Tarquin: Oddly Mortal Perspective

[Reathin]

Alright, I don't start too many threads, but something just occured to me. Tarquin really likes the idea of ruling his empire. While he's accepted the price he's likely to pay in the end, he's in no particular rush to meet it. He's not super old, but even Malack comments that he's past his prime. But one of his closest friends is a vampire. You know what's better than living like a god, ruling with an iron fist? Being an immortal that lives like a god, ruling with an iron fist. It's not like he doesn't trust Malack, and is genre savvy enough to counter the possibility that the thralldom would not be released if he was worried about that. They seem to get along quite well, and Malack comments that he's missed dealing with his own kind. Why not someone who's already proven a close friend? The whole "orderly destruction, sacrificing a thousand every day" thing can still totally go on. "Bloodstone Correctional Facility Games: Brought to you by Nergal.." Or something.

The only downside in my head is that Tarquin doesn't seem to have divine caster levels, so he might not be able to cast Protection from Sunlight on himself. But surely there's a way around that? Is there any reason Tarquin's much desired legend can't take place while he's still alive?

[Gift Jeraff]

Maybe vampires can't have regular food? OOTS vampires don't get aroused? Malack finds the thought weird (he didn't have the sibling revelation until very recently)? He just likes being a mortal? Protection from Daylight can just be dispelled so that's not compelling enough for him? He knows people fear vampires, and loves being loved by the public? He personally finds vampires ugly? He loves looking at himself in the mirror? He likes garlic? Swimming in running water?

I can think of a lot of reasons.

[Kish]

Tarquin has enough Genre Savvy to know that "and the villain lived happily and brutally ever after" doesn't happen.

Becoming a vampire would not change the fact that he cannot last forever. It would probably shorten his existence, in fact; "The Empress of Blood's wicked-but-kind-of-doofy human general" is likely to be a lower-priority target in most stories than "The Empress of Blood's vampire general." And also...

In a story in which, of the group of evil adventurers, two are vampires, and one turned the other? Clearly, the one who turned the other one into a vampire is a more powerful, central, and important character in every way. Tarquin does not want the story of his life to be a "before Malack bit him" footnote in The Legend of Malack's Bloody Reign.

[Mr.Rictus]

There could indeed be a lot of reasons. He could consider that becoming a vampire would just create another creature similar to him, not make him longer-lived. Or that he wants to die a man (being evil doesn't mean one wants to become undead, it just helps)

However, I'm going to dispute the argument that the sire is more important than the child, as there are many counter-examples, both from Buffy, Interview with a Vampire... I could go on.
Still, it could be an ego thing as well. He doesn't want to be beholden to anybody, and just die as "Tarquin, that epic human general" (not epic-level, but you get the idea^^)

[Kish]

However, I'm going to dispute the argument that the sire is more important than the child, as there are many counter-examples, both from Buffy,
Not that I'd want to be arguing the case that Spike is more important on Buffy and...um, that other TV show, whatever its name is...than Angel is, but please don't cut out a part of what I said and "dispute" it as if it was the whole of what I said.


of the group of evil adventurers, two are vampires, and one turned the other?
Tarquin could avoid being completely overshadowed by Malack by opposing Malack the way Spike and Angel were enemies for most of their time onscreen. But it's abundantly obvious why he would not want to do that.

[dps]

Maybe the man just really likes his wine.

Or his women. It's not clear it it's the case in the OotS-verse, but in many vampire stories, you can't any longer have normal sexual relations after becoming a vampire.

[KillianHawkeye]

Not that I'd want to be arguing the case that Spike is more important on Buffy and...um, that other TV show, whatever its name is...than Angel is, but please don't cut out a part of what I said and "dispute" it as if it was the whole of what I said.

Tarquin could avoid being completely overshadowed by Malack by opposing Malack the way Spike and Angel were enemies for most of their time onscreen. But it's abundantly obvious why he would not want to do that.

Regardless, Angel is Spike's grandsire, not his direct sire. Also, Spike was only ever able to pose a challenge to Angel, not Angelus.

[Snails]

There could indeed be a lot of reasons. He could consider that becoming a vampire would just create another creature similar to him, not make him longer-lived. Or that he wants to die a man (being evil doesn't mean one wants to become undead, it just helps)

That is a good point. It is not clear that one becomes undead or an undead is created with all your memories.

