What happened to the cliche dark lords?

[paladinofshojo]

Just wondering something, whatever happened to all the evil, merciless, cruel "darth vadar"ish villians we all love to hate. Xykon does seem to fit that discription except for the fact that he BSes around more then the Good guys.
Redcloak does seem to be evil except for the fact that he acts like a total hippocrite about it (which is kind of similar to all the villians in real life, Hitler, Mussolini, etc.). The point is that a story needs to have a villian they can hate, not someone who can make better puns then the main bard (and YES, I am setting the bar low :elan:).......:smallannoyed: moving on, a villian needs to be someone who is relentless, merciless, ruthless, who believes himself superior to all and shall not "indignify" himself with life he deems unfit to live, someone who acts like a totaltarian and will destroy anyone who even makes the slightest comment about his flaws. I'm not saying its wrong to have a villian with a sense of humor, I'm just saying that we shouldn't have villians who behave like children. Someone like :miko: but with more evil and control over their tempers.

If you don't get it, let me ask you something, if Xykon probably died in a few strips, how many of you would miss him?

[Kish]

J
If you don't get it, let me ask you something, if Xykon probably died in a few strips, how many of you would miss him?
I hope you're joking. If you're not...Might I suggest that 543 strips in is a strange time to bring up this kind of criticism of one of the basic attributes of OotS?

[FujinAkari]

Everyone would miss :Xykon:!

Here is a hint, any time you ask for something more cliche in OOTS, you are asking for disappointment.

The glory of OOTS is that it -doesn't- follow the expected avenues.

[monty]

Xykon's already dead :smalltongue:

Really, though, why does he have to be a Darth Vader for us to hate him? He still has no respect for the lives of others. If it weren't for his stupidity, he'd do a pretty good job with the totalitarian thing, too, and if you disagree with that statement I'll zombify you.

[paladinofshojo]

Xykon's already dead :smalltongue:

Really, though, why does he have to be a Darth Vader for us to hate him? He still has no respect for the lives of others. If it weren't for his stupidity, he'd do a pretty good job with the totalitarian thing, too, and if you disagree with that statement I'll zombify you.

Well, don't you think people will forget the point that he's actually EVIL if he doesn't actually act like the orthodoxed ones?:smallconfused: Frankly, I believe that he's just bored and actually TRIES to be an evil dark lord (that's supposed to come naturally do to some sort of horrific catastrophe that befalls the villian). Redcloak could be an evil lord if it weren't for the fact that he'd probably deny being evil and is just a "means justify the ends" extremist.....:smallannoyed:

[Helanna]

Have you read Start of Darkness? Before I read SoD, I didn't view Xykon as the real villain. He screwed around too much and didn't seem to honestly care. Then . . . the ending of SoD changed all of that for me. It actually made me really hate him for being so evil, which isn't something that's accomplished easily for me in fiction. Of course, I like Redcloak a lot, so that may have played a part.

[monty]

Well, don't you think people will forget the point that he's actually EVIL if he doesn't actually act like the orthodoxed ones?:smallconfused: Frankly, I believe that he's just bored and actually TRIES to be an evil dark lord (that's supposed to come naturally do to some sort of horrific catastrophe that befalls the villian). Redcloak could be an evil lord if it weren't for the fact that he'd probably deny being evil and is just a "means justify the ends" extremist.....:smallannoyed:

It's hard to forget someone's evil when they kill their subordinates out of boredom. Anyway, stereotypes aren't the only way to go.

[Trizap]

ey, OP, you new here or something? cause this is OOTS, this comic doesn't follow cliches, Roy the fighter over there is intelligent and the tactical leader of the group, Belkar is far from the jolly halfling archer, Redcloak is organized, evil but he also cares about his people, the goblins, cliches in OOTS would just ruin the comic.......except Thog and Nale.........but they are pretty much built in and nobody seems to talk about them much.

[The Hop Goblin]

I understand his point - Villians for the most part should be ever-exuding evil - while maybe not the smartest, uncorruptable in their evil designs. While Darth Vader (Ep 4-5) is a good example, the Emperor is even moreso. General Kael from Willow... that sort of thing.

But this is a humorous comic - regardless of the dramatic turn it's taken. So villian's are not immune to this coloring. The only uncorruptably evil thing in the comic that does not have a tongue-in-cheek aspect to it is the Snarl.

