Forums: We Make Discussing Milk Look Good By Comparison

[Phylactery]

I don't know how Rich could convey, "The use of an insult which means 'you are a woman who has more sex than I think she should' is sexist" to someone who doesn't already see it.

Maybe he could include some women having more sex that certain people think they should, then said certain people acting in a negative way towards them as a result of that, and then demonstrate the negative repercussions of doing so; possibly along with the same personality-traits that led to that attidude manifesting themselves in other, more obviously obnoxious ways.

Which is kind of what he did with the dragon thing. V acted against black dragons because he didn't respect black dragons (including half-black-dragons) at all. then, there's all these negative repercussions of that belief-fueld act. Along with the fact that it was pretty obvious that V's attitude was not a 'cool' thing, but part of a larger personality-flaw in V (which he's currently in the act of repenting for/fixing). This being a continuation of an earlier unthinking slaughter of a black-dragon, who turned out to be a child. *that* action also was fueled by a (mostly ignorance-based) lack of respect for black-dragons, was less morally OK upon closer examination (the dragon was a child, for example), and had negative repercussions

That's how you preach. the 'public-service announcement' way is the one that I doubt will make people consider their own beliefs.

(not that i'm suggesting that we have a big anti-homophobia thing in the comic; rather, if a proper treatment won't fit, then Rich should just stick to some non-forced inclusion/normalization).

[F.H. Zebedee]

TBH, I kinda miss the crude language coming from Haley. I knew where the author stood, I knew where I stood; I liked the harsh language coming from Haley as a reminder of her significantly lower class, criminal roots. The coarseness was refreshing. I like when a female character has the dirtiest mouth/roughest upbringing in the group. Say what you will about the rest of the Order of the Stick and power, but Hailey is a survivor. The rudeness she brought with her served as reminder that while Roy, Elan, and Varsuvius all were fairly pampered and had easy lives growing up, she grew up on a dog-eat-dog world where mudslinging and backstabbing trumped any manner of propriety.

I do wish there'd been a counterpoint (I would've loved V calling Hailey out on it by pointing out their lack of evidence as to the promiscuity of some of their foes, or her blowing a crucial diplomacy check, or...), but it honestly seemed more like a workable flaw than something that had to be cut out. I think it would've done better work being held onto as a recurring flaw, as opposed to getting the axe so swiftly with no real characterization behind it. So think more Dr. House struggling with drugs, than Marty McFly getting upset with people calling him chicken, and getting over it. A long term flaw that shows it errors repeatedly, instead of a one time PSA sort of demonstration.

So in other words, love the message, but I think it should have been a minor subplot and focused on differently.

[...]

TBH, I kinda miss the crude language coming from Haley. I knew where the author stood, I knew where I stood; I liked the harsh language coming from Haley as a reminder of her significantly lower class, criminal roots. The coarseness was refreshing. I like when a female character has the dirtiest mouth/roughest upbringing in the group. Say what you will about the rest of the Order of the Stick and power, but Hailey is a survivor. The rudeness she brought with her served as reminder that while Roy, Elan, and Varsuvius all were fairly pampered and had easy lives growing up, she grew up on a dog-eat-dog world where mudslinging and backstabbing trumped any manner of propriety.

I do wish there'd been a counterpoint (I would've loved V calling Hailey out on it by pointing out their lack of evidence as to the promiscuity of some of their foes, or her blowing a crucial diplomacy check, or...), but it honestly seemed more like a workable flaw than something that had to be cut out. I think it would've done better work being held onto as a recurring flaw, as opposed to getting the axe so swiftly with no real characterization behind it. So think more Dr. House struggling with drugs, than Marty McFly getting upset with people calling him chicken, and getting over it. A long term flaw that shows it errors repeatedly, instead of a one time PSA sort of demonstration.

So in other words, love the message, but I think it should have been a minor subplot and focused on differently.

What about Belkar? He doesn't seem like he had the nicest childhood.

[Bird]

What about Belkar? He doesn't seem like he had the nicest childhood.

The Giant hasn't given Belkar much of a back-story. (IIRC, the Giant has specifically avoided doing so.) OtooPC Belkar and Kickstarter Prequel Story Belkar are both adults, and both already display the CE temperament that he has at the start of DCF.

