Who ARE Team Tarquin? [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Nilan8888

2013-09-26, 11:03 AM

Ok, so on the surface we (mostly) know the names:

1. Tarquin
2. Malack
3. Miron
4. Laurin
5. Jacinda
6. Hey you: mohawk-fighter-guy with the face

But: who ARE these people? This is what I can discern:

1. Tarquin -- An affable and sociable person who seems to have complex, but shallow, emotions. Great sense of the dramatic, almost to the point where his sanity could be questioned. Although not a raging narcissist like his son Nale, he has an inflated sense of self. He has no sense of being humane to those he is not personally acquainted with. Extremely high-functioning, he does seem to have a convoluted code that he uses to justify his actions (compare to Belkar, who doesn't bother with even Tarquin's convoluted moralizing). This code doesn't hold up to proper scrutiny since any benefits the world sees to his schemes are incidental to him rather than the prime mover.

Tarquin is seen to show preferential treatment to his sons. He seems to love them as HE understands love, but he is terribly misguided as to what his sons actually need versus what he THINKS they need.

An evil man to many, many degrees, but ultimately the degree to which he is deluded and misguided outweigh even the evil aspects of his personality. And it's a delusion that runs so deep and so well it comes off as simply quirky sanity.

2. Malak -- who Malak was is largely unknown but as a Vampire he seems to have been a very reserved but polite, respectful personality that did not held few grudges (Nale being the obvious exception). It also seems that, although Tarquin was/is more affable and 'jovial', over the long term Malack was capable of deeper friendships. His relationship with Durkon, Laurin's clear distress at his death, and even how he and Tarquin worked out their differences suggested a very mature and astute person.

Who contemplated absolutely diabolical schemes.

At this point it's unknown if Malack's ultimate intentions were understood by most of those that knew him: Durkon was in the dark up until his end, but Tarquin was well aware (and, sickeningly, was fine with it). If Laurin knew his plans of mass sacrifice, if Miron or Jacinda knew, that would gain insight into their characters. Strangely enough, I wonder if Nale knew of these plans and what his reaction would have been. I doubt he would have fretted with empathy for the victims, but I wonder if he there's an aspect of personal freedom being taken away from mass numbers of people just before they die that might make even him queasy ("Yeah I'm a mass murder Malack, but I butchered those people fair and square as they stood on their own two feet")

3. Miron -- There doesn't seem to be much to say about this guy. The more we learn about him, the more he seems like just a corrupt, self-interested, and overall detestable individual. Many levy this charge at Tarquin, and they're not wrong, but Tarquin at least seems INTERESTED in other people, even if it's mostly for narrative reasons or to meet his own goals. From what little we know of him, Miron just seems interested in Miron, and chiefly how much money Miron gets, by whatever means necessary. One wonders what Haley might make of such a person and if this would unsettle her a little bit seeing how much he used to have / still has more than a passing affinity with money.

4. Laurin -- So far given everything we've observed, Laurin seems the 'least evil' of this group. She hasn't been shown to do anything actually evil (she disintegrated Nale, but Nale was one of the most evil people in this entire comic, and he had just killed someone she really cared about, which she herself confirmed).

Although it's still a stretch, it might be that she could be the 'Belkar' of Team Tarquin and might have some form of Good alignment, which sets her apart from the group norm:

- She seems to have genuine empathy for Malack, at least. It's not clear what she thoroughly thinks of the others in her group, but she at least cared for Malack

- She seems to be genuinely protective of her daughter Hannah, and even her brief summary of how she deals with her in #921 seems much more appropriate for a good-aligned character than whatever Tarquin thinks he's doing with his twin sons.

- She refers to Tarquin's plot as 'this thing we do', as if it she views it with some form of distaste.

- She talks of Tarquin's right to do what he wants in his own kingdom. This might suggest that she actually is NOT cool with how Tarquin runs things in the Empire of Blood, but doesn't think she can do much about it (or who knows, maybe she IS doing something about it that we don't know of). And that things in the Empire of Sweat are actually much different. Perhaps Laurin never teams up with Tarquin because they'd never agree how to run the place?

Given that there's clear room for good benefits to be had for people in the region through this scheme given what things were presumably like before (chaotic warring tribes who murdered one another on a regular basis), and given there's an element of wanting to give her daughter a better life... well, this doesn't necessarily say Laurin is still not still in the same alignment pool as Malack and Tarquin, but it doesn't rule out the other extreme either.

As always, it's the exception to the rules that prove the most fascinating, so it's no surprise that Laurin already seems to be a more interesting personality than, say, Miron.

5. Jacinda -- Cat rogue lady. Not much we know of her, except that she always seems to have this smug grin on her face when doing these horrible things like yanking flying carpets out from other people, or stabbing ambassadors in the back. Or, presumably, slitting someone's throat in their sleep. Maybe she thinks of whole thing as just a game she gets to play? Anyway, clearly an evil character. I'm getting this early sense that she's the sort who doesn't philosophize much or even think that far ahead, and that she pretty much just sorta does whatever Tarquin, Miron or even Laurin tell her to do. "Kill that guy, Tarquin? Yeah, I'm down with that, sounds fun." "Help that person over there Laurin? Yeah, yeah, fine ok, I'm going already, I'm going... sheesh..."

6. Hey you: mohawk-fighter-guy with the face -- we know almost nothing about him. Granted, when we knew almost as much about Miron, Miron already seemed clearly evil and self interested. I mean the first time we heard the name Miron Shewdanker, it was in an extortion plot! But convincing the King of the Weepies to go invade another nation to make himself feel better, killing who knows how many people in the process, is NOT part of the feel-good movie of the year, if you take my meaning.

Roland Itiative

2013-09-26, 11:10 AM

While I do agree that Laurin is the less evil character in Team tarquin (based on current evidence), I don't think there are many chances of her actually being Good. Neutral, yeah, but not Good.

The thing about Good alignment in D&D is that it must actively oppose evil, not just go with the flow for the greater good. An Evil guy can work for a Good party for his own selfish reasons (Belkar), but a Good guy would be hard-pressed to just stop an Evil party no matter what.

Sure, the Giant loves subverting the common views of the alignment system, but I don't think he'll be going that far with it.

Gift Jeraff

2013-09-26, 11:20 AM

Nilan8888

2013-09-26, 11:25 AM

Well that's up to the Giant. Personally I played D&D upon a time, but I'm not particularly tied to the rules in that way.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be a stretch given what Team Tarquin might have had to do to get where they are, but I think it would be a totally valid piece of satire to say "Laurin is not good" if it turns out she:

a) Always made sure her nations were run in direct contrast to Tarquin (maybe they grant you even more personal freedom than Azure City. Think on THAT possibility: Laurin under her own devices an even more dedicated persona than Shojo and the Paladins).

b) Never actually does anything evil herself and objects to evil things being done

c) Was clearly distressed at the absolute mess of what this place, this chaotic, merciless desert that is presumably her home, was before Tarquin came along and had this great idea that could make it a better place

d) Is shown that if Laurin had actually stood up more to Tarquin and done "good" in the short term by killing him or foiling his plans, the most likely scenario would have been less people alive in the long term.

e) Is actually quite empathetic to people she loves like her daughter or friends like Malack.

Given she's a bit blase about Tarquin throwing away his troops, there's a bit of evidence to say that she actually isn't good. But then, these ARE soldiers and she IS criticizing him.

It's just another of those things that has a lot of potential.

War-Wren

2013-09-26, 11:26 AM

Tarkie: Lawful EVIL and motivated by legacy
Mal: LAWFUL EVIL and motivated by piety
Laurin: Lawful evil and motivated by family
Miron: Neutral Evil and motivated by currency
Jacinda: Neutral EVIL and motivated by cruelty
Other Dude: LAWFUL evil and motivated by stability (does it for the Greater Law)

It's briefer than the OP, but it's a damn accurate summary of the group as we know them and a pretty good stab at the unknown guy too :smallsmile:

Well done sir! I concur and heartily! :smallcool:

Kish

2013-09-26, 11:28 AM

FlawedParadigm

2013-09-26, 11:28 AM

You left off Jacinda's Paladinhood.

Nilan8888

2013-09-26, 11:39 AM

Maybe Laurin is exactly what she appears to be, as Tarquin and Malack were not. Maybe there is no mind-wrenching, stomach-churning horror hidden under her "this thing we do...[my daughter gets] a good life away from all this."

That's not the way I'm going to bet, though.

I think in this case I might bet differently. It might mean Laurin's of neutral alignment rather than good (although I think it would be more interesting if she WAS of good alignment), but my reason comes down to this:

Been there, done that.

We've seen Tarquin. We've seen Malack. We've seen that the other people in this scheme do generally evil things. The only one who hasn't done anything explicitly evil... or at least nothing explicitly evil to someone that wasn't explicitly evil themselves... is Laurin.

Sure, Laurin could just be another evil member of this evil team, but...

how boring.

Grey Watcher

2013-09-26, 11:47 AM

Disclaimer: The following is not aimed at anyone specific.

Circa #726, people on the forum were saying, "Tarquin clearly isn't evil. Look at that smile, it's Elan's smile. No one evil could smile like that. If there are genuinely bad things about the Empire, it must be the fault of that creepy albino lizardfolk." ...This mostly--not entirely--stopped at the burning slaves.

Circa #810, people on the forum were saying, "Yay, Malack! See, he's obviously Lawful Neutral!" And they kept that up until the humanoid cattle farm plans.

At this point, if I were Rich, I'd make a special point of having a new member of Tarquin's group appear on-panel every 100 strips or so just so I could count how many, when the sixth one appeared, went, "I bet this one's neutral!"

Maybe Laurin is exactly what she appears to be, as Tarquin and Malack were not. Maybe there is no mind-wrenching, stomach-churning horror hidden under her "this thing we do...[my daughter gets] a good life away from all this."

That's not the way I'm going to bet, though.

To be fair, I think there are some people that genuinely think Laurin is Whatever Neutral, and others that merely think, given what we know so far, she's the most likely to be not-Evil. Of course, we know next to nothing of her, so she's really a pretty blank canvas. (For example, does she use her influence in the Empire of Sweat to make it a better place than the Empire of Blood? A worse place, if such a thing is possible? How does she treat the people around her? Is she kind to underlings? Cruel? Indifferent? Does she have any long term goals other than allowing her daughter to live a happy life? If so, what are they?)

Bird

2013-09-26, 12:04 PM

Maybe Laurin is exactly what she appears to be, as Tarquin and Malack were not. Maybe there is no mind-wrenching, stomach-churning horror hidden under her "this thing we do...[my daughter gets] a good life away from all this."

That's not the way I'm going to bet, though.
That's fair. For my part, I could picture her as neutral, but evil makes the most sense given the company she keeps.

Also, the "[my daughter gets] a good life" thing is incredibly flimsy. You're a high level psion, your daughter is a commoner, and the best way to keep her safe is a bloody and intricate international conspiracy? Something tells me that there must be more practical options.

As Grey Watcher says, Laurin's motivations could easily be more complex than we know.

Gift Jeraff

2013-09-26, 12:35 PM

Disclaimer: The following is not aimed at anyone specific.

Circa #726, people on the forum were saying, "Tarquin clearly isn't evil. Look at that smile, it's Elan's smile. No one evil could smile like that. If there are genuinely bad things about the Empire, it must be the fault of that creepy albino lizardfolk." ...This mostly--not entirely--stopped at the burning slaves.

Circa #810, people on the forum were saying, "Yay, Malack! See, he's obviously Lawful Neutral!" And they kept that up until the humanoid cattle farm plans.

At this point, if I were Rich, I'd make a special point of having a new member of Tarquin's group appear on-panel every 100 strips or so just so I could count how many, when the sixth one appeared, went, "I bet this one's neutral!"

Maybe Laurin is exactly what she appears to be, as Tarquin and Malack were not. Maybe there is no mind-wrenching, stomach-churning horror hidden under her "this thing we do...[my daughter gets] a good life away from all this."

That's not the way I'm going to bet, though.

While I agree wholeheartedly--and am repeatedly baffled at why every member of the party is defaulted to nonevil--I'd say the primary "evidence" of Laurin's neutrality (a comment made to long-term allies) is marginally better than that of Malack's (a roundabout way of implying he could be neutral to a complete stranger).

Nilan8888

2013-09-26, 12:37 PM

Also, the "[my daughter gets] a good life" thing is incredibly flimsy. You're a high level psion, your daughter is a commoner, and the best way to keep her safe is a bloody and intricate international conspiracy? Something tells me that there must be more practical options.

Presumably, Laurin was not always this high-level psion. When her daughter was born, what was her life like THEN?

I think you'd have to see what conditions were like before the aforementioned bloody and international conspiracy took place. Could be that the bloody international conspiracy merely replaced a bloody international lack-of-conspiracy.

ti'esar

2013-09-26, 12:41 PM

Roland Itiative

2013-09-26, 12:43 PM

Could be that the bloody international conspiracy merely replaced a bloody international lack-of-conspiracy.
We know for a fact it replaced a bloody international lack-of-conspiracy. Team Tarquin's empires are hideously evil, but at least they provide some manner of stability in what would otherwise be a constant state of warfare among smaller warlords.

hamishspence

2013-09-26, 12:46 PM

"A constant state of mock warfare with real deaths among larger warlords" is what we have at the moment.

