Question about Miko.

[Echch]

Why did she let V sleep in the womens' room during their journey to the Azure City? Did she trust him that much to be faithful? I mean, it seems like the people in the comic know him to be a man, at least if the last panel of #306 is any indication, so how comes?

[Morquard]

V's gender is ambiguous, it's never been revealed to be male or female, and the giant stated he never will reveal it, since it's unimportant. Some characters refer to V as a male, others as a female. Don't mistake a characters opinion as proof or fact.

Haley was ok with V sleeping in her room, so that was enough for Miko. Miko did not sleep in the same room anyway, so it wasn't exactly "the women's room".

[Kish]

You have three fatally flawed basic premises.

1) Miko cared about the romantic or sexual relationships of the Order of the Stick.
2) Vaarsuvius' sex or gender has anything to do with their ability to have sex with Haley, if everyone involved wanted.
3) Two uses of a male pronoun by characters who were in one strip and just met Vaarsuvius establishes Vaarsuvius as obviously male, trumping all the references to them being gender ambiguous and all the times a character refers to them with female pronouns.

[Echch]

V's gender is ambiguous, it's never been revealed to be male or female, and the giant stated he never will reveal it, since it's unimportant. Some characters refer to V as a male, others as a female. Don't mistake a characters opinion as proof or fact.

Haley was ok with V sleeping in her room, so that was enough for Miko. Miko did not sleep in the same room anyway, so it wasn't exactly "the women's room".

Huh, fair point. I started reading the Miko-stuff again because I forgot how she fell, so I reread the part and was surpised about it. Though I don't remember Miko sleeping in the other room :/

You have three fatally flawed basic premises.

1) Miko cared about the romantic or sexual relationships of the Order of the Stick.
2) Vaarsuvius' sex or gender has anything to do with their ability to have sex with Haley, if everyone involved wanted.
3) Two uses of a male pronoun by characters who were in one strip and just met Vaarsuvius establishes Vaarsuvius as obviously male, trumping all the references to them being gender ambiguous and all the times a character refers to them with female pronouns.

1) Yes, because Miko, the definition of a stick in the mud paladin, would clearly not care about that.
2) While that's true, not everything is based around sex. The reason a kindergarten has split toilets has nothing to do with the adults fearing that, I'm sure.
3) I said "if it is any indication" for a reason, because I feared that I may have missed characters calling her female (is ambigious a gender? I honestly don't know).

[candybarsuvius]

You have three fatally flawed basic premises.

Fatally flawed? The OP is dead now?

Wow, I never know posting something on an internet discussion board could be so dangerous.

[Cizak]

1) Yes, because Miko, the definition of a stick in the mud paladin, would clearly not care about that.

No, why would she? In the brief period of time where she thought Roy had matured and was still interested in her, she was willing to consider a romantic relationship with him. When two of her co-paladins claimed they were dating (to avoid her), she wished them a nice evening. When has she ever shown any indication to care about the Order's intra-relationships, besides everyone allying with Belkar?

2) While that's true, not everything is based around sex. The reason a kindergarten has split toilets has nothing to do with the adults fearing that, I'm sure.

Don't move the goalposts. You were talking about adults, not kindergarteners. So your (flawed) premise was definitely based on the assumption that sexual intercourse was only a risk factor because Haley and V had different sex and/or genders.

[Kish]

Fatally flawed? The OP is dead now?

Wow, I never know posting something on an internet discussion board could be so dangerous.

Putting me on ignore would probably draw less moderator disapproval than this sniping. Just a thought. Entirely up to you, of course.

[Echch]

No, why would she? In the brief period of time where she thought Roy had matured and was still interested in her, she was willing to consider a romantic relationship with him. When two of her co-paladins claimed they were dating (to avoid her), she wished them a nice evening. When has she ever shown any indication to care about the Order's intra-relationships, besides everyone allying with Belkar?

*sigh* Read that again, both what I said, the reply that resulted into what you just quoted, and what you quoted. You'll understand what I mean then (I hope).

Don't move the goalposts. You were talking about adults, not kindergarteners. So your (flawed) premise was definitely based on the assumption that sexual intercourse was only a risk factor because Haley and V had different sex and/or genders.

...Alternatively, I was talking about the fact that we have still seperated toilets etc. despite the "risk" still existing with same-gendered people, making it a cultural thing. Again, if the seperation were due to the "fear" of sex only, there would be no reason to have it in places where it won't occur, but we still have them in such places... Such as a kindergarten.
Seriously, what's up with you guys and sex?

[NerdyKris]

1) Yes, because Miko, the definition of a stick in the mud paladin, would clearly not care about that.

