What if Elan and Nale parents were switched?

[paladinofshojo]

Exactly as it sounds, what if Elan was raised by Tarquin and Nale was raised by their mother?

Would Elan have been evil and Nale have been the hero? I honestly feel like the two probably would have been more neutral with Elan being chaotic neutral as well as having his love of the dramatic heavily encouraged by Tarquin whereas Nale would probably have been Lawful Neutral what with him and his mother loving to make over complicated plans that require everything to work like clockwork.

I feel like Elan and Nale still have those innate pulls to good and evil, but if they were never exposed to the parents that enabled them, they’d probably be much more balanced and grounded. I can see Tarquin actually forcing Elan to think about his build mechanic, and I’d see Nale’s mother into putting in the effort at least to teach him some basic human empathy…

[brian 333]

The Giant has made clear that he dislikes innate alignment. So, very likely the only difference would be the name. The environment of early childhood development would have been the same no matter which parent/child pairing occurred. I am still waiting to see how a monastic life at the orphanage affected their sisters Lane and Anel.

[Alexandrite]

Elan would be raised under Tarquin's thumb, never going on the journey that led to him gaining the agency he has in the main comic. He would probably end up as a comic relief villain during Tarquin's arc, if the story still went in that direction. The Linear Guild wouldn't be formed.

With Nale it's harder to say because we don't see his perspective as much, but he probably ends up as neutral good because of his mother. I don't think he joins the Order, but rule of drama says he will show up in Empire of Blood at the same time as them, trying to learn what happened to Elan.

[ZhonLord]

The Giant has made clear that he dislikes innate alignment. So, very likely the only difference would be the name. The environment of early childhood development would have been the same no matter which parent/child pairing occurred. I am still waiting to see how a monastic life at the orphanage affected their sisters Lane and Anel.

There's one trait that we can take as part of Nature rather than Nurture, however: Elan got his father's talent for drama, while Nale got his mother's talent for needless complexity. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0725.html)

So from my perspective, it's extremely likely that under Tarquin's guidance Elan would have very well become a carbon-copy of his father. He shares Tarquin's love of the dramatic, and being raised under an evil being like that would likely have resulted in his alignment being Lawful Evil same as his dad. Net result: a Lawful Evil Bard who understands the power of story and is a worthy successor to Tarquin's legacy.

Meanwhile, Nale likely would have become a full rogue - primarily because a rogue spends 90% of the time trying to stop unlikely outcomes (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots1284.html). Nale's love of convolution and needless complication actually works in a rogue's favor, because it would prompt him to have backup plans for his backup plans and three separate bags of holding with dozens of different tools and items for every occasion. He'd be like a conspiracy theorist whose conspiracies kept turning out to be real, and with his mother's Chaotic-Good outlook he'd be the kind of prepared-for-everything rogue every adventuring party would want on their side. He might even become famous for his skills!

[Spriteless]

Well, if you want baby Elan getting hit on the head by baby Nale a bunch to be why he's slow, or otherwise have thier abilities be innate... then Evil Elan would have used his aptitude for people and stories, rather than logic, and learned from his dad, to be the sort of politicer that tries to twist all his dad's friends around his little fingers. Really team up with Sabine on that front, stealing Daddy's alies rather than working to get out of his shadow. To what end? Turns out Sabine's bosses know more than Elan.

Nice Nale, on the other hand, would be dude who doesn't quite understand others' trauma. A goodnatured gish who uses whatever tool he has, constantly coming up with complicated plans that break, and Roy and co. adapt on the fly. He doesn't quite get that Roy wants to be like grandad not dad, doesn't understand that a dad can hurt more than the lack. But hey, we can still work together like brothers. I always wanted a brother. Roy you're getting quiet again what is with that?

In Origins of the PCs, Elan used his story savvy to help Roy get the rest of the party together. Don't know if that means you would replace the team with joke characters typical of the setting (Belkar is a joke character for like the first decade anyways), or just have the party come together and not bother dealing with it because this is a hypothetical.

[Ruck]

The Giant has made clear that he dislikes innate alignment. So, very likely the only difference would be the name. The environment of early childhood development would have been the same no matter which parent/child pairing occurred. I am still waiting to see how a monastic life at the orphanage affected their sisters Lane and Anel.

Innate alignment is one thing (and I think the Giant means it in the sense of being inborn or racial, not merely innate), but people still have a character at their core, and they show it through their decisions and actions (which determine their alignment, generally speaking).

Which is a way of saying, to this particular question, that while they would not have turned out exactly the same if they were raised by the other parent, I still think Nale's cruelty and resentment, and Elan's decency, would have come out in the end. (I can easily see Nale resenting his mother and thinking she's weak and a pushover, while Elan acts much like he did in the first scenes with Tarquin, a happy-go-lucky bard-in-training who has fun with his dad and remains blissfully unaware, or in denial, of what kind of person he is. For a while.)

[Goosefarble]

I believe Elan alludes to this exact question here (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0914.html), at Nale's death.

:elan: "How can I be mad at him? What if it had been me? Raised here? Would I be the jerk and would he be the hero?"
:haley: "I... don't know."

I've always interpreted Haley's response as grappling with the fact that maybe Elan's right. Nale is a product of his upbringing.

[Ruck]

I believe Elan alludes to this exact question here (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0914.html), at Nale's death.

Yeah, he definitely does.


:elan: "How can I be mad at him? What if it had been me? Raised here? Would I be the jerk and would he be the hero?"
:haley: "I... don't know."

I've always interpreted Haley's response as grappling with the fact that maybe Elan's right. Nale is a product of his upbringing.

I want to emphasize the "maybe," though, because she really doesn't know. Neither does Elan. Because our upbringing may shape us, but it does not make our decisions for us in adult life, nor does it even dictate how we choose to respond to that upbringing. A different son raised by Tarquin, even one who hated him as much as Nale did, may have just chosen to abandon the family business altogether and live a different life, rather than try to overthrow or upstage him, or in general be obsessed with taking disproportionate revenge over quasi-imagined slights (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0257.html), etc.

[BaronOfHell]

Well.. Elan's mother would be a ruthless general tyrant who liquified every man who as much as looked at her husband, and Tarquin would be himself, because I can't imagine him any other way, except he'd be running a tavern in stead of a continent, but then again, is there that much of a difference?

[Synesthesy]

I think that Elan would be a CE Bard, that he would go very well with Tarquin and he'd be his second hand and heir. While he'd stay more chaotic, he still would be more influenceable. He wouldn't try to kill Malack or to fight his father, but still he would piss Tarquin off because Elan wouldn't be a good leader, only a good second hand. But as Tarquind doesn't really want to give power up to his son, they would work pretty well. But as Elan still has 18 Cha, probably would make Sabine fall in love for him, changing his prospective and we now could have a Linear Guild with Sabine as leader, this time fighting the Vector Legion but in a more efficient way.

Nale instead would go away from his mother because still he would be free, and he probably would hate everything related to her. He would still be a multiclass, but this time LG. We can assume that Nale would still be unable to found his own party (this time being annoying for his needlessy complicated way, instead of being too childish like Elan did) so he would meet Roy and became a part of the Order, only that Nale is a lot smarter and ambitious, so he would have conflict with Roy for leadership, but in the end probably the Order would be a lot more efficient. The Dungeon of Dorukan would not explode, so no Miko going North and no more story after they think to have killed Xykon.
And this in the end would lead to the end of the world after Xykon goes back to kick their ass*s.

[Darth Paul]

And this in the end would lead to the end of the world after Xykon goes back to kick their ass*s.

But would it? Postulating that the OotS don't get involved in Azure City affairs, there's no reason for Miko to be in the city for the final battle (since normally she was on missions far, far, far away- and they made sure of that), and no chance for her to interfere with Soon's Ghost-martyrs, who came that close to eliminating Xykon themselves until Miko blew up the Gate. It's a fair assumption that Xykon gets to the throne room in any case. And there would have been a stiffer defense, since Shojo would still be alive to organize it all and keep the nobles in line.

It would probably be a net gain if the Order never went to Azure City.

[Synesthesy]

But would it? Postulating that the OotS don't get involved in Azure City affairs, there's no reason for Miko to be in the city for the final battle (since normally she was on missions far, far, far away- and they made sure of that), and no chance for her to interfere with Soon's Ghost-martyrs, who came that close to eliminating Xykon themselves until Miko blew up the Gate. It's a fair assumption that Xykon gets to the throne room in any case. And there would have been a stiffer defense, since Shojo would still be alive to organize it all and keep the nobles in line.

It would probably be a net gain if the Order never went to Azure City.

If the Order doesn't destroy Dorukan's gate, why go to war with Azure City when you can go back to an unguarded Dungeon of Dorukan? Xykon lost the first time mainly for plot armor and for having underestimated Roy, he wouldn't make the same mistake again. Go back, kill Roy, capture either Hailey Durkon or Nale, and you unlock the Gate. Easy peasy.

And if the Order goes away, Xykon would simply restart from square one. No big deal for an immortal being with so much time to spare.

[Darth Paul]

If the Order doesn't destroy Dorukan's gate, why go to war with Azure City when you can go back to an unguarded Dungeon of Dorukan? Xykon lost the first time mainly for plot armor and for having underestimated Roy, he wouldn't make the same mistake again. Go back, kill Roy, capture either Hailey Durkon or Nale, and you unlock the Gate. Easy peasy.

And if the Order goes away, Xykon would simply restart from square one. No big deal for an immortal being with so much time to spare.