Nilan8888

2013-09-26, 12:47 PM

We know for a fact it replaced a bloody international lack-of-conspiracy. Team Tarquin's empires are hideously evil, but at least they provide some manner of stability in what would otherwise be a constant state of warfare among smaller warlords.

Right. Which in the long run kills more people, and doesn't give them much better lives in the process (actually it's a fair point to say the average person would have a worse life in those conditions).

This doesn't really excuse Tarquin because it lowers the bar for him, although it makes the situation more complex. It makes it even more complex if Laurin were over in the Empire of Sweat making the world safe for Democracy and the like.

"A constant state of mock warfare with real deaths among larger warlords" is what we have at the moment.

Versus a state of ACTUAL warfare with REAL deaths among smaller warlords is what existed before.

That was not a theoretical outcome of what might have been. It happened. People died. People were slated to continue to die. It is NOT a theoretical argument.

Roland Itiative

2013-09-26, 12:48 PM

"A constant state of mock warfare with real deaths among larger warlords" is what we have at the moment.
Yes, but the death toll is supposedly smaller. With smaller kingdoms, all in war with each other, there is no safe place. With larger empires at war, you can go deep inside one of their territories and find a place that's mostly untouched by war (except, of course, when one of the empires is inevitably toppled, but Laurin can just warn her daughter and arrange her move to another safe place when that happens).

Not to mention that, considering that the three empires are ever-growing, at one point they could just drop the charade, and rule the entire continent in a still very tyranical and evil, but no longer war-torn situation. Peace would be achieved, and a stable, Lawful Evil state would be formed, making life much easier for anyone who doesn't raise their voices against the rulers.

Bird

2013-09-26, 12:53 PM

Presumably, Laurin was not always this high-level psion. When her daughter was born, what was her life like THEN?

I think you'd have to see what conditions were like before the aforementioned bloody and international conspiracy took place. Could be that the bloody international conspiracy merely replaced a bloody international lack-of-conspiracy.
Yes, Laurin was not always a high-level psion. Also, yes, the situation was bloody -- possibly bloodier than it is now -- before the conspiracy. (I think that's the implication we're supposed to get based on what we know of the Western Continent's history.)

I'm just saying that the conspiracy isn't a proportional or rational course of action with respect to the goal of "keep my daughter (a random plumber) safe."

Now, Laurin very well may mean "I want to keep my daughter, and her grandchildren, and other normal folks like her, safe. I am willing to shed a lot of blood to one day achieve that state of peace on the Western Continent." Whether rational or not, that would at least be a coherent position.

But, there is no way that the conspiracy is at all practical given only the motive of keeping daughter safe. Finding transport to a safer part of the world would be much more sensible. Hell, the conspiracy could theoretically make her daughter more at risk, since if the secret got out someone might have it in for her.

Kish

2013-09-26, 12:55 PM

Yes, but the death toll is supposedly smaller.
Supposedly according to whom? Did even Tarquin make that claim about now, or even when he was lying his posterior off to Elan, was it strictly a matter of "Some day there will be less dying"?

Not to mention that, considering that the three empires are ever-growing, at one point they could just drop the charade, and rule the entire continent in a still very tyranical and evil, but no longer war-torn situation.
Something Tarquin explicitly denied intending to do.

hamishspence

2013-09-26, 12:55 PM

the situation was bloody -- possibly bloodier than it is now -- before the conspiracy. (I think that's the implication we're supposed to get based on what we know of the Western Continent's history.)

That's the impression Tarquin tries to give in his account of the history of the Western Continent, at least.

Nilan8888

2013-09-26, 12:56 PM

Yes, but the death toll is supposedly smaller. With smaller kingdoms, all in war with each other, there is no safe place. With larger kingdoms at war, you can go deep inside one of their territories and find a place that's mostly untouched by war.

Exactly.

Again, whatever the situation was, it was real to the people that lived it. It wasn't a 'maybe if I do this horrible thing it will save lives'. It was 'maybe if I do this horrible thing it will result in something better than this horrible thing that is already going on'.

It's one thing to say you did something and it turned out different from what you intended after the fact and things became a crapsack world. In this case, the world is ALREADY crapsack and if you don't do anything, guess what's going to happen? More crapsack.

In that case, Laurin doing nothing would be hoping that a THEORETICAL better hero than Tarquin would come along and start doing some THEORETICAL good. Yeah, it's nice to daydream, but people gotta eat.

Gift Jeraff

2013-09-26, 12:57 PM

Rich has even said that Tarquin's order has made the people's lives worse.

hamishspence

2013-09-26, 12:57 PM

Something Tarquin explicitly denied intending to do.

He does say that the endpoint of his scheme will be "three states with no incentive to fight each other" here- it's just that they'll occupy everywhere that isn't elven territory:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0758.html

did he reveal that this was a lie later?

Roland Itiative

2013-09-26, 01:01 PM

Supposedly according to whom? Did even Tarquin make that claim about now, or even when he was lying his posterior off to Elan, was it strictly a matter of "Some day there will be less dying"?
Take the description of the Western Continent politics before Tarquin, and after Tarquin.

We had dozens of small countries going at each others' throats, with upstart warlords coming out of nowhere and toppling the status quo every few months. War everywhere, no one was safe.

Now we have three big empires mostly keeping up a façade, fighting each other, but not really trying to exterminate each other, while constantly helping a change in government happen in a way they keep being the men behind the man. People on such empires can "enjoy" their lives, as long as they don't ask too many questions, and don't mind the clearly evil behaviour of their leaders.

Which one sounds like the more chaotic and deadly situation? Tarquin plan brings more stability now, and stability means less dying, even if there's still an awful lot of dying, and most of it is unnecessary.

Something Tarquin explicitly denied intending to do.
The members of Tarquin's team clearly have different views of the endgame of their plan. Tarquin cares only for living as a god for a few decades, and dying in a blaze of glory. Malack wanted a single theocratic empire where he could sacrifice thousands for his god. Miron seems to want profit, nothing more. Laurin probably wants peace for her daughter's sake, no matter the cost.

Nilan8888

2013-09-26, 01:10 PM

I'm just saying that the conspiracy isn't a proportional or rational course of action with respect to the goal of "keep my daughter (a random plumber) safe."

I only agree to the point that it's not the EASIEST course of action. But it would be the most secure one, which I'll get into below...

Now, Laurin very well may mean "I want to keep my daughter, and her grandchildren, and other normal folks like her, safe. I am willing to shed a lot of blood to one day achieve that state of peace on the Western Continent." Whether rational or not, that would at least be a coherent position.

To your own defense, Laurin has yet to say the above. But I will make one distinction when you say "I (Laurin) am willing to shed a lot of blood... etc., etc." Yes, Laurin is, theoretically, shedding blood. At the very least she has enabled blood to be shed. But if the history we know of the continent was true, it was blood that was being shed anyway, and being shed for no good reason and to no true end. Pointless, destructive conflict that would make the IFCC proud.

In that situation, is it more moral to stand back and say "no, no, I cannot condone this vile thing because I want to be a good person" or to find some sort of compromise and let your hands get dirty so that maybe something might get better?

But, there is no way that the conspiracy is at all practical given only the motive of keeping daughter safe. Finding transport to a safer part of the world would be much more sensible. Hell, the conspiracy could theoretically make her daughter more at risk, since if the secret got out someone might have it in for her.

As to my first paragraph above, it's merely not the simplest solution. But it IS the most absolute one.

Firstly, finding transport somewhere else doesn't guarantee them anything. Maybe a better life, but still one where there is danger. They don't know anyone, presumably, off continent or in the Elven lands and who knows what might await them (that's a more presuasive argument for a lower-level Laurin Shattersmith).

As to the conspiracy putting her daughter more at risk, I don't see it. Firstly, Laurin's own daughter doesn't even know this secret. Secondly, there was still probably more of a chance of them getting randomly killed the way things were than running into a conspiracy plot from another nation the way things are now. On top of that there's getting to be fewer and fewer nations that would be interested in such a plot: None of the three empires are going to work against her and whatever nations would will have fewer resources at their disposal than their own. Plus, look at the map: unless I've missed my guess, the only nations even in the area anymore are the Free City of Doom and Reptilia. All the rest are a fair distance away and might be oblivious to any threat (although nations are appearing larger than they probably have been before).

hamishspence

2013-09-26, 01:17 PM

Take the description of the Western Continent politics before Tarquin, and after Tarquin.

We had dozens of small countries going at each others' throats, with upstart warlords coming out of nowhere and toppling the status quo every few months. War everywhere, no one was safe.

Now we have three big empires mostly keeping up a façade, fighting each other, but not really trying to exterminate each other, while constantly helping a change in government happen in a way they keep being the men behind the man. People on such empires can "enjoy" their lives, as long as they don't ask too many questions, and don't mind the clearly evil behaviour of their leaders.

Which one sounds like the more chaotic and deadly situation? Tarquin plan brings more stability now, and stability means less dying, even if there's still an awful lot of dying, and most of it is unnecessary.

This is what The Giant had to say about the nature of "stability" on the Western continent:

Stability is not always Good; instability is not inherently Evil. Shojo's instability increased the quality of life for his citizens, at least while he was alive; Tarquin's stability decreases the quality (and duration) of life for his people. Conversely, Ian Starshine would, if able, bring more Chaos into the Western continent (and thus improve everyone's fate), while Kubota would have brought more Law to Azure City (and made everyone miserable).

Nilan8888

2013-09-26, 01:20 PM

Rich has even said that Tarquin's order has made the people's lives worse.

Firstly, I don't recall where he said that. I'm not denying he said it or even suggesting it needs to be shown to me before I believe it: simply that I don't recall him saying it.

Secondly, how has it made people's lives necessarily worse?

Thirdly, Tarquin isn't really being argued in this instance, because what if the Empire of Sweat is a whole lot better to its people than the Empire of Blood? And what does THAT mean, if that were the case? Yes, people die mercilessly in the Empire of Blood, and yes Laurin might be turning a blind eye (if not a closed mouth). But in her eyes, if she did not go along with this or at least had not helped set it up, those people would be dead anyway, or never born to begin with. And over here, in the Empire of Sweat, maybe it's not the same way at all.

Roland Itiative

2013-09-26, 01:22 PM

I'm not arguing that Tarquin's scheme is good, or that it's better than what Ian would have. But what existed on the Western Continent was not Ian's brand of chaos, it was a state of complete, unrestricted warfare. Tarquin's rule decreases the quality and duration of life of his citizens by restricting their liberties, and killing/imprisoning anyone who speaks up, but it's not necessarily worse than being prone to being attacked by a random upstart warlord or enemy neighbour at any moment.

Gift Jeraff

2013-09-26, 01:24 PM

Tarquin has reduced the hardships of war, but in exchange has dramatically worsened his empires' dosmetic affairs (see: eating sentient creatures and burning slaves alive). The cons of the latter probably outweigh the pros of the former.

hamishspence

2013-09-26, 01:26 PM

And over here, in the Empire of Sweat, maybe it's not the same way at all.
Given that they change partners (and sometimes Empires) every few years- I'm doubtful about her having made it any better than the others for any length of time.

Nilan8888

2013-09-26, 01:27 PM

Stability is not always Good; instability is not inherently Evil. Shojo's instability increased the quality of life for his citizens, at least while he was alive; Tarquin's stability decreases the quality (and duration) of life for his people. Conversely, Ian Starshine would, if able, bring more Chaos into the Western continent (and thus improve everyone's fate), while Kubota would have brought more Law to Azure City (and made everyone miserable).

I'm not sure this adequately counters this argument concerning Laurin and the state of things before Tarquin showed up.

The picture we've been painted before Tarquin showed up is NOT the sort of chaos Ian Starshine would have had in mind for a better world, nor the sort of chaos Shojo would introduce to ANY situation to try and make it better. But, presumably, it was the instability that Laurin had to live in.

Tarquin's stability, if I have it right, decreases the quality and duration of life for his people... but versus what he could be doing RIGHT NOW. In his case, it LOWERS the bar for him to say "well, things are better than they were so he's made them better so there you go." Yes, in that case, the fact that things are no longer as bad as they were disguises the possibility that in the here and now of the Empire of Blood, things could be better than they are.

But it does NOT necessarily say that it lowers the bar for Laurin -- if (and again I stress if) she's actually doing good on her side fence. If those lives are a lot better than in the EoB... and WAY better than the chaos that came before... if those lives are maybe even better than the average person enjoyed in Azure City... what does that say?

Nilan8888

2013-09-26, 01:38 PM

Given that they change partners (and sometimes Empires) every few years- I'm doubtful about her having made it any better than the others for any length of time.

