I want to condemn tarquin for that but...

[krossbow]

As evil as basically condemning the bounty hunters to death is... I can't help but find tarquins action to be hilarious and stylish (not to mention a little karmic).


Sure, this is seems pretty petty since the bounty hunters didn't appear to be seriously threatening the individuals in the court room, but it is somewhat common sense; You don't try to argue with a powerful military figure without expecting consequences.

Not to mention i'd been waiting for that line for a WHILE now.

[toastywes]

Tarquin's a proper lawful evil character :).

[hamishspence]

And good at concealing his evil intent- we don't find out he was plotting revenge on Gannji, until now.

[Illsbane]

Tarquin is what Nale could have been with more brainpower and common sense. He is also what Elan could have been if he had been ruthlessly evil underneath his happy-go-lucky exterior.

...

I'm guessing all those wives' dying is due to something he did. If he'd been born an Azurite and inclined to grow a beard, it could have been very appropriate.

[factotum]

Tarquin is what Nale could have been with more brainpower and common sense. He is also what Elan could have been if he had been ruthlessly evil underneath his happy-go-lucky exterior.


Elan would never have had the brains to do what Tarquin just did, no matter how evil he was. As for Nale, he has plenty of brainpower (although not quite as much as he thinks he does)--his main problem is that he doesn't think things through properly, so he'll go with whatever brilliant plan he first comes up with without thinking through the flaws.

[The Pilgrim]

Taking disproportionate revenge over a small slight?

Totally Nale

Like father, like son.

[taltamir]

it is hilarious... but if you think about seriously it is also quite malicious. He seems to be very discreet about it, which is quite impressive... also quite ominous. Elan is in for a nasty surprise.

[hamishspence]

I wonder if the next time we see Tarquin, he'll reveal another Elan-ish trait, to go with this Nale-ish one?

[sihnfahl]

Elan is in for a nasty surprise.
Why? Tarquin has no malice towards his son. And Elan already has all the Bardic Knowledge that his Dad is Evil.

It's like one of my characters. As long as you behave and follow the rules, he doesn't care what you do. Cross him or family, though, and all bets are off.

[Swordpriest]

Cross him or family, though, and all bets are off.
Emphasis mine -- and this is where Elan's nasty surprise will come from.

Elan: Hey! Those are my friends in the arena!

Tarquin: Hm - they must have broken the law. This should be interesting.

Elan: Dad - you've got to let them go.

Tarquin: My boy, I want to watch the fight. Shut up and sit down.

Elan: No! They're my friends! And if you won't help them, then you're a big doodoo-head too!

Tarquin: Nobody denies me, my boy. Not Nale, not you. Nobody! *Stab*

[sihnfahl]

Emphasis mine -- and this is where Elan's nasty surprise will come from.*snip*
Yet Tarquin also knows Elan is on an Important Mission; he's a Protagonist.

Elan says they're his friends, that means they're important to family.

Besides, this strip just proves that Tarquin knows the loopholes of the law to get them out. :smallwink:

[TriForce]

well, whatever more he may do, tarquin keeps impressing me more and more

[Tenek]

It seems odd, though... they could have just left and nothing would have happened to them. Did he assume that they'd get in a fight?

[sihnfahl]

It seems odd, though... they could have just left and nothing would have happened to them. Did he assume that they'd get in a fight?
Two possibilities:

1) He was notified of the arrest and ordered Kilkil to 'lose' the papers ASAP.

2) He had Kilkil lose the papers after they left the Palace and had another gambit to get them into trouble; Roy and Belkar wasn't part of the gambit, but still fulfilled Tarquin's needs.

[Ancalagon]

It seems odd, though... they could have just left and nothing would have happened to them. Did he assume that they'd get in a fight?

I'd not be surprised there's some paperwork everytime you leave the city/empire. As in "is all the paperwork in order" or something.

[Swordpriest]

well, whatever more he may do, tarquin keeps impressing me more and more

I'm genuinely curious, what is impressive about being too cowardly to avenge a perceived insult yourself when you're supposed to be an evil overlord? :smallconfused: I mean, if you're going to be a heroic-scale villain, shouldn't you just draw your blade and hew the offending knave down, rather than hiding behind some bureaucratic lizard in a wig?

He just came across to me as a spiteful little backstabbing b**** with this, to me, which is singularly unimpressive. However, my analysis may well be wrong, and I'd like to hear the other perspective to see if I actually agree with it.

[Ancalagon]

I'm genuinely curious, what is impressive about being too cowardly to avenge a perceived insult yourself when you're supposed to be an evil overlord? :smallconfused: I mean, if you're going to be a heroic-scale villain, shouldn't you just draw your blade and hew the offending knave down, rather than hiding behind some bureaucratic lizard in a wig?

That's just a preference of Style.

Why should you hack things up personally while you have a beaurocratic system to take care of that? You are an Evil Overlord after all.

[Elfey]

Emphasis mine -- and this is where Elan's nasty surprise will come from.

Elan: Hey! Those are my friends in the arena!

Tarquin: Hm - they must have broken the law. This should be interesting.

Elan: Dad - you've got to let them go.

Tarquin: My boy, I want to watch the fight. Shut up and sit down.

Elan: No! They're my friends! And if you won't help them, then you're a big doodoo-head too!

Tarquin: Nobody denies me, my boy. Not Nale, not you. Nobody! *Stab*
I think something along those lines, but a different ending.

Tarquin knows the power of plot, he also knows he's got a rebel son on the side of good while he's a powerful general who has him in his grasp. Attempting to kill the son is a mistake, but attempting to imprison him means the son has a chance to escape and they can continue to be in the screwed up relationship.

Also I'm thinking something big will happen before he can do the stabby, like time for a new empress or some such.

I am awaiting the series of alliances and betrayals and hard won victory within the ring. Current theory? Belkar dies before they are free, Lizard boy is the replacement.

[FrankNorman]

Tarquin is proof that yes, one can smile and yet be a villain.

[Swordpriest]

Tarquin knows the power of plot, he also knows he's got a rebel son on the side of good while he's a powerful general who has him in his grasp. Attempting to kill the son is a mistake, but attempting to imprison him means the son has a chance to escape and they can continue to be in the screwed up relationship.

I am awaiting the series of alliances and betrayals and hard won victory within the ring. Current theory? Belkar dies before they are free, Lizard boy is the replacement.

You're right on the first count -- having him seized and stuffed in a cell would be more Tarquin's style.

As for the second, I thought of that as well -- and it seems like a neat way to dispose of Belkar, but then I ran into a problem. How would this lizard, who weighs everything pointy vs. yummy, join with the OotS' quest, which is basically all pointy and no yummy?

(Mind you, I'd like Gannji to join the OotS in place of Belkar, but I'm having trouble seeing how it could logically happen).

[TriForce]

I'm genuinely curious, what is impressive about being too cowardly to avenge a perceived insult yourself when you're supposed to be an evil overlord? :smallconfused: I mean, if you're going to be a heroic-scale villain, shouldn't you just draw your blade and hew the offending knave down, rather than hiding behind some bureaucratic lizard in a wig?

He just came across to me as a spiteful little backstabbing b**** with this, to me, which is singularly unimpressive. However, my analysis may well be wrong, and I'd like to hear the other perspective to see if I actually agree with it.

im confused... hes a evil OVERLORD... the whole idea of being a overlord is having minions to do stuff for you. not only that, but hes lawful evil, meaning he will twist, warp and abuse laws for his own ends. and the way he did that with these bounty hunters was magnificent, it shows he has intellect, and subtelty in spades. if he just stabbed them himself, he would just be a belkar with less funny

[Bongos]

Ruthless and efficient.

[krossbow]

I'm genuinely curious, what is impressive about being too cowardly to avenge a perceived insult yourself when you're supposed to be an evil overlord? :smallconfused: I mean, if you're going to be a heroic-scale villain, shouldn't you just draw your blade and hew the offending knave down, rather than hiding behind some bureaucratic lizard in a wig?

He just came across to me as a spiteful little backstabbing b**** with this, to me, which is singularly unimpressive. However, my analysis may well be wrong, and I'd like to hear the other perspective to see if I actually agree with it.


To quote freeza from dbz abridged,

"I don't get angry; i have people who do that for me." Lawful evil is far more efficient to do something personally like that.


On the topic of Tarquin's plans. He didn't have to double cross the bounty hunters immediately for his revenge. He could have just put them on his "revenge list", informed the bureaucracy to "lose" any paperwork they turn in in the future.
Essentially, this would blacklist them from ever bounty hunting in the empire of blood, insuring a death sentence the next time they tried to turn one in. For a career bounty hunter, this would be an incredibly big punishment-- it'd be like a company being told walmart refused to carry their products anymore.

[WowWeird]

Tarquin is proof that yes, one can smile and yet be a villain.

*cough cough* XYKON!*cough cough* ANYTHING SKELETAL*cough*
Or are they "grinning?"

[Darcy]

If Tarquin went out of his way to kill everyone he wanted dead himself, he wouldn't have any time left in the day to actually run the empire. It's good to have people around to help with the little things.

[Swordpriest]

If Tarquin went out of his way to kill everyone he wanted dead himself, he wouldn't have any time left in the day to actually run the empire. It's good to have people around to help with the little things.

And this convoluted scheme we see in the comic took less of his time than simply drawing his weapon and killing Gannji when he was standing in front of him? :smallconfused:

Chap still strikes me as a bit of a coward after after this. Of course, it's for plot reasons (can't have Elan realize pop is vicious yet, need to get Gannji into the arena vs. Belkar and Roy, etc.), but I still don't see it as "awesome" on Tarquin's part. Still coming across as pettily spiteful and contemptible, sorry.

[krossbow]

And this convoluted scheme we see in the comic took less of his time than simply drawing his weapon and killing Gannji when he was standing in front of him? :smallconfused:

Chap still strikes me as a bit of a coward after after this. Of course, it's for plot reasons (can't have Elan realize pop is vicious yet, need to get Gannji into the arena vs. Belkar and Roy, etc.), but I still don't see it as "awesome" on Tarquin's part. Still coming across as pettily spiteful and contemptible, sorry.


Why fight someone when you can have others do the fighting for you? I really can't fathom how people aren't getting the whole benefits of having underlings thing.

Its why the CEO of a company doesn't come to you personally to fire you. He's too busy enjoying the benefits of an empire.

[Voyager_I]

And this convoluted scheme we see in the comic took less of his time than simply drawing his weapon and killing Gannji when he was standing in front of him? :smallconfused:

We already know Tarquin isn't above doing his own dirty work; he made his debut to the strip by bull-rushing Haley out a window and forcing Elan's surrender. At the same time, he's not some knuckle-dragging brute who doesn't know how to get what he wants without breaking something.

Besides, he was trying to impress his good-aligned son. Killing someone over such a trivial slight in the middle of a conversation would probably not make a good impression on the family, and Tarquin is smart enough to know that.


Lastly, as others have said, he's a Lawful Evil Overlord. You don't go through all the trouble of establishing an oppressive bureaucracy enforced by legions of expendable goons just to let some uppity bit character bleed on your gauntlets.

[veti]

And this convoluted scheme we see in the comic took less of his time than simply drawing his weapon and killing Gannji when he was standing in front of him? :smallconfused:

Chap still strikes me as a bit of a coward after after this. Of course, it's for plot reasons (can't have Elan realize pop is vicious yet, need to get Gannji into the arena vs. Belkar and Roy, etc.), but I still don't see it as "awesome" on Tarquin's part. Still coming across as pettily spiteful and contemptible, sorry.

Killing someone in the business areas of your own palace is - at the least, inelegant. Best-case scenario is that you get blood and mess everywhere. More likely: there'll be an actual fight, you might break something valuable, you might miss a few times, they might deduct some of your hit points. Even worse, it makes you look vulnerable. If there's someone watching who happens to be a higher-level fighter than the target, they might start thinking about how they could do better, so you increase the chances that you're going to have to do it all again. (And again, and so on.) All in all, it's just - stupid.

Coward? Okay, if you want to use the word, go ahead. I daresay he's been called worse. But I wouldn't let him hear you...

[Secris]

Not to mention this way he gets more people to fight in his arenas, and we all know much evil overlords love watching slaves and/or prisoners battle each other and/or wild animals.

[Swordpriest]

Lastly, as others have said, he's a Lawful Evil Overlord. You don't go through all the trouble of establishing an oppressive bureaucracy enforced by legions of expendable goons just to let some uppity bit character bleed on your gauntlets.

True, but if it's a bit character, then you're making yourself pretty small and petty by going after them for some trivial slight.

As E.R. Eddison had one of his characters say in "A Fish Dinner in Memison" --

"I had forgotten him. An eagle does not quarry upon flies."

Tarquin does quarry on flies, and will go to absurd lengths to do so. Therefore, we can safely say he's not an "eagle" (i.e. awesome) but a vicious, pathetic punk like Nale, just with more muscle backing him up.

Which is my whole point -- acts of stupid, petty vindictiveness aren't "awesome" by any stretch of the imagination, and I'm totally boggled that anyone thinks they are. I can't understand it.

[krossbow]

True, but if it's a bit character, then you're making yourself pretty small and petty by going after them for some trivial slight.




What? that doesn't make any sense, and it does not apply in the least to any real world scenarios that have ever existed. If you let people get away with slights, it only encourages them and makes you look weak.

you make sure that its know that ANY affront to you will be met with swift reprisal, and no one will dare oppose you. Its why scorched earth policies are so effective.

[B. Dandelion]

What? that doesn't make any sense, and it does not apply in the least to any real world scenarios that have ever existed. If you let people get away with slights, it only encourages them and makes you look weak.

you make sure that its know that ANY affront to you will be met with swift reprisal, and no one will dare oppose you. Its why scorched earth policies are so effective.

If it's a PR thing, he shouldn't have let them walk out of the throne room untouched -- to spread the word of what happened before being taken out in relative secrecy for completely unrelated matters. He did things the way he did because he wanted to cultivate the exact opposite image that you're talking about while he son was present, and because he's a petty spiteful jerk who also happens to have style and some good one-liners.

[veti]

you make sure that its know that ANY affront to you will be met with swift reprisal, and no one will dare oppose you. Its why scorched earth policies are so effective.

I think you're confusing 'scorched earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scorched_earth)' with 'deterrence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deterrence_theory)'. They're opposites. A deterrent is designed to frighten people into not attacking you, whereas scorched-earth is a strategy you can't use until you're already under attack.

Instantly killing anyone who offends you may have a deterrent value, but it's a chancy thing. It's like constantly raising the stakes in poker. It might work once, it might even work a hundred times, but sooner or later someone is going to call your bluff, and when they do it, they'll make damn' sure they're doing it from a position of far greater strength than they might have done if dealing with someone less... assertive.

[Swordpriest]

What? that doesn't make any sense, and it does not apply in the least to any real world scenarios that have ever existed. If you let people get away with slights, it only encourages them and makes you look weak.

you make sure that its know that ANY affront to you will be met with swift reprisal, and no one will dare oppose you. Its why scorched earth policies are so effective.

To an extent, yes, if the affront is strong enough and public enough to damage your aura if it goes unpunished. In short, if you're in a position of great unelected power and someone slaps you in the face in full view of other people, you pretty much can't let them get away with it. '

For example, in the LotR movie, when they had one of the guards punch Eomer (the royal heir) in the face during that ridiculous arrest scene, my immediate thought was that Eomer would have to have him killed or at least severely beaten once he was free, because if he didn't (despite his alignment, by the book, being pretty much NG) then the other Rohirrim would view Eomer as weak and some scoundrel would eventually assassinate him to try to take over.

(Which is why the scene is ridiculous, because the guard would never punch Eomer, even if he hated him, unless he was 100% certain that Eomer would be dead within a minute or two -- as another old saying goes, "never strike a king unless you kill him" -- which the guard would know, so that scene would never have happened that way.)

However, carried to an extreme, it's vindictive and/or insane. If you lash out constantly at people for disagreeing with you, asking for payment when you owe them something, or just generally speaking frankly, then those around you will come to view you, correctly, as a deadly loose cannon, and assassinate you out of self-preservation, figuring that you're going to have them beheaded because you didn't like the way they raised their eyebrow or their left hand twitched accidentally when you came in. And they'd be right.

Gannji did nothing that I'd consider to be lese majesty to Tarquin -- he asked for payment and got it, after explaining the logic of his position. Case closed to most normal people -- even most normal tyrants. I actually respected Tarquin more for doing that -- until this latest turn, of course.

So, I still stick by my conclusion that Tarquin is a petty, mean-spirited, small, vindictive, and probably partly insane man (or stick figure), like Nale. His credit was not injured by paying Gannji, nor was it increased by secretly backstabbing him with the court of law, because he did it sneakily.

[veti]

Gannji did nothing that I'd consider to be lese majesty to Tarquin -- he asked for payment and got it, after explaining the logic of his position. Case closed to most normal people -- even most normal tyrants. I actually respected Tarquin more for doing that -- until this latest turn, of course.

Ye-es, except for the stunt with the can of tomato soup. If Gannji had just taken the 8000 - a very reasonable offer - and gone away quietly, then you'd be right. But he didn't - he tried to extort (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0724.html) more money - and for that, I'd say, Tarquin is perfectly justified in taking revenge.

And the word will get around. "See that guy? He's the last one who tried to threaten General Tarquin. How long do you think he's going to last? Get your bets on now..."

[Reverent-One]

(Which is why the scene is ridiculous, because the guard would never punch Eomer, even if he hated him, unless he was 100% certain that Eomer would be dead within a minute or two -- as another old saying goes, "never strike a king unless you kill him" -- which the guard would know, so that scene would never have happened that way.)


Eomer was being exiled from Rohan lands, and that guard was one of the personal lackey's of the treacherous right hand man to the king that was controlling the actions of said king, it's not surprising he could be so bold.

[Swordpriest]

Ye-es, except for the stunt with the can of tomato soup. If Gannji had just taken the 8000 - a very reasonable offer - and gone away quietly, then you'd be right. But he didn't - he tried to extort (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0724.html) more money - and for that, I'd say, Tarquin is perfectly justified in taking revenge.

You're starting to crack the armor of my position. :smallbiggrin: But still, Tarquin's not going to get much 'credit' for tossing Gannji into the arena because he did it in an underhanded way that practically nobody would know about.

