The Index of the Giant's Comments

[FujinAkari]

Originally Posted by Jasdoif

I don't see a whole lot of value to it, but it doesn't seem like it should be difficult to collect all the dates.

Which made me think maybe I should do it.

So I did. (With a couple of minor formatting changes, like moving a colon or line break that was out of place here and there, and removing a highlight term from one of the links)

Uh... thanks, but that isn't what people are talking about. As I understood it, people wanted the post date to be cross referenced against the dates the strips were put up and the comment to say what strip every quote was in relation too... which was an enormous amount of work if the quote didn't actually appear IN the thread discussing a particular strip (and sometimes then!) since there is no date on the actual strips.

If people -just- wanted the date I think that would have been done already :)


Warren: I really don't see the merit in including a quote from the Giant which he has since corrected, but I suppose its up to Phantasm :)

[ti'esar]

Originally Posted by FujinAkari

That has been specifically not included as it no longer reflects the feelings of the author

Edit: Or, more specifically, would be grossly mis-utilized without its proper context, which Rich has made later quotations which directly counters the arguments it would be used for.

More to the point, it's already grossly mis-utilized, and shouldn't be preserved to make that easier.

[Jasdoif]

Originally Posted by FujinAkari

Uh... thanks, but that isn't what people are talking about. As I understood it, people wanted the post date to be cross referenced against the dates the strips were put up and the comment to say what strip every quote was in relation too... which was an enormous amount of work if the quote didn't actually appear IN the thread discussing a particular strip (and sometimes then!) since there is no date on the actual strips.

If people -just- wanted the date I think that would have been done already :)

Turns out, that's OK too: The OOTS Strips by Final Post Count links to its data, which includes the date the discussion threads were started. Since I already did the post dates for the comments, figuring out which discussion thread was active at that time was rather easy.

So here it is again, with both post date and active comic at the time:

Spoiler

Alignment -

Spoiler

V is True Neutral! (August 17, 2011; #801)
Durkon is Lawful Good! (July 27, 2011; #798)
Belkar is Chaotic Evil! (December 1, 2005; #251)
Tarquin is Lawful Evil! (December 7, 2010; #763)
Nale, Sabine, and Thog are all Evil! (January 20, 2005; #142)
Enor & Gannji are True Neutral! (October 24, 2011; #812)
Redcloak is Evil! (January 23, 2012; #830)

Alignment and Environment (October 25, 2011; #812): Enor and Gannji were not operating wholly outside the ethical framework of the Empire of Blood. This doesn't change the nature of their acts but does mean that the acts are not as indicative of their overall alignment as some might suppose.

Elan and Nale's Parentage (November 18, 2011; #815): How did it affect their alignment? Giant can't fully answer because of events yet to be revealed. Elan spared Nale's life because of Elan's understanding of what it means to be good.

D&D, Alignment, and Morality (February 14, 2012; #835): Rich on the comic's criticism of the way D&D has been played for over three decades. "D&D cannot and should not begin and end at black-and-white, and indeed already doesn't, if everyone would just learn to look at things a little more complexly." See also here (D&D "racism" and alignment; February 14, 2012; #835) and here (the real world applicability of Redcloak's story; February 14, 2012; #835).

D&D's Alignment System (February 18, 2012; #838): Thoughts on how it could be improved.

Art -

Spoiler

Character Appearances & Forum Speculation (October 6, 2009; #683): Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. For example, just because two persons have similar hairstyles doesn't mean they are related.

Why the Strip Titles Aren't Above the Strip (November 20, 2010; #759): The titles are "bonus" jokes. Rich prefers not to put them above the strip itself.

Black and White Books (March 16, 2011; #781): They are unlikely to ever be colorized, and were not originally in color. Rich drew them in black and white.

The Oracle's Location on the OOTS Poster (September 5, 2010; #744): Don't read too much into it.

True Subjective View In #843 (March 7, 2012; #843): V gets cornered.

Characters and Merchandise (November 22, 2011; #816): The presence, absence, position, or style of any character on any piece of merchandise has no bearing on any future (or past) plot points.

