Did Tarquin kill off his wives or was it Nale? [Archive]

veti

2011-11-21, 10:46 PM

Its Tarquin. If his wife woudnt have been killed by him, you can be sure as hell he woudnt have just said it was «mysterious circonstance» and left it at that. He would have found the killer and tortured him, it doesnt even matter if he was planning to kill her later. Also, he would have just rezzed her just like he keep telling Malack to do with his childs.

What probably happened is that when he heard that she was gonna get her daughter back, she killed her to avoid getting a stepchild (who can be pretty much as troublesome as your own kids really).

Not necessarily. His narcissistic love of drama might lead him to accept 'mysterious circumstances' as a natural cause for their deaths. After all, Great Men like him should have enemies who, being too weak to touch him directly, may attack him through his loved ones. Which is of course "tragic", but only to be expected, and probably not to be sweated over too much.

Oh, hunt down the killers and torture them to death by all means - but that's much the same as any other political opponents who overstep the bounds of permissible dissent.

As for rezzing his wives: why, and how? Since he doesn't love them, there's not a lot of point; and since the only high-level cleric we know he has access to is a cleric of a death god, there's no guarantee he could do it even if he thought it was important.

rbetieh

2011-11-21, 10:59 PM

Not necessarily. His narcissistic love of drama might lead him to accept 'mysterious circumstances' as a natural cause for their deaths. After all, Great Men like him should have enemies who, being too weak to touch him directly, may attack him through his loved ones. Which is of course "tragic", but only to be expected, and probably not to be sweated over too much.

Oh, hunt down the killers and torture them to death by all means - but that's much the same as any other political opponents who overstep the bounds of permissible dissent.

As for rezzing his wives: why, and how? Since he doesn't love them, there's not a lot of point; and since the only high-level cleric we know he has access to is a cleric of a death god, there's no guarantee he could do it even if he thought it was important.

How do we know he didn't love all of his wives? Some might have been political marriages but not all

krossbow

2011-11-22, 01:00 AM

Its Tarquin. If his wife woudnt have been killed by him, you can be sure as hell he woudnt have just said it was «mysterious circonstance» and left it at that. He would have found the killer and tortured him, it doesnt even matter if he was planning to kill her later. Also, he would have just rezzed her just like he keep telling Malack to do with his childs.

What probably happened is that when he heard that she was gonna get her daughter back, she killed her to avoid getting a stepchild (who can be pretty much as troublesome as your own kids really).

It really WAS mysterious circumstances though. If it was Sabine who killed her, she probably disposed of her in a way that didn't leave a body-- and Tarquins not the type to say "I know she was murdered, but i can't find the culprit" Because it would make him look weak.

It actually would sync up alot better with tarquin letting Elan's mother go if he DOESN'T go around murdering his wives unless forced to.

factotum

2011-11-22, 02:39 AM

If there was no body, though, it would make more sense for Tarquin to say she *disappeared*, not that she died under mysterious circumstances!

Dr.Epic

2011-11-22, 05:24 AM

I thought it was made clear it was Tarquin.

Bulldog Psion

2011-11-22, 07:32 AM

Dr.Epic

2011-11-22, 07:44 AM

He has no reason to protect Nale's reputation that I can see, at least.

Just like Eugene has no reason to make up a fake biological son to his deceased master. Now when was the last time we saw Master Fyron's son again?

Goosefarble

2011-11-22, 07:49 AM

I, too, thought it was obvious that Tarquin killed his wife, to stop her running off to find Orrin, and when Elan suggested it was Nale I thought "well he's just being naive!" but when Elan's suggestion met no opposition? Then I wasn't so sure.

Pory

2011-11-22, 07:55 AM

Bulldog Psion

2011-11-22, 07:56 AM

Just like Eugene has no reason to make up a fake biological son to his deceased master. Now when was the last time we saw Master Fyron's son again?

Sorry to be dense, but what does this have to do with what I said? :smallconfused:

Goosefarble

2011-11-22, 07:59 AM

Reprimand

2011-11-22, 08:17 AM

I honestly wouldn't put in past that snake (Tarquin) to kill his own wives. He is a man of his word but he is not a very GOOD person, if he became bored with one of them he would probably do something like hire a person off the record to kill his wife then arrest them for the very same crime to pin the whole wrap on them.

Edit: He could have just as easily used mind blank or a spell that lets him lie without magical detection like glibbness.

Dr.Epic

2011-11-22, 08:57 AM

Sorry to be dense, but what does this have to do with what I said? :smallconfused:

Both actions would make no sense:

You think it makes no sense Tarquin would protect Nale, and it doesn't make sense. Why would Tarquin go the extra mile to protect someone he wants captured that's evil? Well, why would Eugene need to make up a story about a person that never existed? It's both instances of characters doing something to alter how someone is perceived that makes no sense for them to do that.

It doesn't make sense for Tarquin to protect Nale, and it does make sense for Eugene to make Xykon look worse than he is (Xykon is already an undead, epic level sorcerer that wants to take over the world and enjoys killing people for fun, why would it matter if he killed someone's son or not, would it really alter how he is perceived by much?); up to this point, we've never seen Fyron's son...
...not even in the flashback in SoD where we see Xykon kill Fyron.

It would be far off to say Eugene made up Fyron's son entirely with the lack of evidence. So one could assume Rich had Eugene make up this story for no reason other than to alter someone's idea of Xykon. What's to say Rich didn't have Tarquin do this for his ex-wives and Nale?

Gray Mage

2011-11-22, 09:17 AM

It wasn't made clear that it was Tarquin who killed his wife, that I'm aware of. However, I can't see any reason why he'd say "Mysterious Circumstances" rather than "Nale killed her" if Nale did, in fact, kill her. He has no reason to protect Nale's reputation that I can see, at least.

So that when the LG appeared/attacked it would be unespected instead of a given? He is the guy that didn't tell Nale about Elan just to raise the dramatic tension, after all.

Shhalahr Windrider

2011-11-22, 09:20 AM

Or, here’s a shocking possibility: Nale killed Penelope, and Tarquin just doesn’t know it was Nale.

Kish

2011-11-22, 09:24 AM

Tarquin said: "She was planning on hiring adventurers to follow up when she unexpectedly passed". We are supposed to believe that he is telling the truth here because Durkon and Haley are detecting lies, in that case, Tarquin really didn't know how Penelope passed so he couldn't have killed her or hire someone to do it.

That's actually a very good point. If he had killed her, he would have expected it. So I guess the case is closed.
Note, first, that at this point I think it's more likely that Nale killed her. However.

Of course she died unexpectedly; she didn't expect to die. If Tarquin expected her to die, that's much less of a semantic dodge than he's demonstrated himself capable of. (If it even counts as a semantic dodge at all.) If Tarquin saying "unexpectedly" meant no one in the world expected her to die, she can't have been murdered by anyone; if Nale killed her then Nale presumably expected her to die. (:nale: "Huh. Sword through the heart kills humans. Who knew?") "Unexpectedly passed" means only that she, personally, wasn't expecting to die.

Vinyadan

2011-11-22, 09:44 AM

Honestly, I think that Tarquin killed most - if not all - of them, or that they were killed on his order. Tarquin is evil, to inhuman levels. He isn't simply cruel, he doesn't care about human lives at all. He is similar to Thog: they both kill with a smile, but this doesn't make them any better, nor does it mean that they don't understand how evil it is what they do. "Unexpectedly" could mean,

http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/Tarquin.png"I woke up this morning and killed her. Well, nobody was expecting that. Me too. But, you know, there was a rose in her hand - I couldn't avoid to think, how beautiful and full of pathos the image of a corpse with a rose in its hand would have been."
http://i53.photobucket.com/albums/g68/Cats_Are_Aliens/Banners/EmpressofBlood.png "And she was yummy!"

Bulldog Psion

2011-11-22, 10:27 AM

Well, there is one additional point of evidence pointing to Tarquin being the killer, though it's certainly not conclusive.

He sure is cheerful for someone whose wife was buried a week ago. I mean, sure, he's had a lot of them, but the death of someone that close to you is going to affect you to some extent, you'd think ...

--- unless, of course, you did it, wanted to do it, and feel satisfaction at having done it.

As another random thought, it's interesting to note that in the flashback, which I assume is an actual "frame" from reality, and not just a mental image, Penelope appears to be quite happy to be Tarquin's wife. She's holding onto his arm, sharing a drink of wine, looking cheerful and comfortable as the general's spouse. So, one must speculate that she was willing to marry him, unlike some of the others. I'm not sure if that alters the possibilities about her death one way or another, though.

AutomatedTeller

2011-11-22, 10:40 AM

Obviously, when Tarquin said his wife died of "mysterious circumstances", I thought he had her killed.

The thing with Nale sort of makes you think that he might have done it... but, given that it's Elan's idea and he's about to have on that makes sense, I'm tending to think he's wrong and that it's just a coincidence.

rbetieh

2011-11-22, 10:47 AM

He sure is cheerful for someone whose wife was buried a week ago. I mean, sure, he's had a lot of them, but the death of someone that close to you is going to affect you to some extent, you'd think ...

--- unless, of course, you did it, wanted to do it, and feel satisfaction at having done it.

Can't he just be happy to see his son for the first time in 20 odd years? Seriously people, you are overvilifying Tarquin. He is still a human, he still has complex emotions (not a sociopath like Xykon), he has dreams and aspirations, and he seems to have a great desire to have friends and be close to his friends (evidence: staying in contact and in good terms with his adventuring party). This whole Tarquin is pure evil because he happens to be evil nonsense is clouding your analysis.

We do not know what happened to his wives, except his first wife who HE DIVORCED.

We do not know why he married the other 8 (whether for political reasons or lust or love, none are known).

We do know that he tortures people. but....
We do know that he honestly regrets how nale turned out.
We do know that he has great respect for Malak.
We do know he honors his agreements (even when they are unfavorable)
We do know that he will bargain with people.

On the sliding scale of evil, Tarquin is a Glorious <illigitimate child> not a Complete Monster. He's more a Picollo or Prince Vegeta, not a Freeza or Cell.

mrmcfatty

2011-11-22, 11:07 AM

im not arguing whether he did it or not, however he could have played a small part in it.

"hey, find a way to kill her without letting me know how or when"

in this sense it was unexpected WHEN she died not that she died. this way he is telling the truth but sorta lying about it at the same time.

i dont believe thats what happened, but that is a way to make his statements true.

Kish

2011-11-22, 11:28 AM

We do know that he tortures people.

And uses torture to force women to marry him. And gleefully plans to force a woman to marry him after having killed her husband.

but....
We do know that he honestly regrets how nale turned out.

You mean, after Nale tried to kill him?

We do know that he has great respect for Malak.

No. We don't.

We do know he honors his agreements (even when they are unfavorable)

You're kidding? Like he "honored" his agreement with Gannji and Enor?

We do know that he will bargain with people.

And mousetrap them later, if he doesn't get exactly what he wants, and perhaps even if he does.

On the sliding scale of evil, Tarquin is

disgusting.

The one thing we can agree on, is that one of us needs a recalibration in his/her view of Tarquin.

Porthos

2011-11-22, 02:38 PM

We do know that he honestly regrets how nale turned out.

Yes I agree that he regrets that Nale is in his opinion simple minded and is too impulsive too look at The Big Picture.

But I highly doubt he is that upset that Nale turned out to be evil.

Squark

2011-11-22, 02:48 PM

I'm personally inclined to believe Tarquin had no direct hand in his wives deaths. While he certainly tortured some of his wives-to-be, he is also quite charming; A wealthy, powerful man with his charm could certainly have married some of his earlier wives through seduction alone. What happened to them... I'm not sure. Elan's Mom, at least, survived a divorce, and seeing as Tarquin seems to prefer the chase to a long-term relationship, I'm inclined to believe his weird, twisted sense of honor made him leave his early ex-wives alone. However, as we see with the later wives, Tarquin seems to now place his sights on more challenging targets. While, again, I don't see him killing these wives, I wouldn't be surprised if some of them ran away or otherwise met sticky ends in trying to escape him.

Penelope's an interesting case, though. Since she's met Nale, that clearly indicates she was married to Tarquin at least a few years, and the timing of her death is suspicious; the Linear Guild has been operating in the Empire of Blood since before Penelope's death. I doubt Polonius Z'dritti would have been included in the flashback by chance. Ultimately, I think the image of style and culture Tarquin tries to cultivate runs counter to actually offing his wives.

rbetieh

2011-11-22, 02:57 PM

Yes I agree that he regrets that Nale is in his opinion simple minded and is too impulsive too look at The Big Picture.

But I highly doubt he is that upset that Nale turned out to be evil.

I would say the whole 'Killing Malaks Children' thing is what makes Tarquin think of Nale as rotten. Its probably a one of those LE 'lines I wont cross' things for Tarquin.

I'm not sure. Elan's Mom, at least, survived a divorce, and seeing as Tarquin seems to prefer the chase to a long-term relationship, I'm inclined to believe his weird, twisted sense of honor made him leave his early ex-wives alone.

Isnt it funny that Tarquin COULD have just killed Elans mom and had both kids but he chose not to? Again "lines he wont cross". Unlike Nale, who drove a sword up his own brothers gut.

Porthos

2011-11-22, 03:08 PM

I would say the whole 'Killing Malaks Children' thing is what makes Tarquin think of Nale as rotten.

*cough* (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0760.html) :smallsmile:

Isnt it funny that Tarquin COULD have just killed Elans mom and had both kids but he chose not to? Again "lines he wont cross". Unlike Nale, who drove a sword up his own brothers gut.

OTOH, it could just be that he decided that after the divorce he would never again find himself in that situation and that he would end his relationships on "his terms".

He does seem to be the "learn from his own errors" type. And if he views letting Elan's mom get away as an error...

SoC175

2011-11-22, 04:00 PM

rbetieh

2011-11-22, 05:23 PM

*cough* (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0760.html) :smallsmile:

OTOH, it could just be that he decided that after the divorce he would never again find himself in that situation and that he would end his relationships on "his terms".

He does seem to be the "learn from his own errors" type. And if he views letting Elan's mom get away as an error...

Ok, point on comic 760, but that also points to the whole 'killing then gloating' thing. Heres how I see theorize....

All of these old adventurers have kids, and it wouldnt surprise me if some thought to hand down the Family business as it were. Nale doesnt seem to like to share, so it is in his best interests to remove the other inheritors (also, Killing Elan kind of fits, if he can't control Elan, then Elan is another competitor) so that he gets the whole 3 empire Shebang. Of course, Nale cant stop himself from gloating, which is why Malack hates Nales guts.

Certainly Tarquin learns from his mistakes, he says so after his first plan failed. But if he figures out that leaving his ex alive was a mistake when Elan is 5 years old, why not kill her then and bring Elan back then? Why only send a letter when Elan turned 15? See, I am arguing that Tarquin never wanted to kill his wife. Re-read the Giants article on adding texture to characters. As I see it, Tarquin is not a sociopath therefore he has real emotions and so he values love and friendship, just like anyone else. I am fairly certain that he and Malak are really friends, and I would not doubt that he honestly loved his first wife, but that she couldnt stand his Evil ways and left him.

Since we dont know why he married/un-married any of his subsequent wives, we cannot be sure about what he would/wouldnt have done to them. I can assume that Amun-Zora would have been a political marriage. The 8th wife is probably on the same lines. Never loved them, just needed to use them. The 9th wife may/may not have been broke/important when they met, her first marriage was to a street illusionist so probably not. Tarquin had no political motivation to marry her, so either she was smokin hot, or he had honest feelings for her. I was going to add a third option of her having some kind of trait that made her an optimal choice for siring children (Orrin's motivation?) but Tarquin doesnt want any more of those.

G-Man Graves

2011-11-22, 05:42 PM

*cough* (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0760.html) :smallsmile:

Entirely unrelated. No one is contesting that Tarquin is a ruthless a-hole who is willing to make examples of those who defy him. However, it is probable that he views Malack as surrogate family, and expects Nale to do the same. Tarquin, through his treatment of Elan and his advice to Malack, values family, and would regard Nale's acts as a violation of his rules.

rbetieh

2011-11-22, 05:45 PM

Entirely unrelated. No one is contesting that Tarquin is a ruthless a-hole who is willing to make examples of those who defy him. However, it is probable that he views Malack as surrogate family, and expects Nale to do the same. Tarquin, through his treatment of Elan and his advice to Malack, values family, and would regard Nale's acts as a violation of his rules.
Said it much more clearly that I could.

Reprimand

2011-11-22, 06:34 PM

Well, Tarquin also spared Elan's life after Elan tried to fight him to the death. Obviously he does care somewhat for his family if he would have allowed such behavior.

Maybe he respects his first wife (Elan's mother) enough to honor their lawful agreement to separate.

Just because he is Evil doesn't mean he's going to kill every little thing that annoys are bothers him.

Getting Enor and the other lizard into the arena could have also just as easily been just a gift for Elan since they did rough him up a bit. Tarquin could have legitimately thought Elan might share his sense of alignment and justice (not that's he's very just but you get the idea).

The point is he doesn't have to be blamed for killing and destroying everything even though he does his fair share of it. He could be innocent on many of these things.

As for killing his wife, why would he have too?

Nale has more motive anyway, he wouldn't want his brother finding out about why he was in the city or having his step mother lead Elan right to him.

dps

2011-11-22, 06:51 PM

rbetieh

2011-11-23, 12:53 AM

Or, he was planning on getting rid of her, but someone (Nale, but Tarquin wouldn't know that) beat him to it.

It's also not impossible that she died of natural causes, or that someone connected to the Draketooths killed her to keep her from going to find her daugher (though I somewhat doubt either of those).

If that eye in the desert was Z's, the the Guild knew a group of adventurers were looking for Draketooth, and they also know that a lady had information on where Draketooth was and was looking to hire a group of adventurers. 2+2 = 4 I think. I dont think there is more to it than this

Jay R

2011-11-23, 11:33 AM

Well, there is one additional point of evidence pointing to Tarquin being the killer, though it's certainly not conclusive.

He sure is cheerful for someone whose wife was buried a week ago. I mean, sure, he's had a lot of them, but the death of someone that close to you is going to affect you to some extent, you'd think ...

--- unless, of course, you did it, wanted to do it, and feel satisfaction at having done it.

Its Tarquin. If his wife woudnt have been killed by him, you can be sure as hell he woudnt have just said it was «mysterious circonstance» and left it at that. He would have found the killer and tortured him, it doesnt even matter if he was planning to kill her later.

I'm not convinced. Nale is the one whose group is practically synonymous with taking disproportionate revenge over quasi-imagined slights (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0257.html). Tarquin is capable of gloating that their every move makes his victory more complete (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0785.html), even while somebody is trying to kill him.

brionl

2011-11-23, 01:17 PM

I'm not convinced. Nale is the one whose group is practically synonymous with taking disproportionate revenge over quasi-imagined slights (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0257.html). Tarquin is capable of gloating that their every move makes his victory more complete (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0785.html), even while somebody is trying to kill him.

Tarquin had the Bounty Hunters sentenced to death because they made him look bad in front of his son. Does that sound like proportionate revenge?

Kish

2011-11-23, 01:18 PM

Also, Nale inherited/learned his evil from his father.

And Tarquin automatically assumed, knowing that Elan was "good" to whatever extremely limited extent Tarquin understands the concept, that it would be a great present for Elan to see two people who captured Elan once killed in a means so sadistic that Belkar choked on its cruelty.

Shhalahr Windrider

2011-11-23, 01:25 PM

Tarquin had the Bounty Hunters sentenced to death because they made him look bad in front of his son. Does that sound like proportionate revenge?
I’m not so certain he was really as concerned about the slight on him as it was an imagined slight on Elan. Once it was seen that Elan didn’t care, Tarquin didn’t care either. Hence him being okay with them escaping. If he was really into the whole disproportionate revenge over slights to him personally, he would have chased them down.

BecauseICan

2011-11-23, 01:27 PM

Tarquin had the Bounty Hunters sentenced to death because they made him look bad in front of his son. Does that sound like proportionate revenge?

I'd say that Tarquin can be petty, but he's smart enough to take cost/benefit analysis into account and he seems to value family. Trying to kill the Bounty Hunters was enormously sadistic, but he presented it as a "gift" to Elan and it had practically no cost for him. If he honestly has absolutely no idea who killed his wife or why, the costs start to go up and the pettiness factor could drop sharply.

And he's probably not telling everything he knows or is planning. Who's to say that he isn't getting revenge? Right now, he's in position to send a group of adventurers after her mooted murderer. If there's something else we know, it's that Tarquin is patient...

rbetieh

2011-11-23, 01:27 PM

Tarquin had the Bounty Hunters sentenced to death because they made him look bad in front of his son. Does that sound like proportionate revenge?

Well, he didnt Technically sentence them to 'death'. He sentenced them to life in prison, how long they lived was up to them. But note, he had KillKill right there and could have ordered the two bounty hunters be hunted down immediately, something tells me he didnt because he got his money back.

Also note, if the two bounty hunters had not gotten into a bar-brawl they would not have ended up in jail. Tarquin, unlike Nale, takes his opportunities when they come, but doesnt lose sleep at night figuring out revenge schemes.

I will concede Kish a greater point that since T raised Nale, even if Nale did do the deed, T might be considered indirectly responsible...

Bulldog Psion

2011-11-24, 08:52 AM

Well, at this point, it seems up in the air who did it. Of course, it might also be a case similar to Hinjo's near death during the siege of Azure City -- assassins from both Nale and Tarquin jostling for the kill on the unfortunate Penelope. :smalleek:

Kish

2011-11-24, 09:17 AM

I’m not so certain he was really as concerned about the slight on him as it was an imagined slight on Elan. Once it was seen that Elan didn’t care, Tarquin didn’t care either. Hence him being okay with them escaping. If he was really into the whole disproportionate revenge over slights to him personally, he would have chased them down.
His note to Gannji is all about his ego; "No one tries to extort money from me in front of my son."

And I'm really not seeing why he'd raise one son to take ridiculously excessive revenge for quasi-imagined slights, and just assume the other one will want to do the same, if he didn't believe that was the proper philosophy. "I generally let it slide when people cross me, but do as I say, not as I do!"--no, that really doesn't make sense.

Shhalahr Windrider

2011-11-24, 10:17 AM

His note to Gannji is all about his ego; "No one tries to extort money from me in front of my son."
Emphasis on “In front of my son.” It is not about his ego. It is about his son’s opinion in him.

Aditionally, there is no reason to expect Tarquin to be forthright with Gannji and Enor. There is nothing forcing him to tell them exactly why he is screwing them over.

And the whole point is really that whatever damage his ego may or may not have taken, [url=http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0785.html]Tarquin considers the profit from compensating their equipment and the good showing of their escape to be more than soothing enough.[/quote] I do not think Nale would have let them off so lightly.

