Kickstarter Discussion Thread - How the Paladin Got His Scar (SPOILERS!)

[SaintRidley]

evil misogynists who hate women.

As opposed to the good misogynists who don't hate women. Like Glasseshead.

Guess what. Misogyny is bad. All the time. Always. Universally. Nobody is hurt by pointing this out, except misogynists. And that pain truly does not matter.

[Onyavar]

Yes, I am. Who are you?

It is a specific lie that is told about specific groups of people, in order to exclude them from empathy, because it is fashionable and popular to tell this lie about these groups of people. Empathy is never to apply to these groups of people, because of the lies that are told about them, because the lies are more important than the truth. Being reminded of this fact makes me very, very, very depressed.

"If you think it applies you you you need to really look at yourself" is just the same thing. Your reaction to us lying about you justifies us lying about you. We know not to listen to you asking us not to lie about you, because this lie we told about you proves you should not be listed to.

I'm Enyavar Nathis.

So... so it's not about the scar story, but about attacking the author as a liar? Rich said something on this here forums in probably a very different context, I can't remember it exactly - Summon banana - iirc it was something about being sorry to have used the b-word too often so people had been calling him a misogynist writer, and that he wouldn't use that term lightly from now on. I may be wrong, that thread is older.

So, you were not agreeing with Rich then, probably saw him as caving in to feminist speech. Which you think is a lie. Right? Are you defending the position that people may use that b-slur on others and that it isn't misogynistic at all?

If so, then I understand that you are perceiving the ettin - who calls other people a birch, in anger - as a placeholder for your arguments. Right? And then you are outraged because o-CHUL is cutting him down. As a symbol of how Rich disapproves of so-called misogynism which truly is only a political fabrication. Did I get that right?

If not, then you need to elaborate clearlier what you are ranting about since page 3, because nobody else seems to get what you are talking about!!!
And that's because nobody else seems to have perceived that scene like you did. I don't even know who this "we" is that you believe Rich spreads lies about. Your chosen faith, your political faction, your ethnical origin, your nationality, you as the last true men, you as the misunderstood+persecuted minority of internet trolls? PM me if you want to enlighten me. Maybe I'll even express sympathy then. I'm not prejudiced.

Anyway, what I saw was O-Chul cutting down a physical threat to his last soldier. And also a reference to two-faced internet trolls.

I'm Philippe Saner.

Anyway, OotS has historically been fairly liberal with the "bitch"s (particularly when sneak attacks are involved)

Well, that was long in the past, Rich HAS told us he has a more reflected stance on sexism nowadays. However, here the ettin was wildly insulting everyone in sight. It was fitting.

[Aedilred]

I'm Philippe Saner.

Anyway, OotS has historically been fairly liberal with the "bitch"s (particularly when sneak attacks are involved) so I don't think the ettin using the word signifies much.

But of course I could be wrong. I can only tell you how it comes across to me, and I know you don't rate my opinion very highly.

For context, see, for instance, this post, or Rich's comments in this thread. There are many more posts in similar vein.

There has been a definite and deliberate change in the frequency and context of such gendered insults over the lifetime of the strip.

[Onyavar]

For context, see, for instance, this post, or Rich's comments in this thread. There are many more posts in similar vein.

There has been a definite and deliberate change in the frequency and context of such gendered insults over the lifetime of the strip.

Thanks. That was the discussion I remember. It has been 4 years and huitzil/brazenautomaton is digging it out now to tell us that Rich must have deliberately used the b-word to slight his/her social group in a premeditated group-bashing. A-ha.

[unbeliever536]

I'm Enyavar Nathis.

So... so it's not about the scar story, but about attacking the author as a liar? Rich said something on this here forums in probably a very different context, I can't remember it exactly - Summon banana - iirc it was something about being sorry to have used the b-word too often so people had been calling him a misogynist writer, and that he wouldn't use that term lightly from now on. I may be wrong, that thread is older.

Here is a summary of the argument I see Huitzil making:

1) The Right Head's manner of speech and the is reminiscent of arguments made by a certain set of people on the internet. This goes deeper than the fact that he's making some sort of "not all bad" claim, presumably; I would guess it has to do with word choice or sentence structure. (Based on some context clues, I'm guessing he's talking about gamergaters, rationalists, or logic-oriented men on the internet; I didn't back the kickstarter so I can't comment on the actual dialog.)

2) Other groups on the internet frequently use (false) claims of universal misogyny, plus kafka-trapping, to advance the position that members of the group in question are unworthy of empathy and/or have no valid points to make. (That there are genuine misogynists using these groups as cover and/or attempting to recruit from them is not denied, just that misogyny is an automatic consequence of group membership.)

3) Given Rich's statements on the use of the word "bitch", his decision to use the Ettin to make this particular point is unsettlingly close to the arguments discussed in (2), since it signals that the Ettin's appeal to empathy was a false front in exactly the manner that other people claim that appeals to empathy from the group in question universally are.

4) This rather undercuts the book's point about empathy and seeking peace.

As I said above, I am unfortunately awaiting the general release of the book in question, so I can't do a proper assessment of the claim. Regardless, though, this is clearly a complaint about a part of the book, and I don't see how you can dismiss it as just some angry ranting about how Rich is a liar.

So, you were not agreeing with Rich then, probably saw him as caving in to feminist speech. Which you think is a lie. Right? Are you defending the position that people may use that b-slur on others and that it isn't misogynistic at all?

If so, then I understand that you are perceiving the ettin - who calls other people a birch, in anger - as a placeholder for your arguments. Right? And then you are outraged because o-CHUL is cutting him down. As a symbol of how Rich disapproves of so-called misogynism which truly is only a political fabrication. Did I get that right?

No - Huitzil's claim is that, given his prior statements, the Giant's choice to have the ettin use the word "bitch" is a signal that the Right Head's style of argument, taken as a whole, should be taken to indicate that the arguer is a misogynist (as, he claims, many other people already say it is). Huitzil has not, as far as I can see, attempted to defend the use of the word; to the extent that he's defending anything he's trying to defend the Right Head's manner of speech before the Left Head is killed. The argument goes: the Giant thinks "bitch" is a very serious insult, to be reserved for unsympathetic characters only -> the Giant has a character use that word after an extended section of dialog paralleling a specific group often accused of misogyny -> the Giant is implicitly saying that said group consists entirely of misogynists -> the Giant is excluding said group from his general message of empathy and reaching out.

In this thread, Huitzil has not endorsed misogyny. Huitzil has not claimed misogyny does not exist. Huitzil has not claimed misogyny does not exist within whatever group he's talking about. Huitzil's entire claim is that people keep saying that misogyny is the only reason this group could possibly have for making whatever claim it does, and any protests to the contrary are ignored. This claim admits hypotheses besides "Huitzil is a misogynist"; perhaps you should consider one of them.

(I'm Gazeboist, sometimes The)

[Doran]

1) The Right Head's manner of speech and the is reminiscent of arguments made by a certain set of people on the internet. This goes deeper than the fact that he's making some sort of "not all bad" claim, presumably; I would guess it has to do with word choice or sentence structure. (Based on some context clues, I'm guessing he's talking about gamergaters, rationalists, or logic-oriented men on the internet; I didn't back the kickstarter so I can't comment on the actual dialog.)

This issue faced with tarring all members of a group with the same brush, yet negative behavior is still being dealt by members of that group is known as the weak man fallacy. It is different from a straw man, because the behavior actually exists in certain individuals, but it is still held that the rest of the group is somehow responsible for it, or has a means of policing those individuals.

I'm Commander Shepard, and this is my favourite webcomic on the internet.

[Lacuna Caster]

But the whole "not using the get-out-of-jail-free card" thing isn't particularly Good. It's not Evil or anything, but having obedience as your highest goal is Lawful rather than Good.

By contrast, when O-Chul earned a royal boon, he tried to use it for the good of the city and the world.

Yeah, and Miko used it to restore the inn-keeper for the loss of his property and cover expenses for the Order. Or should she perhaps have taken the opportunity to lecture the leader of a foreign nation on long-term social policy? What was the optimal course there, exactly?

Because the topic of that conversation was whether Miko was Lawful or not. It's not a technicality. It's the point.