Art and Magic:

Spoiler

Invisibility (March 15, 2010; #706): Why the art for invisible characters isn't consistent (utility trumps consistency).

Counterspelling (January 23, 2012; #830): The Giant doesn't use different art to differentiate between counterspelling with Dispel Magic and counterspelling with the same spell.

Spell Colors (June 28, 2010; #731): The colors come from the spellcaster's choice or personality, and not their alignment or the types of magic.

D&D Rules and Explanations -

Spoiler

Rules Accuracy In The Comic (August 17, 2011; #801): "If you are looking for moment-to-moment rules accuracy from this comic, you probably should stop reading."

Rules Accuracy In The Comic, II (January 10, 2012; #826): Case in point: Rich avoids the D&D term "calling" for the sake of non-D&D OOTS readers, who probably would not understand its meaning.

Acid-Born Shark (April 6, 2011; #785): Rich created it, and made fun of himself in the comic.

Character Items:

Spoiler

Elan's Rapiers (May 13, 2010; #723): He has 2. His original, and one from Julio Scoundrel.

Haley's Boots of Speed (May 29, 2011; #793): Yes, she did get them dyed to match her brown / tan garb.

Durkon Throws Diamond Dust into the air in #844. (March 9, 2012; #844)

Character Stats -

Spoiler

OOTS' Stats (April 10, 2010; #714): Rich hasn't written them down, and everything is up in the air until they need a specific ability.

Tsukiko Breaks The Rules (August 14, 2011; #800): Tsukiko has too many schools. Rich doesn't make character decisions based on common player trends.

Durkon's Mass Death Ward (September 19, 2011; #806): Rich did not even know Mass Death Ward existed when he wrote the strip. He pegged it at 7th level instead of 8th.

Elan and Nale are Twins (May 3, 2004; #65): So Nale has the same Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution as Elan.

A Piece of Straw (January 3, 2006; #262): Haley used a piece of straw to get out of the jail cell. Info on Haley's Dexterity, Level, etc.

Combat Scenes and Explanations -

Spoiler

Miko's Fight (November 30, 2005; #251): How Miko defeated the OOTS off-panel and captured them.

Roy's Arena Fight With Thog (October 6, 2011; #808): Roy's strategy to taunt a dungeon-crashing Thog into breaking the pillars.

Zz'Ditri's Break Enchantment (August 7, 2011; #800): Rich didn't read the casting time while making the strip.

Story / Plot -

Spoiler

General / Uncategorized -

Familicide (March 7, 2012; #843): How it works.

Some Thoughts on Visuals and Story (February 18, 2012; #838): People get invested in the story, not the art, of a comic.

Chronology & Timeline (May 26, 2010; #725): Anything that states a numbered, dated year references the Northern calendar. The Oracle uses the Southern calendar. Further details on timeframe of Belkar's death prophecy included. Some time references in the strip (like the deva's chart) should not be taken too literally.

More Prequels? The total number of planned prequel stories is "pretty much fixed." (September 1, 2011; #804)

OOTS Age Range (July 2, 2010; #732): Intended to be early to mid 20s. Durkon is the "dwarf equivalent" of this age range, in his 50s.

Map of the Western Continent (September 12, 2010; #746): It is constantly changing.

Not everything needs a backstory, or even has an interesting one worth telling. (July 23, 2010; #737)

Prequels (SPOILER ALERT) -

Spoiler

SoD Paladins & Miko's Fall (March 15, 2010; #706): Only the crayon pages are narrative by Redcloak. Not every event is necessarily "seen." Certain scenes are largely shown from Redcloak's perspective. Details of why the paladins who killed Redcloak's people may or may not have fallen, why it doesn't matter, and how showing it would have cheapened the effect of Miko's fall later.

Right-Eye's Family (June 15, 2008; #566): They weren't raised because Redcloak doesn't control Team Evil's finances to pay for resurrection, Xykon does. Evil characters are not discouraged / prohibited from raising the dead in OOTSverse.

