Haley and Solt Lurkyurg

[Peelee]

The upshot of her argument in the earlier strip is "killing Nale would not actually eliminate him as a threat." The upshot of her argument in the second one is "THIS IS BAD." I think few people would come off particularly well if their words were scrutinized exactingly for consistency in radically different contexts talking to entirely different people. She's not a computer, regurgitating in response to any thought of True Resurrection "I estimate the chances of a level 17 cleric existing in this world at 48.92%."

And here I am thinking the upshot of the first strip is "True Resurrection isn't hard, yo," while the upshot of the second strip is, "True Resurrection is hard, yo."

Oh wait, I'm right. And look, no computing required! Beep boop

[Keltest]

And here I am thinking the upshot of the first strip is "True Resurrection isn't hard, yo," while the upshot of the second strip is, "True Resurrection is hard, yo."

Oh wait, I'm right. And look, no computing required! Beep boop

I think the point was less about True Rez specifically and more about how Nale has minions that would be willing to go to great efforts to resurrect him via any means at their disposal.

[Peelee]

I think the point was less about True Rez specifically and more about how Nale has minions that would be willing to go to great efforts to resurrect him via any means at their disposal.

Overall, yeah, but if Kish is gonna try to rebut me with conversational context when the Grand Banana and i are explicitly taking only about the availability of True Res in the world, i'ma call him out on it.

[Kish]

I'm sorry, what are you even talking about? You're under the impression you and Jasdoif are doing something that makes all context irrelevant and scanning the pages for references to True Resurrection a logical way to read them? Declare victory in whatever weird word game this is if you want, but as far as "calling me out on" anything, let me know when you're going back to reading.

[Peelee]

I'm sorry, what are you even talking about? You're under the impression you and Jasdoif are doing something that makes all context irrelevant and scanning the pages for references to True Resurrection a logical way to read them? Declare victory in whatever weird word game this is if you want, but as far as "calling me out on" anything, let me know when you're going back to reading.

Sorry, I didn't realize you were having difficulty parsing things. Let me simplify the course of events:

Lacuna Caster - these people weren't rezzed.

Me: this subset would need True Res, which is likely unavailable.

Jasdoif: Haley didn't think so.

Me: She did later.

Kish: she's not a computer who calculates exacting probabilities! Consider the context!

Now, aside from the small amount of strawmanning, the context of the conversation was "Haley does and then does not think that True Rez is readily available." Not sure how you can claim that's a word game, but far be it from me to besmirch your claims of.... whatever it is you're claiming.

[Lacuna Caster]

A frequently overlooked requirement for resurrection is that the body part must have been part of the body at the time of death. Collecting toenail clippings in advance wouldn't suffice.

Fair point. I don't wanna get too tangled in the debate over the availability of high-tier resurrection magic, as long as we're clear that burning the body is, by all indications, a statistically effective method of taking malefactors out of the game. So I tend to ascribe other motives to the Order's highly selective regard for the sanctity of life.

There are totally reasonable arguments both for and against resorting to lethal force when dealing with career criminals (quite aside from simple self-defence, even in a world with Hit Points,) so I can give, e.g, Celia a lot of credit for trying to work out practical, minimally violent solutions to the challenges of an adventuring lifestyle- in no small part because she is consistent about it. (And it certainly helps when you have low-level psychic abilities.)

But Nale is not that argument. In terms of recurrent body count and evidence of guilt, he's somewhere between Ted Bundy and one of Hitler's lieutenants- so far over the line from anything resembling a grey area that the only question about killing him is whether it's emminently justified or immediately imperative.

The Order don't have as much direct evidence on Belkar, but I'm sure that a couple of discreet Sending spells to officials in other jurisdictions would turn up plenty of bodies. (I assume, for example, that Belkar is a rapist because he has zero regard for women's personal space and no problem shivving without consent.) If they don't know, it's because they don't want to know.

Actually I had forgotten that Miko had explicitly mentioned the Redmountain Gate destruction. Then again, that's not what Belkar did, it was Elan. And Miko tried to execute them, even before any trial...

This is almost certainly a retcon. Miko explicitly mentions that her master ordered their execution (and makes no attempt to conceal knowledge of the Redmountain Gate or the Sapphire Guard, even though both are nowadays supposed to be closely-guarded secrets.)