It's in the exact same post where the author states that Miko is 'borderline good', and that in many ways that was the point of the character. Even this argument that all she did with the king's favour was 'obey orders' doesn't really add up: which part of her orders specified 'you shall arrange restitution for harm to innocents caused by other people acting against your explicit wishes'?

I'll also point out that Miko could have torn after the assassins. She could have ordered Roy to go evacuate the building. She could have taken Elan/Durkon's word for it that everyone was evacuated, ticked that box, and then gone happily a-smiting. But when Miko had a choice between pursuing the guilty or protecting the innocent, what she did was defer to someone else's plan and go above and beyond to protect the innocent. And then we immediately get a lengthy gut-punch filibuster from the strip's main protagonist on how she's only good by technicality. Is it any wonder there were forum wars?

[Azukar]

SO YES SPEAKING OF THE NEW STORY AND HOW GREAT IT IS

...

I just finished it, and just... wow.

Giant knocked it out of the park on every level. The philosophy, the comedy, the drama...

And the idea of "The Blue Book" is something I would totally buy if it ever came out, by the way.

[Onyavar]

Thanks Gazeboist (unbelieving or not), for explaining in detail some points I missed in the debate.

As I said above, I am unfortunately awaiting the general release of the book in question, so I can't do a proper assessment of the claim. Regardless, though, this is clearly a complaint about a part of the book, and I don't see how you can dismiss it as just some angry ranting about how Rich is a liar.

Um, Huitzil wrote several sentences in which he says that he feels depressed because Rich endorses/perpetuates a "specific lie that is told about specific groups of people, in order to exclude them from empathy".

And I called it a rant because Huitzil has repeated this statement several times in this thread. I can't see where he actually considered different and less sinister interpretations of that scene at least as possible. Just that in his opinion the ettin was an unfair depiction of [his group*] and accordingly punished by O-Chul (i.e. the Giant).

The following I take home from this debate:

A character that somewhat resembles [internet trolls*] was depicted as misogynistic. Because of that, Huitzil feels very, very, very depressed because he says that it's a lie that [internet trolls] are all misogynistic, and he felt that lies about/prejudices against [internet trolls] shouldn't be repeated in a comic/setting devoted to be open-minded.

[*replace term with whatever group Huitzil meant - but all I can see in that scene was internet trolls, or more specifically Strawman suckpuppet: The brute head engaged in hurtful acts, while the intellectual head claimed innocence for both, thus trying to stall and lock the adversary in a pointless discussion instead of doing something effective.]

----
Back to topic

When I look at the ettin scene in retrospect: If posted online, people would have claimed it to be a "filler", because it had no impact on the rest of the story. The ettin literally appeared from nowhere without an explanation and there were no consequences for the party afterwards. Except that it Zhou Bo and Saha Kapoor could demonstrate their respective abilities in a first fight. But the parallels to the main theme of the book are obvious. The whole book deals with groups who commit violence because they claim to have little choice when in fact, they could have stopped anytime.

I loved how the Giant showed that O-Chul is not only awesome in a fight, but also has a good sense of morality. Now, how did he convince all those paladins when Charisma is admittedly his dump stat? How high IS his wisdom? It was a combined roll of WIS+CHA - Durkon alone or Elan alone wouldn't have made it, I guess. Or O-Chul had a lucky roll.

[Grey_Wolf_c]

Now, how did he convince all those paladins when Charisma is admittedly his dump stat?

+20 "Oh, gods, he's right" circumstance bonus.

Which O-Chul manages to always have when he starts speaking.

GW

[ref]

Is that word that bad? Mind you, English is not my L1, so I'm asking just how bad it is. You can't ask anyone to be too civil when they have a head just been cut, right?

Also, insulting a woman doesn't mean you hate all women. It means you hate that woman. The world has come to a point where you cannot hate a woman because then you're automatically hating all of them... Which is obviously not true. (There are such individuals, yes, but they are a minority, I'd reckon)

Finally, "Sneak Attack, young lady" doesn't have the same ring to it, don't you think? ;)

[Kilo24]

Let me start off by saying that it was great. I love the message, loved the writing, and loved all the references weaving together the rest of OOTS and this. I'm delighted to be a backer, and Rich should be proud of the work he's done.