Dragon Magazine Alternate Panel (August 3, 2011; #799): What didn't show up in Snips, Snails, and Dragon Tails.

The Crimson Mantle (January 12, 2012; #826): Generally it is not known by non-goblins that the mantle is the source of power.

Redcloak's Little Sister was not irredeemably evil, and certainly did not deserve execution. (February 14, 2012; #835)

Reading Too Much Into It -

Spoiler

Hidden Meanings (July 2, 2009; #667): Not everything in the comic has one.

Current Politics (July 2, 2010; #732): There are no references to current politics in the strip beyond those which readers invent themselves.

Belkar's Jokes (April 11, 2011; #786): Belkar making a joke about something does not make it so.

TV Tropes (March 4, 2010; #705): Rich is aware it exists. No, he doesn't use it for ideas or reference it in any way in the comic.

Pratchett (October 26, 2009; #687): Rich hasn't read Pratchett.

Orrin Draketooth's Daughter (November 21, 2011; #811): She's not Haley.

Soon's Gate Backstory and Explanation

Spoiler

Soon's Gem and Gate (August 21, 2011; #801): Details about Soon's rift and how it is protected. The gate / rift could not be moved. You can shift a gate to another plane, but not another place on this plane.

Soon's Castle (September 1, 2011; #804): Soon built the castle, but did not build Azure City.

Storytelling Mistakes? -

Spoiler

Surprises Are Not Deus Ex Machinas (September 19, 2011; #806)

No Purpose? "As a general rule of thumb, no one should say the sentence, 'There's no (or no other) possible narrative purpose for Rich to have done X!' until the story is completed. Because there's always a narrative purpose, you just haven't thought of what it is." (January 10, 2012; #826)

Typo in #597? Nope. It is a joke. (September 30, 2008; #597)

Racism and Sex in OOTS (May 2, 2009; #650): Rich answers two separate concerns: One, whether there is some correlation between skin color and promiscuity, and two, whether there is too much promiscuity among the women portrayed in the comic. The short answer to both is no.

Plot Holes:

Spoiler

Giant's Response I (November 29, 2011; #816): Including - why Haley was surprised that Miko was killed, info on Nale's self-delusion and ego, how the rift got so close to Xykon's Tower (it grew), and what is and isn't a plot hole.

Giant's Response II (November 30, 2011; #816): A character thinking one thing instead of another thing is not a mistake, it just is. The rift grew according to Redcloak's predictions, but he was measuring the actual hole, not the cracks.

Writing Process and Story Development

Spoiler

V's Gender History (May 29, 2011; #793): Why Rich made V's gender ambiguous and what discussions about it were like in the early days. Roy's 'V-man' comment is not necessarily indicative of V's true gender.

Dungeon of Dorukan History (June 20, 2005; #196): Originally, Dorukan was not even necessarily a person.

The Dwarven god Thor (July 12, 2004; #86): OOTS Thor is not based off of D&D Thor. Until referenced in the comic, the Nordic legends / mythology does not exist in OOTSverse.

Character Development / Backstory:

Spoiler

Parental Problems (November 18, 2011; #815): Background info on the parents of various characters like Elan and Haley, including character / plot development history.

Miko and Shojo (November 18, 2011; #815): Shojo was the "tape" that held Miko's character together for so long. He was responsible for much in Miko that was good / positive.

V's Splices (August 21, 2011; #801): There won't be a prequel book about them, and Rich hasn't developed a backstory for them. Just 3 evil souls.

Worldbuilding vs. Foreshadowing (August 18, 2011; #801): "Say hello to your boss for me."

Character Names:

Spoiler

Malack's Name (October 10, 2010; #749): Not based off of Darth Malak. Originally was going to be named Malachi.

Tarquin's Name (October 11, 2010; #749): Named after a Roman King, not the Grand Moff.

The Story as a D&D Spoof:

Spoiler

D&D Spoof (January 22, 2012; #829): The Giant on the comic's shift in focus from D&D gag-a-day jokes to a story that might appeal to a broader fanbase.

D&D Spoof Part II (January 29, 2012; #831): More on the above topic.

Geekademia Interview Table of Contents

Spoiler

Part 1: Kickstarter and the Fans
- 1A: Introduction
- 1B: OOTS Kickstarter Project
- 1C: OOTS Fandom & GiTP Forums
- 1D: OOTS Soundtrack Thread & OOTS Animated
- 1E: OOTS & Social Networking

Part 2: The Comic and Role-Playing Games
- 2A: On Whether Rich Has Time For Role-Playing
- 2B: Will There Ever Be an OOTS World Created for a Gaming System?

Part 3: The Comic's Storyline, Part I
- 3A: The "Darkness" of the Storyline
- 3B: On Behind-The-Scenes Story Commentary In Interviews and Books
- 3C: What Is The Comic About?
- 3D: On The Comic & D&D Rules
- 3E: Creating the Character Wall Poster
- 3F: On Fanart & Whether Roy Wears Pants
- 3G: Putting an End to the Crack Pairings Thread

Part 4: Modern Fantasy and D&D
- 4A: On Keeping Fantasy New & Interesting
- 4B: TVTropes & Lazy Criticism
- 4C: Public Perception of D&D
- 4D: Jack Chick & Tom Hanks

Part 5:The Comic's Storyline, Part II
- 5A: Rich's Favorite Characters to Write Jokes For
- 5B: Rich's Favorite Characters to Write Drama / Character Struggles For
- 5C: Vaarsuvius' Moral Conflict
- 5D: The Storyline & the D&D Alignment System
- 5E: On Keeping Plot Twists Secret
- 5F: The Desert Plot Arc & Law vs. Chaos
- 5G: The Possibility of an Order of the Scribble Prequel Book
- 5H: The Kickstarter Donor's Choice Stories
- 5I: The Conclusion of the Storyline
- 5J: How Much Story Is Left To Tell

Part 6: Outro and Ending

Special Thanks to Xapi and B.Dandelion for transcribing the interview. Reformatted for the index by ThePhantasm. Original interview by Jesse Baruffi and David Lawrence of Geekademia.

eBooks (April 11, 2011; #786): Yes, Rich has considered it. Digital PDF's are not in the works. Rich prefers to sell physical copy books.

[ThePhantasm]

Originally Posted by FujinAkari

That has been specifically not included as it no longer reflects the feelings of the author

Edit: Or, more specifically, would be grossly mis-utilized without its proper context, which Rich has made later quotations which directly counters the arguments it would be used for.

Originally Posted by Warren Dew

Seems to me since the list includes later quotes, it would make the most sense to include them all and let people figure out for themselves how they relate.

There's a few reasons, really, why I came down on not including that quote. One major reason is that it doesn't really contribute any new information. I'm trying to keep redundant quotes out of the thread in order to save space in the index and make more important quotes easier to find. In this case, this quote only briefly touches on a topic already more extensively covered by recent quotes.

Jasdoif, thanks. That saves me quite a bit of work. I'm going to try to add what you've done at some point over the weekend.

[Sniffnoy]

Actually just looking up someone's posts under their profile will only show their last 500 posts. Anyone know if there's a way to go back further? (Manually entering a page number higher than 20 doesn't work.)

[B. Dandelion]

Originally Posted by Jasdoif

Turns out, that's OK too: The OOTS Strips by Final Post Count links to its data, which includes the date the discussion threads were started. Since I already did the post dates for the comments, figuring out which discussion thread was active at that time was rather easy.

I'm glad to see that came in handy! Maybe I should link the XML sheet in my sig directly, too...

Thanks for your work, too!

[FujinAkari]

Originally Posted by Jasdoif

Turns out, that's OK too: The OOTS Strips by Final Post Count links to its data, which includes the date the discussion threads were started. Since I already did the post dates for the comments, figuring out which discussion thread was active at that time was rather easy.

So here it is again, with both post date and active comic at the time:

Wow, thank you... I hadn't thought of doing that so I saw it as a 30 hour project or something :P

[Warren Dew]

Originally Posted by ThePhantasm

There's a few reasons, really, why I came down on not including that quote. One major reason is that it doesn't really contribute any new information. I'm trying to keep redundant quotes out of the thread in order to save space in the index and make more important quotes easier to find. In this case, this quote only briefly touches on a topic already more extensively covered by recent quotes.

