Does anyone else really want Tarquin to get absolutely bashed in? [Archive]

VariableNature

2012-09-18, 12:05 AM

I've been a huge fan of Order of the Stick for a long time now, but I've just had a bit of a problem with Tarquin. Ever since he detailed his win-win plan of infamy or ruling a country until he dies old and happy, I've really wanted to see him get what's coming to him.

And I can only think of two ways:

1: Xykon pops in, and completely schools him. Kills him in a horribly undramatic fashion, binds soul to something, and tosses it into a void of never-ever-able-to-find-it. All while giving him a killer "This is why you suck" speech.

2: Elan takes him down by pointing out how his ability to abuse tropes and expectations has made him a "Boring invincible villain". Given how Tarquin composes himself, this could likely send him into a berserker rage. Hopefully.

Anyone want to add something, please say so here.

Oh, and this is my first ever post on these forums. Yay for me!

Chess Tyrant

2012-09-18, 12:16 AM

I actually quite like Tarquin - I know a lot of people feel he's way too powerful or prepared, but I've never found that an issue. (And on the preparedness front, if I were a D&D player whose party had spent ten years or more ruling over most of an entire continent, I'd have amassed a pretty awesome collection of magic items, too.) But I do kind of wonder how he'll react when he realizes he's not the main villain of his son's campaign. :smallsmile:

Emperordaniel

2012-09-18, 01:52 AM

Mike Havran

2012-09-18, 02:56 AM

I'll just copy my post from the main dicussion, since it is pretty much about this topic.

I think that people who see (or, possibly, wish to see) Tarquin dying alone and unremembered, or getting squished by Xykon like a bug he is, or some other sort of anticlimatic death just underestimate his importance in Elan's character developement.

Tarquin is as important to Elan as Xykon is to Roy. Elan is clearly the second most important character of the whole comics. And since it's not probable that a bunch of dire half-dragon bone-eating saltwater werepiranhas consume Xykon and his bauble on his way to a gate, I guess Tarquin's defeat will also be a more or less direct result of Elan's actions. Nale and/or Haley may shuffle the cards a bit, but Elan will pull off the winning move.

And when I say defeat, I mean death will simply not do it. Tarquin, on certain level, is perfectly willing to accept death. He won't like a gruesome or anticlimatic one, but that won't be enough to sway his belief that ultimately, he got what he wanted by paing the price he was willing to pay. By his definition of victory, he has already won, plotting and living like a god for a long, long time. Anything more he gains at this point is merely another helping of cream on his cake made of Win.

This is a contrast to Xykon, who will be defeated when destroyed with his phylactery, and whose moment of Win hasn't come to pass yes. Xykon wants to exist and to rule, and he does see his destruction as a defeat. Tarquin does not, and that's why I see his defeat coming in a different manner.

I believe that if the old man saw Elan without his Glasses of Fatherly Pride, it would kick him in his gut way more than if he got eaten by a dragon. I guess something like that will happen at some point in the future. And after that, Elan will triumph with his plan.

zimmerwald1915

2012-09-18, 03:39 AM

No. No, I really do not want Tarquin to get absolutely bashed in, because that's exactly what he is expecting. I mean, he actually said that that was in his plan - sooner or later, some random peasant schmuck was going to burst into his room and do him in, but that's alright with him; he already "got to live like a god for three decades", in his own words.

No matter what happens to The General - including a slow, painful death in obscurity - he still wins. He already has.
...Okay, then the priority shifts from "stop Tarquin from achieving his definition of victory or, what amounts to the same thing, from spinning whatever outcome comes up into something he can accept as a victory" to "stop Tarquin from harming as many people as possible as quickly as the current mission's pressures allow." There's wanting to see a villain get hoisted by his own petard, and then there's just wanting the villainy to stop because darn it, fictional people are suffering on their account. Unless you're suggesting that Tarquin should just be left to die of old age (or gain eleven levels in Wizard and make the transition to Lichdom), which would not only leave a plot thread hanging, it would give him an outcome he can spin into a victory and would do nothing to arrest the ongoing harms he's perpetrating on the people of the Western Continent.

Emperordaniel

2012-09-18, 04:08 AM

...Okay, then the priority shifts from "stop Tarquin from achieving his definition of victory or, what amounts to the same thing, from spinning whatever outcome comes up into something he can accept as a victory" to "stop Tarquin from harming as many people as possible as quickly as the current mission's pressures allow." There's wanting to see a villain get hoisted by his own petard, and then there's just wanting the villainy to stop because darn it, fictional people are suffering on their account. Unless you're suggesting that Tarquin should just be left to die of old age (or gain eleven levels in Wizard and make the transition to Lichdom), which would not only leave a plot thread hanging, it would give him an outcome he can spin into a victory and would do nothing to arrest the ongoing harms he's perpetrating on the people of the Western Continent.

What I have in mind for Tarquin's fate is somewhat similar to that of the Big Bad from Avatar: The Last Airbender; somehow, Tarquin would get permanently level-drained, making him not much more powerful than the average guy you'd see walking down the street. He'd then be left to die of old age - in captivity. Perhaps in the Azure Colonial Islands...

Anyways, I wouldn't be too surprised if Tarquin does get killed in this arc; however, I wouldn't like him to be killed, as that's what he wants (and if it's not Elan, he may want to be taken down by someone like Xykon instead, as others may very well see it as "I was so badass that it took the most powerful Epic individual in the world to defeat me").

zimmerwald1915

2012-09-18, 04:28 AM

What I have in mind for Tarquin's fate is somewhat similar to that of the Big Bad from Avatar: The Last Airbender; somehow, Tarquin would get permanently level-drained, making him not much more powerful than the average guy you'd see walking down the street. He'd then be left to die of old age - in captivity. Perhaps in the Azure Colonial Islands...
Ozai's fate left him in a position to get inside Zuko's head and spawn two series of sequel comics. And he was a stereotypical cackling megalomaniac whose plan for world domination involved the in-universe equivalent of waging a nuclear campaign against a non-nuclear power. What about the savvy manipulator Tarquin makes you believe he would be unable to parlay his imprisonment into an asset, or even a position of power, at some point?

That you reach across the ocean to the Azurites for someone to actually keep him imprisoned shows just how much of a stretch this plan is. For one thing, of what are the Azurites supposed to convict him, and on what evidence? They don't have the kind of jurisdiction they did when they sent Miko after the Order, and even that was highly suspect. If you're suggesting that the word of one or more Order members might be enough to sway Hinjo and the magistrates, well, we saw that situation already with Kubota. Elan, Kazumi, and Daigo were prepared to testify against him, and he was confident not only in his ability to beat the charges, but also, for a time, to get the case kicked out of court should it ever be brought. As for going around the legal system, well, that was the old regime son. These days the Azurites do things by the book.

Anyways, I wouldn't be too surprised if Tarquin does get killed in this arc; however, I wouldn't like him to be killed, as that's what he wants (and if it's not Elan, he may want to be taken down by someone like Xykon instead, as others may very well see it as "I was so badass that it took the most powerful Epic individual in the world to defeat me").
Yeah, he doesn't actually want to get killed. He's prepared to accept his own death, however it may come, or at least he says he is. As for Xykon, well, that's spin. Another way to spin it is that Tarquin's getting killed by Xykon means he meant as much to the story as Jeff, who not only died off-panel, but didn't even make it into the online comic. Thing is, Tarquin at his moment of death has an audience of himself, and possibly whatever devil is assigned to his case - who has undoubtedly heard it all before a dozen times or more. He can spin anything however he wants, and no one but him will notice or care. The person who actually gets to do the spinning to a mortal audience would be Elan. Tarquin seems to take it for granted that Elan will tell his story how Tarquin wants it told, and that he will tell it in the first place. Neither of those things is a given.

Mike Havran

2012-09-18, 06:13 AM

...Okay, then the priority shifts from "stop Tarquin from achieving his definition of victory or, what amounts to the same thing, from spinning whatever outcome comes up into something he can accept as a victory" to "stop Tarquin from harming as many people as possible as quickly as the current mission's pressures allow." There's wanting to see a villain get hoisted by his own petard, and then there's just wanting the villainy to stop because darn it, fictional people are suffering on their account. Unless you're suggesting that Tarquin should just be left to die of old age (or gain eleven levels in Wizard and make the transition to Lichdom), which would not only leave a plot thread hanging, it would give him an outcome he can spin into a victory and would do nothing to arrest the ongoing harms he's perpetrating on the people of the Western Continent.

The problem with Tarquin's death right now is that then the heroes will have no reason to come to the western continent ever again and deal with the four remaining Tarquin's allies, who aren't likely to come into play this arc. So even if Tarquin's personal evil deeds cease, his grand scheme of conquest will live on. The obvious way to deal with it would be to leave Tarquin safe and sound right now and deal with him and his allies after the Gate plot arc is over.

aldeayeah

2012-09-18, 06:25 AM

Tarquin's one weak point is being in denial of the fact that Elan is a comic relief character, and I guess his demise will involve that point in some way.

Kish

2012-09-18, 07:39 AM

Incom

2012-09-18, 07:48 AM

As I mentioned in the other thread, I fully expect Tarquin to get stomped by Xykon pretty darn soon.

Until then, I'm going to continue to enjoy his presence in the comic.

Joe the Rat

2012-09-18, 08:22 AM

You know, I'd like to see him get the tar knocked out of him, regardless of whether or not you call it a "defeat." Maybe it's because I want to see the Order come into its own, or would like to see how Batman McXanatos tries to deal with something outside context, or outright beyond his scope... hell, I'd like to see him blindsided by Elan, even though that is exactly what he'd want. Even if he is not seriously put off by it, I want to see him taken down. It's cathartic.

Being absolutely humiliated and deposed, and possibly disposed would be good too, but I'm not holding my breath on that one.

However, his fan club exists, and therefore I wish his demise to involve a humiliating, no-one-could-deny-it's-a-failure-even-here failure on his part. Good luck with that. The Giant could show him sitting there, absolutely dejected, possibly soul jarred up somewhere, his entire rule somehow retroactively Snarled out of reality, talking to nobody in particular (already an established character trait), saying "Ah crap, I lost," and people would still insist he's winning.

deworde

2012-09-18, 08:58 AM

I want Elan's plan to be brilliant. A real win for him as a hero, that shows him outwit his father in a manipulative but narratively satisfying way, effectively showing him to be Tarquin's heir, but still keeping him as a good guy.

oppyu

2012-09-18, 10:18 AM

I've been a huge fan of Order of the Stick for a long time now, but I've just had a bit of a problem with Tarquin. Ever since he detailed his win-win plan of infamy or ruling a country until he dies old and happy, I've really wanted to see him get what's coming to him.

Short answer; yes, a lot of people here really, really, really want Tarquin to get absolutely bashed in. There is a significant Tarquin hatedom.

rgrekejin

2012-09-18, 11:36 AM

Good luck with that. The Giant could show him sitting there, absolutely dejected, possibly soul jarred up somewhere, his entire rule somehow retroactively Snarled out of reality, talking to nobody in particular (already an established character trait), saying "Ah crap, I lost," and people would still insist he's winning.

Conversely, I really don't think there is a realistic "lose" condition that could completely satisfy Tarquin's rabid hate-dom. No matter what happens, there will be people complaining that it wasn't a painful, or humiliating, or thorough enough of a defeat, and that Tarquin still died as a little bit of a magnificent bastard, and he shouldn't get to do that because he's evil and I don't like him. *stomps foot*

I'm not really anticipating Tarquin's eventual defeat to be a complete repudiation of him and everything he stool for because, well, what about the OotS-verse so far has ever indicated that people always get what they deserve? From what I've seen, this is a universe where sometimes good people die bad deaths, and bad people sometimes escape what should maybe be their due. Oh, sure, sometimes they get what they deserve (Kubota springs to mind), but not always. Did Shojo deserve to die like he did? Did Fyron? The Draketooths? How about Bozzok - he's free and running his guild and turning a tidy little profit despite the fact that he's an unrepentant murderer. I mean, heck, Lirian and Dorukan are stuck in a gem in Xykon's left pocket despite having dedicated their lives to defending the world from utter annihilation. And don't even get me started on that whole mess with the Black Dragons.

Tarquin, from his own perspective, has won, and at least in his own eyes looked really cool doing it. There's nothing that can be done about that now. All that's left is to limit the damage he might do in the future. I suspect that anyone who is holding out hope for him to die weeping, having realized the enormity of his error, is going to be disappointed. Tarquin, almost certainly, is going to die thinking that he won, and that seems to bother a lot of people, because that knowledge, the knowledge that *he* is the winner, seems to be the thing that is the most valuable to Tarquin (or at least, it's something he values very highly). And that knowledge? It's not something that anyone can take away from him. So Tarquin gets to die holding on to one of the things he values most. So his defeat can never be the soul-crushing total defeat that a significant portion of his hate-dom seems to desire for him.

Anarion

2012-09-18, 12:02 PM

The funny thing about Tarquin is that he's done such a good job of being a manipulator. He's manipulated both Elan and the readers into caring about his opinions and his plans, instead of about the people in his kingdom. Why do we care about whether Tarquin's plans are justified or whether he feels things are worthwhile or not? Why should Elan care?

Tarquin is a villain, albeit one running a stable kingdom. If there's time to overthrow him and improve things without throwing everything into war and anarchy, it should be done to make all the people in that kingdom better off. Otherwise, it will have to wait until later. How it happens isn't important as long as it's not so grand as to inspire imitators.

Oh and VariableNature, welcome to the forums. :smallsmile:

Shred-Bot

2012-09-18, 12:16 PM

If it were not for his fan club on the forums, I would consider Tarquin pretty much the same as Nale or Xykon.

However, his fan club exists, and therefore I wish his demise to involve a humiliating, no-one-could-deny-it's-a-failure-even-here failure on his part. And the sooner the better. Let's get back to wondering why Elan isn't suddenly becoming intelligent, how Belkar will evade his death prophecy, when Roy will finally multiclass, and why so many people on the forum think there's something wrong with genocide.

A scenario that could potentially satisfy you then:

Nale and Tarquin turn on each other again... Z remains loyal to Nale, plane shift to what Z presumably still believes is the demiplane of extremely painful torture (correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think he's seen V yet since the plane shift).

It's hard to be a cool badass villain when your only option for conquest is to usurp the throne of the Hidden Valley from Prince Oozalot while setting up the evil sauce dragon as a puppet ruler. I also doubt that Gootrude or any of the other amorphous sauce blob ladies would really get his motor running.

Added bonus: it would be a cohort of Nale's, and not Elan, that led to his defeat/humiliation.

Scowling Dragon

2012-09-18, 12:26 PM

If it were not for his fan club on the forums, I would consider Tarquin pretty much the same as Nale or Xykon.

However, his fan club exists, and therefore I wish his demise to involve a humiliating, no-one-could-deny-it's-a-failure-even-here failure on his part. And the sooner the better. Let's get back to wondering why Elan isn't suddenly becoming intelligent, how Belkar will evade his death prophecy, when Roy will finally multiclass, and why so many people on the forum think there's something wrong with genocide.

I have to agree with this. At the end of the day he is a horrible Tyrant. I wan't him dead. I wan't him to stop seeing people around him like background dancers for his show.

I would like him killed by just a random NPC that was upset at his rule. Thats it. So Anti-climactic.

And I wan't the bloody fan clubs to die out. So many people argue its alright if he is a despotic, torturing, mind powdering, monster as long as things are stable because hes smarmy.

Jay R

2012-09-18, 12:37 PM

Frankly, I don't care. I just want the action along the way to be funny.

Based on his previous background, I expect him to abandon Nale to his death, like he's done with Baron Tyrinar and everyone else he's ever "served".

Mike Havran

2012-09-18, 12:42 PM

Man on Fire

2012-09-18, 12:58 PM

I really like Tarquin, but jut as I like Redcloak, I know each of them will bite it at one point. It's just fitting for Tarquin to die in a way that would deny him conclusion to his arc with Elan he dream's of. I could see him dying at the hands of Xykon, it would probably be most fitting.

jere7my

2012-09-18, 04:02 PM

I've been a huge fan of Order of the Stick for a long time now, but I've just had a bit of a problem with Tarquin. {...} I've really wanted to see him get what's coming to him.

Where you lose me is when you say "I'm a fan of the comic, but I really want to see this villain getting the tar beaten out of him," as though the two halves of the statement were in conflict. I consider a comic that makes us really root for the villain's defeat to be more enjoyable, not less. Why is wanting Tarquin to "get what's coming to him" a "problem"?

Shred-Bot

2012-09-18, 04:12 PM

ti'esar

2012-09-18, 04:56 PM

Where you lose me is when you say "I'm a fan of the comic, but I really want to see this villain getting the tar beaten out of him," as though the two halves of the statement were in conflict. I consider a comic that makes us really root for the villain's defeat to be more enjoyable, not less. Why is wanting Tarquin to "get what's coming to him" a "problem"?

Well, there are two ways of disliking a character: intended-dislike that a love-to-hate villain is supposed to get, and unintended-dislike, in which you're just sick of the character and don't want to read about them anymore. The OP may be feeling more of the latter, although I'll admit it doesn't actually sound like it, but certainly some people on here are feeling that way.

