Results 241 to 270 of 351
-
2014-10-02, 10:24 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
Re: OOTS #963 - The Discussion Thread
I meant by my comment that I think the comic would be less than it is without that 'filler' by whatever definition you give it. The five cited filler comics were not necessary and didn't drive the plot, but they were essential to making the comic what it is: a light-hearted romp through The Giant's playground.
Sure, the story is getting better as we see deeper and richer plot and character developments, but I hope Rich doesn't abandon the idea of fun for the sake of fun. And that's what the 'filler' material was.
If I got a vote, I'd vote for having another 'Questions' page, and preferably right in the middle of a deeply intense plot point. I'd advocate we see a side-quest full of silliness, just to remind us that, hey, it's a freakin' comic, not Lord Of The Rings.
Hmm, the Mechane needs repairs, so it may be a perfect time to side-quest for something silly, like a Ring of Jeans Summoning.
-
2014-10-02, 11:10 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2012
Re: OOTS #963 - The Discussion Thread
At this point, any comic that doesn't involve characters shouting the names of their D&D abilities at each other will be accused of being filler.
-
2014-10-02, 05:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
Re: OOTS #963 - The Discussion Thread
We don't know if Sidgi repeated the lesson or not. But I get your point. You believe that if the lesson was repeated, then Durkon would have recognized it sooner because... the lesson was repeated.
But, it doesn't matter if the lesson was said once, repeated or just reinforced. Neither scenario won't change the fact that the lesson sunk it or the impact it had.
You are correct. She did say 'Let go!' With an exclamation point (which is often used to show strong feeling or an increase in volume). But it is nitpicking, and it doesn't change the words that followed.
"New party rule: From now on, if one member of the team is being eaten, go ahead and assume that you should do something about that”
There are other characters who are even more lawful than Durkon, but I doubt they would take Sigdi's advice to any unhealthy extremes. Lawful != Dumb.
Now, if you meant to imply Durkon fail to recognize that her advice doesn't apply in all situations based on who he is then you need to ask how he become that way? Thor did not slap this personality on him when he was growing up. Nor did Durkon wake up and said “I'm going to be so lawful that I'll take my mother's advice to unhealthy extremes”. It developed over his lifetime by everything around him. Including the biggest influence of them all: mommy.
Sidgi's advice crippled Durkon's development, and she never corrected it. I'm not letting her off the hook.
I also don't agree with the 'he's so lawful' argument because I re-examined the instances where Durkon was assertive in the comic. There were all the times he healed people without being asked, the Cliffport Battle with the Treants, rescuing Lein at the Azurite docks. Heck, he told Haley that she needed to be assertive and keep herself together when Roy died.
This is the blessedly lawful Durkon that we come to know during the comics. His passiveness during V's meltdown is the only noteworthy exception (that I can think of), but for the most part, he's not the person who needed to ask, and ask again (just to make sure it's okay) before helping people. Now that I understand this, I feel that I should give credit to the excellent parent in the strip.
When Durkon was indecisive during the frog battle, Roy worked with him and helped him to become a more assertive team mate. Roy corrected Sigdi's mistake and taught Durkon that sometimes, you can't always wait until somebody asks for help. Something that wouldn't be possible if Durkon's alignment turned him into a lost cause.
I think it's wrong to blame a character's fatal flaw on their alignment. Saying that Durkon is too crippling passive because he's lawful is like saying Haley's trust issue stem from her being chaotic. That's just a cop-out.
It's not so much whether or not the sentence is wrong. My point is that it's significant. It's a subtle hint that speaks volume about her character. If you're going to argue that the sentence is a positive, then it doesn't enter the scope of nitpicking.
But, I still see it as a negative, because she already knows that she's not helpless. She just hosted a great dinner party and was complemented on her cooking. This is something she does every week. When Durkon was a toddler, she earned the gratitude of a dwarven worker, whose life she just saved from death. I think she has plenty of self-confidence.