Within the comments, I've seen this compared to "Start of Darkness" (which I do consider to be Rich's best work), but I think this story is missing something critical in that comparison: substantial character change. "Start of Darkness" took an unexceptional villain's lackey and turned him into a tragic figure clinging to the sunk cost fallacy. "How the Paladin Got His Scar" took an awesome paladin and turned him into an awesome paladin. I'd like to talk about that for a bit.

An earlier poster mentioned a Mary Sue vibe from him, and honestly I do also get that from him. To be clear, he's absolutely not a Mary Sue - he works hard and argues eloquently to achieve victory in the story, he doesn't get everything he wants (see disbanding the Sapphire Guard and Saha Kapoor's final scene), and all the characters around him are self-consistent and don't exist solely to confirm how wonderful a character he is. But he does leap into the story with his personality already fully formed and portrayed as an unrelenting positive - and that is reminiscent of a Mary Sue. In any case, that unchanging personality is key to the biggest difference between this and "Start of Darkness".

Does a character's personality need to change to make for interesting storytelling? No. Miko fell because she aggressively refused to reconsider her judgements. Tarquin changed from awesome dad to maniacal supervillain to impotent raving lunatic, and the central point is that never compromised on his views. Both were very well done and great examples of interesting storytelling. But while the characters did not themselves change, how they were portrayed to the audience did, and even then they were never the protagonists. Being the protagonist places even more importance on character development.

O-chul is the protagonist of this story, and from start to finish he retains the same personality that defines him in the online strip. The events of the story have no impact on that - the scar he got as a badge of sticking to his principles, he joined the Sapphire Guard because it was the best way he could follow those principles. We did get information on why he initially developed those principles, but that was done in a few pages of backstory instead of in the central conflict of the story. The central conflict in this story is "How does O-chul demonstrate he's right?", not "How does O-chul figure out what is right?" The latter question is not wholly neglected (his recounting of his backstory and him changing his mind about tying up the hobgoblins contribute), but it's not the focal point.

In one essay in Start of Darkness, Rich wrote about the difficulties of writing a character like Xykon in Start of Darkness: it ran the risk of "devillainifying" the character. He aimed to "tell the story of Xykon's life without making Xykon even slightly sympathetic" - but if he didn't portray a shift in the character, then there wouldn't be much character growth in the book. He avoided that trap by making Redcloak the protagonist instead of Xykon. But in "How the Paladin Got His Scar" I feel Rich fell into that trap just with the opposite character: he made O-chul the protagonist and avoided any chance of "depaladining" the character by making him even slightly unsympathetic. If Hinjo or Miko were instead in the protagonist's seat, then O-chul could still be the wholly sympathetic and unchanging Energizer Bunny of tolerance that he is without issue. His narrative role in the main comic is more of a Van Helsing or Captain Jack Sparrow; like those other cool fan-favorite but unchanging characters he's not a deep enough character to support being the protagonist. "How the Paladin Got His Scar" is more "How Xykon Became A Lich" than the "How Redcloak Got His Cloak" of "Start of Darkness". (I fully understand that this was billed as an O-chul story, so making someone else the actual protagonist would be a questionable move at best.)

At the end of the day, it's okay to write fiction that doesn't have significant character growth. All the other extra OOTS content except for Start of Darkness does not, and I eagerly buy them all. An earlier poster made the comparison to Superman comics with the conflict being in the "How does he win?" vein more than the "How does this affect him as a character?"; those work. I'm quite fond of The Martian in both film and book form; that has practically no character growth. But I do think that OOTS is at its best when it focuses on character growth.

[Huitzil]

Is that word that bad? Mind you, English is not my L1, so I'm asking just how bad it is. You can't ask anyone to be too civil when they have a head just been cut, right?

Also, insulting a woman doesn't mean you hate all women. It means you hate that woman. The world has come to a point where you cannot hate a woman because then you're automatically hating all of them... Which is obviously not true. (There are such individuals, yes, but they are a minority, I'd reckon)

Finally, "Sneak Attack, young lady" doesn't have the same ring to it, don't you think? ;)

According to the author of the comic, yes, it IS that bad, and yes, it DOES mean you hate women. When he refers to previous scenes where characters used that word, it is to say it is a bad word he never should have used because it is hatred of women.



