Is there a POINT to toppling Tarquin? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Alex Warlorn

2011-02-17, 08:24 PM

Thinking about it, would killing Tarquin, his allies, and even possibly his puppet rulers, really accomplish anything?

The land mass is INFESTED by petty dictators and wannabe overlords all scrambling for a position of power. The only thing keeping the population from imploding is the dictators and their armies who keep coming here to stake a claim.

They kill or leave Tarquin and his group in an escape proof dungeon somewhere... so what? Even if the people themselves were incited to get ride of him themselves they'd be just eaten alive by the neighboring city states who'd see slaves whose master had just died and were ripe for claiming.

Is Tarquin a murderer who deserves what he gets and more importantly a threat to MORE people's lives? Yes. But the real problem is rooted in the very CULTURE that this land mass has!

Can you really BLAME the elves for having a giant 'no trespassing' sign on their front lawn? Considering who their neighbors are? The mountains are likely the only thing keeping the elves from being pulled into this meaningless bloody cycle of overlords marching in and killing each other.

MoonCat

2011-02-17, 08:27 PM

Probably not, but Elan is a hero, and in a sentence Tarquin might say, 'heroes are compelled, they cannot walk away from a bad guy without doing something.'

Nimrod's Son

2011-02-17, 08:38 PM

Of course there's a point: if Tarquin is toppled, there's a chance that things there will improve. If he stays in power, there isn't. Plus inexperienced, disorganised local dictatorships are a lot easier to overthrow and change for the better than a watertight, continent-wide empire.

G-Man Graves

2011-02-17, 08:42 PM

No, but Elan is Chaotic Moron and is going to try and do it anyway.

Mr. Snuggles

2011-02-17, 08:56 PM

Thinking about it, would killing Tarquin, his allies, and even possibly his puppet rulers, really accomplish anything?
There is a romantic notion of "the Revolution" after which life will be a paradise. This notion is remarkably persistent and is immune to negative experience.

Kish

2011-02-17, 09:04 PM

I don't get why so many people are acting as though Tarquin's word that he's not a massively negative force on the continent is worth anything.

Warren Dew

2011-02-17, 09:06 PM

Of course there's a point: if Tarquin is toppled, there's a chance that things there will improve.
There's also a chance things would get even worse.

Nimrod's Son

2011-02-17, 09:26 PM

There's also a chance things would get even worse.
Might as well just live with it then, eh?

G-Man Graves

2011-02-17, 09:29 PM

Might as well just live with it then, eh?

So you're saying that the best course of action is to kick the legs out from under the whole table, just to see what would happen?

Warren Dew

2011-02-17, 09:31 PM

I don't get why so many people are acting as though Tarquin's word that he's not a massively negative force on the continent is worth anything.
Perhaps because a lot of us aren't yet convinced that Tarquin is over 500 years old.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0680.html

Might as well just live with it then, eh?
Better than just randomly killing leaders, yes. If someone had the skill actually to establish a better system and the patience to see it through, that would be different, but most adventurers aren't willing to settle down long enough to do such a thing.

Gift Jeraff

2011-02-17, 09:32 PM

So you're saying that the best course of action is to kick the legs out from under the whole table, just to see what would happen?
Except there's a chance things would be better without Tarquin. What benefit could come from kicking the legs out from under a table?

Listen, we get it. You don't like Elan. Or smileys. :smallsigh: (Edit: And please don't only address this part of my post. It's only here because your signature tempted me. :smallbiggrin:)

Kish

2011-02-17, 09:37 PM

There's also a chance things would get even worse.
There is always a "chance things will get worse." If Roy kills Xykon it might somehow make things worse...but that's not the way to bet, and it's not the way to bet with the comparably-vile Tarquin.

G-Man Graves

2011-02-17, 09:39 PM

Except there's a chance things would be better without Tarquin. What benefit could come from kicking the legs out from under a table?

Listen, we get it. You don't like Elan. Or smileys. :smallsigh: (Edit: And please don't only address this part of my post. It's only here because your signature tempted me. :smallbiggrin:)

See, I can agree with Elan when he's right, it's just that he rarely ever is. Roy, the LG guy, understands why you sometimes have to get your hands a little dirty to keep things running smoothly. Elan, the CG guy, the one who is supposed to be a little more loose in his interpretation of morals, is prone to "You did something a little bit bad for an ultimately better end, that means you are indisputably wrong!" Removing the semblance of order in the middle of a desert is NOT in the best interests of the people. Some one needs to keep the trains running on time, and Tarquin is proven to be the best warlord out there.

Querzis

2011-02-17, 09:39 PM

That sort of attitude never get anyone anywhere. Its not because things could refuse to get better or even get worse without Tarquin that you shoudnt try to make the land a better place. And the land cannot become a better place with him. Thats it. Theres nothing else to be said about it. If it can change for the better then you should try to make it change for the better, otherwise you're not a hero.

Some one needs to keep the trains running on time, and Tarquin is proven to be the best warlord out there.

Yes killing everyone who disagree with you sure prove you're the best warlord out there...I mean seriously man. The only man in the comic that sounds worse to me to have as a leader would be Xykon. Yes, I'd even take Belkar over Tarquin! At least Belkar will be too busy with all the whores in the Empire of Blood to do anything else.

Nimrod's Son

2011-02-17, 09:40 PM

So you're saying that the best course of action is to kick the legs out from under the whole table, just to see what would happen?
You'd prefer everyone nail themselves to the top of it and just suffer in silence, I guess?

Kish

2011-02-17, 09:40 PM

Some one needs to keep the trains running on time, and Tarquin is proven to be the best warlord out there.
Proven by the undeniable proof, "He said so himself." Or possibly, "His skill at creating and dominating a miserable dystopia."

MoonCat

2011-02-17, 09:41 PM

It probably won't, or will get a little better, or be just as bad in a different way, but:

1. People like having a Glorious Revolution every so often when they get up with the leaders of the last Glorious Revolution (i.e. not them)

2. Heroes can't turn away from defeating someone evil, but I've never seen a hero wonder what will come in after that evil is gone. Elan automatically pulled out his sword the second he realized his dad was bad.

3. The chance that a few small countries that keep changing won't be as tyrannical as three mega countries with no enemies after they've settled in and won't need to keep changing around is still a valid one.

G-Man Graves

2011-02-17, 09:50 PM

There is always a "chance things will get worse." If Roy kills Xykon it might somehow make things worse...but that's not the way to bet, and it's not the way to bet with the comparably-vile Tarquin.

Bad example, on two counts. One, there is nothing really "bad" that could conceivably happen as a direct result of Roy defeating Xykon. Yes, the IFCC might pull some "Just as Planned" or something, but that doesn't mean that Roy should stop trying to stop Xykon from harnessing the God Killing Evil. Meanwhile, here's what happens with Tarquin out of the picture:
1. Not one, but possibly all three of the major empires on the continent collapse.
2. Continent is thrust into some fairly terrible warfare due to all the new warlords (and previous military officials) trying to cut their own little slice.
3. Infrastructure, no longer supported by the government, collapses. Infrastructure includes water transportation. In a desert. Kind of a big deal.

Second, Tarquin isn't on the same level of Xykon when it comes to evil. Tarquin is a man who cuts his slice, and now wants to be remembered for it. He kills people to serve a purpose, regardless of how evil it may be. Xykon will kill someone to see what shapes the blood stains make.

Proven by the undeniable proof, "He said so himself." Or possibly, "His skill at creating and dominating a miserable dystopia."

If we could maybe put aside our arbitrary dislike for a minute, I think you'll find certain tidbits like "It took a coalition of 26 nations" to defeat him. Or the fact that he is essentially running the whole continent, with very few people aware of the fact. Or hell, even the skill he shows in stirring the hearts of his people in the last strip, because good or bad, they were pretty happy at the end of his speech.

G-Man Graves

2011-02-17, 10:00 PM

And there is nothing really "bad" that is any more likely to happen as a direct result of anyone defeating Tarquin.

Well, I suppose when you ignore half my post, you wouldn't see anything wrong with that, now would you. If you could scroll up the page a bit, you'll notice I posted a handy dandy list, just to disprove that argument. Before you even made it! I must be a future psychic.

...No, see, I'm talking about the Tarquin in the Order of the Stick comic. The one who makes people fight to the death for his amusement and tortures women into marrying him. This character you're describing? I don't know what he's in, and I doubt I would want to read it.

Okay, let's go back to the same post. Did I ever say that Tarquin was a good guy?

*checks*

No, no I didn't. What I did say is that there's "keeps people oppressed in a desert, but at least keeps a semblance of order" evil, and then there's "Take over the universe through use of a lovecraftian level monster". Those two things are different.

Querzis

2011-02-17, 10:05 PM

1. Not one, but possibly all three of the major empires on the continent collapse.

And collapsing evil governement is bad because?

2. Continent is thrust into some fairly terrible warfare due to all the new warlords (and previous military officials) trying to cut their own little slice.

Yes terrible terrible warlords like Tyrinar the responsible (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0759.html). Hell, if Tarquin had not been there, that fiend might actually had managed to change his country into a democracy. I'm so scared.

3. Infrastructure, no longer supported by the government, collapses. Infrastructure includes water transportation. In a desert. Kind of a big deal.

...Lol. As you said, this is a desert. People know where the oasis are and go fetch their water themselves. What do you think this is, America? Those arent countries with showers in every houses!

Second, Tarquin isn't on the same level of Xykon when it comes to evil. Tarquin is a man who cuts his slice, and now wants to be remembered for it. He kills people to serve a purpose, regardless of how evil it may be. Xykon will kill someone to see what shapes the blood stains make.

Yes and Tarquin totally hasnt killed people just to make a big burning message to his son. Oh wait. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0759.html) And sometimes he kill and torture people for the so very important purpose of finding himself a new wife. I really dont get how Tarquin is supposed to be so much less worse then Xykon.

No, no I didn't. What I did say is that there's "keeps people oppressed in a desert, but at least keeps a semblance of order" evil[/I]

Evil order is really not especially better then evil chaos. Get off your lawful high horse!

Kish

2011-02-17, 10:07 PM

Well, I suppose when you ignore half my post, you wouldn't see anything wrong with that, now would you. If you could scroll up the page a bit, you'll notice I posted a handy dandy list, just to disprove that argument. Before you even made it! I must be a future psychic.
And you have Tarquin's good word for all the claims you made there!

It is apparent that you aren't reading the same comic as me. I note that you don't seem to be enjoying the comic you're reading very much, particularly this always-wrong Elan character who is opposing Tarquin for no reason (apparently dislike of the Tarquin in your comic would be "arbitrary"). Unfortunate.

Warren Dew

2011-02-17, 10:09 PM

Its not because things could refuse to get better or even get worse without Tarquin that you shoudnt try to make the land a better place.
The topic of discussion isn't whether to try to make the land a better place, it's whether toppling the current evil leaders would actually do that. The evidence is that it wouldn't; perpetuating the cycle of violence isn't generally the way to break it.

Ironically, the best thing Elan could do for the people of the continent would probably be to help his father figure out a way to bequeath his power to Elan. Once he had that power, Elan could actually work on making the land a better place for the people. That would take quite a bit more planning than Elan is likely to be able to do, though.

Dvandemon

2011-02-17, 10:09 PM

So you're saying that the best course of action is to kick the legs out from under the table, just to see what would happen?

First bad, metaphor and second; Yes, people would always want to do something like this, intentions may change but the basic reasoning always is,"It seemed like a good idea at the time" and the only thing to hope for is, "Actually, yes it was" :smallbiggrin::smallwink::smallamused:

Querzis

2011-02-17, 10:15 PM

The topic of discussion isn't whether to try to make the land a better place, it's whether toppling the current evil leaders would actually do that. The evidence is that it wouldn't; perpetuating the cycle of violence isn't generally the way to break it.

Once again, let me present you the only other warlord we saw with any lines: Tyrinar the responsible (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0759.html). I really do not get how any other warlords could be much worse then Tarquin and his gang. And, once again, as Kish has been saying from the start, you're basing that whole argument on what Tarquin said!

Ironically, the best thing Elan could do for the people of the continent would probably be to help his father figure out a way to bequeath his power to Elan. Once he had that power, Elan could actually work on making the land a better place for the people. That would take quite a bit more planning than Elan is likely to be able to do, though.

And, more importantly, it woudnt work. Not just because Tarquin doesnt want Elan to succeed him but because I give exactly five seconds to Elan before someone overthrow him.

G-Man Graves

2011-02-17, 10:17 PM

And collapsing evil governement is bad because?

Because government keeps things running? Because it keeps people in line? Because it keeps them alive?

Yes terrible terrible warlords like Tyrinar the responsible (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0759.html). Hell, if Tarquin had not been there, that fiend might actually had managed to change his country into a democracy. I'm so scared.

Yes, the weak, easily manipulated warlord that Tarquin set up with the intention of killing is clearly a paragon of warlordish virtue. Man, how did I not see that sooner!

...Lol. As you said, this is a desert. People know where the oasis are and go fetch their water themselves. What do you think this is, America? Those arent countries with showers in every houses!

Yes, the fact that you pointed out that my American upbringing clearly means that every single person will survive that chaos. Just because I may have a slanted perspective. Here, let me point out some of the perspective that the internet can provide these days.

http://www.poverty.com/

Not everyone can make it to the watering hole in time, bud.

Yes and Tarquin totally hasnt killed people just to make a big burning message to his son. Oh wait. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0759.html) And sometimes he kill and torture people for the so very important purpose of finding himself a new wife. I really dont get how Tarquin is supposed to be so much less worse then Xykon.

A clearly viewable punishment to show what happens to those who break the law. Hence providing an example of what happens to the populace if they try anything, hence being a preventative measure. Truly, such an out of line action by a man who admits that he does things in an evil way to keep things running. Read again. Admitted. Evil. He's not making bones about what he does. Nor am I. It's just that the alternatives are worse.

Also "less worse then Xykon." Just saying.

SadisticFishing

2011-02-17, 10:20 PM

There's also a chance things would get even worse.

Well... Not for much longer, at least. They're at pretty much rock bottom atm.

G-Man Graves

2011-02-17, 10:21 PM

And you have Tarquin's good word for all the claims you made there!

It is apparent that you aren't reading the same comic as me. I note that you don't seem to be enjoying the comic you're reading very much, particularly this always-wrong Elan character who is opposing Tarquin for no reason (apparently dislike of the Tarquin in your comic would be "arbitrary"). Unfortunate.

What I dislike is the fact Elan is generally shown as "PARAGON OF GOOD! HIS DECISION IS THE RIGHT ONE!", while for many other characters, there is some level of ambiguity in their actions. Like, for example the situation with Tarquin. Is he doing evil things? Yup. Is the continent a better place for it? Possibly. That's up for you to decide. Of course, many people seem to think it's best to let Elan decide for them.

Nimrod's Son

2011-02-17, 10:28 PM

Ironically, the best thing Elan could do for the people of the continent would probably be to help his father figure out a way to bequeath his power to Elan.
Tarquin WANTS to be a villain. A legendary one, at that. Why would he just hand everything over so that the people could live happier lives? Where's the drama in that?

As long as you're dreaming up ways for Elan to solve the entire continent's problems with his diplomacy, why not just get him to make Tarquin behave himself already?

Like, for example the situation with Tarquin. Is he doing evil things? Yup. Is the continent a better place for it? Possibly. That's up for you to decide. Of course, many people seem to think it's best to let Elan decide for them.
And, incredibly, some even think it's best to let Tarquin decide.

Since Elan's going to be the one with the happy ending, how likely would you say it is that come the end of the comic (a) Tarquin is still ruling or (b) Tarquin has been deposed but the continent fell into anarchy and chaos and everyone wished for him back? 'Cause I'm going with "Tarquin gets deposed and the people rejoice", personally.

G-Man Graves

2011-02-17, 10:37 PM

Since Elan's going to be the one with the happy ending, how likely would you say it is that come the end of the comic (a) Tarquin is still ruling or (b) Tarquin has been deposed but the continent fell into anarchy and chaos and everyone wished for him back? 'Cause I'm going with "Tarquin gets deposed and the people rejoice", personally.

Somehow I think that Elan could still have his happy ending regardless. He's a bit ditzy, all he would have to do is put it out of his mind and he's back to normal. You know, the way he now appears to have done about the ninja chick.

Querzis

2011-02-17, 10:38 PM

Because it keeps people in line.

Well when you threaten to kill anyone who doesnt, yes it usually keep people in line. I really dont see how its a good thing though.

Because it keeps them alive?

No Tarquin has a much better track record of killing people then keeping them alive. Look, even without going into real life example, if you cant think of any governement that needed to be destroyed badly then you know nothing about history. The only difference between Tarquin empire and Greysky is that in Greysky city, citizens kill and opress each others while in Tarquin empire the governement kill and opress people. How is that any better?

Beside, unless you had not been reading the same comic as us, government collapse ALL THE TIME on the western continent. It sure doesnt seems to bother the people living there.

Yes, the weak, easily manipulated warlord that Tarquin set up with the intention of killing is clearly a paragon of warlordish virtue. Man, how did I not see that sooner!

Thats not the point man, the thing is, this guy exist. There are people like him on the Western continent. Not every Warlord is out to kill everything.

Yes, the fact that you pointed out that my American upbringing clearly means that every single person will survive that chaos. Just because I may have a slanted perspective. Here, let me point out some of the perspective that the internet can provide these days.

http://www.poverty.com/

Not everyone can make it to the watering hole in time, bud.

Yes, and would you look at that, most of these countries actually have a stable governement. That sure helped them a lot when the government does not care at all about them and only want to get more power and wealth for themselves. Kinda like Tarquin does.

A clearly viewable punishment to show what happens to those who break the law.

The Law is slavery. I have absolutely no idea why you persist in thinking that just because «its the law» it means its good for the people. Once again, get the hell off your lawful high horse!

Hence providing an example of what happens to the populace if they try anything, hence being a preventative measure.

Ok so if you seriously think killing slave who try to get away is a reason to LET Tarquin rule I have aboslutely nothing else to say to you...except maybe this.

It's just that the alternatives are worse.

Yes, the alternative that Tarquin told us about. You still dont seem to realize you're basing your whole argument on what Tarquin said. Meanwhile, people had been living like this on the western continent for centuries. Warlords come and go, as long as they just kill each others and their soldiers, why would the population care?

You really seems to forget that we actually saw the OOTS go in other cities on the Western continent before getting to Tarquin empire. And would you look at that, in the other cities, they didnt get thrown in an arena for not having paper, we didnt saw any slaves and they even had freaking ATON vendors! You're totally right, we definitly need Tarquin to protect us from this.

Nimrod's Son

2011-02-17, 10:56 PM

Somehow I think that Elan could still have his happy ending regardless. He's a bit ditzy, all he would have to do is put it out of his mind and he's back to normal. You know, the way he now appears to have done about the ninja chick.
Ah yes, we're back here again. The old "Elan hasn't had an ounce of character development since the beginning" argument that I enjoyed oh-so-much the first time round. I'm not getting dragged into that one again, but as for the Therkla thing: I can only assume you're fortunate enough to have never had a friend die on you, and you're assuming it would be something that profoundly affects your behaviour at all times from that point on. Either that, or you HAVE experienced it and somehow found that's exactly what happened to you... because otherwise I can't even begin to fathom what you're getting at.

Should Rich draw Elan with a green armband to mark Therkla's memory? How about devoting one panel every fifteen-to-twenty strips to showing him having a big cry about it? Here's (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0647.html) the strip where Elan reveals he's learned Neutralise Poison, because of Therkla. Here's (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0759.html) the last time he mentioned her, less than twenty strips ago. Why would you think he's forgotten her, or that she hasn't changed him?

G-Man Graves

2011-02-17, 11:01 PM

Words words words, you all read the post, I'm just putting this here so you know who I'm responding to.

Well, I had a response to each point individually. Then it got deleted. Crap. I will sum up.

1. All governments, to an extent, enforce the law with the threat of force, they just vary in the application of force

2. In Greysky, you can get killed by some random punk for having money. In Bleedingham, while you may get killed by a guard, it won't be quite as random.

3. No, the point is that that warlord guy was a worm who couldn't run anything without Tarquin holding his hand. Sure, he was reasonable. But could he step up and take charge if Tarquin died? Probably not.

4. Slavery is not always a bad thing. American slavery tends to be a bad thing, due to it's implementation. In other cultures, like Greece or Rome, or even tribal Africa, slaves had a pretty legit deal. Hell, some even owned other slaves! We don't know where the Empire of Bloods slaves fall on the scale.

5. Yes, I do, as a matter of fact, think Tarquin was justified in his light show. In real life, where dead is dead and there is no fixed system of morals? No, that's bad. In DnD, where morality is magically enforced and there are actual GODS OF EVIL working to make evil happen? Yeah, sounds about par for course.

pendell

2011-02-17, 11:02 PM

Warren Dew

2011-02-17, 11:14 PM

Once again, let me present you the only other warlord we saw with any lines: Tyrinar the responsible (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0759.html). I really do not get how any other warlords could be much worse then Tarquin and his gang.
I do not get how you think Tyrinar could have gained power without the help of Tarquin and his gang.

And, once again, as Kish has been saying from the start, you're basing that whole argument on what Tarquin said!
I already gave Kish a link that disproved that. I notice she hasn't repeated her statement since.

Thorcrest

2011-02-17, 11:27 PM

Were I a hero in this story, I would not overthrow Tarquin unless I had a solid plan to replace him with something better. I couldn't in good conscience overthrow him and simply ASSUME something better will take the place of the old empire. Louis XVI was replaced by Robespierre.

As a rule, from my study of history, what happens in an situation of anarchy without leadership is that either A) the situation turns into Somalia and you have the war of all against all in perpetuity or B) some ruthless, determined, organized band forces its way to power and takes control of the country. I surmise that 9 times out of 10 the band is lawful evil. After all, it takes vaulting ambition to push yourself forward like that, and that tends to be an evil trait.

If I wasn't willing to rule the country myself, I'd want some locals to take control. And then I'd want to be sure they STAYED in control when I left, so they need to be able to fight their own battles.

Come to think of it ... if they're tough enough to hold power against the multitude of dictators, petty thugs and monsters out there, that would imply they would be tough enough to overthrow Tarquin themselves in the first place.

So, the way I see it, if the country's ready to overthrow the villains, the country will bring forth heroes of its own to accomplish this feat. And if the country's not ready to overthrow the villains, it's a waste of the heroes' time to do it for people who won't to do it for themselves.

And so far, the only people in the EOB who seem interested in freedom are outsiders like Ian. I have not heard or seen ONE native citizen say they want things to change. Not even the slaves. And until that changes, I don't think it's useful to try to force societal change on a populace that doesn't want what you're selling.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Well put, you pretty much said what I wanted to...

Well, I'll add a bit more: I personally enjoy Tarquin, I think he is a very interesting character, but he is not a good (not alignment/morally speaking) leader. He is, however, a competant, capable, and strong leader. This is the type of leader that this area clearly needs, as mass warfare is genrally worse than opression (I won't argue this further as that would stray to far into politics for this forum... hell, this topic might do so already), but Tarquin is far too focused on his own personal gain and sits firmly in the position of Tyrant. If he were to be replaced, he would ideally be replaced by someone who cared for the state and it's interests rather than his own, from here there could be some political stability, which there currently isn't, and from stability and order, improvements can be made.

Really, at this point toppling Tarquin would be pointless, the people would simply accept the new ruler, as they did with the Empress of Blood, and this person would then be assassinated, as so many other leaders have been, or have his country annexed, an occurance which, we have been told numerous times, occurs often.

derfenrirwolv

2011-02-17, 11:35 PM

We don't know where the Empire of Bloods slaves fall on the scale

... they fall just at the point where 30 of them where brutally executed and set on fire just so the de facto ruler could say "I love you son"

Dvandemon

2011-02-18, 12:29 AM

Brian P said (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=10398182#post10398182), but since the citizens haven't been given much screen time one of his points isn't very strong. Frankly, the merits of arguing this point should be considered, unless Tarquin's plot point becomes a plot tumor. Actually, some of the problems of a lost power doesn't necessarily mean there'll be that much carnage. I mean, they'll still have facilities, and before the figurehead is usurped a new regime could be a beam of hope potentially. It's not good to argue what-ifs generally

LuPuWei

2011-02-18, 01:06 AM

This discussion smacks of Law vs Chaos, rather than Good vs Evil.

If we're siding with Good (theoretically, I won't question anyone else's alignment here :smallwink:) we'll have to consider what would make a less effective enemy- Lawful Evil, or Chaotic Evil. Tarquin, of course, represents Lawful Evil and the smaller regimes are probably Chaotic Evil (or maybe Neutral)...

Porthos

2011-02-18, 03:50 AM

4. Slavery is not always a bad thing.

Maybe, maybe not. But in Rich Burlew's world it is evil.

As for all of the rest, I agree with LuPuWei about this being more about Law v Chaos.

But I would point out one thing. You know that famous saw about a certain dictator, "At least he kept the trains on time?" He didn't. Massively didn't. I'd go into the reasons why dictatorships tend not to have a smoothly running society... But, alas and alack. Real Life Topics and all that. :smallwink:

But in the case of the comic I think it has been amply shown that the life of the Common Person sucks just as much, if not more, under Tarquin than it did with Joe or Jane Conqueror. They still get randomly killed for no reason. They still get killed in army skirmishes. And they still get imprisoned for looking at someone the wrong way.