Absolutely. More than enough room to be doubtful with this crowd.

HOWEVER... much of this might be dependent on their personalities. Clearly, this version of Laurin would butt heads if she ever worked with Tarquin directly over running a nation. Things might be better to make her happy, but ultimately he'd pull some minor, petty scheme and we'd be off to the races.

But Malack, despite being evil, had a different style. Which is to say, he basically seemed to just leave someone else running the Empire and mostly focused on being a high priest. So if Laurin came in and said something like "what do you think if we started holding ELECTIONS?" Malack would probably shrug. Tarquin might have problems or think it was a fabulous joke, but Malack probably wouldn't care.

Miron? Early signs point to someone that might be easily distracted as long as the money was flowing.

The other two could have any sort of personalities so I don't know there.

But all of this is still highly speculative on my part. Being highly doubtful of these possibilities right now is just plain good sense.

ScubaGoomba

2013-09-26, 01:40 PM

Just a thought, and not even one I'm necessarily behind, but what if the Western Continent is a land where the battle of Law vs. Chaos is far more important than Good vs. Evil. Team Tarquin would have reason to include Good and Evil members together because they're bringing order to a land that was overwrought with chaos. Much like how the Order seems to have no trouble including Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic characters because they're all pointed towards vanquishing the Evil that is Xykon so the gates are safe, so, too, may Team Tarquin have Good, Neutral, and Evil characters because the end is to maintain an ordered society in the Western Continent.

Maybe that even explains why they're a bit more fractured, now. Laurin doesn't like Tarquin's personal methods (Evil) because they go against her own morals (Good or Neutral) and she makes sure she stays out of his business. They aren't an adventuring party anymore; they could easily hate each other, but keep up loose strings of allegiance because it maintains order. This isn't to say that the maintenance of order is actually better, but that the party is a team of Lawful individuals that united to strike down chaos.

hamishspence

2013-09-26, 01:41 PM

Roland Itiative

2013-09-26, 01:44 PM

The Empire of Blood (and its predecessor, Tyrinaria) were red themed.

The Empire of Tears is blue themed.

Is the Empire of Sweat (and any predecessors in the same location) green themed?

If so, Tarquin controlled it once:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0757.html

The Empire of Sweat is yellow. And I don't think they care for keeping the colour scheme (Tarquin, at least, has a glamoured armour for that purpose), it's just a coincidence that both Tyrinaria and the EoB share a red colour scheme.

hamishspence

2013-09-26, 01:46 PM

Good point. Though the "Sweat" colours look off-white here:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0758.html

(shield, helmet).

Matt620

2013-09-26, 03:14 PM

I think Miron is less "detestable" and more practical. It's far more detestable to make a friend of someone and then try to kill them for your own ends, as Tarquin did, or turn a friend into a vampire to satisfy one's own lust for companionship.

Miron is efficient, that's all.

Porthos

2013-09-26, 04:29 PM

Harbinger

2013-09-26, 05:06 PM

Something about Jacinda really screams "Chaotic Evil" to me.

This is how I see it:

Tarquin: Lawful Evil

Malack: Lawful Evil

Laurin: Lawful Neutral or True Neutral

Miron: Neutral Evil

Jacinda: Chaotic Evil

Shoulder-pad-guy: ?

Koo Rehtorb

2013-09-26, 05:34 PM

1. Tarquin - LE
2. Malack - LE
3. Miron - NE
4. Laurin - TN
5. Jacinda - CE
6. Fighter-dude - ???

It's just a guess but, you know, we don't exactly have a lot to go on so I'm not sure what you're hoping for.

Bird

2013-09-26, 05:36 PM

As to my first paragraph above, it's merely not the simplest solution. But it IS the most absolute one.

Firstly, finding transport somewhere else doesn't guarantee them anything. Maybe a better life, but still one where there is danger. They don't know anyone, presumably, off continent or in the Elven lands and who knows what might await them (that's a more presuasive argument for a lower-level Laurin Shattersmith).

As to the conspiracy putting her daughter more at risk, I don't see it. Firstly, Laurin's own daughter doesn't even know this secret. Secondly, there was still probably more of a chance of them getting randomly killed the way things were than running into a conspiracy plot from another nation the way things are now. On top of that there's getting to be fewer and fewer nations that would be interested in such a plot: None of the three empires are going to work against her and whatever nations would will have fewer resources at their disposal than their own. Plus, look at the map: unless I've missed my guess, the only nations even in the area anymore are the Free City of Doom and Reptilia. All the rest are a fair distance away and might be oblivious to any threat (although nations are appearing larger than they probably have been before).
There's no absolute safety anywhere -- I agree. But, it's a lot more practical to research "where are the safest places in the world?" than it is to completely remake the politics of a fractured continent. A reasonable investment in gold would allow access to magic-users who could help with this question. This investment would be achievable long before monkeying in international affairs would become practical.

At a high level, all sorts of options become available that could help ensure the safety of an individual -- options with a more immediate, practical benefit than The Scheme.

Thing is, remaking the continent is long, time consuming, and really doesn't assure safety for Hannah. A thousand violent things can go wrong over the course of this multi-decade plan. In years two and three and ten of the plan, Hannah is still at risk. Even if peace were attained, what's to stop Hannah from getting stabbed by a jealous ex, or whatever?

As to your last point -- I have no idea what the chance of her being randomly killed would be. But, if you become a Mafia don, there is a chance your family could pay the price -- even if it's a secret that you're Mafia, and even your family doesn't know about it. If you're Mafia, no matter how good you are, you will accrue enemies. (In Laurin's case, these enemies don't have to be nation-states. And sure, maybe her secret never gets into the wrong hands. But maybe it does.)

If you want to protect a loved one, a much better investment than starting a mob (or even running for President) is to invest in a security system, self-defense lessons, move to a safe neighborhood, etc.

All of this makes me feel that Laurin's motivations are more complex than simply "I want my daughter safe."

veti

2013-09-26, 06:44 PM

To the OP: I think Tarquin is every bit as narcissistic as Nale ever was, probably more so. Nale accepted his position ("major recurring villain", in his own words) in the scheme of things, whereas Tarquin is trying to change his.

And I still don't buy his oft-mentioned "love" for - well, anyone that's not him. I see no sign that he has the slightest idea what the word means.

What's most interesting about Laurin, for me, is that she does seem to have such an idea. She had real feeling for Malack, and she respects her daughter's choice of life in a way Tarquin will never understand. I'm guessing that she knew about Malack's long-term plan, and part of the reason she needs to be in the heart of Tarquin's conspiracy is so that she can take steps to safeguard Hannah's future, and her descendants', after she herself is no longer in a position to look out for them.

That's not to say she's not evil (maybe neutral, maybe evil, I don't see anything much to point either way), but she's a lot closer to what we would consider a normal, sane, balanced person than Tarquin will ever be.

Now we have three big empires mostly keeping up a façade, fighting each other, but not really trying to exterminate each other, while constantly helping a change in government happen in a way they keep being the men behind the man. People on such empires can "enjoy" their lives, as long as they don't ask too many questions, and don't mind the clearly evil behaviour of their leaders.

In the first place, the "three big empires" aren't actually that big. Look at Roy's map (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0698.html) again. The EoB is the biggest, but it's still quite a small fraction of the total inhabited land.

In the second place, people in the EoB have - issues (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0755.html), with "enjoying their lives". Consider the Platelet High School Marching Band, for instance, or runners-up in the Miss Bloodstain pageant. And that's without even considering the wars.

ScubaGoomba

2013-09-26, 07:06 PM

Pretty sure a 'good' person is going to have more than a few problems staying good when all of the methods of Team Tarquin are factored in.

This isn't the Elric Saga after all. :smallsmile:

Oh, I'm totally with you there; just kind of thinking against the grain a bit, is all. By all means, the closest to Good on Team Tarquin would be Neutral. But if we take the Western Continent as your standard "desert dystopian wasteland," it seems like Good and Evil would be (by standard tropes, at least) far less of a concern, internally, than Law and Chaos. So maybe one of them stuck with the team because he or she saw working with them as a way to bring order to society, temporarily swallowing his or her pride for the greater good. At this point, it's now less a matter of keeping Tarquin alive because he's your partner and more a matter of believing that Law is the ultimate good and killing him would cause a downward spiral back into Chaos.

veti

2013-09-26, 07:10 PM

If you want to protect a loved one, a much better investment than starting a mob (or even running for President) is to invest in a security system, self-defense lessons, move to a safe neighborhood, etc.

All of this makes me feel that Laurin's motivations are more complex than simply "I want my daughter safe."

Oh, I'm sure they're "more complex" than that. I'm sure her motivations include (a) her own personal safety, comfort and power, (b) loyalty to her friends, (c) quite probably, a sense of commitment to the plan that she's started out on, and invested so much effort in. Possibly also (d) a wish to improve the world, although that's entirely speculative. Maybe a dozen other factors that we can't even guess at. Real people often have weird, complex motivations.

But let's look at those "better investments" for a moment. Is there such a thing as a 'safe neighbourhood' for Hannah to move to? About a year ago (in-comic time), we'd have said that Azure City was about as safe as you could get, and look what happened to that. "Self-defence lessons" means, basically, gaining levels in a character class; Hannah may not be interested in that, and it's an inherently risky process anyway.

That leaves "invest in a security system". The only way I can think of to do that, to have any chance of reaching any further than Laurin's own spell range, is some combination of "lots of money" and "trustworthy minions".

Turgon9357

2013-09-26, 07:59 PM

Kish

2013-09-26, 08:09 PM

But let's look at those "better investments" for a moment. Is there such a thing as a 'safe neighbourhood' for Hannah to move to? About a year ago (in-comic time), we'd have said that Azure City was about as safe as you could get,
We would have? I wouldn't have, since it apparently had a running feud with the entire hobgoblin nation.

And in any event, setting aside for the moment my suspicion that there are probably places in the world that haven't had recent border skirmishes, I'd still have chosen it as a place for my daughter to live over the Unprincipled Principalities, even if I was a near-epic or low-epic evil psion. She would have had to evacuate recently, but until then she wouldn't have been living in a festering pit in the middle of a war zone.

The Oni

2013-09-26, 08:46 PM

I totally support the OP's characterization of Jacinda, especially because she is a Catfolk. What would be more appropriate for an Evil Catfolk than to kill for sport (and "play with her food?") She may not be motivated by anything at all beyond the opportunity to sharpen her claws and get paid for it; like Belkar, only smarter.

I dunno why anyone seems to think Laurin is evil, we've never seen how she runs her empire, she's never committed an evil act onscreen beyond disintegrating Nale which was completely justified. She's also decidedly lacking the traditional villainous-looking attire that the rest of the party seems to have (I mean, unless you consider a conservative Cleopatra cosplay to be villainous). She seems Neutral, maybe even Good at one time and declined towards Neutral in the same way Belkar is rising out of Evil, now.

veti

2013-09-26, 09:41 PM

We would have? I wouldn't have, since it apparently had a running feud with the entire hobgoblin nation.

Where do you get that from? As far as I can see (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0300.html), there's no sign the hobgoblins ever thought that much about Azure City one way or the other - until Redcloak and his grudge showed up.

Blisstake

2013-09-26, 10:07 PM

While I agree wholeheartedly--and am repeatedly baffled at why every member of the party is defaulted to nonevil--I'd say the primary "evidence" of Laurin's neutrality (a comment made to long-term allies) is marginally better than that of Malack's (a roundabout way of implying he could be neutral to a complete stranger).

I don't think people are defaulting to neutral, necessarily. It seems like many people are saying "We don't really know much about this person one way or another. Maybe they're evil, maybe not. There are feasible situations for both."

That's what I felt about Malack anyway. Did he end up being evil? Yeah, but it wasn't terribly surprising. I wouldn't be surprised if Laurin was neutral, but that doesn't mean I think she is. I just don't have an opinion based on what little I know about her. Probably evil since she worked with Tarquin, but hey, maybe she has good reasons.

Doesn't really matter much either way. I'm happy to just find out what happens (if anything) when new comics come out.

skim172

2013-09-26, 10:28 PM

Regarding Laurin, let's not forget what we've just seen from Tarquin. Evil has family, and Tarquin went to considerable lengths to give his sons a good deal (more accurately, a deal that didn't completely screw them over), it's just that neither of them took him up on the offer. Protecting your children strikes me as more natural (if not synonymous with neutral, then quite close) than good, and the means used here have a less than stellar track record.

True, but Laurin has also gone to great lengths to shield her daughter from knowledge of her true position. Implies that she doesn't take pride in these devious endeavors, but on the other hand, she doesn't seem particularly troubled by it, either.

My view is that Laurin doesn't aspire to be evil, but doesn't aspire to do good, either - so she's okay with resorting to evil methods to achieve her goals. Her goals seems to be a comfortable life for her daughter and for herself. That sounds "Neutral" to me.

I'd argue maybe even Miron could be Neutral. Perhaps he's just concerned with making money - specifically being Evil isn't a priority for him.