On the other hand, does a can of tomato soup count as a genuine threat, especially in a world without thermal detonators? :smallwink:

[Swordpriest]

Eomer was being exiled from Rohan lands, and that guard was one of the personal lackey's of the treacherous right hand man to the king that was controlling the actions of said king, it's not surprising he could be so bold.

Hm, I must be getting confused because I've read the books more recently than I've seen the movies. And if you've read the books, you'll know the plot is VERY different from the plot of the movies (in the books, Eomer was placed under house arrest in Meduseld for threatening Wormtongue -- a temporary fall from grace rather than out and out permanent exile, so by the terms of the original story, punching him would have been a preeminently stupid idea).

So, a case of confusion on my part due to remembering the book scene better than the movie scene. :smallredface:

[Voyager_I]

If it's a PR thing, he shouldn't have let them walk out of the throne room untouched -- to spread the word of what happened before being taken out in relative secrecy for completely unrelated matters. He did things the way he did because he wanted to cultivate the exact opposite image that you're talking about while he son was present, and because he's a petty spiteful jerk who also happens to have style and some good one-liners.

He's a powerful statesman in an Oppressive Evil Empire. This is the kind of person you would normally want to tread lightly in your dealings with, but the bounty hunters decided to haggle with him like he was a used car salesman. An imprudent move at any time, but interrupting a reunion with long-lost family was staggeringly poor judgment. If Elan and company were evil-aligned, they probably would have enjoyed some quality father-son bonding time having them imprisoned and watching them fight in the pits. As it was, Tarquin knew Elan wouldn't approve and wasn't going to interrupt family time just to deal with an uppity lizard, so instead he passed a memo on to his underlings to deal with it later. That's what an evil empire is for, after all.

For an example; if I kick Darth Vader in the shins, it's almost certainly going to be the end of me. It's not that Vader is petty; it's just that he's absolutely not the kind of person you trifle with, and being stupid enough to provoke him from a position of vast inferiority does not mean I am beneath retribution. It just means he might not have time to deal with me personally if there's anything remotely important happening...but hey, like I said, evil minions. It's what they do.

[kerberos]

Ye-es, except for the stunt with the can of tomato soup. If Gannji had just taken the 8000 - a very reasonable offer - and gone away quietly, then you'd be right. But he didn't - he tried to extort (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0724.html) more money - and for that, I'd say, Tarquin is perfectly justified in taking revenge.

And the word will get around. "See that guy? He's the last one who tried to threaten General Tarquin. How long do you think he's going to last? Get your bets on now..."

He wasn't trying to extort Tarquin, he was trying to keep the Scheme going. Of cause reminding Tarquin that his role in this reference is either an evil Jedi with a Force choke know for randomly killing minion, or en evil slug criminal mastermind might still not exactly be the path of wisdom.

[B. Dandelion]

He's a powerful statesman in an Oppressive Evil Empire. This is the kind of person you would normally want to tread lightly in your dealings with, but the bounty hunters decided to haggle with him like he was a used car salesman. An imprudent move at any time, but interrupting a reunion with long-lost family was staggeringly poor judgment. If Elan and company were evil-aligned, they probably would have enjoyed some quality father-son bonding time having them imprisoned and watching them fight in the pits. As it was, Tarquin knew Elan wouldn't approve and wasn't going to interrupt family time just to deal with an uppity lizard, so instead he passed a memo on to his underlings to deal with it later. That's what an evil empire is for, after all.

For an example; if I kick Darth Vader in the shins, it's almost certainly going to be the end of me. It's not that Vader is petty; it's just that he's absolutely not the kind of person you trifle with, and being stupid enough to provoke him from a position of vast inferiority does not mean I am beneath retribution. It just means he might not have time to deal with me personally if there's anything remotely important happening...but hey, like I said, evil minions. It's what they do.

A couple things....

First, it seems like there are two conversations going on, one being about Tarquin and the other about Gannji. To use a very crude analogy, say you have some rich but not-so-bright guy that wanders into a dark alley in the wrong side of town and is mugged. If the mugger is somehow caught and put on trial, and I'm on the jury, it's not going to make me any more likely to vote for an acquittal if the defense attorney points out that the rich dude was basically asking for it. Whether or not I agree with that assessment, he's not the one on trial. Stepping into an alley was not a crime. "He was careless" doesn't make the actions of the mugger any less of a brutality.

So in that vein, in order for Gannji's actions to be relevant in weighing Tarquin's, I have to think they in some way "wronged" him -- in a sane, recognizable fashion, not a paranoid fantasy world in which asking a person to uphold the spirit of the bargain they had entered into counts as a major grievance. Otherwise, we are just talking about how Gannji screwed up, not how Tarquin ISN'T a petty backstabbing megalomaniacal tyrant.

I say that he is petty now because everything that I've seen points to him being genuinely offended and pissed off here. Vader might kill the idiot that kicks him in the shins, but I'm betting his personal feelings on the matter would be more along the lines of "what an idiot", not "the interloper must DIE for this indignity!!"

[Niveus Candidus]

True, but if it's a bit character, then you're making yourself pretty small and petty by going after them for some trivial slight.

As E.R. Eddison had one of his characters say in "A Fish Dinner in Memison" --

"I had forgotten him. An eagle does not quarry upon flies."

Tarquin does quarry on flies, and will go to absurd lengths to do so. Therefore, we can safely say he's not an "eagle" (i.e. awesome) but a vicious, pathetic punk like Nale, just with more muscle backing him up.

Which is my whole point -- acts of stupid, petty vindictiveness aren't "awesome" by any stretch of the imagination, and I'm totally boggled that anyone thinks they are. I can't understand it.

I fall in the camp of "That was awesome," for one reason: Tarquin has style (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EvilIsCool). Its not what he has done recently, which thus far has consisted of telling his honest back story and telling a paper-pusher to push away some paper, but the way he has done it. He let his son go fatherless so he could have the potential of a Star Wars reference and he left a note for so the men being condemned would know why, how and by whose doing they were being screwed--with another Star Wars reference. Whether or not his actions are silly, evil, stupid or even worthwhile is not the issue. Tarquin undertakes his acts with the eloquence that Nale or Elan could only attempt by saying: "This is where I get to do something with drama pudding on it!"

I also do not believe this was some grandiose masterstroke that is beneath the General. We do not know the time of events precisely, so it is probable that Tarquin only conducted this act on a whim when chance offered the opportunity. I find it more likely he was in the clerks office, arranging festivities, and saw some familiar names on the arrest report. If it was truly an offhand act, the manner in which he executed the execution is all the more impressive.

[Illsbane]

Still coming across as pettily spiteful and contemptible, sorry.

One word, to explain it all: Evil. =_=

[Learnedguy]

Petty? Hah!

Think satisfying. Guess who's gonna elbow his lizard cleric friend while laughing knowingly when Gannji and his giant smurf partner takes the stage in the arena?

The best thing about ruling an evil empire is the little bits:smallcool:

[Kranden]

Tarquin is proof that yes, one can smile and yet be a villain.

I Seem to recall a certain batman villain who has a tendency to smile.

[Ancalagon]

I Seem to recall a certain batman villain who has a tendency to smile.

I bet Xykon would smile a lot as well - if he still had skin and muscles on his face that is...

[Illsbane]

A depressing thought just struck me. Is it not likely that the big blue guy - was his name ever mentioned? - is going to have his wings clipped so he won't be able to escape from the arena (and take Gannji with him, of course)?

[Damaris]

Personally, I don't think Tarquin isn't being petty, I just find his underhand ways awesome. And he gets to both look good to his son and get his revenge.

[Zerter]

{Scrubbed}

[Darcy]

As the old saying goes:

"Once word leaks out that a [tyrant] has gone soft, people begin to disobey you, and then it's nothing but work, work, work all the time."

Swordpriest: to "quarry" means to hunt or search for, and Tarquin was doing no such thing. He was swatting a pestering gnat. Gannji tried to pull leverage on an evil tyrant. Anyone who gets it in their head that they can pull something like that, is going to die.

[Darcy]

{Scrubbed}

And which one is OotS closer to..?

[TriForce]

swordpriest: you seem to think being evil and awesome is mutually exclusive.

ofcourse he is punishing the bounty hunter for something small, thats what evil people do, they do horrible things to people regardless if they deserve it or not. and justify it by making excuses like "you extorded me" "i cant pronounce your name" "you delayed me while building your city and you were not here when i lost my soulhideythingy" "your people killed my people a long long time ago" (tarquin, xykon, xykon, and redcloak respectivly) and since tarquin is in command of a nation, why would he bother to lose his temper? just saying a few words to a minion is enough to condemn the bounty hunters, and thats much easyer then striking them down himself.

petty? might be, altough noble evil guys are pretty hard to come by by default. cowardice? not really in my vieuw, hes just not considering those bounty hunters worth his effort, thus letting his minions do it.

and becouse he does it that way, makes him a perfect overlord: never do anything yourself that a minion can handle.

also zerter: i already told you a few times that your vieuw on anything alignment-related is pretty abstract, and definatly not compatible with normal D&D vieuws :) so youll forgive me for not really being insulted by your remarks

[Zerter]

{scrubbed}

[FrankNorman]

*cough cough* XYKON!*cough cough* ANYTHING SKELETAL*cough*
Or are they "grinning?"

That doesn't count. Its not a real smile unless they are doing it with their lips.

And to those who didn't get it, "smile and yet be a villain" is a Shakespeare reference.

[Swordpriest]

That doesn't count. Its not a real smile unless they are doing it with their lips.

And to those who didn't get it, "smile and yet be a villain" is a Shakespeare reference.

Hamlet, isn't it? I can't remember the exact quote, but I'm pretty sure it's when he's talking about the current King.

And yes, I really am too lazy at the moment to Google it. :smallwink:

[Learnedguy]

Guys, really (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0448.html)

Don't anyone of you got a sense of style?

[pendell]

True, but if it's a bit character, then you're making yourself pretty small and petty by going after them for some trivial slight.

As E.R. Eddison had one of his characters say in "A Fish Dinner in Memison" --

"I had forgotten him. An eagle does not quarry upon flies."

Tarquin does quarry on flies, and will go to absurd lengths to do so. Therefore, we can safely say he's not an "eagle" (i.e. awesome) but a vicious, pathetic punk like Nale, just with more muscle backing him up.

Which is my whole point -- acts of stupid, petty vindictiveness aren't "awesome" by any stretch of the imagination, and I'm totally boggled that anyone thinks they are. I can't understand it.

QFT.

There are some here who think it was a good idea for Tarquin to punish a slight with death because 'that's what important people do'. I can only point you to this scene (http://infomotions.com/etexts/gutenberg/dirs/etext99/1ws2311.htm) from Henry V. Search down to this section ..



Enlarge the man committed yesterday
That rail'd against our person. We consider
It was excess of wine that set him on;
And on his more advice we pardon him.


Several of his counselors argue against the King's mercy, demanding the soldier's death, in terms very like those you have advanced here. When they are themselves caught in faults, they themselves receive the same mercy they advocated: None.

C'mon guys, you're going to kill people because they threatened you with a can of tomato soup? It was a joke!

A powerful man does not earn respect for mean, petty, spiteful acts; quite the opposite. In addition, those petty things usually means that there are many willing to put the boot in if he ever loses the power that once made him feared. And no one holds power forever.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Faramir]

While many good arguments have been made on either side I'd like to present an alternative viewpoint. Our genre-savvy Tarquin isn't an Evil Overlord, he's more of a Grand Vizier, a power behind the throne manipulating the putative ruler. And as such he knows very well that the appropriate thing to do is to act in a conniving backstabbing fashion whenever the opportunity presents itself.

[B. Dandelion]

While many good arguments have been made on either side I'd like to present an alternative viewpoint. Our genre-savvy Tarquin isn't an Evil Overlord, he's more of a Grand Vizier, a power behind the throne manipulating the putative ruler. And as such he knows very well that the appropriate thing to do is to act in a conniving backstabbing fashion whenever the opportunity presents itself.

I like it! So this actually does allow an out for Tarquin to behave in a seemingly petty manner without diminishing his Magnificent Bastard credentials -- he dorks people over for minor issues because that's his role, and damned if he won't play it perfectly.

[Darcy]

I don't think it was a good thing to do, it wasn't remotely fair or just, and it absolutely wasn't necessary... but it was cool. And maybe if he dispenses a little more unnecessary death, then we can dispense with the "Tarquin isn't really bad, he's just doing what he must to survive in a dangerous society!" I want Tarquin to be evil. He'd make a terrible hero, but he's wonderful as a villain. At least from a dramatic standpoint, which seems to be the one he favours.

[veti]

While many good arguments have been made on either side I'd like to present an alternative viewpoint. Our genre-savvy Tarquin isn't an Evil Overlord, he's more of a Grand Vizier, a power behind the throne manipulating the putative ruler.

That's actually a very relevant point. Being a Grand Vizier to a dimwitted or inattentive ruler, as any connoisseur of traditional fantasy knows, is one of the most satisfying forms of power without responsibility. Everything villainous you do, through the Oppressive Apparatus of State, you do in the name of the queen. If there are repercussions, they'll be aimed at her.

And that would suit Tarquin just fine. If the opposition is weak, he can decide whether to earn brownie points by putting it down himself, or use it as an opportunity to train up some useful underlings. If they're too strong for him to stop, there's a good chance they're strong enough to take out the queen. It's win-win.

[Marduk Prophet]

ITT: People argue about realism vs. fantasy in a fiction-fantasy, D&D-based webcomic.

[RMcMurtry]

Enor and Gannji brought in the wrong people. Then they demanded partial payment. If Elan hadn't been there, they'd have been fed to the dragon immediately. They should have left as quickly as possible. Tarquin attended to the important business of Elan and let his minions deal with the idiot bounty hunters.

[B. Dandelion]

Once again I feel compelled to ask: how does the assertion "Gannji should have known better" in any way make Tarquin's actions less condemnable? It rather seems to presume that Tarquin is capricious and thin-skinned in addition to ruthless. "Lowly bounty hunter shouldn't piss off the evil tyrant," well duh, but this proves he is indeed an evil tyrant where before people were speculating he was simply ruthless in his efficiency. He's not. He's also spiteful, or at least putting on a very good impression of it.

[Kish]

before people were speculating he was simply ruthless in his efficiency.
To be perfectly honest, I always found that kind of silly. His lawyer said he was Lawful Evil 20 years ago, his son called him "a cold and ruthless general of a nigh-unstoppable army," and he was conspicuously lacking in both remorse for those days or any indication of having changed at all. We didn't have proof that he was really evil now before, but it was always the way to bet.

Rich probably didn't put this in specifically to prove that Tarquin is E-Vil with a capital E and a capital V, simply because he doesn't generally send messages to the forum, but I doubt he's losing any sleep over the idea of this serving as a message to the forum either.

[B. Dandelion]

To be perfectly honest, I always found that kind of silly. His lawyer said he was Lawful Evil 20 years ago, his son called him "a cold and ruthless general of a nigh-unstoppable army," and he was conspicuously lacking in both remorse for those days or any indication of having changed at all. We didn't have proof that he was really evil now before, but it was always the way to bet.

Oh absolutely. I've always been on the "he's almost certainly a bastard" bandwagon, but there was a little wiggle room for speculation. But I had some genuine respect for Tarquin, even believing he was evil, for evidently handing the bounty issue the way he did. He came off as fair, and not lacking in a sense of humor. This is showing off his more Nale-esque side (or I guess more correctly Nale's Tarquin-esque side?), and Nale's... well, he's a lot of things, but ultimately he's kind of pathetic. I don't think the guy's evil now where I didn't before, but he's a different kind of evil than I first thought.

[veti]

This is showing off his more Nale-esque side (or I guess more correctly Nale's Tarquin-esque side?), and Nale's... well, he's a lot of things, but ultimately he's kind of pathetic. I don't think the guy's evil now where I didn't before, but he's a different kind of evil than I first thought.

The big difference between Nale and Tarquin isn't a matter of alignment, it's competence. Nale is pathetic because, while he wants to be an evil genius, his actual INT stat is only middling (and his WIS is somewhere on a par with Belkar's). Tarquin seems to have a much better understanding of the world, enough to pull off the kind of plan that Nale can only fornicate up hopelessly.

[tomandtish]

Hamlet, isn't it? I can't remember the exact quote, but I'm pretty sure it's when he's talking about the current King.

And yes, I really am too lazy at the moment to Google it. :smallwink:

You are correct. Hamlet, Act 1 Scene 5. I did that play 6 times a week for 12 weeks one summer.

My tables!—Meet it is I set it down
That one may smile, and smile, and be a villain.
At least I’m sure it may be so in Denmark. (writes)
So, uncle, there you are. Now to my word.

As for Tarquin, this seems a perfect way to get revenge w/o overly upsetting his son to me, so put me in that camp.

[The Shadow]

Once again I feel compelled to ask: how does the assertion "Gannji should have known better" in any way make Tarquin's actions less condemnable?

It doesn't. I don't think anyone claims it isn't condemnable. It's clearly evil, petty, nasty, and all the rest of it.

It was also, given those things, quite stylishly done. It's the style people are admiring, not the evil itself.

[B. Dandelion]

The big difference between Nale and Tarquin isn't a matter of alignment, it's competence. Nale is pathetic because, while he wants to be an evil genius, his actual INT stat is only middling (and his WIS is somewhere on a par with Belkar's). Tarquin seems to have a much better understanding of the world, enough to pull off the kind of plan that Nale can only fornicate up hopelessly.

When did I ever say they had a different alignment? From what I've seen, in OOTS having high stats doesn't seem to necessarily guarantee overall success any more than the reverse guarantees failures. In the beginning Xykon had one very high stat (CHA) and probably abysmal scores in the other mental departments, but he rose to a position of enormous influence and effectiveness. Redcloak seems to have good scores all around yet never manages to climb out of a perpetual abyss of failure when it comes to doing the one thing he really wants done. Roy's got the best overall mental scores of the entire team, and still thought it'd be a good idea to leap aboard a flying zombified dragon in order to challenge an epic-level lich sorcerer to single combat (cheap shot, I know). I think if we can chalk Nale's failures up to a demonstrable character defect it is completely unnecessary and even detrimental to turn to stat mechanics to explain them instead. I think his problem is that he's a freaking psychopath -- a thin-skinned megalomaniac with delusions of grandeur who is so easily aroused to hatred and the desire for revenge that he's basically detached himself from reality. Tarquin, I thought, had it together more. Now I'm thinking he's just better at looking sane, and being able to hide those impulses until he's in a more secure position to act on them.

But being pathetic is more than just winning or losing. Haven't you ever seen someone get everything they ever wanted and yet still manage to be pathetic, because what they wanted in the first place was something completely hollow? If your values are pathetic, your successes in pursuit of those values are at best a poor use of good resources. That's the other side of Nale's patheticness, when all he really wants is just to hurt the people he feels have slighted him. Even if he got what he wanted, would he be happy? I suspect his mentality is doomed to make him perpetually dissatisfied with the status quo, and I wonder if Tarquin's the same.

[Lowkey Lyesmith]

A couple things....

First, it seems like there are two conversations going on, one being about Tarquin and the other about Gannji. To use a very crude analogy, say you have some rich but not-so-bright guy that wanders into a dark alley in the wrong side of town and is mugged. If the mugger is somehow caught and put on trial, and I'm on the jury, it's not going to make me any more likely to vote for an acquittal if the defense attorney points out that the rich dude was basically asking for it. Whether or not I agree with that assessment, he's not the one on trial. Stepping into an alley was not a crime. "He was careless" doesn't make the actions of the mugger any less of a brutality.

So in that vein, in order for Gannji's actions to be relevant in weighing Tarquin's, I have to think they in some way "wronged" him -- in a sane, recognizable fashion, not a paranoid fantasy world in which asking a person to uphold the spirit of the bargain they had entered into counts as a major grievance. Otherwise, we are just talking about how Gannji screwed up, not how Tarquin ISN'T a petty backstabbing megalomaniacal tyrant.

I say that he is petty now because everything that I've seen points to him being genuinely offended and pissed off here. Vader might kill the idiot that kicks him in the shins, but I'm betting his personal feelings on the matter would be more along the lines of "what an idiot", not "the interloper must DIE for this indignity!!"

Okey, for a analogy to work everybody must agree that it correctly describes reality. I don't agree with that what Gannji did was the same as a rich dude walking into an ally.

Fact is that if you commit a crime, it's quite reasanoble to asume it will have consequences.

Imagen this:

The Vice-President of a nation have offered a revard for, let's say information on something. A man comes in with information and get to see said VP, after a bit och talking the VP realises that this man don't have the info he needs. He agrees to give him a large sum of money, oh let's say
50 000$ anyway.

The man pulls out a handgrenade and threaten to kill everybody if he don't get 1 million $. Everybody gets afraid at first, but the VP then notices that the grenade is a fake. The man having realised that his bluff have been called then states that he will settle for the 50 000$.

How many people here belive that he would be allowed to simply walk out of the VP's office?

In Sweden that would be classified as an illegal threat (most likely there is a version of it in most civilized countries) and is punishable. The punishment ranging from a small fine to 4 years in prison. Interestingly enough this is one of the few laws were intent is secondary to context due to the fact that it's difficult to be sure whether the speaker of the threat were serious or not.

[B. Dandelion]

Okey, for a analogy to work everybody must agree that it correctly describes reality. I don't agree with that what Gannji did was the same as a rich dude walking into an ally.

Well no offense, but I don't agree with yours, either -- we are making analogies of two different events. Of course they don't work equally well when they're applied to something they were never meant to be an analogy for in the first place.

I don't think the thermal detonator bit was at all meant to be serious and I don't think it's what Tarquin's referring to given that he implies Gannji slighted him "in front of his son," when if he were referring to THAT instance Gannji's little stunt would have served to make Tarquin look GOOD for picking up on the bluff when everyone else was freaking out. (Plus, he says Gannji extorted money, not attempted to extort money.)

[2xMachina]

I believe Roy/Belkar will be freed by Tarquin.

One of the perks of LE is that you can play favorites.

[Lowkey Lyesmith]

Well no offense, but I don't agree with yours, either -- we are making analogies of two different events. Of course they don't work equally well when they're applied to something they were never meant to be an analogy for in the first place.

I don't think the thermal detonator bit was at all meant to be serious and I don't think it's what Tarquin's referring to given that he implies Gannji slighted him "in front of his son," when if he were referring to THAT instance Gannji's little stunt would have served to make Tarquin look GOOD for picking up on the bluff when everyone else was freaking out. (Plus, he says Gannji extorted money, not attempted to extort money.)

I knew you wouldn't agree. It's very rare for someone to be instantaly convinced in any form of argument.

And I agree that what Tarquin did was petty and evil.
But let's say Tarquin didn't realise that it was a can of tomato soup and agreed to give Gannji 50 000 gp. Would it not have been extortion then? And if that would have qualified as extortion then the attempt must be classified as attempted extortion.

The problem I had with your analogy is that it made Gannji seem like a innocent victim. He's not. If Tarquin would have had him arrested at the spot he would have been following the laws of most civilized nations.

But I do agree with you that it was petty of him to wait this long to simply get revenge.

[B. Dandelion]

But let's say Tarquin didn't realise that it was a can of tomato soup and agreed to give Gannji 50 000 gp. Would it not have been extortion then? And if that would have qualified as extortion then the attempt must be classified as attempted extortion.

If Gannji had TAKEN the money, yes. But I don't think he was ever seriously trying to get any more money than the 8,000. He makes it quite clear he disapproves of fraud and doesn't want to participate in it. From what we know of the guy, if Tarquin had bought it, I think he'd have dropped the act.


The problem I had with your analogy is that it made Gannji seem like a innocent victim.

Then I did it right, because that was the exact point of the analogy. I saw that people were talking about how this doesn't make Tarquin a bad guy by pointing to Gannji's behavior and saying it was stupid. My point was, stupid isn't the same thing as bad. Tarquin's actions against him cannot be excused or justified on the basis of his behavior even if it was not entirely wise. If they want to say what he did was WRONG, that's an entirely different argument, and not the one I was trying to dispute.


He's not. If Tarquin would have had him arrested at the spot he would have been following the laws of most civilized nations.

So your argument is that Tarquin thought he had committed an actual crime, persecutable by law recognized near-universally as just, and let him go because...? His good-aligned son, who would also have witnessed this crime, and already had reason to dislike the guy for beating him up and kidnapping him, could be presumed to have some kind of ethical objection to this? Or... what? Seriously, how does this make any sense at all?


But I do agree with you that it was petty of him to wait this long to simply get revenge.

If Tarquin behaved as you're arguing he behaved, I'm not sure "petty" is the word I'd go with.

[Irbis]

I'm genuinely curious, what is impressive about being too cowardly to avenge a perceived insult yourself when you're supposed to be an evil overlord? :smallconfused: I mean, if you're going to be a heroic-scale villain, shouldn't you just draw your blade and hew the offending knave down, rather than hiding behind some bureaucratic lizard in a wig?

He just came across to me as a spiteful little backstabbing b**** with this, to me, which is singularly unimpressive. However, my analysis may well be wrong, and I'd like to hear the other perspective to see if I actually agree with it.

Ever read Evil Overlord List? :smallamused:

There's at least dozen points advising against hand-to-hand combat in the first 50, especially against people doing this for a living.

If he engaged in combat personally, he would be called Lawful Idiot, not Evil Overlord.

[B. Dandelion]

Incidentally I was going back over the strips in question and was reminded in 723 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0723.html) that it was Tarquin who issued the bounty in the first place. Tarquin was the only person who knew Nale even had a twin and was negligent in mentioning that on the proclamation, which incidentally put Elan's life (and the life of his companions) in grave danger. What's he more likely to think of as "extorting money from me in front of my son" -- a bluff that obtained no money and made Tarquin look like the coolest head in the room? Or a pointed calling out of what was a genuine screw-up on his part? This is more easily thought of as extortion if you imagine Tarquin paid off Gannji as quickly as possible in order to get him to shut up, since that could then be literally termed "hush money".

[Ancalagon]

I think it's both to similar parts. And actually, it's the same reason.

Tarquin lost control and he really does not like it. So he "gets back" at those who directly put him in that position AND did ask for comensation (Tarquin did not get what he wanted and had to pay for it).

[Undeadsteak]

Swordpriest has convinced me that his act was most certainly petty.
That does not mean it wasn't done in a completely awesome stylish way, however. But, when you consider it, he certainly is simply a bully with a lot of power. Taking revenge on a small issue and getting emotional about it. I could understand if he killed him to keep his reputation in check, but that's certainly not what his letter reveals.

[Darcy]

Dandelion: the difference between "walking alone into a dark alley"-stupid and "jerking around an evil overlord"-stupid is pretty plain. One of them is tempting a possible danger (not all alleys have thugs in them), the other one is provoking a known danger (everyone knows, or at least ought to know that Tarquin is powerful, ruthless and deadly). That doesn't have any relevance on the rightness or wrongness of either Tarquin or Gannji, but that's not really relevant. I don't think anyone's saying it was good or it was right- it was just a cool way to handle it.

If Gannji is savvy enough to predict that the friends and family of prior bounties would come looking for him, then he should reasonably have been savvy enough to know that General Tarquin was not someone to mess around with.

As for the General's culpability in the mistaken identity, let's consider for a second the WANTED poster. Nale is average height and weight for a human male, traveling with an elf wizard and a human-looking female and two others. There's a picture- how good do you think the picture is? Do they have photographs? In the comic, it just looks like a drawing. So he nabs the first blond guy he sees in the company of anyone who fits those extremely generic descriptions. Elan doesn't even have a goatee! Then he shows up at the palace and, when he finds out no, you have the wrong guy, go away- instead of admitting his mistake and his poor research skills, he demands money anyways, because hey, it's a blond guy with an elf and a chick.


As for his pettiness... I don't really see it that way, it just doesn't seem like he was really focusing too much on it. Nale is petty because he puts all his efforts into getting back at the people who he believes have offended or insulted him. Tarquin spent probably three minutes writing a note and giving the chancellor instructions, and got on with his day. It was unnecessary, sure, but I don't see him as being any more petty than had been previously demonstrated.

[pendell]

I don't think anyone's saying it was good or it was right- it was just a cool way to handle it.


Smiling to a person's face and then pulling something nasty and underhanded on them with paperwork, which they find out about only after you're not present?

I don't find it "awesome" or "cool". On the contrary, it reminds me all too much of real-life office politics as practiced by people who haven't got the guts to tell you to your face when they've got a problem.

Do not EVER attempt such a course of action in real life.

... well, okay, it's understandable if you're a low-ranking minion being picked on by the company CEO. But it is absolutely intolerable if you're the high-ranker doing it to a peon.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[RMcMurtry]

Incidentally I was going back over the strips in question and was reminded in 723 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0723.html) that it was Tarquin who issued the bounty in the first place. Tarquin was the only person who knew Nale even had a twin and was negligent in mentioning that on the proclamation, which incidentally put Elan's life (and the life of his companions) in grave danger. What's he more likely to think of as "extorting money from me in front of my son" -- a bluff that obtained no money and made Tarquin look like the coolest head in the room? Or a pointed calling out of what was a genuine screw-up on his part? This is more easily thought of as extortion if you imagine Tarquin paid off Gannji as quickly as possible in order to get him to shut up, since that could then be literally termed "hush money".

I don't think it was really a screw up. Tarquin had no knowledge of the Evil Opposites theme Nale has going on; he didn't know Elan was on the western continent. He described Nale's companions accurately enough to prevent mistakes.

Enor and Gannji didn't even check to see if Haley was a succubus, which would have told them right there that something was off.

[Darcy]

Well yeah, no kidding. Jeez. There are a million things which are cool when you see a fictional character do them but are terrible ideas in real life. That's what makes it cool, is that it skirts the edge of what is possible, and is only possible because the character is cool enough to do it and get away with it. If I tried it in real life, first, I'd fail miserably, because I'm not powerful or well connected or even remotely manipulative personality-wise. So I'm not really capable of it. Second, I don't have enemies, because I'm a normal human being whose life is devoid of intrigue and subterfuge, so my options are limited to strangers, work associates and friends, none of whom deserve such treatment. So I'm not willing, either.

Like... that's really a no-brainer. But thanks for the warning?


It reminds me more of a cat playing with its prey. Tarquin is completely capable of getting what he wants by force, or by law, but instead chose in this case to do it through subterfuge. He could have told Gannji straight up- "you got the wrong guy, do a little research next time, get out of here-" but Gannji's attitude earned him some special treatment.

[pendell]

@Darcy: Maybe I over-reacted just a touch. Sorry about that.



Like... that's really a no-brainer. But thanks for the warning?


Unfortunately, on a forum like this it's not always easy to tell just what kind of clue people have. People still argue Belkar's alignment, IIRC. Just because *you* understand that (I know that now, thanks) doesn't mean that all forumgoers understand that, especially the high school and college student types. I just didn't want anyone thinking it was "cool" or "awesome" and then attempting the same thing in real life. Because unlike throwing fireballs or slaying dragons, underhanded office politics ARE possible in real life and are in fact quite frequent.

Which is why I didn't find it cool. It hits too close to home. It's the same reason Redcloak having hobgoblins coat themselves with mustard and crackers to stop a monster is funny (to my mind) but Redcloak

murdering his brother


is not. The first is just laughable, over the top, and ridiculous. The second is too much like real life and hits too close to home to be funny.

To me, anyway.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Darcy]

I just enjoy good drama. I don't think murder and cannibalism are cool in a real-life setting, but I think in the context of Titus Andronicus, it's pretty awesome. I'm removed enough from the narrative that I can appreciate the scope of his revenge and how horrifying it is, without being horrified by it myself.

[The MunchKING]

If he engaged in combat personally, he would be called Lawful Idiot, not Evil Overlord.

Not if he got that possition by being the most Deadly man in the World (tm). Which actually more likely in a D&D-based world, as they're getting loads of experience every time they kill another attempted coup.

[krossbow]

Not if he got that possition by being the most Deadly man in the World (tm). Which actually more likely in a D&D-based world, as they're getting loads of experience every time they kill another attempted coup.


natural 20s happen. Unless your supernatural or souped up on major magic mojo, a D&D world has a massive chance of getting uber-critted by someone with a twink-crit weapon that no amount of skill can overcome.

[B. Dandelion]

Dandelion: the difference between "walking alone into a dark alley"-stupid and "jerking around an evil overlord"-stupid is pretty plain. One of them is tempting a possible danger (not all alleys have thugs in them), the other one is provoking a known danger (everyone knows, or at least ought to know that Tarquin is powerful, ruthless and deadly). That doesn't have any relevance on the rightness or wrongness of either Tarquin or Gannji, but that's not really relevant.

Relevant to what? I said it was a crude analogy, and the point was directed entirely at Tarquin. "On a scale of one to ten, how stupid were Gannji's actions" was not a debate I was looking to start. I will say this, however: the fact that Gannji so freely mouthed off to the guys in power was absolutely reckless and also totally cool. I have more respect for him in his powerless sarcasm than I do for a thin-skinned tyrant who would tolerate his barbs in public only to fume about it in private and pull strings to get the guy killed.


I don't think anyone's saying it was good or it was right- it was just a cool way to handle it.

I enjoyed it -- it was a great strip and a perfect punchline. But I think what it revealed about Tarquin was more telling in the negative sense. That he had style was something we already knew.


If Gannji is savvy enough to predict that the friends and family of prior bounties would come looking for him, then he should reasonably have been savvy enough to know that General Tarquin was not someone to mess around with.

I keep saying "it's about Tarquin, not Gannji" and everyone wants to keep talking about Gannji as if I'd said anything about him save that he did not morally deserve what Tarquin served up. Is it because we believe he intellectually or thematically deserved it, so that causes it to subconsciously creep up the moral line? "Well, he didn't deserve it deserve it, but..." But what? The gene pool would be better off without him? We should have an exemption clause for murder if the person is stupid? We can't forgive Tarquin openly but in secret we do?

That said, he expects family members of the people he hunted down and turned into the authorities (who either imprisoned them or killed them) would come after him. He did not expect a lawful authority he conducted business with to turn on him for a perceived personal slight. He knows the family members are going to be mad at him because what happened to their loved one was assuredly not good. He didn't know Tarquin was mad at him because as far as he knew he hadn't done anything to the guy. How many people here on the forums actually saw it coming? "It was obvious in retrospect" doesn't count.


As for the General's culpability in the mistaken identity, let's consider for a second the WANTED poster. Nale is average height and weight for a human male, traveling with an elf wizard and a human-looking female and two others. There's a picture- how good do you think the picture is?

Good enough so that the person who was taken in was the identical twin of the person the poster was aimed at?


Do they have photographs? In the comic, it just looks like a drawing. So he nabs the first blond guy he sees in the company of anyone who fits those extremely generic descriptions.

Do you realize how old the poster is now? That doesn't even make sense.


Elan doesn't even have a goatee!

Months later, the guy on the poster shows up with no goatee. That's reason to assume he's a completely different person? Why in the world WOULD you do that, instead of assuming he, uh, shaved? What happens more often: people shaving, or being mistaken for their evil identical long-lost twin? I mean really!


Then he shows up at the palace and, when he finds out no, you have the wrong guy, go away- instead of admitting his mistake and his poor research skills, he demands money anyways, because hey, it's a blond guy with an elf and a chick.

You don't think this summary might be just a touch biased? He grabbed a guy with 100% matching DNA. He had no reason to assume two such people existed. He wanted to be paid because he spent some considerable expense and danger to himself and his partner bringing the bounty in. He hadn't done anything wrong. He didn't even ask for full payment, he only really wanted to cover his expenses. I think you're really grasping at straws in trying to implicate the guy, when the offense that warranted his death sentence didn't come down to him being a bad bounty hunter at all. His offense was embarrassing Tarquin in front of his son, which was only tangential to the bounty hunting.


As for his pettiness... I don't really see it that way, it just doesn't seem like he was really focusing too much on it. Nale is petty because he puts all his efforts into getting back at the people who he believes have offended or insulted him. Tarquin spent probably three minutes writing a note and giving the chancellor instructions, and got on with his day. It was unnecessary, sure, but I don't see him as being any more petty than had been previously demonstrated.

I think it's petty to execute people you feel have slighted you when all they were doing was trying to keep themselves fed.