In fact the only person, in comic, who seem to think that society is better off right now is Tarquin himself (well, and his buddies). And since he is, by his own express goal, making himself fat (metaphorically speaking) off the populace, he would say that, wouldn't he?

Simply put, cruelty, even applied in an orderly fashion, is still cruelty.

----===== EDITED IN AS TO NOT DOUBLE POST :smallsmile: ======------

I'd like to point something else out.

Has anyone in comic, other than Tarquin, said how much better their lives are under Tarquin's rule?

Anyone at all?

That's what I thought. :smallamused:

Now it is certainly possible that we might run into someone who thinks everything is peachy keen in the New Order. The illusion of stability and safety is a powerful allure after all. But we haven't run into people singing the praises of the way Tarquin is doing things yet.

I would also point out that we have visited three towns/cities so far on the Western Continent. And the Empire of Blood is by far the worst of the three. The worst we saw in Sandsedge was a little bit of common thievery. But we didn't see any sign of an oppressed populace. Or, indeed, any sign of a population that was discontent with its life.

Then there was the town that the Order visited after being in the desert. While we weren't there that long, that didn't seem to be some sort of dystopia either. You had a thriving bar scene and a cosmetic guild. And no sign of an oppressive police force lurking on every corner. Now the Order wasn't there that long. So who knows? Maybe it was a horrible den of violence and strife.

But I do know one thing. The Empire of Blood is as I said, by far, the worst area we have currently seen on the Western Continent. Maybe it was worse before Tarquin and his buddies showed up. Maybe the life of the common person was a never ending struggle to survive from constant threats and attacks.

Maybe.

But I also know one other thing. Tarquin and co. haven't exactly made the place a decent place to live. And they certainly could have.

And that say a lot in my book.

theNater

2011-02-18, 04:50 AM

1. All governments, to an extent, enforce the law with the threat of force, they just vary in the application of force
This is true. However, my understanding is that the force applied to runaway slaves is generally a beating or whipping, while immolation is reserved for significantly more serious crimes. It seems likely that most rulers, even most tyrants, would use less force than Tarquin.

Come to think of it ... if they're tough enough to hold power against the multitude of dictators, petty thugs and monsters out there, that would imply they would be tough enough to overthrow Tarquin themselves in the first place.
Defending is easier than attacking, and Tarquin is significantly more dangerous and capable than your average multitude of dictators, petty thugs, and monsters. A force could easily be capable of defending against those (relatively) minor threats, but not capable of successfully attacking Tarquin.

zimmerwald1915

2011-02-18, 05:41 AM

I would also point out that we have visited three towns/cities so far on the Western Continent. And the Empire of Blood is by far the worst of the three. The worst we saw in Sandsedge was a little bit of common thievery. But we didn't see any sign of an oppressed populace. Or, indeed, any sign of a population that was discontent with its life.

Then there was the town that the Order visited after being in the desert. While we weren't there that long, that didn't seem to be some sort of dystopia either. You had a thriving bar scene and a cosmetic guild. And no sign of an oppressive police force lurking on every corner. Now the Order wasn't there that long. So who knows? Maybe it was a horrible den of violence and strife.
We also saw slavers, operating somewhere east of Sandsedge and west of the Empire of Sweat (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0682.html). And depending on where the first oasis on the trail between Sandsedge and that small town in the south of the Empire of Sweat1 is, the slavers might have been operating rather closer to Sandsedge.

As for the town the Order went to after the desert, again judging from Roy's map, the closest town seems to be northeast of the gate, in a country whose name begins with "D". It's not Dictatoria, since that's on the continent's west coast, or either of the Despotonias, since they're in the south. Conveniently, that country borders the Empire of Blood. Do we know its name? On a semi-related note, the names of the non-Tarquin-ruled countries have been getting "eviler". There used to be a Justania, for example.

1 Interestingly, the Empire of Sweat, at least according to Roy's map, doesn't have a capital city on the order of Bleedingham. Perhaps the Free City of Doom will get remodeled for the purpose.

Themrys

2011-02-18, 05:52 AM

No, no I didn't. What I did say is that there's "keeps people oppressed in a desert, but at least keeps a semblance of order" evil, and then there's "Take over the universe through use of a lovecraftian level monster". Those two things are different.

They are different, but they are not on a different level of evil. Both Xykon and Tarquin don't hesitate to kill and torture people to get what they want.
The difference is that Tarquin doesn't want to use the gates...probably because he can't.

How bad a thing slavery is, depends on what the owner of a slave is allowed to do to said slave...if people are allowed to kill and torture, they will kill and torture.
And obviously, in the Empire of Blood, it is completely legal to burn slaves alive for entertainment purposes. This means that it is done. And very likely not only by Tarquin but also by others who are rich enough to buy new slaves after burning the old ones.

After the heroes have defeated Xykon, Elan can come back and duel Tarquin, then take over the empire. Haley can bluff the dragon empress into accepting a less bloody government, and everyone is happy. At least in theory.
Technically, the dragon is the ruler of this country, so the fact that Tarquin isn't there anymore would not lead to as much chaos as some of you seem to think.

TheArsenal

2011-02-18, 06:09 AM

Getting a leader that cares and establishes a rule based on magic and Paradise so that the people wouldn't want to revolt at all?

rekuu

2011-02-18, 07:10 AM

Is there a point? Yeah, the point is living in a world with one less monster running amok.

With luck, a bonus point could be to make an example so that every worthless salve owning fink knows that there are heroes in this world and that they are coming for him.

Jan Mattys

2011-02-18, 08:38 AM

Some one needs to keep the trains running on time, and Tarquin is proven to be the best warlord out there.

Minor note: As an italian, I am deeply disturbed by this sentence somehow.

Listen: freedom is for the people. You free the people. They are so weak as to allow another one to take control soon thereafter? Well, that's sad, but that's their problem. You cannot babysit everybody everywhere forever. But if you come across someone under a spiked boot and you have the means to kick the boot's owner's rear end, you do it and leave the people to take care of the aftermath at the best of their abilities.

If they can't do anything better than to be taken over by the next wannabe emperor, that's not your fault in the slightest.

BUT if you do that, and your comrades do that, and your associates do that, and well, everybody does that, everytime, suddenly becoming the next wannabe emperor becomes less and less intriguing, and maybe one day the appeal of the position will fade.

End of story, as far as I'm concerned.

...yeah, I know, I love playing pallies :smalleek:

Burner28

2011-02-18, 09:03 AM

See, I can agree with Elan when he's right, it's just that he rarely ever is. Roy, the LG guy, understands why you sometimes have to get your hands a little dirty to keep things running smoothly. Elan, the CG guy, the one who is supposed to be a little more loose in his interpretation of morals,

Umm.. since when was Chaotic good characters meant to be more loose with their morals than the Lawful good characters? Neither are suppose to be loose with their morals in the first place. Also I am pretty sure Roy would not condone slavery, torture and murder

is prone to "You did something a little bit bad for an ultimately better end, that means you are indisputably wrong!"
Reeally, I thought it was more like using horrific means towards a barely "Good" end (if you can call oppresion at all good:smallconfused:)

Removing the semblance of order in the middle of a desert is NOT in the best interests of the people. Some one needs to keep the trains running on time, and Tarquin is proven to be the best warlord out there.

You are right removing a semblance of order isn't the best idea, but replacing a dictatorship with a benelovent ruler is a good idea for the heroes.:smallwink:

Themrys

2011-02-18, 09:03 AM

But if you come across someone under a spiked boot and you have the means to kick the boot's owner's rear end, you do it and leave the people to take care of the aftermath at the best of their abilities.

If they can't do anything better than to be taken over by the next wannabe emperor, that's not your fault in the slightest.

It is not your fault, it is the fault of the next wannabe emperor, but it would really be nicer of you to help the people to recover from the wounds they got from the spiked boots of the former emperor before you leave them on their own.
It is not easy to stand up for yourself if someone has broken your legs.

pendell

2011-02-18, 09:05 AM

The difference is that Tarquin doesn't want to use the gates...probably because he can't.

More likely because Tarquin, unlike Redcloak, is not a religious fanatic with an insane plan that risks the entire cosmos to get what he wants.

Tarquin is lawful evil. Tarquin is also rational. Tarquin wants wealth and power. Tarquin can get these things through scheming, through military conquest, and through sheer intelligence. He has been successful in doing so.

Presented with a scheme such as Redcloak's, I suspect he would note that it doesn't give him anything he couldn't get through his existing methods, with the very real chance of destroying the entire universe. So I think Tarquin would not only not accept this plan, he would do all he could to defend the gates -- and, not coincidentally, his own power and place in a universe threatened by Redcloak's plan.

Lawful evil is about personal profit and gain. There is no profit in using the gates, and potentially great loss. Tarquin is rational lawful evil, and therefore his actions when presented with such a problem are easy to predict.

Listen: freedom is for the people. You free the people. They are so weak as to allow another one to take control soon thereafter? Well, that's sad, but that's their problem. You cannot babysit everybody everywhere forever. But if you come across someone under a spiked boot and you have the means to kick the boot's owner's rear end, you do it and leave the people to take care of the aftermath at the best of their abilities.

Ever hear of the Pottery Barn theory of nation building? "You break it, you bought it?"

I would contend that if you overthrow a tyrant, it is your responsibility to fix the nation you've broke and put it on a sound footing. If you come alongside someone else's house of cards and don't like one of the cards -- if you pull it out, the cards come tumbling down.

If you do that, you need to be willing to put them back together again. Overthrowing tyrants is far easier than making a workable government afterwords. No one's going to thank you for kicking over their cards and just walking away.

{SCRUBBED}

Dictatorship is an evil. Famine and civil war and anarchy and murder for decades or centuries is a worse evil. If you overthrow a dictatorship, I say you have an obligation to make sure this doesn't happen.

And if you aren't willing to accept that obligation, you should let it go and let someone else who IS willing do the job. Not all the world's problems have to be solved by you.

So: If Elan is truly willing to take his father's place and turn the Empire of Blood into a good country, with fairness and justice for everyone, that's one thing. I would support him overthrowing the tyrant in those circumstances.

But if Elan is just passing through, it's better that he just pass through and let people who actually care about the Empire of Blood solve the problems there.

Personally, I don't think Elan should do the first even if he was willing to. He's chaotic and immature and has a short attention span. I despise Tarquin's rule and methods, but I think I'd rather be ruled by Tarquin than by a clueless buffoon like Elan. Better to be ruled by a tyrant than a fool.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Themrys

2011-02-18, 09:12 AM

More likely because Tarquin, unlike Redcloak, is not a religious fanatic with an insane plan that risks the entire cosmos to get what he wants.

Maybe.
My point was: That Tarquin doesn't have a plan that could destroy the entire cosmos is not because he isn't evil enough - it is for other reasons. That may include a lack of insanity.

SPoD

2011-02-18, 10:03 AM

1. All governments, to an extent, enforce the law with the threat of force, they just vary in the application of force

Yes, and many governments apply less force than Tarquin does. No one is arguing that governments do not use force, they are arguing that other governments use force more fairly and in more limited scopes.

2. In Greysky, you can get killed by some random punk for having money. In Bleedingham, while you may get killed by a guard, it won't be quite as random.

Oh, well, I'm sure that's great comfort to the person who died, knowing that it was slightly less random.

Also, you apparently think that the existence of a legal structure somehow precludes any possibility that a citizen could still be killed by some random punk for having money. Because as we all know, having laws completely eliminates crime instantly and makes everything a shiny happy paradise. Especially when everyone who comes before a judge is automatically guilty.

In short, this is a false dichotomy. You are arguing that the only two options are violent anarchy and slightly-less-violent order, when there is an entire spectrum of even-less-violent order available. Just because your own cynicism makes you think they are unlikely to come into existence doesn't mean people should just give up and let themselves be oppressed.

3. No, the point is that that warlord guy was a worm who couldn't run anything without Tarquin holding his hand. Sure, he was reasonable. But could he step up and take charge if Tarquin died? Probably not.

Elan, Haley, and Haley's family could hold his hand as well as well as Tarquin could. The point in question is whether or not there is a point to defeating Tarquin AFTER Xykon is taken care of, isn't it?

4. Slavery is not always a bad thing. American slavery tends to be a bad thing, due to it's implementation. In other cultures, like Greece or Rome, or even tribal Africa, slaves had a pretty legit deal. Hell, some even owned other slaves! We don't know where the Empire of Bloods slaves fall on the scale.

If the fact that the slaves were set on fire for trying to escape doesn't allow you to judge where the EOB falls on the scale, then I suggest that you may be blinding yourself to what is actually happening in the comic in favor of some theoretical defense of Law as a concept.

5. Yes, I do, as a matter of fact, think Tarquin was justified in his light show. In real life, where dead is dead and there is no fixed system of morals? No, that's bad. In DnD, where morality is magically enforced and there are actual GODS OF EVIL working to make evil happen? Yeah, sounds about par for course.

Even in D&D, Evil is not graded "on the curve". The fact that there are far more evil acts and creatures in existence does not make the actions Tarquin takes acceptable by comparison. The gods of Good are not going to look at Tarquin and say, "Eh, at least he's not Orcus!"

TreesOfDeath

2011-02-18, 10:32 AM

Jay R

2011-02-18, 10:35 AM

TreesOfDeath

2011-02-18, 10:41 AM

The problem is that we are questioning a project, not based on whether the project is inherentlly worthy, but whether it will change people's basic nature. No, it won't. But that was never the goal.

We do not get rid of a mass-murdering dictator to improve society as a whole. We get rid of a mass-murdering dictator to get rid of the mass-murdering dictator.

{SCRUBBED}

Getting rid of a mass murdering dictator without thinking through the consquences of your actions is not especially moral as it will result in a lot of pointless bloodshed. Things like this have to be handled carefully.

SPoD

2011-02-18, 10:45 AM

The problem is if you overthrow Tarquin, the real world shows us the next group of would be dictators will try to sieze the throne, any and all bickering factions will take advantage or just turn to violence, and people will take advantage of the choas in violent and unpleasant ways.

OOTS is not the real world.

This is a world where the rules of narrative causality are demonstrable properties. This is a world with clear-cut heroes and villains, and bards that know that the good guys win and the bad guys lose.

If you argument is, "It would happen like this in the real world, so it would happen like this in OOTS," you haven't been understanding the implications of the OOTS world very well. This is a story, not just in the sense that we are reading it, but in a very real sense of how the physics of the OOTS world functions. Tarquin WILL be defeated because he is a villain and Elan WILL be instrumental in it because he is a hero. And further, both Tarquin and Elan know this and are maneuvering accordingly: Tarquin wants to make his fall as epic as possible, while Elan wants to make sure his dad doesn't benefit from being overthrown.

So, within the context of the world in which they live, OF COURSE there is a point to toppling Tarquin, because Elan, the hero, knows all about what happens when heroes beat villains: They become king and rule wisely forever. The End.

Yes, it is not realistic. Neither are dragons or fireballs or being able to use your dramatic senses to figure out where the girl is being held hostage (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0392.html). This is not a story about a realistic world. This is a story where Drama trumps Probability (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0584.html).

Warren Dew

2011-02-18, 10:45 AM

If we're siding with Good (theoretically, I won't question anyone else's alignment here :smallwink:) we'll have to consider what would make a less effective enemy- Lawful Evil, or Chaotic Evil. Tarquin, of course, represents Lawful Evil and the smaller regimes are probably Chaotic Evil (or maybe Neutral)...
From a good versus evil standpoint, it only matters who is a more effective enemy if there are actually some nonevil powers around. The only real candidate here seems to be the Elves, and a more chaotic ruler is actually more likely to attack them, and thus may be a greater threat.

TreesOfDeath

2011-02-18, 10:50 AM

OOTS is not the real world.

This is a world where the rules of narrative causality are demonstrable properties. This is a world with clear-cut heroes and villains, and bards that know that the good guys win and the bad guys lose.

If you argument is, "It would happen like this in the real world, so it would happen like this in OOTS," you haven't been understanding the implications of the OOTS world very well. This is a story, not just in the sense that we are reading it, but in a very real sense of how the physics of the OOTS world functions. Tarquin WILL be defeated because he is a villain and Elan WILL be instrumental in it because he is a hero. And further, both Tarquin and Elan know this and are maneuvering accordingly: Tarquin wants to make his fall as epic as possible, while Elan wants to make sure his dad doesn't benefit from being overthrown.

So, within the context of the world in which they live, OF COURSE there is a point to toppling Tarquin, because Elan, the hero, knows all about what happens when heroes beat villains: They become king and rule wisely forever. The End.

Yes, it is not realistic. Neither are dragons or fireballs or being able to use your dramatic senses to figure out where the girl is being held hostage. This is not a story about a realistic world.

Hmm this is an intresting point. I'm not entirely sure if your right or wrong, but I thought the whole point of this comic was showing what a reality with some fantasy tropes would be like (both seriously and played for laughs), the implications, etc. And I thoguht Tarquin was a more realistic, genre savy take on Evil Empre. I assumed with things being more serious and fleshed out and not always flowing like a fantasy story Tarquin's death would just cause an Evil Power Vacuum to explode.... which is certainly dramitic.

But I'm not certain and it kind of bothers me... anyone have any ideas?

SPoD

2011-02-18, 10:56 AM

Hmm this is an intresting point. I'm not entirely sure if your right or wrong, but I thought the whole point of this comic was showing what a reality with some fantasy tropes would be like (both seriously and played for laughs), the implications, etc. And I thoguht Tarquin was a more realistic, genre savy take on Evil Empre. I assumed with things being more serious and fleshed out and not always flowing like a fantasy story Tarquin's death would just cause an Evil Power Vacuum to explode.... which is certainly dramitic.

But I'm not certain and it kind of bothers me... anyone have any ideas?

I think it will come down to what makes a more entertaining story for us, the readers. If Rich wants to spend a lot of strips exploring a power vaccuum in the Western Continent, then that is what will happen...and Elan will spend the entire time scratching his head and wondering what went wrong. That's certainly a valid way to take the story.

However, I strongly believe that the political situation in the Empire is only here as a backdrop to Elan's personal struggles with his father. Within that context, it doesn't matter to the story what happens to the continent after Tarquin goes down. And if it doesn't matter, there's plenty of support for the idea that because this is a story-driven world, everything works out just peachy after all.

pendell

2011-02-18, 11:01 AM

OOTS is not the real world.

This is a world where the rules of narrative causality are demonstrable properties. This is a world with clear-cut heroes and villains, and bards that know that the good guys win and the bad guys lose.

That may be so, but the principles that apply in the real world are not inoperative in OOTS world. I remind you of the discussion of Bozzak's fate back when Haley had him at her mercy. The thieves of the town -- including Bozzak's most likely successor , the halfling -- argued that it was better he stay alive, because it was better to have Bozzak than to have an unending turf war.

That is precisely the same argument I am making with regards to Tarquin. Both Tarquin and Bozzak were evil people running an evil system. Getting rid of that evil system and replacing it with a good one is a good thing, but that is a bigger challenge than just overthrowing the dictators.

Elan may be instrumental in Tarquin's defeat -- at some point -- but there's no reason it has to be here and now. Don't they have a quest to save the world from a god-killing abomination, or something?

Does anyone remember what happened to Roy when he tried to challenge Xykon directly at Azure City, narrative causality or no?

The rules of narrative are real in OOTS world. But logic, common sense and real world principles are ALSO real in OOTS world. The right decision requires taking all these factors into account, and Elan is not ready to overthrow the EOB by any of them.

Elan should only depose Tarquin when Elan is ready and willing to accept the responsibilities and obligations that come from doing so. That would require an alignment change that seems unlikely. So he needs to find some lawful good friends inside the kingdom he can work with who ARE willing to do the lawful stuff he's unsuited to. All of that is going to take time and effort that he doesn't have to spare at this point.

ETA: I'll throw the narrative causality back. By the rules of narrative causality, the relationship of Tarquin and Elan is at the Empire Strikes Back portion of the story. So Luke's determination to face Darth Vader is SURE to be successful at this point.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Cybertoy00

2011-02-18, 11:04 AM

Ultimately, the strip is about less than competant people as the protagonists. So the point about points is ultimately pointless.
We can go on and on about how the western continent will end up if Tarquin's bunch get beaten (And tarred, and feathered, and thrown into the sea with humorous doodles drawn on their faces...Erm, sorry), but the result will ultimately fall to the Giant, who has demonstrated a tendency to throw out the 'not all is as it seems' a few times.
For all we know, maybe a plethora of angel scotsmen from Mars will come out and show everyone how murder and thievery is wrong, and they'll all live happily ever after.
Or maybe Elan's MOM will take over and do that. Or a Fruit Pie Sorcerer.

Human Paragon 3

2011-02-18, 11:28 AM

{Scrubbed}

pendell

2011-02-18, 11:52 AM

Jan Mattys

2011-02-18, 11:52 AM

TimelordSimone

2011-02-18, 12:12 PM

Gift Jeraff

2011-02-18, 12:44 PM

I'm compelled to point out that even if the tyrants that would arise from Tarquin and his allies' fall are just as evil as Tarquin, the odds of them being as competent seems quite low. When Gannji comments on the "red tape" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0728.html), I get the impression that, like someone else said, most of the empires don't affect your everyday life that much. Tarquin's are the exceptions.

Gnoman

2011-02-18, 12:49 PM

Or, for that matter, the fall of multiple powerful empires at once (assuming the order took out T's whole party, which would be needed) would cause a full scramble that eliminated virtually all the empires, allowing the elves or other neighboring powers to occupy and consolidate the entire area.

SPoD

2011-02-18, 01:32 PM

That may be so, but the principles that apply in the real world are not inoperative in OOTS world. I remind you of the discussion of Bozzak's fate back when Haley had him at her mercy. The thieves of the town -- including Bozzak's most likely successor , the halfling -- argued that it was better he stay alive, because it was better to have Bozzak than to have an unending turf war.

That is precisely the same argument I am making with regards to Tarquin. Both Tarquin and Bozzak were evil people running an evil system. Getting rid of that evil system and replacing it with a good one is a good thing, but that is a bigger challenge than just overthrowing the dictators.

You're ignoring the fact that Haley is not Elan. As in, Haley, by her own estimation, is not a "hero" out to clean up a bad system for good and pure reasons. Haley just wants to get out of the city alive. I'm saying that because Elan is doing The Right Thing for The Right Reasons, the universe of OOTS is far more likely to let him live happily ever after. By virtue of knowing and applying the narrative rules, Elan makes the world around him behave more like a storybook. Haley doesn't.

In other words: A bunch of thieves talking about the fate of a city full of thieves has no bearing on whether a hero can defeat a villain.

Elan may be instrumental in Tarquin's defeat -- at some point -- but there's no reason it has to be here and now. Don't they have a quest to save the world from a god-killing abomination, or something?

Hold on. I am in no way or shape arguing that Elan should topple Tarquin NOW. In fact, in another post I make that pretty explicit. Even Elan is only talking about coming BACK to the EOB after the Xykon plot is over. So don't bother making arguments regarding this being the Empire Strikes Back moment, because I agree with you. I'm talking about AFTER Xykon, which is also pretty clearly at the end of the comic strip's lifespan. And the very fact that it IS at the end dramatically increases Elan's chance of living happily ever after in a new peaceful Western Continent.

Porthos

2011-02-18, 01:43 PM

Some people have mentioned that it would be inevitable that some other Evil Dictator would take over should Tarquin get booted out.

To that I have to say three things.

A) Why should that be true?

Sure, the population has been at each others throats for a long time. But that doesn't mean that they always will be.

Unless you think that they are all taking some sort of mechanical flaw that makes them incapable of forming a stable government one day. :smallwink:

Because if the predispensity to strife isn't in built to their stat blocks then it logically follows that one day a stable, responsible government could arise.

Even if it was difficult to do so.

B) Even if a new Evil Dictator were to arise, what would make one think that they were as "good" at it as Tarquin?

Tarquin has shown that he has been able to set up a system that is very good at enacting suffering and misery. Escaped slaves are tracked down and immolated within a day. All crimes have the death penalty. If someone even speaks about a Secret Police, they are assassinated within minutes (though this one was on "TV", so maybe that's slightly different :smallwink:). And prisoners are routinely recaptured after they escape.

Taking all of that into account what makes anyone think that if someone else came along they would be just as good at inflicting that misery as Tarquin is?

It seems to me that an incompetent dictator is far better than a competent one. After all with an incompetent one, you have the chance of evading the State.

C) How is life in the Empire of Blood any better now than it used to be for its inhabitants?

I've seen more than one person claim that, "Well life sucks for the BLoodies. But at least its better than it was."

TO that I say: How do you know? We haven't seen what life was like before Tarquin and co. showed up. Yes we know that there was "constant warfare". But that doesn't actually mean that life was worse for the common person than it is now.

It may have been. I've seen the arguments that suggest it was. But it also may not have been. It's all supposition right now.

All we do know is that the Empire of Blood is a very crummy place to live in. And the blame for that is placed directly at the feet of Tarquin.

So, to sum up, there is no guarantee that everyone will be fighting each other for time immemorial. Yes, another dictator might arise, but there is little chance that he will be as good as Tarquin is in enacting tyranny. And Tarquin hasn't exactly made the place any better to live.