But you know who else needed self-confidence? The little boy who wanted to help his mother. As a growing, impressible child nurturing that self-confidence is also very important. I don't buy that Durkon's help would have made things harder, not when Sidgi could have given him a task that he could handle (like gathering the silverware). The best, it still maintains her esteem, because she'd be doing the majority of the work, but it's let's her son in. So everyone wins.
But, when she protested that she's not helpless, she needed to defend her pride. She sacrificed her son's self-confidence for the sake of her ego. That's when it crossed the line from healthy to unhealthy. It also suggests that the advice she gave to Durkon was partially motivated to serve her needs. By telling her son that he should only help when asked to, Sidgi is able to do all the hard work she wants to without worrying about her son stepping in.
The thing is, if we're going to analyze a character, then we need to look at everything.
A good writer once said, “You reveal who you really are under stress—stress doesn't magically turn you into someone else unrelated to who you usually are.“ The fact that she used these words when there was no time to construct a proper warning means that this is the first thought that crossed her mind, and the possibility that Durkon could get hurt or the dishes could break are thoughts that needed to be construct.
The fact that she composed herself to reassure her son. Well, I won't say that it's not important. I think it shows us the person Sigdi wants to be. She wants to be a good mother (I will buy that), but she has her inner demons. And they interfere with that goal.
-
2014-10-02, 07:21 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Location
- Dallas, TX
- Gender
-
2014-10-02, 07:37 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
Re: OOTS #963 - The Discussion Thread
*not gonna address the rest because I sense we're already starting to enter the territory of arguing around in circles*
I disagree. 'Crippled' is FAR too strong of a word. Especially since, IMO, Durkon turned out to be a pretty good person.
If we're going to blame Sidgi for Durkon occassionally being too cautious (and, if you haven't guessed, I don't [or rather, it's not a 'blame' thing with me]), then we also have to credit her with how well Durkon turned out in other areas.
See, the whole problem I have with all of this goes back to your opening salvo:
I see nothing in strip 963 as 'poor parenting'. In fact I maintain it is EXCELLENT parenting. Might have had unforeseen consequences, but, eh. We'll find out in the fullness of time.
I realize you disagree. Fair enuf.
Adding in things like "scaring" (seriously... scaring?) is simply too much. It should be reserved for people (at best) like Eugene or (at worst) Tarquin. In fact, doing a compare and contrast I think would go a pretty darn long way as to who is 'supposed' to be seen as a 'bad' parent in the strip by the narrative.
Call me crazy, but I have seen nothing, and I do mean nothing, that would suggest that Sidgi was a 'bad' or 'poor' parent. She's not perfect. She's not a parent who could see all ends. But since when do those exist?
Now in the future maybe we'll see more of Sidgi that will change my mind and move me closer to your camp. It's possible. But now? Right now? I think you are putting way too much weight on what is pretty much just showing how parts of Durkon's personality were shaped.
Finally, if Durkon had actually shown some level of being upset at his mother's advice in retrospect, or upset at how his mother treated him at any point in the narrative, then I'd agree that we'd have more fuel for the 'poor/bad parent' argument. But, again, so far at least it's been the exact opposite.
You might not like the advice that Durkon was given. That doesn't make it bad parenting though.
tl;dr: If we're gonna take Sidgi to task for Durkon's 'negative' qualities, we also have to credit her for Durkon's 'positive' ones. Besides, I don't feel we should consider Sidgi a bad parent until, you know, Durkon starts thinking/saying she was a bad parent. After all, he's probably in the best position to judge of all of us.
...
Besides Rich that is.Last edited by Porthos; 2014-10-02 at 07:42 PM.
