Talk:The Order of the Stick

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Amalas (talk | contribs) at 18:12, 8 December 2006 (→Giant in the Playground: agree). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:12, 8 December 2006 by Amalas (talk | contribs) (→Giant in the Playground: agree)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Webcomics: Comics Start‑class

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Webcomics. If you would like to participate in this project, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WebcomicsWikipedia:WikiProject WebcomicsTemplate:WikiProject WebcomicsWebcomics
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Comics.

Quotes

Do we really need the quotes? If people want to see the jokes, they can follow the link and check out the comic itself. I think this section should be removed since it has no factual relevence. At minimum, it should be moved to wikiquote.--JiFish 20:12, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

In addition these quotes will be continually added to as the series goes on, bloating the article. Plus, the text doesn't do justice to the jokes. :) I think the quotes section should be replaced with some links to comics that have relevance to the article. (Like Penny Arcade.) My first post has been up for four days and nobody has replied to it. I can only assume this means nobody has any objections. I will remove this section if nobody objects in a day or so. --JiFish 22:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

How about using Wikiquote? The template is: {{Wikiquote}}

Adding direct links to a couple of good examples of the typical OOTS comic seems a very good idea. I'd do it myself, but the website seems to be down atm.. MMad 01:39, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Published Collection(s)?

"While it is principally published on the web, several collections have been published as books." Isn't there only one published collection? I may have missed the supposed second, but I don't think so. :) --Jen Moakler 00:53, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

No, only one book. --JiFish 11:46, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Two books, actually. Dungeon Crawlin' Fools, and On the Origins of the PCs. -- BRC

Third book's been announced on the site. 84.70.213.75 13:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers

Does anyone else think rather than using spoiler tags on the Characters section, we should attempt to remove as many spoilers as possible? After all, we don't have to spoil the plot to describe the characters. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 15:44, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be better to summarize the characters briefly as they were at the beginning of the comic (with no spoilers) and then fork the bulk of the character text to a seperate page marked with spoilers? 171.72.5.226 20:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC) Lanky Bugger

Belkar's Alignment

If Belkar was evil, wouldn't Miko recently have figured it out, even with Belkar using his lead shield to hide from Miko.... Just a thought--Azathar 04:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The entire point of that lead-sheet is that he can hide from Miko's Detect Evil Spell. Why would he want to hide from it if he wasn't evil? Miko isn't stupid, she is highly suspicious that Belkar is evil, that's why she has cast "Detect Evil" on him more than once. Thank goodness for that lead-sheet. Belkar's evil alignment is well established. Just take a look at the Giant in the Playground discussion boards. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 11:54, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I don't tend to read discussion boards, takes way too much time to sort thru them, and remind me too much of usenet. Plus, boards aren't cannon. I'd still say chaotic neutral (with evil tendencies), but that is my opinion.--Azathar 15:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

After reading the following forum Why is the ranger evil? I'm still not convinced, but, I am not going to start and edit war over it, and will leave it alone, though I still think CN is more appropriate.--Azathar 16:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Rich himself has stated that Belkar is evil.

Cool, can you provide a link to that, so I can add it as a reference? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 12:20, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Maybe Belkar is only Chaotic, as in the original D&D rules.... LOL--Azathar 07:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I assume by the "LOL" that you aren't being serious. Belkar is Chaotic-Evil Period. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 11:32, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes, the LOL means I was not being serious, BUT, technically, he is Chaotic ______, as it hasn't been said yet in the comics that he is actually evil. But, I agree, I now think he is Evil, just wonder when Rich will admit it in the strips.--Azathar 01:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Probabily at the same time as confirming V's gender. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 11:35, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Agreed! :)--Azathar 16:57, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

id say hes evil, baised upon this, but thats just me

Reiterated over and over, here's the author declaring Belkar is CE. -KiloByte 20:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Although his alignment was once in dispute, it has since been confirmed by the creator of the strip both through explicit statement () and through events in the comic itself ( and ) that Belkar is chaotic evil.

Huh? "Once" when? I'm surprised this is an issue at all. Hasn't it been clear beyond all doubt that Belkar is evil way back since strip 11? --Maggu 15:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Surprisingly enough, the GiTP forums were once rampant with "Belkar is Chaotic Good" topics and they still crop up with readers aware of the Giant's statement that Belkar is Chaotic Evil. 171.72.5.226 20:21, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Lanky Bugger

As fun as this topic may be to talk about, there are forums for it, and this isn't one of them. As lanky bugger said, yes, there have been no less than 10 forum topics popping up to discuss it, so use those.

This sure is one of them, since it directly affects the wording of the article... --Maggu 08:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not well-aquinted with D&D alignments. However, it is obvious that Belkar likes to kill and torment things. He also has a tremendous thirst for vengeance. In that sense he is evil. He does not, however, care if what he torments and kills is good or evil so he is not evil in an ideological sense. Most of the things he kills are certainly evil.

Belkar is discribed as a psychopath in the article. Sometimes the word psychopath is sloppily used as if it was essentially synonimous with serial killer (it isn't, most psychopaths aren't even murderers). In that sense, the word would indeed be an adequate discription of Belkar. It is clearly erroneous to discribe Belkar as a psychopath in the clinical meaning of the word as defined in PCL-R Psychopathy Checklist-Revised (PCL-R). Belkar is not charming, he has not a particularly inflated sense of self-worth, he is no more prone to boredom than the rest of the party, he lies often but lies to achieve a goal and not as a pathological liar, he is manipulative and has no sense of remorse, his emotions are deep (albeit a bit binary as V recently pointed out) as opposed to a psychopath's shallow affect, he is not particularly economically parasitic, he does have poor behavioural control but is not particularly promiscuous. He is capable of long-term planning, is only impulsive when it comes to anger, he is irresponsible and is not criminally versatile (he sticks to murder, assault, torture and abuse). Psychologically it is much more adequate to say that he is a murderous sadist. Therefore it is a rather unhappy that the text on Belkar actually links to an article that describes psychopathy in the clinical sense. The linked article describes something Belkar is not. Therefore I suggest the link and/or the word psychopath is changed.

Sensemaker

Minor char lawyers

I'm not sure that the lawyer that Belkar hired was one of the named lawyers. Does someone have a confirmation of this? --Syrthiss 21:52, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

It might be better if we don't name the lawyers at all. "Lawyers" should surfice. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 23:24, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, the lawyer that shows up looks the same as one of the previous lawyers ( and ), so I assumed they were the same guy. --Pentasyllabic 23:42, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it's a statement that all lawyers look the same...--Azathar 04:15, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

There are only two lawyers in the land. The third is Celia.

Elan's Intelligence

Elan has "OK Intelligence"? You're kidding, right? Elan is as dumb as a box; that's been established. This needs to be changed. Calion

Fixed. --JiFish(/_Contrib) 19:07, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Belkar vs Miko

In the upcoming combat that is sure to happen, who do you think will win? I'm rooting for Belkar.--Azathar 17:12, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Talk pages aren't forums. --Pentasyllabic 17:19, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Denial of Service Attack

The Order of the Stick page has been the target of a Denial of Service attack or some such lately. People haven't been able to access the page. Does this have any relevance to the comic?

I wouldn't say so, a lot of comics and website have down time, it's not really noteable. If it goes on for a while longer (say another couple of weeks), or it esculates into an issue (the author complains about it and takes action)- but not quite yet.--Oppolo 05:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Haley's cryptogram

Has anyone figured out the cryptogram that Haley is speaking in? If so I think it should be added to this page.Unklelemmy 21:04, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

It's different in each strip. Lots of people are posting translations, usually within an hour of a given strip going up. You can find them on the official message board for OotS, ENWorld, the newsgroup rec.games.frp.dnd, and probably other places as well. PurplePlatypus 22:00, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

This thread on the official forums has all the translations. Phlip 01:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Confusing line

I just took out

Durkon's spells and abilities show him to be at least level 11.

from Elan's paragraph. Either this line has the wrong name in it or it was put into the wrong paragraph, and I don't know which. Bryan 05:42, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I think it was in reference to Durkon's ability to use multiple fifth level spells per day (shown once or twice, and explicity asserted by Belkar in the latest strip as I write this). I put a similar sentence into Durkon's section last night. PurplePlatypus 22:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I just modified it to suggest that Durkon is level 12 - In order to cast Raise Dead three times at level 11 he would need a Charisma of 20, and no Charisma boosting item has ever been mentioned. Azezel 16:52 02 MArch 2006 (UTC)

It's Wisdom, not Charisma, and it's conceivable that Durkon has a wisdom-boosting item. Just because they haven't mentioned it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Plus, level 11 characters have had two ability boosts.

Avoid specific stats/levels

Speculation about characters' exact levels, feats, and stats should probably be avoided, unless there are direct statements about them in the strips. See http://www.giantitp.com/FAQ.html#faq6a - Burlew purposely keeps these things fuzzy so as not to restrict his storytelling. Key line: "As a rule of thumb, I tend to think of them as being around 7th-9th level or so". Zompist 19:08, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

We aren't speculating: we're going through things that are either expressly written (i.e. Belkar is CE alignment, or that Belkar and Vaarsuvius are the same level), or can be conclusively shown to be accurate (i.e. if V can cast x amount of spells per day of this spell level, he MUST be at least level Y).⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 19:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, these things are speculative, unless they're either mentioned in the strip or in statements from Burlew (e.g. Belkar's alignment). Deductions from the rules aren't conclusive. One reason is because they might contradict other things Burlew has said (e.g. his statement about character levels above); another is that the campaign the strip represents might have house rules (this possibility was explicitly mentioned in one strip); yet another is that characters' statements may not be entirely reliable. We know for instance, that a statement by a character about V's gender is just that character's opinion. Maybe Belkar's wrong about how many spells Durkon can cast. Zompist 19:53, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

On a related note, drawing conclusions in this way probably violates the WP:NOR rule. Stick to facts. --JiFish(/_Contrib) 19:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Branch off a separate article for the characters

As is the case with many webcomic articles, the character section is crufting up with trivia and excessive plot detail. Consider forking off to Characters of the Order of the Stick or something like that, which could contain the detail, and then streamlining the character section here to just the basics. For examples of other webcomics that have done this, see:

It's not the most elegant solution, but the end result is a sleaker main article. –Abe Dashiell 13:55, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I have added a {{splitsection}} tag. --JiFish(/_Contrib) 20:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree; the section is getting absurdly long, and I doubt there's any hope of keeping people from making it exhaustive. Zompist 20:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree as well. The main article is being cluttered up with minor characters. While these are important to the plot, etc, they aren't necessary to be in the main article overviewing the series itself, nor is the detail therein. Keep the main article down to brief overviews of the Order itself, and put everybody else, and more expanded descriptions in a seperate article.

Agreed. ⇒ SWATJester Aim _Fire! 23:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've done it. The character page was the easy part; I just plopped the whole thing in there and was done with it. Writing a brief, spoiler free summary for each of the primary characters on the main page, however, was really tough. –Abe Dashiell 02:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Well done, though. It's hard to summarize a character in a line, but those are really good. Zompist 18:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Lets keep the character section on the main page to the members of The Order of the Stick proper. They're the only ones who have been in every story line, after all. –Abe Dashiell 04:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity

I've changed the characters section of the wiki to reflect the fact that Durkon possesses the Girdle, not Roy. Comic 249 clearly shows Roy leaving the belt with Durkon. The implication, obviously, is that Roy doesn't want it and coupling that with Durkon's question about whether or not Roy wants to keep the belt suggests Durkon still has it in his care.

171.72.5.226 20:18, 5 April 2006 (UTC)Lanky Bugger

Tundra

Someone just said that, because there's a tundra in the far north, this is an indication that OotS takes place in the Forgotten Realms.

The mind boggles...

Needless to say, I reverted it, seeing that this was either trolling or a good-faith but singularly ill-considered edit. PurplePlatypus 02:17, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Rich Burlew Article?

"Rich Burlew" redirects to this page, which means that there is no Rich Burlew article, right? Someone should correct that, and I'd be inclined to take a crack at it, but I'd like to make sure I'm not duplicating anyone's efforts or contradicting some policy decision that Rich Burlew should redirect here. Any thoughts? RolandStJude 23:49, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It's been done, and was deleted as per Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Rich Burlew. That doesn't mean you can't do it, but it won't be given much leeway. Basically, it has to start off as a shining example of all that's good in bio articles, or it will probably just get reverted back to the redirect. You might want to see if you can put something together on Comixpedia, and then move it over here when it's polished. –Abe Dashiell 01:01, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thog is a half-orc, not goblin

Per Rich Burlow himself (search for "Reply #7" from "The Giant") Thog is a half-orc, not a goblin. Characters of the Order of the Stick got it right. Alan De Smet | Talk 00:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Giant in the Playground

"Giant in the Playground" redirects to Order of the Stick. Since the Giant in the Playground page has a lot of non OotS media, shouldn't it rate its own page? 208.165.251.16 17:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I may have to agree. Especially now that there's another comic being hosted on the site. ~ Amalas rawr 18:12, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Categories: