Does Tarquin "Win"?

[pendell]

I've seen the latest strip, and I'm wondering if there's not a crucial factor he's left out of his planning ...

... the fact that D&D has an afterlife.

Way I see it, Tarquin has bought himself a few decades of living like a god and an eternity of torment in the nine hells. I'm trying to remember, but doesn't it involve being transformed into a lemure, being stripped of self and sanity, then tortured and dined on for devils for all eternity?

I realize the modern D&D afterlife is more about finding the right place for everyone and not necessarily punishment, but it doesn't sound like a lot of fun.

Given Xykon's discussion (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0652.html) about how people will go to almost any lengths to avoid the Big Fire Below, I suspect many OOTS people feel the same way.

I wonder if he's discussed it with Malack?

In any case, I don't think Tarquin "wins". He hurts a lot of people, then he goes to a place of torment while his victims go to the place their respective gods assign them. He's giving up something he could have forever -- Celestia or similar -- to keep something he can hold for only the briefest flicker of time. Thirty years? Will that still seem like such a bargain after the first several thousand years in the Nine Hells?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Arrowstorm122]

not really, Tarquin is right, its how it is in the real world too. he wins either way.

[hamishspence]

According to FC2, occasionally (very occasionally) a soul will be promoted direct from soul shell to devil without passing through the various unpleasant preliminary stages.

Has Tarquin's Evil been so Magnificent, that the archfiends might grant him that, I wonder?

[pendell]

Okay, Arrowstorm, I'll bite. How does condemning yourself to an eternity in the Big Fire constitute a 'win'? Even if it meant a brief flicker of happiness somewhere along the way?

Even being a legend ... legends don't always last. "My name is Oyzmandias, King of Kings! Look on my works , ye mighty, and despair!"

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[HalfTangible]

Even if Tarquin loses himself in the nine hells (which would probably happen anyway, given that he's good evil aligned) the Tarquin we all know and share a weird love/hate relationship with still would be immortalized in story.

[hamishspence]

Some characters go out with such magnificence, that they get worshipped after death, granting them divine rank.

Uthgar in Faerun was one of these.

I think Tchazzar the Conqueror (though he faked his death, and was a red dragon rather than a human) was another.

[pendell]

Does forum worship count? If so ... then MIKO MIYAZAKI HAS ASCENDED!!!

*Brain asplodes*


Running away,

Brian P.

[wizuriel]

Depending if he is religious or catches a divinities attention couldn't he go to some kind of good evil afterlife (at least for his definition)? Like how drow in the afterlife go to lloth (granted from our perspective it is probably the same as hell, for them its considered an honour)?

[mucat]

Or Tarquin is simply capable of realistic self-assessment, and has decided that he's not cut out to be a good guy. Yeah, he could probably fake it for a few decades, though it would leave a sour taste in his mouth...and even if the powers decide that a cynical Pascal's wager counts as actual good, then his reward is continuing to pretend to be good for eternity. To Tarquin, that might sound like utter misery. At least the Hells are honest.

So if he's evil by nature and has no intention of trying to change that, then his real choice is between smalltime evil and grand, flashy evil. The same damnation awaits him either way -- in fact, it might be worse if his CV has no crimes impressive enough to merit promotion -- so he figures he may as well carve his mark across history and become a legend, before going off to face the same fate he would have faced anyway.

Also, I would note that the OoTS multiverse does not seem to have the "stripped of self and sanity" version of the Hells...or the "standard D&D" identity/memory loss in any afterlife, for that matter. Souls in the afterlife show every sign of still being "themselves", wherever they reside...

[hamishspence]

It is possible, that Tarquin might have a deity- and go to the deity's realm in the Nine Hells or Acheron (if deity is LE) or maybe Gehenna or Hades (if the deity is NE).

Some deities in the Nine Hells allow their followers to be incarnated as fiendish (whatever they were) rather than have them pass through the Lemure Transformation.

Sekolah and Kurtulmak, most notably.

Tarquin could have a deity who does this.

[Akal Saris]

There's always the hope of a death-bed conversion back to Good! Then you get 30 years of tyranny, 10 minutes that really suck, 2 minutes with your son who convinces you to sacrifice yourself for the good of the world, and an eternity in Heaven! It's win-win!

[hamishspence]

There's always the hope of a death-bed conversion back to Good! Then you get 30 years of tyranny, 10 minutes that really suck, 2 minutes with your son who convinces you to sacrifice yourself for the good of the world, and an eternity in Heaven! It's win-win!

Not in FC2- even genuine deathbed conversions would get you stuck as a Hellbred- with Hell being the afterlife once the Hellbred dies- unless they do something major (or a par with permanently destroying an archdevil) during their time as a hellbred.

[pendell]

There's always the hope of a death-bed conversion back to Good! Then you get 30 years of tyranny, 10 minutes that really suck, 2 minutes with your son who convinces you to sacrifice yourself for the good of the world, and an eternity in Heaven! It's win-win!

Happily, D&D was not written by George Lucas. Throwing the Emperor down the reactor shaft does NOT make up for the destruction of Alderaan and decades of tyranny et al in D&D.

It raises an interesting problem; if the powers that are good show grace and mercy (can D&D do that)? You've got situations like you just described where people try to deliberately abuse grace. If they don't have any latitude to show grace, you get to a point where the villain says 'sod it, I'll fry anyway, so I might as well try to be as evil as possible. I can't make it to Celestia, but I may be evil enough to skip lemurehood'.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[hamishspence]

I think the Hellbred Transformation was a compromise by the writers of FC2 (to go with the Corruption system)-

evil acts cause corruption- corruption can't be removed by repentance alone- only by atonement (and not just the Atonement spell, but acts)

But a being that dies both Corrupt and Repentant, can have a second chance at achieving redemption.

[Vladislav]

If some posters on this forum still find it in their heart to consider Tarquin True Neutral, I'm sure he, with his wonderful ability for self-conviction, believes all will be forgiven in the afterlife because of the Greater Good (TM)

[B. Dandelion]

I would find it personally very dissatisfying if Tarquin's eventual comeuppance was limited to "well we'll see how his Genre Savvy helps him when he's burning in the lake of fire, ha!"

It doesn't seem to be the popular opinion, but I still hold out hope that he will be kicked off of his pedestal in-strip.

[The_Weirdo]

I would find it personally very dissatisfying if Tarquin's eventual comeuppance was limited to "well we'll see how his Genre Savvy helps him when he's burning in the lake of fire, ha!"

It doesn't seem to be the popular opinion, but I still hold out hope that he will be kicked off of his pedestal in-strip.

Ditto here, though, frankly, I don't see how it'd happen that easily. Most villains, when they lose, LOSE.

[mucat]

Not in FC2- even genuine deathbed conversions would get you stuck as a Hellbred- with Hell being the afterlife once the Hellbred dies- unless they do something major (or a par with permanently destroying an archdevil) during their time as a hellbred.

Again, I doubt OoTS-verse works that way exactly.

Actually, the hellbred system I can imagine:


Overworked, unamused bureaucratic deva: (peers at repentant villain over her glasses) "So you were clocking a steady 7.2 kilonazis, when you repented with..." (checks her computer) "...two and a half minutes to live."

Villain, eyes glistening with sincerity: "Yes, and it tears me apart to think of what I did to all those poor people before I saw the Light. Not to mention what my son must have gone through, knowing his Dad was a monster." (gestures dramatically, accidentally knocking over his bottle of Aton (tm) Eye Glistener. ("Now With 30% More Sincerity!"))

Deva: "Here's a new body. It ain't a pretty one. Now prove it."

Villain: (Poof!)

Deva: "Why do I always get the lying sleazeballs right before lunch?"


However, I don't think a hellbred's salvation would depend on being able to destroy an archfiend or something. Roy's deva made it clear that they take intent into account; they don't punish someone for lack of power. Granted, the hellbred would have to be astoundingly Good -- not just enough to scrape by the usual evaluation, but enough to constitute a sincere attempt to undo his former evil -- but the verdict would depend on his effort, not his demon-kill record.



I would find it personally very dissatisfying if Tarquin's eventual comeuppance was limited to "well we'll see how his Genre Savvy helps him when he's burning in the lake of fire, ha!"

It doesn't seem to be the popular opinion, but I still hold out hope that he will be kicked off of his pedestal in-strip.
I think that is the popular opinion. Tarquin is a Magnificent Bastard, but he's still a bastard, and I think (almost) everyone will cheer his downfall.

[Sethis]

Happily, D&D was not written by George Lucas. Throwing the Emperor down the reactor shaft does NOT make up for the destruction of Alderaan and decades of tyranny et al in D&D.
.

starwarsnerd

To be fair, Tarkin is the one who blew up Alderaan. He outranked Vader at the time (which was really only a technicality, but, still.) and you may remember Leia talking about him 'holding Vader's leash'.

/Starwarsnerd

The other thing seems to be that in a system where morality is absolute, not subjective, and certain people are born predispositioned to one or the other, with one being rewarded by eternal suffering and the other by eternal bliss...

Well that's not much of a fair system. He seems to just be milking it for all it's worth.

[hamishspence]

However, I don't think a hellbred's salvation would depend on being able to destroy an archfiend or something. Roy's deva made it clear that they take intent into account; they don't punish someone for lack of power. Granted, the hellbred would have to be astoundingly Good -- not just enough to scrape by the usual evaluation, but enough to constitute a sincere attempt to undo his former evil -- but the verdict would depend on his effort, not his demon-kill record.

It's to give an idea of the scale- "Saving a city from destruction, single-handed" was another.

It doesn't matter what the deed is- only that it's a "major victory for the Forces of Good".

[Gandariel]

i've already read something like this somewhere else.

Are we sure Evil people will get tortured for eternity?

Let's take Redcloak, for example.
He does Explicitly what his (evil) God said to him.
does he have to be punished for this?!?

[hamishspence]

It depends on the setting, the alignment, and if the being has a patron deity or not.

If a being does have a patron (especially if the being is a cleric) they may go to their deity's home, rather than the afterlife appropriate for alignment.

So Redcloak, even if LE, might go to the "LN with LE tendencies/LE with LN tendencies" afterlife Acheron.

In fact, the "iron plain" description of the goblin afterlife given by Jirix, fits Acheron very well:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0704.html

Xykon strongly suggests that it's "The Big Fire Down Below" for evil characters in general- but this may not apply to clerics and other beings with a strong devotion.

[FoE]

It depends on the setting — no matter what you do in life, everyone goes to the same place in Eberron — but evil characters don't generally care about the afterlife. More often than not, they get called to the side of their chosen deity. Those who go to the Nine Hells are either consumed or used to fuel infernal rituals and such.

Sure, there might be some torment, but that's the price you pay for all the rewards that Evil brings in the mortal world.

[Gandariel]

and so what's the entire point of races like goblinoids, listed as "usually evil"?
are they just.. born to be evil, die and get tortured for eternity?

SOD SPOILER and considering WHY goblinoids were created... it must NOT be fun to be a goblin ^^

[King of Nowhere]

It all depends on the specific setting, and on how the afterlife works. If I were a devil, I'd see immediately that Tarquin is very good material and would promote him as a devil immediately. Probably, in oots there is this chance.