It is for those three reasons why Tarquin should be given the boot. It can't get much worse, and it might get better.

JonestheSpy

2011-02-18, 01:57 PM

This discussion smacks of Law vs Chaos, rather than Good vs Evil.

Yup. I think it also illustrates how evil governments can take power over non-evil populations (aside from out-and-out military conquest, that is): the idea that any kind of ruler, no matter how evil, is better than no ruler.

BTW, I gotta say, some of the justifications I've seen on this thread for Tarquin's actions are really, really disturbing.

Anyway, as for the "Evil Empire better than constant war" question, while I think it's a valid dispute it's pretty clear that Tarquin is so far on the evil scale the answer is pretty clear. Despite his charming persona, the undeniable fact is that he's a sadistic, brutal monster. He doesn't just want power and luxury, no matter what he claims - he clearly enjoys physical and psychological torture and such methods are is first response to almost every conflict.

Also, it seemed like the ordinary citizens of the Western Continent were pretty blase about the constant warfare, and obviously there was plenty of infrastructure that stayed intact for long periods. I rather suspect that the warrior types and would be conquerers were always fighting amongst themselves while the general population went on it's way.

pendell

2011-02-18, 02:14 PM

Hold on. I am in no way or shape arguing that Elan should topple Tarquin NOW. In fact, in another post I make that pretty explicit. Even Elan is only talking about coming BACK to the EOB after the Xykon plot is over. So don't bother making arguments regarding this being the Empire Strikes Back moment, because I agree with you. I'm talking about AFTER Xykon, which is also pretty clearly at the end of the comic strip's lifespan. And the very fact that it IS at the end dramatically increases Elan's chance of living happily ever after in a new peaceful Western Continent.

Oo-kay. Well, in that case I agree with you. If he's willing to accept the responsibilities overthrowing his father entails, and he has Haley beside him, and he can find friends in the EOB to counterbalance his weaknesses, and Xykon has been defeated, then yes. I would also support Elan's overthrowing Tarquin.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Warren Dew

2011-02-18, 02:27 PM

A) Why should that be true?

Sure, the population has been at each others throats for a long time. But that doesn't mean that they always will be.

Unless you think that they are all taking some sort of mechanical flaw that makes them incapable of forming a stable government one day. :smallwink:
It has been that way for 500 years. That strongly suggests there is an underlying reason for it - likely having to do with geography or such. For example, if the locations of the water holes were constantly changing, that would lead to a lot of migration, and the resulting population instability might make political instability inevitable.

Porthos

2011-02-18, 02:32 PM

There's something else I'd like to mention.

Lets say, for the sake of argument, that I agree with people who say that Tarquin is the only thing standing between the common person and chaos and strife. Lets say that I agree with them that he has, by imposing a rigid sense of order, he's made the life of people better. Lets say that I agree with people who say that people in the Western Continent have little hope of ever having a society that isn't one of struggle and war, if left to their own devices.

To everyone who says that if Tarquin exits the picture, life will be worse, I ask this simple question: What happens when Tarquin inevitably dies?

Tarquin isn't immortal, after all. He's not planning on living forever. Whether it is due to old age, or at the point of a sword, Tarquin will sooner or later die. What happens then? Does the whole system fall apart without the Machiavellian planning behind it? Who steps in for Tarquin? I can already hear the cries of, "Well, Elan, of course." Which is fine. Except for the fact that most people who think that Tarquin is good at leading don't seem to think the same of Elan. :smallwink:

Anyway, back to my central question. Tarquin may be many things. But he is no Klaus Wulfenbach. The situations between the Western Continent in this comic and Europa in the world of Girl Genius are at least somewhat similar. You have a Strong Man come in and impose order on a society that has been chaotic for as long as anyone can remember. But there is a clear difference between Klaus and Tarquin. While Klaus can be quite brutal when suppressing dissent, and while he has certain... interesting hobbies, at least he is trying to set up a society that will continue after he passes away. He is trying to get the leaders within his Empire to learn how to cooperate and to set up a system that still be will be stable when he dies.

But Tarquin? His biggest goal seems to be to inspire other villains to strive for epic villainy themselves. And he doesn't seem to have that much of an eye on the future of the Western Continent once he leaves the building. So, at best, all Tarquin is doing is delaying misery and suffering until it inevitably returns.

That is if one believes that life is actually any better under Tarquin. Which I don't. :smallwink:

It has been that way for 500 years. That strongly suggests there is an underlying reason for it - likely having to do with geography or such. For example, if the locations of the water holes were constantly changing, that would lead to a lot of migration, and the resulting population instability might make political instability inevitable.

Without trying to bring in Real Life, I would point out that stable "good" forms of government didn't exist for time immemorial either. If one had looked at various parts of the world before reforms had happened they too would conclude that it was always doomed to either constant strife or brutal iorn fisted rule.

"Good" government has to begin somewhere. :smallwink:

Human Paragon 3

2011-02-18, 02:43 PM

Sorry for the scrubbed post, guys. Too much time on fark.com I guess! I just couldn't help seeing the real world analogy!

Dvandemon

2011-02-18, 02:47 PM

Warren Dew

2011-02-18, 02:50 PM

To everyone who says that if Tarquin exits the picture, life will be worse, I ask this simple question: What happens when Tarquin inevitably dies?
The same thing that happens if Tarquin is overthrown. If it makes things worse - and I think most people are just arguing that it won't make things better - why accelerate it?

Without trying to bring in Real Life, I would point out that stable "good" forms of government didn't exist for time immemorial either. If one had looked at various parts of the world before reforms had happened they too would conclude that it was always doomed to either constant strife or brutal iorn fisted rule.
I disagree that reforms are more likely to make things better than worse. With respect to stability, there are most certainly areas of the world where simple geography makes stable or unstable government more likely.

TimelordSimone

2011-02-18, 02:51 PM

Porthos

2011-02-18, 02:52 PM

since this is a base-breaking debate that could easily turn ugly.

This is nothing, nothing like The Great Miko Wars. To name just one example.

This base has seen far worse in its time. :smallwink:

With respect to stability, there are most certainly areas of the world where simple geography makes stable or unstable government more likely.

"Less likely" doesn't mean impossible. But that is a debate, I'm afraid, that I can't trully engage on this board. :smalltongue:

Gnoman

2011-02-18, 03:19 PM

Another detail is how exactly will Elan deposit Tarquin?

Take him to the bank?

JonestheSpy

2011-02-18, 03:25 PM

Also, it seemed like the ordinary citizens of the Western Continent were pretty blase about the constant warfare, and obviously there was plenty of infrastructure that stayed intact for long periods. I rather suspect that the warrior types and would be conquerers were always fighting amongst themselves while the general population went on it's way.

You know, the more I think about this, the more I think it has to be relatively accurate. If the warfare in the desert lands was destructive as the "Tarquin is better than chaos" folks seem to believe, it seems highly unlikely there would have been any civilization left after generations of constant war, long before Tarquin showed up.

Jay R

2011-02-18, 03:33 PM

This is a story. We don't see past its end.

We don't know what kind of government comes into Mordor after Sauron is destroyed, or what the Galaxy gets after the death of Emperor Palpatine, or how well Agrabah is ruled after losing its Vizier Jafar.

Getting rid of the villainous tyrant never ends all the problems; it just ends the story.

pendell

2011-02-18, 03:43 PM

Sorry for the scrubbed post, guys. Too much time on fark.com I guess! I just couldn't help seeing the real world analogy!

Apology accepted. I'm only sorry you weren't able to clear it before it got scrubbed.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Warren Dew

2011-02-18, 03:52 PM

Then there was the town that the Order visited after being in the desert. While we weren't there that long, that didn't seem to be some sort of dystopia either. You had a thriving bar scene and a cosmetic guild. And no sign of an oppressive police force lurking on every corner. Now the Order wasn't there that long. So who knows? Maybe it was a horrible den of violence and strife.
I'm pretty sure that town was in the Empire of Blood, given the wanted poster, so if anything that's evidence that the Empire of Blood isn't quite as bad as some people are making it out to be. I wouldn't be surprised if the oppression was worse during official functions in the capital than it is in most of the empire.

If the warfare in the desert lands was destructive as the "Tarquin is better than chaos" folks seem to believe, it seems highly unlikely there would have been any civilization left after generations of constant war, long before Tarquin showed up.
Given the contrast between the tent cities the order first found and the monumental architecture of the palace and coliseum, the evidence is that Tarquin is doing a better job on infrastructure development and preservation that the rest of the region. Granted that may be due to differences between mild desert and sand dune desert regions.

Gnoman

2011-02-18, 03:57 PM

SPoD

2011-02-18, 04:05 PM

The same thing that happens if Tarquin is overthrown. If it makes things worse - and I think most people are just arguing that it won't make things better - why accelerate it?

Why NOT accelerate it? If the same thing will happen whether Tarquin is overthrown next month or in fifty years, why allow him to live his life of luxury for those 50 years? Tarquin is right here, right now, doing bad things. Why should a good person need to turn a blind eye to that when they have the ability to stop him?

There is always a chance, no matter how small some of you seem to think it is, that the next guy to come along is better than Tarquin. If that chance exists, why not roll the dice?

It is utterly repugnant to me to knowingly allow an evil man to continue doing evil things because one fears what might happen in the future if you stop him. All that is required for evil to win is for good men to do nothing, and all that.

G-Man Graves

2011-02-18, 04:07 PM

Except, of course, we do find out about all three of those.

We never heard about anything about Star Wars besides the three movies. Alright? IT NEVER HAPPENED!

Warren Dew

2011-02-18, 04:12 PM

Grelna the Blue

2011-02-18, 04:13 PM

Two posters earlier said things to which I'd like to respond.

Some one needs to keep the trains running on time, and Tarquin is proven to be the best warlord out there.

{SCRUBBED}

Evil order is really not especially better then evil chaos. Get off your lawful high horse!

Y'know, it depends. I admit my bias toward law, but it often can be better. If it is order in an evil cause, it can be far worse, but that's very uncommon. Usually it is evil in the service of order and is in fact somewhat better than evil chaos.

Neither, of course, is preferable to true or lawful neutrality (CN is highly unlikely as a form for a real-life society and so few societies have ever risen to the status of being good-aligned as societies that societal Good can probably be taken off the discussion table).

SPoD

2011-02-18, 04:15 PM

CarpeGuitarrem

2011-02-18, 04:20 PM

Elan gets roleplaying XP.

Porthos

2011-02-18, 04:30 PM

I'm pretty sure that town was in the Empire of Blood, given the wanted poster, so if anything that's evidence that the Empire of Blood isn't quite as bad as some people are making it out to be. I wouldn't be surprised if the oppression was worse during official functions in the capital than it is in most of the empire.

I presumed, looking at the map (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0698.html), that the Order went to the town that was in the center of the neighboring kingdom to the Empire of Blood. There is a dot on that map which certainly looks closer to the corresponding one inside the Empire of Blood.

If one is only counting Large Cities, then it is almost certain that the Order went to the city in the charmingly named "Dictatoria". It's the closest of the major cities to the mark on the map, and there is the fact that travel to Bleedingham required magic (teleportation/wind walk).

Now the existence of the WANTED poster isn't that much of a stretch. It's just announcing a bounty can be found if one wants to take it up. Makes sense that some of them would have been scattered in neighboring kingdoms.

The idea that evil dictators are good at keeping the "trains running on time" isn't even historically true, you know. It was false even about the specific Italian dictator who was the prototype for the line in the first place.

I believe someone already pointed that out. :smallwink:

pendell

2011-02-18, 04:36 PM

Why NOT accelerate it? If the same thing will happen whether Tarquin is overthrown next month or in fifty years, why allow him to live his life of luxury for those 50 years? Tarquin is right here, right now, doing bad things. Why should a good person need to turn a blind eye to that when they have the ability to stop him?

There is always a chance, no matter how small some of you seem to think it is, that the next guy to come along is better than Tarquin. If that chance exists, why not roll the dice?

Because if you're overthrowing an evil regime, there's a certainty you're going to get people killed. Ever hear the phrase "We had to destroy the village in order to save it?"

If you're lucky, it's a quick near-bloodless coup with Tarquin and his officers dead and all the people cheering. But Tarquin is competent and ruthless. I would not bet on such a turn of events.

The more likely outcome is war. Not just war , either. Villages burned and massacres and reprisals and revolutionary "action groups " and death squads and all the rest of it. And ordinary people get to watch their wealth confiscated "for the good of the people" or "for the good of the empire", their farms get burned, their families taken hostage, their sons conscripted, their daughters raped. That's not including what happens if the two armies decide that YOUR farm or town or village is just the perfect place to have a battle. And with War comes the other two horsemen of societal breakdown: Disease and famine.

Given that such an outcome is probable, I would suggest it is irresponsible to "roll the dice" on deposing a dictator unless you have a credible plan both to defeat him and to make a better world once he's gone. I'm sure the dead in their thousands will appreciate that we just had to get them all killed because the dictator they never saw or dealt with was so mean.

It is utterly repugnant to me to knowingly allow an evil man to continue doing evil things because one fears what might happen in the future if you stop him. All that is required for evil to win is for good men to do nothing, and all that.

Is it indeed? Let me put it to you this way: How many innocent civilians are you willing to kill to stop that evil man? One hundred? One thousand? Ten thousand? A million? Would your character be willing to put up 5000GP of diamonds apiece for the resurrections?

Unless you're very lucky, people will die as a result of stopping that evil man. It's worth gaming it out beforehand to see just what's likely to happen. Then the question is worth asking: Is it worth it to potentially sacrifice hundreds or thousands of lives just so Tarquin is deprived of years of luxury?

Respectfully,

Brian P.

TreesOfDeath

2011-02-18, 04:39 PM

SPod: See the meaning behind my posts was not "never overthrow dictators" it was think dam carefully about what your doing, plan the hell out of everything and get read for the aftermath.

If Elan got together with Roy, Haley, V and maybe Duroken and they all sat down together and thought it through, maybe they could find a way to overthrow Tarquin, have Elan seize power and deal with the hostile forces that would be unleashed after Tarquin was overthrown, while slowly driving the country towards something free. It would help Elan would be a somewhat "legitamate" sucsessor to Tarquin and very charismatic.

Right now though they have to focus on the task of stopping Xykon and Redcloak, an immediate threat to the entire world.

WHat I was saying was that over throwing Tarquin without any plans afterwords or being willing to put the work into stabalising the country would be disatourous. Prehaps its something Elan can go back and do later, with Haley's help. But he can't rush into this, or he'll just make a bigger mess, as happens in the real world.

Callista

2011-02-18, 04:44 PM

Well, obviously you can't just topple Tarquin and walk off into the sunset; you have to build up a sensible, well-run empire that can defend itself and stop other tyrants from taking it over. If you don't put something into that power vacuum yourself, chances are you won't like what fills the space you left behind.

In this case, it seems like the best way to go about it would probably be some form of constitutional hereditary monarchy. These people are used to being ruled to some dictator or other and wouldn't take well to democracy; so they need someone who they can identify as their leader. On the other hand, you can't give the king too much power, otherwise the throne will be attractive to whoever wants to be Dictator of the Week. Balance the people against the throne and you've got a system that tends to stabilize rather than destabilize itself because when either side tries to go too far, the other side pulls back.

Not that this isn't all easier said than done, of course. But it's possible.

Elan would make a great first king. He's Tarquin's son. He's got the charisma, and he's got the wisdom to trust people who are smarter than he is. He doesn't have a problem with pride and he cares about the common people. He'd do great, provided he had others to help him.

pendell

2011-02-18, 04:48 PM

Elan would make a great first king. He's Tarquin's son. He's got the charisma, and he's got the wisdom to trust people who are smarter than he is. He doesn't have a problem with pride and he cares about the common people. He'd do great, provided he had others to help him.

Agreed. He would make a great mascot, so long as he had some people like Haley or Ian to counterbalance his naivety. But then, his pure heart and motives would counterbalance their own cynicism and tendency to lie.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

SPoD

2011-02-18, 04:57 PM

Because if you're overthrowing an evil regime, there's a certainty you're going to get people killed. Ever hear the phrase "We had to destroy the village in order to save it?"

If you're lucky, it's a quick near-bloodless coup with Tarquin and his officers dead and all the people cheering. But Tarquin is competent and ruthless. I would not bet on such a turn of events.

The more likely outcome is war. Not just war , either. Villages burned and massacres and reprisals and revolutionary "action groups " and death squads and all the rest of it. And ordinary people get to watch their wealth confiscated "for the good of the people" or "for the good of the empire", their farms get burned, their families taken hostage, their sons conscripted, their daughters raped. That's not including what happens if the two armies decide that YOUR farm or town or village is just the perfect place to have a battle. And with War comes the other two horsemen of societal breakdown: Disease and famine.

Given that such an outcome is probable, I would suggest it is irresponsible to "roll the dice" on deposing a dictator unless you have a credible plan both to defeat him and to make a better world once he's gone. I'm sure the dead in their thousands will appreciate that we just had to get them all killed because the dictator they never saw or dealt with was so mean.

Is it indeed? Let me put it to you this way: How many innocent civilians are you willing to kill to stop that evil man? One hundred? One thousand? Ten thousand? A million? Would your character be willing to put up 5000GP of diamonds apiece for the resurrections?

Unless you're very lucky, people will die as a result of stopping that evil man. It's worth gaming it out beforehand to see just what's likely to happen. Then the question is worth asking: Is it worth it to potentially sacrifice hundreds or thousands of lives just so Tarquin is deprived of years of luxury?

...

What on earth are you talking about?

There are no armies here. There is the Order of the Stick, a group of ultrapowerful heroes, and there is Tarquin (and his five allies), a group of ultrapowerful villains. THAT'S IT. Everyone else is irrelevant. The Order bursts into Tarquin's throne room, pound him into paste, and then turn around and figure out who's in charge after that. This is not the real world and it does not function like the real world.

Tarquin is a foreign interloper. As far as anyone knows, this nation is two years old. Do you really think that when he and his five allies are dead, anyone--ANYONE--is going to continue fighting in his name?

This is not nation vs. nation. This is the Justice League vs. Lex Luthor. The fact that Luthor has managed to conquer a country does not mean that the country can only be freed by traditional land warfare by other countries. No, if Lex takes over Belgium, you go kick Lex's ass and hand it back to the Belgians. If they screw it up after that, well, that's on them. Maybe you have to come back and kick Brainiac's ass later, who knows?

Do you want a perfect scenario? The day after Xykon is defeated, the OOTS cruise in, kick Tarquin's ass but leave the Empress of Blood in place. Vaarsuvius uses enchantment magic to manipulate the Empress into issuing a series of reforms over the course of a few months. When those are in place, the Empress announces she's leaving for another plane and leaves Minister Bob in charge, where Bob is someone the OOTS have learned isn't so bad. The OOTS kill the Empress in secret, then head out.

Maybe you don't roll the dice if you are a normal person in charge of another nation. You do if you are a superhero. And if we're talking about the actual world that the comic takes place in and not some sort of analogy to the real world that we're not supposed to discuss, then all that matters is what a superhero would do.

JonestheSpy

2011-02-18, 04:59 PM

Given the contrast between the tent cities the order first found and the monumental architecture of the palace and coliseum, the evidence is that Tarquin is doing a better job on infrastructure development and preservation that the rest of the region. Granted that may be due to differences between mild desert and sand dune desert regions.

Yeah, well, I don't really think that using slave labor to build a palace for himself and a big building where people watch other people getting slaughtered so as to distract them from their horrible lives really goes that far as "civic improvements".

And anyway, Sandsedge was a small border town pretty much in the middle of nowhere. Do you really think Bleedingham was similar before Tarquin moved in? I find it far more likely that he chose to make it his capital because it was already the biggest, most developed city he could conquer and make his base of operations.

Because if you're overthrowing an evil regime, there's a certainty you're going to get people killed...The more likely outcome is war. Not just war , either. Villages burned and massacres and reprisals and revolutionary "action groups " and death squads and all the rest of it. And ordinary people get to watch their wealth confiscated "for the good of the people" or "for the good of the empire", their farms get burned, their families taken hostage, their sons conscripted, their daughters raped. That's not including what happens if the two armies decide that YOUR farm or town or village is just the perfect place to have a battle. And with War comes the other two horsemen of societal breakdown: Disease and famine...

Unless you're very lucky, people will die as a result of stopping that evil man. It's worth gaming it out beforehand to see just what's likely to happen. Then the question is worth asking: Is it worth it to potentially sacrifice hundreds or thousands of lives just so Tarquin is deprived of years of luxury?

Gee, with all those arguments, no one should ever revolt against any oppressor, ever. Oh, most likely no one should ever defend themselves from invasion either, because there's most likely going to be less death if you just surrender and let the invaders do what they want.

It seems to me the two big things you're overlooking are:

A) the point of the revolt would not be to "deprive Tarquin of luxury", it would be stop him committing horrible atrocities and oppressing the population; and

B) An actual revolt wouldn't ever get very far unless things were so bad that people would rather risk their lives than keep going under the current system. So, you know, their choice - though really the most likely scenario in this situation would be Elan and friends going after Tarquin and his group directly, not gathering an army and starting a war.

Porthos

2011-02-18, 05:16 PM

Tarquin is a foreign interloper. As far as anyone knows, this nation is two years old. Do you really think that when he and his five allies are dead, anyone--ANYONE--is going to continue fighting in his name?

This is not nation vs. nation. This is the Justice League vs. Lex Luthor. The fact that Luthor has managed to conquer a country does not mean that the country can only be freed by traditional land warfare by other countries. No, if Lex takes over Belgium, you go kick Lex's ass and hand it back to the Belgians. If they screw it up after that, well, that's on them. Maybe you have to come back and kick Brainiac's ass later, who knows?

Do you want a perfect scenario? The day after Xykon is defeated, the OOTS cruise in, kick Tarquin's ass but leave the Empress of Blood in place. Vaarsuvius uses enchantment magic to manipulate the Empress into issuing a series of reforms over the course of a few months. When those are in place, the Empress announces she's leaving for another plane and leaves Minister Bob in charge, where Bob is someone the OOTS have learned isn't so bad. The OOTS kill the Empress in secret, then head out.
Thunderous applause for SPoD! :smallcool::smallcool::smallbiggrin:

Is it indeed? Let me put it to you this way: How many innocent civilians are you willing to kill to stop that evil man? One hundred? One thousand? Ten thousand? A million? Would your character be willing to put up 5000GP of diamonds apiece for the resurrections?

So given your stance here, I must presume that you are likewise condeming the elves who are laying the groundwork to retake Azure City? I mean, this isn't even a swoop-in-and-blastem solution like SPoD is decribing. The elves are actually formenting a full out guerrilla warfare revolution.

Logically what the elves are doing in Azure City is much worse than just trying to kill Xykon in a one-on-one fight. They are in fact setting up a situation where there might be repirsials and whatnot.

And the thing is, this is one of the things that happens when you set up a detailed logical plan before hand to topple a government, like you seem to be encouraging. Going in and weakening the enemy via sabatoge is a classic strategy to soften someone up before you bring out the hammer.

But don't you think that the humans that are still left in Azure City are going to suffer horribly because of The Resistance? Don't you think someone like Xykon is going to make as big of a public spectacle as one can in order to intimidate the people he's conquered? Or just for <BLOOPS> and giggles?

Gee.... I guess the elves better stop. I mean, since some people might be hurt in the backlash and all. :smallwink:

pendell

2011-02-18, 05:31 PM

...

What on earth are you talking about?

There are no armies here. There is the Order of the Stick, a group of ultrapowerful heroes, and there is Tarquin (and his five allies), a group of ultrapowerful villains. THAT'S IT. Everyone else is irrelevant.

I respectfully disagree. I point to the battle of Azure City. You had a super-powered villain, and superpowered heroes, but they were part and parcel of a larger battle, and the actions of the ordinary soldiers on both sides was NOT irrelevant to the outcome.

I contend that if you are going to attempt the overthrow of a nation in the OOTS verse, it isn't going to be a nice, neat and tidy affair of Justice League vs. Lex Luthor. Not when Lex Luthor is the general of an army and derives most of his power from that. No, I believe overthrowing the Empire of Blood will be more like the battle of Azure City. Heroes will be a part of it, but low level mooks and civilians will be in it too, and many of them will die.

Do you want a perfect scenario? The day after Xykon is defeated, the OOTS cruise in, kick Tarquin's ass but leave the Empress of Blood in place. Vaarsuvius uses enchantment magic to manipulate the Empress into issuing a series of reforms over the course of a few months. When those are in place, the Empress announces she's leaving for another plane and leaves Minister Bob in charge, where Bob is someone the OOTS have learned isn't so bad. The OOTS kill the Empress in secret, then head out.

Given the presence of high level adventurers such as the bounty hunters on this continent, I suspect that the scry-and-die approach you're advocating will be considerably more difficult than you propose. If a band of high-level adventurers could knock Tarquin off that easily, I suspect it would have already been done years ago. He does read the evil overlord list or something like it, after all.

Also, if that logic was sound, why would Tarquin bother with an army when he has his own high-level adventuring party.

So I don't believe you're correct. High-level heroes are force multipliers who can drastically increase an army's effectiveness, but they are not a replacement for that army.