Concluded: The Stick Awards II: Second Edition
Ongoing: OOTS by Page Count
Coming Soon: OOTS by Final Post Count II: The Post Counts Always Chart Twice
Coming Later: The Stick Awards III: The Search for More Votes
__________________________
No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style - Jhereg Proverb
-
2014-10-02, 08:55 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
Re: OOTS #963 - The Discussion Thread
The unforeseen consequence is that a man could have died when Durkon had the ability to prevent that. I believe Sidgi should have foreseen this. She's an ex-sergeant, so she's no stranger to combat. She acted on instinct when she saved the miner from falling to said and it's what anyone would have done. If this wasn't her background, then I might be less critical.
I do not believe that my opinions, feeling or thoughts should be based on the say-so of another character. That leads itself to the appealing to authority fallacy. I rather draw conclusions based on my observations from what I see in the comic. The purpose of good art is to make us think, not to be told what to think.
Nope. Sidgi should only get credit the positive/negative qualities that she had a hand in shaping. Would you give Tarquin credit for Elan's positive qualities?
-
2014-10-02, 09:09 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Gender
Re: OOTS #963 - The Discussion Thread
So youre saying that she should have predicted that Durkon would take the lesson in so deeply that he was still taking it literally as an adult with experiences of his own to draw on? Yeah, im pretty sure she cant be faulted for not predicting that. Now, maybe if Durkon had shown signs for the rest of his life with her that he was taking it literally, but based on what we know now she cant be blamed.
“Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”
-
2014-10-02, 09:12 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
Re: OOTS #963 - The Discussion Thread
Since Tarquin and Elan barely had any interaction, no. No I wouldn't. But since it seems that Sigdi was central to shaping Durkon's worldview, yes, I am going to presume that she had a hand in shaping them.
Why wouldn't I?
Let's not forget that Durkon was ticketed for life in the priesthood. He didn't become an adventurer until he was booted out of the Dwarven lands.
It's perhaps possible (and now I am most certainly specualting on next to no evidence) that she tried to steer him away from the violent life of a soldier/adventurer and toward something more peaceful. Yet still very Dwareven. If so, this sort of life lesson might not be out of place.Last edited by Porthos; 2014-10-02 at 09:16 PM.
Concluded: The Stick Awards II: Second Edition
Ongoing: OOTS by Page Count
Coming Soon: OOTS by Final Post Count II: The Post Counts Always Chart Twice
Coming Later: The Stick Awards III: The Search for More Votes
__________________________
No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style - Jhereg Proverb
-
2014-10-02, 09:14 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2012
- Location
- Anywhere but real life.
- Gender
Re: OOTS #963 - The Discussion Thread
I can't help but notice nobody seems to be addressing this part of Pyron's argument. I won't either--in fact I quite agree with the portion of it that I've quoted here. Is it just me or is it a commonplace tactic on this forum for anyone arguing against someone to completely gloss over significant swathes of someone's argument without even acknowledging that they are a portion of said argument? This is far from the first time I've seen something like that.
It doesn't matter what you CAN do--it matters what you WILL do.
-
2014-10-02, 09:17 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
Re: OOTS #963 - The Discussion Thread
Last edited by Porthos; 2014-10-02 at 09:17 PM.
Concluded: The Stick Awards II: Second Edition
Ongoing: OOTS by Page Count
Coming Soon: OOTS by Final Post Count II: The Post Counts Always Chart Twice
Coming Later: The Stick Awards III: The Search for More Votes
__________________________
No matter how subtle the wizard, a knife between the shoulder blades will seriously cramp his style - Jhereg Proverb
-
2014-10-02, 09:43 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Gender
Re: OOTS #963 - The Discussion Thread
“Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”
-
2014-10-02, 11:09 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2008
Re: OOTS #963 - The Discussion Thread
Yes. Because "still taking it literally as an adult with experiences of his own to draw on" implies that he's suppose to figure it out on his own.
Because she isn't the only one who shaped Durkon's positive traits (this is what we're talking about, not worldview). There are plenty of traits that are credited to Roy's influence and guidance (which I pointed out).
Let's not forget it's their belief that death in combat is the greatest thing a dwarf can be praised for. This makes up Durkon's worldview. Who did you say was central to shaping his worldview agian?
