Tarquin Vs. Xykon

[BronyHeresy]

So, I was doing some thinking, and this is what I've come up with:

Tarquin really has no vested interest in trying to seize the gate so that he can take over the world. Look at it this way: Xykon is trying to seize the gate and take over the world why? Because that's what villains do, and he wants to be as villainy as he can.

But what about Tarquin? Tarquin is decidedly NOT trying to conquer the world, for the simple reason that he HAS to fail. The laws of Drama simply do not allow a villain to take over the world, unless it's supposed to be a deconstructive work, or a Downer ending of sorts. As we know, the Order of the Stick runs 50% on funny, so unless we assume that the End of the World is funny enough, the Order of the Stick is not going to have a downer ending, even if it's not a 100% win on the part of the heroes.

However, from a non-dramatic point of view, the Order is nowhere near strong enough to stop Xykon from winning in a straight up fight, which it is going to come down to.

Now, Tarquin is Genre Savvy enough to realize these facts, (as well as knowing about Xykon, via Nale) so my proposal is that he is in fact attempting to get close to the gate so that he and the Order can stop Xykon together, thus keeping the current story going, and prolonging the amount of time that he gets to rule his little corner of the world. So, we will eventually have Team Tarquin (as well as Nale, who I don't really consider to be part of Team Tarquin, and Sabine, who I'm fairly certain also has plans for keeping Xykon from straight up winning, due to orders from the IFCC) in addition to the Order. Of course, this won't stop the Gate from self-destructing, and forcing them to Kraagor's gate in the end, but it'll still give us some rather nice developments.

If I'm right, I'm curious to see how the Order will react to Tarquin's plans, especially considering the fact that Malack murdered Durkon.

Thoughts?

[mrzomby]

While sabine doesn't want xykon to win she doesn't really want him to lose either(until he is pretty much forcing the issue), the IFCC want needless conflict to drag on for as long as possible.
Also, nale didn't know that much about xykon, so he didn't give THAT much information to tarquin, although he may have been able to piece a lot of things together based on what he heard.

[skim172]

Tarquin really has no vested interest in trying to seize the gate so that he can take over the world. Look at it this way: Xykon is trying to seize the gate and take over the world why? Because that's what villains do, and he wants to be as villainy as he can.

But what about Tarquin? Tarquin is decidedly NOT trying to conquer the world, for the simple reason that he HAS to fail. The laws of Drama simply do not allow a villain to take over the world, unless it's supposed to be a deconstructive work, or a Downer ending of sorts. As we know, the Order of the Stick runs 50% on funny, so unless we assume that the End of the World is funny enough, the Order of the Stick is not going to have a downer ending, even if it's not a 100% win on the part of the heroes.

Based on what evidence? Yes, Tarquin is enamored with the idea of his glorious downfall, to go down like a Hitler or a Stalin into history, but that hardly means he's put a cap on his ambitions. In fact, it's quite the opposite - he wants to achieve the glory of being the great evil emperor. He's specifically said he intends on conquering the entire continent, so territorial domination definitely gives him a chubby.

Ultimately, his goal is his own self-aggrandizement and glory - to build himself up as the biggest and most evil and powerful and celebrated villain ever before being brought down in a climactic battle for the future by his hero son.

In fact, I disagree with you - Xykon does not seek conquest "because that's what villains do." No, Xykon is driven by an intense hatred and animus for all sickeningly warm, organic life - all he likes anymore is to see things die.

BUT - Tarquin does. "Because that's what villains do, and he wants to be as villainy as he can" is a perfect description of everything that's pushing Tarky. Because the bigger the villain he is, the worse the atrocities he commits, the grander the breadth of his conquest and power, then the more dramatic will be the climax and his defeat, and the greater his legend.

Tarquin is a villain, for villainy's sake. His is far from a limited vision - his ambitions are as vast as he can achieve. His self-awareness is not the same as humility - his egoism is stronger than perhaps anyone else in the entire cast, except for maybe Nale.

I'm curious - Why do people assume Tarquin is has no interest in the Gate?
Why else would he be after the Gate?

People seem to assume that since he's such a "cool guy", he would totally fight for the good cause and has no ulteriror motive. I think he very much has a goal in mind and any sort of unlikely alliance would be a temporary arrangement with the intent of betraying the Order as soon it benefited him.