[Lacuna Caster]

Anyway, all members of the OotS have kind of an understanding that they are in a story (Elan is better though, the others remember it one day, forget it the next), so knowing those three would be recurring villains, they realised that even killing them wouldn't stop them from coming back. As for Belkar maybe killing him or leaving him would make him a recurring villain. Better to use him, than that...

...Anyway, why is nobody talking about Solt? Does nobody care about Solt?

That does not seem to be true. His mother simply lacked the ability to as mentioned here:
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0628.html

Also a fair point, but again, what I wanted to impress was that getting raised isn't trivial in OOTSverse.

I do care about Solt, at least a little, and I do agree with the general idea that the Order tend to treat NPCs as moveable furniture. But to be fair, the body count in the strip is so vast that he kind of is a drop in the bucket.

The reasoning-from-narrative-convention thing always bothers me, though. It kind of implies that drama follows a single predictable course, rather than branching within the space of all meaningful decisions.

[hamishspence]

(I assume, for example, that Belkar is a rapist because he has zero regard for women's personal space and no problem shivving without consent.) If they don't know, it's because they don't want to know.

He pays:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0223.html

In the context of OOTS - it seems to me doubtful that The Giant would have an unrepentant rapist as one of the protagonists - especially not in the context of the increasingly moral stance the story has taken in recent years.

[factotum]

(I assume, for example, that Belkar is a rapist because he has zero regard for women's personal space and no problem shivving without consent.)

That seems a rather odd assumption to make? Heck, I hate Belkar, but I don't assume he's a rapist just because he's a murderous thug--they're entirely different directions on the moral compass, IMHO.

[hamishspence]

Maybe Lacuna meant kissing without consent - this one scene here in the middle of a fight:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0611.html

(though their liaison afterward appears to be consensual)

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0622.html

Belkar also kissed V without consent, but Belkar was as drunk as a skunk then.

[Xyril]

I can't see why it isn't a reasonable suggestion

If I gave you the impression of absolute certainty that it isn't a reasonable suggestion, I apologize. I laid out some speculation as to economic reasons that would present a serious challenge to the idea that you could simply buy murder victims back to life with trivial effort. I think some of what we've seen in strip supports my inferences, but I don't think they're certainties by any stretch.

If my assumptions are true, then it's an unreasonable suggestion because it's most likely a futile one. Like trying to compensate some poor guy in a remote village somewhere by giving him $20 USD to buy a steak in at Outback.

(Maybe you don't like Celia and don't like the suggestion so you put them together because only she would propose something so unreasonable).

Cute, but no. How I feel about Celia has no bearing on the fact that posing unreasonable suggestions is consistent with Celia's characterization. It's not a moral failing--she comes from a different world with different rules, and she isn't always aware of which rules differ. It would make sense for Celia to suggest it because she's pretty much in our position: as a magical being, she's plausibly aware that resurrection exists as a spell, and that it just requires a cleric and reagents worth a certain amount of gold, just like we are. Also like us, she is limited in our knowledge of how the world works on a mundane level. We're inferring that there's a scarcity of high level magic users; Celia doesn't even have that much knowledge.

or why you think that Celia would suggest it as opposed to Haley thinking it on her own

See above. Also, two reasons. If any of my speculation is true, or if there are other logistical reasons why giving the gnome resurrection money would be a futile gesture, Haley would know it. She's a rogue, she has a basic understanding of economics and deal making, and she knows how to see the angles. Also, I'm not assuming that Haley cares enough. Haley's no longer the same person who would mildly screw over the group to advance her side mission, but she's still got some of that ruthlessness, and she understands the importance of their mission. I find it in character that even if she thought of it, she might choose not to suggest saving an inconsequential NPC at the cost of resources that might be the difference between success and the end of the world.

I mean, in d&d they are characters of the dm and people ignore them when they feel like it because they are playing a game but this is a story. What are they in this context? If this wasn't a d&d story would you say the same with NPC replaced by e.g. "person", or not?)

This is one of the themes of this comic. In the context of a story, NPCs are people. In their own minds, they're the hero of their own stories, and they don't matter any less than the heroes. In the context of a game, NPCs are basically treated as non-entities: They don't matter beyond facilitating part of the story, and they're literally one of numerous characters run by the GM, rather than a single person commanding the full attention and imagination of a player. There often isn't much emotional attachment, and PCs will often ignore NPCs once they're not useful (or use them as little packets of XP.) The early comic played with this more for humor--put the behavior of a gaming group in a story context where NPCs are people, too, and their behavior can seem absurd, if not borderline sociopathic. Later on, I think it was touched on more seriously, with Haley and Roy in particular reevaluating their previous behavior, and actually showing concern for the NPCs beyond their utility for the mission.