And I'm really not seeing why he'd raise one son to take ridiculously excessive revenge for quasi-imagined slights, and just assume the other one will want to do the same, if he didn't believe that was the proper philosophy. "I generally let it slide when people cross me, but do as I say, not as I do!"--no, that really doesn't make sense.
Who said Nale takes to his hyper-excessive revenge plots due to the way Tarquin raised him? Tarquin’s style of ‘justice’ may be disproportionate, but he is far more pragmatic regarding cost-benefit than Nale is.
Tarquin put Enor and Gannji against each other only because he thought Elan would want to see them suffer some sort of punishment for beating him up. When Elan said he didn’t like that, Tarquin made no attempt to correct him on the ‘proper’ philosophy. This sort of retribution is what is generally considered appropriate in the Empire of Blood, so it is the kind of thing that Tarquin might take for granted that the people around him would want. But in any case, it is simple (if disproportionate) retribution, not super-excessive ultra-revenge.
Tarquin didn’t ‘let it slide.’ He got Enor and Gannji to pay for a huge propaganda event (plus extra). As a bonus, the event itself featured a great, crowd-pleasing escape. Whether or not either of them died in the arena was immaterial to him. He already got satisfaction over any perceived wrongs they commited against him through a successful show.

rbetieh

2011-11-24, 12:47 PM

Emphasis on “In front of my son.” It is not about his ego. It is about his son’s opinion in him.

Aditionally, there is no reason to expect Tarquin to be forthright with Gannji and Enor. There is nothing forcing him to tell them exactly why he is screwing them over.

And the whole point is really that whatever damage his ego may or may not have taken, [url=http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0785.html]Tarquin considers the profit from compensating their equipment and the good showing of their escape to be more than soothing enough.I do not think Nale would have let them off so lightly.

Who said Nale takes to his hyper-excessive revenge plots due to the way Tarquin raised him? Tarquin’s style of ‘justice’ may be disproportionate, but he is far more pragmatic regarding cost-benefit than Nale is.
Tarquin put Enor and Gannji against each other only because he thought Elan would want to see them suffer some sort of punishment for beating him up. When Elan said he didn’t like that, Tarquin made no attempt to correct him on the ‘proper’ philosophy. This sort of retribution is what is generally considered appropriate in the Empire of Blood, so it is the kind of thing that Tarquin might take for granted that the people around him would want. But in any case, it is simple (if disproportionate) retribution, not super-excessive ultra-revenge.
Tarquin didn’t ‘let it slide.’ He got Enor and Gannji to pay for a huge propaganda event (plus extra). As a bonus, the event itself featured a great, crowd-pleasing escape. Whether or not either of them died in the arena was immaterial to him. He already got satisfaction over any perceived wrongs they commited against him through a successful show.

I agree with all of this, let me just add 1 thing to get back to "whodonit"

1) Nale has a motive - To prevent Penelope from telling anyone the location of Draketooth (and therefore the gate)

2) Tarquin only has a motive if you believe him to be a complete monster - to prevent his wife from ever seeing her long lost daughter again

We probably could start an "is tarquin a complete monster" thread by now, but something tells me that this is one of those arguments that will never get resolved.

The Pilgrim

2011-11-24, 03:38 PM

2) Tarquin only has a motive if you believe him to be a complete monster - to prevent his wife from ever seeing her long lost daughter again.

Actually, Tarquin as a lot of good damn motives to prevent Penelope from finding her daughter.

First:
The Rules of Drama under which Tarquin lives dictate that the long-lost child of your wife who was raised by mysterious strangers and who your wife finally found after 15 years thanks to some "new friend", means trouble. BIG trouble.

If you are an Evil Mastermind, your own sons are almost guaranteed to betray you. An adolescent step-daughter is guaranteed to either betray you directly or fall in love with a random Hero and betray you to him. That, if she isn't being infiltrated as a plant from the "mysterious strangers" who kidnapped her as a baby and raised her in the first place.

For a genre-savvy villiain like Tarquin, those are pretty good reasons to kill Penelope before she contacts her child.

Second:
Your wife is about to hire adventurers???

Your wife has meet "new friends" without your knowledge, or approval?

Your wife is making plans for herself?

Your wife is thinking for herself?

For a complete moster, control-freak egomaniac like Tarquin, those are pretty damn good reasons to kill her and choose a new pet wife.

...

I bet Tarquin killed some of his previous wives for far lesser reasons (like, out of boredom). I'm sure that he even kills them after some time even if they have done nothing wrong, just to be careful.

derfenrirwolv

2011-11-24, 04:09 PM

Well, since his wife wasn't expecting it it was an unexpected passing.

Thats the sort of thing that can get through discern lies but not sense motive.. unless of course tarquin at some point took a level of a class that gave bluff as a class skill and has bluff maxed out to his higher than roy level maximum.

jere7my

2011-11-24, 04:22 PM

Actually, Tarquin as a lot of good damn motives to prevent Penelope from finding her daughter.

[...]

For a complete moster, control-freak egomaniac like Tarquin, those are pretty damn good reasons to kill her and choose a new pet wife.

I'm just going to point out that you actually used the phrase "complete monster" (well, "moster") to describe Tarquin's motives while refuting rbetieh's point that he "only has a motive if you believe him to be a complete monster."

rbetieh

2011-11-24, 04:42 PM

veti

2011-11-24, 05:23 PM

If you doubt that Tarquin is a complete monster who treats his wives as, at best, tools, you should probably reconsider his treatment of (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0757.html) his next wife. "I'm sure your future stepmother will eventually retract her unflattering accusations. Possibly publicly. I haven't decided."

... And that's his idea of courtship, traditionally the gentlest phase of a relationship. A courtship that, we now know, he is embarking on before Penelope is even cold in the ground.

Why does Tarquin "know" so little about Penelope's death? His best friend is a high-level cleric, he's got the resources of an entire empire at his disposal, and he can't find someone to cast Commune, Divination, Speak with Dead or any other spell that might cast some light on what happened to her? If Nale was behind it, surely Tarquin could have learned at least enough to alert him to the fact that Nale was nearby.

My guess would be: he already knows all he wants to know about it, and doesn't want those questions being asked by anyone.

The Pilgrim

2011-11-24, 09:52 PM

I'm just going to point out that you actually used the phrase "complete monster" (well, "moster") to describe Tarquin's motives while refuting rbetieh's point that he "only has a motive if you believe him to be a complete monster."

Actually, I gave two motives, and only one of them dealt with "being a complete monster". The first of my points dealt with Tarquin veing a Genre Savvy Villiain.

Plus, rbetieth point was "he only has a motive if you belive him to be a complete monster - to prevent his wife from ever seeing her long lost daughter again." Which implies that Tarquin kills her just for the Lulz

While my second point implies that Tarquin kills her because having full control over every little detail weights more in his scale of values than human life, and that makes him a complete monster.

So, you see, they are completely different arguments. In my second argumentation, Tarquin has a motive beyond just being a sadist.

rbetieh

2011-11-25, 12:08 AM

Let me just ask you pro-'Complete Monster' arguers, how do you compare T to Redcload on the Evil scale?

Gift Jeraff

2011-11-25, 02:22 AM

He is, in my eyes, equal to Xykon and Nale, who are obviously more Evil than Redcloak. Not sure about Redcload, though.

SoC175

2011-11-25, 12:48 PM

Let me just ask you pro-'Complete Monster' arguers, how do you compare T to Redcload on the Evil scale?Definitely more evil than Redcloak

dps

2011-11-25, 05:59 PM

I bet Tarquin killed some of his previous wives for far lesser reasons (like, out of boredom).

It's not impossible that he killed Penelope just because he was bored with her and wanted to move on to another wife as well, and that the timing was just a coincidence. Heck, it could even be that her passing was "unexpected" because her ideas about finding her daughter caused him to have her killed sooner than he had planned.

Warren Dew

2011-11-25, 08:39 PM

He is, in my eyes, equal to Xykon and Nale, who are obviously more Evil than Redcloak.
It's not that obvious. I don't consider Redcloak less evil than Xykon and Nale. Redcloak is the only one of the three contemplating destruction of the entire world, after all. Just because he doesn't realize he's evil doesn't make him less evil.

On the original topic, I do agree with idea that the possibility of the stepdaughter being recovered would likely have been adequate motivation for Tarquin to kill Penelope. On the other hand, I think preventing the Order of the Stick from getting information from Penelope would have been adequate motivation for Nale to kill her, too. It may just have been a matter of who got to her first.

Friv

2011-11-25, 08:55 PM

He is, in my eyes, equal to Xykon and Nale, who are obviously more Evil than Redcloak. Not sure about Redcload, though.

Ooh, that's a fun one. Here would be my argument.

Redcloak is the least evil of the four, because his goals really do involve making the world a better place, he's fully capable of loyalty and trust, and he doesn't generally hurt people for fun. At the same time, his goals are the most destructive of the four, and if I were in the setting, I would rather have Tarquin or Nale accomplish their goals than him, because my universe will not explode if that happens. Not so much Xykon, though. There are worse things than death.

Tarquin and Nale are equally evil; Nale is just more short-sighted and foolish. Both enjoy cruelty and revenge, both are capable of loyalty and affection to their closest allies and friends (which in Nale's case seems to mainly be Sabine), neither seems to demonstrate remorse, and both are power-hungry. Tarquin has a larger circle of close allies, but that is more because he is able to think ahead than because of any increased kindness on his part.

Xykon is the most evil. He is cruel not just to his enemies or to strangers, but to his own soldiers and those who are most loyal to him, on a whim. He is totally incapable of honest affection or caring towards others. The fact that he also has the power to play his twisted games is really just a cherry on the top of Evil mountain.

Gift Jeraff

2011-11-25, 08:57 PM

War and XPs commentary says Nale is, in Rich's opinion, no less evil than Xykon.

Coidzor

2011-11-25, 09:22 PM

Until recently I would've said Nale was too grossly incompetent to pull off something like that after crossing Tarquin or alerting Tarquin to it before he crossed him...

rbetieh

2011-11-26, 02:17 AM

Definitely more evil than Redcloak

I posted the question because Redcloak has committed the same 'anti-freedom' crimes, up until recently killed off his subordinates (after all they are only minions, see for contrast Tarquins displeasure at his guards getting allosaurused), regularly practices necromancy, is out to either rule or destroy the WORLD (T is only working in 1 continent) and is in fact motivated by purely Racist reasons (Tarquin is in fact not a Racist as can be seen by his plan trying to unify both the human and lizardmen tribes instead of wiping one of the two out). If T is a complete monster, Redcloak is an Ultimate Complete Monster. But people give R a pass probably because he feels like an underdog, and he had a slight change of heart (killing Hobgoblins and raising them as zombies is now a little less tolerable).

I would have thought maybe that people had it out for T because he is selfishly abusing his power, but when you mention that Ian Starshine (and Haley for that matter) is also selfishly abusing his power, people get defensive. It just seems that people are measuring using 2 different sticks, but it is probably best to drop this once and for all, or at least move it to its own "Is T a complete monster thread".

Gift Jeraff

2011-11-26, 07:40 AM

Redcloak hasn't done anything comparable to the slave burning. That's what made Tarquin a complete monster for many people (plus the bride torturing).

Redcloak is also somewhat disgusted by how Evil Xykon is. When presented with someone canonically as Evil as Xykon, Tarquin does not care for their level of Evil, but rather their style.

The Pilgrim

2011-11-26, 10:10 AM

Redcloak is less evil than Xykon, the arguments where given by Xykon himself in the ending of SoD.

Redcloak commits evil acts, but justifies and rationalizes them with excuses like "it's for the Greater Good" or "I'm being coerced by Xykon". Of course, his justifications are bull****, but he needs them and his conscience buys them. As Xykon stated, "you'll obey me because I give you a justification for your unjustificable behaviour".

Xykon needs no rationalization. He does what he does and is happy with it. He doesn't needs to deny what he is.

And that's what tells apart an Evil with a capital "E", and the "evil, but for a good cause" crap. That's why Xykon is the Butch and Redcloak is the Bitch.

About Tarquin, he feels no need to justify himself, either. All his moral relativism crap and "build an empire to stop the constant warfare" argumentations is just bull**** he builds up to justify his behaviour in front of others, but he doesn't belive it, at all. He has no problem in accepting what he is.

That puts Tarquin closer to Xykon than to Redcloak in the "evil scale".

Bulldog Psion

2011-11-26, 11:51 AM

About Tarquin, he feels no need to justify himself, either. All his moral relativism crap and "build an empire to stop the constant warfare" argumentations is just bull**** he builds up to justify his behaviour in front of others, but he doesn't belive it, at all. He has no problem in accepting what he is.

That puts Tarquin closer to Xykon than to Redcloak in the "evil scale".

Agreed. Redcloak is evil and trying to persuade himself he's good. Tarquin's evil and trying to persuade a few select others that he's good. Xykon is evil and openly revels in it. So, we've got one Delusional Evil, one Hypocritical Evil, and one Evil Evil major villain, actually. :smallbiggrin:

Edit: among the three, Xykon is still the most tolerable, IMO, because he's honest about what he is.

derfenrirwolv

2011-11-26, 02:49 PM

paladinofshojo

2011-11-26, 06:02 PM

Huh....I always thought that Tarquin was just an expy of a Roman overlord (the name, brutality towards political and social oppositions, the colloseum?) But there's one thing that prevents the majority of us from dismissing the Roman Empire as arbitrarily "evil", it had granduer. I don't know why, but its easy to forgive the Romans for what they did because of how awesome they were able to make themselves look in history. While its true that some of their emperors were complete monsters, Tarquin was no where near that level of crazy seeing as he never made his horse prime minister or killed his own mother(presumably).

But what's the most striking similarity is that both Tarquin and the Romans were elitists. Tarquin has a low oppinion of the "peasant shmucks" aswell as believes everything would be better off if he ran the show, furthermore he doesn't feel that slaves are people, much like the Romans....

Querzis

2011-11-26, 06:11 PM

Huh....I always thought that Tarquin was just an expy of a Roman overlord (the name, brutality towards political and social oppositions, the colloseum?) But there's one thing that prevents the majority of us from dismissing the Roman Empire as arbitrarily "evil", it had granduer.

...no the thing that usually prevents people from calling the Roman Empire evil is that pretty much everyone else at the time was worse. At its peak, the roman empire was by far the most peacefull place in the world.

First tip when reading about history, if you judge people by our current standard of good and evil, everyone back then was evil. And thats perfectly normal, our morals evolved along with our culture and technology. If you had given people from the Middle Age nuke, you can be sure as hell they'd have destroyed the world with it.

paladinofshojo

2011-11-26, 06:18 PM

...no the thing that usually prevents people from calling the Roman Empire evil is that pretty much everyone else at the time was worse. At its peak, the roman empire was by far the most peacefull place in the world.

Ahhh yes, Romana Pax....I believe the Roman Historian Tacitus said it best......''To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace."

First tip when reading about history, if you judge people by our current standard of good and evil, everyone back then was evil. And thats perfectly normal, our morals evolved along with our culture and technology. If you had given people from the Middle Age nuke, you can be sure as hell they'd have destroyed the world with it.

So judging someone by our own standards of good and evil when their entire character is borrowed heavilly from that timeline is acceptable then? :smallconfused:

Querzis

2011-11-26, 06:39 PM

Ahhh yes, Romana Pax....I believe the Roman Historian Tacitus said it best......''To ravage, to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace."

You know whats interesting about Tacitus? Nobody ever killed him despite the fact that he spent his entire life badmouthing the emperors. That kind of freedom of speech wont be found again for a long time after the romans.

If you'd listen to some people in America, its the most evil country of all time. How does that help?

So judging someone by our own standards of good and evil when their entire character is borrowed heavilly from that timeline is acceptable then? :smallconfused:

No you judge fictional character by the time at which they were written. Its pretty silly to do otherwise unless the author is somehow a time traveller.

paladinofshojo

2011-11-26, 07:09 PM

You know whats interesting about Tacitus? Nobody ever killed him despite the fact that he spent his entire life badmouthing the emperors. That kind of freedom of speech wont be found again for a long time after the romans.

If you'd listen to some people in America, its the most evil country of all time. How does that help?

Well true, but Tacitus was living around the reign of the "Five Good Emperors"....if he lived a few decades earlier or later he would of had to choose his words more carefully or face banishment or execution. After all, before the five was Domitian who was considered a tyrant and after them was Commodus(the guy from Gladiator) The point is that Rome really depended on who wore the purple....but even in the reign of the Five there was still military expansion,slavery, and gladiator games.

Furthermore, as an American I rarely hear people call their country "evil"....."incompetent" maybe, but evil? Not really......

Querzis

2011-11-26, 07:59 PM

Well true, but Tacitus was living around the reign of the "Five Good Emperors"....if he lived a few decades earlier or later he would of had to choose his words more carefully or face banishment or execution. After all, before the five was Domitian who was considered a tyrant and after them was Commodus(the guy from Gladiator)

And as we all know, movie have such great historical accuracy. Commodus co-ruled with his father until he died (of natural cause by the way) was a very moderate emperor and was actually a very good gladiator who played in many games. The most brutal era of the romans was actually back when it was still a republic which, once again, make sense, morals evolve over time.

The point is that Rome really depended on who wore the purple....but even in the reign of the Five there was still military expansion,slavery,

Once again, there was in every country at the time. Rome is one of the very few ones were slaves had rights (they even had the right to file complains about their master), could be emancipated and could actually become recognized citizens after being emancipated. Once again, thats something you woudnt see again for quite some time.

and gladiator games.

Which was pretty much their equivalent of boxing. No really, very few gladiators were slaves, hell a large number were noble (as I already said, some emperors were gladiator) and it almost never resulted in death.

Furthermore, as an American I rarely hear people call their country "evil"....."incompetent" maybe, but evil? Not really......

You havent been spending a lot of time on the internet outside of these forum have you?

paladinofshojo

2011-11-27, 12:15 AM

And as we all know, movie have such great historical accuracy. Commodus co-ruled with his father until he died (of natural cause by the way) was a very moderate emperor and was actually a very good gladiator who played in many games. The most brutal era of the romans was actually back when it was still a republic which, once again, make sense, morals evolve over time.

If by "moderate" you mean whose reign was "marked by political strife and the increasingly arbitrary and capricious behaviour of the emperor himself. In the view of Dio Cassius, a contemporary observer, his accession marked the descent "from a kingdom of gold to one of rust and iron"-a famous comment which has led some historians, notably Edward Gibbon, to take Commodus's reign as the beginning of the decline of the Roman Empire."

As for his gladiator games it essentially boiled down to his opponents submitting to him because he was the emperor.Often wounded soldiers and amputees would be placed in the arena for Commodus to slay with a sword. Commodus' eccentric behaviour would not stop there. Citizens of Rome missing their feet through accident or illness were taken to the arena, where they were tethered together for Commodus to club to death while pretending they were giants.The man was crazy and thought he was Heracles incarnate These acts may have contributed to his assassination.

Once again, there was in every country at the time. Rome is one of the very few ones were slaves had rights (they even had the right to file complains about their master), could be emancipated and could actually become recognized citizens after being emancipated. Once again, thats something you woudnt see again for quite some time.

True, unless you were sent off to the mines (which was basically a death sentence) but other than that slavery wasn't too bad, a good number of slaves lived like poor Roman citizens.

Which was pretty much their equivalent of boxing. No really, very few gladiators were slaves, hell a large number were noble (as I already said, some emperors were gladiator) and it almost never resulted in death.

That is incorrect,gladiators were a byproduct of three sources:One was Rome's military success produced an influx of soldier-prisoners who were redistributed for use in State mines or amphitheatres and for sale on the open market. For example, in the aftermath of the Jewish Revolt, the gladiator schools received an influx of Jews – those rejected for training would have been sent straight to the arenas as noxii (lit. "hurtful ones"). The best – the most robust – were sent to Rome. The granting of slave status to soldiers who had surrendered or allowed their own capture was regarded as an unmerited gift of life and gladiator training was an opportunity for them to regain their honour in the munus.Awell as slaves condemned to the arena, to gladiator schools or games (ad ludum gladiatorium) as punishment for crimes. Slaves made up half of the gladiator population, the third source of gladiators were volunteers (either paid or nonpaid) but they were far from "nobles", they were usually poor or noncitizens who joined the gladiator schools because it offered them a trade, regular food, housing of some sort, and a chance to fight for fame and fortune...

random_guy

2011-11-27, 01:40 AM

...And that's what tells apart an Evil with a capital "E", and the "evil, but for a good cause" crap....

That puts Tarquin closer to Xykon than to Redcloak in the "evil scale".

If Xykon is Evil with a capital E, and Tarquin is EVIL with all caps (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0760.html), does that mean Tarquin is more evil than Xykon?

The Pilgrim

2011-11-27, 08:47 AM

If Xykon is Evil with a capital E, and Tarquin is EVIL with all caps (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0760.html), does that mean Tarquin is more evil than Xykon?

Tarquin is organized, planned Evil. Xykon is spontaneus, non-predictable Evil.

Which one is worse is an ancient debate in D&D. LE vs CE. In fact a debate that in the D&D mytology has set the Devils and the Demons into an endless bloody war.

Usually people thinks that LE is "better" than CE because the LE can be predictable and you can make deals with it. IMHO LE is as bad if not worse than CE precisely because of that, because the LE can plan on the long run, can organize itself better, can build large-scale organizations and empires, and can pretend to be "not that bad" in front of good people.

But, of course, it's a matter of perspective.

rbetieh

2011-11-27, 11:59 AM

If Xykon is Evil with a capital E, and Tarquin is EVIL with all caps (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0760.html), does that mean Tarquin is more evil than Xykon?

I dont think Elans judgement on this is all that great. He compares Tarquin to (every problem can be solved with ninjas) Kubota....

Warren Dew

2011-11-27, 10:23 PM

Redcloak had every reason to toss the human azure city slaves into the Rift and did not.
To the contrary, by that point his bluff had been called, and he had no reason to toss them into the Rift. It made perfect sense to keep them around as productive slaves even if he managed to give a more noble sounding reason for that practical act.

So judging someone by our own standards of good and evil when their entire character is borrowed heavilly from that timeline is acceptable then? :smallconfused:
Judging someone in a D&D based comic strip by D&D alignment rules makes a lot of sense. Applying those rules to real world history doesn't make so much sense.

The most brutal era of the romans was actually back when it was still a republic which, once again, make sense, morals evolve over time.
There might be things we consider acceptable today that would have been considered evil in the past, though. The ancient Egyptians might have considered our euthanasia of excess cats to be sacrilege, for example.

rbetieh

2011-11-28, 01:17 AM

To the contrary, by that point his bluff had been called, and he had no reason to toss them into the Rift. It made perfect sense to keep them around as productive slaves even if he managed to give a more noble sounding reason for that practical act.

Its funny, I can see both sides of the argument as equally valid. 1 Redcloak HATES humans and 'should' take the chance to kill them gleefully. 2 Redcloack HATES humans and 'should' take the chance to torture/humiliate/enslave them gleefully. In his own mind, its really a win/win for him either way, of course it turned out to actually be a loss because he gave the slaves morale. One thing I dont get, why not kill them and make them productive Zombie slaves? Too much magical cost? He has a good number of clerics to help him.