And life is not always peaceful at home. Plus, that heirloom hammer and shield? Somebody gave it to him.
EDIT: If you want to claim that Sidgi was central to shaping Durkon's worldview then:
This is also on SidgiLast edited by Pyron; 2014-10-03 at 12:40 AM.
-
2014-10-02, 11:17 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2012
Re: OOTS #963 - The Discussion Thread
I'm not going to add another wall of text, but put me down for 'Poor parenting? Huh? I think you're reading too much into it there.' crowd.
-
2014-10-03, 01:40 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2013
Re: OOTS #963 - The Discussion Thread
Regarding Sigdi's parenting in this strip:
Little Durkon wasn't helping. He was getting in the way and actually hindering the cleanup effort.
Little Durkon grabbed the dishes Sigdi was already holding. He did not pick up the dishes left on the table (which would have been helping). He did not grab *more* dishes than Sigdi already could (which also would have been helping).
Little Durkon assumed he could do it better than his mom for no reason except that he had two arms. He did not consider that his mother was more experienced in taking care of the dishes, nor that she was older (and bigger, with a longer arm), raising the very likely possibility that even with one arm she could still do the job better than he could have done with two. In other words he reduced her, in this instance to her disability, and assumed (erroneously) he was superior to her solely because of her disability.
So little Durkon was WRONG. He offered help that was not wanted. He offered help for the wrong reason. And what he offered was the wrong kind of help that was not actually help at all.
Sigdi was right to scold him. This is *good* parenting. Her words may not have been perfectly chosen, but there is no such thing as a perfect parent in that or this or any world.
Also, the lesson she taught him "but you should not help without asking first, you might make things worse if you do" is a CORRECT lesson to teach. And it was CORRECT even in the situation with Roy and the frog. Durkon's mistake in that situation was not that he applied this lesson to it, but that he failed to realize that the lesson had ALREADY been applied. When he and Roy agreed to join each other and become an adventuring team, that act constituted the mutual "ask for help and agree to receive help" moment (indeed that's really the implicit meaning of agreeing to BE a "partner" to another person.) And that "contract" if you will, extends throughout the duration of the time that they would be adventuring partners. Durkon's mistake in that case was a failure to recognize the social dynamics of the situation and failing to realize that his mother's lesson had already been applied.Last edited by Amphiox; 2014-10-03 at 01:48 AM.
-
2014-10-03, 01:56 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2011
Re: OOTS #963 - The Discussion Thread
If she said it once, then never saw the negative impact it was having, then it's a mistake borne of ignorance. That is far less damning than a mistake borne of pride. So yes, it does matter.
Given the people involved and the world in which they live, it was reasonable of Durkon to assume Roy had gotten himself eaten on purpose. It was wrong, but still reasonable. Roy recognizes that, why don't you?
Like who? I can't think of any offhand.
Lawful != Smart, either. Durkon has a lot of positive qualities, but a high intelligence score is not among them.
Children, even newborns, have distinct personalities. Environment is not everything.
Crippled is far too strong a word. Being on the hook for one mistake(or a handful of mistakes) is not being a poor parent. A big part of the problem here is that you are blowing several things way out of proportion.
The issue about "he's so Lawful" comes back to different children having different personalities. The exact same behavior on Sigdi's part would have had a different effect on a different child. Expecting her to see the future is unreasonable.
Roy was able to correct Durkon's behavior because he's the one who saw the problem.
Excessive self-confidence is also a problem; look at Nale. Not being able to precisely gauge where Durkon's self-confidence is vs. where it should be is normal parenting, not poor parenting.
And do what with it? Put it in the sink? The sink where she needs to put the other dishes? That's a recipe for a traffic jam.
This statement, combined with your "where did he get his personality" above, makes me think you haven't spent much time around small children. Have you?