On that note:

So you basically say that you wish Tarquin a horrible death not because of his character or deeds, but because you want it so negatively impact the people that happen to like him. I think you take it too seriously.

I'll freely admit that all (or at least most; increasingly the hatedom is also a big part of it) of my unintended-dislike for Tarquin is a direct result of his fandom - by which I mean the rabid "Tarquin is Epic and going to usurp Xykon as Big Bad and not-really-that-bad-even-though-he's-technically-Lawful-Evil" people, not "people who happen to like him" - not anything in the comic. So while I don't personally think this, I don't see it as a particularly far-fetched reaction for others to do so.

konradknox

2012-09-18, 05:15 PM

1. I'd wish Tarquin a Darth Vader death. Peaceful, accepting his fate by his son's hand. However, in his dying moments, he would come to a realization that it wasn't worth it to be separated from his better son that way. His final regret being that he took in the wrong son.

2. If Xykon kills Tarquin, I don't think he would gloat much or do any horrific things to him or his soul. Xykon generally reserves that type of punishment for stubborn holier-than-thou paladin types and general good guys. From SoD: "I like the sound paladins make at the moment they realize that all their ideals of a good and fair universe fall apart when they are on fire."
And also, in his battle vs. Vaarsuvius, Xykon said: "You are here to kill me just because I exist. I can respect that."
So I think Xykon would actually respect Tarquin as a fellow evildoer, especially one with a solid working evil scheme, because he would understand and acknowledge his philosophy. After all, Xykon himself once wandered in search of a villain scheme for himself. Tarquin has no ideological illusions, and made evil path his rational choice.
Xykon may, however, sneer a bit at the fact that Tarquin loses anyway. I.e. "I respect you, but that doesn't mean I won't kill you. You are a wizard of the warrior kind. You believe in preparation and careful study. I've known a warlord like yourself at one time. He told me I was not archvillain material. That I lack scope and tactical preparation. Well, time for mano a mano. Let's see how well prepared you are for THIS. ENERGY DRAIN!"

ChowGuy

2012-09-18, 05:39 PM

The main weakness in Tarquin's plan to achieve "legendary" status is that everything he's accomplished has been from behind the scenes; when he falls nobody will remember him because no one ever knew he was there to be remembered.

As to the how, I predict it will be due to one of his own underlings, possibly Mallak, but more likely Kilkil, who will then take over as puppet master of the EoB and (knowing where the bodies are buried) will see to it T and his pals get the obscurity they deserve.

VariableNature

2012-09-18, 05:42 PM

Where you lose me is when you say "I'm a fan of the comic, but I really want to see this villain getting the tar beaten out of him," as though the two halves of the statement were in conflict. I consider a comic that makes us really root for the villain's defeat to be more enjoyable, not less. Why is wanting Tarquin to "get what's coming to him" a "problem"?

Mostly because a lot of people saying "Oh my gosh, it's like Nale, but AWESOME!" to the point that I'm starting to get tired of it.

And I guess I should make my position clearer: I like OotS. I like the writing. I like the way that Tarquin has been dealt with SO FAR. My only problem is that, the more I'm looking at him, the less I can see any real way that he can be "beaten".

Take Xykon and Redcloak, for example. Xykon gets defeated when his soul gets destroyed along with his body. Fair enough. Redcloak? Get past his fancy god-connection, and he's only flesh and blood. Kubota? Thwart his plans, then deny him the trial that would most likely get him off (granted, I see that as V going too far, but never mind). Miko? Show her that she isn't as all-righteous as she claims to be. Each of the other characters that have been described as "evil" or "hindering the party" have some sort of "If this button gets pressed, I lose" thing, even if that button requires 50 zillion steps to unlock.

But for Tarquin, he doesn't seem to have an "I lose" condition. From the plan he detailed to Elan, he seems to have planned for everything. He's essentially the "perfect" bad guy, and that just rubs me the wrong way.

So. Too long didn't read version: I like Tarquin as a character. But I don't like that he seems to have no weaknesses.

Cleverdan22

2012-09-18, 06:20 PM

I think it's funny that people go on and on about how much fandom love there is for him, and I'm seeing far more people who hate him.

Tarquin really hasn't been around for that long people. Real-time, sure, but in scope of the comic he's still quite new. It's an okay thing to see a villain appear that is prepared for things. That's just being a smart villain. Any character who pops up like that will be undone by their plans unraveling, that's just how it's going to go.

Water_Bear

2012-09-18, 07:01 PM

And I guess I should make my position clearer: I like OotS. I like the writing. I like the way that Tarquin has been dealt with SO FAR. My only problem is that, the more I'm looking at him, the less I can see any real way that he can be "beaten".

...

But for Tarquin, he doesn't seem to have an "I lose" condition. From the plan he detailed to Elan, he seems to have planned for everything. He's essentially the "perfect" bad guy, and that just rubs me the wrong way.

I'm kind of surprised at this, because he seems pretty fragile compared to the other examples you give. Tougher than Redcloak? Xykon?!?

Tarquin, in my estimation anyway, is a melee type with above average stats and effectively unlimited WBL. He has a ton of handy magic items (AC/Save Boosters, Ring of True Seeing, Ring of Regeneration, Glammered Armor, Gloves of Arrow Snatching [probably]) and your standard "Smart-Fighter" Combat Expertise + Improved X Feats, but I would be shocked if he was much tougher than Roy without all his toys.

IMO, his weakness is the same as his strength; his planning. He relies so much on his layers of contingencies, he will eventually hit a situation he didn't plan for and be blind-sided by it. His kind of villain tends to crumple like old newspaper when a wrench falls into the gears.

That said, I really hope his defeat is ignominious and definitive. Not because I hate him, but because I love his character; it is the ultimate ironic twist and thus the most dramatic possible option for him to die unknown and alone. Personally I'd like Nale to do it, and step up to the plate as a major villain, but more character development for Elan is also nice.

No to Xykon killing him though. Ugh, that would just be awful.

WindStruck

2012-09-18, 07:11 PM

As I mentioned in the other thread, I fully expect Tarquin to get stomped by Xykon pretty darn soon.

Until then, I'm going to continue to enjoy his presence in the comic.

Hehe, it could be the next strip, even. :smallbiggrin:

*Xykon and company pops in via plane shift or teleport*

:xykon: Hey, nice ride.

*Finger of Death*

:xykon: Sweet! Haven't had one of these since that one guy got all up in my business and defaced it.

rgrekejin

2012-09-18, 07:51 PM

And I guess I should make my position clearer: I like OotS. I like the writing. I like the way that Tarquin has been dealt with SO FAR. My only problem is that, the more I'm looking at him, the less I can see any real way that he can be "beaten".

Take Xykon and Redcloak, for example. Xykon gets defeated when his soul gets destroyed along with his body. Fair enough. Redcloak? Get past his fancy god-connection, and he's only flesh and blood.

*snip*

But for Tarquin, he doesn't seem to have an "I lose" condition. From the plan he detailed to Elan, he seems to have planned for everything. He's essentially the "perfect" bad guy, and that just rubs me the wrong way.

So. Too long didn't read version: I like Tarquin as a character. But I don't like that he seems to have no weaknesses.

Of course Tarquin has weaknesses. He's strong and has pretty much unlimited wealth by level, but he's far from invincible. Even if he did regenerate immediately afterwards, the OotS managed to do a bunch of damage to him in a fight. It's not unreasonable to imagine that he could be killed. He's almost certainly much easier to kill than Xykon.

If I'm reading you correctly, what seems to be bothering you is that, if Tarquin were to lose at this stage in the game, he wouldn't care. That's what the plan he details to Elan seems to say. By being a King for decades, Tarquin already won the only game he was playing at, everything else is icing on the cake. If Redcloak dies without completing his Grand Plan, his entire life will have been wasted. Xykon would likewise be seriously miffed if he bit the dust before realizing his evil scheme. But Tarquin... even if Tarquin were to drop dead right now of a heart attack, he wouldn't consider it a loss. He's playing with house money at this point. If he keeps winning, good for him. If he loses, eh. He already accomplished everything he cared about anyway. It seems to me that it's not any real in-universe invincibility on Tarquin's part that's bothering you, it's the fact that if Tarquin were to lose, he by all indications wouldn't be that upset by it. And I have to ask - Why is that? Who cares how the villain does or doesn't view their ultimate downfall? Does it matter to anyone other than the villain himself? Should it? At the end of the day, dead is dead. The only way that Tarquin is unbeatable is if you accept his view of reality, his definition of "win" and "lose". I can't imagine that Roy, or Redcloak, or even most people, do. In their eyes, if he's dead and his plans are ended, then he's beaten. If you don't like Tarquin's terms, then why agree to play by them?

NZNinja

2012-09-18, 10:57 PM

Emperordaniel

2012-09-18, 11:08 PM

>snip<

I never said it was a logical fate for Tarquin. :smalltongue: I'm still expecting him to meet an end to his plans sooner or later, but I'll enjoy his presence in the comic while it lasts. :smallsmile:

As I mentioned in the other thread, I fully expect Tarquin to get stomped by Xykon pretty darn soon.

Until then, I'm going to continue to enjoy his presence in the comic.

This, pretty much.

rgrekejin

2012-09-18, 11:34 PM

Just a thought: given that Tarquin seems to believe that he'll be a legend after he's killed, wouldn't Elan be able to crush him - without combat, even - by telling him that he would be forgotten, or worse yet remembered not as a legend, but as a fool?

Given Tarquin's dialogue in #763, it doesn't seem to me that Tarquin would mind being forgotten all that much. Sure, it's sub-optimal, but his stated plan before Elan arrived was to rule for three decades or so, and then die at the hands of some peasant, his name presumably lapsing into obscurity soon after. It wasn't until Elan arrived that the idea of his story living on forever as a legend really dawned on him.

Being remembered as the fool, though... that might be a different matter entirely.

Mike Havran

2012-09-19, 02:34 AM

And I guess I should make my position clearer: I like OotS. I like the writing. I like the way that Tarquin has been dealt with SO FAR. My only problem is that, the more I'm looking at him, the less I can see any real way that he can be "beaten".

But for Tarquin, he doesn't seem to have an "I lose" condition. From the plan he detailed to Elan, he seems to have planned for everything. He's essentially the "perfect" bad guy, and that just rubs me the wrong way.

Well, Elan seems to have thought about some plan for that. I know it's Elan but still, I wouldn't dismiss it.

ChowGuy

2012-09-19, 04:25 AM

:roy: So, what? That's the end of him then?
:elan: Yeah, I guess. And after all that dramatic buildup.
:belkar: Laaaame!
:vaarsuvius: Indeed. We have tarried more then sufficient time here. Let us be on about our mission and speak no further of this "Tarquin" person!
:mitd: Who?

Winter

2012-09-19, 05:39 AM

I like the character as it is and do not really think he needs to lose.

But I also think he is not that interesting anymore as his "Badass Thing" is simply overplayed and as such hope we're getting to a twist in the story where he becomes interesting again. That can but does not have to be him leaving the story by death.

It's the same I feel about Nale as well (just with the difference that I do not really "like" his character).

lio45

2012-09-19, 11:00 AM

So. Too long didn't read version: I like Tarquin as a character. But I don't like that he seems to have no weaknesses.

No, he actually has a pretty big weakness: he's a lot weaker than the Xykon-Redcloak combo, who is after the exact same thing as him at the moment.

If I'm reading you correctly, what seems to be bothering you is that, if Tarquin were to lose at this stage in the game, he wouldn't care. That's what the plan he details to Elan seems to say. By being a King for decades, Tarquin already won the only game he was playing at, everything else is icing on the cake. If Redcloak dies without completing his Grand Plan, his entire life will have been wasted. Xykon would likewise be seriously miffed if he bit the dust before realizing his evil scheme. But Tarquin... even if Tarquin were to drop dead right now of a heart attack, he wouldn't consider it a loss. He's playing with house money at this point. If he keeps winning, good for him. If he loses, eh. He already accomplished everything he cared about anyway. It seems to me that it's not any real in-universe invincibility on Tarquin's part that's bothering you, it's the fact that if Tarquin were to lose, he by all indications wouldn't be that upset by it. And I have to ask - Why is that? Who cares how the villain does or doesn't view their ultimate downfall? Does it matter to anyone other than the villain himself? Should it? At the end of the day, dead is dead. The only way that Tarquin is unbeatable is if you accept his view of reality, his definition of "win" and "lose". I can't imagine that Roy, or Redcloak, or even most people, do. In their eyes, if he's dead and his plans are ended, then he's beaten. If you don't like Tarquin's terms, then why agree to play by them?

Exactly. Tarquin has already "won". There's no way to take the past away, erase it, or change it.

Sure, at some point in the comic (and it won't be long in in-comic time), Tarquin will be "stopped" or "defeated". That won't change the fact he got to live like a king for a long while. As you said, he's playing with house money now.

His rabid hatedom won't be satisfied (and I don't care, I doubt Rich does either).

Also, am I alone in taking everything that happens in the comic really lightly? Seems to me that many of you seriously want bad people to get what they deserve... personally, I don't care, as long as the story's good (and I fully trust Rich on that point). Tsukiko's death, for example, was absolutely awesome. Xykon "going the extra mile" with the bouncing ball and Sapphire Guard was just epic.

If Rich could find a totally satisfying way to have Xykon win and the Order be defeated in the end (nearly impossible task obviously), I'd have no problem with that as a reader.

It's a stick figure comic telling us the story of six PCs in a roleplaying campaign. I won't take it personally when the DM/storyteller/"the forces of the OotS universe" tells me slaves have been nailed into position, oiled, and set on fire. It's the kind of thing that happens all the time in a D&D campaign at the hands of the bad guys. No big deal.

Jay R

2012-09-19, 12:05 PM

:elan: : "Dad, you remember that guy who was killed by a housecat in the arena? In my song, his name will be Tarquin."

Tarquin: (Blanches, then recovers to play his last card) That doesn't matter. I've ruled the continent for decades. In my last moments, I take comfort in the fact that -"

:vaarsuvius: Disintegrate. Gust of Wind. Now can we please resume saving the world?

denthor

2012-09-19, 02:40 PM

Tarquin's one weak point is being in denial of the fact that Elan is a comic relief character, and I guess his demise will involve that point in some way.

This would be the thought that sends him to misery. He can not cope with the fact that Bard's are not ruleing the world since they have all the skills and chrasima.

Minor spoiler alert below:

I hope he and the big X meet and the big X sits on the thorne of his "just and noble" kingdom after bringing him down.

That is just the way the Big X role plays.

denthor

2012-09-19, 02:44 PM

NZNinja

2012-09-19, 05:53 PM

:elan: : "Dad, you remember that guy who was killed by a housecat in the arena? In my song, his name will be Tarquin."

Ha! Yes, that's exactly the sort of thing I could see distracting Tarquin long enough to for someone to get past his defences.

Prophet_of_Io

2012-09-20, 01:44 AM

As a theater major Tarquins master plan gave me such a happy.

He's probably my new favorite villain. Ever. I don't care what happens to him in the end as long as the reveal is EPIC and he takes it like the Man he is.

10 gp says his last panel is him smirking and saying "Magnificent".

Flame of Anor

2012-09-20, 01:48 AM

I'd rather see Nale bashed in. Tarquin is more fun than Nale.

VariableNature

2012-09-20, 10:25 AM

If I'm reading you correctly, what seems to be bothering you is that, if Tarquin were to lose at this stage in the game, he wouldn't care. That's what the plan he details to Elan seems to say. By being a King for decades, Tarquin already won the only game he was playing at, everything else is icing on the cake. If Redcloak dies without completing his Grand Plan, his entire life will have been wasted. Xykon would likewise be seriously miffed if he bit the dust before realizing his evil scheme. But Tarquin... even if Tarquin were to drop dead right now of a heart attack, he wouldn't consider it a loss. He's playing with house money at this point. If he keeps winning, good for him. If he loses, eh. He already accomplished everything he cared about anyway. It seems to me that it's not any real in-universe invincibility on Tarquin's part that's bothering you, it's the fact that if Tarquin were to lose, he by all indications wouldn't be that upset by it. And I have to ask - Why is that? Who cares how the villain does or doesn't view their ultimate downfall? Does it matter to anyone other than the villain himself? Should it? At the end of the day, dead is dead. The only way that Tarquin is unbeatable is if you accept his view of reality, his definition of "win" and "lose". I can't imagine that Roy, or Redcloak, or even most people, do. In their eyes, if he's dead and his plans are ended, then he's beaten. If you don't like Tarquin's terms, then why agree to play by them?

Well, you've pretty much explained my point better than I have in my first post. Thank you.

Now for the second part, as in "Why does it bother me". I suppose the simple version is "Personal taste". I love it when the villain or bad guy is essentialy forced to confront the fact that everything has crumbled before them, and they can't do a thing about it, i.e. the end of Death Note. Tarquin, as you stated, is playing with house money. And I recognize that he can be beaten but still say "Eh, I still had a fantastic run". But I, personally, would like it to be humiliating. To extend the metaphor, I want the house to take its money back, as WELL as what he brought originally. It's just a personal preference in how I like stories to be told, I guess.

Let me stress, I won't mind much if it doesn't go the way I want; after all, I'm not the author, and I trust that it will have a satisfactory conclusion. I'm sure that I'll probably even love it. I just am saying what I would do, if I were Rich.

Exactly. Tarquin has already "won". There's no way to take the past away, erase it, or change it.

Sure, at some point in the comic (and it won't be long in in-comic time), Tarquin will be "stopped" or "defeated". That won't change the fact he got to live like a king for a long while. As you said, he's playing with house money now.

His rabid hatedom won't be satisfied (and I don't care, I doubt Rich does either).

Also, am I alone in taking everything that happens in the comic really lightly? Seems to me that many of you seriously want bad people to get what they deserve... personally, I don't care, as long as the story's good (and I fully trust Rich on that point). Tsukiko's death, for example, was absolutely awesome. Xykon "going the extra mile" with the bouncing ball and Sapphire Guard was just epic.

If Rich could find a totally satisfying way to have Xykon win and the Order be defeated in the end (nearly impossible task obviously), I'd have no problem with that as a reader.

It's a stick figure comic telling us the story of six PCs in a roleplaying campaign. I won't take it personally when the DM/storyteller/"the forces of the OotS universe" tells me slaves have been nailed into position, oiled, and set on fire. It's the kind of thing that happens all the time in a D&D campaign at the hands of the bad guys. No big deal.

I guess I was making too much of a deal of it earlier. I apologize for that. I just had some things I wanted to say and I got too carried away.

I fully trust Rich on telling a good story too; as I mentioned earlier, I LOVE the story so far. And while you are right about my complaints, i.e. I want to see him get what he deserves, I guess I'm starting to realize that that's probably not going to happen, at least not how I want it to. Tarquin has essentially won, as you've pointed out. Nothing outside of a Wish spell can stop that, and that would just be the easy and boring way out.

Well, here's hoping it turns out to be epic!

Gift Jeraff

2012-09-21, 10:51 PM

No, I don't want him bashed in.

I want him turned to chunky bits of salsa like the Team Peregrine Commander. :smallsmile:

HaggisMcMutton

2012-09-22, 12:16 PM

No, don't want anything specific to happen to him.

I really don't understand the "good guys must have total and complete victory over the bad guys" mentality.
... why?

Is this some kind of attempt to make up for reality where nothing of the sort happens?

I like stories where it actually seems like the villains might win. And I mean there is an actual possibility they will win not a Hollywood possibility where it is always "certain" that they will win right before they are defeated.

And yeah, he's definitely a fun character.

P.S. I admit I skimmed this thread, but a lot of people seem to be assuming life will be better for the people in Tarquin's kingdom with him dead. This does not seem at all clear cut to me. A lot of things could happen to the kingdom and indeed the continent if he just dropped dead right now.

TheBST

2012-09-23, 03:34 PM

As fun as Targuin getting bashed in could be, what I would like to see is the one thing Tarquin would never get over, just to see the look on his/the reader's face.

Now this'd require some hard work on Rich's half to accomplish, and many fans would hate it, but there's one thing Tarquin would never be able come to terms with, the most ignominious way for him to die:

by getting out-smarted by Nale.

Sidenote: my only problem with Tarquin is that he's getting a wee bit Sue-ish in his ability to get out of any situation, thus far. That and the narrative hoops the comic's jumping through to delay the Order from realising Tarquin and Malack have 'sided' with Nale.

Steven

2012-09-23, 06:19 PM

I think alot of the hate for T is on account of the fact that people are reading the comic as it comes out and then discussing it for ever and a day.

Once this arc is finished and I can go read over it I have every confidence that it will make sense, that T being as awesomely prepared as he is will make sense and that it will further Elan's character development.

Not that T actually rubs me the wrong way. I think his character is fine and enjoyable. I just want things to move forward and to find out what is going on with X, Redcloak and Co. since they engage me on many more levels than T has had a chance to do thus far.

Moblin

2012-09-24, 08:54 AM

Honestly? I enjoy Tarquin far more then Nale. Nale was a one-shot joke of a character who has been stretched far to thin already by his pretentions of major villainhood - which would probably have been alright, if he hadn't continuously tried to insert himself vicariously into the foreground against the Order without pausing for breath. There's only a certain degree to which his 'Look at me, Daddy! I'm BAD!" brand of un-goaled evil can be tolerated, especially as it comes across with none of the wit or panache that even XYKON posesses in his megalomanical schemes.

Tarquin, by contrast, is not a villain in desperate need of a plot. He's already got one, and it's already been a success (by his terms) for decades. As a character he's interesting and likable, and as bonus, his own personal goals not only don't conflict with the current mission of the OotS, but he actively has a vested interest of his own to keep Xykon from conquering/Redcloak from destroying the world. He's a villain in the background material, yes, but in a sense he's not really a major villain of the OotS campaign. And whilst Rich could turn him into one, I don't really see how doing so would add anything to the story as a whole.

I'm personally hoping Tarquin sticks around long enough to be the villain of OotS 2: The Elan-focused sequal; and that Nale is the villain who gets 'Worfed' to demonstrate Xykon's power (if anyone really needed to be by this point n the game). Though I'd admit, Tarquin backstabbing Nale in a reflection of Nale's shanking of Elan would also make me smile in a 'just deserts' manner. But in the end, the plot is for Ritch to decide. And if he plans for Tarquin to meet his end by Xykon's finger of death two strips from now, I wouldn't object as long as it adds to the development of the ongoing tale.

Gift Jeraff

2012-09-24, 01:03 PM

Au contraire, I find Nale to be infinitely more captivating than Tarquin because he can actually be on the verge of defeat. Tarquin? *yawn*

veti

2012-09-24, 05:19 PM

Given Tarquin's dialogue in #763, it doesn't seem to me that Tarquin would mind being forgotten all that much. Sure, it's sub-optimal, but his stated plan before Elan arrived was to rule for three decades or so, and then die at the hands of some peasant, his name presumably lapsing into obscurity soon after.

That's his plan as stated to Elan, after Elan has attacked him. It always surprises me that so many people are willing to take him at his word on that point.

Personally, I believe he has absolutely no intention of dying like a good sport, either at Elan's hands or anyone else's. His plan is to live indefinitely, quite possibly becoming undead at some point. Killing him would be a defeat of sorts; consigning him to obscurity would be a bigger defeat; and killing him in such a way that he actually regretted some part of his former actions, would complete it.

Winter

2012-09-24, 11:29 PM

he has absolutely no intention of dying like a good sport,

Yes, he does not. He stated that to Elan. He said he won't die unless Elan actually wins it. So what's the problem?

oppyu

2012-09-25, 12:23 AM

Aw, I love Nale. He has potential (high level in-universe, strong INT score), but he's so ridiculously inefficient. Intentionally or not, he's the Evil equivalent of our bumbling heroes, struggling to survive his ludicrous ambitions and the epic level plot, despite lacking the plot armour of a PC.

SowZ

2012-09-25, 01:25 AM

I think it is perfectly plausible how prepared Tarquin is, and his whole no way to beat him thing is interesting. Honestly, I think any villain with 17+ Int should act like Tarquin in some way. And with enough resources and knowledge of the environment? A smart dictator would have a million contingencies. (Like, figurative contingencies. Not Contingencies...)

I've had D&D characters with as many back up plans as Tarquin and I am sure that my intelligence score would not be higher than Tarquin's.

ti'esar

2012-09-25, 02:04 AM

Yes, he does not. He stated that to Elan. He said he won't die unless Elan actually wins it. So what's the problem?

The problem is people assuming that his original scenario of getting killed by some random peasant after a lengthy reign and fading away into obscurity was ever really Tarquin's plan.

Although I do believe that he cares much more about surviving in story then surviving physically.

Aw, I love Nale. He has potential (high level in-universe, strong INT score), but he's so ridiculously inefficient. Intentionally or not, he's the Evil equivalent of our bumbling heroes, struggling to survive his ludicrous ambitions and the epic level plot, despite lacking the plot armour of a PC.

I kind of agree. Nale's a very unpleasant person, but he's enjoyable to read about, and he's probably the only villain in OOTS who I've really found myself "rooting for" in any real sense. I don't get why so many people seem to hate his very existence.

The Zoat

2012-09-25, 02:25 AM

I can see one way Tarquin will REALLY lose.

Xykon destroying the entire continent, beginning with torturing tarquin to death.

:xykon: : Legend? What legend? The entire continent is dead!

SowZ

2012-09-26, 10:10 PM

I can see one way Tarquin will REALLY lose.

Xykon destroying the entire continent, beginning with torturing tarquin to death.

:xykon: : Legend? What legend? The entire continent is dead!

The legend is icing. The cake is the lifetime of living like a god.

The Zoat

2012-09-27, 04:33 AM

:xykon:: You know what? You don't even remember that now. That's right. I used Mind Rape. Screw you!

Mike Havran

2012-09-27, 01:16 PM

:xykon:: You know what? You don't even remember that now. That's right. I used Mind Rape. Screw you!

Not the point (dead Tarquin wouldn't remember either). Outside Time Travel, there is no way how to make Tarquin lose in his own game.

Kish

2012-09-27, 02:11 PM

I agree with veti; people's willingness to take Tarquin at his word is mystifying.

Math_Mage

2012-09-27, 02:16 PM

You people are so...so...so mindlessly vindictive.

So Tarquin has already won. Why is it that the only way to counter this is to murder him and his legacy in increasingly brutal and/or ignominious ways?

**** Tarquin losing. I just want Elan to win. What's the best revenge, again?

(Besides, the only way to make Tarquin lose is to lead him to the realization that he's been playing the wrong game all this time. You don't do that by completing his narrative and killing him off.)

Mike Havran

2012-09-27, 02:57 PM

I agree with veti; people's willingness to take Tarquin at his word is mystifying.

Generally, when characters reveal their plans, intentions and viewpoints, in is not only for their in-universe listeners, but also for the audience, so that they get a better grasp of the character's personality. Yes, the characters, especially villains, may subtly deceive, but they will not outright lie with a sincere face.

Consider Redcloak here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0830.html). How many people think he lied to Tsukiko about his plans? And he had every reason to lie (like, so she won't spill the beans to Twelve Gods in her afterlife). Yet somehow it's obvious he didn't and it was the real deal.

Why should Tarquin revealing his plan be any different?

oppyu

2012-09-27, 05:29 PM

You know what would be cool? If Tarquin killed Xykon via deus ex machina, winked at the viewers, and then drove off in a luxury car with two European models while screaming "I win everything! Take that, forum hatedom!"

ti'esar

2012-09-27, 06:06 PM

Why should Tarquin revealing his plan be any different?

Because Tarquin is, as the saying goes, a lying liar who lies. That is part of his characterization - he is manipulative, insincere, and always has a Plan E. It would strike me as at least mildly jarring if he freely admitted everything to Elan - who, son or not, is his antagonist - in the first place, and all the more so if what he was admitting was that - at least until Elan came along - he did not have a backup plan.

Mike Havran

2012-09-27, 06:27 PM

Well, Tarquin has a soft spot for Elan. Despite being used to a life of manipulation and deceit, Tarquin still thinks Elan is
a) highly competent hero
b) leader of his party
c) the more active one in his relationship with Haley.

Tarquin has his weaknesses. The horrible judgement of both his sons is one of them that will probably bite him later.

I don't think it's unlikely that he opened up to his long-lost, highly charismatic son that understands and lives by the rules of drama (maybe Elan is the very first person in many years that shares Tarquin's flair for dramatic? Malack certainly doesn't).

Also, what possible aim wanted Tarquin to achieve by lying to Elan about his plans? To freak the hell out of him?

ti'esar

2012-09-27, 06:36 PM

Also, what possible aim wanted Tarquin to achieve by lying to Elan about his plans? To freak the hell out of him?

Let me clarify: I think Tarquin is certainly being honest about his plans to take control of the continent, and almost certainly about his intention to tell "the best story ever" with Elan. What I'm questioning, though, was whether becoming posthumously known as a famous villain in song was his plan all along - as he indicates - or whether it's something he's come up with after meeting Elan. I don't think he was ever planning to be killed by some random do-gooder like he claimed.

Mike Havran

2012-09-27, 06:58 PM

IMO Tarquin, however savvy he is, doesn't know how he could effectively defy death. He knows he is going down eventually, so he wants to make the most out of it. Before he met adult Elan he just thought he might be, at worst, killed during some sort of peasant rebellion. And at best he would die of old age as the unofficial Lord of the Western Continent. Even the worst scenario was satisfactory for him then, and now it just got better with Elan.

But he admits this all: "If I win, I get to be a king", after all.

Kish

2012-09-27, 08:02 PM

Also, what possible aim wanted Tarquin to achieve by lying to Elan about his plans? To freak the hell out of him?
What he achieved by saying, "Even if I lose, I win," is obvious whether it was the truth or a lie. Elan believed (as do the people on the forum who take what Tarquin said as gospel truth) that there was no way he could truly defeat Tarquin, even if the entire Order was able to kill him.

If Tarquin had said, "If your adventuring group kills me...well, yeah, then I'll be sad about having lost," Elan's path would have been clear and the forum would have had many fewer people arguing that Tarquin had already won.

TheSummoner

2012-09-27, 08:42 PM

I don't think he was ever planning to be killed by some random do-gooder like he claimed.

Of course that wasn't his plan. A villian would have to be pretty incompetent to plan to fail.

What Tarquin is doing is accepting the possibility. Rigging things so even if he loses and is killed, he has a consolation prize that he can live with accept. As Tarquin sees it, there are two things that can happen.

1) Tarquin rules for the rest of his natural life and enjoys all of the luxury that comes with it. After he dies, he goes down in history as the man who ruled the Western Continent with an iron fist.

2) Tarquin rules until some adventurer is finally able to best him and enjoys all of the luxury that comes with it. After he is killed, he goes down in history as the man who ruled the Western Continent with an iron fist.

Both are wins in his eye. Sure, the first one is better since he gets to live longer, but he knows he isn't going to live forever. He isn't about to lich-ify himself like Xykon or find some other method to live forever (and if he intended to, I'd say it's well within his power to have already have done so).

By the rules Tarquin has chosen to play by, he has already won. The only way Tarquin loses is if he dies and is forgotten (which would be... difficult to say the least). And even then, he arguably still wins because he's already ruled with an iron fist and enjoyed all the luxury that comes with it for quite some time.

This doesn't mean that he can't be beaten... It doesn't mean the order can't defeat him and move on... It just means that they have to play by their own rules to do so. (For example: Dethrone him, prevent him from coming back and who cares whether he is remembered or not?)

Water_Bear

2012-09-27, 10:47 PM

A villian would have to be pretty incompetent to plan to fail.

Well, if it's your plan and it works doesn't that mean you are competent? Failing is only incompetent if your plan is to succeed. Well, you know what I mean. :smalltongue:

But no, I'm pretty sure T's plan is "Get power, live comfortably, leave a legend behind." The big snag I see is that he can't realistically expect to get all three; if he steps out to rule openly he gets his legend but either loses his power or ends up devoting the entire rest of his life to fighting a losing battle to hold onto it. Even if Elan kills him, who will even know that he wasn't some random serial second-in-command? Kind of a serious flaw for such a skilled schemer.

Mike Havran

2012-09-28, 02:45 AM

What he achieved by saying, "Even if I lose, I win," is obvious whether it was the truth or a lie. Elan believed (as do the people on the forum who take what Tarquin said as gospel truth) that there was no way he could truly defeat Tarquin, even if the entire Order was able to kill him.

If Tarquin had said, "If your adventuring group kills me...well, yeah, then I'll be sad about having lost," Elan's path would have been clear and the forum would have had many fewer people arguing that Tarquin had already won.

I don't see how Tarquin would not choose to believe in his no-defeat standpoint. Most of the villains (as well as some fans and haters out there) choose their belief in order to what sounds convenient to them.

Imagine Tarquin being depressed after (or shortly before) his death. Like "I am totally dead now; oh man, this sucks so much, despite I lived the life I wanted for 99% of my lifespan and I was going to die in 20 years, tops, anyway." Doesn't sound like him :smalltongue:

ti'esar

2012-09-28, 02:48 AM

Oops, didn't mean to do that.

Mike Havran

2012-09-28, 02:55 AM

Kish's argument is that Tarquin's no-defeat standpoint does not exist in the first place, not that he's (for some reason) choosing not to believe in it.

:smallconfused: How come that a standpoint that was already expressed doesn't exist?

Even if Tarquin made the scenario up to avoid being attacked by the Order (however ridiculous that seems to me), wouldn't he be better off if he actually started to believe it?

Killer Angel

2012-09-28, 04:02 AM

Outside Time Travel, there is no way how to make Tarquin lose in his own game.

That's an exaggeration.
Can Tarquin "win" by losing, becoming The Protagonist in a sort of legendary tale? certainly yes, but he needs to be defeated openly, with a vast audience, with someone (preferably Elan) telling The Story, and so on...

Kill him now, in the desert, and sing the poem about The Lich and The Gates, and Tarquin will only be a missing general, that soon will be forgotten.

ti'esar

2012-09-28, 05:07 AM

By the way, I don't believe I've actually stated my personal opinion on Tarquin, so for the record, I like him plenty. He's had interesting effects on Elan's character development and remains pretty funny. He's a horrible human being - one who, underneath the style, is not just evil but petty in a really unpleasant way - and I'd like him to get what he deserves, but I don't feel any vindictive need for him to see everything crumble around him and realize he was wrong (I do hope we get to see him realize he's not at the center of the story).

