Tarquin's Intentions

[Burner28]

Why are there people who believe that Tarquin has noble intentions when actually he hasn't got any? No seriously.

[Nimrod's Son]

Probably something complicated to do with brain chemicals, I expect.

[Tazar]

Wanting to do right by his son seems like a noble intention to me.
Sure, he may be going about it completely wrong, but it's a noble intention nonetheless.

There's also the fact that not having endless war is preferable to having endless war, but Tarquin seems to be in that more so for a personal power thing, so that's debatable.

[Leecros]

Why are there people who believe that Tarquin has noble intentions when actually he hasn't got any? No seriously.

because peoples' thought processes go

noble=lawful, Tarquin=lawful, thus noble=tarqin


or something like that....

[Gift Jeraff]

1. Because they like him.
2. Because he's not being evil for evil's sake. For some reason, some people think you have to acknowledge your evilness in order to be evil, or they bring in cultural/historical relativism which does not work at all in a setting with objective morality. But then maybe they will bring up the fact how he rejects the alignment system and thus is a noble anti-villain or something.

But I think it all boils down to agreeing with his omelette quote so long as it is happening to nameless stick figures and not to yourself.

[Obsequious]

Tarquin's... Interesting. He's got a good plan of eventually stalemating three superpower kingdoms, and thereby ending the rampant warfare. It's mostly just questionable if his actions are nullifying/will nullify any potential good from that. Either that or if there's somehow a better solution. He's unquestionably evil, with the whole slave-burning thing especially, and it's possible that living under his rule would in some way be worse than things at current (living like a god sounds suspicious), but the overall plan is pretty sound.

The short-lived kingdoms that pop up at current are generally tyrannical anyway. The main difference is that now additional lives aren't lost in tremendously bloody warfare. That's, if not ideal, respectable.

I personally like that he shoots low for an evil mastermind, but he does the job masterfully anyway.

[NerfTW]

Why are there people who believe that Tarquin has noble intentions when actually he hasn't got any? No seriously.

I don't know, do you have a specific example post, or are we just supposed to create a straw man and then explain why he's wrong?

I can think of a lot of reasons why he'd be considered noble, but I can't really say why another person believes that with no context or information.

[Swordpriest]

I don't know, do you have a specific example post, or are we just supposed to create a straw man and then explain why he's wrong?

I can think of a lot of reasons why he'd be considered noble, but I can't really say why another person believes that with no context or information.

From the Elan thread:


Originally Posted by G-Man Graves
I'm referring more to the fact that he can't accept that maybe a fascist government is the best option for the Western Continent. If that for the greater good is an "evil" concept, than maybe Tarquin is right about the alignment system.

There's a very small sample. I suggest you go read the "burned the slaves alive" comic thread, among others. There are quite a few people in there saying that Tarquin was torturing them to death "for the good of all" and defending everything that he does. I'm astonished, actually, that you can be on the forums and not continually come across people saying he has noble motivations and sometimes that he is, in effect, great for the people he's ruling and the Order would be wrong to oppose him.

Actually, your statement is kind of ironic, given the third post in this thread, by Tazar ....

[HalfTangible]

Why are there people who believe that Tarquin has noble intentions when actually he hasn't got any? No seriously.

Probably has something to do with his line about consolidating the western continent into three nations with no reason to fight, which would lead to an end of war. This intention is noble - to end war - but they ignore that he's just using that as a rationalization, he's still an unrepentant homicidal maniac (well, ok, 'maniac' is debatable) who wants to rule for the sake of feeling awesome.

[KillItWithFire]

Look at just his goal, nothing else. We can boil it down to one sentence. Stop the warring of the western continent. This by itself is a noble goal, I myself have observed that there is rarely ever an innoble goal. What it all comes down to is how you execute the goal. Tarquin fails at this part. Not only that but he commits evil acts that can in no way further his goal. He is definitely evil with a capital E but his goal is not. As far as alignment is concerned, goal doesn't matter.

[Burner28]

KillItWithFire, don't forget that his motivation is anything but unselfish (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0763.html)

[Reverent-One]

Look at just his goal, nothing else. We can boil it down to one sentence. Stop the warring of the western continent. This by itself is a noble goal, I myself have observed that there is rarely ever an innoble goal. What it all comes down to is how you execute the goal. Tarquin fails at this part. Not only that but he commits evil acts that can in no way further his goal. He is definitely evil with a capital E but his goal is not. As far as alignment is concerned, goal doesn't matter.

Actually, if you boil down his goal to one sentnce, you get: Rule the Western Continent.

[Obsequious]

Actually, if you boil down his goal to one sentnce, you get: Rule the Western Continent.

Which'd still lead to the end of all that warfare, admittedly.

At least with Tarquin, you don't couple the problem of despotic government with frequent, violently bloody war. :X

[KillItWithFire]

KillItWithFire, don't forget that his motivation is anything but unselfish (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0763.html)

I never said his motivation wasn't selfish I said his goal was noble. He going to continue living like a god because he can and it is one of the ways he gets to achieve his goal, which from the strip you're showing seems maybe I was off base a bit. Looks more like he wants to craft an epic for his son to star in while he himself is the arch-villian. Either way, the goal can still be seen as somewhat noble. The living large thing is a very nice bonus so of course it's the path he pursues to get to his goal. So it's still not a question of his goals, but the path he follows that makes him evil.