Nordom

2013-09-26, 10:42 PM

Regarding Laurin, let's not forget what we've just seen from Tarquin. Evil has family, and Tarquin went to considerable lengths to give his sons a good deal (more accurately, a deal that didn't completely screw them over), it's just that neither of them took him up on the offer. Protecting your children strikes me as more natural (if not synonymous with neutral, then quite close) than good, and the means used here have a less than stellar track record.

Yeah, but Tarquin's "good deal" for his sons was really just another form of self-aggrandizement. He wanted Nale to carry on his legacy and was content to kill him when that plan proved unworkable. Now he wants Elan to insure his legendary status by overthrowing him and is willing to murder all of Elan's friends to "motivate" him. He has no concern for his children as ends in and of themselves.

The Oni

2013-09-26, 11:27 PM

We know Tarquin is evil because he goes out of his way to inflict pain on others. For him it's not solely about winning, it's about making other people lose (that is, other people who are not him or people he cares about). That's why he's Evil and not Neutral. Whether the rest of the party share that sentiment is unclear.

Bird

2013-09-26, 11:45 PM

Oh, I'm sure they're "more complex" than that. I'm sure her motivations include (a) her own personal safety, comfort and power, (b) loyalty to her friends, (c) quite probably, a sense of commitment to the plan that she's started out on, and invested so much effort in. Possibly also (d) a wish to improve the world, although that's entirely speculative. Maybe a dozen other factors that we can't even guess at. Real people often have weird, complex motivations.
Yes. :smallsmile:

But let's look at those "better investments" for a moment. Is there such a thing as a 'safe neighbourhood' for Hannah to move to? About a year ago (in-comic time), we'd have said that Azure City was about as safe as you could get, and look what happened to that.
To Kish's point, better to find a place that's currently peaceful (even if it could conceivably cease to be in the future) than to leave your daughter in a place that's violent right now. If the peaceful place goes bad, you move away, or teleport if you can.

The other problem here is that you're cherry-picking one example. We saw peaceful Azure City plunged into war. Well, of course we did, because it's dramatically interesting to see that happen. That doesn't mean that anywhere that's peaceful is going to hell next month.

In real life or in OotS, some places are safer than others, based on a variety of factors (crime rates, environment, politics, etc). Can things go wrong in a safer place? Of course. But you've got better odds of safety in the place-that-is-safe-now than the place-we-know-is-a-mess-but-will-fix-maybe-with-decades-of-high-stakes-war-and-intrigue.

Of the ways to make someone safer, I'd say this is the most important.

"Self-defence lessons" means, basically, gaining levels in a character class; Hannah may not be interested in that, and it's an inherently risky process anyway.
Sure. Fighting isn't all there is to self-defense, though. There's also situational wisdom. As in: if you find yourself in dangerous situation X (mugging, warzone, natural disaster), here is what you do to maximize your safety. When things go sour, it makes a big difference if you have a plan and don't panic. That's why people do fire drills. They help, even if you're level one.

That leaves "invest in a security system". The only way I can think of to do that, to have any chance of reaching any further than Laurin's own spell range, is some combination of "lots of money" and "trustworthy minions".
Laurin's power range should count for a lot. She has access to all kinds of magical protections and items. (My recollection of what high-level psions can do is fuzzy, but I'm assuming it's roughly similar to what high-level wizards can do.) Too, keep in mind that you can get access to plenty of money (and even minions) without international intrigue. Normal adventuring is enough to fund someone's personal protection. If you go the bodyguard route, you don't need a whole army -- just a secret service. In fact, it's not as though Hannah has a whole army protecting her, anyway. The army presumably has army stuff to do -- and that's the case with many of the state resources that Laurin "has."

mhsmith

2013-09-27, 12:06 AM

Bulldog Psion

2013-09-27, 12:08 AM

If there's a neutral in the bunch, I'd be surprised.

hamishspence

2013-09-27, 01:24 AM

Where do you get that from? As far as I can see (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0300.html), there's no sign the hobgoblins ever thought that much about Azure City one way or the other - until Redcloak and his grudge showed up.

War & XPs commentary stuff about the war having gone on for generations.

Ramien

2013-09-27, 03:28 AM

Oh, I'm totally with you there; just kind of thinking against the grain a bit, is all. By all means, the closest to Good on Team Tarquin would be Neutral. But if we take the Western Continent as your standard "desert dystopian wasteland," it seems like Good and Evil would be (by standard tropes, at least) far less of a concern, internally, than Law and Chaos. So maybe one of them stuck with the team because he or she saw working with them as a way to bring order to society, temporarily swallowing his or her pride for the greater good. At this point, it's now less a matter of keeping Tarquin alive because he's your partner and more a matter of believing that Law is the ultimate good and killing him would cause a downward spiral back into Chaos.

Except Good really doesn't work that way, or it stops being Good in short order. A Good person, when faced with the bloodshed and constant war, might start similarly enough to Team Tarquin, but would be trying to also cause less internal strife and tyranny in the kingdoms they rule. Even if they came to the conclusion that sweeping reforms would be seen as a sign of weakness and invite even higher levels of hostility with the neighbors, they would still move on with more gradual reforms - and helping to keep an ally propped up who seems to be doing their best to create as oppressive a tyranny as possible would run counter to those goals.

Nobody is singlehandedly able to stop all the fighting and death, everywhere on the continent. But there is also a huge difference between not being able to stop two warlords from running their countries to the dust and not trying to stop your own allies from grinding their subjects under their heel.

Elan, as usual, says it best (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0776.html) about life for the common people in the Empire of blood. Don't try and tell me Tarquin is making life better for them.

RolkFlameraven

2013-09-27, 07:32 AM

If anyone isn't Evil in this party it is Laurin, if only as Tarquin has the Empire of Sweat up and running as the "Good-Guys" in the current scheme against the Free City of Doom, and going off this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0758.html) The Empire of Tears is even worse then the Empire of Blood. As such the Empire of Sweat is the lest of three evils, or the "Good" Empire; at lest from a certain point of view.

Now this gets more then a little dicey with assassin girl sitting right there next to the Queen as well but seeing as this Queen seems to rule from a sauna it would have to be an all girl team here.

Kish

2013-09-27, 07:43 AM

I doubt the Empire of Sweat is inherently and consistently better than the other two empires. A good vs. evil dichotomy would produce different reactions than "These three empires are all morally equivalent but enemies of each other": specifically, everyone would look to the Empire of Sweat for help against the other two instead of ever asking the Empire of Blood or Tears for help, and schemes like what happened with the Free City of Doom would never work.

Nilan8888

2013-09-27, 08:11 AM

True, but Laurin has also gone to great lengths to shield her daughter from knowledge of her true position. Implies that she doesn't take pride in these devious endeavors, but on the other hand, she doesn't seem particularly troubled by it, either.

That, or maybe after 25 years she's long past the 'acceptance' phase of what they're doing. Could be she went through a period that was really, really hard for her.

Then again, maybe not. Point is, is that we don't know until we know, and the most we have until that point is speculation to say she's good, and guilt by association to say she's evil.

I doubt the Empire of Sweat is inherently and consistently better than the other two empires. A good vs. evil dichotomy would produce different reactions than "These three empires are all morally equivalent but enemies of each other": specifically, everyone would look to the Empire of Sweat for help against the other two instead of ever asking the Empire of Blood or Tears for help, and schemes like what happened with the Free City of Doom would never work.

Why? Firstly, the Empires aren't around for that long. Secondly, it takes a while to acquire that sort of reputation. Thirdly, politics is not quite the same as interpersonal dealings. Not all nations would view the three the same way even if there WAS a good/evil situation. If the Empire of Sweat attacks another nation on the ground that it's evil, the fact that the Empire of Blood has it's own reputation wouldn't stop said nation from going to it for help. Beggars can't be choosers, and all that.

Nilan8888

2013-09-27, 08:31 AM

Laurin's power range should count for a lot. She has access to all kinds of magical protections and items. (My recollection of what high-level psions can do is fuzzy, but I'm assuming it's roughly similar to what high-level wizards can do.) Too, keep in mind that you can get access to plenty of money (and even minions) without international intrigue. Normal adventuring is enough to fund someone's personal protection. If you go the bodyguard route, you don't need a whole army -- just a secret service. In fact, it's not as though Hannah has a whole army protecting her, anyway. The army presumably has army stuff to do -- and that's the case with many of the state resources that Laurin "has."

It's about control of the situation, I would think, which any parent would prefer. If Laurin were to just leave the continent before she started adventuring, she would have had little to no resources. They'd be safer in a new land, but they don't really know what awaited them there.

If Laurin left after some adventuring, yeah she could have come to a better life, but if someone offered her a way to more securely look after her daughter in a place that had been their home all their lives (presumably -- we don't 100% know for certain that Laurin is from this part of the world, although her appearance sort of suggests it), that might look tempting.

And again, we don't know: maybe she DOES have some motivation to make this land a better place.

And finally, we don't know if there were OTHER mitigating circumstances as well. Sure, that's speculation but: who was Hannah's father, for instance? Maybe he had something to do with that decision-making once upon a time (assuming he's dead now, or at least absent).

Mike Havran

2013-09-27, 08:46 AM

Since Malack's little slaughterhouse plan was revealed, I don't think there's a non-evil member of the Team Tarquin. My current theory is that Team Tarquin is basically what would happen if the Order of the Stick went down the Pragmatic Evil route.

Tarquin is Pragmatic Evil Elan. They share the understanding of narrative structure and love to indulge in goofy stuff. But Tarquin is Evil and uses his knowledge to gain wealth and harm others. His pranks are also of the Evil sort.

Malack is Pragmatic Evil Durkon. both of them are completely devoted servants of their respective deities and are willing to set their personal feelings aside for the sake of their (un)holy mission.

For the others, there is little to know but what we have seen makes it likely.

Miron is a greedy scrooge to the bone so makes a perfect candidate for Pragmatic Evil Haley.

Jacinda is what Belkar is pretending to have become - Evil bastard who loves to slit the throats of others but is enough of a Team Player not to endanger the collective plan because of her whims.

Laurin seems to be the magical muscle of the team and also likes to disintegrate stuff she doesn't like. The "misguided parent" theme might also be in play.

We know nothing of the Shoulder Pad Guy, but he is a melee type so Pragmatic Evil Roy possibility is not off the table yet.

Nilan8888

2013-09-27, 09:38 AM

Since Malack's little slaughterhouse plan was revealed, I don't think there's a non-evil member of the Team Tarquin. My current theory is that Team Tarquin is basically what would happen if the Order of the Stick went down the Pragmatic Evil route.

That's why it's a vital point on the matter as to whether other people on Team Tarquin knew. It seems the sort of thing that could easily not have been mentioned. But if it was, it would make them all pretty much evil.

But who knows? Maybe we might end up seeing Team Tarquin into the next book and see ol' T get annoyed with Laurin fall out with her over exactly who Malack was and that maybe she has rosy-colored glasses as to the true nature of the person she's so upset over.

I mean, he had the wool pulled over Durkon's eyes. Probably because he wasn't really trying to pull the wool over his eyes.

Lots of potential, that's all I'm saying.

Gift Jeraff

2013-09-27, 11:29 AM

I mean, he had the wool pulled over Durkon's eyes. Probably because he wasn't really trying to pull the wool over his eyes.

Durkon knew Malack for less than 3 days. On the other hand Laurin knew him for over 22 years.

Nilan8888

2013-09-27, 11:55 AM

Durkon knew Malack for less than 3 days. On the other hand Laurin knew him for over 22 years.

More than enough time to know her enough NOT to bring the subject up unless he wanted a pretty big fight on his hands, if she was on the good side of the fence.

Frankly, he'd have a pretty huge fight on his hands even if she was on the neutral side of the fence. Malack's not dumb. There was a reason he didn't bring it up with Durkon, there'd be a reason not to bring it up with her.

Nordom

2013-09-27, 02:28 PM

Frankly, he'd have a pretty huge fight on his hands even if she was on the neutral side of the fence. Malack's not dumb. There was a reason he didn't bring it up with Durkon, there'd be a reason not to bring it up with her.

I'd think he'd have good reason not to bring it up with anyone who wasn't a fanatical devotee of his religion. I was honestly surprised Tarquin himself was cool with it. Who's going to remember or care about his petty little dictatorship in a future devoted to Malack's eternal blood sacrifice theocracy. Most likely he just assumed Malack's plan would fail for some reason of narrative causality. But the point is that even other evil characters could have strong motivation to oppose Malack's plan, so by default I'm guessing he keeps it tightly under wraps.

Ramien

2013-09-27, 04:57 PM

I'd think he'd have good reason not to bring it up with anyone who wasn't a fanatical devotee of his religion. I was honestly surprised Tarquin himself was cool with it. Who's going to remember or care about his petty little dictatorship in a future devoted to Malack's eternal blood sacrifice theocracy. Most likely he just assumed Malack's plan would fail for some reason of narrative causality. But the point is that even other evil characters could have strong motivation to oppose Malack's plan, so by default I'm guessing he keeps it tightly under wraps.