[hamishspence]

Until The Dark One came, it's entirely probable that most goblin souls did end up in the Nine Hells,

(or maybe Hades or the Abyss, given that ordinary goblins, unlike hobgoblins, are usually NE, and bugbears usually CE)

After he came though, goblins who died devoted to him, would go to an afterlife of their own- his realm in what looks like Acheron. And Jirix's description does not imply it is torturous.

[cho_j]

Some characters go out with such magnificence, that they get worshipped after death, granting them divine rank.

Can't get the mental image of the Tarquinites doing battle with the Banjoists for all eternity out of my head. :smallbiggrin:

[B. Dandelion]

I think that is the popular opinion. Tarquin is a Magnificent Bastard, but he's still a bastard, and I think (almost) everyone will cheer his downfall.

Granted I am getting that impression from the main thread which seems to be set on permanent "squee" mode, but the general sentiment is that Tarquin has already won, which is why he is so awesome. The OP doesn't seem to share the positive sentiment but apparently takes it as a fait accompli that he has indeed already won on the mortal realm which is what necessitates bringing the afterlife bit into it.

[JaxGaret]

Granted I am getting that impression from the main thread which seems to be set on permanent "squee" mode, but the general sentiment is that Tarquin has already won, which is why he is so awesome. The OP doesn't seem to share the positive sentiment but apparently takes it as a fait accompli that he has indeed already won on the mortal realm which is what necessitates bringing the afterlife bit into it.

Agreed.

One thing that I need to note is that in the D&Dverse (and in our universe, but let's leave that conversation for another life), mortals don't know what the afterlife brings - they simply hope and believe what it will bring. There's simply no way for a mortal to know what will happen when they die, particularly since as we saw from Roy's return from the dead, mortals who are brought back to life only have a vague recollection of what went on there.

What mortals do know is that different people are telling them different things and most probably decide to do what they were going to do anyway. In the case of Evil characters, that's be Evil, as it is with Good and Neutral characters - they'll be Good and Neutral respectively.

[Shale]

It depends on how much choice you have over your alignment. If all evil people go to the lower realms, and Tarquin was going to be evil no matter what, why not be the biggest, baddest, most magnificent even he can?

[hamishspence]

Most of the splatbooks imply a lot of choice.

And in core, DMG states an Evil NPC can repent, reject the ways of Evil, and become "Neutral, but well on the way to Good".

[mucat]

Granted I am getting that impression from the main thread which seems to be set on permanent "squee" mode, but the general sentiment is that Tarquin has already won, which is why he is so awesome.
To me, the squee mode seems to be celebrating Tarquin as an excellent character (which I agree he is), not as an admirable person (which he will never be.) And part of the fun in a great villainous character is watching their eventual downfall; when they fall, they fall hard. I would wager that Tarquin will get his comeuppance (in this world, not the next) and it will happen in a way that deprives him of the victory-in-defeat he now anticipates.

I really don't think the community as a whole is rooting for it to go otherwise. He's a great villain who adds a lot to the story...but he is not redeemable, and he will go down hard. (In contrast to, say, Redcloak, who will probably lose, but die with a degree of dignity, and with the satisfaction of knowing that some of the things he fought for will come true.)


The OP doesn't seem to share the positive sentiment but apparently takes it as a fait accompli that he has indeed already won on the mortal realm which is what necessitates bringing the afterlife bit into it.
Yeah, but the OP likes eccentric lines of logic. (No offense intended, Brian!)

[hamishspence]

I would wager that Tarquin will get his comeuppance (in this world, not the next) and it will happen in a way that deprives him of the victory-in-defeat he now anticipates.

My hypothesis was:


The only way for him to lose at this point, would be not death, but life-

an extended life, in an unpleasant prison, so bad as to outweigh the pleasures of 20 years of luxury.

[Chaos rising]

Some characters go out with such magnificence, that they get worshipped after death, granting them divine rank.

Uthgar in Faerun was one of these.

I think Tchazzar the Conqueror (though he faked his death, and was a red dragon rather than a human) was another.

Call me crazy, but I think this is Tarquins plan. In Start of Darkness we learn for sure that it is possible for someone to become divinity if enough people worship them (or commit enough evil acts in their name.) The way Tarquin is talking, he wants to inspire thousands of other villains around the world by being the first person in the world to crush the entire western continent under his heel, and still "win" in the end. He doesn't want to LIVE like a god, he wants to BE a god.

[hamishspence]

this isn't too implausible- and if it's his true goal,

and if despite what he says, 20 years of luxury isn't "he's won" for him,

then failure to become a god might be a "lose" condition.

[AstralStorm]

To me, the squee mofe seems to be celebrating Tarquin as an excellent character (which I agree he is), not as an admirable person (which he will never be.) And part of the fun in a great villainous character is watching their eventual downfall; when they fall, they fall hard. I would wager that Tarquin will get his comeuppance (in this world, not the next) and it will happen in a way that deprives him of the victory-in-defeat he now anticipates.

I vote for being turned into a statue for a long long time, preferably conscious. Quite a fitting end for someone so magnificent, yet extremely degrading once someone turns him back into a live person. Only afterwards seeing all his power wane, finally get rid of him.

Edit: DRAT! Now Rich probably won't do that...

[FoE]

My hope is that ...

...the Empress of Blood falls on Tarquin and squishes him.

Such an ignominous end would undermine his legend as a great dictator.

[mucat]

Edit: DRAT! Now Rich probably won't do that...
???

What changed since you posted that?

[pendell]

The OP doesn't seem to share the positive sentiment but apparently takes it as a fait accompli that he has indeed already won on the mortal realm which is what necessitates bringing the afterlife bit into it.


Oh, I agree that in this story Tarquin will get his comeuppance in this life. That's why it's a heroic story and not real life -- the bad guys get sorted good 'n proper where we can all see and cheer. Real life is rarely so neat :smallannoyed:.

Be that as it may, I'm curious how Tarquin has built this elaborate logical plan for 'winning' at the game of life -- yet seemingly hasn't factored in that life on Prime is only the barest flicker of a D&D character's existence. Has he thought about it? Unlike our world, The Nine Hells are an indisputably real place. You really can summon devils and demons. You really can Plane Shift over to those places if you've got a high enough level Wiz in the party. As with Jirix, you have people who have been there and back again. There's no faith required whatsoever to have religion or belief in an afterlife in D&D.

So how has he factored an eternity in the Big Fire into his calculations? Or has he? I strongly doubt such an intelligent villain just overlooked that .



Yeah, but the OP likes eccentric lines of logic. (No offense intended, Brian!)

No offense taken. I've been called 'weird' since grade school, and I'm now 39. In some ways, I consider it a perverse badge of honor.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[hamishspence]

???

What changed since you posted that?

It's based on Rich saying that once he sees a correct guess about a future strip, he feels the urge to change it.

He also said, as I recall- that he's never actually done so.

[Callista]

I think that Tarquin, knowing he can't win, simply decided to re-define "winning". So, yeah, technically he wins; but it's not what anybody else would consider a victory.

[hamishspence]

Be that as it may, I'm curious how Tarquin has built this elaborate logical plan for 'winning' at the game of life -- yet seemingly hasn't factored in that life on Prime is only the barest flicker of a D&D character's existence. Has he thought about it? Unlike our world, The Nine Hells are an indisputably real place. You really can summon devils and demons. You really can Plane Shift over to those places if you've got a high enough level Wiz in the party. As with Jirix, you have people who have been there and back again. There's no faith required whatsoever to have religion or belief in an afterlife in D&D.

So how has he factored an eternity in the Big Fire into his calculations? Or has he? I strongly doubt such an intelligent villain just overlooked that .

He might be indulging in Ommission here- failing to mention that by becoming a legend, he stands a chance at becoming a god, or getting instant promotion to unique devil.

[AstralStorm]

???

What changed since you posted that?

I've written about it on the forum and Rich's ability to contradict the forum predictions is well known. Also, forgot a spoiler tag. :smallwink:

[Leliel]

Given he's such a Magnificent Bastard, I wouldn't be surprised if Taquin's lemure was promoted directly to Gelugon (ice devil) status, with significant memory retention

For those of you who don't know, Gelugons are basically the "honor guard" of Asmodeus, directly below Pit Fiend rank...

[hamishspence]

Soul shells are normally transformed into lemures (losing their memories and personalities)

But one can be transformed into a greater devil, without passing through the lemure stage first- though it's rare.

[SPoD]

Soul shells are normally transformed into lemures (losing their memories and personalities)

But one can be transformed into a greater devil, without passing through the lemure stage first- though it's rare.

Except this explicitly does not happen in OOTS. The IFCC were able to summon up three completely Evil souls that were not lemures and not fiends. And of course, Roy and family retained their individuality in the Celestial counterpart, as did Jirix in Acheron. And Horace even retained his fighting prowess and special moves. Therefore, we must conclude that souls in OOTS retain their personality and power when in the Afterlife.

So basically, the standard D&D model is meaningless to understanding Tarquin. If Tarquin died tomorrow, he'd become an awesome genre-savvy ass-kicking warlord who just happened to be in Hell. He might have to work his way up the promotion ladder in order to get to be a devil, but he wouldn't have to rely on some rare chance of not being turned into a lemure. And that's all the plan he needs to deal with the Afterlife.

Basically, the difference between Tarquin and Xykon is that Tarquin would consider having to spend a thousand years working his way up from through the devil ranks as just paying his dues. Xykon would consider it a horrific fate that he wasn't just given the keys to the castle the moment he arrived in Hell. Thus, Xykon wants to avoid it, Tarquin just wants to get in with as good a resume as possible.

[hamishspence]

Except this explicitly does not happen in OOTS. The IFCC were able to summon up three completely Evil souls that were not lemures and not fiends. And of course, Roy and family retained their individuality in the Celestial counterpart, as did Jirix in Acheron. And Horace even retained his fighting prowess and special moves. Therefore, we must conclude that souls in OOTS retain their personality and power when in the Afterlife.

Baator might be the exception- it's the only one which explicitly specifies that all personality and memory are scrubbed from the being.

And the three soul splice souls might have been kept around, rather than transformed into petitioners, specifically because they'd earned it in some way (by great evil achievement, say).

So far, we haven't seen for sure if The Giant uses the standard model for Baator or not.

However- given that there is some evidence that Celestia does not match the standard D&D rules, then the theory that the Lemure Transformation does not exist in the OOTS-verse, does have some merit to it.

[SPoD]

And the three soul splice souls might have been kept around, rather than transformed into petitioners, specifically because they'd earned it in some way (by great evil achievement, say).

If true, it still supports Tarquin's actions. If lemure-hood is the norm, and if even one person has managed to avoid it by being extra-super-mega Evil, it would be in Tarquin's best interest to be as evil as possible. All he needs is the knowledge that such an exception happened once...say, by asking his friend the Death Cleric.

[hamishspence]

If true, it still supports Tarquin's actions. If lemure-hood is the norm, and if even one person has managed to avoid it by being extra-super-mega Evil, it would be in Tarquin's best interest to be as evil as possible. All he needs is the knowledge that such an exception happened once...say, by asking his friend the Death Cleric.