If Rich included a truly cliche evil entity into OOTS - it just wouldn't fit the mold, and it being out of place would ruin the balance of the comic.

[Admiral_Kelly]

I strongly disagree with the opinions expressed by the original poster. He seems to be saying that there is only one type of real villain; and any villain that does not fit the criteria is sub-par. If all villains acted like this they would be not at all interesting. Redcloak would not be Redcloak if he did not have his flaws/traits not typically found in most villains.

[Remirach]

Just wondering something, whatever happened to all the evil, merciless, cruel "darth vadar"ish villians we all love to hate. Xykon does seem to fit that discription except for the fact that he BSes around more then the Good guys.
Redcloak does seem to be evil except for the fact that he acts like a total hippocrite about it (which is kind of similar to all the villians in real life, Hitler, Mussolini, etc.). The point is that a story needs to have a villian they can hate, not someone who can make better puns then the main bard (and YES, I am setting the bar low :elan:).......:smallannoyed: moving on, a villian needs to be someone who is relentless, merciless, ruthless, who believes himself superior to all and shall not "indignify" himself with life he deems unfit to live, someone who acts like a totaltarian and will destroy anyone who even makes the slightest comment about his flaws. I'm not saying its wrong to have a villian with a sense of humor, I'm just saying that we shouldn't have villians who behave like children. Someone like :miko: but with more evil and control over their tempers.

If you don't get it, let me ask you something, if Xykon probably died in a few strips, how many of you would miss him?

Well, there's Kubota, he's probably the most unlikable villain thus far, but he hasn't had much screen time yet.

Anyway I disagree with this because it actually seems like you want to "dumb down" the story so no one is ever tricked into developing an affection for the bad guys. I think it's perfectly possible to like the villain as a character device but hate them for their monstrously evil actions.

[dogmac]

Yes, but if there was a cliche dark Lord, you'd have people (self included) complaining about it being completely unrealistic. No one is COMPLETELY evil. People (and goblins) have motivation for their actions. I like well rounded villains far more. And yes, I think that they should have charisma. They need followers, after all.

[Khosan]

I think Xykon's plenty evil (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0448.html).

[Admiral_Kelly]

That is still 'funny evil' not 'evil-evil' as the original poster critics.

[FoE]

I think Xykon's plenty evil (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0448.html).

I think that was pretty diabolical of Xykon, Admiral Kelly. I don't remember laughing too hard when I read that comic.

Of course, if you had read Start of Darkness ...

... you would agree that manipulating Redcloak into murdering his younger brother was pretty Emperor Palpatine-like. :smallamused:

[Alex Warlorn]

Xykon's already dead :smalltongue:

Really, though, why does he have to be a Darth Vader for us to hate him? He still has no respect for the lives of others. If it weren't for his stupidity, he'd do a pretty good job with the totalitarian thing, too, and if you disagree with that statement I'll zombify you.

He's not stupid. He's just totally lazy!!!

[Trazoi]

Technically a story doesn't even need a villain at all - take romantic comedies for example. You need an antagonist - someone or something that is working against the protagonist - but that doesn't have to be an incarnation of Dread Lord Evil.

Personally I prefer antagonists to have a few virtues rather than going over the top to make the audience hate them. Take The Fugitive as an example - the detective Gerard is effectively the antagonist to the protagonist Dr. Kimble, but he's doing his job hunting down a convicted murderer (admittedly the real villain is the real killer in this case). I prefer shades of grey in my characters over black and white; sure, maybe the villain is a very dark grey, but everyone's got a few positive characteristics. Characters that are evil purely for the sake of evil are practically by definition totally one dimensional.

Frankly Xykon is pretty irredeemable to me; he doesn't have a lot of positive aspects to him as compared to Redcloak. He's totally selfish and sees the entire world and everything in it as his disposable plaything (pretty much the same as Belkar really). About his only positive point is he very occasionally shows some respect for characters like Redcloak, but there are plenty more occasions where he shows none (especially in Start of Darkness). Oh, and he's funny - but frankly that applies to everyone in OotS :smallamused: I don't think you'd think OotS would be better if the lead villain wasn't amusing.

