Talk:Roy Greenhilt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Roy's attraction to females

I wrote: "He also has a tendency to become attracted to beautiful women to the point where his judgement can become somewhat clouded." However, that was before he resisted Sabines attempt at seduction. Now I suspect I was a bit unfair to Roy in this regard. He is about as interested in the opposite sex as you would expect from a person of his age.

Actually I think that the original point is still somewhat fair. After all, Sabine had been trying to kill him thirty seconds earlier, plus is a evil fiend, so it's hardly unreasonable that Roy, in this case, would have been able to resist her charms. --Tailkinker 15:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
It should be noted that if this statement is an editor's interpretation, it's considered original research. If it's been said elsewhere, the source should be cited. Gitman00 17:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Skin Colour

From the page: "[Roy] is darkly tanned". As I understand it Roy is black/Negro. Unless there is evidence that he is merely tanned (and that his parents and sister are also merely tanned) this should be changed.Azezel 17:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I always assumed he was black, which would fit his character even better- he's a counterstereotype to the big dumb fighter, and to be a black man tops it all off, since most black characters in D&D are barbarians, AKA big dumb fighters.
Whichever it is, the source should be cited. If a reliable source for Roy's race isn't to be found, "dark skinned" would be appropriate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gitman00 (talk Gitman00 17:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
On a side not, isn't Negro derogatory? Not an accusation, just curious.-Silverlocke980 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 147.133.205.171 (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2007 (UTC).
Negro is just a term like caucasian. -67.10.51.90 00:57, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
Overall, I agree it's not the preferred term, but I can see it being a necessary distinction in a fantasy setting where some characters are literally black. MK2 10:44, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Roy's Death- for real?

I have a nagging suspicion that he isn't dead, but didn't want to post this in the main article- anyway, when he's on the ground, he appears to have 3 eyes- two X X's, and a circle (normal eye). Was this a drawing error, or a hint? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.23.136.108 (talk) 01:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

  • I think changing this entire article to past-tense was premature, since it seems nearly certain that he'll be resurrected. Getting Roy back in exchange for 10,000 GP is a very good deal. We can wait until that happens before we rv, though. --ComputerSherpa
    • In a story so concerned with the D&D rules, in which resurrection has been accepted as a fact of life (e.g., Belkar's not guilty of a capital crime because they expect to resurrect the guard he killed), it's hardly reasonable to start talking of people in the past tense two or three strips after their death. Especially when the body is intact and people know where it is. To people who don't know the strip, this sort of information is badly misleading... it's like talking about the city being taken over by the undead, while it's merely under seige. I would suggest changing to present tense with a note as to the nature of death and resurrection in the comic, and the likelihood of Roy's return. Kilyle 14:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I went ahead and reverted it to present tense, as it's clear he will return, being the main character and all. Groove Guy 18:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive detail

While I realize that a high level of detail should be expected in a page focused on one character, is it really necessary to give a blow-by-blow account of every event in which Roy was involved? A character page doesn't need to rehash 80% of the comic's plot. (Also, I'm in favor of applying some spoiler tags where his death is concerned.) Jefepato 03:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. I'm on the edge of tagging the article. CarlFink 21:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Roy is the primary protaginist of the entire comic, the leader and reason the order even exists; with that in mind I don't think this article is overly long. I've seen worse, and when you consider that the character page for superman runs twice as long, I think this article is fine. Timmccloud 00:25, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Superman is one of the defining fictional characters of the 20th century, with a 68-year history. I love OOTS, but Roy's no Superman. (Great, now I have the theme music from " Scrubs" in my head...) This could use serious paring down, as could ALL the OOTS individual character pages. I could read the entire run of the comic in less time than I could read the combined OOTS character pages! Ig8887 10:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

While not especially long, it is a bit long winded IMO. His royal majesty, Lord Holy Ono 01:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll give it a couple days to see if there's any discussion, then I'm going to start doing some cleanup. The "Afterlife" section in particular is extremely verbose. If someone wants that level of detail, they can go read the comic. Gitman00 (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

All the character pages are like this. Perhaps a page on the story itself could cover most of the information while the character pages could be just about the characters.--Stu42 (talk) 22:30, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New Wiki

Would it be okay to take some images and text from the pages here to help build up the extremely recently made Order of The Stick Wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.164.107.14 (talk) 03:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)