The Order of the Stick

x9: Ah. Personally I don't think the idea of racial stat boosts is really the problem it's phrased as because D&D "races" are more species than ethnicities, in terms of real world parallels. Subraces muddy that a bit by being more cultural but most of them still feel like subspecies, though maybe I'm reasoning backwards from the fact they have different stat distributions. (A few definitely are subspecies though, like drow.) So there being absolute differences in the distribution of ability isn't necessarily a problem, just an aspect of the setting. Though one made a little awkward by the use of the word "race", not one that I think is necessarily bad. (And ironically, in some suggested replacements I've seen where ability scores are fully or in part modified by the culture you grow up in rather than the species you're one of, that's closer to being something you could gloss as reifying or justifying modern racist ideologies, IMO.)

I still wouldn't be against a modular system, done well at least, even if I don't think it's necessary to be unproblematic, since I like it for mechanical reasons; e.g. it's easier to play a Wizard of any race you want if you can get an Intelligence boost with any arbitrary race, after all. I'd hope WotC doesn't stop at that in addressing issues, but I'd be real surprised if they did, so.

You know I forgot Bandana was a lesbian (or bi, pan, etc.). And I'm a lesbian who always liked Bandana as a character, so... So much for the blatant pandering people were probably up in arms about it being?

Edited by RaichuKFM on May 1st 2021 at 9:42:34 AM

People who complain about "diversity pandering" can usually be ignored, although it's certainly possible for it to be done poorly.

The whole "race vs. species" thing has actually been brought up in comic, by the Mit D no less. Redcloak's response was since he hates all kinds of humans equally, he's a speciesist.

As far as minor things that caused an uproar, people also complained about one line from Sigdi that indicated she wouldn't care if Durkon was gay. Apparently because it was "forced" or "out of character" for her to say something like that.

"Pandering" is one of those things that are normal (not "we accepted it back then" but "it's like sleeping, there's no actual problem here") but people try to make it sound scary and vile.

“Pandering”. Bah. It’s called audience/demographic appeal. “Pandering” is just an attempt to make “this doesn’t appeal to me but it’s trying to appeal to other people and that’s not good” not sound like the whiniest bloody statement in the universe.

Edited by fredhot16 on May 1st 2021 at 7:08:17 AM

In my opinion, Durkon does come across as a bit judgemental considering the goblins Roy has fought have all been servants of Xykon and no one is going to question that Xykon needs to be defeated. Roy has very much been the kind of person to understand that green-skinned creatures aren't by default his enemies.

Yeah, honestly I'm not really sure why pandering is supposed to be a bad thing in the first place. Pandering is just doing something because you think your audience will like it. That's a good thing, since most works are meant to be liked by their audiences.

Sure, it can be done poorly, but... When it's done poorly, it's because there's some aspect of it that's been done poorly. It can just be criticized for that, and not the fact that the problem occurred in the process of making something that happened to be pandersome.

Of course, a lot of diversity "pandering" isn't even pandering, just a work acknowledging various kinds of people exist, since... they do. But even when it is pandering, uh, point to the actual supposed problem, hypothetical disgruntled audience member.

I feel like most complaints of pandering are not so much people disliking pandering but disliking that the work isn't pandering to them.

Yeah, a takeaway of "Roy has been unconsciously racist against goblins this whole time" would be rather wrong, but he still could have talked to them in the initial dungeon crawl; after all, it's not that uncommon for an evil sorcerer to rule by fear, so the fact they worked for Xykon didn't necessarily make them irredeemable enemies. It probably wouldn't have worked out, but the fact they didn't think to attempt it still reflects a bit poorly on them.

Edited by RaichuKFM on May 1st 2021 at 10:06:08 AM

Roy's behavior isn't from racism specifically, but from treating goblins like monsters that exist to be killed for XP. Which is, in fairness, exactly what they are for. That he failed to recognize the essential unfairness of this isn't his fault: nobody did (except the goblins) until just recently.

People always complain about pandering and nobody ever talks about the heterosexual agenda. Do you know how many stories there are out there pandering to fans of opposite-sex romances? A lot. It's a lot.

The way you know that people who complain about "pandering" aren't arguing in good faith is because it's never "pandering" when it's white representation. Or male heroes. Or heterosexual romances. Or people being cis-gender.