[Admiral_Kelly]

I think Xykon's plenty evil (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0448.html).I think that was pretty diabolical of Xykon, Admiral Kelly. I don't remember laughing too hard when I read that comic.I thought it was funny; the whole comic page is dotted with jokes; starting with the first panel.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

I understand his point - Villians for the most part should be ever-exuding evil - while maybe not the smartest, uncorruptable in their evil designs. While Darth Vader (Ep 4-5) is a good example, the Emperor is even moreso. General Kael from Willow... that sort of thing.Why? Real people aren't raw, unfettered, evil. They have a reason they do what they do, and they've got good and bad attributes. Even Hitler was a vegetarian. why should characters be unrealistic? How does that improve the story?

[Halvormerlinaky]

The OP needs to do a little broader reading. The best villains are the ones people can identify or connect with, or find humorous, and Sauron. Look at Raistlin. He's evil, but he's not evil evil. He has flaws and depth, just like Vader. Or Magneto. He's evil, but he honestly wants to help his fellow mutants.

Evil evil is boring and one-dimensional, except Sauron, he's just scary. I can't think of any villain who fits that mold who isn't comic relief. The modern Joker probably comes closest, despite his name, but he's bat-**** insane and psychotic. He has style though, and a noble-ish past.

[Charles Phipps]

Evil evil is boring and one-dimensional, except Sauron, he's just scary. I can't think of any villain who fits that mold who isn't comic relief. The modern Joker probably comes closest, despite his name, but he's bat-**** insane and psychotic. He has style though, and a noble-ish past.

Emperor Palpatine, Voldemort, the Master, The Daleks, The Borg, The Cybermen, The Halo Prophets, the Red Skull

[Moriarty]

someone who is relentless, merciless, ruthless, who believes himself superior to all and shall not "indignify" himself with life he deems unfit to live, someone who acts like a totaltarian and will destroy anyone who even makes the slightest comment about his flaws.

:belkar:?

;)

[tenguro]

Not sure if someone has mentioned this, but, Liches are always evil. I know this is a homebrew setting.

[pasko77]

Just wondering something, whatever happened to all the evil, merciless, cruel "darth vadar"ish villians we all love to hate. Xykon does seem to fit that discription except for the fact that he BSes around more then the Good guys.
Redcloak does seem to be evil except for the fact that he acts like a total hippocrite about it (which is kind of similar to all the villians in real life, Hitler, Mussolini, etc.). The point is that a story needs to have a villian they can hate, not someone who can make better puns then the main bard (and YES, I am setting the bar low :elan:).......:smallannoyed: moving on, a villian needs to be someone who is relentless, merciless, ruthless, who believes himself superior to all and shall not "indignify" himself with life he deems unfit to live, someone who acts like a totaltarian and will destroy anyone who even makes the slightest comment about his flaws. I'm not saying its wrong to have a villian with a sense of humor, I'm just saying that we shouldn't have villians who behave like children. Someone like :miko: but with more evil and control over their tempers.

If you don't get it, let me ask you something, if Xykon probably died in a few strips, how many of you would miss him?

Don't feel insulted, but this is a childish description of the BBEG. Characters in OOTS are much better developed. I can't understand how can you feel it as flaw.

[Turcano]

Xykon's already dead :smalltongue:

Really, though, why does he have to be a Darth Vader for us to hate him? He still has no respect for the lives of others. If it weren't for his stupidity, he'd do a pretty good job with the totalitarian thing, too, and if you disagree with that statement I'll zombify you.

As Alex already pointed out, Xykon's not stupid, just lazy and easily distracted.

[Ward.]

:belkar:?

;)

I agree, but he did let his new "leader" get away with pointing out how much of a "miserable little bastard" he was.

[Kish]

Well, don't you think people will forget the point that he's actually EVIL if he doesn't actually act like the orthodoxed ones?:smallconfused:
Ha (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0448.html) ha (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0112.html).

Seriously, it's sounding like any book, movie, or any kind of plot at all that you liked, I'd utterly hate. "Xykon is too multidimensional to be a proper villain!"--good God.

[SPoD]

What happened to the cliche dark lords?

They became clichés, and thus were no longer used by skilled authors.

[Pronounceable]

Wait, you hate Darth Vader? What IS wrong with you? (though Anakin is a different matter)


Cliche dark lords are too embarrased to appear at this time and age.

[brilliantlight]

Actually :xykon: is about as stereotypical evil as you can get. He has no redeeming characteristics at all as far as I can tell.

