Does Goblins pass the Bechdel Test?

[thinkslogically]

One question that springs to my mind now that you guys have brought it up is why aren't there more female characters in Goblins?

Yes we have Saves a Fox, Duv and Kin. That's fine. The only other notable female characters are the female PCs (drow at the beginning and halflings later I think) who have big boobs and show up for comic relief. That's also fine, they're pretty funny.

In a game system where gender makes no difference to the mechanics, you'd have thought we might have seen one or two more females by now, no? Even if they're just in traditional RPG roles like the ranger or a rogue or just as an occasional throwaway female enemy? The demon that made the deal with Dies might have counted as female, but it's kind of hard to tell. It just seems weird that there are virtually NO female characters because of what is presumably a house-rule on the campaign setting...

I'm totally fine with goblin camps containing only male warriors. If that's how they work then that's fine. But would that really be how EVERYONE builds their fighting forces? Point is, we've seen a lot of battles to date, and none of them contain women anywhere. Most of the NPCs with dialogue are male. It just seems weird considering gender differences don't exist in D&D mechanics, which leads me to assume that THunt has chosen a campaign setting which is inherently sexist. Again, that can be FINE if it's making a point. Sexist settings can be used incredibly effectively to show strengths and weaknesses that you might otherwise overlook in characters (I'm thinking of Game of Thrones), but in Goblins it does feel more like an oversight.

[BeanDip]

The vipers had plenty of female warriors and slaves, they just never talked excepting one warrior who was there when they pulled Dies from the river but the females did fight against the Chograks. Cryptic Fall has no women in the warcamp (except YaB) so there just any around but YaB fought. Given what we know about Dellyn, I wouldn't be surprised if he was knowingly sexist and kept women out of his elite guard. We see female monsters fighting against the Brassmoonian forces when they escape the sewers. As far as NPCs go, I never noticed. I think those people just happen to be male, rather than Thunt trying to deliberately display a sexist setting. Any of the characters could be changed to female and it wouldn't make a difference.

[Hippo]

so many films fail it...but a movie slammed for being misogynist and sexist passes it with flying colours: Sucker Punch.

have fun with that one.

Goblins passes it easily. does it win a cookie?

[thinkslogically]

I stand corrected Bean, thanks for pointing that out

But I do agree that the majority of the time, gender is pretty unimportant here. I guess that's why it seemed weird there weren't more females in various roles (though I will also accept that it's pretty hard to tell in a world of fantasy creatures!)...

[lingrem]

Early in the comic there's a scene where..... one of the Goblins (Dies, maybe?) daydreams about female goblins when he sorta is complaining that there aren't any at the camp and that it's stupid really.

So even from early on, I'm pretty sure THunt was more than aware of the lack of females that would be in the comic... and that it is on purpose, to point out yet another inequality. He's counter-balancing it by making sure that the females we do have are very strong females, some of the strongest in the comic I think.

Also - why do I think that Yala's female? I am going to assume I'm wrong... but I always thought Yala was female.

[BeanDip]

I'm almost certain she (he?) is but I can't recall it ever being confirmed in anyway.

[BuildsLegos]

The "la" at the end is something I've seen/heard in female names; and she has boobs, which shouldn't even be true because reptiles don't even have mammory glands.

[ChuckDaRighteous]

The vipers had plenty of female warriors and slaves, they just never talked excepting one warrior who was there when they pulled Dies from the river but the females did fight against the Chograks.

I wouldn't say plenty of female warriors in the vipers. I went back and checked, and all I could find were 3 aside from Duv. One who finds Dies, one who fights the Chograks, and one who fights Biscuit when he first emerges from the well's exit. And slavery is neither voluntary or a place you really want to fight for women to be when demanding equality of roles

We see female monsters fighting against the Brassmoonian forces when they escape the sewers.

Again I don't really think captives count towards Thinks question. Unless you're counting that they could fight, but that doesn't necessarily make them warriors from a fighting force.