Finally, you're assuming that OOTS will remain united and agree to do this task. I'm not sure that's a valid assumption. With Roy out of the picture, they tend to fall apart into squabbles. I'm not sure Elan would be able to convince them to follow him in this venture. Haley will follow him. I don't know if Roy would. Vaarsuvius probably wouldn't. Belkar will be dead. And Durkon? He might side with Malack.

Gee, with all those arguments, no one should ever revolt against any oppressor, ever.

Not so. I will give you an example: The Rebel Alliance from Star Wars.

-- They have a plan for making the world better: Restoring the Republic as it existed Pre-Empire. The original rebel leaders -- Mon Mothma and Bail Organa -- are both former senators and government leaders. They are intimately familiar with the way things used to run, and the machinery of a thousand year republic isn't revamped overnight. Their plan to restore the republic and to make a better world is plausible and well conceived.

-- The evil they are replacing is outweighed by the good they will do. The death of one Alderaan is better than death stars roaming the galaxy and destroying MANY Alderaans, as Obi-wan predicted.

-- The mechanism of overthrow is sound: Kill the Emperor. The Empire is structured such that everything depends on him, and the whole thing falls like a house of cards when he dies. The Rebel alliance and the "Senate in Exile" can sweep into the power vacuum using the existing forms of government.

This, to my mind , is a canonical case of a justifiable revolution: They have a concrete and realistic plan both to overthrow the emperor and to build a better world in it's place.

What do we have , by contrast, in the Empire of Blood?
-- We have no realistic plan for deposing Tarquin. He defeated Elan easily and came close to outsmarting Haley, who was saved only by a potion of glibness.

-- We have no mechanism or concrete plan to replace Tarquin.

-- We have neither military might nor shadow government. And contrary to Spod's argument that our characters are superheroes who don't need to worry about the army, I believe both those things matter.

That is why I say the Rebellion of Star Wars is GO while Elan's attempt to depose Tarquin is NO. Elan needs to find friends who will be willing to do the planning and the groundwork. He can then serve as the revolution's PR man and inspiration. THEN we can talk about overthrowing Tarquin. But not now.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

pendell

2011-02-18, 05:39 PM

So given your stance here, I must presume that you are likewise condeming the elves who are laying the groundwork to retake Azure City? I mean, this isn't even a swoop-in-and-blastem solution like SPoD is decribing. The elves are actually formenting a full out guerrilla warfare revolution.

Logically what the elves are doing in Azure City is much worse than just trying to kill Xykon in a one-on-one fight. They are in fact setting up a situation where there might be repirsials and whatnot.

No. The situation is different, and let me explain how:

1) There is an existing government -- Hinjo et al in exile -- standing by ready to replace the goblins. Get rid of the goblin government, put Azure City government in its place. The mechanism is concrete and realistic, and Azure City will be able to resume control with a minimum of disruption.

2) Given Redcloak's desire to kill all humans, it is plausible that all the humans in the city are dead anyway without intervention. So this counts in our favor as well: We will get humans killed in the liberation of the city. But some humans killed is better than getting them all killed, which is what happens if we do nothing.

3) There is a practical scheme to accomplish this: Wait until Xykon and Redcloak leave, then hit the mooks while they're gone. By the time they get back the elves can have Azure City as tough a nut to crack as it was the first time around.

So: There is a tangible gain -- replacing torture of humans by a stable, existing government -- and a plausible, concrete plan in place for after the overthrow.

The plan is sound, the gain tangible and greater than the loss. Therefore the liberation of Azure City is GO.

A key point , I think, is that Azure City is a liberation -- the replacement of one government with an existing government-in-exile -- while the Empire of Blood is a revolution, the destruction of one form of government and the creation of a new one from scratch. If there was a Hinjo-equivalent in the Empire of Blood ready to step in and run things, I'd have no hesitation about killing Tarquin and letting Hinjo take over. As it is, it seems likely that any person I put in the office will be killed by the competing factions of this ever-changing continent five weeks after I leave.

Also, it's the difference between gradual genocide of humans versus leaving them under an oppressive government. The two are not the same at all.

Do you see the distinction I'm drawing? I don't ask that you agree, but I hope at least you understand where I'm coming from.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Porthos

2011-02-18, 05:42 PM

Not so. I will give you an example: The Rebel Alliance from Star Wars.

-- The evil they are replacing is outweighed by the good they will do. The death of one Alderaan is better than death stars roaming the galaxy and destroying MANY Alderaans, as Obi-wan predicted.

Most people in the Star Wars universe never had to deal with the Empire on such a personal level either. And there was plenty of room for reprisals between the time the first Death Star went kerplooie and five years later when the Emperor met his destiny with an glorified elevator shaft.

How did the Rebel Alliance deal with all the people who were killed between those two events?

If they were "acceptable causalites of war" then why couldn't any deaths in a mooted overthrow of Tarquin also be acceptable? Especially with all of the Star Wars parallels running around. :smallwink:

pendell

2011-02-18, 05:52 PM

If they were "acceptable causalites of war" then why couldn't any deaths in a mooted overthrow of Tarquin also be acceptable? Especially with all of the Star Wars parallels running around.

Okay. Look at it this way:

Imagine an alternate universe where the Rebel Alliance doesn't exist but Luke Skywalker does. He kills the Emperor and rides off into the sunset. Just that. There's no Lando Calrissien, no Millenium Falcon, no Calamari cruisers, no starfighters, none of that.

What happens next?

What happens next -- if you believe the EU -- is that Admiral Daala and Admiral Thrawn and Admiral this and General that all start fighting over the scraps of the Empire, with Galaxy Guns and Sun Crushers and World Devastators and Eclipse-class Star Destroyers and prototype Superlasers and clones and all the rest of it in the hands of multiple factions. Instead of one Empire, you've got a bunch of little Empires all fighting wars using Empire-style tactics and Empire-style terror.

Is that REALLY better than just leaving Palpatine to run the whole show and keeping all those losers under his heel?

That's the way I see the Empire of Blood: Elan is Luke Skywalker without the Rebel Alliance. Show me a Rebel Alliance, and we'll talk about overthrowing the Emperor. The New Republic is better than the Empire. But even the Empire is better than a dozen-sided civil war between Imperial admirals only slightly less evil than the Emperor was.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Porthos

2011-02-18, 05:59 PM

Given Redcloak's desire to kill all humans, it is plausible that all the humans in the city are dead anyway without intervention. So this counts in our favor as well: We will get humans killed in the liberation of the city. But some humans killed is better than getting them all killed, which is what happens if we do nothing.

Point of order. I believe that Redcloak is a racist speciest. But he hasn't advocated genocide. In fact he seems to pride himself in being better than that.

A key point , I think, is that Azure City is a liberation -- the replacement of one government with an existing government-in-exile -- while the Empire of Blood is a revolution, the destruction of one form of government and the creation of a new one from scratch. If there was a Hinjo-equivalent in the Empire of Blood ready to step in and run things, I'd have no hesitation about killing Tarquin and letting Hinjo take over. As it is, it seems likely that any person I put in the office will be killed by the competing factions of this ever-changing continent five weeks after I leave.

Also, it's the difference between gradual genocide of humans versus leaving them under an oppressive government. The two are not the same at all.

Do you see the distinction I'm drawing? I don't ask that you agree, but I hope at least you understand where I'm coming from.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

I think I am focusing more on:

Villages burned and massacres and reprisals and revolutionary "action groups " and death squads and all the rest of it. And ordinary people get to watch their wealth confiscated "for the good of the people" or "for the good of the empire", their farms get burned, their families taken hostage, their sons conscripted, their daughters raped. That's not including what happens if the two armies decide that YOUR farm or town or village is just the perfect place to have a battle. And with War comes the other two horsemen of societal breakdown: Disease and famine.

There was also the bit about revolutionaries meeting with people who had suffered during the war you edited out, so I really can't comment on that bit. :smallwink:

You seem to think that there will be some sort of Total War should an attmept to take out Tarquin. I, and others, were pointing out that level of warfare doesn't seem to be happening on the Western Continent in the various overthrow of kingdoms.

Now having something better to be put in it's place is certainly a good point. And, quite likely we have in in the case of Elan. And even if Elan isn't put in charge, it's probably likely that they can find someone else who isn't to the level of depravity that Tarquin is currently wallowing in.

Besides, no one, as far as I know, is suggesting that the Order immediately step in without a plan and chop off Tarquin's head. Most everyone is suggesting that this is something that should be taken care of after Xykon has been shown the error of his ways.

Either way, getting rid of Tarquin the Right Way or the Wrong Way seems slightly incidental to the main thrust of this thread. Which is, in case we've forgotten, should Tarquin be gotten rid of at all?

I would maintain that he is more than Bad News enough to want to figure out a way to get rid of him. If I were in a world where there was narrative causality and if I were in a world where Big Damn Heroes coming in and kicking the butt of Evil Overlords was seen as an acceptable thing to do. :smallwink:

SPoD

2011-02-18, 06:05 PM

I respectfully disagree. I point to the battle of Azure City. You had a super-powered villain, and superpowered heroes, but they were part and parcel of a larger battle, and the actions of the ordinary soldiers on both sides was NOT irrelevant to the outcome.

Not relevant, for many reasons. Most importantly, the people of the Empire of Blood have not lived under the peaceful benevolent rule of Tarquin and his ancestors for hundreds of years. They have no stake in his continued survival. If anything, they have shown callous disregard for who sits on the throne. One of the only things we know about the citizens of this continent is that they don't care who's ruling.

Second, it's the aggressor who decides if armies are involved. Xykon attacked with an army, so of course Azure City had to defend with one. If he had decided to sneak in and attack in secret, then the actions of the rank and file soldiers would have had no effect. For OOTS vs. Tarquin, the aggressor is the OOTS. They don't need to fight the army of the EOB unless the army resists them once the coup is finished. And we have no reason to think they will.

Third, Xykon had no interest in the state of Azure City afterwards, so he had no reason to limit the collateral damage. If anything, he deliberately increased it for fun. In OOTS vs. Tarquin, both sides have an interest in limiting the damage as much as possible. Tarquin, to limit the unrest in his empire, and the OOTS to save lives. If both sides want to limit the damage, the damage is going to be limited.

I contend that if you are going to attempt the overthrow of a nation in the OOTS verse, it isn't going to be a nice, neat and tidy affair of Justice League vs. Lex Luthor. Not when Lex Luthor is the general of an army and derives most of his power from that.

Tarquin derives most of his power from the fact that he controls the Empress of Blood. There is no evidence at all that the rank-and-file is personally loyal to him, and not the dragon. There is no evidence that they wouldn't be just as happy serving under another general if the Empress told them to.

No, I believe overthrowing the Empire of Blood will be more like the battle of Azure City. Heroes will be a part of it, but low level mooks and civilians will be in it too, and many of them will die.

I just don't see how, unless the OOTS wants to deliberately throw them in the path of Tarquin. Please, explain to me how they would get involved if the OOTS doesn't choose to get them involved.

Given the presence of high level adventurers such as the bounty hunters on this continent, I suspect that the scry-and-die approach you're advocating will be considerably more difficult than you propose. If a band of high-level adventurers could knock Tarquin off that easily, I suspect it would have already been done years ago. He does read the evil overlord list or something like it, after all.

Other adventuring parties don't know that Tarquin is in charge. This is the ENTIRE POINT of his plan to control the continent. No one knows about it. Elan has already bypassed the single greatest security feature Tarquin has: Anonymity. And Tarquin handed that to him.

If an adventuring party that is not the OOTS were to scry-and-die tomorrow, they would kill the Empress of Blood. And then Tarquin would thank them for freeing the people from that horrible dictator.

Also, if that logic was sound, why would Tarquin bother with an army when he has his own high-level adventuring party.

Because the army is part of his bluff. The army keeps the peons in line and creates the pretenses by which he extends his control. His entire scheme is based on the idea of drawing attention AWAY from his own involvement. If he just went around subjugating people with his own power, everyone would know where to put the target. He tried that already, remember, and it didn't work.

So I don't believe you're correct. High-level heroes are force multipliers who can drastically increase an army's effectiveness, but they are not a replacement for that army.

I disagree strongly.

Finally, you're assuming that OOTS will remain united and agree to do this task. I'm not sure that's a valid assumption. With Roy out of the picture, they tend to fall apart into squabbles. I'm not sure Elan would be able to convince them to follow him in this venture. Haley will follow him. I don't know if Roy would. Vaarsuvius probably wouldn't. Belkar will be dead. And Durkon? He might side with Malack.

If you think, after Elan has been with Roy every step of the way, that Roy wouldn't help Elan, then I guess we just have very different opinions about Roy's character. I can't picture Roy saying, "You're on your own, Elan. Sure, he's evil, but my quest is done so those people can suck it." And if Roy is in, the whole Order is in (minus Belkar, but who cares?).

Porthos

2011-02-18, 06:07 PM

Okay. Look at it this way:

Imagine an alternate universe where the Rebel Alliance doesn't exist but Luke Skywalker does. He kills the Emperor and rides off into the sunset. Just that. There's no Lando Calrissien, no Millenium Falcon, no Calamari cruisers, no starfighters, none of that.

What happens next?

What happens next -- if you believe the EU -- is that Admiral Daala and Admiral Thrawn and Admiral this and General that all start fighting over the scraps of the Empire, with Galaxy Guns and Sun Crushers and World Devastators and Eclipse-class Star Destroyers and prototype Superlasers and clones and all the rest of it in the hands of multiple factions. Instead of one Empire, you've got a bunch of little Empires all fighting wars using Empire-style tactics and Empire-style terror.

Is that REALLY better than just leaving Palpatine to run the whole show and keeping all those losers under his heel?

That's the way I see the Empire of Blood: Elan is Luke Skywalker without the Rebel Alliance. Show me a Rebel Alliance, and we'll talk about overthrowing the Emperor. The New Republic is better than the Empire. But even the Empire is better than a dozen-sided civil war between Imperial admirals only slightly less evil than the Emperor was.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Considering all of the death and destruction that occurred post-RotJ, not to mention the general incompetence of the New Republic (and the various successor governments after the series of civil wars that occurred), perhaps bringing in the Expanded Universe is not exactly the best of ways to strengthen your point about how great the Rebel Alliance plans were when it came to post Papeltine life. :smalltongue:

pendell

2011-02-18, 06:16 PM

You seem to think that there will be some sort of Total War should an attmept to take out Tarquin. I, and others, were pointing out that level of warfare doesn't seem to be happening on the Western Continent in the various overthrow of kingdoms.

I'm not saying that it is certain. I'm saying it is highly probable. And therefore our heroes need to be prepared for that contingency.

It would be nice indeed if Spod's solution -- scry-and-die , then put a good man in to run the show -- worked.

I estimate about a 25% chance of it working just as planned.

I give it such a low estimate because Tarquin is an experienced adventurer and has obviously read the evil overlord list. He's also genre-savvy. I wouldn't be surprised if he's not been attacked this way before -- and may have led such attacks himself. As Redcloak mentioned to Jerix (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0652.html), adventurers are constantly popping up to try to foil their schemes. It's an occupational hazard.

Tarquin will use his army to defend himself. And even if you kill him, it's possible the army outside the city will still attack under it's own generals -- not for Tarquin's sake (as Spod points out, he's an outsider), but with the aim of seizing the crown for themselves.

That means fighting. I estimate a 50% probability that there will be fighting, and if it comes that will means serious fighting. Which brings up all the evils I mentioned before.

Either way, getting rid of Tarquin the Right Way or the Wrong Way seems slightly incidental to the main thrust of this thread. Which is, in case we've forgotten, should Tarquin be gotten rid of at all?

I have to change the question around a bit. I would say that making the Empire of Blood into a good place with liberty and justice for all is a good thing -- possibly even a great thing. If getting rid of Tarquin is part of that, it's good. But not getting rid of Tarquin just for the sake of getting rid of Tarquin.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

SPoD

2011-02-18, 06:18 PM

Also, the Star Wars analogy fails because this is not the Empire. This is the Republic in the days of the prequels. Tarquin is not Emperor Palpatine, he is Senator Palpatine, pulling everyone's strings from the shadows.

So the question in your hypothetical should be: If Luke Skywalker existed but the rest of the Rebel Alliance didn't, what would happen if he swooped in and killed scheming Senator Palpatine then rode off into the sunset?

Answer: Things would go back to Business as Usual. The Galactic Senate would keep on keepin' on. Most people wouldn't even notice.

Do you see the difference? Tarquin is an abnormality in the way things work around here, and one that disguises its own presence. Remove the abnormality, and everything goes back to normal. No wars, no unrest, just one less manipulator behind the scenes.

Bottom Line: Tarquin's own scheme makes him far, FAR more vulnerable to being toppled without the citizens going into revolt.

SPoD

2011-02-18, 06:25 PM

I give it such a low estimate because Tarquin is an experienced adventurer and has obviously read the evil overlord list. He's also genre-savvy. I wouldn't be surprised if he's not been attacked this way before -- and may have led such attacks himself. As Redcloak mentioned to Jerix (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0652.html), adventurers are constantly popping up to try to foil their schemes. It's an occupational hazard.

Yes, and as I explained, Tarquin's main defense against this is his Scheme, which he has broached in order to brag to Elan. He DID read the overlord's list, he DID create a great scheme to defend himself from adventurers, and then he screwed it up.

Tarquin will use his army to defend himself.

Explain, in exact terms, how Tarquin uses an army to defend himself when the OOTS uses wind walk to appear in his bed chamber in the middle of the night. Take into account that Haley, who is not the Order's most powerful member, effortlessly destroyed a half-dozen army members with a weapon she is not proficient in.

The Order knows where Tarquin is, they know what his game is, they have no reason to get anyone else involved. How, precisely, does Tarquin put an army between himself and them?

Please answer in a form other than, "Well, if it were possible, someone else would have done it already," because that's already been addressed. The OOTS have an advantage no one else has ever had: they know Tarquin is the one in charge.

And even if you kill him, it's possible the army outside the city will still attack under it's own generals -- not for Tarquin's sake (as Spod points out, he's an outsider), but with the aim of seizing the crown for themselves.

Why would they do that? The crown is still on the head of its rightful monarch, the Empress of Blood. She is still a red dragon in her own right, do you really think any of them could kill her?

Fishman

2011-02-18, 06:32 PM

Do you see the difference? Tarquin is an abnormality in the way things work around here, and one that disguises its own presence. Remove the abnormality, and everything goes back to normal. No wars, no unrest, just one less manipulator behind the scenes.The problem with this plan is that the status quo *IS* wars and unrest, and it has been so for at least 500 years. If you simply remove Tarquin, things go back to the status quo, that of petty warlords killing each other. Tarquin is using the expectation that the status quo is wars and unrest to create the stability through the illusion that the wars and unrest are continuing.

Is he pretty evil? Sure. But the situation isn't going to change merely because you assassinated one warlord. That happens all the time there.

pendell

2011-02-18, 06:33 PM

I just don't see how, unless the OOTS wants to deliberately throw them in the path of Tarquin. Please, explain to me how they would get involved if the OOTS doesn't choose to get them involved.

I can think of two scenarios, although your D&D-fu is greater than mine.

Scenario #1: They find that infiltrating and killing Tarquin in the castle is a no go. Perhaps he lives in an area shielded from teleport and astral travel As Per SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm) (See the teleport section). Perhaps he has body doubles magically disguised to look just like him. Then the Empire's response team swings into action, possibly someone like Tsukiko's death squad.

While they are cracking this, Tarquin takes an escape route and teleports to an undisclosed location. Using sending, he directs his armies in the capture or killing of the infiltrators.

In such a situation, decapitation won't work. The only way to de-power Tarquin is to destroy his armies, then capture him. Killing a person with the best protection magic can buy, as a head of state can, is not a trivial task, even in D&D.

2) Okay, let's say it works out just the way you said. They teleport in, kill Tarquin. Now what? The army's still out there in the city.

The Empress proclaims the new ruler Sir Goody-goody. The generals of the Empire say "no". Then they march on the palace, each one determined to take the throne for himself.

Taking control of a country, in D&D or in real life, is about more than simply putting a crown on your head. You must also have the power to maintain that title in the face of ALL challengers. Consequently, you must either already have the army on your side, or you must have another army willing to back you up.

If you think, after Elan has been with Roy every step of the way, that Roy wouldn't help Elan, then I guess we just have very different opinions about Roy's character. I can't picture Roy saying, "You're on your own, Elan. Sure, he's evil, but my quest is done so those people can suck it." And if Roy is in, the whole Order is in (minus Belkar, but who cares?).

I can see the conversation now:

:Elan: Roy, will you help me overthrow my mean-meanie head dad and establish a new kingdom?

:Roy: You? A king? You couldn't tie your own shoes. NO.

If Roy decides to overthrow the Empire of Blood, HE will be the leader and Elan will be the sidekick. That's not the way the narrative tropes would go, in this case. So, no. I don't think Roy would consent to being under Elan's command.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

pendell

2011-02-18, 06:39 PM

Explain, in exact terms, how Tarquin uses an army to defend himself when the OOTS uses wind walk to appear in his bed chamber in the middle of the night.

Well, that's easy. Where's his bed chamber?

Are you sure?

Are you sure he didn't change it at the last minute?

Are you sure that's not a body double in the room?

Are you sure he doesn't sleep in an area protected by an anti-magic field?

Take into account that Haley, who is not the Order's most powerful member, effortlessly destroyed a half-dozen army members with a weapon she is not proficient in.

Does the army consist solely of zero-level warriors? Might there not be mages and clerics as well? Might there be high-level adventurers for hire?

How, precisely, does Tarquin put an army between himself and them?

By not being where they expect him to be, or by magically shielding his stronghold from things like windwalk and teleport. Or both.

ETA: You strike me as a woman who's run a campaign or two in your time, SPOD. How would YOU protect the BBEG from scry-and-die tactics?

Actually, that's interesting enough I think I'll spawn off a second thread in roleplaying just to ask that very question.

Why would they do that? The crown is still on the head of its rightful monarch, the Empress of Blood. She is still a red dragon in her own right, do you really think any of them could kill her?

It's an army -- which has to have more than just zero-level mooks, if for nothing else than to counter adventurers of other armies -- and the Empress is so stupid she thinks eating every day will improve her stats. Yeah, I'll take that bet.

ETA: Why would they overthrow the "rightful monarch"? Because they're lawful evil. "Rightful" doesn't enter into it. I believe that the kind of person who rises to command in an LE army is a person who is competent, ruthless, extremely ambitious, shrewd, with an eye to the main chance. The average rank-and-file may believe the Empress runs the show but I'm sure the people who interact with Tarquin and company know the score. Such people would swarm to any weakness or chance for their own gain like sharks to blood in the water.
Respectfully,

Brian P.

Forum Explorer

2011-02-18, 06:43 PM

Also there is a resistance being formed. Once Tarquin is gone, Ian and his friends can move in to take over.

Or another scenario Tarquin dies and their puppets now rule but are less agressive and less competant.

So OotS could take out Tarquin right away without any problems because another govement is already in place. They aren't tearing down the whole thing just killing one part of it. If they wanted to fix the whole situation than yes they would need an established plan with what they would do afterwards as well. But just Tarquin and his group? No they are clear to go.

Still it would be too risky to do while Xykon is running around. Plus I think Tarquin is going to get killed by that lizardfolk advisor.

DeltaEmil

2011-02-18, 06:53 PM

The problem with this plan is that the status quo *IS* wars and unrest, and it has been so for at least 500 years. If you simply remove Tarquin, things go back to the status quo, that of petty warlords killing each other. Tarquin is using the expectation that the status quo is wars and unrest to create the stability through the illusion that the wars and unrest are continuing.

Is he pretty evil? Sure. But the situation isn't going to change merely because you assassinated one warlord. That happens all the time there.These wars still happen, whenever Tarquin and his compadres feel that they need to rename their empires and need a new figure head. They also incite their "leaders" to go conquering other nations, then let them be reconquered by another one, and so on so that nobody can really stop the evil Tarquin league.

Nothing has changed for the people on the western continent. Their lives haven't improved under the dread tyrant Tarquin, and it won't get worse after his demise. The status quo hasn't changed.

SPoD

2011-02-18, 06:55 PM

I can think of two scenarios, although your D&D-fu is greater than mine.

Scenario #1: They find that infiltrating and killing Tarquin in the castle is a no go. Perhaps he lives in an area shielded from teleport and astral travel As Per SRD (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm) (See the teleport section). Perhaps he has body doubles magically disguised to look just like him. Then the Empire's response team swings into action, possibly someone like Tsukiko's death squad.

While they are cracking this, Tarquin takes an escape route and teleports to an undisclosed location. Using sending, he directs his armies in the capture or killing of the infiltrators.

If you think Tarquin will run if Elan comes calling for him, well, let's just say I have a very different estimation of his character.

Other than that, it is much harder to blanket every square inch of the palace with anti-teleport magic than it is to simply teleport outside such magic and walk in. If they try to teleport to his bedchamber and are blocked, oTarquin will not know an attempt was made. They just try again 10 feet to the right.

2) Okay, let's say it works out just the way you said. They teleport in, kill Tarquin. Now what? The army's still out there in the city.

The Empress proclaims the new ruler Sir Goody-goody. The generals of the Empire say "no". Then they march on the palace, each one determined to take the throne for himself.