But the point here is the seer # of evil acts commited by Redcloak himself is pretty high up there, no reason to have sympathy for him either.

random_guy

2011-11-28, 02:03 AM

Usually people thinks that LE is "better" than CE because the LE can be predictable and you can make deals with it. IMHO LE is as bad if not worse than CE precisely because of that, because the LE can plan on the long run, can organize itself better, can build large-scale organizations and empires, and can pretend to be "not that bad" in front of good people.

My post was meant to be a tongue in cheek reference to the comic, and not a serious comment. On a more serious note...in my opinion, LE Tarquin is worse then CE Belkar, and CE Xykon is worse than LE Redcloak. The LE vs CE debate cannot be resolved, since it ultimately breaks down to how the character acts out the alignment. Context is important in determining how evil a character is compared to another character.

Nightmarenny

2011-11-28, 02:54 AM

Emanick

2011-11-28, 05:12 AM

To the contrary, by that point his bluff had been called, and he had no reason to toss them into the Rift. It made perfect sense to keep them around as productive slaves even if he managed to give a more noble sounding reason for that practical act.

You make a pretty good point, but in the commentary, Rich explicitly stated that Redcloak "can't bring himself" to toss the slaves into the Rift, in contrast to Xykon, who Rich said would have almost certainly gone ahead and thrown them in.

To my mind, Redcloak is less evil than Tarquin because he seems to feel genuine compassion for the goblin people, and quite arguably is motivated partly by Good motives. (He's inarguably Evil, of course, and taking an unwise, arguably selfish path in serving the goblinoids he's charged with shepherding. But the compassion nevertheless seems genuine.)

Tarquin is less evil than Xykon because he seems to have some redeeming characteristics. He seems to have loyalty to his friends and seems to have genuine affection for Elan. He's a good friend when he chooses to be, at the very least, or at least Malack seems to consider him such. (I'm not sure why else Tarquin and Malack would have discussed issues as personal as the question of whether M should begin raising another family.) I don't consider Tarquin's apparent desire to word all of his statements in a technically true fashion a redeeming characteristic, since he's clearly deeply deceptive. It seems to be more of a Lawful trait than anything else.

Nale seems on par with Tarquin, and thus less evil than Xykon, because he has genuine affection for Sabine and Xykon has absolutely no love for any other being. Yes, I know Rich said in WaX (I think) that he considers Nale as evil as Xykon, but that was before the Nale/Sabine/IFCC dilemma became part of the main plot, and I'm not sure Rich knew at press time how he would develop Nale's and Sabine's relationship (or, if he did, I doubt he wanted what he knew would happen to the two to influence what he said in the WaX commentaries). Even if this was part of Rich's plan all along, I don't think it's necessarily up to the author to decide which character in his work is the most evil. Objective Evil can still be subjective in the eyes of a reader.

The Pilgrim

2011-11-28, 09:03 AM

Nale seems on par with Tarquin, and thus less evil than Xykon, because he has genuine affection for Sabine and Xykon has absolutely no love for any other being.

Ehhhmmm... when has Nale been shown feeling genuine affection for Sabine? Sabine for Nale, yes, but the opposite hasn't happened.

Tarquin's way to test if Elan was Elan or Nale, was to defenestrate his love interest. By surrendering his escape plan to save Haley, Tarquin knew that Elan was not Nale, because "Nale wouldn't have never surrendered to save one of his allies", the ally in question being also his love interest.

Gift Jeraff

2011-11-28, 09:28 AM

If anything, Xykon's shown as much signs of a genuine friendship (or something resembling one) with Jirix as Nale has shown genuine romance with Sabine. Xykon sticks up for Jirix when he has no real reason to, and Jirix seems to have only seen Xykon's "good" side. Now I'm sure Xykon would have no second thoughts about horribly killing him if push comes to shove, but I'm also willing to bet that Nale would have no remorse in killing Sabine (well, trying to kill).

Scarlet Knight

2011-11-28, 09:55 AM

You know, considering Tarquin's life, and position, he may have killed most of his wives, except for the couple that were killed in failed attempts to get at him, and of course the one he wanted to get rid of but had Nale fooled into thinking he didn't so Nale would kill her...:smallconfused:

rbetieh

2011-11-28, 03:08 PM

Theres another possibility that we could explore as well, since most people here believe Tarquin is a Liar.....

What if he is showing off for Elan (like he did with Amun-Zora) and really never had all 9 wives, maybe a more reasonable and lifelike 3 or 4?

paladinofshojo

2011-11-28, 06:19 PM

While our Morales do evolve over time in general it not quite a strait line. Women for example were treated quite well in the Greek City State with many well know philosophers advocating equal rights or close to it.

Women in most city-states of ancient Greece had very few rights. They were under the control and protection of their father, husband, or a male relative for their entire lives. Women had no role in politics. Women with any wealth did not work. They stayed indoors running their households. The only public job of importance for a woman was as a religious priestess.

In Sparta, men stayed in barracks until they were thirty. Since Spartan women did not have this restriction, they had more freedoms and responsibilities in public life. They were able to go out in public unescorted, participate in athletic contests, and inherit land. In the fourth century, over two-fifths of the land in Sparta was owned by women. In Athens, the law required all inheritances to go through the male line and limited property that could be owned by women.

It was the wives who supervised the slaves and managed the household responsibilities, such as weaving and cooking. In affluent homes, women had a completely separate area of the house where men were not permitted. In the homes of the poor, separate areas were not available. Poor women often worked outside the home, assisting their husbands at the market or at some other job. Poorer women often went to the market without a male escort.

Kish

2011-11-28, 06:38 PM

Theres another possibility that we could explore as well, since most people here believe Tarquin is a Liar.....

Calling "Tarquin is a liar" a belief is a lot like calling "humans need light to see" a belief. Tarquin observably lies a lot.

What if he is showing off for Elan (like he did with Amun-Zora) and really never had all 9 wives, maybe a more reasonable and lifelike 3 or 4?
While that's certainly not impossible, I'm drawing a blank for reasons to believe it.

Does it make Tarquin look better to say he's gone through nine wives? No.

Is "reasonable and lifelike" a reason to expect something to be the case in OotS? No.

Is it even accurate to say it's "reasonable and lifelike" that a tyrant who regularly kills off his wives and forces women to marry him wouldn't have had more than four wives? Not at all. Nine isn't excessive at all under those circumstances.

Does he have any motivation to lie about the number of wives he's had? Not as far as I can tell.

Math_Mage

2011-11-28, 07:49 PM

Tarquin and Nale both have record, motive, and opportunity w.r.t. Penelope. The only factor that leads me to believe Nale may be the more likely culprit is that Rich lampshaded the use of Sense Motive at the beginning of the strip.

The other wives? Tarquin. When they became inconvenient or annoying, he disposed of them. That's not a hard pattern to read.

eulmanis12

2011-11-28, 10:22 PM

Xycon is the most Evil, he brings death and distruction, "for the hell of it".

Nale, is the second worst, He kills people out of ego, even if they were perfectly willing to just give him everything he asked for for free (the talisman sprites)

Tarquin is Evil, but not nearly as bad as Xycon or Nale, He has rules that he will follow, and even if it is not a major motivating factor, he does belive that his scheme will result in making the continent a better place. His main motivation is not power, greed, nor random death/destruction, its to be remembered. He also seems to have a line. He will not cross it. He is willing to be evil up to a point, but has redeeming qualities. He genuinly loves Elan. He cares about family. If he wanted Nale dead he could have placed him on the throne like Nale asked and watched him get assasinated. He managed to hold the loyalty of his party for many years, to the point where they were willing to follow a very long dangerous scheme with him. His party probably knew him better than anyone else and they TRUSTED him not to double cross them with his scheme.

Redcloak is not evil in my opinion. Yes I know he admits to being evil, but only because the people he hates identify themselves as "good"
Some of his actions were evil. But good people do bad things some times.
Redcloak is working to make the world a better place. His method might be flawed, his opinion of better might be off, but his goal is still legitimate, he wants a better world. His hatred of humanity is not simple racism. As a youth he watched his entire village, with the exception of himself and his younger brother, killed by humans for no better reason than that they were goblins. Its perfectly fair for him to harbor a grudge. I play a Chaotic Good Ranger, his backstory involves his father being killed by Ogres when he was 5, thus he hates Ogres (preferred enemy feat) and goes out of his way to fight and kill any Ogre he hears about. Does that make him an evil racist? As the being of Pure Law and Good said at Roy's hearing, "It doesn't matter that you were ineffective" Redcloak is trying to do what he believes is right. Also, I'm not sure that he hates humans in general, Just Azure City, he is perfectly willing to coexist with Cliffport, and other neighboring human nations.

martianmister

2011-11-28, 10:28 PM

Does he have any motivation to lie about the number of wives he's had? Not as far as I can tell.

Does he have any motivation to lie about the Penelope's unexpectedly death? He's not hiding his evil acts after all...

veti

2011-11-28, 10:29 PM

Redcloak is the least evil of the four, because his goals really do involve making the world a better place, he's fully capable of loyalty and trust, and he doesn't generally hurt people for fun.

I think that's generally agreed. (I certainly agree with it.) Redcloak has actual empathy, which is a quality lacking in all of the other three.

Tarquin and Nale are equally evil; Nale is just more short-sighted and foolish. Both enjoy cruelty and revenge, both are capable of loyalty and affection to their closest allies and friends (which in Nale's case seems to mainly be Sabine), neither seems to demonstrate remorse, and both are power-hungry. Tarquin has a larger circle of close allies, but that is more because he is able to think ahead than because of any increased kindness on his part.

I think Tarquin's "loyalty and affection" is entirely selfish. As you note, Tarquin maintains close allies "because he is able to think ahead". It's part of his plan. I would guess that his group supports one another in this entirely selfish spirit - it would be in keeping with Tarquin's very modernist worldview that he would be a believer in the Nash Equilibrim (based on everyone being entirely selfish). They trust one another because they've worked together a long time and they have set up an equilibrium in which if any one of them betrays the others, they're all worse off.

As for Tarquin's much-vaunted attitude to Elan - I think that's because Elan is (a) his son, and (b) a bard, a combination that makes him the ideal person to carry Tarquin's life story (and philosophy) forward to future generations. That appeals enormously to Tarquin's vanity, which is boundless.

Xykon is the most evil. He is cruel not just to his enemies or to strangers, but to his own soldiers and those who are most loyal to him, on a whim. He is totally incapable of honest affection or caring towards others. The fact that he also has the power to play his twisted games is really just a cherry on the top of Evil mountain.

I'm not sure Tarquin or Nale are any better than Xykon. Just different.

Yes, Xykon absolutely enjoys watching his own underlings being tortured. That rates him pretty strong on the Badometer.

But on the other hand, Xykon has never tried to subjugate an entire continent - he simply doesn't give a rat's back passage about "the big picture". Of course we have no real way of estimating, but it's quite possible that if we could compare their total counts of people killed and lives ruined, Team Tarquin might actually come out ahead of Xykon, simply because of the scale of their operations.

So I would find it hard to rank Tarquin vs Xykon on any meaningful scale. They're both very, very bad news.

Nightmarenny

2011-11-29, 04:34 AM

But Tarquin doesn't want Elan to tell people about his beliefs. He wants him to tell the story of how the brave adventurers slew the evil Emperor. Or to do nothing so he can live out his life. The comic were he explains his plan seems to make that point conclusively.

In the comic there have been several character who are partially there to say something about good and Evil, or about the game itself. Miko was one of those. So is Tarquin. Its a depiction of an evil character who is still capable of love. In fact has their been word of God to that effect?

Regardless this comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0762.html) says it all.

Tarquin expresses disgust at the idea that he would torture somebody but the realizes Elan has a different definition of "Somebody". As this is one of the few times we can be fairly certain Tarquin isn't lying it tells us something.

Taquin would not harm the people he see's as "somebody" presumably his teammates and Family.

It should however be noted that as Tarquin has shown Misogynistic tendencies and seems to treat women he is involved in more as possessions then people we can note rule out him killing his wife based on this evidence.

Though he did let Elan's mother go so.

Valyrian

2011-11-29, 04:53 AM

But on the other hand, Xykon has never tried to subjugate an entire continent - he simply doesn't give a rat's back passage about "the big picture".
"Redcloak, we're literally out to conquer the world here" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0300.html). It's the reason he wants to control the gates after all. I don't think his general laziness should excuse any of that.

paladinofshojo

2011-11-29, 07:19 AM

It should however be noted that as Tarquin has shown Misogynistic tendencies and seems to treat women he is involved in more as possessions then people we can note rule out him killing his wife based on this evidence.

There are a few things that I do not agree with in this train of thought

1) How exactly does misogynistic tendency equals to killing your spouse? President Andrew Jackson loved his wife but believed that women as a whole should not have the right to vote....

2) When have we even seen Tarquin exhibit Misogynistic tendencies? Two of his party members are female are they not? Surely his opinion of women can't be that bad if he relies on two of them for his political conspiracy

His note to Gannji is all about his ego; "No one tries to extort money from me in front of my son."

And I'm really not seeing why he'd raise one son to take ridiculously excessive revenge for quasi-imagined slights, and just assume the other one will want to do the same, if he didn't believe that was the proper philosophy. "I generally let it slide when people cross me, but do as I say, not as I do!"--no, that really doesn't make sense.

To be fair, he did offer them a lower bounty before Gannji decided to pull the whole thermal detonator schtick... Xykon on the otherhand....would probably have fried the lizard and raised him as an undead before he could finish his sentence (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0037.html)

Calling "Tarquin is a liar" a belief is a lot like calling "humans need light to see" a belief. Tarquin observably lies a lot.

When has he observably "lied"....Sure he is deceitful, treacherous, and manipulative....but he makes it a point to never make a statement that is not true (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0756.html)

Nightmarenny

2011-11-29, 08:07 AM

I'll compile a list of misogynistic quotes tomorrow. Right now I'll just point out that I didn't say that his tendencies don't mean he killed his wife. It just means its possible he doesn't view his Wife as being in that "somebody" group.

Nightmarenny

2011-11-29, 09:35 AM

Things Tarquin says that come off as misogynistic

Calling Women petty

Complementing his sons girlfriends breasts(which was also just weird)

Referring to Haley as "your woman" to Elan

Coercing, torturing and tricking women into Marrying him

mrmcfatty

2011-11-29, 10:57 AM

the way i see it is he is not totally misogynistic. In the same way he only sees some people as "somebodys" he views women the same way. Normal (or at least normal by his standards) are unimportant and there only for his use, whereas the women in his adventuring party have proven themselves as "people" and not just pawns.

this may be why he let Elan's mother get away. She either did something or proved that she wasnt just a pawn and Tarquin decided that because shes a person he would respect her.

rbetieh

2011-11-29, 11:06 AM

All I am saying is Tarquin has a track record of "showing off" for his sons. Hence, Nale believes his father unceremoneously dumped his first wife to go on conquering rampage while Tarquin himself tells us (actually, Elan) that she kicked him out. Whats interesting about that is, if the divorce is Elans moms doing, then the only reason Tarquin is in the Western Continent is because he got a divorce, seems he was happy enough being incredibly jealous husband.

Now with Elan, he tried very hard it seems to make sure Elan saw him and Amun-Zora together and implied that they had had relations. All of this (plus a lot of the other things he's done) looks like an attempt to create the impression that he is a "cool swinger dad". Problem is, his values and intelligence are so different from Elans that its backfiring.

Of course, if we accept that everything in General Knowledge is true because of discern lies, then maybe he has married 8 times already. The question then is why, and I would submit that he probably never got over his first divorce.

Scarlet Knight

2011-11-29, 11:30 AM

Cpt Hook: " Lie? I never lie, child. The truth is too much fun!"

Emanick

2011-11-29, 01:48 PM

Calling "Tarquin is a liar" a belief is a lot like calling "humans need light to see" a belief. Tarquin observably lies a lot.

Calling Tarquin a liar a belief is pretty accurate, in that it has been debated and disputed. Some people consider it obvious; others disagree. That's what a belief is.

Tarquin observably deceives peoplea lot. But he goes out of his way to make his statements technically true, as he points out in the strip where Amon-Zora attacks him. Yes, the speech he makes in the Arena is a bit different, but much of it is "politician-speak" - would you call a politician a liar just for saying he was "humbled" to be at an assembly? Technically yes, that kind of statement is of dubious truthfulness, but if one considers him a liar for speaking like that, then by those standards we are all liars.

None of us are disputing the fact that Tarquin is a deceptive snake. But you seem to be ignoring the fact that he makes an obvious effort to word things in a manner that makes them technically true.

veti

2011-11-29, 05:28 PM

But Tarquin doesn't want Elan to tell people about his beliefs. He wants him to tell the story of how the brave adventurers slew the evil Emperor. Or to do nothing so he can live out his life. The comic were he explains his plan seems to make that point conclusively.

But in order to tell that story, he'll have to tell people about Tarquin. You can't tell people the story of Star Wars without introducing them to Darth Vader. He's so much the centre of the whole story that we got three whole movies, ghastly as they were, devoted to telling his backstory.

That's the sort of immortality that Tarquin is shooting for, and Elan is the perfect person to provide it.

In the comic there have been several character who are partially there to say something about good and Evil, or about the game itself. Miko was one of those. So is Tarquin. Its a depiction of an evil character who is still capable of love. In fact has their been word of God to that effect?

Regardless this comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0762.html) says it all.

Not quite all, I think. But what it says to me is that Tarquin is using Elan. "As the current ruler of one-third of the continent, I have a vested interest in you [succeding in your quest]", as he puts it.

Check out the next strip (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0763.html), which is where Tarquin starts to talk about his legacy. "Think about it. An epic for the ages! Father vs son! Hero vs villain! One rebel vs the force of an empire! They'll tell stories about us until the end of history! My name will be immortalized forever."

Coidzor

2011-11-29, 06:33 PM

Redcloak had every reason to toss the human azure city slaves into the Rift and did not. There is a conscience in there, and it responds even when reacting to a species that Redcloaks hates.

Well, he really had no reason to do so and the only reason he even thought of doing so in the first place was because he couldn't accept what Paladins are at face value as ever being possible, even given what he knew before hand from the journal about how and why Soon did what he did to protect his gate.

But the point here is the seer # of evil acts commited by Redcloak himself is pretty high up there, no reason to have sympathy for him either.

The main reason Redcloak has sympathy, at least taking Start of Darkness into account, is that he's a tragic figure whose flaws and the world around him have brought low, much like the greek tragic hero.

I'd need to do an archive trawl to recall whether he's got that angle to him without Start of Darkness.

The Pilgrim

2011-11-29, 07:57 PM

I'd need to do an archive trawl to recall whether he's got that angle to him without Start of Darkness.

Basically #451 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0451.html). Rocks fall, a Hobgoblin dies, and Redcloak suddently remembers that he is the High Priest of the Dark One, not Xykon's lapdog bitch. And that he has a Plan.

Emanick

2011-11-29, 09:39 PM

If that was the case, there would be no facts in this comic. Belkar's alignment? Some people believe Chaotic Evil--one of them the writer! Others believe Chaotic Neutral! Some people consider it obvious, others disagree, so there is no fact to be had here, only belief! Vaarsuvius' prophecy? Some people believe "I...I must succeed" was the four words--one of them the writer! Etc. Etc. Etc.

(You know, there was a time before the author had actually posted on the forum, "What comic are you reading? When has there ever been any doubt about Belkar's alignment? He's evil!" Also at that time, you could have a tagline under your forum avatar, and mine was, "Belkar is evil, with evil tendencies." I didn't say, "It is my belief that..." etc. Because it wasn't a belief, and the fact that there were a lot of people on the forum who didn't believe it didn't change that.)

Even that would be a "belief" by your definition.
Beliefs are generally about facts. You believe that this is a fact. I and others have disagreed with you. That's fine. But when you go so far as to say that the opinion of others does not even qualify as a "belief" because you are so obviously right that people who disagree with you must be morons or liars (which, to your credit, you said explicitly rather than implicitly), then that simply makes you sound arrogant.

Fascinating. So now lies are not lies when politicians say them. Well, then clearly Tarquin cannot lie even if he wants to; he is certainly a politician.

If "I am humbled" was the only lie in the speech, I would probably leave it alone. It isn't. It's half of one of the six lies in his barrage of lies there.
"Lies are not lies when politicians say them?" That is not what I said, nor will you ever hear me say that. You must have an extraordinarily low opinion of my intellect if you honestly thought that was my implication.

By "politician-speak" I meant "speech language," language intended to glorify and convey an attitude, not something that everyone takes as literally true. (Nobody takes 100% of "You're A Grand Old Flag" literally, but that doesn't mean people aren't sincere when singing it.) It's a form of idiomatic language.

Now that I look at Tarquin's speech, I'm not even sure I need that line of thought to support my point. Tarquin is just as much a "public servant" as a terrible president who serves his own interests in office and incidentally achieves some good (analogous to Tarquin cutting down on the actual amount of warfare that takes place on the Western Continent). Would that president be lying if he said he was "but a public servant?" Not unless you consider the "but" to make him a liar, which nobody does, because nobody is "but" one sole thing. (Tarquin also serves the Empress, inasmuch as he constantly gives her plenty of food and caters to her every whim. How is that not "serving" her?)

Nobody is really going to think Tarquin is humbled by everyone's attendance at the gladiatorial games; it's rhetorical speech-making language. Same with him calling himself a "lowly soldier." Evidence that this is rhetorical language? He's a general; everyone knows he's not a lowly soldier, and he knows it. A lie is a false statement made to deceive. (This isn't "linguistic redefinition," as you charge; the first definition of "lie" that pops up when I plug the word into Dictionary.com is "a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.") You can equivocate and say that by calling himself a "lowly soldier" he wants to convey the false impression that he's not that important, or something like that, but that would be a very long shot in my book.

Right back at you; you seem to be ignoring* the fact that sometimes he outright lies.

Between, "Sometimes he outright lies," and "Usually he plays a weird game with himself where he makes sure all his lies are made up of true parts," which is relevant to the question, "Is Tarquin a liar?"

*Technically, this is untrue, but then, so is your claim about my ignoring his usual word game. You don't seem to be ignoring it; you seem to be trying to linguistically redefine it out of existence.

Have you ever lied before in your life? I know I have. Very rarely, but it happens.

Now, does lying once in a while make me a liar? If you take the word "liar" to mean "somebody who has lied, ever," then yes, it does. But since virtually everyone has lied, that definition of the word is fairly useless. Most people use the word "liar" to describe somebody who lies quite frequently.

I see exactly one instance of Tarquin telling a falsehood with intent to deceive in this comic - when he disarms Elan. And even then he immediately afterwards admits that what he said was untrue. At all other times he makes a strenuous attempt to say things that are technically true. If we call him a liar by these standards, just about everyone is a liar. It makes much more sense to call Tarquin a "deceiver," for to call him a liar masks a very important character trait: his strenuous attempt to tell the literal truth on a consistent basis.

Kish

2011-11-29, 09:58 PM

I am saying that the concept of "politician-speech"--that a certain (important!) class of people should be expected to lie--is a horrific one. To what extent it's widely accepted, it doesn't exonerate Tarquin; it reflects badly on politicians.