Besides these people are big on costly, futile gestures if we are to judge by their trying to stop Xykon (the world ending wasn't on the table yet, so they weren't in it for themselves).

No, Roy and possibly Elan are big on costly, futile gestures. Even then, I don't think Roy fully grasped how outclassed he was, plus he had from the very beginning personal reasons for wanting to take out Xykon. Haley joined up to raise money to save her father, and she was very pragmatic about it. Belkar just wants to kill things, preferably in a way where he isn't immediately hunted down as a villain.

They are powerful, they could stay alive if he were to conquer the world. If saving the lives of others was futile to them they wouldn't be there, doing what they do.

I just realized that the word futile might not mean what you think it means. Futile implies that it's doomed to failure and will accomplish nothing. You're confusing futility with lack of self-interest. If I perform CPR on a skeleton, that is a futile gesture. If that skeleton carries a contagious disease, that is a costly, futile gesture. If I perform CPR on a complete stranger, that is not futile even if the chances of success are low, because I might be able to accomplish something, even if that something doesn't directly benefit me.

Trying to save the lives of others is only futile if they are absolutely certain they will fail. If anything, trying to ignore Xykon and stay alive is an exercise in futility, unless you're absolutely certain some other group will be able to prevent the end of the world.

[Lacuna Caster]

I find it somewhat revealing that anyone considers Belkar-the-rapist to be a surprising idea. It's not like this is objectively worse than the unprovoked butchery of dozens of people, but I can only say the small proportion of real-world perps who actually exhibit Belkar-like traits have a lot of overlap with 'she was asking for it'.

It's reasonable to ask whether the modern-day Belkar, morality-pet included, would go so far. But the original flavour? Please.

[hamishspence]

There's this:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/shows...&postcount=205

(people had speculated Belkar might molest Miko or leave evidence to make her think he'd molested her).

Suggests that, even back then, certain things were completely off the table for main characters.

[Mightymosy]

That seems a rather odd assumption to make? Heck, I hate Belkar, but I don't assume he's a rapist just because he's a murderous thug--they're entirely different directions on the moral compass, IMHO.

Honestly, if he has no problems with sadistic mass-murderers as protagonists, I fail to see why rape would be worse.

But it could be. Appearantly he also had qualms about verbal violence but continously offers the worst of physical violence, so he might just see things differently...

[hamishspence]

Appearantly he also had qualms about verbal violence but continously offers the worst of physical violence, so he might just see things differently...

You may be thinking of this:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/shows...8&postcount=92

Regarding Haley's fairly persistent slut-shaming…all I can do is apologize for that. I have no excuse except my own shortcomings and lack of self-awareness. I could try to say that because of the environment that Haley was raised in (a literal criminal gang), she hasn't had the education or experience to not fall in line and perpetuate those sort of harmful labels on her own gender. I could say that, but that would be justifying it after the fact. The truth is, I didn't think it was a problem at the time. I've known so many women (many in the lower class, like Haley) who would drop those insults at other women in a fight that I was just trying to add authenticity. In my experience, some women are quicker to slut-shame other women than even men. So I was going for accuracy in how a woman might insult other women, but you know what? It's still not acceptable. I'm still producing a piece of media consumed by young women, and I have a responsibility to do better.

Does this mean that those words will never show up in anything I write ever again? Probably not, but at least in the future I hope to only use them when I'm depicting a character who is overtly sexist/misogynistic (like Tarquin), rather than having them flow out of the mouth of the primary female lead. Because what kind of message does that send? I may be wrong, but I think I've avoided Haley using any of those words for this entire book. I just didn't want to draw attention to it.

[Lacuna Caster]

Honestly, if he has no problems with sadistic mass-murderers as protagonists, I fail to see why rape would be worse.

But it could be. Appearantly he also had qualms about verbal violence but continously offers the worst of physical violence, so he might just see things differently...

Yeah, it's strange. I'm reminded of those people who complain about gender segregation in WH40K, yet are apparently unphased by the rampant xenocide and inquisitorial police-state apparatus. The setting is problematic for a lot of reasons, but kicking girls outta the treehouse isn't exactly unexpected.

I can think of a number of things that bother me about Haley- cowardice, hoarding, manipulation, occasional indifference to murder, the fact that her neuroses apparently have to be explained with sock-puppets and diagrams- but I don't think 'slut-shaming' would make the top ten.