(Actually I'm interested now in which he wants more, fame for his son or fame for himself.)


Actually, if you boil down his goal to one sentnce, you get: Rule the Western Continent.

More of a means to an end really, but once again since it's the means that matter and not the end, sorry T you're evil no matter how much you disbelieve the alignment system.

[Zevox]

Probably has something to do with his line about consolidating the western continent into three nations with no reason to fight, which would lead to an end of war. This intention is noble - to end war
Except, of course, that that isn't his intention. It's a side-effect of his intended actions. His actual intention is to conquer the continent, setting himself and his allies up as its rulers. And given the kind of countries they run, this is anything but a noble goal. Exchanging instability and war for brutal tyranny is no upgrade, it's just another way for the people of the continent to suffer.

Zevox

[Obsequious]

Exchanging instability and war for brutal tyranny is no upgrade, it's just another way for the people of the continent to suffer.

Given the, uh, circumstances of the Western Continent, Tarquin probably isn't much worse a choice for ruler than anybody else who owns a kingdom. From what I understand here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0680.html), the typical government is not a democracy. Names like Cruelvania and Despotonia similarly imply that these are not benevolent monarchs who are carving out kingdoms either.

So, at a basic level, it's a choice between a cruel dictatorship, and a cruel dictatorship that changes hands every so often with bloody conflict.

I'd personally take the former, given the choice. :X

[Kish]

You're ignoring the fact that those "circumstances" are being manipulated by Tarquin. The mapmaker said humans and lizards had been fighting over the few habitable regions for 500 years. She did not say anything about everywhere being evil before Tarquin put his plan into action.

[Zevox]

Given the, uh, circumstances of the Western Continent, Tarquin probably isn't much worse a choice for ruler than anybody else who owns a kingdom. From what I understand here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0680.html), the typical government is not a democracy. Names like Cruelvania and Despotonia similarly imply that these are not benevolent monarchs who are carving out kingdoms either.

So, at a basic level, it's a choice between a cruel dictatorship, and a cruel dictatorship that changes hands every so often with bloody conflict.

I'd personally take the former, given the choice. :X
Except, of course, that people like Tarquin and company are more than capable of not acting like cruel dictators. That they choose to do so is a reason to condemn them, not to praise them for potentially ending the region's instability and wars.

Zevox

[Obsequious]

You're ignoring the fact that those "circumstances" are being manipulated by Tarquin. The mapmaker said humans and lizards had been fighting over the few habitable regions for 500 years. She did not say anything about everywhere being evil before Tarquin put his plan into action.

Well, you're right, she doesn't say things about everywhere being evil pre-Tarquin.

But, similarly, she doesn't seem to note that there's been any particular change to the system at recent. She talks about it likes it's just the way of life 'round those parts.

"King comes in and conquers a place. King gets overthrown or assassinated by another guy who sets up his own kingdom." In fact, Tarquin makes a point of having his kingdoms periodically overthrown, so as to hide himself within the general cycle. "Kings come and go around here."

The implication is that a cycle of Conquerer-Kings (who don't establish themselves as particularly benevolent, given how they come by their kingdoms) has been the way of things for quite a while now, if not for the past 500 years. I don't think Tarquin's doing anything different, besides quietly conning the existing system.


Except, of course, that people like Tarquin and company are more than capable of not acting like cruel dictators. That they choose to do so is a reason to condemn them, not to praise them for potentially ending the region's instability and wars.

Well, no. Tarquin could clearly be a better person/ruler (or, would that thereby make his plan of three-man-cons impossible to carry out?), but I do give him points for being the best alternative to the given system at current.

[Tazar]

Tarquin says it best himself:

"Even if I were to play myself within your limited and unrealistic 'alignment system', why would that be a reason to harm you?"

Regardless of what he does as a ruler, his intentions for his son are nothing but noble. He cares for his son and wants to see him succeed.

[Kish]

Well, you're right, she doesn't say things about everywhere being evil pre-Tarquin.

But, similarly, she doesn't seem to note that there's been any particular change to the system at recent.
Probably because, y'know, Tarquin's been running his scheme for years. There hasn't been a change recently.

[Zevox]

Well, no. Tarquin could clearly be a better person/ruler (or, would that thereby make his plan of three-man-cons impossible to carry out?), but I do give him points for being the best alternative to the given system at current.
When he's still a horrible, brutal tyrant, he deserves no "points." Being the best alternative (which is arguable at best, a joke at worst) matters only if he is actually a good alternative. He is not. He still treats the people of the continent horribly, kills for no good reason, endorses and uses slavery, plots to use warfare to conquer the rest of the continent (even if by a more tricky means than usual) - essentially, he does everything short of genocide to make himself a horrible tyrant.

Again, what Tarquin is doing is merely another way for the continent to suffer. He deserves no praise for that.

Zevox

[MoonCat]

People are trying to rationalize Tarquin because they like him, mirroring Elan's reaction within the comic. However, we can rationalize further because we are jaded by it "just being a story". They will come to eventually though.