Tarquin doesn't care because of the following: If it happens, it means he succeeded and lived out his days unopposed. That's not the most eduring legacy, but it does satisfy one of his earlier win conditions: he got to live in comfort for all his days. Second, he's dead, so why should he care what happens to anyone else? Finally, he was okay with being beaten by a random paladin or someone anyway, which would stop Malack's plan right there.

I'm not including any legacy arguments, because he really didn't start caring about that until Elan came back into his life.

Bedinsis

2013-09-27, 06:39 PM

Based on their appearances, I suspect Tarquin is the only one who isn't native to the Western Continent.

martianmister

2013-09-27, 07:11 PM

Who ARE Team Tarquin? A miserable little pile of secrets!

Henry the 57th

2013-09-28, 12:15 AM

skim172

2013-09-28, 12:39 AM

:smallconfused: Why are so many people just randomly assuming Laurin is Neutral or even Good? The Giant has gone out of his way to portray Evil people still having friends, families, and loved ones while still being evil. There's no evidence whatsoever that she has any regard for anyone besides her daughter, Malack was evil to the core, but he still clearly cared greatly for his "children". Why is anyone assuming Laurin is any different?

For me, it's largely because she seems quite seriously concerned with keeping her dirty dealings a secret from her daughter. That suggests to me that she keeps her evil acts compartmentalized away from her primary life goals. And that suggests that her life goals - at least in her eyes - are not evil-compatible.

So I guess I'm saying Laurin doesn't see herself as Evil. That she still employs evil methods rules her out as Good, so I'm suggesting that she views herself as Neutral.

While certainly a moral argument could be made that undertaking evil actions, even for a non-evil goal, is itself evil, the discussion here is of Alignment, as in a stat on a character sheet. When I played D&D, our group (after many arguments) ultimately decided that Alignment reflected individual aspirations, rather than an objective standard. A hero may seek to do good - even if massacring a goblin village is morally questionable, their alignment is still Good - if a little misguided.

So, I'm suggesting Laurin is Neutral, because she may view herself as Neutral.

All entirely speculative, of course - we need much more information to go on.

Cerlis

2013-09-28, 02:44 AM

In thinking (again) about the strange notion that one would give ANY credit to Tarquin saying that the western continent is better now than it was (keep in mind the motivation wasnt stability for the continent, it was stability for the party).....

I did realize one major thing.

I'd trust Laurin's offhanded terminology spoken to a confidant , more than Tarquin's "spin" to convince his son of how awesome he is.

In otherwords i dont see any reason to doubt the feelings that Laurin is portraying right now (whether or not she is deluded is for us to find out in the future)

And i dont see any reason to believe, just cus the 2nd most evil person on the planet (debatable) says it is, that the continent is any better than it was.

Hell perhaps the continent was so "messed up" because few people followed the proper narrative directive!

*P.S. That is, trusting the way in which what they say displays their character. Not trusting they themselves.

Nilan8888

2013-09-28, 06:14 AM

It's not really a matter of believing Tarquin, it's that what he says is corroborated by the mapmaker at the beginning of the book:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0680.html

There seems little chance that Tarquin is somehow influencing that simple merchant in Sandsedge. But their stories appear consistent. Plus, that mapmaker's description is more or less the first introduction we get to the way things are on the Western Continent. Why would it prove to be false?

Does the mapmaker say things are "better" now than before. Well no: she's not in the EoB, for one. She's in a place that is STILL like that (and Sandsedge doesn't look like it's got a lot to offer). But what she says implies a situation where what Tarquin has instituted, terrible as it is, would be preferable.

SinsI

2013-09-28, 07:40 AM

This is what The Giant had to say about the nature of "stability" on the Western continent:

Well, he is wrong. Population in such societies is governed by food production, with droughts causing wars and riots to remove excess population.

War means that any passing warlord can burn your farm, drastically reducing food production. Tarquin's stability enormously boosts it, greatly increasing (at least for now, till it reaches the peak again) the lifespan for the majority of his citizens.

As for the rest of Team Tarquin, we have like one page with them talking - nowhere near enough to make any assumptions at all.

ti'esar

2013-09-28, 01:49 PM

orrion

2013-09-28, 02:00 PM

I think in this case I might bet differently. It might mean Laurin's of neutral alignment rather than good (although I think it would be more interesting if she WAS of good alignment), but my reason comes down to this:

Been there, done that.

We've seen Tarquin. We've seen Malack. We've seen that the other people in this scheme do generally evil things. The only one who hasn't done anything explicitly evil... or at least nothing explicitly evil to someone that wasn't explicitly evil themselves... is Laurin.

Sure, Laurin could just be another evil member of this evil team, but...

how boring.

Ok, but.. logically, the only reason you haven't seen her do any of that is because you've seen her for like 5 comics.

Back when we first saw Malack all he was doing was trying to was kill Nale in revenge for murdering his children. None of that was explicitly evil, either.

Ramien

2013-09-28, 02:32 PM

Nilan8888

2013-09-28, 02:53 PM

Ok, but.. logically, the only reason you haven't seen her do any of that is because you've seen her for like 5 comics.

Back when we first saw Malack all he was doing was trying to was kill Nale in revenge for murdering his children. None of that was explicitly evil, either.

You mean the reason we haven't seen her do anything MORE evil?

Look, it's like this: besides Laurin we've seen indications that every other member on that team is evil. Even Mohawk guy has a little something in that direction. Laurin doesn't have as much for the amount of time we've seen her comics or not.

Could she be evil? Absolutely. There's a very, very good chance she is.

But what I'm saying is that, if she is, I'd find that boring. Or at least not as nearly interesting. Because it would mean there really isn't all that much contrast on the team. Oh sure: each has their own personality quirks and some of them have different levels of 'evil': both Tarquin and Malack had evil endgames, and I think Malacks proved even an even more diabolical contrast than Tarquin's.

But frankly, if ALL of them just want different evil variations to come out of the same plan, that just doesn't strike me as interesting. The contrast of Tarquin and Malack's view of what going to happen in the end is, for me, enough. What are Miron's goals going to say that are substantially different? That he'd turn the Empire of Tears into a Dickensian sweatshop? That would be interesting enough if Miron was the first guy we ran into, but at this point it's superfluous to what we've already seen. As would whatever an evil Laurin has planned. We already know as much as we need.

But if Laurin was Neutral? Or maybe even GOOD? If how she did things in her own Empire was completely different? That WOULD be interesting, and would put another layer of moral complexity into the entire situation.

marq

2013-09-28, 02:58 PM

Nilan8888

2013-09-28, 03:10 PM

Except... people still die every time Tarquin and Co. change figureheads. That's the whole point of their plan - they keep changing their countries just like any other warlord in order to avoid suspicion. The only 'stability' is for Tarquin and Co., not for the people they rule over.

Inherently though, that's probably not true.

Let's take the same amount of area that the 3 Empires are in. So that's... 3 + Reptilia and FCOD. So, 5. By Ian's estimations (where he names something like 36 countries), that area of land used to hold a lot more nations. Probably not as much as 36, but let's... let's say 15 at a conservative estimate.

So, over a 3-4 year period, just about all those countries in both examples would have undergone some sort of bloody upheaval. 5 upheavals vs. 15.

Now, you might say: 'yeah, but because the empire's bigger, the upheavals are bigger and more people die per nation'.

Buuuut... why would that be true?

Sure, maybe a bit more would die, but if you live on the fringes of one of those Empires, all the action takes place back at the capital. Why are you affected? But the smaller those empires are, the more likely there isn't anyone on those fringes, because they don't really have them.

Plus, as the Empire grows, so do its resources. So does its ability to serve it's population, even if it's not particularly trying to serve that population all that well when there's no upheaval. If Tarquin wants those games of his and that palace, he has to see that his people are in better condition than they would be in a chaotic wasteland, because they're apt to just up and die of disease or starvation on him, and then nothing gets done. That's not because he's a nice ruler, it's just what he needs to do in order to make his own life better. Which in turn makes the lives of the people in the Empire better -- even if it's mostly because their lives were so cruddy to start with.

orrion

2013-09-28, 03:22 PM

Why does their team need contrast in the first place? Did they take on the role of main adventuring party in the comic when I wasn't looking?

Ramien

2013-09-28, 03:27 PM

Inherently though, that's probably not true.

Let's take the same amount of area that the 3 Empires are in. So that's... 3 + Reptilia and FCOD. So, 5. By Ian's estimations (where he names something like 36 countries), that area of land used to hold a lot more nations. Probably not as much as 36, but let's... let's say 15 at a conservative estimate.

So, over a 3-4 year period, just about all those countries in both examples would have undergone some sort of bloody upheaval. 5 upheavals vs. 15.

Even Tarquin says their countries have gone through dozens of name changes/revolutions. Not 5, not even 15, but dozens. That's a minimum of 24, and likely higher. Not only that, but what we've seen of Tarquin's rule would indicate he's just as happy trading 'pointless' deaths on the battlefield for just watching everything being trampled under his iron heel.

Nilan8888

2013-09-28, 03:41 PM

Why does their team need contrast in the first place? Did they take on the role of main adventuring party in the comic when I wasn't looking?

Just because there's contrast and conflict within that party doesn't make them the main party. Look at Team Evil (MiTD). Look at the Order of the Scribble (although that's more Chaos / Law conflict).

Even Tarquin says their countries have gone through dozens of name changes/revolutions. Not 5, not even 15, but dozens. That's a minimum of 24, and likely higher. Not only that, but what we've seen of Tarquin's rule would indicate he's just as happy trading 'pointless' deaths on the battlefield for just watching everything being trampled under his iron heel.

No, you're misinterpreting. Those changes/Revolutions came about over 25 years, which is how long the scheme has been going on for. That's why I said a 3-4 year period. Over 25 years, that area of land with 15 nations would have had WAY more than just dozens.

As for what Tarquin's happy doing, that's not really the point. The point is that in order for him to have the sort of Empire he has, it requires a certain amount of stability just to maintain the same area of land each time and build all the stuff he wants or needs. Like that palace. Or that stadium.

Emanick

2013-09-28, 03:46 PM

2.5 cats

2013-09-28, 09:22 PM

Just wanted to say that this is one of the most interesting Forum threads I've read in a good while. Good show, especially to Nilan8888! :smallsmile:

I certainly can see Laurin being Neutral (or maybe burnt-out-on-being-evil...which is possibly the same thing?), but agree that it's all speculation at this point based on very little face time. (And totally agreed that she's definitely EVIL if she knew about Malack's plans...but that's a pretty big if.) Hopefully we'll get to learn more about her in future comics!

rodneyAnonymous

2013-09-28, 09:34 PM

I dunno why anyone seems to think Laurin is evil...

She is a member of an evil adventuring party.

It is possible she is not evil. Is it probable? We haven't seen any evidence one way or the other, and the default assumption should be "evil" IMO. So she has sympathetic motivations; who cares? Many villains are sympathetic.

skim172

2013-09-28, 10:33 PM

Well, he is wrong. Population in such societies is governed by food production, with droughts causing wars and riots to remove excess population.

War means that any passing warlord can burn your farm, drastically reducing food production. Tarquin's stability enormously boosts it, greatly increasing (at least for now, till it reaches the peak again) the lifespan for the majority of his citizens.

As for the rest of Team Tarquin, we have like one page with them talking - nowhere near enough to make any assumptions at all.

Well, first off - it's a fantasy setting, and the author not only has the right to determine the rules of the universe he created, but the universe literally can't exist without it.

Second, your supposition is ... a little simplistic. Yes, population does rely on the ability to produce food, but there are many other factors that determine population numbers. It's not a strict up-and-down cycle centered on population control.

Third, Tarquin's strategy is not to establish stability, but to introduce instability, in order to suppress and inhibit any unified resistance organized and strong enough to overthrow this ruling regime. Hard to try to organize a revolution if the commoners of the continent can barely scrape together an existence before another bloody coup d'etat comes rumbling through.

Which, honestly, is probably the most unrealistic aspect. Armies are expensive - you've got a whole bunch of young able-bodies NOT producing for society, consuming food endlessly. That requires a huge food surplus and a huge population, both of which require very stable societies over generations. Considering that the whole continent has been constantly at war for centuries, society should have been reduced to tiny poorly organized population groups, barely subsisting, much less building cities and raising armies.

But I'm not complaining. Because that's the author's creation and choice. And because the story is more interesting this way.

Gift Jeraff

2013-09-28, 11:12 PM

Nilan8888

2013-09-29, 05:52 AM

She is a member of an evil adventuring party.

It is possible she is not evil. Is it probable? We haven't seen any evidence one way or the other, and the default assumption should be "evil" IMO. So she has sympathetic motivations; who cares? Many villains are sympathetic.

Right, but even though there's something to the old phrase of "where there's smoke, there's fire" in the end this is just guilt by association, which wouldn't even work for the OOTS. Especially now that they've got Durkula.

It might be that 'Good' in D&D has higher restrictions such that a good aligned character of any type would not be able to adventure with an evil party. Not just a Paladin, but any good-aligned character. However, although you don't really get 'adventuring parties' outside of D&D much per se, real life and even most other fiction doesn't really work like that.

Nilan8888

2013-09-29, 05:56 AM

Third, Tarquin's strategy is not to establish stability, but to introduce instability, in order to suppress and inhibit any unified resistance organized and strong enough to overthrow this ruling regime. Hard to try to organize a revolution if the commoners of the continent can barely scrape together an existence before another bloody coup d'etat comes rumbling through.

I think it's more correct to say his goal WAS to establish stability before he established the instability. Or rather, to use the previous instability as a cover for actual stability.

If he didn't have some form of stability between the coups of his governments, there'd be no way to stop outside parties from constantly breaking off and forming their own kingdoms.

veti

2013-09-29, 06:20 PM

If he didn't have some form of stability between the coups of his governments, there'd be no way to stop outside parties from constantly breaking off and forming their own kingdoms.

What makes you think he does "stop" that from happening? Or to put it another way, why would he?

Look at it this way: where do you think the "Free City of Doom" came from? Bear in mind that Tarquin has been de facto ruler of that corner of the continent for at least a dozen years now.

Nilan8888

2013-09-29, 07:07 PM

What makes you think he does "stop" that from happening? Or to put it another way, why would he?

Because he doesn't make headway. Sure, I'm not saying it might have happened once or twice before, but every time it happens he has to re-conquer land he's already taken, or have one of the other teams do it. How are you going to absorb the continent when you can't stop other nations from breaking off?

Look at it this way: where do you think the "Free City of Doom" came from? Bear in mind that Tarquin has been de facto ruler of that corner of the continent for at least a dozen years now.

There's been nothing saying he's been the de facto ruler of that entire section of land. I think the implication is that he's never annexed any of that land before, and neither has the rest of his team.

veti

2013-09-29, 10:02 PM

Because he doesn't make headway. Sure, I'm not saying it might have happened once or twice before, but every time it happens he has to re-conquer land he's already taken, or have one of the other teams do it. How are you going to absorb the continent when you can't stop other nations from breaking off?

You're still assuming Tarquin actually cares about conflict, that he wants to "make headway" or "absorb the continent". I see zero evidence for that, and some evidence against it. If he's such a tactical, military and political genius, and he's been doing this for so long, then how come his three empires, put together, still don't cover more than about one-third of the inhabited non-elven land on the continent?

As far as I can see, Tarquin's aims are:

To live like a king
For as long as possible

... and that's it. Everything else is gravy. Everything else he said to Elan was, basically, finely calculated to prevent Elan from trying to depose him for the foreseeable future.

If that core aim is well served by allowing new kingdoms to pop up and be annexed from time to time, as part of the political camouflage, then he has absolutely no reason whatsoever to want to put a stop to that process.

The point about the Free City of Doom is that it's an (until very recently) independent country that's precisely in the corner of Tarquin's three empires. Again, he's been doing this for at least a dozen years now - so how can the FCD have remained independent so long, in such a central position? The obvious answer (to me, although I admit it's entirely speculative) is that it was previously part of one of the empires, but became independent as the result of the political turmoil that Tarquin cultivates, probably during one of the "transitions".

Sir_Leorik

2013-09-29, 10:28 PM

Disclaimer: The following is not aimed at anyone specific.

Circa #726, people on the forum were saying, "Tarquin clearly isn't evil. Look at that smile, it's Elan's smile. No one evil could smile like that. If there are genuinely bad things about the Empire, it must be the fault of that creepy albino lizardfolk." ...This mostly--not entirely--stopped at the burning slaves.

Circa #810, people on the forum were saying, "Yay, Malack! See, he's obviously Lawful Neutral!" And they kept that up until the humanoid cattle farm plans.

At this point, if I were Rich, I'd make a special point of having a new member of Tarquin's group appear on-panel every 100 strips or so just so I could count how many, when the sixth one appeared, went, "I bet this one's neutral!"

Maybe Laurin is exactly what she appears to be, as Tarquin and Malack were not. Maybe there is no mind-wrenching, stomach-churning horror hidden under her "this thing we do...[my daughter gets] a good life away from all this."

That's not the way I'm going to bet, though.

Laurin really reminds me of Vito Corleone, trying to protect his son Michael from the more insidious aspects of "La Cosa Nostra". But just because Vito didn't want Michael to become the next Don Corleone didn't mean he wasn't a criminal with gallons of blood on his hands. By the same token, Laurin is probably Lawful Evil, but she justifies her misdeeds to herself by promising that Hannah will never "join the family business". I'm surprised Tarquin didn't make any "Godfather" jokes in strip #921.

Poppatomus

2013-09-29, 11:13 PM

Laurin really reminds me of Vito Corleone, trying to protect his son Michael from the more insidious aspects of "La Cosa Nostra". But just because Vito didn't want Michael to become the next Don Corleone didn't mean he wasn't a criminal with gallons of blood on his hands. By the same token, Laurin is probably Lawful Evil, but she justifies her misdeeds to herself by promising that Hannah will never "join the family business". I'm surprised Tarquin didn't make any "Godfather" jokes in strip #921.

Great analogy. The only tweak I would make is that Vito's character was partly defined by his ability to "civilize" the mob more generally. He didn't just want to keep his son out of the family business, he helped make that business less bloody through sheer force of will. It doesn't seem, at this point, that Laurin can make the same claim. This leaves her as a more selfish and less anti-heroish place.

It does, though, make Laurin an even stronger counter-point to Tarkie. He changed the game, but in the hopes of bringing his family ever more into it. Laurin tagged along for what she gained, but doesn't want anyone to follow in her footsteps.

Make me wonder even more how this particular group ended up linked together. Given the strong reaction to Malak's death, I wonder if he wasn't the key to bringing them all together.

ti'esar

2013-09-29, 11:17 PM

What makes you think he does "stop" that from happening? Or to put it another way, why would he?

Look at it this way: where do you think the "Free City of Doom" came from? Bear in mind that Tarquin has been de facto ruler of that corner of the continent for at least a dozen years now.

I think the more likely reason is the same for why the argument that Tarquin's creating "stability" (at least in the short run) is completely nonsensical: the Free City of Doom was "free" because he hadn't gotten around to conquering it yet. In other words, the BST Empires didn't start out that size - they're been conquering other nations all along.

That is, after, Tarquin's long-term goal: to bring the entire continent (below the Goaway Mountains, at least) under the goal of the three empires. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0758.html) He's not just running a puppet ruler merry-go-round, he's actively waging wars of conquest.

Reddish Mage

2013-09-29, 11:46 PM

[Regarding Leorik's comparison of Laurin with Vito Corleone] Great analogy. The only tweak I would make is that Vito's character was partly defined by his ability to "civilize" the mob more generally. He didn't just want to keep his son out of the family business, he helped make that business less bloody through sheer force of will. It doesn't seem, at this point, that Laurin can make the same claim. This leaves her as a more selfish and less anti-heroish place.

I don't think that Tarquin or Laurin have ever been thought to belong in even an anti-villain place. Team Tarquin (Malack included) are all very concerned about their progenies well-being. This isn't meant to make them non-evil but simply to give them a resemblance of humanity.

I think it says something about fiction in general whenever the dimmest glimpse of something not maniacally evil gets a character instantly upgraded into a redeemable place.

Poppatomus

2013-09-30, 12:04 AM

I don't think that Tarquin or Laurin have ever been thought to belong in even an anti-villain place. Team Tarquin (Malack included) are all very concerned about their progenies well-being. This isn't meant to make them non-evil but simply to give them a resemblance of humanity.

I hadn't considered how well Malack fits this as well, providing yet another approach to one's progeny.

I think it says something about fiction in general whenever the dimmest glimpse of something not maniacally evil gets a character instantly upgraded into a redeemable place.

I think perhaps I am just using the term anti-hero too loosely (or maybe wrongly). I am not trying to imply that I think that her lack of moustache-twirling motivation makes her less of a villain. Rather, I was using it to indicate a character who is evil in their actions, or even spirit, but supports a goal that the audience also supports, and maybe even supports that goal for the right reasons. Likewise, I had no intention of implying this redeemed her character, or even marks a particular step on a path to redemption.

That said, I think that the impulse you describe says more about people than about fiction. Once you grant your character the kinds of motivations that an audience of humans can empathize with, it becomes harder for that audience to consign that character to the conflagration.

But now we're back you your alien intelligences thread.

Sir_Leorik

2013-09-30, 02:25 AM

Great analogy. The only tweak I would make is that Vito's character was partly defined by his ability to "civilize" the mob more generally. He didn't just want to keep his son out of the family business, he helped make that business less bloody through sheer force of will. It doesn't seem, at this point, that Laurin can make the same claim. This leaves her as a more selfish and less anti-heroish place.

It does, though, make Laurin an even stronger counter-point to Tarkie. He changed the game, but in the hopes of bringing his family ever more into it. Laurin tagged along for what she gained, but doesn't want anyone to follow in her footsteps.

Make me wonder even more how this particular group ended up linked together. Given the strong reaction to Malak's death, I wonder if he wasn't the key to bringing them all together.

The power in Team Tarquin is mostly held by Tarquin; Laurin is a partner, but he's the senior partner. Vito Corleone was the Don; he set the direction for the mafia. But in the end it was all meaningless, because Michael was drawn into the "family business" anyway, after Vito's death. Laurin may not be able to shield Hannah forever, even if she wants to.

Nilan8888

2013-09-30, 05:50 AM

You're still assuming Tarquin actually cares about conflict, that he wants to "make headway" or "absorb the continent". I see zero evidence for that, and some evidence against it. If he's such a tactical, military and political genius, and he's been doing this for so long, then how come his three empires, put together, still don't cover more than about one-third of the inhabited non-elven land on the continent?

Er, because he literally SAYS that's his aim:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0763.html

Comic #2, Panel 3, lower inset: "Plus, I have the rest of the continent to absorb."

He's supposedly been doing this for about 25 years. I don't get it: are you saying that in starting from 0 he should have EVERYTHING absorbed by now? I would think doing this is a time consuming process. How come they STILL don't cover more than one-third of the area? I would think it's an astonishing feat that they cover that much to begin with, given their process is so complicated.

As far as I can see, Tarquin's aims are:

To live like a king
For as long as possible

... and that's it. Everything else is gravy. Everything else he said to Elan was, basically, finely calculated to prevent Elan from trying to depose him for the foreseeable future.

...by absorbing the rest of the continent.

If that core aim is well served by allowing new kingdoms to pop up and be annexed from time to time, as part of the political camouflage, then he has absolutely no reason whatsoever to want to put a stop to that process.

He does: see above.

The point about the Free City of Doom is that it's an (until very recently) independent country that's precisely in the corner of Tarquin's three empires. Again, he's been doing this for at least a dozen years now - so how can the FCD have remained independent so long, in such a central position? The obvious answer (to me, although I admit it's entirely speculative) is that it was previously part of one of the empires, but became independent as the result of the political turmoil that Tarquin cultivates, probably during one of the "transitions".

I would say it's been there in one form or another and they haven't gotten around to it yet, given the quote from above. Tarquin literally says he's out to annex the rest of the continent -- which I take to mean everything south of the Elven lands.

Nilan8888

2013-09-30, 06:25 AM

The power in Team Tarquin is mostly held by Tarquin; Laurin is a partner, but he's the senior partner. Vito Corleone was the Don; he set the direction for the mafia. But in the end it was all meaningless, because Michael was drawn into the "family business" anyway, after Vito's death. Laurin may not be able to shield Hannah forever, even if she wants to.

Not to be annoying but, although that may be what the situation is in OOTS, the implication by the end of G, Part II is different. It's implied in the last scene that Vito originally intended Michael to, if not take over, be heavily involved in the business, which Tom Hagen speaks to. But Michael had no wish to get involved, which was a, if not THE primary reason for volunteering in WWII.

Largely Vito shielded Michael, but that's because, by the beginning of the original film, Michael's already made his desires clear that he wants no part.

Your analysis may or may not be correct -- I'm just getting all annoying in picking at your analogy. :smallbiggrin:

F.Harr

2013-09-30, 09:50 AM

Iago

2013-09-30, 11:25 AM

Ok, so on the surface we (mostly) know the names:
1. Tarquin; 2. Malack; 3. Miron; 4. Laurin; 5. Jacinda; 6. Hey you: mohawk-fighter-guy with the face
<snip>

I agree with most of what you wrote, but -- and I freely admit this is nitpicky -- I think "Hey You" actually sports a high-and-tight, not a Mohawk.

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0758.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_and_tight

hamishspence

2013-09-30, 11:27 AM

Teenage Crystal has a similar haircut- it just doesn't point up at the front:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0608.html

Nilan8888

2013-09-30, 11:47 AM

Eeeh, I just heard someone refer to it as a mohawk once on the forums. I ain't particular on the hair style. If it's better referred to as high & tight, let my ignorance of hairstyles reign supreme.

veti

2013-09-30, 02:33 PM

Er, because he literally SAYS that's his aim:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0763.html

He says that's his aim when he's talking to Elan. I take it as read that he's lying in that case. He's saying Whatever He Thinks Is Most Likely To Delay Elan's Moving Against Him.

He's supposedly been doing this for about 25 years. I don't get it: are you saying that in starting from 0 he should have EVERYTHING absorbed by now?

Damn' straight he should have. Alexander the Great conquered more land than that, from a miniscule start, in barely 10 years. Napoleon conquered most of Europe in the same timeframe. Genghis Khan, Hitler - basically, anyone who wants to amount to anything in the 'conquering' business works much, much faster than that. And if he's really interested in unification, Qin Shi Huang put together the Chinese empire - two thousand years' worth of stability - in less time than it's taken Tarquin to carve out one measly corner of a squabbling desert.

And as for the size of his base? Ten thousand men. Hernan Cortes took less than five hundred men into the Aztec Empire, and three years later he was ruler of Mexico.

More relevantly, Tarquin's own track record (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0758.html): "He conquered eleven nations in eight months. It took a coalition of no less than twenty-six other countries to defeat him and drive him out".

Eight. Months.

So what the hell has he been doing for the last 25 years? If his goal is to conquer the continent, what on earth is taking him so long?

Conclusion: his goal isn't to conquer the continent. He has no interest in that any more.

happycrow

2013-09-30, 02:38 PM

veti

2013-09-30, 02:48 PM

Veti:

He's doing it slowly and carefully and in such a manner that there aren't 26 other nations who can come together to oppose him. Also, living like a King along with his buddies.

Western Continent: easy to overrun, insanely hard to hold.

"Stopping the other nations ganging up against him" is precisely what the other two empires are for.

"Slowly and carefully" is one thing, but at his present rate of conquest it'll take him another 50 years. When someone who's already at least 50 years old, explains to me that their life's ambition is a programme that will take another half-century... I don't take them too seriously.

Mike Havran

2013-09-30, 02:59 PM

"Slowly and carefully" is one thing, but at his present rate of conquest it'll take him another 50 years.
The thing is, the present rate of conquest will need to change soon. From the map (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0698.html) it can be seen that the empries already cover one unified mass of circa one third of the non-elven part (well, there's Reptilia, but it will fall soon). The strategy "let one empire declare war on nation X, the other will betray them and the third will "liberate" and engulf" is not usable anymore because they are simply too far away. So, Tarquin might settle for a more direct and faster approach.

F.Harr

2013-09-30, 03:02 PM

veti

2013-09-30, 03:06 PM

The thing is, the present rate of conquest will need to change soon. From the map (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0698.html) it can be seen that the empries already cover one unified mass of circa one third of the non-elven part (well, there's Reptilia, but it will fall soon). The strategy "let one empire declare war on nation X, the other will betray them and the third will "liberate" and engulf" is not usable anymore because they are simply too far away. So, Tarquin might settle for a more direct and faster approach.

You're still assuming, as a given, that Tarquin wants to conquer the continent.

I'm still wondering: why?

The only, repeat, only reason for thinking that's even at the back of his mind is his rant to Elan. Once you drop the whole ridiculous "Tarquin-doesn't-tell-outright-lies" assumption, it becomes (I think) obvious that the only part of his agenda that really interests him is the "living like a king" bit.

And he's doing that already. His long-term goal is to maintain that position.

That involves the three-empire shell game, occasional wars of conquest, putting down insurrections etc. And he's not at all averse to bits of his kingdom splitting off every now and then, so that he can reconquer them. It gives everyone who cares about politics something to focus on, other than "taking him down". Which is the name of the game.

Emanick

2013-09-30, 03:28 PM

You're still assuming, as a given, that Tarquin wants to conquer the continent.

I'm still wondering: why?

The only, repeat, only reason for thinking that's even at the back of his mind is his rant to Elan. Once you drop the whole ridiculous "Tarquin-doesn't-tell-outright-lies" assumption, it becomes (I think) obvious that the only part of his agenda that really interests him is the "living like a king" bit.

And he's doing that already. His long-term goal is to maintain that position.

That involves the three-empire shell game, occasional wars of conquest, putting down insurrections etc. And he's not at all averse to bits of his kingdom splitting off every now and then, so that he can reconquer them. It gives everyone who cares about politics something to focus on, other than "taking him down". Which is the name of the game.

Being a conqueror makes you a winner. Tarquin likes being a winner. I'm not sure why people are wondering why he would like to conquer the continent - for people with a certain mindset, that sort of thing is a no-brainer if you can pull it off.

orrion

2013-09-30, 03:33 PM

Er, because he literally SAYS that's his aim:

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0763.html

Comic #2, Panel 3, lower inset: "Plus, I have the rest of the continent to absorb."

And if you go ahead to 768, Elan asks him in panel 15 whether or not he'll merge the 3 empires into one when he has the whole continent.

Tarquin's response is "No, we'll just quietly rule our kingdoms with an iron fist until we get old and/or die."

F.Harr

2013-09-30, 03:33 PM

It seems to me that if Tarq co. ever finishes the project, Taquin with suddenly have a staff of adventurers with nothing to do. He's probably not hurrying to get to the enevitable downsizing complete and final victory would necessarily entail.

Nilan8888

2013-09-30, 04:16 PM

He says that's his aim when he's talking to Elan. I take it as read that he's lying in that case. He's saying Whatever He Thinks Is Most Likely To Delay Elan's Moving Against Him.

But that... doesn't really make sense. I mean, I totally get that Tarquin would lie to his advantage, but Elan's ALREADY on his way out. He's going off on his original quest. Tarquin's been, if anything, trying to get him to stay longer. There doesn't really seem to be any point to him saying that. I mean, if he actually tells him he's going to be absorbing the rest of the continent... isn't that just going to get Elan to try to speed up, not delay and slow down?

Nah, that's such a small quote -- and the alternate explanation too convoluted -- for me to figure that it's anything but what it says on the tin.

Damn' straight he should have. Alexander the Great conquered more land than that, from a miniscule start, in barely 10 years. Napoleon conquered most of Europe in the same timeframe. Genghis Khan, Hitler - basically, anyone who wants to amount to anything in the 'conquering' business works much, much faster than that. And if he's really interested in unification, Qin Shi Huang put together the Chinese empire - two thousand years' worth of stability - in less time than it's taken Tarquin to carve out one measly corner of a squabbling desert.

And as for the size of his base? Ten thousand men. Hernan Cortes took less than five hundred men into the Aztec Empire, and three years later he was ruler of Mexico.

More relevantly, Tarquin's own track record: "He conquered eleven nations in eight months. It took a coalition of no less than twenty-six other countries to defeat him and drive him out".

Eight. Months.

So what the hell has he been doing for the last 25 years? If his goal is to conquer the continent, what on earth is taking him so long?

Conclusion: his goal isn't to conquer the continent. He has no interest in that any more.

I don't know that we should get into RW comparisons... the mods frown on that... but what I will say is that most of your comparisons don't work in this situation. Most of those situations were armies taking on their opponents one at a time without really a cohesive alliance working against them that I'm aware of. Two of the conquerors did, but only one of those alliance systems, I think, were actually fully-functioning for extended periods of time. The other was only fully-fledged for 2-3 years at most, after which the conquering nation was defeated, and was on its way out long before said defeat. The only reason it took as long as it did was because it just plain refused to give up.

Tarquin, meanwhile, has potential alliances to worry over, so he has to be really indirect about what he's doing. And that indirect manner seems to be what's eating up all his time.

Most of the others was just one conqueror against one really big opponent, or another conqueror taking on disconnected opponents serially, one after the other.

And the last example involves a tech and education imbalance on a huge scale it couldn't possibly be a fair comparison.

That said, while I think Tarquin himself is comparable to SOME of these examples while his situation is not, I don't think he's a complete savant, like one or two of the men in that list or a couple others you didn't list.

Nilan8888

2013-09-30, 04:17 PM

And if you go ahead to 768, Elan asks him in panel 15 whether or not he'll merge the 3 empires into one when he has the whole continent.

Tarquin's response is "No, we'll just quietly rule our kingdoms with an iron fist until we get old and/or die."

I... don't get your point. He still has the continent absorbed, minus the elven lands.

Mike Havran

2013-09-30, 04:20 PM

You're still assuming, as a given, that Tarquin wants to conquer the continent.

I'm still wondering: why?

The only, repeat, only reason for thinking that's even at the back of his mind is his rant to Elan. Once you drop the whole ridiculous "Tarquin-doesn't-tell-outright-lies" assumption, it becomes (I think) obvious that the only part of his agenda that really interests him is the "living like a king" bit.

And he's doing that already. His long-term goal is to maintain that position.

That involves the three-empire shell game, occasional wars of conquest, putting down insurrections etc. And he's not at all averse to bits of his kingdom splitting off every now and then, so that he can reconquer them. It gives everyone who cares about politics something to focus on, other than "taking him down". Which is the name of the game.Where is the point where he has sufficient amount of wealth and power to "live like a king", then? Is it now? Was it two years ago? Twelve years ago? Even if we dismiss Tarquin's speech as a lie, there is still the undisputable fact that his empires are growing. Will he stop after he gets Reptilia? Maybe. Maybe not. There are reasons for both decisions (the other countries will become a destination of refugees vs. the fact the three-empire con can't be used). But I think Tarquin is the guy who will be trying to push for more, if only to keep himself in shape.

Nilan8888

2013-09-30, 04:25 PM

You're still assuming, as a given, that Tarquin wants to conquer the continent.

I'm still wondering: why?

The only, repeat, only reason for thinking that's even at the back of his mind is his rant to Elan. Once you drop the whole ridiculous "Tarquin-doesn't-tell-outright-lies" assumption, it becomes (I think) obvious that the only part of his agenda that really interests him is the "living like a king" bit.

I really don't get this thinking. Yes, Tarquin tells outright lies, but the alternate explanation just makes no sense. Why is it taking Tarquin so long? Because a huge alliance came after him last time. That's why it's taken this long to get where he is, to avoid that.

Now that he's much larger, there's less and less of a need to be quite so subtle, as you pointed out. Now each of the Empires can start striking out on their own more often. They'll still need the shell game to some extent, but it's reaching the point bit by bit that the combined powers of the rest of the nations still wouldn't be enough to overcome them. Actually right now seems close to the tipping point.

Henry the 57th

2013-09-30, 04:32 PM

You're still assuming, as a given, that Tarquin wants to conquer the continent.

I'm still wondering: why?

The only, repeat, only reason for thinking that's even at the back of his mind is his rant to Elan. Once you drop the whole ridiculous "Tarquin-doesn't-tell-outright-lies" assumption, it becomes (I think) obvious that the only part of his agenda that really interests him is the "living like a king" bit.

And he's doing that already. His long-term goal is to maintain that position.

That involves the three-empire shell game, occasional wars of conquest, putting down insurrections etc. And he's not at all averse to bits of his kingdom splitting off every now and then, so that he can reconquer them. It gives everyone who cares about politics something to focus on, other than "taking him down". Which is the name of the game.

If his sole interest was to stop Elan from moving against him, he could have, you know, killed him. When he was helpless and at Tarquin's mercy.

Mike Havran

2013-09-30, 04:42 PM

Now that he's much larger, there's less and less of a need to be quite so subtle, as you pointed out. Now each of the Empires can start striking out on their own more often. They'll still need the shell game to some extent, but it's reaching the point bit by bit that the combined powers of the rest of the nations still wouldn't be enough to overcome them. Actually right now seems close to the tipping point.I think the lesson Tarquin learned was something like "if you become too obvious something will happen to stop you". The last time it was a large unprecedented coalition, this time it could be elves or something else.

But I can imagine a scenario where Sweat gets toppled, then it will conquer Tears, unite the empires and remain silent. Now, Blood will start lashing out in the north-west and sudenly, a small group of bold tacticians will crop up somewhere near Dictatoria and will start their misssion to unite the small kingdoms into a single state powerful enough to withstand the assault...

Sir_Leorik

2013-09-30, 05:47 PM

Not to be annoying but, although that may be what the situation is in OOTS, the implication by the end of G, Part II is different. It's implied in the last scene that Vito originally intended Michael to, if not take over, be heavily involved in the business, which Tom Hagen speaks to. But Michael had no wish to get involved, which was a, if not THE primary reason for volunteering in WWII.

Largely Vito shielded Michael, but that's because, by the beginning of the original film, Michael's already made his desires clear that he wants no part.

Your analysis may or may not be correct -- I'm just getting all annoying in picking at your analogy. :smallbiggrin:

Okay, it's not a perfect one-to-one match, but the ideas are similar enough. It also keeps us from needing to equate Laurin's maternal concern for Hannah with a Lawful Neutral or True Neutral Alignment. Laurin's just as Lawful Evil as Tarquin and Malack, she's just a better parent.

veti

2013-09-30, 07:52 PM

Where is the point where he has sufficient amount of wealth and power to "live like a king", then? Is it now? Was it two years ago? Twelve years ago? Even if we dismiss Tarquin's speech as a lie, there is still the undisputable fact that his empires are growing. Will he stop after he gets Reptilia? Maybe. Maybe not. There are reasons for both decisions (the other countries will become a destination of refugees vs. the fact the three-empire con can't be used). But I think Tarquin is the guy who will be trying to push for more, if only to keep himself in shape.

The point was probably about 20 years ago. Everything since then has been about preserving a dynamic equilbrium - which is to say, everything keeps changing, but Tarquin stays on top anyway.

His empires are growing? Really? All we know is that one of them just absorbed the Free City of Doom, and he himself is planning to move against Reptilia. That's quite a fast rate of acquisition, and it really strengthens my belief that this is a dynamic equilibrium. Places get conquered, bits break away. So long as his core empire remains the biggest bully on the block, Tarquin is perfectly fine with reconquering bits of it every couple of years. It all maintains the illusion of change.

I'm now fairly sure that the FCoD previously belonged to the Empire of Tears - which is why they were at war with them initially, fighting to confirm their independence - and that's a typical example of how Tarquin's dynamic works.

For a last piece of evidence, look yet again at the map (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0698.html). If the goal is continent-wide domination, then why are all the empires in the same corner of the map? Wouldn't it make more sense for Tears to be centred on, e.g., the People's Democratic Dictatorship, or Dictatoria? Then it could "fight" the other two empires over the territories between them.

If his sole interest was to stop Elan from moving against him, he could have, you know, killed him. When he was helpless and at Tarquin's mercy.

As a blood relative, Elan is a valuable (and very limited-issue) potential asset. There are all sorts of ways in which he could be made useful, of which the whole "make me a legend!" spiel is only the tip. He spent a long time trying to control Nale before giving up on him; it makes sense he'd do the same to Elan.

Or look at it this way. Tarquin knows that, at any given time, there are a very limited number of high-level parties running around the world, and these are potentially the greatest threat to him. By priming Elan the way he has, he now knows that when one of those parties comes after him, he'll see it coming with plenty of warning.

GameJudge

2013-09-30, 08:03 PM

veti

2013-09-30, 08:32 PM

But I can imagine a scenario where Sweat gets toppled, then it will conquer Tears, unite the empires and remain silent. Now, Blood will start lashing out in the north-west and sudenly, a small group of bold tacticians will crop up somewhere near Dictatoria and will start their misssion to unite the small kingdoms into a single state powerful enough to withstand the assault...

I agree, strategically that would make perfect sense.

But it's so simple, and so obvious, that I can't help thinking - why didn't it happen 15 years ago?

All the proposed answers to that seem to take Tarquin at his word - that it's all about preventing the Grand Coalition from reforming. But this plan prevents that anyway - it co-opts the Grand Coalition onto Tarquin's side. I can't imagine why he hasn't already done it.

Unless - and this is still my personal belief - he has no real interest in conquering the continent.

Nilan8888

2013-09-30, 09:09 PM

His empires are growing? Really? All we know is that one of them just absorbed the Free City of Doom, and he himself is planning to move against Reptilia. That's quite a fast rate of acquisition, and it really strengthens my belief that this is a dynamic equilibrium. Places get conquered, bits break away. So long as his core empire remains the biggest bully on the block, Tarquin is perfectly fine with reconquering bits of it every couple of years. It all maintains the illusion of change.

A rate of exponential growth would also work, you know. Meaning that when he started, the states were a lot smaller.

Dynamic equilibrium would indicate it isn't growing, and the evidence you cite is circumstantial, versus what Tarquin actually says in the comic (more than once). Considering there doesn't seem to be any reason to lie to Elan... and in fact the lie would probably result in the OPPOSITE result of what you say Tarquin's goal actually is... I think you're on the other side of the fence on this one.

The plot's complicated enough as it is. What's the more likely solution: that Tarquin is just keeping things steady over the same old ground year after year and lying to his son in order to... well, for reasons still not really clear at ALL...

or that the entire situation is just exponential growth of the plan he's already laid out, and that it took them this long because, unlike all those historical examples you cited, Tarquin is trying very hard to conquer all this land without LOOKING like he's conquering it?

(That said, I will concede that if anyone was paying attention, given what the situation was stated to be, they would have noticed something funny was going on by now)

veti

2013-09-30, 09:47 PM

The plot's complicated enough as it is. What's the more likely solution: that Tarquin is just keeping things steady over the same old ground year after year and lying to his son in order to... well, for reasons still not really clear at ALL...

There are two reasons for lying to Elan.

One, there's an outside chance that this "unification would bring Peace and Stability to the GalaxyContinent" spiel will actually convert him. That's maybe unlikely, but he's got to try - it's practically in the villain charter. And even if it fails - which, I'll grant, must always have been by far the likeliest outcome - it might still plant a seed of doubt in Elan's mind as to what the right course is. There are a lot of people on the forum who actually argue, in the face of all the evidence, that Tarquin's idea of "order" may actually benefit "his" continent. If Elan has been deceived even one-quarter as much as some readers, he will certainly be - at least - slower to act.

And two, if Elan is going to act against him, it makes excellent sense to have misled him about what the game is. That way, some of Elan's potential plans would misfire or completely backfire. For instance, imagine if Elan and his team went over to, say, Dictatoria and started building up a rival power base there. That would be one possible rational response to what Tarquin told Elan about his plan - but in fact it would be a complete waste of time. If Elan can be persuaded to wait for Tarquin to make a move that, in fact, he has no intention of making - that's another few months or years of uninterrupted power for Tarquin. Win.

or that the entire situation is just exponential growth of the plan he's already laid out, and that it took them this long because, unlike all those historical examples you cited, Tarquin is trying very hard to conquer all this land without LOOKING like he's conquering it?

(That said, I will concede that if anyone was paying attention, given what the situation was stated to be, they would have noticed something funny was going on by now)

Personally, I find the 'dynamic equilibrium' explanation much more plausible. We agree that what Tarquin says can't be trusted - so why are you still basing your beliefs on it? Discard that, just look at what he's done.

Mike Havran

2013-09-30, 11:12 PM

The point was probably about 20 years ago. Everything since then has been about preserving a dynamic equilbrium - which is to say, everything keeps changing, but Tarquin stays on top anyway.

His empires are growing? Really? All we know is that one of them just absorbed the Free City of Doom, and he himself is planning to move against Reptilia. That's quite a fast rate of acquisition, and it really strengthens my belief that this is a dynamic equilibrium. Places get conquered, bits break away. So long as his core empire remains the biggest bully on the block, Tarquin is perfectly fine with reconquering bits of it every couple of years. It all maintains the illusion of change.The non-Tarquinian countries are mostly pretty small in comparison. There is no reason to believe the area that is now covered by Empires was any different when Tarquin's plan started. In fact, at on point there was like 40 nations, because he conquered 11 and 26 others chased him away. Now? I count 17. There is a progress there and if it's slow, then it's because TT is willing co continue with his slow-and-sure approach that is now coming to an end. Also, all that palace coup management and search for replacement puppets must hold them back.

For a last piece of evidence, look yet again at the map (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0698.html). If the goal is continent-wide domination, then why are all the empires in the same corner of the map? Wouldn't it make more sense for Tears to be centred on, e.g., the People's Democratic Dictatorship, or Dictatoria? Then it could "fight" the other two empires over the territories between them.Tarquin&co had to start small, e.g. with one small kingdom for each third of the party. And if those were located far away from each other, the con would not work.

tomandtish

2013-09-30, 11:22 PM

For me, it's largely because she seems quite seriously concerned with keeping her dirty dealings a secret from her daughter. That suggests to me that she keeps her evil acts compartmentalized away from her primary life goals. And that suggests that her life goals - at least in her eyes - are not evil-compatible.

So I guess I'm saying Laurin doesn't see herself as Evil. That she still employs evil methods rules her out as Good, so I'm suggesting that she views herself as Neutral.

While certainly a moral argument could be made that undertaking evil actions, even for a non-evil goal, is itself evil, the discussion here is of Alignment, as in a stat on a character sheet. When I played D&D, our group (after many arguments) ultimately decided that Alignment reflected individual aspirations, rather than an objective standard. A hero may seek to do good - even if massacring a goblin village is morally questionable, their alignment is still Good - if a little misguided.

So, I'm suggesting Laurin is Neutral, because she may view herself as Neutral.

All entirely speculative, of course - we need much more information to go on.

Roy's whole judgement (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0488.html) after his death seems to make it pretty clear that there is probably going to be an evaluation of your life after you died, and where you end up might not be where you think.

In short, you may THINK of yourself as good, or neutral, but if you haven't been meeting those standards, you aren't getting into the appropriate afterlife.

After all, it would have only taken Roy not returning, and even if the rest of the party (and Elan) escape, Roy's getting chucked in the neutral bin. Despite every good thing he may have done up till then, that one act is enough to cause a major shift as far as aligment goes. While Roy realized he wasn't living up to his alignment at that time, do we actually think that he would believe that it would knock him all the way from LG to N when judgement came? Or would he simply believe he had a bad day?

So (hypothetically) Laurin may think of herself as neutral, or even good. Doesn't mean that when the time comes to stand before the appropriate judge that she won't in up in a much lower destination.

Nilan8888

2013-10-01, 05:51 AM

There are two reasons for lying to Elan.

One, there's an outside chance that this "unification would bring Peace and Stability to the GalaxyContinent" spiel will actually convert him. That's maybe unlikely, but he's got to try - it's practically in the villain charter. And even if it fails - which, I'll grant, must always have been by far the likeliest outcome - it might still plant a seed of doubt in Elan's mind as to what the right course is. There are a lot of people on the forum who actually argue, in the face of all the evidence, that Tarquin's idea of "order" may actually benefit "his" continent. If Elan has been deceived even one-quarter as much as some readers, he will certainly be - at least - slower to act.

I don't see Tarquin, as genre savvy as he is, bothering with this line of attack. He's smart enough to know that it would fail (not that it takes great smarts).

But at the same time, his attitude still completely undercuts your point. He doesn't even really TRY to convert Elan. He doesn't plead with him or anything. To the contrary, he ENCOURAGES his son resisting him. It makes no sense for him to put so much energy into the opposite of what he's trying to accomplish, and even less for an author to depict that in a story: by the end of it, if Rich were to say "ah, but that was just PART of Tarquin's magnificent plan!", I think most people would be like: "um... ok... I don't quite get why Tarquin... look I actually think it was better the way you originally wrote it."

And two, if Elan is going to act against him, it makes excellent sense to have misled him about what the game is. That way, some of Elan's potential plans would misfire or completely backfire. For instance, imagine if Elan and his team went over to, say, Dictatoria and started building up a rival power base there. That would be one possible rational response to what Tarquin told Elan about his plan - but in fact it would be a complete waste of time. If Elan can be persuaded to wait for Tarquin to make a move that, in fact, he has no intention of making - that's another few months or years of uninterrupted power for Tarquin. Win.

All that does, potentially, is waste Elan's time waiting for his father to come for the rest of the continent which he would never do in the state of equilibrium. Well, big deal: he hasn't made himself more secure, and eventually Elan and gang would realize what was up. He buys himself what... a year, maybe two, before someone realizes "hey, nothing's moving over there". Which then leaves the OOTS free to come at him over again and try another revolution from within akin to Ian Starshine.

Personally, I find the 'dynamic equilibrium' explanation much more plausible. We agree that what Tarquin says can't be trusted - so why are you still basing your beliefs on it? Discard that, just look at what he's done.

Because what you're doing is probably the more likely: you're taking the fact that Tarquin can't be trusted and turning it into justification for something that's not there. Just because Tarquin is a liar doesn't mean he's lying when someone asks him what he did today and he says "not much" or "I slaughtered a bunch of kittens". You're taking the fact that Tarquin lies and applying it to your previously-arrived at assertion, not the other way around.

If you look at what Tarquin's done, I think the opposite remains the most plausible explanation: that he's doing exactly what he says he's doing, because why bother lying? It's not like the truth in this situation makes him LESS evil, or gives him any realistic advantage. And more importantly, if Tarquin was really going for a fake-out here, why go into such length writing the lie? At this point, applying it for so long, that's just going to confuse and frustrate readers.

And the only reason to think he's lying? Because the Empire isn't controlling more than it is. So what's more likely... your scenario where Tarquin's lied in such a manner to fit what you believe is going on... or that it just took him longer to achieve what you arbitrarily decided should have been a simple task, discounting completely the time cost in the manner of subterfuge he's using to achieve it, in order to avoid a huge alliance of nations converging on him which was explicitly given as the reason Tarquin avoids a more overt path?

Again, you're discounting multiple points of plot and characterization just because you think this process should be going faster, saying both that not only is Tarquin's father just lying for reasons I STILL don't realistically get, and that the very alliance described to you via flashback is really not all that big a deal despite it being shown that it looked like it was a rather big deal.