[Truthseeker]

The thing about Xykon... it's not that he can't do the typical merciless supervillain shtick, it's that he's transcended it. He's been there, done that, and been bored to death (literally) by it. Darth Vader will kill a minion because they've failed him and frustrated his purpose. Xykon will kill a minion (or anyone else) for that reason or just because it might briefly amuse him. He's powerful, mercurial, and utterly unpredictable (unless you're predicting in a very general fashion for "zany hijinks," having an obvious advantage in that field since, hey, comic). He posesses every aspect that makes Belkar a scary little son of a gun and combines those with enough power to idly toy with the laws of physics.

With a good number of people expressing disappointment at the "dark" turn they detect the strip as having taken, combined with the very real probability that we have not once yet seen Xykon bring his A-game, I think we have a quality villain here. His general boredom and inattention keeps him in line just enough that we have a workable story instead of "meteor swarms fall, everyone dies, evil wins, the end." --As we're dealing with an RPG format where protagonists absolutely will become stronger as they go on, this lets us become familiar with our end-run villain over the entire course of the strip instead of letting him be that tacked-on superbaddie that no one can imagine popping up from nowhere.

Now, as the adage goes, familiarity will breed contempt in some cases, but I respect Xykon's place in the unfolding narrative. I won't say that the strip would collapse without him (because Mr. Burlew has a lot of other very interesting characters to fall back on and appears to be a very capable storyteller), but it would be diminished.

[Dervag]

[QUOTE=paladinofshojo;4144978]Well, don't you think people will forget the point that he's actually EVIL if he doesn't actually act like the orthodoxed ones?:smallconfused:QUOTE]I am not worried about any such thing. He routinely makes extensive use of the undead. He does horrible things to both his enemies ("Follow the bouncing ball..."), and to his allies ("Zombie ogres. Just as strong, but they eat less."). He drops his enemies into tanks full of acid and acid-breathing sharks for his own amusement.

Nobody's going to forget that he does horrible things to people. They may not hate him with a burning anger, but to be honest most people don't hate Darth Vader that way either, because he's such a badass that you kind of have to respect it.

[Kish]

Wait, you hate Darth Vader? What IS wrong with you? (though Anakin is a different matter)
Were you addressing me?


a villian needs to be someone who is relentless, merciless, ruthless, who believes himself superior to all and shall not "indignify" himself with life he deems unfit to live, someone who acts like a totaltarian and will destroy anyone who even makes the slightest comment about his flaws.
Despite the term "'darth vadar'ish," anyone who's seen Return of the Jedi knows that Darth Vader fits his description much less than Xykon does, with the exception of Xykon having a sense of humor.

[Halvormerlinaky]

Not sure if someone has mentioned this, but, Liches are always evil. I know this is a homebrew setting.

2nd Edition added good liches, the Arch Lich. They're in 3rd too.

[Admiral_Kelly]

2nd Edition added good liches, the Arch Lich. They're in 3rd too.And, in this one's opinion, that is dumb.

[Sstoopidtallkid]

And, in this one's opinion, that is dumb.Why? Just because they decided, "Hey, you know, I'd rather not die", they should be forever evil? How is that fair?

[Admiral_Kelly]

Because you are undead. You carry diseases. You are an abomination against nature. You are not allowing your soul to rest. Your appearance is frightening and intimidating. You shed away most of your body that allows you to enjoy life. That is what makes you evil.

[Callista]

I think people just want to see all-out evil because they want to say to themselves, "I'm nothing like that guy."

[Gamerlord]

theres always the daemon lords sabine works for to become evil darth vader dudes...
overlord dude:sabine....I AM YOUR FATHER
ROFL

[monty]

Not sure if someone has mentioned this, but, Liches are always evil. I know this is a homebrew setting.

Although it's completely irrelevant, since Xykon is clearly evil (except for the same crazies that think Belkar isn't evil), there can still be exceptions to "always."

[Sstoopidtallkid]

Because you are undead. You carry diseases. You are an abomination against nature. You are not allowing your soul to rest. Your appearance is frightening and intimidating. You shed away most of your body that allows you to enjoy life. That is what makes you evil.But how does any of that hurt anyone else? Yes, you are frightening, but so is any bulky Paladin with a 6 ft Greatsword. I really don't see what the problem is with any of what you said as long as the caster chose it willingly. :smallconfused:

[Querzis]

But how does any of that hurt anyone else? Yes, you are frightening, but so is any bulky Paladin with a 6 ft Greatsword. I really don't see what the problem is with any of what you said as long as the caster chose it willingly. :smallconfused:

While I agree with this I really wonder what are the prerequisite to become one of those 'good' lich (which I guess are considered deathless instead of undead). Because last time I checked, becoming a Lich require an incredibly evil act. Most of the intelligent undead are like that, most of the time they need to eat people. And, while a mindless undead is not really evil, its evil to create one since you are using a corpse without permission. You can do whatever you want with your corpse as far as I'm concerned but dont go taking a dwarf corpse away from his ancestral tomb along with his pappy and his grandpappy and his great-grandpappy because being buried with them is all the poor guy ever wanted. Not to mention that like Elan said, if you do that, you take their life AND their freedom.