I don't think it was really a screw up. Tarquin had no knowledge of the Evil Opposites theme Nale has going on; he didn't know Elan was on the western continent.

A guy as genre savvy as Tarquin never saw that one coming? Really? The guy who didn't tell Nale about his twin purely to increase the dramatic tension when they did inevitably meet?


He described Nale's companions accurately enough to prevent mistakes.

"If he is not accompanied by these companions any more, it's reason to believe it is in fact an entirely different guy now?"


Enor and Gannji didn't even check to see if Haley was a succubus, which would have told them right there that something was off.

That would have tipped them off to Elan not being the guy on the poster but his identical friggin' twin??? Really??

[pendell]

We should have an exemption clause for murder if the person is stupid?


Having spent time today dealing with tech support -- both giving and receiving -- I fully support this idea and will so write to my local politicians. Stupidity should be a capital offense and often is, in nature. The purpose of civilization seems primarily to allow people to be utterly, completely clueless and not suffer the appropriate consequences, at least in computing.

Tongue in cheek but very bitter even so,

Brian P.

[B. Dandelion]

Having spent time today dealing with tech support -- both giving and receiving -- I fully support this idea and will so write to my local politicians. Stupidity should be a capital offense and often is, in nature. The purpose of civilization seems primarily to allow people to be utterly, completely clueless and not suffer the appropriate consequences, at least in computing.

Tongue in cheek but very bitter even so,

Brian P.

Oh sure, everyone says that. But here I'd term it an aggressive ignorance -- not "minding its own business" stupid, but "in your face" stupid, and usually rude to boot.

And no it still shouldn't warrant the death penalty but ... yeah, we've all been there.

[shaxberd]

Does this mean that Tarquin is even more evil and diabolical than Jabba the Hut?

[LuPuWei]

One should remember the old evolutionary tale of the sabre-tooth groundchuck (or something to that effect). The sabre-tooth whatsit was a tiny burrowing rodent with Sabre teeth, which it used for something, we're not sure of that either.

Anyhoo, turns out, for this little critter, big whopping sabre-teeth were a turn-on, and size really did matter for those poor unfortunate critters. For lo and behold, in an unholy act of runaway evolution, ladychucks kept choosing manchucks for their 'tools' and the teeth kept getting bigger and bigger until one day it was impossible for any Saberchuck born to properly chew, breath or do anything for that matter.

So they died.

There's a moral in here somewhere, and it may be to the effect of don't brush your teeth, but if it ain't, I will leave you to find it...

(Edit: Twas in repsonse to the stupiditalk, but i was aesthetically ninjaed by shaxberd. Well done thar :smallbiggrin:)

[Lowkey Lyesmith]

If Gannji had TAKEN the money, yes. But I don't think he was ever seriously trying to get any more money than the 8,000. He makes it quite clear he disapproves of fraud and doesn't want to participate in it. From what we know of the guy, if Tarquin had bought it, I think he'd have dropped the act.


Then I did it right, because that was the exact point of the analogy. I saw that people were talking about how this doesn't make Tarquin a bad guy by pointing to Gannji's behavior and saying it was stupid. My point was, stupid isn't the same thing as bad. Tarquin's actions against him cannot be excused or justified on the basis of his behavior even if it was not entirely wise. If they want to say what he did was WRONG, that's an entirely different argument, and not the one I was trying to dispute.


So your argument is that Tarquin thought he had committed an actual crime, persecutable by law recognized near-universally as just, and let him go because...? His good-aligned son, who would also have witnessed this crime, and already had reason to dislike the guy for beating him up and kidnapping him, could be presumed to have some kind of ethical objection to this? Or... what? Seriously, how does this make any sense at all?


If Tarquin behaved as you're arguing he behaved, I'm not sure "petty" is the word I'd go with.

First of all we have no way of knowing that Gannji wouldn't accept 50 000 we can only speculate. We do know that he threatened a high ranking government offical in front of other people.

Why did Tarquin let them go? Hard to say, maby he decided to roll with it until a oppurtunity to take revenge showed up. Or he were in a good mood since meeting Elan and that made him let them go, but when he noticed that they had been arrested he decided that he would like them to suffer.

Thing is this.
Gannji's actions in threataning Tarquin = wrong
Tarquins actions in letting Gannji get away with it = both right and wrong.
If he had Gannji arrested at the spot he would have been in his right to do so. If he decided to show mercy and let him go he would have been right do do so.

Tarquins actions now = wrong. Now he is just acting petty and well, evil.

Funny thing is that I would probably had him arrested and told him that his attempted extortion normaly would be punishable by death. But since I'm feeling lenient today I'd give him a fine instead.
How about 8000gp?

Gannji is not a guy who got mugged in a alley, he's not a girl who got sexually harassed in a bar. In both those cases the person is innocent.

But that's not the same. Gannji don't deserve what he is getting now. But it's a line between someone being innocent and someone being guilty and getting an unfairly harsh punishment.

[Surrealistik]

Glad to see that bounty hunter get served; very annoying character. Lawful Evil? Moar liek Lawful Awesome.

[RMcMurtry]

A guy as genre savvy as Tarquin never saw that one coming? Really? The guy who didn't tell Nale about his twin purely to increase the dramatic tension when they did inevitably meet?



"If he is not accompanied by these companions any more, it's reason to believe it is in fact an entirely different guy now?"



That would have tipped them off to Elan not being the guy on the poster but his identical friggin' twin??? Really??

No. But reason enough to spring for, say, a zone of truth spell to make sure you're bringing in the right person, given the availability of near-perfect magical disguises. And keep in mind that they'd get NOTHING for a human woman. The bounty is on Sabine, the succubus, not some random human woman. There's no reason to KEEP Haley.

[RMcMurtry]

Does this mean that Tarquin is even more evil and diabolical than Jabba the Hut?

Given that he represents Vader... yes.

[Swordpriest]

Glad to see that bounty hunter get served; very annoying character. Lawful Evil? Moar liek Lawful Awesome.

People actually think that b****y, underhanded, cowardly spite is "awesome." I really, really don't get it. Has the culture changed that much?

[Falconer]

People actually think that b****y, underhanded, cowardly spite is "awesome." I really, really don't get it. Has the culture changed that much?

Xykon is a psychotic, mass-murdering, megalomaniacal, utterly unsympathetic monster. And yet I think he's awesome. Why? Because, while he's completely reprehensible, he's also a gift of character. He plays his role with style and charisma. The same principal applies with Tarquin, and most well-written villains. Iago from Shakespeare, or Dracula, or Darth Vader. So I assure you, it's not just us young whippersnappers and "the culture". It's simply a sign of good writing.

[B. Dandelion]

First of all we have no way of knowing that Gannji wouldn't accept 50 000 we can only speculate.

I'm aware of that. What I'm saying is your scenario took it as a given that he would have accepted it, which is also speculative.


We do know that he threatened a high ranking government offical in front of other people.

We know he thinks of his profession as a noble one that he doesn't want to sully with fraud. "We make an honest living." In fact that whole sequence couldn't be better placed to deliberately underscore that aspect of his personality prior to being dragged into court.


Why did Tarquin let them go? Hard to say, maby he decided to roll with it until a oppurtunity to take revenge showed up.

How is them being in the palace surrounded by guards not an ideal opportunity?


Or he were in a good mood since meeting Elan and that made him let them go, but when he noticed that they had been arrested he decided that he would like them to suffer.

This makes a lot more sense if you think they haven't yet done anything which he could use a pretext to arrest them. Being "in a good mood" might make him willing to overlook being slighted (temporarily), but is quite unlikely to make him just forget he has every reason to throw these guys in the dungeon -- that's not being forgiving because you're happy, that's being completely negligent. If he doesn't want to do anything about it personally just yet, he can let his guards take care of that now and return to play with his prisoners later on. Nothing you've said provides Tarquin with a credible reason to let people commit a crime against him -- in the heart of his palace, with a dozen witnesses -- and let them go out with a reward for it, only to pull strings and let them be convicted on a paperwork malfunction. Your entire argument hinges on taking what is clearly a gag in the most literal way possible, but from start to finish it simply doesn't make sense. I don't mean to sound rude by being so terse, but it's just not gonna fly with me, so I'm sorry.


No. But reason enough to spring for, say, a zone of truth spell to make sure you're bringing in the right person, given the availability of near-perfect magical disguises. And keep in mind that they'd get NOTHING for a human woman. The bounty is on Sabine, the succubus, not some random human woman. There's no reason to KEEP Haley.

To be fair, they went so far as to grab Blackwing, so even if they didn't believe her to be Sabine, they could just be hanging on to her for thoroughness' sake.

[krossbow]

People actually think that b****y, underhanded, cowardly spite is "awesome." I really, really don't get it. Has the culture changed that much?


I know right? And the worst character in literature of all? Odysseus, i mean, all the lying and cheating and cowardly acts!

[ShippoWildheart]

Tarquin to me seems to channel Brian Clevinger's Thief's deviousness with more intelligence. In other words, a magnificent bastard. I deny though on the idea that Tarquin will completely stir up trouble. I just can't see Tarquin getting defeated by Elan.

[Undeadsteak]

Smiling to a person's face and then pulling something nasty and underhanded on them with paperwork, which they find out about only after you're not present?

I don't find it "awesome" or "cool". On the contrary, it reminds me all too much of real-life office politics as practiced by people who haven't got the guts to tell you to your face when they've got a problem.

Do not EVER attempt such a course of action in real life.

... well, okay, it's understandable if you're a low-ranking minion being picked on by the company CEO. But it is absolutely intolerable if you're the high-ranker doing it to a peon.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Well, it's normal for people to idealize what society deems wrong. In most cases, that's rather sad. Evil tends to be "cool," which is hilarious because it takes much more effort to be a decent human being and resisting temptation to manipulate/abuse others. but it might also be because most good characters are rather crappy concepts with little reasoning behind their actions and seem somewhat annoying at times, in comparison with evil characters who tend to behave intelligently and have a flair for theatrics.


People actually think that b****y, underhanded, cowardly spite is "awesome." I really, really don't get it. Has the culture changed that much?

Lack of actual exposure to this behavior in real life breeds a positive image of it. When people actually experience first hand abuse like this, their opinions tend to change on what's cool and what isn't.




Anyhow; this is really irrelevant, because this is a web comic strip and I somehow doubt (I hope, at least) that people would think this would be cool if it happened to someone in real life.
I thought it was awesome because it was delivered in a sly manner, and to a character who wasn't really a nice guy. If this happened to some random person who really didn't deserve it, or if Tarquin just straight out killed the lizard-man, I somehow doubt people would praise him.

[Voyager_I]

People actually think that b****y, underhanded, cowardly spite is "awesome." I really, really don't get it. Has the culture changed that much?

Any old bugbear chieftain with negative mental modifiers across the board can smash something for being annoying. Tarquin is almost certainly capable of the same, but the man has style. Yes, he's an evil, vindictive bastard and much too quick to form a grudge, but at least he's not putting that Int score to waste. You've gotta give someone flavor points for getting his villainy taken care of without looking bad in front of his son or getting his hands dirty, with a bonus for topping it off with a Star Wards reference and the fact that he could have done it the old fashioned way if he needed to.

It's also a refreshing change of pace from Xykon's more direct methods and Nale's perpetual incompetence.

[RMcMurtry]

To be fair, they went so far as to grab Blackwing, so even if they didn't believe her to be Sabine, they could just be hanging on to her for thoroughness' sake.

Grabbing the wizard's probable familiar (who could in theory go for help, or is at least useful as a hostage against the wizard) is a far cry, in my opinion, from grabbing and NOT verifying they've got the right people. Yeah, it was expensive to even take the three down. It's worse if they've got the wrong people--not only don't they get paid, but bounty hunters who anger powerful adventurers are likely to end up dead.

[TriForce]

People actually think that b****y, underhanded, cowardly spite is "awesome." I really, really don't get it. Has the culture changed that much?

ill point out my earlyer statement again: just becouse he is a sneaky underhanded bastard, doesnt mean he cant be a awesome sneaky underhanded bastard.

you dislike him becouse he is doing evil stuff, since this is a comic, and has no relation to real life whatsoever, you can let down on the hate and enjoy him for the well written character he is. you seem to think that everyone who likes tarquin is doing stuff like his themselves or something.

[Nimrod's Son]

Smiling to a person's face and then pulling something nasty and underhanded on them with paperwork, which they find out about only after you're not present?

I don't find it "awesome" or "cool". On the contrary, it reminds me all too much of real-life office politics as practiced by people who haven't got the guts to tell you to your face when they've got a problem.

Do not EVER attempt such a course of action in real life.
This is an important warning, but I would add that if anyone was thinking about getting a roomful of people to kill each other by mesmerizing them all with a bouncy ball, they should REALLY reconsider. It is NOT awesome, it is a horrible thing to do.

Also, if we've got any Hannibal Lecter fans here - FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DON'T EAT PEOPLE, 'K?

[Lowkey Lyesmith]

I'm aware of that. What I'm saying is your scenario took it as a given that he would have accepted it, which is also speculative.


We know he thinks of his profession as a noble one that he doesn't want to sully with fraud. "We make an honest living." In fact that whole sequence couldn't be better placed to deliberately underscore that aspect of his personality prior to being dragged into court.


Yeah, but that only supports the idea that he wont deliberatly try and fool people again. Not that he wont take the oppurtunity if it presents itself.



How is them being in the palace surrounded by guards not an ideal opportunity?

Revenge is a dish best served cold. If he had had them arrested at once it wouldn't be half as fun as letting them think they got away with it and then taking it all away from them when they least expects it.

You know, the evil way.



This makes a lot more sense if you think they haven't yet done anything which he could use a pretext to arrest them. Being "in a good mood" might make him willing to overlook being slighted (temporarily), but is quite unlikely to make him just forget he has every reason to throw these guys in the dungeon -- that's not being forgiving because you're happy, that's being completely negligent. If he doesn't want to do anything about it personally just yet, he can let his guards take care of that now and return to play with his prisoners later on. Nothing you've said provides Tarquin with a credible reason to let people commit a crime against him -- in the heart of his palace, with a dozen witnesses -- and let them go out with a reward for it, only to pull strings and let them be convicted on a paperwork malfunction. Your entire argument hinges on taking what is clearly a gag in the most literal way possible, but from start to finish it simply doesn't make sense. I don't mean to sound rude by being so terse, but it's just not gonna fly with me, so I'm sorry.

Funny, here I was thinking that your entire argument relies on taking something that with right could be percived as a threat and try to excuse it as a simple gag and absolutely nothing else.
The reason for that is because if you admit that someone could take it as a real threat then Gannji's not innocent.

And that's the thing, i'm quite uniterested in why Tarquin let them go at first. It's a unreletad question.

The reason I jumped into this discussion is because as I saw it your analogy made Gannji seem like a completly helpless and innocent victim of circumstances. I don't agree.

However it seems our disagrement comes mostly from different perspectives and not from anyone of us being an evil fachist who eats babies. Quite opposite you seem like an intelligent and nice person. So I'll just drop this now :smallamused:

[the_tick_rules]

I wonder if they'll meet Roy and his gang in the arena?

[Kish]

I wonder if they'll meet Roy and his gang in the arena?
Belkar's kind of singular for a gang...

[B. Dandelion]

Yeah, but that only supports the idea that he wont deliberatly try and fool people again. Not that he wont take the oppurtunity if it presents itself.

I believe those to be closely related issues. We don't have a lot of evidence regarding his character, but what we do have points to him being a person of scruples where money is concerned, so I think that's relevant.


Revenge is a dish best served cold. If he had had them arrested at once it wouldn't be half as fun as letting them think they got away with it and then taking it all away from them when they least expects it.

You know, the evil way.

The psychological jerk Gannji experienced was probably more severe this way, I'll grant you. But that's not the only consideration Tarquin would have had in mind at the time. I don't think he could have had any inkling they were going to get hauled into court so soon, over an issue directly related to his business with them that he could thus manipulate. When he had them in the palace, they were in his grasp. But he let them go. It's not clear at all if he had any hope of being able to get back at them, it may have just been luck. In which case, he was passing up a surefire chance to get revenge and risking it on a longshot.

Plus it seems like you could just about duplicate this effect by, say, letting them ALMOST get off the grounds before ordering the soldiers to seize them.


Funny, here I was thinking that your entire argument relies on taking something that with right could be percived as a threat and try to excuse it as a simple gag and absolutely nothing else.

When I saw the strip I took it as a gag. When this strip (735) came out, a few people pointed out the other interpretation to me, so I went back over it and considered it as an open question: how does this scene read if the event is taken seriously versus as a clear joke? It didn't work equally well -- taking it seriously raises numerous logical problems, all of which are resolved by taking it as a gag. It's not that I've refused to consider the other interpretation, but I believe it to be demonstrably inferior.


The reason for that is because if you admit that someone could take it as a real threat then Gannji's not innocent.

I think if someone believes that they should do as I did and reconsider that scene with both interpretations in mind.

I mean people can point to instances that maybe if you squint make Belkar look Chaotic Neutral, but I don't have to "admit" that makes for a credible argument of that position, not when they also make sense while reading him as CE and there's a ridiculous amount of evidence supporting that conclusion as opposed to NOTHING that makes BETTER sense if he's considered CN.


And that's the thing, i'm quite uniterested in why Tarquin let them go at first. It's a unreletad question.

Well, from my perspective, that's dismissing a huge inconsistency in favor of the argument you've already resolved yourself to believe. It's a very relevant issue to consider if you're trying to determine which explanation makes more sense overall. The "it was a gag" explanation has an easy answer: he had to, he had nothing legit to nail them with. Whereas the "it was real" explanation has nothing obvious and is in fact even more puzzling, because it not only has to answer why he would let people he's angry at get away, but why he'd let lawbreakers who committed an offense against numerous witnesses -- including his figurehead ruler and fellow power-behind-the-throne conspirator -- leave without legal consequence.


The reason I jumped into this discussion is because as I saw it your analogy made Gannji seem like a completly helpless and innocent victim of circumstances. I don't agree.