Redcloak had a personal reason for attacking AC in any case. And he would certainly argue not to reinforce failure by trying to go back to Dorukan's dungeon again. Meanwhile, with an undestroyed dungeon, Good monsters and adventurers would start filling it up again- or it might become a battleground of rival groups trying to clean it out. Either scenario would mitigate against going back again. They were going to the hobgoblin lands anyway, to recruit more mooks, and unless I'm forgetting, AC was closer by the time Xykon finished regenerating. His laziness + RC's strategic sense would probably mean invading AC no matter what.

While Xykon is immortal, he's also been shown to be very, very impatient. To the point that he won't sit through a briefing unless there's going to be pointless violence (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0416.html) afterward as a reward.

[hroþila]

You could just as easily argue that Xykon wouldn't have bothered deciphering the location of the other gates (including the one in Azure City) if the Dungeon of Dorukan was still standing

[enq]

while Nale got his mother's talent for needless complexity. (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0725.html)

How did that never compute for me, ahhhhh!

[BaronOfHell]

I too would think team evil would have went back to Dorukan's gate if possible, but it is never established in comic. In fact (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0117.html) Xykon mentions other gates as they're escaping.

This doesn't have to mean they had given up on Dorukan's gate, especially considering they seemed to have solved how to unlock its defenses, it would be a bit weird.

On the other hand I certainly don't think the Order would have had anything to fear considering Xykon doesn't bother to remember seeking out revenge, and I don't think they would have stuck around long enough before team Evil came back.

[Metastachydium]

Net result: a Lawful Evil Bard who understands the power of story and is a worthy successor to Tarquin's legacy.

Except, Bards cannot be Lawful (that's one of the reasons why Nale did what he did to his build: so that he can continue to delude himself into thinking he's Lawful just because it's possible by RAW). I could see NE, though. And Elan as the populist "good cop" face of the Vectors' regime would be a creepy kind of cool, in actual fact.


I too would think team evil would have went back to Dorukan's gate if possible, but it is never established in comic. In fact (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0117.html) Xykon mentions other gates as they're escaping.

This doesn't have to mean they had given up on Dorukan's gate, especially considering they seemed to have solved how to unlock its defenses, it would be a bit weird.

It's DCF. Don't think too hard about DCF, lest your head explode or something.


On the other hand I certainly don't think the Order would have had anything to fear considering Xykon doesn't bother to remember seeking out revenge,

The funny thing is, he explicitly mentions he intends to plot revenge on them (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0120.html).


and I don't think they would have stuck around long enough before team Evil came back.

Well, they likewise explicitly mention a clear intent to loiter about and amass more treasure (and XP (let's not forget XP)) (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0118.html); the only reason why they didn't stay to properly clear the place was Elan's idiotic act of sabotage.

[KorvinStarmast]

then Evil Elan would have used his aptitude for people and stories, rather than logic, and learned from his dad, to be the sort of politicer that tries to twist all his dad's friends around his little fingers. Really team up with Sabine on that front, stealing Daddy's alies rather than working to get out of his shadow. To what end? Taking over from Tarquin and keeping all of the rest of his party on side. Bloodless coup, even.

Nice Nale, on the other hand, I like the "many bags of holding and prepared with too many back up plans version better.

It isn't nature versus nurture, though, it's a bit of both.

[BaronOfHell]

The funny thing is, he explicitly mentions he intends to plot revenge on them (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0120.html).
No no, that is Greensword he is speaking about, probably some poor guy who enjoyed his coffee a bit too much in front of Xykon!




Well, they likewise explicitly mention a clear intent to loiter about and amass more treasure (and XP (let's not forget XP)) (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0118.html); the only reason why they didn't stay to properly clear the place was Elan's idiotic act of sabotage.
That is why I wrote "long enough". I don't know how long it takes to loot such a big place, the dragon hoard took weeks, but then I don't think they could carry more anyway, but I did get the impression that Xykon's regeneration takes even longer.

[Tzardok]

That is why I wrote "long enough". I don't know how long it takes to loot such a big place, the dragon hoard took weeks, but then I don't think they could carry more anyway, but I did get the impression that Xykon's regeneration takes even longer.

A lich returns from destruction after 1d10 days.
Edit: I'm also not sure where it was mentioned that looting the hoard took weeks.



The funny thing is, he explicitly mentions he intends to plot revenge on them (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0120.html).


He likely got distracted by something. Xykon's attention span isn't much larger than Elan's after all. :smalltongue:

[ZhonLord]

Except, Bards cannot be Lawful (that's one of the reasons why Nale did what he did to his build: so that he can continue to delude himself into thinking he's Lawful just because it's possible by RAW). I could see NE, though. And Elan as the populist "good cop" face of the Vectors' regime would be a creepy kind of cool, in actual fact.

Ah, I forgot about the non-lawful requirement. Agreed, Neutral Evil would still be very effective for a Tarquin-raised Elan the Bard.

[Jasdoif]

While this isn't quite what's being asked about....



I suppose I could have made Elan's father the happy-go-lucky waiter and his mother the warlord, but that didn't feel right. Not so much because of Elan, but because of Nale. Nale has the sort of damaged ego that would force him to try to surpass his father at all costs, which of course would fail and thus lead to his presence in the dungeon. If Nale had been raise by an evil mother, I think he would have been more of a "corrupt prince" sort of character rather than an angry rebel looking for a magic doodad to go back and seize power. In this case, plot dictated characterization.

[Metastachydium]

No no, that is Greensword he is speaking about, probably some poor guy who enjoyed his coffee a bit too much in front of Xykon!

Touché.


He likely got distracted by something. Xykon's attention span isn't much larger than Elan's after all. :smalltongue:

Well, yes, normally. The main difference being that Xykon can make his scarily better if he bothers to, something Elan's still kind of working on.


While this isn't quite what's being asked about....




I absolutely don't follow that reasoning, I'm afraid.

[Precure]

While this isn't quite what's being asked about....




Nale wouldn't rebel against Tarquin if he was a woman? Kinda sexist of him.

[ZhonLord]

Nale wouldn't rebel against Tarquin if he was a woman? Kinda sexist of him.

Oh no, he'd rebel. But it would likely be more like how the Justice League Animated Series portrayed Morgan le Fey and her eternally young son Mordred. Impatient brat of a son who gets everything he wants as long as he does what mommy says, and ultimately finds a way to turn the tables and seize power from her without being ready to use it properly. "Precious" has waited long enough.

[Darth Paul]

Nale wouldn't rebel against Tarquin if he was a woman? Kinda sexist of him.

I'm not sure I get the gist properly, but the Giant seems to be saying that he might not have such a damaged ego had he not been raised by a father with whom he was constantly competing. With an evil mother, it might be a complementary relationship, e.g. "Darling, these pesky heroes are interfering with our evil plot to rule the world. Be a dear and eliminate them, hmm? There's my good boy..."

[Metastachydium]

Oh no, he'd rebel. But it would likely be more like how the Justice League Animated Series portrayed Morgan le Fey and her eternally young son Mordred. Impatient brat of a son who gets everything he wants as long as he does what mommy says, and ultimately finds a way to turn the tables and seize power from her without being ready to use it properly. "Precious" has waited long enough.


I'm not sure I get the gist properly, but the Giant seems to be saying that he might not have such a damaged ego had he not been raised by a father with whom he was constantly competing. With an evil mother, it might be a complementary relationship, e.g. "Darling, these pesky heroes are interfering with our evil plot to rule the world. Be a dear and eliminate them, hmm? There's my good boy..."

Sorry, I still don't follow. A female warlord in heavy armour conquering desert nations already doesn't conform to the usual old gender expectations. Why would she neccessarily do that within the bounds of her relationship with her son?

[Ruck]

While this isn't quite what's being asked about....




Yeah, I was thinking about that too, and while it's not the same, I think there is something to be said that Elan and Nale would not necessarily have turned out the same way if you flipped their circumstances.


I'm not sure I get the gist properly, but the Giant seems to be saying that he might not have such a damaged ego had he not been raised by a father with whom he was constantly competing. With an evil mother, it might be a complementary relationship, e.g. "Darling, these pesky heroes are interfering with our evil plot to rule the world. Be a dear and eliminate them, hmm? There's my good boy..."

Yes, I think this is more the correct interpretation. It's more about how Nale's relationship with his mother would be different than the one with his father; not that he "wouldn't rebel" or whatever Rich didn't say that Precure is inserting into the comment.

[Spriteless]

Taking over from Tarquin and keeping all of the rest of his party on side. Bloodless coup, even.
Well, unless Tarquin realizes he's a puppet of the conspiracy of fiends... then Sabine convinces Elana his time is now! And a mirror of Nale's death scene takes place.


I like the "many bags of holding and prepared with too many back up plans version better. Like artificers were originally meant to be. But Eberron didn't exist when the comic started. Ahh, some kind of caster/rogue multi class could fit. Or psion. Rogue/Telepath with a side of Babylon 5 references.

Yes! The most powerful skill to take from his mother is to not take yourself too seriously. When the world knocks you down, you just have to pick yourself up one more time.

[Metastachydium]

And a mirror of Nale's death scene takes place.

Dunno. Elan being an Evil agent of the IFCC doesn't make Tarquin less rich/crazy-prepared; worse at dodging/in the defenses department; or Bards any better at one-hit killing dedicating martials with a blade.

[Coppercloud]

Dunno. Elan being an Evil agent of the IFCC doesn't make Tarquin less rich/crazy-prepared; worse at dodging/in the defenses department; or Bards any better at one-hit killing dedicating martials with a blade.
Maybe Spriteless meant evil Elan being killed by Tarquin after a failed coup while Nale watches?

[Zalam]

Sorry, I still don't follow. A female warlord in heavy armour conquering desert nations already doesn't conform to the usual old gender expectations. Why would she neccessarily do that within the bounds of her relationship with her son?

It's not just about one person, though.

Nale didn't rebel against Tarquin in a featureless white room. He rebelled against him in the context of an entire world - a world which is reminiscent of our own, and has (to some degree) reflections of toxic masculinity and has some degree of gender standards (and double standards) in play.

Yes, in theory you could have an absolute ladette in plate armour at the top of the hierarchy - personal power warping society around it is definitely a D&D trope - but because the story needed Tarquin to be affable and (overtly) loving towards Elan (at first), it's very hard to square all the requisite character traits into a hypothetical female warlord character?


Such a character would be pretty unusual in fiction and would pose a lot of challenges compared to the easy-trope-grabbing that Tarquin enabled (and note some tropes were grabbed to be subverted, but also to be played straight and gloriously so).


Yes, of course, an author can say "I don't care, I'll write a character that way anyway" but it would be harder.


It's good to go off the beaten track and do you own thing - but you don't need to do so at every turn, and should usually only do so when you have a good plan for it, because tropes and cliches provide scaffolding that can really help you make a story.

[Ruck]

It's also about the specific characters in question. I don't think Nale would see an evil, powerful mother as the same direct competition / threat to his ego as he did Tarquin.

[Spriteless]

Dunno. Elan being an Evil agent of the IFCC doesn't make Tarquin less rich/crazy-prepared; worse at dodging/in the defenses department; or Bards any better at one-hit killing dedicating martials with a blade.
Ahh, but convincing others that his father has gone too far, gotten too paranoid, has to be put down for everyone's benefit. Look he thinks fiends across the blood war are conspiring together just to get to him! There's story logic, and there's ambitios megalomania, and then there's being disconnected from reality!

[Darth Paul]

Sorry, I still don't follow. A female warlord in heavy armour conquering desert nations already doesn't conform to the usual old gender expectations. Why would she neccessarily do that within the bounds of her relationship with her son?

I'm not picturing a warlord in heavy armor neccesarily. Maybe a young version of Mom from Futurama, presenting a nice face to the world, while ruthlessly eliminating the competition behind the scenes. As you say, "warlord" doesn't conform to gender stereotype, but neither does "CEO of Evil, Inc."

[Spriteless]

Hmm. What if Mom from Futurama had daughters? I would be 20% more uncomfortable watching her abuse a gal the way she does her son.

[Darth Paul]

Hmm. What if Mom from Futurama had daughters? I would be 20% more uncomfortable watching her abuse a gal the way she does her son.

That's why we have this trope: Double Standard Abuse, Female On Male (https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DoubleStandardAbuseFemaleOnMale).


Female-on-male violence is viewed as more acceptable in life than male-on-female violence. Often, a woman using physical violence on a man will be Played for Laughs; sometimes it will be Disproportionate Retribution. The key is that in most works where this trope is in effect, it would be completely impossible to imagine the same violent situation play out with the participants' genders reversed without a large dose of drama getting added into the mix. The basic Double Standard at work in this trope is sexist on both sides: no woman is strong enough to harm a man, so any man weak enough to be harmed by a woman isn't a real man, and that's funny; that way, also, you get Amusing Injuries and Unexplained Recoveries instead of broken bones and cuts.

(It gets even worse if you picture it as Dad and his daughters, btw.)

[Metastachydium]

Be that as it may, let it be on the record: whether the argument is that "Nale's issues were ultimately caused by his being male" or that "no woman, not even a female Evil Overlady conquering nations left and right can register as competition for their little psycho brat on account of being a woman" or some combination of the two, this explanation continues not to rest comfortably with me.

[KorvinStarmast]

Be that as it may, let it be on the record: whether the argument is that "Nale's issues were ultimately caused by his being male" or that "no woman, not even a female Evil Overlady conquering nations left and right can register as competition for their little psycho brat on account of being a woman" or some combination of the two, this explanation continues not to rest comfortably with me.

Yeah it's kind of sexist from a bunch of different angles.

[hroþila]

I don't have any problem with "Nale is kind of sexist". Honestly, it checks out

[brian 333]

Consider this perspective:
Twin girls. Everything else the same.

Could a writer today get away with a sociopathic father-daughter relationship that ends with the father murdering his daughter?

Society would receive the story very differently, in my opinion. Indeed, their judgement of the author would read more like condemnation, especially with all of the Nale-Tarquin jokes that went along with it.

A female Tarquin would raise other issues. Nale would not be able to compete with her. He could have been defiant and resentful, but a direct confrontation would have been read one of two ways:
Grrrl powah! Mom kills ungrateful brat boychild. (Umm, standing up for women's rights through murder?)
Male domination made me do it. Poor General Tarquina had to murder him in cold blood because she is physically weaker.

In either case, the actual reason Tarquin murdered Nale, (Nale refused the role Tarquin had assigned him, and Tarquin thought he had an understudy ready to take over the part,) would have been buried beneath an obscuring mound of sexist baggage. The Giant could have written every line exactly the same, drawn every panel exactly the same, and it would have been a different story if General Tarquin was a mom.

[Metastachydium]

I don't have any problem with "Nale is kind of sexist". Honestly, it checks out

Beyond how sexism is bad and Nale is Evil… How come? Unlike with, say, Belkar or Tarquin (for that matter), I kind of never noticed any clear indication of that in the comic.


Consider this perspective:
Twin girls. Everything else the same.

Could a writer today get away with a sociopathic father-daughter relationship that ends with the father murdering his daughter?

Society would receive the story very differently, in my opinion. Indeed, their judgement of the author would read more like condemnation, especially with all of the Nale-Tarquin jokes that went along with it.

A female Tarquin would raise other issues. Nale would not be able to compete with her. He could have been defiant and resentful, but a direct confrontation would have been read one of two ways:
Grrrl powah! Mom kills ungrateful brat boychild. (Umm, standing up for women's rights through murder?)
Male domination made me do it. Poor General Tarquina had to murder him in cold blood because she is physically weaker.

In either case, the actual reason Tarquin murdered Nale, (Nale refused the role Tarquin had assigned him, and Tarquin thought he had an understudy ready to take over the part,) would have been buried beneath an obscuring mound of sexist baggage. The Giant could have written every line exactly the same, drawn every panel exactly the same, and it would have been a different story if General Tarquin was a mom.

Like how the Giant was worried Belkar standing atop a pile of dead female Hobgoblins would've looked very bad (because of societal biases)? Hm. I suppose you've got a good point there.

[Precure]

Could a writer today get away with a sociopathic father-daughter relationship that ends with the father murdering his daughter?

That's basically what happened to Therkla.

[brian 333]

That's basically what happened to Therkla.

Good point, except that we were never supposed to like Kubota. And Therkla was his victim, not his daughter. And Therkla was not a main character. Otherwise, exactly the same. And Therkla's purpose was to demonstrate Elan was maturing.

[Metastachydium]

That's basically what happened to Therkla.


Good point, except that we were never supposed to like Kubota. And Therkla was his victim, not his daughter. And Therkla was not a main character. Otherwise, exactly the same. And Therkla's purpose was to demonstrate Elan was maturing.

In the post by the Giant above, as brought to us by the Great Banana, the Giant himself addresses this point in a similar manner:
1. Kubota was a Mentor/Teacher figure, not a parent; and
2. Therkla did have parents, grew up with them around and they loved her.

Also, Kubota's muredring Therkla lacks the ambiguity of the Tarquin–Nale situation; whereas the latter is convenient because it reveals Tarquin to be a psycho monster despite his killing someone Evil who amply deserved to die, we are meant to sympathize with Therkla who is, ultimately, not a bad person, i.e. her fate is purely (if doubly, because of Elan) tragical, while Nale's might be tragical, but it's also poetic justice.

[brian 333]

I promise you liking Tarquin was an optional extra, Therkla did more than one thing and Nale was Tarquin's victim as well, Nale wasn't a main character either, and your last sentence I'm not touching.

Tarquin was intentionally written as a charming character; Kubota was intentionally written as a jerk. The audience was supposed to like Tarquin and loathe Kubota.

Therkla was not Kubota's daughter, nor was she her father's victim. Nale was Tarquin's son and his victim.

Nale may not have been a main character, but he was a recurring villain with multiple story arcs. Therkla had one story arc. The author invested a great deal more in Nale than in Therkla.

[Precure]

"Kubota is not her parent" was The Giant defending himself against "why parents are evil in this story" criticism, saying they're not literal parent and child. Otherwise they have a parental relationship pretty similar to Tarquin and Nale. Therkla is basically a take on "the villain's daughter falling for the hero" type of character.

[hamishspence]

"Kubota is not her parent" was The Giant defending himself against "why parents are evil in this story" criticism, saying they're not literal parent and child. Otherwise they have a parental relationship pretty similar to Tarquin and Nale.



Therkla already had a parental relationship in her history. Her relationship with Kubota is teacher-student:


Kubota and Therkla had a teacher/student relationship; she was raised by her loving parents.

she doesn't see him as a a father-figure, only as a teacher-figure, and he sees her only as a student - a "trainee villain" so to speak:



I'm more concerned with her activity in the comic than an implied history that I haven't bothered to work out. Kubota was teaching her to be a villain, implying that it didn't come naturally to her.