Let's indeed look at everything, including times when Sigdi is under stress. For example, while she was saving that worker's life. If she's so outrageously proud that she can't accept help, as you have been insisting, why did she accept help in pulling him up?
That fallacy is more properly called the appeal to inappropriate authority. It is not fallacious to take a doctor's advice on a medical issue, or to trust a geologist's analysis of a rock. The fallacy occurs when one trusts a doctor's analysis of a rock.
Durkon is in a better position to analyze Sigdi's parenting than most. Accepting his judgement on how good a parent she is isn't a fallacy.
In your previous post, you argued that everything about Durkon's personality was due to "...everything around him. Including the biggest influence of all: mommy." Why is it that you're drastically narrowing the scope of her influence now?
And is also another good reason for Durkon not to help. If someone is actively trying to score an honorable death and you jump in and save them, then you have indeed just made things worse.
-
2014-10-03, 02:48 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2009
- Location
- Here.
- Gender
Re: OOTS #963 - The Discussion Thread
Hear freaking hear.
"Don't help without asking" is a completely reasonable lesson, especially for Sidgi's kid. A lot of disabled people can be screwed over by well-meaning bystanders trying to help without asking first, and for the child of a one-armed parent, "don't help without asking" - or, phrased differently, "if it seems like someone needs help, ask them what they need" - is a completely reasonable lesson that stops stuff like "I know you're deaf, so I'm going to help out by speaking much slower than usual. Oh, sorry, that completely messes up your lipreading? I had no idea" from happening. For the vast majority of social situations, "don't help without asking" is a completely reasonable lesson. The fact that Durkon continued to apply it in the like .1% of situations where it's kind of a silly thing to do is a fairly unforseeable outcome.
I mean, I know this isn't an exact analogy, but if Sidgi had told Durkon that he should always knock before entering a room because the person inside might not be decent or want to be disturbed, and Durkon, upon hearing shouts of fear inside a room, stopped to knock first, would we say that Sidgi's lesson was inappropriate, or would we assume that Durkon may have taken a reasonable 99%-of-the-time lesson a bit too literally?Last edited by DaggerPen; 2014-10-03 at 02:50 AM.
I am: Neutral Good: -2 chaos, -21 evil and 15 balance!
Can't find the strip you're looking for? Head on over to OOTS Strip Summaries!
-
2014-10-03, 03:52 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2008
Re: OOTS #963 - The Discussion Thread
Durkon took the advice way more to heart than he should have, that's hardly Sigdi's fault. All that's indicative of is the lines of communication being imperfect, and Durkon's temperment combined with what he happens to internalize producing a problem. Heck, it's due to a small child trying to understand the nuances of a social standard; that's the sort of thing where imperfect communication is effectively guaranteed. That doesn't make it bad parenting.
Durkon was having a problem, Sigdi responded with compassion and used the opportunity to teach Durkon. Yes, it got internalized poorly. Sigdi is not a perfect communicator able to predict the exact effect of everything she says for decades down the line, operating with imperfect information and a serious time pressure in responding. That's not a character flaw.
Durkon's help was in the process of making things harder. Sigdi then gently tried to rebuff him several times, he grabbed the dishes anyways, and they broke. The "I'm not helpless" was just a way of saying that she had things under control, and that Durkon's help wasn't helping. It was a significantly softer way of saying it than just flat out stating that Durkon was being unhelpful.
As for the characterization of "sacrificing Durkon's self-confidence for the sake of her ego" - I consider it absurd. Durkon's self confidence wasn't sacrificed at all. Not only is it likely not that fragile to begin with, Sigdi explicitly told Durkon that he was a good person operating off a good instinct. Had she attributed Durkon's actions to malice and chewed him out for breaking the dishes, then I might consider "sacrificing Durkon's self-confidence for the sake of her ego" a reasonable reading. As is? No way, no how.I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums.
I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that. -- ChubbyRain
Current Design Project: Legacy, a game of masters and apprentices for two players and a GM.