Yup- I'm inclined to think that if OoTS uses some of the FC2 rules, Tarquin knows it,

and that's why he wants the Legend- it's not acts of evil, but inspiring thousands of others to do acts of evil, that's most likely to earn him a place in the ranks of Those That Skipped The Queue :smallamused:

[Sleepingbear]

Tarquin loses if no one tells his story.

[hamishspence]

Partially loses- one of his primary goals of the whole scheme was 20-odd years of power and luxury- and he's had that.

[Thanatosia]

Except this explicitly does not happen in OOTS. The IFCC were able to summon up three completely Evil souls that were not lemures and not fiends. And of course, Roy and family retained their individuality in the Celestial counterpart, as did Jirix in Acheron. And Horace even retained his fighting prowess and special moves. Therefore, we must conclude that souls in OOTS retain their personality and power when in the Afterlife.

So basically, the standard D&D model is meaningless to understanding Tarquin. If Tarquin died tomorrow, he'd become an awesome genre-savvy ass-kicking warlord who just happened to be in Hell. He might have to work his way up the promotion ladder in order to get to be a devil, but he wouldn't have to rely on some rare chance of not being turned into a lemure. And that's all the plan he needs to deal with the Afterlife.

Basically, the difference between Tarquin and Xykon is that Tarquin would consider having to spend a thousand years working his way up from through the devil ranks as just paying his dues. Xykon would consider it a horrific fate that he wasn't just given the keys to the castle the moment he arrived in Hell. Thus, Xykon wants to avoid it, Tarquin just wants to get in with as good a resume as possible.
Have to agree with this post, Especially the explanation of why Xykon would do 'anything' to avoid the big fire below while Tarquin is willing to accept it, it's totally fitting to their respective characters.

[TreesOfDeath]

Given Tarquin's incrediable machiavellian skill, yes.

After from dying after having gotten everything he wanted from this life, Tarquin will, through treachery, force, manipulation, etc rise the ladders of the devil plane, end up in a top postion, then set up a fake hierachy so that those who want to kill him will waste time attacking his puppets. And he will sit back and watch this in amusement.

Tarquin is magnifecent bastard to end all magnificent bastards

[Lvl45DM!]

But we also see Jirix in the afterlife with not diabolic goblin souls. Seems OOTS diverts from D&D theology. As to people who are wondering if evil souls get punished by evil gods, going from the one piece of a lower plane we have seen, The goblin one, it seems that those goblins are going to be warring for all eternity. Some might consider that horrific. Some might not

[B. Dandelion]

To me, the squee mode seems to be celebrating Tarquin as an excellent character (which I agree he is), not as an admirable person (which he will never be.) And part of the fun in a great villainous character is watching their eventual downfall; when they fall, they fall hard. I would wager that Tarquin will get his comeuppance (in this world, not the next) and it will happen in a way that deprives him of the victory-in-defeat he now anticipates.

I really don't think the community as a whole is rooting for it to go otherwise. He's a great villain who adds a lot to the story...but he is not redeemable, and he will go down hard. (In contrast to, say, Redcloak, who will probably lose, but die with a degree of dignity, and with the satisfaction of knowing that some of the things he fought for will come true.)

I would hope that's the majority opinion. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between an appreciation for a well-written character and a genuine admiration. That Belkar has fans who admit he's a horrible person but still don't want to see him die demonstrates that sometimes the line between the two is so thin it might as well not be there at all.


Oh, I agree that in this story Tarquin will get his comeuppance in this life. That's why it's a heroic story and not real life -- the bad guys get sorted good 'n proper where we can all see and cheer. Real life is rarely so neat :smallannoyed:.

Be that as it may, I'm curious how Tarquin has built this elaborate logical plan for 'winning' at the game of life -- yet seemingly hasn't factored in that life on Prime is only the barest flicker of a D&D character's existence. Has he thought about it? Unlike our world, The Nine Hells are an indisputably real place. You really can summon devils and demons. You really can Plane Shift over to those places if you've got a high enough level Wiz in the party. As with Jirix, you have people who have been there and back again. There's no faith required whatsoever to have religion or belief in an afterlife in D&D.

So how has he factored an eternity in the Big Fire into his calculations? Or has he? I strongly doubt such an intelligent villain just overlooked that .

Ah, I misunderstood your premise. I dunno though. We don't know much at all about how the darker afterlifes work in OOTS, it's basically speculation that would make Tarquin's apparent lack of concern an oversight in the first place. You could equally postulate than an intelligent, consider-all-the-angles type would have factored in that consideration and thus his evident indifference, in and of itself, indicates he has little to worry about.

[Callista]

Some of his enemies most likely understand very well the possibility of a True Resurrection for someone like Tarquin. They'll be actively working to prevent it.

I think a nice Flesh to Stone spell would be just the thing here... then stick some abjuration on it, shrink the statue, and stick it on the Astral somewhere. *Poof* no more Tarquin. He's technically not dead, so he can't be raised, and YOU try to track down an unscryable chunk of rock on the Astral Plane.

Lots of other possibilities along this line. If you don't mind necromancy, you can create a zombie; or you can just trap the soul. If you're evil enough you can even destroy the soul. Or you could just Baleful Polymorph him and take very, very good care of the resulting hamster.

[Swordpriest]

Well, he wouldn't win if he gets stripped of all his power and lives, and ends up as a crippled beggar in the back alley of some city he formerly ruled over, surviving on garbage and the occasional coin for the next 20 years....

[WinceRind]

not really, Tarquin is right, its how it is in the real world too. he wins either way.

Pretty much agree.

{scrubbed}

An evil god should be partying with all those who did what he exemplifies, be it murder, genocide, rape, or whatever. Why the hell should he be punishing it?

In my opinion, from general perspective, in a world where multiple gods exist, often of opposing alignment, very much opposing likes and dislikes and comparable strengths, it makes absolutely no sense for the god (or the plane, or whatever) of eeeeevul to punish said evil when it eventually comes there. At least it more or less makes sense in monotheistic mythology where the big bad blow is just a pawn. But in D&D, no matter how you put it, the gods are to some extent equals despite different power levels in some cases.

So, yeah.

And Tarquin totally wins.

[WinceRind]

Well, he wouldn't win if he gets stripped of all his power and lives, and ends up as a crippled beggar in the back alley of some city he formerly ruled over, surviving on garbage and the occasional coin for the next 20 years....

Weeeell he got his friends. And he's got his leet stats which would be pretty hard to take away. And he's obviously got player levels...

How hard is it, exactly, for a hero, even a level 1 hero which Tarquin is very obviously not, to make money or (re)gain some power?

He isn't in his position because of some magical mcguffin. He's there because he's strong, smart, and knows how to scheme. And has allies, too.

Also, if he does in fact fall, I'm going to be expecting some kind of reference to Ozymandias (From the poem;NOT the Watchmen character, who shares the same name). I mean, it's a pretty good fit, especially for many of the suggestions posted by others above. Pretty much emphasizes the idea of being forgotten despite whatever past greatness.

[Querzis]

Pretty much agree.

{scrubbed the original, scrub the quote}
An evil god should be partying with all those who did what he exemplifies, be it murder, genocide, rape, or whatever. Why the hell should he be punishing it?

Nah you really dont get it, the evil planes arent punishement. They just include endless torture because they are realm populated exclusively with devils or demons bigger and badder then you who got nobody else to bully around then you. There is absolutely no punishment (or rewards for that matter) involved, devils and demons usually dont even know what the newcomers did to go to hell or the abyss and they dont care. And since you lose most of your mind when you die, the new devils and demons dont know why they are there either.

In other words: the good plane might look like a reward because its filled with good people who act very nice to each other while the evil planes might look like a punishment because its filled with evil people who got nothing better to do then fight and torture each others but neither are meant as a punishment or a reward. Its just normal for a place filled with good people to be a nice place to live and its just normal for a place filled with evil people to be a nasty place to live, even if you're evil yourself. The only way to have a good time in hell or the abyss is to become the biggest and baddest creature around that nobody can beat but theres no way you will be the biggest creature around when you just die. It usually takes thousand of years to transform into a really powerful demon or devil.

As hamishspence said though, sometimes someone do things so incredible on the mortal planes that even the devil or demons hear about him and promote him as soon as he die but thats very rare. And about the part were you talked about gods, yes clerics of an evil god usually just go to the place where their god lives after they die instead of one of the evil plane (which is more or less a reward for their service so yes, evil gods do actually reward their followers).

[MReav]

{scrubbed the original, scrub the quote}

This is hell. We're big on irony.

[Callista]

Not just that. Evil rewards power. If you're ridiculously evil but not ridiculously badass, then you're worthless.

[snikrept]

Tarquin might still fall into the Snarl and get erased. That would sort of screw over his big plan. Outside chance, I'd say, given how the Snarl has been behaving recently.

r.e. Hell rewarding the wicked: it was my understanding that in D&D cosmology Hell does reward the wicked - they get an everlasting arena of might-makes-right politics where they get to climb the ladder and be merciless in their overlordship of anyone lower on the ladder than they. Sort of like a PVP server. :smallbiggrin:

EDIT - consider that when Jirix died and got sent to Acheron (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0704.html), he considered that his eternal "reward" and was really happy that he got to fight in an endless pointless war for all eternity.

[Kairamek]

I find it amusing that this thread is one big discussion about the theology/cosmology of the afterlife in Dungeons and Dragons based worlds when the point of Tarquin's long speach (maybe even a Hannible Lecture) is defining your victory.

He's absolutly right. You define what victory means to you in your endeavours. At work, victory for me is doing better than I did last month. Even if my metrics are not concidered 'Performing' for the month, if I did better than I did last month than I win. Once I redefined 'victory' I became alot happier.

My Speculatron says this may be why Elan has a happy ending. He learns from his father to define what a victory, and by extention a happy ending, is.

[hanzo66]

I think that the best way to describe Tarquin's belief in this is a quote from Soul Nomad and the World Eaters:


It didn't matter. It was fun.

[TheArsenal]

elan doesn't have to kill him. Prison it is.

[Talkkno]

I don't think Tarquin has won just simply his world view ultimately a hollow one. All he is doing is just attempt to drag others down into a mire of vice and oppression, making all slaves to the emptiness from which they too suffer.

[pendell]

It occurs to me that if Tarquin was reduced to a beggar he'd have a beggar's guild in the city in a year, be it's leader-behind-the-scenes in five, and rule the city through his Mafia cunningly disguised as a beggar's guild in ten. Even if he was himself physically crippled. So long as his mind is intact, he's going to scheme for power and succeed in achieving it whatever his circumstance.

Of course, how he will fare in the nine hells, against beings who have presumably been doing it for longer and are much more powerful to boot, is an open question.


Wait! Suddenly I have a flash of inspiration!

What if Belkar and Tarquin BOTH go to the lower planes at the same time...?


The "Blood War" just kicked it up a notch. The being who is for all intents and purposes an incarnate demon (Belkar) clashes with the being who is an incarnate devil (Tarquin). Who wins? Who cares? Bring the popcorn! It'll keep the lower planes entertained for eons!