To Answer thinks question, I think the reason to why we don't see more women in the fighting forces might be more technical: drawing female warriors. I'm not saying Thunt couldn't do it, its just creates certain issues. Take Xena for example. Most women (and men for that matter) don't praise her for being a warrior in a male dominated word. Most ask, why the hell would you use a bikini as armor (aside from the obvious reason of cheap titillation)? You even see Thunt make fun of this type of character with his drow. Now take the reverse. Have you ever seen a woman in full S.W.A.T or military tactical gear? She's near indistinguishable from the men. In fact often when you have a show or movie where the heroes are busting down the door backed by a full swat team, the heroes don't wear any of the required head gear because it makes it a nightmare for viewers to keep track of them when they do. (Honestly it drives me nuts to see this, protect your head people!) The point is creating the character and uniform that is perfectly in the middle, clearly distinguishable as a woman and yet respectful is not easy. Particularly when you now have to deal with the fact you can't rely on exposed head cheats that others do because you're dealing with inhuman characters. Again I'm not saying Thunt couldn't do it (he has), but it was probably easier in most cases to circumvent the issue and throw in a token woman here and there.

Looking at his female goblins, the only differences I can notice are smoother cheekbones thicker lips, boobs, and shirts. Those four things provide a fair amount of difference but even so I missed 2 of those 3 vipers at first glance. Ruby could easily be redrawn as a male Yaun-ti because from neck down there isn't anything you could easily distinguish as Womanly. The breastplate hides her boobs. K'seliss's face is fairly gender unspecific due to the fact he's a lizardfolk. His chin spikes look sorta like a beard, and he has the male chest, but if you put a shirt on him and removed the chin spines, that could be a female lizardfolk, but would you necessarily recognize it? The point is I could see a lot of difficulties with drawing female warriors.

That said tying back into the topic, does it make it sexist? Blatantly excluding women out laziness (I don't think Thunt is lazy, my brain isn't coming up with a better word) could easily be seen a sexist decision. Thinks already pointed out as much:

which leads me to assume that THunt has chosen a campaign setting which is inherently sexist.

But most people agree it does pass the Bechdel Test. And most agree that his portrayals of women are not sexist. So if the setting is sexist but his characters are not does it make the overall work sexist. I'm leaning towards no.

I think I'm going to stop their since I've already been warned once this isn't the controversy section and I feel like I'm beating a dead horse to death going on about the inaccuracies of the test.

[Product Placement]

And the Bechdel Test rears its head again.

Seriously, what's with all that interest in this test, all of a sudden? When I first heard about this thing, I thought it was supposed to be a joke (which turns out it actually was, originally (explained further down)) but now that some cinemas in Sweden are actually gonna use this as an authentic grading tool for their movies, I see that people are taking this far more seriously then they should.

For one, the conditions that a movie has to pass are so arbitrarily specific that it's easy for a movie with few but well balanced characters to fail, while a ridiculously sexist movie could to accidentally pass it because it has two females talking about shopping shoes that one time. I could make a movie where the only two female characters could show up to exclusively talk about the Bechdel test and have the movie then be about something entirely else. Cheap? Yes, but it passed the test.

Second, it was coined as a setup for a punchline in a comic from 1985, this one here. At best it's supposed to highlight a high frequency of movies that fail the test but to judge a singular story by these merits alone would be most silly. If someone were to exclude movies on this test alone, like the character in that comic, s/he'd have to ignore films like Life of Pi (because there's only one character on display, most of the time), The Shawshank Redemption (set in a men's prison so female roles wouldn't make any sense), Saving Private Ryan (period film when women didn't fight in ground warfare) and so on.

Now, this doesn't mean that we should outright forgive films for misrepresenting females but if you want to judge a film's ability to represent female characters in a fair an unbiased way, you need a more personal approach. Each film needs to be judged the way the film was set up, not by whether or not if fulfills a certain check list.
[mod="LooksAtYouFunny"]This is the last time I say this!

This is NOT a controversy topic!

While the subject at hand can be highly controversial, it is in direct connection to the comic.

Does Goblins pass the Bechdel Test?

Yes or No! and WHY!
not if the Bechdel Test is worth anything!
not if other movies are good or bad based on this test!
but Does Goblins pass the Bechdel Test?

As said, this is the last time I say it, any new posts taking this as a controversy subject will be deleted!
repeated attempts at discussing this as a controversial subject will result in this thread being locked!
if the Creator of this post wishes to make this a controvercial subject, I can move it to controvercy!
if anyone ELSE wishes to discuses the controversial side of the Bechdel Test and others like it, they may create a new subject in controvercy, with a reference to this post!

Is this clear?

Best regards -LAYF-

[/mod]

[Dagazzard]

So, it does pass the test, due to the Duv and Fox's fight. Though really, and individual work passing or not the test doesn't say much about it, the test is supposed to be a lot of works from a media so you could say something about the media.

Though it IS noticeable how much more easily Goblins passes the reverse Bechdel test.

Also I'd like to say that in the test it doesn't matter who the male character the female characters are talking about is (it doesn't matter if it's a villain, a love interest, a family member, a stranger). The point is that they should be able to have at least a brief conversation about something other than a male character. So talking about Psimax doesn't count as a pass.

But aside from the bechdel test itself, I think a related question is, is Goblins sexist? I don't think so. Here are my thoughts on it.

I think the comic has improved a lot in this topic since the early days of and [url=http://www.goblinscomic.org/10012005/]this.

Analyzing the female characters of the comic, we have:
- Drowbabe/Yodette
- Young and Beautiful
- Kin (and the alternates)
- Saves a Fox
- Duv
- Ora, Yala and the Demoness

Now, the problem with female characters usually happens when they are all sexy or beauty is important to them, or they have to be love interests / sexual interests or are only important because of the male characters.

Drowbabe / Yodette is meant as a satire, though when she first appearead there weren't really reasonable counter-examples. When characters like her are played straight very easily elsewhere (like in Dragon's Crown) I think counter-examples are important to highlight the satire.

I think half of Young and Beautiful scenes mentions her appearance somewhat. Still, aside from having named herself, she doesn't seem to care about that much and has her own story and characteristics aside from that.

Kin is supposed to be sexy, and is a sex slave before being rescued and then falling in love with the guy who rescued her. But she is also someone with agency, not a damsel waiting to be rescued. She has her own story (her origin, her mission) and does not drop everything for Minmax. The thing with the kins and Ruby is meant to symbolize a internal struggle, I think. And when Minmax crosses a line it's not suddenly okay. She was already working to save herself before Minmax came along and was a character before that, so she's not just a love interest.

Saves a Fox is part of a love triangle with Dies and Grem. She's also designed to be sexy. But that's not the main part of the character. She's a leader. She's braver then bothe Dies and Grem - Dies is close to the "damsel" role. She also has her own arch-enemy - Duv - who is one of the main villains. She's clearly the protagonist of her own story.

Now Duv. Duv is vain ("the fire took away my beauty"?). Pride and vanity are some of her main motivations (something similar to the Goblin Slayer). Aside from that, she's got a good military mind and the charisma to command a clan.

Ora, Yala and the demoness are all very minor, but also I think there isn't any problems with any of them.

So, in short. Lots of female characters were designed with sexy (or beauty) somewhat in mind, and there are some stuff that could have been problematic. However, the characters are treated respectfully, as characters with agency and their own stories and characteristics. And there are female characters who are more diverse than just the beautiful/sexy standard. So with that in mind, I don't think the comic is sexist, no.

[thinkslogically]

Thanks Chuck, I haven't had time to go through the archives so I'm only going on memory of what happened. But I'll take yours and Beans words for it that I didn't get it quite right from my original post.

I guess my feeling is that a D&D comic just seems like an odd place to explore sexism because the underlying D&D system is so utterly not sexist (at least in terms of mechanics as far as I'm aware). If your base stats are all that define your abilities in D&D-world and there's no stats difference between genders, any sexism that appears in that world MUST have been brought in from outside because anything other than a 50:50 ratio of men:women in scenarios involving... well, anyone really would be stupid otherwise. Hell, even having a kid could be as simple as praying to a god for a baby and having a new NPC magically appear, so in-game there's no real need for pregnancy / childcare etc. at all.

I do accept that Goblins was intended to be a D&D parody so using the 'standard fantasy setting' is perfectly appropriate, and I agree that Kin, Duv and Saves are decent female characters (I like Kin way better than the other two, but that's just me). I guess it would just be nice to see it extended a bit further back into the ranks of the NPCs etc. They'll never have speaking parts probably because space per page is at a premium, but it would be nice to know they were out there alongside all the guys. This is especially true if Kin is an NPC under DM control - if the DM can be that sympathetic with one female character then where are the others?

[JudeWMire]

While we're on the subject, and since Thunt is talking about equality in his posts, I was wondering if anyone had heard of the Mako Mori test and how it applies to goblins? It's not a Bechdel test replacement, but it's a similar test that seems to work pretty well. It's been long known that there are exceptions in the Bechdel test that make it tricky (movies/books with a single character is a good example, no conversations=no means of qualifying) and I think the Mako Mori test might fill the gaps. It's inspired by the female lead in Pacific Rim, a movie that fails the Bechdel test spectacularly (only 2 women in the whole movie, only 1 has lines), but somehow manages to have a strong, well rounded, female character. Essentially, it's this...

1.) At least one female character, 2.)who has her own narrative arc, 3.) that is not about supporting a man's story.

Looking at Goblins through this lens I can't help but think that, while the females are few, they all pass this. Duv is certainly not living a man's story and has her own tale to tell. Same as Fox. As for Kin, despite her showing up later in the book, at this point, she's got more known history and depth than Forgath and Minmax. They showed up early as caricatures of gaming tropes. And while her arc involves Minmax, I don't think it's there FOR Minmax.

Also, it's important to note that both these tests, Bechdel and Mako Mori, are meant to evaluate a completed work. Goblin's isn't. Judging it now is sorta like watching the first half of a movie and assuming the rest will be the same. The arc is far from over. The story far from complete.

[ChuckDaRighteous]

I guess my feeling is that a D&D comic just seems like an odd place to explore sexism because the underlying D&D system is so utterly not sexist (at least in terms of mechanics as far as I'm aware).

I have to call you out on this one because I think that's exactly why a DND setting is so great a setting for anything not just goblins. It is a break down to pure mechanics, which allows you the player/dm to create such a rich world with your role playing. I remember when the page where Thaco knocked the goblinslayer onto the pipe. Thunt wrote something to the effect of how that fight could be broken down into D&D terms of what rolls were made, and how he not only does it with his comic, but in real life. If I recall correctly he mentioned something that happened in a coffee shop? Its been a while so my memory is fuzzy. The point is its a generic set of mechanics, a tool, that can be applied to make any sort of story you want. Its the paintbrush, not the painting. So why can't you paint a picture of sexism?

Now while he did specifically parody DND quite a bit in the beginning, it transitioned into a very intricate plot. Lots of series do this, some sort of simple, initial hook before transitioning into a more complex plot. Off of the top of my one my favorite series Red vs Blue: Blood Gulch Chronicles, did this same thing when they screen capped their actions on Halo and then voiced over them. They started by parodying certain things of their medium "The only reason we have a red base over here..." before transitioning into a more complicated (although not so serious) story. Its actually a very common practice.

One thing I'd really like to point out here, getting back to the mechanical aspects, the female characters (and male for that matter) are not rich intricate characters because of their stats, or feats, or skills, or dice rolls, its their role playing.

[Master TMO]

While we're on the subject, and since Thunt is talking about equality in his posts, I was wondering if anyone had heard of the Mako Mori test and how it applies to goblins? It's not a Bechdel test replacement, but it's a similar test that seems to work pretty well. It's been long known that there are exceptions in the Bechdel test that make it tricky (movies/books with a single character is a good example, no conversations=no means of qualifying) and I think the Mako Mori test might fill the gaps. It's inspired by the female lead in Pacific Rim, a movie that fails the Bechdel test spectacularly (only 2 women in the whole movie, only 1 has lines), but somehow manages to have a strong, well rounded, female character. Essentially, it's this...

1.) At least one female character, 2.)who has her own narrative arc, 3.) that is not about supporting a man's story.

Looking at Goblins through this lens I can't help but think that, while the females are few, they all pass this. Duv is certainly not living a man's story and has her own tale to tell. Same as Fox. As for Kin, despite her showing up later in the book, at this point, she's got more known history and depth than Forgath and Minmax. They showed up early as caricatures of gaming tropes. And while her arc involves Minmax, I don't think it's there FOR Minmax.

Also, it's important to note that both these tests, Bechdel and Mako Mori, are meant to evaluate a completed work. Goblin's isn't. Judging it now is sorta like watching the first half of a movie and assuming the rest will be the same. The arc is far from over. The story far from complete.

I'm not familiar with this test, but I think an alternate reading of your quote might show how Goblins *isn't* passing:
1) At least one female character
2) Who has her own narrative arc
3) Who is not in a romantic relationship with a primary male character.

I'm re-writing it this way, because if you invert the genders mentioned, it's obvious how lopsided many products are. If a female is added to a story, it's practically inevitable that they have to be romantically linked to a male character. But there are plenty of male characters not romantically linked to female characters.

Part of it is undoubtedly our desire to pair everyone up in our stories. And since there are typically fewer females, that leaves males left over after the pairings. The same would probably happen in a story with more females than males. And I'm as guilty as most everyone. I'm a guy, and my viewpoint characters are almost always male. I rarely try to roleplay female characters, unless something about the story requires it. I've got one female character at the moment, but she's with the group *because* she's in a relationship with my main character. She started as an NPC, and when I was given the opportunity to add a henchman/sidekick, her character was the most logical to pick up, as she already had a connection to the party. If she hadn't been around as an NPC at the time, I probably would have created a male henchman.

For what it's worth...

[ChuckDaRighteous]

I hadn't heard of the mako mori test but I do this variation of the test.

I'm not familiar with this test, but I think an alternate reading of your quote might show how Goblins *isn't* passing:
1) At least one female character
2) Who has her own narrative arc
3) Who is not in a romantic relationship with a primary male character.

I disagree with this alteration because it would imply that in order to be a strong character you can't be romantically involved. Or worse, that romantic involvement is a sign of weakness?

[thinkslogically]

I guess my feeling is that a D&D comic just seems like an odd place to explore sexism because the underlying D&D system is so utterly not sexist (at least in terms of mechanics as far as I'm aware).

I have to call you out on this one because I think that's exactly why a DND setting is so great a setting for anything not just goblins. ...Its the paintbrush, not the painting. So why can't you paint a picture of sexism?

I guess you could, but it's more difficult, and harder to justify I think than just writing 'normal' fiction or fantasy, because if there's no reason for men and women to differ physically, I guess that removes a lot of the reasons why you might have sexism appearing in the first place compared to a more 'real world' setting. So if you take that away and only leave the RP & homemade setting, then I guess I don't see why you would choose the D&D arena. No reason why you can't, but I think there are other ways you could explore it more justifiably perhaps.

Like I said, I just think the D&D world lends itself a bit better to looking at other questions, but then again I'm maybe just not being very imaginative

[Master TMO]

I hadn't heard of the mako mori test but I do this variation of the test.

I'm not familiar with this test, but I think an alternate reading of your quote might show how Goblins *isn't* passing:
1) At least one female character
2) Who has her own narrative arc
3) Who is not in a romantic relationship with a primary male character.

I disagree with this alteration because it would imply that in order to be a strong character you can't be romantically involved. Or worse, that romantic involvement is a sign of weakness?

Not quite what I was going for. Rather, does the story have ANY strong female characters who aren't in a romantic relationship? If it's a requirement that all females must be romantically linked to someone, but not all males, is it really equality?

[Unlucky-for-Some]

As for Kin, despite her showing up later in the book, at this point, she's got more known history and depth than Forgath and Minmax. They showed up early as caricatures of gaming tropes. And while her arc involves Minmax, I don't think it's there FOR Minmax.

That's a really interesting point. I really hadn't considered that before, but we do know rather a lot more about Kin than either MinMax or Forgath don't we. That's one of the things I love about coming into this forum ... you folks always notice the most interesting things

[Plays_Games]

• FM-Kin versus KinScorp intro
• FM-Kin versus KinScorp conlusion

Another double update example of a 'pass'. One could argue that scorpion-kin is not as fleshed out as Duv. But both are supporting characters in the story, and both have clear motives and goals.

[SamWiser]

I hadn't heard of the mako mori test but I do this variation of the test.

I'm not familiar with this test, but I think an alternate reading of your quote might show how Goblins *isn't* passing:
1) At least one female character
2) Who has her own narrative arc
3) Who is not in a romantic relationship with a primary male character.

I disagree with this alteration because it would imply that in order to be a strong character you can't be romantically involved. Or worse, that romantic involvement is a sign of weakness?

Not quite what I was going for. Rather, does the story have ANY strong female characters who aren't in a romantic relationship? If it's a requirement that all females must be romantically linked to someone, but not all males, is it really equality?

I believe that Duv is passing the altered test, as well as the original. She has shown no romantic interest for any male character. Also, I think the argument could be made that Saves-a-Fox is passing. She is female, and she definitely has her own story, and the only feelings she has explicitly shown for Dies is extreme protectiveness. I'll admit that she probably likes him, and some sort of a relationship may start soon, but that is inferred and could be wrong.

[JudeWMire]

There is a major difference between 3.) that is not about supporting a man's story, and 3.) is not in a relationship with a primary male character. The second implies that a person couldn't have goals while in a relationship, which doesn't make much sense to me. In the example of Kin, she's got her own story about overcoming her abuse and going places she wants to go, and that arc is entirely separate from Minmax. Minmax's goals, of killing some goblins, are in no way supported by Kin. While Kin is IN a relationship with Minmax (until the big dummy picked up the leash anyway...) she has her own goals and isn't there as simply a prop to Minmax's storyline. At this point, Minmax could, and likely will, vanish, and Kin's story, will continue.

[Godbot]

One question that springs to my mind now that you guys have brought it up is why aren't there more female characters in Goblins?

...

It just seems weird that there are virtually NO female characters...

Maybe Thunt's just not as comfortable writing for girls. That happens to some people.

[harlequin]

...I'm a guy, and my viewpoint characters are almost always male. I rarely try to roleplay female characters, unless something about the story requires it. I've got one female character at the moment, but she's with the group *because* she's in a relationship with my main character. She started as an NPC, and when I was given the opportunity to add a henchman/sidekick, her character was the most logical to pick up, as she already had a connection to the party. If she hadn't been around as an NPC at the time, I probably would have created a male henchman.

For what it's worth...

I think this exact thing is the reason why there are so few females in a lot of media, including goblins. People creating characters naturally default to what they've seen before, and their own gender. I usually make female PCs - I've only played as a 'male' twice, one of the characters was actually a woman disguised as a man in order to be a knight (although the other players don't know that yet), and one of them was in a deeply entertaining one-off indie session (male because the master he was serving was inherently sexist, and I didn't want my character to have to sleep with him).

I think men making media have to put in a lot of extra effort to keep the characters gender-balanced, resisting just defaulting to the natural choice, because the pressures making them default that way are two-fold - the media they've seen (in which men outnumber women in varying ratios depending on the genre), and their own experiences knowing what it's like to be male.

I'm really enjoying the balance of gender-identities in the comic dark white at the moment; one of the main male characters like to dress in very feminine clothing (although in his species having horns instead of wings marks him clearly as male), and one of the female characters is a battle-scarred veteran werewolf who wears so much armour it's hard to tell (which I like, why is gender so important you have to know at first glance?). My point is in the previous paragraph. I got a bit distracted. We should totally have some monsters that aren't straight.