Now that I look at Tarquin's speech, I'm not even sure I need that line of thought to support my point. Tarquin is just as much a "public servant" as a terrible president who serves his own interests in office and incidentally achieves some good (analogous to Tarquin cutting down on the actual amount of warfare that takes place on the Western Continent).

Yes and no. But mostly no. There are multiple layers of deception there. On the most basic level, he's lying when he claims to be humbled by the generosity of the people who really don't have a choice about being there (some in chains). That's a lie he expects people to not believe.

What he expects people to believe is behind it is something like your "terrible president" example. What is actually behind it is someone who set up the whole system, not only in the Empire of Blood but two other empires as well.

I am not saying that people who believe Tarquin doesn't lie are morons or liars. I am saying that, looking at the speech he gives to the crowd, I don't understand why anyone would say "Tarquin doesn't lie," any more than anyone would say "Belkar doesn't use daggers." Are you saying something is only a lie if the person speaking it expects people to believe it? Not only is it not-a-lie if the person speaking expects hearers to know the truth, it's not-a-lie if the person speaking expects hearers to believe that the truth is something which is neither what the speaker is saying, nor the actual truth? (For that matter, are you really ready to bet that no one in the crowd believes Tarquin means exactly what he says? I wouldn't want to. How many people would have to believe him for his lies to qualify as lies? Was Cathy lying when she said the Death Squad was actually the Bleedingham Amateur Snorkeling Club?)

Would that president be lying if he said he was "but a public servant?" Not unless you consider the "but" to make him a liar, which nobody does, because nobody is "but" one sole thing. (Tarquin also serves the Empress, inasmuch as he constantly gives her plenty of food and caters to her every whim. How is that not "serving" her?)

Do you have any pets? Presumably, if you do, you're kind to them and make sure they have plenty of food.

Would you seriously, non-jokingly claim that you serve them? If you wouldn't, then Tarquin doesn't serve the Empress. She's his pawn. He does what he wants and exerts himself minimally to work around her. She serves him, and she mostly knows it. (Remember her asking for permission to eat someone?)

veti

2011-11-29, 10:43 PM

Tarquin is just as much a "public servant" as a terrible president who serves his own interests in office and incidentally achieves some good (analogous to Tarquin cutting down on the actual amount of warfare that takes place on the Western Continent). Would that president be lying if he said he was "but a public servant?" Not unless you consider the "but" to make him a liar, which nobody does, because nobody is "but" one sole thing. (Tarquin also serves the Empress, inasmuch as he constantly gives her plenty of food and caters to her every whim. How is that not "serving" her?)

Not really. The idea behind the phrase "public servant" is that of someone who takes orders - this being a pretty essential feature of the "servant" class. Modern politicians can claim, with varying degrees of credibility, that they (in some sense) take orders from their electors. Tarquin doesn't have that layer of plausibility.

By calling himself "a public servant", he is trying to give the impression that he's not responsible for the hideous lives people are forced to lead in the EoB - that he is just following orders, like everyone else. And that would be a lie, in the sense (also from dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie)): "something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture".

(Edited: removed references to "humble" after re-checking the strip.)

Now, does lying once in a while make me a liar? If you take the word "liar" to mean "somebody who has lied, ever," then yes, it does. But since virtually everyone has lied, that definition of the word is fairly useless. Most people use the word "liar" to describe somebody who lies quite frequently.

Believe it or not, there's actual legal precedence backing you up on this. (I know, because I practised journalism in a country that has some of the strictest libel laws in the free world.) To say that someone "is lying" is relatively simple, but to call someone "a liar" is a much graver charge. It's taken to imply someone who lies frequently or habitually, which is a charge that's virtually impossible to prove in court.

I see exactly one instance of Tarquin telling a falsehood with intent to deceive in this comic - when he disarms Elan. And even then he immediately afterwards admits that what he said was untrue. At all other times he makes a strenuous attempt to say things that are technically true. If we call him a liar by these standards, just about everyone is a liar. It makes much more sense to call Tarquin a "deceiver," for to call him a liar masks a very important character trait: his strenuous attempt to tell the literal truth on a consistent basis.

I agree with Kish on this: merely playing linguistic games for his own amusement does not make him truthful. Much of what Tarquin says is "intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture". The fact that it's phrased so as to allow Tarquin to justify it in a hypothetical court, later on, is merely evidence of Tarquin's boundless vanity: it allows him to see himself as unimpeachably honest and perfectly justified in his actions. Which is his big lie to himself.

Edit: the SRD description of Lawful Evil includes the clause:

Some lawful evil villains have particular taboos, such as not killing in cold blood (but having underlings do it) or not letting children come to harm (if it can be helped). They imagine that these compunctions put them above unprincipled villains.

So we can say that Tarquin has a taboo about the way he speaks, which he imagines puts him above "unprincipled villains".

rbetieh

2011-11-29, 10:46 PM

Basically #451 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0451.html). Rocks fall, a Hobgoblin dies, and Redcloak suddently remembers that he is the High Priest of the Dark One, not Xykon's lapdog bitch. And that he has a Plan.

Yup, up until that point he treated Hobgoblins as bad as he treats humans, because he also has a bone to pick with them. Which is the point, he's not out to make the world a better place, he is out to make the world a better place for the goblinoids. Tarquin is out to grant the world peace through an opressive dictatorship. Small attention to detail, and the two fall into the same category of villain, big difference thus far is you know what Redcloak is thinking because he falls into exposition, Tarquin has yet to do that, but he is down 600 or so strips.

eulmanis12

2011-11-29, 10:46 PM

She doesn't ask permission to eat Elan. She asks "can I eat him". this could be a request for permission, or it could be asking advice on would it be a good Idea to eat him. In context I think the second interpretation makes more sense. After all, she asks advice of an advisor, what else are advisors for if not to give advice?
She does not know that she is Tarquins pawn, judging by here speach, and behavior, I don't think she knows much of anything. Her intelegence seems to hover somewhere between our good friends :elan: and :thog: . I do not expect much in the way of comphrehension from the emperess.

That being said, and arguments about evilness/politicians aside, I think tarquin killed Penelope. He might not have killed all his wives, Elan's mother is still alive. But I have no trouble beliving him to take the role of Henry VIII. (2 divorces, 2 beheadings, one dead by natural causes, and one survivor) In fact Tarquin has Henry beaten out by 2.

My logic is this.
Tarquin is Lawful Evil.
He does wrong, but still has rules that he will live by.
He will not kill a Somebody.
Somebodies include:
Party Members
Close Friends
Immediate Family
Minions that are not easy to replace.

He will kill nobodies without a problem
Nobodies include:
Liabilities
Minions that are easily replaced
Nameless NPC's
Threats

When Penelope hired adventures and gave out information she became a liability, and so Tarquin killed her. He might have cared about her. He might have even thought it was a shame that he had to get rid of her. But Tarquin's rule number 1 is don't put up with liabilites.

Kish

2011-11-29, 10:49 PM

She doesn't ask permission to eat Elan. She asks "can I eat him". this could be a request for permission, or it could be asking advice on would it be a good Idea to eat him.

If she had said, "Can I eat him?" it could mean either.

"May I eat him?" what she actually asked...can only mean one. Unless she's making a grammar mistake, which is possible, of course, but traditionally the grammar mistake goes the other way (CHILD: Can I...? PARENT: May I).

Dark Matter

2011-11-29, 11:18 PM

I would say the whole 'Killing Malaks Children' thing is what makes Tarquin think of Nale as rotten. Its probably a one of those LE 'lines I wont cross' things for Tarquin.

Isnt it funny that Tarquin COULD have just killed Elans mom and had both kids but he chose not to? Again "lines he wont cross". Unlike Nale, who drove a sword up his own brothers gut.Oh, nonsense. Tarquin doesn't *have* a line he "won't cross". He's unapologetically LE. What makes him "Lawful" is he likes using laws and establishing order, but he's got no problems breaking laws or not honoring his word if it suits him.

Look at the 5th panel in this one: http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0762.html

He says he won't kill Elan... not so much because he loves him (although he does) but because he "would gain nothing by your demise".

So... any idea what would have happened if Tarquin thought he would gain something?

Tarquin *might* be "Evil for a purpose" because he claims it will be a better world after he's done. In 760 he said he wants a world where no one has reason to fight anyone else. However his vision includes no mercy, no freedom, and if you're unhappy it's not his problem.

What Tarquin isn't is ego driven. He doesn't need to make others see him as the ruler. He doesn't need to kill his (ex)wives because they hate him, or because they disagree with him, or because they think he's a monster. Presumably he lets his various wives walk away... but only if he wouldn't gain something by killing them.

kaiguy

2011-11-29, 11:27 PM

Oh, nonsense. Tarquin doesn't *have* a line he "won't cross". He's unapologetically LE. What makes him "Lawful" is he likes using laws and establishing order, but he's got no problems breaking laws or not honoring his word if it suits him.
This.

Seriously, there's so much Elan logic going around about Tarquin right now. "Oh, maybe Nale killed Penelope. Maybe he killed all of Tarquin's wives. Maybe Tarquin really does have the best interests of the continent at heart, and he's not really all that bad, and he can be my dad and Roy will be my brother for real."

Seriously, do we need flaming letters written on a mountain?

rbetieh

2011-11-29, 11:37 PM

Oh, nonsense. Tarquin doesn't *have* a line he "won't cross". He's unapologetically LE. What makes him "Lawful" is he likes using laws and establishing order, but he's got no problems breaking laws or not honoring his word if it suits him.

Just because he hasn't mentioned it explicitly, doesn't mean a line doesn't exist. Nale has such a line (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0258.html) (oh and check out the title to the comic, it kind of hammers in the point). LE is generally regarded as the "Honor amoung thieves" alignment, I think Veti posted something from SRD just a few posts above about LE having particular hangups and such.

Oh and on the point about liars, everyone in this comic has at one point or another lied. Durkon did it in the jail cell, Celia did it, not so sure about Roy or Hinjo but point is if the definition of liar includes framing negative information in a positive light, then who is/isn't a liar is irrelevant because it says nothing of their morality or their general alignment for that matter.

Kish

2011-11-29, 11:43 PM

Oh and on the point about liars, everyone in this comic has at one point or another lied. Durkon did it in the jail cell, Celia did it, not so sure about Roy or Hinjo but point is if the definition of liar includes framing negative information in a positive light, then who is/isn't a liar is irrelevant because it says nothing of their morality or their general alignment for that matter.
That much is true. If you take out the one strip where Tarquin directly and unambiguously lied six times, Tarquin is still made of deception and likely to blow away like smoke if someone cast True Seeing and looked at him.

derfenrirwolv

2011-11-30, 03:06 PM

Well, he really had no reason to do so

1) He hates humans
2) He tosses in batch 1. Tommorow he tosses in batch 2. The day after he tosses in batch 3...
3) Pride. He either had his bluff called or is genuinely wrong. Either one is hard to accept and very easy to turn into a peasant killing rage.

and the only reason he even thought of doing so in the first place was because he couldn't accept what Paladins are at face value as ever being possible, even given what he knew before hand from the journal about how and why Soon did what he did to protect his gate.

Well, considering Redcloaks interactions with paladins in the past meeting a real one would probably come as a shock.

The Pilgrim

2011-11-30, 07:26 PM

Yup, up until that point he treated Hobgoblins as bad as he treats humans, because he also has a bone to pick with them. Which is the point, he's not out to make the world a better place, he is out to make the world a better place for the goblinoids. Tarquin is out to grant the world peace through an opressive dictatorship. Small attention to detail, and the two fall into the same category of villain, big difference thus far is you know what Redcloak is thinking because he falls into exposition, Tarquin has yet to do that, but he is down 600 or so strips.

If we follow your logic, then all the Shappire Guard fall into the same category of villain as Tarquin, since they weren't out to make the world a better place, they were out to make the world a better place for humans.

Anyway, Tarquin is NOT out to achieve World Peace through an opressive dictatorship. He IS out to live like a God for as long as he can (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0763.html), and hopefully becoming a Legend after it.

He doesn't gives a damn about "world peace", that's just some sugar he added to his speech to make it more digerible for Elan.

Dark Matter

2011-11-30, 07:33 PM

Just because he hasn't mentioned it explicitly, doesn't mean a line doesn't exist.It'd be inefficient to have such a line, it might cost him a victory, and he's gone out of his way to not draw lines because of that. If he needs to kill his son/friend/wife then he needs to. If he needs to debase himself then he needs to.

LE is generally regarded as the "Honor amoung thieves" alignment, I think Veti posted something from SRD just a few posts above about LE having particular hangups and such.True but so what? All 9 of the alignments cover a wide range of personalities, Tarquin is more ruthless+efficient than he is honorable. He doesn't need to prove himself to anyone, including himself.

Adicted To

2011-11-30, 07:39 PM

That's actually a very good point. If he had killed her, he would have expected it. So I guess the case is closed.

He never states for whom it was unexpected. If she never saw it comming it was unexpected.

Tarquin does these things all the time. "I have already send troops to join the battle." He never specified what side of the battle they would be joining. just like het never specified for whom the death of his wife was unexpected.

I wouldn't be surprised if he killed her. The moment (lets pick anyone) Elan finds out Tharquin killed her:

:elan: "You said she died unexpected"
:tarquin: "She did, she never saw it comming."

veti

2011-11-30, 09:01 PM

It'd be inefficient to have such a line, it might cost him a victory, and he's gone out of his way to not draw lines because of that. If he needs to kill his son/friend/wife then he needs to. If he needs to debase himself then he needs to.

"Son, I really don't like to lock myself in with regards to whom I may or may not kill in the future (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0776.html)". Regardless of whether he's telling the truth, that statement implies that he does acknowledge the possibility of "locking himself in", which also implies that he does have some limits. That's why he's LE, not NE.

In Tarquin's case, I think his self-defined limit is something to do with "keeping his word". That's why he guards his speech so carefully. Compare also "I have nothing to hide (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0756.html)".

Note, I'm still not saying he's anything but filthily dishonest. Just that he has this self-imposed rule that he "imagines puts him above unprincipled villains".

What Tarquin isn't is ego driven. He doesn't need to make others see him as the ruler. He doesn't need to kill his (ex)wives because they hate him, or because they disagree with him, or because they think he's a monster. Presumably he lets his various wives walk away... but only if he wouldn't gain something by killing them.

Now this I disagree with strongly. Tarquin is probably the most egotistical person in the strip - far more so than Nale. It's just that his ego is so big, there's not actually room for it in the strip...

Consider:

A huge statue of himself (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0750.html)
The spin (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0751.html) he puts on his breakup with Elan's mother. And while we're here, note that he has technology installed in his palace specifically to allow him to pose more effectively.
He readily believes (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0753.html) that people fall in love with him on sight.
He maintains an extensive (and presumably expensive) state apparatus designed to make people appreciate (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0755.html) his regime.
His determination not merely to force marriage to a woman who hates him, but also to have her "withdraw her unflattering accusations (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0757.html)".
The man spells out his own vanity in 200-foot-tall flaming letters (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0759.html). Don't be fooled by the fact that he's spelling Elan's name - people aren't supposed to look at that and think "that Elan, he must be really something" - they're thinking (at best) "that Tarquin, he knows how to make someone feel special".
"My name will be immortalized forever... We're going to tell the best story EVER (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0763.html)."
He makes sure his soldiers get to see his name and portrait (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0766.html) on a regular basis.
When someone does get the better of him, he immediately rationalises it (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0785.html) so that he doesn't have to admit, even to himself, that he has in fact been beaten.

Tarquin is incredibly ego-driven. Take away his ego, and you'd have - well, Elan.

rbetieh

2011-11-30, 09:40 PM

If we follow your logic, then all the Shappire Guard fall into the same category of villain as Tarquin, since they weren't out to make the world a better place, they were out to make the world a better place for humans.

Well actually, I know you totally disagree with your own statement, but I find it more reasonable (note, no access to SoD here). Here is Soons Plan (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0277.html). His force exists for the sole reason to defend the fabric of reality (pretty good reason), but he tells his paladins to destroy all who would threaten the gate. A little bit of semantics with the word 'would' is going on. This is anyone who might have a motive to try to use or destroy the gate, soon assumes this to be Evil aligned people. The problem is, to be a strictly Good act, the wording should have been "would and could". You see, he is erradicating evil because its evil, not because its an actual threat. That does not seem like a good act to me, it seems Neutral trending good at the very best. But I would venture this as proof that Soon Kim wants to make the world a better place for Good people (regardless of Race/Species), not just humans (although I presume you never meant just humans, but the main PC races).

Anyway, Tarquin is NOT out to achieve World Peace through an opressive dictatorship. He IS out to live like a God for as long as he can (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0763.html), and hopefully becoming a Legend after it.

He doesn't gives a damn about "world peace", that's just some sugar he added to his speech to make it more digerible for Elan.

This is just a difference we two have to live with. I see Tarquins Plan explained in Spins of the Father (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0758.html) (yes I know, Ironic Title). Reinforced by his words to amun-zora in the panel preceeding it, and his words to Ian in The answer is blowing in the wind (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0814.html). What I get out of "Plotting Something" is a Bardic explanation that Elan might be able to understand - mainly that you cannot even have heroes without villains, and he is choosing villainy because the perks are better.

In many ways, this parallels with V and Kubota. Elan is willing to accept "The Plan" up until he sees his name on the mountainside, just like he accepted V's handling of Kubota up until he realized that V killed Kubota only because he was an inconvenience. He sees Tarquins plan as an evil plan when he sees Tarquin as evil, forgetting what good may come of it. The same applied to Kubota, as soon as he saw Evil in what V did, he forgot all the good that would come of it. Tarquin realizes this and makes a story that he will understand, "Greater good" goes out the window, "good Villains make good stories" replaces it, but for Elan only. I wonder if the giant will give Nale enough speaking time to explain how he sees his own fathers plan, it could be enlightening.

Quick Edit:

A huge statue of himself (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0750.html)

Now, I promised not to get into an argument with you on your greater point, so I will leave the argument alone. I feel like I have to nitpick that you can't even see Tarquins face in that statue (we know its him, but how are people living in 100 years supposed to know?)

veti

2011-11-30, 09:58 PM

I feel like I have to nitpick that you can't even see Tarquins face in that statue (we know its him, but how are people living in 100 years supposed to know?)

If they've heard "the greatest story EVER", they'll know...

But really, I think the statue's not for them - it's for Tarquin.

Porthos

2011-11-30, 10:19 PM

Lately, I've been making it a point to try to stay out of the "Ah, Tarquin isn't so bad" arguments, beyond a stray comment or two. But I do want to address something.

The phrase "She was planning on hiring adventurers to follow up when she unexpectedly passed" could easily be followed up with:

"I mean, I totally expected her to last a lot longer in the torture chambers..."

or

"She was fourth level for heaven's sakes. I completely expected her to last longer in the Arnea than she did..."

or

"With her CON score, I was sure she'd last a few more weeks before dying from that slow poision I was giving her."

And before anyone states that those sentences are ridiculous, I would suggest that they are no more ridiculuous than the infamous "I never specified which side of the battle they would join."

And the neat thing is all of his statements above would pass the muster of Sense Motive and Detect Lies. Even if he doesn't habitually walk around with some sort of magical countermeasure to those skills/spells. And, personally, I wouldn't bet on that. :smallwink:

Nightmarenny

2011-11-30, 11:23 PM

I don't think your wrong(that Tarquin probably killed his wife) but no. That is a much more ridiculous idea.

Porthos

2011-11-30, 11:35 PM

I don't think your wrong(that Tarquin probably killed his wife) but no. That is a much more ridiculous.

How so? If anyone had said that Tarquin was really sending "troops into battle" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0742.html) for the other side, don't you think most people would have viewed that as a ridiculous statement? Sure, I think one poster actually called it beforehand, but the vast majority of people took it at face value.

Heck, let's look at the exact statement that Tarquin made:

"I have already dispatched 500 dragoons to join the battle, Captain."

Why would anyone even suspect that he was double dealing here? Especially since he later said that "there are many ways to seal alliances...".

In both the statement that we know he made, and my purported one he is technically telling the truth.

Besides, my example is no more ridiculous than a certain dwarf's statement about "mechanical defects" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0264.html). :smallbiggrin:

Nightmarenny

2011-11-30, 11:39 PM

How so? If anyone had said that Tarquin was really sending "troops into battle" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0742.html) for the other side, don't you think most people would have viewed that as a ridiculous statement? Sure, I think one poster actually called it before hand, but the vast majority of people took it at face value.

Heck, let's look at the exact statement that Tarquin made:

"I have already dispatched 500 dragoons to join the battle, Captain."

Why would anyone even suspect that he was double dealing here? Especially since he later said that "there are many ways to seal alliances...".

In both the statement that we know he made, and my purported one he is techincally telling the truth.

Besides, my example is no more ridiculous than a certain dwarf's statement about "mechanical defects" (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0264.html). :smallbiggrin:

One is him leaving out one important fact and one requires a more complicated explanation.

Doesn't really matter though. He doesn't have twist the truth. He can just lie. In fact if he really has been killing wives he already lied when he said they died of "mysterious circumstances".

paladinofshojo

2011-11-30, 11:39 PM

Would you seriously, non-jokingly claim that you serve them? If you wouldn't, then Tarquin doesn't serve the Empress. She's his pawn. He does what he wants and exerts himself minimally to work around her. She serves him, and she mostly knows it. (Remember her asking for permission to eat someone?)

True, but I doubt the Empress knows who's really incharge.... It really doesn't help Tarquin and Co. if his pawn actually knows that they're the next patsy to be toppled.... The Empress also has a bit of a temper so I doubt she is a "knowing" pawn.... But really, as for your "permission to eat Elan" argument..... It doesn't sound like she's asking for "permission" but rather asking are their reprecussions if she eats him...

Finally as for the whole "Tarquin's speech is full of lies" argument....It's not so much he's openly lying to a crowd, but moreso showing "false modesty".... Due to the fact that he has to keep up appearances...he can't act like a king or emperor in public.... because technically he doesn't "rule" anything... That's what makes Tarquin so dangerous....because even though he is a dictator....he's just a general in rank....sure he doesn't have to deal with things like "responsability" or "accountability" but he also doesn't get the prestige and one of those pompous, over the top, titles that rulers get....like "the Bloody" or "the Magnificent"...

Dark Matter

2011-12-01, 09:22 AM

"Son, I really don't like to lock myself in with regards to whom I may or may not kill in the future (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0776.html)". Regardless of whether he's telling the truth, that statement implies that he does acknowledge the possibility of "locking himself in", which also implies that he does have some limits. That's why he's LE, not NE.Ignoring that if the LG can occasionally lie, so can the LE...

IMHO he's not "acknowledging the possibility of locking himself in".
What he's doing is saying, "I hate breaking my word so I'm not going to give it."

In Tarquin's case, I think his self-defined limit is something to do with "keeping his word".Then you need to show him actually keeping his word when it's not to his advantage. Sending those bounty hunters into the arena for what technically is following his orders probably isn't where to start.