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Swordpriest]

Hm, random insane thought #8 billion -- if Belkar killed Tarquin with a wooden sword, would that count as ignominious enough to spoil his "victory," even if the Empress ate Belkar five seconds later? :smallwink:

[Orzel]

He already "won".

The Rule of Cool and The Rule of Drama both prevent a loss.

That was his plan all along. Elan just helped by showing up.

If Big X shows up, The OotS will be force to help Tarquin. Then you got opposite alignment father and son on one side. Even more drama.


The only way way to screw this plan up is to make something even more dramatic happen... which would probably make him a legend anyway.

Plus Tarquin probably has a glyph somewhere set up so when he dies, it kills 1000 slaves and shoots fireworks in the sky saying "Tarquin was the true ruler, suckas."

[Nilan8888]

I would hope that's the majority opinion. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between an appreciation for a well-written character and a genuine admiration. That Belkar has fans who admit he's a horrible person but still don't want to see him die demonstrates that sometimes the line between the two is so thin it might as well not be there at all.

My thinking on this would be, be both hopeful and fearful at the same time.

I'm an advocate of people not knowing themselves and acting the opposite in a given situation to how they think they would act and how others would think they would act. I wouldn't be surprised if the most pro-Belkar person ever to come to the forum, who wants more Belkar, Belkar, Belkar, and starts numerous threads denying that he will die... would freak out and run from Belkar were he incarnated in real life.

I also think that many of the people that hate on Belkar so much because he's evil might actually condone him in real life, or might say nothing as he does his deeds.

In the end, IMO, talk is cheap and online talk is cheaper still. The person that seems so cavalier about Tarquin killing all those slaves might in real life be volunteering for the Peace Corps in Africa and really making the world a better place. The person who is so aghst and indignant of the same might actually be the first to capitulate in a real life dictatorship, and sell out others to keep themselves secure.

Basically, I'm a big believer in people not really knowing thier own virtues or thier own limits. And that even these virtues and limits change and in a wierd way, are more dependant on things that seem trivial than we'd like to admit. So the consensus of posts on a forum board, be it this one or another, probably shouldn't scare you if they're condoning evil, or put you at ease if they're condoning good. The screws have to turn on an individual before you truly find these things out.

[blackjack217]

This is hell. We're big on irony.

Enjoy it while you can, chuckles. 8 bit ftw

[Sethis]

In SoD it's shown that the Dark One's death inspiring his army to murder the **** out of a million humans is what catapulted him to Godhood. So, logically, if it happened once...

Not saying Tarquin KNOWS that, but it does give insight into the oots Cosmology

[B. Dandelion]

My thinking on this would be, be both hopeful and fearful at the same time.

I'm an advocate of people not knowing themselves and acting the opposite in a given situation to how they think they would act and how others would think they would act. I wouldn't be surprised if the most pro-Belkar person ever to come to the forum, who wants more Belkar, Belkar, Belkar, and starts numerous threads denying that he will die... would freak out and run from Belkar were he incarnated in real life.

I also think that many of the people that hate on Belkar so much because he's evil might actually condone him in real life, or might say nothing as he does his deeds.

In the end, IMO, talk is cheap and online talk is cheaper still. The person that seems so cavalier about Tarquin killing all those slaves might in real life be volunteering for the Peace Corps in Africa and really making the world a better place. The person who is so aghst and indignant of the same might actually be the first to capitulate in a real life dictatorship, and sell out others to keep themselves secure.

Basically, I'm a big believer in people not really knowing thier own virtues or thier own limits. And that even these virtues and limits change and in a wierd way, are more dependant on things that seem trivial than we'd like to admit. So the consensus of posts on a forum board, be it this one or another, probably shouldn't scare you if they're condoning evil, or put you at ease if they're condoning good. The screws have to turn on an individual before you truly find these things out.

I didn't actually mean to imply my slender hope in humanity is what's at stake here. I just don't like being in the minority when it comes to rooting for the downfall of a seriously evil fictional dude. I was thinking it'd be pretty ugly if most people liked him, and the Giant had him knocked off his perch, and there were a massive amount of infuriated posts alleging the Giant had "ruined" a greater character and the like.

[Callista]

A lot of online D&D character tests will try to determine alignment by asking things like, "Do you regularly do volunteer work?" (Yes: Good) or, "Would you steal from Wal-Mart if you knew you'd never be caught?" (Yes: Chaotic)... you know, minor situations that most people have been exposed to. I think you can probably get some idea of which side you'd come down on by looking at the minor, everyday decisions--especially the ones that you make with no one watching you.

Talk doesn't mean that much; but it's not like you'd have to be in an extreme situation before you knew what you were going to do if you were put into one. It's usually possible to extrapolate from what you do in less extreme situations, and how consistent you are about it.

[Querzis]

I don't think Tarquin has won just simply his world view ultimately a hollow one.

It isnt in any way more hollow then any other world view. Regardless of all that crap about good and evil, Tarquin is at least right about the fact that victory and winning are totally subjective. In his case, he wanted to become a powerful overlord that could do pretty much anything he wanted to do and he accomplished that so yes, he has actually already won for all intent and purpose. But when Elan showed up, he suddenly got a new goal.

He was already alright with being killed by a random peasant as revenge for all his action but, thanks to Elan, he can easely become legendary after his death which, for a guy so obessed with drama and tropes, is totally awesome! This is just like the Joker in Batman or the Major in Hellsing, killing them doesnt change the fact that they already won since they only wanted to cause chaos and conflict in the world. The Joker was laughing as he was falling to his death and the Major died with a big smile on his face.

You cant make villains like those guys loses because, as far as they are concerned, they already won. But that doesnt mean you cant win against them. Thats what Elan and most of the people on the forum dont seem to get. Once again, victory and winning are totally subjective. And what would be a victory against evil as far as most heroes are concerned? It would be stopping Tarquin and making sure he cannot kill or torture anyone else again. The fact that Tarquin would die happy with a big smile on his face doesnt change anything, the goal here is to make a brighter future for all the civilians in the Western continent! You dont win when you punish the villain, you win when you stop the villain. The villain winning and the hero winning isnt always mutually exclusive since they both have different opinions on what winning means.

[hamishspence]

True, but for some characters, the goal isn't just to win, but to make sure their enemies lose.

"We both won" might feel like a hollow victory for them. And Tarquin's speech to Elan seems like something that might make Elan take that view.

So beating Tarquin might not be enough for Elan- he might want to ensure Tarquin's legend never gets off the ground. Or to ensure that when Tarquin's life finally ends, he says honestly that "All those 20-odd years of luxury weren't worth it."

[Orzel]

It isnt in any way more hollow then any other world view. Regardless of all that crap about good and evil, Tarquin is at least right about the fact that victory and winning are totally subjective. In his case, he wanted to become a powerful overlord that could do pretty much anything he wanted to do and he accomplished that so yes, he has actually already won for all intent and purpose. But when Elan showed, he suddenly got a new goal.

He was already alright with being killed by a random peasant as revenge for all his action but, thanks to Elan, he can easely become legendary after his death which, for a guy so obessed with drama and tropes, is totally awesome! This is just like the Joker in Batman or the Major in Hellsing, killing them doesnt change the fact that they already won since they only wanted to cause chaos and conflict in the world. The Joker was laughing as he was falling to his death and the Major died with a big smile on his face.

You cant make villains like those guys loses because, as far as they are concerned, they already won. But that doesnt mean you cant win against them. Thats what Elan and most of the people on the forum dont seem to get. Once again, victory and winning are totally subjective. And what would be a victory against evil as far as most heroes are concerned? It would be stopping Tarquin and making sure he cannot kill or torture anyone else again. The fact that Tarquin would die happy with a big smile on his face doesnt change anything, the goal here is to make a brighter future for all the civilians in the Western continent! You dont win when you punish the villain, you win when you stop the villain. The villain winning and the hero winning isnt always mutually exclusive since they both have different opinions on what winning means.

+1

It's like defeatiing someone form the Far Realms. Your defination of victory doesn't match yours. His primary objective was already met. You'd end time travel to make him lose now.

Tarquin already won. He's just now going for two perfects/flawless.

[Swordpriest]

Another interesting thought just occurred to me.

From Elan's perspective, it doesn't matter if Tarquin thinks he's won. The only thing that counts is toppling the tyrant and freeing those being oppressed by him as soon as possible.

Who cares if he dies thinking that he's achieved some kind of victory? Dead is dead, and free is free.

There is the flaw in Tarquin's logic. He can have his victory, but it doesn't necessarily mean a damn thing to anyone else.

So, I say, let him have his ego trip, and kill him as soon as you can conveniently arrange it. He can have his victory, and you (a general "you" referring to the good guys) can have yours. His doesn't diminish yours any more than yours diminishes his, unless you are so weak-willed that you let his vision of reality dominate yours. He certainly isn't weak enough to let Elan sway his perceptions. Why should Elan yield to his?

[hamishspence]

His doesn't diminish yours any more than yours diminishes his, unless you are so weak-willed that you let his vision of reality dominate yours. He certainly isn't weak enough to let Elan sway his perceptions. Why should Elan yield to his?

Elan's reaction to Tarquin's words might suggest he's having that reaction though.

[B. Dandelion]

Elan's reaction to Tarquin's words might suggest he's having that reaction though.

For the moment. But Tarquin's only just recently shattered his viewpoint which was always looked at from the heroic perspective. Elan's horrified to learn that from the villainous perspective, Tarquin can see himself as a winner even when he loses. The epiphany comes later, when he realizes that doesn't have to matter.

[hamishspence]

True- one would hope Elan can realize that-

and maybe not show the Nale-ish trait of wanting, not just to win, but to make Tarquin lose, but instead, be more pragmatic.

[pendell]

So, I say, let him have his ego trip, and kill him as soon as you can conveniently arrange it.


I respectfully disagree with this solution.

Kill him if and only if it will make the lives of the people on the western continent better.

If Elan is willing to step up to the plate and take his father's throne, and work to turn the LE Empire of Blood into the LG Democracy of Peace And Joy, that's one thing. But if he's just going to kill his father and walk away, allowing the country to fall apart into years of civil war, then it's better that he just walk away. Better that Tarquin live happy and his people be miserable than to kick off years or decades of genocidal war.

If Elan isn't willing to take responsibility for ALL the repercussions of killing Tarquin -- if he hasn't got some way to replace him to hand -- it's better that he not.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Callista]

Well, there's an issue with that; Tarquin is likely killing just as many as genocide would kill, especially remaining in power long-term.

Elan would probably try to turn it to CG, not LG; the paperwork would be among the first things to go! But I think his best approach, were he to kill Tarquin, would be to charm the common people--the little guys that would create the peasant revolution or be the footsoldiers in the army, the people who totally outnumber the powerful people at the top. If Elan were loved by the common people, then he'd either be able to rule benevolently or--and here's the interesting part--get assassinated, kick off that peasant revolt, and have the assassination work in his (posthumous) favor. Of course at their level, resurrections are possible, so even that needn't stop him from coming back. Elan would need help from some non-chaotic people and some people with actual ranks in Sense motive, but we know he's not the kind of guy who refuses to ask for help; so that'd work well enough. Really, the country's not doomed without Tarquin.