[Obsequious]

Probably because, y'know, Tarquin's been running his scheme for years. There hasn't been a change recently.

Okay.

Realistically, there has been no reason whatsoever to assume that any but a minority of the various short-lived kingdoms created on the Western Continent are good kingdoms. There is a body trail of kings who have been conquered and assassinated to allow the current kings to set up. Those kings are predicted to be assassinated or conquered in turn.

This has never been noted as anything but the norm by anybody at any point, and, moreover, this pattern does not strike me as likely to produce a number of wise and benevolent kings.

The exact opposite, in fact.

Tarquin has been executing his scheme for a while, but it's not yet reached its conclusion. Everybody else seems to think that things are, so far, as they've always been; which means violent warfare, perpetrated by violent conqueror-kings. He indirectly controls three Empires right now: Blood, Sweat, and Tears. The cartographer notes that, at current, there exists "A Dictatoria, a Cruelvania, and two Despotonias." These are all completely distinct of Tarquin. They all sound like they're evil to me.

There is no reason to think that Tarquin alone is swinging the moral balance of the continent to Evil. There is, on the other hand, a pretty heavy implication that despotic, rather evil kingdoms are the norm, and have been for a while now.



Again, what Tarquin is doing is merely another way for the continent to suffer. He deserves no praise for that.

Given that the vast majority of kingdoms established are malevolent dictatorships anyway, Tarquin presents a way for the continent to suffer like it's always been suffering, except without periodic warfare. That's the best deal that currently exists, and I think he gets points for offering it. Not nearly as many as if he'd been a good ruler to boot, but points nonetheless.

From what we understand at current, it's preferable to things remaining as they are.

[Marillion]

Okay.
Given that the vast majority of kingdoms established are malevolent dictatorships anyway, Tarquin presents a way for the continent to suffer like it's always been suffering, except without periodic warfare. That's the best deal that currently exists, and I think he gets points for offering it. Not nearly as many as if he'd been a good ruler to boot, but points nonetheless.

From what we understand at current, it's preferable to things remaining as they are.

"They find a patsy to "topple" one of their three kingdoms every few years." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0758.html)

Not only is there still periodic warfare, Tarquin and company's plan is such that periodic warfare is the only option. Not to mention that when Tarquin's party all dies, they have absolutely no plan to keep things "stable", and as such the continent will once again be plunged into chaos.

[Swordpriest]

Tarquin says it best himself:

"Even if I were to play myself within your limited and unrealistic 'alignment system', why would that be a reason to harm you?"

Regardless of what he does as a ruler, his intentions for his son are nothing but noble. He cares for his son and wants to see him succeed.

Actually, he wants to manipulate his son into completing the drama that he is acting out, thus catapulting himself into immortal fame. To which end, he's been doing his best to screw with Elan's mind, to the extent of burning people alive specifically to set up the conflict between them.

[The Pilgrim]

I don't understand the problem. What's more Noble that wanting to Rule Over All, enforcing unspeakable acts of Horror and Despair, and leaving a Legacy worth of a True Paragon of Evil and Villany?

[Obsequious]

Not only is there still periodic warfare, Tarquin and company's plan is such that periodic warfare is the only option. Not to mention that when Tarquin's party all dies, they have absolutely no plan to keep things "stable", and as such the continent will once again be plunged into chaos.

Without elaboration as to what's entailed in a Patsy toppling their government, it could be anything from what's currently going on with regime changes (unlikely) or a relatively bloodless coup. Take out the leader, shuffle the bureaucracy around, slap on a new name, maybe redraw the map a bit and nobody's the wiser.

Since Tarquin's always going to be in command of whatever emerges, his calculated name-changes probably aren't anywhere near as dramatic as legitimate overturning are at current. It makes no sense to devastate your own countryside or lose a bunch of your best soldiers.

Though we can only infer on this end, I figure it unlikely that Tarquin's shuffling (which may be unnecessary anyway once he's got everything done) is nearly as devastating as the actual periodic warfare.

[Zevox]

Without elaboration as to what's entailed in a Patsy toppling their government, it could be anything from what's currently going on with regime changes (unlikely) or a relatively bloodless coup. Take out the leader, shuffle the bureaucracy around, slap on a new name, maybe redraw the map a bit and nobody's the wiser.
You're contradicting yourself. Earlier you were arguing that because nobody has noticed a change in the status quo, Tarquin couldn't be behind the region's instability. Now you say that you think he may be making his coups to replace his puppet governments bloodless, which would most definitely be a change in the status quo, which people would notice.

Besides, really, this is the guy who burned a bunch of escaped slaves just to make a sign for Elan, and who created a "justice" system with a 110% conviction rate where being sentenced to life at the arena is considered getting off easy. Why on earth would he care about making his coups bloodless, especially when that would draw attention to them given the standard of the region is the precise opposite?

Zevox

[Obsequious]

You're contradicting yourself. Earlier you were arguing that because nobody has noticed a change in the status quo, Tarquin couldn't be behind the region's instability. Now you say that you think he may be making his coups to replace his puppet governments bloodless, which would most definitely be a change in the status quo, which people would notice.

Assassinations are also in the regular course of business, you understand. It's still status quo, just carefully rigged so as to make the rolls end up in Tarquin's (and, by a weird extension, most of the other peoples') favor.

Again, the shifts may become unnecessary once everybody is too conquered to notice or care.


Besides, really, this is the guy who burned a bunch of escaped slaves just to make a sign for Elan, and who created a "justice" system with a 110% conviction rate where being sentenced to life at the arena is considered getting off easy. Why on earth would he care about making his coups bloodless, especially when that would draw attention to them given the standard of the region is the precise opposite?

This is also a guy who's got a very cleverly engineered plan that doesn't require unnecessary muck-ups. The less chaotic any calculated overturning is, the less chance something could go wrong (say your Patsy's army got a little too bloodthirsty and started rampaging while you've been manipulating your own army into losing), and the sooner you can get back to slowly expanding one of your three Empires. Tarquin is carefully engineering any nominal shifts in power, which lends itself to small-scale operations (such as assassination) that he has more personal control over.

Also, the whole "Why burn your own fields and kill your own tribute-paying peoples?"

Essentially, it's just not in Tarquin's interests to make a given overturn bloody and violent.

[Zevox]

Assassinations are also in the regular course of business, you understand.
Really? I don't remember that being said anywhere. Just war. Oh, Tarquin has his death squad, but from what we've seen that is used to keep iron control of his existing territory, not for conquest.


It's still status quo, just carefully rigged so as to make the rolls end up in Tarquin's (and, by a weird extension, most of the other peoples') favor.
Who the nine hells do you consider "most other people?" Because nothing about the situation in the western continent is working towards the advantage of just about anyone but Tarquin and friends.


Again, the shifts may become unnecessary once everybody is too conquered to notice or care.
Which doesn't do anybody any good either before or after that happens. Before, they still get to live with the region's perpetual warfare and instability. After, they still get to live with a brutal tyrant that will kill or enslave them for just as little reason as the wars and instability would.


Also, the whole "Why burn your own fields and kill your own tribute-paying peoples?"
He's already doing the latter anyway - the death squad, the joke of a justice system, it's pretty clear he's completely okay with killing people.

And as I said, making the coups bloody would be part of the act - he can hardly pretend that nothing unusual is going on if his nations don't get overturned by conquest when that is the norm of the region, and if he isn't tricking people into thinking nothing unusual is going on, he's failing at his plan.

Zevox

[Obsequious]

Really? I don't remember that being said anywhere. Just war. Oh, Tarquin has his death squad, but from what we've seen that is used to keep iron control of his existing territory, not for conquest.


Check the comic I linked earlier. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0680.html) Sixth panel in particular.


Who the nine hells do you consider "most other people?" Because nothing about the situation in the western continent is working towards the advantage of just about anyone but Tarquin and friends.

I'd consider the lack of warfare for the bargain price of maintaining a tyrant (since you'd have had one with the warfare anyway) as a plus for most other people.


Which doesn't do anybody any good either before or after that happens. Before, they still get to live with the region's perpetual warfare and instability. After, they still get to live with a brutal tyrant that will kill or enslave them for just as little reason as the wars and instability would.

Um, and the tyrants who rule during the period between wars are being perfect angels?

The general bonus with Tarquin is that the people would have had to suffer with a tyrant either way. Tarquin, however, offers them tyrant without warfare. The current set-up is tyrant with warfare. Tarquin's deal is better for the common people.

And it almost sounds like you're underestimating the continual warfare thing. Sure, people suffer and die under dictatorships, but death and destruction as a result of warfare typically results in more destruction and higher casualty rates. Yearly festivals of forced conscription to defend your dictator against another dictator, who will probably conscript you to defend against yet another dictator if you survived the first time (not to mention the possibility that your family's farm might totally get pillaged in the meantime) is just a downright ugly way to live life.

That on top of living under a dictatorship in between wars.



He's already doing the latter anyway - the death squad, the joke of a justice system, it's pretty clear he's completely okay with killing people.

It's standard "Keep your head down or suffer" dictatorship stuff. You run into real risk of infrastructure destruction if an invading army (whether you're secretly controlling it or not) marches in, though.

There simply isn't any practical benefit to opening up your means of making war to premature destruction. That the common people and your soldiers -- who are people too -- are part of those means makes the deal good for both Tarquin and the average joe.


And as I said, making the coups bloody would be part of the act - he can hardly pretend that nothing unusual is going on if his nations don't get overturned by conquest when that is the norm of the region, and if he isn't tricking people into thinking nothing unusual is going on, he's failing at his plan.

Well, since the idea is that the Empire of Blood, Sweat, and Tears are among the three most powerful kingdoms in the area, it actually makes more sense that regime changes typically come through assassination, not conquest.

But the point of the matter is that assassination works best. Perhaps, at one time or another, Tarquin might chance staging a devastating military defeat for one of his Empires by some upset foe, but those would most likely be much rarer than actual overturns by conquest (those not part of a huge con).

Perhaps I haven't been presenting my argument properly, since you seem to miss addressing the key point.

The current situation is, as far as can be told at current, dictatorships that are periodically overturned through war or assassination, followed by a new dictatorship. Rinse, repeat.

Tarquin offers to eliminate the war aspect of the situation. That's a pretty sweet deal, since the common people have nothing to lose, since they'll have a dictator one way or another, but everything to gain in no longer having to fear the ravages of war.

Tarquin can't be proved as being significantly better or worse than his neighbors (I can't find any evidence to this effect, at any rate), but we're aware that there are plenty of other dictators out there. Until otherwise proven, Tarquin is not a particularly special or demanding dictator in the middle of a sea of other despots.

Hence:

Tarquin means the same set-up as of current, but with no war. That's the best offer on the market. Props for that much.

[Zevox]

I'd consider the lack of warfare for the bargain price of maintaining a tyrant (since you'd have had one with the warfare anyway) as a plus for most other people.
I wouldn't. Besides, Tarquin's whole plan calls for warfare anyway. If not in the coups (and I sincerely doubt that they're all bloodless, even if some are), between the three nations he and his cohorts set up. That's how their entire plan operates in the first place - use the conflicts between these nations to keep everyone in the dark about what they're doing while they slowly manipulate the warfare so that the three acquire the entire continent.


Um, and the tyrants who rule during the period between wars are being perfect angels?
Of course not. But that doesn't excuse Tarquin.


The general bonus with Tarquin is that the people would have had to suffer with a tyrant either way.
But they don't. Tarquin could end that simply by not acting like a Tyrant. He chooses to do so though. Thus he is every bit as bad as the rest, he's just a more successful one.

Really, that right there is what it boils down to. Tarquin is nothing but a more successful version of what the region already has. He deserves no praise for that, only condemnation, like every other tyrant in the region.

Zevox

[Tazar]

Actually, he wants to manipulate his son into completing the drama that he is acting out, thus catapulting himself into immortal fame. To which end, he's been doing his best to screw with Elan's mind, to the extent of burning people alive specifically to set up the conflict between them.

I'm going to apply Occam's Razor here and go with no, actually, he does just still love his son.

[Obsequious]

I wouldn't. Besides, Tarquin's whole plan calls for warfare anyway. If not in the coups (and I sincerely doubt that they're all bloodless, even if some are), between the three nations he and his cohorts set up. That's how their entire plan operates in the first place - use the conflicts between these nations to keep everyone in the dark about what they're doing while they slowly manipulate the warfare so that the three acquire the entire continent.

The three eventually acquire the continent and thereafter have no incentive to go to war with each other... quite possibly because it would be impossible for one side to be beaten (kinda 1984ish, really). There'll be war in the short-term, but then, minus Tarquin, there'd also be war in the long-term.


Of course not. But that doesn't excuse Tarquin.

No, but being better of two evils...


But they don't. Tarquin could end that simply by not acting like a Tyrant. He chooses to do so though. Thus he is every bit as bad as the rest, he's just a more successful one.

Which doesn't matter, really, since victory for Tarquin ends up as a victory for the common people too. That he's not really interested in helping out the common people doesn't mean he's not doing something for them.


Really, that right there is what it boils down to. Tarquin is nothing but a more successful version of what the region already has. He deserves no praise for that, only condemnation, like every other tyrant in the region.

If not praise for that, then he deserves less condemnation. At the very least. Whatever else he's doing, Tarquin's plan ends up in a win-win. He gets his Empire, the common people get freedom from war. They're stuck with a tyrant either way, but it's an improvement nonetheless. If he's so good at being bad that it comes out to a positive, that should get him something. Better than those who are mediocre at being bad and ending up with only negatives.

[Zevox]

No, but being better of two evils...
What, you think the rest of the continent's tyrants don't want to conquer the whole place as well? Please.


Which doesn't matter, really, since victory for Tarquin ends up as a victory for the common people too.
Not so long as he treats them the way he does.


If not praise for that, then he deserves less condemnation. At the very least.
No, he does not. Not in the least. He's ultimately doing exactly what all the rest do, he's just better at it.

Zevox

[Obsequious]

What, you think the rest of the continent's tyrants don't want to conquer the whole place as well? Please.

The two major differences is that Tarquin's the only one with a reasonable shot of being successful, and that Tarquin knows when to stop. He'll stalemate his three Empires, which means he avoids war not just from the inside, but from the outside.

Should some other conqueror have managed to take over everything, the next stop would be a war with the Elves or somesuch.


Not so long as he treats them the way he does.

Since we can't say for certain that Tarquin is better/worse than his peers as a dictator, the most we can go on is that Tarquin is just one among many. He's a despot, yes, but it's nothing the people haven't seen before. The elimination of war, however, is a plus. Hence, Tarquin means they lose nothing, but gain quite a lot.



No, he does not. Not in the least. He's ultimately doing exactly what all the rest do, he's just better at it.

He also produces positive results. If that's not a plus for him, nothing is.

[Burner28]

Hey, I don't mean to be a spoil-sport but I thought this thread was suppose to be about Tarquin's intentions, not whther or not his action have any good effect:smallamused::smalltongue::smallwink:

[Tazar]

Hey, I don't mean to be a spoil-sport but I thought this thread was suppose to be about Tarquin's intentions, not whther or not his action have any good effect:smallamused::smalltongue::smallwink:

Exactly why I'm pointing out he has good intentions towards his son.

[Obsequious]

Well, Tarquin's brought up the end of warfare and how that's good quite a few times. Determining whether his plan actually leads to better-than-the-current-situation things or not could help with finding out how "noble" his intentions are.

Or something like that. From what we know, he seems to believe his reign's going to be a good thing for everybody. If we know the actuality lines up with his intentions, then that says... fairly good things for him, I guess.

[Zevox]

He also produces positive results. If that's not a plus for him, nothing is.
Considering what he's doing, nothing is. No, succeeding at conquering the entire continent does make him a less condemnation-worthy tyrant than the rest, just a more successful one. And being a more successful tyrant is never worthy of less condemnation than being a less successful one.

Zevox

[Swordpriest]

I'm going to apply Occam's Razor here and go with no, actually, he does just still love his son.

Maybe in a very selfish, twisted, and manipulative way, yes. Like someone locking their kid in a basement cell for 20 years to "protect them from the world" loves them, too, except that they also want to keep total control over them.

[Obsequious]

Considering what he's doing, nothing is. No, succeeding at conquering the entire continent does make him a less condemnation-worthy tyrant than the rest, just a more successful one. And being a more successful tyrant is never worthy of less condemnation than being a less successful one.

His success means the end of war. That's worthy of praise. Just a little bit.

[Tazar]

Maybe in a very selfish, twisted, and manipulative way, yes. Like someone locking their kid in a basement cell for 20 years to "protect them from the world" loves them, too, except that they also want to keep total control over them.

I'm honestly not seeing Tarquin acting selfishly towards Elan in any way here. He's not trying to get anything out of Elan, Elan wasn't even supposed to be the person who was eventually going to overthrow him; as Tarquin said himself, he thought it could be anyone.

All that's happened is Tarquin has finally met his son, and he's trying to bond with him as best he knows how.

[Zevox]

His success means the end of war. That's worthy of praise. Just a little bit.
It is not, and never could be.

But we're just going in circles here. We've obviously run out of things to say to each other on the matter, so it's best we let it rest for now.

Zevox

[Gift Jeraff]

Realistically, there has been no reason whatsoever to assume that any but a minority of the various short-lived kingdoms created on the Western Continent are good kingdoms.
I find the existence of a Justania (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0755.html) suspect. Of course, it might just be that someone figured that painting your nation with Good names is a better way to convince the populace that they are not tyrannical. (But what they fail to realize that irony is "in" so people are fooled by obviously Evil names like Despotonia.)

[Tazar]

It is not, and never could be.

But we're just going in circles here. We've obviously run out of things to say to each other on the matter, so it's best we let it rest for now.

Zevox

Objectively speaking, if one person controls all of the nations in a monarchical system, they would have no reason to fight one another.

[Zevox]

Objectively speaking, if one person controls all of the nations in a monarchical system, they would have no reason to fight one another.
And if that one person were a tyrant like Tarquin, the world would still be the worse off for it.

Zevox

[Tazar]

And if that one person were a tyrant like Tarquin, the world would still be the worse off for it.

Zevox

I'd tend to agree, but we have no evidence that Tarquin's brutality is uncharacteristic for rulers of this area of the world. So, if Tarquin takes over, you have a brutal ruler and no war as opposed to a brutal ruler and war.

Tarquin's certainly a fairly bad dude, but he doesn't appear to be out of the norm for human leaders here. Thus, if he ascends to power and ends war even if temporarily, the world is indeed better off for it.

[Bulzeeb]

Well, Tarquin's brought up the end of warfare and how that's good quite a few times. Determining whether his plan actually leads to better-than-the-current-situation things or not could help with finding out how "noble" his intentions are.

Or something like that. From what we know, he seems to believe his reign's going to be a good thing for everybody. If we know the actuality lines up with his intentions, then that says... fairly good things for him, I guess.

In strict reference to his intentions, it doesn't seem that his bringing up of the end of war was really anything but to mollify the morally conscious Elan. Note he does not bring it up except as justification for carrying out his schemes, nor does he seem to be the kind to care about the common people in the first place. He may believe that his actions overall produce good, but it does not seem that he cares if they do so long as that good does not interfere with his desires. It would just seem really inconsistent with his other actions (and make him a less interesting villain, in my opinion) if it turned out that Tarquin is in fact a noble guy doing this for the "greater good". The villain who believes he is justified is extremely cliche, and Tarquin would almost certainly understand that.


Objectively speaking, if one person controls all of the nations in a monarchical system, they would have no reason to fight one another.

But you also have to consider that the scheme locks roughly a third of the continent's people in indefinite brutal dictatorship.

I think what we're taking for granted in this thread is that as it is, the continents will forever be ruled by dictators. That isn't necessarily so, as the political climate of the region could change towards more populist forms of governing. Tyranir himself favored democracy, meaning the idea is at least existent in the continent, though he was a largely throw-away character. But he may have been disposed for this belief, which could show that Tarquin has no interest in changing the political state of his empires. which we have evidence for at any rate. And I'll admit that the chances of the continent turning less totalitarian on its own are slim. But forming a super-empire that is essentially immutable and eternal can only lower those chances.

[Tazar]

The point isn't that there could be a better ruler than Tarquin; obviously there could be.

The point is that, even by assuming power for his own ends, he stops the war. Could he do it better? Sure. Should he do it better? Yeah. Doesn't change the fact that he's still improving conditions, though; it's hardly fair to say "because he's improving conditions a bit, but not improving conditions like he could, this means he's not actually helping stabilize things".

[Bulzeeb]

And my point is that any better rulers (or political systems) who may come along are completely prevented from exerting their positive forces due to Tarquin's involvement. My issue is not that he is not doing as well as he could - it is that he is preventing those who can from doing anything, which is not an improvement for the area in the long run.

[Zevox]

The point isn't that there could be a better ruler than Tarquin; obviously there could be.

The point is that, even by assuming power for his own ends, he stops the war. Could he do it better? Sure. Should he do it better? Yeah. Doesn't change the fact that he's still improving conditions, though; it's hardly fair to say "because he's improving conditions a bit, but not improving conditions like he could, this means he's not actually helping stabilize things".
What I'm saying is that him stabilizing things helps not one bit so long as he is doing it so that he can be a tyrant. That merely sets up a stable brutal dictatorship instead of an unstable one. That's no improvement.

Heck, at least in an unstable climate someone who would rule justly could take over just as easily as the tyrants - Tarquin taking over more fully merely cements his tyranny and makes it that much harder to remove. Never a thing worthy of praise.

Zevox

[Tazar]

And my point is that any better rulers (or political systems) who may come along are completely prevented from exerting their positive forces due to Tarquin's involvement. My issue is not that he is not doing as well as he could - it is that he is preventing those who can from doing anything, which is not an improvement for the area in the long run.

Thing is, in the history of the region as far as we know it, no such rulers have been able to maintain power already; Tarquin would simply be status quo in this regard. If good rulers were able to rise and maintain power already, it would have happened. They haven't been able to; they're deposed and killed like everyone else.

@Zevox-I really don't see how an unstable series of constantly warring brutal dictatorships can be said to be no worse than a single, relatively peaceful, brutal dictatorship. Granted, they're both pretty bad, but much less loss of life under the second option.

[Bulzeeb]

Thing is, in the history of the region as far as we know it, no such rulers have been able to maintain power already; Tarquin would simply be status quo in this regard. If good rulers were able to rise and maintain power already, it would have happened. They haven't been able to; they're deposed and killed like everyone else.

Not necessarily. History has shown that the political climate of a region can rarely remain static for long periods of time, and there's no reason to assume that the Western Continent is any different. And I already mentioned that it would be a low chance, but a low chance is better than a zero chance. I suppose at this point one would have to weigh whether achieving the goal of reducing deaths through less warfare is greater or less than the goal of changing the overall political state of the continent to a less totalitarian one.

But once again, as Tarquin probably does not care about it, it is largely irrelevant to his intentions.

[Tazar]

Not necessarily. History has shown that the political climate of a region can rarely remain static for long periods of time, and there's no reason to assume that the Western Continent is any different. And I already mentioned that it would be a low chance, but a low chance is better than a zero chance. I suppose at this point one would have to weigh whether achieving the goal of reducing deaths through less warfare is greater or less than the goal of changing the overall political state of the continent to a less totalitarian one.

But once again, as Tarquin probably does not care about it, it is largely irrelevant to his intentions.

Not necessarily, sure, but the possibility is extremely remote at best. You have to consider whether the potential for a good ruler to rise is better to have than an end to constant warfare.

[Felixc-91]

about the original point of the thread: T's intentions: they are a mixture of evil (intending to create a/3 massive brutal oppressive dictatorships) and neutral (looking after his children). that's what he intends to do, as per his own statements. although the take care of his kids bit is somewhat ruined by the fact that his plans currently involve putting one of his kids thru the trauma of killing his father.
about the whole argument over his ends improving the continent.
first off, the fact that his plan results in a slightly better life for the common people is a good thing. this is not the same as a commendable thing. your giving praise to and/or defending the guy who's actions are 99.9% evil because other people's are 100% evil. that is wrong. its not "the best we can hope for so lets go for it".

[Mastikator]

Assassinations are also in the regular course of business, you understand. It's still status quo, just carefully rigged so as to make the rolls end up in Tarquin's (and, by a weird extension, most of the other peoples') favor.

Remember the parade? Yeah, the news anchor was assassinated because she criticized the government. Calling it "the status quo" doesn't make it any less disnoble.

[Felixc-91]

Remember the parade? Yeah, the news anchor was assassinated because she criticized the government. Calling it "the status quo" doesn't make it any less disnoble. aye, and it doesnt even need to be the status quo. at this point it would be perfectly possible to convert T's brutal dictatorships into benevolent ones. there's no need to oppress the population. blending in? why? at this point they are big enough to fend off any one who got offended by the idea and its not going to turn every one against them if they do it right. there is no need to distract or subdue the populace if they have a nice place to live. it would require some money but if they are re-building the palace every time they switch pawn leaders then they have money to spare. the point is it could be done without hurting their long term goal. this means they are oppressing large groups of people simply because they don't want to do the "paperwork". how is that in any way respectable/noble/not completely despicable? it could even help the cause. they could actively attract people to their domains, have groups volunteering to join them. "these people have indoor plumbing, central heating, good schools, minimal chance of random pillaging/war, and have a fair justice system. these other people have none of that and are attempting to take over the country" have i made my point yet?

[Kish]

I'd tend to agree, but we have no evidence that Tarquin's brutality is uncharacteristic for rulers of this area of the world.
Logic doesn't work that way. You don't assert a premise and say "we have no evidence against it"; if you want to make a claim, you present evidence for. We have seen exactly 0 rulers in that area of the world who are not controlled by Tarquin. It's hard to imagine a ruler significantly more brutal and petty than Tarquin. A randomly chosen ruler would likely be much better simply due to the law of averages.

[Orzel]

Ithink the reason for this line of thinking is caused by the fact that most people don't understand or know the main reason why Tarquin even started his crazy plan.

He wanted to be rich and famous without risking his life.

After first he was an adventurer, a very VERY. Risky occupation.
Then he became a ruler and almost died.
He contemplated being ruler of the continent but he realized that was doomed to fail.

So Tarquin and Co decided to be brutal background rulers of the whole desert.
That's his main reason for doing this.
To be rich and legendary without dying horribly in the process.

Everything else is just a bonus. People just keep seeing the bonus results as the main reason he acts this way.

[Tazar]

Logic doesn't work that way. You don't assert a premise and say "we have no evidence against it"; if you want to make a claim, you present evidence for. We have seen exactly 0 rulers in that area of the world who are not controlled by Tarquin. It's hard to imagine a ruler significantly more brutal and petty than Tarquin. A randomly chosen ruler would likely be much better simply due to the law of averages.

As far as evidence goes, we know that brutal coups on a yearly basis are the norm for that part of the world, so yeah. That in and of itself says quite a lot. The rulers for the human kingdoms here are not nice people.

Regarding randomly chosen rulers, they might be more benevolent, but they would also likely be less competent and more warlike, thus causing greater loss of life in the long run than Tarquin will.

[MoonCat]

That's his main reason for doing this.
To be rich and legendary without dying horribly in the process.

Everything else is just a bonus. People just keep seeing the bonus results as the main reason he acts this way.

Almost correct Orzel, except that he only now considers being legendary, before he just wanted to be rich quietly until he

Gets old and/or die

Now that Elan is here, he is considering becoming a legend, but his main goal is to live very comfortably for the rest of his life.

[Orzel]

Maybe legendary was too strong of a word. Tarquin still wanted at least some power and his love of drama forces him from actively becoming a nobody.

Either way its much like bonus objectives in a game.

Main objective: Live very comfortably for a long time without many risks to his life.
Secondary objective: Be a legend after death.
Secondary objective: Take care of the son
Bonus objective: Kill less than 15,000 People
Bonus objective: Use no revives
Bonus objective: Get 10 wives

[MoonCat]

That might be closer, though I doubt he really cares about lives, and wife maximums. In any case, I agree, most people seem to think his secondary and bonuses are his primary goal, despite what others have pointed out.

[Kish]

As far as evidence goes, we know that brutal coups on a yearly basis are the norm for that part of the world, so yeah. That in and of itself says quite a lot.

But nothing Tarquin didn't say when detailing his plan, and it notably fails to say "this is not the direct result of Tarquin's plan, and was the case before he set out to conquer the continent."

And even if it did say those things, Tarquin is cartoonishly evil to a level unrivaled by anyone else we've seen in the comic except his son and Xykon. "Someone just as bad as him would be ruler if he wasn't" is a crazy bet.

[Obsequious]

Tarquin controls, either personally or through his party, three separate Empires right now. They are the Empires Blood, Sweat, and Tears, respectively. There is no evidence whatsoever to assume that his influence extends beyond these three Empires (and perhaps a given patsy used for a calculated overturn).

The Cartographer notes that there are currently two Despotonias, a Cruelvania, and a Dictatoria, and that there exist numerous other would-be emperors in command of states named like that. These do not sound like nice names, and the manner in which they were established (assassination or conquest) does not make them sound like they are ruled by nice people.

They aren't ruled by Tarquin, and it'd be an enormous stretch on your part to claim that he somehow puppet-mastered them into existence. The heavy implication from what we know so far, is that the situation at current has been in place for hundreds of years, and that Tarquin is merely playing the existing game exceptionally well.

There's simply no evidence -- not even implication -- that Tarquin is the root cause of the region's political instability or its dictatorships. He's playing the game like a master, but he only has so many pieces.

So he's cartoonishly evil, yes. We see much more of him than any of the other dictators we can presume to exist (unless we find out that Dictatoria is a democracy), so it's still hard to tell if he's actually better or worse than his counterparts. For all we know, one of the Despotonias uses the blood of orphans for bathwater instead of... water.

However, you have to ask yourself how much more of an oppressive ruler Tarquin would have to be to completely negate the benefit of peace. Warfare is brutal and devastating, to the countrypeople especially, and it being a yearly occurrence isn't helping things. As a common person -- how much more brutal would your despot have to be that you'd be willing to give up freedom from yearly conscriptions to go off and defend/conquer the land, or safety from pillaging armies?