Anyway, back to the topic. So you want the villains to be more one-dimensional? I never thought someone could say that and, even after reading your post ten times, I still really dont understand why you want the villains to be like that...thats pretty much all I have to say about this.

[Admiral_Kelly]

>.<

To recap:

1) Undead carry diseases which cause people to become sick and die.
2) You are living in an unnatural, disfigured, and unholy life. You become twisted in form, only a minor resmblance of what you once were (unnatural); you shed away most of your body (disfigured); your soul becomes bound to the earth, bypassing whatever afterlife you deserve to go (unholy).
3) You are a symbol of fear and dread; causing people to become discomforted by your sight.

On that basis, the act of becoming a lich is evil (as is continuing to exsist as one; probably).

[Sstoopidtallkid]

This is getting off-topic, I'm going to start a new thread about good Lichs in the Gaming forum.

[Khosan]

I thought it was funny; the whole comic page is dotted with jokes; starting with the first panel.

And that's what make Xykon evil. He doesn't do the bare minimum, he goes that extra mile to make every defeat absolutely demoralizing; up to and including making fun of the ones getting slaughtered.

[Halvormerlinaky]

Emperor Palpatine, Voldemort, the Master, The Daleks, The Borg, The Cybermen, The Halo Prophets, the Red Skull

Palpatine - he just wants to bring order to the galaxy, no matter the cost. The classic Lawful Evil.

Voldemort - a kid who is terrified of dying. He'll do anything to avoid death.

The Master - don't know, sorry.

The Daleks - maybe, but they're ultra-xenophobes who want to destroy anything that isn't them, much like the Krikkit lords.

The Borg - not really evil, but bad, out to improve themselves along with anyone else they encounter (who always seem to be humanoid).

Cybermen - no idea.

Halo Prophets - who shot who in the what now?

Red Skull - I'm assuming Captain America here, but not evil evil. He had his own idea of what good was, though much of it was overshadowed by his comic-book-super-villainy.

[Irenaeus]

To the opening poster: I think I get what you mean, but I do not agree with your seemingly monolithic definition of a good antagonist.
If you don't get it, let me ask you something, if Xykon probably died in a few strips, how many of you would miss him?
I'd miss him nearly enough to stop reading the strip. Not quite, though.

[hamishspence]

Borg are like zombies to the Borg Queen's Necromancer, so just cos the have no personality does not mean their driver is not evil.

Palpatine is good at presenting himself as wanting to make the world better "Once more the Sith will rule the galaxy, and we shall have peace" But there is more to him than just a desire for order. Novels in particular, as well as the Dark Empire comics, show just how malevolent he is, and his philosophical view of two type of people, the weak and the strong.

Voldy isn't just afraid of death, he's sadistic to boot: "that hurt, Harry, you don't want me to do that again, do you" with excited gloating expression.

Not sure about the others.

[Kish]

Borg are like zombies to the Borg Queen's Necromancer, so just cos the have no personality does not mean their driver is not evil.
THERE IS NO BORG QUEEN. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A MOVIE CALLED STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT. "They don't have a single leader," Deanna said, and then the idiots responsible for the TNG movies threw it all out...

[hamishspence]

no series called Voyager either? Borg queen mentioned in last episode.Yes, its irritating, but maybe deanna was not well informed at the time? What is Locutus, after all, but a unique, high-ranked Borg?

[Kish]

No series called Voyager either, especially in later seasons. :smalltongue: This is getting off-topic, but giving the Borg a single, malicious leader (as contrasted with Locutus' claim that they seek to raise quality of life for all species), replaces all their mystique and genuine creepiness with, "They're evil and they're powerful, because."

[The Wanderer]

THERE IS NO BORG QUEEN. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A MOVIE CALLED STAR TREK: FIRST CONTACT. "They don't have a single leader," Deanna said, and then the idiots responsible for the TNG movies threw it all out...