[Precure]

Therkla already had a parental relationship in her history.

You can have parental relationship with more than two people. Especially when the said relationship with her real parents barely appeared in the story.

[Blue Dragon]

The Giant has made clear that he dislikes innate alignment. So, very likely the only difference would be the name. The environment of early childhood development would have been the same no matter which parent/child pairing occurred. I am still waiting to see how a monastic life at the orphanage affected their sisters Lane and Anel.

Probably they would be called Lena and Anel (hehe).

[hamishspence]

You can have parental relationship with more than two people. Especially when the said relationship with her real parents barely appeared in the story.

I think a much more overt example of "mentor as father figure" in the backstory is Fyron Pucebuckle as portrayed by Eugene's account of events in Start of Darkness- Eugene claims he was more of a father to him than his own biological father was.

By contrast we never have Therkla describing Kubota that way, as "like a father to me" or Kubota saying she's "like a daughter to me", and the dynamic between the two never really screams "seen as father/seen as daughter".

[brian 333]

I guess that's why I missed the father/daughter dynamic others appear to have seen. I saw, from Kubota's perspective, a mediocre, expendable minion that required constant supervision. From Therkla's perspective I saw a mean boss but that was as good as a person like her could expect.

That she attempted to remain loyal to him had more to do with her personality than any merit on Kubota's part, and when she tried to have her cake, (Elan alive,) and eat it too, (Kubota alive and free,) he showed her what she was worth to him. As Elan said, to Kubota she was just another mook.

I don't see anywhere that The Giant intentionally or accidentally created a family relationship between them. Employer/employee is the best I can get.

[Peelee]

Consider this perspective:
Twin girls. Everything else the same.

Could a writer today get away with a sociopathic father-daughter relationship that ends with the father murdering his daughter?
... Yes?

Society would receive the story very differently, in my opinion. Indeed, their judgement of the author would read more like condemnation
... No?

[KorvinStarmast]

In the post by the Giant above, as brought to us by the Great Banana, the Giant himself addresses this point in a similar manner:
1. Kubota was a Mentor/Teacher figure, not a parent; and
2. Therkla did have parents, grew up with them around and they loved her. Yep. And yet she became an assassin. (But maybe within the bickering-nobles culture of the Azurites this is an OK vocation ... :smallconfused:)

Also, Kubota's murdering Therkla lacks the ambiguity of the Tarquin–Nale situation; whereas the latter is convenient because it reveals Tarquin to be a psycho monster despite his killing someone Evil who amply deserved to die, we are meant to sympathize with Therkla who is, ultimately, not a bad person Despite her being an assassin.
Maybe Elan's general lack of good judgment was on display, yet again, as well as a variety of other plot points. He lived because he was cute.

Tarquin was intentionally written as a charming character;
I'll write this in 200 foot tall flaming letters:
No, he was not.

Kubota was intentionally written as a jerk.
Concur.

The audience was supposed to like Tarquin and loathe Kubota.
I'll need a bit more evidence on Tarquin.

"Kubota is not her parent" was The Giant defending himself against "why parents are evil in this story" criticism, saying they're not literal parent and child. Otherwise they have a parental relationship pretty similar to Tarquin and Nale. Therkla is basically a take on "the villain's daughter falling for the hero" type of character. No. I've been a mentor (professionally) to dozens of people over the years, and none of them is my child. It is a lot more like a 'coach~player' relationship.

I saw, from Kubota's perspective, a mediocre, expendable minion that required constant supervision. From Therkla's perspective I saw a mean boss but that was as good as a person like her could expect. Yes.

[brian 333]

{Scrubbed}

I assert that Tarquin was written as charming, and that assertion comes from everything we see from his introduction virtually to the flaming letters. The assertion that he was not, no matter how tall, is based on... well, your opinion I guess. And we all know that is unquestionably correct.

[Precure]

Kubota said that he couldn't be prouder if she were his own flesh and blood (https://i.giantitp.com//comics/oots/oots0562.gif) and give her more chances to fullfill her duty, despite of her obvious signs of rebellion. Therkla too in her fantasy likened him to Commissioner Gordon, a parental figure to Batman which Therkla likened herself, and was grateful to him for giving her a place to live and fit in (https://i.giantitp.com//comics/oots/oots0582.gif), tried her best to protect Kubota till the very end.

[Errorname]

I feel like Nale probably still turns out an arrogant jerk but might get a passing grade in human decency. Elan probably turns out a less duplicitous evil son than Nale, but also considerably more redeemable by the good guys.

You could probably write a pretty plausible fanfiction where the same basic plot plays out with minimal structural changes. Nale's just as much a fool as his brother for different reasons. I imagine Elan would stay loyal and Sabine would need an alternative leader for the Linear Guild, and Nale wouldn't meet his brother until Book 5. You could maybe have Elan turn good, or get killed by his father for trying.


I assert that Tarquin was written as charming, and that assertion comes from everything we see from his introduction virtually to the flaming letters. The assertion that he was not, no matter how tall, is based on... well, your opinion I guess. And we all know that is unquestionably correct.

Seconding this. Tarquin is written as superficially charming, frankly up until his final breakdown. He's a vile person but he masks that with an easy affable charisma that makes him a lot of fun to watch.

[Ruck]

Yeah, I think it's fine to say Tarquin was written as charming. As Errorname said before I could, charm is superficial-- it is for Tarquin a way to mask the horrors of what he really does to other people. (I believe Rich has a quote on Malack and civility that would also apply here.) And it doesn't work on everyone-- Haley sees through him pretty quickly, possibly aided by his casual sexism.

[Trixie_One]

Add me to the he was both initially charming to the characters and likable to the audience pile. He's plain adorable in his first meeting with Elan, and it's the gradual erosion of that facade up to those big flaming letters that makes them hit so hard.

[Peelee]

Add me to the he was both initially charming to the characters and likable to the audience pile. He's plain adorable in his first meeting with Elan, and it's the gradual erosion of that facade up to those big flaming letters that makes them hit so hard.

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0722.html

Puts his sons friend in mortal danger by chucking her out a window. Threatens to have her killed if they don't surrender. Is directly in the service to a patently evil Empire run by a red dragon. Which of those do you find adorable?

The mask went up after he already showed everyone who he is.

ETA: Oh, also, admired Haley's breasts immediately after learning she was romantically involved with his son, so hitting both sexism and apathy towards his kid's relationship at the same time. Adorable?

[Tzardok]

A character who can be serious and threatening when the need arises, but suddenly becomes silly and non-threating? That is called gap moe.

[Metastachydium]

... Yes?

... No?

See, once more, the Giant's own commentary on the all-male Hobgoblin army. Violence against women in media is perceived differently than violence against men (and, admittedly, there's often enough reasons behind that beyond benevolent sexism). While Brian put it in stronger terms than I'd have had, probably, I do think that a setup where a man murders her daughter and she is conveniently deseving of death overall and narratively, if not then and that way would get more negative reactions.


Yep. And yet she became an assassin. (But maybe within the bickering-nobles culture of the Azurites this is an OK vocation ... :smallconfused:)
Despite her being an assassin.

1. Nijas are not alignment-locked and also shown to be an integral part of Azurite culture nobody bats an eye at (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0312.html).
2. Therkla is canonically True Neutral and she isn't shown actually killing anyone other than a Scrag and an Evil Samurai in the main comic. I believe her track record in Spoiler Alert is similar.


I assert that Tarquin was written as charming, and that assertion comes from everything we see from his introduction virtually to the flaming letters. The assertion that he was not, no matter how tall, is based on... well, your opinion I guess. And we all know that is unquestionably correct.

Not so much charming as cool until he lost his, I'd say. Friendly, competent, slow to anger, patient, surprisingly helpful and a yet posing a believable threat – that's what he looks like straight up to the point where he orders the Order's execution, as opposed to Kubota, who's pretty much a smug, petty jerk with a pathetically stupid plan throughout (his only good scene, pretty much, is his congratulating Therkla on weaseling her way out of responsibility).

Yes, he's obviously Evil (it's telegraphed visually, even) and creepy enough if you take a moment to think about it (not that his sexism is not called out explicitly and numerous times), but there are things to like about Tarquin as a villain. Kubota's more like the "I want him punched in the face and excised from the story with extreme prejudice through a sound and decisive defeat now" kind of antagonist.

[Peelee]

See, once more, the Giant's own commentary on the all-male Hobgoblin army.

That he specifically did not want to do it has no bearing on whether i think it could be done without larger issue.

I also disagree with people who say "you cant do shows like [show we did that is still aired or available for streaming] today". The fact that i can watch them shows that to be false. You could not do, for example, a character dressed up as a drow in drow makeup today, and i know that because both platforms that host Community banned that episode.

[Metastachydium]

That he specifically did not want to do it has no bearing on whether i think it could be done without larger issue.

Good thing I specified I would use terms less harsh and was talking about a general aversion towards certain kinds of setup on the end of creators and audiences alike, then, rather than "you can't do this" stuff.

[Peelee]

Good thing I specified I would use terms less harsh and was talking about a general aversion towards certain kinds of setup on the end of creators and audiences alike, then, rather than "you can't do this" stuff.

Good thing the post I originally responded to did not, then. If you want to question my answers to what someone else said then I'm not too concerned with your alterations to it.

