Follow TV Tropes
This page being in the overly long category, we should start thinking about moving the entry for the High Priest of Hel elsewhere, probably the "Others" page. He can't be any longer considered a member of the Order, but definitively an antagonist.
Also should be considered whether we drop the "Spoiler Character" title folder. I believe it's considered bad form.
Should we change the High Priest of Hel's quote to a line from the new strip (1007)? "And that's who I am. Your worst day, personified."
V's gender has reared their head once more.
Shiny Manaphy changed the note on V's gender to this and their gender from Unknown to "Genderqueer":
Now, Genderqueer, as far as I'm aware, can simply be used to mean "doesn't interpret gender in the traditional way" (i.e. elves, or at least V, don't understand gender in the same way as humans —which has been established). I've reversed the changes for now, but does anyone know if The Giant's said anything further on the matter?
Generally, I find when people say "do your own research, I'm not going to provide any links or quotes" they're... less than reliable. A revert is a good idea.
Moreover, when a note says "don't change this, if you want to please go to discussion" and someone... well, just changes it, that doesn't give me a lot of faith.
Agreed. This sounds like someone who doesn't want it to be ambigious for personal reasons. Furthermore, "congratulations, you're a transphobe" is an ad hominem fallacy.
Yeah that... also set off alarm bells.
"Genderqueer", like "queer", is a rather vague term. It is definitely an acceptable gender label for someone to identify as, though, and if the Giant claims that's what Vaarsuvius is, then that's what they are.
So really, the only thing to do is for someone with a copy of book 5 to read it and see if the Giant says that. If he does, V's gender label should be updated. (Citing a page number would probably help greatly.) If he doesn't, we leave it as unknown.
The "congratulations you're a transphobe" bit is way more abrasive than it needs to be, but not essentially false, as it's shorthand for words to the effect of "it's rather suspicious that we're only questioning the Giant's word on a character's gender for the one that he said was non-binary." (It's also not ad hominem, technically — it's not "you're a transphobe therefore you're wrong", it's "you're wrong and your wrong thinking stems from transphobia". And it was explicitly only applied to a single argument.)
That's... a really needless analysis of a potential vandal's thinking. But okay.
No one's questioning the Giant's word on it, we're questioning him for the claiming word of god with no backing whatsoever. Then they go ahead and strawman and say "the only reason anyone could be as wrong as you is if they're a transphobe."
So yeah. I'm not giving this guy the benefit of the doubt, that's for sure.
In response, to checking book 5 from 2 comments up from this one, I checked my copy of book 5; found a potential indicator. It might be implied in the commentary before strip 918, but is by no means... certain to apply to V, given how it's phrased.
^^ I'm pretty sure that "Is that actually something the Giant said or are you making that up?" is a completely different argument than "I agree that the Giant said this thing, but was he correct when he said it?", and criticisms of the latter are not intended to apply to the former.
^ What actually was the phrasing, anyway? Did the word "genderqueer" even appear in the text? (Some people have a bad habit of using "genderqueer" as an umbrella term for "anything other than binary and gender-conforming", which wouldn't be really useful here.)
Sorry for the long delay in responding.
On Tarquin wigging out about Elan's role in the party, and about stories to control the future, being afraid of an unknown future:
"It's no accident that he's a wealthy old straight white man losing his marbles over the fact that the tale he is experiencing doesn't focus on the other straight white man at the expense of the black man, the woman, the genderqueer person, and even the Latino guest star."
So, yes, the Giant himself *probably* referred to Vaarsuvius using the exact term 'genderqueer'
Okay, yes, that is definitely Rich describing V as genderqueer. That's pretty unambiguous, unless Belkar comes out as genderqueer before the comic's end.
The only question here is did Rich mean "genderqueer" in a specific or general sense.
Is there a particular reason to cut so much content out of the Min-Maxing example?
I talked with the person who did it and they said it had too much of a "Stop Having Fun" Guys vibe because it was too focused on stat and ability optimizing instead of story or character relevance.
This page being in the Overly Long Pages list, I suggest creating a new "Animal Companions" character subpage and moving Blackwing, Mr. Scruffy and Bloodfeast there.
That might work.
Seems like the entry under "Min/Maxing" could really be summed up with "Averted. None of the characters are well-optimized, because that wouldn't be as funny."
Honestly, the entire section seems a bit exagerrated. While not of them are Min/Maxing, the builds aren't nearly as horrible as the section suggests.
Roy: He's got high Int and Wisdom, but honestly, he seems to have high stats across the board. We've never seen anything to suggest that he's taking penalties in the important stats.
Belkar: No arguments here. He's a horrible class build.
Haley: Admittedly, she wasted a few feats (especially Manyshot). Not carrying a melee weapon isn't that big a deal, as once you've dumped enough feats into ranged attacks, its usually better to take a five foot step back and shoot your target.
Vaarsuvius: This one is just laughable. I'm not saying Conjuration isn't a useful school, but the statement that all Vaarsuvius has is pure combat spells is provably false, given the range of non-combat spells we've seen him cast.
Durkon and Elan's sections are fairly accurate.
In short, I don't think this warrants an entry. While none of them minmax, only Belkar's build is so horrible to qualify as explicitly averting it.
"[comment] There is NO "Luke, I Am Your Father", see the Tarquin entry."
I'm mystified by this. We meet a mysterious stranger in an antagonist role, he turns out to be Elan's long-lost father. How is that not Luke, I Am Your Father? Under Tarquin's entry it's listed as Luke, You Are My Father, which is described as "familiar character meets long lost child" — don't see how that applies any more than LYAMF.
Considering he also quoted the line, almost exactly...
Should Banjo get his own little entry? Even the books' cast pages treat him as a separate character.
Well, I'd say the main consideration would be: is there tropes or not?
If a few specific character tropes can be found relating strictly to Banjo, then it can warrant an entry.
He should be listed under the deities though, I would think.
Are we tracking Character levels? because if so, Elan is level 14 (assuming he has not leveled up during the latest arc and has only one dashing swordsman level) as bard 13 is the only level were he would gain two new 5th leval and one 4th level spell while Haley is at least level 15, as for her to be able to attack 4 times in one round, she would need at least 11 BAB and rapid shot, which would be 15 levels of rogue.
Please leave that sort of thing to the Class and Level Geekery thread on the official forums. TV Tropes as a wiki doesn't need to be concerned about it and it distracts from the tropes.
Plus, Burlew has said he deliberately keeps the levels and abilities vague in order to not restrict the jokes. Going into that much detail on it seems to be missing the point (plus, Elan just got level drained anyway)
And will get those levels back if he makes a Fortitude save or gets a Restoration spell. The point is that the comic is deliberately vague about the characters' precise stats and as such we should not list them here, even if they were relevant to TV Tropes, which they are not.
Also, levels are something that change throughout the story. Trying to keep track of them isn't just worth it, and those stats are meaningless for non-D&D gamers.
On V's section, I noticed this: "Approached at a convention on the subject, Word Of God was that Vaarsuvius' sexual orientation is not going to be revealed prior to V's gender.".
I'm rather fascinated, but I can't seem to find the name of the person who added this comment in edit history, so I'm asking here in hopes they will see this and reply.
When was this? Were you really the one who heard this from Mr. Burlew or was this something you heard from someone else? Did it sound as though he is actually planning on revealing these things about V, or was it another way to say "not happening"? Thanks a ton.
Community Showcase More