Results 301 to 330 of 669
-
2012-02-15, 01:02 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2008
- Location
- Bologna, Italy
- Gender
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
With all the due respect: I am sorry, but I take offense when people calls me (or implies I am) a racist.
The Giant pissed me off with his assumption, and you did just the same.
Racism is a serious problem and should be kept well out of trivial conversations.
Also (as this seems to be the most quoted part of the Giant's post):
Originally Posted by TheGiant
Sometimes, we just roleplay because it's fun and it's a game. Sometimes we want drama and deep thougt. Sometimes we just accept conventions because the existence of MonstersTM makes it easier to be a HeroTM, and just handwave the slaughter by saying "they were all bad guys anyway".
-
2012-02-15, 01:34 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
- Location
- Raleigh NC
- Gender
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
The wights devoured their former master, followed by each other, at Redcloak's request without an iota of complaint or hesitation. Feel free to point out any goblins in the strip that would have done the same.
As of 1940, there were the tropes that All Vampires are bloodsucking monsters and All Orcs are Evil, rampaging monsters.
Since that time, there have been a number of works that have challenged those assumptions. There are stories in which all vampires -- or all undead -- are NOT evil, just misunderstood, or just trapped with a curse that they must fight with, like a genetic predisposition to alcoholism.
And there are other stories -- not just this one -- that make orcs into believable characters rather than 2D villains.
The fact that Mr. Burlew chose to uphold the trope "all undead are evil" seems to undercut his attempt at subverting the "all X are evil" trope, which he attacks through the person of Redcloak.
Wights are INT 11. What's so special about the line between living and undead that it's different from skin color? Why is Tsukiko, who wanted to treat them with the respect due any other intelligent creature, considered sadly deluded?
I find the inconsistency puzzling, and asked for clarification, that is all.
Respectfully,
Brian P.Last edited by pendell; 2012-02-15 at 01:49 PM.
-
2012-02-15, 01:54 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
- Location
- Germany
- Gender
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
Clarification: the wights didn't kill Tsukiko because they were evil. They killed her because Redcloak commanded it, and Redcloak controlled them absolutely. They had no choice, no free will; thus their actions have no morality attached.
Clarification 2: even if the story depicts some undead as evil, that doesn't mean it depicts all undead as evil. Note that we have seen plenty of evil hobgoblins as well.Ares - Music and sounds system for roleplaying
Avatar by Rich Burlew.
-
2012-02-15, 02:05 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
Those aren't incompatible with certain absolutes- like "X act is always evil"
or "An evil aligned person will always (unless they have some special way of avoiding this) detect as Evil- even when the spell or ability is used by a person who agrees with the evil person's attitude".
Fiends, celestials, and so on, are people- but people who happen to be imbued with aligned energies. These energies do not define them though- and it is possible for such a being to act contrary to their "energies" and change alignment.Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
New Marut Avatar by Linkele
-
2012-02-15, 02:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
- Gender
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
Definitely Postmodern. This is why there's such a charged breach in the discussion; modernity starts from the standpoint that a work says A Thing and all other points flow out from this thing. Postmodernity starts with the idea that the world is too complex to state A Thing no matter how complete it is, and attempts to mirror or comment on that complexity, or at best forge something out of it.
Postmodernism generally expects the audience to have a grasp of a broad variety of education and media and not just the media de rigueur for the locality. This is not to say it's inherently smarter; as the Modernist era media may have been fairly complete and could be eggheaded all its own. It's just that modernism was generally limited to a single perspective.
There's actually a lot of perspectives on the differences between modernism and postmodernism but that's my take.
-
2012-02-15, 02:31 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2008
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
While I agree completely that the idea that "it's acceptable to label creatures with only cosmetic differences from us as inherently Evil" is disgusting, it does beg the question a bit. Are the differences only cosmetic?
In OotS, the differences between goblins and humans are only cosmetic. Rich has established that quite well.
But that's not true in every story. It's perfectly within the bounds of a creator's power to create a species that is made, from the ground up, to be evil. As someone else mentioned Rich may or may not be treating wights in this manner.
******
Every race Tolkien introduces except the Ents and Tom Bombadil is directly shown as being capable of evil. Elves - Feanor, Feanor's sons, the kinslayings. Man - Ar-Pharazon, too many others to count. Hobbits - Ted Sandyman, the Sacksville-Baggins kid. Dwarves - the slaying of Thingol (and apparently some sided w/ Morgoth in the War of Wrath). Valar - Morgoth. Maiar - Sauron, every Balrog, every dragon. Note that Osse sides with Morgoth but is redeemed, and the Valar are at least open to the idea that Melkor (pre-Morgoth days) and Sauron can be redeemed.