[brian 333]

I think my points still stand, even given all the edge-shaving and unsupported negation.

Could a story exactly like OotS be written with a female Elan? Absolutely. You wouldn't even have to change the name.

Would it be received the same? Absolutely not.

A dumb blond girl stereotype?
A father with an abusive relationship to his other dumb blond daughter, who extends this relationship to Elan as well?
A father attempting to exercise paternal control over his daughters?
A father murdering his daughter for disobedience?

Kubota isn't in the same league when comparing his relationship to Therkla to Tarquin and his sons'. Kubota isn't even in the same game. Tarquin is in the FIFA of toxic relationships, Kubota's in the City Cornhole League.

[Peelee]

I think my points still stand, even given all the edge-shaving and unsupported negation.

Claims that can be made without evidence cna be dismissed without evidence. I provided as much support for the negation as you provided for your assertion - specifically, our own opinions.

[Metastachydium]

Good thing the post I originally responded to did not, then. If you want to question my answers to what someone else said then I'm not too concerned with your alterations to it.

Cute. Too bad your second answer questioned that it would be perceived differently, which is something I addressed. Also, if you wish to argue that I cannot comment on the exchange between the two of you, horribile dictu, implying that the opinion you dismissed has merits unless I conform to one of two extremes expressed, be my guest, but I'm calling bull****.

[Peelee]

Cute. Too bad your second answer questioned that it would be perceived differently, which is something I addressed.

Good thing when i responded to you the first time, i also included a rationale for that, then.

[Darth Paul]

... Yes?

... No?

I think standards are evolving and both media and audiences are getting more sophisticated, to the point of understanding and accepting that females have just as much capacity for violence and, for want of a better word, "evil" as males. In the past this has mostly been portrayed as "evil men kill people, evil women scheme to get people killed" (vis. Macbeth and Lady Macbeth), but we've seen a lot more outright violent female characters the past several years. Look at Gazelle and Valentine in Kingsman , where they invert the trope- she's a more or less psychopathic killer, he's an evil mastermind who can't stand the sight of blood. And nobody batted an eye when the hero fought a vicious hand-to-hand battle with her, precisely because she was already established as a ruthless killer.

[Metastachydium]

Good thing when i responded to you the first time, i also included a rationale for that, then.

Not that I can tell? (At the very least, "I have seen shows do ****, so it is possible" tells me nothing about the perception of violence against women being depicted in media.)

[brian 333]

Claims that can be made without evidence cna be dismissed without evidence. I provided as much support for the negation as you provided for your assertion - specifically, our own opinions.

Shall I go into discussion of the language used over many strips to show that my opinion of the author's intent is based on what the author intended? Can you show me where, in the early strips of Tarquin's story, he is portrayed as the sociopath we now know? Or, because you can now point to the things that were placed there to make us second-guess our first impression, will you insist that he was never portrayed, or intended to be perceived, as anything but the villain?


There's a difference between "he's written to be charming to some characters" and "the audience was supposed to (https://forums.giantitp.com/showsinglepost.php?p=16575446&postcount=91) like him." Don't move the goalposts, brian.

(Luckily, Rich is not the kind of writer to plan for and count on (https://baldursgate.fandom.com/wiki/Amelyssan) "my readers will never see through this monster's transparent facade!")

Not moving goalposts here. Both are true. Truthfully, when you first read Tarquin, did you not get the feeling he was just an older version of Elan with some previous generation hangups and a lot of denial? This impression was quickly subverted, but Tarquin remained charming long after he was exposed as the murderous monster we have come to know. That we were eventually supposed to see through it is not in question.

[Darth Paul]

Shall I go into discussion of the language used over many strips to show that my opinion of the author's intent is based on what the author intended? Can you show me where, in the early strips of Tarquin's story, he is portrayed as the sociopath we now know? Or, because you can now point to the things that were placed there to make us second-guess our first impression, will you insist that he was never portrayed, or intended to be perceived, as anything but the villain?

I feel like I want to weigh in on this. The very first thing Tarquin did was body-check someone out a window, and just after that revealed that it was a personality test to see if this was Nale or Elan (since Nale wouldn't surrender to save an ally). And after the reveal, he says outright that he never told Nale about Elan's existence, just to heighten the future dramatic tension. Cap that off with telling them he knows vital information for a quest to save the world, but is holding on to it so Elan will be forced to participate in the festivities he's planning. (Oh, plus there's all the things Haley points out as well; the "works for a red dragon, oversees an empire that tortures people," etc.)

The first impression from these, the only one I think can be drawn anyway, is "superficially charming but has a much darker side". It's not obvious the lengths he will eventually go to, but it's right out there that he's not a good character and definitely has a hidden agenda.

[Metastachydium]

And after the reveal, he says outright that he never told Nale about Elan's existence, just to heighten the future dramatic tension.

…to which Elan reacts with an "Ooh, super-cool!", basically. Is Elan a sociopath?


Cap that off with telling them he knows vital information for a quest to save the world, but is holding on to it so Elan will be forced to participate in the festivities he's planning.

And even Haley acknowledges that this tells them nothing about T., since they are actively withholding information from him and he therefore doesn't know that what he knows is the vital key to saving the world.

[Darth Paul]

…to which Elan reacts with an "Ooh, super-cool!", basically. Is Elan a sociopath?


I'm gonna say "no", because he wasn't the one who set up the situation, he was the victim of it. The "Cool!" is recognizing how it fulfills a fiction trope. But while Elan uses fiction traditions to his advantage, he doesn't set up people as pawns in a story. He sees people first, not "characters".

[KorvinStarmast]

{Scrub the post, scrub the quote} Hardly. You are simply wrong. He was written to be charismatic/have a high charisma, which hardly ensures the quality of charming. A high charisma is also indicative of being good at deception and intimidation.
So no, wrong.
{edited as not necessary}

I assert that Tarquin was written as charming
And you are wrong.



1. Nijas are not alignment-locked a
Irrelevant, but I did leave the opening that Azurite culture may have a valid place for them.
Please defend "killing other people for pay" in an other than negative connotation.
I'll be filing my nails, I can wait.

[Darth Paul]

Irrelevant, but I did leave the opening that Azurite culture may have a valid place for them.
Please defend "killing other people for pay" in an other than negative connotation.
I'll be filing my nails, I can wait.

3.5 SRD does state "Alignment: Any", although I can't stretch my mind around a lawful good ninja. Even though Hollywood seems to be full of them. "Uses Ninja skills only for good", perhaps? I could see a Batman parallel there.

The killing for pay thing can be a Neutral occupation, assuming that's already permitted culturally and done without malice. On the Discworld for example, Assassins are distinguished from the mere thugs who kill for money. There's a set of rules that everyone knows (at least, if you're in a class where you might be targeted for assassination, you should know the rules), targets are generally either able to defend themselves or hire those who can defend them, and (most) assassins don't inflict collateral damage. Servants etc are generally taken to be off limits; one is only out to inhume the guest of honor. Indeed, it's considered classy to lock doors behind you and tidy up after yourself. It's not a Good occupation, but not evil by definition either.

[brian 333]

No, of course I didn't. If you were to look back on my posts on the forum instead of just telling me what they surely were, one thing no one can accuse me of is of having positive posts about Tarquin to eat.

And I directly quoted the author. You, on the other hand, are attempting to tell me what I thought. No. If you found Tarquin charming you should own that for yourself instead of proclaiming it an objective fact that the audience was supposed to like him.

Now, if you wanted to say he was supposed to be charming to other characters in the webcomic...I'd have something to say about that too. As Peelee pointed out, his very initial effort to be friendly to Haley was extremely crass and crude from every perspective but Tarquin's own misogynistic one, and before you write half a dozen paragraphs about how you just know Rich didn't mean it to come off that way: Rich had no trouble at all writing the character being addressed as immediately treating it that way, so again, your reactions and assumptions: yours, not universal. Who likes him in the comic? The other members of his group treat him with constant annoyance, including his soi-disant best friend Malack. Elan, with the catastrophic Wisdom, felt utterly chagrined to have ever liked him. One of his ex-wives was tortured into marrying him, another married him for the power to track down her kidnapped daughter, multiple other near-wives were rescued by Julio Scoundrel, and there's no indication anyone except Elan's mother--who divorced him--ever married him because she wanted to be married to him. When he gives "charming" speeches to his people, they listen because they're literally chained in place. This list is blank; he has charmed no one.

You can reassert your premises without support yet again if you want, but if you want to have a compelling case, try actually addressing what other people are saying here.

You are debating yourself. I never said you had made positive posts.

And I never said he wasn't crass or crude. I did say that was written as the effect of an older generation with outdated values.

As for who was taken in by his charms: apparently quite a few posters in these forums.

You can disagree with me all you want. I'm not worried about being wrong. I appreciate this post much more than simple 'you are wrong' posts because you explained why you think I am wrong. You actually have a point to make. Thank you.

[Peelee]

You are debating yourself. I never said you had made positive posts.

And I never said he wasn't crass or crude. I did say that was written as the effect of an older generation with outdated values.

As for who was taken in by his charms: apparently quite a few posters in these forums.

You can disagree with me all you want. I'm not worried about being wrong. I appreciate this post much more than simple 'you are wrong' posts because you explained why you think I am wrong. You actually have a point to make. Thank you.