Then Vaarsuvius casts Cloudkill and Chain Lightning on the first army to get there, killing them all. The rest decide that they didn't really want to be king after all, because screw it, governments only last a year in this place anyway.

Once an army chooses to try to seize power, they cease being an innocent bystander. And no one is going to succeed head-to-head with the Order once Tarquin and his allies are dead. These aren't fanatically loyal hobgoblins following the high priest of their one true god on a holy mission to eradicate their greatest foe, either. A little damage will go a long way convincing the rest to shape up.

If they were willing to fall in line behind the Empress, and Lord Tyrinar, and Lord Whoever-was-before-that, why wouldn't they fall in line behind whoever is next?

Taking control of a country, in D&D or in real life, is about more than simply putting a crown on your head. You must also have the power to maintain that title in the face of ALL challengers. Consequently, you must either already have the army on your side, or you must have another army willing to back you up.

Relative to the army of the Empire of Blood, the OOTS is an army. Even more so when Xykon is defeated and Azure City retaken, because now their friends O-Chul and Hinjo owe them one.

I can see the conversation now:

:Elan: Roy, will you help me overthrow my mean-meanie head dad and establish a new kingdom?

:Roy: You? A king? You couldn't tie your own shoes. NO.

If Roy decides to overthrow the Empire of Blood, HE will be the leader and Elan will be the sidekick. That's not the way the narrative tropes would go, in this case. So, no. I don't think Roy would consent to being under Elan's command.

Who said anything about Elan being in command? I said Roy would participate, because a.) Elan helped him, and b.) it's the right thing to do. Roy would then start drawing up plans and Elan would fall in line behind him. It's ridiculous to think that even Elan would think Elan would be in charge, or that Elan would expect to be made king. Hence Minister Bob.

Talvereaux

2011-02-18, 06:56 PM

I can see the conversation now:

:Elan: Roy, will you help me overthrow my mean-meanie head dad and establish a new kingdom?

:Roy: You? A king? You couldn't tie your own shoes. NO.

If Roy decides to overthrow the Empire of Blood, HE will be the leader and Elan will be the sidekick. That's not the way the narrative tropes would go, in this case. So, no. I don't think Roy would consent to being under Elan's command.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Where did SpoD say Elan ruling was a factor? A huge point of the quoted post was that killing Tarquin will not call for a coup that puts the Empire in need of new management. T's manipulations are entirely behind the scenes.

The point was they'd take him out because Tarquin's inner party is badly influencing the Western Continent (in spite of what his self-justifications insist), and the social repercussions or power vacuum of his death would be non-existent because he is not the de jure ruler, the Empress of Blood is, while Tarquin's party is relatively anonymous. The rest of the Order save for Belkar does care enough about people besides their selves that the virtue of helping the citizens would/could/should be an incentive to nip his influence in the bud.

edit: ninja'ed by the minute!

Porthos

2011-02-18, 06:59 PM

Where did SpoD say Elan ruling was a factor?

I think that's more my thing. But that's only because the Power of Plot seems to be pointing in that direction.

I make no actual bets on whether or not it will actually happen though. :smallwink:

EDIT::: Of course, Elan could just be a figurehead that waves to the crowd and looks pretty with Minister Bob doing the real work of running the nation.

SPoD

2011-02-18, 07:08 PM

Well, that's easy. Where's his bed chamber?

Are you sure?

Are you sure he didn't change it at the last minute?

Are you sure that's not a body double in the room?

Are you sure he doesn't sleep in an area protected by an anti-magic field?

None of this has anything to do with an ARMY getting involved, because it all assumes that if the OOTS fails to scry-and-die, then they will STAY in the castle and try to take over. They won't. They'll leave and try again in a week, a month, a year.

You will have an interesting game of cat and mouse between Tarquin and the Order, but what you WON'T have is a land war. Because there is no target for Tarquin to send his army against. The OOTS have no homeland, they can be based anywhere and change their location every day.

So, no, none of those are ways to get an ARMY involved. None of those make it any worse for the OOTS to try to get Tarquin as many times as it takes to get it to stick.

Is it possible to thwart scry-and-die? Of course it is.

Does failing to successfully scry-and-die precipitate a land war? Of course not.

pendell

2011-02-18, 07:11 PM

Other than that, it is much harder to blanket every square inch of the palace with anti-teleport magic than it is to simply teleport outside such magic and walk in. If they try to teleport to his bedchamber and are blocked, oTarquin will not know an attempt was made. They just try again 10 feet to the right.

I've gone ahead and asked the question in a separate thread. But I will note this post (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6123639&postcount=4)

Yeah the Scry-and-Die tactic is basically scrying an enemy, greater teleporting in and killing them. It's pretty much infamous for bypassing the whole 'adventure' part of the...adventure, and it's part of the reason why most DM's wake up with more explosive runes prepared than most global military leaders. It also sets the standard for evil hideouts/strongholds, if it can be scried and teleported into you're not doing it right.

Then Vaarsuvius casts Cloudkill and Chain Lightning on the first army to get there, killing them all.

This assumes that the army is composed of nothing more than zero-level warriors, that there are no spellcasters or clerics, and that the generals of the Empire of Blood can think of no more intelligent way to assault a fortified position than to simply march their troops in tightly packed ranks, just begging to be killed.

The rest decide that they didn't really want to be king after all, because screw it, governments only last a year in this place anyway.

In addition to the assumption above, you're assuming that they don't have any evil clerics able to zombify the dead. Presto! No more morale checks.

And no one is going to succeed head-to-head with the Order once Tarquin and his allies are dead.

I would not make that assumption. This is an army that exists on a continent inhabited by Ant people, sandworms, and red dragons. We do not know what their order of battle is , what their tactics are , what their doctrine is, or how their leaders are likely to use them.

We do know that they have been able to conquer territory and overcome those wandering monsters and other kingdoms et al to hold territory.

Given these facts, I would not assume that the Order of the Stick is invincible and cannot be defeated by the Empire of Blood's army. It's not like adventurers are uncommon in D&D land. Granted we've only seen maces and swords, I don't believe that means those are the only tools in their arsenal.

These aren't fanatically loyal hobgoblins following the high priest of their one true god on a holy mission to eradicate their greatest foe, either. A little damage will go a long way convincing the rest to shape up.

There are a number of ways of motivating humans to fight in the face of danger -- unit pride, fear of punishment, promise of glory and loot. And those are just normal human tools. We're not counting common D&D tactics like zombifying the dead.

If they were willing to fall in line behind the Empress, and Lord Tyrinar, and Lord Whoever-was-before-that, why wouldn't they fall in line behind whoever is next?

Quite possibly because the people leading the army know the score, and know better than to try to off a figurehead when Tarquin's around.

Even more so when Xykon is defeated and Azure City retaken, because now their friends O-Chul and Hinjo owe them one.

Okay, NOW we're starting to build a sensible plan. Now we have an alternate army, we still need support inside the country and a shadow political structure. But it's definitely a step in the right direction.

Who said anything about Elan being in command? I said Roy would participate, because a.) Elan helped him, and b.) it's the right thing to do. Roy would then start drawing up plans and Elan would fall in line behind him. It's ridiculous to think that even Elan would think Elan would be in charge, or that Elan would expect to be made king. Hence Minister Bob.

Okay, I can agree to that.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

SPoD

2011-02-18, 07:19 PM

This assumes that the army is composed of nothing more than zero-level warriors, that there are no spellcasters or clerics, and that the generals of the Empire of Blood can think of no more intelligent way to assault a fortified position than to simply march their troops in tightly packed ranks, just begging to be killed.

I'll borrow a page from your book: If these mysterious never-mentioned-in-the-comic generals are cunning enough and ambitious enough and have a powerful enough army to take out the Order, why haven't they taken out the Empress and Tarquin in the first place?

Answer: They can't, because they don't exist.

Quite possibly because the people leading the army know the score, and know better than to try to off a figurehead when Tarquin's around.

Wouldn't those same people know that anyone who can kill Tarquin is someone you wouldn't want to mess around with?

Basically, you're proposing that Tarquin has some magical ingredient for keeping these hypothetical generals in line that isn't his personal strength or their loyalty to the Empress of Blood. And I'm saying that I don't see any evidence for that.

Gift Jeraff

2011-02-18, 07:24 PM

:Elan: Roy, will you help me overthrow my mean-meanie head dad and establish a new kingdom?

:Roy: You? A king? You couldn't tie your own shoes. NO.

If Roy decides to overthrow the Empire of Blood, HE will be the leader and Elan will be the sidekick. That's not the way the narrative tropes would go, in this case. So, no. I don't think Roy would consent to being under Elan's command.

What about that girl in the Order? The one that's second-in-command and has proven to be an effective leader in Roy's absence--even of an entire resistance group--and will probably marry Elan?

Nah, Roy probably forgot about her, too.

Also, I'm in the "Malack is evil" camp, but I'm really getting the impression that he's a more harmless kind of evil and possibly only evil because of Tarquin's influence. So there's a hypothetically better replacement for Tarquin, or at least a non-evil influence on the continent. Though this is purely speculation, I suppose.

pendell

2011-02-18, 07:24 PM

None of this has anything to do with an ARMY getting involved, because it all assumes that if the OOTS fails to scry-and-die, then they will STAY in the castle and try to take over. They won't. They'll leave and try again in a week, a month, a year.

And in the meantime Tarquin will be sending out counter-parties to eliminate THEM. If he doesn't have specially trained forces such as the Death Squad, he can also hire bounty hunters.

If OOTS tries to kill him once, I don't see why Tarquin has to invoke total defense and simply sit there waiting for them to come to him. He will be taking pro-active action to eliminate the threat as well.

As towards why this relates to the army ... the reason armies fought wars in real life is because kings wouldn't fight single combats and it's very very hard to assassinate a king who's protected by an army. True, there are more magical options for an assassin in the D&D universe, but those options all have magical counters, and a head of state has many more resources, magical and physical, to throw at the problem than an adventuring party does. There's nothing stopping Tarquin, for example, from sending scry-and-die parties after THEM.

The OOTS have no homeland, they can be based anywhere and change their location every day.

So now it's an anti-terrorist operation and Tarquin needs Secret Police rather than an army to get them. Maybe so, but from my understanding terrorism is only the first phase of the Three Phases (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategy_and_tactics_of_guerrilla_warfare#The_.27c lassic.27_three-phase_Maoist_model) of overthrowing a government. If you're going to get anywhere, sooner or later there's going to have to be fighting unless you can subvert the existing army.

So, no, none of those are ways to get an ARMY involved. None of those make it any worse for the OOTS to try to get Tarquin as many times as it takes to get it to stick.

If the OOTS doesn't use an army they will have to deal with Tarquin's intact organization. There are magical counters to magical means, and Tarquin has the edge in resources. Again, that assumes Tarquin plays total defense and makes no attempt to send counter-parties or bounty hunters after them.

You state that the OOTS is a match for the entire empire of Blood. I note that the OOTS has already had multiple members captured by just two EOB operatives who weren't even on the regular payroll. The OOTS is a laughably incompetent group. So far the only reason they have survived is because people like Xykon and Tarquin who have the power to destroy them have chosen to ignore them instead. But if either of them decided to make it their mission in life to kill the OOTS, the OOTS would die. For example, why couldn't Xykon simply scry-and-die them NOW? Answer: Because he's too busy with other things and doesn't consider them a threat.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

pendell

2011-02-18, 07:30 PM

I'll borrow a page from your book: If these mysterious never-mentioned-in-the-comic generals are cunning enough and ambitious enough and have a powerful enough army to take out the Order, why haven't they taken out the Empress and Tarquin in the first place?

Answer: They can't, because they don't exist.

Just because they haven't been shown on-panel doesn't mean they don't exist. I'm sure there are intermediate layers of command between Tarquin and the guards we saw in the prison, and I'm equally sure they are at least reasonably competent. Tarquin doesn't look like he suffers fools gladly.

Wouldn't those same people know that anyone who can kill Tarquin is someone you wouldn't want to mess around with?

Not necessarily. Anyone can get lucky, and no one lives forever.

Basically, you're proposing that Tarquin has some magical ingredient for keeping these hypothetical generals in line that isn't his personal strength or their loyalty to the Empress of Blood. And I'm saying that I don't see any evidence for that.

The "magical ingredient" for ensuring the loyalty of LE subordinates is their own avarice and fear: There is more profit in following you than in attempting to replace you. Like Vetinari in Ankh-Morpork. Idealists are unreliable but human selfishness and self-interest is an extremely reliable lever, at least as far as LE types are concerned. Understand those levers, the machine is easy to control. And Tarquin is a master.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

SPoD

2011-02-18, 07:34 PM

And in the meantime Tarquin will be sending out counter-parties to eliminate THEM. If he doesn't have specially trained forces such as the Death Squad, he can also hire bounty hunters.

No, he won't. Tarquin would never consent to anyone killing Elan other than him. He's just like Nale in that respect, and we all see how well Nale's plans work.

Again, we're back to the fact that both Elan and Tarquin know that they live in a dramatic universe, and that the only possible outcome is for the two of them to battle. They will seek each other out, even when it flies in the face of common sense. The difference is, Elan isn't the tactical mastermind of the OOTS; Roy is. So while the Empire's best strategist is throwing away his carefully laid defenses to go for the big dramatic showdown, the OOTS's best strategist will be working full-time.

You can't weigh the Order's personality defects without considering Tarquin's own.

You state that the OOTS is a match for the entire empire of Blood. I note that the OOTS has already had multiple members captured by just two EOB operatives who weren't even on the regular payroll.

When the OOTS were taken by surprise in an ambush? Sure. But the OOTS would be the one doing the ambush, and they fare much better in those.

The OOTS is a laughably incompetent group.

It is my assumption that the OOTS cannot beat Xykon without first learning to work together as a well-oiled machine. Therefore, any post-Xykon version of OOTS would be far, FAR more efficient than the one we see today. They may even be higher level than Tarquin by then. I realize that this may not have been an assumption you were making, so I'm telling you now.

SPoD

2011-02-18, 07:47 PM

Just because they haven't been shown on-panel doesn't mean they don't exist. I'm sure there are intermediate layers of command between Tarquin and the guards we saw in the prison, and I'm equally sure they are at least reasonably competent. Tarquin doesn't look like he suffers fools gladly.

Whereas I assume that Tarquin kills anyone who is too competent or ambitious, so as not to undermine his long-term plans. Either one is equally likely.

The "magical ingredient" for ensuring the loyalty of LE subordinates is their own avarice and fear: There is more profit in following you than in attempting to replace you. Like Vetinari in Ankh-Morpork. Idealists are unreliable but human selfishness and self-interest is an extremely reliable lever, at least as far as LE types are concerned. Understand those levers, the machine is easy to control. And Tarquin is a master.

Why do you think every person in the EOB army is Lawful Evil just because Tarquin is Lawful Evil? Since we seem to be making them up out of whole cloth, why aren't some of them Lawful Neutrals who obey whoever is on the throne? Or True Neutrals who will follow anyone who makes it worth their time? Or Chaotic Evils who only keep their position because Tarquin is behind them and will suffer from troop mutiny the moment Tarquin vanishes?

Not necessarily. Anyone can get lucky, and no one lives forever.

Great, so in addition to being powerful, ambitious, cunning, and Lawful Evil, we can add that they are also willing to throw their lives away--but only sometimes.

Ultimately, these mystery generals seem to have whatever attributes most easily support your argument.

pendell

2011-02-18, 07:48 PM

No, he won't. Tarquin would never consent to anyone killing Elan other than him. He's just like Nale in that respect, and we all see how well Nale's plans work.

First, Tarquin may not kill Elan but that protection does not extend to the rest of the group.

Second, Nale got the "needlessly over-complicated plans" from his mother, not his father. Tarquin's plans work.

You can't weigh the Order's personality defects without considering Tarquin's own.

Agreed.

When the OOTS were taken by surprise in an ambush? Sure. But the OOTS would be the one doing the ambush, and they fare much better in those.

As I said, this assumes Total Defense on Tarquin's part. He's a general. He may have a limitation in that he can't kill Elan, and he may have a limitation in the laws of dramatics, but that doesn't mean he can't counter-ambush the characters, or allow their "ambush" to turn into a Cunningly Prepared Trap. That's also a trope.

He's limited by drama. Nothing in drama says the villain has to fight fair.

It is my assumption that the OOTS cannot beat Xykon without first learning to work together as a well-oiled machine. Therefore, any post-Xykon version of OOTS would be far, FAR more efficient than the one we see today.

Maybe, but the OOTS will also have suffered casualties during that post-Xykon wrap up. We know Belkar won't be there. And -- I just remembered -- neither will Durkon. Remember the Oracle's prophecy to him?

Nor can we assume that any survivors will be in any shape for further adventuring.

*I* think that the eventual overthrow of the EOB will be Elan's show -- as we saw when he rescued Haley from Nale, he can be surprisingly competent given the right motivation. I'd be shocked if Haley didn't assist him. I don't think we can assume anyone else will be available, and if they do they will not be needed. There are other adventurers in the world, after all.

The Giant has already tipped his hand; we know how this story ends. Elan will overthrow Tarquin, and everyone will live happily ever after. That doesn't preclude taking the mechanical steps I discussed earlier to make that a happy ending, of course.

They may even be higher level than Tarquin by then.

I suspect that, in terms of fighting skills, they're already higher level than Tarquin is now. I'll wager a fight between Roy and Tarquin would last one round. Tarquin survives on his wits and his grasp of strategy, not his battle prowess. Or so it appears.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

pendell

2011-02-18, 07:57 PM

Why do you think every person in the EOB army is Lawful Evil just because Tarquin is Lawful Evil?

We don't need every person in the EOB to be Lawful evil. Just the officers of command rank.

Lawful neutral or true neutral is not inconsistent with "will seize power given the opportunity." Ancient Rome had no shortage of generals ready to grab the purple at the slightest opportunity. Since we've got a gladiator theme, I wouldn't be surprised if the Empire of Blood had that in common with the Empire as well.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

SPoD

2011-02-18, 07:58 PM

Lawful neutral or true neutral is not inconsistent with "will seize power given the opportunity."

It's not synonymous with it, either. Again, you're projecting traits onto these imaginary characters that support your argument when other options are equally likely.

The Giant has already tipped his hand; we know how this story ends. Elan will overthrow Tarquin, and everyone will live happily ever after.

Elan knows how the story ends, too. All he needs to do to defeat Tarquin is decide that he will never be truly happy until he has deposed his father and brought peace and tranquility to the Western Continent. Once he does that, the universe will contort to whatever improbable coincidences are needed to ensure that Tarquin falls and that a wise and just government takes his place.

That doesn't preclude taking the mechanical steps I discussed earlier to make that a happy ending, of course.

It doesn't preclude it, no, but it doesn't require it, either. And raising an army to fight a war that you don't need to fight is practically the definition of "reckless disregard for life".

pendell

2011-02-18, 08:03 PM

It doesn't preclude it, no, but it doesn't require it, either. And raising an army to fight a war that you don't need to fight is practically the definition of "reckless disregard for life".

Check me on this , but doesn't every trope of this sort have a "storming the castle" scene? Whether it's Return of the jedi or Krull or Princess Bride or .. I dunno, you pick ... there's gonna be a need for fighting somewhere in thre.

SPoD

2011-02-18, 08:07 PM

Check me on this , but doesn't every trope of this sort have a "storming the castle" scene? Whether it's Return of the jedi or Krull or Princess Bride or .. I dunno, you pick ... there's gonna be a need for fighting somewhere in thre.

Neither Krull nor The Princess Bride have any armies beyond the main characters and their immediate allies. So, fighting, yes. Wars, no. If anything, both movies are cases where the king is deposed by a small band of skilled warriors and that's that. They live happily ever after.

pendell

2011-02-18, 08:12 PM

SPoD

2011-02-18, 08:16 PM

Guys, I am now going to cease participation in this thread. I have enjoyed it, but it has now consumed multiple hours of my time and I need to be doing something else.

Thank you, Spod and the rest. It has been interesting.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

I was just thinking the same thing.

At least our discussion kept it from getting locked after all those scrubs!

Swordpriest

2011-02-18, 10:51 PM

What I don't understand -- at all -- is where anyone gets the idea that Tarquin is somehow promoting peace and stability in the area.

He isn't. He's keeping it in a constant state of war and chaos in order to further his own ends. True, he didn't start this, but he sure as heck didn't end it. Just a few strips ago we saw the Weepies slaughtering the defenders of another city, including the husband of the woman he's now forcing to become his wife.

Check out the plan in this strip:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0758.html

Yes, he says "eventually" it'll be all peace and harmony, blah, blah, blah. But in actuality, they haven't stopped the mayhem at all. They're just manipulating it to their advantage.

Where is this peace and stability that Tarquin's "strong hand" is supposedly imposing? :smallconfused:

derfenrirwolv

2011-02-18, 11:35 PM

Vaarsuvius uses enchantment magic to manipulate the Empress into issuing a series of reforms over the course of a few months

why would V resort to enchantment spells? He's* learning to use all of his resources, and his mate is a baker. Two cream eclairs a day and big red will sign whatever he wants.

Jay R

2011-02-19, 12:07 AM

I can see the conversation now:

:Elan: Roy, will you help me overthrow my mean-meanie head dad and establish a new kingdom?

:Roy: You? A king? You couldn't tie your own shoes. NO.

No, it could work. Elan likes Roy. Roy sets Elan up on the throne, and becomes his general, offering him advice from behind the throne, and the Empire of Song has begun.

Meanwhile, Durkon and Vaarsuvius eliminate the other evil empires and become advisors for the Empire of Beer and the Empire of Verbosity.

DeltaEmil

2011-02-19, 05:19 AM

Where is this peace and stability that Tarquin's "strong hand" is supposedly imposing? :smallconfused:In the heads of the people that are cheering for Tarquin.
Clearly, Tarquin is the savior of the western continent, why else would people cheer for him? Without the possible (but ultimately false) idea that Tarquin is at least doing something decent, all that remains is a cruel tyrant and mass-murderer who enjoys burning and torturing people to their death to satisfy his own ego, and that would be like cheering for a slightly less worse Xykon.

Just as there are people who still argue honestly that Belkar can't be chaotic evil, there will be people who will claim that Tarquin's rule is just and necessary.

zimmerwald1915

2011-02-19, 06:11 AM

In the heads of the people that are cheering for Tarquin.
They're not cheering for Tarquin. Why would they cheer for someone who presents himself as a servant of the state and the Empress? They're cheering the promised bloodsport. And really, as the EoB itself acknowledges, that's the point of the bloodsport, to distract them from the self-proclaimed "brutal, oppressive regime" with spectacle and violence.

Apparently, the need for distraction has been growing greater, since the EoB only thinks this event's euphoria will last from Wednesday (mid-week, whatever) till Saturday.

Hecuba

2011-02-19, 06:30 AM

The issue is that Tarquin is only temporarily imposing order. In the long term, all he is doing is maintaining exactly the same constant warfare that plagued the continent before he arrived.
I'm sure Tyrinaria was nice and ordered as well, but I'm also sure the Empress of Blood's revolution wasn't. I doubt the Free City of Doom think much to the 'order' Tarquin's 'imposing'.

The Western Continent is still a society of struggle and war, and Tarquin is explicitly keeping it that way.

I'm actually gonna stop lurking for this one. It's an interesting discussion.

If the conquest of the Free City of Doom is to be taken as a good example, I would actually wager that most of the power transitions Tarquin & Co. enact are comparatively bloodless, at least relative to the impression I would otherwise have.

In general, unless I have reason to assume otherwise, I tend to assume that when a city is sacked in a fantasy story, it's the full deal: rape, pillage, kill the children of any important members of the last ruling cast (which if you use Genghis Khan as an example, could get to a lot).

If they have been particularly persistent in the past, you could go for the gold and salt the fields so nothing can grow.

That's my presumption of what was happening every few months before Tarquin's gang moved in. So, with that, while I don't find Tarquin's evil excusable (at all), I do imagine that overthrowing him might not be the wisest course.

A better option might be to set up a version of Lord Shojo's con to fill the expected vacuum, they kill him.

Swordpriest

2011-02-19, 10:41 AM

In the heads of the people that are cheering for Tarquin.
Clearly, Tarquin is the savior of the western continent, why else would people cheer for him? Without the possible (but ultimately false) idea that Tarquin is at least doing something decent, all that remains is a cruel tyrant and mass-murderer who enjoys burning and torturing people to their death to satisfy his own ego, and that would be like cheering for a slightly less worse Xykon.

Just as there are people who still argue honestly that Belkar can't be chaotic evil, there will be people who will claim that Tarquin's rule is just and necessary.

They're cheering for their promised sadistic entertainment. They don't give a damn about Tarquin, they just want to see someone bleed.

Jay R

2011-02-19, 11:37 AM

Is there a POINT to toppling Tarquin?

Ask the families of the slaves burning on the mountain just to be a party decoration.

Marxism

2011-02-19, 01:23 PM

Well yeah but the problem is that if you ask the homeless orphans of the constant wars before he showed up then no.

I feel that yes there is a point but only if its done properly. Some chaotic stupid bloke with justice instead of a brain would be the wrong way of doing it. someone like Hinjo with plenty of backers and a team of dedicated do gooders would be perfect. First Hinjo becomes a political rival complete with supporters and such. Then Tarquin is killed by the team of do gooders. Then his buddies are killed and Hinjo takes the throne. Hinjo then does what Tarquin is doing now but with more paid labor less slavery and a bit of evil smiting maybe toss around democracy for a bit.