You probably do not remember, but a scant few years ago, gay marriage was not the pure cause of popular people, and was ridiculed as a fringe position. One way of ridiculing it was to assert that proponents of gay marriage wanted people to be able to marry dogs. That wasn't true, it was a lie. It was a lie that was repeatedly told. It was a lie that we could notice "Hey, people are telling this lie."

Imagine that period never ended. Imagine there was a comic where one head of a monster wanted to marry a dog, and the other head said "I have nothing to do with that, that doesn't represent me, I have no obligation to stop it, I wish you would just engage with what I am saying", and then when pressed revealed that it, too, wanted to marry dogs, and was just lying by claiming not to be related to the other head's desires.

Would the only possible valid reason to notice "hey, this is just like that lie that keeps being told about me" be because you, too wanted to marry a dog? When people defended it by saying "but marrying dogs really is bad!" or "It's not about people who support gay marriage, it's just about duplicitous people in general!" don't you think you should be allowed to notice how dishonest they are being?

[Kish]

Is that word that bad? Mind you, English is not my L1, so I'm asking just how bad it is. You can't ask anyone to be too civil when they have a head just been cut, right?

As O-Chul pointed out, you can if that head is actually a burden to them.

Beyond that, the implication that the ettin stands in for RL misogynists and the associated "and that's terrible" is entirely being promoted by Huitzil, with some devils-advocating from unbeliever536 and maybe Lacuna. No one seems to be advocating "the ettin doesn't stand for anything and also it was inappropriate for Rich to have him call Saha a bitch."

[Rogar Demonblud]

One thing this thread has been good for is again reminding me why alignment, paladins and real world politics got booted from my table.

[Onyavar]

You probably do not remember [..]

Yes I do.

Imagine that period never ended. Imagine there was a comic where [..]

But this is not that comic. This is a comic where the brute head beats other people up so he can loot them. He is representing no recognizable minority except "brutes and thugs". The only thing that he does and the other one claims to not want, is violence.
The intellectual head is NOT in an argument with his brother, but with everyone else, to obfuscate his own actions. The intellectual head claims to have no intentions to hurt others, but he still fully cooperates with the other half of the body, and he enjoys the loot, food, shelter and other benefit after battles won. This makes him nothing but a hypocrite.

Yet, the ettin was just one single entity with the brute mindset. The intellectual head was nothing but an act, ultimately.

So, please finally tell us where you see the lies and dishonesty in that scene.

[King of Nowhere]

Hey, on an unrelated note, I remember clearly rich stating that he started drawing something for the kickstarter, then he upgraded to the new art style, and so he scrapped what he started and remade it in the new art style. I was also convinced it was O-chul story, but I can't find any reference to in the the old kickstarter updates. then maybe it was something else, like therkla, but again I could not find a mention of drawing again something. maybe it was in the forum, or on twitter, or maybe i missed it? or maybe I'm remembering wrong?
But, if I am not remembering wrong, I would like if someone could show me where that statement is. Thanks

Is that word that bad? Mind you, English is not my L1, so I'm asking just how bad it is. You can't ask anyone to be too civil when they have a head just been cut, right?

Also, insulting a woman doesn't mean you hate all women. It means you hate that woman. The world has come to a point where you cannot hate a woman because then you're automatically hating all of them... Which is obviously not true. (There are such individuals, yes, but they are a minority, I'd reckon)

Finally, "Sneak Attack, young lady" doesn't have the same ring to it, don't you think? ;)

I wish there was an upvote system, so I could upvote this twice. I can never figure out how those arguments came to put so much weight on a specific word rather than on context.

[Throknor]

I wish there was an upvote system, so I could upvote this twice. I can never figure out how those arguments came to put so much weight on a specific word rather than on context.

It's easier to argue over a word than to discuss context. Discussing context requires deliberate thought; reframing an argument over single words or phrases makes it simpler to just short-circuit to emotions.