Outdated values are things like not asking a lady her age or a man his salary. They are not "tossing people out windows, threatening their death if your own son doesn't surrender to you, and commenting on the window-tossed-lady's breasts immediately after learning she is romantically involved with said son". Again, all from Tarquin's first ten minutes of meeting Elan and Co.

I'm sure many people were indeed taken in by his charms. Thay doesn't mean he was written that way. He was written as petty, short-sighted, and vindictive. The author even said, "hey, if you saw hom as that from the beginning, congrats, you had a better read on his character than others". Tarquin showed us and told us exactly who he was from his first panel. If people chose to not listen, that's on them.

[KorvinStarmast]

3.5 SRD does state "Alignment: Any", although I can't stretch my mind around a lawful good ninja. Even though Hollywood seems to be full of them. "Uses Ninja skills only for good", perhaps? I could see a Batman parallel there.

The killing for pay thing can be a Neutral occupation, assuming that's already permitted culturally and done without malice. On the Discworld for example Fair enough. Original D&D assassins were Neutral in alignment. (Blackmoor supplement).

I'm sure many people were indeed taken in by his charms. Thay doesn't mean he was written that way. He was written as petty, short-sighted, and vindictive. The author even said, "hey, if you saw hom as that from the beginning, congrats, you had a better read on his character than others". Tarquin showed us and told us exactly who he was from his first panel. If people chose to not listen, that's on them. Not sure about anyone else, but when he was introduced, I went back to the "nale meets elan" strips from DCF and the strip where Hilgya and Durkon are playing cards while Elan and Nale describe their upbringing.
With Nale being Elan's opposite, and his father a warlord, my base assumption was that Nales' dad was going to be a bad guy. Nothing 'on screen' moved me in the other direction.
That Elan is so dim (INT being his dump stat) and so kind hearted that he was blind to some of his dad's unadmirable traits I took as standard "Elan is stupid and naive" fare.

[hroþila]

I mean, Tarquin's Lawful Evil alignment was established as early as #50. That isn't an impediment to being liked as a character in the same way as Thog or Xykon, but that's a far cry from saying he was initially depicted as basically just an older Elan. He was depicted as a high-Charisma character, but I don't think he fooled anyone in the Order other than Elan (who had his own deeply-rooted reasons to believe his dad wasn't a bad guy). Much of the humour was in Elan not realizing despite how obvious it was. Rather than as legitimately charming, to me Tarquin came across as a sleazy guy trying to be charming (and not particularly successfully at that)

[Darth Paul]

That Elan is so dim (INT being his dump stat) and so kind hearted that he was blind to some of his dad's unadmirable traits I took as standard "Elan is stupid and naive" fare.

Eager and happy as he was to finally meet his dad, he swept Tarquin's negative traits under the rug or made excuses for him. Not so much that Elan was blind, as he willingly put blinkers on and didn't see what he didn't want to see. (Of course there were some things he physically couldn't see that were shown to us, like the skulls at the bottom of the ball pit.) That's not a function of low INT and WIS as much as a human tendency to want to see the best in our family.

[brian 333]

Outdated values are things like not asking a lady her age or a man his salary. They are not "tossing people out windows, threatening their death if your own son doesn't surrender to you, and commenting on the window-tossed-lady's breasts immediately after learning she is romantically involved with said son". Again, all from Tarquin's first ten minutes of meeting Elan and Co.

I'm sure many people were indeed taken in by his charms. Thay doesn't mean he was written that way. He was written as petty, short-sighted, and vindictive. The author even said, "hey, if you saw hom as that from the beginning, congrats, you had a better read on his character than others". Tarquin showed us and told us exactly who he was from his first panel. If people chose to not listen, that's on them.

Never claimed he wasn't an Evil guy. My claim is that he was charming.

[Kish]

You are debating yourself. I never said you had made positive posts.

No, you didn't tell me what I'd posted, just what I thought. {Scrubbed}

What you could say, without claiming to speak for more than you have a right to, would be something like: I, brian333, liked Tarquin and found/find him charming, and I will deny to my grave that Rich deliberately wrote him, from his first appearance, with an entire legion of red flags.

You can disagree with me all you want. I'm not worried about being wrong. I appreciate this post much more than simple 'you are wrong' posts because you explained why you think I am wrong. You actually have a point to make. Thank you.
I wish I could reciprocate this sentiment.

[Errorname]

I'm sure many people were indeed taken in by his charms. That doesn't mean he was written that way. He was written as petty, short-sighted, and vindictive. The author even said, "hey, if you saw him as that from the beginning, congrats, you had a better read on his character than others". Tarquin showed us and told us exactly who he was from his first panel. If people chose to not listen, that's on them.

Tarquin's mask of confident affable charm slips early and often before coming off entirely in his big final breakdown, but it seems obvious to me that he was still written as having charms. Like you're meant to see that he's obviously bad news but you're also meant to see why Elan might be taken in by him, and he is meant to have comedic qualities.

I don't think it's wrong to call that "Charm", and it doesn't make him any less a petty, short-sighted and vindictive monster.


Hardly. You are simply wrong. He was written to be charismatic/have a high charisma, which hardly ensures the quality of charming. A high charisma is also indicative of being good at deception and intimidation.

So no, wrong.

I would literally define "Charming" as "Charismatic", I don't think they're particularly distinct concepts. They're both shallow and superficial assessments anyways, a person can have outwardly charming qualities while still being a massive piece of work, and I would argue that is exactly the sort of person Tarquin is meant to be


Never claimed he wasn't an Evil guy. My claim is that he was charming.

You are kind of claiming he wasn't obviously evil to start out with, which he really was.

Like I agree with the assessment of "he was written to be charming" but it was a sort of Hank Scorpio villainy with a friendly smiling face charm and there's a lot of tells that he's a seriously nasty person behind that smiling face

[woweedd]

Yeah, I think Tarquin was meant to come off as charming, for sure, in a superficial way, but also clearly 100% Evil, with it only being a matter of time until the mask slipped too far for even Elan to be unable to ignore. He's charming enough, and even funny, but it's also made clear from moment one that the man is surrounded with more red flags then the Soviet Union. He's not meant to be charming to the reader, at least, not really, but he is meant to come across as charming enough that you can belive Elan would be taken in.

[KorvinStarmast]

I would literally define "Charming" as "Charismatic", All collies are dogs, but not all dogs are collies.
Charismatic is related to Charming in a similar fashion.
Being charming is a sub set of being charismatic, but it does not necessarily work the other way, particularly in this context.
In D&D based stuff ~ which OotS is ~ Charisma has a unique meaning/connotation that has been alluded to multiple times in this story - an early one being "let's see what an 18 Charisma looks like under the hood).
Being Charismatic / Having a High Charisma viewed through that lens underscores the previous point.

[Metastachydium]

All collies are dogs, but not all dogs are collies.
Charismatic is related to Charming in a similar fashion.
Being charming is a sub set of being charismatic, but it does not necessarily work the other way, particularly in this context.
In D&D based stuff ~ which OotS is ~ Charisma has a unique meaning/connotation that has been alluded to multiple times in this story - an early one being "let's see what an 18 Charisma looks like under the hood).
Being Charismatic / Having a High Charisma viewed through that lens underscores the previous point.

Being Charming is similar to being Compelling, in that both are subsets of being Enchanting. The save DCs, at any rate, are quite often INT- or WIS-based, however.

[Tzardok]

Aren't bards and beguilers (the most enchantment focused casters) Cha-based? :smallconfused:

[Metastachydium]

Aren't bards and beguilers (the most enchantment focused casters) Cha-based? :smallconfused:

That's a common misconception! But the most Enchantment-focused casters, Beguiler and Focused Enchanter Wizard are both INT-based.

[Errorname]

All collies are dogs, but not all dogs are collies.
Charismatic is related to Charming in a similar fashion.
Being charming is a sub set of being charismatic, but it does not necessarily work the other way, particularly in this context.
In D&D based stuff ~ which OotS is ~ Charisma has a unique meaning/connotation that has been alluded to multiple times in this story - an early one being "let's see what an 18 Charisma looks like under the hood).
Being Charismatic / Having a High Charisma viewed through that lens underscores the previous point.

I mean, okay. You can certainly define Charm in such a way that it's a more specific sort of Charisma, "It's not charm if it doesn't come from the Charmaugh region of France" and such, but I don't really see the point of it. It's pedantic nitpicking the precision of terms in a way that nobody does for regular conversation, and Charm isn't such a valuable quality that saying a bad person has it changes anything about their villainous nature. Again, it's a superficial and highly subjective judgement.

[Peelee]

I mean, okay. You can certainly define Charm in such a way that it's a more specific sort of Charisma, "It's not charm if it doesn't come from the Charmaugh region of France" and such, but I don't really see the point of it. It's pedantic nitpicking the precision of terms in a way that nobody does for regular conversation, and Charm isn't such a valuable quality that saying a bad person has it changes anything about their villainous nature. Again, it's a superficial and highly subjective judgement.

Yes, but i maintain that he's hardly as charming as people claim (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0726.html).

[brian 333]

Yes, but i maintain that he's hardly as charming as people claim (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0726.html).

Ethics and charm exist on completely different axes. There is no question that Tarauin is Evil. I don't recall there ever being a debate about that. If you are saying that because he is evil he cannot be charming, then I guess that's your opinion.

But in the comic you linked he tried to graciously apologize to and compliment Haley, (even if he did it in a goofy, misogynistic way.) Like Haley, you don't have to fall for his BS, but he was using that quality we call charm in an attempt to manipulate those around him into having a less negative reaction to him. That is being charming. When it doesn't work you can always fall back on dinosaur rides.

[Errorname]

Yes, but i maintain that he's hardly as charming as people claim (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0726.html).

I would say that Tarquin is written as charmingly villainous. There's a lot of qualities that are corrosive and toxic on a real person that are a lot more charming on a fictional character who exists in the context of an action-comedy story, and a lot of Tarquin's early evil acts are played for comedy. He's always obviously a bad guy, but he starts off as an affably evil sort of villain and gradually becomes less funny as the story progresses and he becomes more desperate to make the narrative align with his conception of how things ought to be.

That said, yeah the casual sexism is one of the bigger red flags with him that indicates how nasty he really is. Like I said, the mask of 'fun affable evil' slips early and often before coming off entirely during the final breakdown.

[Peelee]

I would say that Tarquin is written as charmingly villainous. There's a lot of qualities that are corrosive and toxic on a real person that are a lot more charming on a fictional character who exists in the context of an action-comedy story, and a lot of Tarquin's early evil acts are played for comedy. He's always obviously a bad guy, but he starts off as an affably evil sort of villain and gradually becomes less funny as the story progresses and he becomes more desperate to make the narrative align with his conception of how things ought to be.

That said, yeah the casual sexism is one of the bigger red flags with him that indicates how nasty he really is. Like I said, the mask of 'fun affable evil' slips early and often before coming off entirely during the final breakdown.

If you find casual sexism (among other behaviors) charming, I probably won't be able to dissuade you from that. However, i don't. I found Tarquin sleazy. The opposite of charming.

[Errorname]

If you find casual sexism (among other behaviors) charming, I probably won't be able to dissuade you from that. However, i don't. I found Tarquin sleazy. The opposite of charming.


Yeah the casual sexism is one of the bigger red flags with him that indicates how nasty he really is. Like I said, the mask of 'fun affable evil' slips early and often before coming off entirely during the final breakdown.

I thought I was pretty unambiguous about how I felt about that, actually

I don't agree that sleazy is the opposite of charming either, I think those are pretty compatible. Again, Charm is not some great virtue, a lot of awful people are superficially charming.

[Precure]

It is this forum's new tradition to be nitpicky on semantics.

I'd say, both Tarquin and Kubota were charming evil fellows.

[ZhonLord]

It is this forum's new tradition to be nitpicky on semantics.

"New"? You need to go to the Page Discussion Index and load up past page-upload conversations. Pedantry and semantics have been the norm for this forum since it first began lol. We're d&d players/fans, rules lawyering comes naturally to many of us.

But yes, Tarquin and Kubota were both charismatic and effective at portraying themselves in certain ways, until they were no longer in control of their situations.

[Metastachydium]

"New"? You need to go to the Page Discussion Index and load up past page-upload conversations. Pedantry and semantics have been the norm for this forum since it first began lol. We're d&d players/fans, rules lawyering comes naturally to many of us.

Well, technically, absent better evidence, "since it first began" might not be the accurate phrase to use here.


But yes, Tarquin and Kubota were both charismatic and effective at portraying themselves in certain ways, until they were no longer in control of their situations.

Interestingly enough, despite his far lower caliber, it was Kubota who didn't actually lose it right until there was no Kubota to lose anything ever again.

[NontheistCleric]

Interestingly enough, despite his far lower caliber, it was Kubota who didn't actually lose it right until there was no Kubota to lose anything ever again.

It's worth noting, though, that correctly or otherwise, Kubota still believed that he was in control of the situation at the moment of his death.

Mostly, this is because his ambitions were far smaller. As long as he could play the role of the scheming noble and feel superior to Hinjo in particular, he was secure in himself. In contrast, Tarquin felt threatened every time the world at large failed to conform to his strict narrative standards.

[Peelee]

I thought I was pretty unambiguous about how I felt about that, actually

I don't agree that sleazy is the opposite of charming either, I think those are pretty compatible. Again, Charm is not some great virtue, a lot of awful people are superficially charming.

You were unambiguous. You found him "villainously charming". I dont, and found him quite sleazy. Not superficially charming at all - he thinks he's charming, but he's not.

It's fine if you think he is, your opinion can't be wrong. I simply hold a drastically different opinion.

[Tubercular Ox]

I don't get the guilt-by-association arguments being made for why we have to reject Tarquin as charming. I think it's worth separating charming as a villain from charming as a person. Thog even gets a shout out (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0788.html) about the audience loving him despite being a literal homicidal maniac, so Rich has at least witnessed the distinction.

I don't get questioning people's first impression, either. I wouldn't trust anyone who told me, "At first I thought he was charming, but then someone convinced me I never thought he was charming." And I'd trust the person who did the convincing even less.

[Peelee]

I don't get the guilt-by-association arguments being made for why we have to reject Tarquin as charming.

Association with... himself?

Thog is also not charming, if you would like to explore that. You can enjoy a villain without finding them charming. I greatly enjoy Syril Karn and Dedra Meero in Andor. Both are the polar opposite of charming.

[Sir_Norbert]

You don't have to reject that Tarquin is charming, if he is charming to you; that's an opinion, and you are entitled to have one.

What started this discussion was the claim "Tarquin was intentionally written as a charming character", and that is what people are disagreeing with.

[KorvinStarmast]

- he thinks he's charming, but he's not. That's a good way to put it. He also thinks that he's cleverer than he really is.

I think it's worth separating charming as a villain from charming as a person. Is a villain not a person?
As to charming villains, one of my all time favorites (although there was a bit of scenery chewing involved) was Rafael Montero in The Mask of Zorro. I can say that he's one of the most enjoyable movie villain portrayals I've ever seen. Stuart Wilson did a bang up job.

What started this discussion was the claim "Tarquin was intentionally written as a charming character", and that is what people are disagreeing with. Nice and concise, well played.

[Errorname]

You were unambiguous. You found him "villainously charming". I dont, and found him quite sleazy. Not superficially charming at all - he thinks he's charming, but he's not.

I was not unambiguous about how I felt about the casual sexism, which absolutely is sleazy and a major red flag.


What started this discussion was the claim "Tarquin was intentionally written as a charming character", and that is what people are disagreeing with.

"Tarquin is intentionally written to be initially confident, friendly, self-aware and comedic" is basically unobjectionable, so all we're really arguing about is whether it's reasonable to call those traits 'charming', a highly subjective but also largely superficial quality.

[Tubercular Ox]

Is a villain not a person?

No, a villain is a character. Characters in stories are not held to the same moral standards as real people. Even when an author like Rich dives into the importance of morality there's a lot of leeway. Redcloak isn't struggling with sacrificing comedic numbers of minions back when he had them, and Roy is upset about all the goblins he killed, but it's unusual for the genre and still not to the level of a real world murderer feeling remorse.

An author can whine about it, the audience can whine about it, but I would still teach new writers to lean in to the conventions rather than try to defy them. Otherwise you get characters like Miko. You want people to love to hate them, but they just hate them.


"Tarquin is intentionally written to be initially confident, friendly, self-aware and comedic" is basically unobjectionable, so all we're really arguing about is whether it's reasonable to call those traits 'charming', a highly subjective but also largely superficial quality.

Yeah, okay. I apologize for entering the conversation, have fun figuring this out. And thank you for the heads up.

[brian 333]

"Tarquin is intentionally written to be initially confident, friendly, self-aware and comedic" is basically unobjectionable, so all we're really arguing about is whether it's reasonable to call those traits 'charming', a highly subjective but also largely superficial quality.

"A rose by any other name doth prick me 'till I bleed."

Somebody famous said that.

[KorvinStarmast]

No, a villain is a character. . Everyone in the story is a character, so that takes us back to square one. Or next you'll be telling me that Roy isn't a person, he's a character.
Within the context of the story, that villain is a person (whether you or I like that person or not).

"A rose by any other name doth prick me 'till I bleed."

Somebody famous said that.
We'll I'm not famous, but going back to about 1983, I've been saying
"A rose by any other name ... still has thorns"
in an intentionally humorous/sarcastic allusion to the other line about a rose from the infamous balcony scene.
(Yes, that observation coincided with a romantic break up, why do you ask?)
I came up with that one all by my lonesome.
I don't doubt that other wags have arrived at a similar variation on that theme.

Wherefore art thou Romeo?

Because the clerk was drunk when my name was inscribed in the city rolls.
Dad and mum meant to name me Romero.

[Errorname]

Everyone in the story is a character, so that takes us back to square one. Or next you'll be telling me that Roy isn't a person, he's a character.
Within the context of the story, that villain is a person (whether you or I like that person or not).

The thing is that they aren't. A character is a representation of a person, not a person. Treachery of Images, Ceci n'est pas une pipe, you know.

[Metastachydium]

"A rose by any other name ... still has thorns"

Prickles. Roses has prickles, not thorns.

[Peelee]

Prickles. Roses has prickles, not thorns.

A prickle by any other name would sting as sharply.

[KorvinStarmast]

Prickles. Roses has prickles, not thorns.
In normal English usage, it's a thorn. A rose has thorns.
Every Rose Has Its Thorns (https://youtu.be/j2r2nDhTzO4)

[brian 333]

In normal English usage, it's a thorn. A rose has thorns.
Every Rose Has Its Thorns (https://youtu.be/j2r2nDhTzO4)

We are not all normal here. Nor English. Sure, some of us may be both Normal and English, but not all.

[Errorname]

In normal English usage, it's a thorn. A rose has thorns.
Every Rose Has Its Thorns (https://youtu.be/j2r2nDhTzO4)

It does seem like botanists draw a distinction between a prickle and a thorn, but I'm going to say people were calling the things on a rose 'thorns' long before that distinction was ever drawn. It's probably a useful anatomical distinction and I certainly don't have room to judge being a pedant about this stuff, but it feels needless.

[Peelee]

It does seem like botanists draw a distinction between a prickle and a thorn, but I'm going to say people were calling the things on a rose 'thorns' long before that distinction was ever drawn. It's probably a useful anatomical distinction and I certainly don't have room to judge being a pedant about this stuff, but it feels needless.

I dunno, I'd say it feels needles.

[brian 333]

I dunno, I'd say it feels needles.

Needles to say, there are many points to be made on the issue. I'm thorn on the subject: while I poke fun at the pedantry, a piercing argument can be made for the need to exactly define terms. Trimming this bush is bound to be a painful exercise, and on occasion, blood may be drawn. It is my wish that when this prickly business is concluded we may all say that we rose to the occasion.

[Ron Miel]

I don't know how long it takes to loot such a big place, the dragon hoard took weeks,



Edit: I'm also not sure where it was mentioned that looting the hoard took weeks.

https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0198.html

:belkar: Goddam it, that took WEEKS.
:Roy: Well, it would have gone faster if SOMEONE hadn't sprained their wrist.


Note, however, that this is an in-joke. The Giant sprained his wrist and so there was a gap of weeks between strips. It doesn't mean the looting would normally take so long.

[Metastachydium]

All collies are dogs, but not all dogs are collies.
Charismatic is related to Charming in a similar fashion.
Being charming is a sub set of being charismatic, but it does not necessarily work the other way, particularly in this context.
In D&D based stuff ~ which OotS is ~ Charisma has a unique meaning/connotation that has been alluded to multiple times in this story - an early one being "let's see what an 18 Charisma looks like under the hood).
Being Charismatic / Having a High Charisma viewed through that lens underscores the previous point.


In normal English usage, it's a thorn. A rose has thorns.

Look, you should either be a pedant or fight the pedantry. THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND!

Also, I'm a FLOWER! I don't care about your "normal English usage".


Trimming this bush is bound to be a painful exercise, and on occasion, blood may be drawn.

[Missing the POINT.] Bushes don't bleed. (Except humans called Bush. Those presumably do, but they aren't really bushes.)

[KorvinStarmast]

Look, you should either be a pedant or fight the pedantry. THERE IS NO MIDDLE GROUND!
That may be the fallacy of the excluded middle in operation, or something else like a false dichotomy. In any case, advice rejected. :smallcool:

[Morgaln]

Irrelevant, but I did leave the opening that Azurite culture may have a valid place for them.
Please defend "killing other people for pay" in an other than negative connotation.
I'll be filing my nails, I can wait.

Soldiers are viewed in a very positive light in various cultures, both past and present. Getting paid to kill people is probably the very first item in a soldier's job description.

[KorvinStarmast]

Referring to soldiers as assassins is a category error. (Though I have heard some interesting arguments as regards mercenaries along those lines over the years).

[hamishspence]

Referring to soldiers as assassins is a category error. (Though I have heard some interesting arguments as regards mercenaries along those lines over the years).

And even mercenaries don't have to be aggressors - they can be "hired to guard a place, or to protect a convoy".


Getting paid to kill people is probably the very first item in a soldier's job description.
Soldiers aren't paid to kill, but to fight, or just to be available in case fighting is needed.

[Peelee]

Soldiers aren't paid to kill, but to fight, or just to be available in case fighting is needed.

I would say they are paid to stop hostilities from any opposing faction. The simplest and most direct way to stop hostilities is to kill, but that's not the only way. Also, lots of support structure needed to stop hostilities from opposing factions, which is why most soldiers are non-combat roles in modern societies.

[hamishspence]

Soldiers still get paid in peacetime. It's "being available in case needed" that they're being paid for.

[Peelee]

Soldiers still get paid in peacetime. It's "being available in case needed" that they're being paid for.

Sounds like they're stopping hostilities from any opposing faction, but really efficiently. :smalltongue:

[Metastachydium]

Referring to soldiers as assassins is a category error. (Though I have heard some interesting arguments as regards mercenaries along those lines over the years).

1. You said "killing people for pay", not "being an assassin". Soldiers do have "kill other people if neccessary" as a part of their job description, so in an armed conflict, killing other people is one of the things they get paid for.

2. You are confusing ninjas with assassins (or Ninjas with Assassins). If we are talking lowercase, ninja may simply be a saboteur/infiltrator/spy (and mind, we never see Therkla, who sparked this whole debacle, kill anyone non-Evil as far as I know). If we are talking uppercase, one is a base class with no alignment restrictions, and the other an Always Evil prestige class.

[Ruck]

Soldiers still get paid in peacetime. It's "being available in case needed" that they're being paid for.

Heh, this reminded me of a little story. I worked in TV production for a little bit. (Aside-- there's nothing like seeing the process up close that makes you realize, oh yeah, all those names in the credits do have jobs that are important to the production.) Anyway, a friend was telling me a story of working on another production, when a new producer who thought he was hot stuff came to set one day. And he tried to throw his weight around, so he went to a crew member who was sitting around and told him "I don't pay you to sit around." The guy shot back "No; you pay me for what I can do at a moment's notice."

[Errorname]

Referring to soldiers as assassins is a category error. (Though I have heard some interesting arguments as regards mercenaries along those lines over the years).

They're adjacent professions, if nothing else. It's also pretty easy to imagine a culture glamourizing the role of a covert operative whose job includes assassinating people in the same way they do soldiers, provided the covert agency is sufficiently entrenched and legitimized. Like, long history of action spy films to look at for that.


Soldiers still get paid in peacetime. It's "being available in case needed" that they're being paid for.

Also historically training a bunch of guys to go do organized violence for you and then firing them without pay is a really good way to get bandits

[ZhonLord]

It's also pretty easy to imagine a culture glamourizing the role of a covert operative whose job includes assassinating people in the same way they do soldiers, provided the covert agency is sufficiently entrenched and legitimized. Like, long history of action spy films to look at for that.

John wick. Literally an entire society of assassins with their own currency, travel and espionage infrastructure, everything.

[Peelee]

John wick. Literally an entire society of assassins with their own currency, travel and espionage infrastructure, everything.

I don't know if John Wick actually glamorizes anything - it seems as if an assassin-based economy is inherently unstable.

[Manga Shoggoth]

Wherefore art thou Romeo?

Because the clerk was drunk when my name was inscribed in the city rolls.
Dad and mum meant to name me Romero.

I may be old-fashioned, but isn't the answer "Herefore art I"?

[KorvinStarmast]

I may be old-fashioned, but isn't the answer "Herefore art I"? Heretofore I've never seen the word Herefore, so I am not sure.
IIRC, Wherefore means why?

[Manga Shoggoth]

Heretofore I've never seen the word Herefore, so I am not sure.
IIRC, Wherefore means why?

Oh, I know that. My English teachers were all Shakespeare worshippers, after all. It's a reference to a certian cartoon rabbit. I did try to find the appropriate clip online, but it's nowhere to be found, and that kind of thing bugs me...

EDIT: And would you believe it? Found it a few minutes later - the scene starts about 1:07 in this clip (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HdXw72QZ3Iw)... I'd forgotten the "as you like it" gag and the writer's cameo...

[Sir_Norbert]

Art is the "thou" form of "to be". You can't say "art I", it's "am I".

The answer to "wherefore" can be either "therefore" (for that reason) or "herefore" (for this reason); it doesn't automatically become "herefore" just because it's first person.

[Peelee]

Art is the "thou" form of "to be". You can't say "herefore art I", it's "herefore am I".

Sure you can. And if enough people do it, it'll be even be correct.

[Errorname]

John wick. Literally an entire society of assassins with their own currency, travel and espionage infrastructure, everything.

I was more thinking like James Bond and Jack Ryan. John Wick is more of a fantasy crime flick.

[hroþila]

Sure you can. And if enough people do it, it'll be even be correct.
In theory, yes.

In practice, there's never going to be a point where people are using early Modern English conjugations wrong often enough to change the standard, especially since these conjugations are only ever used in an effort to sound archaic, solemn, or funny, all of which requires the old standard forms surviving as a frame of reference.

I mean, it can only become correct if these forms become part of the vernacular again. As long as these forms are used exclusively as a callback to earlier stages of English, it can't ever be correct. Not without a time machine and lots of social engineering at any rate.

[Ron Miel]

oh, i know that. My english teachers were all shakespeare worshippers, after all. It's a reference to a certian cartoon rabbit. I did try to find the appropriate clip online, but it's nowhere to be found, and that kind of thing bugs me.

I see what you did there.

[brian 333]

I may be old-fashioned, but isn't the answer "Herefore art I"?

"Ah'm right chere," (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KodGSZYvMWs) is the correct response.

[Manga Shoggoth]

"Ah'm right chere," (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KodGSZYvMWs) is the correct response.

My day is better for listening to that.

[KorvinStarmast]

"Ah'm right chere," (https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=KodGSZYvMWs) is the correct response.
The proper pronunciation for that term is "rat cheer" ...

[brian 333]

The proper pronunciation for that term is "rat cheer" ...

Rat Cheer is a laundry detergent marketed to rodents.