It's very much worth noting that no protagonists in Tolkien encounter any Orcs that aren't trying to kill, capture, or toture them. Twice in the Hobbit, countless times in LotR and Silmarillion. The narrative didn't call for any other interaction.
******
Regarding the original topic of the thread, I think Redcloak's characterization is one of two or three factors that elevate OotS from "funny webcomic" to the level of meaningful art. I mean, yeah, it's still a stick-figure comic where the rules of the setting are based on D&D. But the story itself, and 90% of the execution since the Order left the dungeon, raise it to the level of high-quality literature, too.
And Redcloak is a large piece of that. Maybe the largest piece of that.
-
2012-02-15, 02:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
- Gender
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
Guys the wight thing is simple: They are Evil, as in they're bound together by Evil energy, but they are not acting on the same impulse that an intelligent being has as they are only automatons.
Objects in the world do possess innate morality, as did Xykon's crown despite the fact that it possessed no magic whatsoever, it merely held onto his Evil.
There's a difference in the comic between the pervasive Evil that is a force and energy in itself, and the evil that is the result of moral choice and action of an intelligent being. Lower-case evil leads to Evil, but it remains to be seen whether pervasive-force Evil is absolutely indicative of moral-choice evil. (as it was not the case on the other side of the spectrum, I doubt it)
Whether intelligence that is bound together artificially (the wights, for all intents and purposes have artificial intelligence that was coded by magic to follow orders) can be more than morally neutral remains to be seen, and may also be a more complex issue than just having a simple yes/no answer. Redcloak assumes that NO undead has any legitimate will, including Xykon.Last edited by RickGriffin; 2012-02-15 at 02:53 PM.
-
2012-02-15, 02:54 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2009
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
I know your main point is not with regard to Eberron, but actually, Eberron doesn't really separate race and alignment across the board. It establishes a broad set of "morally free" races which include elves, humans, orcs, goblins, dwarves, etc. Then it establishes some new races (dolgaunts, dolgrims, etc) which pretty much take on the previous role of goblins, orcs, etc. At least, as far as I could tell. Maybe there are some sympathetic dolgrims and stuff in Eberron, but that wasn't my impression.
As a design choice, it's fine to shuffle around races that fulfill this or that role in your setting, if you think it will make the setting more fun and interesting. From some sort of grand moral perspective, though, I'm not sure what is gained from going from "pretty much kill orcs on sight" to "don't kill orcs on sight, but pretty much kill dolgrims on sight."
UPDATE: As in traditional D&D settings with Drow and Goblins like Drizzt, I suppose in Eberron, there could be exceptions for, e.g., dolgrims, but once again, that's pretty much how D&D has always been with regard to, say, goblins.Last edited by Idhan; 2012-02-15 at 03:20 PM.
-
2012-02-15, 03:08 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2007
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
And dragons. Most especially dragons.
P249 ECS:
"The creatures of Eberron are not bound by traditional alignment restrictions. A red dragon may be noble and heroic, while a silver dragon may be a despicable villain. Mind flayers are usually evil, but it's possible to find an illithid philosopher who is interested in helping the lesser races. Heroic Gatekeeper druids and sinister Cults of the Dragon below both exist among the orcs."
I've already quoted
evil does not mean "deserves to be attacked by adventurers"
earlier in this thread.
"An Eberron campaign should challenge any preconceived notions of alignment the players have. In a few cases, things are truly black and white, but more often than not, the world should be colored in shades of gray."Last edited by hamishspence; 2012-02-15 at 03:09 PM.
Marut-2 Avatar by Serpentine
New Marut Avatar by Linkele
-
2012-02-15, 03:26 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
- Location
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
Indeed. And if the fictional universe chooses to depict them as BAD people, exclusively, then that's valid within the confines of that universe. We may find it "unrealistic" and recognize that doing that is a storytelling device that we may or may not like, but it is not "racism."
Goblins have an INT score. They have a language. They are people. Sapient people with a culture.
Why read fiction if you cannot become invested? And why suddenly lose the ability to be objective? I disagree with your views on how fiction is supposed to work. You should become invested, you should be able to imagine the characters as actual people and not cardboard cut-outs (that would be terrible character making), and the things that happen should make sense.
