Anyone ever root for a villain...

[Drakyn]

...not because you feel any sympathy for the character, or his goals, but just because you know the deck's stacked against him?
In some situations it doesn't matter how powerful the villain is, the hero's either going to top that or several dozen small coincidences will hose him. Then, as this is happening, something odd occurs: the "underdog hero vs evil over(dog)lord" situation reverses itself in your brain because you know the villain's screwed. (Especially if there's prophecy involved, and especially especially if the villain knows about the prophecy too, because then he's frantically trying to fight fate itself - a real underdog situation if there ever was one*)

Maybe it's just because of webcomic time messing with the flow of the story in my head, but the little back-and-forth battle we've seen for Xykon's phylactery has had me constantly on his side just because improbable** stuff keeps happening to screw up his efforts to protect it, one after another. And it's looking pretty damned likely that he isn't going to get out of here without it a sploded.
And simply because of that, I find myself subconciously rooting for a guy best described as "the maestro of atrocities," because in my plot-addled brain, he is currently registering as "the underdog" based on his current situation.
Anyone else ever have this happen to them? :smallconfused:


*hai thar davidd edings.
**Not IMPLAUSIBLE - this just feels like a really lousy string of luck, rather than artificial plot-screwing.

[Callista]

You want the fight to be close, yeah. If the hero just squishes the villain under his heel, it's not very satisfying.

I would like to submit, however, that this isn't one of those situations. Xykon has every bit as much of a chance of rescuing the phylactery as he has of losing it and being his usual undead badass self without it, and O-Chul and V are probably screwed either way.

[Drakyn]

You want the fight to be close, yeah. If the hero just squishes the villain under his heel, it's not very satisfying.

I would like to submit, however, that this isn't one of those situations. Xykon has every bit as much of a chance of rescuing the phylactery as he has of losing it and being his usual undead badass self without it, and O-Chul and V are probably screwed either way.

I know, that's the weird bit. This sort of thing doesn't happen a lot for me, and this whole situation doesn't fit the usual criteria for flip-flopping underdoggery because the good guys, if anything, are totally outmatched and are barely keeping up with Xykon due to a combination of sheer luck and improvisation.
...maybe my tolerance for sheer luck and improvisation as weapons of choice for the good guys is just dropping. Which means this semi-relevant mental occurance is even less relevant than I'd thought it might be, and I'm that much closer to being a cranky, mean-spirited old man ahead of my time. Drat. Thank you.

[Zanaril]

I think it may have something to do with - as Xykon said - this arc not having started out as the basic "knight on a valiant quest" thing. It's kind of upset the balance of knowing that the hero will overcome the villan, because Xykon isn't V's personal villan, he's Roy's. V is therefore narratively a fish out of water.

[Drakyn]

I think it may have something to do with - as Xykon said - it not having started out as the basic "knight on a valiant quest" thing. It's kind of upset the balance of knowing that the hero will overcome the villan, because Xykon isn't V's personal villan, he's Roy's. V is therefore narratively a fish out of water.
Actually, I usually end up feeling this way when the big destined personal showdown happens and the HERO beats the gnads out of the VILLAIN because PLOTESTINY says so. (The best example would have had to be the end of the Belgariad) The more I look at this whole thing, the more I feel like this specific instance is just me being subconciously cranky. "Waah Xykon's getting hosed by bad luck and coincidences, QQ" and all that.

[Dork Lord]

Call me a sap, but I love it when good triumphs over evil. I never root for the bad guy unless the bad guy is a misunderstood well meaning bad guy like Magneto from the X-Men (note: -not- the Magneto from the movies... he was just a selfish evil bastard). Even then, odds are I'll still root for the good guy.

[TerrickTerran]

Most of the time I've reooted for the villains in GI Joe and Transformers because the odds against them are ridiculous (especially transformers where there are times where there's been 3 or 4 times as many good guys as villains)
I sometimes root for Xykon for the same reason though it's not quite as against him as it was early on.

[Haven]

I really don't see luck as being a factor here so far. The only exceptionally lucky or unlucky thing that's happened is O-Chul getting what was presumably a critical hit against Redcloak, causing him to flee, and even then it didn't make that much of a difference as, well, it's O-Chul and I don't think Redcloak could have taken him (sure, he's naked, but that doesn't make much sense since the only abilities Redcloak has that work out in close combat are touch AC based).

Everything else has been abilities we know the characters have, even if we've forgotten about them (Blackwing, etc.)

If Xykon wasn't maintaining control of the situation throughout, countering the good guys' every move (except possibly for this last one--we'll have to wait til 660 to see) or if he was more badly hurt (not just damage-wise, although the fact that he apparently only has a few scratches on him doesn't help) than maybe I'd feel bad for him. But not likely, because #448 and all of "Start of Darkness" disincline me to do so, to say the least.

[Zorack]

:smalleek:

Uh... no... er. Never!

[shadowdemon_lord]

Not really, I do however love stories that blend the line between good and evil. (Song of Ice and Fire as a case in point). I do end up rooting for the bad guys in these stories (who reads A Clash of Kings and ends up not rooting for Tyrion?). But (if the writings any good) I've found that in a fight like this one where the heroes pull stuff outta their respective rear ends to achieve (potential) partial victory by the skin of their teeth I'm satisfied with how it plays out. Considering the overwhelmingly powerful force that Xykon represents, outside the box thinking should be required to even cause him any real lasting harm. Here we have a case where brute force epically failed against Xykon, as well it should have. However we also could see him weakened considerably (at the likely cost of V's familar, V's freedom, and likely torture beyond anything we've seen so far for both V and O-Chul). I consider this good writing, and find myself rooting for V and O-Chul to pay for this but eventually for at least V to escape somehow.

[Drakyn]

I really don't see luck as being a factor here so far. The only exceptionally lucky or unlucky thing that's happened is O-Chul getting what was presumably a critical hit against Redcloak, causing him to flee, and even then it didn't make that much of a difference as, well, it's O-Chul and I don't think Redcloak could have taken him (sure, he's naked, but that doesn't make much sense since the only abilities Redcloak has that work out in close combat are touch AC based).

Everything else has been abilities we know the characters have, even if we've forgotten about them (Blackwing, etc.)

If Xykon wasn't maintaining control of the situation throughout, countering the good guys' every move (except possibly for this last one--we'll have to wait til 660 to see) or if he was more badly hurt (not just damage-wise, although the fact that he apparently only has a few scratches on him doesn't help) than maybe I'd feel bad for him. But not likely, because #448 and all of "Start of Darkness" disincline me to do so, to say the least.

Yeah, like I said, this is one of those times when it makes less sense than usual to be on the side of the cheerfully depraved nutcase. I just can't shake the feeling. Maybe it's because since I don't own any of the collections, and so far my on-sight knowledge of Xykon's epic battles is:
(1): Plotting out the demise of the OOTS and then getting blown up by an angry man half his level due to pure luck.
(2): Killing a small army of paladins with style, then getting utterly pwned by Soon.
(3): Performing a stylish beatdown on an egomaniacal superwizard, then getting his magic lifejarmadoodle of immortality snatched (very likely it ain't making it out of this one).
With this record, he doesn't seem like an omnipotent evil overlord so much as a highly evil guy with lousy luck. If I'd had a chance to see him perform some of his unmitigated beatdowns and "FLAWLESS VICTORY"s then I'd probably care less about him getting shot down. Instead, I guess I feel like he's not the !VILLAIN! so much as another character - he's not unstoppable, and he's suffered at least as many setbacks to his goals as any of the heroes.
This makes me more likely to find him sympathetic, particularly when odds are he's doomed to face the standard villain's fate in a climactic showdown, while(realistically) enjoying none of said standard villain's arbitrary advantages and unstoppability.
Long story short: Xykon is having to work for his UNLIMITED POWWEEERRR like few evil overlords seem to have to, yet he's likely to meet the same fate they do. Futility hurts, and struggling in the face of it is oddly underdoggish.