And that's fine and I"m not bothered by that or anything. It's just I was trying to argue against one argument by using an analogy tailor made to counter that argument, and you then started up on a completely different argument for which that analogy was obviously unsuited. The point of my analogy was, "people behaving stupidly does not make it okay to brutalize them if they haven't done anything wrong," where you seemed to want to to be arguing "Gannji hasn't done anything wrong." But my analogy was taking it as a given that he hadn't done anything wrong, since it relied on the "it was a joke" interpretation.


However it seems our disagrement comes mostly from different perspectives and not from anyone of us being an evil fachist who eats babies. Quite opposite you seem like an intelligent and nice person. So I'll just drop this now :smallamused:

Thank you for understanding I'm not trying to be stupid or mean here. Yes, we don't see the scene the same way which is the source of our disagreement. If something new in the strip comes up that sheds light on that particular issue, perhaps we'll come back to it.

[kerberos]

Well, from my perspective, that's dismissing a huge inconsistency in favor of the argument you've already resolved yourself to believe. It's a very relevant issue to consider if you're trying to determine which explanation makes more sense overall. The "it was a gag" explanation has an easy answer: he had to, he had nothing legit to nail them with. Whereas the "it was real" explanation has nothing obvious and is in fact even more puzzling, because it not only has to answer why he would let people he's angry at get away, but why he'd let lawbreakers who committed an offense against numerous witnesses -- including his figurehead ruler and fellow power-behind-the-throne conspirator -- leave without legal consequence.


I'd just like to add that if you look at 724 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0724.html) you can see that Gannji is holding the tomato soup right in front of Tarquins' face where he can clearly see it. Add that to the fact that he is "threatening" Tarquin with a weapon that does not in fact exist in the setting and that the "threat" is a star wars reference and you've got an iron clad case for it being a gag.

[taltamir]

Emphasis mine -- and this is where Elan's nasty surprise will come from.

Elan: Hey! Those are my friends in the arena!

Tarquin: Hm - they must have broken the law. This should be interesting.

Elan: Dad - you've got to let them go.

Tarquin: My boy, I want to watch the fight. Shut up and sit down.

Elan: No! They're my friends! And if you won't help them, then you're a big doodoo-head too!

Tarquin: Nobody denies me, my boy. Not Nale, not you. Nobody! *Stab*

exactly... remember that he wants his other son, Nale, dead.

[Nilan8888]

Tarquin, I thought, had it together more. Now I'm thinking he's just better at looking sane, and being able to hide those impulses until he's in a more secure position to act on them.

Ok I feel a bit in the middle on this.

First of all, there was NO REAL EXTORTION ATTEMPT. It was a joke and everyone knew that. No bluff was made, and no bluff was called. It was very clear that Gannji was holding a can of tomato soup there, and he didn't try to hide it. The moment anyone said sometihng, Gannji copped to it. Anyone who 'fell' for that scheme -- and it wasn't even a scheme -- would have had to be practically blind.

That said, I think it's overboard to say that this means Tarquin is insane for what he's done. If we say that, then we'd probably be making the argument that anyone who is evil is also insane. There doesn't seem to be ANY indication Tarquin is necessarily aggrieved by this or particularly mad as we've seen with Nale in the past. To me it seemed like he was annoyed by Gannji standing up for himself.

Tarquin is probably one or more of the following:

1. Used to people being total yesmen.
2. Annoyed by people who seem to lack manners with regards to those in power
3. Annoyed by people who would treat him as an ordinary individual in his own palace
4. Interested in the opportunity to impose a dramatic turn of events on Gannji.

However I hardly think Tarquin is obsessing over this, or was really angry over this or hiding 'impulses'. He's certainly being petty but then -- so was Darth Vader ("Apology accepted, Captain Neema"... talk about instilling low morale). He's in a position of power and enjoys toying with people that have less power. That's evil... if it means he's also mentally unhinged, that says more about the alignment of evil than Tarquin in particular.

[Ancalagon]

This is an important warning, but I would add that if anyone was thinking about getting a roomful of people to kill each other by mesmerizing them all with a bouncy ball, they should REALLY reconsider. It is NOT awesome, it is a horrible thing to do.

Also, if we've got any Hannibal Lecter fans here - FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DON'T EAT PEOPLE, 'K?

Why are you overlooking the most basic things?

Really, people, solving your problems with casual violence and killings in NOT ok in RL, yes? No, not even for fun, m'kay?

[B. Dandelion]

Ok I feel a bit in the middle on this.

First of all, there was NO REAL EXTORTION ATTEMPT. It was a joke and everyone knew that.

I agree, although I wonder why you're quoting me when it looks as if you're disagreeing with me, given that I spent the last few posts saying the same thing. I believe the offense Gannji committed in Tarquin's eyes was not in "threatening" him (which was a gag), but in pointing out where he had been negligent in issuing the bounty, all in front of Elan (among others).


That said, I think it's overboard to say that this means Tarquin is insane for what he's done. If we say that, then we'd probably be making the argument that anyone who is evil is also insane. There doesn't seem to be ANY indication Tarquin is necessarily aggrieved by this or particularly mad as we've seen with Nale in the past. To me it seemed like he was annoyed by Gannji standing up for himself.

Tarquin is probably one or more of the following:

1. Used to people being total yesmen.
2. Annoyed by people who seem to lack manners with regards to those in power
3. Annoyed by people who would treat him as an ordinary individual in his own palace
4. Interested in the opportunity to impose a dramatic turn of events on Gannji.

I guess that would be #3, for expecting him to acknowledge that his own negligence had led to the wrong person being brought in for the bounty.

I questioned Tarquin's sanity in part because his behavior reminded me of Nale's, and the Giant actually has called Nale crazy, in the commentary of No Cure for the Paladin Blues:


Xykon, while evil, is essentially sane. Conquering the world is a realistic goal for him, and he goes about it in a more or less methodical way. Nale is just crazy. He is simply out to make everyone pay for slighting him.


However I hardly think Tarquin is obsessing over this, or was really angry over this or hiding 'impulses'. He's certainly being petty but then -- so was Darth Vader ("Apology accepted, Captain Neema"... talk about instilling low morale). He's in a position of power and enjoys toying with people that have less power. That's evil... if it means he's also mentally unhinged, that says more about the alignment of evil than Tarquin in particular.

It's not the evil per se. It's that it proves he's two-faced. The first impression most people had of Tarquin was that he's "affably evil" (to use the Tropes term), enough so that a reasonable approach wouldn't ruffle his feathers. He looked very reasonable when he agreed to pay Gannji and Enor a lesser sum to cover their expenses, but now he's reneging on that because Elan's not around to witness it -- and while it requires some speculation to put him at seethingly angry over the offense, I find it hard to read that note and not think he's at least a little mad. He's looking forward to seeing them die, that sounds pretty personal to me. In a similar situation I expect Nale'd be livid.

Knowing the guy's dishonest over one thing pretty much calls everything else into question, I guess is what I'm saying.

[Darcy]

This is an important warning, but I would add that if anyone was thinking about getting a roomful of people to kill each other by mesmerizing them all with a bouncy ball, they should REALLY reconsider. It is NOT awesome, it is a horrible thing to do.

Also, if we've got any Hannibal Lecter fans here - FOR THE LOVE OF GOD DON'T EAT PEOPLE, 'K?

About that... we had a team building exercise at work this weekend, it didn't end well. I will of course be blaming one Mr. R. Burlew for my regrettable actions.

[Darcy]

Knowing the guy's dishonest over one thing pretty much calls everything else into question, I guess is what I'm saying.
Well of course, I trust him about as far as I can throw him, and given that he's on the other side of a comic panel that's not really very far at all. He's an evil mastermind, deception and murder are his thing- but he keeps his cool, whether he's just taking it easy or contemplating someone's demise. I am looking forward to the (hypothetical) point in the comic where something happens to really send him over the edge, and the cracks in his armour start to show.

[Nimrod's Son]

About that... we had a team building exercise at work this weekend, it didn't end well. I will of course be blaming one Mr. R. Burlew for my regrettable actions.
That's only fair. He planted the seed.

[taltamir]

if I had to chime in on the sanity of individuals...

nale - bat**** crazy
tarquin - probably sane... so far I have seen nothing to doubt his sanity.
xykon - definitely very sane... just very evil.

[LuPuWei]

xykon - definitely very sane... just very evil.

That probably applies more to Redcloack... yeah Xykon was serious for about 4 strips before the desert, but he doesn't seem sane on a regular basis...

Also is wanting to take over the world just for kicks counted as sane? (They'll revoke my card at the assylum then...)

[taltamir]

That probably applies more to Redcloack...

no, redclock is sane and neutral. He is more good then evil, but he has a done a few too many evil things and gets knocked down to neutral (although he has been distinctly on the road to recovery for quite some time, getting closer and closer to good).


Also is wanting to take over the world just for kicks counted as sane?
Yes


yeah Xykon was serious for about 4 strips before the desert, but he doesn't seem sane on a regular basis...
He isn't wise, efficient, or very dedicated... but that doesn't make him insane.
He has a problem with taking things seriously and committing himself to his task, but there is no insanity in that.

[Kish]

That probably applies more to Redcloack... yeah Xykon was serious for about 4 strips before the desert, but he doesn't seem sane on a regular basis...
:smallconfused: You are aware that the antonym of "insane" is not "serious," right?

[taltamir]

btw, is xykon actually trying to take over the world? he has never actually bothered with conquest, nor does he care to solidify the powers he already have.

His goal seems to be to control the snarl simply because of its immense power. conquering the world doesn't seem to be the end goal, supreme power is.

[bluewind95]

no, redclock is sane and neutral. He is more good then evil, but he has a done a few too many evil things and gets knocked down to neutral (although he has been distinctly on the road to recovery for quite some time, getting closer and closer to good).


... Wait, what? Redcloak? GOOD? Are we reading the same comic here? :smallconfused:

[taltamir]

... Wait, what? Redcloak? GOOD? Are we reading the same comic here? :smallconfused:

have you purchased and read the book only comics? such as "start of darkness"?
even if you didn't, you should still be able to tell that the real evil ones are the gods (both good and evil gods), and that redclock himself is not evil.

http://www.ookoodook.com/store/comics_order-of-the-stick.shtml
Buy and read those 6 books, I highly recommend them :)

[Elfey]

have you purchased and read the book only comics? such as "start of darkness"?
even if you didn't, you should still be able to tell that the real evil ones are the gods (both good and evil gods), and that redclock himself is not evil.

Eh, he is ultimately evil, but he's a tragic villain, whose motives are good, but is willing to let his motives be hurt by his methods. It is most clear when he's in front of the mirror telling himself/his brother looking at him in the mirror, that it will all be worth it.

Redcloak is tragedy, and even though he's got a good reason for the evil he does, it is still evil. He's basically like a revolutionary who is over throwing a cruel king, but replacing it with a bloody people's counsel.

[bluewind95]

have you purchased and read the book only comics? such as "start of darkness"?
even if you didn't, you should still be able to tell that the real evil ones are the gods (both good and evil gods), and that redclock himself is not evil.

http://www.ookoodook.com/store/comics_order-of-the-stick.shtml
Buy and read those 6 books, I highly recommend them :)

Would love to buy them, don't have the money to. But I've read a lot of spoilers and know what happened in them. I still can't see Redcloak as good.


Eh, he is ultimately evil, but he's a tragic villain, whose motives are good, but is willing to let his motives be hurt by his methods. It is most clear when he's in front of the mirror telling himself/his brother looking at him in the mirror, that it will all be worth it.

Redcloak is tragedy, and even though he's got a good reason for the evil he does, it is still evil. He's basically like a revolutionary who is over throwing a cruel king, but replacing it with a bloody people's counsel.

This, though, is how I see him as.

[taltamir]

Eh, he is ultimately evil, but he's a tragic villain, whose motives are good, but is willing to let his motives be hurt by his methods. It is most clear when he's in front of the mirror telling himself/his brother looking at him in the mirror, that it will all be worth it.

Redcloak is tragedy, and even though he's got a good reason for the evil he does, it is still evil. He's basically like a revolutionary who is over throwing a cruel king, but replacing it with a bloody people's counsel.

here is the thing... how much evil has he been comitting? It was evil of him to slaughter bugbears because of their race... but he got over that, became remorseful, and is not trying to compensate... are you saying him killing paladins is evil? because the paladins in question murder innocent children and innocent "monster races" sentients in order to maintain the status quo (which is, monster races exist solely to be killed for XP, an evil system in of itself). He is merely fighting back against their evil... as for the guardians of the gates... the guardians are misguided, so the guardians themselves are not evil (as the paladins were), but they are trying to kill him when all he is doing is trying to right a great wrong. So killing them in the process is not evil.

[LuPuWei]

{Scrubbed}

[taltamir]

I believe that's jumping the gun a bit here, the Gods aren't perfect, but I have not seen them doing anything really evil (and yes, I am aware of what the stories in the books are, though no, I haven't read them- so you;ll have to be more specific in your assessment)

basically:
gods create humans, dwaves, etc... the player races... clerics are all stuck at being level 1... gods are upset... gods decide to create sentient monster races as mere cannon fodder to be easy source of XP.
The dark one was a living goblin who ascended to godhood, when he did he figured it out, and now he is trying to gain control of the snarl to blackmail the other gods into changing the status quo, so that sentient "monster races" will be given a fair chance at peaceful coexistance.
To facilitate it the dark one created an artifact, that includes the knowledge of his plans, a power boost, stops againg, and marks the wielder as his high priest.
The azure guard paladin order, in addition to protecting the gate, has been on the lookout for the goblin high priests, whenever they find them they go and slaughter every goblin, down to the children, to stop their plans from bearing fruit...

This... doesn't really do justice to the quality of the story rick weaved, you should really buy the books and read it for yourself. In some ways, the paladins and the like are good... there is a lot of misunderstanding and miscommunication there... the ones I cannot find any redeeming factors in are the gods, good or evil... they are all really "evil" when judged by human standards...


Anyone behaving remotely like Xykon in the Real World would stave off a death sentence because they are so obviously insane.

only in some specific countries... and only because their justice system is perverted, stupid, and wrong.
He is clearly NOT insane, and anyone behaving as he does IRL clearly does need to be executed, none of that BS "insanity plea"

I don't know what to further say because all you said was "he is obviously insane"... that is not really an argument. WHY is he obviously insane? if it is so obvious then it should be easy as pie to pinpoint exactly what it is that makes him insane...

[Darcy]

Xykon has unusual motivations, which aren't really applicable to our own world- he wants raw power, not political influence or big guns or whatever- but his perception of reality is very clear. It would be insane for Xykon to attempt what he's attempting if he were a level 3 sorcerer who just got his first tattoo, because anyone with any sense would know they were doomed to fail. Xykon is not so meager and while what he's doing is ambitious, I wouldn't call it insane.

[taltamir]

Xykon has unusual motivations, which aren't really applicable to our own world- he wants raw power, not political influence or big guns or whatever- but his perception of reality is very clear. It would be insane for Xykon to attempt what he's attempting if he were a level 3 sorcerer who just got his first tattoo, because anyone with any sense would know they were doomed to fail. Xykon is not so meager and while what he's doing is ambitious, I wouldn't call it insane.

I think he is saying that xykon is a psychopath (a person who does not have any empathy towards other people, who feels as little remorse about murdering someone as an average human would for squishing a cockroach). His logic is that psychopath => insanity plea => found not guilty due to insanity in our courts => therefore xykon is insane.

1. I do not think psychopaths get such an easy ride IRL
2. if they do, its sick and wrong and shouldn't be the case
3. "its the law therefore it is true/morally right" is a fallacy.

[hamishspence]

Xykon is referred to as "mad with his own power" here:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0013.html

But, on the other hand, Nale is described as "just crazy" by comparison with Xykon, and Xykon's goals described as reasonable for his power level, in Paladin Blues commentary.

[taltamir]

Xykon is referred to as "mad with his own power" here:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0013.html

1. I am not sure this is "word of god" or just the in character opinion of the characters.
2. even if it is word of god, that doesn't make it automatically true. I have not seen a shred of evidence that shows xykon to be insane. I would really like it if you could bring examples and explanation as to why he is insane rather then "because the author says so (maybe?)" or "because IRL courts would have said so"...

[hamishspence]

How sane is sane? Xykon might be described as megalomaniacal, for example- which is a disorder.

"Sane enough to be unable to cop an insanity plea" is probably a fair assessment though.

[taltamir]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalomania


Megalomania is a non-clinical word defined as: [1]
A psychopathological condition characterized by delusional fantasies of wealth, power, or omnipotence.
An obsession with grandiose or extravagant things or actions.
1. it is not actually a clinical disorder.
2. according to what I studied of psychology (which is admittedly little), the difference between a personality trait and a disorder is that the disorder version is so extreme it interferes with your ability to function in society. Many of the disorders can be mere personality traits if they are sufficiently mild.
3. Megalomania is the DELUSION of power... xykon is not DELUSIONAL... he is really as powerful as he thinks he is, yet when he sees trouble he still turns tail and run (aka, recognizing something to be more powerful then himself)

so, a megalomaniac xykon would not have retreated when he faced a stronger opponent, instead he would have charged,saying something like "no, you cannot defeat ME, I am XYKON, I AM INVINCIBLE!"

[Darcy]

1. I am not sure this is "word of god" or just the in character opinion of the characters.
2. even if it is word of god, that doesn't make it automatically true. I have not seen a shred of evidence that shows xykon to be insane. I would really like it if you could bring examples and explanation as to why he is insane rather then "because the author says so (maybe?)" or "because IRL courts would have said so"...

It's Elan being dramatic, so "mad with his own power" can just as easily mean "willing to do terrible things because he can" as "literally insane" I think.

[taltamir]

It's Elan being dramatic, so "mad with his own power" can just as easily mean "willing to do terrible things because he can" as "literally insane" I think.

oh, right... that would be option 3... mad with his own power is a "saying" in english, it does not mean someone is insane. but, as you say, "willing to do terrible things because he can".

[Darcy]

While we're on the topic, let's look at what makes a psychopath. I will repost things from Wikipedia because I don't know them myself, but this will sum up, then we can apply them to what we know about Xykon. The official name now is "antisocial personality disorder," which makes sense- the idea is, it's someone who lacks the mental impulse control and empathy to function in society.

Now onto the cribbing.