-
2014-10-03, 04:50 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Location
- Skyron, Andromeda
- Gender
Re: OOTS #963 - The Discussion Thread
-
2014-10-03, 08:48 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Location
- Lustria
- Gender
Re: OOTS #963 - The Discussion Thread
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself. I am large, I contain multitudes. (W.Whitman)
Things that increase my self esteem:
-
2014-10-04, 02:28 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2013
Re: OOTS #963 - The Discussion Thread
I think it's likely that Sigdi probably shaped at least 80-90% of Durkon's positive traits, due to fact that she was his mother and probably the person he was closest to during his formative years. And out of that 10-20%, probably only 5% at most, can be attributed to Roy. After all, so far Durkon has had the most number of family members or friends shown that could have had a positive effect on his development.
-
2014-10-04, 02:56 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2011
- Location
- California
- Gender
Re: OOTS #963 - The Discussion Thread
I feel like we're going to spend a year on Durkon's flashbacks at this rate -_-
Thanks asdf for the 90% Link 10% Alex avatar!
-
2014-10-04, 07:59 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Location
- Skyron, Andromeda
- Gender
-
2014-10-04, 08:30 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Gender
Re: OOTS #963 - The Discussion Thread
I don't mind the flashbacks, but right now Durkon/HPoH are the only characters getting any sort of significant attention. Everyone else in the order has gotten one or two pages of attention, and while were kept aware of what is going on, they really have faded into the background.
“Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”
-
2014-10-04, 10:14 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Location
- Dallas, TX
- Gender
-
2014-10-04, 10:37 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Gender
Re: OOTS #963 - The Discussion Thread
Unless there is some sort of equal-story-focus law im unaware of, I don't believe Rich needs to compensate for Durkon's lack of focus outside of what the story mandates is necessary for us to see to understand it properly. If Rich thinks that its necessary for us to see this, fine, ill sit down and shut up. He knows where the story is going better than I do. But if hes just putting it in there to shine some light on Durkon for the sake of shining some light, I wish he would find a better way to do it.
“Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”
-
2014-10-04, 11:27 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2011
Re: OOTS #963 - The Discussion Thread
Originally Posted by Sam Gamgee
-
2014-10-04, 01:11 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2013
- Gender
Re: OOTS #963 - The Discussion Thread
Let's hope he's not using Tolkien as a base...one of the key features of Tolkien's world is that it deteriorates a little more with every passing year. All the cool kids lived a long time ago, and the people today are pale shadows of them.
-
2014-10-04, 01:39 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2013
- Gender
Re: OOTS #963 - The Discussion Thread
Deteriorates isn't the right word, really. Changes would be better. All the cool people did live a long time ago, but so did all the really nasty people. The elves leave not because Middle Earth is growing worse over time, but because they, for lack of a better description, did everything they were meant to do there. They've been working hard all their lives, and now they want to go on and retire for a while.
“Evil is evil. Lesser, greater, middling, it's all the same. Proportions are negotiated, boundaries blurred. I'm not a pious hermit, I haven't done only good in my life. But if I'm to choose between one evil and another, then I prefer not to choose at all.”
-
2014-10-04, 08:40 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Location
- Dallas, TX
- Gender
Re: OOTS #963 - The Discussion Thread
If you don't believe he needs to compensate for Durkon's lack of focus at other times, why complain about the other characters' lack of focus now?
I wasn't responded to some hypothetical "equal-story-focus law" from Rich. I was responding the the one you proposed. You wrote, "right now Durkon/HPoH are the only characters getting any sort of significant attention. Everyone else in the order has gotten one or two pages of attention, and while were kept aware of what is going on, they really have faded into the background." That's the only "equal-story-focus law" under discussion. I merely pointed out the unfairness of getting upset when the character with the least story focus up to now finally gets the spotlight for a moment.Last edited by Jay R; 2014-10-04 at 08:45 PM.
-
2014-10-04, 09:18 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2012