The chief and only thing I dislike about Tarquin as a character is the constant forum controversies he seems to stir up, like this very thread. The Tarquin arguments don't even have the merit of being thought-provoking like some of those on Redcloak, or (to a lesser degree) V and Miko. They're just petty, and it doesn't help that both sides seem to have the same exaggerated attitude towards his competence. So in that respect, I do look forward to his dying or otherwise leaving the comic.

Oscaver

2012-09-28, 05:54 AM

You guys are forgetting that Elan did have some sort of secret plan to usurp Tarquin without him winning (or maybe not.) I always assumed that Elan's plan was to exile Tarquin to the desert after slapping on an imroved mark of justice for good measure.

Acanous

2012-09-28, 06:27 AM

the only way Tarquin gets defeated is if he is redeemed. Then he follows Redemption=death and loses everything.

Chantelune

2012-09-28, 06:35 AM

I can see why some people would hate Tarquin because he seems to always be ready for anything. Personally, I like that about him exactly because he seems near impossible to truly defeat. Makes me curious about how he will be defeated, or just waves away that whole stuff and go back to his own schemes. Don't really care what will happen to him, either he lives or not, just enjoying him for now.

Nah, the one I'd really want to see bashed for good is Nale. The Linear Guild was fun at first, but at this point, their constant return is more than a hassle to me and I was disappointed that Belkar didn't get to finish him off.

Oh, but I look forward to when Tarquin will realize that Elan is, in fact, barely competent in anything, even as a bard, and usually need guidance for most of what he'll manage to accomplish. This ought to be fun ! :smallamused:

Might be he's demise in the end. :smalltongue:

Kish

2012-09-28, 06:39 AM

:smallconfused: How come that a standpoint that was already expressed doesn't exist?

Even if Tarquin made the scenario up to avoid being attacked by the Order (however ridiculous that seems to me), wouldn't he be better off if he actually started to believe it?
...Sure he would. Tsukiko would have been "better off" if, in her last few seconds of life, she had convinced herself that being eaten by wights was what she always wanted. Xykon would be "better off" if he convinced himself that no longer having a sense of taste is the goal he should always have been working toward, not having power.

What people would be better off believing is immaterial to what they actually do believe. Each individual reader must decide whether Tarquin's claim that he'll take it philosophically if/when he dies is believable or not. Without waving it around as though the mere fact that he said it makes it authoritative.

Mike Havran

2012-09-28, 09:54 AM

...Sure he would. Tsukiko would have been "better off" if, in her last few seconds of life, she had convinced herself that being eaten by wights was what she always wanted. Xykon would be "better off" if he convinced himself that no longer having a sense of taste is the goal he should always have been working toward, not having power.

What people would be better off believing is immaterial to what they actually do believe. Each individual reader must decide whether Tarquin's claim that he'll take it philosophically if/when he dies is believable or not. Without waving it around as though the mere fact that he said it makes it authoritative.

Conviction itself can only go so far. In theory anybody can believe in anything, but most of the time such convicion would break the character. However, Tarquin is one of the most genre-savvy characters in the comics, he designs Evil Ovelord handbooks and knows rules of drama. It is perfectly appropriate for him to construct and maintain the viewpoint he expressed to Elan.

One can, of course, dismiss it as basically any other general assumptions of the comics: like that Belkar will die before the end of the year, V is going to be posessed by the IFCC at some point etc. But I personally accept what appears the most probable scenario.

Kish

2012-09-28, 10:20 AM

Isn't that funny? I also accept what appears to be the most probable scenario--only when I look at what that is, I see Tarquin going, "Argh, no!" when he's defeated.

Tarquin's word just doesn't carry the authority you're trying to have it carry. Not because he's genre savvy, not because the philosophy he expressed is beneficial to him if he holds it, certainly not because he had no obvious immediate benefits from expressing it, and not for any other reason you're going to come up with either.

Like "I am totally dead now; oh man, this sucks so much, despite I lived the life I wanted for 99% of my lifespan and I was going to die in 20 years, tops, anyway." Doesn't sound like him
No. Because it sounds like a classic straw man.

What does sound like Tarquin is, "Argh, I CAN'T LOSE! NOO!" Tarquin is the man who taught Nale to seek petty revenge for quasi-imagined slights; he was mystified that Elan wouldn't want terrible revenge on anyone who dared to defeat him. The fact that he's not quite as crazy as the son he raised to be a less-competent copy of himself doesn't mean his ego is less massive than your average black hole.

Lord

2012-09-28, 10:46 AM

Personally, I want Tarquin to fall in a climactic fashion. Probably with an extreme effort on the part of the order. The catch is that it will take place in the middle of nowhere, possibly at Girards gate, and as a he was anything but.
Alternately, I think it would be interesting if he died saving Elan. He clearly demonstrates that he cares for his sons in his own way, and I think it would be very interesting if it is shown that he values his family over his own Legend.
Either way will work for me, but I really want to see him fight Redcloak at some point. Both are really Genre Savvy villains, who are a hude threat.
Lord out

Deepbluediver

2012-09-28, 12:18 PM

I still don't get why Tarquin draws so much hate from so many people.

As I mentioned before in another discussion almost exactly like this one, I find it refresshing to read about a character who isn't constantly being defeated as much by their own mental or psychological issues as by their enemies. What's wrong with competency!?!

Proud Member of the Tarquin fan club!
(I guess I need to petition TheGiant for a Tarquin smiley next)

Toy Killer

2012-09-28, 05:18 PM

I personally hope that whatever happens to Tarquin involves Elan Dressing up as Tarquin and screwing up his whole tyranny scheme. Given how Elan has a tendency to hold the opposite of the touch of Midas (Where Midas touched everything and turned it to gold, which became his burden; Whatever Elan touches tends to go to hell, ultimately ushering his victory) I imagine under disguise of Tarquin, he could simply do what he does best and make his father lose everything that he worked so hard for (You know, probably with in a day's time).

I don't know what exactly. but it still is a dream of mine.

Mike Havran

2012-09-28, 07:48 PM

Tarquin's word just doesn't carry the authority you're trying to have it carry.
...
... and not for any other reason you're going to come up with either.

So you aren't going to take Tarquin's words for granted. OK. Whatever.

Seems just wierd to me that you assume a man with a black hole sized Ego doesn't pamper it further by adopting No-Matter-What-Happens-I-Win ideology.

Kish

2012-09-28, 11:34 PM

So you aren't going to take Tarquin's words for granted. OK. Whatever.

Seems just wierd to me that you assume a man with a black hole sized Ego doesn't pamper it further by adopting No-Matter-What-Happens-I-Win ideology.
His ego demanded he say that. And possibly it demands that he believe it, I don't know. That doesn't mean he'll stick to it if/when he's actually losing.

Let me give you two examples. One is from the actual comic but involves Start of Darkness spoilers. The other is hypothetical.
Xykon said that it was better to be a brain in a jar than to let yourself die, and that if you die you're a loser. However, this does not go with his actual behavior when he was alive. He was thinking about leaving a legacy after his death. With some of the most powerful magic in his world, he wasn't thinking about immortality at all. The only reason he ever became a lich, was because Redcloak suggested it as an alternative to living out his waning years in Lirian's prison.

So why did he say it? Because his philosophy changed after his death? Maybe, but mainly because the point of what he was saying was to Score On Spliced-Vaarsuvius. If that involved saying things he believed, or things he didn't believe, not really the point.

Now, the hypothetical. Suppose that Haerta ruled over a continent with an iron fist for a thousand years (assume she extended her lifespan, or even became a lich). Suppose, after those thousand years, she was slaughtered by a group of good-aligned adventurers who systematically destroyed every trace of her legacy. Suppose she got into an argument with Tarquin about which of them was a better tyrant, and she said, "My rule lasted for a thousand years!"

Do you suppose Tarquin's response would be, "All right, you win"?

I sure don't. No, he'd come up with some card to play. And maybe he'd come up with a card other than, "But you lost at the end, and I won't lose!" But I would not be at all surprised if that was the card he played.

And that that contradicted what he told Elan?

Irrelevant. Because the point of what he said to Elan was to demoralize Elan, which it proved very successful at. And the point of what he said to Haerta, similarly, would be to serve his ego--not to communicate anything genuine other than, "I, Tarquin, am superior."

Mike Havran

2012-09-29, 05:58 AM

...

I see your point. You basically say Tarquin's Ego > Tarquin's Savviness, while I think it's the other way around.

Because the point of what he said to Elan was to demoralize Elan, which it proved very successful at.

Consider next-to-last panel of the strip with his speech. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0763.html) If Tarquin's intention was to mindscrew Elan, he would have his smug, triumphant expression there (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0819.html). But Tarquin appears to be mildly surprised instead, which implies Elan's fear and despair is not exactly what he expected.

Bulldog Psion

2012-09-29, 11:36 AM

Honestly, who cares if he becomes a legend? Big deal. Dead is dead.

TheSummoner

2012-09-29, 12:18 PM

Honestly, who cares if he becomes a legend? Big deal. Dead is dead.

Which is the best way to look at it if you want to defeat him and call it a victory. If you play by Tarquin's rules, Tarquin wins regardless of outcome. Play by your own and don't give a second thought to whether or not Tarquin calls it a win or a lose.

Math_Mage

2012-09-29, 03:19 PM

Xykon said that it was better to be a brain in a jar than to let yourself die, and that if you die you're a loser. However, this does not go with his actual behavior when he was alive. He was thinking about leaving a legacy after his death. With some of the most powerful magic in his world, he wasn't thinking about immortality at all. The only reason he ever became a lich, was because Redcloak suggested it as an alternative to living out his waning years in Lirian's prison.

So why did he say it? Because his philosophy changed after his death? Maybe, but mainly because the point of what he was saying was to Score On Spliced-Vaarsuvius. If that involved saying things he believed, or things he didn't believe, not really the point.

Personally, I think it's entirely silly to even speculate that Xykon's philosophy didn't genuinely change after his undeath, given that the transformation in his personality was a Big Dramatic Moment in SoD.
Such speeches as the one Xykon gave V are meant to fulfill two narrative purposes: they serve the character's immediate motivation (score on spliced V), to be sure, but they also tell the reader about the character's more fundamental motives.

Similarly, while it would make sense purely as an event within the world for Tarquin to create this no-lose scenario simply to appease Elan, it doesn't make sense from the perspective of the author illustrating Tarquin's character to the readers.

One other point: Tarquin's scenario is fundamentally based on the idea of keeping score over a long period of time to determine whether he 'won' or not. His reasoning is that he has won over so much time that whether he wins or loses now doesn't really matter with respect to his total accumulated past victories. That doesn't mean he doesn't want to win now. Economic concept of marginal outcomes: more victory is better. If he loses here and now, he can be frustrated about the immediate loss (the "Argh, no!" reaction you mentioned), while still being philosophically content with the total sum of victories he has built up. That's not a contradiction. So the outcome you describe can be explained without requiring Tarquin to lie in any sense about his no-lose scenario.

asphias

2012-10-01, 09:39 AM

what i would love to see from a good story perspective, is to have tarquin panic.

tarquin is written as the villain who is always in control, always has backup plans, uses everything to obtain new knowledge, and when he will eventually go down, he will probably do so while congratulating his enemies on how well they did it.

so basically, as he explained to elan, he'll think of himself as a winner no matter how it ends.

the only way elan would really *defeat* him, would be by psychologically breaking tarquin. i want to see him run around in blind panic, i want to see him beg for forgiveness/his life. i want to see him broken and ashamed.

mind you, not because i don't like him, he's one awesome magnificent bastard, but because it would be the ultimate demise for someone so much in control, to be running in blind panic.

it would be one hell of a challenge for rich to let this happen in a believable way, but should he try to do so and succeed, then he's the best writer ever in my book:smalltongue:

Scowling Dragon

2012-10-01, 10:37 AM

So I guess Taquins ultimate plan is just an adjustment of personal goals:

"Mwahahahaha! I always wanted to be tortured for three days before dying! I win!"

TheBST

2012-10-01, 05:29 PM

It's all moot really until we see how Tarquin reacts when he's over a barrel- even Xykon's known to panic when he's facing defeat.

And as for Tarquin's 'I win either way' plan- doesn't really matter how much land you conquer or long you stay in power when you're going to Hell (the existence of which is common knowledge in D&D) for eternity or as close as matters.

Turns out demons would rather use your soul as stress toy/toilet unblocker than debate the limitations and realism of the alignment system.

Nyes the Dark

2012-10-06, 08:05 PM

I really, really want Tarquin to suffer a horrible defeat. But not because I hate him: he's an awesome villain, and I enjoy seeing him. He's witty, affable, totally evil, but great fun. I want him to get beaten because he's a love-to-hate villain and I'm legitimately curious about his defeat/demise.

For one, assuming Elan beats him (which is implied by the Unseen Plan of Comic #836), he'll be proud he lost in a father-son duel, even if it involves no combat.

For another, the very premise of his defeat has to nullify the decades of evil rulership under his belt. My only guess is that it destroys his credibility, possibly by convincing the public he performs depraved acts of lust with deceased livestock or something humiliating.

Mario Lanza, a Survivor writer, said that one player getting crushed by an old lady in a challenge was the best thing to happen to him, because it cemented his villainy. If he won, people wouldn't see him as a good villain. The same applies to Tarquin: If he wins, nobody will be able to say he was a villain, because villains winning is too depressing.

Tarquin is a good villain, and it'll be bittersweet to see him get thrashed (actual thrashing optional). We'll lose a great character, but it'll probably be awesome.

TL:DR-Yes, he should be bashed in, but only because good villains must lose to be good villains.

davidbofinger

2012-10-07, 07:39 AM

I think Xykon would actually respect Tarquin as a fellow evildoer, especially one with a solid working evil scheme

Would Xykon recruit Tarquin? I suspect the answer is"yes" - Xykon was happy enough to recruit Tsukiko and probably enjoys the thought of Redcloak having a rival.

Would Tarquin sign up? My guess is "yes, but only on a temporary basis". To join Xykon for a while, because he's too powerful to say no to and because it might be fun, is one thing. To permanently subordinate himself wouldn't be acceptable.

Tarquin versus Redcloak, while both are employed by Xykon, would be an interesting political battle, though perhaps too much of a repeat of Tsukiko versus Redcloak.

Jay R

2012-10-07, 09:20 AM

Would Tarquin sign up? My guess is "yes, but only on a temporary basis". To join Xykon for a while, because he's too powerful to say no to and because it might be fun, is one thing. To permanently subordinate himself wouldn't be acceptable.

Of course Tarquin would sign up. He signed up with Baron Tyrinar, with the Empress of Blood, with Nale, and with many nameless others.

Signing up to be a subordinate and advisor is what Tarquin does.

And once he helped the Order of the Stick defeat Xykon, he would sign up with Roy next.

zimmerwald1915

2012-10-07, 09:33 AM

Signing up to be a subordinate and advisor is what Tarquin does.
A small correction: what Tarquin does is sign up to be a subordinate and adviser to a pre-handpicked patsy. If Tarquin sees Xykon in this light he's setting himself up for a fall, just like everyone else who's underestimated Xykon.

ReaderAt2046

2012-10-22, 04:14 PM

Why has no one else realized that by explaining his plan to Elan, Tarquin has effectively guaranteed the success of his secondary plans. Tarquin has two major goals here.

1. Rule in power and luxury for as long as he can (Impossible to thwart because it has already happened.)

2. Be remembered as the ultimate villian (certainly seems to be working, judging from the amount of data on this thread :smalltongue:)

But seriously, it does seem that explaining the whole thing to the bard makes Tarquin's true story more likely to be remembered.

Koo Rehtorb

2012-10-25, 02:13 AM

I think what really got to Elan was the line "I'll inspire a thousand more leaders to follow in my footsteps. And it'll all be thanks to you, my boy."

So I was thinking what sort of victory condition would Elan be considering here? What's his list of priorities?

1) Wants to limit further evil in the world by preventing Tarquin inspiring new generations of ruthless warlords.

2) Obviously wants to shut Tarquin down as soon as possible so that horrible tyranny doesn't continue in the immediate future.

but also

3) He doesn't really want to kill/do other bad things to Tarquin either. Elan's not that sort of guy. He saved Nale when it mattered. Sure he attacked Tarquin but that was in the heat of the moment. Whatever his plan is it's probably going to be something that does as little harm to his dad as possible and would definitely at least avoid causing undue distress to him insofar as it's possible.

I say he wants to redeem Tarquin and/or at the very least twist his reputation from a fearsome badass tyrant to something positive and heroic. Set something in motion where Tarquin is remembered in history as the real tragic hero of the story. The one who gave his life defeating the Empress so that the people would live free. Something to inspire future generations to follow this false example of the selfless hero Tarquin.

Where does Durkon come in? I dunno. Maybe he wants Durkon to slap Tarquin with a Geas so that he plays along with the plan or something.