Characteristics of people with antisocial personality disorder may include:

* Persistent lying or stealing
* Apparent lack of remorse or empathy for others
* Cruelty to animals
* Poor behavioral controls — expressions of irritability, annoyance, impatience, threats, aggression, and verbal abuse; inadequate control of anger and temper
* A history of childhood conduct disorder
* Recurring difficulties with the law
* Tendency to violate the boundaries and rights of others
* Substance abuse
* Aggressive, often violent behavior; prone to getting involved in fights
* Inability to tolerate boredom
* Disregard for safety

The bolded text sounds a lot like our Xykon. Not everyone who exhibits this disorder gets the "easy" ride to a mental institution; in the UK at least, it's recognized that someone who exhibits these traits may be a threat to other patients, and if they appear to be so, they still go to prison, where they can be more closely guarded and monitored.

[hamishspence]

Of course, in D&D, "insane" doesn't mean "not evil"- Derro, for example, are insane.

You've argued that "real world definition of insanity" shouldn't be relied on for arguments about Xykon's sanity:


I would really like it if you could bring examples and explanation as to why he is insane rather then "because the author says so (maybe?)" or "because IRL courts would have said so"...

- but what's the D&D definition of insanity? Besides being permanently afflicted with the insanity spell, for example.

[LuPuWei]

basically:
gods create humans, dwaves, etc... the player races... clerics are all stuck at being level 1... gods are upset... gods decide to create sentient monster races as mere cannon fodder to be easy source of XP.
The dark one was a living goblin who ascended to godhood, when he did he figured it out, and now he is trying to gain control of the snarl to blackmail the other gods into changing the status quo, so that sentient "monster races" will be given a fair chance at peaceful coexistance.
To facilitate it the dark one created an artifact, that includes the knowledge of his plans, a power boost, stops againg, and marks the wielder as his high priest.
The azure guard paladin order, in addition to protecting the gate, has been on the lookout for the goblin high priests, whenever they find them they go and slaughter every goblin, down to the children, to stop their plans from bearing fruit...

This... doesn't really do justice to the quality of the story rick weaved, you should really buy the books and read it for yourself. In some ways, the paladins and the like are good... there is a lot of misunderstanding and miscommunication there... the ones I cannot find any redeeming factors in are the gods, good or evil... they are all really "evil" when judged by human standards...


Right, so let me be specific here, since that's how this discussion is going now. The gods yes, by my standards are evil. But you infact stated that the Gods were the truly evil ones. That I cannot agree with. The are no more callous, self serving and morally weak than any of the other characters, and because (unlike Xykon) I have no reason to belive they cannot be reasoned with or are completely unwilling to change their ways, I cannot say that they are more evil than any of the other evil characters in OotS. Rich has also stated in one of the threads regarding the Paladin crusade that it is quite possible that Paladins acting beyond the call of duty were stripped of their colours like Miko, and that makes them seem less than Evil in my eyes.




He is clearly NOT insane, and anyone behaving as he does IRL clearly does need to be executed, none of that BS "insanity plea"

I don't know what to further say because all you said was "he is obviously insane"... that is not really an argument. WHY is he obviously insane? if it is so obvious then it should be easy as pie to pinpoint exactly what it is that makes him insane...


I think he is saying that xykon is a psychopath (a person who does not have any empathy towards other people, who feels as little remorse about murdering someone as an average human would for squishing a cockroach). His logic is that psychopath => insanity plea => found not guilty due to insanity in our courts => therefore xykon is insane.
.


You have grossly misunderstood my arguement or the 'logic' behind it, for which I apologise. The statement 'Xykon is insane' was a response to an equally ill-defended assertion that he wasn't, to illustrate how easy it is to make blanket statements, and I hope you have realised how usatisfying they are to read.


How sane is sane? Xykon might be described as megalomaniacal, for example- which is a disorder.

"Sane enough to be unable to cop an insanity plea" is probably a fair assessment though.

That's my point. Insanity is relative. As a basic premise, I don't think wanting to rule the world or deriving pleasure from random deaths counts as being sane. Even in a fantasy world. Also, let's take note of the fact that, being able to string coherent sentences together, being able to come up with plans being particularly skillful in some way, or even being charming are not enough to prove that someone's sane. Serial killers can be very clear minded, and resourceful (and again, even in the OotS universe I'm sure a Serial Killer would be considered crazy)

Let me put it this way. If OotS walked into Azure City and found an ex-paladin torching houses and skinning people alive, and who on questioning answered with "just for the heck of it"- would that person be considered crazy? If Belkar were not part of OotS, would he be a 'psychotic little halfling'?

Villains like Xykon are given this much leeway because of their role in a given story. It is expected that a villain will be crazy, so no one really comments on it. Yeah, maybe they have some sort of back story and they were too weak to avoid falling to the dark side. Then we say- oh, ok, so he wasn't bat**** insane after all. But guess what? Xykon doesn't have a back story. He's just plain nuts.

Xykon is a psychopath. You may choose not to classify that as being insane. I can't argue against that. To make my point doubly clear, let me give you two examples:

a) The Joker- Very clear minded, very, very capable of putting a plan together, very resourceful and a barrel of laughs. Is he crazy? My vote is yes.

b) Even better- Hannibal Lecter- All of the above. Even formed a personal bond with the protagonist. Was he crazy? I still vote yes and people in universe agreed as well.

I'm not talking about insanity pleas at all. I don't care what courts think, real or fictional. I just think Xykon's crazy.

Edit: Lots of posts between when I began typing and now. So, some of your posts hadn't been read...:smallsmile:

[Darcy]

I tend to use and interpret the term "insane" as meaning unhinged and disconnected from reality, which is just one definition. Xykon is definitely a psychopath in my opinion. I think I wasn't clear enough earlier on.

[hamishspence]

One might take an intermediate category between sane and insane- "Not entirely sane"

That said, quite a few adventurers might fall into that category.

[Darcy]

One might take an intermediate category between sane and insane- "Not entirely sane"

That said, quite a few adventurers might fall into that category.

One of the underlying themes of OOTS seems to be that many of them certainly are, as they're not really concerned with justification or purpose.

[hamishspence]

There's a lot of variants on the "Mad" theme:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MadnessTropes

Xykon, even if not "completely insane" may be mad enough to qualify as a Mad Sorcerer.

[taltamir]

I tend to use and interpret the term "insane" as meaning unhinged and disconnected from reality, which is just one definition. Xykon is definitely a psychopath in my opinion. I think I wasn't clear enough earlier on.

i agree on both points...
1. I also consider insanity to be a disconnect from reality. xykon is not disconnected from reality IMO... he is also not megalomaniac (that is, he is aware of his own power and grandeur, but he is willing to accept that there are those greater then himself, and to escape when he is beaten.
2. I also consider him to be a psychopath.


You have grossly misunderstood my arguement or the 'logic' behind it, for which I apologise. The statement 'Xykon is insane' was a response to an equally ill-defended assertion that he wasn't, to illustrate how easy it is to make blanket statements, and I hope you have realised how usatisfying they are to read.

the hilarious part is that we both did it...

some guy: "Xykon is clearly insane"
Me: arrg, he is just making a statement without backing it up, I will retort with "xykon is clearly NOT insane"
You: arrg, he is just making a statement without backing it up, I will retort with "xykon is clearly insane"

Although, I thought I clarified in the same post that this is what I am doing... if I didn't I apologize as well.

[Darcy]

Discussing real life, psychopathy can be described as insanity (a nebulous term on its own). In fiction, especially fantasy fiction, psychopathy tends to translate to the more extreme forms of evil.

[taltamir]

Discussing real life, psychopathy can be described as insanity (a nebulous term on its own). In fiction, especially fantasy fiction, psychopathy tends to translate to the more extreme forms of evil.

supposedly, IRL psychopathy is a physical condition of the brain,and the norm for a variety of animals. while it is "not normal for a human", it in no way makes for a disconnect from reality.

so yes, there is the problem of "what is insanity"... is insanity a "disconnect from reality" (in which psychopathy isn't), or is it "abnormal behavior, brain structure, etc"... because in which case a whole ton of conditions that would not normally be described as insanity fall under said definition...
great multi-tasking? abnormal! that means insane!
super genius? abnormal! that means insane!

see where I am going with that?
Now, you could say "abnormality that impedes functioning in society"...but that depends what society, there are and were plenty of societies where such abnormalities are actually a benefit. in certain cultures being a psychopath is an advantage, not a crippling disorder.

[Darcy]

supposedly, IRL psychopathy is a physical condition of the brain,and the norm for a variety of animals. while it is "not normal for a human", it in no way makes for a disconnect from reality.

so yes, there is the problem of "what is insanity"... is insanity a "disconnect from reality" (in which psychopathy isn't), or is it "abnormal behavior, brain structure, etc"... because in which case a whole ton of conditions that would not normally be described as insanity fall under said definition...
great multi-tasking? abnormal! that means insane!
super genius? abnormal! that means insane!

see where I am going with that?
Now, you could say "abnormality that impedes functioning in society"...but that depends what society, there are and were plenty of societies where such abnormalities are actually a benefit. in certain cultures being a psychopath is an advantage, not a crippling disorder.

What cultures are those? Society depends on people cooperating and being concerned with the well-being of one another as well as themselves. Psychopathy removes the filters that make someone inclined to act that way. It's not only highly manipulative and inconsiderate behaviour they exhibit, but also very risky and unhealthy behaviour. That's the difference between them and someone whose mental irregularity results in excellent concentration, time-management or organizational skills.

There may in fact be a criminal subculture in a society where that state of mind gives them an advantage, but that kind of subculture only exists when there is a healthy culture for it to prey on. They produce nothing of survival value themselves, and so cannot exist on their own. The society at large would be improved if that subculture were reduced or removed.

[taltamir]

First, within societies that prey on other humans... pirates, marauders, etc...
Second, within certain positions of our own society...

remember, I called for it to be an ABNORMALITY that still lets you function in a society. A mercenary, assassin, inquisitor, torturer (a legal one, for the government), a ruthless and cruel lawyer or CEO (I Am not saying ALL CEOs or lawyers are like that; or even a majority... but some exist).

A person with 0 empathy or care towards the well being and rights of other humans who is sane enough to realize that he must game the system... gets a law degree, and protects people he KNOWS to be guilty for money and power and prestige. Such a person is certainly functioning within society (and you could say is greatly successful according to any type of measurement), yet has no empathy and is a psychopath.

Most sources I have come across claim that only a small subset of psychopaths go on killing sprees.

Now, that all being said, xykon IS the "killin spree" type psychopath... problem with that is that he has ridiculous amounts of power to back it up... as long as he is capable of masking his tendencies when he NEEDS to...
I hate to make the comparison... but take stalin... killed millions... and as the ruler of one of the two superpowers on earth you can't exactly say he wasn't able to function in society. Xykon in that regard is like stalin, he kills because he can.

Also, I don't recall xykon killing anyone that was important for him to keep alive... he played the part perfectly with miko, he is keeping redcloak out of harms way, etc etc.

[brionl]

And good at concealing his evil intent- we don't find out he was plotting revenge on Gannji, until now.

He probably wasn't plotting revenge, more a Revenge of Opportunity.

[The MunchKING]

Now onto the cribbing.

Characteristics of people with antisocial personality disorder may include:

* Persistent lying or stealing
* Apparent lack of remorse or empathy for others
* Cruelty to animals
* Poor behavioral controls — expressions of irritability, annoyance, impatience, threats, aggression, and verbal abuse; inadequate control of anger and temper
* A history of childhood conduct disorder
* Recurring difficulties with the law
* Tendency to violate the boundaries and rights of others
* Substance abuse
* Aggressive, often violent behavior; prone to getting involved in fights
* Inability to tolerate boredom
* Disregard for safety

The bolded text sounds a lot like our Xykon.

He also had the "Child hood conduct disorder" and "recurring difficulties with the law".

[pendell]

A person with 0 empathy or care towards the well being and rights of other humans who is sane enough to realize that he must game the system... gets a law degree, and protects people he KNOWS to be guilty for money and power and prestige. Such a person is certainly functioning within society (and you could say is greatly successful according to any type of measurement), yet has no empathy and is a psychopath.

Most sources I have come across claim that only a small subset of psychopaths go on killing sprees.



I once encountered an individual like this. The person had zero empathy for other human beings. HOWEVER, the individual in question had a strong moral code and because of that chose to act with compassion and kindness despite being unable to feel those things. It was an act of the cerebrum, not the emotions, but I'm glad he put forth the effort to do so.

Do you know? He was one of my better co-workers.

I dunno if it's that way for everyone, but evidently being a psychopath in no way prevents one from functioning as a successful engineer, husband, and father. So long as you understand society's rules and act according to them, you'll do just fine, even if there's no emotional resonance.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff of Moddingham: Please keep it civil in here.

[RMcMurtry]

have you purchased and read the book only comics? such as "start of darkness"?
even if you didn't, you should still be able to tell that the real evil ones are the gods (both good and evil gods), and that redclock himself is not evil.

http://www.ookoodook.com/store/comics_order-of-the-stick.shtml
Buy and read those 6 books, I highly recommend them :)

as Xykon himself said, there's a difference between Evil with a capital "e" and Redcloak's "whiny evil for a good cause". Whether Redcloak's motives are good is beside the point. He chooses evil means (torture, murder, theft, extortion, enslavement, conquest) to promote them, in the direct and knowing service to an evil god and evil lich. Right-Eye, by the time of his death, probably was no longer evil. He'd sought to build up his people rather than take what someone else has.

[calar]

Dude, he's evil-awesome. What'd you expect him to do?

[B. Dandelion]

Well of course, I trust him about as far as I can throw him, and given that he's on the other side of a comic panel that's not really very far at all. He's an evil mastermind, deception and murder are his thing- but he keeps his cool, whether he's just taking it easy or contemplating someone's demise. I am looking forward to the (hypothetical) point in the comic where something happens to really send him over the edge, and the cracks in his armour start to show.

In 54 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0054.html), when Elan infamously "denied" Nale by turning down an offer to join his team, was Nale "keeping his cool"? The "offense" made him angry enough to literally backstab Elan and later do the whole impassioned motive rant (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0061.html) thing where he certainly seems to have been genuinely upset, but at the time he only looked annoyed -- and that only for a panel or two. He was able to behave normally and not arouse suspicion

I think there's a difference in being not easily upset by trifling offenses, and being infuriated by them but able to still function socially and not completely lose your grip on logic (...to whatever degree you could be said to have a grip on logic in the first place, natch). Xykon's more the former. He can get massively, and terrifyingly, angry if provoked hard enough, but most incidents don't seem to set him off. I think that, had Xykon been in Tarquin's shoes, he might have fried Gannji on the spot for the offense or even just for the lulz, but if for whatever reason he wouldn't/couldn't do that, I doubt he'd stew over the incident or even remember it. Tarquin appeared to be that way when he evidently listened to Gannji's logic and paid him off... but in getting revenge, that puts him closer to Nale.

Granted it is somewhat premature at this time to state he was infuriated over the offense, and I could see Xykon pulling a stunt with the paperwork just, again, for the lulz -- but the revenge bit doesn't fit his M.O. And I think it would be appropriate for Tarquin to appear more rational than Nale but turn out not to be. He's not just the guy's father, he's self-admittedly a very big part of the reason Nale turned out like he did.

[B. Dandelion]

I once encountered an individual like this. The person had zero empathy for other human beings. HOWEVER, the individual in question had a strong moral code and because of that chose to act with compassion and kindness despite being unable to feel those things. It was an act of the cerebrum, not the emotions, but I'm glad he put forth the effort to do so.

Do you know? He was one of my better co-workers.

I dunno if it's that way for everyone, but evidently being a psychopath in no way prevents one from functioning as a successful engineer, husband, and father. So long as you understand society's rules and act according to them, you'll do just fine, even if there's no emotional resonance.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Isn't a "psychopath who can pass socially" considered a sociopath?

[taltamir]

Isn't a "psychopath who can pass socially" considered a sociopath?

AFAIK the definitions have been changing... for a time sociopath and psychopath meant the same thing, for a time they had different meaning... and last I heard, both were being "depreciated" in favor of some other term/s by the psychiatric community

[LuPuWei]

All I'm saying is, don't mix competence up with sanity. Xykon's a nutbar and he's really good at doing it. But he's a nutbar none-the-less.

Also, let's avoid bringing up people like Stalin- Real World politics and all. I already have a yellow card for talking religion :smallwink:

[B. Dandelion]

btw, is xykon actually trying to take over the world? he has never actually bothered with conquest, nor does he care to solidify the powers he already have.

His goal seems to be to control the snarl simply because of its immense power. conquering the world doesn't seem to be the end goal, supreme power is.

I didn't see this one get answered, so -- he says they are "literally out to conquer the world" in 300 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0300.html). It's also the goal he has in mind when he first teams up with Redcloak in SoD.

I guess you could call it a means to an end but it is explicitly on the agenda, if that's what you were asking.


All I'm saying is, don't mix competence up with sanity. Xykon's a nutbar and he's really good at doing it. But he's a nutbar none-the-less.

I agree that sanity and competence aren't the same thing, but sanity or the lack of it can definitely affect competence. (Which I guess is a roundabout way of saying don't confuse competence with intelligence, either. Smart people can do some staggeringly moronic things. Being crazy generally doesn't help.)

[Ancalagon]

but evidently being a psychopath in no way prevents one from functioning as a successful engineer, husband, and father

I read a study lately that said like 5% of the population could be considered "psychopatic". Apprently, most sociopaths or people with dispositions in that direction manage to live without being "raving lunativ and hightly anti-social".

This does not say those people cannot be not-easy to deal with in all cases.

[Darcy]

In 54 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0054.html), when Elan infamously "denied" Nale by turning down an offer to join his team, was Nale "keeping his cool"? The "offense" made him angry enough to literally backstab Elan and later do the whole impassioned motive rant (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0061.html) thing where he certainly seems to have been genuinely upset, but at the time he only looked annoyed -- and that only for a panel or two. He was able to behave normally and not arouse suspicion

I think there's a difference in being not easily upset by trifling offenses, and being infuriated by them but able to still function socially and not completely lose your grip on logic (...to whatever degree you could be said to have a grip on logic in the first place, natch). Xykon's more the former. He can get massively, and terrifyingly, angry if provoked hard enough, but most incidents don't seem to set him off. I think that, had Xykon been in Tarquin's shoes, he might have fried Gannji on the spot for the offense or even just for the lulz, but if for whatever reason he wouldn't/couldn't do that, I doubt he'd stew over the incident or even remember it. Tarquin appeared to be that way when he evidently listened to Gannji's logic and paid him off... but in getting revenge, that puts him closer to Nale.