Belkar did "spin a sob story" one time about how he wasn't allowed to play halfling games with the other children, but he was specifically milking the system for roleplaying xp.

So we might imagine that he had a bad childhood based on his personality, but there's not much evidence. It's possible that, like Xykon, his evil is not the result of traumatic events.

[Murk]

his evil is not the result of traumatic events.

It's the other way 'round: Traumatic events are the results of his evil.

Not traumatic for Belkar, though.

[Jaxzan Proditor]

I think that based on Belkar's comments on family, we might be able to say that he didn't get along with his, but other than that Belkar's past is a mystery.

[Devils_Advocate]

(remember that lots of black people refer to themselves as *******, which at least proves that you don't neccesarily have to be racist to use it)

(It proves no such thing. It is not impossible to be prejudiced against one's own race. I happen to agree that what you're describing is generally not a case of that, mind you, but this is far from tautologous.)

So that validates insulting people for their religion, their philosophy, or for those with whom they willingly associate, even though none of those is necessarily wrong?

Riiiiiiight.

Jormengand, the point that, unlike involuntary characteristics, choices can be morally wrong and therefore worthy of criticism. Pointing out that it's possible to be racist in condemning someone's choice of associates is like saying that promiscuity could take the form of serial rape: It misses the point, which is the idea that X isn't categorically wrong, not that it can't possibly be done in an evil way.

A statement that a type of behavior is or isn't bad should generally be understood to mean that that type of behavior generally is or isn't bad, BOCTAOE.

The relevance is that opposing promiscuity isn't obviously bad in the way that racism is, because it isn't persecuting people for something that they have no control over. Furthermore, the notion that one can reliably harmlessly have sex with a large number of people is disputable and, indeed, disputed.

On the other hand, something being harmful doesn't mean that any particular measure taken against it doesn't do more harm than good.

[Lissou]

Something a lot of people seem to be ignoring is that the insults in question, while claiming to be a judgement of the person's amount of sex or partners, often isn't at all. It's very common for women to be called that based on the clothes they're wearing, or even based on what their bodies look like (the latter definitely not falling under "choice"). It's also a go-to excuse, for some reason, for people who get rejected. While rejecting someone is a choice, I'm going to have to stand firmly by anyone's right to reject whoever they want.

We can argue for ages about whether there are reasons to think promiscuity is wrong in females. But even if it was, it doesn't change the fact that most of the time, people use this insult without having any idea whatsoever if they person they're saying it to is actually promiscuous or not. Often they make the assumption they are based on what they look like, and sometimes the insult is used with no apparent connection to promiscuity, assumed or otherwise.

I'm sure many, many females in this thread (and probably a fair amount of trans males as well) can think of instances when they were called such things long before they were sexually active, possibly before they even thought about sex at all, just because someone was annoyed with them for pretty much any reason, including just existing.

[Porthos]

Really should try to stay away from this but...

I would point out that, if we are going on about historical reasons and all that, people often hurled racist insults at/held racist attitudes toward other people over perceived stereotypical behaviors/supposed innate qualities that would cause those people to act in a certain way. That is the racist insults were supposedly and I do stress supposedly aimed at what these people were supposedly doing.

Actually, never mind historical, it's being done all too often today.

Sexist insults are much the same way, as Lissou points out. And, yes, that includes sexual activity or the lack of. Let's not forget that people are accused of all sorts of sexist terms when they WON'T sleep with someone.

So. Yeah. Not commenting on 'slut-shamming' in general, in theory, or in hypothetical situations. But let's not kid ourselves here. Sexist insults are little different than racist insults when we are talking about their practical, real-world (and fictional) use. One can give all the theoretical possibilities and/or anecdotal stories that they want. Doesn't change the basic use of them tho, IMO.

[Coidzor]

No, Thread. You Are the Lovecrafts.

Raid a temple?

Spoiler

Show

Is anyone else slightly disturbed that there's a statue of Redcloak at the evil altar of the evil temple rather than the Dark One?

[Keltest]

No, Thread. You Are the Lovecrafts.



Is anyone else slightly disturbed that there's a statue of Redcloak at the evil altar of the evil temple rather than the Dark One?

Granted in colorblind, but the statue's cloak seems brown/gray to me. It could be the Dark One before he turned into a purple god.

[Porthos]

Granted in colorblind, but the statue's cloak seems brown/gray to me. It could be the Dark One before he turned into a purple god.

Spoiler

Show

The Dark One was always purple.

Plus, you know, the title of the wallpaper (The Wrong Eye).

====

All joking aside, it is in fact Redcloak (or at least a Golbin with a Red Cloak). But there are some yellow lighting and shading effects thrown in to somewhat distort the normal color.

[Reddish Mage]

The Giant hasn't given Belkar much of a back-story. (IIRC, the Giant has specifically avoided doing so.) OtooPC Belkar and Kickstarter Prequel Story Belkar are both adults, and both already display the CE temperament that he has at the start of DCF.

Belkar did "spin a sob story" one time about how he wasn't allowed to play halfling games with the other children, but he was specifically milking the system for roleplaying xp.

So we might imagine that he had a bad childhood based on his personality, but there's not much evidence. It's possible that, like Xykon, his evil is not the result of traumatic events.

The Giant specifically said that if he gave Belkar a backstory it would explain how he got to be the way he was and make his antics appear more sad than funny. That strongly implies that he has in mind a bad childhood.

[Porthos]

The Giant specifically said that if he gave Belkar a backstory it would explain how he got to be the way he was and make his antics appear more sad than funny. That strongly implies that he has in mind a bad childhood.

The "IF" is important though. I don't think it implies much of anything except Rich not particularly wanting to turn Belkar into a potentially tragic figure at the time.

[Keltest]

He said IF he did that, it might. I don't think it implies much of anything except Rich not particularly wanting to turn Belkar into a potentially tragic figure at the time.

My understanding of the Giant's perspective on that is that he doesn't want to give Belkar a backstory because there isn't any possible way to do so that wouldn't completely ruin the comedic murder thing he has going on now. Either it makes Belkar a tragic character with a sympathetic backstory, or it makes Belkar an unsympathetic monster that you cant feel sorry for in the odd moment where he approaches something resembling actual emotions.

[Porthos]

My understanding of the Giant's perspective on that is that he doesn't want to give Belkar a backstory because there isn't any possible way to do so that wouldn't completely ruin the comedic murder thing he has going on now. Either it makes Belkar a tragic character with a sympathetic backstory, or it makes Belkar an unsympathetic monster that you cant feel sorry for in the odd moment where he approaches something resembling actual emotions.

After going back and re-reading the very slight bit of commentary, I reworded my post a bit. I stand by my conclusion though (which is fairly close to yours, I think).

Also, what Rich had to say about the story eight or nine years ago isn't necessarily what he has to say about it now. Not only does time change things, but being at a certain point in the story might as well.

[Keltest]

After going back and re-reading the very slight bit of commentary, I reworded my post a bit. I stand by my conclusion though (which is fairly close to yours, I think).

Also, what Rich had to say about the story eight or nine years ago isn't necessarily what he has to say about it now. Not only does time change things, but being at a certain point in the story might as well.

True. I seem to recall him not wanting to explore the backstories of any of the demihumans because he wouldn't feel comfortable portraying their cultures and upbringings because he's (hopefully) human himself. Judging by how were seeing Durkon's backstory slowly revealed, he apparently got over that.

[Lissou]

Is anyone else slightly disturbed that there's a statue of Redcloak at the evil altar of the evil temple rather than the Dark One?

I don't think it's that weird, with him being a Supreme Leader and all. We have lots of statues of people who were considered politically important.
Plus that's what makes the joke with Haley removing his eye. I didn't spot it immediately but when I did, I thought that was awesome.

About Belkar: I think "what turned Belkar into the monster he is?" is as much of a mystery in the comic as V's gender and what creature MitD is. It's kind of a recurring gag that we have no idea if he's always been that way or if something happen, and if so, what.
There could also be the reasoning that if you know more about a character's backstory you might empathize with them more. But I don't think that's the main reason, I think the Giant did a great job in Start of Darkness of showing a lot of backstory about a villain without making them sympathetic. I mean Xykon here. I think he proved he can also do the opposite with Redcloak's backstory, which, while not excusing Redcloak's horrible actions, also puts it in perspective, in my opinion.