Now this I disagree with strongly. Tarquin is probably the most egotistical person in the strip - far more so than Nale. It's just that his ego is so big, there's not actually room for it in the strip...I was mentally calling it "vanity" rather than "ego", but I'll give you that one.

But consider. His ego(vanity) is the largest we've seen, it's one of his defining characteristics... and the moment it got in the way, he ditched it for tactical necessity. He can't be king in name.

Even his absurdly large ego/vanity doesn't create a line he won't cross.

paladinofshojo

2011-12-01, 10:00 AM

I was mentally calling it "vanity" rather than "ego", but I'll give you that one.

But consider. His ego(vanity) is the largest we've seen, it's one of his defining characteristics... and the moment it got in the way, he ditched it for tactical necessity. He can't be king in name.

Even his absurdly large ego/vanity doesn't create a line he won't cross.

He doesn't really seem as egotistical as Nale to me..... Sure he seems to grossly abuse his position and (unchecked) power to hold a frivilous festival in honor of his son.... but what makes Tarquin different from most conquerors and tyrants is that he's not in the game for the glamour and prestige of power, he's in it for power in and of itself..... sure he splurges on himself alot but hey, he's still technically an evil, selfish bastard..... Tarquin knows he has power over entire countries but chooses to exercise that power when no one is looking out of convenience and caution..... unlike his rash, unorganized bufoon of a son.

rbetieh

2011-12-01, 10:34 AM

Then you need to show him actually keeping his word when it's not to his advantage. Sending those bounty hunters into the arena for what technically is following his orders probably isn't where to start.

Doesn't releasing 2 extra prisoners that he apparently knows nothing about just to secure the services of a mercenary count for this?

Kish

2011-12-01, 10:44 AM

Doesn't releasing 2 extra prisoners that he apparently knows nothing about just to secure the services of a mercenary count for this?
Oh lord.

Releasing two prisoners who don't give exciting fights and haven't been ransomed in years of captivity would not, most definitely not, count as "keeping his word when it would be to his advantage to break it," unless you want to suggest that Tarquin deserves cookies for paying any of his hirelings, ever. And probably doesn't even count if you do; keeping Ian and Geoff prisoner and feeding them is a net loss.

That's would, not does, because "Tarquin is going to just let them go with no catches or strings" is itself a huge (and, I would say, really really unlikely) assumption. It's not a good idea to base arguments on huge assumptions.

rbetieh

2011-12-01, 12:34 PM

Oh lord.

Releasing two prisoners who don't give exciting fights and haven't been ransomed in years of captivity would not, most definitely not, count as "keeping his word when it would be to his advantage to break it," unless you want to suggest that Tarquin deserves cookies for paying any of his hirelings, ever. And probably doesn't even count if you do; keeping Ian and Geoff prisoner and feeding them is a net loss.

That's would, not does, because "Tarquin is going to just let them go with no catches or strings" is itself a huge (and, I would say, really really unlikely) assumption. It's not a good idea to base arguments on huge assumptions.

Keeping them is a net loss, but as I have argued in the Conspiracy vs. Ian thread, it actually makes no sense at all to keep them alive at all. If they arent usefull as gladiators, or ransom bait, the next best thing is allosaurus meat, not mentor to the gladiators. Tarquin laid out some specific orders to keep these two alive and forgot about them, simple. And since he doesnt remember them, what he honestly agreed to do is pardon two prisoners of Roys choosing without question. Who knows what he released, conceivably Roy could have had two all-powerfull Wizards released.

And note, both of these fine sirs are now in actual possesion of Pardon Papers. This is a bit different from Enor and Ganji, because for some reason, Tarquin didn't give them a receipt for their bounty setting up an "our word vs theirs scenario". If Tarquin incercerates Ian and Geoff again, it will be for crimes committed past the signing of the pardon papers, such as openly criticizing the government in Blowing In the Wind (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0814.html).

Dark Matter

2011-12-01, 01:05 PM

Releasing two prisoners who don't give exciting fights and haven't been ransomed in years of captivity would not, most definitely not, count as "keeping his word when it would be to his advantage to break it,"Even if they did give exciting fights it still wouldn't count. Roy and Belkar are high level PCs, getting them to sign on to T's group would be a big deal. When T signed the pardon, as far as he knew they (the prisoners) were random commoners (if they're useless) or potential recruits (if they're with Roy).

Doesn't releasing 2 extra prisoners that he apparently knows nothing about just to secure the services of a mercenary count for this?No, but honoring the pardons of revolutionaries would be.

Haley's dad thinks T *won't* do that... but then H's Dad isn't lawful. We might be looking at a test case here, if Giant continues that plot line.

dps

2011-12-01, 01:11 PM

I am saying that the concept of "politician-speech"--that a certain (important!) class of people should be expected to lie--is a horrific one. To what extent it's widely accepted, it doesn't exonerate Tarquin; it reflects badly on politicians.

He's not making a policy speech. It's a ceremonial speech to open the gladiatorial games; as such, it's somewhat ritualistic or formulistic and more akin to a performance than any ordinary statement made in conversation. On such an occasion, there are certain turns of phrase that are expected to be used. Using them doesn't involve any intention to decieve, but are simply fullfilling the requirements of the ritual.

Warren Dew

2011-12-01, 09:01 PM

I just reread Tarquin's speech opening the games, and I don't see any lies in it, whether or not it's said by a politician.

Nightmarenny

2011-12-01, 10:27 PM

Porthos

2011-12-01, 10:37 PM

Ok this new comic seems to strongly(though indirectly) imply that he did kill his wife.

Because the "he only missed it for a few seconds" is just as crazy as "she died unexpectedly" was.

*feels smug* :smalltongue:

Actually I was coming back to the thread to talk about that very line, so I'm glad that you beat me to the punch.

Both goes to show that Tarquin enjoys perverting the truth. He says things like that for his own amusement and not only to support his goal.

I agree. But the thing is, that is classic LE behavior. Well, a classic behavior at least. Many people like to laugh at their own little jokes, after all. In some ways it's similar to Xykon: Gots to get your laughs were you can.

rbetieh

2011-12-01, 10:57 PM

Forikroder

2011-12-01, 11:04 PM

brionl

2011-12-01, 11:15 PM

Warren Dew

2011-12-01, 11:21 PM

Nightmarenny

2011-12-01, 11:26 PM

im pretty sure tarquins definition of wife (aside from #1) is more close to consort then anything

its only natural Tarquin would have to keep killing them off its only naturaly they would start to pick up on thinqs and killed before they learn too much
i think tarquins line "he only missed it for a few seconds" was mroe for our humour then his personality

and it fits with his love of grandstanding

regardless of what it was "for" it still tells us something about him.

That he uses these little "technical truths" even when he doesn't have to. That he jokes with them.

It means he's not(or at least not just) a competent a surgical bad guy but also some what playful about the things he's done. While that isn't proof that he killed her it is proof that if he DID kill her that is exactly the sort of thing he might say.

As for why, if he killed her, we didn't get a cut away well, I don't know. The giant is being somewhat coy about what happened to his wives even after everyone noticed Tarquin is evil so there are to options that I see.

1.The Giant is planning on doing something else with them and both Tarquin and maybe Nale are Red Herring.

2.Tarquin did kill them and the Giant see's no need to waste time making things explicit.

Either way I feel confident we are supposed to suspect Tarquin.

Nightmarenny

2011-12-01, 11:31 PM

"He only missed it for a few seconds" is literally true because after a few seconds, the rich man hit the ground, died, and didn't miss the carpet any more.

So how do you see a parallel with the "unexpected" death? And what does Durkon have to do with it?

Not to be rude but maybe you should read the rest of the thread first?

We were arguing whether "she died Unexpectedly... I didn't expect to have to kill her" was too ridiculous a possible half-truth for Tarquin. Someone pointed out that if the Half-truths Tarquin said earlier didn't match that idea in crazy at least a lie by Durkon earlier in the comic would.

Dark Matter

2011-12-02, 06:54 AM

At the moment we just can't tell who killed her. We can't rule out T... but I like Nale for it better because we know he had motive, and the timing of it seems ideal (she died right after he came back).

veti

2011-12-02, 07:20 AM

Ignoring that if the LG can occasionally lie, so can the LE...

IMHO he's not "acknowledging the possibility of locking himself in".
What he's doing is saying, "I hate breaking my word so I'm not going to give it."

If you look at my previous posts in this thread, you'll see I have been arguing that Tarquin lies pretty much constantly. But he lies in a very special way. He hates to say something that he can't rationalise as "true". That means, I don't think he'll give a promise unless he at least intends to keep it.

(I hope we get a flashback to one of his weddings. I'd love to see his idea of marital vows...)

But consider. His ego(vanity) is the largest we've seen, it's one of his defining characteristics... and the moment it got in the way, he ditched it for tactical necessity. He can't be king in name.

Even his absurdly large ego/vanity doesn't create a line he won't cross.

That's true. However, he's again rationalised that decision, with the whole spiel about how he gets to rule and live like a king anyway, so it makes no difference. That way he doesn't have to admit to himself that he has, in fact, climbed down.

So that leaves the question: would he willingly break his word, if it was to his advantage to do so?

Personally, I think he'd look for a way to get the advantage while keeping to the letter of his agreement. If he couldn't find one - well, okay, it would probably depend on the size of the advantage.

So I guess I'm agreeing with you - it's not a line he won't cross, just one he'd be extremely reluctant to cross.

Adanedhel

2011-12-02, 07:21 AM

There is one other who has a vested interest in Penelope, and there"by Tarquin coming close to Orrin and his daughter; more specifically Orrin himself.

This might be a crackpot and most certainly does not rule out either Nale or Tarquin, but be honest:

if you were in Orrins position, and you realise, your exwife knows who you are and where you live, knows she knows her daughter was with him, and if she would come there she might find the gate.

The idea that someone comes close to the gate who is as evil and ambitious as Tarquin might be enough for Orrin to go kill Penelope, to make sure Tarquin does not come anywhere near this kind of power. (I would prefer Redcloak above Tarquin gaining that power, RC would put the goblins at equal level as other PC-races, and be statisfied, Tarquin would be able to gain world domination, without even having the risk of drawing the unwanted attention to get killed)

Weak point in this theory, as of yet we do not know of a way Orrin could have found out that Penelope knew where he lived.

paladinofshojo

2011-12-02, 07:27 AM

Ok this new comic seems to strongly(though indirectly) imply that he did kill his wife.

Because the "he only missed it for a few seconds" is just as crazy as "she died unexpectedly" was.

Both are weird because they are unnecessary. Both Durkon's and tarquin's were said with purpose. They had to get across information and preferred not to "lie" both Tarquin's future fibs were unnecessary.

He could have just said "when she died"

He could have just left it at "we stole them from a man who had six already"

Both goes to show that Tarquin enjoys perverting the truth. He says things like that for his own amusement and not only to support his goal.

Unless....Tarquin's killing off his wives is revealed to be some convoluted political move in his xanatos gambit by Tarquin that the giant wants to surprise everyone with....than I highly doubt that "unexpectedly passed" is a complicated half-truth or play on words.....

if you were in Orrins position, and you realise, your exwife knows who you are and where you live, knows she knows her daughter was with him, and if she would come there she might find the gate.

The idea that someone comes close to the gate who is as evil and ambitious as Tarquin might be enough for Orrin to go kill Penelope, to make sure Tarquin does not come anywhere near this kind of power. (I would prefer Redcloak above Tarquin gaining that power, RC would put the goblins at equal level as other PC-races, and be statisfied, Tarquin would be able to gain world domination, without even having the risk of drawing the unwanted attention to get killed)

True....Orrin has more of a motive to go after Penelope than Tarquin does.... not as much as Nale but moreso than Tarquin.... unless Tarquin is trying to be unashamedly evil then there's no reason to kill off his eye candy.....

Agreed. Redcloak is evil and trying to persuade himself he's good. Tarquin's evil and trying to persuade a few select others that he's good. Xykon is evil and openly revels in it. So, we've got one Delusional Evil, one Hypocritical Evil, and one Evil Evil major villain, actually. :smallbiggrin:

Edit: among the three, Xykon is still the most tolerable, IMO, because he's honest about what he is.

Actually I find Tarquin the most tolerable out of all of them...because "Ethically" (and I use that word mechanically) he is the most Ideal with his evil....

Let me explain with a visual.......

"Kilo-Nazi chart"
:redcloak:(sappy extremist) <--------------------:tarquin: (3 dimensional)-------------------->:xykon: (full blown sociopath)

rbetieh

2011-12-02, 01:32 PM

Going back on whether T means it when he gives his word....Malack sure thinks he means it (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0723.html). Just adding a little more weight on the balance.

Bulldog Psion

2011-12-02, 03:15 PM

He's not making a policy speech. It's a ceremonial speech to open the gladiatorial games; as such, it's somewhat ritualistic or formulistic and more akin to a performance than any ordinary statement made in conversation. On such an occasion, there are certain turns of phrase that are expected to be used. Using them doesn't involve any intention to decieve, but are simply fullfilling the requirements of the ritual.

I detest Tarquin totally, but I agree that I can't see that he's lying here, as such. He's thanking the crowd for coming and promising them plenty of bloodshed, mayhem, and destruction for their entertainment. How does that constitute a lie in view of what was on the program? :smallconfused:

rbetieh

2011-12-02, 03:41 PM

Kish

2011-12-02, 03:45 PM

I detest Tarquin totally, but I agree that I can't see that he's lying here, as such. He's thanking the crowd for coming and promising them plenty of bloodshed, mayhem, and destruction for their entertainment. How does that constitute a lie in view of what was on the program? :smallconfused:
In that you only arrive at that by massive paraphrasing.

1) He is not humbled by their generosity. They have no choice about being there--some are literally chained--so there is no generosity, and he thinks that means he's awesome.

2) He is not a lowly soldier.

3) He is not a public servant.

4) It's most definitely not the people's state.

5) He knows perfectly well there is no support and gratitude there.

6) The Empress serves him, not the other way around.

Before that strip Tarquin is already plainly someone who is more than fine with communicating untruths--indeed, he does it almost compulsively. There he's lying, nakedly, and people are looking straight at his lies and still claiming he doesn't lie. I don't understand; it makes as much sense to me as looking straight at the cast page and saying, "Vaarsuvius is not an elf."

Math_Mage

2011-12-02, 04:12 PM

Regardless this comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0762.html) says it all.

Tarquin expresses disgust at the idea that he would torture somebody but the realizes Elan has a different definition of "Somebody". As this is one of the few times we can be fairly certain Tarquin isn't lying it tells us something.

Taquin would not harm the people he see's as "somebody" presumably his teammates and Family.

It should however be noted that as Tarquin has shown Misogynistic tendencies and seems to treat women he is involved in more as possessions then people we can note rule out him killing his wife based on this evidence.

Though he did let Elan's mother go so.

You know, this is a nice starting point for measuring degrees of Evil: the size of their monkeysphere (http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html[/url).

Redcloak's "somebody" is the goblin nation.
Tarquin has a "somebody", including his old team and Elan, but we don't know what the exact bounds are.
Nale has Sabine.
Xykon? Yeah, no.

paladinofshojo

2011-12-02, 08:15 PM

In that you only arrive at that by massive paraphrasing.

1) He is not humbled by their generosity. They have no choice about being there--some are literally chained--so there is no generosity, and he thinks that means he's awesome.
How exactly is being "polite" make you a liar? When someone gives you a gift, you say you say "thank you I appreciate it". Secondly, sure slaves don't have a choice but how exactly do you know that Tarquin is pulling a Soon Kim with forcing countries to madnatory gladiator games?

2) He is not a lowly soldier.
Ofcourse not, he's the "general of the Empire of Blood" on paper... Ohh well I guess General Macarthur was also a liar because he referred to himself as an "old soldier"

3) He is not a public servant.
Again...."general on paper".... he can't exactly put "shadow emperor of the West" on a job resume....

4) It's most definitely not the people's state. That depends on which point of view you take, Tarquin seems to justify it as "For the people,by the people by me, I know what's best for 'em"

5) He knows perfectly well there is no support and gratitude there. No one knows that he's actually been playing the continent like a Risk board....why should they have any reason to hate him?

6) The Empress serves him, not the other way around. "Serve" implies "open obedience".....if the Empress "serves" Tarquin....then she wouldn't be the one sitting on the throne would she? Sure the Empress is being manipulating by him...but he's still technically "serving" her....just like an evil chancellor....
Tarquin also stated that he'll continue to serve her "aslong as she draws fiery breath" which means "until he finds a new patsy to take her place" so he's not exactly lying that much either....

Warren Dew

2011-12-02, 08:20 PM

Not to be rude but maybe you should read the rest of the thread first?

We were arguing whether "she died Unexpectedly... I didn't expect to have to kill her" was too ridiculous a possible half-truth for Tarquin. Someone pointed out that if the Half-truths Tarquin said earlier didn't match that idea in crazy at least a lie by Durkon earlier in the comic would.
I think if you had read the rest of the thread yourself, you would have noticed the explanation on page 2 or so that the "unexpectedly" comment makes perfect sense given the death was unexpected by, likely, the victim, and certainly everyone else.

That does require a favorable interpretation for Tarquin, which the "few seconds" comment does not, though, so your parallel still doesn't stand up.

dps

2011-12-02, 08:28 PM

In that you only arrive at that by massive paraphrasing.

1) He is not humbled by their generosity. They have no choice about being there--some are literally chained--so there is no generosity, and he thinks that means he's awesome.

2) He is not a lowly soldier.

3) He is not a public servant.

4) It's most definitely not the people's state.

5) He knows perfectly well there is no support and gratitude there.

6) The Empress serves him, not the other way around.

Before that strip Tarquin is already plainly someone who is more than fine with communicating untruths--indeed, he does it almost compulsively. There he's lying, nakedly, and people are looking straight at his lies and still claiming he doesn't lie. I don't understand; it makes as much sense to me as looking straight at the cast page and saying, "Vaarsuvius is not an elf."

Care to address the point that I raised and that Bulldog Psion was responding to?

Kish

2011-12-02, 08:33 PM

Care to address the point that I raised and that Bulldog Psion was responding to?
I did. I could look for another way to say, "I find it boggling that you're seriously asserting the occasion means Tarquin's lies aren't lies there"...but really, I think I've said it as many times as anyone could reasonably expect. You think telling a string of lies in a speech to open a gladiatorial game doesn't count as telling lies. Okay. I have no response other than :blink:.

paladinofshojo

2011-12-02, 08:36 PM

I did. I could look for another way to say, "I find it boggling that you're seriously asserting the occasion means Tarquin's lies aren't lies there.

And I find it boggling that you're STILL nitpicking him over the only time he spoke were he was allowed to be overly dramatic and embellish.....

Warren Dew

2011-12-02, 08:56 PM

1) He is not humbled by their generosity. They have no choice about being there--some are literally chained--so there is no generosity, and he thinks that means he's awesome.
He is, in fact, fairly humble; a proud person in his position would insist on recognition that he was the real ruler, rather than staying in the shadows. A few of the audience have no choice about being there, but most appear to be there voluntarily. Presumably he's referring to the generosity of those who are there voluntarily.

2) He is not a lowly soldier.
By some definitions, all soldiers are lowly.

3) He is not a public servant.
All public officials are arguably public servants.

4) It's most definitely not the people's state.
This is mostly a joke as a "people's state" is usually an ironic reference to certain types of dictatorships. However:

5) He knows perfectly well there is no support and gratitude there.
To the contrary, most of the crowd seems happy enough to cheer after his speech, suggesting that, at least at that moment, there was both support and gratitude in at least some cases.

6) The Empress serves him, not the other way around.
The official chain of command has him serving the empress. Their direct interactions, in 723-725, back that up. Likely he quite literally serves her meals at times as well, as Malack almost did with Elan.

Now, there's no question that Tarquin is good at deception when he wants to be, with a little help from the plot. He manages to do it without technically lying, though. And in this speech, I don't think he's even trying to deceive people - he's just trying to rev up enthusiasm for the show.

Nightmarenny

2011-12-02, 08:57 PM

I think if you had read the rest of the thread yourself, you would have noticed the explanation on page 2 or so that the "unexpectedly" comment makes perfect sense given the death was unexpected by, likely, the victim, and certainly everyone else.

That does require a favorable interpretation for Tarquin, which the "few seconds" comment does not, though, so your parallel still doesn't stand up.

I DID read it. Which is why in an earlier post I stated that it was possible that was one of Tarquin's lies but that it seemed like more of a stretch then his previous "lies".

Dark Matter

2011-12-02, 10:15 PM

And I find it boggling that you're STILL nitpicking him over the only time he spoke were he was allowed to be overly dramatic and embellish.....

T likes misleading people with false-truths to the point where nothing he says can be taken at face value. T's manor of speech is so mindnumbingly deceptive that anything he says could be stood on it's head.

He can't be trusted. His sense of honor can't be trusted, his word can't be trusted, whatever he tells you can't be believed. Talking about whether he's willing to lie is pointless when little he says is the truth.

Was he surprised at his wife's death? Did he kill her? We don't know because the narrator turned off the omnipresent cut away. Constantly needing the narrator to translate someone's words into "the literal truth" means we can't trust him. If he told me it was raining outside I'd still need to check.

dps

2011-12-02, 10:34 PM

I did. I could look for another way to say, "I find it boggling that you're seriously asserting the occasion means Tarquin's lies aren't lies there"...but really, I think I've said it as many times as anyone could reasonably expect. You think telling a string of lies in a speech to open a gladiatorial game doesn't count as telling lies. Okay. I have no response other than :blink:.

Did you even read my post in question? Because you've repeated yourself several times in addressing things that other people have posted, but I've not seen anything where you've addressed the specific point I made.

paladinofshojo

2011-12-02, 11:03 PM

T likes misleading people with false-truths to the point where nothing he says can be taken at face value. T's manor of speech is so mindnumbingly deceptive that anything he says could be stood on it's head.

He can't be trusted. His sense of honor can't be trusted, his word can't be trusted, whatever he tells you can't be believed. Talking about whether he's willing to lie is pointless when little he says is the truth.

If you count almost all the exposition he said was true as "little" I am curious of what your definition is true...Furthermore, it sounds that there is something personally invested in your loathing of Tarquin...

rbetieh

2011-12-02, 11:24 PM

Looks guys, there are people that consider a Liar to be only those that speak falsehoods, usually for personal gain but not always. There are also people who believe anyone who deceives is a liar. You have to expect that people have different sticks with which to measure and move on, so long as they arent measuring different situations with different sticks of course.

The way I read the contentious strip is that nothing spoken is outright false, but it is very much deceitful. Tarquin is basically telling the people of bleedingham that he too is a servant in this empire. That he is in no way different from the ordinary citizen, and that everyone serves and obeys the Empress. This is deceitful because neither he nor Malack actually do. Is anything he says a lie? Well if you believe misleading statements and half-truths are lies, then yes, and if you do not believe that, then no. No more to it than that. And it doesn't really affect the original question of whether it is Nale or Tarquin removing his wives.

Note, there is also no direct evidence that the ex's are all dead either, we know of one that is dead and one that is alive. It's rather possible that Wife 8 (the one that got tortured) might have committed suicide because of the torture. So 2-7 are unaccounted for, and probably will never be if they are not important to the strip.