[Kirgoth]

Tarquin can easily win, he has access to lots of powerful magic even if he doesn't use it himself. For instance true mind swap with a good looking and famous younger son, Elan. Or Elans child with haley (eventually).

Afterall there is more than one way to achieve immortality and some don't require you to give up coffee.

[Gredival]

True, but for some characters, the goal isn't just to win, but to make sure their enemies lose.

"We both won" might feel like a hollow victory for them. And Tarquin's speech to Elan seems like something that might make Elan take that view.

So beating Tarquin might not be enough for Elan- he might want to ensure Tarquin's legend never gets off the ground. Or to ensure that when Tarquin's life finally ends, he says honestly that "All those 20-odd years of luxury weren't worth it."

I think this is the most accurate assessment. Elan is horrified when Tarquin says "I'll inspire a thousand more... We're going to tell the best story EVER."

Remember that a core part of Elan's character is his naivety. His world view is basically good guys v. bad guys and the good guys always win, and this is the first time he's been confronted with the possibility that evil can win in the end.

If Elan were Roy or Durkon he could probably come to grips with the more complex philosophy underlying good vs. evil, but he's Elan and he leaves the thinking to others ("We'll go to Hayley and figure out what to do next!")

If anything this will be the second part of Elan's development.

As for whether or not Tarquin wins at the end when you take the afterlife into account, that depends. Is alignment a summation of your acts, or is it a fact about your character? So far we've only seen characters who basically act in line with their alignment. Roy is good, Roy also does good things. Belkar is evil, Belkar does evil things (so long as he can get away with it). Leave V's soul splice out of this since it was a singular event; generally V acts pretty neutral.

If alignment is a fact about character, Tarquin is doomed in the afterlife either way because he's inherently evil and that means he's going to the lower planes anyway. So he makes the best out of his situation by maximizing how he lives now. Therefore win.

The more plausible assumption is that it is a summation of your actions in life (after all Roy almost got tossed into the neutral afterlife cause of what happened with Elan). In which case you could say he loses because there was a more optimal life path to take that didn't land him in Hell. But remember the whole reason Tarquin "always wins" is that the situation is win-win for him. It's quite possible that he considers being a legend worth a life in the lower planes rather than a life without legacy in paradise.

It's also worth throwing out there that Tarquin believes his actions are for the greater good by ending warfare with pseudo wars. You could say that he has the intent to do good, and if he actually does reduce the body count... I mean clearly there are other unjustifiable evil acts to weigh against

[Hawkfrost000]

firstly:

Tarquin, big X, and the Sexy Shoeless God of War meet in a bar :smallbiggrin:

eh? eh?

sorry i just had to get that off my mind

anyway, in a world that can still remember the legend of its own creation (i think) or at least several important events relating to that creation i think any legend of one of the greatest and most skillful tyrants in the world is going to last for a fair while.

[slayerx]

I find it amusing that this thread is one big discussion about the theology/cosmology of the afterlife in Dungeons and Dragons based worlds when the point of Tarquin's long speach (maybe even a Hannible Lecture) is defining your victory.

He's absolutly right. You define what victory means to you in your endeavours. At work, victory for me is doing better than I did last month. Even if my metrics are not concidered 'Performing' for the month, if I did better than I did last month than I win. Once I redefined 'victory' I became alot happier.

My Speculatron says this may be why Elan has a happy ending. He learns from his father to define what a victory, and by extention a happy ending, is.

Yes but we are debating on whether or not Tarquin is defining his sense of victory correctly. His definition of victory means spending years in the lap of luxury and/or dying and leaving a great legend even if he has to die horribly in the last 10 minutes... the positives outweigh the negatives in that sense... thing is though it may not just be the last 10 minute that suck but an eternity afterward. Are those 30 years in luxury and a legendary status really worth an eternity in damnation? this is something that Tarquin's definition of victory does not take into account. As such we can argue that Tarquin's perspective is wrong as he himself has failed to consider something; his definition for victory in his own eyes may be flawed

this is why it's worth talking about what hell would be like for him... if it's eternity of damnation then i'm not sure he would still claim those 30 years in luxury were worth it. However if he is capable of becoming a power Devil of the lower plains then all that evil might still be worth it.

[Querzis]

Yes but we are debating on whether or not Tarquin is defining his sense of victory correctly. His definition of victory means spending years in the lap of luxury and/or dying and leaving a great legend even if he has to die horribly in the last 10 minutes... the positives outweigh the negatives in that sense... thing is though it may not just be the last 10 minute that suck but an eternity afterward. Are those 30 years in luxury and a legendary status really worth an eternity in damnation? this is something that Tarquin's definition of victory does not take into account. As such we can argue that Tarquin's perspective is wrong as he himself has failed to consider something; his definition for victory in his own eyes may be flawed

this is why it's worth talking about what hell would be like for him... if it's eternity of damnation then i'm not sure he would still claim those 30 years in luxury were worth it. However if he is capable of becoming a power Devil of the lower plains then all that evil might still be worth it.

I really dont see how it matters what happens to him in the afterlife. He still won, the lemure that will end up in the nine hells wont even be Tarquin for all intents and purpose since they lose most of their mind, personality and memories when they get transformed into lemures (though I'm not sure if this happen when they automatically get promoted to archdevil but then again, if that happens to Tarquin then he won big time in the afterlife too). Beside, hes evil. I just dont see how you might think a guy like Tarquin might end up anywhere else then in an evil afterlife.

[Dr.Epic]

I'm sure Tarquin has considered the afterlife in his plan (the guy has a cleric in his party and is currently hanging around him in this country). I mean, he seems too clever to overlook that aspect. I doubt he'll die, arrive in the lower planes and be like "Oh yeah. Evil people like me are sent to the lower planes to suffer for all eternity."

[WinceRind]

I think this is the most accurate assessment. Elan is horrified when Tarquin says "I'll inspire a thousand more... We're going to tell the best story EVER."

Remember that a core part of Elan's character is his naivety. His world view is basically good guys v. bad guys and the good guys always win, and this is the first time he's been confronted with the possibility that evil can win in the end.

If Elan were Roy or Durkon he could probably come to grips with the more complex philosophy underlying good vs. evil, but he's Elan and he leaves the thinking to others ("We'll go to Hayley and figure out what to do next!")

If anything this will be the second part of Elan's development.

As for whether or not Tarquin wins at the end when you take the afterlife into account, that depends. Is alignment a summation of your acts, or is it a fact about your character? So far we've only seen characters who basically act in line with their alignment. Roy is good, Roy also does good things. Belkar is evil, Belkar does evil things (so long as he can get away with it). Leave V's soul splice out of this since it was a singular event; generally V acts pretty neutral.

If alignment is a fact about character, Tarquin is doomed in the afterlife either way because he's inherently evil and that means he's going to the lower planes anyway. So he makes the best out of his situation by maximizing how he lives now. Therefore win.

The more plausible assumption is that it is a summation of your actions in life (after all Roy almost got tossed into the neutral afterlife cause of what happened with Elan). In which case you could say he loses because there was a more optimal life path to take that didn't land him in Hell. But remember the whole reason Tarquin "always wins" is that the situation is win-win for him. It's quite possible that he considers being a legend worth a life in the lower planes rather than a life without legacy in paradise.

It's also worth throwing out there that Tarquin believes his actions are for the greater good by ending warfare with pseudo wars. You could say that he has the intent to do good, and if he actually does reduce the body count... I mean clearly there are other unjustifiable evil acts to weigh against

But one can't honestly think that "goodness" comes only from the bodycount. Whether in real life or in a fantasy realm, overpopulation and general overuse of resources are possible and very real problems.

It's easy to view a very expansionist and pro-growth mentality as something great and good at first, when you're just in a small village in the midst of, well, nothing. But what when the entire land itself is covered with people, turned into a giant mega city? The food is bound to run out at some point. Same goes for the resources.

In the wilderness, once the predators and other natural controllers lose numbers and power, those lower on the food pyramid, some kind of grass grazers and what not, become more and more numerous. Sooner or later they simply overburden their ecosystem, the food runs scarce, and there is no predator to keep their numbers in balance. That's where starving and disease comes in, hopefully reducing them back to sustainable amounts.

You do know what I'm getting it. It's the same with humans, or any other race in fantasy. Sure, the magic might soften the blow somewhat... But you can't honestly believe that simply trying to make everyone live and multiply is a good idea in the long run.

Wars help control the population, provide meaning for people's lives, provide jobs and improve the economy not to mention fuel inventiveness.

[cdstephens]

What if, for example, Elan chops Tarquin's hand off, but then Nale shows up with powers from the 3 bad guys down below, kicks Elan's ass, but then the ring of regeneration gives Tarquin's hand back and he saves Elan by sacrificing himself and killing Nale, thus redeeming himself?

[Callista]

Wars help control the population, provide meaning for people's lives, provide jobs and improve the economy not to mention fuel inventiveness.Yes, war has some good side effects. They are not worth it and they can be obtained in other, less ridiculously wasteful ways--war is a last resort for situations where nothing else can solve the problem.

[WoodStock_PV]

He won't win because in my opinion he wil be defeated by someone other than Elan. Someone like Roy. This will give his dramatic plan a lot less dramaticity (if that is even a proper word), an uther failure for him given his genre savvyness and family history. It will be the failure in his perfect plan. Plus: it will give Roy a lot of the XP he needs to fullfill his epic quest, since he's behind the entire party in level terms.

Just my opinion anyway.

[Lord Raziere]

No, methinks Tarquin will lose by not dying at all and being imprisoned or otherwise being contained until he redeems himself or until he dies of old age.
say what you will about paladins and idealism, for some villains not killing them is exactly what is needed to defeat them.

[Gredival]

But one can't honestly think that "goodness" comes only from the bodycount. Whether in real life or in a fantasy realm, overpopulation and general overuse of resources are possible and very real problems.

That's not really a "good goes beyond the body count" argument, it's a Malthusian argument. Which in fact relies on body count. The idea is merely that war and death today prevents 10x that amount in the future... It still relies in its heart on the assumption that death/pain/suffering is bad and we want to do whatever minimizes the total damage. It just so happens that the best way to do that is to kill a few people now.


It's easy to view a very expansionist and pro-growth mentality as something great and good at first, when you're just in a small village in the midst of, well, nothing. But what when the entire land itself is covered with people, turned into a giant mega city? The food is bound to run out at some point. Same goes for the resources.

In the wilderness, once the predators and other natural controllers lose numbers and power, those lower on the food pyramid, some kind of grass grazers and what not, become more and more numerous. Sooner or later they simply overburden their ecosystem, the food runs scarce, and there is no predator to keep their numbers in balance. That's where starving and disease comes in, hopefully reducing them back to sustainable amounts.

You do know what I'm getting it. It's the same with humans, or any other race in fantasy. Sure, the magic might soften the blow somewhat... But you can't honestly believe that simply trying to make everyone live and multiply is a good idea in the long run.