Unless the newer quotes state the same position, it's important information that more than one position has been stated.

But hey, it's your thread, if you want to censor certain viewpoints, that's up to you.

[Kish]

Warren, please explain why "Rich used to hold a different view and it was this" is important information.

I cannot see why this thread should address views other than Rich's current views.

[Warren Dew]

Originally Posted by Kish

Warren, please explain why "Rich used to hold a different view and it was this" is important information.

If Phantasm is interested, I'll be happy to explain.

[ThePhantasm]

Originally Posted by Warren Dew

But hey, it's your thread, if you want to censor certain viewpoints, that's up to you.

Originally Posted by Warren Dew

If Phantasm is interested, I'll be happy to explain.

Before you accuse me of censorship, maybe you could at least take the time to explain. Throughout this thread I've been more than willing to hear out arguments and change my mind. Not once have I shut anyone down. I didn't shut anyone down above. . . I explained my reason for not currently including the quote. That doesn't mean I can never be persuaded otherwise. I'm not going to add what I see as a superfluous, useless quote without a good rationale for it, though.

Several people have made great arguments for why that particular quote shouldn't be included. The point of the index is to bring some clarity to frequently recurring forum issues / topics that Rich has given us an official word on. Adding this all-too-brief remark seems like it would only bring confusion. . . when we have a fuller and more nuanced expression of Rich's views elsewhere, why should we go with this very brief, old response?

[Jasdoif]

Originally Posted by B. Dandelion

I'm glad to see that came in handy! Maybe I should link the XML sheet in my sig directly, too...

Thanks for your work, too!

Thank you for drastically reducing the workload, to the point that it fell well within my "How bored am I?" threshold

[martianmister]

Foreshadowing?

Originally Posted by The gods are Liars

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showp...64&postcount=1
http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showp...0&postcount=20

[ti'esar]

Originally Posted by martianmister

Foreshadowing?

Neat, but I'm not sure what the point of adding it would be.

Did we add that quote about how nurture vs. nature issues for Elan and Nale couldn't be answered without spoilers? If not, we shouldn't add this.

[ThePhantasm]

Originally Posted by ti'esar

Did we add that quote about how nurture vs. nature issues for Elan and Nale couldn't be answered without spoilers?

Yes I did under the alignment section, but mostly for the "Elan's understanding of what it means to be Good" part, not the "I'm going to one day reveal x" part.

martianmister, I'm uncertain about adding the quote you gave because I'm not sure it really provides any new info. "One day this will be answered" isn't all that informative. . .

What does everyone else think? Would this quote be useful in some way I'm not thinking of?

[Morty]

I don't think it's a particularily useful quote. We already know there's a lot of stuff behind the story of the Gods, the Snarl and the creation of the world we're unaware of.

[Jasdoif]

Originally Posted by Morty

I don't think it's a particularily useful quote. We already know there's a lot of stuff behind the story of the Gods, the Snarl and the creation of the world we're unaware of.

It does, however, suggest what little we are aware of might not be wholly accurate.

[ti'esar]

Originally Posted by Jasdoif

It does, however, suggest what little we are aware of might not be wholly accurate.

We already knew that as well.

[B. Dandelion]

I'd argue for inclusion. On the face of it, it might not suggest much, but in context, it's very interesting: he implicitly agreed with the assertion it was contradictory for the gods to create races after the fact, when it had been stated they couldn't directly influence the world in order to re-seal the Snarl. Other people on that thread were open to the argument that it wasn't a contradiction at all, that the situations were so dissimilar it could feasibly be possible to do one but not the other. For that to be an outright contradiction, one or both of the crayon sequences must be wrong and/or dishonest -- not just incomplete, but false. That's been speculated before, but until now it's only been speculation.