Kish

2011-02-19, 04:36 PM

Again, why are you taking Tarquin's word that he's done anything positive?

Burner28

2011-02-19, 04:37 PM

Maybe it has something to do with the fact he rarely lies?

Kish

2011-02-19, 05:01 PM

Maybe it has something to do with the fact he rarely lies?
...That's a fact? He's made of lies. Count the lies in his latest appearance, or are you seriously claiming he considers himself a humble servant of the Empress of Blood?

Burner28

2011-02-19, 05:10 PM

I said rarely, not never. There's a difference. Though I probably should have used the term "usually doesn't lie" because rarely isn't really the correct term.

Porthos

2011-02-19, 05:14 PM

Maybe it has something to do with the fact he rarely lies?

Two points.

A) To say that he "rarely lies" is only accurate if one uses the most strict and exacting definition of the word. But if one uses the more colloquial version of the word (i.e. speaking with the intent to deceive), Tarquin lies all of the time.

B) Just because Tarquin believes that he is brining peace to the Western Continent, it doesn't logically follow that this is his primary motivation for doing what he is doing.*

Or is secondary motivation. Or his tertiary. Or his... Well you get the point. :smalltongue:

He is very upfront about the fact that he is in this for power and money. Beyond that he seems to get a kick that he'll be a Villain for the Ages. It was only when (from his perspective) his whiny son kept going on about suffering and misery that he tried to play the, "I'm doing it for their own good" card.

I'd be slightly more impressed with Tarquin if he actually came up with that reasoning without being pressed. :smallwink:

* Never mind the fact that just because Tarquin might think he is brining peace to the Western Continent, it doesn't actually follow that he [u]will[/b] be. Even smart manipulative people can be wrong. From time to time, at least.

And I won't even get into the idea of self-delusion where someone thinks that they are doing something, when it is clear that they are doing just the oppposite (i.e. Miko). :smallwink:

Kish

2011-02-19, 05:16 PM

I'm aware you said "rarely." Did you bother to read what I said?

In fact, I can't think of anything he's said that hasn't been either 1) an outright lie, 2) a manipulatively phrased deception, or 3) unprovable. With his track record I'm inclined to guess most of the #3s go in category 1 or 2. Even if, for some reason, you treat all "unprovables" as gospel truth, how you can claim he "rarely" lies, however...I have no clue.

Burner28

2011-02-19, 05:19 PM

B) Just because Tarquin believes that he is brining peace to the Western Continent, it doesn't logically follow that this is his primary motivation for doing what he is doing.

Or is secondary motivation. Or his tertiary. Or his... Well you get the point. :smalltongue:

Read this page carefully (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0758.html) He never actually said that ending conflict was his motivation, but rather the predicted consequence of his plan if it succeed

I'm aware you said "rarely." Did you bother to read what I said?

Have you read my other post correcting myself? I changed my mind about it, rephrasing it to "usually doesn't lie" and I am pretty sure the definition of the word "lie" can be roughly be said to be "deliberately make false statement with the intention to decieve. I wish you wouldn't accuse me of not having been reading your post, you know.

Porthos

2011-02-19, 05:23 PM

however...I have no clue.

He is, I presume, using the "Exact Words" loophole. Something isn't a lie if the Exact Words are true but the "presumptions" built around the statement are utterly a lie. The ol' A Lie by Ommission Isn't Really A Lie argument.

Which may be true from some philosophical viewpoints. But from most of them (never mind the courts of law, public opinion, and just plain ol' common sense) it tends not to be. :smallwink:

Devils in literature (and some in D&D for that matter) weren't named The Father of Lies for nothin' after all. :smallsmile:

Have you read my other post correcting myself? I changed my mind about it, rephrasing it to "usually doesn't lie" and I am pretty sure the definition of the word "lie" can be roughly be said to be "deliberately make false statement with the intention to decieve.

Ah the dangers of a fast moving thread. :smallamused:

Well even though it was Kish who you are quoting in that block and not me [might want to fix the quote tag there :smalltongue:] I take your point. So please ignore my posting above as applied to you, and instead apply it more as a general point about how some people think that Tarquin isn't a liar. :smallsmile:

----===== Eliminating a Double Post =====-----

Read this page carefully (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0758.html) He never actually said that ending conflict was his motivation, but rather the predicted consequence of his plan if it succeed.

Except he is trying to use that as justification to Elan for what he is doing. And people on this board seized upon it as a sign that Tarquin isn't as bad as the alternatives.

Some have even gone as far as to put the dreaded Well Intentioned Extremist tag on him.

And all because of some Happy Talk that he tried to pull on his son when he was discussing his murderous ways.

It's not me who has to reread that carefully, but everyone else who actually is using that as a defense of Tarquin. :smallwink:

===

Anyways, justification or motivation, it matters little to me what word is used here. Tarquin only mentioned this when he was trying to lure Elan to the Dark Side. And as such, I don't take it with much salt. Any more than I take Darth Vader's statement about "bringing peace to the galaxy" at face value.

And even if Tarquin is right, there is the old idea of The Ends Don't Justify the Means. Even if Tarquin's plan succeeds, which is beyond all common sense in my eyes, it still doesn't justify the way it was done.

There were and are other ways that the Western Continent could have seen an end to warfare. But Tarquin doesn't seem to interested in pursuing them. :smallsmile:

Burner28

2011-02-19, 05:40 PM

Except he is trying to use that as justification to Elan for what he is doing. And people on this board seized upon it as a sign that Tarquin isn't as bad as the alternatives.

Some have even gone as far as to put the dreaded Well Intentioned Extremist tag on him.

And all because of some Happy Talk that he tried to pull on his son when he was discussing his murderous ways.

It's not me who has to reread that carefully, but everyone else who actually is using that as a defense of Tarquin. :smallwink:

just so you know, I certainly aren't from thiose people who thought Tarquin isn't Evil. I was trying to say earlier that the reason some people say Tarquin has good intention is because of the fact what he is technically saying is true
(http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0756.html) if the definition of lying is based on your exact wording, not what you intented to say.

Porthos

2011-02-19, 05:47 PM

if the definition of lying is based on your exact wording,

But it isn't, which is my whole point. A lie by omission is still a lie. In just about every sense of the word.

And if one doesn't believe me, see how long a Lie By Omission/Exact Word defense lasts if one ever appears in court. :smallwink:

Anyways, I've heard the arguments about Exact Words before in the attempt to say that it isn't lying. But since none of us are Literal Genies, I tend not to give much credence to them. I would also point out that it is almost impossible to cover every hidden inference or meaning when you are trying to uncover a Lie by Omission. If only because it is very hard to think of all possible loopholes to statements. Which is one of the main reasons why they are treated as "real" lies by just about everyone when they run afoul of them.

Kish

2011-02-19, 06:04 PM

Have you read my other post correcting myself? I changed my mind about it, rephrasing it to "usually doesn't lie" and I am pretty sure the definition of the word "lie" can be roughly be said to be "deliberately make false statement with the intention to decieve.

...No. No, it can't. Not if you want to use words to communicate rather than to score points. Haley mocked Tarquin for torturing the language to make constructions which are lies of which all the individual parts are true. "All the words in my lies are true" apparently means something to Tarquin, but it's certainly not a moral distinction.

Usually, often, constantly: Tarquin lies all the time. The problem with your post isn't a matter of phrasing.

G-Man Graves

2011-02-19, 06:04 PM

Spod, it would appear that a large portion of your argument hinges on the fact that "Armies are not a key player, and even if they were, they are no match for a high level squad of murder hobos like the order of the stick". I would like to direct your attention to the Battle for Azure City, where the OotS lost. Badly.

"But wait, G-Man", you might say, "That isn't a good example! The group got separated! Their leader was busy fighting a sorcerer, which wouldn't be a factor here!" Well even if Roy was with them, he's basically an extra sword arm. He can only kill so many goblins (or humans and lizard folk) a turn.

"Alright, but the order has leveled since then! V and Durken can cast more, all the other's are more stabby! They have better items! They're ready to kick some ass!"

Okay, so V can cast more. Even then, he STILL has limited spell slots. He pulled out all of his stops at Azure City, finishing the day with literally no magic left in him. It's very possible that he kill hundreds, if not thousands of goblins. And the goblins won anyway! A party fighting an army get's weighed down by pure numbers! Keep in mind here, the Hobgoblins that wrecked the defenders at AC were basically a large tribe that Team Evil happened to stumble across. The Empire of Blood is a large empire, which no doubt has multiple armies. A party is NOT a replacement for a SINGLE army, let alone many. They would eventually get killed on this foolish escapade.

Porthos

2011-02-19, 06:23 PM

BTW, I want to show just how pernicious (and undetectable) Lies by Omission can be in the hands of someone who really wants to lie.

Let's go back to the infamous "I never said which side" example. Let's presume, for a moment, that Captain Amun-Zora was slightly more suspicious of General Tarquin:

Tarquin: I have already dispatched 500 dragoons to join the battle, Captain. They should be arriving by, oh, I'd say tomorrow? Dawnish?
CAZ: Really? That's wonderful. I-
*gets slightly suspicious*
CAZ: Noonish? Dawnish? They will be able to join our side in time, yes?
Tarquin (very slightly peeved): Oh, I think they will be able the turn the the tide of the battle soon enough, my dear Captain. But enough of-
*presses the Freeze Frame button*

Now I want to ask people something. Just how persistent should Captain Amun-Zora be here to make sure that the troops are going to fight on her side? After all, one doesn't want to provoke an International Incident here. So she really can't flat out accuse the General of being a backstabbing so and so here, if only because it would really hurt her chances at living past the next few seconds. :smallwink:

But let's say she is able to box in the General a bit more.
*presses play button*
CAZ (interrupts): Oh this is wonderful. Our troops and yours fighting side by side. Tell me, how should I make sure that our commanders will be able to integrate our battle plans successfully? Where should they meet to discuss tactics?
Tarquin: Come now, is a dinner really the place to discuss such things? I'm sure our commanders will be able to figure out what to do with little help from us.
CAZ: Oh, you are right. But still, it is so difficult to sit here and not worry a little about my people. Do you think our archers and yours can at least rendevous and fight as a combined force before the fight begins?
Tarquin (now wanting to get on with this): I dislike micromanging things from afar, but I am sure I can give a quick word to our archer corps to let them know that at the beginning of the battle that they should coordiante the efforts.
Tarquin: But look at how we are boring everyone with this talk. I really must insist that we talk about much happier news.
*pause*
Tarquin: Of course, there are other times where we could discuss such matters. And there are some ways we can properly celebrate are new found ties that are more entertaining than others...

====

Now this seems pretty well boxed in, yes? And I doubt that Captain Amun-Zora could really press further.

And yet.

And yet all Tarquin has to do is order that his troops switch sides in the middle of the battle for his words above to still be techincally true. Or at the end. Or after they have appeared to drive off the invaders.

I ask you, how is Captain Amun-Zora supposed to nail down Tarquin to such a degree that he couldn't slip out of the box? And without provoking him? And even have reason to do it in the first place? It might be technically possible. But that presumes that one has all knowledge about the ways someone might try to slip out of a deal.

This is why this is viewed as lying. Because no matter how technically true the statements might be, they are still being used to deceive and are pretty much diametrically opposed to what one is saying on the face of things.

DeltaEmil

2011-02-19, 07:35 PM

They're cheering for their promised sadistic entertainment. They don't give a damn about Tarquin, they just want to see someone bleed.I'm actually talking about the people in the forum, not the inhabitants of the Empire of Blood. Although I do guess that the difference between the two groups is small... :smalltongue:

Silver Swift

2011-02-20, 05:59 AM

This is why this is viewed as lying. Because no matter how technically true the statements might be, they are still being used to deceive and are pretty much diametrically opposed to what one is saying on the face of things.

Well, it wouldn't be lying, it would be deceiving. Morally the two are equivalent, but there is a factual difference between them. Other than that I agree, the technically true/lie by omission thing is only relevant if someone isn't allowed to lie for some other reason than ethical concerns.

Burner28

2011-02-20, 07:36 AM

Gnoman

2011-02-20, 10:30 AM

Let me bring up a crucial difference between the battle of azure city and any wars that might spring up if T is killed. Motivation.

At Azure City, both sides were extremely motivated. The defenders stood "between their loved homes, and the war's desolation." They were all that could keep their homes, their families, their children, and their liege lords from destruction at the hands of a vastly powerful, vengeful invading army. The attackers were seeking vengeance for past wrongs, loot, and a chance to raise the banner of their species among the ranks of nations openly for the first time.

Here, the rank and file would have no such motivation. Sure, the leaders might get a crown on their heads, but what do the soldiers gain? A nicer barracks? Maybe a bit of loot? These might, and have for generations, hold out in lightning wars against similarly motivated opponents. How long these would hold up against not only a dozen or more similar bands, but an order of extremely powerful warriors that can slaughter them in droves even if they eventually fall, fighting for righteousness, it si difficult to know. This is a powerful archetype.

Squark

2011-02-20, 02:37 PM

"But wait, G-Man", you might say, "That isn't a good example! The group got separated! Their leader was busy fighting a sorcerer, which wouldn't be a factor here!" Well even if Roy was with them, he's basically an extra sword arm. He can only kill so many goblins (or humans and lizard folk) a turn.
-----
Okay, so V can cast more. Even then, he STILL has limited spell slots. He pulled out all of his stops at Azure City, finishing the day with literally no magic left in him. It's very possible that he kill hundreds, if not thousands of goblins. And the goblins won anyway! A party fighting an army get's weighed down by pure numbers! Keep in mind here, the Hobgoblins that wrecked the defenders at AC were basically a large tribe that Team Evil happened to stumble across. The Empire of Blood is a large empire, which no doubt has multiple armies. A party is NOT a replacement for a SINGLE army, let alone many. They would eventually get killed on this foolish escapade.

ACtually, All Haley, Roy, and Belkar needed to do is eliminate Xykon, Redcloak, and maybe the fake xykons.

D&D warfare, as I see it, really comes down to caster superiority. Once one side clearly has the superior casters, there's a finite amount a non-magical army can do, if the casters do their job right. The real defining problem with the battle of Azure City (besides the order being no match for Xykon) was the walls- If V had prepared his spells right (which she is beginning to learn about), he would have stocked her spell slots full of wall spells. This way, instead of wasting vast amounts of spells buffing the giant soldiers who would eventually die without wasting healing spells, V could drop a Wall of fire in front of the breach. Suddenly, the gobbos can't flood that breach with soldiers, because anything they send through it will take 2d6+ CL to any gobbo that goes through it, or 4d6+2 cl if they try to send undead.

Gobbos try to blot out the sun with arrows? My wall of force mocks your puny missile weapons! (And, for that matter, could be stacked on top of the fortification, making the ladders unusable as well).

So the real problem is not that a couple of high level casters without parallels on the other side can't make a castle virtually impregnable (or, with liberal use of disintegrate, tear down the defenses), it's that they need to use their brains in regard to spell selection, which V is only just learning to do.

Porthos

2011-02-20, 02:51 PM

Well, it wouldn't be lying, it would be deceiving. Morally the two are equivalent, but there is a factual difference between them. Other than that I agree, the technically true/lie by omission thing is only relevant if someone isn't allowed to lie for some other reason than ethical concerns.

This is what I meant in the first place. But yeah, you are right porthos, betraying people's trust isn't morally fine regardless of how you did it.

I really don't want to belabor this point, what with both of you agreeing on the larger points. :smallsmile: But I do want to plant my flag in the ground on the side that says that a Lie by Omission is a form of lying. And one that is recognized as such by a great many people.

Universally recognized?

Well this thread (and a few others on this board) shows that it isn't. :smallwink:

And I guess I'll have to leave it at that. Lest this thread become a battleground of dictionary entires, Wikipedia articles, and links to essays by ethicists. :smalltongue:

paladinofshojo

2011-02-20, 04:14 PM

G-Man Graves

2011-02-20, 04:40 PM

While I applaud the above post, I am saddened to note that the points, while good, have already been made and ignored multiple times in this thread. And probably others.

paladinofshojo

2011-02-20, 05:19 PM

Yes, but I put my points down clearly and incontestably

Gnoman

2011-02-20, 05:58 PM

There are two points that I want to bring up for why Tarquin should not be kicked out of power....
1) The people of Tarquin's empire are the only ones that have the right to make the decision of whether they want to be ruled by him or not. Since the people and the leader have a social contract between them, in which the leader does what he can to provide stability, safety, and prosperity to his people and the people are obligated to obey the leader. Tarquin seems to uphold his part of the contract, and it seems likely that the majority of the Empire of Blood really doesn't have a problem with him. However, the only reason people have a gripe with him is his "harsh" treatment of the dissidents of his realm, which in no way reflects to how he handles and administers the state towards his people (the latest comic shows that Tarquin himself knows that without their approval he is nothing). Though I cannot deny that Tarquin has wronged many people, he hasn't wronged them indiscriminately. No doubt he is a vile human being, but that is no excuse to dismiss him as a poor leader.

2) Let's say that Elan topples him, what then? The person in charge of providing said stability, safety, and prosperity will be gone. There will be a power vacuum, or at the very least instability for the first couple of years without his rule. Due to the dictatorship form of government there has to be someone filling his shoes regardless, ideally someone who is trying to transition society and government from an "evil" regime to a "good" Republic/Kingdom/whatever. Due to bureaucracy and the fact that this is a continental empire we're dealing with, this transition will take decades at least. Also, during the transition, the leader is divvying more and more of his power away, which leads to a weaker state that is ripe for conquest by one of those "petty dictators", then the cycle of Tarquin's reign repeats itself over again.

1. The people of the Empire of blood are not ruled by Tarquin. They are ruled by a red dragon empress. Tarquin is merely a general. This is merely a facade, but, insofar as "will of the people" has any bearing on a bloodthirsty tyrant who slaughters them on a whim, appearances are imortant.

2. The Empire of blood is not ruled by Tarquin. It is ruled by a red dragon empress. Tarquin is merely a general. This is merely a facade, but, as it is the public perception to those not in on the con, the power vacuum will be entirely invisible.

Porthos

2011-02-20, 07:08 PM

G-Man Graves

2011-02-20, 07:57 PM

There are many reasons to dismiss him as a poor leader. Massacring and brutally torturing the runaway slaves is a good enough start for me. Abusing his power for his own personal gain is another. And let's just throw in twisting the legal system to deal with people who annoy him for good measure.

And this doesn't even get into the legal system in the first place.

Actually, none of those have any bearing on his skills as a leader. They just go on to show that he's an evil old bastard. Conversely, we do have the evidence of "conquered 11 nations, took 26 to bring him down" and "Has essentially unified huge swathes of the continent" as reasons why he IS a good leader. Plus, we have evidence that he is quite proficient in stirring the hearts and minds of his people (albeit in a situation that is basically purely propaganda).

zimmerwald1915

2011-02-20, 08:00 PM

Actually, none of those have any bearing on his skills as a leader. They just go on to show that he's an evil old bastard. Conversely, we do have the evidence of "conquered 11 nations, took 26 to bring him down" and "Has essentially unified huge swathes of the continent" as reasons why he IS a good leader. Plus, we have evidence that he is quite proficient in stirring the hearts and minds of his people (albeit in a situation that is basically purely propaganda).
Actually, what you have proved is that Tarquin is a good warlord, good at holding the territory he conquers, and a good demagogue. These do not add up to good leader.

Porthos

2011-02-20, 08:14 PM

Actually, what you have proved is that Tarquin is a good warlord, good at holding the territory he conquers, and a good demagogue. These do not add up to good leader.

This.

I don't necessarily equate "effective" with "good".

I do equate "responsible" with "good", however. :smallwink:

So is Tarquin a responsible leader? Absolutely not. Therefore it makes it hard for me to call him a "good leader".

I would also point out that the the term "good leader" is rife with connotations that go beyond just "effective ruler". There are connotations, at least in my book, that a "good leader" is one that cares for his people. And one who, well to put it not too lightly, leads them into a good destiny.

Is Tarquin effective? At the moment he is. Is Tarquin good at what he does? He has been up till now. But neither of these things makes him a "good leader". If only because of the connotations of the phrase "good leader".

Coidzor

2011-02-20, 08:20 PM

You are right removing a semblance of order isn't the best idea, but replacing a dictatorship with a benelovent ruler is a good idea for the heroes.:smallwink:

Well, by the time that Elan gets back and can actually do that we're more likely to be looking at dealing with an actual empire rather than one more strongman in a sea of strongmen. Which changes the game a bit.

Because, thematically, there's 3 ways that currently exist for Tarquin to get taken out. Xykon, Elan, and the Elves. And only one of them has any chance of setting up something even halfway nice. And Xykon's kinda tenuous.

theNater

2011-02-20, 08:34 PM

There are two points that I want to bring up for why Tarquin should not be kicked out of power....
1) The people of Tarquin's empire are the only ones that have the right to make the decision of whether they want to be ruled by him or not. Since the people and the leader have a social contract between them, in which the leader does what he can to provide stability, safety, and prosperity to his people and the people are obligated to obey the leader. Tarquin seems to uphold his part of the contract, and it seems likely that the majority of the Empire of Blood really doesn't have a problem with him. However, the only reason people have a gripe with him is his "harsh" treatment of the dissidents of his realm, which in no way reflects to how he handles and administers the state towards his people (the latest comic shows that Tarquin himself knows that without their approval he is nothing). Though I cannot deny that Tarquin has wronged many people, he hasn't wronged them indiscriminately. No doubt he is a vile human being, but that is no excuse to dismiss him as a poor leader.
The two types of accused (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0734.html) does not point to a justice system which is only rough on dissidents. While we have only seen it actively wrong people by Tarquin's machinations, it seems likely to wrong large numbers of innocent people.

We also know that there has been some support for an overthrow, but those interested have been killed in the arena in short order (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0770.html). You can't use the fact that everybody who tries to overthrow Tarquin dies before they get anywhere as evidence that nobody wants to overthrow Tarquin.

2) Let's say that Elan topples him, what then? The person in charge of providing said stability, safety, and prosperity will be gone. There will be a power vacuum, or at the very least instability for the first couple of years without his rule. Due to the dictatorship form of government there has to be someone filling his shoes regardless, ideally someone who is trying to transition society and government from an "evil" regime to a "good" Republic/Kingdom/whatever. Due to bureaucracy and the fact that this is a continental empire we're dealing with, this transition will take decades at least. Also, during the transition, the leader is divvying more and more of his power away, which leads to a weaker state that is ripe for conquest by one of those "petty dictators", then the cycle of Tarquin's reign repeats itself over again.
No one, at any point, has advocated as far as I'm aware, is currently advocating overthrowing Tarquin without a plan. However, even if they did so, the Order could easily govern until such time as suitable local rulers could be arranged for.

paladinofshojo

2011-02-20, 09:06 PM

Huh.

While I might (and I do stress might) agree with stability, I can't say I agree with safety or prosperity.

I would also point out that there are many inherent dangers of following that line of thought.

What "inherent dangers" are you talking about? Asides, the social contract between a leader and his people has been around ever since the dawn of man. If a leader fails to hold popularity and majority approval over his people he will inevitably be replaced by someone who the people see as more fit to rule them. To maintain control, the leader has to first ensure government-political stability towards his people (and when I say people, I mean FREE people who are regarded as citizens, not the slaves) since he needs government-political stability to implement his decrees, the leader then needs to make sure his people have enough to eat, that they are able to live in a comfortable status quo (prosperity), and that they are safe from outside threats. Those three attributes are found in every successful autocratic/oligarchic leader.

You can't use the fact that everybody who tries to overthrow Tarquin dies before they get anywhere as evidence that nobody wants to overthrow Tarquin.

True, but you also can't use the fact that one group of people who want to overthrow Tarquin represents that the entire Empire wants him gone either...

No one, at any point, has advocated as far as I'm aware, is currently advocating overthrowing Tarquin without a plan. However, even if they did so, the Order could easily govern until such time as suitable local rulers could be arranged for.

Really? Did you fully read my second point or just skimmed over it? The problem isn't that "they need a plan". It's that the preferred goal for the empire is to transition it from an "evil" regime to a "good" one, which will take decades to implement on such a wide empire and cause political instability due to intentional weakening of the state. It has to be done really slowly otherwise the state will either collapse into anarchy or be conquered by a stronger state. If they just replace Tarquin with "suitable" local rulers, then they're really just performing a coup. As such, they'll have to prove themselves to the people by appearing to be better leaders than Tarquin was, and I doubt releasing prisoners, destroying the Colosseum, or taking away their slaves will earn them any brownie points. Which will lead to yet again, another coup to get a Tarquinesque leader incharge

I don't necessarily equate "effective" with "good".

I do equate "responsible" with "good", however. :smallwink:

So you dismiss Tarquin as a poor leader only because of the weak argument of your sole definition of the world "good" doesn't match the implied definition of what the rest of us are using? Without any concrete detail to support this? :smallconfused:

1. The people of the Empire of blood are not ruled by Tarquin. They are ruled by a red dragon empress. Tarquin is merely a general. This is merely a facade, but, insofar as "will of the people" has any bearing on a bloodthirsty tyrant who slaughters them on a whim, appearances are imortant.