This particular piece of fiction assumes an imposed DnD morality (which is not as Black and White as you claim. Black and White is two options, there were nine last time I played DnD, and even within those there are choices to be made.) on a world with characters that act like people rather than the NPC cutouts and the stock characters used by certain DnD players and DMs.
In our world, no matter what any creature is, killing it for no reason is wrong. Some disagree, this comic and it's writer don't.
Again, we may find this depiction "unrealistic" and recognize it for the cheap dramatic convenience that it is, but that's as far as it goes. At no point does it become analogous to "racism". To effect, we cannot take the position that "Fake evil monsters deserve equal rights too," (boy, good luck with THAT charity fundraiser...). If the comic intends to point out that that dramatic device is unrealistic...well, go nuts, but we all arrived at that station about a minute after the train left, so seems like much ado about noting to me.
Further, I would once again point out that anyone who plays fantasy games that consist of killing creatures for literally no reason is doing it poorly.
The world of the comic may have started as a humorous satire of a DnD world.Last edited by Nerd_Paladin; 2012-02-15 at 03:28 PM.
-
2012-02-15, 03:31 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2007
- Gender
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
On Racism and D&D Monsters: You're completely correct, there are no Goblins in the real world. But they can very easily (even subconsciously, although that's a sketchy area I won't try to argue with anyone on) become symbols for different ethnicities/religions/political groups/what have you, and that's what Rich is (justifiably) worried about. At least, that's my take on it.
On Undead: I think the idea Rich is taking (and the one I do in my games, but that's irrelevant), is that Undead are not so much sapient beings is they are animated bodies that may happen to have a degree of malignant animal intelligence (And thus aren't truly self-aware anymore, lacking things like empathy). Fiends are another matter, in that they are not beings in the same sense as humans are, but concepts like Good or Evil given physical form. This isn't quite the same thing, but it does have the potential for the same symbolic problems that Rich was already objecting to.
Again, just trying to interpret what Rich said. I may be completely wrong, and I apologize to everyone if I am.
Um... How exactly IS he contradicting his own previous statements? Just for those who've started to get confused here.Last edited by Squark; 2012-02-15 at 04:37 PM. Reason: Moving quote to more logical place
Steam ID: The Great Squark
3ds Friend Code: 4571-1588-1000
Currently Playing: Warhammer 40000, Hades, Stellaris, Warframe
-
2012-02-15, 03:34 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Location
- San Francisco
- Gender
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
-
2012-02-15, 03:54 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2005
- Location
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
Well, my position changed a bit after Mr. Burlew weighed in on the subject. If you'd like to cite a specific inconsistency that's bothering you, I'll try to address it, although it's increasingly hard to respond to everyone.
This is an important point, because there's a lot of this going around fantasy gaming since the internet became our primary medium for discussion, and while I do not think that "The Order of the Stick" is an example of this phenomena (obnoxious blowhards who want to lord their supposed moral superiority over you by berating you about the supposed overtones of gaming), it certainly can touch that nerve. I don't think Mr. Burlew is of that stripe, but rather that he's gotten invested in solving a problem that is in fact a misinterpretation of the game material (see prevoius).
What disgusts me is that TheGiant seems to imply that me finding acceptable to label imaginary creations like Orcs or Goblins inherently Evil makes me the kind of person that could ever even think of doing the same to blacks, or asians, or whatever. Real, actual people.
Author intent is also an issue; we would have to believe that James Wyatt, Monte Cooke, and the hundreds or thousands of other game designers going back to Arneson and Gygax, are either such incredible *******s that they would continue to litter their games with racial caricatures without remorse, or else are so oblivious that they never realized they were doing it and never paid attention to anyone else's analysis.
Sometimes, we just roleplay because it's fun and it's a game. Sometimes we want drama and deep thougt. Sometimes we just accept conventions because the existence of MonstersTM makes it easier to be a HeroTM, and just handwave the slaughter by saying "they were all bad guys anyway".
This is one of the reasons why the villain, even when he or she is a poorly drawn character, is often the most popular part of any piece. On the other hand, increasingly these days the casual fan is inclined to find the hero "boring", and the more overtly heroic the character is, the less interested we are (not to say that people don't still love Superman or, for that matter, Roy Greenhilt, but it's harder than it used to be). Why should we find nobility and true heroism "boring"? Because in the perfect story, we would be the heroes ourselves. WE want to defeat the monster, the villain, the great evil, because of what that malevolent figure represents in our own lives to us. We must do this vicariously through the hero, but it's a tenuous relationship sometimes, and often we resent the hero character for not being us. The more heroic he is, the more we wish he weren't around to take "our" rightful place. Which, of course, if where roleplaying games come into it.
That's just one interpretation of things of course; we look at story, art, and media through a thousand different lenses. But the hero and the monster is one of the oldest storytelling traditions, and it's the one that most informs the basic content of original D&D, and even modern D&D. It's still potent to us even after all these centuries. It is not, of course, the only way to tell a story, nor is it even the best way, but it's the one that this game draws on the most heavily.Last edited by Nerd_Paladin; 2012-02-15 at 03:58 PM.
-
2012-02-15, 04:04 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2012
- Location
- Britain
- Gender
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
It may not be racist for a gamer to presume evilness on the part of the "evil" aligned races. But it would be for ingame characters especially in a story setting rather than an obvious black and white game. As for the characters its exactly the same situation as it is for people in real life people saying these things are evil kill them on sight. Are we meant to belive that characters that act with good intentions would always kill these things without even considering that they might not be evil if they had seen no signs of them being evil and going so far as killing woman and children with no compunctions
-
2012-02-15, 04:08 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2010
- Gender
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
If you can find any in-story examples of actual ax-grinding (or "angry moralizing satire") on this subject, as opposed to just objecting to the story because Rich has said in thread that he has an ax to grind, then you can complain about how it has ruined the story. Insofar as the actual relationship to the rules is concerned, I will note for what is probably the hundredth time that even in D&D goblins are NOT ALWAYS EVIL, that there is NO justification for objecting to a villainous backstory based on the idea that it adds 'unnecessary' complexity to the alignment discussion, and that you are manufacturing inconsistencies in the narrative that aren't actually there based on your own narrow interpretation of what D&D is.
-
2012-02-15, 04:20 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2009
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
First off, I'd like to thank you, NP, for the most interesting thread I've seen on this board, possibly ever. Thank you for keeping it thoughtful, on-topic and civil in the face of all responses.
I agree. Indeed, until I read Rich's first two responses to this thread, it would never have occurred to me to call it "satire" at all. I had taken it, and will continue to read it, for a thoughtful, if sometimes meandering, essay on the implications of the alignment system in general. Oh, and a great adventure story.
And it still seems to me that a pure "anti-racist" agenda doesn't work in a D&D settings, because there really are differences between the races that can't just be ignored. The leaders of any human or elvish country that allows Gobbotopia to exist in its present form, I would say, are grossly neglecting their duty. They're betraying their own children, and I don't see how you can get much more Evil than that."None of us likes to be hated, none of us likes to be shunned. A natural result of these conditions is, that we consciously or unconsciously pay more attention to tuning our opinions to our neighbor’s pitch and preserving his approval than we do to examining the opinions searchingly and seeing to it that they are right and sound." - Mark Twain
-
2012-02-15, 04:20 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
- Gender
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
Okay so as far as I can tell the argument is this:
Redcloak is a goblin, and because goblins are monsters and not real, there is no point in using him as a touchstone for human issues, and doing so is pointless soapboxing because nobody believes that Redcloak is a human.
This is why it's wrong:
Absolutely none of the characters in the story are real. Not even the humans. None of the humans even have real nationalities that directly correspond to the nationalities of the real world. None of them have races that directly correspond to races in the real world. They all have nationalities and races that correspond to the ones in their own, fictional, ink-and-paper world. The most they could possibly do is resemble real-world humans.
So why then are we supposed to accept the premise that just because some characters resemble humans in the small physical details, and other characters do not resemble humans in the small physical details, that these other characters can never in the mind of the reader represent human thoughts and values?
Representation and allegory and symbolism are not just fancy words that Lit professors use. They are describing how a story that is entirely fictional resembles the real world and how the audience links to it.
I mean, you could very, very easily replace every single goblin and hobgoblin in this story with humans. You could replace absolutely every intelligent race with humans and say they're all humans only they have different "races" like Goblin and Hobgoblin and Troll and Dragon and whatnot, because in the terms of the story that is being told, it does not matter that they are outwardly different from humans.Last edited by RickGriffin; 2012-02-15 at 04:23 PM.
-
2012-02-15, 04:21 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Mar 2009
- Gender
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
The vast majority of videogames be they first person shooters or MMORPG (including Dungeons & Dragons Online) involve, for lack of a better term, 'killing stuff'. Where 'stuff' includes but is not limited to people, monsters, aliens, animals, you name it. Oh, and goblins. And orcs. Oh, by the way, that fictional 'stuff' is sentient.