EDIT: Oh there is a third option with Lies and Deceives, he can also Mislead which is allow you to think what you want to think and only correct your thought processes when necessary, we see that with Girard/Orrin. I would assume anyone who thinks a deceiver is a liar would also dump misleaders as liars too.

Dark Matter

2011-12-02, 11:34 PM

If you count almost all the exposition he said was true as "little" I am curious of what your definition is true...Furthermore, it sounds that there is something personally invested in your loathing of Tarquin...Loath? To be clear, he's a fun character, I like him, I'd like to see more of him. I think he's two steps a head of the characters, and I think the only reason he didn't pick up on Elan's "Roy" mistake was because he already knew Roy was with Elan.

T is also one of the most evil and scary characters we've seen. Give him Xykon's power and he'd already have taken over the world. T's big flaw is his ego, but he doesn't seem to let it lead him to mistakes. T could easy be a big bad and might be the next big bad after Xykon.

Everything I said about T's untrustworthiness was correct. Assume you take on the mantle of a PC and are talking with T. Could you trust what he says? Could you trust him to keep his word without finding a way to splice it so he's breaking what you thought it meant? Do you trust him to not simply ignore the rules if he wants to?

As a reader I enjoy T, but that doesn't mean I'd like to live next door to him, or even stand next to him. He's a monster and would cheerfully torture babies if he felt it'd be useful. He able to inflict Xykon level cruelty and that he can do so without being a sadist is all the more so horrifying.

rbetieh

2011-12-02, 11:39 PM

T is also one of the most evil and scary characters we've seen. Give him Xykon's power and he'd already have taken over the world. T's big flaw is his ego, but he doesn't seem to let it lead him to mistakes. T could easy be a big bad and might be the next big bad after Xykon.

I dont think he needs Xykon-level power. He seems like Evil Batman to me....contingency for everything, I bet he has a plan for a cloud giant invasion.

hamishspence

2011-12-03, 04:59 AM

You know, this is a nice starting point for measuring degrees of Evil: the size of their monkeysphere (http://www.cracked.com/article_14990_what-monkeysphere.html[/url).

What if a character is a self-centered loner, who treats everyone but them the same way- but, thanks to their code of honor, it's a good (or at least neutral) way- they won't steal from, defraud, or in any way initiate harm to, anyone else.

Bulldog Psion

2011-12-03, 10:31 AM

What if a character is a self-centered loner, who treats everyone but them the same way- but, thanks to their code of honor, it's a good (or at least neutral) way- they won't steal from, defraud, or in any way initiate harm to, anyone else.

Yeah, the Monkeysphere seems like a lousy measure of alignment to me too. Too simplistic, really.

hamishspence

2011-12-03, 01:04 PM

that said- the base concept:

(that some people have a "sphere" that they will behave well toward, and an "out of sphere" category of people they're prepared to commit evil acts against- and these people, if their evil acts have been committed and were fairly serious ones, are likely to have a alignment of Evil if created as D&D characters)

is a handy one.

Similarly, at least one type of Neutral alignment fits this: "Good behaviour toward everyone within their sphere, Neutral behaviour toward everyone outside it".

Warren Dew

2011-12-03, 01:54 PM

The way I read the contentious strip is that nothing spoken is outright false, but it is very much deceitful.
I agree many of Tarquin's statements are highly deceitful - those to Amun Zora and to the bounty hunters being prime examples. I don't see the opening speech at the coliseum as one of those examples, though. It might be deceitful if he were actually trying to convince anyone that his speech accurately depicted reality, but I don't think speeches like that are actually intended to convey such information. He's just trying to rev up the crowd for the games, in which he succeeds.

I also think he is on occasion quite honest - for example with Elan, and also with Roy even before he had any evidence that Roy was associated with Elan. It's true that in those cases his words reveal a rather detestable world view, but while that's certainly an indication of evil, it's not specifically an indication of dishonestly.

T is also one of the most evil and scary characters we've seen. Give him Xykon's power and he'd already have taken over the world.
True. I'd find a world ruled by Xykon or Redcloak far worse than one ruled by Tarquin, though.

krossbow

2011-12-03, 01:57 PM

I agree many of Tarquin's statements are highly deceitful - those to Amun Zora and to the bounty hunters being prime examples. I don't see the opening speech at the coliseum as one of those examples, though. It might be deceitful if he were actually trying to convince anyone that his speech accurately depicted reality, but I don't think speeches like that are actually intended to convey such information. He's just trying to rev up the crowd for the games, in which he succeeds.

I also think he is on occasion quite honest - for example with Elan, and also with Roy even before he had any evidence that Roy was associated with Elan. It's true that in those cases his words reveal a rather detestable world view, but while that's certainly an indication of evil, it's not specifically an indication of dishonestly.

True. I'd find a world ruled by Xykon or Redcloak far worse than one ruled by Tarquin, though.

Something to realize about the difference between Xykon and Tarquin: All life has value to tarquin, albeit only numerically as pawns; NOONE has value to Xykon.

It's like the difference between a Devil and an Old one. The devil at least aknowledges that your soul has worth, even if its just in a monetary sense-- the old one doesn't even aknowledge you.

As such, if you understand the system, you can get some worth out of your life under tarquin, even if its short. Your life under Xykon exists only until he gets bored or careless.

dps

2011-12-03, 07:07 PM

I did. I could look for another way to say, "I find it boggling that you're seriously asserting the occasion means Tarquin's lies aren't lies there"...but really, I think I've said it as many times as anyone could reasonably expect. You think telling a string of lies in a speech to open a gladiatorial game doesn't count as telling lies. Okay. I have no response other than :blink:.

Just to reiterate--my point was that his speech was a performance. Do you believe that an actor in a play that says a line that reads, "I was born in Liverpool" but the actor was born in London, that makes him a liar?

Kish

2011-12-03, 07:13 PM

Just to reiterate--my point was that his speech was a performance. Do you believe that an actor in a play that says a line that reads, "I was born in Liverpool" but the actor was born in London, that makes him a liar?
Ah, that does make it clearer.

No, I don't believe the actor is a liar. Nor do I believe that everyone in the crowd knows Tarquin doesn't mean what he's saying now. Nor do I believe that Tarquin expects everyone in the crowd to know he doesn't mean what he's saying now. And for those who he does expect to know he doesn't mean what he's saying now, to continue the "born in" analogy, he's saying, "I was born in Liverpool," expecting some of the crowd to believe him and most to think he was born in London, and privately going, "Haha, suckers, I was born in Paris."

eulmanis12

2011-12-03, 08:26 PM

I think Tarquin is awesome. At least as a charecter. He is Darth Vader, pure and simple. He is the cool bad guy.

Alignment. I think he is clearly Lawful evil. He is admittedly evil, does evil acts, and wants to take over the world. That being said he cannot technicaly be unlawful (he writes, defines, interprets all the laws in the nation he lives in. Basicaly any action he takes is "legal" because its his action.) As far as honesty, every statement he makes contains a little bit of truth. Very few contain the whole truth. But none of them are 100% false.

Dark Matter

2011-12-04, 12:09 AM

Being Lawful is more than being in charge. Xykon is in charge but he's still amazingly Chaotic.

Lawful characters like the -idea- of law. They like the idea of order, structure, discipline, and actively strive to create that structure.

Xykon doesn't bother passing laws because he doesn't expect them to be followed as a law. You might do what he says because he'll kill you, but for him all authority comes from that. He simply doesn't believe in any system of order other than "or I'll kill you".

Redcloak can imagine an empire which exists for centuries after his death, Xykon's empire ends when he does.

The idea that a lawful character would be bound by his word is part of that. Lawful characters often apply the law to themselves, simply because the law is supposed to apply to everyone. Thus making an exception, even for themselves, is a bad thing and a bad example.

This is why arguments about whether a Paladin has to obey LE rules is nonsense. He doesn't. He will actively fight to change or even destroy LE laws... but when he's done he'll try to inflict Law on society once again. He'll never look at a LE society and say "the problem is with the existence of law".

A CG character might try to destroy Law in it's entirety with the belief that "Evil comes from Oppressive Laws and a lack of freedom", but a LG character can claim "Evil comes from a lack of Law and the misuse of freedom".

paladinofshojo

2011-12-04, 04:53 AM

Ah, that does make it clearer.

No, I don't believe the actor is a liar. Nor do I believe that everyone in the crowd knows Tarquin doesn't mean what he's saying now. Nor do I believe that Tarquin expects everyone in the crowd to know he doesn't mean what he's saying now. And for those who he does expect to know he doesn't mean what he's saying now, to continue the "born in" analogy, he's saying, "I was born in Liverpool," expecting some of the crowd to believe him and most to think he was born in London, and privately going, "Haha, suckers, I was born in Paris."

:smallsigh: You do realize you're still only nitpicking an argument that has been resolved by everyone else right? We have already addressed your " Tarquin lied in his speech" argument and you haven't posted a rebuttal.....

In that you only arrive at that by massive paraphrasing.

1) He is not humbled by their generosity. They have no choice about being there--some are literally chained--so there is no generosity, and he thinks that means he's awesome.
How exactly is being "polite" make you a liar? When someone gives you a gift, you say you say "thank you I appreciate it". Secondly, sure slaves don't have a choice but how exactly do you know that Tarquin is pulling a Soon Kim with forcing countries to madnatory gladiator games?

2) He is not a lowly soldier.
Ofcourse not, he's the "general of the Empire of Blood" on paper... Ohh well I guess General Macarthur was also a liar because he referred to himself as an "old soldier"

3) He is not a public servant.
Again...."general on paper".... he can't exactly put "shadow emperor of the West" on a job resume....

4) It's most definitely not the people's state. That depends on which point of view you take, Tarquin seems to justify it as "For the people,by the people by me, I know what's best for 'em"

5) He knows perfectly well there is no support and gratitude there. No one knows that he's actually been playing the continent like a Risk board....why should they have any reason to hate him?

6) The Empress serves him, not the other way around. "Serve" implies "open obedience".....if the Empress "serves" Tarquin....then she wouldn't be the one sitting on the throne would she? Sure the Empress is being manipulating by him...but he's still technically "serving" her....just like an evil chancellor....
Tarquin also stated that he'll continue to serve her "aslong as she draws fiery breath" which means "until he finds a new patsy to take her place" so he's not exactly lying that much either....

He is, in fact, fairly humble; a proud person in his position would insist on recognition that he was the real ruler, rather than staying in the shadows. A few of the audience have no choice about being there, but most appear to be there voluntarily. Presumably he's referring to the generosity of those who are there voluntarily.

By some definitions, all soldiers are lowly.

All public officials are arguably public servants.

This is mostly a joke as a "people's state" is usually an ironic reference to certain types of dictatorships. However:

To the contrary, most of the crowd seems happy enough to cheer after his speech, suggesting that, at least at that moment, there was both support and gratitude in at least some cases.

The official chain of command has him serving the empress. Their direct interactions, in 723-725, back that up. Likely he quite literally serves her meals at times as well, as Malack almost did with Elan.

Now, there's no question that Tarquin is good at deception when he wants to be, with a little help from the plot. He manages to do it without technically lying, though. And in this speech, I don't think he's even trying to deceive people - he's just trying to rev up enthusiasm for the show.

Bulldog Psion

2011-12-04, 06:00 PM

Kish

2011-12-04, 06:14 PM

They're writing a standard polite opening statement, not thinking (as you seem to be stating they would be) "bwah hah hah, you weak minded fool, I wrote 'dear' to you and now you think you're super extra special to me, and in fact I could care less about you! What a sneaky, subtle fellow I am, and what a fool you are to believe that my letter really indicates deep affection towards you on my part! This appears to be an innocent form letter, but it's really a deeply pondered lie that is designed to do something or other!"
Why is Tarquin suddenly a "they"?

Anyway, let me clarify one thing.

Tarquin observably lies all the time.

Most of the time, his lies are made up of true parts, because he plays word games. It would be possible, based on every strip he's in except #776, to validly theorize that he will not speak direct untruths (instead of, as appears to be the reality, "He usually doesn't speak direct untruths").

Once you add in #776, that theory is refuted. Introducing questions of "what people understand X to mean" can't defend Tarquin because the second you do that, you're left with him having lied to Amun-Zora, telling her he would help her country; him having just lied to Elan, saying that the carpet theft didn't seriously hurt the person it was taken from; and generally him lying nearly constantly.

#776 wouldn't be significant for someone who didn't play Tarquin's word game, in the same way a bucket of water over someone's head is largely harmless unless they're the Wicked Witch of the West. For Tarquin, though, it demonstrates that he's willing to speak direct untruths, as well as his constant lying-by-word-game. It takes "Speaking a direct untruth is a line Tarquin wouldn't cross" off the table. Or it should. In fact, it manifestly doesn't, for some reason.

Bulldog Psion

2011-12-04, 06:33 PM

Why is Tarquin suddenly a "they"?

1. Does that matter in the slightest bit as regards the actual argument I am presenting? Does it really? Jeez. :smallmad:

2. If you read my post again, you will see that the "they" is referring not to Tarquin but to the hypothetical writer of a letter starting "Dear sir/madam", in which case it applies as the gender-neutral singular in English. Double jeez with sprinkles on top of it. :smallmad: :smallmad: :smallmad:

I'm done here, though. Really, truly, thoroughly done. I don't want to say any more because I'm really annoyed at this point, and ... well, let's just leave it at that.

veti

2011-12-04, 11:08 PM

#776 wouldn't be significant for someone who didn't play Tarquin's word game, in the same way a bucket of water over someone's head is largely harmless unless they're the Wicked Witch of the West. For Tarquin, though, it demonstrates that he's willing to speak direct untruths, as well as his constant lying-by-word-game. It takes "Speaking a direct untruth is a line Tarquin wouldn't cross" off the table. Or it should. In fact, it manifestly doesn't, for some reason.

The reason is: there's nothing in that speech that Tarquin can't rationalise to himself, using the arguments already given in this thread (basically, "it's all common boilerplate/no-one takes it seriously anyway"). These rationalisations may not be true, but they only have to persuade one person, and that person is a deeply deluded narcissist with a long track record of successfully lying to himself.

Basically, I think Tarquin is quite insane. He is more than capable of believing two or three contradictory things simultaneously - for instance, that he is "serving" the Empress (to the extent that he makes sure she has everything she wants), and that, simultaneously, the Empress is his pawn in his grand plan. He plays his elaborate word games with himself.

(In the same way, he really believes that he loves Elan. And when he marries Amun-Zora - assuming that plan comes to fruition - I'm sure he'll have convinced himself that he loves her, too. Of course he has not the faintest idea what "love" really involves, but he doesn't know that.)

But he needs to be able to rationalise what he says to himself, and that ability is not absolute. Hence his hangups about the way he speaks.

Dark Matter

2011-12-05, 08:24 AM

rbetieh

2011-12-05, 09:38 AM

Narcissist, yes. Insane, by normal standards, yes... although by D&D maybe not.

But I see no evidence that he's delusional. Manipulative, sure, but he knows very well that his head will get cut off by some peasant or, at best, his son. Delusional people make lots of mistakes and thus far, perhaps excluding his sex life, we haven't seen him make any.

His plan shows no delusion at all, he isn't biting off more than he can chew, he has calculated exactly what he and his 5 cohorts can handle and moved specifically to garner that exact amount of power. Hence he has no future plan to confront the elves. I would say the character traits are ruthless and deceitful.

Math_Mage

2011-12-05, 02:30 PM

What if a character is a self-centered loner, who treats everyone but them the same way- but, thanks to their code of honor, it's a good (or at least neutral) way- they won't steal from, defraud, or in any way initiate harm to, anyone else.

That's why it's "a starting point", not "an ending point". :smalltongue: Naturally it makes a difference what their standards are for "in-Monkeysphere" people and "out-Monkeysphere" people.

hamishspence

2011-12-05, 02:54 PM

That's why it's "a starting point", not "an ending point". :smalltongue: Naturally it makes a difference what their standards are for "in-Monkeysphere" people and "out-Monkeysphere" people.

true- and I did concede that:

that said- the base concept:
...
is a handy one.

rbetieh

2011-12-05, 03:04 PM

Gift Jeraff

2011-12-05, 05:34 PM

I just stumbled upon another tweest: The wife he tortured still used her position/power to make the empire a better place (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0752.html).... not providing any analysis on this yet, tired, and can't process it until I have more coffee anyways, but there you go.Based on this and an earlier post, you seem to be implying that this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0757.html) is Tarquin's eighth wife. How do you know that? :smallconfused:

rbetieh

2011-12-05, 05:42 PM

Based on this and an earlier post, you seem to be implying that this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0757.html) is Tarquin's eighth wife. How do you know that? :smallconfused:

Wow, you are correct, so many times I read that comic and every time I read into it that she was number 8 for some inexplicable reason. I bet it was because the comic I posted came first and I was reading them arc-serially. Odds are 8 was in the head already.

veti

2011-12-05, 06:24 PM

But I see no evidence that he's delusional. Manipulative, sure, but he knows very well that his head will get cut off by some peasant or, at best, his son. Delusional people make lots of mistakes and thus far, perhaps excluding his sex life, we haven't seen him make any.

Tarquin has made plenty of mistakes. If we set aside for the moment the nine-wives thing, that still leaves (within the small amount we know about his career):

Raising Nale into a petty backstabbing psychopath
Not mentioning Elan's existence to anyone (a mistake that almost got Elan fed to the Empress)
Not realising that Nale was back in his empire - heck, in his own palace - even after recognising Thog
Thinking that Elan would be pleased with his surprise (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0759.html)
Allowing an agent of Nale's to get close to both him and Elan
The huge security hole in his allosaurus-containment arrangement - that someone could simply kill the guards and release the beast without anyone else noticing...
Allowing Enor and Gannji to escape (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0785.html).

This last is particularly interesting, because of how he reacts. He immediately rationalises it to make it seem like it's all a part of his grand plan ("Their every move makes my victory more complete"), by talking about the money and loot he's taken off them. But this is a pure sunk-cost fallacy: he's already got the loot, their escape is still a defeat for him.

As for mistakes in his grand plan - he's admitted to one (making himself a target when he first arrived), but he may have made many more - we've only seen a very abbreviated version of the story. Most likely the plan described to Elan is only the latest version, it's probably had a lot of revisions along the way. Quite possibly he rewrites it with each new empire. But of course he wouldn't be aware of those revisions, because - in the same way as with Enor and Gannji - within moments he's persuaded himself that "the fools are playing into my hands!! Mwuhahahahaha!!!"

This is why he gets so needled by Ian. Really, the verbal jibes of a has-been mediocre gladiator should be like water off a duck's back to him - certainly it's of much less consequence than Enor and Gannji's escape. But instead he's visibly angered (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0814.html) by the confrontation. That's because Ian is pricking his delusional bubble, telling him that he's not really beloved by his people.

When Elan told him the same thing, it didn't count - Elan's an outsider, he couldn't be expected to understand the special relationship between Tarquin and his people. But when someone who's actually lived in the empire starts talking to him like that, his rationalisations start to crumble. And that's precisely the point at which a narcissist turns into a frothing maniac.

paladinofshojo

2011-12-05, 08:20 PM

This is why he gets so needled by Ian. Really, the verbal jibes of a has-been mediocre gladiator should be like water off a duck's back to him - certainly it's of much less consequence than Enor and Gannji's escape. But instead he's visibly angered (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0814.html) by the confrontation. That's because Ian is pricking his delusional bubble, telling him that he's not really beloved by his people.

When Elan told him the same thing, it didn't count - Elan's an outsider, he couldn't be expected to understand the special relationship between Tarquin and his people. But when someone who's actually lived in the empire starts talking to him like that, his rationalisations start to crumble. And that's precisely the point at which a narcissist turns into a frothing maniac.

Ian also is an outsider.....and I find is hypocratically trying to defend his "civil rights" in a country which is a) not his own and b) he's trying to overthrow the government. Tarquin on the otherhand is on some level respecting the political and social makeup of the Continent because he's not openly ruling them.....remember the reason why he was defeated in the first place was because all the warlords rallied against him. Tarquin also publically maintains the "status quo" of the land.... "out with the old conquerors...in with the new ones", from what we can tell the Western Continent has had this problem for a long time....Tarquin is merely capitalizing on it. Ian on the otherhand seems more like a straw anti-federalist....his only reason for opposing Tarquin is because he's taking away the "freedom" of the people....but in reality the people of the West didn't have any "freedom" to begin with.....

Math_Mage

2011-12-05, 08:31 PM

This last is particularly interesting, because of how he reacts. He immediately rationalises it to make it seem like it's all a part of his grand plan ("Their every move makes my victory more complete"), by talking about the money and loot he's taken off them. But this is a pure sunk-cost fallacy: he's already got the loot, their escape is still a defeat for him.

Tarquin is a sucker for drama. This was obvious literally from the moment he took off his helmet. The immediate tradeoff is between the escaped prisoners and the drama they created that turned a mediocre gladiatorial event into an awesome one. The money and loot are just a nice bonus.

This is why he gets so needled by Ian. Really, the verbal jibes of a has-been mediocre gladiator should be like water off a duck's back to him - certainly it's of much less consequence than Enor and Gannji's escape. But instead he's visibly angered (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0814.html) by the confrontation. That's because Ian is pricking his delusional bubble, telling him that he's not really beloved by his people.

When Elan told him the same thing, it didn't count - Elan's an outsider, he couldn't be expected to understand the special relationship between Tarquin and his people. But when someone who's actually lived in the empire starts talking to him like that, his rationalisations start to crumble. And that's precisely the point at which a narcissist turns into a frothing maniac.

I'm rather less than convinced by the theory that a self-proclaimed villainous overlord who admits to rule through fear, intimidation, and torture thinks he's beloved by "his people". Especially when he's taken measures to hide the fact that he's in charge, so "his people" don't even know they're his.

(Besides, if we want to talk about who gets 'visibly angered' in that scene, there's a far more obvious candidate than Tarquin.)

Dark Matter

2011-12-05, 08:56 PM

Raising Nale into a petty backstabbing psychopathLike Xykon, Nale is known to be evil at an absurdly young age. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0050.html

Not mentioning Elan's existence to anyone (a mistake that almost got Elan fed to the Empress)Ignore that Elan approved of this. If Elan had gotten fed to the Empress, how is that a problem for Tarquin?

Thinking that Elan would be pleased with his surprise (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0759.html)
Tarquin's plan is to eventually have Elan kill him.

The huge security hole in his allosaurus-containment arrangement - that someone could simply kill the guards and release the beast without anyone else noticing...That doesn't count as a flaw when you -want- the Allosaurus to sneak out and kill people. http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0778.html

Not realising that Nale was back in his empire - heck, in his own palace - even after recognising Thog
Allowing an agent of Nale's to get close to both him and ElanMeaning Tarquin isn't all knowing.

Allowing Enor and Gannji to escape (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0785.html)Meaning that with the help of some high level PCs, Enor and Gannji got out of the entertainment trap that Tarquin put them in.