2. The Empire of blood is not ruled by Tarquin. It is ruled by a red dragon empress. Tarquin is merely a general. This is merely a facade, but, as it is the public perception to those not in on the con, the power vacuum will be entirely invisible.

1. Technically if we were to break down the empire's political structure, it goes with a head of state being the dragon and the head(s) of government being Tarquin and Malack. Asides, Tarquin has never "slaughtered them on a whim", there's a difference between killing slaves and killing citizens.
2. Said power vacuum seems invisible because of Tarquin and his partners.... With them gone, the power vacuum will become an all to real threat.

Porthos

2011-02-20, 09:41 PM

What "inherent dangers" are you talking about? Asides, the social contract between a leader and his people has been around ever since the dawn of man. If a leader fails to hold popularity and majority approval over his people he will inevitably be replaced by someone who the people see as more fit to rule them

I was referring to the fact that more than one conquering despot has indeed brought what seemed to be "stability, safety, and prosperity" to his own people. For a time. However they did that by brutally subjecting parts of society under their thumb. The brutal crushing of dissent, if one will. And then gone on to put other neighboring people under their thumb. And brutally crushing dissent there as well.

What I was referring to is that it is more than proper for the people of that country to rise up and deal with said leader, if there are no other avenues for redress for their greivance.

If one wants to bring out the "social contract" I would point that it is pretty much torn to shreds the moment that unreasonable force is used to deal with dissent.

And, really, that's about as much as I can say about things like that on a board like this. :smallsmile:

====

BTW, I do know one thing. If I was living in the Empire of Blood, and I knew the score, I would have no qualms helping overthrow Tarquin. None. What. So. Ever.

...

Presuming I had Player Class Levels that is. :smalltongue:

EDIT::::

So you dismiss Tarquin as a poor leader only because of the weak argument of your sole definition of the world "good" doesn't match the implied definition of what the rest of us are using? Without any concrete detail to support this? :smallconfused:

I don't seem to be the only one drawing a distinction between "effective" and "good". :smalltongue:

I also might want to wait and see just how well off the "common person" of the Empire of Blood is before I started to say how effective he is at helping his own people.

He is certainly effective at enriching himself, expanding the borders, and punishing people he doesn't like. But, the last time I checked, "I am the State" wasn't exactly very high on the approved philosophies when it came to governing. :smalltongue:

====

And, really, with that I must disengage on Political Philosophy. I really do fear that I am skirting close enough to the line as it is. And I have no wish to be Six Gunned. :smallwink:

Kish

2011-02-20, 09:54 PM

So you dismiss Tarquin as a poor leader only because of the weak argument of your sole definition of the world "good" doesn't match the implied definition of what the rest of us are using? Without any concrete detail to support this? :smallconfused:
Hey. Do not presume to speak for "the rest of us." And don't talk about other people having "no concrete details," when you have absolutely nothing in favor of Tarquin not being the worst thing that ever happened to the continent that doesn't depend on his word.

Coidzor

2011-02-20, 09:56 PM

the Order could easily govern until such time as suitable local rulers could be arranged for.

While Roy and V are smart and Haley is savvy and Durkon is, well, Durkon, I just don't see them as equipped for the burden of governing. So, easy is not the word I would use to describe the time they would have with such a proposition either after they wrap up this whole world-at-risk thing and come back or right now.

paladinofshojo

2011-02-20, 10:18 PM

I was referring to the fact that more than one conquering despot has indeed brought what seemed to be "stability, safety, and prosperity" to his own people. For a time. However they did that by brutally subjecting parts of society under their thumb. The brutal crushing of dissent, if one will. And then gone on to put other neighboring people under their thumb. And brutally crushing dissent there as well.

What I was referring to is that it is more than proper for the people of that country to rise up and deal with said leader, if there are no other avenues for redress for their greivance.

You seemed to be under the illusion that brutally subjecting parts of society directly effects the actions of the rest of the population. As long as the majority of the population is fed, working, has plenty of resources, and is left virtually unmolested they won't care what their tyrannical government does because it's none of their business. In the end, if people are put in a comfortable status-quo they just won't care. Asides, it is for the people to decide whether they want to keep Tarquin around or not. Not you, not me, but them, if the entire empire had mass riots, the army attempting a coup on him, civil war etc. Then his overthrow would be justified because he was not able to keep stability.... but as we can see, he has kept his people in conditions that are comfortable enough to where they don't need to revolt against him. The only time when you see people rising up against their leaders is when they are put into circumstances where they have nothing left to lose....

If one wants to bring out the "social contract" I would point that it is pretty much torn to shreds the moment that unreasonable force is used to deal with dissent.

Technically, Tarquin isn't the instigator of the "tearing to shreds". Since he (seemingly) upholds his end of the contract by providing them with what he owes them. It's the dissenters that have broken their end of the contract by not obeying the leader.

Porthos

2011-02-20, 10:20 PM

You seemed to be under the illusion that brutally subjecting parts of society directly effects the actions of the rest of the population.

It's been known to happen. From time to time. :smallsmile:

As long as the majority of the population is fed, working, has plenty of resources, and is left virtually unmolested they won't care what their tyrannical government does because it's none of their business. In the end, if people are put in a comfortable status-quo they just won't care.

As you say. You'll have to pardon me if I disagree that this is always the case. :smallsmile:

Technically, Tarquin isn't the instigator of the "tearing to shreds". Since he (seemingly) upholds his end of the contract by providing them with what he owes them. It's the dissenters that have broken their end of the contract by not obeying the leader.

I am struggling to think of a way to respond to this statement without going back to Political Philosophy/Theory.

And failing. :smalltongue:

Since I have said that I want to now stay away from such topics, I will simply say:

I disagree. Strongly. :smallsmile:

paladinofshojo

2011-02-20, 10:32 PM

It's been known to happen. From time to time. :smallsmile:

Yeah, but every nation is pretty harsh when it deals with treason. Which is why "a part of society is brutally pushed down Tarquin's heels" is in that predicament. The people of the Empire don't look like they respect sentient life (what with the slavery and the gladiator fights) so why exactly would they care for those who are going against their government?

As you say. You'll have to pardon me if I disagree that this is always the case. :smallsmile:

There's an old saying "People with full bellies don't make revolutions"

Hey. Do not presume to speak for "the rest of us." And don't talk about other people having "no concrete details," when you have absolutely nothing in favor of Tarquin not being the worst thing that ever happened to the continent that doesn't depend on his word.

So I'm assuming you do not believe that the word "good" equates to "effective"? Asides, I have proven myself, you on the other hand haven't proven me wrong.

BTW, I do know one thing. If I was living in the Empire of Blood, and I knew the score, I would have no qualms helping overthrow Tarquin. None. What. So. Ever.

Would that be with the same point of view you have from your post-modern upbringing or their's?

Porthos

2011-02-20, 10:48 PM

Would that be with the same point of view you have from your post-modern upbringing or their's?

Considering that there are at least some people running around in the Stickverse who seem to have fairly similar outlooks on life to the ones that can be found in our world, I don't see this as much of an issue. :smallsmile:

paladinofshojo

2011-02-20, 10:54 PM

Considering that there are at least some people running around in Stickverse seem to have fairly similar outlooks on life to the ones that can be found in our world, I don't see this as much of an issue. :smallsmile:

I beg to differ (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0669.html)

Porthos

2011-02-20, 11:01 PM

I beg to differ (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0669.html)

I said "similar", not exact. :smallsmile:

I think, broadly speaking, the viewpoints that Roy and Haley have are well represented in our world. Even more controversial people like Girard have their counterparts here.

It is that to which I was referring to.

The Stickvere is many things. But a realistic representation of Medieval thought, it ain't. :smalltongue:

Warren Dew

2011-02-20, 11:02 PM

Building a giant coliseum for people to kill each other in is not inherently "better" than NOT building such a coliseum and NOT having people kill each other.
Not sure why you're responding to me on this. It was JonesTheSpy that was drawing a parallel between infrastructure and quality of life, not me.

Because your theory that it will make the lives of thousands of people worse is a THEORY, and the acts of that single man are FACT.
In other words, it's okay to pull the trigger on innocent people as long as you're not sure the gun is loaded? Interesting approach.

I respectfully disagree. I point to the battle of Azure City. You had a super-powered villain, and superpowered heroes, but they were part and parcel of a larger battle, and the actions of the ordinary soldiers on both sides was NOT irrelevant to the outcome.
Exactly. SPoD seems to think the comic relies entirely on shallow and simplistic story cliches. As you point out, the battle of Azure City demonstrated that it's a lot deeper than that - and that yes, numbers matter too, not just high level characters.

Again, why are you taking Tarquin's word that he's done anything positive?
Again, no one is taking Tarquin's word for it, any more than they did in the case of the whole desert being in a state of constant warfare for 500 years. They are drawing legitimate conclusions from what can be observed from the comic. Given the three big empires are all controlled by one group of cooperating friends, it stands to reason that they aren't going to go all out when fighting each other.

paladinofshojo

2011-02-20, 11:09 PM

The Stickvere is many things. But a realistic representation of Medieval thought, it ain't. :smalltongue:

It is also not a realistic representation of our world in a fantasy version either. Most of the references in the Stickverse towards our world are jokes and lampshade hangings at best.......

Warren Dew

2011-02-20, 11:13 PM

Gobbos try to blot out the sun with arrows? My wall of force mocks your puny missile weapons! (And, for that matter, could be stacked on top of the fortification, making the ladders unusable as well).
At 10 feet square per caster level and one 6 second round per caster level, even maintaining a 10 foot high wall of force around a one mile perimeter for one 12 hour day will require over 3,000,000 spell slots. Numbers still matter, and Vaarsuvius seems to have done a better job of assessing the Azure City situation than your post does.

Porthos

2011-02-20, 11:15 PM

It is also not a realistic representation of our world in a fantasy version either. Most of the references in the Stickverse towards our world are jokes and lampshade hangings at best.......

I gotta say I still disagree. I'm not referring to jokes about our world or things like that. I am saying that the broad personal outlook of various characters reflect the some of the same broad outlooks that one can find in both popular entertainment and in people from "real life".

I know that if I cite specific examples from TVTropes I am asking for trouble, so I won't. But I will say that one follows the links in the entires on the Character Sheets, one might find plenty of Real Life examples. :smallwink:

Alagaesian

2011-02-20, 11:16 PM

You seemed to be under the illusion that brutally subjecting parts of society directly effects the actions of the rest of the population.
Unless, of course, the people are too scared to revolt in a militant state like the EOB because they're afraid of what will happen to them if they do. They're afraid Tarquin and his massive army will kill them and make examples of them. Besides, even if someone thinks of starting a revolt, they will probably assume that the rest of the population will be too scared to follow and then they and their family will be hanged in the city square to reinforce the oppressive justice system they were trying to get rid of.

slayerx

2011-02-20, 11:23 PM

There are two points that I want to bring up for why Tarquin should not be kicked out of power....
1) The people of Tarquin's empire are the only ones that have the right to make the decision of whether they want to be ruled by him or not. Since the people and the leader have a social contract between them, in which the leader does what he can to provide stability, safety, and prosperity to his people and the people are obligated to obey the leader. Tarquin seems to uphold his part of the contract, and it seems likely that the majority of the Empire of Blood really doesn't have a problem with him. However, the only reason people have a gripe with him is his "harsh" treatment of the dissidents of his realm, which in no way reflects to how he handles and administers the state towards his people (the latest comic shows that Tarquin himself knows that without their approval he is nothing). Though I cannot deny that Tarquin has wronged many people, he hasn't wronged them indiscriminately. No doubt he is a vile human being, but that is no excuse to dismiss him as a poor leader.

Ya did you see how unhappy those poeple looked after Elan's speech... that's pretty good evidence that what Elan said about the citizen's lives in the regime is atleast somewhat true... Elan is effectively just reminding these people how miserable they really are. No the majority of people are likely not happy; but they are also not willing to do anything

in all your talk of the "social contract" you seem to be neglecting the fear and intimidation factor that typically goes with tyrannical regimes. Tyrants do not rule by keeping their people happy, but by keeping them too scared to rise up against them. In a tyrannical dictatorship, ANY kind of criticism of the gov't is typically quickly squashed and punished and thus leading people to fear to challenge them. Furtharmore the gov't takes extra steps to make their people feel too weak to even have a chance; the crush freedom of speech and protest to make people feel alone and keep them from ever being able to organize themselves into something that might stand a chance against the armies... afterall while someone might be willing to die for a cause, they are less willing to die for a cause that they think has no chance of victory. Any urge they might have to revolt can easily be squashed by fears of facing the empire's army.

Only when people get so miserable that they are willing to take even the slimmest of chances and die for their freedom will they revolt. And that's how tyrants play their game, they balance out the people's tiniest contentment with their fear of the gov't... make sure the poeple are just barely content enough that they are willing to deal with their miserable lives rather than take snowballs chance in hell chance against their gov't... and that's part of where bread and circus's (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0741.html) comes to play; put on some good entertainment to help people forget their actual needs and desires

theNater

2011-02-20, 11:24 PM

True, but you also can't use the fact that one group of people who want to overthrow Tarquin represents that the entire Empire wants him gone either...
We know that some people want him gone. We don't know that anyone particularly wants him to stay, unless I've missed something.

Really? Did you fully read my second point or just skimmed over it? The problem isn't that "they need a plan". It's that the preferred goal for the empire is to transition it from an "evil" regime to a "good" one, which will take decades to implement on such a wide empire and cause political instability due to intentional weakening of the state. It has to be done really slowly otherwise the state will either collapse into anarchy or be conquered by a stronger state. If they just replace Tarquin with "suitable" local rulers, then they're really just performing a coup. As such, they'll have to prove themselves to the people by appearing to be better leaders than Tarquin was, and I doubt releasing prisoners, destroying the Colosseum, or taking away their slaves will earn them any brownie points. Which will lead to yet again, another coup to get a Tarquinesque leader incharge
"Suitable" meaning, in this case, able and willing to oversee the decades-long transition. They wouldn't be suitable to put in charge if they weren't capable of the work that needs doing.

So you dismiss Tarquin as a poor leader only because of the weak argument of your sole definition of the world "good" doesn't match the implied definition of what the rest of us are using? Without any concrete detail to support this? :smallconfused:
The word good has (at least) two definitions. Tarquin is a good ruler by one definition, but not by the other. Is it so alarming that some people would prefer to use the term "effective", which is a synonym for the definition that Tarquin meets, but doesn't carry the connotations of good's other meaning?

While Roy and V are smart and Haley is savvy and Durkon is, well, Durkon, I just don't see them as equipped for the burden of governing. So, easy is not the word I would use to describe the time they would have with such a proposition either after they wrap up this whole world-at-risk thing and come back or right now.
Okay, maybe that was the wrong word. Does it help if I change it to "...the Order could govern with just enough difficulty to be dramatic and entertaining until such time as suitable local rulers could be arranged for."?

G-Man Graves

2011-02-20, 11:31 PM

I know that if I cite specific examples from TVTropes I am asking for trouble, so I won't. But I will say that one follows the links in the entires on the Character Sheets, one might find plenty of Real Life examples. :smallwink:

Shojo and Hinjo, two indisputable good guys, are both non-elected monarchs. Shojo is hinted at being a benevolent dictator. This style of governance is frowned upon today. Yet these are the good guys. This is NOT the real world.

paladinofshojo

2011-02-20, 11:35 PM

Unless, of course, the people are too scared to revolt in a militant state like the EOB because they're afraid of what will happen to them if they do. They're afraid Tarquin and his massive army will kill them and make examples of them. Besides, even if someone thinks of starting a revolt, they will probably assume that the rest of the population will be too scared to follow and then they and their family will be hanged in the city square to reinforce the oppressive justice system they were trying to get rid of.

True, but the only time people are willing to go against their country is when their lot in life is so worse off that they don't really have anything to lose if they revolt. As far as we know, Tarquin hasn't pushed the majority to that point. He has performed endless cruelties true, but he hasn't forced the citizens of his empire to live in slums, starve, or needlessly suffer any other injustice...

Ya did you see how unhappy those poeple looked after Elan's speech... that's pretty good evidence that what Elan said about the citizen's lives in the regime is atleast somewhat true... Elan is effectively just reminding these people how miserable they really are. No the majority of people are likely not happy; but they are also not willing to do anything

And the last speech he gave really inspired people like it was supposed to (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0421.html) The speech he gives to the Empire is a joke to show how he always does the exact opposite of what he's trying so hard to do......

in all your talk of the "social contract" you seem to be neglecting the fear and intimidation factor that typically goes with tyrannical regimes. Tyrants do not rule by keeping their people happy, but by keeping them too scared to rise up against them. In a tyrannical dictatorship, ANY kind of criticism of the gov't is typically quickly squashed and punished and thus leading people to fear to challenge them. Furtharmore the gov't takes extra steps to make their people feel too weak to even have a chance; the crush freedom of speech and protest to make people feel alone and keep them from ever being able to organize themselves into something that might stand a chance against the armies... afterall while someone might be willing to die for a cause, they are less willing to die for a cause that they think has no chance of victory. Any urge they might have to revolt can easily be squashed by fears of facing the empire's army.

Only when people get so miserable that they are willing to take even the slimmest of chances and die for their freedom will they revolt. And that's how tyrants play their game, they balance out the people's tiniest contentment with their fear of the gov't... make sure the poeple are just barely content enough that they are willing to deal with their miserable lives rather than take snowballs chance in hell chance against their gov't... and that's part of where bread and circus's (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0741.html) comes to play; put on some good entertainment to help people forget their actual needs and desires

The notion that democracy and freedom are fundamental human rights is relatively new. For the most part of history, the idea was that all the state and government owed its people was stability, prosperity, and safety. That is what dictatorships due, they are convinced that the only right way to lead people due to autocracy leading to a simpler way of life for the average person. As opposed to how complex society becomes in most democracies. Yet when conditions are ideal no one in their right mind would be against democracy and freedom, but when conditions are not ideal, they are considered luxuries to be left to the side until stability, prosperity, and safety are once again assured....

Porthos

2011-02-20, 11:45 PM

This is NOT the real world.

Sigh.

Let me try to backtrack a moment. I said that if I were living in Stickverse, I would have no qualms about wanting to get rid of Tarquin. I was challenged that this was due to my "post-modern upbringing" (which I dispute in my case, but that is by the by).

I turned around and said that there were at least some people runnning around with similar viewpoints to our own. With morals similar to our own if one wishes to be more precise.

And so the conversation went.

But this is indisputably true. There are people running around who are revolutionaries who are sickened by what they see around them. There are people who would be right at home with various anarchists. There are people who fight for Social Justice when they see it. And, yes, there are people who are out for pure political power and self-enrichment.

I am painting in broad stokes here of course (not the least of which is to stay within Board Rules). Roy wants to topple Xykon not just because of Family Debt, but because he is a threat to the very world. Redcloak (thinks he) wants (what he considers) justice for his people because of the suffering they've suffered under. Haley was seen freeing slaves from the Empire of Blood because she wanted to help innocents when and where she could.

I could go on and on about the broad similar strokes here.

Is it a 1:1 overlay of Modern Thought? Never claimed it was. But the archetypes, if you will, of personal viewpoint are well represented in Order of the Stick. It's one of the reasons why it is so good, actually. The characters motivations are varied, and also well represented from our own.

It is that also to which I was referring to. I can quite easily see how I would have the motivation or desire to get rid of Tarquin should I live in Stickverse.

Why?

Because there seem to be at least a few people there who already do. And if they could, why couldn't I?

...

Again. If I had PC Class Levels. :smalltongue:

Warren Dew

2011-02-20, 11:58 PM

BTW, I want to show just how pernicious (and undetectable) Lies by Omission can be in the hands of someone who really wants to lie.... Now this seems pretty well boxed in, yes?
I think this whole discussion is a bit of a tangent, but no, of course not. He hasn't said anything about the troops other than the archers in your example, and he hasn't said anything about which side they'll be fighting on.

Look, there are only two possibilities. Either Tarquin is sending the troops to help the captain, or he's sending them to help himself. If he's actually sending them to help the captain, there isn't any chance of "provoking him" by nailing down obvious things like which side the troops will be fighting for. The only reason for him to avoid the details is if he's got something to hide. The conclusion from his evasion should be, to any competent diplomat, that he's hiding something and the troops cannot be counted on.

Honestly, the fact that Tarquin didn't say which side the troops would be fighting for was the first thing I noticed when I read comic 742 - and was brought up in the 4th comment in the discussion thread for that comic. At the time, I was expecting them somehow to take the city for the Empire of Blood, since that was before the cooperation between the three empires was revealed. I think it's incredibly naive to assume that Tarquin was sending the troops to help the city.

Tarquin is not telling the whole truth about what the troops will be doing, but he's not really lying either. He's just saying nothing at all, using a bunch of meaningless words, as is standard in diplomacy.

slayerx

2011-02-21, 12:05 AM

Shojo and Hinjo, two indisputable good guys, are both non-elected monarchs. Shojo is hinted at being a benevolent dictator. This style of governance is frowned upon today. Yet these are the good guys. This is NOT the real world.

I'm not sure if i would say that style of governance is really frowned on in the real world... Sure we always champion as "democracy good, dictatorship bad" but that's because, as far as i can recall, every dicatorship in the modern era has been one plagued by oppression and tryanny... i don't recall a true benevolent dictator like Shojo in modern times... though lets be careful not to digress too much down this path

And the last speech he gave really inspired people like it was supposed to (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0421.html) The speech he gives to the Empire is a joke to show how he always does the exact opposite of what he's trying so hard to do......
Just because there is a joke, does not mean the joke has no real meaning beyond it

The notion that democracy and freedom are fundamental human rights is relatively new. For the most part of history, the idea was that all the state and government owed its people was stability, prosperity, and safety. That is what dictatorships due, they are convinced that the only right way to lead people due to autocracy leading to a simpler way of life for the average person. As opposed to how complex society becomes in most democracies. Yet when conditions are ideal no one in their right mind would be against democracy and freedom, but when conditions are not ideal, they are considered luxuries to be left to the side until stability, prosperity, and safety are once again assured....
Whose talking about democracy? I'm talking about dictatorships and tyranny, basic freedoms and being able to live without being being given a death sentence because you left a piece of paper at home... or given a death sentence for a crime you did not commit for that matter

Porthos

2011-02-21, 12:11 AM

The notion that democracy and freedom are fundamental human rights is really new. For the most part of history, the idea was that all the state and government owed its people was stability, prosperity, and safety. That is what dictatorships due, they are convinced that the only right way to lead people due to autocracy leading to a simpler way of life for the average person. As opposed to how complex society becomes in most democracies. Yet when conditions are ideal no one in their right mind would be against democracy and freedom, but when conditions are not ideal, they are considered luxuries to be left to the side until stability, prosperity, and safety are once again assured....

My opinion is that D&D in general, and OotS in specific, is a Fun House Mirror (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FantasyCounterpartCulture) version of Medieval/Renaissance life for that very reason. The later the editions got, the more "real life" like it got in thought.

Unless the DM is very strict you can have characters running around with notions of themselves as equals to people in power all the while serving under an unelected king. You have people running around exhibiting political and philosophical thought that wouldn't be thought of until very recently whilst stepping over peasants. You have characters who think that there is nothing wrong with giving lip to a passing member of nobility.

And that doesn't even get into the notions of equality between the sexes.

Now there is at least a little justification for this. After all, a properly pissed off PC can drop a fireball on a king's head should he feel like it. This is an example that power is more evenly distributed amongst society than it ever was in Ye Ol Olden Days.

D&D is almost the Renaissance Pleasure Fair version of history. You have people paying lip service to the idea of following the word of Kings and Queens, but very rarely internalizing it into their viewpoints.

Can people play D&D "truer" to what philosophical thought was really like in the Medieval/Renaissance days? Of course they can. And many people do in their playing groups. But I don't think that most people do. To bring this back to OotS, I certainly don't think that Roy believes in the Divine Right of Kings or that Haley believes in the societal contract that you espouse.

But given that OotS is still a satire of D&D on some level, I wouldn't think that would be very surprising.

paladinofshojo

2011-02-21, 12:21 AM

I'm not sure if i would say that style of governance is really frowned on in the real world... Sure we always champion as "democracy good, dictatorship bad" but that's because, as far as i can recall, every dicatorship in the modern era has been one plagued by oppression and tryanny...

And most revolutions to spread freedom and liberty usually ends with political instability, anarchy, Communism, ruthless dictators taking back power via "democracy", and military juntas who are more oppressive than the last batch of political tyrants....

Whose talking about democracy? I'm talking about dictatorships and tyranny, basic freedoms and being able to live without being being given a death sentence because you left a piece of paper at home... or given a death sentence for a crime you did not commit for that matter

You've mentioned "freedom of speech and protest" which are not given to people who are not living in democracies. You also are under the assumption that people themselves are supposed to decide "what they need and want" rather than the government, which is also a democratic ideal......

Porthos

2011-02-21, 12:35 AM

You also are under the assumption that people themselves are supposed to decide "what they need and want" rather than the government

Someone else on this thread also seems to be under this impression. :smalltongue:

10413601

1) The people of Tarquin's empire are the only ones that have the right to make the decision of whether they want to be ruled by him or not.