[FoE]

Not surprisingly, I cheer for the bad guys all the time.

[Lord_Drayakir]

I do.

I mean, I know Xykon is going to lose, and going to lose HARD. And since I just read SoD, I actually DO feel sympathetic for him.

Necromancy, almost by default, makes you prone to doing evil things. Plus Xavion's attitude towards Xykon, plus the fact that he's not very bright, and therefore more suscpetible to his emotions/desires, rather his rationale/needs.

Like, ever since I saw Disney cartoons when I was a little kid, I started cheering for the villain... maybe after my third or fourth movie. Then came the literature.

I mean, seriously, do these guys ever get a break, or what? Not to mention that the only villains that find REDEMPTION- something that means that they FAILED at what they did in life, and instead ran with their tails in between their legs to the other side...

I would love to read a story, a well-written one, where the villains would succeed. No, I mean really. I guess 1984, or BNW came close. I dunno.

[Calmness]

When i was younger, yes i rooted for the villain. But i considered myself a misanthrope, and i like to think those days are behind me.

So yeah, as a general rule villains only bore me unless they are like Xykon, who makes me laugh instead. Seems I can't take villains seriously these days.

[Drakyn]

I do.

I mean, I know Xykon is going to lose, and going to lose HARD. And since I just read SoD, I actually DO feel sympathetic for him.

Necromancy, almost by default, makes you prone to doing evil things. Plus Xavion's attitude towards Xykon, plus the fact that he's not very bright, and therefore more suscpetible to his emotions/desires, rather his rationale/needs.

Like, ever since I saw Disney cartoons when I was a little kid, I started cheering for the villain... maybe after my third or fourth movie. Then came the literature.

I mean, seriously, do these guys ever get a break, or what? Not to mention that the only villains that find REDEMPTION- something that means that they FAILED at what they did in life, and instead ran with their tails in between their legs to the other side...

I would love to read a story, a well-written one, where the villains would succeed. No, I mean really. I guess 1984, or BNW came close. I dunno.
I've read 1984 (but not Brave New World), and actually that got to me in the same way because it was just as futile a fight. Absolute victory on one side in a manner so total that you could see it coming from forever. In this case it made complete sense, of course. It was sensible futility :smallsmile:
My ultimate point is probably just that if a villain's job appears to actually be harder than the hero's, it's suddenly much more difficult not to like him. Who's doing all the work?

[FoE]

I do.

I mean, I know Xykon is going to lose, and going to lose HARD. And since I just read SoD, I actually DO feel sympathetic for him.

You do? Then you missed the point, since Rich was trying to make Xykon thoroughly unsympathetic.


Necromancy, almost by default, makes you prone to doing evil things. Plus Xavion's attitude towards Xykon, plus the fact that he's not very bright, and therefore more suscpetible to his emotions/desires, rather his rationale/needs.

Some stranger insults you, so the appropriate response is to murder them and animate their corpse as an undead servant?

Dude, that's a little disproportionate. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DisproportionateRetribution)

It's not like anyone forced Xykon to does the thing he does, ie. hurt and kill people for fun. Xavion was trying to help Xykon. Yeah, he was a bit of a jerk about it, but he was one of the good guys. Xykon killed him for s**ts and giggles, and then did the same for his own parents. He's a monster, plain and simple.

[Callista]

Call me a sap, but I love it when good triumphs over evil. I never root for the bad guy unless the bad guy is a misunderstood well meaning bad guy like Magneto from the X-Men (note: -not- the Magneto from the movies... he was just a selfish evil bastard). Even then, odds are I'll still root for the good guy.Who doesn't love a good Redemption arc, though? Sure, it can get ultra-cheesy if done wrong, but when it's done right, it's way better than just killing off the villain.

Betcha that's what at least half of the Redcloak fans are rooting for.

[Cazaril]

Of course! I hate it when there's a smart and interesting villain who is defeated agianst all odds by the bumbling idiots who call themselves the heroes.