While I agree with your later statement seeing a queen destroys some of the Borg menace and mystique, (and while there are plenty of Star Trek movies worth being thrown onto the discontinuity (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Discontinuity/DisContinuity?from=Main.Discontinuity) pile) I don't see why you have a hard time with the idea of a queen. Insects that are hive minds also have queens. It is kind of natural that something has to be directing Borg actions, and be a good reason why the first couple are always willing to get themselves killed so they can adapt instead of trying to fight that.

(Note about the insect group minds: being as I'm not a scientist, please don't flay me too much if they've since come along and found out otherwise about them :smallwink: )

[The Wanderer]

To the OP: cliches are dull, overused, and uninteresting. There are thousands of badly written fantasy stories out there with Dark Lords that have no plan or purpose besides being bad because the plot demands it and to show off how good the hero is. I'm always happy to encounter stories where this is not the case, and the writer actually thinks o give things as basic as motives, personality, etc to the villains.

Asking for the cliches when we're getting a great story like OOTS is kind of like asking for a McDonald's hamburger when someone serves you filet mignon. Sure, everyone has a craving for bad food and sometimes it's all you need, but try to appreciate the good too.

[The Hop Goblin]

Why? Real people aren't raw, unfettered, evil. They have a reason they do what they do, and they've got good and bad attributes. Even Hitler was a vegetarian. why should characters be unrealistic? How does that improve the story?

Sorry, the type of villians he was describing. Ye olde` Villian - with black dress and an evil laugh - sort. He was wondering why they aren't around and why Xykon and Redcloak are more 'funny' than OOTS.

And BTW - Vegetarianism is like a multiplication factor for one's evil. So Hitler being a vegetarian is like Hitler x 1.5 = A. It's not a saving grace :smallwink:

[Moriarty]

To the OP: cliches are dull, overused, and uninteresting. There are thousands of badly written fantasy stories out there with Dark Lords that have no plan or purpose besides being bad because the plot demands it and to show off how good the hero is. I'm always happy to encounter stories where this is not the case, and the writer actually thinks o give things as basic as motives, personality, etc to the villains.

couldn't agree more. when did overusing clichees turned to be a good thing?

that beeing said, you can't compare borg to insects.. insects are individuals working together in a community following their genetic imperative.

borg are one. undefined mass of beeings, undefeatable as even one sole surviving drone could rebuilt the whole swarm. having a queen makes them compareable to animals...understandable...vulnerable

[curtis]

If I may reference Doctor Who: (just saw the latest episode: W00T!:smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: :smallbiggrin: )

The daleks are the pure, unfettered evil, but it would get boring if it was just them every episode. In a programme with a different villain every week, it's OK to have SOME enemies like this, but in a comic with a continous storyline like this you can't have a main villain like that. The latest episode's villain was definitely grey, and probably at LEAST 50% white. And in reply to the comment with a list of pure evil villains, the cybermen wanted to upgrade people, not to kill, and The Master has actually physically gone insane!

[Dervag]

While I agree with your later statement seeing a queen destroys some of the Borg menace and mystique, (and while there are plenty of Star Trek movies worth being thrown onto the discontinuity (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Discontinuity/DisContinuity?from=Main.Discontinuity) pile) I don't see why you have a hard time with the idea of a queen. Insects that are hive minds also have queens. It is kind of natural that something has to be directing Borg actions, and be a good reason why the first couple are always willing to get themselves killed so they can adapt instead of trying to fight that.

(Note about the insect group minds: being as I'm not a scientist, please don't flay me too much if they've since come along and found out otherwise about them :smallwink: )I'm not going to flay anyone, but:
a)Insects don't have hive minds in that they are telepathic, or that ants transmit thoughts like individual brain cells in a large animal. Instead, there are a bunch of very stupid insects going about jobs they are genetically programmed to do, and it all sort of works out in the end.

There's no thought involved in the sense that, say, a mouse might think. Ants won't react to a barrier by trying to find a way around it, for instance. They will wander around at random and they might find a way around it, but they might not.

Look at Richard Feynman's observations on ants in "Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman" for an example of this. To summarize: individual ants are stupid. The collective behavior of ants may appear smart, but when you look at it up close it's because a lot of ants are doing stupid things that nonetheless achieve some goal in an efficient way.

b)Second, it isn't true that "something has to be directing the Borg." For example, think about the cells in your brain. Each cell has very little processing power. An organism that had only one of your brain cells might as well not have any brains at all.