Malack points out the other side of the coin. Resurrecting him would bring back another person, who may happen to have two centuries of confusing memories that include the murder of his close family (or perhaps not?), but it would be an annihilation of person who he is now.

[Shred-Bot]

Also, in OOTS-verse, the afterlife is a relatively predictable and well-known quantity, and you can plane shift over and take a look. So it's quite possible that Tarquin has seen what awaits him after death, and finds it preferable to being a vampire/other undead on the material plane. (The Great Tyrannical Dictatorship in the Sky, perhaps?)

If it's structured anything like the LG afterlife, he's probably really looking forward to the Chapel of Unwilling Matrimony

[Reathin]

That is a good point. It is not clear that one becomes undead or an undead is created with all your memories.

Malack points out the other side of the coin. Resurrecting him would bring back another person, who may happen to have two centuries of confusing memories that include the murder of his close family (or perhaps not?), but it would be an annihilation of person who he is now.

I always interpreted Malack's statement to mean he considers his vampirism a big part of who he is. If he came back to life, his memory and personality would not be different, save for any changes made to adjust for his changed biological needs. Or at least, that's how I see it.

Anyway, the known nature of the afterlife doesn't really help him much. He's not so poorly informed or stupid to not know he'll end up in the Hells, and he's also smart enough not to assume they'll make his afterlife there anywhere near comfortable. As Xykon says, anything to avoid the Great Fire Below. Not believing in the nature of Evil doesn't really make his fate any more pleasant.

[Shred-Bot]

I always interpreted Malack's statement to mean he considers his vampirism a big part of who he is. If he came back to life, his memory and personality would not be different, save for any changes made to adjust for his changed biological needs. Or at least, that's how I see it.

Anyway, the known nature of the afterlife doesn't really help him much. He's not so poorly informed or stupid to not know he'll end up in the Hells, and he's also smart enough not to assume they'll make his afterlife there anywhere near comfortable. As Xykon says, anything to avoid the Great Fire Below. Not believing in the nature of Evil doesn't really make his fate any more pleasant.

Well, it helps him as far as being able to decide whether or not it would be better or worse than being undead... a vague underworld of unspecified torment would probably give him more incentive to become undead than one where he knows approximately what is coming. (Incidentally, it's possible that Xykon doesn't actually have any idea what lies ahead in the afterlife... he was never studious or much for planning ahead, and as a lich he has less incentive than ever to check it out.)

[Thrillhouse]

Everything Tarquin's said so far suggests to me that he simply isn't afraid of death. He's more concerned about the QUALITY of his existence than the QUANTITY(time) of it. Think of his philisophy as the opposite of the one Xykon expresses--he's not going to try and cling to this world for as long as possible and by any means necessary, particularly since his villainous plan fully accepts that he will eventually be defeated.

Villainy aside, in the real world this would be a fairly normal and healthy attitude towards death. Simply because there are options for immortality in the DNDverse doesn't mean that this attitude is implausible in that world. Indeed, the one kind of immortality that Tarquin IS interested in(the classical idea of your NAME living forever) is available in this world too.

Just think about it--if living forever by becoming a vampire was an actual option in our own world, a lot of people would turn it down, and not all of them for purely ethical reasons. The only thing I can see especially "odd" about Tarquin's attitude towards life and death is how NORMAL it is compared to the world he inhabits and his unusual personality.

EDIT: As an addendum, even with the "knowable" afterlife in DnD, this still holds together. There's a chance that Tarquin:

A) Sees existing in perpetuity as a vampire to be little better than the Lawful Evil afterlife.

B) Figures that said afterlife is inevitable anyway(even as an undead, some hero is going to off him eventually), and figures you'd be a fool to fight it.

C) Doesn't actually believe in an afterlife or the afterlife as described--characters cannot read rulebooks so this isn't implausible even in a world with active visible gods.

D) Figures the suffering he experiences in the afterlife still doesn't compare to the pleasure he gets living like a tyrant king.

[Mike Havran]

I agree with Mr. Rictus. I think becoming a vampire does not make you exist longer on material plane: it simply creates another, albeit possibly similar, creature that uses the same body as you.

