Has Redcloak achieved what Tarquin wanted?

[Emulgator]

Or in other words - is he a legend already?
His beginnings in SOD certainly could help to bulid a myth around him, and his creation of a nation helps too. Given that he's propably considered the force behind it, has he already earned his place in history books, in case the Plan fails? Or is he considered a new era Dark One by the Goblins already? Not just one of many legends, but an epic tale that will live through the generations?

Cause it seems to me, that Tarquin's worlds about being a Hero or a Legend apply more to Redcloak than him. Even future historicians would propably know Redcloak dealings more, than Tarquin's shadowy based schemes.

So?

[Mike Havran]

Not only that. If Gobbotopia survives recent events and will continue to thrive, Redcloak might very well become a demigod or a second goblin deity (providing he's not consumed by Snarl).

Tarquin's primary focus is on living life of power and luxury, becoming a legend is just a welcome bonus.

[The_Tentacle]

He did get quite a following among the goblinoids, didn't he. I wouldn't be surprised if he did ascend to godhood.

And hardly anyone knows Tarquin. It seems like the flaw in his plan is that he doesn't actually rule, so no one knows him among the common people. But maybe he will announce himself ruler or something? In any case, Redcloak is much cooler and legendary than Tarquin.

[Gift Jeraff]

He did get quite a following among the goblinoids, didn't he. I wouldn't be surprised if he did ascend to godhood.

And hardly anyone knows Tarquin. It seems like the flaw in his plan is that he doesn't actually rule, so no one knows him among the common people. But maybe he will announce himself ruler or something? In any case, Redcloak is much cooler and legendary than Tarquin.

As stated above, it's not his primary goal so it's not like he needs a big plan on how to spread his name posthumously. He just assumes it will spread somehow--be it Elan or his allies, witnesses to their dramatic duel, or whatever.

Plus he's not totally unknown: he has that statue, Malack is going to make him a bigger statue, his name is all over the guards' manuals, big state events are held for his personal life, etc.

[Incom]

I wonder if Tarquin has ever changed his name? Would help keep the illusion of change going.

On the subject of gobbotheosis, wouldn't it be a little weird for Redcloak, who is a cleric of a god, to become one?

[Roland Itiative]

Tarquin's (secondary) plan is not to become a legend because of all the conquering he did, it's to become a legend by being defeated by a hero after all that. For a hero to truly overthrow him, he'll have to expose him first.

[FlawedParadigm]

I wonder if Tarquin has ever changed his name? Would help keep the illusion of change going.

On the subject of gobbotheosis, wouldn't it be a little weird for Redcloak, who is a cleric of a god, to become one?

Me, I think it'd be weirder that non-Clerics can become deities. After all, isn't being a Cleric like practise for the job?

[Thrax]

On the subject of gobbotheosis, wouldn't it be a little weird for Redcloak, who is a cleric of a god, to become one?

Not at all, one good way of becoming a god is getting a divine ally and significant power - and shortest way for that is being a cleric. I mean, what else are exarchs if not the divine level clerics of their deity?

[Rakoa]

On the subject of Clerics and Godhood, I recall Gods having their own tiering systems and little pantheon of powerful followers who are still considered gods in their own right, but also still follow their more powerful god. They could well have been Clerics before, and likely were.

[Finagle]

One little problem - Redcloak needs to cause millions of humans to die in order to ascend to godhood. He's barely above 10,000 deaths at this point. He's got a long way to go and a short time to get there.

[Mike Havran]

One little problem - Redcloak needs to cause millions of humans to die in order to ascend to godhood.

Why does he need the kills?

[The Pilgrim]

One little problem - Redcloak needs to cause millions of humans to die in order to ascend to godhood. He's barely above 10,000 deaths at this point. He's got a long way to go and a short time to get there.

Not at all. The Dark One ascended after just 1 million humans killed in his name. The elven gods, on the other hand, aren't likely to have ascended by the slaughter of a million sentient beings in their honor, but out of cult by the elves.