Granted, that is reading into the statement some, so it could be denied on grounds of not being concrete enough to draw any specific conclusions. But unless he clarifies that statement, it's probably going to come up a lot in debates about whether the Dark One's lying, which I think is reason enough to include it.

[DrBurr]

The one problem with the quote is its lack of definitive information, essentially the Giant said Lol, Its a Secret.

Really it all boils down to how far you read into the statement, because if the gods were telling the truth why would Rich say that, but it could simply be a red herring or statement to maintain mystique for a future plot arc.

I'm not really for or against the inclusion, because it does have some merits as a quote from Rich and has the possibility of being used to prove points, but because it lacks definite info like other posts it can't be used to settle disagreements only fan them which is what I believe to be contrary to the intention of this index

[Flame of Anor]

Originally Posted by FujinAkari

Uh... thanks, but that isn't what people are talking about.

I say throw it in anyway, it can't hurt.

[t209]

Giant is a Conservative (He explained to me that it does not have to do with political version).

[Jaros]

Originally Posted by t209

Giant is a Conservative (He explained to me that it does not have to do with political version).

That's not saying he is a conservative, simply that his viewpoints are more conservative on that matter than the interviewee, who had more radical views. I don't see much point for this as it's just commenting on an adjective used in an interview.

[ThePhantasm]

Updated with Jasdoif's date / comic contribution.

t209, that comment is too specific to the minutiae of a particular interview to be useful, and isn't really related to the comic at all. I see no reason to include it in the index.

I concur with DrBurr that the cryptic comment from the Giant about the gods doesn't really provide any new info that can help forum discussions. I think one of the important requirements for a quote to be included in the index should be that the quote brings clarity. B. Dandelion's point about the quote's implications is plausible, but self-admittedly requires reading into the quote a particular interpretation which is largely speculative.

[B. Dandelion]

Originally Posted by ThePhantasm

Updated with Jasdoif's date / comic contribution.

t209, that comment is too specific to the minutiae of a particular interview to be useful, and isn't really related to the comic at all. I see no reason to include it in the index.

I concur with DrBurr that the cryptic comment from the Giant about the gods doesn't really provide any new info that can help forum discussions. I think one of the important requirements for a quote to be included in the index should be that the quote brings clarity. B. Dandelion's point about the quote's implications is plausible, but self-admittedly requires reading into the quote a particular interpretation which is largely speculative.

Just as well, since he did clarify that statement which proved my position wrong. Said clarification more unambiguously warrants note: there isn't anything contradictory about the gods being able to create additional races after creating the planet.

[zimmerwald1915]

Originally Posted by Jaros

That's not saying he is a conservative, simply that his viewpoints are more conservative on that matter than the interviewee, who had more radical views. I don't see much point for this as it's just commenting on an adjective used in an interview.

Not to mention that if discussing real life politics is taboo, discussing Rich's real-life politics is probably super-ultra taboo. Not that various inferences can't be made from his compiled quotes and the comic itself, but actually talking about those inferences can't possibly be allowed.

[martianmister]

Can we find the comment in this post? According to this, V WAS good alignment at back then.

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showp...&postcount=110

[Kish]

You don't seem to have read the rest of FujinAkari's post.

Yes, Rich said that all the Order except Belkar are Good. Later, he said that things he says on the forum aren't canon and he specifically doesn't want to be held to that statement. The latter post might be worth mentioning in this thread; the former post is certainly not, unless Warren comes back and explains his reasoning.

[ThePhantasm]

Originally Posted by Kish

Later, he said that things he says on the forum aren't canon and he specifically doesn't want to be held to that statement. The latter post might be worth mentioning in this thread

I can't seem to access it from FujinAkari's post. Anyone have an alternate link?

[martianmister]

Originally Posted by Kish

You don't seem to have read the rest of FujinAkari's post.

No, I did.

Yes, Rich said that all the Order except Belkar are Good.

Do you remember the whole post?

Later, he said that things he says on the forum aren't canon and he specifically doesn't want to be held to that statement.

1. It's a index of Giant's comments. I can't see any reason to not add this information.

2. Did he specifically refer to that exact post? Or is that his general sentiment?