[SowZ]

I agree with Mr. Rictus. I think becoming a vampire does not make you exist longer on material plane: it simply creates another, albeit possibly similar, creature that uses the same body as you.

While possible trapping your soul in a sort of limbo.

[rodneyAnonymous]

I agree with Mr. Rictus. I think becoming a vampire does not make you exist longer on material plane: it simply creates another, albeit possibly similar, creature that uses the same body as you.

There is no evidence of that, and some that contradicts it.

[rewinn]

Perhaps Tarquin aspires to godhood.
Think about the apotheosis of The Dark One ... and of Banjo. If Tarquin becomes enough of a legend that thousands of LE'rs follow his example, he may be running his own Hell.

[lio45]

C) Doesn't actually believe in an afterlife or the afterlife as described--characters cannot read rulebooks so this isn't implausible even in a world with active visible gods.

FYI, in this comic, yes they can...

(For example -- and I'm sure I'm forgetting others -- see Redcloak's manuals in #0431 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0431.html), and the dialog about Xykon sitting and reading the rules on Special Abilities in #0459 (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0459.html).)

[oppyu]

Another question; how's Tarquin going to be a legend if all the stories told about the empire in the future are titled 'How Lord Malack Began His Long and Excruciating Reign'?

[rewinn]

Another question; how's Tarquin going to be a legend if all the stories told about the empire in the future are titled 'How Lord Malack Began His Long and Excruciating Reign'?
Well, Malack said that Tarquin was going to get a really big statue. So maybe Tarquin will get the "credit"?

[Imgran]

Could that be what caused Nale to turn against Tarquin and his party?

Nale was the heir apparent at least in his own mind, and Malack's plans have no room for him. Striking to secure "his inheritance" when Daddy was still around would be wiser than waiting for Malack to make his move if you're paranoid and arrogant enough to firmly believe you count as an official obstacle..

[Mr.Rictus]

Not that I'd want to be arguing the case that Spike is more important on Buffy and...um, that other TV show, whatever its name is...than Angel is, but please don't cut out a part of what I said and "dispute" it as if it was the whole of what I said.

Sorry about that, this was just a point that kinda stuck out for me. However, I was actually referring to Darla and Angel, or even Drusilla and Spike, where the "child" completely eclipses the sire. Though Tarquin would initially possibly be second-fiddle to Malack, that could merely be a temporary state of affairs. That's how vampire lords start in D and D after all.
Personally, I think Tarquin enjoys too much being a man to become something decidedly other. Xykon initially regretted his lichdom after his first cup of coffee after all.

[Silverionmox]

Another question; how's Tarquin going to be a legend if all the stories told about the empire in the future are titled 'How Lord Malack Began His Long and Excruciating Reign'?
He could seem the last good king by comparison.

[snikrept]

The Tarquin/Malack dynamic as far as invisioning the future seems bizarre. Clearly they've talked about it between themselves; clearly they've reached consensus; and yet they each, when prompted, voice individual internal models of what ought to happen that are wildly different from each other.

Far as I can tell, either Tarquin is lying to Elan about his goal set; or Malack is lying to Durkon about his goal set; or one of them is being duped.

[Kish]

Sorry about that, this was just a point that kinda stuck out for me. However, I was actually referring to Darla and Angel, or even Drusilla and Spike, where the "child" completely eclipses the sire. Though Tarquin would initially possibly be second-fiddle to Malack, that could merely be a temporary state of affairs. That's how vampire lords start in D and D after all.
Darla and Angel lead to, again, Tarquin could avoid being overshadowed by Malack by declaring Malack his enemy, which he has another reason not to want to do.

Vampire lords in D&D, same (killing the sire is an explicit requirement!).

Drusilla and Spike...was a retcon. Spike told Angel "You were my sire!" in Season Two. Joss Whedon decided he wanted to do something different later, handwaving it as "Oh, Spike just meant ancestor, he didn't mean it literally." But Drusilla was not officially Spike's sire until she was no longer on the same show as Spike, and thus she didn't overshadow him. Although, I do not believe it would completely change their dynamic if Spike or Angel had said instead that Drusilla was Spike's sire right away (though it would have weakened the character by weakening his dynamic with Angel), so I'll give you that one.