ReaderAt2046

2012-10-25, 09:10 PM

veti

2012-10-25, 10:03 PM

An interesting question is: Why exactly do so many people hate Tarquin so much? I mean, Tarquin is a villian, but he's one of the lesser villians as far as Evil is concerned, compared to skrell like Xykon or Redcloak or Kubota. It seems to me that he's about the same level of wrong as Nale, and there doesn't seem to be a huge section of rabid Nale-haters on the forums (though maybe I just missed them post.)

Nale probably gets a pass because he effectively punishes himself, by his staggering overall incompetence. It's impossible to take Nale seriously.

Kubota - is very comparable, but he was only ever a bit player and, in the approved minor-boss mode, he died pretty much as soon as he came into direct contact with our heroes. There was no need to hate him, because he was never successful.

Redcloak has basically had a whole dump of karmic retribution already, thanks to Xykon.

I'd say people do "hate" Xykon at least as much as Tarquin. The reason we don't feel the need to say so very often is because - well, nobody disputes it. (For values of "nobody" that include a mostly-quiet handful of people with dubious SAN ratings, you know who you are.) And since he's the main villain of the story, we assume he's going to get his comeuppance at, but not before, the grand finale.

But Tarquin has admirers. His self-justifications have been so eloquent that some people have actually swallowed them, at least in part. Hence much more debate, and that makes the "hate" - louder. Then there's his smug "I've-already-won" schtick, which means that we know the iron laws of karma must smack him down with a particularly ferocious intensity. Otherwise, nothing makes sense.

snoopy13a

2012-10-25, 11:49 PM

ti'esar

2012-10-26, 01:06 AM

Actually, there is a moderately-sized segment of Nale-haters on the forum. They pop up whenever he's doing well, which is why we haven't seen much of them lately.

Also, ditto veti.

Mike Havran

2012-10-26, 05:38 AM

I also think the reason Tarquin gets so much hate is not because of what he does in comic, but because he has a lot of fans and admirers in audience and haters think that is simply wrong. Also, the fact that he has yet to make a dumb mistake doesn't help either.

In terms of evilness, I think Nale is much more Evil than Tarquin is. I would peg Tarquin somewhere between Kubota and Bozzok. Kubota is very close, except he was willing to sell his soul to get the power he wanted. Bozzok is a merciless mob boss, but does not indulge in cruelty.

ReaderAt2046

2012-10-26, 08:18 PM

But for Tarquin, he doesn't seem to have an "I lose" condition. From the plan he detailed to Elan, he seems to have planned for everything. He's essentially the "perfect" bad guy, and that just rubs me the wrong way.

So. Too long didn't read version: I like Tarquin as a character. But I don't like that he seems to have no weaknesses.

I think that he has no lose condition because he, in a sense, has no win condition either. His plan cannot fail because it has already succeeded. He has lived for many years in proseperity, raised two sons (at least, he probably has more running around from all his various romantic conquests), and has succeeded at telling Elan, and thus the readership of this comic, all about his successes, and is perfectly ready to die when his time comes. His plan cannot be thwarted because it has already succeded.

ReaderAt2046

2012-10-26, 08:32 PM

[COLOR="Blue"]Even if Elan kills him, who will even know that he wasn't some random serial second-in-command? Kind of a serious flaw for such a skilled schemer.

That's why he told Elan his plan. Now everybody knows what really happened.

zimmerwald1915

2012-10-26, 08:41 PM

That's why he told Elan his plan. Now everybody knows what really happened.
If by "everybody" you mean "the audience", then sure. But in-universe? The people outside his adventuring party who know his plan are Elan, Roy, Haley, Belkar, Ian, Geoff, Ivy, possibly Durkon, and everyone Ian and Geoff told who is still alive.

MichaelGoldclaw

2012-10-27, 10:32 PM

I think It's going to be a whole Star Wars reference (seriously)

With 2 obvious references and one obscure (one rebel against a force of an EMPIRE), its safe to say instead of getting killed, He redeems himself by saving Elan from the Emperor(ess). That way instead of a badass villan, you got a (badass) hero

zimmerwald1915

2012-10-28, 05:51 AM

Rebuttal, point 1: the Empress is incompetent, lazy, and pliable, especially to Tarquin. He's already "saved" Elan from the Empress - and Malack - once by whispering a few words in her ear. She is also comic relief, and thus not a legitimate threat to Elan in the same way that Palpatine was a legitimate threat to Luke.

Rebuttal, point 2: Vader's redemption is seen as cheap and easy by many observers. Tarquin going for, still less being conned into, cheap and easy redemption doesn't jive with either his character or the Giant's discussions of what redemption is or what it's worth (see Soon's speech to Miko and any V thread).

kiapet

2012-10-29, 01:02 PM

I actually like Tarquin. I'm not going to fangirl over him or join his fan club or anything, but I find him to be interesting and entertaining. However, he has this idea of Elan being this huge hero more along the lines of Roy than how he really is. I would like Tarquin to realize all of Elan's buffoonish tendencies and lose his faith in him. Then, I want Elan to defeat him in some unorthodox, deliightfully Elan-ish way. This would either be Tarquin's "ultimate defeat" or it would restore his pride in his son and he would die happy. Probably the second.

Chloe Seven

2012-11-08, 08:11 AM

I don't want Tarquin to be defeated at all. He's the most complex and interesting character in the story so far IMO; I don't think he needs to be defeated because "bad guys always lose". Sometimes, the bad guy winning (or at least not losing) is just as satisfying and effective story-wise as the good guys overcoming the odds.

Would 1984 have been as chilling had the last few chapters been about Winston breaking free of miniluv and single-handedly taking down the Party? No, the point of the story is to paint a portrait of a terrifying future - "a boot stomping on a human face, forever". If the good guys won it'd detract from that. Similarly, I think Tarquin doesn't need to be defeated because it would benefit the story to set aside the traditional (hell, it's almost law by this point) "bad guys must be defeated" mentality. It'd do them, and the story, good to realise you have to pick your battles, and you can't win all of them.

So yeah. I'd like Tarquin to continue to add complexity whether it's by not being defeated at all, by continuing to aid the protagonists where their goals don't conflict with his, or anything at all that isn't yet more "bad guys are bad, must always be defeated and can never have depths". Tarquin isn't like most generic mini-arc villains, so I see no need to have him defeated like one.

veti

2012-11-08, 02:31 PM

I don't want Tarquin to be defeated at all. He's the most complex and interesting character in the story so far IMO; I don't think he needs to be defeated because "bad guys always lose". Sometimes, the bad guy winning (or at least not losing) is just as satisfying and effective story-wise as the good guys overcoming the odds.

Would 1984 have been as chilling had the last few chapters been about Winston breaking free of miniluv and single-handedly taking down the Party?

You make an interesting argument, but I think (based on my own instincts and what I've read on this forum) that you're in a very, very small minority there.

'1984' is a horrifying dystopian novel about an extreme case of totalitarian government enabled by technology. 'Order of the Stick' is a mostly-lighthearted fantasy about an epic quest to save a world. Those two genres are about as far apart as you can get.

So - sure, Rich could buck convention by allowing a blatantly Evil-with-a-capital-E-no-matter-what-he-says-about-it villain to roam free. And the Oracle could be completely wrong about Elan's happy ending, and Belkar could join Tarquin's party and live another 80 years, and Xykon might lose interest in the gates and retire to torture souls on the Astral Plane and be taken out years from now by some wizard we've never heard of.

All of that could happen - but it's not going to. Do you think it should?

Clistenes

2012-11-08, 06:05 PM

A small correction: what Tarquin does is sign up to be a subordinate and adviser to a pre-handpicked patsy. If Tarquin sees Xykon in this light he's setting himself up for a fall, just like everyone else who's underestimated Xykon.

This.

Sadly, I doubt Tarquin is going to commit that mistake; he's to careful ans savvy.

I think Tarquin plans will break apart because of Malack, when the latter discover what is really going on with the Gates (I doubt he would like the idea of a SOUL destroying weapon that could threat his own god being put in the hands of either the Dark One or mere mortals, Tarquin included).

The other blind spot of Tarquin is Elan, which he considers a leader and talented adventurer despite all evidence. If Tarquin makes plans counting on Elan being smart, he is screwed.

And of course, Xykon could kill and turn Tarquin into a Death Knight outright upon meeting him, without allowing Tarq any time to appraising what he's getting himself into.

I personally think Tarquin is too genre-savvy to try to use the Snarl once he learns about it. The Snarl is one of those things that always screws the flamboyant cackling villains he despises.

ManuelSacha

2012-11-08, 06:13 PM

To the OP: I really like option #2.
Anything will be ok, though, as long as he's defeated and humiliated.

Chloe Seven

2012-11-08, 06:25 PM

Oh I agree that 1984 and OotS are very different things. I was just pointing out an (admittedly extreme) example of how narratively, a Bad Guy Wins scenario can be extremely interesting and further a story.

That said, I'm not saying Tarquin needs to win. I'm just saying he doesn't need to lose, either. He can contribute so much more to the story than just being the disc one final boss or an instance of the Worf Effect to show how badass the Order has gotten (or Xykon/Redcloak).

I'm not a writer, so these are some pretty trite examples, but they're examples anyway: Tarquin teaming up with the Order in an Enemy Mine situation against Xykon and the Order deciding he's more useful alive, Tarquin pulling a Vader and offering to let Elan rule with him if Elan is so horrified by how Tarquin runs things, Tarquin points out that even if the OotS defeats him his allies are still doing the exact same thing in other empires and the OotS can't stop them all, etc etc etc. Like I said, I'm not a writer, so apologies for the clichés, but the point is there's other stuff that can be done with Tarquin.

It's a very subjective thing, but personally I'm getting bored of the certainty that things are going to go the same way (bad guy losing). It's fiction, terrible things can happen and offend our sense of justice and morality without anyone actually being harmed, so I don't know why the good guys always have to win.

Gondolin42

2012-11-08, 09:55 PM

BungleBee

2012-11-08, 10:50 PM

Yes. Yes. Oh god, yes. :smallbiggrin:

Chloe Seven

2012-11-08, 11:03 PM

Anyone think Tarquin will die saving Elan's life? Because a Vader-style "You were right about me" moment would be just as dramatic as a father-son duel... especially if it's in the service of saving the world and his son at the same time.

I don't think Elan's had a "I know there's good in you" speech to Tarquin though (yet?). So he can't be right.

Acanous

2012-11-08, 11:18 PM

Tarquin saving the world from Xykon would be pretty epic. Especially if it was actually Elan that did it, and Tarquin just gets the credit.

ti'esar

2012-11-09, 01:00 AM

I don't think Elan's had a "I know there's good in you" speech to Tarquin though (yet?). So he can't be right.

Also, Tarquin probably doesn't "have good in him" to begin with (in the sense of that quote, at least).

Kish

2012-11-09, 10:29 AM

Oh I agree that 1984 and OotS are very different things. I was just pointing out an (admittedly extreme) example of how narratively, a Bad Guy Wins scenario can be extremely interesting and further a story.

You're not getting it. The bad guy winning in 1984 was not meant to be "interesting." It was meant to be horrific. The equivalent would be Xykon winning. Conversely, if Tarquin won somehow, his forum fan club would cheer. I can pretty much guarantee you that George Orwell would have been horrified by anyone cheering for the end of 1984.

It's a very subjective thing, but personally I'm getting bored of the certainty that things are going to go the same way (bad guy losing). It's fiction, terrible things can happen and offend our sense of justice and morality without anyone actually being harmed, so I don't know why the good guys always have to win.
It would offend your sense of justice and morality if Tarquin won? Really? That's not the impression I'm getting at all.

TheWombatOfDoom

2012-11-09, 10:44 AM

It's a very subjective thing, but personally I'm getting bored of the certainty that things are going to go the same way (bad guy losing). It's fiction, terrible things can happen and offend our sense of justice and morality without anyone actually being harmed, so I don't know why the good guys always have to win.

Also, it would seem to me the Order loses often. They manage to escape, but they only win minor battles or battles with the Linear Guild. They've most significantly lost in the battle against Xykon in Azure City...they lost pretty badly. In fact, I've seen it often remarked that it's nice to see the Order actually being competant for once. So I don't think they always have won. This is a many arced story, so they win and lose periodically, but it's always forward movement. From what we know, Elan wins (or at least has a happy ending...but that doesn't mean it will be a win for the whole group. We know Belkar's going to die, Durkon will be dieing before going to the Dwarven lands (which could mean he dies at the end of the story, or it could mean something keeps him from going home until he dies), and who knows about Roy...

My point is, its not always a clear cut - they won or they lost. Sometimes it's a little of both.

Chloe Seven

2012-11-09, 07:58 PM

You're not getting it. The bad guy winning in 1984 was not meant to be "interesting." It was meant to be horrific. The equivalent would be Xykon winning. Conversely, if Tarquin won somehow, his forum fan club would cheer. I can pretty much guarantee you that George Orwell would have been horrified by anyone cheering for the end of 1984.

It would offend your sense of justice and morality if Tarquin won? Really? That's not the impression I'm getting at all.I "get it". I'm aware of the purpose of 1984. Your choice of words is presumptuous. As I said, I find the end of 1984 much more effective (and interesting) than if it had been a "happy" ending. What you believe Orwell intended, and what he actually intended, are completely irrelevant because I still enjoy the story for that either way. It was horrifying AND fascinating AND damn good storytelling, and I'll always cheer for those last two.

Stories have many purposes, and for a lot of readers the primary one is entertainment. If some people find entertainment in an interesting villain, and thus begin to like that villain, that isn't some awful crime that should be frowned upon and the story deliberately written so as not to appeal to them. The story should just do what it's going to do and let people enjoy whatever aspects of it they like. If you don't enjoy Tarquin that's fine, but stop acting like people are wrong to enjoy him.

Regarding your last comment, as I already said, works of fiction can have events go in a way we wouldn't want them to in real life, without anyone actually being harmed. Why you think the fact I enjoy a good story with an interesting and effective villain, or enjoy on a narrative level said villain winning means I can't possibly have a sense of justice or morality baffles me. Don't you have the capacity to distinguish between reality and fiction?

Kish

2012-11-10, 10:45 PM

Don't you have the capacity to distinguish between reality and fiction?
Of course. One of the major differences is that while if one ground the universe down to atoms and sieved it through the finest sieve one would not find one iota of justice, whereas most--not all, but nearly all--fiction has some concern with justice (including, or especially, 1984). Generally what little fiction does not, winds up being All About its own lack of concern with morality.

However, your personal comment about me aside, you didn't actually answer my question. Would it offend your sense of justice and morality if Tarquin won?

Chloe Seven

2012-11-11, 10:23 AM

Sure. I like Tarquin as a character for being interesting, but he's also evil and commits acts I disagree with. But he's fictional, so the fact that his victory would be rather scary and a massive injustice in-universe doesn't mean it wouldn't also make for an interesting story.

rgrekejin

2012-11-11, 01:41 PM

Of course. One of the major differences is that while if one ground the universe down to atoms and sieved it through the finest sieve one would not find one iota of justice, whereas most--not all, but nearly all--fiction has some concern with justice (including, or especially, 1984). Generally what little fiction does not, winds up being All About its own lack of concern with morality.

...what exactly are you saying here, Kish? There are two ways that I can think of to interpret this.

There's the "strange materialistic non sequitur" option - A search of the physical evidence in the real world does not contain any trace of justice, a metaphysical concept. Therefore, reality is not fiction, because the metaphysical concept of justice is often addressed in fiction. How does that follow? Am I reading the wrong sort of fiction? Are there "justice particles" floating around in all literary universes that can be weighed and measured which I am unaware of? Or maybe the real world has changed since I went to bed yesterday, and nobody is concerned with metaphysical questions like justice anymore. Maybe you're trying to say that since words about justice are physically printed on the pages making up a work, justice is a material part of the fictional universe, in which case, your statement essentially boils down to "I can tell reality from fiction because fiction is printed on pages and reality is not", but since that's a much more simple statement than the one you made about justice, I suspect that's not what you're going for.

The other possibility is that you're making some sort of argument about the nature of justice in the real world that treads too close to real world politics/religion for me to want to touch.

Which is it? A, B, or something else entirely? I'm really not sure what you're saying here.

Water_Bear

2012-11-11, 04:07 PM

Not to speak for Kish, but I read that as "Real Life is unfair, fictional conventions follow human intuitions about Poetic Justice/Karma rather than reflecting the inherent unfairness of Real Life." I disagree (on the fiction part, not that life is fair or something), but it seems clear what they meant.

But I seriously question whether Tarquin 'winning' (whatever that means with him) would be interesting. He's been kicking around virtually unopposed for decades now, what has he done? His behind-the-scenes plot might be smart but isn't very exciting, and it's not like his regimes are portrayed as any more brutal than the surrounding Evil dictatorships of the Western Continent. Plus, he's completely convinced (or at least appears to be) that he can't lose, at least by his nebulous standards.

On the other hand, imagine all that effort coming down around his ears; at least a decade of work destroyed by a single mistake, a single flaw in his 'perfect' plan. That Elan, or even better Nale, would defeat him in such a way that he realizes that he wasted his life and after he dies no-one will ever remember him or care what he did. That ending has a lot of power, is intriguing, and allows both Elan and Nale to develop further in preparation for the climax.