[dancrilis]

But I don't think that's the main reason, I think the Giant did a great job in Start of Darkness of showing a lot of backstory about a villain without making them sympathetic. I mean Xykon here.

Start of Darkness was excellent, however it didn't actually show a lot about Xykon.
We had child Xykon, teenage Xykon, adult Xykon, old Xykon and lich Xykon.
Of those we really only got to see much in the way of old Xykon and lich Xykon.

Did Xykon actually give up his life of crime for a while but was pulled back in by circumstance - we don't know.
Was he part of an adventuring party - we don't know.
Is he still part of an adventuring party (which is who he levels up with when he disappears for months/years) - we don't know.
Is this conquering the world thing really Xykon's 'downtime', and so he doesn't take much seriously - we don't know.
etc.

Much of Xykon's past is a mystery.

[Reddish Mage]

My understanding of the Giant's perspective on that is that he doesn't want to give Belkar a backstory because there isn't any possible way to do so that wouldn't completely ruin the comedic murder thing he has going on now. Either it makes Belkar a tragic character with a sympathetic backstory, or it makes Belkar an unsympathetic monster that you cant feel sorry for in the odd moment where he approaches something resembling actual emotions.

He doesn't have the comedic murder thing going on anymore, at least it isn't pointed indiscriminately.

Really there are two ways to do a Belkar backstory. One is to give a sad childhood which the Giant made mention to specifically in OoPCs. The other is to simply paint Belkar as always the mass murdering psycho, even as a child.

The latter doesn't only contradict what the Giant said about why he chose not to write a Belkar backstory, but also contradicts a lot of what he said about children, alignment, monsters, etc. In the D&D tradition writing about born-psychokiller creatures without human-like sentiment is quite possible and I believe those age-category dragons have some of that going on in the monster manual...

Belkar had a sad childhood in Rich's written thoughts about him, and this is the only childhood that is possible in stickverse, where all the creatures from the demons to the kobolds have a surprisingly relatable human sentiment. I think that's enough for us to conclude for all intents and purposes that Belkar had a sad childhood.

[Keltest]

He doesn't have the comedic murder thing going on anymore, at least it isn't pointed indiscriminately.

Really there are two ways to do a Belkar backstory. One is to give a sad childhood which the Giant made mention to specifically in OoPCs. The other is to simply paint Belkar as always the mass murdering psycho, even as a child.

The latter doesn't only contradict what the Giant said about why he chose not to write a Belkar backstory, but also contradicts a lot of what he said about children, alignment, monsters, etc. In the D&D tradition writing about born-psychokiller creatures without human-like sentiment is quite possible and I believe those age-category dragons have some of that going on in the monster manual...

Belkar had a sad childhood in Rich's written thoughts about him, and this is the only childhood that is possible in stickverse, where all the creatures from the demons to the kobolds have a surprisingly relatable human sentiment. I think that's enough for us to conclude for all intents and purposes that Belkar had a sad childhood.

I think its safe to conclude that anyone who grew up to be a murdering knife maniac has had some unhappy times in their past.

[Bird]

I understand why folks would say that mass-murdering present must equal tragic past, but Xykon seems to be a counterexample to that. At least, the limited information we're given in SoD leaves me with that inference.

Spoiler: SoD Spoilers

Show

Child Xykon is quite keen to go kill small animals with his newly zombified dog. Teenage Xykon seems to be living a life of relative privilege, and his parents care enough about him to invite Charles Xavier to help with with his sorcery. He murders Xavier and his parents for the heck of it.

Certainly, it's possible that tragedies occurred in Xykon's life that we didn't see. And I imagine that the power of reanimation could mess a kid up. But the Giant does present a narrative for how Xykon became what he was, and he chose not to include any sob stories. All the clues we get show Xykon to be a relatively privileged, happy kid who happened to be murderous.

Of course, the big difference between Xykon and Belkar is that Belkar's a protagonist and we're supposed to feel sympathy for him, at least in his "character development" moments, whereas we're never supposed to sympathize with Xykon.