[Master TMO]

There is a major difference between 3.) that is not about supporting a man's story, and 3.) is not in a relationship with a primary male character. The second implies that a person couldn't have goals while in a relationship, which doesn't make much sense to me.

Yeah, I didn't phrase it the best way possible. My intent wasn't "strong females can't be in a relationship", but more, "Is it an unstated requirement that a relationship is a required part of their story?"

Personally, I'm not sure if Duv counts, since I don't consider her a protagonist whose story we're following. She's an antagonist, and the only scenes we see her in are either shared scenes with a protagonist, or plot exposition/filler. We know her story arc, but as a villain.

All this being said, Goblins isn't a worse story for the gender imbalance. I love this story, and it's been a big influence on a project of mine to make a tool to come up with well-rounded NPCs for campaigns. The goblin tribe had a rational (in my mind) reason for specifically not having any females (except one). And the adventuring party started with a 4-1 ratio, which is stereotypically about right for roleplaying groups. Actually, thinking about it, I want to separate the adventuring party into two groups: Drow and MinGath. The Drow group is a parody of all the stereotypical roleplayers, and aren't really a part of the plot. MinGath and the Drow separated early on and never rejoined. MinGath is actually balanced if you consider Forgath to be female because the player is female. And if you don't, changing the group into FMK gives you MinMax (Male player, Male character), Forgath (Female player, Male character), and Kin (No player/Female character). Which gives it practically a 50/50 gender split. (I'm fudging a bit because Kin's an NPC as far as we know, and if you count the GM's gender for every NPC it automatically creates a huge imbalance.)

Eh, I'm blathering again, going on and on, probably to avoid work. So I'll quit now. It's been a very interesting discussion. Thanks.

[ChuckDaRighteous]

...but more, "Is it an unstated requirement that a relationship is a required part of their story?"

I agree with this. I actually find this tendency annoys me in a lot of movies. I think often they put relationships in for alternate motives. Sometimes a main character will have a wife or husband who doesn't play a role in the main plot, but instead act as a means of drawing out a character's inner thoughts and verbalizing them for the audience. Sometimes they'll have a wife/girlfriend/husband/etc off screen to act as a reason for motivation. I have no problem with these types of reasons. However, I feel like they often force in love stories particularly between main characters. A good example of this that I can think of is Speed. The characters could easily have not hooked up in the end, the majority of the time there was no connection or spark other than a few moments which felt forced. So why even put it in? Why not just leave it out? Demographics. They try to add different things to appeal to different demographics and draw in the largest audience and therefore the largest profit. By adding a love story, even a shitty one, they can draw in a larger crowd. Sometimes I'll suggest a movie to my mother which I think is really good, or did a good job of portraying some issue, or whatever reason I think she should see it. But if it doesn't sound like her type of thing to her, the first thing she'll ask is "is there a love story in it?" To her this will make an unappealing movie interesting or at least bearable. She may end up liking the movie for what it is, even if the movie is in a genre she dislikes. But the reason she saw it was the love story, because that's the type of movie she likes. The fact of the matter is to draw in crowds they add something to draw in more demographics. If they want to draw in guys: sex sells, add hot women in skimpy clothing. If they want to draw in women: romance sells, add in a hunk and sappy love story. The unfortunate thing is while this boosts ticket sales, it can end up hurting the movie as an artistic entity.

So while I can see why you're saying that often what ruins plots are the relationships that are forced onto the characters and often demeans them, I don't think that all relationships are inherently evil or demeaning to the characters in them.

Applying this to Kin/Minmax which right now is the only romantic relationship, it doesn't feel forced. It actually feels like a natural part of the story. For Kin, the relationship actually feels like a road to recovery from her trauma, with real pitfalls and bumps. For Minmax it feels like a real eye opening experience which is actually causing him to grow as a person. The point is I don't think its a forced-feeling add in. It actually has depth. It feels right to me.