It stands to reason by your own very logic that if the people under Tarquin decide that they don't like things (or, as you put it, aren't getting thier needs addressed), they can indeed do something about it. :smallwink:

paladinofshojo

2011-02-21, 12:41 AM

Someone else on this thread also seems to be under this impression. :smalltongue:

10413601

It stands to reason by your own very logic that if the people under Tarquin decide that they don't like things (or, as you put it, aren't getting thier needs addressed), they can indeed do something about it. :smallwink:

Ohh har,har,har you played around with my words...I stated that to show that Slayerx whole argument was a thinly veiled diatribe to support democracy over every governing system...that is if you read it in context.

Coidzor

2011-02-21, 12:42 AM

Okay, maybe that was the wrong word. Does it help if I change it to "...the Order could govern with just enough difficulty to be dramatic and entertaining until such time as suitable local rulers could be arranged for."?

Condensed version: I don't think they have the time right now and in the future when they come back, I think Tarquin's empire will have, in that time, basically secured its borders(read: at least ruling everything north and east of Sandsedge and on this side of the mountains) and become about as stable as it could be in its current state so that Elan killing the Tyrant and replacing Tarquin and dedicating time to actually reforming a single state with basically only the Elves to worry about is the ideal outcome for the region/state/Tarquin.

I don't think they could either find someone local to watch things for them if they take out Tarquin and then get out of dodge who would both be better than a less competent version of Tarquin and be able to defend against the many external and internal enemies they would have to contend with to reform the state.

monster of a post, probably rehashing what's already been said a thousand times over by now: They'd have to take out the other two large empires' rulers simultaneously or face resistance from them (possibly necessitating they use the extant army of their convenient little empire) in order to take the shell game out, in which case they split up and replace Tarquin's group, only with a kinder, gentler face or they combine the three and become exactly the sort of thing that the rest of the western continent would gang up on. Even more so if they start dismantling the Empire(s) into constituent warring states as they'd be fueling both a landgrab of former EOBST territory from without by non-absorbed states and from within by opportunists/adventurers/garrison commanders that want to create their own dynasty and the resultant wars over that newly freed up territory (that is, making things worse by really encouraging the Western Continent in its favorite pastime).

They don't really have time for any kind of long-term resolution to the Empires of Blood, Sweat, and Tears situation at the moment though. They could gank Tarquin, Malack, and probably the Empress too and then leave with the other two empires intact and left to decide to either divvy up the EOB between the two of them or resurrect tarquin and malack and start the shell game anew, or even to drop the pretense and sweep the map(though I find that one unlikely), but, due to the way Elan's already decided things, it looks like they're rightly putting the priority of the world first.

After all, Tarquin is merely one of the better, more efficient players in the game that's been played in the Western Continent for quite some time now, and he's on a team with a relatively cunning... or at least effective strategy. I find it particularly unlikely that Tarquin's guys came up with, say, the concept of the arena themselves, and would imagine it's an older institution native to the region, but I might have missed something...

So, barring Xykon mucking up the geopolitical situation significantly, Tarquin's game is going to continue and so let's say that it's progressed to the point wither either A. he controls the inhabitable portions of the western continent north and east of Sandsedge and on this side of the Go Away Mountains or B. enough of that region to essentially have secured the borders for his empire to stop being a shell game, disregarding the elves.

In such a case the choice is either reform an existing empire, which means they just replace who's the head of state and fight a battle against societal forces and pressures to keep certain... institutions or find a strong, honest, and savvy group of individuals to reform it for them without letting the tendencies of those who aren't Tarquins group go back to either of the two prior status quos, or they dismantle it back into fractious states with all kinds of potential for falling back into constant on-and-off warfare.

Like it or not, given the current political climate of the Western Continent, climate change and conquest seem to be the only things that could actually lead to any kind of lasting peace. And conquest only works if the conqueror can prevent rebellion and successfully pass the torch to an heir...which, I imagine, is what Tarquin's new goal is, to have his son Elan be the one who defeats the tyrant and takes control of the unified western continent and leads it into a golden age, securing its unity and a famous legacy.

And climate change only would take away the survival aspect of the various states' reasons for waging war and could even expand the playing field to have more players on the map. Though it does seem like it would be necessary even with conquest...

Really Condensed Version: It's better in terms of narrative and reader fatigue for Elan to take out Tarquin in an epilogue than it is to show the process of reforming such a state or for them to set up a new government doomed to failure.

Then again, who knows, the Azurites are somewhere near the Western Continent, aren't they? Things may work out so that they end up helping fix the Western Continent problem...

Porthos

2011-02-21, 12:49 AM

Ohh har,har,har you played around with my words...I stated that to show that Slayerx whole argument was a thinly veiled diatribe to support democracy over every governing system...that is if you read it in context.

While I admit to being a little light-hearted, all I was really trying to do is point out that even you were ultimately saying that people were the final arbiter over whether or not they should be ruled and by whom.

And that too is a fairly recent notion. :smallwink:

Coidzor

2011-02-21, 12:53 AM

While I admit to being a little light-hearted, all I was really trying to do is point out that even you were ultimately saying that people were the final arbiter over whether or not they should be ruled and by whom.

And that too is a fairly recent notion. :smallwink:

It's an old notion though, that a ruler needs to keep at least some of the people happy in order to keep in power. Constant revolts being bad for business and all.

So he has to at least keep the class(es) from which he recruits his soldiers and gets his bureaucrats content, since if he's killing off/oppressing the friends and family of the soldiers(and we know they're not slaves from birth soldiers), they're going to rebel and he can't rule without them, even if he could kill just about every person in the EOB by himself. And, well, if the bureaucracy is disloyal....:smalleek:

Edit: Especially since the army seems to at least have a fair component of volunteer professionals.

paladinofshojo

2011-02-21, 12:55 AM

Porthos

2011-02-21, 01:08 AM

It's an old notion though, that a ruler needs to keep at least some of the people happy in order to keep in power. Constant revolts being bad for business and all.

Well, that's not quite what I meant. But I really don't know if I can expand more on my point. I'm unsure enough as it is about the posts I've already made on this thread and I don't wish to press my luck. Better to be safe than sorry, when it comes to posts. :smallsmile:

Thinking about it, what I think I can say is that in Western Philosophical Thought the idea that people had the final say on things is an idea that has waxed and waned over the years. And that's not even getting into the specific areas of just what people have the final say over.

I really do apologize for leaving it that vague. But I don't think I can explain my thoughts properly further than that. :smallredface:

And with that I really do think I must leave this portion of the debate.

Apologies to all if you feel I haven't addressed your points properly.

...

Now if you want to talk more about Tarquin specifically, I think I'm still game. :smallwink:

Warren Dew

2011-02-21, 01:18 AM

Porthos

2011-02-21, 01:23 AM

It's not recent at all.

Why do you limit yourself to "Western"? The comic certainly draws from other traditions as well.

I repeat:

And with that I really do think I must leave this portion of the debate.

Apologies to all if you feel I haven't addressed your points properly.

Again, apologies. :smallsmile:

Hecuba

2011-02-21, 01:59 AM

Now if you want to talk more about Tarquin specifically, I think I'm still game. :smallwink:

I'll bite. While I think that it's a near certainty that life under Tarquin is bad in an absolute sense, it seems within the realm of possibility that it's an improvement relative to the status quo before him.

If we really were looking at 500 years of constant war, it's quite possible that the main source of income for any army would be pillage.

Under such a reality, most people would remain in perpetual poverty: let's assume you're an expert and are unimportant enough that you survive every conquest. One army comes through, takes every thing you have, crowns the general king, and taxes you to support more conquest. Then another army comes through, takes what little you built up under the last guy, and repeats the process. You stay mired in the deepest of poverty.

And that's ignoring the significant possibility that you die in the conquest even if you don't fight and aren't important. If we're looking at 500 years of war with no dominant, stable nations, war might include a lot of non-combatant deaths.

The only large class who have a decent quality of life are those in the armies, since they presumably get a cut of the spoils. At very least, it creates a plausible reason for everyone to keep pursuing conquest for 5 centuries despite the clear issues when you succeed.

Porthos

2011-02-21, 02:16 AM

I'll bite. While I think that it's a near certainty that life under Tarquin is bad in an absolute sense, it seems within the realm of possibility that it's an improvement relative to the status quo before him.

An interesting point, and one that has been alluded to. The way I would respond is that we don't have that much information on how things were really like before he showed up. But I would point out that the people in Sandsedge seemed rather blase about the whole situation. But maybe they're far enough away from the carnage not to be affected.

So then there is the town that the Order briefly visited before being captured/forced to go to the Empire of Blood. That town didn't seem to be all that bad either.

I simply don't have enough information about what life was like pre-Tarquin to comment beyond generalities. But what I can say (and have said) is that the Empire that he has set up seems to be a pretty crummy one for the average person. He certainly could have chosen not to rule in the manner he does if he wanted to.

So my argument doesn't rest on the fact that Order Evil might be an improvement over Chaos Evil (to step away ever so slightly from D&D alignments). Instead I will simply say that it is very conceivable that someone better can arrive on the scene. Which if one can ensure that happening is a reason to get rid of him. To try to bring this back to the Original Point of the thread. :smallwink:

I might also argue that living in an Ordered Evil society is (just as?) bad in a different way from living in a Chaos Evil society. If one takes fear and oppression into account. But I suppose that might have to weigh on just how much living in a low level constant state of fear is a bad thing or not.

Warren Dew

2011-02-21, 02:26 AM

So then there is the town that the Order briefly visited before being captured/forced to go to the Empire of Blood. That town didn't seem to be all that bad either.
As was already pointed out, that town was most likely in the Empire of Blood.

Porthos

2011-02-21, 02:26 AM

As was already pointed out, that town was most likely in the Empire of Blood.

I refer the gentleman to the reply I gave in response some time ago. :smallsmile:

Warren Dew

2011-02-21, 02:28 AM

I refer the gentleman to the reply I gave in response some time ago. :smallsmile:
One that has already been refuted, I believe. It can't have been one of the small towns because Roy refers to "five" cities, so it must be one of the capitals.

Porthos

2011-02-21, 02:29 AM

One that has already been refuted, I believe. It can't have been one of the small towns because Roy refers to "five" cities, so it must be one of the capitals.

Yes, as I pointed out it was very probably the capital of Dictatoria as that is far closer to the star than Bleedingham. :smallsmile:

EDIT:::

Here is the strip that has the map in relation to the where the OotS thought the Gate was. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0698.html)

Of the major towns, I reckon that the one in the (as I called it) charmingly named Dictatoria is the closest.

Do I have proof that they went there? No. :smallsmile: But I figure that's the best bet if they did indeed go to a major town.

SECOND EDIT::
Here is a supporting piece of evidence, if you want it:

When the bounty hunters appear before the castle in Bleedingham, they mention that they teleported into the city. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0717.html)

When we previously saw the bounty hunters, they were seen teleporting out of an area (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0716.html). In fact, they had to use two teleport spell because the first one was disrupted.

Later on, the bounty hunters mention that they used two teleport scrolls in their little adventure. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0728.html)

So if they used two teleport scrolls for their job (one fizzled, and one to leave an area) and one of them was used to arrive in the city, logically, they must have been in a different city from Bleedingham during the fight. Otherwise the bounty hunter would have mentioned using three teleport scrolls.

*looks over logic*

Good enough for me, at any rate. :smallbiggrin:

slayerx

2011-02-21, 10:12 AM

And most revolutions to spread freedom and liberty usually ends with political instability, anarchy, Communism, ruthless dictators taking back power via "democracy", and military juntas who are more oppressive than the last batch of political tyrants....

And then there are the times when revolution does lead to a stable new gov't that is better than what was there before. The road is rocky and does not happen overnight but it does happen

You've mentioned "freedom of speech and protest" which are not given to people who are not living in democracies. You also are under the assumption that people themselves are supposed to decide "what they need and want" rather than the government, which is also a democratic ideal......
And what makes you say that... civil rights are NOT exclusive to democracy
A dictatorship does not at all state that the people get no civil rights. The most basic meaning of a dictatorship is that the country is ruled by just one individual. The only freedom the people are not allowed to get is an actual say in how the gov't is run. just because modern dictatorships CHOOSE to abuse their power, oppress the people and greatly suppress all of their basic freedoms to remain in power, does not mean they could not have done otherwise. Nothing says that a dictator MUST deny people all of their other basic freedoms

hamishspence

2011-02-21, 10:51 AM

A dictatorship does not at all state that the people get no civil rights. The most basic meaning of a dictatorship is that the country is ruled by just one individual. The only freedom the people are not allowed to get is an actual say in how the gov't is run. just because modern dictatorships CHOOSE to abuse their power, oppress the people and greatly suppress all of their basic freedoms to remain in power, does not mean they could not have done otherwise. Nothing says that a dictator MUST deny people all of their other basic freedoms

In ancient Rome, the Dictatorship was an office to which individuals could be appointed for a set time.

Warren Dew

2011-02-21, 12:57 PM

Yes, as I pointed out it was very probably the capital of Dictatoria as that is far closer to the star than Bleedingham. :smallsmile:
Actually, the location - which is actually only slightly closer than Bleedingham - is an argument against its being Dictatoria, given the narrative flow. Between looking at the map and the capture by bounty hunters, there's a long break to go back to Team Evil, likely serving the purpose of eliding time unimportant to the story. Meanwhile, the time it takes for Roy's half of the Order to reach Bleedingham is quite short. That suggests there's substantially more travel involved in getting to the city of capture than in getting from that city to Bleedingham.

I agree the teleport scroll indicates the capture didn't occur in Bleedingham itself. Given the narrative flow, it's most likely that the Order had already searched a few cities. Since they aren't familiar with Bleedingham already, most likely it's one of the three remaining cities, two of which are controlled by Tarquin's allies.

The most basic meaning of a dictatorship is that the country is ruled by just one individual. The only freedom the people are not allowed to get is an actual say in how the gov't is run.
They get no say in who runs the government. They may get a say in how the government is run if the dictator pays attention to them.

just because modern dictatorships CHOOSE to abuse their power, oppress the people and greatly suppress all of their basic freedoms to remain in power, does not mean they could not have done otherwise.
I disagree that this is even true of all modern dictators.

paladinofshojo

2011-02-21, 01:16 PM

And what makes you say that... civil rights are NOT exclusive to democracy
A dictatorship does not at all state that the people get no civil rights. The most basic meaning of a dictatorship is that the country is ruled by just one individual. The only freedom the people are not allowed to get is an actual say in how the gov't is run. just because modern dictatorships CHOOSE to abuse their power, oppress the people and greatly suppress all of their basic freedoms to remain in power, does not mean they could not have done otherwise. Nothing says that a dictator MUST deny people all of their other basic freedoms

Civil rights ARE exclusive to democracy, since the sole purpose of civil rights is to protect an individual's freedom from unwarranted repression by the state.... An autocracy cannot function with these set of laws due to the fact that it restricts power from the autocrat.... By definition, a dictatorship rules through leadership unrestricted by laws, constitutions, and all but the most base social contract (stability, safety, and prosperity, because a leader knows that if he cannot obtain those three attributes, he will be doomed). But another point, there are dictators who are "enlightened" in the fact that they do promote religious toleration, or (limited) freedom of press or speech, just as long as it doesn't directly affect or challenge their authority... These types of dictators are known to create societies which are "Everything for the people, nothing by the people". But in the end, the dictator is still unchallenged, and he is successful because he has promoted stability, safety, and prosperity....

And then there are the times when revolution does lead to a stable new gov't that is better than what was there before. The road is rocky and does not happen overnight but it does happen

Yes, that is only if the transition takes much more time than the actual revolution does.... There has never been a revolution in human history that ended with a stable new government right away. For the first few months after the revolution you STILL need to maintain the status quo prior, since it is still the legitimate government. After the nation has stabilized (which will be hard due to rebellions, attempted coups, or other nations trying to seize your territory as their own and other problems that occur after a power vacuum occurs by removing an entire government from power) then you can start working on reforms...However, there's a point that many who gain a taste of absolute power aren't quick to give it up. So you'll need someone with exceptional character to be in charge of the reformation. Also, keep in mind that in most fledgling democracies, if the government fails to provide stability, safety, and prosperity, then chances are that it will once again revert back to an autocracy.

zimmerwald1915

2011-02-21, 01:17 PM

Meanwhile, the time it takes for Roy's half of the Order to reach Bleedingham is quite short.
Apart from Roy and co. being able to move at the speed of plot, they do have Wind Walk available to them.

slayerx

2011-02-21, 02:03 PM

Civil rights ARE exclusive to democracy, since the sole purpose of civil rights is to protect an individual's freedom from unwarranted repression by the state.... An autocracy cannot function with these set of laws due to the fact that it restricts power from the autocrat.... By definition, a dictatorship rules through leadership unrestricted by laws, constitutions, and all but the most base social contract (stability, safety, and prosperity, because a leader knows that if he cannot obtain those three attributes, he will be doomed). But another point, there are dictators who are "enlightened" in the fact that they do promote religious toleration, or (limited) freedom of press or speech, just as long as it doesn't directly affect or challenge their authority... These types of dictators are known to create societies which are "Everything for the people, nothing by the people". But in the end, the dictator is still unchallenged, and he is successful because he has promoted stability, safety, and prosperity....

Those freedoms can not be considered a limitation on the dicator's power because the dictator is the one granting those freedoms at his own discretion. As long as he has the power to take away those freedoms they can not be called a limit on his power... they are a self-imposed limit that he can free himself from at any given moment. Just because he chooses to give people freedoms does not mean they are not still dictator

As for that "limited free speech"; again that is at the discretion of the dictator. Just because so called enlightened rulers in history chose to deny people the freedom to criticize their rule does not mean they MUST deny them that freedom... that was 100% their choice, not the nature of that style of government. By their own choice they COULD have allowed people the freedom to speak out against the government

though i might also add that freedoms are not even certain in a democracy since the government can still place on restrictions... there are plenty of democracies that only grant limited forms of these freedoms

Also a dicatorship does not NEED the social contract... not when they can use force and oppression to keep the people from revolting against them... and this is why Tarquin makes use of an assassin force and employs a death sentence of even the tiniest of transgressions... anyone who feels the government is not fullfilling that social contract get silenced and shoved back in line by force

Yes, that is only if the transition takes much more time than the actual revolution does.... There has never been a revolution in human history that ended with a stable new government right away. For the first few months after the revolution you STILL need to maintain the status quo prior, since it is still the legitimate government. After the nation has stabilized (which will be hard due to rebellions, attempted coups, or other nations trying to seize your territory as their own and other problems that occur after a power vacuum occurs by removing an entire government from power) then you can start working on reforms...However, there's a point that many who gain a taste of absolute power aren't quick to give it up. So you'll need someone with exceptional character to be in charge of the reformation. Also, keep in mind that in most fledgling democracies, if the government fails to provide stability, safety, and prosperity, then chances are that it will once again revert back to an autocracy.

uh-huh... and how exactly is this different than anything that's been said in this thread thus far?... brigning this string of discussion back on topic, the common stance is that after Tarquin is overthrown Elan and the order would have to stick around to make sure a new government comes together before they can leave. So i think its absoaultely irrelevant how long it takes for a revolution to turn into a stable and good government so long as it CAN occur

paladinofshojo

2011-02-21, 02:16 PM

Those freedoms can not be considered a limitation on the dicator's power because the dictator is the one granting those freedoms at his own discretion. As long as he has the power to take away those freedoms they can not be called a limit on his power... they are a self-imposed limit that he can free himself from at any given moment. Just because he chooses to give people freedoms does not mean they are not still dictator

The problem with freedoms is that the leader has to be divvying his power away to grant people said freedoms, therefore he is in no position to "take away" those freedoms after he has granted them to his people....

By their own choice they COULD have allowed people the freedom to speak out against the government

What sort of dictator would directly threaten his own power like that? You are under the assumption that successful dictators act on whims. It's more more complex than just that... They're first goal is to stabilize the nation under their rule, second goal is to bring (or at least bring the illusion of) prosperity and safety to secure their rule.... Every action under a dictatorship is done to further increase the stranglehold the dictator himself has on the country.

Also a dicatorship does not NEED the social contract... not when they can use force and oppression to keep the people from revolting against them...

And where does the dictator get the means to use "force and oppression" in the first place? Every armed force of a government is made up of the people of the government.... In the end, it's still a social contract because a dictator can't realistically rule a country with personal threats of force and oppression, he needs to keep the majority under his rule compliant (or at least complacent)

... anyone who feels the government is not fullfilling that social contract get silenced and shoved back in line by force

True, but the rights of the individual are not guaranteed by the social contract, since the social contract is between THE PEOPLE not THE PERSON... It would be physically impossible to suppress massive riots if the majority of the nation were to revolt...

uh-huh... and how exactly is this different than anything that's been said in this thread thus far?... brigning this string of discussion back on topic, the common stance is that after Tarquin is overthrown Elan and the order would have to stick around to make sure a new government comes together before they can leave. So i think its absoaultely irrelevant how long it takes for a revolution to turn into a stable and good government so long as it CAN occur

As I've stated, it's not the problem that the order has to "stick around" it's the problem that they have to set up an unrealistically efficient bureaucracy to make sure that the state is strong enough to diverge all external and internal threats WITHOUT taking it too far and infringing on the rights of the people. That said, they also must be prepared for every political and social downturn if they are to keep the people complacent enough to not revolt against them. All it takes is one unlucky economic downturn and then the people are incited by radicals to do away with democracy and go back to autocracy....

slayerx

2011-02-21, 04:53 PM

The problem with freedoms is that the leader has to be divvying his power away to grant people said freedoms, therefore he is in no position to "take away" those freedoms after he has granted them to his people....

the Dictator is absolute... freedoms only last so long as he says they do.
Even in democracies the government has the power to place limitations on freedoms.

What sort of dictator would directly threaten his own power like that?
The benevolent kind?
Shojo was a self-professed benevolent dictator. what makes you say that the poeple of Azure city did not have freedoms? Hell we even know that shojo's rule was indeed challenged.

And where does the dictator get the means to use "force and oppression" in the first place? Every armed force of a government is made up of the people of the government.... In the end, it's still a social contract because a dictator can't realistically rule a country with personal threats of force and oppression, he needs to keep the majority under his rule compliant (or at least complacent)

The ruler does not need to keep the people happy, just the military. Keeping the general populace content is not a requirement for that. though even the military is kept in line by fear since insubordination would be harshly punished

True, but the rights of the individual are not guaranteed by the social contract, since the social contract is between THE PEOPLE not THE PERSON... It would be physically impossible to suppress massive riots if the majority of the nation were to revolt...

Sure you can...
I explained before that tyrannical regimes can use a number of methods to keep their people from stirring up enough of a revolt to do anything. First keep the military loyal to you so that you can rely on their power. second supress all criticism of government, protest and so forth; this is to prevent people from organizing themselves and making them feel weaker and more alone in their fight. There are people who are willing to face the military and risk their lives to change things; the key is to make them feel as though change is impossible, make them feel that they would be risking their lives for nothing... And then there are bread and circuses to create false appeasement as opposed to actually fulfilling the people's needs. Do All that and more and the people will be less likely to be willing to revolt; atleast put together enough of a revolt to actually pose a real threat.

As I've stated, it's not the problem that the order has to "stick around" it's the problem that they have to set up an unrealistically efficient bureaucracy to make sure that the state is strong enough to diverge all external and internal threats WITHOUT taking it too far and infringing on the rights of the people. That said, they also must be prepared for every political and social downturn if they are to keep the people complacent enough to not revolt against them. All it takes is one unlucky economic downturn and then the people are incited by radicals to do away with democracy and go back to autocracy....
yeah don't see the issue. The revolution will create a large group of people who do not want to be ruled by the empress of blood and who will rally behind the leaders of the revolution. Doesn't happen overnight but a new government CAN come out of after a revolution. Don't see why it would be utterly impossible

paladinofshojo

2011-02-21, 05:18 PM

the Dictator is absolute... freedoms only last so long as he says they do.

Okay, let's say that a dictator gave people the same freedoms they'd have in a democracy... Then tries to take them back, how do you think that would go with the newly empowered people? While your idea of politics may work in theory, it cannot be applicable to real governing due to the fact you are not considering the human element of politics involved. A successful dictator needs to make sure to not only cater to the three needs of his people, but also to make an emotional appeal to them as well...

Shojo was a self-professed benevolent dictator. what makes you say that the poeple of Azure city did not have freedoms?

Well Azure City law clearly stipulates that telling anyone about the gates is a criminal offence (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0272.html)

The ruler does not need to keep the people happy, just the military. Keeping the general populace content is not a requirement for that. though even the military is kept in line by fear since insubordination would be harshly punished

And your argument is that the military and the people aren't one in the same? Who do you think provides the manpower behind the military?

yeah don't see the issue. The revolution will create a large group of people who do not want to be ruled by the empress of blood and who will rally behind the leaders of the revolution.

That's just an assumption..... for all we know if an actual revolution occurs people would want Tarquin's regime back

First keep the military loyal to you so that you can rely on their power. second supress all criticism of government, protest and so forth; this is to prevent people from organizing themselves and making them feel weaker and more alone in their fight.

That's basically what I mean by "stability".......

. And then there are bread and circuses to create false appeasement as opposed to actually fulfilling the people's needs. Do All that and more and the people will be less likely to be willing to revolt;

and "prosperity".......