[This] suggests that, even back then, certain things were completely off the table for main characters.

I dimly recall lurking on a thread from around the time when the subject of Sin City came up (something about dual-sword-yielding ninja chicks may have been the catalyst), and the author remarked on how appalling the film's bloodshed was. Some poster responded that puppies and candy don't fly out when Roy goes nuts with a greatsword, and... well, you can guess how that conversation ended.

I guess I'm saying that what gets explicitly depicted, and what implications might sink in as subsequent fridge logic... aren't necessarily the same thing.

[hamishspence]

The author had no problem establishing that Tarquin tortures women into marrying him:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0757.html

[Kish]

Honestly, if he has no problems with sadistic mass-murderers as protagonists, I fail to see why rape would be worse.

Number of actual or potential readers who have been murdered: Probably low.

Number of actual and potential readers who have been raped: High.

(Although I wouldn't have Belkar or Vaarsuvius as a protagonist if it was me, nor do I ever really expect to consider either one a positive presence in the comic.)

[Mightymosy]

Yeah, it's strange. I'm reminded of those people who complain about gender segregation in WH40K, yet are apparently unphased by the rampant xenocide and inquisitorial police-state apparatus. The setting is problematic for a lot of reasons, but kicking girls outta the treehouse isn't exactly unexpected.

I can think of a number of things that bother me about Haley- cowardice, hoarding, manipulation, occasional indifference to murder, the fact that her neuroses apparently have to be explained with sock-puppets and diagrams- but I don't think 'slut-shaming' would make the top ten.


I dimly recall lurking on a thread from around the time when the subject of Sin City came up (something about dual-sword-yielding ninja chicks may have been the catalyst), and the author remarked on how appalling the film's bloodshed was. Some poster responded that puppies and candy don't fly out when Roy goes nuts with a greatsword, and... well, you can guess how that conversation ended.

I guess I'm saying that what gets explicitly depicted, and what implications might sink in as subsequent fridge logic... aren't necessarily the same thing.

Exactly! And the Redcloak murders the resistence ark isn't exactly candyland either.

[Kish]

Well now, hold on. Are you arguing that two of the protagonists are already pretty thoroughly vile (which I'd agree with, to some extent), or that there's something wrong with having a villain commit bloody atrocities a hero will not (which I wouldn't agree with at all)? Redcloak is a villain and an antagonist. Tarquin is a villain and an antagonist.

[Mightymosy]

Number of actual or potential readers who have been murdered: Probably low.

Number of actual and potential readers who have been raped: High.

(Although I wouldn't have Belkar or Vaarsuvius as a protagonist if it was me, nor do I ever really expect to consider either one a positive presence in the comic.)

I don't think this numbers thing works out that way. Actually, I don't even get the logic behind it. Should Roy (a positive protagonist) now murder a few hundred gnomes, because,you know, no reader actually can murder gnomes, and no reader is a gnome who could be murdered?

Things are bad regardless of numbers.


I agree with your words about V and Belkar. The problem with those - especially Belkar - is that they were introduced during a time when the comic was all jokes, and likely were meant as parodies of RL D&D player archetypes. As in, when the Giant showed Belkar murdering Goblins who surrendered, people could laugh about it because it was not meant serious, and think about what that meant when taken seriously.

Ever since the comic slowly became more serious, the Giant had to bent himself more and more to justify the whole "let's keep Belkar in the team even though we really shouldn't" thing.

We had this discussion before in this board, and I still think the similar problem applies to the verbal vs physical violence thing:
Either you treat it seriously, and then ban it, starting with physical, or realistically show the consequences to teach a lesson.
Or treat the whole comic more comically, starting with verbal, and let players laugh about the violence while hoping they get the implied message.

[Mightymosy]

Well now, hold on. Are you arguing that two of the protagonists are already pretty thoroughly vile (which I'd agree with, to some extent), or that there's something wrong with having a villain commit bloody atrocities a hero will not (which I wouldn't agree with at all)? Redcloak is a villain and an antagonist. Tarquin is a villain and an antagonist.

I'm talking about the depiction of of violence per se. Of course it is a difference who commits it.

[Lacuna Caster]

Number of actual or potential readers who have been murdered: Probably low.

Number of actual and potential readers who have been raped: High.

(Although I wouldn't have Belkar or Vaarsuvius as a protagonist if it was me, nor do I ever really expect to consider either one a positive presence in the comic.)