Do you think the game designers want you to think that you are (in a virtual world) inflicting pain to living creatures? That even the 'evil' monsters you are killling have loved ones? That would spoil the fun. You are the Hero. They are 'Evil'. Pew pew pew. Slash slash.
Now a similar reasoning is behind the 'Monster' races created to provide XP to the heroes in many tabletob RPGs, D&D included.
Disclaimer: this is nor the only way to play D&D nor the one I am advocating
No one ever felt to be harboring racist, xenophobic or genocidal feelings while playing those games I guess.
The OP might have a point hereLast edited by Bastian; 2012-02-15 at 04:27 PM.
-
2012-02-15, 04:25 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Dec 2006
- Location
- Raleigh NC
- Gender
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
Indeed, the idea that fake monsters are inherently the same as real people seems fallacious to me. At best (or worst, as it were) we could suppose that they are symbolic stand-ins for real groups of people, caricatures if you will (which WOULD be racist), but I don't see any evidence for that. An orc doesn't much resemble any real ethnic group to me, nor does its culture (what little there is) or characterization.
A world where evil really could be fought with visible weapons in a physical contest. Where you really could literally punch the devil in the nose. On some levels, that is much more satisfying than fighting real evil in the real world, which is often internal and invisible.
I grew up in that environment, and I never once leaped to the conclusion "it's okay to kill humans indiscriminantly because it's done to orcs in fiction." Humans are not orcs. It's the same thing as suggesting that eating chicken implies that you're willing to eat a human. Of course not. Humans are not chickens or cows. Humans are humans.
The main lesson I learned is, in every setting, to learn what the lay of the land is. There are species who are created as XP fodder who will always try to kill you and with whom it is not possible to establish peaceful communication, no matter how hard you try. Which means I will kill Shivans on sight in Descent: Freespace and howl with laughter at the fools who try to establish diplomatic communications with them and who subsequently get turned into dinner for their silliness.
Kind of like Tsukiko was hoist on her petard by her wights.
In the real world, there are creatures I try to live at peace with and creatures I will kill on sight. The first group includes all humans, of whatever race, creed, color, or sexual orientation. The second group includes the cockroaches and mice that infest my apartment. I don't care about the backstory of a mouse. From my perspective, the only good mouse IS a dead mouse, and showing mercy to them means an even larger infestation later. "Mercy" to roaches is misguided, because a roach will not promise only to eat food you leave out, and not to reproduce like mad. No, a roach will do what a roach does, and their individual differences are irrelevant to me. No mercy to baby roaches, because they are guaranteed to grow up into adult roaches. No mercy to female roaches, because they are the primary reproductive engines. In fact, make a special point of killing them, because one female is worth many times its number in terms of males. Kill them all.
When dealing with fantasy creatures, the question is entirely setting- dependent. In OOTSworld, orcs are humanlike and I will treat them as I would any other human. In another world, orcs are essentially two-legged vermin who cannot be reasoned with, and I will respond accordingly.
ETA: And I sincerely hope Mr. Burlew understands that I enjoy his comic precisely because he makes us think, and that we have these discussions.
Respectfully,
Brian P.Last edited by pendell; 2012-02-15 at 04:44 PM.
-
2012-02-15, 04:30 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2007
- Location
- Olympia, WA
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
Heroes and monsters are a storytelling tradition dating back to Gilgamesh, it's true. There was a bad thing, and I killed it. There was a bad man, and I killed him too. But these aren't complex stories; they incuriously assume the killing was good or necessary, and beat their chests in triumph. They all have a similar theme of encounter, initial defeat, guile and wit, then victory. Cf Herakles and the Nemean Lion, Theseus and the Minotaur, etc.
Villains with complex motivations are also an ancient tradition, going back to Iphigenia (a proud father is forced to sacrifice his daughter to Artemis), Medea (discarded bride gets revenge on her wayward husband), and so on.
A stock villain doesn't sustain much scrutiny. The evil witch in Snow White doesn't need a reason to poison the apple; she's just jealous and eeeeeeeeevil. But she also gets virtually no screen time. Sooner or later the audience will ask, "Holy cow, what a stupid idea. An apple, are you kidding me? To put her to sleep? It makes no sense. Stab her! Or if you're jealous of her beauty, give her an apple that makes her ugly! Sleeping apple, sheesh."