Well first off, yes ecosystems balance out overpopulation naturally. But humans don't play by the rules of the ecosystem usually. They manipulate the environment through dwellings, agriculture, etc. War is a product of human social culture, it's not a natural check-and-balance element of the ecosystem. Tarquin isn't eliminating some natural balancing element of the world, he's confronting a socio-political reality of a certain area.

Second, Mathusian science is disregarded amongst most prominent scientific circles at this point. The problem with the world is more-so over-consumption than overpopulation. Especially in a world where clerics can create food and water? Technically you would think starvation shouldn't be a problem anywhere. Not saying this would actually fix anything because we do see starving people in fantasy settings, but that's just to show that the problem isn't inherent. It's just cause the collective devout don't feel creating food and water and ending world starvation is worth their time.

[fizzybobnewt]

and considering WHY goblinoids were created... it must NOT be fun to be a goblin.

http://www.goblinscomic.com/ No. No, it's not.

[nac]

I've seen the latest strip, and I'm wondering if there's not a crucial factor he's left out of his planning ...

... the fact that D&D has an afterlife.
Tarquin enjoys power and sadism. He's also smart and very good at what he does. Maybe he'll undergo demonic ascension in the afterlife.

[Qwertystop]

Can't get the mental image of the Tarquinites doing battle with the Banjoists for all eternity out of my head. :smallbiggrin:

I'm sigging!

[paladinofshojo]

Wars help control the population, provide meaning for people's lives, provide jobs and improve the economy not to mention fuel inventiveness.

Well, technically wars would help reduce the population if humans didn't have the reproductive system of a rodent, (which by the way is a defense mechanism we developed after our most primative ancestors were losing too many of their offspring to predation) After a major calamity we easilly make up the population via having kids in masse. So to date, no major war has ever reduced the world population for more than a insignificant time period. Asides from that, there's also the fact that wars are terrible for the economy, sure a factory worker doesn't have to worry about it, but what if you are a restaurant owner? Would rationing on food effect you? Usually, when a country goes into a war time economy, most of the companies, factories are confiscated by the government if they are useful for the war effort, if not they are just left at a standstill.

[Callista]

Tarquin enjoys power and sadism. He's also smart and very good at what he does. Maybe he'll undergo demonic ascension in the afterlife.Likely, if no one tries to prevent his getting to the afterlife. (Though in this case it's technically "diabolic ascension"--demons are CE, devils are LE.) He will, of course, end up getting killed eventually, and this time for good; outsiders don't have a soul because they pretty much are their souls, so they can't be raised short of True Resurrection, Wish, or Miracle. All it takes is the Blood War or some more powerful devil (hey, Tarquin's plenty savvy when he's ruling over mortals, but against a devil that's been ruling for millennia?), and poof, no more Devil!Tarquin.

[nac]

He will, of course, end up getting killed eventually, and this time for good; outsiders don't have a soul because they pretty much are their souls, so they can't be raised short of True Resurrection, Wish, or Miracle.
Pfft... Totally worth it.

I'll bet he'd give Elan's right arm for the chance to be a greater demon (or devil, whatever) for five minutes.

[Warren Dew]

I would hope that's the majority opinion. Sometimes it's hard to tell the difference between an appreciation for a well-written character and a genuine admiration. That Belkar has fans who admit he's a horrible person but still don't want to see him die demonstrates that sometimes the line between the two is so thin it might as well not be there at all.
And of course, in this very thread, we have people coming up with ways that Tarquin might escape distress in the afterlife.

[hamishspence]

There's a big difference between "he could" and "he should".

[Goosefarble]

"My name is Oyzmandias, King of Kings! Look on my works , ye mighty, and despair!"

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Yo.

On your thread, I hadn't thought of that before. Not being a D&Der, I know nothing other than what OOTS has taught me, and, in terms of in-world mechanics, that's kind of limited. But an interesting thought. Maybe he doesn't believe. Are there atheists in this world? I don't know.

[pendell]

Yo.

On your thread, I hadn't thought of that before. Not being a D&Der, I know nothing other than what OOTS has taught me, and, in terms of in-world mechanics, that's kind of limited. But an interesting thought. Maybe he doesn't believe. Are there atheists in this world? I don't know.

We haven't encountered any yet, but I suspect there are a few. Given that the gods of OOTS are literally on call to their believers on a daily basis, I suspect it's a minority opinion, much less supportable than it might be in the real world. Denying the reality of the OOTS gods in OOTS verse might be on a par with believing in a flat earth here -- the experimental evidence is so overwhelming as to be conclusive to all but the most closed minds.

Be that as it may, I can see how an atheist might exist in OOTS-world, and might even be a cleric. After all, the 'gods' of OOTS are little like Tolkien's Eru Illuvatar. The gods of OOTS are not omnipotent , not omniscient, not omnipresent, not infallible, immortal but not eternal. "Immortal" because they have no fixed expiration date, but not 'eternal' in the sense that they can be both created and destroyed.

Given these facts, I can see how some mortals might not see these beings as 'gods', worthy of worship, awe, and reverence. Rather, they're more like caped superheroes or supervillains, worthy of respect and dread, certainly, but not worthy of the kind of worship and sacrifice that priests give.

When mortals can both scheme to plausibly destroy gods and to become gods themselves, it would be plausible for a mortal to conclude that there's really no such thing as a 'god', only mortal PCs/NPCs and immortal ones.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[Burner28]

It's also worth throwing out there that Tarquin believes his actions are for the greater good by ending warfare with pseudo wars. You could say that he has the intent to do good, and if he actually does reduce the body count... I mean clearly there are other unjustifiable evil acts to weigh against

There is a difference between claiming that you are trying to do good and actually trying to do good. As explained in a topic about whether or not Tarquin cares or not about the people of the Western continent, do we really have a legitimate reason to assume that Tarquin cares about anything else besides himself and Elan?

[Gredival]

There is a difference between claiming that you are trying to do good and actually trying to do good. As explained in a topic about whether or not Tarquin cares or not about the people of the Western continent, do we really have a legitimate reason to assume that Tarquin cares about anything else besides himself and Elan?

I don't think Tarquin is lying to Elan; he's been quite frank, partially because he doesn't see an issue with Elan not sharing his perspective. So I'm willing to say that he actually does believe that this is for the betterment of people.

Is it his primary motivation though? Hell no. But if he genuinely believes he can justify his acts by body count, then he is still technically trying to do good.

The question at hand is whether or not you actually do good, which in this case is an empirical question of whether or not his scheme ends up lessening the wars and bloodshed. Remember that Miko intended to do good too, and we all saw what the gods thought of "intention."

Especially since it's not Tarquin's primary motivation, the fact he takes quite excessive freedom in governance (like burning slaves on stakes) will probably affect final judgment.

[Psyren]

I don't see eternal damnation as being a punishment for Tarquin. He still gets to be a legend that way.

No, a far better comeuppance would be to die in ignominy.

[paladinofshojo]

We haven't encountered any yet, but I suspect there are a few. Given that the gods of OOTS are literally on call to their believers on a daily basis, I suspect it's a minority opinion, much less supportable than it might be in the real world. Denying the reality of the OOTS gods in OOTS verse might be on a par with believing in a flat earth here -- the experimental evidence is so overwhelming as to be conclusive to all but the most closed minds.

Be that as it may, I can see how an atheist might exist in OOTS-world, and might even be a cleric. After all, the 'gods' of OOTS are little like Tolkien's Eru Illuvatar. The gods of OOTS are not omnipotent , not omniscient, not omnipresent, not infallible, immortal but not eternal. "Immortal" because they have no fixed expiration date, but not 'eternal' in the sense that they can be both created and destroyed.

Given these facts, I can see how some mortals might not see these beings as 'gods', worthy of worship, awe, and reverence. Rather, they're more like caped superheroes or supervillains, worthy of respect and dread, certainly, but not worthy of the kind of worship and sacrifice that priests give.

When mortals can both scheme to plausibly destroy gods and to become gods themselves, it would be plausible for a mortal to conclude that there's really no such thing as a 'god', only mortal PCs/NPCs and immortal ones.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Well, technically the idea of gods being eternal is a relatively new belief that started with the abrahamic religions. Before that people believed that gods can and were able to be born and die. The aesir were able to be killed and would have aged not for the golden apples of Valhalla,the gods of the Mesopotamians able to be born and killed as well, along with Zeus, who was literally born and proclaimed his status as "ruler of the universe" by ousting his father Cronus.

[paladinofshojo]

Especially since it's not Tarquin's primary motivation, the fact he takes quite excessive freedom in governance (like burning slaves on stakes) will probably affect final judgment.


Not that I am supporting him, but technically those slaves DID break a law and as such were required to be punished. Now in the past, slaves were usually whipped and beaten to discourage such behavior again, but apparently in a country where you get thrown into a gladiator ring for not having your passports you are going to see a lot of excessive punishment and "examples for others"....

[hamishspence]

If a country has an "evil law" such as slavery (evil according to BoED and Cityscape) and people break that law-

while the Lawful state might feel "required" to punish them- actually punishing them, might be as evil as the law itself is- or more so.

[RecklessFable]

Lets assume that Evil is, you know, not really a choice for Tarquin. In order for there to be balance in the D&D universe, Evil has to exist, right? So that being said, if he IS evil, then his fate was already pretty much determined. So yeah, in a way, he won!

[Burner28]

So I'm willing to say that he actually does believe that this is for the betterment of people.


Hmm.. I'm not too sure.. we actually haven't seen any evidence prior to 758 where he gave off the impression he care( he didn't specifically state that he cared) rather thanh just being selfish.

[hamishspence]

Lets assume that Evil is, you know, not really a choice for Tarquin. In order for there to be balance in the D&D universe, Evil has to exist, right? So that being said, if he IS evil, then his fate was already pretty much determined. So yeah, in a way, he won!

Nope- D&D does not go with "born evil" for most races- it's very much a choice, not a "fate determined from birth".

[An Enemy Spy]

Does forum worship count? If so ... then MIKO MIYAZAKI HAS ASCENDED!!!

*Brain asplodes*


Running away,

Brian P.

Does that mean O-Chul is a divine avatar walking the earth?
What am I saying, of course he is.

[Gift Jeraff]

If Tarquin is a contender for the Gates, maybe he wants one to get past that whole "suffering in the afterlife" bit. Make the gods give him a cushy afterlife/immortality? Become an Archdevil in an instant? Destroy his own soul? Maybe he never even heard of a Gate? Who knows!

Anyway, I think the perfect way for Tarquin to lose would be to be remembered fondly--as part of the Elan vs. Nale tale, where he is well-known yes, but for being a humorously pathetic villain who was easily bested by the greater Nale (and if Nale is remembered as pathetic, even better :smallbiggrin:).

[Kichiku]

Well, for a would-be conqueror and tyrant like him, merely getting to live comfortably (and enjoying all the joys of life) and to an old age might be considered a win of sort if you consider how short-lived such people tend to be. Then, again, if he considers being remembered as a legend a win then I have my doubts about that goal - at most, he's only know as The Dragon to the dragon (no pun intended! :smalltongue:) that rules the country and thus, whether he'll be remembered at all if he's defeated now-ish is really doubtious, so...