Granted it is somewhat premature at this time to state he was infuriated over the offense, and I could see Xykon pulling a stunt with the paperwork just, again, for the lulz -- but the revenge bit doesn't fit his M.O. And I think it would be appropriate for Tarquin to appear more rational than Nale but turn out not to be. He's not just the guy's father, he's self-admittedly a very big part of the reason Nale turned out like he did.

He absolutely is closer to Nale than Xykon, that's not the point- he is a grown-up, stylish and highly effective version of Nale. He and Xykon are worlds apart. I just think the way Nale reacts to perceived offenses- for instance, tking Elan's wish to remain in Roy's group as a deeply personal insult- is much more childish and tantrumy than Tarquin's attitude, which seems to be, "you have tried to make a fool of me, and so you die." It's similar, but the spitting rage doesn't seem to be there. Some people have discussed how "angry" the note seems- I don't feel that someone like Nale would be satisfied with a note.

[Nilan8888]

It's not the evil per se. It's that it proves he's two-faced. The first impression most people had of Tarquin was that he's "affably evil" (to use the Tropes term), enough so that a reasonable approach wouldn't ruffle his feathers. He looked very reasonable when he agreed to pay Gannji and Enor a lesser sum to cover their expenses, but now he's reneging on that because Elan's not around to witness it -- and while it requires some speculation to put him at seethingly angry over the offense, I find it hard to read that note and not think he's at least a little mad. He's looking forward to seeing them die, that sounds pretty personal to me. In a similar situation I expect Nale'd be livid.

This comes form two pages back but I wanted to address it.

This, I think, is where our disageement stems from. When Tarquin in his note says he is looking forward to seeing them die, it's really him playing his part. I don't think the statement is totally on the level and that Tarquin is all that committed to seeing them die.

Now Nale would, as you state. Nale has some serious emotional issues, and he just can't keep his cool when he is slighted. Nale actually WOULD mean such a thing... and probably wouldn't be able to keep his handwriting as neat while writing the letter.

I don't think Tarquin is the same way. He'll arrange for this to happen but if for some reason Gannji doesn't die or otherwise gets off, I really don't think Tarquin will lose sleep over it. If that's the case then we are still waiting for another shoe to drop in his characterization where he goes disproportionally bananas over an implied slight.



I think that, had Xykon been in Tarquin's shoes, he might have fried Gannji on the spot for the offense or even just for the lulz, but if for whatever reason he wouldn't/couldn't do that, I doubt he'd stew over the incident or even remember it. Tarquin appeared to be that way when he evidently listened to Gannji's logic and paid him off... but in getting revenge, that puts him closer to Nale.

Again just becuase he remembered it and did something doesn't mean he's really ALL that close to Nale. He's closer than Xykon, sure -- but I don't think it's because of this reason.

The thing about Xykon is that he just FORGETS stuff. Not important stuff to the main power grab, but other things you'd expect him to remember.

But just because Tarquin happens to remember doesn't mean he's like Nale. At best it just means he's more like Nale... but that's a pretty undynamic comparison.

Let's put this in perspective after all: how much effort did it REALLY take for Tarquin to do what he did? He wrote a letter and spoke to Kilkil. Done. There was no elaborate scheme or disproportionate effort being made here. It might very well be if it had been too much trouble, Tarquin would not have bothered. But just because he didn't forget about it doesn't mean he's insane, and just becuase he backstabbed Gannji doesn't mean he obsessed over what Gannji did.

Again, I highly doubt the note we saw exposes much in the way of raw emotion of the sort we'd expect from Nale. Nale in fact would probably have gone to the courthouse himself to watch no matter how busy he was supposed to be at the time.

[B. Dandelion]

He absolutely is closer to Nale than Xykon, that's not the point- he is a grown-up, stylish and highly effective version of Nale. He and Xykon are worlds apart.

I think the distinction between Nale and Xykon is significant, while the distinction between Nale and Tarquin will ultimately prove superficial. It initially appeared significant, because it looked like the first kind of distinction.


I just think the way Nale reacts to perceived offenses- for instance, tking Elan's wish to remain in Roy's group as a deeply personal insult- is a much more childish and tantrumy than Tarquin's attitude, which seems to be, "you have tried to make a fool of me, and so you die." It's similar, but the spitting rage doesn't seem to be there.

It sounds like we're both acknowledging we can't say for certain just yet *how* mad the guy is. I think your interpretation is totally possible. But Tarquin's real feelings have been obscured -- first by the fact that he was putting on a front for Elan's sake, and then later because we only had his words, in writing, from a secondhand source. So I wouldn't rule out "spitting rage" just yet, and my speculation is that this obfuscation in and of itself could point to a more... passionate... sense of feeling on Tarquin's part. That's the reading that would necessitate keeping those feelings hidden, the better for the dramatic reveal later.


Some people have discussed how "angry" the note seems- I don't feel that someone like Nale would be satisfied with a note.

Well, if the note just said, "you're a douche and I hate you, have fun dying," I'd say yeah. But it didn't exactly end there. When he says "I look forward to seeing you die," that says he's not just satisfied with disposing of the guy, he has to have a front-row seat at his orchestrated execution. That sounds appropriately Nale-esque.


This comes form two pages back but I wanted to address it.

This, I think, is where our disageement stems from. When Tarquin in his note says he is looking forward to seeing them die, it's really him playing his part. I don't think the statement is totally on the level and that Tarquin is all that committed to seeing them die.

Back on the second page or so, I did also say I see the "he sees it as his role" interpretation as a valid alternative. It's basically turning on what is at this point an open question -- the nature and the scope of Tarquin's anger.


Now Nale would, as you state. Nale has some serious emotional issues, and he just can't keep his cool when he is slighted. Nale actually WOULD mean such a thing... and probably wouldn't be able to keep his handwriting as neat while writing the letter.

Nale puts months of effort into his schemes. I don't think he experiences a loss in fine motor control for every single second of those months. I think him losing his cool really translates into him basically losing all ability to look at things from a larger perspective. Every. Little. Thing. Becomes this hugely looming challenge that must be answered. That's the nature of his "insanity".


I don't think Tarquin is the same way. He'll arrange for this to happen but if for some reason Gannji doesn't die or otherwise gets off, I really don't think Tarquin will lose sleep over it. If that's the case then we are still waiting for another shoe to drop in his characterization where he goes disproportionally bananas over an implied slight.

That last sentence is basically what I'm thinking will come to pass. Right now, it's part what I think is plausible from the plot, but also, feeding into it is a sense of theme. Tarquin is an obvious exercise in compare-and-contrast with his sons, Nale in particular. But thus far, most of the contrasts the text has been highlighting are of the "Tarquin is not pathetic like Nale" variety. I don't think we're going to wind up with a character that is "like Nale, except cool", not if there's no distinction between the kind of behavior either of them draws the line at. I think we're seeing that possibility set up for the intentional purpose of knocking it down.

That's just my hunch, for the time being.


Again just becuase he remembered it and did something doesn't mean he's really ALL that close to Nale. He's closer than Xykon, sure -- but I don't think it's because of this reason.

The thing about Xykon is that he just FORGETS stuff. Not important stuff to the main power grab, but other things you'd expect him to remember.

He also puts up with a fair amount of snarky backtalk from Redcloak, and doesn't seem to mind.


But just because Tarquin happens to remember doesn't mean he's like Nale. At best it just means he's more like Nale... but that's a pretty undynamic comparison.

Let's put this in perspective after all: how much effort did it REALLY take for Tarquin to do what he did? He wrote a letter and spoke to Kilkil. Done. There was no elaborate scheme or disproportionate effort being made here.

Some lovely calligraphy, though. :smallwink: I don't know that the penmanship necessarily indicates a great deal of time going into the note, but it's that kind of petty attention to detail that stands out.


It might very well be if it had been too much trouble, Tarquin would not have bothered. But just because he didn't forget about it doesn't mean he's insane, and just becuase he backstabbed Gannji doesn't mean he obsessed over what Gannji did.

It's not proof, no. I know it's speculative.


Again, I highly doubt the note we saw exposes much in the way of raw emotion of the sort we'd expect from Nale. Nale in fact would probably have gone to the courthouse himself to watch no matter how busy he was supposed to be at the time.

I see what you're saying, but I think it goes either way at this point in time.

[Nilan8888]

Some lovely calligraphy, though. I don't know that the penmanship necessarily indicates a great deal of time going into the note, but it's that kind of petty attention to detail that stands out.

I presumed that was just Tarquin's attention to penmanship in general. I think he probably just writes ALL his notes like that unless there's reason not to. It's an attention to detail, but I think it would be given the same attention whether it was petty or not. Tarquin's got his love for the dramatic so he probably uses overly cutured words and penmanship where he doesn't have to. Such as when he first meets Haley.

I think maybe you're onto something in that Tarquin might have attention to unnecessary detail, but it's probably just in general. He'd probably write a note like that whether comdemning someone to death or rewarding someone for a job well done. In other words, it's his love of the dramatic shining through.

Nale doesn't really have the patience for writing a note like that UNLESS he was getting back at someone.

I do in fact think we're seeing a more "mature" version of Nale in some respects, but only in the ways that make Nale easier to write off. Although he's emotionally unstable, it's not his emotional instability that makes Nale evil, but what he does about it. Tarquin, in the end, essentially has the same lack of qualms that Nale has, and would have no problem in substance with Nale's most horrible deeds -- such as the mass murders he committed in Cliffport. He just wouldn't have done them for the same reasons. Tarquin would be more likely to, if he needed a goal to be attained, force through an unfair law and then go about killing people for being in violation of it before they'd even been informed of the change.

In some ways, this actually makes Tarquin all the more frightening and disconcerting. Nale is the way he is because he is NOT IN CONTROL of himself. Maybe it's too much to say he'd be different if he was, but at least it's possible. He's obsessive, irrational, and in need of being committed to a mental health ward for his issues.

I don't think Tarquin needs any of that. He's in control. But as far as his subjects go and how right or wrong someone like Gannji was, he just doesn't care.

[B. Dandelion]

I presumed that was just Tarquin's attention to penmanship in general. I think he probably just writes ALL his notes like that unless there's reason not to. It's an attention to detail, but I think it would be given the same attention whether it was petty or not. Tarquin's got his love for the dramatic so he probably uses overly cutured words and penmanship where he doesn't have to. Such as when he first meets Haley.

I can read the scene that way and it works for me. Either way it sort of seems ironic. If I read it your way it's just kind of funny that he'd do that sort of thing without really trying. If I read it spitefully, it comes off as something he'd have done intentionally, possibly as an attempt to rub salt in the wound. While it emphasizes Tarquin's elegance more than his affluence, the two tend to go hand-in-hand, so the fact that this dispute is over the "extortion" of an amount that possibly would not cover the price of the stationery ... well.


I think maybe you're onto something in that Tarquin might have attention to unnecessary detail, but it's probably just in general. He'd probably write a note like that whether comdemning someone to death or rewarding someone for a job well done. In other words, it's his love of the dramatic shining through.

So the question is what sort of dramatic message he meant to send -- whether it's just his own general culturedness or something else.


Nale doesn't really have the patience for writing a note like that UNLESS he was getting back at someone.

I'm not exactly sure of that.


I do in fact think we're seeing a more "mature" version of Nale in some respects, but only in the ways that make Nale easier to write off. Although he's emotionally unstable, it's not his emotional instability that makes Nale evil,

Evil... maybe, maybe not. It doesn't force him to be evil. Still I think it's a contributing factor to his overall level of pathetic.


but what he does about it. Tarquin, in the end, essentially has the same lack of qualms that Nale has,

Basically making him as evil as Nale but without the weakness -- "Nale, only cool."


and would have no problem in substance with Nale's most horrible deeds -- such as the mass murders he committed in Cliffport. He just wouldn't have done them for the same reasons. Tarquin would be more likely to, if he needed a goal to be attained, force through an unfair law and then go about killing people for being in violation of it before they'd even been informed of the change.

In some ways, this actually makes Tarquin all the more frightening and disconcerting.

And also cool.


Nale is the way he is because he is NOT IN CONTROL of himself. Maybe it's too much to say he'd be different if he was, but at least it's possible. He's obsessive, irrational, and in need of being committed to a mental health ward for his issues.

Right, he's almost pitiable. Definitely not cool.


I don't think Tarquin needs any of that. He's in control. But as far as his subjects go and how right or wrong someone like Gannji was, he just doesn't care.

I think that that is the interpretation which makes him sound cooler. Which is why I suspect the other, less cool one, might turn out to be true -- that underneath the surface, Tarquin is in fact exactly as unstable as Nale.

...why's he killing all his wives, I wonder? (Actually, my first thought was "because they hit 30 and the perk went out of their, um, eyes," but who knows at this point.)

[Nilan8888]

I think that that is the interpretation which makes him sound cooler. Which is why I suspect the other, less cool one, might turn out to be true -- that underneath the surface, Tarquin is in fact exactly as unstable as Nale.

Cool? Well it depends on how you look at it. Many people, for instance, think that Xykon is cool.

But just what does it mean to be cool when you're putting all kinds of people to death? I think this has a chance to be revealed as not cool at all the closer a look one gets to have at Tarquin's victims, and people reacting to them.

Cool in this respects sort of follows two meanings:

1. Cool as in a cool concept for the story and a sylish way of doing things.
2. Cool as in the character would be admirable in real life

If we're talking about #1 I think we can go with cool and it's totally ok. We've already got one major villian with major emotional or mental issues, I'm not sure we need two of them, even if they are father and son. Although tracing the issues from one to the other would be useful. In that respect we'd probably want to avoid redundancy. And Tarquin is already not necessarily redundant with Xykon in that he's got Elan's goofy demeanor and plus is apparently not a COMPLETE monster.

If we're talking about #2 I think there's going to be room enough written that as stylish as this guy is, he is a murderer and without personal ethics or guilt. When Nale started going on his cliffport rampage it became quite clear that this guy was most definately evil, and anyone that would have us look at Nale with any sympathy would be justly reminded of those comics. Tarquin no doubt will have a similar moment in which he shows how completely without compassion or real honesty he truly is, and how he's only in it for himself and the good times.

[B. Dandelion]

Cool? Well it depends on how you look at it. Many people, for instance, think that Xykon is cool.

Cool, as a concept of style -- when I say "cool," there, it's meant to sound sarcastic. The kind of cool he's getting admired for in this very thread. He seems deliberately manufactured around the "evil-is-cool" concept, moreso than Xykon (or for that matter, Belkar). Which is not to say they are not considered cool by some.


But just what does it mean to be cool when you're putting all kinds of people to death?

I so have to bite my tongue. Dude, you're preaching to the choir over here, believe me. :smallwink:


I think this has a chance to be revealed as not cool at all the closer a look one gets to have at Tarquin's victims, and people reacting to them.

That's not the kind of dethroning I had in mind. It is hard to make a villainous character seem less "cool" by forcing the audience to take a look at their victims. It can make a heroic character seem less cool, especially if the fact that they did indeed create victims was something previously glossed over. Tarquin can be assumed to have victims, but showing us them makes him seem more evil and like more of a jerk... not, necessarily, less cool.


Cool in this respects sort of follows two meanings:

1. Cool as in a cool concept for the story and a sylish way of doing things.
2. Cool as in the character would be admirable in real life

See, the thing is, this second category is overlooking what I think is very important: traits that are not necessarily admirable in the moral sense but generally considered desirable and certainly not immoral. Traits like cleverness, bravery, and tenacity.

Those are the traits you go after to disprove, if you're looking to prove your villain isn't actually cool. He's not really brave -- he's a blowhard in spiked armor, a schoolyard bully all grown up. He's not clever, he's manipulative, and not as good at it as he thinks he is. And so on.

[Darcy]

See, the thing is, this second category is overlooking what I think is very important: traits that are not necessarily admirable in the moral sense but generally considered desirable and certainly not immoral. Traits like cleverness, bravery, and tenacity.

But he didn't say morally admirable, just admirable. You can admire someone's cleverness, bravery, and tenacity... right?

[Doug Lampert]

have you purchased and read the book only comics? such as "start of darkness"?
even if you didn't, you should still be able to tell that the real evil ones are the gods (both good and evil gods), and that redclock himself is not evil.

http://www.ookoodook.com/store/comics_order-of-the-stick.shtml
Buy and read those 6 books, I highly recommend them :)

What part of Good kills his own brother for trying to kill the Lich that has destroyed the peaceful and prosperous village he'd set up and had a family in.

And justifies this act based on the need to do something about the alleged FACT that the peaceful village that a human circus came to entertain was impossible from the start?

And attacks a bunch of elves who've never done anything to him, when they are merciful enough to NOT kill him he then creates said lich to get a second chance at them.

That's only a fraction of the BLATANT EVIL which is Redcloak in SoD.

It's Start of Darkness, not Start of almost good.

[Nilan8888]

See, the thing is, this second category is overlooking what I think is very important: traits that are not necessarily admirable in the moral sense but generally considered desirable and certainly not immoral. Traits like cleverness, bravery, and tenacity.

Maybe I should have said the notion of "cool" COULD BE THOUGHT OF to have those two meanings. I didn't actually mean both simultaniously.

What I was trying to do was seperate the character and thier role in the story from what they would be like if they were to actually be alive. In one case it's not necessarily that the ACT is cool, but that it took place in the story is cool and that the character is different, etc.

Plenty of people can think the Joker is cool... I'm not sure much if any of the same people would want to ever actually meet that guy though. Sure, some do but I don't think that's the majority of fans at all.



Those are the traits you go after to disprove, if you're looking to prove your villain isn't actually cool. He's not really brave -- he's a blowhard in spiked armor, a schoolyard bully all grown up. He's not clever, he's manipulative, and not as good at it as he thinks he is. And so on.

But don't you think that in some respects is, as an author... cheating?

Here, let me put it in perspective: that I have a hero that is brave, clever and tenacious does NOT make them good. What makes them good is, primariy, a concern for other people.