Redcloak could've been a generic evil goblin who has no motivation apart from evil. Then he wouldn't have been an antagonist, he'd be a Maguffin — a thing which motivates the hero but whose exact nature is irrelevant. That's all the Bull and Heaven or the Nemean Lion were, after all: things the hero reacts to.
Irrational Evil is just unsatisfying. To paint all goblins in the story as irredeemably evil reduces the complexity of the narrative to that of a first-person shooter. I've already got a nephew who tries to tell me stories of his virtual battles, and they're even less interesting than Herakles.Last edited by Fish; 2012-02-15 at 04:34 PM.
The Giant says: Yes, I am aware TV Tropes exists as a website. ... No, I have never decided to do something in the comic because it was listed on TV Tropes. I don't use it as a checklist for ideas ... and I have never intentionally referenced it in any way.
-
2012-02-15, 04:30 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
- Gender
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
So then the basis for which we define humans which deserve respect as humans is "looks human enough". It sure is easy to do that when you live in a world where humans never resemble anything other than themselves.
I mean, it would be crazy if anyone defined humans which deserve respect as humans as only the people who are a part of their personal race or ideology or creed or background or interests which excludes all others. Even if they did, there is certainly nothing arbitrary about the current stance, because it includes all humans who look like humans, so no problems!Last edited by RickGriffin; 2012-02-15 at 04:37 PM.
-
2012-02-15, 04:35 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Aug 2011
- Location
- behind u always behind u
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
I HAVE SOMETHING IMPORTANT TO SAY
Spoiler.....mehI will be master of "pushy pull slidy nothingf@c$1ng stacks" also known as 4th edition.
-
2012-02-15, 04:39 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2009
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
Actually, I ran a D&D campaign like that once. There were other races about, but humans were the dominant culture in every country, and countries were at war with one another just the same. My players were perfectly okay with teaming up with humans, orcs, elves, dwarfs, goblins, ogres and even - whisper it, most shamefully - halflings, to kill fellow creatures of all these species and more.
It wasn't racism, it was war. Different thing entirely."None of us likes to be hated, none of us likes to be shunned. A natural result of these conditions is, that we consciously or unconsciously pay more attention to tuning our opinions to our neighbor’s pitch and preserving his approval than we do to examining the opinions searchingly and seeing to it that they are right and sound." - Mark Twain
-
2012-02-15, 04:40 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
- Gender
-
2012-02-15, 04:47 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
- Gender
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
So your point is that "The Order of the Stick" is a great story, but a poor, angry, moralizing satire of D&D and the various elements of the gaming habit that "disgust" the writer."*
And you think that the satire is "misplaced" and talk about it on 8 pages. Lolwat?
Seriously - analyzing and debating about something with your key argument being "it's not worth of debate" is flawed in itself. Because if it really would be pointless to debate about, then why are you trying so hard to prove it's pointless to debate about? If you want just everyone to move on, why don't you move on yourself? And if the debate is helpful to someone (either in helping him to reach that OMGSOTRIVIAL conclusion, or in shifting his own view of the matter - like your view of comic) why dismiss is it entirely?
This entire thread is actually proof that Rich is tremendously successful in this topic (morality blah blah blah) - and stance "I think it's OBVIOUS" is just another simplified one-sided opinion in debate.
So no, OOTS is not poor satire.
*anyone else thinking about someone having emotional reaction at the moment?
-
2012-02-15, 04:54 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2012
- Location
- Dark Montreal
- Gender
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
Why has this gone on for so many pages?
Thread in a nutshell:
OP's argument: "OotS is a certain way. I don't agree with it."
Counter-argument: "Okay ... but that's just how OotS is."
OP: "Well, I feel it's wrong."
Reply: "Kay ... noted." *whistles and walks off*Last edited by suzaliscious; 2012-02-15 at 04:54 PM.
-
2012-02-15, 04:55 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2010
- Gender
-
2012-02-15, 04:56 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2007
-
2012-02-15, 05:01 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2011
Re: Redcloak's failed characterization, and what it means for the comic as a whole.
Tsukiko's delusion isn't that undead are intelligent creatures who should be treated with respect, it's that all undead are good. This is just as much prejudice as the assumption that all goblins are evil.
Redcloak's assumption that undead are merely things to be controlled is also wrong, in its own way, and I fully expect it to come back and bite him in the form of Xykon acting in a way that Redcloak doesn't expect.
-
2012-02-15, 05:03 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2012
- Location
- Britain
- Gender