And then, again this is D&D, where, as far as I know (my experience of D&D being limited to computer games) people generally can't expect a cushy retirement in the afterlife.. <_<.

[Skaven]

Well, if he's high enough level he'll probably end up as a stronger devil and make more trouble for heroes.

[Doug Lampert]

Well, technically wars would help reduce the population if humans didn't have the reproductive system of a rodent, (which by the way is a defense mechanism we developed after our most primative ancestors were losing too many of their offspring to predation) After a major calamity we easilly make up the population via having kids in masse. So to date, no major war has ever reduced the world population for more than a insignificant time period.

Define insignificant.

Quite a few wars have reduced population in an area for centuries. There were parts of the near east (mostly in modern Iran and the southern former soviet republics) where the Mongels destroyed the irrigation systems and the population didn't recover till modern times.

The thirty years war reduced the population of Germany by about a third, and many places didn't recover for a century or more.

[paladinofshojo]

Define insignificant.

Quite a few wars have reduced population in an area for centuries. There were parts of the near east (mostly in modern Iran and the southern former soviet republics) where the Mongels destroyed the irrigation systems and the population didn't recover till modern times.

The thirty years war reduced the population of Germany by about a third, and many places didn't recover for a century or more.


The argument behind your logic is that reduction of the population of one area reduces the world population. That may be if you don't count the fact that there's always someone having a child in a more stable environment. An example would be Italy, the only country in the world with a negative birth to death ratio; by your logic since Italians are not having many children, this will lower the world population, which is wrong because that population is being made up by America and Asia.

When it comes to how wars are ineffective to reducing the world population, take the one that actually effected most of the world at once, World War 2. Sure Europe and Asia had their populations drastically reduced but America (who came out virtually unscathed from the war) was able to make it up by the 50s (the baby boom).

[Deliverance]

If you want to find wars that have significantly affected total world population for a significant period of time rather than significantly affecting a local population for a significant period of time, which does seem like a somewhat silly thing to focus on since until recently wars have been very local affairs and nobody born outside the local area would compensate for those lost within it, the way to go is to go further into the past to a time when medicine didn't allow swift human population explosions.

The closest we get in recent times is probably the civil war in China between the Taipeng Heavenly Kingdom and the Manchu in the mid 19th centry, aka. the Taipeng Rebellion, which killed off somewhere between 1.5% and 3% of the world's population of 1100-1400 million (give or take a few :D) during the decade and a half it lasted, but even this hell on earth of death, destruction, and famine doesn't merit more than a blip. As terrible as it was, world population was still going up while this went on.

Okay, bad, but not bad enough. Let us step two hundred years further into the past to the Manchu conquest of China where it is estimated that some 25 million died due to the conquest and China lost some 15-20% of its population (and the world 4-5%). Note that this figure is for several decades of warfare so the casulaties were spread out. Nevertheless, it is no surprise that McEvedy and Jones in their estimate of the world's population come up with the roughly the same number for 1600 and 1650.

So let's go even further back and, yes, you guessed it, China is again the subject chosen. The An Shi rebellion in the 8th century, a 12 year period of concentrated misery and extremely widespread famine many years in a row as the irrigation systems needed to keep the subsistence farming that was the lot of most Chinese were destroyed or appropriated for military use. The census rolls before the start registered 52 million. The census after registered 18 million. Ever since the question has been: Can 36 million out of 52 million really have perished? That's more than 60% of the population! How many were merely displaced or lost between the cracks in a bureaucy that itself suffered mightily? How many people simply weren't counted because the central government gave up ruling the areas they lived in and let local warlords rule? Nobody knows, but it seems extremely likely that the An Shi rebellion reduced the total world population significantly for a decade or two given that the total world population at the time has been estimated at around 200 million.


That said, it is still a damn silly thing to talk about a war's impact on the total world population as if it is in any way important to the point that was originally raised, war's impact for better and worse on the populations involved. :smallbiggrin:

[paladinofshojo]

That said, it is still a damn silly thing to talk about a war's impact on the total world population as if it is in any way important to the point that was originally raised, war's impact for better and worse on the populations involved. :smallbiggrin:

That may be, but you seem to forget the underlying principle of all wars: resources. Since we live in a world that has finite resources that are dispersed unevenly through the world, it is natural we would guard and eventually fight over resources. It wouldn't make much sense wasting resources for a war to reduce the population if the rest of the world makes up the difference and then some. Since even if you spend your resources to eradicate X number of people in one location,another corner of the world will have to spend their resources accomidating X number of people born. Since all resources are finite, you just wasted those resources eradicating your X number of people because someone else made up the population for you. In the end, war for population control is pointless because all populations are interconnected through the scarcity of resources.

Another thing, there are also less wasteful methods of reducing the population, such as limited the births to natural deaths ratio. While it may require the curtailing of certain civil rights aswell as a beauracratic nightmare to enforce, it is a lot less wasteful than having factories churn out weapons and vehicles for us to kill eachother with in masse.

[Deliverance]

You know, paladinofshojo, now you have completely lost me. You claim that I have forgotten the underlying principle of wars, that wars for the purpose of population control are ultimately inefficient, and that there are other less drastic ways of reducing population.

Those are interesting claims; They also address points that, as far as I can see, nobody in this thread have made but you.

Even the original post that made you start focusing on world population, Wincerind's Post here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9885560&postcount=91) talked about the consequences of war (one of which is to control the population in the area affected by war), not about whether it was the most efficient ways of achieving those goals and certainly not about population reduction being the goal in the first place.

It was more of a "war, what is it good for, huh?" post with a few things that can be seen as positives listed, and a thing doesn't fail to be positive merely because something else is better.

[pendell]

A small reminder: Humans are not potatoes. I can't imagine the people of Azure City responding well, as the hobgoblins are butchering them like cattle and burning down their city, to a person who says 'rejoice! The population is down and the entire planet will live longer!'

I dunno if it works this way in Book of Vile Darkness, but in Terry Pratchett's world, Granny Weatherwax tells us that evil in Discworld starts by treating people as things. When you forget that humans are not potatoes, and think that just because you're smarter than them therefore means you're somehow better than them, that you're not answerable to their quaint notions of good and evil. That's when the cackling begins. And that's when her sister witches themselves will put the cackler down, for the sake of innocent people and for their own sakes as well.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[paladinofshojo]

You know, paladinofshojo, now you have completely lost me. You claim that I have forgotten the underlying principle of wars, that wars for the purpose of population control are ultimately inefficient, and that there are other less drastic ways of reducing population.
As I stated before, wars for population control are pointless because ALL populations are interconnected through the scarcity of resources. Countries at war will increase the consumption of resources in one corner of the world will eventually effect everyone. Since all resources are finite, that means even if resources are being wasted in one corner of the world you are still losing those resources because you are part of the world. You seem to be under the illusion that segregating one part of the world and wasting its resources will not impact the rest of the world.

More hereafter, you cannot deny that every underlying cause for every war is resources; trade routes, territory, and raw material are MAJOR factors for wars, secondary factors are mostly ideological and morality. An example of this would be Nazi Germany's mistreatment and disenfranchisement of minorities, up until they started to try and take the rest of Europe's resources (i.e. land and people) no other country seemed to give a damn about their policies though people individually were appalled. The only policy that had been a major underlying cause of WW2 was the Nazi policy of Lebenstraum or "living space" set up by exterminating the lesser races and taking their countries, now the rest of the world had something to say against that because it affected their resources directly.

[paladinofshojo]

Those are interesting claims; They also address points that, as far as I can see, nobody in this thread have made but you.

Even the original post that made you start focusing on world population, Wincerind's Post here (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9885560&postcount=91) talked about the consequences of war (one of which is to control the population in the area affected by war), not about whether it was the most efficient ways of achieving those goals and certainly not about population reduction being the goal in the first place.


Technically I also addressed the economic tole of wars too, I believe people found that very early in their history, ("No nation has ever benefited from protracted war" Sun Tzu, the art of war) Wars are TERRIBLE for the economy, businesses either get confiscated for the war effort or they are left to a standstill. There is very limited entrepreneurship in a wartime economy.

Asides from that, it was only AFTER Doug Lambert's post about how war affects local populations from a snippet of my original post that it began to shift to war's impact on populations.

[paladinofshojo]

It was more of a "war, what is it good for, huh?" post with a few things that can be seen as positives listed, and a thing doesn't fail to be positive merely because something else is better.

You seem to be making a vague argument, can you name anything that is arbitrarily positive about war?

[pendell]

You seem to be making a vague argument, can you name anything that is arbitrarily positive about war?

Consider this graph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GDP_depression.svg).

Note that recovery from the Great Depression coincides roughly with rearmament for WWII. It turns out that war makes a good potlatch for your economy -- provided your homeland is across the ocean from the fighting, so that you now have a market for your weapons exports, but none of the usual drawbacks of having an invading army burning down your cities and killing your people. Another plus is that your unemployed now have brand new jobs in uniform.

That doesn't mean war is good. It just means that the worst disaster in world history had a FEW, and I mean a very FEW, beneficial side effects in addition to getting I don't know what percentage of the world population murdered horribly.

Somebody must believe war is good for something. If that isn't true, then why do we fight so damn many?

...

I'm sorry, that's not really a question that can be seriously discussed here.

Wait .. maybe we can ...

... why do people fight wars in D&D? Plausible wars. Not just "I made up an army of homicidal clones who hate all humanz JUST BECAUSE. A plausible reason.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[rewinn]

... recovery from the Great Depression coincides roughly with rearmament for WWII

Let's not get into real world politics; otherwise I would have to point out that the diagram does not support the conclusion proposed.


...war makes a good potlatch for your economyThis is true of any massive spending, whether for a crusade to massacre harmless goblin villages or for city docks with which to serve fishing boats. The latter works better because it increases the total wealth of society but the former may be easier to frighten people into doing.

Somebody must believe war is good for something. If that isn't true, then why do we fight so damn many?
The issue is not whether it is "good" but whether it is to the advantage of the warmaker.

If you're a self-centered CE Lich, you do it for fun.
If you're a self-centered LE Warlord, you do it for personal profit.
Outside of stickverse, replace "Lich" with "sociopath" and "Warlord" with "Arms Dealer/Mercenary".

Barbara Tuchman, in "A Distant Mirror", makes a compelling argument that the 4th Crusade was launched in order to give the mercenary companies something to pillage other than England & France, which were (temporarily) at peace.

[Aruius]

Well, I would have to say Yes, Tarquin wins in a way... Even if he does go to the 9 hells, doesn't become a demon or a devil or whatever, and burns for thousands of years, He's made his son a legend. His purpose for getting together with Elan's mother was so that they could make a hero (Presumably because of the laws of Literary drama, which Tarquin seems to be well versed in).

Tarquin gets to live like a God-On-Earth for 30(ish?) years, and at the end of it, he dies and makes his Son a living Legend. To me, that seems like Tarquin's ultimate goal in life, and by immortalizing himself as a brilliant Villain, and his son as a heroic legend, he wins on three counts: One, Live like a God on Earth. Two, Immortalize himself and his son forever in history. Three, if there's no way in the 9 hells (See what I did there?) he's getting to Celestia, what does he have to lose?

Tarquin wins, even as a martyr. What a great dad, it brings tears to my eyes :smallfrown:

[Warren Dew]

... why do people fight wars in D&D? Plausible wars. Not just "I made up an army of homicidal clones who hate all humanz JUST BECAUSE. A plausible reason.

They think, "we're us, and they're not us, so we should take away some of what they have and give it to ourselves." Redcloak and the hobgoblin army are a perfect example.


This is true of any massive spending, whether for a crusade to massacre harmless goblin villages or for city docks with which to serve fishing boats.

That's not actually true. If you've already got plenty of docks, building more docks is just a drain on the economy.

Also pendell's graph may not reflect spending, but rather flight of capital from a continent where a war was brewing to a continent where it was not.

[paladinofshojo]

Note that recovery from the Great Depression coincides roughly with rearmament for WWII. It turns out that war makes a good potlatch for your economy -- provided your homeland is across the ocean from the fighting, so that you now have a market for your weapons exports, but none of the usual drawbacks of having an invading army burning down your cities and killing your people. Another plus is that your unemployed now have brand new jobs in uniform.

You also forgot one of the more important requirements: if your country can AFFORD to go to war. As stated before war wastes a lot of resources and with that waste racks up a huge debt, not just for equipping, training, and deploying soldiers and vehicles. But also for research and development for new innovations for war in general to keep ahead of your rivals, but if your country isn't rich or doesn't have vast resources at its disposal then a war will ultimately destroy your nation inside out. Asides from that what you just described is more roughly equitable to neutrality than war, the conditions that were set up for America during WW2 were EXTREMELY LUCKY. The Germans still were occupied by the British to their West and had decided to make the poor tactical error of provoking the Russians to their East, thus unable to directly wage war against the U.S. with more urgent matters near home. Asides from that, the original instigators, the Japanese, weren't even interested in the U.S. mainland, all they wanted were the American colonies in the Pacific and had directed most of their forces to seizing them via island hopping campaigns. So in the end, america was poorly underestimated and overlooked, a mistake that proved fatal for the axis powers. As it was the only major player in that war that wasn't completely war torn and ravaged, America was naturally able to transgress back to a peacetime economy more easy than the rest of their allies and enemies. Taking them out of the depression due to the fact that they were the only ones left.



somebody must believe war is good for something. If that isn't true, then why do we fight so damn many?

...
As I stated before, major reasons for all wars are resources. In a world of a finite and scarce number of resources, there are bound to be more conflicts over them when populations grow. Sure there are many pretty excuses like incompatible ideologies driving to exterminate one another, but these are mainly the byproduct not the cause of wars. In common terms, if the world was big enough then everyone would get along, but as you can see with ours, that the world is not big enough to satisfy everyone.



... why do people fight wars in D&D? Plausible wars. Not just "I made up an army of homicidal clones who hate all humanz JUST BECAUSE. A plausible reason.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

True, I always think D&D is a "romanticized" version of war, one that focuses on the ideological aspect of war rather than the realistic. While the fact of the matter is that only when resources are scarce that too incompatible ideologies go at one another's throats. But in D&D, nations as wholes will fight one another when it is best not to for the sake of ideology and morality...

[Geno9999]

I have found an additional problem to his plan:
It relies solely on Elan telling the tale.

The problem with this is that if Elan decides to go against his bardic tendencies, Tarquin would fade into obscurity, all because the majority of the world have no idea who's been pulling strings, which was base of his plan of practically controlling a third of the world. He put too much on Elan and predictableness of the bard class. Elan has already shown he can break out of cliches when he told Haley about Therka back in 670 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0670.html).
If Elan can do it once, he can do it again.

...
Or you know, Elan/Tarquin dies before their fight, messing the whole thing.:smalltongue:

[Pyrite]

I have found an additional problem to his plan:
It relies solely on Elan telling the tale.

The problem with this is that if Elan decides to go against his bardic tendencies, Tarquin would fade into obscurity, all because the majority of the world have no idea who's been pulling strings, which was base of his plan of practically controlling a third of the world. He put too much on Elan and predictableness of the bard class. Elan has already shown he can break out of cliches when he told Haley about Therka back in 670 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0670.html).
If Elan can do it once, he can do it again.

...
Or you know, Elan/Tarquin dies before their fight, messing the whole thing.:smalltongue:

I don't think he's relying on Elan to tell the tale, really. I think he plans for the whole thing to be public enough that the story will be impossible to suppress. He can hire bards if he has to.

However, Elan does still have a tactic he can use against his father in this regard, one that he is incredibly well suited for.

He can make the story a farce. He can make Tarquin out to be a ridiculous and over-the-top buffoon who ultimately accomplished nothing. He can, if he works hard enough, make him the laughingstock of the world. If he crafts it properly, it will overwhelm other perceptions of him.


In regards to the original question, however, I doubt the man scoffing at the ridiculous alignment system believes in hell as anything more than just another place, if that. Tarquin doesn't believe that either good or evil exist. We shouldn't assume just because we can read the manual of the plains that it's anywhere near that obvious to the average people of the mortal realm. Even Redcloak, the true prophet of the goblin people and very high level cleric of The Dark One, wasn't certain from Jirix's description of the goblin afterlife that he hadn't in fact made it all up.

Also, we shouldn't assume that book applies perfectly to the world the OOTS lives in, especially when what we've seen of Celestia contradicts it on several minor points. (For instance, petitioners to Celestia in core D&D become Lantern Archons.)

[paladinofshojo]

Somebody must believe war is good for something. If that isn't true, then why do we fight so damn many?



Another thing, there have been no wars fought over something like morality, sure propaganda (or in few cases: legitimate causes) may motivate the population's opinion on continuing or halting wars, but it's ultimately resources that are the cause of them. The American Civil War was a mishandling of the southern states fear of losing one of their chief resources (slaves) if they were to accept Lincoln as president. But the soldiers who fought for both sides believed in their own individual sense of ethos. Many of the soldiers that enlisted in the Union felt they were virtuous abolitionists who were liberating the slaves and many soldiers in the Confederate army felt they were fiercely (in their eyes) defending their homeland and their way of life from invaders. The moral of this history lesson, morality is used for war, not the other way around, while it does help having the moral high ground, wars are ultimately started over resources (be they real or political, it doesn't matter)

[Dolarodus]

:smallsigh:
What you seem to be missing is the choice. For every hero willing to walk into hell to save the world (or just one person for that matter), there's a guy (or even ten) like tarquin. The "fire down below" is a high price to pay but value, like beauty is in the eye of the beholder (not that beholder). When you accept the inevitable (not that inevitable!) and fear not even the greatest of torments, morality becomes, quite frankly, your b****.

This is in some ways a form of civil disobedience while less civil on our terms, he is not openly challenging the gods, only the way most people follow them and thus the "limited and unrealistic 'alignment system' ". He does what he wants on their terms and it is in the end, only his opinion that matters as to whether or not it was worth is because he is the one who has to answer to whatever gods may take him. In the grand scheme of HIS life, he can live the high life so long as he survives and nothing anyone else thinks matters whatsoever.

[WitchSlayer]

Don't kill Tarquin. Put him in a dungeon, the ugliest, dirtiest, most uncomfortable cell, extend his life artificially if you have to. Bam. He doesn't "win" anymore.

[snikrept]

Consider that if Elan or some other hero thwarts him in grand style, they and the cause of Good still "win" in the usual sense - the fact that Tarquin wants a legendary death just means it's win/win :D

The ones who "lose" in Tarquin's plan are the poor slobs who live in his empire while he is alive.

[Pyrite]

The ones who "lose" in Tarquin's plan are the poor slobs who live in his empire while he is alive.

Wait, who do you consider a "somebody"?

[The Glyphstone]

Wait, who do you consider a "somebody"?

Anybody!:smallbiggrin:

[maxi]

I have this thought, which is in quite a differnet direction of "war what is it good for" thing.

I'm thinking that it is wrong to think of Tarquin "winning" in his idealogical fighty-thing with Elan.
Tarquin was already in a victorious state before OotS even came into his land.

He is living the life of his dreams, orchestrating the dominion over a whole continent, and having pawns do his bidding. He can have any food he likes, any woman he wants, even - and especially - if she doesn't reciprocate. Heck, he even has some friends who seem to willingly subscribe to his quest.

Introduction of Elan into the mix that was Tarquin's life up until this moment doesn't seem to have any additional impact aside from providing him with an extra amusement.

Tarquin has already won, before he was even introduced into the series.

Magnificent as his "if i lose, i am a legend" speech was, i don't think it was really a part of some master plan. Felt more like something he cooked up spur-of-the-moment as a retort to his son, while at the same time screwing with said son just enough to meet the goals of
a) fun for Tarquin at someone else's expense
b) crippling the son's ability to stand against his father on an ideological level

The reason i think it is not a deliberate plan is because ... Well, consider this. Tarquin says many words to Elan, but in the end it just boils down to "I will sacrifice my life to become a legend in people's stories".

Dunno about you guys, but I just don't get the vibe of a guy willing to die for his cause from Tarquin. Sure, he'd love to be a legend, but not if that precludes him from destrying nations while simultaneously fornicating with lady-generals of said nations. He wouldn't suicide and certainly wouldn't willingly put himself into position to be killed.

Furthermore, i doubt a "cover-all-thou-bases" dude like Tarquin would just leave a matter as important as death open. After all, there is still the issue of a punishment in the D&D afterlife. And for Tarquin it is best not to leave the decision of whether orchestrating wars constitutes karma offense to the celestial authorities.

D&D being what it is, Evil characters have quite a decent number of "get-out-of-jail" cards, starting from Lichdom and ending with ascension (or descension as the case may be) to Devilhood. That's assuming Tarquin doesn't already have some way to cheat death outright. Ring of regeneration might be a part of it )))

So, what i'm ultimately saying, Tarquin's stint with his son - from Tarquin's perspective - is not something too important, but rather is a sort of amusement. He doesn't seem to be even remotely challenged by all that transpires. So it's hard to think of it all as "Tarquin vs Elan - Tarquin wins". It gets simpler if you just consider it as "Elan comes in, sees Tarquin already victorious and is mortified by the way Tarquin won".

What's interesting for me is how the involvement of OotS will make Tarquin's win un-win itself ). So far, it ain't working too good. The only weakness i can see in Tarquin's defense is evidenced by the fact that he avoided siring children since Elan's mom. This is not a behaviour, indicative of a successful ruler, secure in his power, that Tarquin tries to lead everyone around him to believe he is.

[Warren Dew]

Furthermore, i doubt a "cover-all-thou-bases" dude like Tarquin would just leave a matter as important as death open. After all, there is still the issue of a punishment in the D&D afterlife. And for Tarquin it is best not to leave the decision of whether orchestrating wars constitutes karma offense to the celestial authorities.
I agree with your analysis about Tarquin having already won. However, I'm not sure about this part specifically. It seems to me that Tarquin, like Elan - and for that matter Nale - and unlike, say, Vaarsuvius and Roy, is not the kind of person who has read all the rule books, so to speak. He's genre savvy, not rules savvy, and it's far from clear that he knows or cares about the planes of the afterlife.