So... what did Tarquin lose? Enor and Gannji survived and managed to make things entertaining. They also lost all their money and their gear. That sounds like a tie.

It might eventually become a mistake if E&G eventually kill him... but I suspect he already has lots of people wanting him dead. It comes with the lifestyle.

As for mistakes in his grand plan - he's admitted to one (making himself a target when he first arrived), but he may have made many more - we've only seen a very abbreviated version of the story. Most likely the plan described to Elan is only the latest version, it's probably had a lot of revisions along the way. Not knowing how everyone is going to react is kind of expected in a multiplayer game, and more importantly, he's a fast learner. Present him with new information and he changes his plans. It's amazing that with his vanity he's still willing to not openly be king.

This is why he gets so needled by Ian. Really, the verbal jibes of a has-been mediocre gladiator should be like water off a duck's back to him - certainly it's of much less consequence than Enor and Gannji's escape. But instead he's visibly angered (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0814.html) by the confrontation. That's because Ian is pricking his delusional bubble, telling him that he's not really beloved by his people.We're supposed to be surprised the CG guy and the LE don't get along? That their different world views annoy each other?

Given that he needs to torture women into marrying him, I'm not sure we should assume he thinks he's loved by his people. He rules through fear and intimidation (and torture)... if he's delusional then it's because he thinks that the people are better off with a LE empire than they'd be under something else. I'm sure Tarquin could and would talk about how unworkable in practice a CG set up is.

The fun thing is giving Haley's dad a pardon sight unseen might have been a mistake... but imho it's highly likely that he's already figured that out and is in the process of fixing it.

Or in other words, he doesn't seem to be making delusional mistakes. I won't claim that he never makes mistakes, but by OOTS standards he's amazingly competent.

veti

2011-12-05, 10:25 PM

Ignore that Elan approved of this. If Elan had gotten fed to the Empress, how is that a problem for Tarquin?

I think you provide one answer to that yourself:

Tarquin's plan is to eventually have Elan kill him.

Yes, his cunning master plan (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0763.html)... "Now, I can really see the big picture. It's YOU, Elan. If anyone will ever defeat me, it will be you."

Two key points about that scene:
"If anyone will ever defeat me" - for all his big talk, he doesn't really believe he's ever going to lose.
Only five strips earlier (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0758.html), the plan was "we'll just quietly rule our kingdoms with an iron fist until we get old and/or die." No mention of being killed, either by a random peasant or by a dramatically appropriate hero.

Basically, the whole of his "dramatic" plan is just hooey that he's spinning to Elan to win him over. Or, as Tarquin would put it: rephrasing his plan in terms that Elan will accept.

And he wants Elan to accept it, because the alternative is for Tarquin to kill (or imprison) Elan now - and that would mean he'd have to live with the fact that Elan hated him. As it is, he hopes to send him on his way with hugs and affection, and watch his future career with pride.

Of course there's a possibility that Elan might follow through on his threat to come back and finish Tarquin. But that's a distant and uncertain future, anything might happen between now and then.

Meaning Tarquin isn't all knowing.

If I were as smart as Tarquin thinks he is, and my wife disappeared "mysteriously" about the same time my treacherous son's henchman reappeared in my kingdom... I think I would at least make enough enquiries to ensure the security of my own home.

So... what did Tarquin lose? Enor and Gannji survived and managed to make things entertaining. They also lost all their money and their gear. That sounds like a tie.

They lost their money and their gear already. Then they escaped. If they had both been eaten by the dinosaur, Tarquin would have his bloody spectacle, he'd have got rid of a potential nuisance, and he'd still have their loot. Instead he got shown up in front of the crowd - someone threw a freakin' javelin at him and got away with it - and now there are two (more) mid-to-high-level characters loose in the Empire with a personal grudge against him.

And yet he insists: "Their every move makes my victory more complete."

We're supposed to be surprised the CG guy and the LE don't get along? That their different world views annoy each other?

What I was pointing out from that scene is that Tarquin cares what Ian thinks. He didn't mind what Elan or Amun-Zora said about him - he preserves complete calm when they call him a tyrant and worse - but Ian, whose opinion should matter not one whit to him, is the one who gets to him.

(It's true, as paladinofshojo points out, that Ian is also an outsider, but Tarquin doesn't know that at this point. When he learns it, that fact will allow him to rebuild his nice comfortable cocoon of delusion.)

Given that he needs to torture women into marrying him, I'm not sure we should assume he thinks he's loved by his people. He rules through fear and intimidation (and torture)...

"... our beloved military commander... (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0755.html)" - someone is going to a lot of trouble to make sure that General Tarquin never has to hear a dissenting voice. Also the much-debated speech (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0776.html).

See also the counter-arguments he makes to Ian: "biting the hand that feeds you... maybe you were in the crowd cheering when I forged order and stability out of anarchy..."

There probably was a crowd cheering at some point, and Tarquin believes it was the authentic voice of the people.

Look, obviously this is subjective. I have no more inside information on Tarquin's psyche than you do. But I've tried to explain why I think my account of Tarquin's character is more complete than yours. If you don't buy it, that's up to you.

The Pilgrim

2011-12-06, 09:25 AM

rbetieh

2011-12-06, 10:28 AM

Or because Ian was badmouthing him in front of Roy, the LG guy that Tarquin was trying to recruit.

I'll go with, nobody likes the tactics of ambush journalists. Ian Starshine is the paranoid/delusional one. His whole plan was get caught on purpose so he could recruit people who have been given a death sentence. The guy is actually crazy, not theoretically crazy.

Murray

2011-12-06, 10:53 AM

Or because Ian was badmouthing him in front of Roy, the LG guy that Tarquin was trying to recruit.

I was thinking that Ian's rhetoric was jogging Tarquin's memory on why Ian was incarcerated, and that it could have been more personal than most other cases.

They lost their money and their gear already. Then they escaped. If they had both been eaten by the dinosaur, Tarquin would have his bloody spectacle, he'd have got rid of a potential nuisance, and he'd still have their loot. Instead he got shown up in front of the crowd - someone threw a freakin' javelin at him and got away with it - and now there are two (more) mid-to-high-level characters loose in the Empire with a personal grudge against him.

And yet he insists: "Their every move makes my victory more complete."

And Tarquin survives an assassination attempt - the guy is unstoppable! And completely tertiary to the story at hand, a flubbed assassination attempt by a lizardfolk and half-dragon would be a great Gulf of Tonkin excuse to invade the neighboring nation of Reptilia (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0742.html). Having a couple more random incompetent yahoos out to undermine his rule seems pretty trivial in comparison...

Regardless of Nale's possible involvement in the demise of his latest wife, I see no reason that Tarquin could have practically no knowledge of how his previous wives were killed, insofar that his instructions were that they die under 'mysterious circumstances.' Ordering their deaths, but not being party to the gruesome acts, gives Tarquin the kind of plausible deniability that permits him to speak truthfully at the cost of omitting details. And lying by omission has been established as Tarquin's flavor of storytelling.

Though Penelope being used and then murdered by Nale might make for better drama than Tarquin deciding that her continued preoccupation with her long lost daughter had gone beyond tiring...

veti

2011-12-06, 05:24 PM

I was thinking that Ian's rhetoric was jogging Tarquin's memory on why Ian was incarcerated, and that it could have been more personal than most other cases.

That's a possibility, sure.

And Tarquin survives an assassination attempt - the guy is unstoppable! And completely tertiary to the story at hand, a flubbed assassination attempt by a lizardfolk and half-dragon would be a great Gulf of Tonkin excuse to invade the neighboring nation of Reptilia (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0742.html). Having a couple more random incompetent yahoos out to undermine his rule seems pretty trivial in comparison...

Except that everyone in the crowd saw that Enor and Gannji started that scene as gladiators - prisoners - not assassins. Heck, their only weapons were the ones that Tarquin himself had given them. And - and this is still the key point - they escaped. That's not a precedent that any despot wants to set.

Invading Reptilia is an interesting thought. However, that would imply Tarquin is letting his timing on moves like that be decided by random chance, rather than setting things up himself. That's certainly possible, but it would diminish my respect for the guy even further - it would imply that his success so far owes a lot more to luck than I'd previously imagined.

Or because Ian was badmouthing him in front of Roy, the LG guy that Tarquin was trying to recruit.

Roy had already experienced Tarquin's "justice" system at first hand, and Tarquin knew it. And he also knew that Roy and Ian had already talked at some length - enough for Roy to want to get Ian out of jail for some reason. I very much doubt if he imagines a bit of unfocused ranting is likely to affect Roy's opinion at this point.

Math_Mage

2011-12-06, 09:00 PM

Except that everyone in the crowd saw that Enor and Gannji started that scene as gladiators - prisoners - not assassins. Heck, their only weapons were the ones that Tarquin himself had given them. And - and this is still the key point - they escaped. That's not a precedent that any despot wants to set.

It wouldn't take much spin to place the blame for the very real attempt to kill Tarquin on Reptilia. That's a far smaller lie than the ones Tarquin gives during the speech, for example. Just make Enor and Gannji into infiltrators who turned gladiator for the chance at assassination.

Invading Reptilia is an interesting thought. However, that would imply Tarquin is letting his timing on moves like that be decided by random chance, rather than setting things up himself. That's certainly possible, but it would diminish my respect for the guy even further - it would imply that his success so far owes a lot more to luck than I'd previously imagined.

Tarquin gets to set up his own timing on that. Publicly he has a 'pending investigation' on the attempted assassination, and then, whenever he wants to start the ball rolling, 'new information' comes to light that places the blame on Reptilia. He has an opportunity available, but it'll keep.

Anyway, you don't set up grand master plans to take account of every single possible contingency. You take action to remove direct threats to the plan (like when Nale wanted to be crowned), and everything that's left is either neutral or beneficial to your plan.

Roy had already experienced Tarquin's "justice" system at first hand, and Tarquin knew it. And he also knew that Roy and Ian had already talked at some length - enough for Roy to want to get Ian out of jail for some reason. I very much doubt if he imagines a bit of unfocused ranting is likely to affect Roy's opinion at this point.

My theory on that scene is that Ian, in his own paranoid aggression against Tarquin, ironically revealed that he knew Tarquin was more than just a high-ranking general under the Empress of Blood. But that's not a well-supported conjecture, and I'm not particularly attached to it.

Icedaemon

2011-12-07, 04:57 AM

How do we know he didn't love all of his wives? Some might have been political marriages but not all.

I believe you meant 'any of his wives'.

Indeed, with numbers one through nine, there is a lot of likelihood for Tarquin having different relationships with at least some of them. For the most part, it seems that extramarital affairs fall outside of his personal code, which means that any women he lusts for enough are coerced into marriage, but how things developed from there on probably differed a few times.

I do agree with those who state that Tarquin is not a flat character. He does clearly care about some people, even though to him human lives might not be of any real value. He might be utterly callous, even sadistic, but he does value family and friends. That Elan's mother is the only surviving ex-wife is not certain. He likely disposed of those who hated him quickly, especially if they were evil as well - he is hardly immune to poison or being gutted while asleep by a wife intent of seeing him dead. The women who were forced into marriage died in a month or less, most likely. This leaves several years for those who actually liked him and plenty of time for possible divorces, even amicable ones which Tarquin is probably capable of if things are consensual.

I'm personally inclined to believe Tarquin had no direct hand in his wives deaths. While he certainly tortured some of his wives-to-be, he is also quite charming; A wealthy, powerful man with his charm could certainly have married some of his earlier wives through seduction alone. What happened to them... I'm not sure. Elan's Mom, at least, survived a divorce, and seeing as Tarquin seems to prefer the chase to a long-term relationship, I'm inclined to believe his weird, twisted sense of honor made him leave his early ex-wives alone. However, as we see with the later wives, Tarquin seems to now place his sights on more challenging targets. While, again, I don't see him killing these wives, I wouldn't be surprised if some of them ran away or otherwise met sticky ends in trying to escape him.

Penelope's an interesting case, though. Since she's met Nale, that clearly indicates she was married to Tarquin at least a few years, and the timing of her death is suspicious; the Linear Guild has been operating in the Empire of Blood since before Penelope's death. I doubt Polonius Z'dritti would have been included in the flashback by chance. Ultimately, I think the image of style and culture Tarquin tries to cultivate runs counter to actually offing his wives.

I do find your theory interesting. If he is more interested in conquest than anything long-term, widowering himself is the quicker route if he spots someone he simply must have while he is still married.

It's not that obvious. I don't consider Redcloak less evil than Xykon and Nale. Redcloak is the only one of the three contemplating destruction of the entire world, after all. Just because he doesn't realize he's evil doesn't make him less evil.

On the original topic, I do agree with idea that the possibility of the stepdaughter being recovered would likely have been adequate motivation for Tarquin to kill Penelope. On the other hand, I think preventing the Order of the Stick from getting information from Penelope would have been adequate motivation for Nale to kill her, too. It may just have been a matter of who got to her first.

To me, morality is dependent on ends more than means, though both obviously matter. Redcloak wants goblinkind to have a better future and is devoted to his god. His methods are extreme and even possibly insane, but that does not make him worse than Nale, who seems ready to go to any lengths just to satisfy his ego or Xykon who seems to largely be the 'for the evulz' over the top villain.

Tarquin, whose primary motivation seems to be enjoying his own life at the expense of others' is less vile that Nale or Xykon, certainly. However, Redcloak is less horrible in his intent, if not how he approaches it.

Well true, but Tacitus was living around the reign of the "Five Good Emperors"....if he lived a few decades earlier or later he would of had to choose his words more carefully or face banishment or execution. After all, before the five was Domitian who was considered a tyrant and after them was Commodus(the guy from Gladiator) The point is that Rome really depended on who wore the purple....but even in the reign of the Five there was still military expansion,slavery, and gladiator games.

It's a long time since I read about him, but from what I remember, Commodus was considered incompetent rather than evil. Gladiator simply needed someone to make the villain.

Then again, Paladinofshojo's post whch I read after the previous edit did look like he knew what he was writing about.

rbetieh

2011-12-07, 02:06 PM

I believe you meant 'any of his wives'.

Yes, that is correct.

Redcloak wants goblinkind to have a better future and is devoted to his god. His methods are extreme and even possibly insane, but that does not make him worse than Nale, who seems ready to go to any lengths just to satisfy his ego or Xykon who seems to largely be the 'for the evulz' over the top villain.

Tarquin, whose primary motivation seems to be enjoying his own life at the expense of others' is less vile that Nale or Xykon, certainly. However, Redcloak is less horrible in his intent, if not how he approaches it.

You know from an "Evolution in the comic" standpoint, I think the Tarquin character/personality is more a response to a need generated by the changes in Xykon. Here is what I mean: compare some Xykon in DoD....

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0097.html

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0103.html

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0106.html

To Xykon afterwards...

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0193.html

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0434.html

And of course...

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0657.html

The genre-savvy, scenery chewing, comedic archvillain personality traits that you would have expected in a show like Samurai Pizza Cats got shoved right out of Xykon for something that more or less resembles what you get when you hand Heath Ledgers Joker a Green Lantern Ring.

In flushing out Xykon to make him a badder baddie, worthy of final bossitude, some elements that could have been used for comedic effect had to be jettisoned.

So now we have the glorious Tarquin, the final resting place of Xykons genre savvy and melodrama. But villains have to be good enough to defeat heroes (Stan Lees Law) and this is the 4th (or 5th if you consider Miko a villain and not an anti-hero) true villain in the series so he is starting out very well designed with very few flaws (following the Dr. Doom model, more than Darth Vader even though Vader is based on Doom). He is smart enough to use his genre savvy, melodramatic enough to appreciate a 'Hero's Escape' and plan to allow it while wise and patient enough to be in control even when it happens. I dont think there is another character that can pull "Even when I lose, I win" which is saying something.

Of course, what this means is we have a hard time knowing what he is actually thinking, since anything he says could be either honest or dramatic and he can switch between the two seemingly at will.

veti

2011-12-07, 04:48 PM

You know from an "Evolution in the comic" standpoint, I think the Tarquin character/personality is more a response to a need generated by the changes in Xykon.

In flushing out Xykon to make him a badder baddie, worthy of final bossitude, some elements that could have been used for comedic effect had to be jettisoned.

That's an interesting idea. Kudos.

While we're relating Tarquin to other characters, I think you could also describe him as the anti-Miko. Miko was a good-aligned antagonist, Tarquin is an evil-aligned helper; Miko was near-universally reviled, Tarquin is hugely popular; Miko was a subordinate who rebelled against her rightful master, Tarquin is a boss who pretends to be a loyal subordinate; Miko dragged our heroes out of their way for 70 strips in order to get them back on the rails of the plot, while Tarquin held them in place for almost 100 strips to keep them away from it.

And they also have enough in common to make them measured opposites. Both are aligned with major political powers. Both are (in narrative terms, at least) incognito when they first meet the Order, and have a dramatic 'unmasking' moment shortly thereafter. Both are (apparently) physically attractive, have high CHA, and (are presumed to be) higher-level than our heroes.

paladinofshojo

2011-12-07, 05:26 PM

It's a long time since I read about him, but from what I remember, Commodus was considered incompetent rather than evil. Gladiator simply needed someone to make the villain.

Then again, Paladinofshojo's post whch I read after the previous edit did look like he knew what he was writing about.

Well Commodus was incompetent....but he was also a crazy lunatic. For starters, he thought he was Hercules, secondly, he had wounded and amputee soldiers slain by the sword in the colliseum, and lastly, people missing feet were tied together so he can club them to death while pretending they were giants...... Yeah, the guy's insane....

Bulldog Psion

2011-12-08, 06:00 PM

Well Commodus was incompetent....but he was also a crazy lunatic. For starters, he thought he was Hercules, secondly, he had wounded and amputee soldiers slain by the sword in the colliseum, and lastly, people missing feet were tied together so he can club them to death while pretending they were giants...... Yeah, the guy's insane....

Not to mention the fake boulders he had placed in his palace so that he could "split" them as proof of his "Herculean" strength.

The Commodus they put in the movie was pretty rational compared to the real one, actually. He was just a bit vague and psychopathic rather than batspit insane like the actual chap was.

rbetieh

2011-12-08, 08:35 PM

While we're relating Tarquin to other characters, I think you could also describe him as the anti-Miko.
...
they also have enough in common to make them measured opposites. Both are aligned with major political powers.

I can see that, tarquin has a lot in common with This part of mikos personality (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0215.html)....

But what I find interesting is that its one of Tarquins antagonists that find common ground with This part of mikos personality (the jumping to conclusions and acting first/thinking later part) (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0409.html)

Maybe the Giant had some unfinished business with Miko as well, something he wanted to resolve in his own mind and he needed 2 characters to do it? Pure speculation, but it fits for the format, over the years of producing strips, the author can always find the time to go back and ask himself his story left unanswered questions in his own mind and then go back and resolve them. If thats the case, then good on the Giant for setting up a way to find resolutions without Rezzing Miko or Converting Xykon back into the villain he was, etc.

Evil_Lamp_6

2011-12-09, 12:30 AM

I think today's comic (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0819.html) gives some idea that at least his wife Penelope had some affection for Tarquin via a birthday present of the Ring of True Seeing. Unless somehow Tarquin just arranged it for his wife to give him that present...

Nightmarenny

2011-12-09, 03:45 AM

His statements about his wife's death continue to be astoundingly neutral.

Dark Matter

2011-12-09, 08:33 AM

His statements about his wife's death continue to be astoundingly neutral.I think he's pissed.

Icedaemon

2011-12-09, 11:19 AM

His statements about his wife's death continue to be astoundingly neutral.

She was his eigth wife. While probably among his favourites among that line-up, he was used to losing them by then and does not seem to be that likely to grieve anyone for all too many months or years.

Nightmarenny

2011-12-09, 04:04 PM

She was his eigth wife. While probably among his favourites among that line-up, he was used to losing them by then and does not seem to be that likely to grieve anyone for all too many months or years.

I think you misunderstand me.

I'm saying that when he talks about his Wife he gives no hint about this at all.

I Honestly don't think he killed her but The Giant seems to be intentionally making his speech about her as neutral to this argument as possible.

Which btw makes me very suspicious. Not of Tarquin but of the death in general. Something big is going on I think.

martianmister

2011-12-09, 05:10 PM

If he did kill Penelope, he's hiding this little bit of information from both Malack and Nale, apparently, for some reason...

Dark Matter

2011-12-12, 11:11 PM

Tarquin has made plenty of mistakes....And we can remove the whole "Drow Spy" from T's list of 'mistakes' now. This makes me wonder how many of his other errors have been deliberate.

The implication he knew about Nale before Elan even showed up. Certainly Thog must have tipped him off. Did he have a hand in Thog's 'arrest'? It sounds like a trumped up charge to me.

Did he know how Elan would react from the whole burning slaves business? Did he have some reason to let Enor and Gannji go? Maybe both were tests? Enor and Gannji could have been plants, i.e. working with Roy, Elan, Nale, and/or the Drow. He could have been just seeing who stepped in to save them. What he said to Elan when they got away was pretty thin, but he doesn't mind looking like a fool.

Good grief. I think we've been seriously underestimating T. This guy maneuvers people like pieces on a chessboard.

rbetieh

2011-12-13, 12:10 AM

And we can remove the whole "Drow Spy" from T's list of 'mistakes' now. This makes me wonder how many of his other errors have been deliberate.

The implication he knew about Nale before Elan even showed up. Certainly Thog must have tipped him off. Did he have a hand in Thog's 'arrest'? It sounds like a trumped up charge to me.

Did he know how Elan would react from the whole burning slaves business? Did he have some reason to let Enor and Gannji go? Maybe both were tests? Enor and Gannji could have been plants, i.e. working with Roy, Elan, Nale, and/or the Drow. He could have been just seeing who stepped in to save them. What he said to Elan when they got away was pretty thin, but he doesn't mind looking like a fool.

Good grief. I think we've been seriously underestimating T. This guy maneuvers people like pieces on a chessboard.

He's not above helping up a defeated foe apparently. Add gracious winner to his list of good qualities. Fact is, I dont think the order -as a whole team- could push Tarquin into acting like Nale, not for one second.

veti

2011-12-13, 02:11 AM

And we can remove the whole "Drow Spy" from T's list of 'mistakes' now. This makes me wonder how many of his other errors have been deliberate.

No, by his own account he still made a serious error there, just not the one we previously thought. It's entirely in keeping with his overweening vanity that he would assume the "drow hierarchy" (is there even such a thing? - I thought drow were what's politely called "rugged individualists") would be gagging for an alliance with him.

The implication he knew about Nale before Elan even showed up. Certainly Thog must have tipped him off. Did he have a hand in Thog's 'arrest'? It sounds like a trumped up charge to me.

What implication? We've just seen him say he spotted a spy among the people around him, and it never occurred to him for a moment that they might be working for Nale. As for "trumped up charge" - you're seriously telling me you can't imagine Thog urinating in public? What amazes me is that he could stop doing it long enough to pass unarrested in Cliffport...

Did he know how Elan would react from the whole burning slaves business?

I don't know, but I'm pretty sure that if you asked him that question now, he'd say "Of course Elan was rather shocked, he has so little experience of the realities of politics. But we had a full and frank discussion about it, and parted on the best of terms." All of which is certainly true enough to pass Tarquin's reality filter. And if you tried to tell him that Elan hated his guts, he would smile and dismiss you as an irrelevant outsider who doesn't understand his special paternal bond.

Did he have some reason to let Enor and Gannji go? Maybe both were tests? Enor and Gannji could have been plants, i.e. working with Roy, Elan, Nale, and/or the Drow. He could have been just seeing who stepped in to save them. What he said to Elan when they got away was pretty thin, but he doesn't mind looking like a fool.

Good grief. I think we've been seriously underestimating T. This guy maneuvers people like pieces on a chessboard.

You're seriously overestimating him. If I had to give a name to what Tarquin does, I'd call it "Xanatos bull****". No matter what happens, he'll claim it's exactly what he wanted to happen and spin some demented rationalisation to explain why. And a lot of people will fall for it.

If Enor and Gannji were working with Elan, that was one damn' good show they put on when they delivered him and his friends to Malack and were ready to see them all fed to the Empress.

Crod

2011-12-13, 02:15 AM

The problem we have here is that we know nothing about how Tarquin disposes of his wives besides the first one that he divorced. I've tried to rationalize about this if he murdered Penelope or not, but I there isn't enough info to go by.

When Tarquin mentioned she died under 'mysterious circumstances' I assumed he killed her. Also in the flashback he looks very disapproving when she talks about hiring adventurers that also made me think he killed her. That they have been together a long time both count against and for him killing her.

But wouldn't make more sense for him to make sure he was in control of the adventurers that were sent out to look for the stepdaughter? Then he could possibly have killed HER instead of Penelope. After all, killing Penelope only increases the dramatic chance of the stepdaughter to finally come back and avenge her mother.

But hey, seeing oots0763.html (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0763.html) that might have been his purpose also.

My point here is that there is no way we can figure out what happened just by analyzing Tarquin and Nale as the rotten eggs they are.

paladinofshojo

2011-12-13, 03:40 AM

No, by his own account he still made a serious error there, just not the one we previously thought. It's entirely in keeping with his overweening vanity that he would assume the "drow hierarchy" (is there even such a thing? - I thought drow were what's politely called "rugged individualists") would be gagging for an alliance with him.

Yeah....I can hardly imagine why the archetypical "evil elf" race would want to start an alliance with a general of an empire that spans a good chunk of the same continent that is shared with their sworn enemies....... surely it must be Tarquin's vanity at play.

Nightmarenny

2011-12-13, 04:57 AM

Yeah....I can hardly imagine why the archetypical "evil elf" race would want to start an alliance with a general of an empire that spans a good chunk of the same continent that is shared with their sworn enemies....... surely it must be Tarquin's vanity at play.

Also its hardly vain for the head of state to think that another state with similar beliefs and similar goals might want an alliance especially when they seem to have apparently sent a spy.

Plus he sends them presents in response. He attempts to curry favor. That implies expectations of an even relationship or manipulation. Not vanity.

Also Drow do have a government.

Frankly Veti your analysis does not fit the data. We know for example that he saw the Drow. It's confirmed he has a ring of true seeing so their is no reasonable alternative there.

paddyfool

2011-12-13, 06:37 AM

Nightmarenny

2011-12-13, 06:45 AM

With the specific case of Penelope, I always assumed that the Linear Guild killed her, if only because Z was there in the cut-scene panel when she started telling Tarquin about what was going on. Prior wives - well, who knows? Tarquin certainly wouldn't have hesitated to bump them off if they became inconvenient.

We've been through this before but not necessarily. He didn't harm Elan's mother even though she divorced and humiliated him. When Elan suggests that he would kill "somebody" he acts outraged until he realizes Elan's definitions of "someone" is much broader then his own.

It would appear that Family and Friends are exempt from his "kill for any useful reason" policy he has. How difficult it would be to get off the "somebody" list is unknown but we can extrapolate that the person would have to do something worse then what his Wife did.

Though Tarquin might not hold such a special place in his heart for his other wives.

Dark Matter

2011-12-13, 08:54 AM

If I had to give a name to what Tarquin does, I'd call it "Xanatos bull****". No matter what happens, he'll claim it's exactly what he wanted to happen and spin some demented rationalisation to explain why.In real life I'd go for that. In this kind of story... he really is the power behind the thrown, he really is putting together an empire of evil by moving people around like chess pieces. Every time he shows up the Giant tries to impress us on how competent he is. Tarquin tips at the jail, being several steps ahead of Nale, etc.

oots0763.html (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0763.html) The 4th to last panel says from T's standpoint, he's in a win-win situation. King or Legend.

That's all fine and good but...

Look at the 3rd to last panel. "I'll inspire a thousand more leaders... It'll all be thanks to you".

The argument he's headed for is it'd be less evil for Elan to work for Tarquin. I think he's fitting Elan for a dark helmet.

Moving back to the wives... I suspect the question is whether it'd be useful to him for them to die. In this case, I think it was more useful to Nale. In addition, Tarquin didn't seem to have found a replacement for his wife until after she was dead. If he were behind her death I'd think he'd already be married again.

rbetieh

2011-12-13, 01:04 PM

That's all fine and good but...

Look at the 3rd to last panel. "I'll inspire a thousand more leaders... It'll all be thanks to you".

The argument he's headed for is it'd be less evil for Elan to work for Tarquin. I think he's fitting Elan for a dark helmet.

I'm not so sure...if he sees the Dark side of the Coin, Elan is seeing the Light side. Specifically, if his father inspires a thousand tyrants, then Elan will inspire a thousand freedom fighters. This strip is about making Elan understand that Heroes do no exist without Villains. Its the same speech given Here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0442.html), just told so that our simple bard might understand. This makes me think the Giant is setting up direct confrontations between specific Order members and main villains, but I will save that for another thread once I've gathered my thoughts.

The Pilgrim

2011-12-14, 01:11 PM

rbetieh

2011-12-14, 01:32 PM

ORione

2011-12-14, 02:07 PM

Then it seems that the answer to this thread's title is "no". With regards to Penelope, anyway.

Math_Mage

2011-12-14, 02:21 PM

Bulldog Psion

2011-12-14, 02:34 PM

Well, we can rule out Nale as killer of Penelope, now. Nale would have NEVER denied such a deed, specially since it would allow him to score a Goal over his father.

Tarquin, however, is certainly the type that would keep denying it, since he would lose face by admitting, and wins nothing (as he doesn't feeds his ego in the same way as Nale).

So the mystery remains... did Tarquin kill her, or it was the Draketooths?

At this point, I seriously doubt Tarquin killed her. He has nothing to lose by admitting it, not even face -- if anything, it would just reinforce his reputation for ruthlessness and his status as a Terrible Villain of Legend..

Logically, I don't think he killed her, anyway -- if he was going to kill her, he would have done it when she started contacting the "fortune teller", or shortly thereafter, before she could learn whatever he theoretically didn't want her to know. Why let her keep looking for months if he wanted to prevent her from looking? After all, she could have taken off at any point during that period.

King of Nowhere

2011-12-14, 03:41 PM

I ccuncur, after stripn 821 it seems likely that it was the draketooths to kill penelope. That would definitely qualify as "misterious circumstances", by the way, since Tarquin knew nothing of them at the time.
I guess that they became so paranoid that they felll the slippery slope of evil (as hinted by Girard setting a ward ready to blow paladins, knowing with goood chances among them would be mooks with little responsability in being there, and possibly innocent retinuers that were totally ignorant on what was happening).

derfenrirwolv

2011-12-14, 03:49 PM

I'm starting to wonder if it was sabine. She'd want to let her bosses know, and her bosses wouldn't want anyone interfering.

paladinofshojo

2011-12-14, 04:02 PM

hoff

2011-12-14, 04:15 PM

Maybe Sabine killed Penelope because the IFCC doesn't want Nale to know too much?

The Pilgrim

2011-12-14, 04:39 PM

The confused look on Tarquins face in Panel 4 speaks otherwise. Maybe she faked her own death? It still doesn't explain the other wives though.

Good catch. Tarquin seems ruled out, then.

Which leaves the Draketooths. Looks like the Penelope issue is going to be an important plot point after all. Because if the Draketooths are responsible of the murder... well, that doesn't tell very "Good" about them. And if she hasn't been killed after all, her re-appearance among the living will have some sort of purpose (otherwise, why wasting panels on her?)

Math_Mage

2011-12-14, 05:22 PM

To me it seems like Tarquin doesn't really know who killed his wife but he has been trying to find out......I get that from when Malack tells Tarquin to "Solve that mystery on your own time.....now that we know what [[Nale]] knows, his soul is MINE".

From all we know it can't be Nale or Tarquin....we may be looking at this wrong.... we shouldn't always look at this as: who would want to kill Penelope for a personal reason......but how about, who would want to kill the spouse(s) of Tarquin? Who do we know that hates Tarquin so much that he automatically assumes everyone associated with him is evil and therefore deserves to die? Ohhh wiat ( http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0771.html)

Ian has had zero apparent interest or opportunity to get rid of Tarquin's wives. As theories go, that's a wild one.

As for the IFCC, they WANT Nale to get in on the game. More sides, more struggle, more conflict. The chance that Penelope knew enough to make Nale a threat to the IFCC's interests is miniscule.

The narrative justifications for thinking it's the Draketooths are obvious. Open and shut case, IMO.

rbetieh

2011-12-14, 05:27 PM

Ian has had zero apparent interest or opportunity to get rid of Tarquin's wives. As theories go, that's a wild one.

As for the IFCC, they WANT Nale to get in on the game. More sides, more struggle, more conflict. The chance that Penelope knew enough to make Nale a threat to the IFCC's interests is miniscule.

The narrative justifications for thinking it's the Draketooths are obvious. Open and shut case, IMO.

It could still be a wildcard, like KillKill or The Empress. Or the death is accidental, or she isn't really dead. Time for a Columbo style spinoff featuring Tarquin and just in case Angela Lansbury.

veti

2011-12-14, 05:41 PM

veti, you're arguing that Tarquin's pretended incompetence is actual and his actual competence is pretended, based on...what? Because there's MASSIVE amounts of textual evidence to support both his pretended incompetence and his actual competence. Start with "everything he's done on this continent since getting kicked out the first time he tried to set up shop" and work your way forward.

I'm sorry, obviously I haven't made myself clear here.

I'm not saying that Tarquin is incompetent, or stupid. Obviously he is neither of those. He's a very smart operator, capable of making plans that, unlike Nale's, pass the most basic test, i.e. they don't fall apart like a wet cookie the moment Thing One goes wrong.

I am saying that he's dangerously insane and sadly deluded. I'm trying to make a counterpoint to the - "love" is too weak a word, almost "worship" - he attracts on this forum, which I think is based on the belief that Tarquin's own estimation of himself is accurate, i.e. he really is as smart as he thinks he is.

History is littered with charismatic maniacs who persuaded whole nations to follow them, to their utter destruction. Many of these - the ones whose names you know well, which I will avoid reciting here for fear of Modwrath - enjoyed great success before their final collapse.

Tarquin is just such a character. He's showing us just how these maniacs exert their spell over their people. Heck, his baleful influence has reached out of the OOTSverse and afflicted its readers, whose privileged position should be giving them a good +10 to their Will saves.

Math_Mage

2011-12-14, 06:41 PM

I'm sorry, obviously I haven't made myself clear here.

I'm not saying that Tarquin is incompetent, or stupid. Obviously he is neither of those. He's a very smart operator, capable of making plans that, unlike Nale's, pass the most basic test, i.e. they don't fall apart like a wet cookie the moment Thing One goes wrong.

I am saying that he's dangerously insane and sadly deluded. I'm trying to make a counterpoint to the - "love" is too weak a word, almost "worship" - he attracts on this forum, which I think is based on the belief that Tarquin's own estimation of himself is accurate, i.e. he really is as smart as he thinks he is.

History is littered with charismatic maniacs who persuaded whole nations to follow them, to their utter destruction. Many of these - the ones whose names you know well, which I will avoid reciting here for fear of Modwrath - enjoyed great success before their final collapse.

Tarquin is just such a character. He's showing us just how these maniacs exert their spell over their people. Heck, his baleful influence has reached out of the OOTSverse and afflicted its readers, whose privileged position should be giving them a good +10 to their Will saves.

I think the difference between history and this narrative is we have an author who has spent quite a bit of effort setting up Tarquin as a brilliant Xanatos Gambiteer. Tarquin's values certainly don't align with those of a Good character, but by those values he's doing every bit as well for himself as he claims to be.

Yes, he's dangerously insane. He takes Elanity (preoccupation with the dramatic and narrative structure of OotSworld life) to the extreme, except in the Lawful Evil corner. But you've previously implied that he's deluded himself into believing that he's (a) not really that bad, and (b) really that smart. (a) is pretty well contradicted by the occasions when he outright states that he is a villain. (b) is pretty well contradicted when you consider that in pretty much everything that Tarquin cares about, he has come out firmly ahead.

Now, Tarquin does have a Villainous Flaw: his severance of relationships. Estranged from the wife he probably loved, taking various political substitutes that never last, raising one child who is a failure by Tarquin's standards (as well as everyone else's). His problem is so bad that now he can only really interact with Elan through the narrative frame of Heroic Rebel Son vs. Affable Villainous Dad. It's my opinion that eventually Elan will truly defeat his father by breaking this framework and forcing Tarquin to choose whether to be a dad or a villain.

In the meantime, though, I'm going to go ahead and "worship" (by your standards) Tarquin's capacity for dramatic genius. Unlike any of the charismatic maniacs in history, he's fictional, so none of the stigma attaches to Tarquin-worship that would attach to any historical villain.

paladinofshojo

2011-12-14, 07:14 PM

Ian has had zero apparent interest or opportunity to get rid of Tarquin's wives. As theories go, that's a wild one.

So Ian is starting a revolution against a tyrant whom he perpetually loathes and has been shown to attempt to kill off said tyrant's son out of spite and paranoia. I doubt he would spare the general's wife if he was given a chance to slit her throat.

However, I do see how opportunity would be an issue, considering he has been in the prison for months at least. But hey, what's a little thing like "timeframe structure" in a comic where probability proves itself willing to sneak into a back alley and service drama as would a copper piece harlot (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0584.html)

History is littered with charismatic maniacs who persuaded whole nations to follow them, to their utter destruction. Many of these - the ones whose names you know well, which I will avoid reciting here for fear of Modwrath - enjoyed great success before their final collapse.

Tarquin is just such a character. He's showing us just how these maniacs exert their spell over their people. Heck, his baleful influence has reached out of the OOTSverse and afflicted its readers, whose privileged position should be giving them a good +10 to their Will saves.

So you're saying that just because Tarquin is an evil, oppressive, facist bastard we have to automatically hate everything about him? That we can't be, at the very least, impressed with his competence or charisma? :smallconfused:

Math_Mage

2011-12-14, 07:34 PM

So Ian is starting a revolution against a tyrant whom he perpetually loathes and has been shown to attempt to kill off said tyrant's son out of spite and paranoia. I doubt he would spare the general's wife if he was given a chance to slit her throat.

However, I do see how opportunity would be an issue, considering he has been in the prison for months at least. But hey, what's a little thing like "timeframe structure" in a comic where probability proves itself willing to sneak into a back alley and service drama as would a copper piece harlot. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0584.html)

Narrative structure in OotS? Pretty important, all evidence considered. That said, if WMGing about Haley/Ian being related to Girard comes up gold, then we can neatly weave all the little strands together. :smallbiggrin:

brionl

2011-12-14, 07:38 PM

Maybe Sabine killed Penelope because the IFCC doesn't want Nale to know too much?

She'd been posing as the Fortune Teller "for months" before Penelope was killed. Why would she suddenly kill her then, instead of right at the beginning? I think it's more likely that the Draketoothses noticed Z's scrying efforts and found out where they were coming from.

If her death was just an accident, then Malack should have been able to do some divination and found that out. If he can't divinate, then presumably somebody else with powerful magic is blocking him.

Dark Matter

2011-12-14, 08:29 PM

If her death was just an accident, then Malack should have been able to do some divination and found that out. If he can't divinate, then presumably somebody else with powerful magic is blocking him.Divine magic? The gods don't want people researching the snarl, or trying to find it. Considering that's what she was actively doing (if by accident) when she died... any failure could simply be divine fiat.

On a side note... "his soul is mine"? There's only one spell which does That and Soul Bind is 9th level. By implication of that implication, Tarquin could be level 17+.

paladinofshojo

2011-12-14, 08:43 PM

On a side note... "his soul is mine"? There's only one spell which does That and Soul Bind is 9th level. By implication of that implication, Tarquin could be level 17+.

Now that only leaves the question of what class he is...... blackguard? Fighter? Marshall/warlord?......Jedi?

Surfing HalfOrc

2011-12-14, 09:46 PM

People seem to think at least Penelope's killer was Nale, Tarquin, the Draketooths (Draketeeth? Meh...), or that she's not dead.

But what about Malack? He seemed pretty quick to finish off Nale before too many questions could be asked about Penelope's early and unexpected death.

I haven't gone all the way through this thread yet, so I may have missed something.

paladinofshojo

2011-12-14, 09:56 PM

But what about Malack? He seemed pretty quick to finish off Nale before too many questions could be asked about Penelope's early and unexpected death.

I'm pretty sure Malack was more interested in avenging his children rather than shutting Nale up.... After all, he's waited years for a chance to kill the goatied little **** and I doubt he cares that much about Tarquin's love life to allow Nale to draw breath on this earth for a second longer then he has to.

Narren

2011-12-14, 10:17 PM

However, I do see how opportunity would be an issue, considering he has been in the prison for months at least. But hey, what's a little thing like "timeframe structure" in a comic where probability proves itself willing to sneak into a back alley and service drama as would a copper piece harlot (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0584.html)

Probability is one thing, but gaping plot holes are a little different.

Gift Jeraff

2011-12-14, 10:22 PM

The fact that Nale suspects Tarquin most likely means that Tarquin killed wives #2-8, right? Not that I ever doubted he did (although I like to think Mrs. Tarquin #2 was his wife back when he was officially king and was killed when the coalition dethroned him).

blueblade

2011-12-14, 10:24 PM

But what about Malack? He seemed pretty quick to finish off Nale before too many questions could be asked about Penelope's early and unexpected death.

Agree. While motive still needs to be established, it's hardly a narrative stretch to see Malack's interruption as at least a sign of guilt.

ORione

2011-12-14, 10:28 PM

Actually, what would really make sense is if Girard&co have an ear in town and a ruthless policy towards anyone blabbing his location.

And if OotS was right about the bet, the winner would have been in town to cash in his/her earnings. Which means that OotS might have accidentally had a hand in Penelope's death.

Now that only leaves the question of what class he is...... blackguard? Fighter? Marshall/warlord?......Jedi?

My money is on cleric.

Math_Mage

2011-12-14, 10:28 PM

Agree. While motive still needs to be established, it's hardly a narrative stretch to see Malack's interruption as at least a sign of guilt.

Man, and I thought the Draketooths thing was a lock...but Malack would explain all the wives, where the Draketooths only explain one.

paladinofshojo

2011-12-14, 10:47 PM

My money is on cleric.

I doubt that....mostly because I don't see Tarquin serving any diety or any other cause but his own. While it would make sense for him to play an overpowered tier 1 class mechanically, I doubt he would sacrifice THAT much style for substance......cause lets face it: wizard, artificer, druid, cleric, archevist, erudite don't exactly scream "darth vader knockoff", sure I can see him enjoy the power to singlehandedly take down armies as CoDzilla....but I doubt he would sacrifice his story structure credentials for optimized power....After all, this IS Elan's father remember....

ORione

2011-12-14, 10:49 PM

I doubt that....mostly because I don't see Tarquin serving any diety or any other cause but his own. While it would make sense for him to play an overpowered tier 1 class mechanically, I doubt he would sacrifice THAT much style for substance......cause lets face it: wizard, artificer, druid, cleric, archevist, erudite don't exactly scream "darth vader knockoff", sure I can see him enjoy the power to singlehandedly take down armies as CoDzilla....but I doubt he would do it.

*facepalm* I thought we were talking about Malack...

paladinofshojo

2011-12-14, 11:01 PM

Agree. While motive still needs to be established, it's hardly a narrative stretch to see Malack's interruption as at least a sign of guilt.

I don't exactly see Malack's desire to expedite Nale's doom as a "sign of guilt"...Remember, the last comic had Malack say "Enough chatter, let those be your final words to him!", showing him to already be impatient with Tarquin's constant stalling with his vengeance. Nale was only saved for those minutes because he had information, fine but now that that information is gone so there should be no reason for Malack to let Nale continue to draw breath.....right?

Warren Dew

2011-12-15, 12:51 AM

To me it seems like Tarquin doesn't really know who killed his wife but he has been trying to find out......I get that from when Malack tells Tarquin to "Solve that mystery on your own time.....now that we know what [[Nale]] knows, his soul is MINE".
It seems to me from panel 3 that Tarquin was pretty sure Nale was the culprit until this strip (821). The "mystery" is that it was neither Tarquin nor Nale.

Agree. While motive still needs to be established, it's hardly a narrative stretch to see Malack's interruption as at least a sign of guilt.
Maybe it was actually Tarquin who killed Malack's children, and Malack knows that.

Okay, it's a bit of a stretch.

paladinofshojo

2011-12-15, 01:57 AM

It seems to me from panel 3 that Tarquin was pretty sure Nale was the culprit until this strip (821). The "mystery" is that it was neither Tarquin nor Nale.

That would make sense IF Tarquin knew Nale was hiding out in his empire for the last couple of months......

Bulldog Psion

2011-12-15, 05:00 AM

I don't exactly see Malack's desire to expedite Nale's doom as a "sign of guilt"...Remember, the last comic had Malack say "Enough chatter, let those be your final words to him!", showing him to already be impatient with Tarquin's constant stalling with his vengeance. Nale was only saved for those minutes because he had information, fine but now that that information is gone so there should be no reason for Malack to let Nale continue to draw breath.....right?

Yes, rereading it, I agree with you. Malack is just sick of Tarquin preventing him from killing Nale and is ready to blast him. Actually, he's showing a lot of restraint not just ignoring Tarquin and slaughtering Nale out of hand.

Dark Matter

2011-12-15, 09:50 AM

Agreed. Nale is an invisible teleport and has a crew for backup. Killing him "Now" has a lot of appeal.

And interestingly, Tarquin views himself as an "antagonist". It's more of his "unapologetically evil" thing, but still.

Further... it's both interesting that Nale thought Tarquin capable of killing his wife, and that Tarquin didn't make some comment about "only killing 3 of them" or something like that.

I'm not sure how to take that. Tarquin isn't capable of killing his wives and he didn't want Nale to know? Or perhaps he's done it a lot?

I wouldn't be stunned if he's got a redeeming feature somewhere in there.... but like Xykon, this seems to be a character who the Giant is going out of his way to make sure he doesn't have redeeming features.

Kish

2011-12-15, 10:35 AM