Your brain is, in a real sense, a "hive mind" of individul linked brain cells. The real intelligence is in the way the brain cells interact with each other.

But there's no "boss cell" that tells all the other brain cells what to do. There's no central part of the brain that gives commands to all the other parts like a central processing unit. The entire brain is a single interlocked system of cells. Some parts are specialized and do specific tasks, but there's no real hierarchy.

What if the Borg are like individual brain cells in a brain? Maybe they were originally some species that decided to go heavily cyborg and developed a complete techno-democracy (using computer systems to get everyone's feedback on important problems very quickly). And then it got out of hand until they were a giant robotic hive mind. Who says there has to be a central controller making the decisions in that case, when there isn't such a controller inside your brain (a real 'hive mind' of small stupid components making a large smart object), or in an insect hive (a fake 'hive mind' that appears smart because the individual ants are evolved to do the right thing despite being only slightly more intelligent than cheese).

[Callista]

Some parts of the brain do regulate other parts, though. And there's a definite structure involved.

I think there the Borg Queen should be more like a 'relay station', a node in the network, than an independent overlord--without her Borg, she's not even sentient--she's just the thing that regulates the overall Borg network. They could easily build another; chances are there are redundant queens in most communities. It makes more sense that way than either a single, truly sentient Queen, or else none at all.

(Individual ant queens aren't smart without their hives, either. And in any case, the queen doesn't do much commanding...)

[Theodoriph]

Sure, you could have an evil lord like Vader (though someone apparently never watched RoJ), however unlike Star Wars, OOTS actually has a decent plot.

If you want to go watch and read crap animes and crap stories with simplistic badguys whose every line is taken from the big book of cliches, go do that.

But leave OOTS alone. I like my bad guys with a personality instead of some idiotic notion of some big bad evil guy that's just big bad and evil for the sake of being big bad and evil. *snuggles Redcloak*



"HAHAHAHA...I EAT BABIES AND STOMP ON PUPPIES" just doesn't fly in more sophisticated fare.

[Tobrian]

b)Second, it isn't true that "something has to be directing the Borg." For example, think about the cells in your brain. Each cell has very little processing power. An organism that had only one of your brain cells might as well not have any brains at all.

Your brain is, in a real sense, a "hive mind" of individul linked brain cells. The real intelligence is in the way the brain cells interact with each other.

But there's no "boss cell" that tells all the other brain cells what to do.

Precisely. The Borg started out as a real collective: Although single Borg were occasionally refered to as "drones", they were all equal, they were all telepathically linked, and decisions were come to by consensus inside the collective's super-mind, they spoke with one voice. Out of Many, One. Individual Borg's bodies were replacable, since their minds were part of the collective consciousness and their memories stayed in the collective even if their bodies died. Children were cloned when the Borg "orgamism" needed replacement "cells" (in one of the earliest episodes, the TNG Enterprise Away Team finds a creche with borg babies with cybernetic implants). Back in those days, the Borg only assimilated technology from other species to improve their own, they never assimilated individuums, and didn't actively attack intruders unless the intruders started destroying nodes or killing drones. These Borg didnt need a queen.

The first season of Next Generation featured a very similar species, the binars, allies of the Federation, who also had implants and existed with their minds cybernetically linked. The binars were not presented as bad or evil. The Borg on the other hand were an unstoppable juggernaut, and you know in American television "collectivism" always equals evil. But after the whole "Best of Both Worlds" (as cool as that two-parter was) the whole idea of how the Borg worked changed, from a collective to an insect hive. A hive with strict stratified hierarchy, with the queen on top speaking with one voice and pulling the strings, and the voiceless worker drones being no better than slaves. This reached the pinnacle in one of the later Voyager seasons when a Borg queen offered Seven-of-Nine "special status" as one of the priviledged few "upper-class Borg" with individual thoughts if Seven agreed to return to the Borg. Yech.

I'm still not sure if it was a ret-con or merely meant as an "evolution"... but suddenly the Borg had become The Virus; they didnt bother with acquiring technology anymore but instead abducted member of other species and infected them with their Borgness via nanite injections. And considering that they claimed they had by that time already "studied" thousands of other species, this sounded like it had gone on for some time and not just been a recent change of politics. :smallconfused: Riight. Sure, I can see how that tactic would swell their ranks much more quickly than cloning and growing new Borg the oldfashioned way; but one must wonder why they would go to such great complicated length to adapt members of thousands of species with vastly different anatomies and physiologies and neuronal networks into the borg template, if previously they had prized compatibility so much.