Yeah, when Bandana was revealed to have an ex-girlfriend — you know, in one panel, in one line — pandering, "what narrative use does this have," "why don't LGBTQ people write their own stories about it instead," and all other sort of goodies wormed into conversation. It's mind-blankingly dumb. People who say pandering unironically when it comes to positive diversity representation have pretty much nothing of value to add to conversation.

As for current writing, it's as solid as ever (to me). I never played D&D so I didn't really know or care too much about the criticism of D&D players, but I don't think it's a coincidence that the story has shifted from strict D&D commentary to a more applicable real-life theme.

Like, in 1208 Redcloak never once mentions the "XP" thing about the goblins' plight, even though in SOD he does. It becomes more of an issue of resource allocation instead of pure stats, and the former is definitely more of a RL issue than the latter.

Ah, pandering. Another casualty in the long, proud history of legitimate critical terms being appropriated by douchebags to slap a veneer of validity on their petty and/or hateful opinions about anything that isn't tailored to their exact preferences. May it stand ashamedly alongside "Mary Sue," "Tokenism," and "Organic Storytelling."

I dunno, I've never seen anyone stop using any of these terms in legitimate ways just because some people use them in illegitimate or dumb ways. I have seen people stop using Mary Sue but always with an attitude that it was never a good term to begin with. I don't even know how "Organic Storytelling" has apparently been misused.

If we recall, misuse of "organic storytelling" is stuff to the effect of "we'll only include visibly LGBT characters in our story if the story organically allows it", where "the story organically allows it" seems to be defined as "never happening"

or that's one of them anyway

Edited by wingedcatgirl on May 1st 2021 at 1:26:47 PM

Yeah, when I see cries of "inorganic" it's often things like Bandana's off-hand mention of her ex, or that line from Sigdi about just wanting Durkon to find a nice gal or fella. It's just a way of trying to pretend the gay (or trans, non-Christian, non-white, whatever) inclusion isn't the problem just the placing, but these people never seem to think any placing is actually good.

Edited by LSBK on May 1st 2021 at 1:41:10 PM

I mean my mom literally uses the same "nice gal or fella" thing when she talks to me, so frankly it made her seem more authentic to me.

Edited by Clarste on May 1st 2021 at 11:37:03 AM

"I don't mind gay characters, but I just don't want it to be their whole personality." "It doesn't really add onto the story. They didn't have to shove it in our faces." "There are already enough LGBTQ characters! That one cop in Cliffport, and Sabine! I just think it's not really necessary to have more."

OK, I guess I'm getting off-topic, but that whole Bandana incident still leaves a bad taste in my mouth even if it was years ago.

I think pathfinder in general does "ancestry inclusiveness" factor better than D&D, plus we have cooler tieflings ;P

You haven't played tiefling until you have played tiefling whose arms are multiple snakes

But Roy has questioned Xykon about his motives (even down to stuff like the crown), he hasn’t done the same to the goblins. That’s rather the point, he’s someone that is perfectly capable of discussing a villain’s motives with them mid-fight, but because he sees the goblins as mooks rather than villains he’s never even considered it with them.

Sure that’s not deliberately bigoted, but the mooks all belong to one demographic, so it’s indirect bigotry.

The only "pandering" that I really minded was that ice giant sillyness. And that might even be a parody anyway.

..."Pandering" to who and parodying what?

I'm not trying to ask in a confrontational manner, if you would forgive me.

There was a “female giant held back so as not to upstage male giant” joke, but I’d hardly call that pandering, it was a joke about a common workplace issue.

Yeah, the way it was done was a little clumsy. Maybe if the male giant wasn't the silent type it'd be better?

I still don’t see how a clumsy joke is pandering.

x6: Roy might be feeling guilty not questioning the goblin mooks' motives now, but I'm not sure that would have achieved anything.

Roy: "I'm not after you, why are you fighting me?"

Goblin: "Xykon / Supreme Leader said that we have to kill you, so we are killing you."

@Silaslaw: Seems consistent to me. Roy has often acted dismissively to people who he didn't have a use for, like Shojo's wizard after he teleported the team to Cliffport, or the undead character that carried out the Oracle's test of heart.

Roy: That's fascinating—really, it is—but now that you've fulfilled your story purpose, I find I have no interest in speaking to you any longer.

Edited by TheHeroHartmut on May 2nd 2021 at 10:46:21 AM

It's not like Durkon isn't a judgmental person anyway.