Far as I can tell, either Tarquin is lying to Elan about his goal set; or Malack is lying to Durkon about his goal set; or one of them is being duped.
I think there is an excellent chance that Tarquin told Malack, "You know it won't work, don't you? Narrative blah, heroes blah, evil overlords blah," and Malack tuned him out the second he started talking about narrative as a reason to do something, with, "Let me worry about that, Tarquin."

[Tragak]

Perhaps Tarquin aspires to godhood.
Think about the apotheosis of The Dark One ... and of Banjo. If Tarquin becomes enough of a legend that thousands of LE'rs follow his example, he may be running his own Hell. :smalleek: :smalleek: :smalleek:

[Forikroder]

Alright, I don't start too many threads, but something just occured to me. Tarquin really likes the idea of ruling his empire. While he's accepted the price he's likely to pay in the end, he's in no particular rush to meet it. He's not super old, but even Malack comments that he's past his prime. But one of his closest friends is a vampire. You know what's better than living like a god, ruling with an iron fist? Being an immortal that lives like a god, ruling with an iron fist. It's not like he doesn't trust Malack, and is genre savvy enough to counter the possibility that the thralldom would not be released if he was worried about that. They seem to get along quite well, and Malack comments that he's missed dealing with his own kind. Why not someone who's already proven a close friend? The whole "orderly destruction, sacrificing a thousand every day" thing can still totally go on. "Bloodstone Correctional Facility Games: Brought to you by Nergal.." Or something.

The only downside in my head is that Tarquin doesn't seem to have divine caster levels, so he might not be able to cast Protection from Sunlight on himself. But surely there's a way around that? Is there any reason Tarquin's much desired legend can't take place while he's still alive?

Tarquin knows Malack plans to take over after there all dead, if he became a vampire Malack would never release him Tarquin doesnt want to be someones lietanant

[Copperdragon]

I'd also consider the possibility that Tarquin has understood "undead" is something is not supposed to be. You are born, grow up, rule with an iron fist or get ruled while you live in the mud, and die. That is what it's all about, that is what it is supposed to be.
You have your time on the Prime Material Plane, then you shuffle off. Being undead is a unnatural state where you lose a lot of what makes living to be living.

We have no indicator Tarquin sees it this way but there's a chance not all villains are willing to go "all the way".

[Rig]

I created a thread on a similar point. Eternity in hell is a long time, after all. It strikes me as something that needs an answer which works for all villain's, otherwise it just doesn't work for self-interested parties. Someone raised the point that hell might be a case of strong dominates the weak, but the name itself indicates you'll never be on the right side of that.

Neither do i think that all villain's take the former approach of RedCloak to unnecessary risks in this case, Xykon being a prime example..

[Copperdragon]

I created a thread on a similar point. Eternity in hell is a long time, after all.

Eternity on the Prime Material Plane is also a long time. What's your point?


Neither do i think that all villain's take the former approach of RedCloak to unnecessary risks in this case, Xykon being a prime example..

I find it hard to understand this. What do you mean? Redcloak did not transform Xykon to enable him to live longer, he transformed him because he still needed him. That is a different motivation than what got discussed so far. Or do you mean Xykon decided something in some way?
In that case, SoD

disproves you as the idea and action did not come from Xykon. He made no decision, he just "went for it" when the chance was opened by Redcloak (see above for his motivation. Xykon knew it was evil but he very underestimated the actual cost he'd have to pay.

So please clarify what you meant.

[Reathin]

Eternity on the Prime Material Plane is also a long time. What's your point?

If you are given a choice between living forever doing as you please (including, say, running an eternal empire) verses living forever being horribly tortured for your energy, after which point you are dumped into being a near-mindless devil who in all likelihood will never rise from that level, I would think that most people would be inclined to choose the former.

Tarquin is not dumb. He's one of the most intelligent villains in the series, he's well informed. He can't be unaware of what's coming. He might have an alternative, I suppose. And as someone said, being undead may have drawbacks that he's not willing to accept. But then, the above scenario with the torture and mental destruction has worse effects...So I'm still curious.

[Copperdragon]

If you are given a choice between living forever doing as you please (including, say, running an eternal empire) verses living forever being horribly tortured for your energy, after which point you are dumped into being a near-mindless devil who in all likelihood will never rise from that level, I would think that most people would be inclined to choose the former.

Yes, but if you are tortured for the eternity on the PMP, it also sucks. I'm still asking what's the difference between "Eternity here" or "Eternity there" is supposed to be? In itself: Nothing. The context matters, but the quote said nothing about that.


Tarquin is not dumb. He's one of the most intelligent villains in the series, he's well informed. He can't be unaware of what's coming. He might have an alternative, I suppose. And as someone said, being undead may have drawbacks that he's not willing to accept. But then, the above scenario with the torture and mental destruction has worse effects...So I'm still curious.

Here's another problem: We do not know how the OotS-afterlife for evil characters works. In all honesty: Core has a problem with "Reward for good people" and "Eternal suckage for most evil people".
D&D has Good and Evil as actual concepts of the universe and for the game it is required that some people are evil. Just bluntly putting them into some "hell" (as we imagine it from outside of D&D) simply isn't going to cause the D&D world we see.
Maybe Rich plays it straight, maybe he makes it more complex than Core and "being evil" isn't followed by "an eternity of getting kicked in the nuts". But so far, we really do not know. Maybe Tarquin knows there's more than "The Big Fire Below" for powerful evil characters?

[GigaGuess]

Could that be what caused Nale to turn against Tarquin and his party?

Nale was the heir apparent at least in his own mind, and Malack's plans have no room for him. Striking to secure "his inheritance" when Daddy was still around would be wiser than waiting for Malack to make his move if you're paranoid and arrogant enough to firmly believe you count as an official obstacle..

That...makes a shocknig amount of sense, actually. Be more than enough reason for Nale to take down Malack's spawn, both to weaken him and to spite him.

[hamishspence]

Here's another problem: We do not know how the OotS-afterlife for evil characters works.

We get a small snapshot here though:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0635.html

[Copperdragon]

Yes, I'm always thinking of this (haha, snapshot). We're also informed Xykon seems to think there's a "Big Fire Below" and there's some other references to Core D&D in regard to "Hell" and where "evil" people seem to go.
What exactly happens for what Alignment/Race is still somewhat unknown. The more interesting thing (we're having at least Belkar and Xykon as Main Characters (Redcloak will probably go to the Dark One's afterlife) who's scheduled to find out) for OotS would be to do it in a diverse non-core way.

Xykon and Belkar teaming up in a CE afterlife? I very much like to see that in the Epilogue. :smallbiggrin:

[Heksefatter]

Tarquin just seems to me to be a guy who enjoys life on so many levels. Being undead or whatever would, in most cases not work for him.

Also, I do not think that the evil afterlife is necessarily strictly punitive. For example, we know that Jirix was about to go fight in great extraplanar battles for the Dark One and he considered it a reward.

As for Tarquin, I think that he is the kind of person who feels that he can always stay on top of things. Perhaps even in death. He might even be right. Just as the Dark One could surely use skilled officers in his army of dead goblins, there must be other evil outsiders who could use a man like Tarquin in some way.

[Der_DWSage]

There's another possibility that people aren't considering, persuasive though many of them are.

Tarquin may have brought it up to Malack, only for Malack to refuse for reasons of his own.

[thereaper]

Yes, but it would be child's play for Tarquin to find some other method of becoming undead.

[martianmister]

D&D has Good and Evil as actual concepts of the universe and for the game it is required that some people are evil. Just bluntly putting them into some "hell" (as we imagine it from outside of D&D) simply isn't going to cause the D&D world we see.

How much difference is there between D&D and real world definition of "hell"?

[Heksefatter]

How much difference is there between D&D and real world definition of "hell"?

I know that in some depictions of D&D hell you have the chance to work "up the ladder" so to speak. In the Forgotten Realms the devils of the Nine Hells seek out evil deceased as they wait to pass on to the afterlife their gods have for them.

The devils make an offer for people to become a low-ranking devil. In return, the souls aren't stuck in the afterlife of an evil god, and the devils may offer to sweeten the deal - gifts to relatives in the mortal world, revenge against enemies, a higher-rank position in hell and so fort.

It should be noted that this is just the Forgotten Realms setting, and not the OotS-verse. It may carry over to the other D&D-settings, which also involve the Nine Hells. (I think GreyHawk does, but I've never really played and don't know).

But in any case, none of this can be said to apply to the OotS-verse as such.

[Shadowknight12]

How much difference is there between D&D and real world definition of "hell"?

As much as the DM wants it to be. All my Outer Planes are constantly awesome parties all the time where everyone has fun. Hell, one my settings has a NE god of debauchery and excess. You should see the parties HE throws.

[Heksefatter]

As much as the DM wants it to be. All my Outer Planes are constantly awesome parties all the time where everyone has fun. Hell, one my settings has a NE god of debauchery and excess. You should see the parties HE throws.

This may be a fitting time to quote Blackadder, the episode where he is archbishop and talking to the dying Lord Graveney:

Edmund: Well, well, let's take Hell: You know, Hell isn't as bad as it's cracked up to be.

Graveney: What?

Edmund: No, no, no, no. No, you see, the thing about Heaven, is that Heaven is for people who like the sort of things that go on in Heaven, like, uh, well, singing, talking to God, watering pot plants...

Graveney: Ew...

Edmund: Whereas Hell, on the other hand, is for people who like the other sorts of things: [with relish] adultery, pillage, torture — those... areas.

Graveney: Really?

Edmund: Mm! Give your lands to the Crown, and once you're dead, you'll have the time of your life!

[Tragak]

I always figured that the Evil deities would want to punish the Evil people who died the same way the Good deities would want to, on grounds that they hate weakness the way Good deities hate destruction and hurting others.

The Evil deities would probably feel that if an Evil person wanted to have power in Baator, the Abyss, or anywhere in between, then they should've gone there and gathered their infernal authority while they were alive and found ways to "stay in the game," with death being seen as the ultimate weakness and failure.

[KillianHawkeye]

I always figured that the Evil deities would want to punish the Evil people who died the same way the Good deities would want to, on grounds that they hate weakness the way Good deities hate destruction and hurting others.

The Evil deities would probably feel that if an Evil person wanted to have power in Baator, the Abyss, or anywhere in between, then they should've gone there and gathered their infernal authority while they were alive and found ways to "stay in the game," with death being seen as the ultimate weakness and failure.

I think the only real justification for the Hells being a place where bad (Lawful Evil) souls are punished is because that's how the devils extract whatever useful energy they can get from mortal souls.

[Copperdragon]

How much difference is there between D&D and real world definition of "hell"?

Depending on how you read it - a lot. Depending on how the DM/Rich intends to play it - even more.
But I'm not going to discuss RL imginations of "Hell" as that requires us to go into RL religion which is not going to end well and also forbidden by the forum rules.

[Lord Ensifer]

How much difference is there between D&D and real world definition of "hell"?

From what we see of the IFCC, we know the "fire and brimstone" thing holds true at least. Since this isn't at all like Jirix's experience, I would assume that not all afterlives are completely based on alignment - Jirix went to the Goblin afterlife, whereas Tarquin would probably go to a fairly generic LE afterlife.

[hamishspence]

In core D&D, the goblin deities live on the very same plane Jirix appears to be describing- Acheron, the "iron plain" (actually a whole lot of immense iron cubes, with beings living on the surfaces of them).

Which is right next to the Nine Hells (It's a bit more Lawful and a bit less Evil than they are).

[ReaderAt2046]

I created a thread on a similar point. Eternity in hell is a long time, after all. It strikes me as something that needs an answer which works for all villain's, otherwise it just doesn't work for self-interested parties. Someone raised the point that hell might be a case of strong dominates the weak, but the name itself indicates you'll never be on the right side of that.

Not necessarily. One major theory about hell teaches that you can only go there by chosing something, anything, as more important than Heaven and God. I am informed that Satan says in Paradise Lost "Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven." Or to quote the hero of Brandon Sanderson's Infinity Blade, "'Hell take me'... is a saying from my village and the region about. These Deathless are the gods, they rule the earth and the heavens. And so when we die, we wish for a place where they are not. Better the pains of hell than living in heaven beneath the Deathless" (emphasis mine).

Tarquin could easily have made a choice along those lines, decided that the price of heaven was too high for him.