No, those are real world religious values (from only certain religions) being assigned to a fictional religion in a much different world. Miko being a stick in the mud doesn't mean that she disapproves of sexual relations between consenting adults. We have been given no indication that paladins of the Sapphire Guard have any hangups about sex, one example of lesbian members of the Sapphire Guards making out (bonus strip in War and XPs), and one paladin with a boyfriend.

Fatally flawed? The OP is dead now?

Wow, I never know posting something on an internet discussion board could be so dangerous.

The argument is fatally flawed, not the poster. It's a common english phrase.

ETA:

*sigh* Read that again, both what I said, the reply that resulted into what you just quoted, and what you quoted. You'll understand what I mean then (I hope).

Maybe you could explain what was misconstrued instead of being passive aggressive?

[Kish]

Seriously, what's up with you guys and sex?

So by "be faithful," you meant Vaarsuvius wouldn't play tick-tack-toe with anyone but their spouse?

[Echch]

Maybe you could explain what was misconstrued instead of being passive aggressive?

Orginally, the topic wouldn't have come up, but sure, I suppose that could help: See, when I said "stick-in-the-mud"-paladin, I was refering to a specific archetype of paladin, the "no-fun-allowed"-one. The idea behind that comment was to emphasize Miko's (and only Miko's: Even the guard said that the other paladin's consider her to be... Well, a stick in the mud) tendency to be what a paladin shouldn't be roleplayed as: Annoying and preachy.
Given that preachy aspect, the religious values (of not all religions, to be sure, but of popular ones) are something that would come up as something that archetype would enforce. Miko being willing to enter a relationship was fine and all, however, I'd like to propose that both of the things that I'm talking about (being preachy and wanting a relationship) are not necessarily in conflict, since a relationship doesn't necessarily imply (immediate) sexual contact and can come in a variety of different forms.

TL;DR: It's not always about sex, and the weird focus on it this thread seems to have is uncomforting.

[Ruck]

TL;DR: It's not always about sex, and the weird focus on it this thread seems to have is uncomforting.

Huh, I wonder where that weird focus came from?

Why did she let V sleep in the womens' room during their journey to the Azure City? Did she trust him that much to be faithful? I mean, it seems like the people in the comic know him to be a man, at least if the last panel of #306 is any indication, so how comes?

[hroþila]

Even the most stuck-up character won't be preachy about things she doesn't consider immoral at all, and there's no in-comic indication that Miko would find V and Haley sharing a room, or pre-marital relationships, to be immoral.

But even assuming Miko would have a problem with any of that... why do you think she would have been able to stop them? She didn't want them to sleep in the inn in the first place, remember?

[DaggerPen]

I am super confused by how quickly this thread turned really harsh.

Why did she let V sleep in the womens' room during their journey to the Azure City? Did she trust him that much to be faithful? I mean, it seems like the people in the comic know him to be a man, at least if the last panel of #306 is any indication, so how comes?

1. As corrected above, V has not been canonically confirmed as a man or a woman. The author has in commentary referred to V as genderqueer, which may be V's specific gender identity or may be being used as an umbrella term for gender non-conforming; I don't believe the author has specified and tend to interpret it as the former.
2. Regardless, I don't believe that Miko has ever alluded to viewing V as male. In fact, when she originally attempted to purchase rooms, she wanted one for the men and "one for the women and the elf".
3. I also don't think she knew V was married. I find it more likely that she just didn't care, as:

1) Yes, because Miko, the definition of a stick in the mud paladin, would clearly not care about that.

There are in canon several instances of Miko being "yeah whatever" about people having romantic relationships in her vicinity and no instances of her caring about this. She was all "boo luxury and corruption" when arguing for sleeping in a ditch to sleep in, yes, but I doubt she cared about sleeping arrangements beyond the requirement for additional rooms costing her money.

2) While that's true, not everything is based around sex. The reason a kindergarten has split toilets has nothing to do with the adults fearing that, I'm sure.

Actually, restroom splitting like this is a fairly recent phenomenon, and one that's not super cross-cultural either. Restroom splitting is loosely correlated with the fact that some people can use urinals and some can't, a habit which just sort of led to splitting into men's and women's restrooms. Some cultures do have a tradition of gender segregation as well that's separate and in addition to that, which leads to men's and women's restrooms as a general thing.

(is ambigious a gender? I honestly don't know).

I don't know that I've seen anyone identify in those exact terms, but yup, there are non-binary genders! One common "I'm not a man or a woman" identity is genderqueer, which, as I mentioned above, the author has previously used to describe Vaarsuvius.

I hope that answers your questions!

[NerdyKris]

TL;DR: It's not always about sex, and the weird focus on it this thread seems to have is uncomforting.

I'm sorry you're not comfortable with sex, but this is a forum of adults discussing a mature work not aimed at children. Sex is going to come up, especially when your initial post implied the problem was people of opposite genders sharing a room. You said "be faithful". What on earth does that mean if not cheating on your spouse?

[candybarsuvius]

Putting me on ignore would probably draw less moderator disapproval than this sniping. Just a thought. Entirely up to you, of course.

You can call it "sniping," but I merely intended to point out that the use of hyperbolic language such as "*FATALLY FATALLY FATALLY* ^&%$#$$% flawed" is not conducive to constructive discussion. You could have simply said that you disagreed with the OP's premise rather than assuming a tone of intellectual superiority (you might be too young to remember John Houseman as Professor Kingsfield torching helpless first-year law students). The OP asked a legitimate question and probably wanted legitimate answers rather than being talked down to.

Of course, subtle considerations like the above are not usually recognized on the internet.

[candybarsuvius]

I'm sorry you're not comfortable with sex

That's not what the poster said. He said he was uncomfortable with the subject dominating this thread.

Putting words in the mouths of others is an internet forum tactic and is beneath most people.

[Razade]

Orginally, the topic wouldn't have come up, but sure, I suppose that could help: See, when I said "stick-in-the-mud"-paladin, I was refering to a specific archetype of paladin, the "no-fun-allowed"-one. The idea behind that comment was to emphasize Miko's (and only Miko's: Even the guard said that the other paladin's consider her to be... Well, a stick in the mud) tendency to be what a paladin shouldn't be roleplayed as: Annoying and preachy.
Given that preachy aspect, the religious values (of not all religions, to be sure, but of popular ones) are something that would come up as something that archetype would enforce. Miko being willing to enter a relationship was fine and all, however, I'd like to propose that both of the things that I'm talking about (being preachy and wanting a relationship) are not necessarily in conflict, since a relationship doesn't necessarily imply (immediate) sexual contact and can come in a variety of different forms.

TL;DR: It's not always about sex, and the weird focus on it this thread seems to have is uncomforting.

Could you tell us what the problem is with a man and a woman who aren't married sleeping in the same bedroom if it doesn't relate to sex? What's do you think Miko's objection would be? What would she be "preachy" about? What violates her beliefs letting two friends sleep in the same room together? Why did you specifically indicate that it was a male sleeping in a female's room? If your objection is "Miko should be No Fun Allowed (what do you mean by fun)" shouldn't she have got them all separate rooms? What about her religious values (which we don't even know) are being violated with a man and a woman being in the same room together with separate beds no less that you're talking about?

Because the only problems I know of are related to what a man and a woman who aren't married might get up to at night and I'm not talking about making shadow puppets.

You can call it "sniping," but I merely intended to point out that the use of hyperbolic language such as "*FATALLY FATALLY FATALLY* ^&%$#$$% flawed" is not conducive to constructive discussion. You could have simply said that you disagreed with the OP's premise rather than assuming a tone of intellectual superiority (you might be too young to remember John Houseman as Professor Kingsfield torching helpless first-year law students). The OP asked a legitimate question and probably wanted legitimate answers rather than being talked down to.

Of course, subtle considerations like the above are not usually recognized on the internet.

You know. I like you. Your utter lack of irony and telling people how to behave and speak may turn others off but me? Totally on board.

[NerdyKris]

That's not what the poster said. He said he was uncomfortable with the subject dominating this thread.

Putting words in the mouths of others is an internet forum tactic and is beneath most people.

Oh my god, please stop. You've just recently wandered into this forum and all you've done is call people children and talk down to everyone. It doesn't make you cool and logical. I didn't put words in anyone's mouth, I clearly explained my reasoning.

And yes "fatally flawed argument" is a normal thing to say and not hyperbole, no matter how much you want to insist it is.

[DaggerPen]

Just, uh, to be clear, 'fatally flawed' is a common term for 'has a flaw that makes the whole argument a non-starter,' not like, 'lethal'. While it's most commonly used to refer to 'lethal', 'fatal' can also just mean 'coming to an end.' If a program encounters a 'fatal exception', that just means that it's encountered an exception past which it cannot continue, not that it's going to kill you and/or the computer.

[Cizak]

It's not always about sex, and the weird focus on it this thread seems to have is uncomforting.

Alright, there seems to be a huge misunderstanding about what you're actually asking here. Here are the reasons I, and I think many others, thought you wanted to talk about sex:

* You asked if Miko trusted V to "be faithful". "Being faithful" is very commonly understood as "only having sex with your partner".
* You paint Miko out as a character who would enforce religious values and wants "no fun". This heavily implies that you think she would have a problem with other people having casual sex; and more specifically heterosexual sex, since you suggest she would only have a problem with people of different genders sharing a room.
* When the people in question are teenagers or older, "should two people of different genders really share a room during the night?" is often understood as a statement which expresses worry that they are going to have sex.