[Finagle]

Why does he need the kills?
Start of Darkness spoilers:

It's the proven route to godhood. Goblinoids murdered over one million humans in a single year and this was enough to propel The Dark One into a pantheon of one. If he's to have another deity to join him, what should a Lawful Evil high priest do? Try to convert millions to his religion through good works? Haha. No. Genocide is much easier. Plus, those filthy humans are the ones who birthed the paladins who killed goblins for the crime of simply setting off their "detect evil" radar. We know for a fact that Redcloak "does not give a damn about human [deaths]". (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0708.html)

How, exactly, do we know the Elves did not also engage in genocide to raise their own gods? It's not supported by canon. The entire story of The Dark One and the Elven Gods is told by Redcloak who is a highly biased narrator. In fact, what we know of the Elves says that they have no problem with cold-blooded murder of goblinoids. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0707.html)

[hamishspence]

If Redcloak's a biased narrator:

wouldn't one expect it to be the other way round- with him claiming the elven gods rose via genocide, when in fact, they rose via earning the respect of all the elves?

Redcloak being biased in favor of the elven gods- portraying their rise as not genocidal when in fact it was- doesn't make much sense.

[Finagle]

Imperfect information. Why should The Dark One spill the beans to mere mortals? He's got bigger plans, that require that people do things that they're assigned to do, without asking questions. It is enough that they serve his requirements, what with being his worshipers and all. Plus, the "evil" thing leaps to mind again.

[jumpoffduck]

Millions of deaths aren't necessary to ascend to godhood. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0137.html)

[B. Dandelion]

We know for a fact that Redcloak "does not give a damn about human [deaths]". (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0708.html)

He possibly doesn't, but in the strip ISTM the hobgoblin guard mistakenly thought when Redcloak asked how many were lost, he wanted to know how many humans had escaped in the jailbreak, which Redcloak thought was a trivial concern compared to the dead hobgoblins.

Which I found sorta ironic since in context it suggests his priorities were towards grief rather than vengeance, which wouldn't much help your point...

[Finagle]

Err, ok I guess it wasn't adequately explained. Redcloak is a speciesist who cares for his own kind above all others. I suppose the "I don't give a damn about humans" comment was lost on this audience. Substitute a paladin saying "I don't give a damn about goblins" if you have any trouble understanding.

[B. Dandelion]

Err, ok I guess it wasn't adequately explained. Redcloak is a speciesist who cares for his own kind above all others. I suppose the "I don't give a damn about humans" comment was lost on this audience. Substitute a paladin saying "I don't give a damn about goblins" if you have any trouble understanding.

I'm simply supplying the correct context. "I don't give a damn about humans [escaping]" is not the same as "I don't give a damn about humans [dying]," and you explicitly tried to pass that quote off as the latter. It's disingenuous of you to try and play this off as my misconception, you didn't have to say what I quoted, where you put "[deaths]" in Redcloak's statement where it hadn't been. You wanted us to read a context that was not there, and I disputed it.

[Finagle]

OK, I guess Redcloak is not a speciesist then. Go humans!

[B. Dandelion]

OK, I guess Redcloak is not a speciesist then.

That is quite obviously not an assertion I ever made.

I regret misinterpreting your intention. I thought you just might have misinterpreted the scene. It's easy enough to do, so I thought I'd present the alternate interpretation that I think makes more sense. But your response has been to insult and strawman me, so clearly there's no point to continuing this particular conversation.

[The Pilgrim]

While Redcloak, indeed, is a speciesist (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0451.html), he also seems reluctant to kill humans just for the LuLz (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0547.html).

Unlike Xykon or Tarquin, Redcloak isn't a "bonafide True Evil with a capital E" villain, but an "evil for a good cause crap" one. (Or, in more dignified words, Redcloak is not a true monster but a tragic villain).

[Math_Mage]

What Tarquin wants is stability and control. Redcloak has neither, and isn't likely to get either anytime soon. From the perspective of achieving Tarquin's goals, Redcloak is a failure.

Which is why Redcloak is Redcloak, and Tarquin is Tarquin. Different characters, different dreams, different plans, different results.

[B. Dandelion]

I was thinking if Redcloak did become a legend as a result of founding Gobbotopia, the kind of legend he'd become wouldn't exactly be what Tarquin had been talking about himself. Tarquin liked the idea of ruling over a nation with an iron fist for decades, while being in the lap of luxury, which would inspire people to follow in his footsteps later. It seems like Redcloak would be remembered more as this kinda mysterious guy who came out of nowhere, was known only by a pseudonym, led an army to victory and established a nation, and then a mere year later went off on his own again -- and of course if we expect the good guys to win as Tarquin does, that would be the last anybody ever heard of him. If he gained a successor, it would be through the Crimson Mantle and the desire to finish the last project he failed to complete. Which altogether is kind of a cool story, but not necessarily something Tarquin would shoot for.

I'm not sure his exploits with the Gates would necessarily become well-known. A lot of people want to keep that whole business under wraps, and although Jirix seems to know about it, Redcloak doesn't talk about it himself to the masses when he gives his farewell speech, he just talks vaguely about enemies of the goblin nation that need to be brought to heel. In a way, that's good for him, since if you were to evaluate Redcloak based on his success in capturing a Gate, you probably wouldn't consider him "legendary", unless the legend was one of repeated failure.

[rodneyAnonymous]

Has Redcloak achieved what Tarquin wanted?

Or in other words - is he a legend already?

One is famous and the other wants to be, but for completely different reasons.

[Thrax]

Start of Darkness spoilers:

It's the proven route to godhood. Goblinoids murdered over one million humans in a single year and this was enough to propel The Dark One into a pantheon of one. If he's to have another deity to join him, what should a Lawful Evil high priest do? Try to convert millions to his religion through good works? Haha. No. Genocide is much easier. Plus, those filthy humans are the ones who birthed the paladins who killed goblins for the crime of simply setting off their "detect evil" radar. We know for a fact that Redcloak "does not give a damn about human [deaths]". (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0708.html)

How, exactly, do we know the Elves did not also engage in genocide to raise their own gods? It's not supported by canon. The entire story of The Dark One and the Elven Gods is told by Redcloak who is a highly biased narrator. In fact, what we know of the Elves says that they have no problem with cold-blooded murder of goblinoids. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0707.html)

It wasn't the slaughter that elevated him to godhood, it was the reverence of other goblinoids. That's how it works in D&D in general, and it seems to fit in this situation, so there's no reason to make up a new rule.

[dps]

What Tarquin wants is to rule a continent (but he'll settle for a legendary failled attempt to do so). Redcloak isn't really interested in that, and is no where near it anyway.

[skim172]

I think both will be remembered, but in different ways. Redcloak's legacy is akin to that of a national founding hero - his status is in relation to historical accomplishments of his nation. He's like a Washington or a Garibaldi or a Nebuchadnezzar or an Augustus. Strongly tied to the individual history of his civilization, and a legacy that is essentially political.

Tarquin certainly wouldn't mind that, but his aspirations for his legacy are much more transcendental. He wants to be a villain of legend, rather than history - he wants to become myth over man. While the national hero does have a mythos built up of their own, it purports to be historical and true, and is largely tied to social identity. Whereas the legendary villain is universally feared and viewed with awe. Like Julius Caesar or Vlad the Impaler. Genghis Khan and the fear he raised throughout Eurasia might be an example - in real life, not quite the monster that he became in the popular imagination. Rasputin has carved out a niche as a villain, though perhaps a little too small scale for Tarq's grand dreams. Stalin and Hitler are two emphatic modern examples, setting aside the minority of ultra-nationalist crackpots that still think they were decent guys.