Well now, hold on. Are you arguing that two of the protagonists are already pretty thoroughly vile (which I'd agree with, to some extent), or that there's something wrong with having a villain commit bloody atrocities a hero will not (which I wouldn't agree with at all)? Redcloak is a villain and an antagonist. Tarquin is a villain and an antagonist.

While there might not be murder victims in the audience, there are such things as gunshot wound survivors or families of the deceased. But I don't really believe it's an author's responsibility to maintain some imaginary standard of inoffensiveness, or guarantee that right will prevail, or other forms of self-imposed censorship. (Trigger warning- George Carlin.)

I'm just pointing out that a more plausible explanation for why various members of the Order act in a certain way, given an at-face interpretation of the data, probably has less to do with universal compassion and more to do with in-group loyalties, with justifications being invented after the fact. And it's interesting to ponder whether the fanbase might be indulging them.


(EDIT: FWIW, I'm largely uninterested in the pro/antagonist distinction, given that, e.g, Shojo, Tarquin, Redcloak and Miko are more consistently engaged in interesting, impactful decisions- 'agonism', if you will- than the folks who get the most visual attention. So moral fraility, I'm okay with.)

I agree with your words about V and Belkar. The problem with those - especially Belkar - is that they were introduced during a time when the comic was all jokes, and likely were meant as parodies of RL D&D player archetypes. As in, when the Giant showed Belkar murdering Goblins who surrendered, people could laugh about it because it was not meant serious, and think about what that meant when taken seriously.

Ever since the comic slowly became more serious, the Giant had to bent himself more and more to justify the whole "let's keep Belkar in the team even though we really shouldn't" thing.

This. All of this. Thank you.

[woweedd]

While there might not be murder victims in the audience, there are such things as gunshot wound survivors or families of the deceased. But I don't really believe it's an author's responsibility to maintain some imaginary standard of inoffensiveness, or guarantee that right will prevail, or other forms of self-imposed censorship. (Trigger warning- George Carlin.)

I'm just pointing out that a more plausible explanation for why various members of the Order act in a certain way, given an at-face interpretation of the data, probably has less to do with universal compassion and more to do with in-group loyalties, with justifications being invented after the fact. And it's interesting to ponder whether the fanbase might be indulging them.


(EDIT: FWIW, I'm largely uninterested in the pro/antagonist distinction, given that, e.g, Shojo, Tarquin, Redcloak and Miko are more consistently engaged in interesting, impactful decisions- 'agonism', if you will- than the folks who get the most visual attention. So moral fraility, I'm okay with.)


This. All of this. Thank you.

What you think an author should do and and what Rich thinks his job is are most likely somewhat different.

[martianmister]

In western literary culture (at least) rape is always treated as the worst crime possibly imagined, and it's always censored most. So, it's not something special to The Giant's work. Even Tarquin is only shown as an indirect rapist.

[dps]

What you think an author should do and and what Rich thinks his job is are most likely somewhat different.

While that's probably true, I think it's fair to say that while he has self-censored some things, I don't think that he has done so in general because he thought certain things might offend the sensibilities of some members of his audience.

[Mightymosy]

In western literary culture (at least) rape is always treated as the worst crime possibly imagined, and it's always censored most. So, it's not something special to The Giant's work. Even Tarquin is only shown as an indirect rapist.

Which is ridiculous.

It probably also has to do with sex (consensual) being censored per se, but bloodshed much less so.
Which is one of the many things that are wrong with our culture.
Think about it: You can watch things like Saw or Saving Private Ryan or whatever brutal thing you can imagine on TV, but heaven forbid someone dared to show boobies - which probably fed you at some point and are the most natural thing possible.

We are monkeys. To a certain extent every single one of us mirrors what we see - even subconciously. And what we see is that "Violence solves problems" TM. Unfortunately, OotS follows this just as well. Killing opponents in cold blood? Yes, thank you, but please don't use bad language.

Consider Hannibal Lecter, or Dexter. Do we want to live in a world where we are stabbed, but at least it's politely??
The worst offender in OotS is Tarquin. He was written so smooth and (seemingly) flawless, that his fans like him despite being the worst of A*holes.