Mike Havran

2012-11-11, 04:35 PM

On the other hand, imagine all that effort coming down around his ears; at least a decade of work destroyed by a single mistake, a single flaw in his 'perfect' plan. That Elan, or even better Nale, would defeat him in such a way that he realizes that he wasted his life and after he dies no-one will ever remember him or care what he did. That ending has a lot of power, is intriguing, and allows both Elan and Nale to develop further in preparation for the climax.

I understand Tarquin a bit different than you, then. He is a completely selfish man and basically, the best he could hope to get of life (in his own opinion) is the life of power, of luxury, of control and of more power. Which he pretty much got already. Sure, stuff can be always better (like going down like a legend), but it's not like he will mourn deeply if that won't come to pass, or even if his grand scheme is overthrown.

To make him feel really sorry for what he did and for the life he lived, one (=Elan) must dig up some smidgen of goodness, conscience or pity that is hidden within him, and so far Tarquin didn't show he has any of these. But if this happens, will Tarquin actually lose?

lio45

2012-11-12, 10:38 AM

A search of the physical evidence in the real world does not contain any trace of justice, a metaphysical concept.

That's the point, yes. (Could've been summed up as "Life's unfair".)

"Fairness" isn't something that is coded into the laws of physics... at all. It's absolutely absent from the physical world we live in. It happens only when humans decide to make it happen (or at least try) through their actions... which, in the real world, is easier said than done.

In the history of humanity, there have been many Tarquins all over the globe, and I guarantee you that many of them "won".

danielmayer

2012-11-12, 12:18 PM

Malack: You want to destroy the souls my god has to shepherd. So die. Harm.
Red-Cloak: Save. We could be friends, you know. Implosion.
Malack: Save. Good Idea. Implosion.
(in the background Tarquin implodes)
Red-Cloak: Your aim is really terrible these days, isn't it? Sorry for your loss. Slay living.
Malack: Save. No big deal and we had this joke already. Implosion. Quickened Destruction.
...

rgrekejin

2012-11-12, 01:46 PM

That's the point, yes. (Could've been summed up as "Life's unfair".)

"Fairness" isn't something that is coded into the laws of physics... at all. It's absolutely absent from the physical world we live in. It happens only when humans decide to make it happen (or at least try) through their actions... which, in the real world, is easier said than done.

In the history of humanity, there have been many Tarquins all over the globe, and I guarantee you that many of them "won".

I somewhat doubt that was what the original point being made was, as I don't see how it supports the argument, but, even that aside, this line of reasoning still doesn't make sense.

"Fairness" is not a physical thing. This is true. Since "fairness" is a metaphysical concept, I don't know why this is surprising (whether or not you think certain metaphysical concepts are completely absent from the world in which we live in, of course, depends on whether or not you think the material world is the entirety of existence, but, again, real world religion). My point is: is "fairness" a physical thing in literature? Are there physical "fairness" particles in fictitious universes that characters in-universe could count and quantify? If not, how is this different from the real world? If you're trying to argue that since the author has written the universe with their particular view of "fairness" in mind, and that makes "fairness" a physical characteristic of the universe in a metafictional sense, then I fail to see how this observation is significantly different from "reality is different from fiction because fiction is printed on paper and reality isn't", which is a true-but-useless distinction.

veti

2012-11-12, 10:12 PM

"Fairness" is not a physical thing. This is true. Since "fairness" is a metaphysical concept, I don't know why this is surprising (whether or not you think certain metaphysical concepts are completely absent from the world in which we live in, of course, depends on whether or not you think the material world is the entirety of existence, but, again, real world religion). My point is: is "fairness" a physical thing in literature?

Obviously I can't speak for Kish, but I'm fairly sure the post that gave rise to this particular subthread was referencing (http://blog.gaiam.com/quotes/authors/terry-pratchett/66706) Terry Pratchett's Hogfather:

TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET -- Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME... SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.
(Death isn't shouting, he always speaks like that.)

If you're trying to argue that since the author has written the universe with their particular view of "fairness" in mind, and that makes "fairness" a physical characteristic of the universe in a metafictional sense, then I fail to see how this observation is significantly different from "reality is different from fiction because fiction is printed on paper and reality isn't", which is a true-but-useless distinction.

I suspect that that 'metafictional' point is pretty much spot on. And the reason why the difference from reality is meaningful is, quite simply, that this insight into fiction allows us to make predictions with a high degree of certainty about how fictional characters will end, which would not be the case if we were observing those same characters in real life.

That's why we (generally) assume, for instance, that the Oracle's prophecies are accurate, and that Xykon won't win. If this were a real-world story unfolding before us, those assumptions wouldn't be remotely valid. But it's not, and that's why we feel justified in making them.

Kish

2012-11-12, 11:07 PM

If you're trying to argue that since the author has written the universe with their particular view of "fairness" in mind, and that makes "fairness" a physical characteristic of the universe in a metafictional sense, then I fail to see how this observation is significantly different from "reality is different from fiction because fiction is printed on paper and reality isn't", which is a true-but-useless distinction.
"Reality is different from fiction because fiction is printed on paper and reality isn't" wouldn't be a useless distinction if someone was arguing that a particular work of fiction likely doesn't have a trait of being printed on paper, because reality lacks that trait. (I can't think of any such traits, but that's because this isn't a very good analogy.)

Bad guys usually lose in fiction. Even in tragedies, although in tragedies they drag the good guys down with them. The reasons for this are debatable, and perhaps Ms. Seven and I would not agree on what they are. But that it's the case is easy to observe.

Math_Mage

2012-11-13, 04:49 AM

However, your personal comment about me aside, you didn't actually answer my question. Would it offend your sense of justice and morality if Tarquin won?

If your sense of justice and morality can be offended by the outcomes of fantasy novels, I'm concerned. It's one thing to say it would be bad storytelling; quite another to say it would be morally offensive. That would be like saying wizardry in Harry Potter offends one's religion (ahem).

More to the point, it baffles me that you seem to think it's objectively unjustifiable for people to root for a Magnificent Bastard, or to view said Magnificent Bastard winning as good storytelling, just 'cause he's still a bastard.

Kish

2012-11-13, 07:29 AM

If your sense of justice and morality can be offended by the outcomes of fantasy novels, I'm concerned.

Good thing I'm not actually the one who initially said that fantasy novels "...can offend our sense of justice and morality," then.

Chloe Seven

2012-11-13, 08:40 AM

Bad guys usually lose in fiction. Even in tragedies, although in tragedies they drag the good guys down with them. The reasons for this are debatable, and perhaps Ms. Seven and I would not agree on what they are. But that it's the case is easy to observe.Don't think anyone is disputing it, my claim is that it's bloody boring. When so fundamental a question as "will the good guys succeed in the end" is pretty much guaranteed, it takes away a lot of enjoyment. Sure there's still enjoyment in learning the details and events leading to it, but some enjoyment is removed - for me anyway.
If your sense of justice and morality can be offended by the outcomes of fantasy novels, I'm concerned. It's one thing to say it would be bad storytelling; quite another to say it would be morally offensive. That would be like saying wizardry in Harry Potter offends one's religion (ahem).

More to the point, it baffles me that you seem to think it's objectively unjustifiable for people to root for a Magnificent Bastard, or to view said Magnificent Bastard winning as good storytelling, just 'cause he's still a bastard.
@ Paragraph 1: I'm not genuinely offended. I meant, when the bad guy wins, it triggers a sense of injustice, just like when the good guy wins it's supposed to trigger more positive emotions (I tend to dislike the good guys, so not so much for me).

@ Paragraph 2: that's exactly what I wanted to say, but in a tenth the words. Nice.

Winter

2012-11-13, 12:14 PM

When so fundamental a question as "will the good guys succeed in the end" is pretty much guaranteed, it takes away a lot of enjoyment. Sure there's still enjoyment in learning the details and events leading to it, but some enjoyment is removed - for me anyway.

So you basically dislike 98% of all fictional works. The good guys always win plain and fully and we know from page/minute 1. Even if the win comes at a price (Lord of the Rings, no, not the movies) it changes nothing the Heroes have fully and completely won. Even if the hero sacrifices himself (or a side character does) it still often is made out that this is a win in the end (the hero was a tragic figure, got his redemption, was condemned to death anyway, saves his true love, ...).
Of the remaining 2% of work (if it is even 2%!) at least half suck in itself (as all fictitious work).

So welcome to <1% of any fictional works (books, movies, whatever) you can enjoy. Might I suggest you turn away from fictitious stories in general, it totally does not seem to be your thing?

Comrade

2012-11-13, 05:27 PM

Xykon pops in, and completely schools him. Kills him in a horribly undramatic fashion, binds soul to something, and tosses it into a void of never-ever-able-to-find-it. All while giving him a killer "This is why you suck" speech.

...okay, I confess to no particular dislike of Tarquin as a character, but I actually do kinda wanna see this happen.

Chloe Seven

2012-11-13, 06:11 PM

So you basically dislike 98% of all fictional works. The good guys always win plain and fully and we know from page/minute 1. Even if the win comes at a price (Lord of the Rings, no, not the movies) it changes nothing the Heroes have fully and completely won. Even if the hero sacrifices himself (or a side character does) it still often is made out that this is a win in the end (the hero was a tragic figure, got his redemption, was condemned to death anyway, saves his true love, ...).
Of the remaining 2% of work (if it is even 2%!) at least half suck in itself (as all fictitious work).

So welcome to <1% of any fictional works (books, movies, whatever) you can enjoy. Might I suggest you turn away from fictitious stories in general, it totally does not seem to be your thing?
Your entire post was a waste of time from the first senence. I said knowing the heroes always win takes away a lot of enjoyment, not that I don't enjoy those stories period. I just don't believe in any reason the heroes always have to win and the fact they do takes away a lot because one of the biggest sources of suspense no longer works.

Math_Mage

2012-11-14, 01:00 AM

Good thing I'm not actually the one who initially said that fantasy novels "...can offend our sense of justice and morality," then.

Oh, sorry, you're just the one who seems to have made an entire page's worth of posts in order to nitpick someone's word choice when you should have known perfectly well what he meant. No wonder I was confused.

Winter

2012-11-14, 06:05 AM

I just don't believe in any reason the heroes always have to win and the fact they do takes away a lot because one of the biggest sources of suspense no longer works.

Box. Office.

Apart from that, epic stories that end in a massive let down and end badly often leave a sense of "meh". Especially if it ends with "To Be Continued" but then does not.

Kish

2012-11-14, 07:14 AM

Your entire post was a waste of time from the first senence. I said knowing the heroes always win takes away a lot of enjoyment, not that I don't enjoy those stories period. I just don't believe in any reason the heroes always have to win and the fact they do takes away a lot because one of the biggest sources of suspense no longer works.
So you wish you lived in a world where the villains, in fiction, could win (most of the time? half of the time? as much as 10% of the time?). You think this would make fiction better by restoring one of the biggest sources of potential suspense. Am I paraphrasing you correctly so far?

I don't. I think if it became common for villains to win in fiction, most people, albeit perhaps not you, would find fiction significantly less emotionally satisfying. Regardless of who's right, the fact is--as you've noted, while calling it "bloody boring"--that we live in a world where, in the vast majority of fiction, the villains lose. I don't know if you think Rich is likely to go against that trend with Tarquin or if you're just hoping he does, or if you're as ambitious as hoping that trend will completely cease to exist in your lifetime; I both think he's unlikely to go against that trend with Tarquin and am hoping he doesn't. The thread-starter asked if anyone else wants Tarquin to get absolutely bashed in. The answer is yes, some people do, though (...and it would be impossible to participate in this forum and be unaware of this fact...) others really want Tarquin to get everything he wants without anything ever truly challenging him.

Winter

2012-11-14, 08:48 AM

I welcome fiction to be a good change from the "news" we are surrounded all the time. If I want to see stories that end badly, I can just switch on CNN (or whatever channel, website, paper you prefer) at any time I wish. :smalltongue:

I think that is what makes fiction to be interesting: We see the whole story and it's keeping to what makes a narrative interesting and not how it "would" play out.
If one was to complain about the ending to be unsatisfying one also had to complain about some narrative requirements: If you add this or that character in a certain way, there will be conflict.
People won't talk it out, the motives on a very fundamental level do not allow a compromise (in the end it is "Xykon wants to smash" vs. "Roy wants him to leave people alone"), the main character does not simply retire "to take more care of his family" or "decides it is all too much" and vanishes from the story.
Of course there is a romance that turns into a relationship. Of course there is conflict within the group but they pull themselves together to stand through it. Of course there are doubts, but of course they are overcome. Of course "friendship" is something you can rely on (unless the explicit point is you cannot in a certain case, then the break will get foreshadowed).
Vaarsuvius will of course have to face his/her karma for Familicide at one point in the story. Of course the trip to the afterlife had a game technical/story consequence that will be important (for Haley it drove characte development and Roy got his feat) or it would have been pointless from a narrative point of view.

All those are requirements of stories to keep them interesting for us or to make them even more interesting. Everything that happens has to tell us something about the story, tell us something about a character or push the character into developing - everything else, in a good story, is trimmed out or it is "pointless and boring". Yes, those requirements are artificial as they can get and we know they are in there somewhere. But I think they are required for what this is all about.

Knowing it's all made up does not make it in any way worse.

To put it differently (and shorter ;)): Of course you can think knowing the good guys will win diminishes your fun but I also think to look over that is part of the Willful Suspension of Disbelief that is required to enjoy fiction.
We are willing to look over that Magic does not exist and Xykon is especially cardboard (which is his point)? Why not overlook as well you'll see a happy ending of some sort in the end?

Chloe Seven

2012-11-14, 09:49 AM

So you wish you lived in a world where the villains, in fiction, could win (most of the time? half of the time? as much as 10% of the time?). You think this would make fiction better by restoring one of the biggest sources of potential suspense. Am I paraphrasing you correctly so far?

I don't. I think if it became common for villains to win in fiction, most people, albeit perhaps not you, would find fiction significantly less emotionally satisfying. Yes. Not going to specify a quota of how often I think villains should win, but I think it's sad that it's taken for granted that the villain must always lose.

You're most likely right: people don't like change and have been raised on happy endings (or at least a villain-loss ending; I grant that there are times the cost is high and results in a somewhat downer ending, but the villain still loses). I doubt anything's going to change. Still, we were asked if we wanted Tarquin to get "bashed", and that's why I don't. It isn't necessarily Tarquin fangirlism (though I definitely enjoy a genre-savvy character of any alignment), it's just a boredom with villains HAVING to be "bashed" in general.

Winter

2012-11-14, 10:34 AM

In addition: I also think the pure focus on the end isn't all. Yes, the villain loses in the end and the characters get a full win, a full happy ending.
But look at what happened to go there. All the death the villain caused before the characters met him and during the battle.

I think if A Song of Ice and Fire ends with a clean cut happy ending (which we know won't happen, there will be a price) then even then it would not be one, given how much destruction was already waged all over the world.
It is the same as in Order of the Stick: Even if it all ends happy with the Evil Guys destroyed and also the Side Evil Guys (Tarquin et all) being "bashed" then I doubt only someone fucusing on the pure end could say "And all is well". No, it is not.
Azure City still is completely razed and all the other death and destruction is still pretty real for those who suffered through it.

I think it is all a matter of perspective and my humble suggestion would be to take one that allows for the most possible* enjoyment from what you consume.

* Note these two small words make this not absolving bad writing or unlogically constructed characters etc.

Chloe Seven

2012-11-14, 11:26 AM

GunnDancer

2012-11-14, 01:29 PM

I've been following this train of thought... just want to add my two cents!

First... nah... I don't really want to see him BASHED IN. Defeated? Sure... and honestly with the way Rich writes I don't know if it's a sure thing he will even be defeated. He might get everything he wants or even a small chunk of it. And, knowing lots of people like him in real life, that will be more than enough. In Tarquin's mind it's not about breaking the rules, it's bending them as far as he can to get as much as he can, even that means he only gets a slice of what he wants. He's evil... not stupid.

Secondly, I don't think Chole needs to be jumped on for their point of view, but I'll say this: Real life is full of evil and terrible people who win all the time. I really don't want to read fiction where those same people win... because... what the hell? I'll just watch the news and see it in real life.

I think what makes a story interesting (and I suspect this is what Chole meant but please correct me if I'm wrong) is the uncertainty of it all. There are plenty of books I've read where I suspect the villain will get trounced, but the writing puts me in such a state that I honestly don't know. Part of why I love Stephen King the way I do. Even when the villain loses... he rarely TRULY loses because the cost is so high to the hero that the victory is almost worthless.

WowWeird

2012-11-14, 02:40 PM

Actually, reading through this thread, I start wondering- what does Elan's 'happy ending' mean in relation to Tarquin? Would he be, not happy (I'm pretty sure brutal murder of anyone isn't something that makes Elan happy), but relatively satisfied if Xykon ignomiously crushed Tarquin? On the one hand, hey, Tarquin is no longer a threat to people and didn't get the 'legendary' status he was gunning for. On the other, it would mean his dad (who he obviously has an emotional connection with) died, in a presumably painful manner, and that the stability Tarquin claims to be responsible for could dissolve and cause mass chaos on the Western Continent.
Or if, instead of the Xykon scenario, he had a climactic duel with his father and killed him? Again, the dead father part would be an issue (especially if he did the deed himself), but Tarquin would get to be a legend, would stop directly hurting people, and the Western Continent could presumably hold together under the other five members of Tarquins' band.
I'm pretty sure Elan's outcome isn't entirely dependent on the fate of his father, but it'd probably have an impact.
Thoughts? Comments? Rebuttals?

veti

2012-11-14, 04:17 PM

/agree ^. Journey not destination, definitely. But when you're guaranteed a certain result the entire way, the journey is somewhat impacted by that. When you know that no matter what happens, no matter how bad it gets, no matter how horrible things are for the protagonists the end result will be a beaten bad guy, all of it is cheapened (in my opinion, naturally).

The biggest, most important difference between fiction and real life is that a fictional story has an ending. (I am indebted to Frank Kermode (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Kermode) for that insight.)

In the real world - no matter what happens, life goes on. True stories, and stories that are believed as true, never end. Even if you die, your story goes on. (For all I know you may have had a freak accident just after typing that last message. I certainly hope not, but I can't be sure, and it wouldn't make any difference to me right now if you had - I'm still engaging with your argument, whether you're still behind it or not.)

So for a history book, or a biography, or any other non-fictional account of events, the end point (and the start, for that matter) is always arbitrary. It's the 'end' purely because the writer has chosen to exclude what happened next from the scope of their present work.

But fictional stories do end. (Ignoring soap operas for the moment.) Every book has a last page. And once it's over, it's over. Of course there can be a sequel, but that's - quite literally - another story. (Or it may be a continuation of the same story, but then it's not so much a sequel as a 'part 2'.)

So "when to stop writing" is a very important - perhaps even, definitive - decision for a writer.

And when a fictional story introduces an 'evil', it needs to describe the defeat of that 'evil'. (See the quote in my signature for another way of putting it.) In the case of OOTS: no matter what the cost - even if the whole of the OOTS dies tomorrow, the story isn't over until Xykon is beaten, even if that takes another 30 years and 10 more adventuring parties. If Rich chooses to 'end' the story before then, we'll all assume he's just setting us up for a part 2.

And having introduced Tarquin, and gone out of his way to establish that he's 'evil', now Rich has set up the expectation that Tarquin has to be beaten as well. It's a subplot, and the main plot won't be fully resolved until the subplot is too. (There's also the 'redemption' option for Tarquin, but personally I'm writing that off as implausible.)

So really, the expectation that Tarquin will lose is not so much a prediction-based-on-genre-knowledge as it is a statement of faith that Rich intends to finish the story he's started.

Now, admittedly '1984' is a counter-example to much of the above. But the end of 1984 is, as Kish said, deliberately shocking, and many readers find it profoundly unsatisfying. (I do, for one - despite admiring the book, I can't bring myself to re-read it, because of that ending. Well, that and the tedious political rants.) Really, the only way to treat it as a 'satisfying' resolution is to redefine the story as the tale of a sadly misguided rebellion against an ultimately-benign authority, which is too big of a switch for me to make.

Mike Havran

2012-11-14, 05:19 PM

Actually, reading through this thread, I start wondering- what does Elan's 'happy ending' mean in relation to Tarquin?

I'm pretty sure Elan's outcome isn't entirely dependent on the fate of his father, but it'd probably have an impact.

I agree. Tarquin has played and still plays a very important role in Elan's life and I don't think it is plausible for Elan to have his happy ending without Tarquin's case being solved if not in a happy manner, then at least in an acceptable one. In my opinion, at least two things are required:

1. The suffering of the people in the Empire of Blood has to come to an end. The current regime will be altered or replaced.

2. None of the numerous sadistic wishes regarding Tarquin's fate that were expressed in this and some other threads will be fulfilled.

Elan does have a plan and since he is thrilled and happy about it I don't think it involves Tarquin's death, or much violence. But I have no idea what could it be, or whether it will actually work the way Elan intends.

On that matter,

And when a fictional story introduces an 'evil', it needs to describe the defeat of that 'evil'. (See the quote in my signature for another way of putting it.) In the case of OOTS: no matter what the cost - even if the whole of the OOTS dies tomorrow, the story isn't over until Xykon is beaten, even if that takes another 30 years and 10 more adventuring parties. If Rich chooses to 'end' the story before then, we'll all assume he's just setting us up for a part 2.

And having introduced Tarquin, and gone out of his way to establish that he's 'evil', now Rich has set up the expectation that Tarquin has to be beaten as well. It's a subplot, and the main plot won't be fully resolved until the subplot is too. (There's also the 'redemption' option for Tarquin, but personally I'm writing that off as implausible.)

Do I understand correctly that you believe Tarquin's subplot needs to end before Xykon's main plot? Because I don't think so and I expect that Tarquin will be dealt after Xykon, when the Gate threat is over and the remaining protagonists return to the desert to deal with unfinished business.

Consider The Lord of the Rings - the main quest was finished and the big bad was completely defeated midway through the book 6. Yet the story continued for several chapters.

Kish

2012-11-14, 06:13 PM

I agree. Tarquin has played and still plays a very important role in Elan's life and I don't think it is plausible for Elan to have his happy ending without Tarquin's case being solved if not in a happy manner, then at least in an acceptable one.

I disagree.

Tarquin only came into Elan's life, what, a week ago? Few people would have thought "Reconciling with his father, the mysterious evil overlord who is probably Lord Tyrinar, is an essential component for This Story to have a happy ending for Elan" before Tarquin appeared on-panel (and not in a flashback). This Story--the story of the Order battling Xykon over the Gates--will have a happy ending, for Elan, at least. That doesn't mean there won't still be things about the world that make Elan sad when he thinks about them, such as what utter rat-bastards his father and brother turned out to be.

Tarquin is Xykonishly evil. He is not going to suddenly have an epiphany and go, "Oh wow, that was really wrong of me to torture and kill all those people!" And Elan's sense of morality is not so shallow that he wouldn't recognize, e.g., sticking a Helm of Opposite Alignment on his father's head, as a poor substitute for him actually reforming. So there is no way Tarquin (and Nale) can possibly contribute to a happy ending for Elan. Whether he looks back on them and thinks, "It's so sad that we had to kill my father and brother," "It's so sad that my still-in-power father just raped his twentieth wife-by-torture," "It's so sad that my father's going to be in prison for the rest of his life," or, "It's so sad that I had to brainwash my father to make him Good," he is not going to think "It's happy that my father [anything]." It will always bother him that his father is/was a monster as it bothers him now when he remembers his mother crying about having lost a "nail." Such is the level of nuance of a story with a happy-but-not-Strawberry-Shortcake-level ending.

veti

2012-11-14, 06:59 PM

Do I understand correctly that you believe Tarquin's subplot needs to end before Xykon's main plot? Because I don't think so and I expect that Tarquin will be dealt after Xykon, when the Gate threat is over and the remaining protagonists return to the desert to deal with unfinished business.

Not quite. Not necessarily.

When Tarquin was first introduced, he was a completely new thread in the story, quite independent of Xykon and the gates. If that had remained the case, then - yes, I think he would have to be dealt with first, before Xykon.

But now he's rapidly (and, I note, willingly) becoming entangled with Xykon's plotline. Which means that even if Xykon personally is beaten, his story won't be over until Tarquin is also defeated. About the only way Tarquin could avoid that fate at this stage is to go home right now and forget he ever heard of Xykon or the gates. But he's far too vain for that.

Mike Havran

2012-11-15, 01:28 PM

Few people would have thought "Reconciling with his father, the mysterious evil overlord who is probably Lord Tyrinar, is an essential component for This Story to have a happy ending for Elan" before Tarquin appeared on-panel (and not in a flashback). This Story--the story of the Order battling Xykon over the Gates--will have a happy ending, for Elan, at least.

Honestly, "what would people have thought" is not really important. The unpredictability of the story is one of the things that tend to increase its quality. In-universe one has to wonder how would the Order find Windy Canyon without Tarquin. Out-universe I believe the Giant had always (at least from strip 68 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0068.html) or so) planned to address the difference between Elan's and Nale's upbringing, and that would have been rather difficult without Tarquin coming into play at least for a while. What the contemporary audience expected when the prophecy about happy ending was made doesn't matter at all.

Tarquin is Xykonishly evil.

What do you mean by "Xykonishly evil", exactly? Is it "completely devoid of any even remotely positive morale traits"? Or is it "Evil boss of a group of antagonists"? Or "beyond redemption"? Or "one who strives for the ultimate power at all costs"? Or something else? Sometimes it is hard to understand Buffyishly phrased statement. :smalltongue:

So there is no way Tarquin (and Nale) can possibly contribute to a happy ending for Elan.

Imagine this (still quite plausible) scenario:

The Order, the Guild and Team Evil battle at the Girard's Gate and it ends up being destroyed. Tarquin survives. Tarquin learns that Nale was deceiving him about Xykon and ritual, so he refuses to pursue the Gates and stays in the desert, ruling his Empire. The Order and the Team Evil start another race to the fifth Gate, where the Order finally destroy Xykon once and for all and end the Snarl menace to the world.

At this point, as you suggested, it will be okay for Elan to have his happy ending - he'll settle down with Haley, raise a few kids and let "the story of the Order battling Xykon over the Gates" leave them for good. He'll think it's a sad thing about his father and brother, but Therkla's death was a sad thing too and life goes on. Do you think it may well end up this way?

Because I think that would be a display of shallow morality on Elan's part.

He is not going to leave the suffering continue. He will fight for the freedom of EoB citizens immediately after the fight for the very existence of the World is over. And he already has a plan (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0836.html), and he seems to be really keen and happy about it which, considering his Good (most Good mortal character of the story) nature, implies non-violent, or at least non-sadistic handling of his father (Elan did state it was only "sort of" a defeat).

Now, Elan has grown quite a bit over the course of the story. He is still goofy, but not moldy-carrot-box-dumb-goofy anymore. If it turns out that his Super Top Secret Plan is utterly out of reality it will be underwhelming, to say the least. This will be his moment of triumph - his plan must be at least plausible (whether it will actually work the way it was intended to is an entirely different matter).

That is why I believe it is possible for Tarquin to be redeemed, which puts him in a different light than Xykon, or Belkar.

Kish

2012-11-15, 02:31 PM

What do you mean by "Xykonishly evil", exactly? Is it "completely devoid of any even remotely positive morale traits"? Or is it "Evil boss of a group of antagonists"? Or "beyond redemption"? Or "one who strives for the ultimate power at all costs"? Or something else? Sometimes it is hard to understand Buffyishly phrased statement. :smalltongue:

I mean that he has no redeeming qualities. Which isn't quite the same as having no remotely positive moral traits--although considering how warped his concept of "love" in "I do happen to love you" is, that may also be true. He is not capable of understanding why there is anything wrong with his actions; when confronted with actual morality his reaction is, "Huh, that's weird...okay, kill the gladiators then, since my son unaccountably doesn't want to enjoy seeing them horribly tortured."

Because I think that would be a display of shallow morality on Elan's part.

Sure. There just isn't a way Tarquin can not be a deficit to any happy ending, although fortunately (...or unfortunately, depending on one's point of view) the happy ending question was only about This Story, not about Elan's life. You believe differently because (let me know if I'm paraphrasing you incorrectly) you consider the fact that Elan has a plan which he believes will deal with the problem of his father in some morally satisfying way to trump any in-comic evidence of Tarquin's irredeemability. I don't; I consider the in-comic evidence overwhelming and "Elan thinks he can do it" to carry little or no weight. We'll find out who is right when Rich's thumb is better.

Mike Havran

2012-11-15, 03:47 PM

I mean that he has no redeeming qualities. Which isn't quite the same as having no remotely positive moral traits--although considering how warped his concept of "love" in "I do happen to love you" is, that may also be true. He is not capable of understanding why there is anything wrong with his actions; when confronted with actual morality his reaction is, "Huh, that's weird...okay, kill the gladiators then, since my son unaccountably doesn't want to enjoy seeing them horribly tortured."

I believe the example with the gladiators isn't the best one. From his position of a ruthless general, Tarquin had very limited options at that moment. He couldn't tolerate letting badly staged fight to continue (or, that Elan wasn't taking it well), but what could he do instead of giving order to kill them? Could he just send them back to the prison? That would make no sense, people would think him weak or becoming senile, Elan would think he could be easily swayed and Haley would immediately tried to exploit that. And given those gladiators would hate him anyway, even your average Affably Evil guy in his position would just pull the trigger.

Consider strip 854 as a counterexample. After Malack gives him a piece of his mind, Tarquin does seem to realize he has crossed certain lines and apologises. Unless one dismisses that as a staged performance and faked sincerity, it gives a pretty good clue that Tarquin is perfectly capable of understanding when he does wrong - he just doesn't care, or doesn't want to backpedal, as long as it doesn't affect people he actually holds dear.

In my opinion, Tarquin knows what is wrong with his actions, but since he went on the track of a villain and dictator and so on, he just plays it by the script. He is on that way because he wants to live life as a king and go down like a big damn legend. If somebody makes him realise that there are better ways to be remembered, or that his life could give him so much more if he took a different approach to it etc., he may get swayed. Or may not, but it's certainly worth a shot.

Short story: I don't think the comic shows that Tarquin is irredeemable. So far.

Chloe Seven

2012-11-16, 07:57 AM

And when a fictional story introduces an 'evil', it needs to describe the defeat of that 'evil'. (See the quote in my signature for another way of putting it.) In the case of OOTS: no matter what the cost - even if the whole of the OOTS dies tomorrow, the story isn't over until Xykon is beaten, even if that takes another 30 years and 10 more adventuring parties. If Rich chooses to 'end' the story before then, we'll all assume he's just setting us up for a part 2.
That is true, but ONLY because of convention. There's no reason a story couldn't end on the villain winning. After all, a story is also about its protagonists, and a lot of the time they're left alive at the end of a story, perhaps with a love interest and some regrets at the cost of victory and stuff like that, but the story leaves them alive.

The finish line doesn't have to be drawn at a victory or loss or even any kind of ending at all - short stories are good for that, they often set up a premise and leave us to consider where it goes without doing all the work for us.

So yeah, fiction ending with all the loose ends tied up, villain defeated or sealed in a can or whatever is very common, but it isn't mandatory, just incredibly common, so common that it's perceived as mandatory!

My entire point this whole time has been that things can go ANY OTHER WAY and still be a satisfying story. Someone else mentioned Stephen King's IT as a great story in which it appeared the villain could win; Stephen King's Pet Sematary is a story in which the "villain" (granted, a nebulous intangible concept) DID win. And it was awesome.

I think at this point we've said everything that can be said on the matter. It's been interesting, but let's drop it.

lio45

2012-11-16, 08:08 AM

I'd say that OotS is one of those rare stories that could "pull off" a villain winning, given that the very concept of the story is that it's mimicking a roleplaying campaign. When the BBEG is just too powerful for the PCs and the PCs are unreasonable enough to choose a direct confrontation too early (relatively speaking) in the campaign, it can very well end up in TPK and that should be "acceptable" to the reader...

By now, though, I have to admit I'm sure it'd be very unsatisfying to 99% of Rich's readership if the story ended like that (and it'd be contradicting the Oracle's prophecy about Elan's happy ending).

But back then, say in the early #0100s, Rich's gag-a-day online campaign strip easily could've abruptly ended with everyone dying @ Xykon's throneroom.

Kish

2012-11-16, 08:15 AM

That is true, but ONLY because of convention.

But no. "Convention," as you call it, exists for a reason. You said earlier that "people don't like change and have been raised on happy endings," effectively poisoning the well: Anyone who doesn't desire the villain to win lacks imagination.

There's no reason a story couldn't end on the villain winning.

You speak as though "what people enjoy reading" is not a reason, or at least not one that doesn't speak to how painfully "conventional" those people are if they happen to disagree with you.

I think at this point we've said everything that can be said on the matter. It's been interesting, but let's drop it.
When I see a post that goes, "Long reassertion of my position...now let's drop it," it always looks like that poster is trying to get in the last word.

Chloe Seven

2012-11-16, 11:05 AM

But no. "Convention," as you call it, exists for a reason. You said earlier that "people don't like change and have been raised on happy endings," effectively poisoning the well: Anyone who doesn't desire the villain to win lacks imagination.

You speak as though "what people enjoy reading" is not a reason, or at least not one that doesn't speak to how painfully "conventional" those people are if they happen to disagree with you.

When I see a post that goes, "Long reassertion of my position...now let's drop it," it always looks like that poster is trying to get in the last word.
First point: you're inferring a lot of things that aren't there. I said people don't like change and have been raised on happy endings, you choose to infer "lack of imagination" from that, but I didn't say or intend it.

Second point: "what people enjoy reading" is subjective and "people" as a collective term for every single person who enjoys reading fiction will never ALL agree on something. In this case, we don't all agree on villains necessarily having to be beaten, so acting like we do is ridiculous.

Third point: after responding to Veti's post, the "let's drop it" part was because I am tired of the contention the discussing is causing. That is to say, I am tired of the contention YOU are causing. I've enjoyed the conversation with other posters but I am sick of your absolutism, antagonism and superior attitude. Maybe I should've just said instead that I'm going to put you on ignore because of those things. So as of now, I have.