[Drakyn]

Of course! I hate it when there's a smart and interesting villain who is defeated agianst all odds by the bumbling idiots who call themselves the heroes.
Every time I think I've explained an idea properly, someone else comes along and says it better and shorter. Dangit.

[paladinofshojo]

...not because you feel any sympathy for the character, or his goals, but just because you know the deck's stacked against him?
In some situations it doesn't matter how powerful the villain is, the hero's either going to top that or several dozen small coincidences will hose him. Then, as this is happening, something odd occurs: the "underdog hero vs evil over(dog)lord" situation reverses itself in your brain because you know the villain's screwed. (Especially if there's prophecy involved, and especially especially if the villain knows about the prophecy too, because then he's frantically trying to fight fate itself - a real underdog situation if there ever was one*)

Maybe it's just because of webcomic time messing with the flow of the story in my head, but the little back-and-forth battle we've seen for Xykon's phylactery has had me constantly on his side just because improbable** stuff keeps happening to screw up his efforts to protect it, one after another. And it's looking pretty damned likely that he isn't going to get out of here without it a sploded.
And simply because of that, I find myself subconciously rooting for a guy best described as "the maestro of atrocities," because in my plot-addled brain, he is currently registering as "the underdog" based on his current situation.
Anyone else ever have this happen to them? :smallconfused:


*hai thar davidd edings.
**Not IMPLAUSIBLE - this just feels like a really lousy string of luck, rather than artificial plot-screwing.



The antagonist is what makes the story interesting to begin with, no one EVER really likes the story's protagonist (unless they're morally ambigious and well thoughtout characters). A really interesting villian needs for a really interesting hero. Otherwise they'd just be a criminal, invader, dictator, etc. Kind of like Batman and the Joker, they're both the two sides of the same coin.

[Steward]

th, no one EVER really likes the story's protagonist (unless they're morally ambigious and well thoughtout characters).

If you're a writer and you have a character that isn't "well thoughtout" as your protagonist, then maybe you shouldn't be a writer. That's just weak stuff, like being a comic strip art who can't draw or a computer programmer who can't use a computer. It's your job to make your protagonist if not likable then at least interesting, isn't it?


It's not like anyone forced Xykon to does the thing he does, ie. hurt and kill people for fun. Xavion was trying to help Xykon. Yeah, he was a bit of a jerk about it, but he was one of the good guys. Xykon killed him for s**ts and giggles, and then did the same for his own parents. He's a monster, plain and simple.

To be fair, lots (and I mean bunches and bunches) of people think that things like that are cool.


Most of the time I've reooted for the villains in GI Joe and Transformers because the odds against them are ridiculous (especially transformers where there are times where there's been 3 or 4 times as many good guys as villains)

Yeah, old cartoon villains are almost pitiful. Especially when the heroes aren't even kinder people than the villains.

[paladinofshojo]

If you're a writer and you have a character that isn't "well thoughtout" as your protagonist, then maybe you shouldn't be a writer. That's just weak stuff, like being a comic strip art who can't draw or a computer programmer who can't use a computer. It's your job to make your protagonist if not likable then at least interesting, isn't it?










Really? Then tell me, how can the protagonist even be "well thoughtout" if the antagonist isn't? The antagonist already has his own goals, his own personality, the only reason he and the protagonist don't get along is that their goals go in opposite directions....Without an antagonist, the story would only be about some shmuck going on a quest to fetch something at his own leisure. Or effortlessly defeating an army because they don't have someone who could even stand up to him.

Look at Legend of Zelda, Gannon is by far a more interesting character than Link in that he's the only one that has a decent backstory compared to the two dimensional protagonist who's only reason for existing is to stop Gannon in the first place because Fate demands it (Link only got his name because he serves as the player's "link" to the gameworld in the firstplace). Or look at Harry Potter, who made the series more interesting? The corrupt and elitist Voldemort's return to power or a teenager's (albeit magical) school life?

[Ridureyu]

The antagonist is what makes the story interesting to begin with, no one EVER really likes the story's protagonist (unless they're morally ambigious and well thoughtout characters).