[AngryHobbit]

If there's one Fighter that can do serious damage to Xykon, it's Tarquin. He is crazy prepared, veteran adventurer. He must have a lot protection from "how convinient" rings, and Xykon is a "hit it until it dies" kind of guy. If there was no Redcloak to remind him that ghosts get lesser damage from elemental spells, he would already be killed by Soon and Ghost Paladins by now. But Tarquin still has a little chance to make it. 30%-70%, but that's just my opinion.

BTW OOTS joining Team Tarquin to fight Xykon threads are becoming tiresome. I mean, did you all see their reaction when they found out Durkon was vamped?



In fact, I disagree with you - Xykon does not seek conquest "because that's what villains do." No, Xykon is driven by an intense hatred and animus for all sickeningly warm, organic life - all he likes anymore is to see things die.


And that's why we love him :smallbiggrin:

[Silverionmox]

Tarquin may or may not have vested interest in taking over the world, but at this point he's in an adventuring group trying to obtain control over it. Given that Xykon is trying to do the same, we'll soon see them clash. Which is convenient, since the Order is outgunned, outnumbered, battered and dispersed.

[Sky_Schemer]

Based on what evidence? Yes, Tarquin is enamored with the idea of his glorious downfall, to go down like a Hitler or a Stalin into history, but that hardly means he's put a cap on his ambitions.

Based on his own words (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0758.html) he just wants to rule his continent.

Now, that may have changed since learning of the gate, but he has yet to reveal what his plans are.

[Rorrik]

Xykon ruling the world conflicts with Tarquin's plans no matter what, whether they are rule the continent or rule the world.

But Xykon and Tarquin are not to different. Remember how Xykon has been coaching MitD and training him for the big reveal? He's got a dramatic flair too. In fact, I think Tarquin is almost sure to be present for the reveal of MitD if only to express his appreciation for the reveal. That said, they will not, probably, get along. Malack and Xykon may be a different story.

[Raineh Daze]

Malack and Xykon may be a different story.

How do you figure that one? I get the impression they'd get along even worse. :smallconfused:

[AngryHobbit]

How do you figure that one? I get the impression they'd get along even worse. :smallconfused:

I second this. Only similarity between the two is that they are both dead.

[goodyarn]

I second this. Only similarity between the two is that they are both dead.

Xykon told Roy in strip #442 that he won't destroy the world unless he gets really bored. Which means if he does get really bored, he might. And destroying the world arguably would please Malack's god of death Nergal.

And yes, this ignores what the Snarl actually does as opposed to what Xykon and Malack think it does. All I'm saying is, given the right circumstances, these two might both agree that destroying the world is a good idea.

[Raineh Daze]

Xykon told Roy in strip #442 that he won't destroy the world unless he gets really bored. Which means if he does get really bored, he might. And destroying the world arguably would please Malack's god of death Nergal.

I don't see how you can argue that destroying the world would please one of the people that helped make it. Nergal isn't one of the species-created gods that found their way to divinity, he's part of the Western pantheon.

Also, that means no sacrifices. Which would displease him. Can't imagine he'd appreciate the huge jump in workload for a few days, either.

[AngryHobbit]

And destroying the world arguably would please Malack's god of death Nergal.

If there's no life (destroying the world), what is the purpose of God of Death?

[Rorrik]

How do you figure that one? I get the impression they'd get along even worse. :smallconfused:

I agree that they disagree in many ways, but they are also both more pleased with their undeath than their life. Xykon considers it staying in the game, Malack considers his living self a fool.

You're right, though, I'm confused why I said that. A lich, by it's very nature of being a self-created undead runs contrary to the god of death. Maybe I was thinking Xykon would also think it was fun to watch thousands die daily in Malack's empire of Nergal?

Here's an unlikely plot twist for you: Xykon identifies with Malack on an undead level and decides to try to use him to replace Redcloak.

[goodyarn]

I don't see how you can argue that destroying the world would please one of the people that helped make it. Nergal isn't one of the species-created gods that found their way to divinity, he's part of the Western pantheon.

Also, that means no sacrifices. Which would displease him. Can't imagine he'd appreciate the huge jump in workload for a few days, either.

Perhaps Nergel is like Hel, who does not get to have sacrifices and followers. Perhaps Nergel, being a destroyer, did not have a hand in the world's creation. Maybe all Nergel wants is to have death beat life. I don't know, I am not well versed in the nuances of Nergel worship, or The Giant's interpretation thereof. However, I do have it on good authority that Nergel is looking forward to Malack's daily ritualized mass murder. So...killing everyone all at once? I think it's possible that Nergel might like that.

[Raineh Daze]

Perhaps Nergel is like Hel, who does not get to have sacrifices and followers. Perhaps Nergel, being a destroyer, did not have a hand in the world's creation. Maybe all Nergel wants is to have death beat life. I don't know, I am not well versed in the nuances of Nergel worship, or The Giant's interpretation thereof. However, I do have it on good authority that Nergel is looking forward to Malack's daily ritualized mass murder. So...killing everyone all at once? I think it's possible that Nergel might like that.

The gods took turns in making the world. Why would Nergal have shown up to the party if he wouldn't have been allowed in?

Ritualised mass murder gives greater returns in the long run, as well as not getting all the other gods angry with you. I suppose it's the difference between a lifetime of good food, and eating so much your gut explodes all over the dinner table.

[goodyarn]

The gods took turns in making the world. Why would Nergal have shown up to the party if he wouldn't have been allowed in?


Do we know that he showed up? I haven't seen a strip with him in it.



Ritualised mass murder gives greater returns in the long run, as well as not getting all the other gods angry with you. I suppose it's the difference between a lifetime of good food, and eating so much your gut explodes all over the dinner table.

Assuming that what Nergel does is eat souls. (I wonder what that would make Malack?) Maybe he does something else. As I said, maybe all he wants is for death to beat life. I have seen gods of death, in fiction if nowhere else, who wanted all life to end.

[Raineh Daze]

Do we know that he showed up? I haven't seen a strip with him in it.

Yes, because otherwise he wouldn't be in the Western pantheon? Seems a fairly basic step: anyone of identifiable mythological origins in a pantheon (and the Western pantheon is basically the Fertile Crescent) was there when it was made. Or are we assuming there are only five North gods, because they're the ones to show up? :smallconfused:


Assuming that what Nergel does is eat souls. (I wonder what that would make Malack?) Maybe he does something else. As I said, maybe all he wants is for death to beat life. I have seen gods of death, in fiction if nowhere else, who wanted all life to end.

The possibility that he wants the end of all life is hardly a bonding reason for Malack and Xykon. As people, I can't imagine them peacefully coexisting in a room.

[Procyonpi]

With a title like this, I'm sorta surprised Kish hasn't commented yet.

[Kish]

I really do prefer not to rain on other people's parades usually.

(As long as they don't think I'm talking about shipping.)

I do not believe Xykon would get along well with any member of Tarquin's party. First, he would, even more than Nale, mock Malack for being an uptight corpse-in-the-mud. Then, all his relationships are extremely Xykon-centric. No area with Xykon in it has room for more than one ego; to coexist with him, you annihilate your own ego, as Redcloak and Tsukiko did (albeit very differently), or you die--as Redcloak's brother, Roy, and so many others did.

[MaximKat]

Was there really a need to create a new thread, when the previous one is still on the first page?

[goodyarn]

Yes, because otherwise he wouldn't be in the Western pantheon? Seems a fairly basic step: anyone of identifiable mythological origins in a pantheon (and the Western pantheon is basically the Fertile Crescent) was there when it was made. Or are we assuming there are only five North gods, because they're the ones to show up? :smallconfused:


Being there (aka "showing up") when the universe was made is different from either creating it or wanting it to exist. As I said, there are death gods in fiction if nowhere else who wish to see the universe die.


The possibility that he wants the end of all life is hardly a bonding reason for Malack and Xykon. As people, I can't imagine them peacefully coexisting in a room.

Says you. You may allow your personal feelings towards someone else to trump what your death god wants you to do. But that is not the way of a faithful cleric. And no offense, but this is the problem with the younger generation of evil minions. It's all "Why does the black ritual have to take place right at midnight? I'm barely awake by then. 2am is much more convenient for me." It's just disgusting. In my day, a god's wishes came first and if it served His unholy purposes for you to sing the entire score of "The Sound of Music" to an auditorium full of orphans then you got up on that stage and you sang!

Sorry, I got off on a rant there -- it's a subject that I feel strongly about.

All I'm saying is that a Xykon/Malack alliance could happen, not that it will. It certainly wouldn't be the first time a character has made a surprising choice in this strip.

[Olinser]

Was there really a need to create a new thread, when the previous one is still on the first page?

I was thinking the same thing.

[Copperdragon]

I think the premise is flawed: Tarquin would very much like to rule the entire world. He only lacks a way to do it.

He's just the right type of villain who'd attempt to grap any superweapon he can find. It's even worse: Given what he knows he has no choice at all but to attempt to grab it - the consequence of not doing it would be that some other villain has it, which would be bad for him.

Tarquin might be able to share power but Xykon very much is not. There's no "Xykon and Tarquin" anywhere on the radar, not even as the slightest possible blimp at the outer rim.

[AngryHobbit]

I have seen gods of death, in fiction if nowhere else, who wanted all life to end.

Hades, from Greek mythology, unlike his Disney and Clash of the Titans counterpart, is the only male god who is not a Jerkass.

[Raineh Daze]

Hades, from Greek mythology, unlike his Disney and Clash of the Titans counterpart, is the only male god who is not a Jerkass.

Strictly speaking, Thanatos is God of Death, Hades just has the underworld.

[hamishspence]

Hades, from Greek mythology, unlike his Disney and Clash of the Titans counterpart, is the only male god who is not a Jerkass.

Persephone might take exception to that characterization.

[Mr.Rictus]

Still, gods of Death and Destruction are not necessarily considered "evil" per se. Though Hel is the goddess of the underworld of the dishonored dead, Odin is also associated with death (and war). Osiris is also a god of the underworld, and a good one at that. As it has already been said, Hades was mostly a decent guy as far as Greek gods go (the exception here being the incident with Persephone.)
Though it can hardly be treated in the classical sense, the "Death" and "Destruction" of the Sandman series were considered vital for the possibility of change, and did not at all seek out the end of all life. (Though they knew it was an inevitable end eventually).

So really, there are MORE examples of "good" gods of death and destruction than "bad" ones in history, and the negative connotations are mostly a recent tendency of western culture.

To sum up, Nergal MAY like the end of the world, but probably not. And Malack is a vastly different person than Xykon, and would be hard-pressed finding common ground with him. The only way Malack would go along with him is if he was directly commanded by his deity. Malack and Redcloak, on the other hand, have much more potential for an interesting conversation.

[Olinser]

Persephone might take exception to that characterization.

Kidnapping 1 girl and making her your wife/queen is choir boy behavior compared to Zeus 'anything that moves and a lot of things that don't'.

Or things like Athena turning a girl into the Medusa for having the audacity to be raped by Poseidon in her temple.

And in some stories Persephone actually was begging somebody to get her away from her mother - and Hades obliged.

[hamishspence]

And in some stories Persephone actually was begging somebody to get her away from her mother - and Hades obliged.

Which ones were those?

[Mutant Sheep]

Considering how Persephone was unwilling to eat there, I'm going on a limb and saying it wasn't exactly a volentary kidnapping. Kidnapping people makes you a jerkass. Less of one than the guy who sleeps with every woman ever? Maybe. But still a jerkass.

[hamishspence]

Stories evolve over time as well- originally, Medusa was one of three Gorgon sisters, all of which were snake-haired and winged. The only different thing about her was that she was mortal, whereas the other two were immortal.

[ReaderAt2046]

Persephone might take exception to that characterization.

She's actually pretty loyal to Hades. Recently, she went and built him a magic Sword Of Death in secret, even Hades didn't know until she finished it.

[JCAll]

Kidnapping 1 girl and making her your wife/queen is choir boy behavior compared to Zeus 'anything that moves and a lot of things that don't'.

Or things like Athena turning a girl into the Medusa for having the audacity to be raped by Poseidon in her temple.

And in some stories Persephone actually was begging somebody to get her away from her mother - and Hades obliged.

Let's face it, it's Greek. She woulda been kidnapped by someone eventually, and probably raped and murdered for her trouble.

Hades is at least a decent enough guy, and wasn't too much of a jerkass about the whole kidnapping/forced proposal thing. Plus, as Hades wife none of the other gods would dare hurt her.

[Rig]

I really do prefer not to rain on other people's parades usually.

(As long as they don't think I'm talking about shipping.)

I do not believe Xykon would get along well with any member of Tarquin's party. First, he would, even more than Nale, mock Malack for being an uptight corpse-in-the-mud. Then, all his relationships are extremely Xykon-centric. No area with Xykon in it has room for more than one ego; to coexist with him, you annihilate your own ego, as Redcloak and Tsukiko did (albeit very differently), or you die--as Redcloak's brother, Roy, and so many others did.

It was a joke, let it drop :P. I expect there to be an interesting dynamic between Xykon and Malack, if only because we get whammed by what it mean's for Malack to be that old. Also! High level priest of death god with a penchant for lethal loopholes and a form of undead who can both feel sensations and has overcome it's disadvantages to rub salt in the wound! Against a admittedly far more powerful royally pissed to the extent of perhaps having actually planned and prepared Lich! Nothing could go wrong here! Absolutely no room for bater, either.

Another thing. Enough with the Xykon desires to crush hateful life and such is his endgame. Sure, it's one reason for his murders. But it is not even close to his endgame. The comparison between Tarquin and Xykon is apt in my eyes. I highly doubt that Xykon ignores both the plot reasons why he must lose and the many, many obstacles that could resoundingly deal with even his Epic level bones with said bones. It's been mentioned that he regularly disappears, and it's worth mentioning that we've never seem him well prepared and at his best.

Similarly, Tarquin has no illusions about either beating Xykon (though assuredly inconveniencing him), and if he thinks he can use the gates (or whatever the hell it is they're guarding), it will be with third party's taken into account. The first thing i think he's made sure is going for him is being irreplaceable. If he dies then the continent goes to hell, who knows what comes out of the woodwork and suddenly there's no such thing as a well-kept and amusing desert even for Xykon. He'll survive this through pulling a redcloak on the redcloaked, and the best part is he's not even nominally working for you. It will be a magnificent bastard of a scheme, of a moment. :D.

[martianmister]

Let's face it, it's Greek. She woulda been kidnapped by someone eventually, and probably raped and murdered for her trouble.

Hades is at least a decent enough guy, and wasn't too much of a jerkass about the whole kidnapping/forced proposal thing. Plus, as Hades wife none of the other gods would dare hurt her.

Contrary to popular belief, greek gods are not rapists. (well, most of time)

[Mr.Rictus]

Contrary to popular belief, greek gods are not rapists. (well, most of time)

.......
You're kidding, right? It's mostly zeus, but he's done it plenty of times...

[martianmister]

.......
You're kidding, right? It's mostly zeus, but he's done it plenty of times...

He seduced them.

[Kish]

Right, that's why the descriptions of the "seductions" include details on them screaming, trying to run, Zeus overpowering them, and so on.

[137beth]

Also, while Zeus switched between straight up assault and seduction, Apollo went more the route of "chase the girl down and tackle her."

[martianmister]

Right, that's why the descriptions of the "seductions" include details on them screaming, trying to run, Zeus overpowering them, and so on.

Antiope? Maybe. Rest? No.

[happycrow]

Also, while Zeus switched between straight up assault and seduction, Apollo went more the route of "chase the girl down and tackle her."

To the point that becoming a tree was a better alternative. Yup. Apollo might seem good-guy-ish if you're rooting for Troy, but his perspective on humanity in the Iliad is jerkass-squared.

Balance the whole Persephone kidnapping with "the Orpheus affair." Hades is movable by pity: there is no other Olympian deity (as opposed to various small-time river deities and demigoddesses) in that pantheon who is.

[Grim Reader]

Wasn't kidnapping a mortal courting behavior at the time? And Hades married her. Not up to the standards of today by any means, but by the standard of the time and his culture, it seems pretty good.

[AngryHobbit]

Interesting, around 50% of the Thread is off-topic. :smallsmile: