Who is (in your opinion) the best Villain OOTS has faced so far?

[strikeeagle]

Whose the best villian?

We've got
Xykon - The first and primary antagonist, who intends to subjugate the world to him via arcane means and rule like a God for ever. His favorite things include watching his TeeVo and watching people die helplessly even if they are his own minions.

Redcloak - In comparison to the his one dimensional moustache twirling boss Redcloak has been involved in a decades long con to trick Xykon into letting him get access to the portals seeking to improve the lot of Goblinkind throughout all the world and save his people regardless of the sacrifice he personally has to make. He posses a whole souled devotion to elevating Goblinkind everywhere.

Nale - Elan's twin brother with a goatee, Nale is the lead of the Linear Guild, and the evil opposite of Elan. Thrice he has sought to vanquish the Order of the Stick, and thrice been defeated. Nale's ambition is to "rule the world" but seems to be much more myopically focused on defeating his good twin brother Elan. He loves Sabine a succubus from the Lower Plans and complicated elaborate plans, as well as gloating.

Tarquin - Elan's evil father, he serves as the real power behind the throne of all of the Western Kingdoms and is bent on building an evil empire, however unlike Xykon who prefers mystical means to accomplish it, Tarquin is attempting to do so by forging a lasting empire through blood. Like his good son he loves dramatic moments and stories, enjoying life's pleasures, and being in charge. Unlike his evil son he also is willing to compromise for long term plans, and shows respect even to his opponents so long as his goals are not hindered.

Miko Miyazaki - Originally a paladin of the Sapphire Guard she become the living embodiment of Lawful Stupid, driven to fanaticism by her belief that all around her had been corrupted by evil she eventually ended up slaying Lord Shojo, causing her to fall as a Paladin, right as the Hobgoblin army of Redcloak arrived at Azure city, depriving the city of leadership and contributing to its downfall. She enjoys nothing as she sees any form of indulging in the pleasures of the flesh as a form of weakness and corruption.

Who am I missing, who did I mis-characterize, whose the best villain?

[Peelee]

Who am I missing

Hel, Kubota, Samantha, Adult Black Dragon, Vampire Durkon, probably more I cant think of at the moment.

[strikeeagle]

I'll give you I forgot Kubota and Samantha.

Would Vampire Durkon be considered a villian though, or would Hel be the primary protagonist of that adventure?

[Fyraltari]

Hel, Kubota, Samantha, Adult Black Dragon, Vampire Durkon, probably more I cant think of at the moment.
Bozzok, the Archfiends, Malack and the vampire Exarch come to mind.

I'll give you I forgot Kubota and Samantha.

Would Vampire Durkon be considered a villian though, or would Hel be the primary protagonist of that adventure?

Durkon* had his own agenda (kill Roy and make the dwarves pay) beyond Hel's was the main antagonist to be defeated gfor a significant portion of the book, so yes.

Edit: Also I should probably answer the question: For now my vote would be Durkon* he was clever, by far the most closely linked to a member of the Order and his defeat and whole concept was excellent and very well executed.

However, Redcloak and Xykon aren't far behind and their story isn't over yet so I am liable to change my mind.

Also, are we counting side-books villains?

[KorvinStarmast]

Whose the best villian? Who's the best villain? Maybe take one off of the list:
Miko Miyazaki
She's an antagonist, not a villain.

My vote is for Xykon. He's lasted through multiple books.

Durkula had an interesting arc with Durkon, but I found the character mostly annoying and the book a bit bloated. (The whole demigods / broken table / meeting bit was IMO long and drawn out.

Tarqin had a few decent moments but only lasted one book and ended up 'meh' by the time it was over.

Redcloak has too many issues.

[DrGoblyn]

For me it's Tarquin. He's the best schemer, is truly ruthless, knows how to make things happen while staying in the shadows, and has the resources, companions, knowledge, and intelligence to reach his goals.

Plus I think he's just the most compelling character aside from Redcloak. His motivations, and his execution of those motivations, are interesting, attainable, lofty, and hugely consequential without falling into a classic trope as far as I can tell.

[brian 333]

Therkla. As an half orc, she has always felt inferior.Craving praise and validation, she allowed herself to be manipulated by Kubota, performing his dirty deeds for the occasional proverbial pat on the head.
When she was assigned to murder Elan, her world changed. His beauty and charm was the opposite of everything she saw in herself, and an immense personal attraction rendered her mission impossible to perform.
Defeated by love, which was only strengthened by Elan's acceptance of her as a person. Elan made no pretense that he could ever reciprocate her affection, which only strengthened her unrequited love for him. Her final wish was granted as she died in his arms, defeated, but victorious.

[Mike Havran]

Tarquin is the finest villain the comic has, because his plot elevates the actual concept of villainy to an entirely different level and perspective. The fact his ego prevents him from realising the full potential of his plan as of now is neither here nor there.

[Crimsonmantle]

See username.

Therkla was great and would have made a fine girlfriend but she's a lot less of a 'villain' than Miko.

Other personal favorites include Thog, Jirix and the pet iguana.
Edit: And Tsukiko.

[Precure]

Tarquin, with Kubota as a close second.

Miko and Therkla weren't actual villains, and they didn't really "face" Redcloak yet.

[LadyEowyn]

For me it’s Redcloak. I love tragic villains with a sympathetic greater cause - especially when, as in the case of OOTS, the cause they’re fighting for is treated as valid by the narrative. And on top that he’s dangerous and his funniest lines are when he’s being a nerd (“Some of got passing grades in chem…”). He’s the only villain I’ve seen who had a transformative moral realization about the value of life…that only made him more dangerous (War & XP). Just a fantastically-written character.

Tarquin’s a great concept too, though.

[Alcore]

I feel it is Xykon with Nale following close behind. They are the only ones with depth. Tarquin seems to personally make himself flat being trope/narrative aware. The rest are “man behind the man” (Redcloak sort of fits apart of dragon status) or strawmen.

[Fyraltari]

I feel it is Xykon with Nale following close behind. They are the only ones with depth. Tarquin seems to personally make himself flat being trope/narrative aware. The rest are “man behind the man” (Redcloak sort of fits apart of dragon status) or strawmen.

I don't understand what you mean by "strawmen" in this context. The characters don't really represent any real-world position?

[Alcore]

I don't understand what you mean by "strawmen" in this context. The characters don't really represent any real-world position?

Have you checked the gaming community? Frequently seen player and character types? Not everything is about politics…

[hamishspence]

Miko and Therkla weren't actual villains, and they didn't really "face" Redcloak yet.

Miko was a villain in the same sense that Javert was a villain - and The Giant had no problem stressing that Javert was a villain to him, and not a mere "antagonist".


I absolutely consider Javert a villain, full stop. And not in a weak, "All antagonists are villains," sort of way. I mean I find Javert's actions (and especially his inactions) over the course of the novel to be villainous.




I thought Javert was "supposed" to be Lawful Neutral (Hugo didn't use alignments). In fact, I think the only way he could be more Lawful Neutral is if he wore a sign saying "I'm Lawful Neutral". You saying Lawful Neutral people are villains?
No, I'm saying they can be villains, based on their actions. In the same way that Miko is a villain. Maybe not mustache-twirling do-it-for-the-lulz villains, but villains nonetheless.

Given that context, I'd have to say Miko belongs on a list of OOTS villains.

[Peelee]

Have you checked the gaming community? Frequently seen player and character types?

No, I haven't. What does it mean?

[Fyraltari]

Have you checked the gaming community? Frequently seen player and character types? Not everything is about politics…

I mean, Miko is obviously "how not to play a paladin" the character*, so if I squint I see how you could call her a strawman, but beyond her? Is Malack representative of a kind players? Is Bozzok? Kubota? Tsukiko?

*And there's an interpreation of Tarquin as a railroading GM, too.

[Precure]

Miko was a villain in the same sense that Javert was a villain - and The Giant had no problem stressing that Javert was a villain to him, and not a mere "antagonist".





Given that context, I'd have to say Miko belongs on a list of OOTS villains.

I disagree with him because villain shoud be evil, at least in D&D context.

[strikeeagle]

Realized I forgot the most important villain of all.

The trees. Massive hit points, numerous limbs with which to make an attack and enemies of Thor and all Dwarven kind.

[Precure]

Realized I forgot the most important villain of all.

The trees. Massive hit points, numerous limbs with which to make an attack and enemies of Thor and all Dwarven kind.

Also not villains.

[dancrilis]

No, I haven't. What does it mean?

I think it might be like looking at a cloud - it means what you want it to mean.

The closest I could logic myself into was 'a character that is thinly fleshed out - and as such may as well be a strawman (i.e a character who's 'realness' falls apart on scrutiny)'.

[brian 333]

I was thinking character types used so often they become stereotypes without much else to support them.

[hamishspence]

I disagree with him because villain shoud be evil, at least in D&D context.

Despite the name, the Exemplars of Evil 3.5 D&D splatbook specifically states that villains do not have to be Evil - that Non-Evil villains do exist, as one "villain archetype".

And, conversely, Champions of Valor states of Valorous Heroes that "most are Good, some are Neutral, and a rare few are evil, but recognise that some evils must be battled".

In D&D, you can have an Evil valorous hero - accepting that you can have a Neutral (or even Good, in the case of early Miko, and Gin-Jun from the O-Chul story) villain is not a stretch - D&D is not a straightforward "heroes are always Good, villains are always Evil" universe.

[Liquor Box]

I agree that Miko is an antagonist, not a villain. I don't know whether the Giant is right that Javert is a villain, but either way it's not relevant to whether Miko is or not.

Miko has no evil plan, she intends to accomplish no horrible deeds. She does do one clearly evil thing, but it is not really important to the plot. While all villains can be antagonists, not all antagonists are villains.

A few people mentioned characters who the OP didn't nominate. But IMO, even if they are villains, they are not realistic contenders for the best villain in the comic. The have been minor characters compared to Nale&co, Xykon, Reddy and Tarquin&co.

I think Xykon is the best villain by some margin. He's hilarious, he's really smart and is often a step ahead of the party, he has a real sense of menace, he's inextricably linked to the heroes, he has charisma, he's a near overwhelming threat in combat.

Redcloak, Tarquin and Nale are ok, but I feel like the party always had their number. I reckon the Order would have defeated them all quite quickly, not just from a combat perspective, but because they all seem to have such easily exploited weaknesses.

[hamishspence]

I agree that Miko is an antagonist, not a villain. I don't know whether the Giant is right that Javert is a villain, but either way it's not relevant to whether Miko is or not.

Miko has no evil plan, she intends to accomplish no horrible deeds.

You don't need an evil plan, to be a "D&D villain". Javert is relevant, as a "You don't need to be evil yourself to be a villain" starting point - "Javert is a villain", followed by "LN character characters can be villains" followed by "Miko is a villain".



I thought Javert was "supposed" to be Lawful Neutral (Hugo didn't use alignments). In fact, I think the only way he could be more Lawful Neutral is if he wore a sign saying "I'm Lawful Neutral". You saying Lawful Neutral people are villains?
No, I'm saying they can be villains, based on their actions. In the same way that Miko is a villain. Maybe not mustache-twirling do-it-for-the-lulz villains, but villains nonetheless.

[Liquor Box]

You don't need an evil plan, to be a "D&D villain". Javert is relevant, as a "You don't need to be evil yourself to be a villain" starting point - "Javert is a villain", followed by "LN character characters can be villains" followed by "Miko is a villain".

You say D&D villian, but I'm not sure the term means anything different in a D&D story than in any other media.

I'm not sure there's much to be gained by talking about whether precisely where the definition of a word like villain begins and ends - especially since it is the word describing something so nebulous. She doesn't fall within what I think of as a villain, or some others it seems. But others (like the Giant) appear to disagree.

It's not settled, and I see there is much discussion on the villain status of Javert:
https://www.quora.com/Was-Javert-the-villain-in-Les-Mis%C3%A9rables

If anything is determinative, it's the OP including Miko in his list of potential options. So I suppose when he posed the question he meant to villain to be wide enough to include Miko. So if you want to pick Miko, go for it.

[Bedinsis]

Well since Miko was allowed to be labelled villain in this thread, I'd say Miko. She thought she was doing the right thing.

[Mic_128]

No one's suggested The Snail? A totally underrated villain.

[brian 333]

Javert and Miko have some points in common, but what makes them both villains is, they both do what they do for extremely selfish reasons.

Jean Valjean is a stain on his reputation. How dare he defy Javert's authority? He must be punished! It has nothing to do with law or justice. Everything Javert does is based on his obsession and conviction that in his righteous judgement he cannot be wrong. It's all about Javert.

The Order is a stain on Miko's reputation. How dare they defy her authority? They must be punished! It has nothing to do with law or justice. Everything Miko does is based on her obsession and conviction that in her righteous judgement she cannot be wrong. It's all about Miko.

Assumption of the power of absolute judgement
Obsession and assumed infallibility
Incapacity to believe they can be wrong
Assuming everything is about, or a reflection on, them

Yes, indeed, both have the traits of a villain.

[Fyraltari]

Javert and Miko have some points in common, but what makes them both villains is, they both do what they do for extremely selfish reasons.

Jean Valjean is a stain on his reputation. How dare he defy Javert's authority? He must be punished! It has nothing to do with law or justice. Everything Javert does is based on his obsession and conviction that in his righteous judgement he cannot be wrong. It's all about Javert.

That's not true at all. When the Jean Valjean lookalike is arrested in his stead, Javert goes to M. Madeleine (the real Valjean) and offered his resignation for having suspected him of being Valjean. When confronted with catching either Valjean or Thénardier and the Patron-Minette gang, he went after the gang because he recognizes that they are worse than Valjean by every metric.

His unrelenting desire to capture Valjean comes from his need to believe the French legal system is infaillible, because he was raised in prison. He joined the police because he was taught from infancy that, as the son of criminals (and very likely as half-Romani) he was destined to be a criminal and so, set himself to be as lawful as humanly possible. He based his entire worldview around the idea that to be a good person is to abide the law and it is the realization that Valjean could be a good person and a criminal that drives him to suicide.

[Metastachydium]

For now my vote would be Durkon* he was clever, by far the most closely linked to a member of the Order and his defeat and whole concept was excellent and very well executed.

Yeah, Greg's a compelling one indeed. I found the discrepancy between his projected facade and his "internal" self after he exposed himself as a servant of Hel especially interesting: the calm, wise Leader the Exarch sees and the impulsive, cackling, gloating villain Durkon's stuck with. It must be nice for a villain to both have an audience he can gloat before and keep his schemes in secret. Otherwise, however,


I found the character mostly annoying


Tarqin had a few decent moments but only lasted one book and ended up 'meh' by the time it was over.

I'd argue that this was half the point, really, and Tarquin falling apart as just another arc villain in the end, after a whole book of being cool and badass is part of the reason why his arc is so nicely executed overall.


Kubota as a close second.

Kubota is seriously underrated. He's probably the best thing about Elan's DStP arc (which I cared quite little about, despite my fondness for DStP) as far as I'm concerned. He's savvy and flexible; the scene where he compliments Therkla over willfully NOT executing his orders is pure gold.

Too bad he's painfully and stupidly petty.


they didn't really "face" Redcloak yet.

They fought against him at Dorukan's; they fought against him in Azure City; they had a brief scuffle in the Windy Canyon; and he almost imploded Durkon. His Plan is what the Order's trying to stop and the driving force behind what Team Evil does. I don't see how he doesn't qualify.


Nale (…) depth

Please don't use those words together ever again. Nale has his moments, but they are few and far between. He's an obnoxious, gratuitously spiteful, very smug but pretty stupid one-dimensional rectal orifice. The only reason why Tarquin was right when he implied Elan had to outgrow him was that Elan was just as flat and annoying for a pretty long while. I suddenly can't think of a single member of the Linears, barring perhaps Yikyik and Yukyuk that wasn't more interesting and at least in some ways more powerful, competent or both than him and while I don't like her that much, to be honest, the most complex character on their roster is beyond doubt Sabine rather than him.


Also not villains.

Preach it! PREACH IT!


I think it might be like looking at a cloud - it means what you want it to mean.

I like this sentence.


♣

Anyhow, I can't really name a single name. Redcloak (The Plan Must Continue!) is obviously up there, but so are the Directors. I also think we should give a lot more credit to the Vectors who aren't called Tarquin, most notably Malack (polite, soft-spoken, principled, more Evil than next to anyone in the story) and the majestically pragmatic, rational and no-nonsense Laurin (who come no one else brought her up? Shame on you all!); as well as to ABD (very Evil methods; very good reasons to be pissed; and a lot of care and patience).

[brian 333]

That's not true at all. When the Jean Valjean lookalike is arrested in his stead, Javert goes to M. Madeleine (the real Valjean) and offered his resignation for having suspected him of being Valjean. When confronted with catching either Valjean or Thénardier and the Patron-Minette gang, he went after the gang because he recognizes that they are worse than Valjean by every metric.

His unrelenting desire to capture Valjean comes from his need to believe the French legal system is infaillible, because he was raised in prison. He joined the police because he was taught from infancy that, as the son of criminals (and very likely as half-Romani) he was destined to be a criminal and so, set himself to be as lawful as humanly possible. He based his entire worldview around the idea that to be a good person is to abide the law and it is the realization that Valjean could be a good person and a criminal that drives him to suicide.

Another point in common: both were raised in abnormal circumstances, and both overcompensate for feelings of inadequacy by being fanatically devoted to the cause of those responsible for their upbringing. Neither considers that justice can be tempered by mercy, but instead fanatically adhere to the law. Their absolute conviction blinds them to the possibility that they can do harm by rigid application of the code.

[Fyraltari]

Another point in common: both were raised in abnormal circumstances, and both overcompensate for feelings of inadequacy by being fanatically devoted to the cause of those responsible for their upbringing. Neither considers that justice can be tempered by mercy, but instead fanatically adhere to the law. Their absolute conviction blinds them to the possibility that they can do harm by rigid application of the code.

Correct. The difference is one of them, when confronted with evidence they're wrong, doubles down, the other doesn't.

[Ruck]

I agree that Miko is an antagonist, not a villain.

I feel like they're kind of interchangeable in this context, in the sense that our heroes are our protagonist, so anyone who opposes them (the definition of "antagonist") could reasonably be described as a villain.

I enjoyed Tarquin quite a bit because he was pretty unique in his concept of the world and he couldn't be defeated by traditional means. The Order had to really pull out all the stops just to get away from him alive, and dealing with Tarquin forced Elan to grow up and figure out a way to defeat him that wouldn't give him what he wanted.

I enjoy Redcloak a lot because he's such a complex villain-- his sympathetic motivations, his absolute will and determination to see the plan through and his patience in what he's willing to suffer for it. Of course he has some myopia and hypocrisy to go along with that, but that's wrapped up in those other qualities as well, which is something I enjoy in tragic characters. And Redcloak is a tragic figure, too; it's easy to see how things could've been different for him if his life wasn't so essentially shaped by one traumatic event.

I enjoy Miko as a villain / antagonist (whichever you prefer) for similar reasons. Her good qualities are wrapped up in her bad ones and it's not hard to see how things could've been different for her with the right kind of formative guidance and care.

Least favorite might be Bozzok and Nale. Not that I think they're badly written, just that they're so petty, and that kind of pettiness is something I find personally aggravating. Especially given the stakes the Order is dealing with. I'm reminded of an early 30 Rock where Toofer and Frank are having a dumb feud and they try to get Liz to resolve it while she's dealing with serious problems with Jenna and the show: "No one cares! Move, you're blocking me. I'm trying to get somewhere real."

[Jasdoif]

Despite the name, the Exemplars of Evil 3.5 D&D splatbook specifically states that villains do not have to be Evil - that Non-Evil villains do exist, as one "villain archetype".I rather like the book's example for that archetype: after her brother was executed for a false accusation of murder, she vowed to fight capital punishment and made it her life's work to break those convicts out of jail and sneak them out of the city to start new lives; that many of the e.g. murderers simply resume their murdering elsewhere, is lost on her.


I don't think Miko falls in the same "acting for the dignity of life, unaware of the harm she's causing to it in the long run" vein, though. Miko wants the world to conform to her demands, presumably in an attempt to inhibit the loss of control she felt when was orphaned and sent to a monastery, and her service to Shojo as a paladin of the Sapphire Guard is the structure that reifies that into being able to impose her will. She valued the Good component of her alignment for what being that in "box" got her, so like Roy said in #251 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0251.html) she did the bare minimum required to maintain it.

I find it's still difficult to think of her as a "villain", though. By all accounts, she didn't view the Order of the Stick any differently people she'd been assigned to retrieve until their defense of Belkar after the trial (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0285.html); when she later had the opportunity to go after Belkar (or Roy, the leader of the Order of the Stick), she attacked Shojo instead (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0406.html); and after that she was distracted away from Belkar and Roy by Hinjo (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0409.html). It's almost like the story was written to undercut what would otherwise clearly point at "specifically opposes the heroes" villainy, come to think of it....

[Peelee]

I find it's still difficult to think of her as a "villain", though. By all accounts, she didn't view the Order of the Stick any differently people she'd been assigned to retrieve

Imean, she threatened to kill them if they didn't immediately submit to a person they had never seen before to take them to a land they had never been before because she stated that they were accused of crimes which, in her mind, carried the death penalty (we don't know for sure and the way she phrased it made it sound like she didn't know either and was making assumptions). Specifically, she didn't even say she wound kill them in self defense if they tried to fight her, she said she wound carry out "the punishment" if they did not surrender. No trial, no real knowledge of anything other than the accusations, and she believed they were guilty and would have executed them immediately for simply questioning her.

That sounds pretty villainous to me.

[Jasdoif]

Imean, she threatened to kill them if they didn't immediately submit to a person they had never seen before to take them to a land they had never been before because she stated that they were accused of crimes which, in her mind, carried the death penalty (we don't know for sure and the way she phrased it made it sound like she didn't know either and was making assumptions). Specifically, she didn't even say she wound kill them in self defense if they tried to fight her, she said she wound carry out "the punishment" if they did not surrender. No trial, no real knowledge of anything other than the accusations, and she believed they were guilty and would have executed them immediately for simply questioning her.

That sounds pretty villainous to me.It's an interesting point; Miko (as well as Shojo) was clearly set up to be perceived as a villain from her first appearance (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0120.html), which continued right up until Durkon convinced her Roy wasn't what she thought he was (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0202.html) and her demeanor changed...so at the very least, she wasn't the same villain that she first appeared to be. (Shojo as a villain would be a harder sell; but with enough emphasis on "extraditing" the Order of the Stick under false charges (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0290.html) and using his own sham trial of those charges against them (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0405.html), a case could probably be made.)

[Peelee]

It's an interesting point; Miko (as well as Shojo) was clearly set up to be perceived as a villain from her first appearance (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0120.html), which continued right up until Durkon convinced her Roy wasn't what she thought he was (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0202.html) and her demeanor changed...so at the very least, she wasn't the same villain that she first appeared to be.

A homicidal lunatic who believes in her own infallibility, albeit able (to some degree) to manage to still work with dynamic situations that would otherwise demonstrate her fallibility? I would say she is exactly the same villain she first appeared to be.

[Liquor Box]

Imean, she threatened to kill them if they didn't immediately submit to a person they had never seen before to take them to a land they had never been before because she stated that they were accused of crimes which, in her mind, carried the death penalty (we don't know for sure and the way she phrased it made it sound like she didn't know either and was making assumptions). Specifically, she didn't even say she wound kill them in self defense if they tried to fight her, she said she wound carry out "the punishment" if they did not surrender. No trial, no real knowledge of anything other than the accusations, and she believed they were guilty and would have executed them immediately for simply questioning her.

That sounds pretty villainous to me.

in our modern times we usually don't see it as ok for police to kill someone with a warrant for a serious crime if they try to escape, and it is not usually legal. But in older times (which still seem more modern than what OotS is based on) i think law enforcement or their agents could kill accused criminals. The US famously used bounty hunters who would receive a reward whether their target was dead or alive.

[Ruck]

Imean, she threatened to kill them if they didn't immediately submit to a person they had never seen before to take them to a land they had never been before because she stated that they were accused of crimes which, in her mind, carried the death penalty (we don't know for sure and the way she phrased it made it sound like she didn't know either and was making assumptions). Specifically, she didn't even say she wound kill them in self defense if they tried to fight her, she said she wound carry out "the punishment" if they did not surrender. No trial, no real knowledge of anything other than the accusations, and she believed they were guilty and would have executed them immediately for simply questioning her.

That sounds pretty villainous to me.


in our modern times we usually don't see it as ok for police to kill someone with a warrant for a serious crime if they try to escape, and it is not usually legal. But in older times (which still seem more modern than what OotS is based on) i think law enforcement or their agents could kill accused criminals. The US famously used bounty hunters who would receive a reward whether their target was dead or alive.

At the same time, we see Shojo telling Miko that she really should try hard to bring them back alive for trial. A situation could've arisen where that was an impossibility, but it was not impossible to do so here (obviously, since she did). Miko didn't announce under what authority she was arresting them, details of the charges, or anything like that; she only gave them one round, if that, to surrender before attacking, and likely would've killed Roy if he'd actually been Evil.

[Peelee]

in our modern times we usually don't see it as ok for police to kill someone with a warrant for a serious crime if they try to escape, and it is not usually legal. But in older times (which still seem more modern than what OotS is based on) i think law enforcement or their agents could kill accused criminals. The US famously used bounty hunters who would receive a reward whether their target was dead or alive.

Which would be a good rebuttal if the comic was based on olden mores, but it's not. It's based on modern ones.

Also, I envy your optimistic views.

[Liquor Box]

At the same time, we see Shojo telling Miko that she really should try hard to bring them back alive for trial. A situation could've arisen where that was an impossibility, but it was not impossible to do so here (obviously, since she did). Miko didn't announce under what authority she was arresting them, details of the charges, or anything like that; she only gave them one round, if that, to surrender before attacking, and likely would've killed Roy if he'd actually been Evil.

Those things may mean she did a poor job, but does it make her a villain?


Which would be a good rebuttal if the comic was based on olden mores, but it's not. It's based on modern ones.

Also, I envy your optimistic views.

Is it? Why do you think so?

It seems to me that is mixed. But Azurite society seems very much based of feudal japan. Shojo oversees the trial so no separation of power, there is no distinction between police and warrior class, heriditary monarchy with nobles as the ruling class and it is accepted that assasination is a tool to power.

Also, what about what I said was optimistic?

[hroþila]

I was going to get into the Miko debate, but I thnk I'd rather just second Mic's nomination for the Snail

[Peelee]

Also, what about what I said was optimistic?

I would be happy to elaborate on a different medium of exchange.

[Crimsonmantle]

I was going to get into the Miko debate, but I thnk I'd rather just second Mic's nomination for the Snailwhat'd do, eat Roy's lettuce?

[Satohika]

Definitely Redcloak. Sorry Xykon, but you're just not that interesting as a villain, your character can't decide whether to be a big meta humour about DnD villains or be a serious villain. Kubota at least conformtably established himself as a meta villain joke. I also always see Tarquin as a copy of Kubota.

[WanderingMist]

Not a single mention of Trigak? Disappointing.

[Ionathus]

Hard to pick. OotS has really knocked it out of the park with villains who are compelling, self-aware, thematically powerful, and obviously dangerous. If I had to rank my top ones:

1. Redcloak. He's charismatic, ingenious (non-classic elementals, scheming and manipulating Xykon), and self-deluded about his noble cause. His backstory is compelling and his motives complicated. Complex and interesting to follow, and I'm dying to see how his arc finishes out.
2. Tarquin. He's also charismatic, and does a very good job obfuscating his behavior and multiple character flaws in ways that feel very real-world to me. A sociopathic garbage fire with a pretty face, and he also presents an entirely unique viewpoint - the villain who doesn't care whether he wins or loses, just cares about how it happens. It made his Guest Villain arc incredibly interesting to follow, and his breakdown when he started to lose the control he craves was absolutely delicious.
3. Xykon. He's big, he's bad, and that's about it, but sometimes that's all you need. Xykon does a wonderful job of being the completely unrepentant and irredeemable monster driving the plot forward. He presents no big moral arguments or quandaries to the heroes, but that's okay: his force of personality and sheer destructive power are still an incredibly effective threat in the story1.
4. Greg. On his own, Durkon's vampire persona is not all that impressive a villain, stacked up against the others on this list. He's cartoonishly evil and hard to take seriously at times. But I give him honorable mention here, for a vampirization/bodysnatcher story told incredibly, incredibly well. The banter that he had with Durkon was excellent, and the way Rich used that to tell Durkon's life story (and then hit us with the twist) was absolutely exquisite and one of my all-time favorite "villain deaths" in any piece of fiction. That's not 100% because of Greg's strength as a character, but he was compelling enough to drive the story where it needed to go, and throughout all of his dialogues inside Durkon's mind the exposition dumps never once seemed contrived or tedious.

1.
:xykon:
And now I see that planning doesn't matter. Strategy doesn't matter.
Only two things matter: Force in as great a concentration as you can manage, and style. And in a pinch, style can slide.
One of my all-time favorite quotes from any villain, ever. It tells you exactly what kind of person he is, and exactly how hard it will be to beat him. He is the raw force of personality and ego that there's no reasoning with, no outmaneuvering with clever plucky underdog tricks...you gotta get in there, and you gotta hit him hard, and you gotta hope you've got what it takes.

What a perfect encapsulation of Xykon's philosophy, to be set up against Roy the tactician! I have been craving the final battle with Big X for almost a decade now. I cannot wait.

[Ruck]

Those things may mean she did a poor job, but does it make her a villain?

That's not really germane to what I replied to, which was:


in our modern times we usually don't see it as ok for police to kill someone with a warrant for a serious crime if they try to escape, and it is not usually legal. But in older times (which still seem more modern than what OotS is based on) i think law enforcement or their agents could kill accused criminals.

This doesn't matter, because Miko was explicitly told by her liege lord to try to bring them back alive, and instead she almost immediately tried to kill them.


Kubota at least conformtably established himself as a meta villain joke.

Oh, add Kubota to my least-favorite list. Maybe #1: his pettiness comes in the form of trying to overthrow and take over a country that no longer exists while all its remaining people are without a home and just trying to survive.

[H_H_F_F]

Tarquin. Easily.

Don't get me wrong: I love Redcloak and his arc. I love the tortured sees-himslef-as-a-hero thing he has going on, and I love how obviously and deeply he is in constant cognitive dissonance about the reasons for his actions. Excellent villain.

I've also been impressed with Xykon ever since the fight with V. Before, yes - Xykon was just the silly mustache twirling villain. He still is. But his fight with V and SoD changed something. Killing Roy was just a shocking narrative turn, but "Power is Power" was mask off. Chilling.

I'll also shout out Malack, as the completely diabolical yet very friendly villain, who'd honestly prefer it if we could all just get along.

But Tarquin? Tarquin, to me, is on a whole other level of writing than any other villain in the comic. I was biting my nails in every scene with him - it felt like you could never tell what would be enough for him to take action. He's charming, funny, reasonable. Not just patient - he can truly be reasoned with. And he isn't just "principled" - he's loving. To me, at least, which I think is another strength of his character. The Nale-Tarquin scene, and whether or not that was true love in Tarquin's mind, is very divisive for a reason. Tarquin is more complex than any other villain in this comic, by a long shot. We fully understand everyone else, but discussing what truly moves Tarquin can still start arguments - and not because of a lack of character development, but because of an abundance of it, in the best way possible. Loved him, loved his arc, loved what he did for Elan. Incredible villain.

[Peelee]

Tarquin. Easily.

Don't get me wrong: I love Redcloak and his arc. I love the tortured sees-himslef-as-a-hero thing he has going on, and I love how obviously and deeply he is in constant cognitive dissonance about the reasons for his actions. Excellent villain.

I've also been impressed with Xykon ever since the fight with V. Before, yes - Xykon was just the silly mustache twirling villain. He still is. But his fight with V and SoD changed something. Killing Roy was just a shocking narrative turn, but "Power is Power" was mask off. Chilling.

I'll also shout out Malack, as the completely diabolical yet very friendly villain, who'd honestly prefer it if we could all just get along.

But Tarquin? Tarquin, to me, is on a whole other level of writing than any other villain in the comic. I was biting my nails in every scene with him - it felt like you could never tell what would be enough for him to take action. He's charming, funny, reasonable. Not just patient - he can truly be reasoned with. And he isn't just "principled" - he's loving. To me, at least, which I think is another strength of his character. The Nale-Tarquin scene, and whether or not that was true love in Tarquin's mind, is very divisive for a reason. Tarquin is more complex than any other villain in this comic, by a long shot. We fully understand everyone else, but discussing what truly moves Tarquin can still start arguments - and not because of a lack of character development, but because of an abundance of it, in the best way possible. Loved him, loved his arc, loved what he did for Elan. Incredible villain.

Tarquin wasn't reasonable at all. Or anything else you claimed. He had a veneer of civility and reasonableness but it fell apart the second anyone tugged at the seam. What truly moves Tarquin is as obvious as it is simple - it's whatever is best for Tarquin. That's it. He's fairly shallow. One of his friends hates his son because the son murdered the friends' family? Psh, that's silly, it would be much better for Tarquin if they got along, so make 'em work together and their disagreements will disappear. Now the son doesn't want anything to do with him? Well, that's a shame, he's not useful anymore, so time to get rid of him.

The only love Tarquin has was for himself. He could not be reasoned with, he had no principles other than "what I think is right is right". If you like Tarquin, don't let me rain in your parade, but doing it because he was reasonable or loving or principled is..... certainly an interesting take.

[H_H_F_F]

Tarquin wasn't reasonable at all. Or anything else you claimed. He had a veneer of civility and reasonableness but it fell apart the second anyone tugged at the seam. What truly moves Tarquin is as obvious as it is simple - it's whatever is best for Tarquin. That's it. He's fairly shallow. One of his friends hates his son because the son murdered the friends' family? Psh, that's silly, it would be much better for Tarquin if they got along, so make 'em work together and their disagreements will disappear. Now the son doesn't want anything to do with him? Well, that's a shame, he's not useful anymore, so time to get rid of him.

The only love Tarquin has was for himself. He could not be reasoned with, he had no principles other than "what I think is right is right". If you like Tarquin, don't let me rain in your parade, but doing it because he was reasonable or loving or principled is..... certainly an interesting take.

"Good for Tarquin" in what sense? Does he chase the comforts of wealth and leisure? Well, no. Glory? Recognition? Nope. His own power, to the detriment of anything else? Maybe in a very vague sense, but we can't say that about someone who's managed to consistently work with his companions for so long, making the required sacrifices and compromises every time. Do you realize how rare that is among tyrants, whether they be RL or from the OOTSverse? Compare and contrast to the relationships within team evil.

No, Tarquin wants to create lasting order. World order, and narrative order. That's the legacy he's looking for, and if the price for that is living in the shadows his entire life and then be killed by his son - that's fine. All he could ask for. How is what "doing what's good for Tarquin"? He could've killed Elan a thousand times to assure his safety. He could've lied and deceived. He didn't. Is it what's good for him in his mind? Of course, but that's deeply unconventional, and not at all what you implied.

As for Nale: exactly my point. You read it as "he stopped being comfortable for me, so I killed him". Deeply disagree. He didn't decide to kill him when it turned out he was a rabid dog who just killed his trusted friend and ally. He only killed him when he told him to treat him like he would anybody else. That could be read in two ways: either that sentence was more upsetting and rebellious in Tarquin's eyes than gloating about killing Malack and insulting him; or - as Tarquin presents it. You could read it (and I do) as something he did out of love for his son. Respecting his wishes, even though he'd rather send him to his room and waiting for him to grow up. Like putting down a believed pet, who's sick and cannot manage to live the life it should (as a worthwhile villain).

Is that an absolutely demented view of the relationship between parent and child? Is this a bloodchilling misapplication of messed up love? Of course. That's hat makes him villainous.

I don't know what the Giant intended here, but I think my reading is valid, and well supported by the text.

[Peelee]

"Good for Tarquin" in what sense? Does he chase the comforts of wealth and leisure?
Yes (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0763.html) (panel 7).

Glory? Recognition?
Yes (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0763.html) (panels 19-20).

His own power, to the detriment of anything else?
Yes (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0763.html) (panel 5).

All of your assertions were proven false by Tarquin's own words. Tarquin himself doesn't agree with your assessment of him. Further, the entire point of his falling apart was to have those words put into action. He doesn't care about order, he cares about what he thinks is right. He knows they are in a story yet he thinks he can control what kind of story. It's a story, everyone acts like they do in a story already, but as far as Tarquin is concerned, they're doing it wrong. He's an egomaniacle ******* who only cares about what is best for him. It all worked as long as he was off-camera and not interacting with the actual story. Once he started, everything unraveled, and his fragile ego couldn't handle it. He has no culture, no civility, no rationality. He both says as much early on and acts as such when push comes to shove.

Again, if Tarquin is your favorite villain, that's fine. Your opinion can't be wrong. But basing it in how reasonable he was and how he didn't want power? That's just demonstrably wrong.

[H_H_F_F]

Yes (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0763.html) (panel 7).

Yes (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0763.html) (panels 19-20).

Yes (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0763.html) (panel 5).

All of your assertions were proven false by Tarquin's own words. Tarquin himself doesn't agree with your assessment of him. Further, the entire point of his falling apart was to have those words put into action. He doesn't care about order, he cares about what he thinks is right. He knows they are in a story yet he thinks he can control what kind of story. It's a story, everyone acts like they do in a story already, but as far as Tarquin is concerned, they're doing it wrong. He's an egomaniacle ******* who only cares about what is best for him. It all worked as long as he was off-camera and not interacting with the actual story. Once he started, everything unraveled, and his fragile ego couldn't handle it. He has no culture, no civility, no rationality. He both says as much early on and acts as such when push comes to shove.

Again, if Tarquin is your favorite villain, that's fine. Your opinion can't be wrong. But basing it in how reasonable he was and how he didn't want power? That's just demonstrably wrong.


I see this conversation as him challenging Elan. There's truth to it all, sure, but it is far from encompassing. Actions speak louder than words. Tarquin could have official recognition, he chooses not to. He bends his knee before an empress he could kill any time, and styles himself as her servant. This works well enough to manipulate foreign leaders, as we've seen. He speaks of "living like a god", but we never see him do that – we see him working, constantly. The empress is the one living like a god, and he clearly has contempt for that lifestyle. And again, he tells Elan "why not I", but is perfectly willing to let his friends and companions take as much power, never considering betrayal.

I'm not saying Tarquin doesn't want any of these – he isn't Redcloak, he likes his life and he likes living well. That's part of his complexity (to me.) But they're never what moves him.

And in most of your text, we seem to agree – Tarquin cares about the story, more than he does about himself. You saying "they are already in a story, just not the one he thinks is right" is correct, and I agree with it – but WHY? Not because the story they're telling is one where he doesn't get to be a tyrant, live like a king, etc. In fact, his grand loss to Elan is one where he keeps everything you've said is what he fights for. He keeps his empire, his wealth, his name. But it's a loss, because Tarquin knows, and Elan knows, that those were never the point.

To me, your reading of Tarquin fails to give a satisfactory account of why Elan managed to break him with his actions, of why he has structured his empire the way he did (managing to keep it that way), and of why he killed Nale when he did, and not immediately when Nale proved to be more of a liability than an asset.

[brian 333]

I have to support Peelee on this one. He is a sociopath without a shred of human empathy.

He was not Malack"s friend. He was using and manipulating Malack. Malack was doing the same to Tarquin. They both recognized their own goals could be achieved better by paying lip service to the goals of the other.

The fact of apparent civility was a mask. Sociopaths and pathological liars create narrative structures and a persona to fit in. Since they have no real emotional connection to others, they roleplay what they believe such connections are like.

Tarquin envisioned himself as a civilized and enlightened ruler, so he played the part. He performed the most barbaric acts under that mask. Escaped slaves refused to remain in the place to which they were assigned by him? Long lost son needs to be impressed by his paternal devotion? Write his name in forty foot letters of fire while burning the escaped slaves alive.

Tarquin, being incapable of empathy, did not forsee how that might impress the son he was trying to impress, he only sought to impress him with a not-so-veiled threat: this is what happens when people refuse to play the part I've assigned to them.

Nale should have read that sign. He died for the exact same reason the slaves did, and Tarquin's emotional reaction was just as profound. "Now look what you've made me do."

[hroþila]

I think Malack actually cared about Tarquin, or at least he wasn't shown to be dishonest when he treated Tarquin as a friend, when he praised him when Tarquin wasn't even present or when he treated him as the leader even though they were equals. He wasn't manipulating Tarquin because he was perfectly honest about his end goal and Tarquin was (or pretended to be) ok with it. Tarquin was never shown to actually respect Malack as a friend, but I don't think that was necessarily reciprocal.

[Kish]

So many of these claims make me go "HUH?"

I see this conversation as him challenging Elan. There's truth to it all, sure, but it is far from encompassing. Actions speak louder than words. Tarquin could have official recognition, he chooses not to. He bends his knee before an empress he could kill any time, and styles himself as her servant. This works well enough to manipulate foreign leaders, as we've seen. He speaks of "living like a god", but we never see him do that – we see him working, constantly.

"HUH?" #1. Banquets with phoenix liver? Multiple victim/wives, almost any woman he decides he finds attractive enough to want to own? Tarquin is depicted indulging himself with vicious hedonism to the limit of such being shown in a webcomic which is not about that.


And in most of your text, we seem to agree – Tarquin cares about the story, more than he does about himself.
"HUH?" #2. He cares about the story solely as an extension of his own ego. He ended his story arc trying, with enough persistence to aggravate the rest of the Vector Legion, to chase Elan down and brutalize him because Elan had sworn to come back to defeat him and was now going off to defeat Xykon--exactly what Tarquin wanted, exactly what The Story as Tarquin saw it called for--but hadn't done it in exactly the right, his-relationship-with-Tarquin-centering way.


To me, your reading of Tarquin fails to give a satisfactory account of why Elan managed to break him with his actions, of why he has structured his empire the way he did (managing to keep it that way), and of why he killed Nale when he did, and not immediately when Nale proved to be more of a liability than an asset.
"HUH?" #3. He killed Nale because Nale finally communicated to him in a way he couldn't simply dismiss as drama that he didn't want to be part of Tarquin's story. He killed Nale because he understands love so little that he thinks his ego assertion (extending to literal rape for most of his wives) is love. He killed Nale because..."NO ONE DENIES ME!" I get how someone could look at those scenes and conclude that he cared about Malack or that he actually, as he himself said, just treated Nale the way he would have treated a stranger who killed Malack; I don't agree and think that requires ignoring a ton of context, but I see how someone could get there. I don't see how you're using him murdering Nale as an argument for his depth and complexity at all.

[Peelee]

He cares about the story solely as an extension of his own ego. He ended his story arc trying, with enough persistence to aggravate the rest of the Vector Legion, to chase Elan down and brutalize him because Elan had sworn to come back to defeat him and was now going off to defeat Xykon--exactly what Tarquin wanted, exactly what The Story as Tarquin saw it called for--but hadn't done it in exactly the right, his-relationship-with-Tarquin-centering way.

Glad I caught up on the thread before replying, thks was the main thrust of what I wanted to say but put better than probably would have said.

[Fyraltari]

discussing what truly moves Tarquin can still start arguments

Accurate.0

[Dame_Mechanus]

Tarquin could have official recognition, he chooses not to. He bends his knee before an empress he could kill any time, and styles himself as her servant.

Yes, because this means that when she gets toppled Tarquin isn't the one people look at as the greater evil. I mean, he explains all of this outright. The only reason he openly bends the knee is because he is the manipulator and this keeps him out of the spotlight... which was his backup plan when it turned out that his original plan of "rule the continent as an evil overlord" totally wasn't going to work and would get him forcibly knocked down from his post.

Of course, that ties into what does actually make Tarquin such a great villain. He's not reasonable... but he thinks he is.

One of the recurring things you're told when you learn how to write more nuanced stories is that no one thinks of themselves as a villain, but Tarquin exists almost purely as a refutation of that idea. Tarquin sees himself as The Villain, and he has constructed his world around exactly that. He's the Good Villain. He's the one who seems perfectly reasonable and polite, unwilling to chase after fleeting advantages or engage in stupid backstabbing, the person who recognizes all of the tropes that villains indulge in time after time and doesn't mirror them because they'd just be bad form and a bad idea. He doesn't think that he indulges in megalomania or hubris and thinks that he has built something perfect and beautiful where everything works exactly the way it's supposed to.

He is wrong.

Tarquin is, in fact, indulging in a horrible and elaborate megalomaniacal display in which he justifies atrocities because it's all right so long as he knows his place in the greater weave of the story, and in that story he's just figured "the villain gets to have more fun and indulge more, so that's going to be me." He treats everyone around him as if they're just a narrative piece in a puzzle that works out in his head, and has all of the emotional warmth of a block of sandstone. Oh, here's a woman he finds attractive and who could conceivably be brought back to the side of Good - well, narratively that works for his wife, she'll be his next bride. Doesn't matter if she wants that or not, it's not relevant, he understands what the narrative is supposed to be even if nobody else does.

Look at his last interaction with Nale. He's willing to completely ignore the fact that his son just killed someone who was supposedly his best friend because darn it, someone needs to get this story back on track. The moment it becomes clear that Nale isn't going to do what Tarquin wants, he kills him with no further hesitation. He's a monster... but the whole time he remains absolutely convinced that he's a perfectly reasonable man and everyone who disagrees with him just doesn't get how very, very smart Tarquin is and how completely he understands the situation.

[H_H_F_F]

Sorry guys, getting a bit tired of this discussion as I feel like we (or at least, I) started going in circles.


Yes, because this means that when she gets toppled Tarquin isn't the one people look at as the greater evil. I mean, he explains all of this outright. The only reason he openly bends the knee is because he is the manipulator and this keeps him out of the spotlight... which was his backup plan when it turned out that his original plan of "rule the continent as an evil overlord" totally wasn't going to work and would get him forcibly knocked down from his post.

I'll just point out that to me that's exactly my point: he wants power, comfort, prestige, but he's willing to give them all up if that's what it takes to make the world be what it should be.

It's been interesting talking to your guys, given me stuff to think about.

[Peelee]

Sorry guys, getting a bit tired of this discussion as I feel like we (or at least, I) started going in circles.



I'll just point out that to me that's exactly my point: he wants power, comfort, prestige, but he's willing to give them all up if that's what it takes to make the world be what it should be.

What the world "should be" is a place where he is worshipped as a legend. Hell, knowing what we know now, he might actually expect that to elevate him to godhood. The only thing he would give up his power, comfort, and prestige for is even more prestige.

What else did you think he thought the world should be?

[Dame_Mechanus]

What the world "should be" is a place where he is worshipped as a legend. Hell, knowing what we know now, he might actually expect that to elevate him to godhood. The only thing he would give up his power, comfort, and prestige for is even more prestige.

What else did you think he thought the world should be?

I mean, that's not what he says he thinks the world should be... but it is what every action he takes points to. It's like how Tarquin continually refers to himself as a master schemer, but his biggest ruses are usually seen through pretty easily. (Roy figured out he wasn't Thog right away, for example, and his big plan to force Elan to accept his authority not only failed but reapeatedly failed because he failed to account for a lot of pretty understandable possibilities.)

Heck, while I can't find the quote right now, I seem to recall him even saying "well, there's going to be an evil overlord, so why shouldn't it be me" in more flowery terms. The story ends with him reduced to shouting at a departing airship demanding that his son do what he wants him to do.

Or, to paraphrase someone else, I like Tarquin a lot as a character, but it wouldn't occur to me to quote him as a source of intelligent, righteous observation for much the same reason it wouldn't occur to me to quote Walter White, Tyler Durden, or Thanos. Because Tarquin is a character who says a lot of things that sound very smart and then he goes on to prove that what he was really doing was justifying the petty cruelties he already wanted to inflict anyhow.

(Edited to fix a parentheses problem.)

[Fyraltari]

IHeck, while I can't find the quote right now, I seem to recall him even saying "well, there's going to be an evil overlord, so why shouldn't it be me" in more flowery terms.

You're thinking of the seven first panels. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0763.html)

[Bedinsis]

My read on Tarquin is that he's a more competent Nale. He's more aware of the setting and more patient in what course of action is more likely to produce his intended result, hence why he bides his time while living as the supposed lackey of the Empress of Blood.

At the core though is still the pettiness and need for being the centre of everything.

[Dame_Mechanus]

My read on Tarquin is that he's a more competent Nale. He's more aware of the setting and more patient in what course of action is more likely to produce his intended result, hence why he bides his time while living as the supposed lackey of the Empress of Blood.

At the core though is still the pettiness and need for being the centre of everything.

He also has the advantage of not having Nale's need to prove that he's more clever than his father. Once you reach that understanding in Blood Runs in the Family, it kind of serves as the Rosetta Stone to understanding Nale's character as an antagonist and just a person. Why is Nale building a team that almost strictly consists of people who take orders from him instead of mirroring how his father operates and having a team composed chiefly of equals? Because then Nale would have to deal with the idea that he might not actually be the brains of the operation and someone else might have a better idea about how to accomplish a goal. He has to prove that not only is he just as capable as his father, he's actually smarter and better.

And Tarquin is incapable of understanding this, because in Tarquin's mind he has to be the smartest center of the room. Nale is his accessory and should be seen as proof of what a great guy Tarquin is.

Real talk, whenever I get to the phantasm wedding when Elan figures it all out, I find new reasons to get misty-eyed over it, because I get it. "What's real is that my family is screwed up and broken, and it's not going to just get magically fixed, ever."

[dancrilis]

What the world "should be" is a place where he is worshipped as a legend. Hell, knowing what we know now, he might actually expect that to elevate him to godhood. The only thing he would give up his power, comfort, and prestige for is even more prestige.


I am not sure about this - I imagine his role in the story is done, but I think he might be the kind of guy that might sacrifice himself if he felt that made a better story, Elan in panel 8 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0938.html) pseudo mentions that Tarquin does what he does for a better story regardless of who gets hurt because of it.

For example if Tarquin thought it made a better story for him to die saving his son's life from Xykon - half-mimicing Vader dying to save Luke from Palpatine - then he might do it, not because of love for his son (which I do think he has in his own way) but because he had decided the story would be better for it.

edit: typed the wrong word

[Metastachydium]

He also has the advantage of not having Nale's need to prove that he's more clever than his father. Once you reach that understanding in Blood Runs in the Family, it kind of serves as the Rosetta Stone to understanding Nale's character as an antagonist and just a person. Why is Nale building a team that almost strictly consists of people who take orders from him instead of mirroring how his father operates and having a team composed chiefly of equals? Because then Nale would have to deal with the idea that he might not actually be the brains of the operation and someone else might have a better idea about how to accomplish a goal. He has to prove that not only is he just as capable as his father, he's actually smarter and better.

Well, if that's what he's after, I might have given him too much credit before. He's very clearly among the most bland and least competent members the Linears ever had the misfortune to boast of. Still, you might have a point there, insofar as like I said soemplace else and long ago, the real tragedy of the Linears is not that they are the setting's resident Goldfish Poop Gang, but rather that they make themselves the resident Goldfish Poop Gang, always trying to punch above their weight class. They could be terrifying villains if they knew their place.


And Tarquin is incapable of understanding this, because in Tarquin's mind he has to be the smartest center of the room. Nale is his accessory and should be seen as proof of what a great guy Tarquin is.

Well, I can't blame him for that if the other person in the room is Nale.

[Dame_Mechanus]

Well, if that's what he's after, I might have given him too much credit before. He's very clearly among the most bland and least competent members the Linears ever had the misfortune to boast of. Still, you might have a point there, insofar as like I said soemplace else and long ago, the real tragedy of the Linears is not that they are the setting's resident Goldfish Poop Gang, but rather that they make themselves the resident Goldfish Poop Gang, always trying to punch above their weight class. They could be terrifying villains if they knew their place.

I mean, when you think about it, it kind of runs through every single plan and scheme Nale has.

The first time he meets the Order he has a pretty good and workable plan... except that his plan also hinges around using his new magical item specifically to dispatch the Order instead of doing it directly. Because that makes him more intelligent and scheming, right? Except that if he had just stayed put alone he wouldn't have lost Hilgya, given the Order time to heal Elan, and wound up losing his magical item in the first place.

All right, well... you know, tactical blunders happen, time to rebuild and move on to other things. Except he doesn't. Nale immediately starts rebuilding just to take on the Order because he can't stand the fact that a member of his family wound up being smarter and more resourceful than he was. There was literally no reason for Nale's whole plan other than screwing over Elan. Nobody is paying him this time, he just wants to prove that he's more capable than his brother and make him hurt. And the result is that he only barely escapes death thanks to a few lucky events, at which point he goes back to deal with his father directly... assuming that Tarquin wouldn't detect him or realize it.

Then he decides to attack when the opportunity arises. Which turns into a complete rout and winds up utterly smashing the work he had already done, and puts him right back in the path of his father. Nale keeps trying to be the very clever manipulator who's smarter than anyone else and keeps falling short because he's utterly unwilling to swallow his ego and cut his losses, because that would mean admitting that Tarquin was right. In fact, the most successful moment Nale had was dealing with Malack... and even that turns into a disaster, because he's so busy proving that he out-planned Malack that he just assumed Durkon (not actually Durkon) would go along with him.

Like most of the villains in the comic, at the end of the day Nale is a figure worthy of pity, a man who cannot stand to deal with the thought that he might not be as smart as he thinks he is and flailing wildly against that restriction up until his very last moment. He's also someone who needs to die because, much like Crystal, he's a danger to everybody... but he's still a victim.

[Peelee]

I am not sure about this - I imagine his role in the story is done, but I think he might be the kind of guy that might sacrifice himself if he felt that made a better story, Elan in panel 8 (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0938.html) pseudo mentions that Tarquin does what he does for a better story regardless of who gets hurt because of it.

For example if Tarquin thought it made a better story for him to die saving his son's life from Xykon - half-mimicing Vader dying to save Luke from Palpatine - then he might do it, but because of love for his son (which I do think he has in his own way) but because he had decided the story would be better for it.

In his mind, there is no better story than him being the main villain. He doesn't want Elan to be the main hero because of who Elan is as a person, he wants Elan to be the main hero becuase of who Elan is with regards to Tarquin. Everything is centered around him. Tarquin has no love for anyone but Tarquin. He may have some affection for some people but it is strictly limited in how they relate back to him, and the second they want nothing to do with him, they are no longer important and can be discarded.

He has the depth of a kiddie pool for infants.

[dancrilis]

In his mind, there is no better story than him being the main villain. He doesn't want Elan to be the main hero because of who Elan is as a person, he wants Elan to be the main hero becuase of who Elan is with regards to Tarquin. Everything is centered around him. Tarquin has no love for anyone but Tarquin. He may have some affection for some people but it is strictly limited in how they relate back to him, and the second they want nothing to do with him, they are no longer important and can be discarded.

He has the depth of a kiddie pool for infants.

While rephrasing and reviewing I apparently messed with what I was saying corrected now , it should have read 'not because of love for his son (which I do think he has in his own way) but because he had decided the story would be better for it.'.

[Metastachydium]

In fact, the most successful moment Nale had was dealing with Malack... and even that turns into a disaster, because he's so busy proving that he out-planned Malack that he just assumed Durkon (not actually Durkon) would go along with him.

Not to mention thgat his gloating about it straight to the other Vectors to "prove his competence" and "shock" Tarquin would have gotten him killed even if Tarquin refrains from stabbing him. Whether you believe Tarquin when he says Malack was his friend or not, Laurin who happens to likely be the single most powerful member of the Legion was quite genuinely and homicidally furious. Not to mention that Tarquin was entirely correct in arguing that Nale wouldn't have been able to get nearly as far as he did had it not been for his protection. We literally saw Tarquin saving his life from Malack in the palace.


Like most of the villains in the comic, at the end of the day Nale is a figure worthy of pity, a man who cannot stand to deal with the thought that he might not be as smart as he thinks he is and flailing wildly against that restriction up until his very last moment. He's also someone who needs to die because, much like Crystal, he's a danger to everybody... but he's still a victim.

Well, DCF seems to suggest Nale was essentially born a problem person, but I'd rather not rely on evidence presented by DCF alone with regard to anything. "Some of us are just born Evil" doesn't sound like something the Giant who authored Blood Runs would argue anyway.


He has the depth of a kiddie pool for infants.

But the kiddie pool is full of skeletons! That's got to amount for something.

[Dame_Mechanus]

Well, DCF seems to suggest Nale was essentially born a problem person, but I'd rather not rely on evidence presented by DCF alone with regard to anything. "Some of us are just born Evil" doesn't sound like something the Giant who authored Blood Runs would argue anyway.

There might be something more in the pages of the book itself (which I do not have), but I always regarded the "family history" outlined by Nale and Elan as being at least somewhat allegorical. For example, I don't think Baby Nale actually was growing a goatee.

[Peelee]

While rephrasing and reviewing I apparently messed with what I was saying corrected now , it should have read 'not because of love for his son (which I do think he has in his own way) but because he had decided the story would be better for it.'.

My point stands regardless of this edit.

[Fyraltari]

He also has the advantage of not having Nale's need to prove that he's more clever than his father. Once you reach that understanding in Blood Runs in the Family, it kind of serves as the Rosetta Stone to understanding Nale's character as an antagonist and just a person. Why is Nale building a team that almost strictly consists of people who take orders from him instead of mirroring how his father operates and having a team composed chiefly of equals? Because then Nale would have to deal with the idea that he might not actually be the brains of the operation and someone else might have a better idea about how to accomplish a goal. He has to prove that not only is he just as capable as his father, he's actually smarter and better.

I love that this aspect of Nale's character was hinted at from the very beginning (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0061.html). I think it also goes a long way to explain his hatred of Elan: he looks and sounds too much like their father for comfort.

It does make me wonder what Tarquin's own (probably long-dead) father was like, though. Wouldn't be surprised to learn that their relationship was much like Tarquin and Nale's.

[dancrilis]

It does make me wonder what Tarquin's own (probably long-dead) father was like, though. Wouldn't be surprised to learn that their relationship was much like Tarquin and Nale's.

Personally I suspect that Tarquin's own father was never in the picture.

To consider a very far fetched long shot I could in fact see Xykon being his father - nothing at all to back this up - but I could imagine Xykon having a one night stand and not bothering to keep in contact afterwards.

[Fyraltari]

Personally I suspect that Tarquin's own father was never in the picture.

To consider a very far fetched long shot I could in fact see Xykon being his father - nothing at all to back this up - but I could imagine Xykon having a one night stand and not bothering to keep in contact afterwards.

Well, Tarquin is about 50-60? And Xykon is around 110, and his junk stopped working around 80 so the timing sort of works.

[DirePorcupine]

Tarquin. Hands down.

[Alexandrite]

At one point it was Tarquin, but I feel like the story backpedaled on how competent he was allowed to be in a way that didn't match up with the talents he had shown himself.

So I guess now I'd say Malack. I thought his arc, overall plan, and eventual death were all very well done. I could see Xykon or the Archfiends passing him before the story is over, though.

The vampire formerly known as Durkon was another one I liked for a while, but that whole arc was brought down in my eyes when there were multiple 'big bads' after him.

[Laurentio III]

Laurin Shattersmith scares me. And she is not even trying.
She is pragmatically evil and can pass as a lazy one, but when she wants something, is ruthless.

[Peelee]

At one point it was Tarquin, but I feel like the story backpedaled on how competent he was allowed to be in a way that didn't match up with the talents he had shown himself.

His talents relied on him being petty, short-sighted, and correct. He was none of these things, which is why the more he experienced conflict on-screen, the more things fell apart for him. He was a roadblock that thought he was a concrete barrier.

[Mike Havran]

His talents relied on him being petty, short-sighted, and correct. He was none of these things, which is why the more he experienced conflict on-screen, the more things fell apart for him. He was a roadblock that thought he was a concrete barrier.Did you just say you believe Tarquin was generous and far-sighted? :smallconfused: :smalltongue:

[Metastachydium]

His talents relied on him being petty, short-sighted, and correct. He was none of these things, which is why the more he experienced conflict on-screen, the more things fell apart for him. He was a roadblock that thought he was a concrete barrier.

I'm not sure that description does him justice (not that he deserves justice, mind you, but still). He's probably the most powerful melee combatant in the comic that we've seen thus far, he shrugs off magic left and right, he has bottomless pockets to provide resources to throw at others and he's crazy prepared. He's just not half as clever as he thinks he is and nowhere near insoghtful enough to recognize that while he is a concrete barrier, the road he tries to block is wide enough for the people he's trying to stop to just go around him and do their own stuff instead of playing his little games..

[Laurentio III]

Tarquin is interesting until you get his motives, then turns boring.
A mysterious schemer with some unfatomable endgoal is thrilling.
A smugly schemer who just want to end in great infamy, much less.
He is Homelander, just a little more sane.

[Fyraltari]

Tarquin is interesting until you get his motives, then turns boring.
A mysterious schemer with some unfatomable endgoal is thrilling.
A smugly schemer who just want to end in great infamy, much less.
He is Homelander, just a little more sane.

I find the abusive parent who wants to control his children's lives much more interesting than the "mysterious schemer with some unfathomable endgoal", personally. You do you.

[Laurentio III]

I find the abusive parent who wants to control his children's lives much more interesting than the "mysterious schemer with some unfathomable endgoal", personally. You do you.
In a comics full of abusive parents who wants to control their children's live, and one villain who raised from dead the grandmother to eat his fairly regular parents, I'm not impressed.

[KorvinStarmast]

He was not Malack"s friend. He was using and manipulating Malack. Malack was doing the same to Tarquin. They both recognized their own goals could be achieved better by paying lip service to the goals of the other.

The fact of apparent civility was a mask. Sociopaths and pathological liars create narrative structures and a persona to fit in. Since they have no real emotional connection to others, they roleplay what they believe such connections are like. Very nice analysis.

Laurin Shattersmith scares me. And she is not even trying.
She is pragmatically evil and can pass as a lazy one, but when she wants something, is ruthless. But she's not a villain in the narrative sense for this story. She was on Team Villain with Tarquin in the past.

In a comics full of abusive parents who wants to control their children's live, and one villain who raised from dead the grandmother to eat his fairly regular parents, I'm not impressed. The mommy and daddy issues are some of the weakest points of this story's structure, top to bottom, but one supposes that being well worn tropes they are part of the tool kit.

[Ionathus]

Speak for yourself. I've found all of the parent/child dynamics quite compelling - yes, even Eugene and Roy. Roy, Haley, and Elan have all had some fantastic growth regarding their parents' behavior and expectations, and how to grapple with them now they've grown up, all in a way that manages to keep their individual stories unique and make the epiphanies seem natural.

[Laurentio III]

Speak for yourself. I've found all of the parent/child dynamics quite compelling - yes, even Eugene and Roy. Roy, Haley, and Elan have all had some fantastic growth regarding their parents' behavior and expectations, and how to grapple with them now they've grown up, all in a way that manages to keep their individual stories unique and make the epiphanies seem natural.
Saying "I'm not impressed" as opposite to "It's not impressing" IS speaking for myself. I'd suggest to tone down a notch.

[KorvinStarmast]

I've found all of the parent/child dynamics quite compelling - yes, even Eugene and Roy. Roy, Haley, and Elan have all had some fantastic growth regarding their parents' behavior and expectations, and how to grapple with them now they've grown up, all in a way that manages to keep their individual stories unique and make the epiphanies seem natural.It's lazy writing.
But to be fair, I've been reading stories, short stories, novels, novellas, and seeing movies, tv shows, operettas, musicals and more for half of a century.
Maybe my standards are too high because I've been over-exposed.

[Ruck]

I never found it lazy writing. It's natural that a parent would have some kind of formative influence on their child. And especially as our three human characters are all adults in their twenties, it also follows that they'd have to grow out of their learned dysfunctions and coping mechanisms to become the heroes the story needs. It's hard to tell a story about where your characters need to go as people without knowing where they came from.

Plus, I think all three of those stories are sufficiently different:

Haley's is probably the most clichéd "my upbringing screwed me up," but it also resolves the quickest-- when she gets together with Elan she starts consciously working to grow out of that.

Roy's relationship with his father is different than Haley's with hers. Ian, I think, sincerely tried his best but also passed on his dysfunctions to Haley; Eugene often treated Roy with disdain for having any interests outside of wizardry and could be purposely neglectful. Roy is definitely shaped by his upbringing-- certainly I think Eugene's negligence in Eric's death is a major factor in shaping Roy to be so committed to taking responsibility-- but he also has the ongoing relationship with ghost!Eugene and the Blood Oath, although he's made some big steps in not letting his frayed relationship with his father affect the kind of person he is.

And Elan and Tarquin are entirely different since Tarquin didn't raise Elan; that's a story of Elan having to grow up and face reality about who his family are instead of who he wants them to be and instead of what perspective would be the most fun or make the best story.

[KorvinStarmast]

I never found it lazy writing. It's natural that a parent would have some kind of formative influence on their child. That's a charitable review.
On the bright side, Durkon has a mostly healthy relationship with his mom, we don't know who V's parents are but V's family issues arose as a plot point, and Belkar's references to Grandma Bitterleaf and Aunt Ruby are about all we'll ever know about his family situation.
IIRC, Rich is not inclined to write his back story since he's not interested in justifying Belkar's evolution into a murderhobo.

[Peelee]

On the bright side, Durkon has a mostly healthy relationship with his mom, we don't know who V's parents are, and Belkar's references to Grandma Bitterleaf and Aunt Ruby are about all we'll ever know about his family situation. IIRC, Rich is not inclined to write his back story since he's not interested in justifying Belkar's evolution into a murderhobo.

V is a parent, though, and not a particularly good one.

[Laurentio III]

V is a parent, though, and not a particularly good one.
Vaarsuvius IS the abusive parent. So it's four on six in the character's rooster.
Four disfuntional families, one fine one, and one is a mystery.
I'd say that is a weird statistic but come on, they are D&D heroes. It's on the par.


Belkar's references to Grandma Bitterleaf and Aunt Ruby are about all we'll ever know about his family situation.
So... Belkar is the Benjamin Grimm of the Fant... Order of the Stick. I like it.