There's a danger to giving only the antagonists awesome lines: People tend to like characters because they are cool, often regardless of their morality. This article expresses it well:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.ph...MisaimedFandom
(Thanks for linking it! I hadn't stumbled upon it before even though I read A LOT of Tvtropes :-P)


Man, I miss the times when the good guys got to say cool things and we had it easy rooting for them. (not OotS specific)

[SilverCacaobean]

<snip>

Firstly, thanks for staying on topic in a thread that was derailed since page 1
I know what it means but I did misunderstand what you meant by it. But your post was a bit general, in that it explains why they don't raise people left and right. Is the plan I bolded previously, futile? I think it has a chance of success. After all Durkon proved that he had a few diamonds lying around when he unsuccessfully tried to raise a few Girards and losing them didn't cause the order to be in a monetary disadvantage. Unless the diamonds don't get wasted if the spell fails?

This is not really an important conversation because I think they talked about what to do between the page we're talking about and the next and decided to leave him there for reasons they don't tell us but still, if you could tell me, please do.

While there might not be murder victims in the audience, there are such things as gunshot wound survivors or families of the deceased. But I don't really believe it's an author's responsibility to maintain some imaginary standard of inoffensiveness, or guarantee that right will prevail, or other forms of self-imposed censorship. (Trigger warning- George Carlin.)

I'm just pointing out that a more plausible explanation for why various members of the Order act in a certain way, given an at-face interpretation of the data, probably has less to do with universal compassion and more to do with in-group loyalties, with justifications being invented after the fact. And it's interesting to ponder whether the fanbase might be indulging them.


(EDIT: FWIW, I'm largely uninterested in the pro/antagonist distinction, given that, e.g, Shojo, Tarquin, Redcloak and Miko are more consistently engaged in interesting, impactful decisions- 'agonism', if you will- than the folks who get the most visual attention. So moral fraility, I'm okay with.)


This. All of this. Thank you.

In western literary culture (at least) rape is always treated as the worst crime possibly imagined, and it's always censored most. So, it's not something special to The Giant's work. Even Tarquin is only shown as an indirect rapist.

Which is ridiculous.

It probably also has to do with sex (consensual) being censored per se, but bloodshed much less so.
Which is one of the many things that are wrong with our culture.
Think about it: You can watch things like Saw or Saving Private Ryan or whatever brutal thing you can imagine on TV, but heaven forbid someone dared to show boobies - which probably fed you at some point and are the most natural thing possible.

We are monkeys. To a certain extent every single one of us mirrors what we see - even subconciously. And what we see is that "Violence solves problems" TM. Unfortunately, OotS follows this just as well. Killing opponents in cold blood? Yes, thank you, but please don't use bad language.

Consider Hannibal Lecter, or Dexter. Do we want to live in a world where we are stabbed, but at least it's politely??
The worst offender in OotS is Tarquin. He was written so smooth and (seemingly) flawless, that his fans like him despite being the worst of A*holes.

There's a danger to giving only the antagonists awesome lines: People tend to like characters because they are cool, often regardless of their morality. This article expresses it well:
(Thanks for linking it! I hadn't stumbled upon it before even though I read A LOT of Tvtropes :-P)

Man, I miss the times when the good guys got to say cool things and we had it easy rooting for them. (not OotS specific)

Censorship is bad and Americans have an extra reason to hate it (that comics code. ugh) but it is a false dichotomy to think that you either censor things or you put everything in.
After all, some things may make the author uncomfortable and obviously gratuitous violence isn't one of them. It's also the fact that art is communication and while you can't predict what impact your art will have it's very easy to understand that making someone part of a story gives them power in real life. You may disagree but there are a lot of people who want to be part of a narrative. Otherwise propaganda wouldn't exist.

As for rape... Well, firstly let me say that if there was rape depicted I would absolutely not be reading OotS. Same for if it was implied for any protagonist. Even Tarquin stretched it but he was such a despicable bastard (good character though. Wait some people LIKED him?) that it fit. At some point you have to think "do I want to write a story that will be enjoyed by those kind of people"? After all you have limited space to talk about certain people. Why have a rapist there?

Why rape and not killing?
-Firstly, I'm used to any piece of storytelling art by Americans to be a bloodbath. It doesn't tell me anything about the author, at this point. Rape would.
-Secondly, I know more women than I'd like that have almost(thankfully) gotten raped and if I were to see rape being addressed without the appropriate seriousness (I'm going to go on a tangent here, but in my language there is a word that is for seriousness what verisimilitude is for truth. I am talking about real seriousness, not that. If you know what I mean
EDIT: giving the false appearance of seriousness) (also, this kind of thing takes a lot of space and if you are not willing to waste so much space, you don't do it.) like just being part of a character or a throwaway joke I would be taking this comic less seriously. Or maybe not read it at all.
-Thirdly, rape is not like killing in that you can never rape for good reasons. You can only rape if you physically and emotionally enjoy rape. Even torture can have other reasons. But rape can't.

Anyway, why do people always talk about rape when they feel like something is unreasonably censored. Have you not also noticed how there are a lot of other bad rl things missing from the comic? E.G. I mean the comics is very much about racism but there is no rl racism in it. I don't see anyone complaining that nobody has called Roy a n... you know. I'm sure as hell not complaining about that. The comic is saying what it can about racism, without reminding every black reader what they are (or could have being) going through. It also says that rape is unacceptable by not including it.

As for murder (which is more than killing). Apart from it's depiction being usually pretty detached from reality, I read once, something by film critic hulk if you've heard of him. That superman was most admired by poor people and batman by middle class. If I recall that correctly, that is. (He was discussing why people get so angry about batman)
The argument was that they didn't enjoy seeing batman's realistic approach of people like them getting killed left and right before the bad guy got caught and preferred superman's different approach of punching. I mean, grim and grittiness is all fine (I hate it) unless it's you life. Then you prefer someone like superman (who at the beginning of his career did crazy stuff for poor people. Like demolish a neighborhood to force the government to build it better) than someone more human. I'm not sure I expressed that very well...
Anyway, the reason for plenty of murder and absence of rape I think, is that middle class (and up) is mostly reading the comic. Sure some have been victims of violence but it's not part of their reality. Rape is.

For what it's worth, I also don't like all this violence and murder (and I hope the next thing the Giant does has less) but it is part of the things he is spoofing. Truth be told, it's a big part of American culture. Or at least that's how it looks from across

As for boobies (another American sensibility), well we don't want to have readers to start masturbating in the middle of reading the comic, do we?

[Lacuna Caster]

Which is ridiculous...
...Man, I miss the times when the good guys got to say cool things and we had it easy rooting for them. (not OotS specific)

There's a good deal of potentially interesting material here, but I think too much is being made of my remark about the presence or absence of sexual misconduct. So I'll try to be brief and just bullet-point my thoughts.

* Yes, sex vs. violence is a double standard within our society. (It probably doesn't matter as much as you think, because for 40 years media violence has been going up and up and actual violence has been going down and down.)

* I'm not insisting that Rich, for the sake of consistency, should go out of his way to show Belkar humping a lizardman prostitute's violated corpse. I'm just stressing that, in reality, no-one bumping into a Belkar-type criminal could think recruiting him was wise.

* I will say the author has been perfectly happy, in the past, telling any number of upset readers to go to hell, so I doubt that audience pressure has much to do with it either way.

* I am personally fully aboard with the idea of a gag-a-day satire of D&D mechanics where casual butchery of green people is not a big deal, hilarious coincidence drives the plot, and the 4th wall is more of a takeaway stop.

* I am personally fully aboard with the idea of an epic hero's journey that combines penetrating deconstruction of fantasy archetypes, freudian tragedy and coded critique of sexual, religious and racial hypocrisy.

* I think that attempting to do both simultaneously results in some very awkward tonal juxtaposition and transparently contrived plot logic.

* I also think that consciously engineering circumstances which herd the characters unwillingly toward fixed destinations runs the risk of robbing them of agency and actually makes them less compelling.

* The antagonists and secondary characters don't suffer this restriction so much, so they tend to be more engaging (especially when they are nuanced, effective and/or plausibly well-meaning.) Cool factor is icing on top.

* To a certain extent, one can blame the early days of poking fun at D&D convention for this. But one can also ask if the strip would have gained such an audience if it were poking fun at Runequest or Shadowrun.

* Maybe the author didn't realise what he was doing. Maybe, like the Order, he unexpectedly had the spotlight thrust upon him and is trying to do what he can with the baggage available while picking up skills along the way. Maybe he's trying to kick up a fuss from the inside, like Gorbachev. I don't know.

* I have no particular qualifications as an expert on this topic. Just my two cents.

[Mightymosy]

Firstly, thanks for staying on topic in a thread that was derailed since page 1
I know what it means but I did misunderstand what you meant by it. But your post was a bit general, in that it explains why they don't raise people left and right. Is the plan I bolded previously, futile? I think it has a chance of success. After all Durkon proved that he had a few diamonds lying around when he unsuccessfully tried to raise a few Girards and losing them didn't cause the order to be in a monetary disadvantage. Unless the diamonds don't get wasted if the spell fails?

This is not really an important conversation because I think they talked about what to do between the page we're talking about and the next and decided to leave him there for reasons they don't tell us but still, if you could tell me, please do.







Censorship is bad and Americans have an extra reason to hate it (that comics code. ugh) but it is a false dichotomy to think that you either censor things or you put everything in.
After all, some things may make the author uncomfortable and obviously gratuitous violence isn't one of them. It's also the fact that art is communication and while you can't predict what impact your art will have it's very easy to understand that making someone part of a story gives them power in real life. You may disagree but there are a lot of people who want to be part of a narrative. Otherwise propaganda wouldn't exist.

As for rape... Well, firstly let me say that if there was rape depicted I would absolutely not be reading OotS. Same for if it was implied for any protagonist. Even Tarquin stretched it but he was such a despicable bastard (good character though. Wait some people LIKED him?) that it fit. At some point you have to think "do I want to write a story that will be enjoyed by those kind of people"? After all you have limited space to talk about certain people. Why have a rapist there?

Why rape and not killing?
-Firstly, I'm used to any piece of storytelling art by Americans to be a bloodbath. It doesn't tell me anything about the author, at this point. Rape would.
-Secondly, I know more women than I'd like that have almost(thankfully) gotten raped and if I were to see rape being addressed without the appropriate seriousness (I'm going to go on a tangent here, but in my language there is a word that is for seriousness what verisimilitude is for truth. I am talking about real seriousness, not that. If you know what I mean
EDIT: giving the false appearance of seriousness) (also, this kind of thing takes a lot of space and if you are not willing to waste so much space, you don't do it.) like just being part of a character or a throwaway joke I would be taking this comic less seriously. Or maybe not read it at all.
-Thirdly, rape is not like killing in that you can never rape for good reasons. You can only rape if you physically and emotionally enjoy rape. Even torture can have other reasons. But rape can't.

Anyway, why do people always talk about rape when they feel like something is unreasonably censored. Have you not also noticed how there are a lot of other bad rl things missing from the comic? E.G. I mean the comics is very much about racism but there is no rl racism in it. I don't see anyone complaining that nobody has called Roy a n... you know. I'm sure as hell not complaining about that. The comic is saying what it can about racism, without reminding every black reader what they are (or could have being) going through. It also says that rape is unacceptable by not including it.

As for murder (which is more than killing). Apart from it's depiction being usually pretty detached from reality, I read once, something by film critic hulk if you've heard of him. That superman was most admired by poor people and batman by middle class. If I recall that correctly, that is. (He was discussing why people get so angry about batman)
The argument was that they didn't enjoy seeing batman's realistic approach of people like them getting killed left and right before the bad guy got caught and preferred superman's different approach of punching. I mean, grim and grittiness is all fine (I hate it) unless it's you life. Then you prefer someone like superman (who at the beginning of his career did crazy stuff for poor people. Like demolish a neighborhood to force the government to build it better) than someone more human. I'm not sure I expressed that very well...
Anyway, the reason for plenty of murder and absence of rape I think, is that middle class (and up) is mostly reading the comic. Sure some have been victims of violence but it's not part of their reality. Rape is.

For what it's worth, I also don't like all this violence and murder (and I hope the next thing the Giant does has less) but it is part of the things he is spoofing. Truth be told, it's a big part of American culture. Or at least that's how it looks from across

As for boobies (another American sensibility), well we don't want to have readers to start masturbating in the middle of reading the comic, do we?

You do realize that rape is torture, or do you not???

And what the hell do you mean by it having reasons? As in "morally justified"? Or as in "people who condone that crime have motivations behind it"?

If the first instance, you are a bad person.
If the second, what's the point? There is a reason behind every human behavior, that doesn't make it right.


I think a comic that leads to masturbation is preferable to a comic that leads to acceptance of violence as a good option, as a whole.
The fact appearantly so many people think otherwise is why the human species sucks as much as it does.
Luckily, things may change. Slowly.


And again, to reiterate my point: The fact that we have a rampaging murderer as a protagonist but somehow feel sensitive about rape, is so wrong. Rape is bad, very bad actually. But murder is better???? No thanks.


EDIT: About the censorship: I didn't say that you either censor everything or nothing. I have a problem with the way things are weighed. Basically, if you censor things, you should start with physical violence, and not with verbal violence.