[Trazoi]

I'm not going to flay anyone, but:
a)Insects don't have hive minds in that they are telepathic, or that ants transmit thoughts like individual brain cells in a large animal. Instead, there are a bunch of very stupid insects going about jobs they are genetically programmed to do, and it all sort of works out in the end.
This is getting a bit off-topic, but I wouldn't call hive insects "stupid". Simple, yes, but not stupid. Admittedly I'm comparing them to other simple intelligences (like robots), in which case insects do very well :smallbiggrin:

I don't know a lot about insects personally (I study in computer vision and robotics), but I know a few researchers who work with bees and they're fascinating creatures capable of surprisingly smart behaviour for insects. The top example I can think of is maze navigation; researchers built a maze with colour coded signs to show the way to the food in the centre and got bees to navigate it. Then they reconfigured the maze but left the meanings of the signs intact. The bees could still figure out the right way to the food from the signs alone, showing they had some learning ability.

But it's true bees don't have a "hive intelligence" - that's why they need to do that waggle dance to tell other bees where to forage.

[Ghastly Epigram]

Heh, first the good liches, now the insects/Borg. Good job guys. :smalltongue:

Though in fairness, there is not much to be added to the original point. How on earth could you want a stereotypical, one dimensional bad guy over a funny, fleshed out one? The mind boggles. Besides, Xykon DOES fit that mold to an extent anyway. Nobody is going to forget he is Evil with a capital E any time soon. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0448.html) (And Redcloak is giving us a wake-up call in the most recent comics). He cannot help it if he just happens to be hilarious at the same time. :smallbiggrin:

[bluish_wolf]

Heh, first the good liches, now the insects/Borg. Good job guys. :smalltongue:

Though in fairness, there is not much to be added to the original point. How on earth could you want a stereotypical, one dimensional bad guy over a funny, fleshed out one? The mind boggles. Besides, Xykon DOES fit that mold to an extent anyway. Nobody is going to forget he is Evil with a capital E any time soon. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0448.html) (And Redcloak is giving us a wake-up call in the most recent comics). He cannot help it if he just happens to be hilarious at the same time. :smallbiggrin:

I think he just wants a Lawful Evil overlord rather than a Chaotic Evil one.

[Halvormerlinaky]

Heh, first the good liches, now the insects/Borg. Good job guys. :smalltongue:

I do what I can :smallamused:

[factotum]

I think he just wants a Lawful Evil overlord rather than a Chaotic Evil one.

Well, he has Redcloak...isn't that enough?

[NENAD]

They were referring to Redcloak himself with that comment (I think), and Redcloak can't be his own Overlord due to some spoiler from SoD, which I can't remember since I never actually read SoD.

On pure evil with a capital E; I once created a character who was (according to my very limited fanbase) believably psychotically insane (he was just evil for its own sake at first, but later on he explained his sadism while discussing how to turn another character to the 'dark side.' My readers were shocked and delighted).

On good liches; A lich seems like the kind of thing which should only be achievable through tearing up your soul or something similarly Horcruxey. That's just my personal tastes, though. Liches should be anti-heroes (but still potentially good aligned) at best.

On insects; I can't help but think that the comments on ants being a mass of idiots who form a remarkably efficient and intelligent whole is incredibly applicable to human beings.

[Dervag]

Actually, humans tend to get dumber in large groups because we get less adaptable. Individual humans are surprisingly adaptable and cunning creatures. Crowds lose that advantage, because the efficiency of communication between humans is so much lower than the efficiency of each individual human's thoughts.

It's why we have to rely on hierarchies so much. By putting decision making power in a small number of hands we get around the fact that ten million people will never agree on anything in time to do anything useful about it unless someone is "leading" them.

Whereas in an insect hive there's no leadership at all, because their situation is the opposite. Individual ants don't think very efficiently. Their behavior is strikingly complex, but it is also kind of automatic- an ant or bee will do the same stupid thing over and over in a variety of different circumstances without learning much of anything from experience.

But while ants don't think very well, they do communicate very well. Pheromones allow any individual ant to spread important news to a horde of its fellows, allowing for very effective collective action. It's a triumph of mass and coordination over individual efficiency.