[Jasdoif]

Hey, on an unrelated note, I remember clearly rich stating that he started drawing something for the kickstarter, then he upgraded to the new art style, and so he scrapped what he started and remade it in the new art style. I was also convinced it was O-chul story, but I can't find any reference to in the the old kickstarter updates. then maybe it was something else, like therkla, but again I could not find a mention of drawing again something. maybe it was in the forum, or on twitter, or maybe i missed it? or maybe I'm remembering wrong?
But, if I am not remembering wrong, I would like if someone could show me where that statement is. Thanks

You might be thinking of the original old-art-style bluescale cover (still viewable on the Kickstarter page). As for why the Giant said it was changed.....

O-Chul's story will be done in the current art style, as will everything from now on unless I'm trying to specifically insert material into the middle of an older story for some reason, such as when I drew the bonus materials for Blood Runs in the Family. There wasn't any art completed on the O-Chul prequel beyond that cover image until recently, only outlines and scripts, so there's no need to match the older style if I don't want to (and I don't want to).

O-Chul's story will also be greyscale. The bluescale is nice in theory but the big problem with it is that without color, my art relies heavily on that black line to differentiate between blocks of grey that are sometimes only a little bit apart. Every blue I tried failed to do as good a job at separating darker tints (60-80%) as black does when separating equivalent greys. And any blue that even came close looked more like grey or purple when scaled back to 10-20%. The only way to make it work would have been to use different blues for different parts, at which point you're using multiple inks when printing and you might as well work in full color. The main reason I started using greyscale in the first place was due to the massive cost savings of 1-color printing anyway.

[SaintRidley]

You probably do not remember, but a scant few years ago, gay marriage was not the pure cause of popular people, and was ridiculed as a fringe position. One way of ridiculing it was to assert that proponents of gay marriage wanted people to be able to marry dogs. That wasn't true, it was a lie. It was a lie that was repeatedly told. It was a lie that we could notice "Hey, people are telling this lie."

Imagine that period never ended. Imagine there was a comic where one head of a monster wanted to marry a dog, and the other head said "I have nothing to do with that, that doesn't represent me, I have no obligation to stop it, I wish you would just engage with what I am saying", and then when pressed revealed that it, too, wanted to marry dogs, and was just lying by claiming not to be related to the other head's desires.

They did that in the comic. It turned out that what the head was saying was just a smokescreen, as is often the case when one person tries to make excuses for why their actions don't cause pain to the people being hurt by their actions. It's gaslighting, which is an abuse tactic. There's nothing to engage. There's no there there. Because it's all a distraction. The correct solution in such a situation is not to accept what's being said, but to get around it and expose what their intentions really are.

The ettin is evil. He uses tactics common to abusive people in order to distract from the point, which is the harm he causes. His attempts at drawn-out pseudologic are designed to trip people up and make them accept what he's saying, despite the fact that it's all lies designed to allow him to continue bringing pain. He also happens, when pushed, to resort to an insult rooted in misogyny as a way of showing what he's like without the facade.

If at any point you thought the ettin's pseudologic was compelling, you're gullible. If you sympathize with him, you should take this as an occasion to reconsider why - because there is no universe in which this ettin, from his first lines, is even remotely representative of anything good. And there are people in this world who do this - and they are bad people. Calling bad people bad by making evil characters who mirror their traits is not a bad thing. Completely looney tunes thinking to come to the conclusion that it is.

[Peelee]

Am I the only one who thought that the ettin was foreshadowing (for lack of a better term) the main conflict of the comic? I thought both Gin-Jun and the goblin leadership were represented by the ettin in that both factions viewed themselves as reasonable and blameless even though they were clearly responsible for instigating violence, as well as being naturally violently themselves.

[Janus]

I think an overlooked part on the ettin argument is how much trust we have in the Giant as an author. Among other things, I strongly disagree with assertions he's made about the relationship between message and narrative. I personally think that his writing gets rather preachy here and there. Because I have this opinion of his writing, I'm strongly biased toward the thought that he's soapboxing in the scene.
If you don't think that Mr. Burlew's preachy, I imagine you're more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt in this scene.

It doesn't ruin the story for me, personally. I really enjoyed the comic. But the ettin scene is frustrating because I know the Giant can write better than that.

[hamishspence]

Am I the only one who thought that the ettin was foreshadowing (for lack of a better term) the main conflict of the comic? I thought both Gin-Jun and the goblin leadership were represented by the ettin in that both factions viewed themselves as reasonable and blameless even though they were clearly responsible for instigating violence, as well as being naturally violently themselves.