To the rest of you, thanks for a stimulating conversation.

Winter

2012-11-16, 11:09 AM

When I see a post that goes, "Long reassertion of my position...now let's drop it," it always looks like that poster is trying to get in the last word.

Or if he's clinging to this last straw to prevent losing (or appearing to have lost).

Divinity 2: Ego Draconis had a bad ending. It was nearly the worst possible ending in regard to the Good Guys. Just google what happened on the internet (the studio making the game received threats of murder, let alone countless bad words and even more critique) and tell me again there is "no good reason to make the heroes win".

I thought that ending was awesome but I totally can understand it is usually not done.

Chloe Seven

2012-11-16, 11:24 AM

Or if he's clinging to this last straw to prevent losing (or appearing to have lost).

I think a fundamental problem with this idea is that it implies two beliefs:

(1) that this was some kind of debate rather than a conversation and;
(2) that there can possibly be a winner and/or loser in a contest of purely subjective opinions such as tastes or preferences.

If anyone here has been treating this as a competitive formal debate, I apologise that I had no interest in applying the rules of your particular debating club to my posts. I'm here on a gaming themed webcomic's forum for some light-hearted discussion, not to definitively prove now and forever that I am right about everything. This formerly casual discussion about tastes in fiction has become rather unpleasant (and everything has been said, so starting to become circular) and so, I stepped out.

EDIT: also, not a he.

GunnDancer

2012-11-16, 01:12 PM

I WIN! WOOO!

But seriously, I understand what Chole is saying. It's like when I say "Boy, for what it was, I actually enjoyed "X movie" ". and Then someone returns fire and says "You're an idiot! You LIKED THAT!?? Because so many other people hated it!"

Yes... I liked that movie. No, I'm not an idiot. And I don't care what other people like because I enjoy what I enjoy.

So there is no winning. Chloe would like to see something different happen then the rest of us and that's okay.

(For the record... LOOOOOOVE Stephen King... do NOT like the Game of Thrones series even though a billion other people do.)

Chloe Seven

2012-11-16, 04:35 PM

^ right.

Off topic point of curiosity, a couple of people here and a few on other sites have misspelled my name "Chole", too often for it to be just a typo. Is this some American thing I don't get?

Amarsir

2012-11-16, 04:50 PM

Off topic point of curiosity, a couple of people here and a few on other sites have misspelled my name "Chole", too often for it to be just a typo. Is this some American thing I don't get?
I think it's just more natural motion for to type. L and O are the same finger, following H on the same hand, and "h-o-l" flows easier becaues that finger ends up going "press down, move down, press down" instead of "press down, move up, press down."

I'll bet if you launch an elaborate study of people with dvorak keyboards vs the traditional qwerty ones, you'll find the typo much less common. Though it's probably not worth that kind of trouble to you.

Now if people start calling you "cholo", then there might actually be something to it. :smallsmile:

Winter

2012-11-17, 02:35 AM

"You're an idiot! You LIKED THAT!?? Because so many other people hated it!"

No, that is not what has happened.

What happend is Chloe said s/he could not come up with reasons why good guys always win and cannot understand how people are always so lame to like it over and over again, while s/he enjoys Bad Endings.

What did then happen were people pointed out various reasons why the state is as it is and that it is not only purely our socialization. In my case, I even defended a "bad" ending, but also pointed out why the company that made it will not repeat that exercise.

There's a lot of valid reasons to have large audience fiction end "well", one of them is the reception of the customers, others are rotted in all the things pointed out above.

None of that affects your position and as far as I have read, there was not a single reaction like the one you paraphrased (and to which Cloe agreed).

Chloe Seven

2012-11-17, 07:06 AM

What happend is Chloe said s/he could not come up with reasons why good guys always win and cannot understand how people are always so lame to like it over and over again, while s/he enjoys Bad Endings.I didn't say anything about people being "lame" to like it over and over again. You're inferring stuff that isn't there.
None of that affects your position and as far as I have read, there was not a single reaction like the one you paraphrased (and to which Cloe agreed). He didn't even sort of imply anyone said that. He said what's happening here is LIKE when people say things like that, as in, it is rude and ridiculous to be so judgemental of peoples' tastes. I then posted "^ right", agreeing to that and the rest of the post.

hamishspence

2012-11-17, 09:39 AM

In Star Wars terms, Tarquin is much more like Palpatine, or at best Grand Moff Tarkin, than Vader- much viler, much more enthusiastic about atrocity (at least, onscreen).

Hence a redemption story for him is less feasible.

Chloe Seven

2012-11-17, 01:45 PM

Xykon reminds me more of Palpatine. Obsessed with immortality and power for power's sake.

Tarquin = Tarkin - polite, affable, utterly merciless, dominates by force and threat of force, fond of gadgets (if you can call superweapons gadgets). Plus, their names!

Redcloak = Vader - feigns servility to a powerful master he plans to overthrow in order to bring about a better society.

Roy = Luke Skywalker - hero of the story, calm and analytical, on a quest given to him by a ghost.

Koo Rehtorb

2012-11-17, 03:42 PM

Does that mean Tarquin talks with a British accent?

Winter

2012-11-18, 04:30 AM

Does that mean Tarquin talks with a British accent?

Yes, probably something european. Maybe british, maybe very slight french, maybe a bit german, maybe something more eastern - and in the show people keep bringing up he is played by Christoph Waltz. Now, would that not be awesome?

GunnDancer

2012-11-18, 08:39 AM

No, that is not what has happened.
...

None of that affects your position and as far as I have read, there was not a single reaction like the one you paraphrased (and to which Cloe agreed).

Well that because I was pulling an example from my life. And towards the end there were more than a couple of people questioning her dislike of an obvious good guy win... I believe one person even said that she must not like 98% of all fiction, etc. etc. etc.

But that's beside the point. My entire point was it's fine that she would like to see the villain win so there is no point to argue about it... different strokes for different folks and all that.

Edit: Back to the ACTUAL topic... nah... still don't want to see him get BASHED in... but I do want to see him defeated. There are too many people like him in real life that already win.

grom the mighty

2012-11-18, 02:40 PM

I don't think it is plausible for Elan to have his happy ending without Tarquin's case being solved if not in a happy manner, then at least in an acceptable one.
I have a feeling that when Tarquin inevitably dies, it will completely revolve around drama, and theatricality.

The scenario I have in mind, is tarquin finally realizing that Elan isn't the main protagonist in his own story line and having a breakdown, trying to kill Elan for being a character purely involved for comic effect and to inject some drama into his life.

At this point Nale (who feels betrayed by Tarquin, after he favors Elan for some reason, probably since Nale has become something like a 'stale, repetitive recurring villain') will attack Tarquin and kill him in a sneak attack, and wind up dieing himself as a result of his own revenge, probably falling from a bridge/ledge into a canyon or other inevitable death. For added comedy, Tarquin will quote a film for dramatic effect, with Nale telling him that line has already been done before. Cue a scream of NOOOOOOO from Tarquin as they both fall to their death.
I expect that Elan will be happy with this, as if anything, it glorifies Tarquin, giving him the death Elan feels is dramatically appropriate, and also would give Nale a death more theatrical than he deserves. I think Elan would see this as an 'acceptable death' as you put it.
This will almost certainly be followed by Belkar/ Roy saying something hilarious.
Also........

I expect that Tarquin will be dealt after Xykon, when the Gate threat is over and the remaining protagonists return to the desert to deal with unfinished business.
I think that Tarquin will die ON THE WAY to defeat Xykon, since he finally realizes that he's not the main villain of his son's campaign.....!!!! This could be one of the reasons he attacks Elan!!! I think that Tarquin and Nale have both featured very heavily in the comic recently, and that their story lines are just about ready to be wrapped up.
So far Rich has done each part of the narrative in sections. For example 'the dungeon of Dorukan, the journey to Azure city, the battle and events IN Azure city, the party being split up, and now the desert/empire of blood section. So far, most major villains of the section they were part of have died at the end of it (Miko, that lord guy at sea)...
It's all about to go down!!! :smalltongue:

P.S If I'm right about this, then i'm using this post as undeniable proof of my psychic ability :smallamused:

Grim Portent

2012-11-18, 06:21 PM

It occurs to me that while Tarquin's priorities prior to his arrival in the story were to live as long as possible and gain as much power as possible it is entirely plausible that upon meeting Elan his goals have changed. I suspect that his defeat will not come at the point of a sword. Nor will it come from a revolution or any other such violent means. It will come from his favoured son looking him in the eyes and saying:

:elan:: Dad, I feel sorry for you.

And just walking away.

He has displayed a desire to interact with Elan, to become a part of his life it appears to be part of his new agenda. If that's taken from him I doubt he'd handle it well. He might find that the thrill has gone out of tyranny and life loses it's purpose. (Insert a series of platitudes about T's life becoming pointless and him just walking into the desert one night after a glass of wine.)

suzaliscious

2012-11-19, 12:16 PM

I don't actually think that an unconditional victory on the OotS's part is the best possible ending. For one, I'm actually rooting for Redcloak. Undoubtedly evil though he is, the resolution of his character arc is the one I look forward to the most and while I have accepted to a certain degree that it cannot end happily, I hope it will at least satisfactorily.

And while I love Tarquin, I do want to see him defeated. He's a lot less defensible that Redcloak, since he wants is personal power and glory at the expense of everyone else in the world. Redcloak at least strives to serve a greater purpose. How effectively, efficiently or sincerely, is up for debate.

Drakeburn

2012-11-19, 12:41 PM

grom the mighty

2012-11-19, 03:49 PM

I actually believe that in another clash (and probably final) with the Order of the Stick, Tarquin is left with a choice to either kill Elan or Nale.

For a parent, it is a really hard decision. It's one thing to have conflicts between two children, but it is really hard to participate in that conflict, knowing that you're going to have to make a difficult decision.

But who knows how it'll turn out.

You could be onto something here.... It could even be tarquin choosing choosing which one of them lives for some reason.

It will be definitely be something as dramatic as possible, and I suspect Tarquin will make it that way on purpose since as well as power, theatricality is what governs his life, just as it does with Elan, only with Elan being influenced by good.

Koo Rehtorb

2012-11-19, 04:16 PM

Given that Tarquin was willing to let Malack kill Nale until he had a good reason not to I don't think he'd be that torn up over it.

grom the mighty

2012-11-19, 05:00 PM

Given that Tarquin was willing to let Malack kill Nale until he had a good reason not to I don't think he'd be that torn up over it.

But it would be DRAMATIC :smallamused:
And wasn't that because he was disappointed with Nale?
:O What if Tarquin realizing Elan isn't the main protagonist puts Elan and Nale on equal terms?!?!?!
Now THAT would be dramatic!
the gate is about to explode, only Tarquin can save one of them... and he saves Elan? OR sacrifices himself?????
I've just blown my own mind, and none of this is probably going to happen :smallsmile:

veti

2012-11-19, 10:36 PM

And wasn't that because he was disappointed with Nale?

I realise this is open to interpretation, but - no. I think it was because he's a narcissist who literally doesn't give a rat's backside about the life or death of any other being on earth, except in so far as it administers directly to his personal comfort.

If Tarquin were 'forced' to kill Elan[1], then I think he'd express a momentary pang of regret. I doubt he'd actually feel it, but he'd pretend to, because that makes his 'decision' more momentous and makes him personally look tougher in the eyes of everyone who witnesses the act.

So I'm pretty sure that any scenario that depends on Tarquin's love for his sons, or anyone else, is not going to happen.

[1] 'Forced' in the same sense as someone upthread argued that he was virtually 'forced' to order the deaths of Enor and Gannji - that is to say, the calculation of the moment makes him think that he 'needs' to do it in order to look tough.

grom the mighty

2012-11-20, 02:15 PM

I realise this is open to interpretation, but - no. I think it was because he's a narcissist who literally doesn't give a rat's backside about the life or death of any other being on earth, except in so far as it administers directly to his personal comfort.

If Tarquin were 'forced' to kill Elan[1], then I think he'd express a momentary pang of regret. I doubt he'd actually feel it, but he'd pretend to, because that makes his 'decision' more momentous and makes him personally look tougher in the eyes of everyone who witnesses the act.

So I'm pretty sure that any scenario that depends on Tarquin's love for his sons, or anyone else, is not going to happen.

[1] 'Forced' in the same sense as someone upthread argued that he was virtually 'forced' to order the deaths of Enor and Gannji - that is to say, the calculation of the moment makes him think that he 'needs' to do it in order to look tough.

An interesting interpretation... I genuinely believe that Tarquin cares-even if a little- for his new found son... Or at least the person he thinks Elan is :smalltongue:

Koo Rehtorb

2012-11-20, 02:22 PM

grom the mighty

2012-11-20, 02:33 PM

Clistenes

2012-11-20, 04:04 PM

I think he'd feel a genuine twinge of regret if he had to have either of his sons killed, (a slightly larger twinge for Elan) but it wouldn't stop him from doing it if he had to.

Tarquin's comfort > everyone else.

I wonder what arrangements Tarquin has done in order to avoid the "Great Fire Below". He knows he will be killed soon or later, and that he will go to the Seven Hells...a person so concerned with his own well-being and comfort would want to avoid an eternity of torture for sure.

grom the mighty

2012-11-20, 05:06 PM

I wonder what arrangements Tarquin has done in order to avoid the "Great Fire Below". He knows he will be killed soon or later, and that he will go to the Seven Hells...a person so concerned with his own well-being and comfort would want to avoid an eternity of torture for sure.

That's a good point.... Him and Malack will have something set up, otherwise why would he keep him around?
He's already shown that he doesn't really care about his feelings too much, he's even kept Nale around after what he did to him...
And it's not like he needs him as a cleric... he could just hire one :smallconfused:

Clistenes

2012-11-20, 05:19 PM

That's a good point.... Him and Malack will have something set up, otherwise why would he keep him around?
He's already shown that he doesn't really care about his feelings too much, he's even kept Nale around after what he did to him...
And it's not like he needs him as a cleric... he could just hire one :smallconfused:

I think "It's business, Malack" is their code for "let him live for now. I'll let you do as you please when we're done with him".

I bet this kind of situation happens quite often "why are you letting that punk live? he's stolen our gold and tried to kill you" "It's business, Malack, he has promised to help us kill the king of X-land in exchange for letting him live".

Koo Rehtorb

2012-11-20, 05:26 PM

ReaderAt2046

2012-11-21, 10:22 AM

I think it's more likely that their group is just one that has a long history of putting business ahead of personal feelings. Emphasizing business was just reminding him that when it comes to a choice between ruling the world and getting some personal revenge the group has a clear answer that they have to go with.

And that sort of professionalism is why they've gotten as far as they have.

Definitely. Look at Malack's lines in the sixth panel here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0854.html).

"You were the one that demanded I put aside my personal greivance for this crucial mission, as per our long-standing protocols." (underline mine, bold in original).

Burner28

2012-11-23, 06:51 AM

Just a thought: given that Tarquin seems to believe that he'll be a legend after he's killed, wouldn't Elan be able to crush him - without combat, even - by telling him that he would be forgotten, or worse yet remembered not as a legend, but as a fool?
I'm thinking of Geoffrey Chaucer, in 'A Knight's Tale', where rather than risk a physical confrontation (which he'd already proved he couldn't win), he tells his transgressors:

"I will eviscerate you in fiction. Every pimple, every character flaw. I was naked for a day; you will be naked for eternity."

Something like:

:elan: ...No Dad, I won't do it.

T: :smallconfused:?

:elan: I won't tell your story.

:elan: Oh, I'll sing the praises of the Dragon Empress and the clever-but-tasty King of Tyrania in every tavern and inn on the Western Continent. I'll recite the ode of the shrewd rogue that survived a decade in the dungeons, dodging death, disease and selection for the gladiator arena at every turn. I'll even sing the sad ballad of the escaped palace slave that was hunted down and burned alive within the day, just for wanting to be free.
:elan: But I will never - ever - tell the story of the general that secretly ruled three empires.

:elan: At best, you'll be the clown whose pants keep falling down during the annual children's play.
:elan: At worst, you'll just be... forgotten.

T: Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!

I love how Tarquin in this scenario objected more to being forgotten than being known as a clown.:smallbiggrin:

You know what would be cool? If Tarquin killed Xykon via deus ex machina, winked at the viewers, and then drove off in a luxury car with two European models while screaming "I win everything! Take that, forum hatedom!"

And thus, the forum exploded. What have you done?!?!:smalltongue:

An interesting question is: Why exactly do so many people hate Tarquin so much? I mean, Tarquin is a villian, but he's one of the lesser villians as far as Evil is concerned, compared to skrell like Xykon or Redcloak or Kubota. It seems to me that he's about the same level of wrong as Nale, and there doesn't seem to be a huge section of rabid Nale-haters on the forums (though maybe I just missed them post.)

I actually did dislike Kubota because I saw him as an annoying nobody villain without charm who was getting in the way of the good stuff.

Tarquin however is a villain I enjoy.

Actually, there is a moderately-sized segment of Nale-haters on the forum. They pop up whenever he's doing well, which is why we haven't seen much of them lately.

True. That said, I find Nale entertaining.