You use phrases and express yourself in a lot of ways which makes it easy to conclude that you are talking about sex. So if you don't, what exactly did you want to discuss?

[Yuki Akuma]

Fatal, like so many English words, has more than one meaning*! One of them is "leading to failure/disaster". A fatal flaw is a flaw so big it causes something to fail.

It's a totally normal turn of phrase and I had no idea anyone could take issue with it before reading this thread. The Internet sure is weird!

_{* Originally, it just meant 'destined' or 'fated', but tended to be used to euphemistically refer to death and failure and eventually changed to only mean negative fates. Etymology!}

[candybarsuvius]

Oh my god, please stop. You've just recently wandered into this forum and all you've done is call people children and talk down to everyone. It doesn't make you cool and logical. I didn't put words in anyone's mouth, I clearly explained my reasoning.

And yes "fatally flawed argument" is a normal thing to say and not hyperbole, no matter how much you want to insist it is.

No, that's all you've NOTICED. Saying that that is all I've done is more silly hyperbole. You appear to love hyperbole.

And saying that someone is "uncomfortable about sex" when they didn't say that at all is indeed putting words in someone's mouth. Whether you admit it or not. And it's rude. Whether you admit it or not.

"Fatally flawed argument" is not, in fact, a normal expression. It is severe criticism, which should be reserved for when someone is utterly wrong AND being wrong has some kind of consequences. I suppose you would tell your girlfriend when she says that she likes a movie, "No, that's a fatally flawed argument" and then proceed to tell her exactly why her reasons for liking it are fatally flawed. If that sort of language is indeed part of normal discourse for you, then I fear for your social outcomes.

But of course, it was internet talk, which is devoid of social niceties and considerations. The OP got dogpiled for asking a simple question. I apologize for coming to his defense--the only acceptable thing to have done, apparently, was to join the dogs.

[candybarsuvius]

Fatal, like so many English words, has more than one meaning*! One of them is "leading to failure/disaster". A fatal flaw is a flaw so big it causes something to fail.

It's a totally normal turn of phrase and I had no idea anyone could take issue with it before reading this thread. The Internet sure is weird!

_{* Originally, it just meant 'destined' or 'fated', but tended to be used to euphemistically refer to death and failure and eventually changed to only mean negative fates. Etymology!}

It may be "totally normal" in your universe, but was the emphatic "fatally" necessary? And aside from that, what died or suffered a negative fate as a result of that fatal quality? Couldn't the poster have said something like "I disagree" instead of "HARRUMPH! Your argument is...(dramatic pause)...FATALLY FLAWED." It's the kind of pompous and condescending language that people generally don't indulge themselves with in the real world because of the physical danger that using it entails. But yes, we're on the internet here, so let's pitch civility overboard.

Re the etymology: the OED cites some uses of the term to mean a flaw in the argument that destroys a larger plan based on it, like a lawyer's unsound reasoning that causes him to lose a case or a strategic assumption that is wrong and causes a general to lose a battle or campaign.

[Cizak]

Couldn't the poster have said something like "I disagree" instead of "HARRUMPH! Your argument is...(dramatic pause)...FATALLY FLAWED."

You have three fatally flawed basic premises.

Speaking of hyperbole and putting words in people's mouths...

[hroþila]

candybarsuvius, I agree with your point about people being unnecessarily condescending sometimes, but you have a most curious approach to defusing confrontational conversations.

[DaggerPen]

Candybarsuvius, I appreciate that you have not heard "fatally flawed" used so casually before, but with multiple people chiming in that they've seen it used that casually all the time, is it possible that this may just be a misunderstanding based on different experiences? I've talked with Kish at some length before and that's just sort of how Kish talks - I definitely don't think they(?) were being condescending. I think it may be time to take a step back and consider that you may have misinterpreted an innocuous comment.

[Peelee]

V's gender is ambiguous, it's never been revealed to be male or female, and the giant stated he never will reveal it, since it's unimportant.

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure he accidentally slipped one time.

[Jasdoif]

Yeah, but I'm pretty sure he accidentally slipped one time.

If only we knew what he said that one time....

[Peelee]

If only we knew what he said that one time....

Yeah, someone should keep a list or something.

Anyway, it was when he copped to Smurfetting the original 6. I realize it's not strong evidence, and it's not likely to sway anyone, but I read that as him leaking how he originally saw the group, before he realized people couldn't tell and ran with it.