You're not the only one who's noted similarities between the ettin and Gin-Jun:

I'm sorry, but that's straight up wrong. The ettin was exactly in keeping with one of the major themes of the comic - the sophistry people will engage in so as to justify themselves when performing actions they know can only lead to a bad end. It's not just a zealot's thing. It's a thing that will come out at any time, often at the worst possible time, and it's not something that can be reasoned with directly. You have to reason around it by appealing to those who are witnesses, if at all possible. The ettin is absolutely engaged in the same game of justifying bad behavior as the Sapphire Guard leadership and everyone else.

There have always been people ready to profit from someone else's violent illegal actions while providing support.

Heck, it applies to the later "I'm summoning an angel, asking him to destroy the gates, and count on him killing the enemy for me when the goblins defend the gate while claiming I did nothing wrong", so it is actually a nice foreshadowing of the final conflict.

[Emanick]

I think an overlooked part on the ettin argument is how much trust we have in the Giant as an author. Among other things, I strongly disagree with assertions he's made about the relationship between message and narrative. I personally think that his writing gets rather preachy here and there. Because I have this opinion of his writing, I'm strongly biased toward the thought that he's soapboxing in the scene.
If you don't think that Mr. Burlew's preachy, I imagine you're more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt in this scene.

It doesn't ruin the story for me, personally. I really enjoyed the comic. But the ettin scene is frustrating because I know the Giant can write better than that.

Wow. This from a guy who's so into humanoids with two faces that he named himself after one.

[Peelee]

You're not the only one who's noted similarities between the ettin and Gin-Jun:

Thanks, I guess I lost those in the sea of "it's political and against me" back and forth.

I think an overlooked part on the ettin argument is how much trust we have in the Giant as an author. Among other things, I strongly disagree with assertions he's made about the relationship between message and narrative. I personally think that his writing gets rather preachy here and there. Because I have this opinion of his writing, I'm strongly biased toward the thought that he's soapboxing in the scene.
If you don't think that Mr. Burlew's preachy, I imagine you're more inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt in this scene.

It doesn't ruin the story for me, personally. I really enjoyed the comic. But the ettin scene is frustrating because I know the Giant can write better than that.

I agree that the Giant can be preachy. I don't at all think the ettin was in any way preachy.

[SaintRidley]

Am I the only one who thought that the ettin was foreshadowing (for lack of a better term) the main conflict of the comic? I thought both Gin-Jun and the goblin leadership were represented by the ettin in that both factions viewed themselves as reasonable and blameless even though they were clearly responsible for instigating violence, as well as being naturally violently themselves.

Oh, absolutely. He's also in many ways a more easily recognized and countered version of their problem.

[Peelee]

Oh, absolutely. He's also in many ways a more easily recognized and countered version of their problem.

And ends the same way. An unexpected source removes the "justification, " and without the pretense, the foe abandons the previous claims to innocence and goes for the jugular.

The ettin is a microcosm of the plot, not a veiled invective against whatever group a poster may align themselves with.

Hell, at this point in the thread, i'ma just say I agree with everything SaintRidley says about the PDF. License subject to be revoked at any time.

[Janus]

Wow. This from a guy who's so into humanoids with two faces that he named himself after one.

My dear grandmother was an ettin, thank you very much.

I agree that the Giant can be preachy. I don't at all think the ettin was in any way preachy.

Eh, to each their own. Like I said, I think it has a lot to do with how much or how little a reader trusts the Giant. It could also very well be confirmation bias on my part.

[SavageWombat]

The ettin is a microcosm of the plot, not a veiled invective against whatever group a poster may align themselves with.

Surely this suggests an interpretation where the plot itself is a veiled invective against such behavior?

[Gray Mage]

Absolutely outstanding. I think this is my favorite book so far.

One thing I haven't seen anyone mention is that I think there were a third lesson that Miko learnt, about being accepted. She points out to O-Chul that no one wants him in the SG, to which he responds that sometimes being disliked means that one is doing something right. I wonder how much this influenced her not fixing her abrasive behavior later. Ironically, if I recall correctly O-Chul turns out to be a well regarded and generally liked member of the SG.