If I have a villian that is evil, shouldn't they in the final analysis be a villian on the merits of that lack of concern? Yes, in many cases showing a villian to be a manipulative blowhard will make them "not cool". But that's making the question too easy. It's easy to dislike someone that has those traits and is evil. But that's connecting the dots for people, in some respect. To make it truly tough is to skirt the edge as slowly as possible, and see when people begin to back away.

[taltamir]

What part of Good kills his own brother for trying to kill the Lich that has destroyed the peaceful and prosperous village he'd set up and had a family in.

yes, that was an evil act. one evil act doesn't make you evil... but it was merely one of multiple evil acts, and he was still getting "worse" at that point in time.

his lowest point was when he was killing the hobgoblins for fun because he hated them... then he had an epiphany and has been on the road to recovery since... now he finally has grown some spine, not enough to stand to xykon, but enough to admit to himself that xykon is not a friend of his people, and their goals differ. He now helps his people, builds them up, protects them...
He is definitely on the way to redemption. I would say his alignment was good then neutral, then evil, then neutral again... and currently on the path to good.

[hamishspence]

I would say his alignment was good then neutral, then evil, then neutral again... and currently on the path to good.

It is possible to be altruistic toward a certain group- and evil. Savage Species points out that people who act Good toward their friends, family, country, etc and Evil toward others, are Evil and not Neutral.

At the beginning of SoD- Redcloak couldn't have been Good. Since he was a cleric of a "technically Evil god"- hence- he could only have been Neutral at best (probably Lawful Neutral)

In conjunction with The Plan, it's possible that Redcloak has been Lawful Evil all the way- from mildly LE when he became an acolyte, to strongly LE when he was killing and torment hobgoblins for fun, to slightly less strongly when he had his epiphany. Given that he tortured O-Chul for months, not primarily for info, but just to keep Xykon distracted and prevent him turning his attentions on the goblins- it's hard to call him LN. Especially since O-Chul was able to use Smite Evil on him.

Redcloak is a very sympathetic character at some moments- but unless he renounces The Plan, he probably won't become LN.

The paladins in SoD are textbook examples of "pre-BoED paladins"- people who believe that any evil beings, even children, are fair game, in their Quest To Protect The World.

There was a post by The Giant a while back, that suggested that it is possible some may have fallen- but didn't say which ones.

Which caught the attention of those who said "By BoED standards, every paladin who killed a goblin child, even an evil goblin child- should have Fallen"- and thus showed that it is possible (but not definite) that this did indeed happen.

It's old-style, dungeon-crawling, Gygaxian D&D that takes an "it's ok to kill goblin children- because nits make lice" approach- not BoED.

[taltamir]

It is possible to be altruistic toward a certain group- and evil. Savage Species points out that people who act Good toward their friends, family, country, etc and Evil toward others, are Evil and not Neutral.
Yes, but that is not what I am talking about.


At the beginning of SoD- Redcloak couldn't have been Good. Since he was a cleric of a "technically Evil god"- hence- he could only have been Neutral at best (probably Lawful Neutral)
You are confusing alignment with actual morality. Alignments are retarded and flat out wrong.
You yourself say "technically evil"... and that is the key, I was talking about his actual morality, not his "technical" alignment.


Redcloak is a very sympathetic character at some moments- but unless he renounces The Plan, he probably won't become LN.
The plan is a good plan made by a technically evil god (who actually isn't evil) to trounce technically good gods (who are actually evil).

[hamishspence]

You are confusing alignment with actual morality. Alignments are retarded and flat out wrong.

I'm not sure if the author would agree. The comic shows alignments in action, but that doesn't mean that people who are shown in the strip to be Evil-aligned, "aren't really evil".

Redcloak calls his deity "technically an Evil god" and suggests he is "on the side of evil, as defined by our opposition to those that call themselves good"

However, Redcloak may be a bit deluded about his own god's nature and intentions.

The plan has been discussed in detail in other threads- and the risks involved (a chance of destroying everyone on the planet, and possibly a chance of The Snarl destroying all the gods including the Dark One before they can bind it) plus the actual nature of the act (coercing the gods into robbing their own followers to support The Dark One's) is mostly seen as evil.

[LuPuWei]

The plan is a good plan made by a technically evil god (who actually isn't evil) to trounce technically good gods (who are actually evil).

From a morality stand point, we don't know if the Dark One is Evil or not. We know his stated plan and not his intentions. We also his stated plan is noble, but as long as it requires that Evil be done to others, it can not be Good. Also the plan has alot of leeway to become outright evil, so we cannot be too quick to judge its merits quite yet.

And further, having ideals that are essentially good does not automatically good (from a moral stand point again). Miko, in universe had the best intentions of the world at heart, but screwed it up big time, causing a fall from status. Similarly, just because Goblin liberation is a good idea, doesn't mean everyone (or indeed anyone) trying to achieve it is good.

There's 'kill everyone that's been mean to me' and then there's heal the world'. Same mother, different kids.

[taltamir]

The plan has been discussed in detail in other threads- and the risks involved (a chance of destroying everyone on the planet, and possibly a chance of The Snarl destroying all the gods including the Dark One before they can bind it) plus the actual nature of the act (coercing the gods into robbing their own followers to support The Dark One's) is mostly seen as evil.

whoa there... robbing their own followers?
I am sorry, but equality and the right to life for sentient beings is not robbing your own followers (of anything but the right to murder sentient creatures for profit and power)

[hamishspence]

The original plan (before the Dark One died) involved a donation of lands from the humans to the goblins.

The plan after the Dark One ascended, seems to be the same way- coerce the gods into donating enough lands for the goblins to live on without risk of starvation, as well as (possibly) making them keep all the other races from continuing to attack the goblins.

Putting an end to the previous policy of the civilized races "Do not allow the goblins to become too organized or too settled" - which was enacted by adventurers "clearing goblins out of various adventurer scenarios" may be laudable- but coercing big land landovers is less so.

[pendell]

Getting back to psychopathy to some extent .. aren't we all psychopathic to a degree? In the sense of not having empathy for others.

You think about it, there are people all over the world suffering and dying this very minute. Starving or enslaved in Africa. At war in various locations. Free this country. Occupied that.

Pretty much all over the world, people are suffering and dying every day. And not just around the world -- in your own community too. Homeless people, jobless people, single mothers, you name it.

Do something about it? Well, here's the thing -- whichever of these problems you devote your life to tackling, all the suffering and so forth will still be happening everywhere else.

If you can't shut that out, you're not going to be able to function.

Heck, you won't even be able to sit down and eat a meal if you can't repress your empathy for whatever living thing is now on your plate. Even Vegans. Plants think, feel and remember (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10598926).

And y'know what? We should shut it out. Because the world's problems are too heavy for any one person to carry.

So it seems to me that psychopathy -- lack of empathy -- is an absolutely vital survival trait needed to keep us from going into screaming fits at all the suffering in the world. Not something to be avoided at all costs. Too much of it, and we don't care about the harm we inflict on others. Too little, and we shut down trying to carry a load no single human can possibly carry.


Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Ancalagon]

You think about it, there are people all over the world suffering and dying this very minute. Starving or enslaved in Africa. At war in various locations. Free this country. Occupied that.

If you face that truth... what you want to do? Put a gun at your head and pull the trigger due to all the misery? Try to change it and burn out doing it?

Or ignore it for the most part and do a small part here and there, like buying fairly produced products or something similar?

Your choice. But not constantly seeing all the "bad things" in the world (or even in your country or your town) is not a sign of psychopathy. It's a necessity to be able to live at least some sort of a normal life. The world we life in is hell and if you are in a place that is a little less hell than others (which is likely as you have the time to discuss on a forum about an internet comic), then lucky you.
There's nothing wrong in ignoring for a moment that this "normal life in a non-broken world" is actually a lie and an illusion. People need illusions and as long as you do KNOW that there is nothing broken with you.

The difference is that sociopaths CANNOT feel with others. Normal people CHOSE to ignore the millions that are suffering right now because it'd ruin their life if they did not ignore that for the moment.

We cannot go into details (it would involve too much RL, I think) so a discussion about this is probably very close to its end, no?

[B. Dandelion]

But he didn't say morally admirable, just admirable. You can admire someone's cleverness, bravery, and tenacity... right?

In that sense any positive trait is admirable. You can admire a character's sense of style... but if they're otherwise reprehensible, you probably will phrase it that way ("I admire his style," not "I admire him"), because that trait seems less significant in light of the larger whole. But traits like bravery and tenacity are never insignificant. They make for strong characters. Even if you know the character is evil with a capital E, it's kind of hard not to have some admiration for them, without the qualifier. So they blur the line.


Maybe I should have said the notion of "cool" COULD BE THOUGHT OF to have those two meanings. I didn't actually mean both simultaniously.

What I was trying to do was seperate the character and thier role in the story from what they would be like if they were to actually be alive. In one case it's not necessarily that the ACT is cool, but that it took place in the story is cool and that the character is different, etc.

Plenty of people can think the Joker is cool... I'm not sure much if any of the same people would want to ever actually meet that guy though. Sure, some do but I don't think that's the majority of fans at all.



But don't you think that in some respects is, as an author... cheating?

Here, let me put it in perspective: that I have a hero that is brave, clever and tenacious does NOT make them good. What makes them good is, primariy, a concern for other people.

If I have a villian that is evil, shouldn't they in the final analysis be a villian on the merits of that lack of concern? Yes, in many cases showing a villian to be a manipulative blowhard will make them "not cool". But that's making the question too easy. It's easy to dislike someone that has those traits and is evil. But that's connecting the dots for people, in some respect. To make it truly tough is to skirt the edge as slowly as possible, and see when people begin to back away.

I didn't say we should not have any villains that are possessed of admirable but not intrinsically moral traits. What I'm saying is that if you have a villain that is perceived as cool, I don't think you can strip him of that title by making him more evil. Past a certain point people's hatred will overshadow the coolness factor but it doesn't make it go away.

[taltamir]

The plan after the Dark One ascended, seems to be the same way- coerce the gods into donating enough lands for the goblins to live on without risk of starvation, as well as (possibly) making them keep all the other races from continuing to attack the goblins.

AFAIK this has nothing to do with the plan...
the plan is to have the gods change the rules of "evil" and "good" so that it is no longer "good" to kill goblin children for XP...
Basically, monsters are no longer cannon fodder, they are people. Also, potentially not have their racial traits suck so hard.


Getting back to psychopathy to some extent .. aren't we all psychopathic to a degree? In the sense of not having empathy for others.

*examples*

Empathy and actually doing something are two different things.
Do you feel bad for all those poor people? do you pity them? would you personally harm them for your own benefit?

a psychopath does NOT feel pity towards them, does NOT care about their suffering, will not hesitate to harm others if it benefits them (most do not harm others because it will harm them to harm others... its better to play by the rules)

Just because the average person feels they are incapable of directly helping the downtrodden (and thus doesn't even try) doesn't make them a psychopath, not even "to some degree"

[hamishspence]

AFAIK this has nothing to do with the plan...
the plan is to have the gods change the rules of "evil" and "good" so that it is no longer "good" to kill goblin children for XP...
Basically, monsters are no longer cannon fodder, they are people. Also, potentially not have their racial traits suck so hard.

Where's it say, in SoD or the core strip, that it is in any way a "good" act to kill goblin children for XP in the OoTS universe?

This post by The Giant:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8081896&postcount=21

suggests that it is possible that some of the paladins who killed goblin children in SoD may have fallen (but doesn't confirm it one way or another)

So where does the idea that it's OK come from?

[Nimrod's Son]

Getting back to psychopathy to some extent .. aren't we all psychopathic to a degree? In the sense of not having empathy for others.
That's not psychopathy, that's just the nature of the Monkeysphere (http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html).

(Link contains some naughty words, for those who care)

[RMcMurtry]

You are confusing alignment with actual morality. Alignments are retarded and flat out wrong.
You yourself say "technically evil"... and that is the key, I was talking about his actual morality, not his "technical" alignment.


The plan is a good plan made by a technically evil god (who actually isn't evil) to trounce technically good gods (who are actually evil).

If that's your attitude towards the alignment system, there's no real point to the conversation. You're arguing from a third party book and we're arguing from the core rules.

But two points. #1, Redcloak almost certainly whitewashed things in telling Xykon the story. We know he lied to him about precisely what the Plan was supposed to accomplish. Telling Xykon the rest of it in a way that emphasized the goblin perspective, downplayed or outright omitted goblin atrocities, and played up the evils of the humans (and gods other than the Dark One) would have been entirely in character. Redcloak blames everyone else for the problems that goblins face.

#2, the Plan is extortion. Take from everyone else, or the Dark One unleashes the god-killing Snarl in their homes. This is not a plan that meets the alignment descriptor of "good".

[B. Dandelion]

That's not psychopathy, that's just the nature of the Monkeysphere (http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html).

(Link contains some naughty words, for those who care)

Wow, you know this discussion had me thinking of that exact article just a few seconds ago? Have you linked to it from here before? Maybe that's where I picked up the link the first time.

Great article, BTW, for those who haven't read it.

[Nimrod's Son]

Have you linked to it from here before? Maybe that's where I picked up the link the first time.
Not to my knowledge. Though my short-term memory is patchy at best. I think I first read it via some other forum years ago, but it might have been from here.

[Ancalagon]

We know he lied to him about precisely what the Plan was supposed to accomplish.

Slight SoD-spoiler (imo not enough to put it in tags, but be warned if you want no SoD-spoiler at all):

Actually, I read SoD lately, that is not entirely true. In part it is, but the important thing is that he did tell the truth the first time he told the story to Xykon.
He told his story, including what the ritual does. Then Xykon asked "So, it would let US control the gate?" and Redcloak, here comes the lie, said "Hum, yes".

The point is he lied to Xykon but it seemed he did not intend that lie while he told the story. Or he would have told his story in a way that made sure Xykon got what he wants him to get.
How things turned out now, Redcloak did not try to swindle Xykon into believing what the ritual does but when Xykon asked what, Redcloak saw it would be easier not to correct that error of Xykon, jumped on that train and just nodded. As he told Righteye (who pointed that lie out): "It won't matter once the ritual is complete".

Given the lie was not there in the beginning, I think we can trust Redcloak's narrative a lot. Not fully, of course, but it seems much more reliable than you make it sound.

[RMcMurtry]

Once the ritual is complete, they have no further need of Xykon the human sorceror, so the fact that Redcloak lied would no longer matter. Redcloak rationalizes fairly frequently--he's rationalized his way into the whole partnership with Xykon, despite the cost to the goblin people he claims he's doing this for--so rationalizing the whole "history" of the goblin people in a way that blames everyone else for their problems and makes everyone else looks bad is entirely in character. Redcloak might even believe the entire backstory he spun for Xykon. That doesn't, IMO, make it reliable.

[taltamir]

Once the ritual is complete, they have no further need of Xykon the human sorceror, so the fact that Redcloak lied would no longer matter. Redcloak rationalizes fairly frequently--he's rationalized his way into the whole partnership with Xykon, despite the cost to the goblin people he claims he's doing this for--so rationalizing the whole "history" of the goblin people in a way that blames everyone else for their problems and makes everyone else looks bad is entirely in character. Redcloak might even believe the entire backstory he spun for Xykon. That doesn't, IMO, make it reliable.

that is a possibility, and distinctly changes the whole situation if it is the case...

[brilliantlight]

That's just a preference of Style.

Why should you hack things up personally while you have a beaurocratic system to take care of that? You are an Evil Overlord after all.

I agree as I PREFER subtle villians. Not all villians have to be hot headed idiots!

[brilliantlight]

You're starting to crack the armor of my position. :smallbiggrin: But still, Tarquin's not going to get much 'credit' for tossing Gannji into the arena because he did it in an underhanded way that practically nobody would know about.

On the other hand, does a can of tomato soup count as a genuine threat, especially in a world without thermal detonators? :smallwink:

You have a point here as Tarquin is theatrical and would likely see it as an inside joke.

[LuPuWei]

...Plants think, feel and remember...


:durkon: - Tha's wha' I bin saying!

[brilliantlight]

I like it! So this actually does allow an out for Tarquin to behave in a seemingly petty manner without diminishing his Magnificent Bastard credentials -- he dorks people over for minor issues because that's his role, and damned if he won't play it perfectly.

Particularly with his sense of dramatic! He has more sense of drama than ELAN, he would never step out of his role. Grand Vizers just don't get their own hands dirty if they can help it.

[brilliantlight]

I believe Roy/Belkar will be freed by Tarquin.

One of the perks of LE is that you can play favorites.

Agreed, or at least Roy. I think Belkar will bite it before he can do so. I thought that the moment they were sent to the arena, it would make him look good to his son.

[brilliantlight]

as Xykon himself said, there's a difference between Evil with a capital "e" and Redcloak's "whiny evil for a good cause". Whether Redcloak's motives are good is beside the point. He chooses evil means (torture, murder, theft, extortion, enslavement, conquest) to promote them, in the direct and knowing service to an evil god and evil lich. Right-Eye, by the time of his death, probably was no longer evil. He'd sought to build up his people rather than take what someone else has.

Agreed, Redcloak is a sympathetic villian but a villian just the same.

[TriForce]

You are confusing alignment with actual morality. Alignments are retarded and flat out wrong.
You yourself say "technically evil"... and that is the key, I was talking about his actual morality, not his "technical" alignment.

i think you are making a distinction between alignment and morality, becouse thats the only straw anyone can grasp to argue RC being anything else then evil.
alignment is supposed to be morality, yes the DnD system isnt perfect, and thats why there are so many strips making fun of it, or simply reflecting it at itself (like with the paladins) but still, alignment is a status caused by your morality, its impossible to have a good alignment and a evil morality, or vice versa, thats why the giant hinted at the possibility of some paladins falling.

redcloak is evil, he tortures people for no other reason then his own convenience, he kills people that might possibly be a small threath (the prisoners with class lvls) and he fully supports slavery. these are not things xykon asked him to do, all of the above is in his full control and by his own choice. and all of wich are very much evil



The plan is a good plan made by a technically evil god (who actually isn't evil) to trounce technically good gods (who are actually evil).

the RESULT of plan A might be good ( equality for goblins, at least if thats all he really wants) but the method? blackmail? is neutral at best. not to mention plan B, the unmaking of creation so there is a fresh start. if the total destruction of every soul on the planet is not evil enough for you, there really is no convincing you