I'd alter that to "unless they're well thought out." A hero does not have to be a morally ambiguous antihero to be interesting. Good is not always boring and dumb, and evil is not always cool and awesome.

[Lord_Drayakir]

You do? Then you missed the point, since Rich was trying to make Xykon thoroughly unsympathetic.



Some stranger insults you, so the appropriate response is to murder them and animate their corpse as an undead servant?

Dude, that's a little disproportionate. (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DisproportionateRetribution)

It's not like anyone forced Xykon to does the thing he does, ie. hurt and kill people for fun. Xavion was trying to help Xykon. Yeah, he was a bit of a jerk about it, but he was one of the good guys. Xykon killed him for s**ts and giggles, and then did the same for his own parents. He's a monster, plain and simple.

Well, see, that's the thing. Had Xykon's power manifested as a True Soul, which is basically a cleric sorcerer, he probably would've gotten angry at Xavion's insults, and HEALED him.

In the real world, I do not believe in the absence of free will. My reasons are varied, and I don't want to get to it. However, in the D&D world, ESPECIALLY in a world where people know their alignment (Oh, honey, look at Juinor! He told on a friend at school, and got bumped to Lawful Neutral! Oh, this is the happiest day of my life!) to a DING! sound when you level after KILLING THINGS... well, it's no surprise that Xykon, who was born with the ability to kill something, and then bring it back as a servant completely and totally to your will...

Even if the D&D world HAD free will, I would never blame Xykon for it. Low intellect+lots of power geared towards death and perversity of life= evil. Hell, look to the real world for examples. Xykon could NOT have been evil.

[Callista]

I'd alter that to "unless they're well thought out." A hero does not have to be a morally ambiguous antihero to be interesting. Good is not always boring and dumb, and evil is not always cool and awesome.QFT.

A lot of the idea that good has to be "boring and dumb", or else so close to the line that it's blipping from one side to the other, has probably come from the way a lot of stories have "designated protagonists"--you know, people who are just there to oppose the villain, no more than scenery to make a proper backdrop to highlight the villain's evil. You want an example? Think about the movies we grew up with, as little kids. Who's more interesting--Cruella DeVil or the bland, sweet owners of her targeted puppies? Who's got more depth--Snow White's evil stepmother, or the designated hero who gets to kiss the sleeping girl back to life? You just have to admit that the Wicked Witch of the West just about defined "The Wizard of Oz"; and if you switch to horror movies, the protagonists have just about turned into total caricatures--forgettable stereotypes to be killed while the monster or the psycho becomes a household name.

No wonder people root for the villain. Often times, he's simply more interesting. And that's a pity, because there's a lot of untapped potential in the Good characters in those stories. They don't have to be cardboard cut-outs.

[Foryn Gilnith]

Well, see, that's the thing. Had Xykon's power manifested as a True Soul, which is basically a cleric sorcerer, he probably would've gotten angry at Xavion's insults, and HEALED him.

If Xykon had manifested as a Favored Soul, he would have gotten angry at Xavion and used Clutch of Orcus (change to generic OotS deity). Result is the same.

I disagree with your train of logic, but I can't hope to convince you or anyone, really; since this comes so much down to opinion.

[Ridureyu]

I always thought that the Scarecrow really made that movie.

[Mr. Pin]

Yup, but not Xykon. He's more than just evil; he's a jerk. A clever jerk. An A-hole. In fact, it's safe to say that Xykon is a colossal, monumental, irredeemable d*****-bag. He reminds me of every bully I've ever known (although he's obviously much cooler, cleverer, more powerful, etc.) I find myself rooting for Roy to travel back in time, find Xykon as a young boy, kick the crap out of him, disembowel him, and crack witty jokes as Xykon bleeds out.

But that's just me.


BY THE TWELVE GODS, MAN, DID YOU SEE THAT SEEN WITH THE BOUNCY BALL? HOW CAN YOU ROOT FOR HIM??!!

[FoE]

Well, see, that's the thing. Had Xykon's power manifested as a True Soul, which is basically a cleric sorcerer, he probably would've gotten angry at Xavion's insults, and HEALED him.

Or, you know, just STABBED HIM. Why you would cast healing spells at someone you're angry at?


well, it's no surprise that Xykon, who was born with the ability to kill something, and then bring it back as a servant completely and totally to your will...

Even if the D&D world HAD free will, I would never blame Xykon for it. Low intellect+lots of power geared towards death and perversity of life= evil. Hell, look to the real world for examples. Xykon could NOT have been evil.

Your logic is really, really flawed. Free will certainly does exist in the Oots world; if it didn't, why would they bother weighing your life's deeds at the gates of the afterlife to determine where you should go? Why would any devil barter for a soul if it was already destined to go to the Nine Hells?

And Xykon isn't stupid. Don't confuse a low attention span with low intellegience. Xykon is actually very smart; he just doesn't care about strategy or tactics.

[Lord_Drayakir]

Or, you know, just STABBED HIM. Why you would cast healing spells at someone you're angry at?



Your logic is really, really flawed. Free will certainly does exist in the Oots world; if it didn't, why would they bother weighing your life's deeds at the gates of the afterlife to determine where you should go? Why would any devil barter for a soul if it was already destined to go to the Nine Hells?

And Xykon isn't stupid. Don't confuse a low attention span with low intellegience. Xykon is actually very smart; he just doesn't care about strategy or tactics.

Well, for the healing spells, I exaggerated. Of course, it's very likely that a 1st level sorcerer/favored soul would know only the 1st level spells for each respective class, so it's not a stretch to say that a lvl 1 favored soul would probably take a healing spell.

But I digress.

The argument that people in D&D do have free will, I disagree with. For one thing, the whole point of a devil is to MAKE you Lawful Evil. It states in the Fiendish Codex II: Tyrants of the Nine Hells that any and all Lawful Evil souls go to Baator. No exceptions. What the devils DO is that they attempt to sway people into selling their soul- which makes the hapless mortal LE, or to simply sway the mortal into become LE, which as we said, takes them directly to the Nine Hells.

Oh, and obviously I'm talking about NPCs. The PCs obviously have a choice, because they're the players, but the rules say that your alignment (once again, for the NPCs) is an afterlife straightjacket. You were LE in the real world? Good, time for you to head on down to Baator. You were LG? Celestia welcomes you. And so on.

As for Xykon's stupidity, I'm not talking about his Intelligence. It doesn't seem to be that low. Moreso his Wisdom, I'd say, or his "mental stats overall."

[Callista]

BY THE TWELVE GODS, MAN, DID YOU SEE THAT SEEN WITH THE BOUNCY BALL? HOW CAN YOU ROOT FOR HIM??!!I believe that was the point at which Xykon crossed the line for many of us from "funny cliche villain parody" to "the skeleton we love to hate". That scene defined Xykon. And it made the Azure City paladins all that much more heroic, at least to me, because forcing him to kill innocents is the absolute worst thing you can do to a paladin--and they still managed to come through the whole thing with their honor intact.

It takes a good villain to highlight the heroes. Xykon is such a villain.

I don't want Xykon to win; but I do want him to survive--at least to very near the end of the story. Xykon is an amazing villain, and villains drive the story just as much as heroes do. The more complications, the more interesting the story.

[FoE]

Oh, and obviously I'm talking about NPCs. The PCs obviously have a choice, because they're the players, but the rules say that your alignment (once again, for the NPCs) is an afterlife straightjacket.

Oh, that's where you were going. Well, technically, PCs don't have any free will either, because they're controlled by players. Really, no one in the D&D universe or Oots has actual free will because they don't actually exist.

But in-universe, everyone makes their own choices.


As for Xykon's stupidity, I'm not talking about his Intelligence. It doesn't seem to be that low. Moreso his Wisdom, I'd say, or his "mental stats overall."

Xykon's Wisdom may be low, but he knows the difference between right and wrong and gleefully chooses the latter.

[Drammel]

I think one of the things that makes Xykon so compelling as a villain is that he seems to be immune to a lot of tropes. The only time he is victimized by the Order of the Stick's heroics is the very first time they meet when Roy tosses him at the gate. That's a classic example of wacky hyjinks rescuing the heroes rather than talent. To Xykon's credit he survives.

The next time the heroes try to overcome impossible odds what happens? Xykon penetrates right through Roy's plot armor and kills him. No last minute saves, no deus ex machina, Xykon does something that should kill the hero and the hero dies. Just to add insult to injury, Xykon is then saved at the last minute from the forces of Good by the only character more despised than himself in the comic. Miko.

What does this do for the story? It elevates Xykon to a plateau that villains rarely ever reach: the last minute saves and spontaneous bursts of luck that are usually reserved for the plucky band of heroes apply to him as well. It puts him on a level playing field (with the exception of his sheer arcane might) with the protagonists. With Xykon, you cannot expect the day to be saved simply because he's got some heroes after him. Any fight against him becomes an 'all bets are off' affair. It's a very clever way to heighten dramatic tension.

I mention this because I wonder sometimes when I'm rooting for him if it's because subconsciously I'm picking up on the fact that he doesn't function in the literary universe under the physics of a villian, he feels like a hero.

P.S.: Viva la Redcloak! Posterboy for sympathetic villian.

[B. Dandelion]

Actually, I usually end up feeling this way when the big destined personal showdown happens and the HERO beats the gnads out of the VILLAIN because PLOTESTINY says so. (The best example would have had to be the end of the Belgariad)

It's not often that I find myself defending David Eddings in this aspect, but what you're complaining about is a complete subversion of that entire concept. It wasn't a case of Torak vs. Destiny, it was a clash of two destinies that couldn't co-exist. There was a whole other set of prophecies from their side that we never saw, but the one we DID get to hear about was Polgara becoming Torak's bride. That was of MASSIVE importance -- in fact, THAT was the real fight. They're really explicit on this count: she could have gone either way, but if she had submitted Torak would have been invincible. Garion's role in the matter turned out to be largely superfluous -- he was there to end it, but he had little to do with winning it.

The later books devolve into nonsense about EVENTS and basically have little if any connection to logic, I think by that point Eddings knew nobody was reading his books for the PLOT so much as the dialogue and characters so he just quit all pretense of having something significant to get to. He wrote the same damn series at least four times, you'd think people would complain. Get the blue MacGuffin, go east and kill the evil god. Lather, rinse, repeat.

[Drakyn]

Thanks for the clarifier, Dandelion. Honestly, by the time I got to the point where the bad guys of the belgariad had any prophecies of their own mentioned, I was so mired in loathing for the protagonists and their sure-fire victory that I couldn't feel much else. I could tell exactly what was going to happen to Torak from page 1 of the prologue and I sympathized directly with him because he came off through the entire series as an incompetent nutcase desperately attempting to avoid unstoppable doom.
Nevertheless these were just my personal feelings and you're damned right about the Polgara thing, and how it was actually subversive in its own way. And it's definitely fun how, as you said, it renders Garion even more useless and token-esque as a being :smallsmile:

Oh, and Drammel, what you're saying there reminds me vaguely of what people said about Ansom in Erfworld - he got the hero's luck too. The difference is that Ansom's luck feels more overt, possibly because he really seems to be meant to be the "hero-y character" of the story, just not necessarily as a protagonist or even all-around nice guy.
What's fun about Xykon is that he comes off as a character. He suffers setbacks from things that should give him them (Soon and armies of ghosts), and unstoppably crushes things that he should unstoppably crush (a guy half his level 1000 feet above sea level, sword or no), not wobbling from "no one can defeat him" to "aaugh I am mysteriously vulnerable" without notice or sense of scale (bar that first incident, as you said). There's still the itching feeling that he's going to die in a climactic showdown, but there's less of a "this shall happen no matter what" vibe about it.